I am generally a pve person. I do not think the galaxy is fine right now. I said before and will repeat here. When I made captain I was excited to get to command a Galaxy. I started getting my butt blown off immediately by npc romulans on normal difficulty. I literally was dying through missions. Gal was carrying blue gear all around. To test I jumped back into my Excelsior with one tier lower gear and replayed those missions and did better.
That is why I support a reworked Galaxy class. It should not be a step down in basic tier.
yes, that is why i said " some pve guy" and not just " pve guys".
not all pve guy bielieve the ship is good as is.
yeodred who already said to us that he don't do pvp is one of the biggest defender of the galaxy cause.
Lol, i have been thinking something similar lately.
Cryptic seems to trust the PvP community when it comes to BOFF powers, balance issues and other game changing things, but other (relatively) small groups (like us) get ignored...
The problem i see here is that PvP is only a small aspect of STO, and certain things that (do not) work in PvP have their place in PvE (which much more ppl do).
The often criticized things do have often a huge influence on PvE, but obviously Cryptic doesn't really care.
On the other hand reworking the GCS wouldn't affect nothing outside the GCS at all and still Cryptics devs seem to be reluctant to get their hands on it...
To be honest i don't get this...
most of the changes pvp'ers inspire really do nothing to effect pve. unless its something like tric mines, were us pvpers went into stfs and blew up gates first things to show how they were a broken and exploitive thing that needed to be toned down. stuff like that got toned down for pve reasons.
something more recent, that black death console, before you couldn't use any boff abilities wile you were stuck in it, thats a death sentence in pvp. it got 'nerfed' so that it only took weapons offline inside it, and made its explosion cause more damage. so, it actually got buffed as far as pve is concerned.
any pvp'er inspired changes simply made the game more healthy
yes, that is why i said " some pve guy" and not just " pve guys".
not all pve guy bielieve the ship is good as is.
yeodred who already said to us that he don't do pvp is one of the biggest defender of the galaxy cause.
I am not arguing against you. I am giving you support.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
You shouldn't forget that Cryptics devs are pretty selective about whom to listen and whom not.
I'd say that's fair, since you and many others ONLY accept certain aspects of actual TNG canon (IE the stuff that appeared on screen in TV episodes and feature films) regarding the Galaxy Class as depicted in TNG, DS9, etc. (basically, anything that doesn't fit your 'vision' is rejected as: "The TNG writing staff being dumb...etc."; and you like to quote NON-CANON sources, like the TNG Tech Manual, which isn't 'canon' as CBS or Gene Roddenberry when he was alive defined it with regard to anything in the Star Trek Franchise.)
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..."
To be fair - the writers could be idiots about some things. Lots of times a ship - the Galaxy or Defiant or Voyager - could take something out with insulting ease. Two episodes later something similar stomped the warp coolant out of them. Case in point of writers doing whatever they want without care for accuracy:
Look up the size of the Defiant. Depending on the episodes she has been shown varying in size from 60 meters to 175+meters.
They not only couldn't flat out decide how powerful the ship is, they couldn't even collectively decide on a size for the damned thing.
So if we're supposed to ignore the episodes where the Defiant is either, A: Barely bigger then a runabout and/or B: Barely smaller then the Galaxy class's saucer section I think we can ignore one or two incidents where a writer wanted the Enterprise damaged for suspense.
The Galaxy or Defiant getting a slapdown is what TV Tropes refers to as - amusingly enough - the Worf Effect. When the biggest, toughest, most powerful character on the show or movie gets bitchslapped to show how threatening and awesome the bad guy is.
Want to show an alien's strength? Take out Worf or Tuvok.
Want to show the scary alien starship's strength? Disable the Enterprise or Defiant.
most of the changes pvp'ers inspire really do nothing to effect pve. unless its something like tric mines, were us pvpers went into stfs and blew up gates first things to show how they were a broken and exploitive thing that needed to be toned down. stuff like that got toned down for pve reasons.
something more recent, that black death console, before you couldn't use any boff abilities wile you were stuck in it, thats a death sentence in pvp. it got 'nerfed' so that it only took weapons offline inside it, and made its explosion cause more damage. so, it actually got buffed as far as pve is concerned.
any pvp'er inspired changes simply made the game more healthy
All fine, but Cryptic seems ONLY to listen to PvP players at all, just because they are being looked at as more "expert" players than the others.
And we shouldn't forget that PvP and PvE sometimes require completely different approaches, so if they nerf one thing concering PvP, it CAN have a different effect in PvE.
What i am criticising is that Cryptics devs seem to be very selective about whom to listen. Other groups of players (like us GCS fans) get completely ignored, althrough changing the GCS wouldn't be nearly as overall game changing as some changes that where made to satisfy PvP players.
I'd say that's fair, since you and many others ONLY accept certain aspects of actual TNG canon (IE the stuff that appeared on screen in TV episodes and feature films) regarding the Galaxy Class as depicted in TNG, DS9, etc. (basically, anything that doesn't fit your 'vision' is rejected as: "The TNG writing staff being dumb...etc."; and you like to quote NON-CANON sources, like the TNG Tech Manual, which isn't 'canon' as CBS or Gene Roddenberry when he was alive defined it with regard to anything in the Star Trek Franchise.)
I think you are confusing here something. Cryptic obviously choose only to consider instances where the Galaxy Class performed bad.
Of course you can ignore anything that speaks FOR the GCS and make it a extremely passive and not very good tank in STO. But a "fair" representation of the GCS would result in a very different ship IMO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I'd say that's fair, since you and many others ONLY accept certain aspects of actual TNG canon (IE the stuff that appeared on screen in TV episodes and feature films) regarding the Galaxy Class as depicted in TNG, DS9, etc. (basically, anything that doesn't fit your 'vision' is rejected as: "The TNG writing staff being dumb...etc."; and you like to quote NON-CANON sources, like the TNG Tech Manual, which isn't 'canon' as CBS or Gene Roddenberry when he was alive defined it with regard to anything in the Star Trek Franchise.)
i dont exclude any of the canon from consideration. i just dont bring everything up, because the ship didn't fight that often or theres not much to draw from some of the action. i certainly dont exclude DS9 ether.
"Only the reference books (tech manual, encyclopedia, etc...) and two books by Jeri Taylor are considered canon outside the TV show and movies." - Harry Lang, Senior Director of Viacom Consumer Products Interactive division, posts on StarTrek.com forum, January 2005.
that is also a strange reasoning i think.
do you bielieve that sto is going to be shut down in 1 year or 2?
because if not, why remove some potential ship sales by not " restoring" some older ship?
i bielieve news player came to that game every month.
the galaxy retrofit is the pinacle of bad design in this game but it is not the only one to be left behind, i bielieve they are many other.
if these ships are not bring up to a reasonable level they will loose potential sell.
how is it happening in the other game? daes anyone known?
is it why some games finally die? because player are tired of the race for the next shiny?
how do other game have deal with power creep?
I personally do believe that the license will be pulled sooner or later, yes But apart from that you are right in principle, although many of the new players (that's my speculation, however) do not relate to TNG as much but to "nu trek" and other current sci-fi franchises so the Galaxy Class wouldn't be as valuable as some militaristic sci-fi battleship for example. People that want the Galaxy most likely already bought it and changing that wouldn't create any revenue.
Maybe there will be a new Galaxy variant in the store at one point though I'm afraid that will be the Gal-X with a hangar slapped onto it
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
It's five in the morning, and I probably shouldn't be posting, but well, you know.
Why don't we gather a group of various Galaxies, set them up for BFAW spam, get people's things set up to record numbers, and hit the PvP front for a few rounds?
Or we could track what everyone's builds are to show the differences, run a few rounds of PvP, meter the results, and separate everything out so that the right data goes with the right build, and try to get the Dev's attention in the PvP forums? Perhaps if we can show them that the Galaxy is underpowered and awkward compared to other ships, we might be able to make a better point instead of just being able to brag about having the LONGEST GCS thread in the forums.
I do have a T4 Galaxy with an Anti-Proton build using the new warp core and omni directional AP beam. among other things, and I'd be happy to help contribute somehow.
...Parse, dammit, why could I think of that earlier? Well, whatever systems people use to meter their output.
You guys know what I mean here, right?
