These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Module Tiericide. Aren't we losing something here?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
#121 - 2014-09-29 02:42:38 UTC
Glathull wrote:


Ample? Ample isn't for rocket launchers. Ample is for bosoms.



You just made me laugh, really really hard. Thanks for that! hehe


I love some of the ideas posted in this thread, and I agree that we're losing something by CCP making everything named with the same prefix, or etc.

It's kind of that feeling when you go home to a quaint little town that had lots of interesting ma and pa type shops and nook and cranny's to find it's been paved over with cookie cutter suburbs and chain stores.


I don't mind consistency, but I think they're going WAY overboard by making every module in the game have the same naming convention. The lack of creativity is very disappointing.



www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#122 - 2014-09-29 04:39:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
Remember a few years ago Eve was pressing the "Eve is Real" Campaign? Can you imagine trying to tell a story like in the trailer they put out with the new mod names? Found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxSyv4LC1c for those who don't recall it or haven't seen it.

Now imagine if he was telling a different story, maybe how his Ample Missile launchers spewed hot milk errr death upon his foes.

Yeah Eve is really now more like WoW than it was. Short attention spans? Unable to read descriptions or stats? Don't worry kiddies Fozzie has you covered. And coming soon flying mounts will be replacing shuttles Roll
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#123 - 2014-09-29 05:02:49 UTC
Thead Enco wrote:
Mass exodus to Riot = Lack of creativity left at CCP.


Maybe riot are planning to do a mortal online that isn't terrible and want staff who already have experience in player driven economics?
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#124 - 2014-09-29 05:05:08 UTC
Krell Kroenen wrote:
Remember a few years ago Eve was pressing the "Eve is Real" Campaign? Can you imagine trying to tell a story like in the trailer they put out with the new mod names? Found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxSyv4LC1c for those who don't recall it or haven't seen it.

Now imagine if he was telling a different story, maybe how his Ample Missile launchers spewed hot milk errr death upon his foes.

Yeah Eve is really now more like WoW than it was. Short attention spans? Unable to read descriptions or stats? Don't worry kiddies Fozzie has you covered. And coming soon flying mounts will be replacing shuttles Roll


Maybe Legion can have space motorbikes. Something as a counterweight to that cognitive abortion blizzard are putting in their game.
Kaivar Lancer
Doomheim
#125 - 2014-09-29 07:28:05 UTC
The tears in this thread are disgusting.

Who deliberately chooses a meta 1 or meta 2 module? I never use them.

Adapt or die. HTFU.
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#126 - 2014-09-29 07:36:31 UTC
Kaivar Lancer wrote:
tears

Kaivar Lancer wrote:
HTFU


It's great that you think you're the epic hardcore, but really you're just a memespouting ******.
Bas Hauser
Doomheim
#127 - 2014-09-29 08:22:18 UTC
Kaivar Lancer wrote:
The tears in this thread are disgusting.

Who deliberately chooses a meta 1 or meta 2 module? I never use them.

Adapt or die. HTFU.


Experimental SV-2000 Rapid Light Missile Launcher looks great on minnie ships 'cos those are orange. :)
Also, they are OK on a rookie's Bellicose to run level 2 security missions for example. Cheaper too.

An Aoede Mining Laser Upgrade - not to mention several other meta 4 modules - costs hundreds and hundreds of millions. Not sure if everyone can afford that even if they are trying so hard to adapt.

Anyway, it's about removing flavor and variety and not about being a pro...
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#128 - 2014-09-29 09:11:13 UTC
Hiply Rustic wrote:
Ridiculous.

If someone can't be arsed to spend the trivial amount of time it takes to compare modules and decide which one best fits their skills and ship fitting capabilities, and needs the handholding of a purely technically descriptive "good/better/best" naming scheme then I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

It's not about "true intellectuals" this or "pseudo intellectuals that"...it's about maintaining or (here's a radical thought) even improving immersion. Because...it's a game.

Unless of course CCP has run out of space on the item database storage box and can't afford more disks...then ok, fine, reduce the number of items.


Spot on pal.

... and really, "Ample" ? get the fecking feck out
Solecist Project
#129 - 2014-09-29 09:18:07 UTC
Y-S8 HYDROCARBON AFTERBURNER!


A FREAKING MUSCLECAR!!

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
#130 - 2014-09-29 11:14:29 UTC
thought about this more and read some of the more articulate replies

simply put, CCP, you are killing your game.

this crap is another reason for me to unsub. i haven't liked many of the 'changes' being introduced lately especially those that remove options and dumb down the game

this module tiericide stinks and the renames are ridiculous
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2014-09-29 11:44:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
I still think the new naming system is bloody awful. I hate the fact that we didn't get to give any feedback on this.

Personally, although it may be more work, I think the naming system should be much broader. Instead of just having a set of prefixes for EVERY module in game, there should be a set of prefixes for each type of module (similar to now but simpler).
We need to keep the flavour of the Sci Fi nature of the game whilst making it easier to understand without ruining it.

Armour plates are a great example of this because we use materials to seperate the items.

We have
Steel
Nanofiber
Titanium
Crystalline Carbonite
Tungnsten

If we loose this for:
Upgraded
Compact
Restrained

I think it will look awful and not really make sense!

Take armour plates and simply do this to them:
Steel - Basic (snowflakes)
Titanium - T1
Tungnsten - "Upgraded" (All round best)
Nanofiber - Reduced mass penalty but not so good armour boost
Crystalline Carbonite - Easiest to fit
T2 Steel - T2 version (Best Armour, Most difficult to fit, More mass penalty than upgraded)

We keep names that make sense and still appear "Real" becase a "Restrained 800mm armour plate" sounds stupid.

Try to be a bit sci fi with shield extenders too.
Current:
Shield Extender I (T1)
Supplemental Barrier Emitter
Subordinate Screen Stabilizer
Azeotropic Ward Salubrity
F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Shield Extender II (T2)

We only need 3 meta versions so change the names to:
Shield Extender I (T1) or for the sake of continuity - F-S1 Shield Extender (T1)
F-S6-R Shield Extender (Lowest Sig Penalty)
F-S4-C Shield Extender (Lowest Fitting)
F-S9 Shield Extender ("Upgraded")
Shield Extender II (T2) or for the sake of continuity - F-S9-2 Shield Extender (T2)


The prefixed letters and numbers will become familiar to users. We don't need the words "Ample or Restrained".

Also, as suggested earlier. Start branding the things!! Implants are branded so why aren't modules!

Examples are easy:
Duvolle Labs Armour Repairer
Boundless Creation Shield Booster

Then lets look at weapons.

Instead of the daft prefixes of
•Upgraded
•Compact
•Enduring
•Ample
•Scoped
•Restrained

Do things like:

GR-5 Mounted (Weapon) Where the GR-5 is a high tracking mount
EC-12 Coupled (Weapon) Where the EC-12 is a reduced fitting coupling
F4r/T Scope Fitted (Weapon) Extended Optimal
B-15/cR Gun Barrel Fitted (weapon) Extended Falloff
HPc-99 Capacitor Mounted (weapon) Reduced Cap Use
EC-100 Extended Magazine (Weapon) Expanded Capacity

Because I would far prefer to fit a rack of:
EC-100 Extended Magazine 425mm Railguns
over a rack of
Ample 425mm Railguns

The point of this huge post being that:

As long as the names of modules are consistant in that group of modules then the name can be cool and still be easily recognisable.

A gun with extended falloff range will always have the prefix "B-15/cR Gun Barrel Fitted" no matter if it's an autocannon, artillery or even a laser. You will always know that the "B-15/cR Gun Barrel Fitted" prefix means "I get extra range with this gun".
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
#132 - 2014-09-29 12:47:16 UTC
Val'Dore wrote:
Bas Hauser wrote:
Val'Dore wrote:
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Eve is a game of adapt of die, sure... But when changes are made that serve no purpose other than to make the game more 'accessible' to new players - at the expense of our learned knowledge, something is way off.


And on the other hand, maintaining the appearance of complexity without any actual complexity is just silliness. Changes should be made to improve the game, and much like hull tiericice, modules need to be rebalanced so that there is much less clutter and redundancy. It isn't necessarily about complexity, or in EvE's case, pretending to be about complexity.

Playing EvE is like getting a college degree, you learn a lot of things that are only included to add to the opportunity cost of attending college, yet have negative zero to do with the actual degree.

Think of it as streamlining EvE, as opposed to dumbing it down. Because in actuality, once you pass a certain mental threshold, needless complexity is tedious, uninspiring, and ********. The only people who like such systems are the people who want to seem intellectual, but true intellectuals abhor such gamey systems.


In your intellectual world a marksman would choose a 'good sniper rifle' a photographer a 'good cam' and a passionate driver a 'fast car'.

