These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ScooterPuff Sr
Shenanigans Mining Hub
#301 - 2012-03-01 01:19:57 UTC
firmly against all the name changes including the ones that have recently happened. i don't care if a noob doesn't know how to ask a question and see whats what. it made sense beforehand. this idea should be thrown out the window and ccp should pretend they never thought about it.

OLE!
Elieza
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#302 - 2012-03-01 01:21:20 UTC
Count me as another vote for keeping things the way they have been. One of the best things about EVE is the flavor and uniqueness, if you take that away, it loses something in the translation.

I would actually suggest that you take a moment and consider doing something like other MMOs do. They have tooltips which give you all of the information you want. You already show this information in "show info", you don't need to have it as part of the item name, too.
ScooterPuff Sr
Shenanigans Mining Hub
#303 - 2012-03-01 01:23:01 UTC
Elieza wrote:
Count me as another vote for keeping things the way they have been. One of the best things about EVE is the flavor and uniqueness, if you take that away, it loses something in the translation.

I would actually suggest that you take a moment and consider doing something like other MMOs do. They have tooltips which give you all of the information you want. You already show this information in "show info", you don't need to have it as part of the item name, too.

or remove the info tabs. raise the eve bar again
ADIOS MY AMIGOS
OutCast EG
Very Industrial Corp.
#304 - 2012-03-01 01:43:15 UTC
Quote:
Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers

Siege Launchers have become Torpedo Launchers
Like this.
Quote:
Heavy Assault Missile Launchers have become Assault Missile Launchers

Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays
Don't like this.

Keep up good work anyways!
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#305 - 2012-03-01 01:43:43 UTC
Light Missile Battery Launcher?

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

Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#306 - 2012-03-01 01:56:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mioelnir
So, Blizzard and CCP are going to drop their game-name brands too? And use the same one?

I do not see why Zainou, Genolution and all the others would suddenly use the same brand names. As companies, that would weaken their product. You break the immersion of your gameworld with panic-broadcasts.

If you want to help players navigating the market, teach it PCRE or abbreviations like LSE and MWD.


In a game that thrives and survives by long-time player binding, you try to appeal to a more casual crowd. And at the same time, you repeatedly stated you want the 0.0 sov-game to move away from a fight over resources to a more player interaction conflict.
With casual players of a few months, you can not fuel the hatred and sense of betrayal needed to ignite a big full-out nullsec war.

Eve players expect casual newbies to stab them in the back within the first year of meeting them. Anything remotely approaching trust that is worthy of the word betrayal takes literally years (read "more than 2").
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#307 - 2012-03-01 01:56:35 UTC
Pallidum Treponema wrote:
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?


Illustrating what I'm talking about: http://i.imgur.com/1TMtE.jpg
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#308 - 2012-03-01 01:59:52 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:

Yes, keep these (actually, no)
Scourge - poison dmg?
Bloodclaw - blood? red? explosion or thermal dmg?
Cataclysm - wth?
Wrath - anger dmg?
Bane - death dmg?
Thunderbolt - lightning dmg?
Widowmaker - instgib dmg?

Yes, lets keep these, because they are supereasy to understand and remember.......


If you go back to the original thread, the suggestion from the players was along the lines of:

Scourge Heavy Missile -> Kinetic 'Scourge' Heavy Missile
Bloodclaw Light Missile -> Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile
Paradise Cruise Missile -> EM 'Paradise' Cruise Missile

Which would have made both sides happy. It would have been more obvious that "Scourge" missiles do Kinetic damage, but you'd still be able to search for "Scourge" and get a very short list. You'd still be able to tell someone "bring me 5k units of Scourge" and not have to worry that they'd bring back the wrong ammo type (vs. having to say "bring me 5k units of Trauma Heavy Missiles").
SghnDubh
BattleClinic
#309 - 2012-03-01 02:01:31 UTC
Not sure if anyone's going to read this post, 16+ pages in, but...

Renaming modules seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#310 - 2012-03-01 02:04:35 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
Noes, eventually RRT's will become 1600mm Prototype armour plates. :(

To be honest, the areas where these improvements will be most advantageous will be the armour hardeners and reflective plating; I can never remember whether the voltaic is better than the nanite.


A middle ground might be:

Meta 0 - plain old name
Meta 1 - plain old name + upgraded
Meta 2 - plain old name + improved
Meta 3 - the existing fancy names
Meta 4 - the existing fancy and unique and memorable names

Meta 0: Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I
Meta 1: Upgraded Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I
Meta 2: Improved Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I
Meta 3: Radioisotope Adaptive Nano Membrane I
Meta 4: N-Type Adaptive Nano Membrane I

For the younger players, this means that if they see "Upgraded" or "Improved" (or some other standard attribute) that they can just remember "oh, that's meta 1 or 2, slightly better then the base unit". The more flavorful names stick around for the version that matter (which are the Meta 3/4).
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#311 - 2012-03-01 02:05:08 UTC
I applaud this continued effort to have fitting names make more sense, especially the 'heavy assault/assault launcher' clusfterf*** that has been driving people crazy ever since they were introduced.

And anyone that hates these changes is simply bitter and annoyed that because they were forced to learn the ridiculous old naming system, other new players should have to suffer as well. These changes will help newer players get a grasp of the game with greater ease, and that's a good thing for EvE in general.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#312 - 2012-03-01 02:05:54 UTC
Some changes are good

Some changes are bad

Your changes are stupid

You're causing more confusion than you attempt to prevent
Szilardis
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#313 - 2012-03-01 02:09:01 UTC
Pallidum Treponema wrote:

Illustrating what I'm talking about: http://i.imgur.com/1TMtE.jpg


This is awesome!
Silence 133
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#314 - 2012-03-01 02:09:43 UTC
Thank you for this, I never quite got the hang of all those afterburner names and what size they were.
Ajita al Tchar
Doomheim
#315 - 2012-03-01 02:18:40 UTC
JamesCLK wrote:
Welp, I feel a bit bad for quoting myself on a similar topic for the third time; but seeing as CCP is actually reading the thread, I figure I should probably also paste my suggestion in the official blogthread.

JamesCLK wrote:
This is why we need search tags.

That way modules can be named whatever [the frack] CCP wants and we'll still find all launchers when we search for 'launcher'.


To clarify, tags would be an array of words (strings/chars) that is separate from the name and which are defined by relevancy.
Eg. the tag 'Propulsion' would be anything under the propulsion module tree; hardener is all shield and armor hardeners; explosive is anything that either deals or protects from explosive, etc...

By searching for multiple tags, you can narrow down the search.
Eg:
'armour hardener explosive meta3' would return just the meta 3 explosive armour hardener.
'armour hardener meta3' would return all meta 3 armour hardeners.
The order of the tags and capitilization in the search wouldn't matter.
Also allows you to define search queries based on terms such as meta, tech, gun size (eg. Large/Medium/Small) or weapon type (hybrid, projectile, laser, launcher).


Thoughts?


I also had a similar idea. TBH I think it's a little... weak that the current search mechanic relies entirely on the string of the name and doesn't have anything like what's outlined below. Obviously, a very very basic regexp (the kind that just matches on alphanumeric chars, whitespaces, and a few other characters; no *, + etc, although something better now exists for asset searches...) is a lot easier to implement, but come on. Tech progresses, conventions and expectations change, it's time to step it up and implement a more elegant solution that provides the user with much more powerful tools. Update the names (but don't smash their originality, RP value, etc). Update the way we search for stuff. Fix the damn Neocom. Well, I'll stop there, but yeah, this would go a long way toward providing a way nicer experience for all users, new and old.
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#316 - 2012-03-01 02:18:48 UTC
Szilardis wrote:
Pallidum Treponema wrote:

Illustrating what I'm talking about: http://i.imgur.com/1TMtE.jpg


This is awesome!


Thanks. All that's needed besides this is an option to sort by meta-level, and the ability to use the search box for item type.

