Homeworld 2 Complex

General - [Bug] Grammar,typos etc

DJ Die - Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:43 pm
Post subject: [Bug] Grammar,typos etc
If you find any texts that could be changed or fixed post them here
DJ Die - Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:48 pm
Post subject:
description of all sentinels: instead of "to fire requires a lot of energy" should be "requires a lot of energy to fire"

Miner missile description: instead of "automatically engages cleavable asteroids or debrises within a short radious" should be "automatically engages cleavable asteroids or debris (or pieces of debris) withing a short radius"
DaFranker - Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:01 pm
Post subject:
DJ Die wrote:
description of all sentinels: instead of "to fire requires a lot of energy" should be "requires a lot of energy to fire"


Still not quite good enough, I think. The energy is gone after they fire, right? Unless I missed something... but if it does, then something along the lines of "weapons consume large amounts of energy" would be more accurate and less prone to misinterpretation.
Beghins - Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:07 pm
Post subject:
OK, this thread is good! Take a look at the info button too.
DJ Die - Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:10 pm
Post subject:
well the thing is english is not my native language so i might be mistaken so feel free to correct me after all youre from canada and you should know much more about it than me Wink
now the problem we dont know is if it needs constant inflow of energy or just sudden burst of energy to fire....im just learning what the power does for example now its slowing down my production because i didnt build energy ship fast enough...

EDIT: dont worry beghins i used to test czech translations for games and i have some experience with finding mistakes and if someone whos native english speaker helps me we should correct most mistakes....amounts of text in your mod is huge so it may take some time tough Smile
DJ Die - Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:21 pm
Post subject:
Defense field frigate description: is "can protect nearby ships from most attack" should be "can protect nearby ships against most(or majority) of attacks"
DaFranker - Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:30 pm
Post subject:
DJ Die wrote:
Defense field frigate description: is "can protect nearby ships from most attack" should be "can protect nearby ships against most(or majority) of attacks"


In this context, "against most of attacks" or "against the majority of attacks" wouldn't quite be correct. "against most attacks" is a passable alternative, but in technical terms if you want to go into semantics an "attack" does not have to be from a giant space laser. An attack can be psychological: the enemy brings a few huge ships just to scare you off with the goal of creating a diversion or putting pressure on the player, for example.

As such, a more accurate way to describe the frigate's ability would be "can protect nearby ships against most enemy weapons".

@DJ Die: Being Canadian doesn't have much to do with it considering I live in Québec, where practically only French is used, and I learned English pretty much on my own. However, I did study English grammar, syntax and semantics a lot more than the average learner, since professional translation is a field of work I'm considering in the future. Despite that, I'm still quite prone to making a few mistakes myself, so if you think I'm wrong somewhere, don't hold back either.
DJ Die - Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:35 pm
Post subject:
yeah but this frigate not only protects against enemy attacks but also against radiation
so maybe: "can protect nearby ships against most enemy weapons and against radiation(when upgraded"

yeah i know Canada is bilingual country but youre still much more in contact with english than me Wink
DJ Die - Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:36 pm
Post subject:
also descriptions of Pulsar and Ion platforms are missing s at the end of word turret because they both have 2 turretS
DaFranker - Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:52 pm
Post subject:
DJ Die wrote:
yeah but this frigate not only protects against enemy attacks but also against radiation
so maybe: "can protect nearby ships against most enemy weapons and against radiation(when upgraded"


Hmm, then how about "can protect nearby ships against most enemy weapons and can be upgraded to also shield them from harmful radiation"?
DJ Die - Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:54 pm
Post subject:
great problem solved Wink as long as beghins agrees that is Cool
DJ Die - Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:28 pm
Post subject:
this could be changed
DJ Die - Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:27 pm
Post subject:
Research station description: "Capital class technology developer" sounds like it can only research techs for capital ships what about "Capital class science vessel"?
Gagrit - Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:46 pm
Post subject:
DaFranker wrote:
DJ Die wrote:
yeah but this frigate not only protects against enemy attacks but also against radiation
so maybe: "can protect nearby ships against most enemy weapons and against radiation(when upgraded"


Hmm, then how about "can protect nearby ships against most enemy weapons and can be upgraded to also shield them from harmful radiation"?


actually you could shorten it down to can protect nearby ships against damage.
DaFranker - Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:15 am
Post subject:
Gagrit wrote:
DaFranker wrote:
DJ Die wrote:
yeah but this frigate not only protects against enemy attacks but also against radiation
so maybe: "can protect nearby ships against most enemy weapons and against radiation(when upgraded"


Hmm, then how about "can protect nearby ships against most enemy weapons and can be upgraded to also shield them from harmful radiation"?


actually you could shorten it down to can protect nearby ships against damage.


That's not quite what it does though. AFAIK, defense fields don't block proximity damage, blasts, or units. If a large capital ship (i.e. a Mothership) blows up just outside the shield, units inside would still get damaged. Likewise, some missiles can just fly right in and explode, causing damage. The Power Station will still get overload damage while inside a defense field.