In my less intellectual and abhorred world a marksman would choose a 'Sig SSG 3000' a photographer a 'Nikon D7000' and a passionate driver a 'Dodge Challenger R/T'

'maintaining the appearance of complexity without any actual complexity is just silliness'
Really? In gaming? If you think that line holds true you shouldn't be playing anything. Ever.


Like I said, if there is an actual difference, go for it. But in EvE there are two kinds of modules, Better and Worse. There is no complexity, not even with the fittings curve ball. In EvE we don't currently choose between different modules in the way you seem to think we do. When you fit a target painter, there is only one you bother with, the rest are pointless. That isn't complexity, complexity would be having several viable choices and having to pick the best one for the fit. You aren't choosing anything, but please by all means, continue to believe you are.


Both of you are correct...I get that naming does add something to it; superficial...yes; meaningless....yes; but, that suck-you-in factor means a lot and has a great deal to do with the decision to actually pay for a game. On the other hand, being a very pragmatic person, my final fitting decision is based (after consideration of cost and power/CPU consideration) on just one thing...what is the best module? This strikes at the very heart of why I'm so pissed at Fozzie...He stated up front his intention with all of this balancing was to provide a meaningful role for all of the modules. Then he goes off and does the exact mother-bleep-ing, god-bleep-ed opposite thing....as I have referred to it before...sausage making homogenization...in the end, there's no meaningful choice and your left with what CCP chooses for you...like Wile E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoon you think that the ACME corporation is giving you something to help you catch that damn skinny bastard chicken (aka CCP) and it ALWAYS ends up blowing up in your face!!!
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#133 - 2014-09-29 13:17:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Generally i agree with the 'don't dumb it down' crowd when it comes to certain changes. I can't this time because this isn't dumbing anything down.

MOST of the modules and equipment in EVE online go un-used. There is ZERO reason to use most named and tech1 items after you can use tech2 except in those odd cases where tech2 isn't the best. CCP changing the modules to be actually useful is a good thing.

And if they are going to do that, they HAVE to change the names of those modules to be more descriptive. Even for 'vets' because after all these years we're used to 'tech2 or nothing'.

Ship Tiercide did more for this game than any 12 full expansions (all with 'Jesus Features') put together could have. People are FLYING tech1 frigs, dessies and cruisers for more than just luls now. If module Tiercide does even a fraction of what the ship changes did we are in for an awesome time in this game.
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2014-09-29 13:54:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Jenn aSide wrote:


And if they are going to do that, they HAVE to change the names of those modules to be more descriptive. Even for 'vets' because after all these years we're used to 'tech2 or nothing'.

If module Tiercide does even a fraction of what the ship changes did we are in for an awesome time in this game.




Right, because none of us know how to use the compare tool and we all forgot how to read anything beyond an item name?

To the second comment; seriously? Reducing the number of module variations and dumbing down (to, in some cases, simply stupid names like "Ample") the naming convention means we are in for an awesome time? *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
Bas Hauser
Doomheim
#135 - 2014-09-29 13:57:59 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
And if they are going to do that, they HAVE to change the names of those modules to be more descriptive.


This is not true. They don't really have to change names. At all. We 'vets' will adapt to the changes made to stats like we always do. Finetuning stats to give meaning to abandoned mods is good. Changing names to dumb and meaningless s**t is bad. Period.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#136 - 2014-09-29 14:04:50 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
The above 2 comments are why some people mistake those of us who champion 'cautious progress' for people who don't want any change at all.

Point blank, the current 'names' are meaningless, misleading and needlessly complicated. I never support 'dumbing down' the game in the (false) name of 'help the children newbies.

But I do support 'de-stupidifying' it. Having names for items that exist only because someone thinks it sounds cool rather than it being practical and descriptive is stupid. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Ship Tiercide made this game better, module tiercide will as well. Don't like it, feel free to call the modules what you like. That's what I do, the came calls them "auto-targeting missiles", they are still FoFs to me...
Bas Hauser
Doomheim
#137 - 2014-09-29 14:16:35 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Jenn aSide wrote:
The above 2 comments are why some people mistake those of us who champion 'cautious progress' for people who don't want any change at all.

Point blank, the current 'names' are meaningless, misleading and needlessly complicated. I never support 'dumbing down' the game in the (false) name of 'help the children newbies.

But I do support 'de-stupidifying' it. Having names for items that exist only because someone thinks it sounds cool rather than it being practical and descriptive is stupid. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Ship Tiercide made this game better, module tiercide will as well. Don't like it, feel free to call the modules what you like. That's what I do, the came calls them "auto-targeting missiles", they are still FoFs to me...


Those meaningless, misleading and needlessly complicated names were there for more than 10 years.
If you want to see names like 'Ample Whatever of the Gorilla' and 'Limited Whatever of the Bear' go play a browser game.
EVE has its reputation for a reason.
*Snip* Removed reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.

Like i said somewhere above finetuning stats -> good. Changing names -> bad
Ship tiericide you mentioned had nothing to do with names, a Rifter is still a Rifter, a Raven is still a Raven.
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2014-09-29 14:30:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Jenn aSide wrote:
The above 2 comments are why some people mistake those of us who champion 'cautious progress' for people who don't want any change at all.

Point blank, the current 'names' are meaningless, misleading and needlessly complicated. I never support 'dumbing down' the game in the (false) name of 'help the children newbies.

But I do support 'de-stupidifying' it. Having names for items that exist only because someone thinks it sounds cool rather than it being practical and descriptive is stupid. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.


Ship Tiercide made this game better, module tiercide will as well. Don't like it, feel free to call the modules what you like. That's what I do, the came calls them "auto-targeting missiles", they are still FoFs to me...



Right, so you would prefer to drive a "Car, 4 door, 6 cylinder" or a "Scooter, one cylinder" instead of a BMW 528i or a Vespa Primavera. Got it. Boring as hell, understood.

Any naming convention that is not absolutely and solely descriptive is, technically, unnecessarily complicated. If you want to play at being a reductionist then go the rest of the way, don't half-step.

Also, as you are a proponent of a radical change it's not likely you're going to be mistaken for someone who wants no change at all.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
Solecist Project
#139 - 2014-09-29 14:42:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Hiply Rustic wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
The above 2 comments are why some people mistake those of us who champion 'cautious progress' for people who don't want any change at all.

Point blank, the current 'names' are meaningless, misleading and needlessly complicated. I never support 'dumbing down' the game in the (false) name of 'help the children newbies.

But I do support 'de-stupidifying' it. Having names for items that exist only because someone thinks it sounds cool rather than it being practical and descriptive is stupid. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Ship Tiercide made this game better, module tiercide will as well. Don't like it, feel free to call the modules what you like. That's what I do, the came calls them "auto-targeting missiles", they are still FoFs to me...



Right, so you would prefer to drive a "Car, 4 door, 6 cylinder" or a "Scooter, one cylinder" instead of a BMW 528i or a Vespa Primavera. Got it. Boring as hell, understood.

Any naming convention that is not absolutely and solely descriptive is, technically, unnecessarily complicated. If you want to play at being a reductionist then go the rest of the way, don't half-step.

Also, as you are a proponent of a radical change it's not likely you're going to be mistaken for someone who wants no change at all.

They should remove all the individual names of the ships too,
because they are completely unnecessary.

It would help all the new players far more if each ship's name was simply
it's race, use and shipclass. No one needs shipnames anyway.

Same for the drones, of course.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#140 - 2014-09-29 14:55:53 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Bas Hauser wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
The above 2 comments are why some people mistake those of us who champion 'cautious progress' for people who don't want any change at all.

Point blank, the current 'names' are meaningless, misleading and needlessly complicated. I never support 'dumbing down' the game in the (false) name of 'help the children newbies.

But I do support 'de-stupidifying' it. Having names for items that exist only because someone thinks it sounds cool rather than it being practical and descriptive is stupid. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Ship Tiercide made this game better, module tiercide will as well. Don't like it, feel free to call the modules what you like. That's what I do, the came calls them "auto-targeting missiles", they are still FoFs to me...


Those meaningless, misleading and needlessly complicated names were there for more than 10 years.
If you want to see names like 'Ample Whatever of the Gorilla' and 'Limited Whatever of the Bear' go play a browser game.
EVE has its reputation for a reason.
Also, suggesting that roleplayers might have problems in their heads is rude, especially when we are talking about gaming.

Like i said somewhere above finetuning stats -> good. Changing names -> bad
Ship tiericide you mentioned had nothing to do with names, a Rifter is still a Rifter, a Raven is still a Raven.


Ship names don't need to be descriptive. Module names do.

'Raven' is fine, all that 'arbalest' and 'malkuth' junk isn't. CCP is doing a good thing here even if they should rethink some of the names ("High Capacity" instead of 'Ample' which makes everyone think of boobs).