Not to be pushy on it still, but how much stuff can we just say 'screw it' with? There aren't really any missions yet, or any planetwars yet afaik, all models are replaced so that particular function of tracking replacements in modelbase isn't really needed, and it will be like starting over again with modstats but I don't see that as so much a big deal.

I mean, if its put off much more it will probably be 9000x times harder to deal with, once the campaign and pw and such are going, so if it is ever to be done ever it probably needs to be done now.

I dont want to deal with it at all! There is absolutely no reason to rename other than idelogical.

Rename wont make it less confusing for existing devs but more.

Ideological reasons to change stuff are almost always bad reasons.

Well, I think the concern is less ideological than it is legal. The names will obviously be the last, trivial piece of Cavedog IP, and as missions and PlanetWars content is created, it will only become more difficult to extirpate it.

That said, I don't think Atari will ever give a crap what the units are called.

I agree, it's bad by design.

When we transitioned to ZK, the janus because nsaclash, the mumbo hoverriot, the egg hoverassault, and all the factories became factory<name>. It didnt break all that much.

People are right that if we want to do this, we should do it now. It isnt about 'idealogy', it is about finding units easily for new and existing developers (Even after all this time we dont have all the unit names memorized), in files, in modstats, and elsewhere. It is also about ensuring all the model and script names match the unitdef names, which is a different, but related problem.

I agree there are higher priorities at this point, but i still think it is a good idea. We have to do missions, website, content, etc. But if someone wants to take the time to do this, you have my support.

As I said, tell me the scheme you want to use for new names, and tell me everywhere that you want the names changed, and I'll write you the script. I can't, though, until I have that information, and until you guys have decided on what you want to do.

If you rename please do it name based and not factory/class ..
I dont know what mumbo is except that it is mumbo .. etc..

This is a complete misunderstanding of the problem. Basically the only answer to "where are all the references to unit names?" is; Potentially in every file that ends in .lua.

Noone wrote all the code and noone can remember where all the references to unit names are. Yes most names are in configs but you can't count on that. Basically it is a pain to figure out.

Yes a rename would be good if there wasn't anything more important to do. I followed the chassis-role naming scheme with factories, as in just like a hoverskirm is a hovercraft that skirmishes a factoryhover is a factory that makes hovercrafts. I don't like the unit name naming scheme as names change often and are hard to remember. Roles are much more concrete and anyway if a unit changes role it would be worthwhile 'creating' a new unit by renaming the unitdef.

Roles change much more often.

Penetrator, roach, tick, glaive all original CA unit changed "factory/class" but almost none changed name.

Also some roles are unclear - whats crabe - cloakarty ? spiderskirm ? I simply don't know..

What is roach? shieldriot? What is outlaw then?

This naming scheme is completely sucky because it does not preserve unique identity of units, but it tries to categorize them.

If i'm searching for rocko I want to find rocko - unit with known combat parameters and looks unrelated to its current and often arbitrary assignment to some random factory.

It could be shieldskirm, cloakskirm even spiderskirm for what I know - but I dont care, I dont care about lab and role, I want to find unique unit called rocko.

Keeping unique name simply preserves unique identity, keeping more information and no less and changes less often.

It's also "handle" used when we talk about units. We don't call rocko cloakskirm or zeus cloakassault .. we call it rocko and zeus.

There is no sense in changing that.

When I wanted to do this, I ran out interest after paring down the options to [SIDE][FACTORY/CLASS][ROLE], [SIDE][NAME] and [NAME]. I wanted to use the first because I felt the names were going to change; there were efforts later to change them, but no consistent nomenclature appeared.

The situation has changed, and if it were my project I would go ahead with a unit name based system for the reasons Licho has given. That said, sometime in 2009 I suggested implementing multiple nomenclatures at once, one with [FACTORY/CLASS][ROLE] and one with the simple external name, so people familiar with a unit could place it by name and people familiar with the role could place it by role. This would require more work and some Lua, but it is an option worth considering if you want a compromise between Google and Licho.

Perhaps regardless of how the internal renaming goes, we should finish whatever unit renaming we are going to do? Is this something that would be good to throw out to the forum to brainstorm on?

Im fine with Licho's scheme. The problem is, as lucky mentions, a lot of units might do with a rename from OTA, and others just have crappy generic names (Still not happy with 'glaive' for my beautiful spherebot, we have so many units named after polearms in all sorts of factories).

Glaive is itself a rename of the peewee/spherebot, it is worth mentioning, and roach and Penetrator are both OTA names. I know licho doesnt think OTA unit names are a problem, but when you have something like the Instigator, Slasher and Weasel, it may be worth preventing players from going 'Hang on a second, i remember this...' (Since frankly, its not entirely appropriate anyway, they're rather different units).

+1 on disliking "Glaive" name. It's the zergling of CA. It deserves a more memorable title.

Don't rename, thats just silly.

Renaming would break all my BA shortcuts for instance, i use space+shift+e for mex for instance and it works in BA or ZK, but not in XTA cause they renamed.

I kinda like zerok, somehow its much better than CA.

Mex in ZK would still remain as BWW if youre on radial build menu.

You're thinking of Gesture Menu when you say BWW. Radial Buildmenu uses DEE for mex. It is a different widget designed purely with the keyboard shortcuts in mind (by using D and its surrounding keys for ease of use), while Gesture Menu was mainly designed for gestures.

Except that hotkeys in gesture menu are also centered, but around qweasdzxc instead of wersdfxcv