These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Is EVE getting cheesy? Combat BC? Attack BC?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sturmwolke
#1 - 2013-03-05 09:01:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sturmwolke
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.
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#2 - 2013-03-05 09:06:45 UTC
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
Critically Preposterous
#3 - 2013-03-05 09:08:23 UTC
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
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2013-03-05 09:10:44 UTC
Alara IonStorm
#5 - 2013-03-05 09:12:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Attack battlecruiser

Its Missiles are overpowered and are in need of a nerf.
S'Way
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-03-05 09:13:10 UTC
Don't worry, it'll get more complex again if we ever get faction / navy versions too.
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#7 - 2013-03-05 09:14:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Attack battlecruiser


But it isn't a blimp.
Sturmwolke
#8 - 2013-03-05 09:20:50 UTC
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. Blink
Sobach
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2013-03-05 09:25:08 UTC
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
#10 - 2013-03-05 10:00:38 UTC
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
#11 - 2013-03-05 10:05:29 UTC
Clearly what he's trying to say is that we need Battle BCs.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-03-05 10:09:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Attack battlecruiser


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
Doomheim
#13 - 2013-03-05 10:10:55 UTC
St Mio wrote:
Clearly what he's trying to say is that we need Battle BCs.

B²C?
GallowsCalibrator
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2013-03-05 10:14:02 UTC
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#15 - 2013-03-05 10:26:28 UTC
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
#16 - 2013-03-05 10:44:36 UTC
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
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2013-03-05 11:55:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Attack battlecruiser


From all i red Arrow Kirov=Sacrilege
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#18 - 2013-03-05 12:28:21 UTC
GallowsCalibrator wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Attack battlecruiser


Kirov reporting!

love that game ♥
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#19 - 2013-03-05 12:29:37 UTC
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
Pandemic Horde
#20 - 2013-03-05 12:38:28 UTC
Lancastor Dex wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Attack battlecruiser


From all i red Arrow Kirov=Sacrilege


Nonsense.

Its a hull tanking drake. Also a blimp.
123Next page