open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Renaming Owned Solar Systems.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Lord EPIon
Posted - 2011.05.13 20:52:00 - [1]
 

I propose that when an alliance has sovereignty over a certain 0.0 solar system, that the alliance would be able to rename said solar system. There would need to be a profanity filter or some sort of approval system, and the solar system could revert to having a letter/number designation upon loss of sovereignty (up to the players).

I think that it would add a bit of dimension as opposed to having alphanumeric codes for all the systems. It would really be awesome if you had just achieved your sov 5 somewhere and were able to rename that something cool, having owned it for so long.

This is a thread I have posted in the past, and I would like to hear some more player input. Please and Thanks!!

Goose99
Posted - 2011.05.13 20:55:00 - [2]
 

Name it Jita for extra courier scamming and noob farming.Very Happy

Anthalon Phenoma
Caldari
Empyrean Guard
Seventh Vanguard
Posted - 2011.05.14 03:05:00 - [3]
 

I support this proposal. It would have to be reviewed by some sort of filter or something but it would be nice to see some named 0.0 Sec systems instead of those wierd names that have no real meaning.

Support

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.05.14 03:36:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Anthalon Phenoma
I support this proposal. It would have to be reviewed by some sort of filter or something but it would be nice to see some named 0.0 Sec systems instead of those wierd names that have no real meaning.

Support


The existing names have plenty of meaning to the people who've fought over the systems.

Not supported, it'd only complicate matters.

Cheekyhoe
Posted - 2011.05.14 03:37:00 - [5]
 

So long as it's like stations where the original name is still there?

Seamus Donohue
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.14 04:38:00 - [6]
 

Supported conditionally.

1) The static catalog number should always remain, with the renamed version appended to the end after a semicolon, such as "74-YTJ; Rattingville".
2a) The renamed version must not match the static name of any other solar system (or, at least, not match the static name of any solar system held by NPCs).
2b) The renamed version must have one capital letter at the start of each word, all other letters must be lowercase, only one space in-between words, letters and numerals only, and no leading or trailing spaces. This is to avoid similarity loopholes with 2a, above.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.05.14 14:33:00 - [7]
 

This gets brought up a lot.

The problem is you the have to have some GM sit and babysit people naming systems, or you're going to end up hearing the following on comms:

"Ok, we'll fly through Crusty Vagina, hot drop into My Left Tit, and then kick their asses out of Poopsack"

Leaving the system naming to CCP. Outpost names are bad enough as it is.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2011.05.14 14:54:00 - [8]
 

problem would be the same as allowing full choice in ship colour schemes:

time to p*n*s would be zero.

Comodore John
Gallente
Trixi IFI
Posted - 2011.05.14 15:30:00 - [9]
 


Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.14 18:03:00 - [10]
 

No. Absolutely not. Never going to support this.

Just looking at naming conventions for Alliance built stations and POS, should be enough to prove that this is a dumb idea.

Sephiroth CloneVII
Posted - 2011.05.14 22:00:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: De'Veldrin
This gets brought up a lot.

The problem is you the have to have some GM sit and babysit people naming systems, or you're going to end up hearing the following on comms:

"Ok, we'll fly through Crusty Vagina, hot drop into My Left Tit, and then kick their asses out of Poopsack"

Leaving the system naming to CCP. Outpost names are bad enough as it is.


Sounds awesome I am supporting it. Jump into poopsock system

Lord EPIon
Posted - 2011.06.22 11:49:00 - [12]
 

I guess it would require a bit of GM babysitting... But when you consider that only long-sov holders would have this capability, said GM wouldn't have to worry about having more than 1 or 2 names come across his desk a day, or the occasional 20 from "we took all of IT space in a week".

Also, Supporting myself :D

vikari
Serenity Engineering and Transport Company
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.06.22 12:42:00 - [13]
 

doubt anyone that has serious knowledge of 0.0 would support such a change. FC's for example rely on names not changing. It reduce the tactical effectiveness of pilots, and to be honest that isn't something we need less of, it's something we need more of.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only