There are many ways that ships can receive damage, quite a few of which the defense field doesn't protect against. That's why being a bit more specific and clarifying that it only works on most enemy weapons and, when upgraded, radiation, helps out newer player who neither have the expertise nor the will to go check out all of this directly in the game files or search it on the forums.

Upon further consideration though, I'd change it to "can protect nearby ships from most enemy weapons and, with the proper technology, from harmful radiation" or something akin to that. "can be upgraded" is a little vague here, since it doesn't even hint at whether it's a module upgrade for each ship or whether it's a global research item.
Walkop2011 - Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:39 am
Post subject: Pretty Major Glitch
I'm seeing text glitches all over the place. Take a look at the "race" indicator for the torodial magnets on the power station. Also look at the engines on different craft - the mothership, research station, light carrier, and power station, and others. Frigate facilities and Fighter Facilites are also affected; at least on the mothership.

The mothership resource drop-off seems unaffected; as well as the research devision on the Research Station. I'll look around a bit more.

(Screenshot isn't working at the moment for some reason; I'll attach some photos if I can get it going.)
ALC - Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:41 pm
Post subject:
Hi guys.
May I suggest that perhaps one person, a native English speaker preferably be made responsible for collating changes and typos (Any English teachers on the forum?!) suggested by everyone else, and then to prepare a final list to give to Beghins.


NB. Just downloaded c8, should take it for a spin tonight and tomorrow.
Looks good so far. Great to have it up and running.
Walkop2011 - Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:46 pm
Post subject:
I posted a new topic about this recently; but I haven't gotten a response yet. I wanted to help out with the typos, etc that are in the mod.
DJ Die - Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:52 pm
Post subject:
i can find most typos......im not exactly native speaker though if you can fix them that would be great....
Walkop2011 - Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:42 pm
Post subject:
If Beghins agrees (with someone doing the typo management), sure.
loldongs - Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:33 am
Post subject:
Is there a non-messy way to dump all the Complex 8.0 text into one huge textfile?
If so, I would be willing to help proofreading it.
ALC - Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:16 pm
Post subject:
Ok, Walkop2011I suggest that we start doing it.
One of us should start a correction response on this thread and then add corrections to typos as they are posted in this section using the Edit Post feature. This will build up a list in one reply window of corrections that everyone will be able to view and comment on, and check before adding suggestions for new typos. Easiest way to manage it publicly.
Would you like to manage it or shall I? I have time currently, especially as I'm having trouble getting the c8 Beta to launch atm (keeps crashing), so there is nothing else I can usefully do except help to collate typos!
Walkop2011 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:36 pm
Post subject:
If it's okay, you could manage the thread, that'd be good - I'll probably be better off looking for typos; I'm pretty good at finding them. You might want to start a new thread, though, so the reply window with all of our typos is listed at the very beginning of the thread and is easy to find. If not, then here is okay as well.

I'll start in the fighters section of the build menu.

Edit: About the crashing, can you get it to open up at all, or are you having trouble starting a game? I had trouble getting it to launch (this happened on two PC's), so I updated my video drivers; and voila! Loads up without a hitch.
DaFranker - Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:49 pm
Post subject:
loldongs wrote:
Is there a non-messy way to dump all the Complex 8.0 text into one huge textfile?
If so, I would be willing to help proofreading it.


Yes, there is. The problem is that Beghins would have to change how he works on the mod to always put any new text in the dictionary(ies), and I'm not sure he's willing to do so because he probably neither sees nor understands the benefits of doing so.

Not to mention, having everything in dictionary files would actually make translation of the mod in multiple languages (and still being able to play against eachother even with different languages) possible and much simpler.

I've been toying with the idea of writing a python script that would go through all the files that do contain text, grab the relevant bits and put them in an ordered dictionary file and replace the strings with dictionary references, but I haven't gotten around to doing it yet. I'm not exactly a python guru, either, so I'd have to do quite a bit of trial-and-error before actually getting it to work.
ALC - Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:55 pm
Post subject:
Ok. I will start a new thread for corrected typos shortly, and people can post typo reports in this thread.

(I'm not worried about the game crashing issue. i just need to clean out my HW bits, all sorts of stuff in there. I'll get it going soon enough.)
Walkop2011 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:07 pm
Post subject:
Okay, sounds great. I'll compile a short list of typos and mis-phrased sentances, etc to be put in that thread from the build menu.

Edit: ALC, I have created a list of typos from every fighter description in the Hiigaran build menu. I have also created a secondary copy of the build.lua, and edited the build menu file to include the fixed typos. I'll post them on the new thread when it is created.
ALC - Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:17 pm
Post subject:
Got the game going, and spotted a typo straight away:
Higaran is spelt Hiigaran in the HOD!

Anyway, I'll create the corrected typos thread in a few minutes.
Bear in mind that we cannot edit each other's posts but can edit our own only.
And we should try and keep the posts to one post per main subject area. Sounds like you've got most of the work done already Smile
bimmerfreak0 - Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:39 pm
Post subject:
The long range missiles for the Mothership and Shipyard have completely messed up descriptions....it's bad.
Serayl - Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:52 pm
Post subject:
I know we're not doing the Vagyr side currently, but there are a few missing d's in the phrase 'Build Time' under some of the Vagyr construction rollovers.

