Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
895
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:54:00 -
[61] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:What existing definition? The definition in game of which you are perfectly aware:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:... that freighters, jump freighters, and the Orca are all listed under the market category of capital ships. I however do not believe that such a categorization is correct.
I bolded the only relevant bit.
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It would be done for the same reason module, ammo, and implant name changes were done. You aren't asking for an actual item to be renamed. Your asking for a market/ship category, essentially an abstraction, to be renamed. It would be like asking for strategic cruisers to be renamed pimp-mobiles because they often have bling modules fitted. Sure CCP could do it, but why the **** would they?
So, I'll ask again: Can you provide compelling reasons why devs should allocate time and resources towards changing the existing definition of capital ships?
IIRC a while ago you had a similar thread. What is your motivation for requesting this anyway? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8459
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:06:00 -
[62] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:What existing definition? The definition in game of which you are perfectly aware: James Amril-Kesh wrote:... that freighters, jump freighters, and the Orca are all listed under the market category of capital ships. I however do not believe that such a categorization is correct.
I bolded the only relevant bit. James Amril-Kesh wrote:It would be done for the same reason module, ammo, and implant name changes were done. You aren't asking for an actual item to be renamed. Your asking for a market/ship category, essentially an abstraction, to be renamed. It would be like asking for strategic cruisers to be renamed pimp-mobiles because they often have bling modules fitted. Sure CCP could do it, but why the **** would they? So, I'll ask again: Can you provide compelling reasons why devs should allocate time and resources towards changing the existing definition of capital ships? Because it leads to confusion. As it is right now you cannot make any such statement like "capital ships are this" or "capitals ships can do this" or "capital ships can't do this" because people think that freighters, JF, and the orca are included when you say "capital ship", but pretty much anyone who's worth their salt knows they're not actually capital ships, just really big ships that CCP improperly categorized. If we exclude them, we can now say things like "capital ships can't use stargates", "capital ships cannot be built in highsec", etc. Which is exactly what CCP is already saying when they say things like "highsec capital ships are not allowed to do any of these listed things" and it's pretty obvious they're not including JF, freighters, or Orcas in that definition.
I'm asking for internal consistency for the sake of clarity. It's really not that hard. My EVE Videos |
DRGaius Baltar
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:10:00 -
[63] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: So, I'll ask again: Can you provide compelling reasons why devs should allocate time and resources towards changing the existing definition of capital ships? [/b]
IIRC a while ago you had a similar thread. What is your motivation for requesting this anyway?
"Because we're not taking sov fast enough" |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
895
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:12:00 -
[64] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: "capital ships are this" "Capital ships are big."
As to the rest, meh, w/e floats your boat I guess. Just doesn't seem particularly worthwhile to me. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
966
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:28:00 -
[65] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: "capital ships are this" "Capital ships are big." As to the rest, meh, w/e floats your boat I guess. Just doesn't seem particularly worthwhile to me. Granted it would take some amount of time, it doesn't seem as onerous as your objections for the sake of dev time would suggest. We've seen similar changes to the market structure equally similar reasons of clarity so it doesn't stand to reason that this should be excluded under that reasoning nor does it seem it would detract from anything else in any quantifiable way. |
Genseric Tollaris
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:37:00 -
[66] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:What existing definition? The definition in game of which you are perfectly aware: James Amril-Kesh wrote:... that freighters, jump freighters, and the Orca are all listed under the market category of capital ships. I however do not believe that such a categorization is correct.
I bolded the only relevant bit. James Amril-Kesh wrote:It would be done for the same reason module, ammo, and implant name changes were done. You aren't asking for an actual item to be renamed. Your asking for a market/ship category, essentially an abstraction, to be renamed. It would be like asking for strategic cruisers to be renamed pimp-mobiles because they often have bling modules fitted. Sure CCP could do it, but why the **** would they? So, I'll ask again: Can you provide compelling reasons why devs should allocate time and resources towards changing the existing definition of capital ships? Because it leads to confusion. As it is right now you cannot make any such statement like "capital ships are this" or "capitals ships can do this" or "capital ships can't do this" because people think that freighters, JF, and the orca are included when you say "capital ship", but pretty much anyone who's worth their salt knows they're not actually capital ships, just really big ships that CCP improperly categorized. If we exclude them, we can now say things like "capital ships can't use stargates", "capital ships cannot be built in highsec", etc. Which is exactly what CCP is already saying when they say things like "highsec capital ships are not allowed to do any of these listed things" and it's pretty obvious they're not including JF, freighters, or Orcas in that definition. I'm asking for internal consistency for the sake of clarity. It's really not that hard.
