That line does not clearly state the characterization which you presented:
"I have won PvP matchups while using a Galaxy. I have completed STFs successfully while in a Galaxy. I have had fun while in a Galaxy. Your position that there is no possible situation where those things could happen is thus provably false."
Try again.
Actually, it does. The assertion was that there was no possible situation in which a Galaxy class could kill something. If that is true, then I could never win a PvP matchup, yet I have. If that was true, then I could never successfully complete any PvE mission at all (of which STFs are a subset), yet I have. If it were true, I would be unable to enjoy using a Galaxy class, yet I can.
If you have a critical distinction between what you think DDIS is saying and what I was responding to, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, I'll accept your apology for wasting my time.
Actually it might. That's the issue I have with your arguments. You take a poorly constructed sentence, apply the narrowest interpretation that supports your position, then claim that it disproves the broader concepts in the opposing position. This is evident in the following:
The assertion was that there was no possible situation in which a Galaxy class could kill something. If that is true, then I could never win a PvP matchup, yet I have. If that was true, then I could never successfully complete any PvE mission at all (of which STFs are a subset), yet I have. If it were true, I would be unable to enjoy using a Galaxy class, yet I can.
If you have a critical distinction between what you think DDIS is saying and what I was responding to, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, I'll accept your apology for wasting my time.
No. I won't be apologizing. Nor am I going to go off track and argue minutia with you, as you have already failed to respond to my question, as to whether my misunderstanding your point (a statement that was in no way established as accurate, btw) was my fault or yours.
You can continue this line of discussion in the manner you have so far. If, you do not realize what you are doing, then you will not accept my assessment. If, you do realize what you are doing, then you won't care. In either case, it will be like trying to nail jello to a tree; you can only keep it there with constant hammering.
Probably bc you had a team with you or your 1vs1 opponents weren't PvPers.
Excellent point. Thanks for admitting that, as I said, there are probably situations where someone can use skill and planning to overcome the Galaxy's drawbacks.
I've beaten tac Fleet Galaxy pilots with my engineer in the fleet Nova but I wouldn't classify them as good pvpers. At most it should have been a draw. There's not a single PvP character or build I have that would lose to a Fleet Galaxy 1vs1.
And if you love the ship so much why are you arguing against any improvements for it? If you enjoy it as is then great. If role-playing is your thing wonderful. But don't knock people who want this iconic ship to be well represented in STO as it was on the shows.
A) I don't love it so much, I'm more or less apathetic. I can have fun with it, but it's certainly not my favorite ship to fly, because it wasn't my favorite ship from the shows.
If I did love it, why would I want/need to change it? I'm capable of recognizing that something is not "the best", and still being happy with it.
C) Even with the changes, I wouldn't love it, so what advantage do the changes have for me?
D) It is accurately represented in game, based on how I interpret the show. You and others are free to disagree with that, but since none of us have any control over how the ship is portrayed here, and since there is no possible way to "prove" that one subjective interpretation is "right", it doesn't really matter.
Actually it might. That's the issue I have with your arguments. You take a poorly constructed sentence, apply the narrowest interpretation that supports your position, then claim that it disproves the broader concepts in the opposing position. This is evident in the following:
The statement in question was a claim that would be expressed in formal logic thusly:
If Galaxy then Not Win.
The contrapositive to that position would be:
If Win, then Not Galaxy.
That claim is not narrow at all - it is overbroad and over-certain, which is my point.
(You have yet to show how that is a mischaracterization of the claim, btw).
If your quibble is that I am choosing to read the statement literally, instead of as the hyperbole it is, you have to recognize that while rhetorically it's clearly hyperbole, in the context of this discussion, that's not how people use it. They are trying to have it both ways, by asserting that if you disagree with them you are necessarily wrong, because everyone knows it's impossible to do anything in a Galaxy class. If you point out that, in fact, not everyone knows that, then they accuse you of being pedantic or equivocating about language, as you are doing.
Let me make this very simple - is it possible that a reasonable person could enjoy playing Star Trek Online while using a Galaxy class ship? If your answer is no, then I see no reason to discuss anything with you, since you are effectively attempting to quash my right to disagree, and I find that loathsome. If the answer is yes, then aren't I right that this discussion should be about the need/desirability for change in the context of those differing viewpoints, instead of being about the nigh impossible project of proving that a reasonable preference is nonetheless objectively wrong?
Basically, if it is possible to reasonably feel like the current state of the Galaxy is an unimportant issue, then it cannot be true that the Galaxy is objectively in need of revision. Thus, the discussion necessarily should turn to how to justify the changes in the context of differing opinions, but instead of doing that, the Galaxy fans have simply re-entrenched on the claim that anyone who doesn't think there's a problem, for any reason, is either a troll, a fool, a liar, a psychopath, or all of the above.
People need to understand this. I am not saying people who dislike the Galaxy are wrong to do so. I am saying that dislike is not universal, automatic, or objectively true. It is objectively true that SOME people don't like it, as it is objectively true that some people DO. The Galaxy fans, rather than admitting this, have sought to delegitimize any dissenting voice as unreasonable, so they could justify their desire for change without actually engaging in a discussion of why that might or might not be desirable to other people.
No. I won't be apologizing. Nor am I going to go off track and argue minutia with you, as you have already failed to respond to my question, as to whether my misunderstanding your point (a statement that was in no way established as accurate, btw) was my fault or yours.
You can continue this line of discussion in the manner you have so far. If, you do not realize what you are doing, then you will not accept my assessment. If, you do realize what you are doing, then you won't care. In either case, it will be like trying to nail jello to a tree; you can only keep it there with constant hammering.
I didn't respond to your question because it looked to me like obvious flame bait with an obvious answer. How does me answering that further the discussion, and why is it important to assign blame for your failure to understand? You didn't understand, that's all that matters. Having a throw down about who failed whom wouldn't fix anything.
I have won PvP matchups while using a Galaxy. I have completed STFs successfully while in a Galaxy. I have had fun while in a Galaxy. Your position that there is no possible situation where those things could happen is thus provably false.
The argument you are supposed to be making is something like:
"I feel like there are many situations where I would perform better in a non-Galaxy ship, and I feel like that's important to me."
That is fine. But you can't tell me that the ship is literally impossible to use, since I have actually used it successfully.
watching you try to bend over backwards to defend this has been hilarious the last few page. your responding to a paragraph about dueling, not 5v5 pvp. the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried. ive built the most damaging galaxy class possible and its still a joke, the same basic build minus some redundant defensive things works much better on any other tac cruiser. i made no statement like that at all, cute that all you can do is paint someone as absurd and obtuse with misscharacterizations and argue with that straw man, instead of arguing with the actual person.
I'm not dismissive of PvP at all - I do it a lot and I'm fairly good at it. I am dismissive of the idea that only PvP matters, and that any other way of playing is "wrong".
See, like this right here. I'm dismissive of your assertion that your way of playing is "right", because it just isn't. There isn't one right way to play. There isn't even one right way to "not suck". Those are subjective terms, and my definition is different from yours. The difference between us is I am not dismissing your opinion, I"m dismissing your right to attempt to bully people into agreeing with you. Put another way, I'm insisting that you stop dismissing the people who disagree with you, and that you are so tied up in your subjective opinions that you are treating that disagreement as though it were somehow an attack on your opinions.
another attempt at attacking some fictional position of mine. im not even sure what your going on about, what this right way is supposed to be. i didn't mention any 1 way not to suck, i said do anything not to suck, build and use anything that actually is effective. the point of this thread is that theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective, it can merely get by and be background noise. pvp is all about diversity, whatever works works. the difference between you and me is im engaging you, and your engaging some imaginary version of me with crazy positions.
Eh, I'm not going to get into an epeen contest with you about who has what superior claim to authority via skill. I am confident that I have sufficient skill and systems mastery to justify my claims, but that doesn't even matter, because you are still just flat wrong about what it means to be objective or subjective. I can find uses and value in a three eng ensign set up. It's not my favorite, but I can make it work. That's the objective thing. Objectively, by my own standards and in my own play experience, the Galaxy class is perhaps not ideal, but workable. I feel like you keep falling into the trap of mistaking things that you feel strongly about for things that must be universally true.
What I acknowledge is subjective are the standards which I use, as well as my own perceptions of what it means to meet them. You are free to say that I don't meet your standards. I am free to say that is utterly irrelevant, because your standards are only YOUR standards, and that you have no right to impose them on others. I can't fathom why this is so tough for you to grasp. Clearly, you have no trouble understanding that my standards need not apply to you, why can't you see that the reverse is self-evidently true?
you can make it work. congratulations. every time any of us slums in our galaxy R we make it work. and every time we stop using it, no mater what ship we use next, we are more effective. the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth. name 1 thing it can do better then any other cruiser, no mater how small. just 1 thing. if your claim to skill is sufficient, surely you can come up with a single thing. if not, ether your skill is weak or your argument is fundamentally flawed. there is no worst escort, there is no worse sci ship, its not ok for there to be a worst cruiser. especially not one thats so iconic and a fan favorite.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
No, it's not quite the same statement. It's literally logically exactly the same statement.
Not hardly. Caveats and qualifiers serve distinct functions in modifying the meaning of the words with which they are used in conjunction. If the meaning is different, they cannot be literally logically exactly the same statement. You were not aware of this?
It is of note though, that as you have focused on the most convenient narrow interpretation of others statements, you have no problem in embracing the broadest and most generous interpretations of your own.
Not hardly. Caveats and qualifiers serve distinct functions in modifying the meaning of the words with which they are used in conjunction. If the meaning is different, they cannot be literally logically exactly the same statement. You were not aware of this?
It is of note though, that as you have focused on the most convenient narrow interpretation of others statements, you have no problem in embracing the broadest and most generous interpretations of your own.
See, you are asserting that there is a distinction in the statements, or that there are different potential interpretations, while simultaneously failing to demonstrate either claim. I cannot correct your misunderstanding unless you are explicit about what it is. I also strongly suspect you are mistaking differences in syntax for differences in logic. As an example:
All lions are mammals.
A creature is a lion only if it is a mammal.
No creature is a lion unless it is also a mammal.
A non-mammal is not a lion.
Only mammals can possibly be lions.
These sentences are all logically identical, in that they convey exactly the same meaning, despite being very difference in syntax. Similarly, the two claims you are quoting differ in organization, but not at all in logic:
"there are probably situations where someone can use skill and planning to overcome the Galaxy's drawbacks."
and
"I said that skill could overcome the minor drawbacks to the Galaxy if one was so inclined."
Both impart the same logical assertion - Skill is a possible (but not certain) way to manage the problems people have with the Galaxy's setup. The sentences are arranged differently, but there's no difference in the imparted meaning. The phrase "if one was so inclined" does nothing but indicate again that this is a choice someone could make, not a mandatory requirement for play, which is mirrored in the logic of the first sentence. "Minor drawbacks" and "drawbacks" are logically identical as well, for the same reason that "many/few/some" are all logically the same statement.
See, you are asserting that there is a distinction in the statements, or that there are different potential interpretations, while simultaneously failing to demonstrate either claim.
watching you try to bend over backwards to defend this has been hilarious the last few page. your responding to a paragraph about dueling, not 5v5 pvp. the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried. ive built the most damaging galaxy class possible and its still a joke, the same basic build minus some redundant defensive things works much better on any other tac cruiser. i made no statement like that at all, cute that all you can do is paint someone as absurd and obtuse with misscharacterizations and argue with that straw man, instead of arguing with the actual person.
Again, not a strawman, or a mischaracterization. If your intent was to caveat that claim that in no possible situations can a Galaxy class kill something to be only applying to 1v1 PvP, you should have been explicit in that. The context that you were quoting was about two issues - whether skill could make a difference in general, and the non-issue of "do stalemates happen in 1v1". It appears you believe you were clearly ONLY talking about the 1v1 component, but the phrasing of "no possible situation" was so broad as to make that at best unclear. Regardless, even in the context of only 1v1 PvP, my point remains. I have beaten players 1v1 while using a Galaxy, thus there is at least one possible situation where your claim is false. Thus, your claim is false. Amend your absolutes, and you will fix that problem.
Now onto the really hilarious part. This claim:
the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried.
Is still doing the same thing, even though it's now explicitly in the context of 1v1. Your statement is untrue. All you need to accept is that the argument you want to make is this:
In some, possibly even a majority of cases, a Galaxy class cannot win unless the opponent is substantially less skilled than the Galaxy captain. There maybe a certain threshold of opponent skill at which the Galaxy can no longer reasonably expect to ever prevail. I have experimentally verified that I personally cannot use a Galaxy to a level I find acceptable, and I strongly suspect this will be the case with others, but I cannot, of course, rule out the possibility that someone else's results may be different.
That, above, is what you mean. That is what you can reasonably defend. This fetish you have for arguing only in absolutes does you no favors.
another attempt at attacking some fictional position of mine. im not even sure what your going on about, what this right way is supposed to be. i didn't mention any 1 way not to suck, i said do anything not to suck, build and use anything that actually is effective. the point of this thread is that theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective, it can merely get by and be background noise. pvp is all about diversity, whatever works works. the difference between you and me is im engaging you, and your engaging some imaginary version of me with crazy positions.
Again, you are doing exactly what I have been accusing you of. "theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective" is simply untrue. The correct argument is as follows:
There is nothing in the game that I value that the Galaxy does well, so the Galaxy has little use to me personally. I'm sure some other people feel the same way, and I suspect that at the very least a plurality of players would agree that a change is a good idea.
The tragedy is that you might even be able to put together a persuasive argument if you would get past the conceit that stating something in absolutes is a "stronger" or "better" argument.
you can make it work. congratulations. every time any of us slums in our galaxy R we make it work. and every time we stop using it, no mater what ship we use next, we are more effective. the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth. name 1 thing it can do better then any other cruiser, no mater how small. just 1 thing. if your claim to skill is sufficient, surely you can come up with a single thing. if not, ether your skill is weak or your argument is fundamentally flawed. there is no worst escort, there is no worse sci ship, its not ok for there to be a worst cruiser. especially not one thats so iconic and a fan favorite.
"the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth."
Sigh.
The Galaxy is a ship many players feel is the least effective.
Also - worst escort: Aquarius. I guess we need to fix it as well. Next worst? Defiant - seating is too limited, forces you to take at least one beam or torp. Need to fix that as well.
Sci ships? Opposite problem. I'm not sure what the worst is, but I'm not sure why you take anything other than a Vesta line or a Wells for pure science. Guess since those two ships can do any meaningful sci job better than any other sci ship, all other sci ships are useless.
Finally, no, sorry, it's actually fine that a ship that you like is "the worst". It's even fine that a ship that many or most people like is the "the worst". Why would it not be fine, other than it simply irritates you?
That simply means that your team did the work you couldn't. Even if your role was support you would have been able to support your team better in another ship. Your team won in spite of you.
Bringing the most out of the galaxy is still less than a comparable build with another cruiser.
My team won in spite of me because even though I was unarguably effective in the match I wasn't as effective as a hypothetical version of me in a different ship? Do you treat everyone this way? If a teammate shows up in a non-edalgo approved build, does that mean they are useless because they don't measure up to the hypothetical version you think they should be? Or is it just people in the Galaxy class that you unfairly malign?
I welcome different varieties of builds and ship types but there's a difference between flying the ship you like bc you like it and trying to excel while choosing to use inferior equipment.
You've contradicted yourself do many times and have no good answers to how the Galaxy is competitive after I had to spell out what competitive means to you that you have to resort to attacking how people argue instead admitting the point you are trying to argue is proven invalid. Suck it up and move on. You're wrong and don't want to admit it and want to have the last word.
Please point out a single contradiction, so that I might learn. Please explain how my answers are insufficient, so that I might see how I fail. Please explain why my tactic of exploding the justifications used to support peoples' arguments is not, in fact, an effective one. Please demonstrate how you have proven that your opinions are anything more than that.
Alternately, simply admit that the problem here isn't that I'm wrong, it's that you and I fundamentally disagree on what we value and how we play the game. If we can get you to the point where you can understand that its possible for us to disagree, and yet also understand that neither view is "right", "wrong", "better", or "worse", then we'll have real progress. I despair for that ever happening, though.
Please point out a single contradiction, so that I might learn. Please explain how my answers are insufficient, so that I might see how I fail. Please explain why my tactic of exploding the justifications used to support peoples' arguments is not, in fact, an effective one. Please demonstrate how you have proven that your opinions are anything more than that.
Alternately, simply admit that the problem here isn't that I'm wrong, it's that you and I fundamentally disagree on what we value and how we play the game. If we can get you to the point where you can understand that its possible for us to disagree, and yet also understand that neither view is "right", "wrong", "better", or "worse", then we'll have real progress. I despair for that ever happening, though.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
My team won in spite of me because even though I was unarguably effective in the match I wasn't as effective as a hypothetical version of me in a different ship? Do you treat everyone this way? If a teammate shows up in a non-edalgo approved build, does that mean they are useless because they don't measure up to the hypothetical version you think they should be? Or is it just people in the Galaxy class that you unfairly malign?
Think your missing the point by a mile. Anything you can do any build you use with a Galaxy you can do in another ship and will excel at. Whether its a damage or support or tank in pvp or pve using a different ship will yield greater results. There for using the galaxy actually gimps the rest of the team as if you were using another ship it would increase their chances making them work less for the same result.
with only 2 tactical consoles the galaxy is Gimped from the start and is bacicall a worthless ship
The fleet regent and avenger can tank just as well with 50% + the firepower of the Galaxy and double + the tactical bridge officer ability's
The game has no use for a pure tank which is what the galaxy is therefore its a useless ship
with only 2 bridge officer stations the galaxy should have 5 tactical consoles so it can at least do serious sustained damage
anyone who says the galaxy is fine like it is Is really just a troll
to anyone new people ...dont buy the galaxy there are much better choices to spend your zen on
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Think your missing the point by a mile. Anything you can do any build you use with a Galaxy you can do in another ship and will excel at. Whether its a damage or support or tank in pvp or pve using a different ship will yield greater results. There for using the galaxy actually gimps the rest of the team as if you were using another ship it would increase their chances making them work less for the same result.
No, I'm not missing that point. I'm REJECTING that line of thinking. There's a huge difference. I'm saying that I acknowledge that some people think this way, but I don't, and I never will, and I won't accept that it is the only valid way to think about things. I think it's illogical to complain that I, as a good player, chose to come and compete in a ship that you feel isn't up to par. Who cares if you think I could have done a better job in another ship. I still DID MY JOB. Stop trying to compare me to what your think I would have been like in an alternate universe where I only brought ships you approve of to the party. Compare me to the needs of the mission. If I met or exceeded those, then you have nothing to complain about.
Basically, I would never tell someone they were gimping the team because they weren't exceeding my expectations. I think that's a reasonable position to take. I also am certain I can play up to or beyond any reasonable expectations that people have of a PuG teammate while using a Galaxy. The issue is that people are so stuck in this mindset of "the Galaxy is the worst ship", that even when they admit that it is sufficient to get any job in the game done they STILL act like it is a failure because it didn't get the job done better.
I feel like such thinking is vaguely greedy and a bit cowardly. It's like saying you are so unsure of your own ability to play effectively that you demand that I make up for it by being even better, and then getting angry when we "only" win by a few kills, or "only" have a couple of minutes left on the mission timer. From the other side, I know people think its selfish to be more concerned with my own fun than with the feelings of people who feel 'punished' when they perceive that their team is under-optimized. I simply disagree with that analysis of the situation. It seems silly to complain that if I show up in a Galaxy I am gimping us relative to me showing up in <other ship>, because me in <other ship> doesn't exist. You are basically accusing me of being selfish for denying you something that isn't even real in the first place.
From my perspective, I'm not demanding anything from those players, I'm simply rejecting their selfish attempts to make me play the way they want me to. In a pre-made, sure, there is a place for having people discuss what they expect from each other's builds, but in a PuG situation I feel like the inherent social contract is "I will try my very best to complete the mission with the people/ships on hand, and I will not get bent out of shape when the random people I work with aren't exactly what I would choose". If someone says "I'll heal", and then doesn't, well... that's one thing. If someone says "I'll heal", and does, it seems selfish to me to quibble about the way they did it, or to feel entitled to have that person play something different just so you don't feel like you are missing out on the hypothetical better healer they might have been in another ship.
If my position still seems unreasonable, then I don't know what else to say. I will continue to defend my right to play the game the way I want to, and I will continue to defend my claim that I am not unreasonable in my position about the Galaxy and the (lack of) a need for change. If you want to have a discussion about why, on balance making changes to the Galaxy make sense, even given the reasonable opposition to it, that's fine. If all you want to do is "prove" that I'm unreasonable for daring to disagree with the hyperbolic group-think of the forums, well, that's never going to happen, and I think that is an unreasonable position to take.
rejecting basic mathematics associated with the implementation of the ship and the boff power selections available. leaving it with less damage potential then other options due to both tac console and boff options, and less tanking ability than other ships due to shares timers on engie boff abilities
basic realisation that doing damage is how to win in an environment based on killing targets equates to cowardice according to you. how very quaint.
No, cowardice is projecting your own fears that if someone ELSE doesn't do an extra special good job, you won't get the results you want. Basically, you are absolving yourself of responsibility to do your job under the guise of demanding a higher level of "competence" from others than you seem to demand from yourself. You don't see it the same way, and I have absolutely no interest in trying to prove that your view of the situation is "wrong". I will merely, again, affirm that my position is neither irrational nor unreasonable. Your view seems to be that it is selfish to not accede to what you feel are the reasonable requests of others. My view is it is selfish to make the requests in the first place.
Second, I'm not the one denying the mathematics here. The Galaxy does plenty of damage to be useful in any role you want to put it in. ANY ROLE. Your denial of that flies in the face of the iron-clad fact that I have used it and never felt useless. The tired response of "you'd do better in another ship" is, as I pointed out, a mirage. I'm not in another ship, nor am I going to choose to change to assuage your fear that you're not good enough to complete a mission without an optimized team carrying you to victory.
Your argument is merely that the Galaxy doesn't kill stuff as fast as you want. Stop acting like it is impossible to complete missions in one. It does, in fact, kill stuff, and the degree to which it's damage potential is 'too low' is vastly overstated by you and the rest of the people who want a change. You will say that it is better to kill stuff faster. I disagree, because my goal isn't often to finish a mission in anything under the optional timer. A mission taking too long to me is a non-issue, because the point of the game to me is to play the game, not to finish everything fast enough to ensure that nobody questions my internet cred.
read above. you are being entirely unreasonable. for the reasons i already pointed out.
a competitive galaxy would not prevent you from doing the same thing you do now. it would simply add the option to do better for those who want it.
The "reasons" you pointed out above are simply a restatement of the ground we've gone over again and again. I know what your argument is, why you believe it, and I acknowledge that it is, at least, a reasonable way to look at the game. You keep acting like it is not possible for both your views and my views to be valid, and then when I point out that, in fact, it's not possible to 'disprove' either one, you will mistakenly accuse me of being wishy-washy for pointing out (again) that you can't prove that your view is the only reasonable one.
As for the "You can still do whatever, and other people would benefit from it" - this is unquestionably the best argument that the Galaxy fans have, but it's still not that good. First, it basically concedes that there is no benefit to me of the change, and at best attempts to make me feel bad for "denying" people an option that you assume costs me nothing. At best, your argument operates from a standpoint of "you gain nothing, but also lose nothing, so just accept it." That is a weak justification indeed. Moreover, I do think, on the whole, that making changes would end up being more harmful than beneficial, not just to me, but to the player base at large. I think there are reasons to believe the fixes proposed are unlikely to resolve the "Galaxy is the worst" issue without creating another theoretical "goat" of a ship, which means the problem isn't really solved, just shoved on to a different ship and different group of players than the ones you care about.
Further, I think there is a justifiable fear that even if it did work without obsoleting other ships, there would be people who were upset that resources were spent on a ship that they don't care about, instead of on something they feel is more pressing. Since I also suspect that the group of players who would be angered by such a move exceeds the number of players who would benefit and be happy, I think the costs outweigh the benefits. I also think that the costs in dev time needed to adjust the seating, the consoles, etc, and push that change out live without breaking anything is more substantial than people suspect, else I think it would already have been done with some ships. Given the seemingly minor benefit to the game as a whole, let alone the complete lack of benefit to me as an individual, it doesn't seem like a prudent investment of resources.
doing any role and being competaint in that role are vary different
i could be a team healer in a shuttle. it can do the role it is a horrible option but it can do it. i could also tank in a shuttle again it would be horrible but it could do it
the gal-r and fleet gal-r is the shuttle of cruisers. it can do the job... eventual but you are hurting your team by flying one. wnat to be a team healer? fly the FREE star cruiser and do better.
heck the cheyenne the kitbash special with 4 sharpie pens for engines is a better cruiser then the gal-r
still waiting for him to name 1 thing a galaxy class can do better then any other cruiser, hell any 1 thing it can do as well as any cruiser. if there was anything it could do as well or better, this thread would not exist.
ive been trying to figure out were he could possibly be coming from, and i think its just that he is the opposite of a minmaxer, so flying something wholly inferior doesn't bother him. maybe its something he cant even recognize. but, for some reason, he is dead set on defending his right to fly a sucky ship, and your a terrible person for saying he should pull his own weight in all team content. teams succeed in spite of you, if your ok with that, your names proboly mrtshead. theres a giant lack of reason why not to buff the ship as well, in this argument. unless you really get something out of being mediocre.
its no to big a deal in most pve, but you can truly be the bane of your teams existence if you bring that ship into pvp. if it isnt a 1 sided match, your waist of space presence can contribute to the match dragging on for an hour or more. i know, ive been that guy a few times in a galaxy, doing pvp. there was absolutely no decisive way to effect the enemy in that ship, and its ability to keep itself alive is below average too.
at least we have all the power creep to thank for allowing any of the pve to be completed by any quality of ship and player. the vast majority of it is built for those that cant get more then about 10% of a ships potential out of it, why the hell is it relevant to say a galaxy can successfully slog through it all? theres not a more useless point to try to make, then to say oh but the galaxy can complete all the content in game with flying colors! ya, and so can a shuttle. you can blow through an stf with tier 3 ships, EASILY. if you like that horrible station setup, go fly an ody, at least you can get better console setups to go with it.
to defend this literally insane opinion of his, all he can do is attack the way something is argued, not any of the points. or like hes trying to establish reasonable doubt on things we all know are true about the ship, like he can get its suckyness acquitted or something. there is not reasonable doubt about this combinations of station powers. the galaxy class is an extreamly bad ship compared to all other alternatives, this can be proven in practice, by real numbers in a parcer, or on paper with simple build theory craft.
i can go through that painstakingly if you wish, to literally prove it.
to say that just an opinion, or that its an unknowable, or theres to many variables, i really dont understand this, its all knowable to me. i know what all the force multipliers do on their own, how to make good combinations of them, how to generate good spike or good sustained, how to heal and tank and at what point you activate certain heals and resists to prolong yours and others life the longest. all these things require certain basic components, the galaxy lacks a station setup that can create a build that can do any of these things above a mediocre level. its truly shocking that at this point, it can be debated that this ship is in need of changing.
doing any role and being competaint in that role are vary different
i could be a team healer in a shuttle. it can do the role it is a horrible option but it can do it. i could also tank in a shuttle again it would be horrible but it could do it
the gal-r and fleet gal-r is the shuttle of cruisers. it can do the job... eventual but you are hurting your team by flying one. wnat to be a team healer? fly the FREE star cruiser and do better.
heck the cheyenne the kitbash special with 4 sharpie pens for engines is a better cruiser then the gal-r
with cmdr eng
ltc eng
lt sci
lt tac
ens tac
and a 4/3/3 console layout and 8 turn
whenever i go from my fleet galaxy to another ship, it tends to be my fleet heavy. and im able to do twice as well in it as i just did with the galaxy, with just the seemingly tiny difference between them. im able to run the much stronger EPtS3, im able to run APB along with my FAW, and theres still room for DEM3, RSP2, and the often handy ET1. not to mention the turn rate is 2 points better at its base, making a huge difference for protecting shield faceings from focus fire, and keeping all 8 guns on a target.
compare that to the galaxyR though, and i give up my attack pastern, a tac console, EPtS3 capability, and im left with a LTC station i have nothing useful for. AB is TRIBBLE, HE clears it instantly or theres EWP that nearly useless on a ship with 6 base turn that cant slot APO. i could use ET3 or EPtS3 in that slot, but then im effectively running a ship without the 5 boff slot. what am i getting in exchange for a useless LTC level station slot? turns out nothing, the ship has the worst mobility and least damage dealing any cruiser could have, in every category of measurement, it loses. what am i missing out on? everything an excelsior or ambassador could slot with their LTC tac or sci. even that fleet heavy, with its ENS station not used for eng, can be great, and comfortably cover all the defensive basses without any overlap or redundancy.
holy TRIBBLE the ship is bad, dont even get me started on how bad a heal boat it is
I have to agree. Most ships - even ships that only have 2 tac consoles or subpar boff layouts - have something they're good at. If there was something the Galaxy could do well, some niche it could fill that 3 other ships couldn't fill better - there wouldn't be a problem.
But, as this thread indicates, clearly, there is a problem. To me, it seems to result largely from the fact that the ship in question is the most seen ship in Star Trek. There isn't a worse choice for a ship to make absolutely redundant (well, except the Constitution, but that's a moot point). The Galaxy - a ship that people are going to want to fly and have fun in seeing as this is a Star Trek game - is irrelevant. That's not good on any level.
Compare it to any similar ship and you'll see the problem. The Operations Odyssey laughs at the Galaxy. The Science Odyssey, Star Cruiser and Ambassador do anything it can do, but better. And then there's the Negh'var: compared to the Galaxy, the Fleet Negh'var gives up 1,100 hull. What does it gain? A cloak, +3(!) turn rate, cannon usage, and even a universal ensign. How is that fair?
The bottom line (as it seems to me, at least - I do make this disclaimer :P) is that the Galaxy has no reason to exist in the ship lineup as is, other than the fact it is a very prominent canon ship. From a basic gameplay standpoint, that's a bad situation, and something needs to be changed, whether it's a buff to the Galaxy or even something more drastic. But that poor, poor ship needs something.
OP: The Galaxy class has a woefully low level of chocolate in this game. It clearly needs more chocolate. Why on earth haven't the devs fixed this glaring and obvious oversight?
Many follow on posters: YEAH! We love chocolate! Let's get some more chocolate in here. How dare the stupid, vindictive, horrible Devs deny the most iconic ship in the game its rightful amount of chocolate?! They should be ashamed for not increasing the level of chocolate immediately. In fact, the Galaxy should have the most chocolate in the entire game! This needs to happen right away, and if it doesn't, it's proof that the devs are either incompetent or monsters.
Dissent: Woah, hold on. The Galaxy actually has enough chocolate to do anything in the game, and it certainly doesn't need to have the MOST chocolate.
Poster: Actually, in canon, the Galaxy not only had the most chocolate of its era, it had the most chocolate of any area, ever. In fact, in the tech manual Milton Hershey said that the Galaxy has the most chocolate, because it stacked the boxes right next to each other, so that you actually get more chocolate per box than if you spread them around.
Dissent: That makes no sense. There's no way packing the boxes next to each other increases the amount of chocolate in a box. If anything, packing them that way DECREASES the amount chocolate the ship has overall, because of all the extra packaging. Plus, I never felt like the Galaxy had all that much chocolate in the show. I mean, it was full of school kids - it would be stupid to put kids on a ship intended to deliver chocolate, because they would eat it all, and might get sick. Finally, in the movies, the Sovereign clearly was intended to be an upgrade to the Galaxy, and had better chocolate technology by design.
Poster: Look, I'm an expert on imaginary chocolate delivery, and I've thought about this a lot. You're assuming things based on modern packaging, when future packaging would be much, much better. As far as your little interpretation of the show goes, you're just wrong. The tech manual says otherwise, and I can make everything in the show consistent with it. It's really the way I say.
Dissent: It's not "really" anything, because it's not real. The tech manual is clearly junk science, and is contradicted by the notes from the movie. Whatever. Look, you can view the canon your way, we'll view it another way, it doesn't really matter because canon isn't a good way to set up the game anyway, since its so fluid and subjective.
Poster: It's not subjective at all. Nothing is subjective. If you can't see that objectively the ship is supposed to have more chocolate in canon, and objectively it has the least amount of chocolate in the game, then I don't know what. It's obvious the Galaxy is completely useless right now to every thinking person. It's like you don't even play the game.
Dissent: I play the game just fine, I just don't think chocolate is that important, I don't think you have the only possible interpretation of how canon treats chocolate, and I know that it's not true that the Galaxy is useless, because I use it just fine. You might not be able to deliver chocolate effectively with it, but I can, certainly well enough to be successful in the game.
Poster: LOL if you hate chocolate, what do you think is important in this game? There's no way anyone can be successful in a Galaxy, because the only criteria for success is how fast you deliver chocolate. If you can't recognize that simple truth, you are beyond reason.
Dissent: I don't hate chocolate, I just don't think it's the most important thing. I prefer black liquorice, and I think focusing on chocolate is narrow-minded and limiting. I also don't define success as "delivering chocolate as fast as possible", because once you get to a certain chocolate delivery threshold (which is possible to achieve in the Galaxy), then you complete any content in the game. Again, I'm not sure why this simple point is escaping you. This is all subjective. You are choosing what to value, and you are using your choices to attempt to paint people who think differently from you as unreasonable. This is bush-league level argumentation, and I will be sarcastically patient in tone with you over and over again in a futile attempt to get you to see where I'm coming from.
Poster: You are simply an unreasonable newb who forces other people to accept your black liquorice because you are too wrapped up in your pedantic and fallacious argument to understand that the only thing that matters is bringing chocolate to the party, and literally any other ship would bring more chocolate than the Galaxy, so you are ruining the party for your teammates by being selfish. Everyone knows that chocolate is the best, and everyone hates black liquorice. Only a selfish troll would ever say otherwise.
Dissent: Look, you might be too narrow-minded to understand that things that you like, or even things that MANY people like, are not the same things as things that EVERYBODY likes, but I'm not. More to the point, I can bring enough chocolate to the party in a Galaxy to make sure the party is fun for everyone, so I think it's selfish to tell me that I have to change my ways simply because people want more chocolate than they really need.
Poster: No, you are selfish and a troll for not realizing that by showing up in the Galaxy, you are denying your team the chocolate they could have had if you only used a better ship. Thus, you are preventing your team from getting all the chocolate they deserve because you are selfishly focused on your own insane position that black liquorice is worth anything. There is no way the Galaxy can bring enough chocolate to be fun.
Dissent: I've done it, though, so that last statement is provably false. I think what you want to say is you think that it's more difficult to bring chocolate with the Galaxy, and that you think many people might be happier if that were changed. Certainly some people would not be happy with the change, and most people probably wouldn't care. I think if you could see past the choco-focused way you're looking at the game you might have more fun.
Poster: YOUR argument is provably false, because it's a dichotomous fallacy wrapped in a straw man sophistry. Stop pretending that things are relative, and admit that the only valid way to view the world is mine.
Dissent: Wow, uh, you're basically a clown. I don't think you know what most of those words mean, and you haven't substantively engaged my argument. What's especially stupid is that I'm not even saying you are wrong to like chocolate, I'm saying that some people are allowed to like black liquorice, and you are basically being a narrow-minded bigot.
Poster: Whatever, you're a troll. In any case, why would you challenge this, because you could still pretend to like black liquorice like the worthless scrub you are, if only you wouldn't selfishly deny others their chocolate.
Dissent: That last part sort of makes sense, but I think if you look at the big picture, you'll see that there are at least reasons why, even though some people might be happy, it wouldn't be good for the game as a whole to mess around with who gets how much chocolate. Can we please move past the part of the conversation where you deny that any possibility for reasonable dissent exists, and move to talking about why, given that it's not automatically objectively true that the Galaxy needs to be change, a change might or might not be a good idea.
Poster: Whatever, this guy is a fool and a liar. He want to prevent us from getting the chocolate we deserve because he's a crazy black liquorice newb. He won't even argue properly, instead he just tries to make it seem like multiple views are valid so he doesn't have to admit that he's wrong about hating chocolate and being a selfish prick.
Poster: I agree, black liquorice sucks.
Poster: I can't even get where he's coming from. It's utterly impossible that someone could like black liquorice unless he/she was so unreasoning as to be a sub-human creature that we should continue to dismiss as irrelevant.
Dissent: TRIBBLE it. Being a pedantic prick didn't work, being sarcastically patient didn't work, restating my argument as simply and reasonably as I could didn't work. These guys don't want discussion, they seem to just want to vent their incredulous outrage that someone would dare question their truisms. I guess I will try satirizing the whole thing, see if that let's people see how silly they are being, and move us forward. If not, maybe it will be funny, but I'm too tired (and possibly drunk) to know for sure.
tl;dr. some TRIBBLE about chocolate, more analogies, a parity of the thread, lets try to make everyone but me look stupid.
cant debate, loses on the facts every time, no coherent response on the subject, tries to attacks the way a person presents facts, still cant refute them, can only troll.
No, I'm not missing that point. I'm REJECTING that line of thinking. There's a huge difference. I'm saying that I acknowledge that some people think this way, but I don't, and I never will, and I won't accept that it is the only valid way to think about things. I think it's illogical to complain that I, as a good player, chose to come and compete in a ship that you feel isn't up to par. Who cares if you think I could have done a better job in another ship. I still DID MY JOB. Stop trying to compare me to what your think I would have been like in an alternate universe where I only brought ships you approve of to the party. Compare me to the needs of the mission. If I met or exceeded those, then you have nothing to complain about.
Your feelings are Irrelevant as it is plain and simple the truth, hence why the Galaxy needs an update to compete in the tier 5 ships its been assigned to.
Basically, I would never tell someone they were gimping the team because they weren't exceeding my expectations. I think that's a reasonable position to take. I also am certain I can play up to or beyond any reasonable expectations that people have of a PuG teammate while using a Galaxy. The issue is that people are so stuck in this mindset of "the Galaxy is the worst ship", that even when they admit that it is sufficient to get any job in the game done they STILL act like it is a failure because it didn't get the job done better.
People at this point dont THINK that it is a failure it is. It was put into game as a tank but this game has no need use or design to have tanks. Hull and shields don't make that much difference if you got the firepower and since most to all objectives rely on having dps it is not wanted in a team where someone could have brought something else and done a much better job. This is one of those cases where if you get everything done noone complains but if you miss the bonus everyone is gonna see that some guy in the galaxy and say thats their problem. What you expect from ppl and what you get will often be two very different things. All this could easily be avoided if they had kept tanks needed and made cruisers and ships with lower dps like the G-R fill that role well. But they didn't.
I feel like such thinking is vaguely greedy and a bit cowardly. It's like saying you are so unsure of your own ability to play effectively that you demand that I make up for it by being even better, and then getting angry when we "only" win by a few kills, or "only" have a couple of minutes left on the mission timer. From the other side, I know people think its selfish to be more concerned with my own fun than with the feelings of people who feel 'punished' when they perceive that their team is under-optimized. I simply disagree with that analysis of the situation. It seems silly to complain that if I show up in a Galaxy I am gimping us relative to me showing up in <other ship>, because me in <other ship> doesn't exist. You are basically accusing me of being selfish for denying you something that isn't even real in the first place.
You act as if this is so personal. Why should you have to stop playing your galaxy as if ppl here are going to take it away, yet you fight so hard against it being updated. Its simple Illogical.
From my perspective, I'm not demanding anything from those players, I'm simply rejecting their selfish attempts to make me play the way they want me to. In a pre-made, sure, there is a place for having people discuss what they expect from each other's builds, but in a PuG situation I feel like the inherent social contract is "I will try my very best to complete the mission with the people/ships on hand, and I will not get bent out of shape when the random people I work with aren't exactly what I would choose". If someone says "I'll heal", and then doesn't, well... that's one thing. If someone says "I'll heal", and does, it seems selfish to me to quibble about the way they did it, or to feel entitled to have that person play something different just so you don't feel like you are missing out on the hypothetical better healer they might have been in another ship.
Could have done it better in another ship and again this is one of those if you pull it off as a healer your gonna be fine if you don't you'll see them blaming you or they will just quietly complain between themselves or other groupmates.
If my position still seems unreasonable, then I don't know what else to say. I will continue to defend my right to play the game the way I want to, and I will continue to defend my claim that I am not unreasonable in my position about the Galaxy and the (lack of) a need for change. If you want to have a discussion about why, on balance making changes to the Galaxy make sense, even given the reasonable opposition to it, that's fine. If all you want to do is "prove" that I'm unreasonable for daring to disagree with the hyperbolic group-think of the forums, well, that's never going to happen, and I think that is an unreasonable position to take.
Play the game anyway you want I could care less, hell run around in a tier 1 doing estf's for all I care or a shuttle for that matter. Honestly if I'm uncomfortable with how someone is doing something I simply ignore it and play somewhere else or leave the STF. Whether you feel your right or wrong only really should matter to you. I just can't understand why if you have even a hint of a little clue that the galaxy is under performing why you would fight so hard to keep it that way if your actually really using one. Makes no sense but then again most Real Life don't so there you go. Have fun flying a under preforming ship and complaining about using it being your choice on the forums while saying its old and shouldn't be updated...
Whole Crapload of Nonsense and something about Chocolate. .
Ok maybe it had a point but I really couldn't read past the second line about some nonsense about chocolate. Sure he was building up to something to make his point though I'm really unsure what he actually is going for anymore other then he willing to use a whole lot of different arguments to keep this ship from being updated to the point that he flying one and proving it can do a lackluster job and skirt on by on the shoulders of others and noone should tell him how to play.
Honestly I can't understand why anyone that wanting to fly a galaxy would fight this hard to keep it from being updated on the basic that if you really try hard it will do okay... I guess I could spend a bunch of Dilithium and energy credits and make it an ok ship but rather not have to and have a decent ship on a budget that don't break the bank. You can make tier 4 preform well if you spend enough but its alot easier to do the same in a tier 5 and alot less expensive.
Carry on playing the ship the way you want to. But how about you let us go on with this thread about improving it without nonsense.
Comments
Actually, it does. The assertion was that there was no possible situation in which a Galaxy class could kill something. If that is true, then I could never win a PvP matchup, yet I have. If that was true, then I could never successfully complete any PvE mission at all (of which STFs are a subset), yet I have. If it were true, I would be unable to enjoy using a Galaxy class, yet I can.
If you have a critical distinction between what you think DDIS is saying and what I was responding to, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, I'll accept your apology for wasting my time.
Actually it might. That's the issue I have with your arguments. You take a poorly constructed sentence, apply the narrowest interpretation that supports your position, then claim that it disproves the broader concepts in the opposing position. This is evident in the following:
No. I won't be apologizing. Nor am I going to go off track and argue minutia with you, as you have already failed to respond to my question, as to whether my misunderstanding your point (a statement that was in no way established as accurate, btw) was my fault or yours.
You can continue this line of discussion in the manner you have so far. If, you do not realize what you are doing, then you will not accept my assessment. If, you do realize what you are doing, then you won't care. In either case, it will be like trying to nail jello to a tree; you can only keep it there with constant hammering.
Excellent point. Thanks for admitting that, as I said, there are probably situations where someone can use skill and planning to overcome the Galaxy's drawbacks.
I'll let someone else answer this for me:
A) I don't love it so much, I'm more or less apathetic. I can have fun with it, but it's certainly not my favorite ship to fly, because it wasn't my favorite ship from the shows.
C) Even with the changes, I wouldn't love it, so what advantage do the changes have for me?
D) It is accurately represented in game, based on how I interpret the show. You and others are free to disagree with that, but since none of us have any control over how the ship is portrayed here, and since there is no possible way to "prove" that one subjective interpretation is "right", it doesn't really matter.
Maybe you did say that. You also said:
Not quite the same statement, is it?
The statement in question was a claim that would be expressed in formal logic thusly:
If Galaxy then Not Win.
The contrapositive to that position would be:
If Win, then Not Galaxy.
That claim is not narrow at all - it is overbroad and over-certain, which is my point.
(You have yet to show how that is a mischaracterization of the claim, btw).
If your quibble is that I am choosing to read the statement literally, instead of as the hyperbole it is, you have to recognize that while rhetorically it's clearly hyperbole, in the context of this discussion, that's not how people use it. They are trying to have it both ways, by asserting that if you disagree with them you are necessarily wrong, because everyone knows it's impossible to do anything in a Galaxy class. If you point out that, in fact, not everyone knows that, then they accuse you of being pedantic or equivocating about language, as you are doing.
Let me make this very simple - is it possible that a reasonable person could enjoy playing Star Trek Online while using a Galaxy class ship? If your answer is no, then I see no reason to discuss anything with you, since you are effectively attempting to quash my right to disagree, and I find that loathsome. If the answer is yes, then aren't I right that this discussion should be about the need/desirability for change in the context of those differing viewpoints, instead of being about the nigh impossible project of proving that a reasonable preference is nonetheless objectively wrong?
Basically, if it is possible to reasonably feel like the current state of the Galaxy is an unimportant issue, then it cannot be true that the Galaxy is objectively in need of revision. Thus, the discussion necessarily should turn to how to justify the changes in the context of differing opinions, but instead of doing that, the Galaxy fans have simply re-entrenched on the claim that anyone who doesn't think there's a problem, for any reason, is either a troll, a fool, a liar, a psychopath, or all of the above.
People need to understand this. I am not saying people who dislike the Galaxy are wrong to do so. I am saying that dislike is not universal, automatic, or objectively true. It is objectively true that SOME people don't like it, as it is objectively true that some people DO. The Galaxy fans, rather than admitting this, have sought to delegitimize any dissenting voice as unreasonable, so they could justify their desire for change without actually engaging in a discussion of why that might or might not be desirable to other people.
I didn't respond to your question because it looked to me like obvious flame bait with an obvious answer. How does me answering that further the discussion, and why is it important to assign blame for your failure to understand? You didn't understand, that's all that matters. Having a throw down about who failed whom wouldn't fix anything.
No, it's not quite the same statement. It's literally logically exactly the same statement.
watching you try to bend over backwards to defend this has been hilarious the last few page. your responding to a paragraph about dueling, not 5v5 pvp. the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried. ive built the most damaging galaxy class possible and its still a joke, the same basic build minus some redundant defensive things works much better on any other tac cruiser. i made no statement like that at all, cute that all you can do is paint someone as absurd and obtuse with misscharacterizations and argue with that straw man, instead of arguing with the actual person.
another attempt at attacking some fictional position of mine. im not even sure what your going on about, what this right way is supposed to be. i didn't mention any 1 way not to suck, i said do anything not to suck, build and use anything that actually is effective. the point of this thread is that theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective, it can merely get by and be background noise. pvp is all about diversity, whatever works works. the difference between you and me is im engaging you, and your engaging some imaginary version of me with crazy positions.
you can make it work. congratulations. every time any of us slums in our galaxy R we make it work. and every time we stop using it, no mater what ship we use next, we are more effective. the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth. name 1 thing it can do better then any other cruiser, no mater how small. just 1 thing. if your claim to skill is sufficient, surely you can come up with a single thing. if not, ether your skill is weak or your argument is fundamentally flawed. there is no worst escort, there is no worse sci ship, its not ok for there to be a worst cruiser. especially not one thats so iconic and a fan favorite.
O'RLY...(link)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Not hardly. Caveats and qualifiers serve distinct functions in modifying the meaning of the words with which they are used in conjunction. If the meaning is different, they cannot be literally logically exactly the same statement. You were not aware of this?
It is of note though, that as you have focused on the most convenient narrow interpretation of others statements, you have no problem in embracing the broadest and most generous interpretations of your own.
See, you are asserting that there is a distinction in the statements, or that there are different potential interpretations, while simultaneously failing to demonstrate either claim. I cannot correct your misunderstanding unless you are explicit about what it is. I also strongly suspect you are mistaking differences in syntax for differences in logic. As an example:
All lions are mammals.
A creature is a lion only if it is a mammal.
No creature is a lion unless it is also a mammal.
A non-mammal is not a lion.
Only mammals can possibly be lions.
These sentences are all logically identical, in that they convey exactly the same meaning, despite being very difference in syntax. Similarly, the two claims you are quoting differ in organization, but not at all in logic:
"there are probably situations where someone can use skill and planning to overcome the Galaxy's drawbacks."
and
"I said that skill could overcome the minor drawbacks to the Galaxy if one was so inclined."
Both impart the same logical assertion - Skill is a possible (but not certain) way to manage the problems people have with the Galaxy's setup. The sentences are arranged differently, but there's no difference in the imparted meaning. The phrase "if one was so inclined" does nothing but indicate again that this is a choice someone could make, not a mandatory requirement for play, which is mirrored in the logic of the first sentence. "Minor drawbacks" and "drawbacks" are logically identical as well, for the same reason that "many/few/some" are all logically the same statement.
lol Whatever, Jello.
Again, not a strawman, or a mischaracterization. If your intent was to caveat that claim that in no possible situations can a Galaxy class kill something to be only applying to 1v1 PvP, you should have been explicit in that. The context that you were quoting was about two issues - whether skill could make a difference in general, and the non-issue of "do stalemates happen in 1v1". It appears you believe you were clearly ONLY talking about the 1v1 component, but the phrasing of "no possible situation" was so broad as to make that at best unclear. Regardless, even in the context of only 1v1 PvP, my point remains. I have beaten players 1v1 while using a Galaxy, thus there is at least one possible situation where your claim is false. Thus, your claim is false. Amend your absolutes, and you will fix that problem.
Now onto the really hilarious part. This claim:
the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried.
Is still doing the same thing, even though it's now explicitly in the context of 1v1. Your statement is untrue. All you need to accept is that the argument you want to make is this:
In some, possibly even a majority of cases, a Galaxy class cannot win unless the opponent is substantially less skilled than the Galaxy captain. There maybe a certain threshold of opponent skill at which the Galaxy can no longer reasonably expect to ever prevail. I have experimentally verified that I personally cannot use a Galaxy to a level I find acceptable, and I strongly suspect this will be the case with others, but I cannot, of course, rule out the possibility that someone else's results may be different.
That, above, is what you mean. That is what you can reasonably defend. This fetish you have for arguing only in absolutes does you no favors.
Again, you are doing exactly what I have been accusing you of. "theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective" is simply untrue. The correct argument is as follows:
There is nothing in the game that I value that the Galaxy does well, so the Galaxy has little use to me personally. I'm sure some other people feel the same way, and I suspect that at the very least a plurality of players would agree that a change is a good idea.
The tragedy is that you might even be able to put together a persuasive argument if you would get past the conceit that stating something in absolutes is a "stronger" or "better" argument.
"the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth."
Sigh.
The Galaxy is a ship many players feel is the least effective.
Also - worst escort: Aquarius. I guess we need to fix it as well. Next worst? Defiant - seating is too limited, forces you to take at least one beam or torp. Need to fix that as well.
Sci ships? Opposite problem. I'm not sure what the worst is, but I'm not sure why you take anything other than a Vesta line or a Wells for pure science. Guess since those two ships can do any meaningful sci job better than any other sci ship, all other sci ships are useless.
Finally, no, sorry, it's actually fine that a ship that you like is "the worst". It's even fine that a ship that many or most people like is the "the worst". Why would it not be fine, other than it simply irritates you?
I'm not seeing a distinction from you still. Sorry you couldn't support your argument. Better luck next time!
My team won in spite of me because even though I was unarguably effective in the match I wasn't as effective as a hypothetical version of me in a different ship? Do you treat everyone this way? If a teammate shows up in a non-edalgo approved build, does that mean they are useless because they don't measure up to the hypothetical version you think they should be? Or is it just people in the Galaxy class that you unfairly malign?
Please point out a single contradiction, so that I might learn. Please explain how my answers are insufficient, so that I might see how I fail. Please explain why my tactic of exploding the justifications used to support peoples' arguments is not, in fact, an effective one. Please demonstrate how you have proven that your opinions are anything more than that.
Alternately, simply admit that the problem here isn't that I'm wrong, it's that you and I fundamentally disagree on what we value and how we play the game. If we can get you to the point where you can understand that its possible for us to disagree, and yet also understand that neither view is "right", "wrong", "better", or "worse", then we'll have real progress. I despair for that ever happening, though.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
Think your missing the point by a mile. Anything you can do any build you use with a Galaxy you can do in another ship and will excel at. Whether its a damage or support or tank in pvp or pve using a different ship will yield greater results. There for using the galaxy actually gimps the rest of the team as if you were using another ship it would increase their chances making them work less for the same result.
The fleet regent and avenger can tank just as well with 50% + the firepower of the Galaxy and double + the tactical bridge officer ability's
The game has no use for a pure tank which is what the galaxy is therefore its a useless ship
with only 2 bridge officer stations the galaxy should have 5 tactical consoles so it can at least do serious sustained damage
anyone who says the galaxy is fine like it is Is really just a troll
to anyone new people ...dont buy the galaxy there are much better choices to spend your zen on
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
No, I'm not missing that point. I'm REJECTING that line of thinking. There's a huge difference. I'm saying that I acknowledge that some people think this way, but I don't, and I never will, and I won't accept that it is the only valid way to think about things. I think it's illogical to complain that I, as a good player, chose to come and compete in a ship that you feel isn't up to par. Who cares if you think I could have done a better job in another ship. I still DID MY JOB. Stop trying to compare me to what your think I would have been like in an alternate universe where I only brought ships you approve of to the party. Compare me to the needs of the mission. If I met or exceeded those, then you have nothing to complain about.
Basically, I would never tell someone they were gimping the team because they weren't exceeding my expectations. I think that's a reasonable position to take. I also am certain I can play up to or beyond any reasonable expectations that people have of a PuG teammate while using a Galaxy. The issue is that people are so stuck in this mindset of "the Galaxy is the worst ship", that even when they admit that it is sufficient to get any job in the game done they STILL act like it is a failure because it didn't get the job done better.
I feel like such thinking is vaguely greedy and a bit cowardly. It's like saying you are so unsure of your own ability to play effectively that you demand that I make up for it by being even better, and then getting angry when we "only" win by a few kills, or "only" have a couple of minutes left on the mission timer. From the other side, I know people think its selfish to be more concerned with my own fun than with the feelings of people who feel 'punished' when they perceive that their team is under-optimized. I simply disagree with that analysis of the situation. It seems silly to complain that if I show up in a Galaxy I am gimping us relative to me showing up in <other ship>, because me in <other ship> doesn't exist. You are basically accusing me of being selfish for denying you something that isn't even real in the first place.
From my perspective, I'm not demanding anything from those players, I'm simply rejecting their selfish attempts to make me play the way they want me to. In a pre-made, sure, there is a place for having people discuss what they expect from each other's builds, but in a PuG situation I feel like the inherent social contract is "I will try my very best to complete the mission with the people/ships on hand, and I will not get bent out of shape when the random people I work with aren't exactly what I would choose". If someone says "I'll heal", and then doesn't, well... that's one thing. If someone says "I'll heal", and does, it seems selfish to me to quibble about the way they did it, or to feel entitled to have that person play something different just so you don't feel like you are missing out on the hypothetical better healer they might have been in another ship.
If my position still seems unreasonable, then I don't know what else to say. I will continue to defend my right to play the game the way I want to, and I will continue to defend my claim that I am not unreasonable in my position about the Galaxy and the (lack of) a need for change. If you want to have a discussion about why, on balance making changes to the Galaxy make sense, even given the reasonable opposition to it, that's fine. If all you want to do is "prove" that I'm unreasonable for daring to disagree with the hyperbolic group-think of the forums, well, that's never going to happen, and I think that is an unreasonable position to take.
FIXED.
No, cowardice is projecting your own fears that if someone ELSE doesn't do an extra special good job, you won't get the results you want. Basically, you are absolving yourself of responsibility to do your job under the guise of demanding a higher level of "competence" from others than you seem to demand from yourself. You don't see it the same way, and I have absolutely no interest in trying to prove that your view of the situation is "wrong". I will merely, again, affirm that my position is neither irrational nor unreasonable. Your view seems to be that it is selfish to not accede to what you feel are the reasonable requests of others. My view is it is selfish to make the requests in the first place.
Second, I'm not the one denying the mathematics here. The Galaxy does plenty of damage to be useful in any role you want to put it in. ANY ROLE. Your denial of that flies in the face of the iron-clad fact that I have used it and never felt useless. The tired response of "you'd do better in another ship" is, as I pointed out, a mirage. I'm not in another ship, nor am I going to choose to change to assuage your fear that you're not good enough to complete a mission without an optimized team carrying you to victory.
Your argument is merely that the Galaxy doesn't kill stuff as fast as you want. Stop acting like it is impossible to complete missions in one. It does, in fact, kill stuff, and the degree to which it's damage potential is 'too low' is vastly overstated by you and the rest of the people who want a change. You will say that it is better to kill stuff faster. I disagree, because my goal isn't often to finish a mission in anything under the optional timer. A mission taking too long to me is a non-issue, because the point of the game to me is to play the game, not to finish everything fast enough to ensure that nobody questions my internet cred.
The "reasons" you pointed out above are simply a restatement of the ground we've gone over again and again. I know what your argument is, why you believe it, and I acknowledge that it is, at least, a reasonable way to look at the game. You keep acting like it is not possible for both your views and my views to be valid, and then when I point out that, in fact, it's not possible to 'disprove' either one, you will mistakenly accuse me of being wishy-washy for pointing out (again) that you can't prove that your view is the only reasonable one.
As for the "You can still do whatever, and other people would benefit from it" - this is unquestionably the best argument that the Galaxy fans have, but it's still not that good. First, it basically concedes that there is no benefit to me of the change, and at best attempts to make me feel bad for "denying" people an option that you assume costs me nothing. At best, your argument operates from a standpoint of "you gain nothing, but also lose nothing, so just accept it." That is a weak justification indeed. Moreover, I do think, on the whole, that making changes would end up being more harmful than beneficial, not just to me, but to the player base at large. I think there are reasons to believe the fixes proposed are unlikely to resolve the "Galaxy is the worst" issue without creating another theoretical "goat" of a ship, which means the problem isn't really solved, just shoved on to a different ship and different group of players than the ones you care about.
Further, I think there is a justifiable fear that even if it did work without obsoleting other ships, there would be people who were upset that resources were spent on a ship that they don't care about, instead of on something they feel is more pressing. Since I also suspect that the group of players who would be angered by such a move exceeds the number of players who would benefit and be happy, I think the costs outweigh the benefits. I also think that the costs in dev time needed to adjust the seating, the consoles, etc, and push that change out live without breaking anything is more substantial than people suspect, else I think it would already have been done with some ships. Given the seemingly minor benefit to the game as a whole, let alone the complete lack of benefit to me as an individual, it doesn't seem like a prudent investment of resources.
i could be a team healer in a shuttle. it can do the role it is a horrible option but it can do it. i could also tank in a shuttle again it would be horrible but it could do it
the gal-r and fleet gal-r is the shuttle of cruisers. it can do the job... eventual but you are hurting your team by flying one. wnat to be a team healer? fly the FREE star cruiser and do better.
heck the cheyenne the kitbash special with 4 sharpie pens for engines is a better cruiser then the gal-r
with cmdr eng
ltc eng
lt sci
lt tac
ens tac
and a 4/3/3 console layout and 8 turn
ive been trying to figure out were he could possibly be coming from, and i think its just that he is the opposite of a minmaxer, so flying something wholly inferior doesn't bother him. maybe its something he cant even recognize. but, for some reason, he is dead set on defending his right to fly a sucky ship, and your a terrible person for saying he should pull his own weight in all team content. teams succeed in spite of you, if your ok with that, your names proboly mrtshead. theres a giant lack of reason why not to buff the ship as well, in this argument. unless you really get something out of being mediocre.
its no to big a deal in most pve, but you can truly be the bane of your teams existence if you bring that ship into pvp. if it isnt a 1 sided match, your waist of space presence can contribute to the match dragging on for an hour or more. i know, ive been that guy a few times in a galaxy, doing pvp. there was absolutely no decisive way to effect the enemy in that ship, and its ability to keep itself alive is below average too.
at least we have all the power creep to thank for allowing any of the pve to be completed by any quality of ship and player. the vast majority of it is built for those that cant get more then about 10% of a ships potential out of it, why the hell is it relevant to say a galaxy can successfully slog through it all? theres not a more useless point to try to make, then to say oh but the galaxy can complete all the content in game with flying colors! ya, and so can a shuttle. you can blow through an stf with tier 3 ships, EASILY. if you like that horrible station setup, go fly an ody, at least you can get better console setups to go with it.
to defend this literally insane opinion of his, all he can do is attack the way something is argued, not any of the points. or like hes trying to establish reasonable doubt on things we all know are true about the ship, like he can get its suckyness acquitted or something. there is not reasonable doubt about this combinations of station powers. the galaxy class is an extreamly bad ship compared to all other alternatives, this can be proven in practice, by real numbers in a parcer, or on paper with simple build theory craft.
i can go through that painstakingly if you wish, to literally prove it.
to say that just an opinion, or that its an unknowable, or theres to many variables, i really dont understand this, its all knowable to me. i know what all the force multipliers do on their own, how to make good combinations of them, how to generate good spike or good sustained, how to heal and tank and at what point you activate certain heals and resists to prolong yours and others life the longest. all these things require certain basic components, the galaxy lacks a station setup that can create a build that can do any of these things above a mediocre level. its truly shocking that at this point, it can be debated that this ship is in need of changing.
whenever i go from my fleet galaxy to another ship, it tends to be my fleet heavy. and im able to do twice as well in it as i just did with the galaxy, with just the seemingly tiny difference between them. im able to run the much stronger EPtS3, im able to run APB along with my FAW, and theres still room for DEM3, RSP2, and the often handy ET1. not to mention the turn rate is 2 points better at its base, making a huge difference for protecting shield faceings from focus fire, and keeping all 8 guns on a target.
compare that to the galaxyR though, and i give up my attack pastern, a tac console, EPtS3 capability, and im left with a LTC station i have nothing useful for. AB is TRIBBLE, HE clears it instantly or theres EWP that nearly useless on a ship with 6 base turn that cant slot APO. i could use ET3 or EPtS3 in that slot, but then im effectively running a ship without the 5 boff slot. what am i getting in exchange for a useless LTC level station slot? turns out nothing, the ship has the worst mobility and least damage dealing any cruiser could have, in every category of measurement, it loses. what am i missing out on? everything an excelsior or ambassador could slot with their LTC tac or sci. even that fleet heavy, with its ENS station not used for eng, can be great, and comfortably cover all the defensive basses without any overlap or redundancy.
holy TRIBBLE the ship is bad, dont even get me started on how bad a heal boat it is
But, as this thread indicates, clearly, there is a problem. To me, it seems to result largely from the fact that the ship in question is the most seen ship in Star Trek. There isn't a worse choice for a ship to make absolutely redundant (well, except the Constitution, but that's a moot point). The Galaxy - a ship that people are going to want to fly and have fun in seeing as this is a Star Trek game - is irrelevant. That's not good on any level.