Also, in addition to the builds and data, someone could record the whole thing and post it to YouTube, so we can include that with our complaints.
Thoughts?
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
It's five in the morning, and I probably shouldn't be posting, but well, you know.
Why don't we gather a group of various Galaxies, set them up for BFAW spam, get people's things set up to record numbers, and hit the PvP front for a few rounds?
Or we could track what everyone's builds are to show the differences, run a few rounds of PvP, meter the results, and separate everything out so that the right data goes with the right build, and try to get the Dev's attention in the PvP forums? Perhaps if we can show them that the Galaxy is underpowered and awkward compared to other ships, we might be able to make a better point instead of just being able to brag about having the LONGEST GCS thread in the forums.
I do have a T4 Galaxy with an Anti-Proton build using the new warp core and omni directional AP beam. among other things, and I'd be happy to help contribute somehow.
...Parse, dammit, why could I think of that earlier? Well, whatever systems people use to meter their output.
You guys know what I mean here, right?
Also, in addition to the builds and data, someone could record the whole thing and post it to YouTube, so we can include that with our complaints.
Thoughts?
approaching the GCS problem from a PvP point of view could help IMO.
Using only FAW in PvP leads to get false results IMO.
So i think ppl should experiment more and try different tactics. Personally i don't use FAW anymore, i rather use BO or APB, but thats just me.
Apropos parsing, can someone explain a PvP noob like me how to do that?
EDIT:
I think it is already common knowledge that the GCS is considered as a "noob ship" in PvP. Everyone targets that obvious noob flying a GCS in PvP and in my experience no ship can withstand the focussed fire of 2 scimitars and some other PvP optimized ships, since in PvP the only thing that counts is kill faster so you don't get killed.
I think it should be obvious even for the devs that the GCS is the worst choice when going to PvP.
But that's just my experience, i am sure "real" PvP players can make any ship perform good when using voice chat and coordinated team play.
(i just hate all that deeply)
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
There is one thing i don't quite understand about the fleet ships in STO.
The KDF counterpart to the Odyssey is the Bortas, right?
Shouldn't the KDF counterpart to the (fleet) Sovereign be the Negh'Va?
(althrough the Negh'Va only has got a improved GCS BOFF layout)
But more strangely, the KDF counterpart to the (fleet) Galaxy, the Fleet Tor'Kaht Battle Cruiser Retrofit, has a completely different BOFF layout than any cruiser-like ship i can remember. (the ultimate Battlecruiser BOFF/console layout IMO)
Is there any pattern behind this i cannot see or has Cryptcs just slapped some BOFF layouts together, because they found it "cool" then?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
There is one thing i don't quite understand about the fleet ships in STO.
The KDF counterpart to the Odyssey is the Bortas, right?
Shouldn't the KDF counterpart to the (fleet) Sovereign be the Negh'Va?
(althrough the Negh'Va only has got a improved GCS BOFF layout)
But more strangely, the KDF counterpart to the (fleet) Galaxy, the Fleet Tor'Kaht Battle Cruiser Retrofit, has a completely different BOFF layout than any cruiser-like ship i can remember. (the ultimate Battlecruiser BOFF/console layout IMO)
Is there any pattern behind this i cannot see or has Cryptcs just slapped some BOFF layouts together, because they found it "cool" then?
Check into a few KDF threads, they do not think there are too many lines to draw between a federation ship and one in the KDF. Mostly because they believe Cryptic hates the KDF.
But that's just my experience, i am sure "real" PvP players can make any ship perform good when using voice chat and coordinated team play.
(i just hate all that deeply)
YES! That!
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
You got it. They claim that their numbers are high, but yet NONE of them would even TRY to do anything differently. They appear to be happy in this cycle of just whining and are apparently afraid to even try anything else BUT whine.
I suspect that many of these guys appear to be part "microwave generation" (born in the mid 1980's) that I also see on other threads in this forum. These are the guys that "want what they want WHEN they want it and HOW they want it". For them to attempt any other methods which may help their "cause" are instantly discarded because it is not HOW they want to do it.
They bizarrely go around thinking that insulting the devs and other players will actually increase support for their "cause", and strangely appear to be genuinely surprised and out of touch when their approaches have the quite opposite effect. They have even claimed that the devs were basically "out to get them" as if the devs are attempting to personally harm them.
They have this weird "reality TV" mindset of thinking what they say or do has no consequences and they refuse to take absolutely ANY accountability for their actions.
I definately would not rule this psychology mindset factor. There are times when people who actually do want to see improvements in the ship are looked upon as "haters" because their (including mine) views aren't in alignment with theirs. This is a big reason why this threat seems to be a circular firing squad, in my opinion.
Lol, i have been thinking something similar lately.
Cryptic seems to trust the PvP community when it comes to BOFF powers, balance issues and other game changing things, but other (relatively) small groups (like us) get ignored...
The problem i see here is that PvP is only a small aspect of STO, and certain things that (do not) work in PvP have their place in PvE (which much more ppl do).
The often criticized things do have often a huge influence on PvE, but obviously Cryptic doesn't really care.
On the other hand reworking the GCS wouldn't affect nothing outside the GCS at all and still Cryptics devs seem to be reluctant to get their hands on it...
To be honest i don't get this...
The problem is that this is an MMO, and PvP is the most efficient way to have the most multiplayer interaction. From the game maps, to the ship trinity balance issues, PvP in this game is very sub par. I was hoping for a SWG Restuss like PvP zone,the zones have limited number of players, with exception of Kerrat (which is a mess in its own right).
Cryptic really hasn't done much to grow PvP in this game, to be honest. Players that cant be on every day for six hours a shot have to grind like crazy to be able to get competitive gear through STF's, and building up the fleet bases (for those of us in smaller fleets).
Once we finally get there, the carrot is moved and another grind begins.
With larger sized fights, ther amount of variation would increase, and even an Exploration ship would contribute more than it can now, even if it was made a uni-paradise.
Making the GSc like other tactical based ships isnt the answer. Making ever ships layout, as is, capable of being competitive is.
And honestly, every STF/PvE mission out there I can do with a Gal-R with no concerns about failure or not gettig the optional, HE included.
You shouldn't forget that Cryptics devs are pretty selective about whom to listen and whom not.
The GCS is clearly not one of their favourite ships and i highly doubt that cryptic will start to contact CBS about it.
The whole "planned victimization" narrative drumbeat is almost automted and is wearing pretty thin. Lets say you get your dream and get this ship with all of the bells and whistles you want. Then comes T6 ships and no Galaxy, Sovy, Excel. Are you going to continue with the Cryptic "hates the GCS" mindset?
approaching the GCS problem from a PvP point of view could help IMO.
Using only FAW in PvP leads to get false results IMO.
So i think ppl should experiment more and try different tactics. Personally i don't use FAW anymore, i rather use BO or APB, but thats just me.
Apropos parsing, can someone explain a PvP noob like me how to do that?
EDIT:
I think it is already common knowledge that the GCS is considered as a "noob ship" in PvP. Everyone targets that obvious noob flying a GCS in PvP and in my experience no ship can withstand the focussed fire of 2 scimitars and some other PvP optimized ships, since in PvP the only thing that counts is kill faster so you don't get killed.
I think it should be obvious even for the devs that the GCS is the worst choice when going to PvP.
But that's just my experience, i am sure "real" PvP players can make any ship perform good when using voice chat and coordinated team play.
(i just hate all that deeply)
If they made PvP zones more Restuss-like (SWG), any ship would be able to be more usefull.
that is also a strange reasoning i think.
do you bielieve that sto is going to be shut down in 1 year or 2?
because if not, why remove some potential ship sales by not " restoring" some older ship?
i bielieve news player came to that game every month.
the galaxy retrofit is the pinacle of bad design in this game but it is not the only one to be left behind, i bielieve they are many other.
if these ships are not bring up to a reasonable level they will loose potential sell.
how is it happening in the other game? daes anyone known?
is it why some games finally die? because player are tired of the race for the next shiny?
how do other game have deal with power creep?
More likely, in a years time, we will see a T6 that will render T5/+/Fleet ships obsolete and there won't be a Galaxy/Sovy'/Excel' ship in it.
I know that SWG died because it split the focus of the game between a CCG and PvP where most of the players decided that "sub-hunting" was going to be the order of the day.
All fine, but Cryptic seems ONLY to listen to PvP players at all, just because they are being looked at as more "expert" players than the others.
And we shouldn't forget that PvP and PvE sometimes require completely different approaches, so if they nerf one thing concering PvP, it CAN have a different effect in PvE.
What i am criticising is that Cryptics devs seem to be very selective about whom to listen. Other groups of players (like us GCS fans) get completely ignored, althrough changing the GCS wouldn't be nearly as overall game changing as some changes that where made to satisfy PvP players.
I think you are confusing here something. Cryptic obviously choose only to consider instances where the Galaxy Class performed bad.
Of course you can ignore anything that speaks FOR the GCS and make it a extremely passive and not very good tank in STO. But a "fair" representation of the GCS would result in a very different ship IMO.
Can you at least try to agree that, even with the boff/console layout it already has, if Engineering was on an equal footing of potency as tactical, the Explorer wouldn't be in any where near as bad of shape?
i dont exclude any of the canon from consideration. i just dont bring everything up, because the ship didn't fight that often or theres not much to draw from some of the action. i certainly dont exclude DS9 ether.
"Only the reference books (tech manual, encyclopedia, etc...) and two books by Jeri Taylor are considered canon outside the TV show and movies." - Harry Lang, Senior Director of Viacom Consumer Products Interactive division, posts on StarTrek.com forum, January 2005.
so there :rolleyes:
And what percentage of canon should the scope be in terms of gameplay? Canon can be interperated into many different ways. I see it that the Galaxy class was an engineering wizard, while many people here see it as a combat beast. Which one should show up? Should it supplant the capabilites of other ships?
Is TNG canon the same as TOS/Movie/DS9/Voyager/Enterprise/TAS canon in terms of accurracy, effort, and compatability? I argue not.
There are people who shun the Sovy' as the replacement for the Galaxy because they say that its a replacement for the Excelsior (while that was the Akiras job). Who is right? In the end no one is.
Where I am comming from is wayh to really have the ship differentiated from the other cruisers while still being effective, otherwise we will all be driving our bland Camry's into battle.
I personally do believe that the license will be pulled sooner or later, yes But apart from that you are right in principle, although many of the new players (that's my speculation, however) do not relate to TNG as much but to "nu trek" and other current sci-fi franchises so the Galaxy Class wouldn't be as valuable as some militaristic sci-fi battleship for example. People that want the Galaxy most likely already bought it and changing that wouldn't create any revenue.
Maybe there will be a new Galaxy variant in the store at one point though I'm afraid that will be the Gal-X with a hangar slapped onto it
Is it that they relate to "Nu-Trek" (presumable JJ Abrams) or other Trek that isn't just TNG? Not everyones "Holy Grail" of Star Trek is TNG. As a child of the early 70's, I'm a TOS/TOS movie guy. I accepted TNG, but not at the level as some people do here. I also wasn't a fan of the "diner-in-space" that was the first several seasons of DS9. Aside from the time-wars nonsense, I actually like Enterprise better than TNG. I don't hate TNG, I just like other stuff better.
approaching the GCS problem from a PvP point of view could help IMO.
Using only FAW in PvP leads to get false results IMO.
So i think ppl should experiment more and try different tactics. Personally i don't use FAW anymore, i rather use BO or APB, but thats just me.
Apropos parsing, can someone explain a PvP noob like me how to do that?
EDIT:
I think it is already common knowledge that the GCS is considered as a "noob ship" in PvP. Everyone targets that obvious noob flying a GCS in PvP and in my experience no ship can withstand the focussed fire of 2 scimitars and some other PvP optimized ships, since in PvP the only thing that counts is kill faster so you don't get killed.
I think it should be obvious even for the devs that the GCS is the worst choice when going to PvP.
But that's just my experience, i am sure "real" PvP players can make any ship perform good when using voice chat and coordinated team play.
(i just hate all that deeply)
I honestly thought that we were looking at the ship from a PvP perspective.
The whole "planned victimization" narrative drumbeat is almost automted and is wearing pretty thin. Lets say you get your dream and get this ship with all of the bells and whistles you want. Then comes T6 ships and no Galaxy, Sovy, Excel. Are you going to continue with the Cryptic "hates the GCS" mindset?
