These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Suboran
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#541 - 2012-03-06 21:51:24 UTC
The onlything that needs or needed changin namewise was implants, and only to reflect something on what the implant actually does

Did one of your guys even type in trauma into the market? Its a trauma for the eyes and brain.
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#542 - 2012-03-06 21:53:29 UTC
The Economist wrote:
Shin Dari wrote:


The Assault Missile Launcher dilemma is quite annoying, in fact one can say that its existence isn't even consistent, its the odd man out of all the launchers. If possible I would recommend to have it replaced by a skill book, something like Advanced Rapid Launch, Light Missile Rapid Launch or Light Rapid Launch.


@The Economist
How can you take longer to see which missiles you need from a hangar?! In my experience it is going a lot faster.


They all have the same names.

Another example being speed module names; previously it was easy to see how many mwd's/ab's i had in a hangar and at what meta level. Now I glance at a hangar and all I see is "Experimental 100mn" "Experimental 100mn" "Prototype 10mn" "Prototype 10mn". With the old naming system I would see "quad lif" "lif" "y-t" "y-s8" etc as the start of the names allowing me to instantly tell which were ab's and mwd's, now I can't. That's aside from the fact that the new names don't make sense to me....is prototype better than experiemental? I don't know. Of course, I can see as soon as I look at the show info window (which was always the case anyway) but the idea is that the naming simplification makes things easier and more intuitive, so far, in my experience, it's the opposite.
Strange, I had the opposite experience. The old names were so technobabble for me that I had trouble finding the stuff fast. And with the new names I see it immediately, the same thing was true with ammo.


Quote:
Also another point I don't think I went over sufficiently; the current naming system encourages people to actually read module infos, do their own comparison and generally put themselves in positions to actually learn more about the game and thereby deepen their experience. Over-simplification encourages mental auto-pilot, compexity encourages immersion and education.
Well I do like immersion, but I would encourage it in a different way. To give each module a small part of its old name and to have a small description story at the module info.
Lathaniel
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#543 - 2012-03-06 22:14:32 UTC
if you change the target painters im gonna be ├╝ber sad and im gonna have to camp at ccp hq with signs and be emo and stuff
Kamuria
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#544 - 2012-03-06 22:20:53 UTC
welcomed changes, however only 2 minor detail bother me.

Ligh missile arrays, I just don't like the word array, maybe it's because i'm a programmer and when I see this word it reminds me of ancient programming.

The % on the implants won't reveal the cost of the item, I'd prefer a value that refers to the costs or required skill.

You can get an item with 5% gain that is cheap and costs 100k and another type of implant with 5% that costs 150millions... so the % doesn't tell me anything on the value of the item at first glance and without the market value, the % is meaningless. Sure you can see it's 5% gain, but if you look on the market and find out there's an implant with 15% gain, you won't be interested to read 5% on this unknown item... you want to read a value that tells you the potential value of the item...
Ibeau Renoir
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#545 - 2012-03-06 22:56:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ibeau Renoir
Thread is tl;dr, so here are my comments...

tl;dr version of the following

  1. Generally approved
  2. Disappointed that turrets are missing
  3. The chosen meta-words are bad
  4. "Flavour acronyms" for implants are gratuitously less flavourful than the old ones
  5. "Ward field" sounds strange
  6. New name for assault missile launchers should include the word "launcher"


First, I approve of the project on an abstract level. Just the different types of guns are confusing to me, specifically lasers. How can a focused medium beam laser be afocal? Why does the meta 4 heavy pulse laser have the word "beam" in its name when it's not a beam laser? I'm glad to see it'll now be a Prototype Heavy Pulse Laser instead.

Oh wait, turrets aren't in your list of changes. Oh well.

However, as others have noted, the choice of meta-words is rather odd and the name for each level doesn't give the impression of being better than the last. Forgivable from a team made up mostly of non-native English speakers perhaps, but it needs addressing.

Here's my random suggestion:

  1. Upgraded (Better than standard, but well understood and stable)
  2. Improved (Going a bit beyond the ordinary)
  3. Advanced (Typically the best you can find)
  4. Experimental (Really pushing the boundaries of what's possible without morphite)

Drop "limited". It makes things sounds worse than the standard.

"Skill" hardwiring implants definitely need this change. I have some quibbles though (and they are quibbles, not major objections). The letters are changing to be rather less flavourful. Here's what I have plugged into my head at the moment:

  • Hardwiring - Inherent Implants 'Squire' PG4
  • Hardwiring - Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' AY-1

Now although they are called "skill hardwiring" implants, they really have nothing to do with skills. For example there is an implant to increase warp speed, and one to decrease signature radius, but no skills to do those things. What you can say is that where there is some skill that improves the same thing as the implant, that skill is in the name. So the implants above become Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering PG-603 and Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Evasive Maneuvering AY-703. Which make sense.

Except, wait! You didn't call them PG-603 and AY-703, you called them EG-603 and EM-703. Why did you do that? It's not a "flavour acronym", which would imply something interesting but ultimately meaningless, it's just redundant functionality. Why did Eifyr and Co. use "AY" instead of "MP"? Who knows? That's what they chose to call it. They also have an implant series called "AX" so maybe there's some sort of internal naming scheme in play. On the other hand CCP called it "MP" and we know why: because it's logical, i.e. it stands for "Motion Prediction". But you already added "Motion Prediction" to the name so why add an abbreviation too?

Shield hardeners and resistance amplifiers. "Ward field" and "ward amplifier" sound weird. "Ward" seems to refer to the module itself whereas other types have a nouned verb or gerund referring to what the field does - a deflection field deflects, a dampening amplifier dampens, a ward field... wards? But wouldn't it be a warding field then? I suggest "scattering field" instead, in line with the current T1 and T2 versions instead of various meta-versions.

Missile launchers. As others have noted, "light missile array" is a travesty. It's a launcher, so it should have the word "launcher" in its name. Why not "Light Missile Launcher Array" or more menacingly, "Light Missile Launcher Battery"? Or go one better and call it a "Gatling Light Missile Launcher". Make its model (when launchers finally get models) look like several light missile launchers strapped together. Other changes I approve of. I do however echo the general sentiment that "Trauma" is a poor choice of type-word for kinetic missiles. "Scourge" would have been better, calling to mind a nasty whip that wounds because its tip travels at supersonic speeds. "Trauma" is abstract and generic and doesn't really call kinetic damage to mind.

Scripts. I approve. "Tracking Speed" sounds like a tracking computer, not a tracking computer script.

Ceci n'est pas un sig.

The Economist
Logically Consistent
#546 - 2012-03-06 23:57:06 UTC
If it hasn't already been considered as an option for meta name changes...

What about just adding a tag to meta level modules?

I'm picturing a t2 style corner tag on the icons in a different colour with m1-4 on it.

Quick, visual, keeps all the flavour of the old names we've come to know and love and easier to implement (I'm guessing, could be completely wrong on this).

Main thing that springs to mind that this wouldn't do however, is allow for quicker market searching in the same way that the proposed name changes would.
Luvvin McHunt
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#547 - 2012-03-07 00:50:41 UTC
Steijn wrote:
Anja Talis wrote:
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of veterans suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced


veterans who CCP know they have a bit of leeway with in been able to p*** them off as they are already 'caught' by the Eve bug.

To me, things like this are just something that the person who thought them up is doing, in order to jusify having a job.



There is a point where they can even upset the vets to the point of quitting.

If the Drake is ever nerfed - They will lose 4 paying accounts I know of.
Some people dedicate all skill training time to fly a certain ship. So when a nerf comes they have wasted 2-3 months, $40-45 of subscription time - possibly much more.
When game time and therefore skill training costs money - you can't mess with peoples stuff.
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#548 - 2012-03-07 02:23:17 UTC
so 1st you have to invent new names for missiles, but then you name hardeners by damage type.

Why not name missiles too by damage type?

You want to make thing simpler but still you have to make complex missile names Roll
tasman devil
Puritans
We want your ISK
#549 - 2012-03-07 09:50:50 UTC
I approve this! ;- )

I don't belive in reincarnation I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...

CCP Gnauton
C C P
C C P Alliance
#550 - 2012-03-07 14:16:07 UTC
Alright guys, short update:

Missile Launchers:

For starters, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion regarding the capabilities of assault launchers vs. heavy assault launchers. To be clear, the modules formerly known as Assault Launchers (now called Rapid Light Missile Launchers) are not capable of firing Assault Missiles. Instead, they fire Light Missiles at an accelerated rate of fire (something which the new name hopefully reflects.) The Heavy Assault Missile Launchers are the only module group in the game capable of firing assault missiles. Similarly, there are not two classes of Assault Missile in the game; there is only one, which confusingly enough has been referred to interchangeably as either Assault Missiles or Heavy Assault Missiles.

We've come to the conclusion that just the renaming of Assault Launchers to Rapid Light Missile Launchers is sufficient to remove this confusion. There is now no suggestion that the Rapid Launcher fires Assault Missiles. Therefore, since there is now only one Assault Launcher in the game, it's probably best to allow it to retain its earlier name to avoid the confusion that would otherwise ensue. Therefore, according to the new scheme, Assault Launchers are now Rapid Light Missile Launchers, and Heavy Assault Launchers will retain their name.

Missiles:

67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints.

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.

For the tl;dr latecomer crowd that perhaps didn't see my earlier reply, please find it here.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#551 - 2012-03-07 14:45:28 UTC
Awsome! Keep up the good work!

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

Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#552 - 2012-03-07 15:58:53 UTC
For the Meta scheme, I would hope you would keep as much as the flavor as now, and just make what the module does part consistent, then add a designator to show meta and tech and maybe primary bonus.

So for example, currently we have:

Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Then it would change it to:

Fleeting Propulsion Webifier 1W460

This would have all webs called Webifier or whatever name that sounds best to call all webs, The I is for tech one, the W is for webs, the 4 is for meta 4, and the 60 is for the main defining ability or bonus of the module, in this case a 60% reduction is velocity.

Once familiar with this scheme it would be easy to search for Webifier IW4 and get this item even if you didn't remember the bonus amount or the flavor name.

The W for the in the designator should match the first letter of the basic module name this case Webifier.

So broken down.

"Flavor Name" "Module Group Name/Type" "Tech # or Roman # for Tech" "1st Letter of Module Group Name/Type" "Meta level #" "Number for primary effect of the module"

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#553 - 2012-03-07 16:03:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
Kethry Avenger wrote:
For the Meta scheme, I would hope you would keep as much as the flavor as now, and just make what the module does part consistent, then add a designator to show meta and tech and maybe primary bonus.

So for example, currently we have:

Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Then it would change it to:

Fleeting Propulsion Webifier 1W460

This would have all webs called Webifier or whatever name that sounds best to call all webs, The I is for tech one, the W is for webs, the 4 is for meta 4, and the 60 is for the main defining ability or bonus of the module, in this case a 60% reduction is velocity.

Once familiar with this scheme it would be easy to search for Webifier IW4 and get this item even if you didn't remember the bonus amount or the flavor name.

The W for the in the designator should match the first letter of the basic module name this case Webifier.

So broken down.

"Flavor Name" "Module Group Name/Type" "Tech # or Roman # for Tech" "1st Letter of Module Group Name/Type" "Meta level #" "Number for primary effect of the module"




Not a viable option not everyone uses performance as a meta indicator and multiple modules train up and down along DOZENS of attributes.

Also it removes possible future alternative tech 1 modules who's goals are entirely different in meta progression.

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

Heathkit
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#554 - 2012-03-07 16:56:47 UTC
You could retain flavor by varying the labels you use for meta level. Instead of one set of labels for everything, there could be a set of consistent meta level indicators inspired by each faction. So missile related stuff, which is associated with caldari, get's caldari-ish labels for meta level (ie, letters and numbers), while laser stuff is religous themed, projectile is violence/freedom themed, etc.
Axl Borlara
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#555 - 2012-03-07 17:09:11 UTC
CCP Gnauton wrote:

Assault Launchers (now called Rapid Light Missile Launchers)
67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints.


Those two changes, along with the implant changes, are great and go a long way to dealing with real and perceived problems.
That just leaves the Meta scheme and maybe renaming some of the more oddly named modules.

Well done so far!
The Economist
Logically Consistent
#556 - 2012-03-08 00:25:59 UTC
CCP Gnauton wrote:
Alright guys, short update:

Missile Launchers:

Therefore, according to the new scheme, Assault Launchers are now Rapid Light Missile Launchers, and Heavy Assault Launchers will retain their name.


Nice, makes sense.

CCP Gnauton wrote:
Missiles:

67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints.


A pyrrhic victory but still nice.

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.

For the tl;dr latecomer crowd that perhaps didn't see my earlier reply, please find it here.


Whoops missed the earlier reply, thanks.

Granted I'm of the 'no name changes at all' persuasion.......but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of simply adding a corner tag to icons showing meta level; low cost, high impact, fits with the current system of displaying an items quality level (faction, deadspace, t2) and retains all the flavour of the existing names. It solves the problem of changing names by avoiding it completely while providing at least some of the desired results in an instantly intuitive fashion with no adaptation to new terminology necessary.

An alternative idea that keeps cropping up in various forms (among the crowd that think that changing all names to 4 is too much) is to modify the existing names with some sort of alphanumeric add-on to indicate the meta level; however it seems overly cumbersome to me and a bit aesthetically displeasing, with already long names becoming longer and more un-wieldy.

Energy turret meta names always confused the crap out of me though.
Danny Husk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#557 - 2012-03-08 04:09:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Danny Husk
Quote:
Therefore, according to the new scheme, Assault Launchers are now Rapid Light Missile Launchers, and Heavy Assault Launchers will retain their name.

Still think you would get soooo much more mileage out of this plan if you went with HAML -> Heavy ROCKET Launcher and Rocket Launcher -> Light Rocket Launcher. It will make the whole scheme about 100% less confusing for everyone, and I don't think anyone would actually hate it.

Also, one more plug for the problem that "Rapid Light Missile Launcher" is going to lead to literally endless confusion when noobs try to fit four of them on a Kestrel; because it sounds like its just a "better" Light Missile Launcher. You really need something more distinctive for this to reflect that it's a cruiser weapon composed of ganged frigate launchers, like the "Dual 180mm AC" thing that you do with guns. For example:

[Dual | Quad | Blitz] Rapid-Fire Light Missle Battery

Something anyway. Just tacking on the adjective "Rapid" does not suggest at all that this is a whole other bird from Light Missile Launcher.
Danny Husk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#558 - 2012-03-08 04:12:38 UTC
Quote:
67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints.

Missile users of New Eden thank you. Really. You guys are good.
ImagingBreakerLV0
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#559 - 2012-03-08 10:02:41 UTC
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?
Neurotic Cat
Helping Hand Acceptance Corporation
#560 - 2012-03-08 22:26:46 UTC

No name changes!

Changing the names to "simplify" things is just another instance of dumbing down this game. Please stop.