Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sturmwolke
379
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
When a particular blog introduced these terms, I noted with distaste the overcomplication in class name. Take the word "Combat" and "Attack", both of these words can synonymously be used in the same context, despite the small difference in meaning. For example, "The army combat group has just wiped out their enemies" vs "The army attack group has just wiped out their enemies". To a non-native English speaker, the finer points between those two might as well be lost.
Is there anything wrong with just using "Battlecruiser" instead of "Combat Battlecruiser"? Why was "Attack" chosen over "Strike", which has a greater distinction in meaning?
Stop with the cheesiness already and put some thought into proper naming, good grief. |
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts Hegemonous Pandorum
104
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:When a particular blog introduced these terms, I noted with distaste the overcomplication in class name. Take the word "Combat" and "Attack", both of these words can synonymously be used in the same context, despite the small difference in meaning. For example, "The army's combat group has just wiped out their enemies" vs "The army's attack group has just wiped out their enemies". To a non-native English speaker, the finer points between those two might as well be lost.
Is there anything wrong with just using "Battlecruiser" instead of "Combat Battlecruiser"? Why was "Attack" chosen over "Strike", which has a greater distinction in meaning?
Stop with the cheesiness already and put some thought into proper naming, good grief.
I bet you don't know the difference between repeat and say again. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
309
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
You may be on to something.
But with the way you wrote it, expect more trolling than seriousness from those who respond to your post. |
baltec1
Bat Country
5485
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Attack battlecruiser |
Alara IonStorm
4385
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Its Missiles are overpowered and are in need of a nerf. |
S'Way
Bitter Vets
461
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:13:00 -
[6] - Quote
Don't worry, it'll get more complex again if we ever get faction / navy versions too.
|
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts Hegemonous Pandorum
104
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
But it isn't a blimp. |
Sturmwolke
379
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:You may be on to something. But with the way you wrote it, expect more trolling than seriousness from those who respond to your post. Well, you don't post if GD without expecting several of those. Comes with territory. Now let's see some intelligent responses GD denizens. I know you can do it. |
Sobach
Fourth Circle
80
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
Well, even CCP themselves know the naming scheme in this case is a bit odd and redundant, as evident in their own blog. Now whether they'll actually change it to something a bit more sensible later... who knows, it wouldn't be the first time. |
mechtech
Ice Liberation Army
274
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 10:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP has been apparently trying to change names to be more descriptive and functional, rather than just being fairly random collection of syllables and numbers, like so many modules are.
The attack/combat BC name was just a mistake, not "cheesy". The character of the game might be ever so slightly reduced by removing flavor from module/ship names, but in the end it's much better for new players. There are plenty of other places for flavor anyway... perhaps they could spice up the module descriptions with a lore paragraph, that would be nice (a short flavor sentence, ala Magic cards). |
|
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1165
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 10:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
Clearly what he's trying to say is that we need Battle BCs. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
200
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 10:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
Technically, Kirov is a heavy missile cruiser :)
I don't think using real life battlecruisers is a good idea. The defining characteristic of real life battlecruisers was speed - they were designed to keep up with cruisers, either by sacrificing a battleship's armor (Britain) or firepower (Germany). In EVE terms, T3 BCs best represent this role, which was made largely redundant in real life with the advent of fast battleships such as the Iowa. On the other hand, Combat BCs are more akin to heavy cruisers such as the Kirov - somewhere between a regular cruiser and battleship both in size and armament, not ment to really sacrifice anything for a specific role.
The same goes for instance for Dreadnaughts - real life variant was essentially a superheavy (at the time) battleship, whereas the EVE variant is a class above battleships, designed specifically for sieges. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
4704
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 10:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
St Mio wrote:Clearly what he's trying to say is that we need Battle BCs. B-¦C? |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
234
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 10:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kirov reporting! |
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting Home Front Coalition
374
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 10:26:00 -
[15] - Quote
It's quite redundant. We now have Cruisers intended for battle that can either do combat or attack. Makes perfect sense. |
dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
596
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 10:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Stop with the cheesiness already and put some thought into proper naming, good grief.
One they should call "less tank more gank" and the other "more tank less gank", would solve the problem once and for all!
I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous. |
Lancastor Dex
BLUE Regiment.
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 11:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
From all i red Kirov=Sacrilege |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
322
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 12:28:00 -
[18] - Quote
love that game GÖÑ |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
322
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 12:29:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:intelligent obviously you are not. read what I said again, then think about it, then read again, and think about it some more. |
baltec1
Bat Country
5486
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 12:38:00 -
[20] - Quote
Lancastor Dex wrote:From all i red Kirov=Sacrilege
Nonsense.
Its a hull tanking drake. Also a blimp. |
|
stoicfaux
2489
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 12:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
Drake -> Tank. Naga -> DPS. You're welcome in advance.
On a more serious note, Calvary for speed, Assault for firepower, and just BC for average all around stats.
|
Spurty
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
814
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 12:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
Next up, weapon systems!
Crystals will be renamed - PewPpppPewPew Projectiles will be renamed - Ratatataaattaataatt! Hybrid will be renamed - Facemelters Missiles will be renamed - Whooshy-things-that-explode
--- GÇ£If you think this Universe is bad, you should see some of the others.GÇ¥ GÇò Philip K. **** |
Bjron
501st Amarr
98
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 12:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
I don't see what the problem is. I understand the terms perfectly. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2147
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 13:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
Attack is a one-sided offensive action, combat is the result? The terms make perfect sense imo and are very appropriate descriptions for the ships in question. The funny part is combat battlecruiser.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 13:55:00 -
[25] - Quote
These are just labels to differentiate different purposes. They could call them TURD and APPLE for all I care. Does it pew? Does it explode? Good enough for me. |
Scynner
GRUMPS RESEARCH TEAM Army of Dark Shadows
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 15:09:00 -
[26] - Quote
They should have used antonyms. My BC is more of a Compromise Battle Cruiser. |
Sturmwolke
380
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 16:09:00 -
[27] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:Sturmwolke wrote:intelligent obviously you are not. read what I said again, then think about it, then read again, and think about it some more. Now now, you know the context wasn't personal unless you'd taken it personally If it's the latter, it's not my fault.
|
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
355
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 16:14:00 -
[28] - Quote
Spurty wrote:Next up, weapon systems!
Crystals will be renamed - PewPpppPewPew Projectiles will be renamed - Ratatataaattaataatt! Hybrid will be renamed - Facemelters Missiles will be renamed - Whooshy-things-that-explode
but Ratatataaattaataatt!s are already named Ratatataaattaataatt!. |
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts Hegemonous Pandorum
105
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 16:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Drake -> Tank. Naga -> DPS. You're welcome in advance.
On a more serious note, Calvary for speed, Assault for firepower, and just BC for average all around stats.
Not sure if skull should be for speed. |
Billy Bligh
Principle Investments Etc. Dominatus Atrum Mortis
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 16:19:00 -
[30] - Quote
When beetles fight these battles in a bottle with their paddles and the bottle's on a poodle and the poodle's eating noodles... ...they call this a muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle bottle paddle battlecruiser.
ty Dr. Suess |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |