EVE General Discussion

Don't assume your question is rhetorical or that your analogy is sound.

The main problem with unifying ship names would be that ship stats vary enormously from ship to ship. A Kestrel ISN'T simply a Drake frigate. But modules are just straight up upgrades of each other. The difference between a Kestrel and a Caracal is huge. The difference between a Meta 1 and a Meta 2 Afterburner is a slight increase in velocity.

What about missiles, genius?

I could type in "bloodc" and find bloodclaw missile. Now i have to type "trauma li"? Great.

Confirming all Trauma items have the same and/or slightly different stats.

Arguing the 'soundness' of an analogy will get you nowhere.

Sorry, guess it wasn't obvious to you:

"mjolnir X" = search on "mjolnir t" for torpedos, "mjolnir r" for rockets, etc. "mjolnir X" is 9 chars versus 11 chars for "thunderbolt"

mjolnir X <- thunderbolt, gremlin, sabretooth, torrent, paradise,
9 chars <- 11, 7, 10, 7, 8

inferno X <- widowmaker, firefox, flameburst, hellfire, cataclysm
9 chars <- 10, 7, 10, 8, 9

trauma X <- scourge, thorn, bloodclaw, terror, wrath, juggernaut
8 chars <- 7, 5, 9, 6, 5, 10

nova X <- havoc, phalanx, piranha, fulmination, devastator, bane
6 chars <- 5, 7, 7, 11, 10, 4

It is not "purely aesthetical", but as a CCP Fainboy / Dev-Alt / Troll you might not see that.

Having individual names for all things means more complexity, like a real game should be.

Having the same names for everything means less substance, it is more like a browser game would be.

Do you like the new names? Sure, prehaps because I don't really give a **** what they are called.

Was it a good step? I can see how it could be easier for new player to learn the damage types of missiles.

Was it necessary? I don't know. I have been playing long enough to really not need to learn the damage types by name. As said for my second answer if seems like it would be helpful for newer players.

Basically all the rage for a name change is so overblown. Even more crazy is CCP color coded the damn things. How dare they make it easy for new people, and we should rage cause we had to learn stupid names and a lot of them.

Complexity in terms of game mechanics is unaffected. However, complexity in terms of simulation of an immersive world sure is. It is unreasonable to believe that in such a geographically and culturally varied world as EVE all of the manufactured missiles are named the same just because they carry similar warheads. It's just one more break in suspension of disbelief.

If CCP were'n concerned with variety (as current changes clearly aren't), why not just append the damage type to the old name and be done with it? This change could have been made to satisfy both the usability concerns and the fluff concerns with such a small amount of additional effort on the part of CCP devs... Instead, CCP happened with a vengeance.

Simulation of an immerse world?

1000+ ships in a space station that obviously isn't scaled to handle that amount?
planets that do not orbit the stars in the solar system?
magically re-spawning pirates and 'roids?

i mean i could go on and on... that is a weak stance to the renaming argument for certain.

To be fair, the descriptions of the old missiles sank any feeling of immersion anyway... "oh each race produces exactly one damage-type of missile. And the high-tech guys are using old relics while the rust-and-tape crowd have exciting new advances!" ayup.

Honestly though... "trauma?" Better idea- "Kinetic Heavy Missile" with "The Scourge Kinetic Heavy Missile..." for the description. If we're simplifying the market/hangar/load-****-in-my-guns names, let's just do that. Less flavor loss, more clarity, not as much bitching.

The afterburners are still a mess though.

I really see what they're trying to do, and agree that it should be done, but it's not the best sign when the first step towards consistent names is already inconsistent. I've never liked "prototype" as a modifier for the guns (really? the *prototype* was the best one you made?), and "experimental" makes sense for things like "experimental cloak" (or whatever the crappy cloak is) because it's a crappy cloak that comes with some of the massive drawbacks you'd expect from using something experimental. Sure, sci-fi likes to slap an experimental dohickey onto things and make it suddenly the best ever but there's always the bit where it blows up at the most inconvenient moment. Let's stick with "improved" and "optimized" for the "better" and "best" (and some other words for "better than best" and so on to deal with stuff that has lots of "basic" meta levels), and "basic" or maybe even "compact" for the "just like the real thing, only smaller" versions of stuff. (Limited I can understand, as in "limited edition... but again... "experimental?" No, you try it first. "Prototype?" How's about we wait for the production model so we can get spare parts...)

7/10 for the idea (some things should probably be left alone for the sheer amount of character the names have, like target painters. This sonds like it's going to be EVERYTHING though... and what about shinies? Extra points for good answers from CCP).

2/10 for the implementation. Roll it back, make a chart of "meta-to-term," don't let things "skip" basic levels, and try again. Same for the missiles (and presumably guns when you get around to it)- name them what they are, not some new codeword that's not *really* any better than the old one.

No no no no no, this was so stupid. CCP, I am dissapoint