I "claim" nothing of the sort, so don't put words in my mouth.

A carrier's role is precisely what it sounds like. It is not meant to be a repair ship, it is meant to be a long distance gank ship.

It is not meant to be a repair ship

sorry quoted wrong post.

Oh, you surely said:



So when I come and say that you claimed that a carrier is not meant for a repair role, I specifically refer your own words, quoting:



Anything not clear?

you come and claim that it's not meant for a repair role and all of the above is accidental? Riiiiiight!

Confirming an imaginary spaceship in an online game is analogous to real-life naval ship.

That said, carriers are multi-purpose - either logistics or combat ships depending on fit.

Thank you for the feedback! Please have a look at (...) by CCP Tallest about the changes to fighters.

If battleships had a mining bonus tacked on out of nowhere, would you say battleships are mining vessels? No, because they aren't. And the bonus would be bizarre and obviously not belong there.

The purpose of a ship is determined by its bonuses and fit, not by its name. Period.

If it has mining bonuses it's a ship meant to be mining, no matter if it's called a battleship, barge or a pink bunny.

Don't embarrass yourself anymore.

Right, so if a battleship has a mining bonus then battleships are mining vessels. That makes perfect sense. In stupid land.

Seriously, do the world (and English language) a favor and self detonate already.

Heh, you are complete ******. Funny to see that other people actually tried to argue with you.

But i know, ss ninitz doesnt have capital remote repaires and shield transporters, so carriers in eve are not logistic ships. It also cant jump through a stargate, so carriers in eve cant use stargate neither. Makes sense.

I don't know how anyone in their right mind could make a natural common sensical leap that carriers = repair platforms. It's dumb and doesn't make sense. If battleships had a mining bonus tacked on out of nowhere, would you say battleships are mining vessels? No, because they aren't. And the bonus would be bizarre and obviously not belong there.

If the carrier logistics bonus is "tacked on", than on what ship is a Triage module supposed to be fitted? Do you really think they "tacked on" an entire specialized module to coincide with a "tacked on" bonus?

Habib, the towelhead, is amused.

Habib, the towelhead, is amused.

If a forum post could be converted into a picture, your's would look like a kid with Down's syndrome smiling at a Slurpy.

If the carrier logistics bonus is "tacked on", than on what ship is a Triage module supposed to be fitted? Do you really think they "tacked on" an entire specialized module to coincide with a "tacked on" bonus?

The dispute is what they should be, and what is the proper role of a carrier. And that is not to be a mobile repair station.

That's what carriers do. They don't repair other vessels. They don't repair buildings. They launch fighters and blow **** up. Seriously what is so hard to understand?

"yours"

Whilst you do make some good points, I'm reasonably sure that triage modules were introduced some time after carriers made their debut.

Slurpee. That you harp on the apostrophe and not the much more glaring misspelling of Slurpee just proves you totally miss the obvious.

Based on what? Real life?

The problem with that argument is that if we followed it, battlecruisers would be probably the most powerful ships in the game.
Frigates would be the greatest threat ever to carriers.
Battleships would not exist.

Put another way: why should carriers work the way you say they should work? GÇ£Because RLGÇ¥ is not an acceptable answer.