EVE Information Portal

HEAVY ROCKETS.

Hi guys,

First off, thank you all very much for the feedback. Even when not quite constructive, it has been consistently funny (the "Caldari Cruiser 3" post gave me a chuckle) and to-the-point (a swift kick in the genitals is always a potent mental image), and it's a great thing to see the level of passion you guys have for the game.

That being said, it's apparent from the tone and tenor of your dissent that we have quite a few things to reconsider here. After monitoring this thread closely since yesterday and convening this afternoon, we've decided on a few things.

The Hardwiring name changes will go in as planned, as will the armor/shield resistance module names.

Launchers: In light of your feedback, we have decided to hold back the launcher changes temporarily. The Light Missile Array has been renamed to Rapid Light Missile Launcher for conformity to the launcher scheme and to ease market searches, but aside from that we've not changed anything else for the time being. The new launcher names will remain on SiSi for the next week, and during that week we will monitor this thread closely for suggestions regarding the launcher scheme. Pending your feedback, we will decide on a course of action that hopefully takes into account as many of people's wishes as possible while remaining clear and sensible.

Meta Scheme: We've discussed this a great deal and watched the conversation closely, and on reflection it's probably a good idea for us to, as someone suggested, go back to the drawing board for a brief resketch. The original idea behind the four names had to do with meta mods' fictional underpinnings as equipment that's been modified by criminal organizations, which is why things like "Experimental" and "Prototype" seemed to me (and still do) to make perfect sense within their context of increasing rarity (though I will concede that perhaps those two are a little too similar). "Limited" may have been a bad choice, since it appears to be widely interpreted in its negative meaning rather than the "Limited Edition" connotation I was going for.

While there've been dozens of good (and a few very good) suggestions for alternative schemes, the proof is nevertheless in the pudding. Look at how many different schemes you guys came up with. Look at how different they are. Look at the disagreements amongst yourselves on which of them is the most intuitive. Everybody has different associations with all of these words,so in the end the fact remains that any word scheme will to some extent be arbitrary and prone to disagreement and confusion. This is not said in defense of my own scheme, because as you've continually (and rightfully) pointed out to me, it certainly has its flaws. Regardless, for this reason we're going to take a good hard look at the idea iself: is the meta scheme really serving the player, and is the cost to flavor too great? No promises yet, but at this relatively early stage, every option is still open (including tooltips or other UI solutions that might serve the same function better).

Missiles: We still do firmly believe in the usability of a single name across all missiles of a given damage type, but the "Trauma" designator seems to have violently struck a nerve with several of you guys. Since this is early days for this project, anything is possible. If anybody can come up with a sufficiently convincing and objective reason for why this name is the infernal love-child of bad taste and cluelessness, then I will seriously consider changing it. (I'm thinking something like "Anguish" might be good, whaddaya think? Just kidding, I like being alive.)

Target Painters: These names will not be changed under any circumstances, ever. Those were the first modules I ever named, and I snuck them under the radar without letting anyone know, to my then-producer's chagrin (he came to appreciate it later, though). I thought it would take a while for people to spot it, but of course it only took a couple of days before there was a forum thread. Can't slip much past you guys. Anyway, because of the status they've achieved, there was never any thought of renaming these at any point during this project's conception. Sorry for keeping you in suspense. Should have told you right away.

Ships: I know most of you were being tongue-in-cheek, but it bears mentioning just for posterity that no ship names will ever be changed. Was never on the cards and never will be.

That's all for now. Once again, I want to say thanks for the wealth of feedback you've provided, and pardon me for taking a while to respond (this is a large thread and it grew quite rapidly). We've noted down the main currents we've seen here, and will continue to modify the plan accordingly. In addition, for future iterations we will come up with some form of user testing well in advance of any actual development server changes, just to make sure we don't step in it like this again.

In any case, please do continue the conversation. I'll chime in where appropriate and update this thread as we reach concrete conclusions about our readjustment of direction, but mostly I'll be listening for your thoughts.

All the best,
G

Tremendous ideas in this post. A great deal of food for thought. Thank you very much for your feedback.

CCP should make QuestionPro poll with existing and proposed variants for kinetic missile name (including Scourge ofc) and you will see player base opinion.
I haven't met anyone who likes Trauma, really.

Confirming I actually like trauma missiles

I also like the idea of items being named with the following scheme:

'(nickname)' (meta indicator) (type)

'arbalest' prototype cruise missile launcher


you should still reconsider the meta indicators and the launcher names, but you will gain ease of access without loosing flavor

Once you're there, have in mind, old names have to be included in new naming scheme.
Out of game tools like EFT or EVEmon will adapt, old players will adapt, killboards will adapt, but all usefull information, created by players over years, thats already very well indexed by google, will keep old names.
All those guides, fittings, forum discussions will suddenly become totally useless for new players, that will try to google for help.
And search results full of obsolete information wont help new player experience at all, doing exactly opposite to what you try to achieve...

You're right in that we shouldn't derail the discussion too much, but while improved market functionality is somewhat lateral to the main topic here, the end goals - usability and clear access to data - are the exact same. Any good ideas we find here we'll make sure to disseminate among the people who can make them happen.

agree
This new scheme idea just will bring more mess and will be confuse the new players. (and dont forget the old players too)
New players trying to learn Eve and all documents on web give to them false datas.
New names ruins the killboards,ruins the old documents on web, ruins all third party softwares,fittings on battleclinic etc
This changes not bring to us any positive things, just bring negative things.

Hmm a names for a kinetic missiles.

Piledriver :D
Impact
Slam (an actual missile but its not that kinetic)
Rhino
Anvil
Pounder
Rockeye
Mace
Grinder
Pulverize
Pummel

Anyways thank you CCP for taking a chance to step back and review the module naming execution.

First of all, thanks for the response and at least considering the ideas put forward.

Hardwirings - It seems fine. Nothing to add really, since you added functionality without screwing anything. Good job.

Launchers - The basic sceme seems reasonable and should work just fine after the initial confusion about assault launchers passes. They didn't have flavor names anyway and the old names where odd considering, that ammo is locked to a specific launcher type these days, so the upgrade to the names to reflect that was certainly warranted.

Meta Scheme - You say prototype and experimental are good names to use. I disagree, but I understand why you would use them. The real issue is, that you're trying to spread the same meta naming scheme too wide, so all you're left is generic, bland and arbitrary names for everything. Worse yet you're deluting that scheme even further and making the impact worse. The arbitrary part isn't bad per se, but it highlights the fact, that the name really could have been anything. Meaning you could have named the meta levels with something great and fitting and it wouldn't have been functionally any worse.

The point I want you and your team to consider is: What is the purpose of using the same meta name on everything instead of a simple 2 sign meta level designation and wouldn't it be better to just combine a meta level designation with a group specific naming schemes? You could have just added M1,M2,M3 and M4 designation somewhere in the name and it would functionally do the same exact thing, would it not? It would be better though, since you could abandon the generic naming scheme and keep the old names or come up with group specific meta level names for modules. It would allow for more flavor filled and module group specific meta designations. For example propulsion mod group could use terms taken and modified from car tuning like super/turbo/overcharged, xxxxx(ex. plasma) injected or regenerative xxxx(lower energy consumption) . You could even choose the names to vaguely fit the benefit the meta levels offer. Compared to such options, it seems depressing to see the same lame and generic names on every meta module.

Missiles - I can see why you'd want a single name, but the word trauma conjures up a medical emergency and/or a leasurely session talking to a psychologist about your childhood. It could fit, but again it's too generic(see a pattern yet?), since it is just another word for injury and therefore conjures up images people don't think fits the name of a warhead.

Target Painters - You get it. This was good and instead of turning everything else to bland porridge, you should at least make the effort in to making the rest more like TPs. The names of TPs are totally stupid, but since you had a method in naming them, they are among the names that are great and easy to remember once you get it. You don't have to copy or mimic them, but try to bring that cool/sexy/oomph from that naming scheme in to the new ones.

Thanks for your time. But seriously, if you just want to put in generic meta names for everything, just add the M1-M4 code to the names and leave it at that. If you actually want to go the extra step and are serious about giving them an upgrade, split the modules in to sensible groups and give the groups individually crafted, fitting and cool meta names, that excite the players instead of bringing them down with their pervasive blandness.