Figured I'd mention it while you guys are out stomping these particular errors.
Walkop2011 - Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:46 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

I know we're not doing the Vagyr side currently, but there are a few missing d's in the phrase 'Build Time' under some of the Vagyr construction rollovers.

Figured I'd mention it while you guys are out stomping these particular errors.


Okay, thanks. When we get around to the Vaygr I'll make sure to take a look for that.
Walkop2011 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:52 pm
Post subject:
Under the Torpedo Frigates description, its called a "Basic Frigate". Most other ships have some kind of identifying factor - "Anti-Fighter frigate"; "Advanced Anti-Capital", etc. The Torpedo Frigate has none of that. This may be because it is fairly good at facing all foes when upgraded; so should something such as "multi-purpose frigate" or some other descriptor be included?
DJ Die - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:15 pm
Post subject:
thats leftover from stock HW2 but yeah something should be done about it....
Walkop2011 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:54 pm
Post subject:
Yeah - I'm thinking of adding that to the revised build file me and ALC will send to Beghins, but I can't think of a better phrase to use. I'll use that if need be, but any sugestions for a replacement are welcome.
DJ Die - Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:40 pm
Post subject:
what about "basic frigate with all-round performance possible through upgrades"
ALC - Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:58 am
Post subject:
Suggest "Standard Frigate" in place of "Basic Frigate"
(The notion being that the Standard Frigate is the hull platform that is used to produce all of the other frigates by means of enhancements).
Walkop2011 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:10 am
Post subject:
Well, I'm not actually sure if the Topedo Frigate itself is the basic standard. Even the torpedo frigate would have to have been built off a standard frigate chassis - which would be, in effect, likely just a chassis with no weapons or enhancements. Standard frigate also seems to give the impression that is is the mainstay ship - the "standard" frigate used in most situations- although that's getting a bit into symantics.

Something like what you said, DJ Die would work: "Basic Anti-Fighter/Corvette Frigate. All-around performance possible through technological upgrades. Equipped with:"

Or, if the "Standard" chassis turns out: "Standard Anti-Fighter/Corvette Frigate. All-around..." you get the picture. Another possibility is:

"Basic Anti-Fighter/Corvette Frigate. Anti-Frigate/Capital attack power is gained through technological enhancement. Equipped with:
DJ Die - Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:05 am
Post subject:
hull of each frigate is different in some cases quite a lot for example marine frigate or def field frig
its basic since its the first one you ever get and it will be base of any frigate fleet if youll have any
at least thats the way i see it
ALC - Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:25 pm
Post subject:
Going on your thought of a Frigate for all purposes how about "Multirole Frigate" instead of "Basic Frigate"? "Multirole" being military jargon.
DJ Die - Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:06 pm
Post subject:
or "all-purpose" as well but tbh they are both pretty same
Walkop2011 - Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:15 am
Post subject:
Yeah, I was thinking about both of those. Maybe "Basic Multi-Purpose Frigate. Anti-Frigate/Capital attack power is gained through technological enhancement. Equipped with:" Or, just remove the "Anti Frigate/Capital attack..." and leave the rest - althogh an accurate, in-depth yet short description is always good.
ALC - Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:46 am
Post subject:
"Basic Multi-Purpose Frigate" works for me.
I'd rephrase "Anti-Frigate/Capital attack power is gained through technological enhancement."
as "Anti-Frigate/Capital Ship attack capability is gained through technological enhancement."
(I think it is important to put in Capital Ship rather than just Capital).
ALC - Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:51 am
Post subject:
On the topic of upgrades I have two items so far that I'd like suggestions on:

1. Trade Containers.
Given that the Trade containers' upgrades increase the carrying capacity of the containers I would suggest the following change to its upgrade info:

From:
"Improves the Convoy's trade ability, allowing it to trade more RUs at a time"

Suggested replacement:
"Improves the Trade Container's storage ability, allowing it to trade more RUs at a time"
OR
"Improves the Fleet's trade ability, allowing Trade containers to trade more RUs at a time"

Opinions please people Smile

2. Shiry
I am suggesting a change to the spelling of the plural of Shiry from "Shiries" to "Shirys"
I cite plural of "boy" as "boys" as a supporting example.
"Shiries" never worked for me, just something odd about it.

Comments and objections with supporting arguments please.
Walkop2011 - Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:19 am
Post subject:
Quote:

"Improves the Trade Container's storage ability, allowing it to trade more RUs at a time"

This is much better than the current. I suggest swapping out "ability", though, for "capacity", or swapping out both "storage" and ability" for "maximum storage capacity". Ability is a bit vague- and does not seem as accurate in this instance as "capacity". Something like:

Quote:

Improves the Trade Container's maximum storage capacity, allowing it to trade more RUs at a time


It might also be possible to use "allowing it to carry more RUs at a time; enhancing trade revenue", because the current description of the reseach doen't really cue you in to the fact that it actually increases the money that you make out of the Trade Container. You would end up with something like:
Quote:

Improves the Trade Container's maximum storage capacity, allowing it to carry more RUs at a time; enhancing trade revenue


Quote:

I am suggesting a change to the spelling of the plural of Shiry from "Shiries" to "Shirys"
I cite plural of "boy" as "boys" as a supporting example.