With that outcome, no I would not.
However if they come out with T6 Sovy and Excel, but not Galaxy, would you agree it is?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
And what percentage of canon should the scope be in terms of gameplay? Canon can be interperated into many different ways. I see it that the Galaxy class was an engineering wizard, while many people here see it as a combat beast. Which one should show up? Should it supplant the capabilites of other ships?
when looking at the episode it also feel to me more engineering/science wizard than a combat beast indeed but alway felt underwhelm because i was sure he can do a lot better.
when looking at what the tech manual said, it look like this intuition was correct.
captain jellico show a other face of the ship, so i would said what somes players said to others when they complained about one ship.
" it's the captain, not the ship"
It's five in the morning, and I probably shouldn't be posting, but well, you know.
Why don't we gather a group of various Galaxies, set them up for BFAW spam, get people's things set up to record numbers, and hit the PvP front for a few rounds?
Or we could track what everyone's builds are to show the differences, run a few rounds of PvP, meter the results, and separate everything out so that the right data goes with the right build, and try to get the Dev's attention in the PvP forums? Perhaps if we can show them that the Galaxy is underpowered and awkward compared to other ships, we might be able to make a better point instead of just being able to brag about having the LONGEST GCS thread in the forums.
I do have a T4 Galaxy with an Anti-Proton build using the new warp core and omni directional AP beam. among other things, and I'd be happy to help contribute somehow.
...Parse, dammit, why could I think of that earlier? Well, whatever systems people use to meter their output.
You guys know what I mean here, right?
Also, in addition to the builds and data, someone could record the whole thing and post it to YouTube, so we can include that with our complaints.
Thoughts?
i like the idea to gather galaxy ship together but this will proove nothing if any.
and i am not going back to a beam build:)....for now.
But that's just my experience, i am sure "real" PvP players can make any ship perform good when using voice chat and coordinated team play.
(i just hate all that deeply)
hehe, no, coordination and voice chat can't save the galaxy either:)
That's why I suggested a PvP team of Galaxies, and can be of various builds. We do all this to point out to cryptic the problems we're having. Putting out a ton of data on five different Galaxies getting stomped out should make a pretty good point, don't you think?
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Not a problem. My Gal isn't an A3Faw build. It's more of a general beamboat, best I can do is EPtW, DEM, and BFAW and blast away for a short while. Even with Fleet Weapons, I'm not that awesome.
Both my Gal-X and my T4 Gal have fleet weapons. the T4 just needs one more.
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Comments
yes, that is why i said " some pve guy" and not just " pve guys".
not all pve guy bielieve the ship is good as is.
yeodred who already said to us that he don't do pvp is one of the biggest defender of the galaxy cause.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
most of the changes pvp'ers inspire really do nothing to effect pve. unless its something like tric mines, were us pvpers went into stfs and blew up gates first things to show how they were a broken and exploitive thing that needed to be toned down. stuff like that got toned down for pve reasons.
something more recent, that black death console, before you couldn't use any boff abilities wile you were stuck in it, thats a death sentence in pvp. it got 'nerfed' so that it only took weapons offline inside it, and made its explosion cause more damage. so, it actually got buffed as far as pve is concerned.
any pvp'er inspired changes simply made the game more healthy
I am not arguing against you. I am giving you support.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I'd say that's fair, since you and many others ONLY accept certain aspects of actual TNG canon (IE the stuff that appeared on screen in TV episodes and feature films) regarding the Galaxy Class as depicted in TNG, DS9, etc. (basically, anything that doesn't fit your 'vision' is rejected as: "The TNG writing staff being dumb...etc."; and you like to quote NON-CANON sources, like the TNG Tech Manual, which isn't 'canon' as CBS or Gene Roddenberry when he was alive defined it with regard to anything in the Star Trek Franchise.)
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..."
Look up the size of the Defiant. Depending on the episodes she has been shown varying in size from 60 meters to 175+meters.
They not only couldn't flat out decide how powerful the ship is, they couldn't even collectively decide on a size for the damned thing.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/defiant-problems.htm
So if we're supposed to ignore the episodes where the Defiant is either, A: Barely bigger then a runabout and/or B: Barely smaller then the Galaxy class's saucer section I think we can ignore one or two incidents where a writer wanted the Enterprise damaged for suspense.
The Galaxy or Defiant getting a slapdown is what TV Tropes refers to as - amusingly enough - the Worf Effect. When the biggest, toughest, most powerful character on the show or movie gets bitchslapped to show how threatening and awesome the bad guy is.
Want to show an alien's strength? Take out Worf or Tuvok.
Want to show the scary alien starship's strength? Disable the Enterprise or Defiant.
And we shouldn't forget that PvP and PvE sometimes require completely different approaches, so if they nerf one thing concering PvP, it CAN have a different effect in PvE.
What i am criticising is that Cryptics devs seem to be very selective about whom to listen. Other groups of players (like us GCS fans) get completely ignored, althrough changing the GCS wouldn't be nearly as overall game changing as some changes that where made to satisfy PvP players.
I think you are confusing here something. Cryptic obviously choose only to consider instances where the Galaxy Class performed bad.
Of course you can ignore anything that speaks FOR the GCS and make it a extremely passive and not very good tank in STO. But a "fair" representation of the GCS would result in a very different ship IMO.
i dont exclude any of the canon from consideration. i just dont bring everything up, because the ship didn't fight that often or theres not much to draw from some of the action. i certainly dont exclude DS9 ether.
"Only the reference books (tech manual, encyclopedia, etc...) and two books by Jeri Taylor are considered canon outside the TV show and movies." - Harry Lang, Senior Director of Viacom Consumer Products Interactive division, posts on StarTrek.com forum, January 2005.
so there :rolleyes:
I personally do believe that the license will be pulled sooner or later, yes
Maybe there will be a new Galaxy variant in the store at one point though I'm afraid that will be the Gal-X with a hangar slapped onto it
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Why don't we gather a group of various Galaxies, set them up for BFAW spam, get people's things set up to record numbers, and hit the PvP front for a few rounds?
Or we could track what everyone's builds are to show the differences, run a few rounds of PvP, meter the results, and separate everything out so that the right data goes with the right build, and try to get the Dev's attention in the PvP forums? Perhaps if we can show them that the Galaxy is underpowered and awkward compared to other ships, we might be able to make a better point instead of just being able to brag about having the LONGEST GCS thread in the forums.
I do have a T4 Galaxy with an Anti-Proton build using the new warp core and omni directional AP beam. among other things, and I'd be happy to help contribute somehow.
...Parse, dammit, why could I think of that earlier? Well, whatever systems people use to meter their output.
You guys know what I mean here, right?
Also, in addition to the builds and data, someone could record the whole thing and post it to YouTube, so we can include that with our complaints.
Thoughts?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Using only FAW in PvP leads to get false results IMO.
So i think ppl should experiment more and try different tactics. Personally i don't use FAW anymore, i rather use BO or APB, but thats just me.
Apropos parsing, can someone explain a PvP noob like me how to do that?
EDIT:
I think it is already common knowledge that the GCS is considered as a "noob ship" in PvP. Everyone targets that obvious noob flying a GCS in PvP and in my experience no ship can withstand the focussed fire of 2 scimitars and some other PvP optimized ships, since in PvP the only thing that counts is kill faster so you don't get killed.
I think it should be obvious even for the devs that the GCS is the worst choice when going to PvP.
But that's just my experience, i am sure "real" PvP players can make any ship perform good when using voice chat and coordinated team play.
(i just hate all that deeply)
The KDF counterpart to the Odyssey is the Bortas, right?
Shouldn't the KDF counterpart to the (fleet) Sovereign be the Negh'Va?
(althrough the Negh'Va only has got a improved GCS BOFF layout)
But more strangely, the KDF counterpart to the (fleet) Galaxy, the Fleet Tor'Kaht Battle Cruiser Retrofit, has a completely different BOFF layout than any cruiser-like ship i can remember. (the ultimate Battlecruiser BOFF/console layout IMO)
Is there any pattern behind this i cannot see or has Cryptcs just slapped some BOFF layouts together, because they found it "cool" then?
Check into a few KDF threads, they do not think there are too many lines to draw between a federation ship and one in the KDF. Mostly because they believe Cryptic hates the KDF.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I definately would not rule this psychology mindset factor. There are times when people who actually do want to see improvements in the ship are looked upon as "haters" because their (including mine) views aren't in alignment with theirs. This is a big reason why this threat seems to be a circular firing squad, in my opinion.
Because the ship was an "assault cruiser" that couldn't assault.
The problem is that this is an MMO, and PvP is the most efficient way to have the most multiplayer interaction. From the game maps, to the ship trinity balance issues, PvP in this game is very sub par. I was hoping for a SWG Restuss like PvP zone,the zones have limited number of players, with exception of Kerrat (which is a mess in its own right).
Cryptic really hasn't done much to grow PvP in this game, to be honest. Players that cant be on every day for six hours a shot have to grind like crazy to be able to get competitive gear through STF's, and building up the fleet bases (for those of us in smaller fleets).
Once we finally get there, the carrot is moved and another grind begins.
With larger sized fights, ther amount of variation would increase, and even an Exploration ship would contribute more than it can now, even if it was made a uni-paradise.
Making the GSc like other tactical based ships isnt the answer. Making ever ships layout, as is, capable of being competitive is.
And honestly, every STF/PvE mission out there I can do with a Gal-R with no concerns about failure or not gettig the optional, HE included.
The whole "planned victimization" narrative drumbeat is almost automted and is wearing pretty thin. Lets say you get your dream and get this ship with all of the bells and whistles you want. Then comes T6 ships and no Galaxy, Sovy, Excel. Are you going to continue with the Cryptic "hates the GCS" mindset?
If they made PvP zones more Restuss-like (SWG), any ship would be able to be more usefull.
More likely, in a years time, we will see a T6 that will render T5/+/Fleet ships obsolete and there won't be a Galaxy/Sovy'/Excel' ship in it.
I know that SWG died because it split the focus of the game between a CCG and PvP where most of the players decided that "sub-hunting" was going to be the order of the day.
Can you at least try to agree that, even with the boff/console layout it already has, if Engineering was on an equal footing of potency as tactical, the Explorer wouldn't be in any where near as bad of shape?
And what percentage of canon should the scope be in terms of gameplay? Canon can be interperated into many different ways. I see it that the Galaxy class was an engineering wizard, while many people here see it as a combat beast. Which one should show up? Should it supplant the capabilites of other ships?
Is TNG canon the same as TOS/Movie/DS9/Voyager/Enterprise/TAS canon in terms of accurracy, effort, and compatability? I argue not.
There are people who shun the Sovy' as the replacement for the Galaxy because they say that its a replacement for the Excelsior (while that was the Akiras job). Who is right? In the end no one is.
Where I am comming from is wayh to really have the ship differentiated from the other cruisers while still being effective, otherwise we will all be driving our bland Camry's into battle.
Is it that they relate to "Nu-Trek" (presumable JJ Abrams) or other Trek that isn't just TNG? Not everyones "Holy Grail" of Star Trek is TNG. As a child of the early 70's, I'm a TOS/TOS movie guy. I accepted TNG, but not at the level as some people do here. I also wasn't a fan of the "diner-in-space" that was the first several seasons of DS9. Aside from the time-wars nonsense, I actually like Enterprise better than TNG. I don't hate TNG, I just like other stuff better.
I honestly thought that we were looking at the ship from a PvP perspective.
With that outcome, no I would not.
However if they come out with T6 Sovy and Excel, but not Galaxy, would you agree it is?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
no, gecko specifically opposed to that in the last podcast he made.
he said no to tiers6 ship
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
when looking at the episode it also feel to me more engineering/science wizard than a combat beast indeed but alway felt underwhelm because i was sure he can do a lot better.
when looking at what the tech manual said, it look like this intuition was correct.
captain jellico show a other face of the ship, so i would said what somes players said to others when they complained about one ship.
" it's the captain, not the ship"
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
i like the idea to gather galaxy ship together but this will proove nothing if any.
and i am not going back to a beam build:)....for now.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
hehe, no, coordination and voice chat can't save the galaxy either:)
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Both my Gal-X and my T4 Gal have fleet weapons. the T4 just needs one more.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.