These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

the dumbing down of names to bring in new blood?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rhea Rankin Nolen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#161 - 2012-01-26 23:49:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
It's not intelligent, thought provoking or beneficial. We need less of that.


You just described the new module names. Agreed. We need less of that.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2012-01-27 00:04:02 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Please stop confusing tedium for complexity. Also it should be clear at this point that there are many who like the general direction this is going. There are plenty of actual mechanics to make the game complex, and that is where the complexity should be. Simple naming does not mean a simple game.


Even there are many who would want to drive their car on other side of the road, it's not very bright idea when you think about everyone involved.

This argument works just as much against you as for you. To each of us it's the other one that seems to be on the wrong side of the road. I'm a fan of complex systems made from meaningful choices, but not tedious systems requiring investment of time or effort with no real return. Having to stall for a moment because I can't remember what the explosive heavy missile is called is not an asset to the game experience. I'd rather be fitting/flying/planning/playing the game in general than memorizing nondescript names with no real scheme. Tedium is boring, memorizing random things is tedious. It's not intelligent, thought provoking or beneficial. We I need less of that.


if you have problems memorizing stuff over time (which will btw happen without even trying), get some friends. That way you can ask from some experienced pilot who knows their stuff. That is called interaction in MMORPG (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game). If you don't like MMORPG style of game play, there is always home world or similar games where the learning curve is lower and interaction is usually limited to talking with yourself.


If I had a complaint about gameplay complexity, your comment would be valid. Memorization of launcher type = x ammo with y variations is fine, because it's meaningful. Having to go beyond that for a separate name with no overall scheme for every combination of damage and missile type does not. Now we have a very clear (Faction)[damage](T2 type)[missile type] scheme which preserves function but unifies naming. It has to do with making sense, and to me this does. It has nothing to do with "style of play." You CANNOT play this game on any meaningful level without interacting with others. And confusing naming schemes don't create MEANINGFUL interaction. If you want to be smug about your memory skills, you can do THAT on your own.
Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#163 - 2012-01-27 00:04:35 UTC
Can we please have the "II" in all T2 modules replaced with "Elite"?

100MN MicroWarpdrive Elite

Warp Scrambler Elite

Just think of the industrialists, they will love Elite invention and manufacturing.

How to win EVE
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2012-01-27 00:19:02 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Please stop confusing tedium for complexity. Also it should be clear at this point that there are many who like the general direction this is going. There are plenty of actual mechanics to make the game complex, and that is where the complexity should be. Simple naming does not mean a simple game.


Even there are many who would want to drive their car on other side of the road, it's not very bright idea when you think about everyone involved.

This argument works just as much against you as for you. To each of us it's the other one that seems to be on the wrong side of the road. I'm a fan of complex systems made from meaningful choices, but not tedious systems requiring investment of time or effort with no real return. Having to stall for a moment because I can't remember what the explosive heavy missile is called is not an asset to the game experience. I'd rather be fitting/flying/planning/playing the game in general than memorizing nondescript names with no real scheme. Tedium is boring, memorizing random things is tedious. It's not intelligent, thought provoking or beneficial. We I need less of that.


if you have problems memorizing stuff over time (which will btw happen without even trying), get some friends. That way you can ask from some experienced pilot who knows their stuff. That is called interaction in MMORPG (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game). If you don't like MMORPG style of game play, there is always home world or similar games where the learning curve is lower and interaction is usually limited to talking with yourself.


If I had a complaint about gameplay complexity, your comment would be valid. Memorization of launcher type = x ammo with y variations is fine, because it's meaningful. Having to go beyond that for a separate name with no overall scheme for every combination of damage and missile type does not. Now we have a very clear (Faction)[damage](T2 type)[missile type] scheme which preserves function but unifies naming. It has to do with making sense, and to me this does. It has nothing to do with "style of play." You CANNOT play this game on any meaningful level without interacting with others. And confusing naming schemes don't create MEANINGFUL interaction. If you want to be smug about your memory skills, you can do THAT on your own.


So you're saying that because there are few who have problems memorizing stuff and don't want to ask for help from someone who can, everything should be nerfed to the point where it is easy enough for you to memorize even it would mean that existing player base would need to memorize everything again, redo all their excel sheets, programs, databases and other information they have in their heads...

Like I said before... if you want to drive on other side of the road, there will be big collision.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2012-01-27 00:27:12 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[quote=Grey Stormshadow]
This argument works just as much against you as for you. To each of us it's the other one that seems to be on the wrong side of the road. I'm a fan of complex systems made from meaningful choices, but not tedious systems requiring investment of time or effort with no real return. Having to stall for a moment because I can't remember what the explosive heavy missile is called is not an asset to the game experience. I'd rather be fitting/flying/planning/playing the game in general than memorizing nondescript names with no real scheme. Tedium is boring, memorizing random things is tedious. It's not intelligent, thought provoking or beneficial. We I need less of that.


if you have problems memorizing stuff over time (which will btw happen without even trying), get some friends. That way you can ask from some experienced pilot who knows their stuff. That is called interaction in MMORPG (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game). If you don't like MMORPG style of game play, there is always home world or similar games where the learning curve is lower and interaction is usually limited to talking with yourself.


