These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Irori Neri
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#281 - 2012-02-29 23:47:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Irori Neri
I'm posting in support of implant name changes but against module name changes to standardize based upon meta levels. Additionally, I support the removal of the terms "reactive" and "reflective" and their replacement with Kinetic and Explosive, but not with the replacement of the full name (N-Type for Prototype).

I think the current names add significant flavor to the game and that EVE would be lesser without them. I realize that's a bit of a double standard, since I support replacement of the Implant names, but it is my belief that most of the T1 module names add flavor, while most of the implant names only add technobabble. Additionally, since implants are (for most) significantly more "fire and forget" and swapped out far less often, it makes sense to me to have their names more clearly reflect their function since I will not be swapping them in and out on a daily basis and developing a familiarity with them like I might with ship mods.

I have a recommendation for solving some of the complexity a bit, though.


  1. First off, I believe there should be a UI option to toggle display of the meta level for modules. So N-Type Kinetic Hardener or whatever could be toggled to display as N-Type Kinetic Hardener (Meta4) or something similar.

  2. Second, and this one would be a big one, I think the market search should be a bit more intelligent. If someone searches for "armor hardener", then I think all the armor hardeners should appear in the list, even the ones that don't have the words "armor hardener" in their name. Or, "medium railgun" return all the cruiser sized railguns, etc.

  3. The comparison tool is great. However, one step further along that path would be a simple right-click option for "Compare Similar". Pressing Compare Similar should automatically open up the comparison tool with the selected module and all of its variations already added in, sorted by meta level, with the relevant columns checked. So, for railguns, I'd want things like range, damage multiplier, etc. For all comparisons made this way, it should be smart enough to only include the columns with differentiation; if all the afterburners in the comparison use the same amount of grid, then grid use shouldn't be in the compare.


I'm sure there are a hundred more ways that clarity could be added without taking away flavor. And while removing complexity sounds like a good goal, it's really not always. When a system is complex, and you come to understand that system, there is a sense of achievement involved with that. If a system is complex and too difficult to learn, that is a problem. Removing the barriers to greater understanding that system is good, because then you enable folks to learn about this world of internet spaceships and conquer that complexity. I think the best way to put it is... help people help themselves; dont' just do the work for them.
Erim Solfara
House of Solfara
#282 - 2012-02-29 23:52:07 UTC
I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled.
Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
#283 - 2012-02-29 23:57:36 UTC
Fixed the name card in the devblog!

╦......║...╔╗.║.║.╔╗.╦║.╔╗╔╦╗╔╗

║.╔╗╔╗╔╣.╔╗╠..╠ ╠╗╠╝.║╠ ╠╝║║║╚╗

╩═╚╝║.╚╝.╚╝║..╚╝║║╚╝.╩╚╝╚╝║.║╚╝

Got Item?

Dumgard
State War Academy
Caldari State
#284 - 2012-02-29 23:58:52 UTC
Erim Solfara wrote:
I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled.

That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these.

In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance.
Devore Sekk
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#285 - 2012-02-29 23:59:19 UTC
Salpad wrote:
Won't market search become trickier, though?


Because typing "Cold-gas" is just so much more logical than "limited after"? You know what meta you want, and you know what module, instead of remembering dozens of arcane and arbitrary names. I don't think this removes any fitting complexity, or depth from the game. It's pointless tedium that serves no purpose. Everyone has to either remember the names, or look them up every time, and there is no in-game advantage to remembering the names, hence, pointless tedium. You can still master the faction/deadspace/officer names to lord over the common masses.

Standardizing the names makes sense to me. The labels they've chosen, not so much, how is upgraded better than limited? Isn't prototype and experimental the same? Why array to stick out from amongst the launchers?

Someone also suggested better market sorting, to sort by group by meta, which makes sense regardless of name changes.
Devore Sekk
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#286 - 2012-03-01 00:00:53 UTC
Dumgard wrote:
Erim Solfara wrote:
I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled.

That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these.

In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance.


I've learned to ctrl-a crtl-c a decade ago before trusting any significant chunk of text to the intertubes.
Infinion
Awesome Corp
#287 - 2012-03-01 00:02:22 UTC
Dumgard wrote:
Erim Solfara wrote:
I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled.

That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these.

In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance.


I don't use the forum message box anymore. I type everything in word and then copy paste
Erim Solfara
House of Solfara
#288 - 2012-03-01 00:02:57 UTC
Devore Sekk wrote:
Dumgard wrote:
Erim Solfara wrote:
I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled.

That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these.

In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance.


I've learned to ctrl-a crtl-c a decade ago before trusting any significant chunk of text to the intertubes.


I usually do, didn't this time =/
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#289 - 2012-03-01 00:04:53 UTC

Rename trauma missiles for gods sake to something that isn;'t stupid.

Where I am.

Dumgard
State War Academy
Caldari State
#290 - 2012-03-01 00:16:46 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:

Rename trauma missiles for gods sake to something that isn;'t stupid.

Because CCP thinks Trauma is so much more descriptive than Scourge when it comes to explaining that the missile does Kinetic damage...
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#291 - 2012-03-01 00:33:24 UTC
Hey dudes!

Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!
Szilardis
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#292 - 2012-03-01 00:37:35 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hey dudes!

Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!


And the modules don't seem to be recieved with open arms, either. For a reason.
Diamonica Norya
Pro Synergy
#293 - 2012-03-01 00:42:50 UTC
also agreeing with the implants change +1 to that

as for all the other names, please don't change them. I've sold enough overpriced traumas to ppl to date that I really missed the old scourge days. I still don't get used to selling these traumas even now as we speak.

If you are looking to improve intuitiveness and remove obscurity for new players, there are already more than dozens of suggestions posted by brilliant ppl.

One more suggestion, why don't you just simply look into why people relies on 3rd party tools so much to enhance their gameplay experience? that's not because of the names, it's all other functions that are missing from your game client that people who developed the 3rd party tools does better and provides.

maybe an icon on the other corner showing meta level, search by groupid, show meta column in variations tab in show info window....etc...

Yes, I roleplay much. Monoclegate didn't make me want to unsub, this does. Your precious time could be spent on something else more useful making Eve a better world for us than wasted trying to change all the names and bring us hell.

I am a module collector, so when all my hangers are filled with experimental, upgraded, prototype, limited...etc. not to mention even more trauma, I don't think I'll handle anymore.
Purple Madness
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#294 - 2012-03-01 00:43:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Purple Madness
How about you just rename the named modules Type 1-4 (or Mk 1-4), so people don't have to remember the difference between upgraded, limited, experimental, prototype..

because frankly upgraded sounds the best out of those 4 to me, and yet it's the meta 1 version? While the initiative is great, seeing as the current module nomenclature is absurd, you might as well go all the way instead of just introducing a 'less bad' nomenclature.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#295 - 2012-03-01 00:51:33 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hey dudes!

Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!


Thank you for listening finally, please mull over this thread and the previous one in the moning please and seriously consider what we're trying to do to meet your goals (making it easier for newer players) while pleasing current player base.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Fozzy Dorsai
Friendly but Irritating
#296 - 2012-03-01 00:51:52 UTC
I ask forgiveness if some of this has been covered already as I'm lazy and don't want to read all the posts.
Since you've gone ahead and renamed all the missiles, how about going ahead and renaming the FoF versions to match?
I also suggest putting the "Advanced" at the end of the missile classification. So the group Advanced Assault Missile becomes Assault Missile Advanced. That way when I sort on group, I get all the Assault Missiles together.
Sarmatiko
#297 - 2012-03-01 00:54:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarmatiko
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hey dudes!
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!


Nobody likes Trauma missiles Blink
That's the first thing that should be changed. Any random name will do better because Trauma reminds human beings about NSFL things, not about missiles in spaceships game.
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#298 - 2012-03-01 00:56:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Pallidum Treponema
While I do appreciate that some modules are named in ways that don't necessarily make sense, and are counter intuitive, I will have to agree with the "dumbing down" criticism. EVE, for all its faults, has flavor. It's a game that is complex and rightfully so. In fact, the complexity is what draws many people to the game.

"Standardizing" names might make sense from a new player point of view, but keep in mind that you're also doing this at the expense of your current players. Retaining the names affects new players. Changing the names affect everyone.

You are also facing the risk of going too "bland" with your naming schemes. To be honest, one of the reasons for why I'm sticking to EVE rather than playing another game is the flavor and immersion. I've seen too many space games where equipment names are standardized, and the immersion falls flat. It feels mechanical and automated, and not at all like a living universe that has had years upon years of maturing.

Making this effort to ensure that newer players can easier keep track of equipment is a good thing, but doing it this way is, in my opinion, misdirected. The problem is not in the naming - which will confuse newer players regardless of the names, but instead an accessibility issue.

To understand this, look at other popular MMOs, such as WoW, SW:TOR, Rift etc. One thing they all have in common is item coloration. It doesn't matter what an item is named, you know that the gray stuff is worthless, just sell it to a vendor. The white stuff is useful as a new player, but not for much more. Green stuff, that's where you start getting the good stats, blues and you're getting there, and so on.

So, what do EVE have that compares to this?

Well, we have the "Tech level triangle". You know, the orange thing for T2, Red for T3, green for faction etc. This little triangle tells you, at a glance, how good a piece of equipment is. It's even present in list-mode of your hangars.

Instead of changing things around by standardizing names, and making EVE more bland, how about extending the meta-tags for named items as well? That'd ensure that there are visual ques for newer players, and it'd also help veteran players in quickly finding the right gear. Additionally, add another sort option to item containers, namely sort by meta-level. That makes a lot more sense than an unnecessary standardization of items that are part of EVE core gameplay.

Oh, and while you're at it, change back missile names and add damage type icons to ammo. That makes a lot more sense, and is easier for both new and old players to grasp.


+1 heavy missile of lighting, anyone?
Lord Haur
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#299 - 2012-03-01 01:03:05 UTC
Forums ate my initial reply :/

I'm going to go through the listed changes piece by piece:

Meta Module names
I can understand why, but I think the meta names could do with being improved. Limited just doesn't make sense, and Prototype/Experimental doesn't sit right either.

As for actual changes: the proposed meta launchers should be a blueprint for further changes. They retain the current meta flavorname with the new meta identifier put infront. I can live with that.

I'm not so keen on the meta armor hardener changes however, it'll be a shame losing the N-type hardeners etc, but overly long names are overly long.

Skill Hardwirings
Another good change - it increases functionality for ALL implants, although for all those who memorised the bonuses of the Caldari/Minmatar implant sets, it sucks a little.

Armor damage types
While the armor plating and shield hardener names were a bit wierd, I'm ok with this change. You also just tripled the (already numerous) results when searching for "kinetic" ingame though.

Missile Launcher names
Good, apart from the Assault Missile Launcher being renamed to "Light Missile Array". It needs to have "Light Missile Launcher" in there somewhere, whether it's "Rapid Light Missile Launcher" or "Light Missile Launcher Array", either works for me.

As noted above, nice to see the existing flavor meta names kept alongside the new meta identifiers.

Scripts
Why wasn't this done when they were introduced?

Previous changes
Please redo the T2 missile names, moving the T2 missile type in front of the damage type. It makes so much sense to include the t2 varients when doing a search for "Trauma Light Missile", I don't even.

Afterburner/MWD names:
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY fix the AB/MWD meta levels.
Currently, we have three meta 3 and one meta 2 afterburners, and one of each meta 1, 2, 3, and 4 MWDs. This makes no sense, where before the change "Cataluzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters" clearly was similar to a "Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters", sharing meta levels, Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I shares no indication that it's the best meta 1MN MWD, akin to the Experimental 1MN Afterburner I being the best meta 1MN AB.
Make all meta MWDs/ABs meta 3, except for the renamed Monopropellant Hydrazine Boosters, which should be meta 1.
Erim Solfara
House of Solfara
#300 - 2012-03-01 01:07:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Erim Solfara
Ok, trying for a second time.

Implants change - great, makes sense, retains flavour.

Launcher and meta-level changes, awful, in the case of the former, doesn't make more sense than current, and adds a confusing change to the name of a different module already in existance and whatnot.


Suggestions:

1. Make rockets 'light rockets'

Light Rockets, Light Rocket Launcher
Light Missiles, Light Missile Launcher

Light Missiles, Assault Light Missile Launcher

Make 'Heavy Assault Missiles' into 'Heavy Rockets'. [Big change, but a consistent one, after all, HAMs are the cruiser equivalent of rockets.

Heavy Rockets, Heavy Rocket Launcher
Heavy Missiles, Heavy Missile Launcher

Hypothetically: Heavy Missiles, Assault Heavy Missile Launcher.

Consistency added, no confusing name changes, only bringing 'assault missiles' under the 'rockets' group.
'Assault' in context of a launcher means oversized faster firing launcher, i.e. special name, special module, appropriate ammo in the name.


2. Do for modules what you've done for implants.

Dual-sheathed Reflective Plating I
becomes
Dual-sheathed Reflective Plating P-2RF

N-Type Reactive Membrane I
becomes
N-Type Reactive Membrane PE-4RA


P stands for Plating, EP stands for Energized Plating, the first number is the meta level, and the last two letters are

RF - Reflective
RA - Reactive
RP - Repulsive
CD - Conductive

PE-4RA is a energized plating, meta-level 4, of type reactive.

Nb. it's PE instead of EP because that means searching for 'PE-4' will show meta-level 4 energized plates, and exclude unenergized ones of meta-level 4. Easy searchability.

That little degree of separation between 'IT DOES THIS', and 'it's a reactive, so that's for explosive damage' is all that's needed, we're not idiots, we don't need it spelling out for us exactly, it breaks immersion.



Let's take it a step further.

Guns are categorised by size.

Medium Afocal Pulse Maser I
becomes
Medium Afocal Microwave Pulse Laser F-1PM

F for frigate, 1 for meta-level 1, PM is flavour. Want to search for frigate guns? 'Pulse Laser F-' will give you all frigate pulse lasers, and you can add a number to the end of that for a specific meta-level.

Dual Modal Heavy Laser I
becomes
Dual Modal Heavy Pulse Laser B-2HL

B for battleship, meta-level 2, flavour characters.

Dual 650mm 'Scout' Repeating Artillery I
becomes
Dual 650mm 'Scout' Autocannon B-4RA

Battleship, meta-4. Searchable, and quickly distinguishable from other meta-levels.

this is what I would like to see, not a blanket rename of all meta modules. You may as well call them 'Frigate Afterburner A', 'Frigate Afterburner B', etc

Utterly soulless.