I actually just looked up how pluralization works (obviously I know how it works, but just not the technicalities Wink ). Technically speaking, to know how to properly pluralize a word, you first see whether or not the letter preceeding the last letter in the word is a cosonant or a vowel. If its a vowel, then it would end with simply "s" (so Shirys, as you suggested). If that letter is a consonant, however, in the case of "ShiRy", its a consonant (r). So technically, it would end as "Shiries" as it does now. Depends on if you want to get into technicalities, or you just want to go with whats easier to read. Mr. Green either way.
DJ Die - Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:40 am
Post subject:
yeah ive been thinking about containers too and imho capacity would be best

i agree with Walkop Shiries sound better to me and it seems its in accordance with grammar as well
ALC - Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:13 pm
Post subject:
Storage capacity is better than ability - missed that one!

And I'll go with the majority vote on Shiries.

Thanks.
Walkop2011 - Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:04 pm
Post subject:
I was looking at the MS Heavy Ion Cannon description, and it looks a bit off...not descriptive enough; it just seems off. Anyone have any suggestions? I already corrected some minor grammer issues, but not much else.
ALC - Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:07 pm
Post subject:
Ok, completed research.lua

@Walkop2011
Is this the description you are referring to?:
"Advanced Anti-Capital Ship Heavy Ion Cannon (to fire press the Z key or the related command icon)"
Walkop2011 - Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:18 pm
Post subject:
Yes, that's it. It seems a bit lacking to me.

Also - you completed the research.lua already? Speedy Gonzalez here. Wink
ALC - Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:55 pm
Post subject:
On Heavy Ion Cannon Description, I think it's probably ok. It's sparse but it does tell the player what they are building. You could perhaps enhance it a bit:
"Advanced Anti-Capital Ship Heavy Ion Cannon, has much greater fire power than the standard Capital Chip Ion Cannon (to fire press the Z key or the related command icon)"

Walkop2011 wrote:
Speedy Gonzalez here. Wink

Have lots of time atm Smile
Looking through other files now.
Do you want me to do some sections of build.lua?
Or I might start on the Vaygr, though i'd rather wait for the Beta version which has Vaygr active in it.
Walkop2011 - Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:17 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

Have lots of time atm
Looking through other files now.
Do you want me to do some sections of build.lua?
Or I might start on the Vaygr, though i'd rather wait for the Beta version which has Vaygr active in it.

Sure - I could use some help, I guess. Could you look at the Crew Station and Research Station modules? There's a lot of punctuation errors in the build file, though - commas where periods should go, etc; so watch out for those.

Maybe I'll take a look at the interface files while you're working on those modules.
ALC - Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:49 pm
Post subject:
Ok, I will do Crew Station and Research Station modules

EDIT:
---Crew Station Modules----------- Completed.
EDIT:
---Subsystems--------------------- Completed.
EDIT:
---Weapons------------------ Completed.

Underway:
---Sensors-------------------
ALC - Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:50 pm
Post subject:
Vaygr Corrections now underway.
I'd like an opinion on the following from anyone who's around atm:

Existing text relating to V. RU storage expansion doesn't really cut it.
"RU supplier, stores extra RUs"
As this is a research upgrade and it doesn't actually build anything but presumably improves existing storage facilities.
I am thinking of "RU manager upgrade. Allows the storage of extra RUs"
or "RU storage cell upgrade. Allows the storage of extra RUs by improving storage efficency"

Thoughts, suggestions, improvements etc welcome Smile

EDIT: Colourisation
Walkop2011 - Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:15 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

RU storage cell upgrade. Allows the storage of extra RUs by improving storage efficency

I like this one the most. I would like to make a suggestion, though:
Quote:

RU storage systems upgrade. Allows the

"Cell" doesn't really seem to fit; it implies a cell ship or something alike that stores RU's; but the Vaygr don't use anything like that. "Storage systems" is more generic, and as the Vaygr seem to have a more generic way of storing RUs, it seems to fit better. Also; add in "for" after "allows"; it was missing (a minor mistake, though).
Also, one last suggestion:
Quote:

extra RUs by <b>increasing storage capacity</b>

Increasing efficiency of storage doesn't seem as correct as increasing storage capacity. In this context (RU storage) increasing the capacity of those storage systems rather than the efficiency just makes more sense; efficiency of RU storage would need more explaining to be accurate, I think. Regardless, that's my idea. The final product would be:
Quote:
RU storage systems upgrade. Allows for the storage of extra RUs by increasing storage capacity.



P.S. Should RUs be added in again after "RUs by increasing"? I think it would fit and be a bit more accurate, but would RUs be repeated too many times then?