If I had a complaint about gameplay complexity, your comment would be valid. Memorization of launcher type = x ammo with y variations is fine, because it's meaningful. Having to go beyond that for a separate name with no overall scheme for every combination of damage and missile type does not. Now we have a very clear (Faction)[damage](T2 type)[missile type] scheme which preserves function but unifies naming. It has to do with making sense, and to me this does. It has nothing to do with "style of play." You CANNOT play this game on any meaningful level without interacting with others. And confusing naming schemes don't create MEANINGFUL interaction. If you want to be smug about your memory skills, you can do THAT on your own.


So you're saying that because there are few who have problems memorizing stuff and don't want to ask for help from someone who can, everything should be nerfed to the point where it is easy enough for you to memorize even it would mean that existing player base would need to memorize everything again, redo all their excel sheets, programs, databases and other information they have in their heads...

Like I said before... if you want to drive on other side of the road, there will be big collision.

I'm saying a scheme that makes sense makes sense. I'm saying that the effort involved in changing is not worth the rage being displayed. I'm saying this change could be argued as unnecessary at best, but not bad. And I'm saying that in some ways it offers convenience that the old names didn't. If your argument is based on complexity for the sake of complexity, even as an interaction driver, we will not agree. And I'm fine with that. But I will say, I'm not in love with the names themselves, perhaps abit too obvious/simple. Also the differences in meta level between similar named items is creating some confusion. Implementation is imperfect. Overall goal is positive.
Liam Mirren
#166 - 2012-01-27 00:31:13 UTC
While I agree with normalising names and all that, the missile renaming has gone overboard. The names are all a bit silly, it would have been MUCH better if you would have used the names for the heavies, those were fine.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#167 - 2012-01-27 00:37:43 UTC
Before continuing I would like to point out one post which I did read minute ago... Is this what you want to hear?

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2012-01-27 01:02:50 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Before continuing I would like to point out one post which I did read minute ago... Is this what you want to hear?

I've already stated what i like and dislike the change and my mindset about it in general.
As far as that post:
He doesn't like the Neocom for various reasons
He doesn't like simplification of names as it feels like dumbing down
He doesn't like information being displayed in new locations when it can be looked up elsewhere

I like being able to customize my interface. I have the same gripe about the chat icon, but that was acknowledged as not functioning as intended
I like being able to pull Trauma ammo for all of my kinetic bonused ships with a single search
The last is something that is a non issue to me. If the function doesn't change then I'm fine. As such I'm not sure how to address a gripe with greater information visibility.
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#169 - 2012-01-27 09:00:18 UTC
Morar Santee wrote:

Old system:
Search for 100mn - all base 100mn propulsion modules are listed (meta versions that do not include "100mn" are in "variations" tab)
Search for "Quad-Lif", "Y-T", "catalyzed", etc - results in finding the item you want


Yes you are correct, that system was flawed, since it did not show all the modules instantly and you needed to know in advance others here buried in another interface, in another tab.

If you don't get that that is wrong in a game with this many modules and text, your pretty much lost. The new system took away a sweetly named module that will be in our harts forever. However the new naming changing is clearer. Would it be better to have included the type and specification and keep the "fancy" names, perhaps, but the modules will be doing exactly the same for everybody now, not just the guys that allready play the game for a number of months/years.

tldr: If an interface/naming convention only works when you need to know loopholes around it, it needs to change.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]
Leah Solo
Lag No Use
#170 - 2012-01-27 09:29:12 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The less time you have to spend fighting the game, the more time you have left over to play it. Any simplification which increases the amount of time players can be interacting with each other, while keeping the interaction sufficiently interesting, is a good simplification.


I may be ripping this out of context, but that block of text reflects a mindset
which is a pure one way track down to zero. Making things sound less interesting aka ...
... boring, common, usual, dull, etc ... will not help the cause.

You're removing feeling from the game. As stupid as it may sound for people who uber-believe in logic,
(and thus have no clue what i'm talking about anyway)
an awesomely named mod (like the Y-T and the Y-S) promotes feelings towards the ship,
which is what you want. It bonds and binds. The value of a mod doesn't do that at all,
but having stuff that sounds awesome does.

Any noob that can use modules that sound "cool" will go "wow that sounds cool!".
Which is a simplification of the processes that happen everywhere in the world,
all day long, just because things have names that appeal.

Now think about what you did.

You are removing emotions from the game.


Noobs!


That's a fair point, and it's something that our writers are wrestling with. There was a lot of discussion about this change, trust me Smile


Really? So you guys at CCP had a LOT of discussion on mod names, and all you came up with is LIMITED, EXPERIMENTAL and PROTOTYPE?? Shocked

You're joking right? Please tell me that you're joking..please..? Sad
Ajita al Tchar
Doomheim
#171 - 2012-01-27 09:40:32 UTC
Leah Solo wrote:


Really? So you guys at CCP had a LOT of discussion on mod names, and all you came up with is LIMITED, EXPERIMENTAL and PROTOTYPE?? Shocked

You're joking right? Please tell me that you're joking..please..? Sad


LIMITED imaginations designed PROTOTYPE names that are best left as EXPERIMENTAL (and should be changed to something less "hurr durr I'm out of ideas"). Projection?

