These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: What's in a name

First post First post
Author
Anja Talis
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal
#561 - 2012-03-08 23:23:53 UTC
CCP Gnauton wrote:
Alright guys, short update:
Missiles:
67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints.


*does a dance*

Shame we aren't getting the colourful names back, but this will do :DDDD

Amsterdam Conversations
Doomheim
#562 - 2012-03-09 11:57:52 UTC
ImagingBreakerLV0 wrote:
IMO the missile name change is already stuipid Each missile type is so different with each other. why would a rocket and cruise missile share the same name just because they do same kind of dmg? the missiles had back story with them too. IIRC scrouge heavy was invented by gallente or something Are we naming RPG and toma hawk "Nova rocket" and "Nova Cruise Missile" because they both do explotion dmg?

:facepalm:
Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#563 - 2012-03-09 14:41:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Alistair Cononach
I still prefer

1. Light Missiles (Fired from Light Missile Launchers)
2. Light Missiles (Fired from Light Missile Battery) - Formerly Assault Missile Launcher
3. Heavy Missiles (Fired from Heavy Missile Launchers)
4. Cruise Missiles (Fired from Cruise Missile Launchers)

5. Light Rockets (Fired from Light Rocket Launchers)
6. Heavy Rockets (Fired from Heavy Rocket Launchers) - Formerly HAM's
7. Torpedoes (Fired from Torpedo Launchers)

Clear cut difference between the "Guided" Missiles and the "Unguided" Rockets/Torps.

Light = Frigate
Heavy = Cruiser/BC
Cruise/Torp = B

The odd launcher out gets "Battery" instead of "Launcher" to indicate it's faster rate of fire, but still clearly indicates what it fires (Light Missiles).

Retains most of the existing flavor, sacrificing only the needlessly extra word "assault" but keeping the "rockets".
NUXI7
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#564 - 2012-03-10 18:00:56 UTC
As part of this naming change, will you please fix the spelling of Mackinaw? The proper spelling of the word is Mackinac. Only illterates spell it phonetically with the w on the end.
NUXI7
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#565 - 2012-03-10 18:19:16 UTC
Oh and before I forget, you missed the FoF missiles when they were all renamed for damage types.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#566 - 2012-03-10 18:26:47 UTC
NUXI7 wrote:
As part of this naming change, will you please fix the spelling of Mackinaw? The proper spelling of the word is Mackinac. Only illterates spell it phonetically with the w on the end.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinaw_boat

Welcome to the wonderful world of English spelling.

Perhaps I should rant about people who miss out u's in words such as colour, and honour?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

NUXI7
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#567 - 2012-03-10 18:33:48 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
NUXI7 wrote:
As part of this naming change, will you please fix the spelling of Mackinaw? The proper spelling of the word is Mackinac. Only illterates spell it phonetically with the w on the end.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinaw_boat


Oh I'm well aware that people misspell it constantly. They didn't even get the city named correctly despite a Fort already existing there with it spelled correctly. At least they manage to spell it correctly when they named the bridge...
Aurelius Valentius
Valentius Corporation
#568 - 2012-03-13 06:04:02 UTC
How about we just start with better info in the descriptions - they lack greatly any information - why not keep the names, and just put this info into that space and see how that goes?

Just my two ISKies on this.
Szilardis
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#569 - 2012-03-13 18:02:54 UTC
The new resist mod naming scheme sucks. I suppose stating the damage type isn't too bad, but you did what everyone complained about and took the flavor out of them too...
Immortis Vexx
Onyx Moon Industries
#570 - 2012-03-13 19:40:12 UTC
I am generally in the boat with the rest of the "omg dont dumb down my module names" group but for a completely different reason. First off, I am good with updating some names and changing things but I also think that what you have chosen is a bit too simplistic. Lets look at the modern brand names of very popular items of which we have a large variety to choose from; in this case, cell phones. Currently i am using an HTC android device running version 2.3.4. Many people have just signed up to buy the Apple iPhone 4s. Then we have the Nokia Lumia running windows platform.The point that I am trying to make here is that we have a wide variety of phones (and knockoffs) and we are generally able to figure out who has what and what kind of stuffs we got running under the hood.

