Agree on the getting over-complicated point, but naming stuff really does matter to those of us with a strong RPG streak and probably others. Even if a river has no mechanical role in the game, naming it is part of transforming a randomly generated map into an immersive game world.

You know, in meatspace, many places have multiple names.  It's not that complex.  On my German maps the capital city of Bavaria is Munchen.  On my English maps it's Munich.

If it were me, I'd store the users names locally and pass on to other players if they have X level of espionage or treaty.  XML is cheap and easy.

The communication via email outside the game and typed messages where gamers type the locations name is where the problem exists.   I could ask you to meet me in the Dunkins Mark from an email message and upon looking at your world map you would have to check each individual terrain location.

Unless you're planning to include a terrain name search option.   The terrain search option would need to specify the player name and terrain name... because two different players might have two different locations with the same name.

/throws 2 pennies

Speaking strictly multiplayer here...I dont really care how names are decided but I would want all players to share those names. In my mind, it will make communication waaayy easier. Not to mention, the world would seem more alive that way. Why make it more complicated by throwing map sharing & coordinates in the mix?

Just felt obliged to mention that the coming soon blurb for Elemental on Impulse caps the multiplayer crew at 8. That could still be a fair amount of clutter on a shared map or a fair number of maps to share, but it is a long way from 20 or more.

I'm still only flirting with the idea of putting time into multiplayer (at least post-RTM), but it would make the game seem *less alive* to me if there were some artificial Gods-Approved Map. Having the game interface be able to reflect something like the Malvinas/Falklands argument would make it *more alive* to me.

And some of the recent posts make me suspect that it doesn't need to be 'complicated' from a player usability POV. Zubaz has a good point--markup languages like XML are *designed* to do things like treat a place name as a modifier for a set of coordinates, and choose among a set of modifiiers in response to a CSS.

My point isn't that the naming stuff isn't a good thing (I love the idea of naming rivers and such), just that we don't need some of the complex solutions to handle it. I'm glad Zubaz chimed in with the real world example.

If it were me? I'd show the name I gave the river, along with a little indication (maybe '...' after it) to show that another player named it something else. I could then click that to see *all* the names. Or have a filter option where I can show your names instead of mine, to find what you're talking about.

There's no rules in that case, I can name everything however I want, but I can still find something you reference by another name. But I'm not sure its a big problem anyway. If we're allies and we *want* to communicate locations, why would I go around changing names of landmarks that you've already named and are using as references?

I love this idea, by sharing maps with names, but not unit sight, I could have a tag for a location named "army rally point alpha" and in a few turns when I double cross him, he might expect units from that location.  In reality, that might be my most fortified towns and my army could attack from another point.  Essentially this allows some bit of subterfuge among allies even.  This is important in any complex game of diplomacy.

That would be awesome.

Again, I don't see this happening. There seems to be an assumption that everybody will name everything. But if I *want* to communicate locations with you, why would I go around overwriting all your names?

If we get into a rename war, we're probably not going to remain allies anyway.

Whatever happens in multiplayer, I seriously hope that the core singleplayer game will not suffer any of the 'multiplayer-friendly' limitations that you are suggestion. And I *want* to have the possibility of seeing and comparing other factions' maps to my own, most especially if it can help create a game analog to things like the Malvinas/Falklands-Falklands/Malvinas argument.

The real trick there will be seeing if the AIs can come up with the occasional counter-name for the player's major assets, e.g. I might call the area around a druid channeler's retreat Groveheart, while the steel-loving, overbreeding neighbors might call it Wasted Woodlands.

MultiPlayer and SinglePlayer can easily be left as two seperate entities...  the same as a MultiPlayer and SinglePlayer campaign. 

I seriously doubt any AI opponents will be renaming terrain map locations since this would require multiple databases from each terrain for the different factions.   The same is true within Dominions_3... players can rename any commander/mage unit, but the AI doesn't rename units as it just keeps the randomly selected ones.

As to MP map naming issues, I see 2 possible solutions.

First option. (a spin off of the who owns more cities/Pop. idea)

Since all MP players will be on the same Base Map, with un-named features, the first player, despite Team, that reaches, or pushes back the FoW on said map feature, gets to put up a unique name if one does not exisit. Despite a Rivers length, they have but 1 name, from origin to the Ocean, so no naming "my piece" of this river stuff.

Second Option.

Since the naming of terrian objects among Team mates could be confusing, and since all players will start with the same "Base Map", what if when you select a teammates game ID, form a pull down perhaps, your map instantly changes all named features to what they have currently name those items. Consider it a layered drawing of tha map, with each having a Layer to name on and when the Gamer ID is selected, that layer is revealed to the player who selected it.

So you would have a basic 4v4 player Map. Your team consists of Dave, Marie, Bob and Samuel, your Dave.

Dave has named the Central moutain range "Albacore Pass" 

Marie has named the Central moutain range "Witchata Spine"

So when Marie selects Dave's gamer ID she see her Central moutain range name change to "Albacore Pass".

When the player leaves the Player selection Pull down, their own map layer is restored. I suspect that is what the XML usage would probably do....