EVE Information Portal

Missiles are already colour coded with their tips on the icons, even this suggestion wouldn't be needed.

Overall I agree with you and I think that CCP have misdirected some of their effort here.

CCP, could you please stop streamlining this? Anyone who bothers to actually sit down and look at the modules for long enough automatically learns what modules to keep and which to sell.

One of the best examples we have at the moment is Target Painters. You can learn how effective they are BY LOOKING AT THE BLOODY NAME! Just take the initials and you'll have:
Meta-1: PWN (Partial Weapon Navigation)
Meta-2: PWND (Periferal Weapon Navigation Diameter)
Meta-3: PWNT (Parallel Weapon Navigation Transmitter)
Meta-4: PWNAGE (Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron)
Is it really that hard to tell Target Painters apart by looking at their names? I think not, so why bother? You're only going to make it harder for the majority of your players who've played for a long time. I've only played for 2-3 years now, and I can usually tell modules by their meta-level by just looking at their names. So don't you think some of the older players are able to do the same? As for newer players, they can learn what modules to use through the Rookie-help chat.

How hard can that be to memorize? Answer: Not very hard. So why change it? This isn't some other typical cookie-cutter MMO, where everything needs to be obvious to even the most oblivious players. This is EVE. It's meant to be hard. Same goes for the module-names.

Furthermore, don't you dare touch my Launchers! If you change the names of Launchers, you are most likely going to lose thousands of subscriptions, because it's easier to keep track of now, than it will be with your new naming-conventions. I'm not talking about the part with "Light Missile Arrays" instead of "Assault Missile Launchers". I'm talking about their Meta-level identifiers. Most people already know that 'Arbalest'-launchers are the best T1 launchers you can get on the market. I don't want to fly around with "Prototype Rocket Launchers". I want to fly around with "'Arbalest' Rocket Launchers". Why? First off, because Missile Launchers are already standardized enough to make it easy for people who frequently use them to know which ones to use, and those you rarely use launchers are more likely to just sell them anyway.

At the moment, Turrets have the same advantage as missiles (at least Projectile Guns). It's easy to know which ones to go for on the market. If it has 'Scout' in it's name, its meta-4. If it has 'Protoype' in its name, it's meta-3. I haven't bothered learning the meta-1 and 2 versions, as I only use 'Scout' or 'Protoype' when flying Minmatar. Unless I use T2. Which I do more often than not, really.

Are you going to give Blasters the same mis-treatment? Are they also going to be "streamlined"? Are they going to end up being called "Low-Powered Blaster", "Medium-Powered Blaster" and "High-Powered Blaster" for Ion, Electron and Neutron Blasters, respectively? Because that just sounds like shooting yourselves in the foot with a 1400mm Howitzer Artillery Cannon II. All your older players know who use Blasters know which ones to use. Those who don't use Blasters very often can ask others who do know about it, and rookies can always ask for help in their Rookie-corp or the dedicated Rookie-Help chat. In fact, isn't that why it's there? Isn't Rookie Help in place to help rookies who want to learn things? That's what I thought it was there for.

I can accept the Implant name-changes, as the current system makes it quite hard to know which Hardwirings do what. So there's one good thing coming out of this. One good thing amongst a hundred bad things is not ideal.

TL;DR: Not supporting name-changes aside from Implants.

Note: I'm not angry. I'm just disappointed that EVE needs to be simplified for new players. You might want to consider changing your focus a bit, CCP. Otherwise you just risk a second huge-scale protest.

Does anyone else remember a time when games didn't need to be simplified, in order to appeal to new players?

OMG!

I suppose that those changes are made with good intent and for the better, even though I don't like having to do all my EFT/EVEHQ fits all over again, but missile launcher names are changed for the worse. Only renaming Siege Launchers to Torpedo Launchers makes sense. But if Standard Missile Launcers will be Light Missile Launchers, then Assault Missile Launchers should be Light Assault Missile Launchers. Then you leave Heavy (Assault) Missile Launchers named as they are.

And new meta 1-4 module names aren't exactly intuitive either. I'm sure you can come up with something better, like Basic/Standard/Improved/Advanced.

I must say i am struggling to understand what you are trying to avoid or improve? With these changes, if it’s a uniform convention for naming then how will that sit with the different races, by definition does it not imply that they all sat around the table together and said right l know lets create an IEEE of eve type thing? This is the universe where the proverbial buyer beware saying should be pasted across every contract entered into. Hardly the type of universe where it makes things easier for anybody

i know overkill, but i do get a sense that unless of course evidence exists this change will make little difference to player retention which is what i guess is your golden goose? I am not likely to leave over these sorts of changes but do get the feel that this is more for dust future than for the eve furture.

Meta Name changing i Disagree with.
I like the Idea of standerdising names so its easier to make out whats what. but anyone who's used missiles knows that 'Arbalest' is your meta 4 etc etc.
why change it? (yes i know you haven't yet. but you plan too.)
I've seen this comment before and i'll say it again.
Have seperate meta descriptions for the diferent Module Groups.
leave the Missiles as they are... (at least i know standard heavy and cruise all have the same prefix. if the others need it so be it.)
have all Hybrid turrets with their own Meta Names, all Projectiles with their own, all Lazers with their own.
Hardeners with their own. Propulsion with its own. etc.

hardwiring Change. Thumbs up. I like. you can see what it is. but it still keeps its 'flavour' as you put it.

The Hardener rename i don't have a problem with persay. although personaly i'd prefer them all being Photon, Ballistic, Thermal (change the Rigs Hardeners to Match) i suppose the reason you gone that way is because Explosive are already Explosive. but thats not really a reason. give Explosive a new name rather... Blastproof or something. (i'm sure your content designers are more creative than me.)

As for the Launcher Rename.... ok so heavy assaults fire assault missiles so change the name to assault. same for the Torp Launchers and Standard Missile Launchers.

But the Light Missile Array is just going to confuse folks just as much as the heavy assault and assault launchers do now. only now it'll be the Light Missile Launcher and Light Missile Array thats gonna get confused.
*now admitidly i don't really see a better way of doing it at pressent, except changing the assault launchers to use there own ammo like the Heavy assaults do. and calling them somethign different. Swarm missiles or Something.


well thats my 2 cents. Take it or Leave it...(but i hope you take it.)

IQ -1

In principle all sounds fine if you retain the flavour of the older names. Just one thing.

Meta Level 1: Upgraded
Meta Level 2: Limited
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype

Seems a bit odd. Why is "Limited" better than "Upgraded"? How about..

Meta Level 1: Upgraded
Meta Level 2: Improved
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype

I propose the following for the missile launchers:

Cruise Launchers go on battleships and fire Cruise Missiles, which are long-range battleship missiles.
Torpedo Launchers go on battleships (and stealth bombers) and fire Torpedoes, which are short-range battleship missiles.
Heavy Missile Launchers go on cruisers and fire Heavy Missiles, which are long-range cruiser missiles.
Heavy Rocket Launchers go on cruisers and fire Heavy Rockets, which are short-range cruiser missiles.
Deluxe Light Missile Launchers go on cruisers and fire Light Missiles, which are long-range frigate missiles.
Light Missile Launchers go on frigates and fire Light Missiles, which are long-range frigate missiles.
Light Rocket Launchers go on frigates and fire Light Rockets, which are short-range frigate missiles.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO PLEASE !!!!!

I see that my return to EVE was very short. I thought Failcarna was the lowest you can go, but this is worse.

You are changing the game into one large spreadsheet with this. Yes it was a spreadsheet before, but the cells had color. How they all just have black font on white background. That's what you are doing with the renamings.

I see I will not renew my subscription after this hits TQ.

EDIT:

Please consider this: The corporations producing these items are competing in a galactic market. What do you thing does separate their products ? NAMING !!! Marketing is all about a good and catching name (cold-gas arcjet thrusters) while the unimaginative fail (experimental 1mn afterburner).

Also what's the difference between experimental and prototype ? They are both the same to me from the name. And all items that had the full 4 meta levels, how many were used ? Hint:

plain t1 for the poor
meta 2 for the cpu saving
tech 2/meta 4 when ever possible

based on that, you can cut the meta 3 from the line and nobody will notice. You needed to remember 2 meta names (meta 2 and meta 4) all others were ignored.

How often do you research implants or change them ? I bet very rarely. Thus the names are actualy unimportant in the orientation sense. But they look good and provide flavor.