PS: my position on the names of modules is--naming conventions should be adjusted, preferably along with changes made to the way players search for modules. The new names, however, shouldn't be fifteen degrees of boring and unimaginative, as well as not nearly as descriptive as Team Bad Names seems to think they are. My position on the names of missiles--lame, could have done it better. Uniformity is good, the kind of uniformity that dresses everyone up in identical bland outfits is not.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2012-01-27 10:05:45 UTC
Just improve the god damn compare tool and leave the names be. You devs have no idea how many other fingers write trauma when you decide that it is today's brand of tomato. Making this game more simple isn't (necessary) a good thing. Making it easier and more convenient to get information to understand the complex would give much better results for everyone. Think before you act!

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
seany1212
M Y S T
#173 - 2012-01-27 10:45:53 UTC
I think the only problem with the new naming convention is the propulsion modules and there generic choice of words, of all the words in the English language they could have used that was the best they came up with for those modules?
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#174 - 2012-01-27 11:34:02 UTC
So what's the difference between "experimental" and "prototype" then ?
I sure a hell don't know without looking for meta lvl first, from old names I knew exactly what I was looking for.

You changed old confusing names with new names that are 100x more boring and just as confusing, good job!
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2012-01-27 13:02:12 UTC
I really can't believe that people are complaining about a change of names of propulsion modules in an internet spaceship game.

Seriously?

Take a minute and thank you lucky stars that this minute, inconsequential, meaningless change is making you upset because obviously your lives are unbelieveably cushy.

They won't always be that way so count your blessings and rage on.

Riedle
Morar Santee
#176 - 2012-01-27 15:04:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Morar Santee
Ciar Meara wrote:
Morar Santee wrote:

Old system:
Search for 100mn - all base 100mn propulsion modules are listed (meta versions that do not include "100mn" are in "variations" tab)
Search for "Quad-Lif", "Y-T", "catalyzed", etc - results in finding the item you want


Yes you are correct, that system was flawed, since it did not show all the modules instantly and you needed to know in advance others here buried in another interface, in another tab.

If you don't get that that is wrong in a game with this many modules and text, your pretty much lost. The new system took away a sweetly named module that will be in our harts forever. However the new naming changing is clearer. Would it be better to have included the type and specification and keep the "fancy" names, perhaps, but the modules will be doing exactly the same for everybody now, not just the guys that allready play the game for a number of months/years.

tldr: If an interface/naming convention only works when you need to know loopholes around it, it needs to change.

No **** man.

And now let's read that post to the end:

Morar Santee wrote:
New system:
Search for 100mn - 2 more propulsion modules listed than previously (experimental AB / prototype MWD) - but still mixed between MWD/AB and certain meta levels (e.g. storylines) missing
Search for "prototype" - results in over FIFTY (50!!!!!!!!!!) EFFING RESULTS!!!! 45 of which are guns, Nosferatus, webs, warp scramblers, ECCM and a ton of other ****. Which is ranging through all meta levels 1-4.

And this is clearer how? Are you CCP Lemur's alt? Because it requires a specific mindset to see a positive development in this. Have you tried finding a certain missile type lately and entered "Trauma"? How many results did you get, compared to entering "Scourge" before the changes? Is it 5x more? Is that helpful?

Seriously, if you have no clue what a game design change actually accomplishes, it's sometimes best to do one of two things:

1. Just say nothing.
2. File an application and get a job at CCP.
Joshua Aivoras
Tech IV Industries
#177 - 2012-01-27 15:15:21 UTC
Yea its slightly lame that they renamed missiles, i thought it was cool.

but damn dude, every ship in the game wont be turned into rifters.

95% of the players are loving EVE, the other 5%? On the forums.
Inanna NiKunni
BlackBongWater
#178 - 2012-01-27 16:47:10 UTC
The new naming is hard for existing players simply because they have gotten used to the old naming convention.

However, the new naming convention makes sense, and i am sure in a few weeks everybody will get used to it and stop biatching.
Valei Khurelem
#179 - 2012-01-27 16:48:03 UTC
Joshua Aivoras wrote:
Yea its slightly lame that they renamed missiles, i thought it was cool.

but damn dude, every ship in the game wont be turned into rifters.


If they did that it might actually help the game balance because everyone would be flying the same thing LOL

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#180 - 2012-01-27 18:01:38 UTC
As a friend of mine likes to remind me... "Complexity is inherit, simplicity is planned."

My only concern is that CCP seems to be scratching at the soul of the game. I am all for simplifying information in the UI, however...you need to put on some cool shades and make it interesting. Right now, its not interesting with the new naming convention.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka