These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Caladan Rake
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#581 - 2012-03-16 00:27:51 UTC
The fact that these changes were just pushed through despite you guys supposedly putting them on review, is really depressing. Why do you not listen to the players? Can you at least explain it?

Would go some ways to putting some faith back into the community.


Not that I expect to hear anything though. This is an ignored thread now.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#582 - 2012-03-16 00:34:08 UTC
Caladan Rake wrote:
The fact that these changes were just pushed through despite you guys supposedly putting them on review, is really depressing. Why do you not listen to the players? Can you at least explain it?

Would go some ways to putting some faith back into the community.


Not that I expect to hear anything though. This is an ignored thread now.


The development process going from requirement gathering, to change definition, to coding, testing, and deployment is a distressingly long one. My guess is that this thread changed the requirements when the process was already in the coding or testing stage -- something that either results in the whole thing being scrapped and developer time being wasted, or an inadequate product being delivered.

In this case, they opted to deliver a half-assed solution rather than having no change at all. I'm not sure why, since it just causes more trouble for 3rd party developers, but they did.

At least, as a software developer, that's the rationale I think is behind it.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
#583 - 2012-03-16 03:39:38 UTC
fix my ******* module names now

Nikolai Vodkov
Pro Synergy
#584 - 2012-03-16 17:46:36 UTC
After 7 years of playing this game.. I finally started to get used to and get the hang of most of the crazy item names you guys came up with... AND JUST AS I THOUGHT: "Wow... I can finally understand EVE".... *BAAAAMMMM* New names on everything!
FU!!!!!!!!
But seriously though, I like the general changes although more flavor in certain places would be good. Maybe Meta 1-4 names for each faction. Anyway too late for that so good job :)

Run level 4 missions?  Increase your income and help new players earn ISK.  Join channel: [b]Pro Synergy Pro Synergy[/b] is looking for dedicated Salvagers.  Want to learn more?  Join channel: Pro Synergy

Benteen
Atra Mortis Industries
#585 - 2012-03-16 20:49:03 UTC
Palovana wrote:
All this but you're not fixing the "Trauma"?

You're already changing the hardener names to match damage type so do this:

Trauma Light Missile => Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile
Mjolnir Rocket => EM 'Gremlin' Rocket
etc.


great sugestion but maybe use the words in a slightly different order...

for example "Bloodclaw" Kinetic light missile or "Scourge" Kinetic heavy missile
Jethro Campbell
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#586 - 2012-03-17 03:14:13 UTC
I approve of dumbing down unimportant stuff like item names.

I want to see more newbs stay in the game longer for me to abuse.

Newb tears taste great.

And station traders spreadsheet-warrior tears are also pretty good.
TheWarpGhost
Golan Guns and Butter
#587 - 2012-03-17 12:35:04 UTC
Sign me up as someone who's happy to see some sanity injected into various aspects of the game, naming included. The fact that people are complaining because their ~7 years~ of effort trying to learn the old system pretty much shows how terrible the previous conventions were.
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#588 - 2012-03-17 14:48:59 UTC
The amount of bitching in this thread is unbelievable... Why would people want obscure names for modules and rant when CCP try doing something about it... HTFU you bittervet ******* and move the **** on!
Buzzmong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#589 - 2012-03-18 17:53:47 UTC
So, I just looked through one of my containers at armour modules.

The change to the second part of the name: ie, Reactive plating being changed to Explosive doesn't make any difference, but the first part, the removal of the actual names in favour of this new unified system?

Be damned if I know what plating is better or worse now at a glance. Before I could look at my active hardeners and know that N-Type are the meta 4 straight away, now? Not a sausage.

If anything, I'm now spending MORE time doing Show Info's so I can look up the meta level of the object.

It's like the Icon change all over again, despite the aim of improved usability, they're actually much worse in reality.


Please CCP, as per the icons, revert the name changes or at least, only prefix the items with the new naming convention and keep their previous names inside the string before stating what the type is, ie: "Upgraded 'N-Type' Explosive Hardener", "Limited 'Radioisotope' EM Hardener".
NorthCrossroad
EVE University
Ivy League
#590 - 2012-03-19 13:55:36 UTC
So many tears... so many long tears.

So I'll be short - CCP, you did a very job on the naming! Thanks a lot.
Sephiroth Clone VII
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#591 - 2012-03-19 22:45:30 UTC
Good to have it resolved, haters will be haters.

Next thing you know people will be complaining about POS blocks, compared with calculating 7 different fuels. Or whatever other archaic problem that was changed recently.

Only suggestion I would have is make sure the name is cool. I think scourge is better sounding then trauma.
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#592 - 2012-03-21 08:26:08 UTC
Change of those name has no sense.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
SCRUBS.
#593 - 2012-03-21 12:31:44 UTC
Nikolai Vodkov wrote:
After 7 years of playing this game.. I finally started to get used to and get the hang of most of the crazy item names you guys came up with...


I too, think new players should have to spend 7 f*cking YEARS to learn the names of the modules in EvE.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Lukas Rox
Aideron Technologies
#594 - 2012-03-21 13:02:27 UTC
Palovana wrote:
All this but you're not fixing the "Trauma"?

You're already changing the hardener names to match damage type so do this:

Trauma Light Missile => Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile
Mjolnir Rocket => EM 'Gremlin' Rocket
etc.


I can't find the words to say how simple and ellegant solution this is. Please dear CCP, this is both simple and preserves the flavour of EVE - please consider this as the naming scheme for missiles.

Trauma is only getting us trauma here...

Proud developer of LMeve: Industry Contribution and Mass Production Tracker: https://github.com/roxlukas/lmeve | Blogging about EVE on http://pozniak.pl/wp/

Knalldari Testpilot
#595 - 2012-03-28 09:19:33 UTC
Djakku wrote:
this just makes the game more boring and less- sci fi...

this!
Elder Thorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#596 - 2012-03-28 13:44:01 UTC
stop this bullshit... another rename for missiles today?
Fine, but then i want all kinetics to be named Terror, not Scourge, Scourge sucks... blablabla

I don't like the new names, but ok, i'll deal with it.
But what i hate is, that missiles are getting renamed again... pick one, stay with that, there will always be people who won't like the new name (for example, i don't even like the name Gnauton, so i'd guess most of the names that guy picks won't be in my favour), but srsly, do not rename stuff every few weeks, thats annoying.
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#597 - 2012-04-02 05:32:28 UTC
Belated, but I still think the missile names have the wrong fix.

Grab your raven and head out into a combat situation. Now right click on your launchers and find the missile that does EM damage, which is of course the one with EM in the name, right? No. It's Mjolnir (why Mjolnir? I think it goes from EM -> lightning -> lightning god's hammer). Just think how much easier it would be if the name actually said "EM". We've now gone from two dozen unintuitive mappings to just 4, but why didn't we go from two dozen unintuitive mappings to a unified intuitive mapping plus flavour text?

Next on the re-work should be laser and hybrid ammo. It's all very well to have 9 or so increments all the way from +60% to -50% and similar scaling damage, but I can only remember 3 or 4, so most ammo types go unused. And don't get me started on projectile ammo! Simply inserting the range or damage modifier (and damage type for projectiles) into the name would make a big difference.

If laser and hybrid ammo needs to have a use for the multiple types, adding a tracking modifier to some types would allow differentiation while keeping the single damage type. Eg: a single mid-range ammo could come in a standard variant and a variant that reduces the damage multiplier for more tracking (or vice versa).

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Rimase
#598 - 2012-04-05 20:30:08 UTC
This is good. All good. All is good here.

I still did prefer Trauma Missiles.

Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!

GavinCapacitor
CaeIum Incognitum
#599 - 2012-04-18 06:05:47 UTC
I am all for usability and whatnot (like the session change timer actually showing the time left, rather than just spinning. So fancy!) but I genuinely dislike this.

There was such wonder when I started playing - finding a module that I might use, comparing it, learning all the names. This just sort of ***** all over that. Not to mention the same 4 adjectives are over the *everything*. Not even different adjectives for missile launchers and armor repairers or [the two most dissimilar things you can imagine].

There have been a lot of changes since I started, but honestly nothing that I disliked this much aside from the pay to win / Incarna fiasco.

Don't really know what to say other than for what its worth, I really, really, don't want this.

Wouldn't it be easier to just add a tag at the end of names with the meta level that you could toggle on and off ? Anything to keep the original names. Sad
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#600 - 2012-04-18 10:22:43 UTC
I think the only thing wrong with the original names was an inconsistency in some of the naming conventions that made it hard to see at a glance what meta level they were. Honestly, the only thing I recall ever having trouble with was the implants. The rest of the items I just redundantly clarified with show info even though I knew what they were, with a few exceptions.

For the guy asking about the 'I's in the meta names, that was actually to define them as 'real' meta items as opposed to fake useless ones that don't have 'I's.

I don't know why it is so hard to come up with a reasonable naming scheme for these items now, and myself think it shoulsd be mostly easy. I'm not one that thinks we must stay with the old names though I will miss some of them. They added flavor; something that generic doesn't do.

Meta I - Improved (Slight improvement over original)
Meta II - Experimental (Experimental changes to original or Improved version of original)
Meta III - Prototype (Testing phase for design changes as determined by stable experimental model)
Meta IV - Advanced (Improved production model of Prototype)
Meta V - Tech 2 (Next level of technology arrived at after or during production of the advanced version, but much easier to mass produce and cheaper to build)

That might help sort out Experimental and Prototype, but I didn't really stick with the CCP naming convention as it didn't feel right to me.

I agree with the Rapid Light Missile Launcher too btw. Light Missile Array doesn't do it.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub