While I don't disagree with this in principle, I think the best suggestion I have seen so far is that the ability to name a system or station should be earned in-game.
Re: System Colonization .... Can we PLEASE name the system and stations?
- Thread starter Alien
- Start date
Naming things is hard. I'd settle for naming the main starport. Maybe with system naming rights once system population passes some substantial threshold.
Names should (IMO) be permanent, unlike FC/ship names, which perhaps makes moderation less burdensome, since it only has to be done once per asset. The moderation is a real enough problem though.
Here's one approach, based on how UK internet domain names were vetted prior to pay-for domains with Nominet, etc.
Since it's based on an absence of objections, accepting objections from any CMDR account would be one possibility (with multiple objections that are overruled resulting in the objecting account being relieved of moderation duties.)
Arbitration would fall to either Frontier or (more likely) their pick of volunteer moderators.
In this sort of system I'd expect the main problem to be inappropriate objections rather than inappropriate names. To minimise this, guidelines for naming should be explicit and clear - though it's hard to get clarity on something as subjective as the appropriateness of (e.g.) IWasTotesHereFirst as a system name. Some find it inappropriate, but to me it's a bit Ian Banks, and quite reasonable.
Anyway, that's one idea. Possible problems include:
Two measures that might help somewhat:
Names should (IMO) be permanent, unlike FC/ship names, which perhaps makes moderation less burdensome, since it only has to be done once per asset. The moderation is a real enough problem though.
Here's one approach, based on how UK internet domain names were vetted prior to pay-for domains with Nominet, etc.
- Guidelines for naming are documented and made easily available, preferably in game as part of submitting a name.
- The player names the asset in-game, which puts the name into a moderation queue (probably not in-game but on a Frontier site.)
- The queue is visible and objections based on the guidelines can be made.
- Two or three objections (say) the name is rejected, but can be re-submitted or sent to arbitration.
- If the namer objects to their own name (or by some other mechanism) it's immediately withdrawn.
- Once the name has sat in the queue for (say) a week with no objections, it goes live.
Since it's based on an absence of objections, accepting objections from any CMDR account would be one possibility (with multiple objections that are overruled resulting in the objecting account being relieved of moderation duties.)
Arbitration would fall to either Frontier or (more likely) their pick of volunteer moderators.
In this sort of system I'd expect the main problem to be inappropriate objections rather than inappropriate names. To minimise this, guidelines for naming should be explicit and clear - though it's hard to get clarity on something as subjective as the appropriateness of (e.g.) IWasTotesHereFirst as a system name. Some find it inappropriate, but to me it's a bit Ian Banks, and quite reasonable.
Anyway, that's one idea. Possible problems include:
- dev overheads are significant
- creating naming guidelines with sufficient player buy-in will not be trivial
- players will rules-lawyer any specific set of guidelines
- objections could be too vigilant
- out-of-game moderation will break immersion for some
- player angst over objections, arbitrations and arbitrators could be significant
- the delay might be thought unacceptable
- naming things is hard
Two measures that might help somewhat:
- making auto-generated names available, allowing any player to opt out of the naming system
- absolute anonymity for namers, objectors and arbitrators.
The upkeep will be massive, this is where squardons should be used. Carriers and systems upkeep should have the option for squardons members to transfer funds to contribute to upkeep
Some will say that's not fair, they arent in a squardon, oh well join one.
The solo player shouldn't mean squardons should suffer. No point in each squardon member paying for individual assets, and when someone cannot play as much other squardon members can help.
Some will say that's not fair, they arent in a squardon, oh well join one.
The solo player shouldn't mean squardons should suffer. No point in each squardon member paying for individual assets, and when someone cannot play as much other squardon members can help.
I colonize it, I name it.
Name vetting and pricing are secondary concerns.
Name vetting and pricing are secondary concerns.
The system architect should be allowed to name his or her star system, stations and settlements because it belongs to them. It's an important reward.
This is easily solved with a simple report option if a name is offensive or inappropriate.
This is easily solved with a simple report option if a name is offensive or inappropriate.
Last edited:
I’d contend that this isn’t simple. Each one of us would believe that it would be simple if we were the ones deciding what is offensive or inappropriate.
For instance, ‘SystemMcSystemface’ is something I find stupid and ridiculous so immediately find it both inappropriate and (admittedly only very mildly) offensive (simply due to the very basic nature of it’s humour.) Thankfully for those that don’t share my opinions I’m not an adjudicator on the matter….but someone will be.
Personally, I think Ian’s idea of a list of approved or randomly generated names from which you have a choice (or re-roll) is a pretty decent compromise. Much like the way you’ve had a list of pre-registered number plates (at least here in the UK) when buying a new car that you can choose from you would often find something that’s either easy to remember, meaningful to you or even perhaps works as a personalised number plate, despite being from a random list.
I suspect this is something that will rumble on indefinitely.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
I'd rather have FDEV develop a random name generator feature to keep things somewhat serious. We all know what's gonna happen. RNG (even the acronym fits!) would be a good compromise I think.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
With people this day and age taking offence at quite literally every single thing that exists, ever existed and will exist in the future? Not really, no, as it would just generate 400 billion reports for FDEV to look through manually.
No way José!
Last edited:
Not really. My problem is people who want to write their name in the snow with their own urine. Your problem is that you think your wishes should overrule those of others.
Procgen names are preferable. I don't think FD are going to want to commit to vetting such things.
Somewhere, somehow, an effort to re-instate common sense will begin. Maybe this is an opportunity, not a problem.
Let me just highlight something you said here: "Your problem is that you think your wishes should overrule those of others."
So you think that I shouldn't allow my wishes to overrule others. I actually agree with you. One person's wishes should not overrule others. You are 100% correct.
The problem is earlier in the thread you said this ...
"I'd rather not let a hormonal neckbeard name a system."
So you want YOUR wishes to overrule others. Seems like a contradiction to me.
I agree with that in principle, but we manage just fine with ship names and fleet carrier names. The system and method and checks are all in place and working as intended already. Why do we suddenly need a whole new system to do the exact same thing in parallel with the current system?
It's a good question.
One reason might be that (especially) system names are much more visible, appearing on the galaxy map, available through searching there, and (I think anyway) should be permanent in principle, or at least not changeable on a whim. Also, system/colony names carry a bit more weight than ship / FC names "diegetically" or in terms of the feel of being in a future version of the galaxy. FCs and ships move around, systems and settlements don't. Settlements and system names come up in missions, faction names, maybe weekly PP assignments...
In general: the name of a system or settlement is going to have way more impact on you as a player than a FC or ship name.
Don't get me wrong, I'm personally all for bizarre names - I see no reason why the Galaxy shouldn't contain people who name a planet "Stapled Peacock Flesh", it's a big galaxy after all, and if anything I'd like more of this weirdness, but the way I'd think about a system name or a settlement name is different to the way I'd think about a ship name.
I don't like seeing FCs named "FDEV sux0rs" and similar, but wouldn't consider reporting it. A system or settlement with that sort of name, though, should ideally just never exist in the first place IMO. The range of acceptable names in colonisation is therefore narrower for me than the range for ship names, and I expect I'm not alone in this.
If this seems odd, maybe consider if you feel there's a different range for system chat than there is for ship/FC names. My impression is there's a lot more leeway for expression (let's call it) in system chat, which I'd guess is because of its highly localised and ephemeral nature. Personally I've winced and ignored stuff in sys chat that I might complain about as a ship name (I've never complained about either so far.)
But having said all that, for namers there should IMO be a reasonable expectation that once your name is in place it will stay there; only fair to the coloniser who's put in the effort and taken on the burden of adding something permanent to our shared galaxy, and to others who might use the name as a reference point. Not to mention names changing in the middle of missions, BGS wars, PP assignments...
The situation struck me as similar to domain naming in the early days of the commercial internet and led me to outline a colony naming version of that system, which worked well in practice for little more effort than reading a few upcoming names on a mailing list every now and then (I'm not suggesting a mailing list!) Apart from technical overheads, the main problem is likely to be over-enthused guardians of naming purity objecting too much, which is why public guidelines are so crfitical (this was also true for the domain name thing iirc).
Like I said I wouldn't expect such a system to be actually put in place, but it's an interesting thought experiment to tease out some of the issues lurking behind an apparently simple problem, IMO.
Last edited:
Optimist.
It will be both but it is going to favour the problem side of things.
Are you sure? The livestream very much indicated that the player accepts a contract from a BGS faction to be a system architect, not a system owner. The livestream heavily implied that the player would direct and decide the system economy, asset composition and placement, but would not own any of it. That ownership is reserved by the contractor BGS faction. They (NPCs though they are) would also reserve naming rights (such as they are). Welcome to Wregoe Sector Y-MO ma6-66*
*not affiliated with an actual star system
Last edited:
Call me petty, but I have hired and fired NPC slf pilots to obtain a name and portrait that I liked.
There could be a similar system for base naming where the system generates a palette of names to select from.
Don't like the given list, pay a fee to get a new set of options.
Keep rolling the dice until you get a name you like/can live with.
There could be a similar system for base naming where the system generates a palette of names to select from.
Don't like the given list, pay a fee to get a new set of options.
Keep rolling the dice until you get a name you like/can live with.
All those names and everyone will only use the ones that mean genitalia in other languages (of which there are a few). It even combos nicely with some suffixes for odyssey places.
The systems already have names. If you don't like the system as named, don't colonise it.
The stations and ground settlements however, seem just as fair game as Fleet Carriers, and same rules should apply.
The stations and ground settlements however, seem just as fair game as Fleet Carriers, and same rules should apply.
From the way it was presented, there wasn't room for upkeep. In my opinion, having to pay any type of upkeep will cause colonization to fail. The costs seem to be claiming the system and then a big cost in time, effort and gameplay to provide the needed resources. Once built, it will be a normal system like any other, at least that is my understanding of it.