Player Features and Ideas Discussion

+1 This would make the 'enablers' life easier. Make it easier for us to get people out fighting!

+1 from me.

As one of the poor unfortunates who tries to supply fleet doctrine ships in coalition staging systems, I say hell no.

-1

Same here. For me, it is fairly simple to fit a Svipul, then right click and change the name of that Svipul to "LAWN Svipul." Then I know that one is fitted and ready to be put up on contracts. I do not need that one extra step automated.

Additionally, since I also fit ships for my own use, I do not need to get my ships confused with the doctrine ships I am selling (e.g. I happen to call my own Svipuls "Valkyrie II" - I would not want to rename them).

I'll address both your points.

Yes, you can manually rename a ship. However, this is a four event action (right click ship, left click set name, type name, hit enter). While that isn't much for a singular player to do on a single ship, it becomes a lot once you start scaling up ship fitting logistics. This change would be a quality of life increase to people who have to fit hundreds or thousands of ships, such as players who manage frigate caches, mentors that fit ships for their alliance, market seeders for coalitions and alliances who put mass ships on markets, FCs that want to hand out ships for a specific fleet comp and other playstyles that include fitting ships prior to formation of a fleet.

Your second point is about the information that's lost because it becomes 'too easy' to avoid a mistake. The example that you don't actually make is a pilot assembling a ship, fitting it and then undocking without changing the name. Thus, people can see BoneyTooth Thompkins Isk-Chip flying around in Boneytooth Thompkins Isk-Chip's Rupture (actually, it's just Boneytooth Thompkins due to naming constraints, but whatever). In your use case, you assume that the person assembling the ship is the one flying it, always, which definitely is not always true, and is rarely true in my line of work. In my scenario (from the above paragraph), I'd be flying around in Matt180001's Rupture. Does Matt180001 and his laziness in forgetting to rename the ship impart additional information to people in space? Not really. At best, if you see lots of them, you can assume they're all in the same fleet and all fit the same. But in my scenario, instead of it being Matt180001's Rupture, it would T2 RUPTURE KILL or whatever the name is. The effect is still the same.

The benefit of this change isn't from the fact that now your ship is named something. It comes from the fact that without renaming a ship, there is nothing that distinguishes it from an assembled, unfit ship (i.e., both are named BoneyTooth Thompkins Isk-Chip's Rupture). And due to the dynamic nature of the ship hanger (did you know the ship hanger rearranges and resorts itself whenever you activate a ship?), looking for an unfit (or fit) ship in a pile of ships with the same name is an incredibly tedious task. What's more, it would easily allow for differentiation between different fittings from the same hull (as if I fit 50 ruptures with tracking disruptors using my T2 RUPTURE TRACK fit, 50 ruptures with target painters using my T2 RUPTURE PAINT fit, etc).

edit: spelling and ****.

I would love this. It would save me a very real amount of time when trying to fit out 100+ ships.

Add a checkbox option for the override of the name like we have for rigs and many other options.

why not danika?

I have no idea what Danika's thoughts are but since I agree I will give you mine.
For the character this would affect the automated name change simply would not work for our needs or for the way we have our systems set up. As an all or nothing idea as posted by the OP it simply would make more work for me and others so I agreed with the -1.

If this was an option that could be toggled on or off that removes most of my objections. However I still see the arguments from those who say no because it removes a chance for player error. Not sure it would matter all that much but I do understand the point they are making about automation and it's ability to remove player error from the game and it is a valid concern.