Instead of using "experimental" or "improved" why can't we use the corporations to denote what kind of quality a product is? EVE has TONS of npc corporations that could be used in this fashion. Granted, this would be a total re-work of the meta level system and I don't know that it would be feasible. However, then you could have the corporations provide the various bonuses. "The Ishukone version of the afterburner slightly sacrifices speed, but greatly reduces the CPU usage of the module."

Personally I would like to see the corporations influence more than just who I have standings with, just my two cents though.

Vexx
Sovai Elaaren
KABS Deep Recon Unit
#571 - 2012-03-14 00:20:14 UTC
CCP Gnauton wrote:
The Meta scheme:

The meta scheme is currently under heavy revision and review. I'll hopefully have something more to report shortly. Please keep the feedback coming; this is the area where your comments have been the most helpful so far.


I'm very glad that you're listening to our feedback, but it's very unfortunate that a change is under heavy review but was implemented anyway (at least in part). Only thing more confusing for players that recently started is having the naming scheme change not once but possibly twice. Ugh

At any rate, I'm looking forward to hearing more from you guys on this. Smile
Hyperion O'Coeus
Long Pig Luncheon Meat
Sending Thots And Players
#572 - 2012-03-14 02:38:05 UTC
I don't care about UI Designers. You need to stop making changes to all the names this is stupid and a waste of time. When ever you switch departments or have Designers change departments there is a learning curve. Instead your changing he names for the designers which is causing quite a stir with the gamers. And here I thought the game was for us NOT designers.

You need to stop making name changes, before you provoke a mass exodus. I just spent 48 minutes fitting a ship because you changed names and I had to review all the info. In addition your not telling us in advance or in the patch notes what has been changed to what ...

Old Name = New name

It doesn't make any sense to change Invulnerability Field 1 to Adaptive Invulnerability Field I ... what the hell is the point of that?

You really to need to have more of a conversation with the gamers / users before going forward with the changes.
Siren mu
Happy Derping Microbiologists
#573 - 2012-03-14 04:14:57 UTC
GOOD!!! now I feel like a freaking armor tanker every time I look at that adaptive invul field II ...
Please stop the useless name change all together
Most of the new names aren't even remotely more friendly to new players, and they really just suck.
Siren mu
Happy Derping Microbiologists
#574 - 2012-03-14 04:28:04 UTC
And you don't even have an ACTIVE armor hardening module that boosts the overall resistance of ships' armor in the first place... JUST WHY IN THE WORLD should you name an ACTIVE shield hardener "adaptive invulnerability field" ???????
Diamonica Norya
Pro Synergy
#575 - 2012-03-14 05:26:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Diamonica Norya
Sorry I'm late but my EvE just gotten Dumber as of today~~

Dumberer tomorrow

That's not very respective of the playerbase when you had this many complaints made about the new scheme and yet you still go ahead. CCP Cares
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#576 - 2012-03-14 20:17:52 UTC
I want my missiles back!!!

CCP: "All these flavours are too confusing for some of the more stupid players (and devs) so everybody needs to gulp down a bottle of bleach, hmmkay?"

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

Shade Millith
Farmhouse.
Simple Farmers
#577 - 2012-03-14 22:45:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Millith
Quote:
Adaptive Invulnerability Field


This doesn't even make SENSE. This isn't an armor mod, and there's nothing confusing about 'Invulnerability Field's', and slapping 'Adaptive' just sounds off.

This is exactly like your attempts to change HAM's. Random, unnecessary name changes for a tiny problem. One that has nothing to do with several of the names you're changing.


Just put down the keyboard and stop changing things for the sake of changing.

What's next? 'Adaptive Damage Control'?


EDIT:
Quote:
Explosion Dampening Field -> Explosive Deflection Field


This. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're going through the game, and randomly changing mod names for absolutely no reason.

What are you doing?

Stop changing for the sake of changing.
Cindy Marco
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#578 - 2012-03-15 02:39:13 UTC
CCP Gnauton wrote:
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.


So this was just an empty promise since they went live anyway?

You could at least of told us you just don't care what we think. At least that would have been honest.
Gallus Niggus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#579 - 2012-03-15 08:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Gallus Niggus
LMAO the new mod names are terrible good job Gnauton
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#580 - 2012-03-15 13:43:55 UTC
Looks like some changes happened in the Static Data Dump, which haven't made it through to the live?

Still Trauma on EVE, but Scourge in the SDD, for example?

Is there going to be a corrected SDD, or will EVE be updated soon?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter