These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Defining capital ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#61 - 2014-01-15 21:54:26 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
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
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2014-01-15 22:06:09 UTC
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.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
DRGaius Baltar
Perkone
Caldari State
#63 - 2014-01-15 22:10:13 UTC
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
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#64 - 2014-01-15 22:12:56 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"capital ships are this"

"Capital ships are big." Big smile

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
#65 - 2014-01-15 22:28:21 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"capital ships are this"

"Capital ships are big." Big smile

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
Hard Cog Industry
#66 - 2014-01-15 23:37:43 UTC
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
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2014-01-16 00:46:41 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
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.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2014-01-16 02:52:37 UTC
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
Stronghelm Corporation
Solyaris Chtonium
#69 - 2014-01-16 05:43:31 UTC
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...


[u]Unfiltered for the masses.[/u]

http://imgur.com/mzSl1Ie
Julius Rigel
#70 - 2014-01-16 07:53:58 UTC
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
#71 - 2014-01-16 09:01:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jacob Holland
Julius Rigel wrote:
A capital ship is any ship that requires the "Capital 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
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2014-01-16 09:11:23 UTC
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