[Request] Don't add original ship name to custom name in loadout

[jlehtone]

I'm not suggesting messing with names, the current system is fine with one exception.

"Fine" but could be better, and yes you are. You cannot add "an option" without adding or changing some code. There is a possibility for a mess every time the code is touched.

One could start looking at current code X, decide how a new feature A should be added, add it, test, and close the case. Later, start looking at same code X again, decide how a new feature B should be added, add it, test, and close the case. Alternatively, one could looking at current code X, decide how new features A and B should be added, add them, test, and close the case. In the former approach the "start looking at" is repeated and design likely becomes less cohesive even when A and B are unrelated.

Not to mention wars over whether first ship is 0 or 1 ...

No, first ship must be 00, or was it 000, ... ?

Indicating that (number of digits, width of field) should be relatively trivial for the user to do in the placeholder syntax. E.g. '%03d'.

[CBJ]

If names are going to be messed with, if I order a batch of 100 fighters, would I like to have them uniquely (consecutively) numbered?

Just one more option.

[jlehtone]

Indeed.

[user1679]

If names are going to be messed with, if I order a batch of 100 fighters, would I like to have them uniquely (consecutively) numbered?

Just one more option.

Respectfully, "everyone can't be happy" isn't really justification for not entertaining any changes at all. You developers make plenty of changes with each update, regardless of how many players may or may not like them.

[Nanook]

If names are going to be messed with, if I order a batch of 100 fighters, would I like to have them uniquely (consecutively) numbered?

Just one more option.

Respectfully, "everyone can't be happy" isn't really justification for not entertaining any changes at all. You developers make plenty of changes with each update, regardless of how many players may or may not like them.

Take a look at the first page of the forum and note all the 'Feature Requests', 'Suggestions', and 'QOL's'. If Egosoft tried to implement all of those ideas, including yours, where do you think they'd find the time? Is yours more important than the others? How should Egosoft decide which ones, if any, are feasible and won't cause more bugs and other problems down the line? Respectfully, don't accuse them of "not entertaining any changes at all" just because you can't have your pet feature. It's disrespectful.

Note: I am not an Egosoft employee.

[user1679]

Just one more option.

Respectfully, "everyone can't be happy" isn't really justification for not entertaining any changes at all. You developers make plenty of changes with each update, regardless of how many players may or may not like them.

Take a look at the first page of the forum and note all the 'Feature Requests', 'Suggestions', and 'QOL's'. If Egosoft tried to implement all of those ideas, including yours, where do you think they'd find the time? Is yours more important than the others? How should Egosoft decide which ones, if any, are feasible and won't cause more bugs and other problems down the line? Respectfully, don't accuse them of "not entertaining any changes at all" just because you can't have your pet feature. It's disrespectful.

Note: I am not an Egosoft employee.

The only thing disrespectful is your tone. This isn't about my "pet feature" but about the way the developer responded to my request. A simple "interesting, but we have other pressing matters" would have been better than quoting thier own post about "too many requests". A simple forum request by a player shouldn't result in personal attacks from moderators. I have been cordial to everyone in this thread. Since the discussion has now been derailed and I can't lock the thread, I will simply unsubscribe.

[CBJ]

Please go back and look at the context of the link I posted. It was a response to another player looking to expand your suggestion to a different area, showing that my prediction that one request would lead to another had proven to be accurate. It was not a response to your original proposal at all. Not only that, but you had already had a response from another developer indicating that we had discussed your idea and come up with some ideas for improvements in that area.

How you managed to turn that into the developers not entertaining any changes at all, and then starting an argument with a moderator trying to point this out to you, I really don't know.

[Imperial Good]

It is very important that the existing behaviour is retained in some form. For people playing RTS style with their ships it is important that they be able to identify what ship type the ship represents. So if I choose an Asp loadout for "Interceptor" I want it named something like "Asp (Interceptor)" since I want to know that those ships are Asp ships and are interceptors unlike the "Asp (Bombers)" which are Asps that are bombers or "Moreya (Interceptor)" which is a Moreya Interceptor. Sure I could add the name of the ship to every loadout, but this is just increasing the amount of work I need to do and degenerates the loadout pulldown to show a lot of redundancy.

Hopefully we get functionality that allows customisation of the auto naming templates as this would allow the best of both worlds. If you want to name a ton of ships the same confusing name, just blank out all the macro substitutions. Maybe you want each ship to have a human-friendly unique name, in which case additional macro substitutions could be added to support that, possibly choosing for a list of thousands of randomly generated lore appropriate ship names. There could even be a way to regenerate the names of lost ships, such as if the naming is associated with a fleet and possibly a way to keep track of how many times a ship has been rebuilt.