Compare it to any similar ship and you'll see the problem. The Operations Odyssey laughs at the Galaxy. The Science Odyssey, Star Cruiser and Ambassador do anything it can do, but better. And then there's the Negh'var: compared to the Galaxy, the Fleet Negh'var gives up 1,100 hull. What does it gain? A cloak, +3(!) turn rate, cannon usage, and even a universal ensign. How is that fair?
The bottom line (as it seems to me, at least - I do make this disclaimer :P) is that the Galaxy has no reason to exist in the ship lineup as is, other than the fact it is a very prominent canon ship. From a basic gameplay standpoint, that's a bad situation, and something needs to be changed, whether it's a buff to the Galaxy or even something more drastic. But that poor, poor ship needs something.
Many follow on posters: YEAH! We love chocolate! Let's get some more chocolate in here. How dare the stupid, vindictive, horrible Devs deny the most iconic ship in the game its rightful amount of chocolate?! They should be ashamed for not increasing the level of chocolate immediately. In fact, the Galaxy should have the most chocolate in the entire game! This needs to happen right away, and if it doesn't, it's proof that the devs are either incompetent or monsters.
Dissent: Woah, hold on. The Galaxy actually has enough chocolate to do anything in the game, and it certainly doesn't need to have the MOST chocolate.
Poster: Actually, in canon, the Galaxy not only had the most chocolate of its era, it had the most chocolate of any area, ever. In fact, in the tech manual Milton Hershey said that the Galaxy has the most chocolate, because it stacked the boxes right next to each other, so that you actually get more chocolate per box than if you spread them around.
Dissent: That makes no sense. There's no way packing the boxes next to each other increases the amount of chocolate in a box. If anything, packing them that way DECREASES the amount chocolate the ship has overall, because of all the extra packaging. Plus, I never felt like the Galaxy had all that much chocolate in the show. I mean, it was full of school kids - it would be stupid to put kids on a ship intended to deliver chocolate, because they would eat it all, and might get sick. Finally, in the movies, the Sovereign clearly was intended to be an upgrade to the Galaxy, and had better chocolate technology by design.
Poster: Look, I'm an expert on imaginary chocolate delivery, and I've thought about this a lot. You're assuming things based on modern packaging, when future packaging would be much, much better. As far as your little interpretation of the show goes, you're just wrong. The tech manual says otherwise, and I can make everything in the show consistent with it. It's really the way I say.
Dissent: It's not "really" anything, because it's not real. The tech manual is clearly junk science, and is contradicted by the notes from the movie. Whatever. Look, you can view the canon your way, we'll view it another way, it doesn't really matter because canon isn't a good way to set up the game anyway, since its so fluid and subjective.
Poster: It's not subjective at all. Nothing is subjective. If you can't see that objectively the ship is supposed to have more chocolate in canon, and objectively it has the least amount of chocolate in the game, then I don't know what. It's obvious the Galaxy is completely useless right now to every thinking person. It's like you don't even play the game.
Dissent: I play the game just fine, I just don't think chocolate is that important, I don't think you have the only possible interpretation of how canon treats chocolate, and I know that it's not true that the Galaxy is useless, because I use it just fine. You might not be able to deliver chocolate effectively with it, but I can, certainly well enough to be successful in the game.
Poster: LOL if you hate chocolate, what do you think is important in this game? There's no way anyone can be successful in a Galaxy, because the only criteria for success is how fast you deliver chocolate. If you can't recognize that simple truth, you are beyond reason.
Dissent: I don't hate chocolate, I just don't think it's the most important thing. I prefer black liquorice, and I think focusing on chocolate is narrow-minded and limiting. I also don't define success as "delivering chocolate as fast as possible", because once you get to a certain chocolate delivery threshold (which is possible to achieve in the Galaxy), then you complete any content in the game. Again, I'm not sure why this simple point is escaping you. This is all subjective. You are choosing what to value, and you are using your choices to attempt to paint people who think differently from you as unreasonable. This is bush-league level argumentation, and I will be sarcastically patient in tone with you over and over again in a futile attempt to get you to see where I'm coming from.
Poster: You are simply an unreasonable newb who forces other people to accept your black liquorice because you are too wrapped up in your pedantic and fallacious argument to understand that the only thing that matters is bringing chocolate to the party, and literally any other ship would bring more chocolate than the Galaxy, so you are ruining the party for your teammates by being selfish. Everyone knows that chocolate is the best, and everyone hates black liquorice. Only a selfish troll would ever say otherwise.
Dissent: Look, you might be too narrow-minded to understand that things that you like, or even things that MANY people like, are not the same things as things that EVERYBODY likes, but I'm not. More to the point, I can bring enough chocolate to the party in a Galaxy to make sure the party is fun for everyone, so I think it's selfish to tell me that I have to change my ways simply because people want more chocolate than they really need.
Poster: No, you are selfish and a troll for not realizing that by showing up in the Galaxy, you are denying your team the chocolate they could have had if you only used a better ship. Thus, you are preventing your team from getting all the chocolate they deserve because you are selfishly focused on your own insane position that black liquorice is worth anything. There is no way the Galaxy can bring enough chocolate to be fun.
Dissent: I've done it, though, so that last statement is provably false. I think what you want to say is you think that it's more difficult to bring chocolate with the Galaxy, and that you think many people might be happier if that were changed. Certainly some people would not be happy with the change, and most people probably wouldn't care. I think if you could see past the choco-focused way you're looking at the game you might have more fun.
Poster: YOUR argument is provably false, because it's a dichotomous fallacy wrapped in a straw man sophistry. Stop pretending that things are relative, and admit that the only valid way to view the world is mine.
Dissent: Wow, uh, you're basically a clown. I don't think you know what most of those words mean, and you haven't substantively engaged my argument. What's especially stupid is that I'm not even saying you are wrong to like chocolate, I'm saying that some people are allowed to like black liquorice, and you are basically being a narrow-minded bigot.
Poster: Whatever, you're a troll. In any case, why would you challenge this, because you could still pretend to like black liquorice like the worthless scrub you are, if only you wouldn't selfishly deny others their chocolate.
Dissent: That last part sort of makes sense, but I think if you look at the big picture, you'll see that there are at least reasons why, even though some people might be happy, it wouldn't be good for the game as a whole to mess around with who gets how much chocolate. Can we please move past the part of the conversation where you deny that any possibility for reasonable dissent exists, and move to talking about why, given that it's not automatically objectively true that the Galaxy needs to be change, a change might or might not be a good idea.
Poster: Whatever, this guy is a fool and a liar. He want to prevent us from getting the chocolate we deserve because he's a crazy black liquorice newb. He won't even argue properly, instead he just tries to make it seem like multiple views are valid so he doesn't have to admit that he's wrong about hating chocolate and being a selfish prick.
Poster: I agree, black liquorice sucks.
Poster: I can't even get where he's coming from. It's utterly impossible that someone could like black liquorice unless he/she was so unreasoning as to be a sub-human creature that we should continue to dismiss as irrelevant.
Dissent: TRIBBLE it. Being a pedantic prick didn't work, being sarcastically patient didn't work, restating my argument as simply and reasonably as I could didn't work. These guys don't want discussion, they seem to just want to vent their incredulous outrage that someone would dare question their truisms. I guess I will try satirizing the whole thing, see if that let's people see how silly they are being, and move us forward. If not, maybe it will be funny, but I'm too tired (and possibly drunk) to know for sure.
Since I can't embed for some reason, Here's my response to that.
cant debate, loses on the facts every time, no coherent response on the subject, tries to attacks the way a person presents facts, still cant refute them, can only troll.
Play the game anyway you want I could care less, hell run around in a tier 1 doing estf's for all I care or a shuttle for that matter. Honestly if I'm uncomfortable with how someone is doing something I simply ignore it and play somewhere else or leave the STF. Whether you feel your right or wrong only really should matter to you. I just can't understand why if you have even a hint of a little clue that the galaxy is under performing why you would fight so hard to keep it that way if your actually really using one. Makes no sense but then again most Real Life don't so there you go. Have fun flying a under preforming ship and complaining about using it being your choice on the forums while saying its old and shouldn't be updated...
Ok maybe it had a point but I really couldn't read past the second line about some nonsense about chocolate. Sure he was building up to something to make his point though I'm really unsure what he actually is going for anymore other then he willing to use a whole lot of different arguments to keep this ship from being updated to the point that he flying one and proving it can do a lackluster job and skirt on by on the shoulders of others and noone should tell him how to play.
Honestly I can't understand why anyone that wanting to fly a galaxy would fight this hard to keep it from being updated on the basic that if you really try hard it will do okay... I guess I could spend a bunch of Dilithium and energy credits and make it an ok ship but rather not have to and have a decent ship on a budget that don't break the bank. You can make tier 4 preform well if you spend enough but its alot easier to do the same in a tier 5 and alot less expensive.
Carry on playing the ship the way you want to. But how about you let us go on with this thread about improving it without nonsense.