Edit: Added suggestions, and added final product; minor changes, etc.
ALC - Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:48 pm
Post subject:
Yes, that sounds best. We'll go for:
"RU storage systems upgrade. Allows the storage of extra RUs by improving storage efficiency"
Thanks Smile
Walkop2011 - Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:16 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

Yes, that sounds best. We'll go for:
"RU storage systems upgrade. Allows the storage of extra RUs by improving storage efficiency"
Thanks

No problem. Almost everything is completed now; but when more betas come out we should watch out for new ships etc. that are released. Cool
ALC - Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:01 pm
Post subject:
Yes... Better clear the In Box.
DJ Die - Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:56 pm
Post subject:
btw guys what about "miner missile"? i think "mining missile" would be much better
ALC - Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:50 pm
Post subject:
DJ Die wrote:
btw guys what about "miner missile"? i think "mining missile" would be much better

Definitely agree with you there. "Miner missile" implies that the missile could be carrying miners...
Walkop2011 - Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:57 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

Definitely agree with you there. "Miner missile" implies that the missile could be carrying miners...

I also agree in that "Miner Missile" gives the wrong idea and just plain sounds out of place, but as its replacement (Mining Missile) verbs aren't typcally used in HW naming; do you ever see "Resourcing Ship" or "Assaulting Frigate"? Any more suggestions?
ALC - Tue Jan 04, 2011 7:31 pm
Post subject:
Walkop2011 wrote:

I also agree in that "Miner Missile" gives the wrong idea and just plain sounds out of place, but as its replacement (Mining Missile) verbs aren't typcally used in HW naming; do you ever see "Resourcing Ship" or "Assaulting Frigate"? Any more suggestions?

"Mining" here is not a verb. It is part of a compound noun "Mining Missile"

Compare with (in the real world) "drilling rig"
Walkop2011 - Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:46 am
Post subject:
I'm looking for a replacement for the current word used in the Missile Frigate description: "Basic Frigate". Its at the very beginning. Standard Frigate has already been suggested, but that seems to imply that is is the base of any frigate fleet or the "standard" ship used in confrontatios. Mabe its just me Wink. Multi-role frigate has also been suggested, as well as multi-purpose. I'd like a few more options. Any ideas, anyone?
ALC - Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:53 am
Post subject:
I still favour "Standard Frigate".
I would suggest that "Standard Frigate" connotes the basic hull design (without using the word 'basic' Wink ). Thus it is the base of the design.
DJ Die - Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:33 pm
Post subject:
yeah either Standard or Multi-role because thats what it is
Walkop2011 - Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:45 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

I still favour "Standard Frigate".

Quote:

yeah either Standard or Multi-role because thats what it is

Okay, okay - I surrender to the majority Wink standard it is. Thanks.
ALC - Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:53 pm
Post subject:
Lol, cool Laughing
Heanschenklein10 - Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:30 pm
Post subject:
the text that comes when you start a game is not correct.
I don't know how far it is but the grammar looks very strange to me.
I'm sure that one of our native speakers can correct this

edit: but as far as spelling is concerned I may be wrong because when registrated myself in the forum I wasn't able to spell my own name correctly. Laughing
ALC - Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:44 pm
Post subject:
Yes it does need attention.
No verb int he first sentence!

Heanschenklein10 wrote:
I wasn't able to spell my own name correctly. Laughing

Oh dear!
Walkop2011 - Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:15 am
Post subject:
I was looking through the build files and came across the "Drone"; the one buildable from the command fortress. I was thinking it deserved a better name - a creative, clever one.

Suggestions, anyone?
DJ Die - Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:15 am
Post subject:
what does that Drone do? Laughing i havent had time to look at it yet
Walkop2011 - Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:07 pm
Post subject:
I know - its rare anyone really looks at it I think Wink
Its an Automated Defense Drone buildable from the command fortress.
Elred - Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:43 am
Post subject:
What about Sentry? After all that's what they are.
ALC - Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:15 am
Post subject:
If it is similar to the Defence Drone buildable by other ships then best to change its name to "Defence Drone" so that it is the same.
Walkop2011 - Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:59 am
Post subject:
Quote:

If it is similar to the Defence Drone buildable by other ships then best to change its name to "Defence Drone" so that it is the same.

Completely different tech, it is basically a dumbed-down version of the Progenitor drone from the campaign. It uses plasma bombs, etc - they're too different too have the same name, basically.

Quote:

What about Sentry? After all that's what they are.

Maybe.."Sentry Drone". That might work. I want a few more suggetions just to build up some choices as well, though.
ALC - Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:40 am
Post subject:
Walkop2011 wrote:
Completely different tech
Ok, definitely a different name then.
"Sentinel Drone"
"Combat Drone"
"Assault Drone"
"Attack Drone" (would imply auto-attack of enemy units.
Walkop2011 - Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:25 pm
Post subject:
Okay; I'm thinking either Assault Drone, Attack Drone, or another one that just came to me - Fighter Drone.
ALC - Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:56 pm
Post subject:
Not Fighter Drone, sounds too much like a fighter of some kind.
Walkop2011 - Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:00 pm
Post subject:
Well, it is about the size of a fighter - almost like a more powerful, automated fighter - but it might cause confusion.
Walkop2011 - Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:04 am
Post subject:
Time to dig up this thread.

I was just was overviewing it after a post by Hawawaa and I thought it should be brought up again. With the full release of C8 around the corner (in relative Complex Mod terms, that is), typos should be one focus again. Me and ALC, as usual, are the typo/grammer fixers here - all suggestions welcome.

Just remembered the "Drone" issue I was having earlier as well - now I'm restarting that issue. I am again looking for names - right now "Combat Drone" and "Attack Drone" are the best imho - but I still feel that there is a better name '*right* there. All suggetions welcome Wink
Hawawaa - Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:57 am
Post subject:
Ok since you want your typos here. I'm looking at the Hig Shuttle... how about a rename like Support Cruiser. Come on when you say shuttle you think of a small personal transport or this...
Only registered users can see links on this board!
Get registred or enter the forums!
Mr. Green

For the Drone debate... Assault Drone.
ALC - Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:30 pm
Post subject:
Yes. you make a logical case for renaming the Shuttle to Support Cruiser.
Walkop2011 - Mon May 02, 2011 6:57 pm
Post subject:
On the Drone case, I've gone with the suggestion of Sentry Drone. Its accurate, and sounds pretty good as well.

Also, ALC - on that suggestion to rename the Shuttle; do you want me to add that name to my list (as it was one of the ships I changed the description on); Support Cruiser? I can put in a name change in there.

On the topic of names - I've also seen a few Vaygr ships that could use a new name, like the "Scatterer Corvette". Its a bit strange, and doesn't really fit into the current naming scheme. Anyone have some unique naming ideas?

I saw the descriptions for a few Vaygr ships, too - the BB and BBD (or DN). Anyone think "Death Vessel" should be changed to something a little less...dramatic, for lack of a better term?
ALC - Mon May 02, 2011 7:24 pm
Post subject:
Walkop2011 wrote:
On the Drone case, I've gone with the suggestion of Sentry Drone. Its accurate, and sounds pretty good as well.
Good one.

Walkop2011 wrote:
Also, ALC - on that suggestion to rename the Shuttle; do you want me to add that name to my list (as it was one of the ships I changed the description on); Support Cruiser? I can put in a name change in there.
Yes. Definitely.

Walkop2011 wrote:
On the topic of names - I've also seen a few Vaygr ships that could use a new name, like the "Scatterer Corvette". Its a bit strange, and doesn't really fit into the current naming scheme. Anyone have some unique naming ideas?
Um, you got me there. What does it do, other than scatter itself in all directions. Is it armed with a cluster weapon? —(I'll have to put 'Play as Vaygr more often' on my to do list for next week).

Walkop2011 wrote:
I saw the descriptions for a few Vaygr ships, too - the BB and BBD (or DN). Anyone think "Death Vessel" should be changed to something a little less...dramatic, for lack of a better term?
Definitely change it. I recommend "Heavy assault battleship" because that is what it is (recalling that historically a Dreadnought was exactly that, a heavy BB).
*NOTE: We'll use DN for Dreadnought from now on, it's better than my designation of BBD, and others are using DN generally.

EDIT: Closed 2 brackets! Embarassed
Walkop2011 - Mon May 02, 2011 7:33 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

Um, you got me there. What does it do, other than scatter itself in all directions. Is it armed with a cluster weapon?

It has 6 Exclamation Exclamation Concussion Missile launchers, and it is designed for taking out Corvettes and Frigates (and, I assume, quite quickly Wink)

Quote:

—(I'll have to put 'Play as Vaygr more often' on my to do list for next week.

Oh, I wasn't playing as them. I could never do that. Wink I was just checking out to see what new ships they had. Cool

Quote:

Definitely change it. I recommend "Heavy assault battleship" because that is what it is (recalling that historically a Dreadnought was exactly that, a heavy BB).
*NOTE: We'll use DN for Dreadnought from now on, it's better than my designation of BBD, and others are using DN generally.

Okay, gotcha.

Quote:

EDIT: Closed a bracket!

You mean this one?
Spoiler:

(I'll have to put...for next week.

The one that is still open? Mr. Green Wink
ALC - Mon May 02, 2011 7:42 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

It has 6 Exclamation Exclamation Concussion Missile launchers, and it is designed for taking out Corvettes and Frigates (and, I assume, quite quickly Wink)
Hmmm, Nasty. I'll think of something...
Quote:

EDIT: Closed a bracket!

You mean this one?[/quote]No, another one!. But I'll fix this one now that you mention it Wink
ALC - Mon May 02, 2011 7:55 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

It has 6 Exclamation Exclamation Concussion Missile launchers, and it is designed for taking out Corvettes and Frigates (and, I assume, quite quickly Wink)


Ok, how about this:

"Multiple Concussion Missile Frigate"
Which Shortens to:
"Multi-Concussion Missile Frigate"

Or is it still too long?
Walkop2011 - Mon May 02, 2011 9:22 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

"Multiple Concussion Missile Frigate"
Which Shortens to:
"Multi-Concussion Missile Frigate"

Or is it still too long?

It does seems a bit long, I think. Also, its a Corvette, not a Frigate Wink
It really suprised me when I first saw it Wink

Maybe Multi-Missile Corvette? That seems too analogous to the Missile Corvette, though. Concussion Corvette? Not unique enough (and too similar to the Concussion Frigate)...Hmm.

We need to start thinking the way Relic did with Vanilla as regards names - creative-yet-good ones, like the Gunship Corvette, the Interceptor, etc. I can't think of anything else right now.
ALC - Mon May 02, 2011 9:27 pm
Post subject:
Quote:
Also, its a Corvette, not a Frigate Wink
LOL, what can I say except urrk!

Quote:
Maybe Multi-Missile Corvette?
That sounds accurate, or "Cluster Missile Corvette?"
Walkop2011 - Tue May 03, 2011 5:27 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

"Cluster Missile Corvette?"

Hmmm...originally I thought that wouldn't apply, as the missiles are not cluster-type - they simply fire and hit, and do not split up. However, that isn't necessarily the definition of Cluster - since it fires a cluster of concussion missiles, that could work!

However, I'm more in favor of a shortened form: the "Cluster Corvette". Has more of a ring to it, and its still fairly accurate. If users want more information, they simply check out the description, as always.
ALC - Tue May 03, 2011 6:49 pm
Post subject:
"Cluster Corvette" is very non-descript in that it doesn't actually tell you anything about the ship (a bit like scatter corvette) for what is in essence a missile corvette with lots of missile launchers. How about "Heavy Missile Corvette"?
SpaceKookie - Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:23 pm
Post subject:
I posted this in the correct typos thread before. When a game starts it should say:

Quote:
The universe is full of death...it knows no alternative


instead of what id sais now:

Quote:
The universe is full of death...the universe has no alternative

Sagyxil - Sat Jun 04, 2011 3:00 pm
Post subject:
ALC wrote:
"Cluster Corvette" is very non-descript in that it doesn't actually tell you anything about the ship (a bit like scatter corvette) for what is in essence a missile corvette with lots of missile launchers. How about "Heavy Missile Corvette"?
Alternatives:

bills6693 - Sat Jun 04, 2011 3:09 pm
Post subject:
antlion lol
Mulit-missile corvette?
SpaceKookie - Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:24 pm
Post subject:
What about:

BUILD TO WIN THIS IS SO OP Corvette? XD

But Multi-Missile Corvette sounds good.
Assault Missile Corvette?
ALC - Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:25 pm
Post subject:
• Splatter Corvette
• Slaughter Corvette
SpaceKookie - Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:30 pm
Post subject:
ALC wrote:
• Splatter Corvette
• Slaughter Corvette


That sounds a little too much like Saw imo xD
bills6693 - Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:41 pm
Post subject:
Splatter corvette LOL that really does sound a bit OTT. And grusome....

OP Corvette...
Sagyxil - Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:56 pm
Post subject:
Spam Corvette, anyone?
ALC - Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:57 pm
Post subject:
Slaughter Corvette would be a 'descriptive' term which would be intended to intimidate the enemy.
Walkop2011 - Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:47 pm
Post subject:
I like "Barrage" corvette, personally. Descriptive and unique - without the brutality factor.
Sagyxil - Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:25 pm
Post subject:
More alternatives:


I personally like either Reaper or Barrage Corvette.
Concuss or maybe Concussive Corvette also sounds fairly good.
bills6693 - Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:33 pm
Post subject:
Barrage sounds good to me...

Spam corvette? People might think that means a corvette made out of unwanted parts of lots of ships :p
Sagyxil - Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:58 pm
Post subject:
Or that it was made of salted. jelly-like processed meat.
bills6693 - Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:28 pm
Post subject:
Quote:

Or that it was made of salted. jelly-like processed meat

Thats what I was getting at :p lol
ALC - Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:09 pm
Post subject:
I like Walkop's suggestion of "Barrage Corvette" — it fits the function of the ship well.

Sagyxil wrote:
Or that it was made of salted. jelly-like processed meat.
Or painted with lots of repetitive little messages on its hull which pretend to be friendly but aren't.
Walkop2011 - Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:56 am
Post subject:
Just thought of something; Barrage Corvete, or Mortar Corvette? I only suggest this because its an okay name, and also that is the actual name of the corvette in the game files (vgr_mortarcorvette).

I think Barrage, but thought I'd get opinions.

Edit: Also, for the Tulwar frigate description; the current beginning is a bit long-winded: "Advanced Anti-Corvette/Frigate/Capital Ship Frigate." I was thinking of replacing i with this: "Advanced Multirole Frigate". My main doubt is that this would disturb continuity, as Complex players are used to looking to the first sentance to see what a ship is strong against (at least, AFAIK Wink). Sagyxil might have to edit that though, as I'm sending him the files soon Wink

Also, text like "EMP Emmiter Turret". Is the turret part really necessary here, or would removing it make it ambiguous? The same with "6 Artillery Cannon Turrets". The name of the weapon seems too short to append "Turret" to it - or maybe I'm just babbling again Mr. Green
bills6693 - Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:59 am
Post subject:
I'd go barrage- mortar (to me at least) suggests something different...
ALC - Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:23 pm
Post subject:
Walkop2011 wrote:
Mortar Corvette?
I'd only use motar in the name if the ship were equipped with a motar-like weapon.

Walkop2011 wrote:
Also, text like "EMP Emmiter Turret". Is the turret part really necessary here, or would removing it make it ambiguous? The same with "6 Artillery Cannon Turrets". The name of the weapon seems too short to append "Turret" to it - or maybe I'm just babbling again Mr. Green
If they are turrets then the word ought to be included I think as a turret is better than a fixed weapon.
Walkop2011 - Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:25 pm
Post subject:
Okay great. Keep it like it is, then. To take it from staples, "That was easy." Wink (wait...I assume staples isn't in your countries. US and Canada only. *Wikipedia*...yep, only here. Mr. Green)
bills6693 - Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:55 pm
Post subject:
Staples is in the UK... but maybe its something different Razz
Hawawaa - Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:33 pm
Post subject:
You know I was just looking at the Shuttle ("Support Cruiser" wait for that day for the rename) and the Fast Tracking Turrets name is weird, "AM Fast Tracking Field", I'm not understand the FIELD part? Shouldn't that be just TURRET? Both name and description. Very Happy
Sagyxil - Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:31 am
Post subject:
Quote:
ou know I was just looking at the Shuttle ("Support Cruiser" wait for that day for the rename) and the Fast Tracking Turrets name is weird, "AM Fast Tracking Field", I'm not understand the FIELD part? Shouldn't that be just TURRET? Both name and description.
I can understand why it has a field descriptor. But you're right, Fast Tracking Turret is a better name for it (and also a reference to the technology you research for Multi-Gun Corvettes in HW1.)
Walkop2011 - Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:10 pm
Post subject:
I noticed this as well as I was reviewing the game text; however, it COULD be referring to it projecting a "field" of defense where ordinance is targeted and destroyed.

Also, AM Fast Tracking Field refers to Anti-Missile Fast Tracking Field; yet in the description it says anti-torpedo, does it not? However, this may only be in the corrections that you made, Sagyxil; I went through ALL the subsystems (a lot of time Wink ) manually without the auto-replace function of Notepad++, searching for issues. I fixed a lot of discrepencies; I'm uploading my changes now (I also used the ';' over the ',' as we worked out).
ALC - Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:30 pm
Post subject:
Its name ought to be descriptive of what it does: "AM Fast Tracking Turret" OR "AM Fast Tracking System" OR "AM Fast Tracking Weapon"
The term 'field' could be used in its description if necessary.
bills6693 - Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:53 am
Post subject:
AM fast tracking system
Provides a field of defensive anti-missile and anti-torpedo fire

OR

Provides defensive fire to counter missiels and torpedoes

OR

Provides a field of fire to neutralize missiles and torpedoes
ALC - Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:04 am
Post subject:
bills6693 wrote:
Provides a field of defensive anti-missile and anti-torpedo fire
How about "Provides a defensive field of fire against missiles and torpedoes".

EDIT: Typo.
bills6693 - Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:07 am
Post subject:
Acceptable

You learn well. The student will soon surpass the master.
ALC - Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:10 am
Post subject:
It just builds on your suggestion. The phrase "defensive field of fire" is also a standard term.
bills6693 - Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:17 am
Post subject:
I was working on 'defensive field of fire'... although looking back, i realise I didn't even say that?!? I must be getting tired.
Sagyxil - Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:30 am
Post subject:
Quote:
however, it COULD be referring to it projecting a "field" of defense where ordinance is targeted and destroyed.

Quote:
'defensive field of fire'
Let us not forget that not everyone is familiar with all the nuances of the English language, and that English may not be the language they think in. I think it best to keep the number of abstract phrases down. The word 'field' can mean several things. The word turret can as well but I doubt many people are familiar with the architectural meaning, so there is less room for confusion.
bills6693 - Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:33 am
Post subject:
I wrote:

Provides defensive fire to counter missiels and torpedoes

Considering that, this is my preferance...
ALC - Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:15 pm
Post subject:
Sagyxil wrote:
The word turret can as well but I doubt many people are familiar with the architectural meaning, so there is less room for confusion.
So no mention of "fields" then, grassy or otherwise. Best to keep it as clear as possible.
Hawawaa - Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:41 pm
Post subject:
Found another one. In research menu ie the tech "Remote Monitor" in its description "updates data ANY (x) sec", It should be "updates data EVERY (x) sec".
ALC - Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:12 am
Post subject:
@Hawawaa
Beta version 0.9.3 presumably. Well spotted!
lmsmi1 - Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:57 am
Post subject:
@Hawawaa

Good eye you have there, even I didn't notice that XD.
Hawawaa - Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:48 pm
Post subject:
Ok found another one, in Higaran Fleet tab in Radiation Damage. Its description doesn't make sense, -15% hyperspace recovery time (wait what?) I think what your going for is +15% radiation resistance correct?...
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Powered by phpBB2 Plus based on phpBB