Then tell people capital ships are ships that require the capital ship construction skill to build.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8476
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:46:00 -
[67] - Quote
Genseric Tollaris wrote:Then tell people capital ships are ships that require the capital ship construction skill to build.
Well that includes freighters, jump freighters, and the Orca. Christ. I give up. Whoever said I should stop trying to make sense of this game was probably right. My EVE Videos |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
400
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:52:00 -
[68] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:Jack Miton wrote:If its 'Capital Sized Vessel' attribute is '1', then it's a capital ship. This attribute can be seen in EVEMon and most likely other similar programs.
Basically these ships are capitals:
titans supers carriers dreads freighters jump freighters rorqual
Orca is not a capital, even though it needs cap parts to build.
/thread No. That means its the size of a cap. It doesnt qualify it as a cap
I thought the Orca should be able to use a jump drive.
|
Decian Cor
Disconnected. The Cursed Few
126
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 05:43:00 -
[69] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Supercapitals are of course a subclass of capitals
Supercapital.
'Super' being used to typify it as bigger/better than a regular capital. How is it then a 'subclass' of regular capitals?
Sub being commonly used to indicate a state of being lower than/below, and all...
Unfiltered for the masses.
Forum Posting - Basic Common Sense Level - III Grammar Level - III Reading Comprehension - III Facetiousness - III Skin Level- V Trolling Level - V |
Julius Rigel
123
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 07:53:00 -
[70] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:So you agree with me. I was under the impression you were trying to make a counter argument and failing. I suppose we're mostly in agreement, yes. Except I don't agree that any of these criteria are necessary:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Any ship that cannot use stargates
Any ship with a mass of greater than 1,000,000 tons Any ship which, should it happen to be in highsec, is subjected to severely restrictive rules on its usage
Supercapitals: Cannot dock in a station Cannot use any wormholes Are immune at all times to all forms of E-war Must be constructed in a Capital Ship Assembly Array I think this one is sufficient:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Any ship that requires the capital ships skill I also don't much care about the difference between capitals and motherships, or "supercaps", or whatever they will be called in the next iteration.
In any case, I feel like the topic is sliding away from a discussion of where items are categorised in the market, and why they are there (observations and discussion of the facts of how things are in-game), to a discussion of where things should be in the market (ideas), which is a topic for FAID, a forum in desperate need of more and intelligent discourse, not GD, the forum which, as we all know, is overflowing with topics that are supposed to be hosted elsewhere. Do YOU like to undock? |
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
236
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:01:00 -
[71] - Quote
Julius Rigel wrote:A capital ship is any ship that requires the "Capital Ships" skill, or in the case of industrial ships, the "Capital Industrial Ships" skill. I tend to prefer "Any ship which is constructed from Capital Ship Components" as a general definition - which of course includes the freighters and Rorqual and Orca - as it provides a useful badge for the specialisation and investment aspect. I know however that the skill based definition is far more useful for most, day to day, uses. Most people looking for a capital ship pilot (to buy on the character bazaar, in alliance...etc) are going to be looking for warships rather than industrial capacity. |
Abraham Nalelmir
THE INQUISITI0N
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:11:00 -
[72] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Supercapitals are of course a subclass of capitals which all have the following attributes
- Cannot dock in a station
- Cannot use any wormholes
- Are immune at all times to all forms of E-war
- Must be constructed in a Capital Ship Assembly Array
But supers are vulnerable to HICs... so the 3rd point might not be valid. In Go.. ECM I trust |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |