EVE Information Portal

Because you cannot search for meta level anyway.

IF YOU ARE ALREADY SEARCHING THE MARKET/ASSETS THEN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR !!!!

Any newb will look through the market tree/groups and check the skill reqs/prices/show info !!!

It's the veterans getting the short stick here ....

Yep, apart from not being able to tell the T2 stuff quick enough.

But if the Meta was in the top right or bottom left corner, it would keep the T2 and faction stuff clearly identifiable.

Having played 7 years now I am rather annoyed you'd go changing names on us. Knowledge is one key benefit to playing for a long time and you appear to want to sabotage my knowledge of in game items for no good reason.

People learn the names and although there are a few misleading names dotted around, on the whole most are fine. So I really dont see why you'd mess with EVERYONE's knowledge, the legacy of items on killboards too for example, just because some new clod can't be bothered to take the time to learn what I took time to do.

Yet another way to represent these things would be to incorporate meaningful numbers into the named modules in a similar way to the new implants. Merge them into the name of the module in a way that keeps a scifi feel - by this I mean using a naming convention that respects the race/faction that are the primary developers of a module.


For instance: missile launchers are generally patented and developed by the Caldari, so their names would integrate tech and meta levels into serial codes. The old examples of this were modules like the "XT-2800 Heavy Assault Missile Launcher" and "Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction".
However, XT-2800 has the potential to become an indicator for the developer and quality (meta level) of the item.

In this case, XT would be a 2 letter symbol for the faction who patented the specific module - examples:
XT -> No faction (tech 1/2)
CN -> Caldari Navy
DG -> Dread Guristas

Adding a code letter before the tech and meta level representation could signify calibre:
R -> Rocket Launcher
L -> Light Launcher
A -> Assault Launcher
H -> Heavy Launcher
C -> Cruise Launcher
T -> Torpedo Launcher
CT -> Citadel Torpedo Launcher
CC -> Citadel Cruise Launcher

Finally, 2800 could be truncated down to a 3 digit number which directly displays the Tech and meta level of the item, making visual comparison a lot easier (comparing numbers is easier than names, and more efficient- like the Caldari):
Meta 1 -> 101
Meta 2 -> 102
Meta 15-> 115
Tech 2 -> 205

For example:
A "Caldari Navy Cruise Missile Launcher" would translate into "CN-C108 Caldari Navy Cruise Missile Launcher".
At a glance, you can tell it is a Caldari Navy (CN) Tech 1 meta 8 Cruise Missile Launcher.
Another example:
The "Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II" would become the "XT-A205 Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II"
Here, you quickly learn it is a non faction Tech 2 HAM launcher.

This is only an example for missile launchers. Every module type should have its origin analysed and named based on what race patented it and what makes sense. Keep in mind that if you're going to use descriptive words as meta representations there needs to be a big enough difference between the weight of the words to make an impact on the user.
E.g "Prototype" and "Experimental" are two words with roughly the same weight when we compare them.


TL;DR:
Variety is the spice in this case, and I feel the way to tie this into more descriptive module names without loosing too much diversity is to use the already established races. I think it is a bad idea to homogenise ALL of the modules into one format for naming - rather, have the player figure out how certain races name their modules.

Just my 0.02 ISK.

EDIT: Spitballin' ideas:
Gallente are a more artistically oriented race but share a lot of culture with the Caldari.
Minmatar value functionality and versatility, the higher quality the module, the more it should reflect this (PWNAGE over PWN).
Amarr would probably emphasize on their modules using holier names for higher quality modules (reflects increasing levels of perfection or devotion) - hell, they could structure their meta level indicators like passages from the Bible!

I'm sure the factions at war with each other will respect each other's patents

On a more serious note, I like the rest of the suggestion.

Consistant, keeps flavor, not too hard to pick up.

First, let me start with a positive comment. The numbering (slot/percentage) at the end of the implant names is an excellent idea and provides some inspiration for my other suggestions.

Second, names are always less intuitive and provide a less internally consistent and logical system that some form of numerical indexing. (Just ask anyone who lives in a city with names streets, exspecially in themed subdivisions) vs people who live in cities based on a grid of numerical streets and avenues beginning at an origin downtown somewhere.

However, names give some flavor, some historical context and some interest to what would be an otherwise very sterile, pragmatic system.

Third, by changing from one relatively non-intuitive system to another relatively non-intuitive system you are creating a lot fo work and learning for the existing player-base and throwing away a huge pile of history. This is ostensibly being done to accommodate new players. (We have a bank commercial in Canada with the tagline "even kids know it is not right to treat your new friends better than your old friends") And, new players have to learn whatever it is anew anyway. Really all a wholescale renaming convention is going to do is **** off the current player base which, as students of recent history know, is unwise.

Fourth, (more constructive suggestions), at the end of the existing module names tack on an "M1", "M2", etc. Then there is really no mystery. Like wise Ex, Th, Em, Ki, etc can be used to indicate damage or resisteance type.

Fifth, i'm sure that for almost all proposed name changes a short little cluster of letters and numbers can reveal the necessary information and leave the current names and their culture and history intact, aside from the odd anomolous naming that could use some cleanup such as when ammo naming doesn't match module naming. (i'm surprised no one has mentioned the mismatch between pos gun sizes and the ammo they use.)

In any event, I hope my comments have been balanced, ease of use is a laudable goal, one that needs to be balanced and implemented thoughtfully and carefully.

Cheers,
otto

New meta game tactic! Melt your opponent;s graphics cards with millions of missiles needing rendered

Liking the hardwiring implant name changes, makes a lot of sense. Not so sure on the module naming changes, I still have trouble remembering exactly which mwd is the one I want now that catalysed cold-gas is gone, but i'll get used to it in time

I am wondering that myself I have seen other good suggestions to make a good sized tarball execute this name changes for awsome enough.

If showing meta is such a huge deal to you guys, why didn't you just put a meta tag in place of the T2/faction tag for T1? Then when you look through the market list it will be perfectly clear.

It would be quicker, simpler, and you wouldn't be upsetting anyone. You would not be creating a ton of work for people who build tools to support the community.

It sucks loosing all the meta names, its really going to take alot of flavor out of the game. Why don't we just renames guns from hybrids, projectiles, etc as Large gun type A? Railguns, blasters, artillery? That is confusing stuff! Get rid of interceptors, we can just call them fast frigates.

I really hate to see the naming scheme for the target painters go. Its good for a laugh the first time you notice it.

Now that "you're listening" to use why are we seeing changes that no one asked for, and many people are against?

That suggestion i can live with makes perfect sense to me +100 internets good sir