Unit Nomenclature

and yet I know and remember that the brawler is a dual-EMG equipped Gunship.

As I said, names need not be transparent for them to be durable within the human memory.

I don't even need to look these names up... TA unit names flow off my tongue as though I played the game yesterday... and yet it has been almost a decade since I have played it.

What someone who has played the game for a long time can remember doesn't matter.

What does matter is a first timer being easily able to distinguish units. And if the distinguishing part of the name is "heavy tank" then that unit is called "heavy tank" and the goliath part will fade out of memory never to be seen again.

Personal opinion vs personal opinion it is then. Can anyone else remember the names Jethro, Samson, the AK, the Vamp, or the Brawler without having played the game for a little while?

no need to reinvent the wheel, RTS unit names should fit the theme of the unit. that's about it, if you want an overarching motif for a faction like alien names for zerg or seraphim that works too.

What motif would you suggest for PA then veta?

Yes of course. Much moreso with TA's unit names than Supcom's for some reason. There are certain iconic Supcom names that get referred to by their unit name (e.g. Mantis, Mongoose, etc.), but great swathes that get referred to by their unit class in common usage (e.g. all naval units).

Not sure how you make every unit iconic enough that Stumpy and Bulldog are how people talk about the units, instead of T1 tank and T2 tank? But it is desirable I think.

Incidentally I just realised that I don't remember the name of the CORE heavy tank. Goliath was the super-heavy tank, but evidently the heavy one wasn't memorable enough...

It's the Reaper unless I'm mistaken... though I could very well be. I was an ARM Player through and through so CORE names don't spring to mind as quickly...

Wait, I think I've figured out what makes a good name! I looked up the CORE heavy tank, and it is indeed called Reaper and it looks awesome. But 'Reaper' is not a suitable name for a heavy tank, whereas 'Bulldog' is.

IMO the Bulldog is less visually appealing than the Reaper, but Reaper implies something fast, precise and deadly, so stick it on a heavy tank and the association just doesn't form.

So looking awesome is not enough on its own, the name also needs to be reminiscent of some attribute of the unit, although it can be a pretty lateral association, like Stumpy or Peewee or Loyalist.

Pretty much the only remembered-by-name sea unit in SupCom is the Salem, the Cybran T2 destroyer that can sprout legs. So uniqueness is a big factor, and you see this throughout SupCom: if a unit is appreciably different from its counterpart on the other factions, it will tend to be called by its proper name. Of course PA won't have separate unit pools, so the key will be to making units that fit unique roles, and then giving them names that reflect some nebulous aspect of their "personality".

A tough job indeed, but it's been done before pretty successfully so I believe Uber will do a good job this time too.

The Alpha and Beta Testers may well be able to influence nomenclature on a unit-by-unit basis. (crosses fingers and hopes)

Tying associative names to normal units and more esoteric names to more interesting or unique units does seem to be the way to go if you're aiming for remembering a unit not only for what it does and what it's for, but for the name itself to stick in your mind too.

Lol, apparently I started something.

I think it makes more sense to have one standard name as opposed to customizable names, as cool as it would be.

And it definitely doesn't take a relevant theme to the unit name to make it memorable. I associate the name "Monkeylord" with epic awesomesauce, Megalith with COM sniping, CZAR with an envious disgust, and Galactic Colossus with fear and the feeling that I'm about to lose. I'm a Cybran, in case you can't tell

Considering that the devs are the people who have actually named these units, I'm pretty darn excited to see what they'll come up with.

What if Uber came up with a default name for each unit, but allowed you to rename your units? To fix the problem of your T1 Light Bot being called something different than some other player's T1 Light Bot, what if you could pick an option that only shows the default names of enemy units to you (or even display your custom names)?

For example, on your screen you have a T1 Light Bot that is by default named Peewee. You can see an enemy's T1 Light Bot, also called a Peewee. You rename your bot to Piethrower, and the enemy renames their unit to Dildo. Now on your screen you see your Piethrower and an enemy Dildo. You go into settings and check "Keep default unit names on enemies". Now you see your Piethrower and their Peewee. Back in settings, you check "Keep your names on all units". Now you see your Piethrower and their Piethrower.

Also, players should only be able to edit unit names before games, so that a group of Zeus' don't suddenly become Peewees. Titles should be handled like in SupCom, where their title is always displayed on-screen and everything about that unit displayed in the unit info box.

Something like this:

"God Destroyer"
EnemyPlayer's Dildo
(T1 Light Bot)

I approve.

My thoughts exactly, there is a lot of room for both confusion and exploitation in such a system where each player can create names for each unit.

That's because you couldn't actually REname units, all it did was add the player's chosen name below the Health bar.

Mike

Then there's no problem, right?

Whether or not something is optional is not a point for an idea(if anything it's a mark against it), otherwise we might as well get every idea implemented and make it all optional. It's not a Magical bullet that makes everything okay.

Mike

I'd actually agree with that sentiment. Within reason (that is, 'replace aircraft with flying unicorns' should probably not be an option in this game).

The only constraining factor is time and money. Time, we have enough of. Money, well, it could be patched in at a later day, I guess?

Do we have enough time? Time is a valuable resource, we might have a lot of time on the basis that the game will be updated and worked on post launch, but is the time investment better than other things that could be done? IS giving up an update's worth of new units worth the ability to rename your units when considering the possibility(or rather the likelihood) to be exploited or create confusion for players that might not know any better?

I don't think it's worth it in anyway when you considering all aspects of it, optional or not.

Mike

Not when you put it that way, no, but it's a false dichotomy. But a custom name option existed in Supreme Commander 1. Making an option that would display this custom name to everyone, instead of the original name, would be little to no work, in my eyes. I could easily be wrong though.

Options cost time and money. People really need to stop using that as a crutch to support unpopular or divisive gameplay ideas.

"Make it an Option" is not a magical cure-all for every conflict of interests. Options cost more time and more money for Uber, both of which I believe, they hold at a premium.

But as I said before, that is different than what is being talked about here. The SupCom system is more akin to adding a nickname to a given unit not changing what the unit is called in the game.

Mike