If I type in "Afterburner", I want all afterburners, regardless of name.
Roh Voleto
Doomheim
#317 - 2012-03-01 02:19:16 UTC
Wouldn't "Light Missile Battery" or "Light Missile Cluster" be more appropriate than "Light Missile Array"?
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#318 - 2012-03-01 02:52:20 UTC
I think we're confusing "Streamlining" (removing excess bits to make things work more smoothly) and "Homogenising" (removing excess bits so everything looks the same). I don't see the streamlining here; just making things more bland.

Do you know how I solve the "meta level" issue? I use Pyfa. How does that help? Because Pyfa sorts the modules according to meta level! Roll Do this - in show info variations, market, and "compare" - and add a little "1" to "4" icon on the corner of each meta-level module (like the existing "II", "III", and faction icons) and most of the problems go away, without sacrificing any flavour.

Instead, we add four generic adjectives that still don't sort right and aren't hierarchical in any meaningful manner.

(Caveat: people say "prototype" is the same as "experimental". That's only partly true. "Prototype" means "first of the type". The "prototype" of something new is potentially wow and better than what already exists. The "prototype" of something existing is old and has been superseded.)


If we must flatten the names, my suggestion was "Beta", "Enhanced", "Improved", "Upgraded" (or "Ultimate"). Like other similar suggestions, it sorts correctly by alphabet. They're still arbitrary, but at least there's an order.


In among all this, we're missing some key issues with missile launchers. There's this standardised nomenclature where Light / Medium / Heavy maps to Frigate / Cruiser / BS. Except where it doesn't. Missiles are one example: we have light / standard -> heavy -> cruise & siege / torpedo. And there are also the "Medium" and "Heavy" lasers. If we're going to standardise launchers, perhaps we could move missiles onto the standard size keywords?


(Yeah, I know that most of this has been said before, but consider this a "dislike" vote, if you will. Or a vote for "real problem, really misguided solution")

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#319 - 2012-03-01 03:14:08 UTC
"Beta", "Enhanced", "Improved", "Upgraded" (or "Ultimate"). Is better then the meta sorting that we have now.Lol

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#320 - 2012-03-01 03:24:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Debir Achen wrote:
I think we're confusing "Streamlining" (removing excess bits to make things work more smoothly) and "Homogenising" (removing excess bits so everything looks the same). I don't see the streamlining here; just making things more bland.

Do you know how I solve the "meta level" issue? I use Pyfa. How does that help? Because Pyfa sorts the modules according to meta level! Roll Do this - in show info variations, market, and "compare" - and add a little "1" to "4" icon on the corner of each meta-level module (like the existing "II", "III", and faction icons) and most of the problems go away, without sacrificing any flavour.

Instead, we add four generic adjectives that still don't sort right and aren't hierarchical in any meaningful manner.

(Caveat: people say "prototype" is the same as "experimental". That's only partly true. "Prototype" means "first of the type". The "prototype" of something new is potentially wow and better than what already exists. The "prototype" of something existing is old and has been superseded.)


If we must flatten the names, my suggestion was "Beta", "Enhanced", "Improved", "Upgraded" (or "Ultimate"). Like other similar suggestions, it sorts correctly by alphabet. They're still arbitrary, but at least there's an order.


In among all this, we're missing some key issues with missile launchers. There's this standardised nomenclature where Light / Medium / Heavy maps to Frigate / Cruiser / BS. Except where it doesn't. Missiles are one example: we have light / standard -> heavy -> cruise & siege / torpedo. And there are also the "Medium" and "Heavy" lasers. If we're going to standardise launchers, perhaps we could move missiles onto the standard size keywords?


(Yeah, I know that most of this has been said before, but consider this a "dislike" vote, if you will. Or a vote for "real problem, really misguided solution")

Not sure, upgraded sounds to weak to be the top dog. Like the idea of meta names being in alphabetical order. Prototype > Upgraded IMHO. Ultimate is a bit too much.

Either way the complete removal of flavor from the names seems cosmetically and immersively wrong.

Another personal opinion:
"Medium" as a size term also feels weak as a descriptive term. Blasters, Lasers and missiles at the cruiser level all designate Heavy as a cruiser class mod, and the rest are named by caliber without any size description. Not sure how to reconcile it to the rest of the mods though.