If I may be so bold, I will attempt to, a bit haphazardly and with some possible omissions of the finer details, summarize the entire massive disagreement that is current plaguing the thread.
I fully admit that I have not read everything, but after going through about a dozen walls of text, all of which are quite articulately argued, I have begun to notice a pattern here. Again I caution that, not having the patience to read through everything, the pattern I present may be incomplete, but I believe it covers the gist of what is currently transpiring, though perhaps not how it began.
Here goes.
Everybody: The Galaxy class sucks. All these other ships are so much or at least marginally better. Seems like Cryptic went out of its way to make it the worst thing possible.
That guy: What are you guys talking about? The Galaxy class is a great ship! I love it and I do well with it.
Everybody: That's super you enjoy the game with your favorite ship. It still sucks.
That guy: Nuh-uh! It's awesome! I have lotsa fun and performs just fine!
Everybody: That's super you enjoy the game with your favorite ship. It still sucks. I can prove it with math.
That guy: Nuh-uh! It's awesome! I have lotsa fun and performs just fine!
Everybody: That's super you enjoy the game with your favorite ship. It still sucks. I can prove it with math and the established canon.
That guy: Nuh-uh! It's awesome! I have lotsa fun and performs just fine!
Everybody: That's super you enjoy the game with your favorite ship. It still sucks. I can prove it with math and the established canon. Just because it's the worst ship in the game from a statistical perspective in virtually every way we can look it doesn't mean the ship is objectively terrible. It's obviously a capable vessel, but it's still the least capable vessel at its tier... and a couple tiers below it, too.
That guy: Parody everything! Also chocolate! (This was actually quite amusing. Everyone should read through it.)
Some arrogant new guy: If I may be so bold....
My analysis of this is that somehow somebody's poured some oil into a jar of water. Two mutually exclusive issues are being debated as though they are the same. Both sides have obviously made tangents into the opposition's territory, but the core arguments appear to be on totally different wavelengths.
mrtshead, you are correct as I understand your argument. The ship is indeed fun to play in. It's a classic icon of the Star Trek mythos and it just looks awesome. Beyond appearances and sentimental value it is certainly a capable vessel that can indeed clear all game content and it performs at least adequately, sometimes even if PVP.
Everybody else, you are also correct. Comparatively speaking the Galaxy class is an utter disappointment in every regard. It turns like a bus made of uranium, shoots like a pellet gun, and it has some mighty uncomfortable bridge seating. This is frustrating because in the show it turned on a dime, threw down like Bruce Lee, and it had enough work space on the bridge for everyone. When it showed up on the scene Klingons began to consider diplomacy and Romulans started nervously double checking their cloaking devices.
The Galaxy is an awesome ship. It's capable. To say it is useless is dishonest. It can succeed, but it doesn't succeed very well. Lesser ships can easily outperform it and that's a problem because it demonstrates bad game balance. A top tier ship should perform like its top tier associates. At best it is adequate, but the people who love it want it to be great. Surely the best of intentions were behind its design, but ultimately it was born obsolete. She has no teeth and gets around on a walker. Is it so much to ask for some dentures and a hoveround? It's about time the old girl got some TLC.
If I may be so bold, I will attempt to, a bit haphazardly and with some possible omissions of the finer details, summarize the entire massive disagreement that is current plaguing the thread.
I fully admit that I have not read everything, but after going through about a dozen walls of text, all of which are quite articulately argued, I have begun to notice a pattern here. Again I caution that, not having the patience to read through everything, the pattern I present may be incomplete, but I believe it covers the gist of what is currently transpiring, though perhaps not how it began.
Here goes.
you have won the entire thread, thats exactly what has gone on here.
If I may be so bold, I will attempt to, a bit haphazardly and with some possible omissions of the finer details, summarize the entire massive disagreement that is current plaguing the thread.
I fully admit that I have not read everything, but after going through about a dozen walls of text, all of which are quite articulately argued, I have begun to notice a pattern here. Again I caution that, not having the patience to read through everything, the pattern I present may be incomplete, but I believe it covers the gist of what is currently transpiring, though perhaps not how it began.
Here goes.
My analysis of this is that somehow somebody's poured some oil into a jar of water. Two mutually exclusive issues are being debated as though they are the same. Both sides have obviously made tangents into the opposition's territory, but the core arguments appear to be on totally different wavelengths.
mrtshead, you are correct as I understand your argument. The ship is indeed fun to play in. It's a classic icon of the Star Trek mythos and it just looks awesome. Beyond appearances and sentimental value it is certainly a capable vessel that can indeed clear all game content and it performs at least adequately, sometimes even if PVP.
Everybody else, you are also correct. Comparatively speaking the Galaxy class is an utter disappointment in every regard. It turns like a bus made of uranium, shoots like a pellet gun, and it has some mighty uncomfortable bridge seating. This is frustrating because in the show it turned on a dime, threw down like Bruce Lee, and it had enough work space on the bridge for everyone. When it showed up on the scene Klingons began to consider diplomacy and Romulans started nervously double checking their cloaking devices.
The Galaxy is an awesome ship. It's capable. To say it is useless is dishonest. It can succeed, but it doesn't succeed very well. Lesser ships can easily outperform it and that's a problem because it demonstrates bad game balance. A top tier ship should perform like its top tier associates. At best it is adequate, but the people who love it want it to be great. Surely the best of intentions were behind its design, but ultimately it was born obsolete. She has no teeth and gets around on a walker. Is it so much to ask for some dentures and a hoveround? It's about time the old girl got some TLC.
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.
Well, let's see. This thread is almost 11 months old, has 458 pages and almost 4600 individual posts, and has made evidently zero progress towards your goal. So far you've gotten virtually no traction on this in the wider community - the consensus you imagine agreeing with you hasn't really appeared, and it's just the same strident voices over and over and over and over again in this thread. No devs have commented, and there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "Why are we being ignored?!"
My point is that what you have been doing has obviously not been working, and I think it's obvious that the way in which people have structured the argument is a big part of the reason. The discussion you SHOULD be trying to have is why, given your strong feelings on the subject, hasn't the Galaxy been fixed yet. There must be some reason why that is so, but so far people are so wrapped up in the idea that any dissent is necessarily either based on ignorance of the "facts" (or else is a troll) that that discussion can't happen. You can't expect to progress the discussion when your only response to perfectly valid and reasonable dissent is to shout it down based on hyperbolic absolutes that somewhere along the line started becoming accepted as some sort of group-think dogma.
So, are people in general ready yet to admit that it is possible that some people won't agree with them, and that such disagreement isn't necessarily ignorant, nor immoral? That maybe, on balance, no matter how strongly they feel about this issue, it might not be that important in the wider context of the game? Or that the effort required to solve the problem might exceed the benefits?
Or do you need another 460 pages of venting spleen and incredulous outrage before you see that it's not working?
The Galaxy class is usable and capable in PvE. My Engineer takes great pleasure in upstaging Escort jocks during CSE runs by defending Kang without Kang taking a scratch, although my Sci in a Fleet Nebula also gets that kick as well.
Is it however fun to play and use compared to a Ambassador/Excelsior/Sovereign/Avenger or even a Nebula ? god no ! after using the aforementioned ships piloting a Galaxy feels as bad as having teeth pulled. Its slow, low dps and everything after using any other tier 5 ship feels like god dam hard work and grind.
Everything bad about a ship in the game as it stands at present the Galaxy represents.
1. Lack of tactical abilities
2. Terrible turn rate
3. Poor Boff seating./ Lack of versatility
5. Poor console layout.
If Cryptic refuse or have no intention on changing the boff or console layout of this ship, the least they could do is increase the inertia and turn rate of the ship as a trade off for the Engineering heavy boff and Console layout to allow for better tanking to bring another shield facing to bear quicker.
Basically the C-Store and Fleet Galaxy are subpar. sold as Tier 5 and Fleet level but are outperformed by the Tier 4 Sovereign/Starcruiser and Defiant.
So in summary Galaxy is usable at end game however its performance compared to other Tier 5 and 4 ships is horrible.
It should not be being outperformed by Tier 4 ships. ships that are free to obtain over a ship you have to pay for outside of earning dil to zen conversion
Well, let's see. This thread is almost 11 months old, has 458 pages and almost 4600 individual posts, and has made evidently zero progress towards your goal. So far you've gotten virtually no traction on this in the wider community - the consensus you imagine agreeing with you hasn't really appeared, and it's just the same strident voices over and over and over and over again in this thread. No devs have commented, and there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "Why are we being ignored?!"
threads like this created things like the regent and a tier 5 akira. it also caused the d'deridex that originally had the galaxy R terrible station setup to have a complete rework before LoR launched. its people like you that derail this thread and drag it through the gutter, when you even put into question the FACT that the galaxy R is the worst ship in the game.
My point is that what you have been doing has obviously not been working, and I think it's obvious that the way in which people have structured the argument is a big part of the reason. The discussion you SHOULD be trying to have is why, given your strong feelings on the subject, hasn't the Galaxy been fixed yet. There must be some reason why that is so, but so far people are so wrapped up in the idea that any dissent is necessarily either based on ignorance of the "facts" (or else is a troll) that that discussion can't happen. You can't expect to progress the discussion when your only response to perfectly valid and reasonable dissent is to shout it down based on hyperbolic absolutes that somewhere along the line started becoming accepted as some sort of group-think dogma.
i know exactly why this hasn't been addressed. they are waiting to do anything galaxy related till they have second generation sep tech working on the galaxy model, the venture neck being at a different elevation is what seems to be causing a problem. thats whats holding up a fleet galaxy X too, sep capability for that ship will launch with it. i couldn't care less about that stupid smother looking tech though, trash it already
So, are people in general ready yet to admit that it is possible that some people won't agree with them, and that such disagreement isn't necessarily ignorant, nor immoral? That maybe, on balance, no matter how strongly they feel about this issue, it might not be that important in the wider context of the game? Or that the effort required to solve the problem might exceed the benefits?
Or do you need another 460 pages of venting spleen and incredulous outrage before you see that it's not working?
right, coming out with better and better ships is in no way important to the context, or success of this game. why then, do people keep drooling over all the beter and better ships that get released, when all you really need is some POS like the galaxy R to complete everything? i play this game for the pvp, nothing maters more then all the details you proboly consider minutia. i want to use the galaxy as one of my main ships. i cant do that because its such a horrible ship. i cant have fun pvping if im using a horrible ship, im not competitive and im a drag on the rest of the team for my vanity. people that arent as in to the competitive aspect of the game as me will benefit from another good ship becoming an option, their enjoyment of the game could only increase. are you ever going to explain why there shouldn't be an improved galaxy class? there was literally an improved sovereign released already.
The Galaxy is an awesome ship. It's capable. To say it is useless is dishonest. It can succeed, but it doesn't succeed very well.
that is what mrshead have succed to make you bielieve that we are claiming this.
when we said that this ship is useless, it is not in regard to the level of it performance.
we known it is capable even tho it is the less efficient ship.
he offert no advantage, no niche or whatsoever in comparison to ANY other cruiser.
for example the exelsior have better firepower potential than an ambassador, while the ambassador got more tanking potential.
you can do this kind of reasoning with the galaxy, because of it bo layout and turnrate inertia, there is NOTHING you can do better than ANY other cruiser.
hence if a ship offert no advantage but only drawback, you can't , reasonably, intelligently and logically included him in a pannel of ship choice.
it is redundant, only a player that absolutly want to have a galaxy will choose it.
but in a gameplay choice, it is useless.
Well, let's see. This thread is almost 11 months old, has 458 pages and almost 4600 individual posts, and has made evidently zero progress towards your goal.
So far you've gotten virtually no traction on this in the wider community - the consensus you imagine agreeing with you hasn't really appeared.
First, this is one forum thread among hundreds. Unless it's a pinned post you shouldn't be expecting many folks to show up.
Second, I propose an experiment a few of us should run here: head into a public area with lots of players and ask people what they think of the Galaxy class, not as an icon of Star Trek, but as a playable ship in STO. It's important to make that distinction be some people's answers may be opposite depending on the context. Mine would, anyway.
And third, majority is no grounds for determining fact. A majority of planet Earth still believes the sun is a god, or that it orbits us (if they understand anything about orbits at all), or they don't know the difference between a planet and a star.
Science, which includes the field of mathematics, is a far better guide to the truth. The math here says the Galaxy is a sub-optimal vessel by a wide margin. Sub-optimal does not mean useless, in fact it still perform brilliantly, but it has to try a lot harder. It's also fine to be suboptimal, but not by a wide margin.
No devs have commented, and there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "Why are we being ignored?!"
This is also a fair a point and there could be a number of reasons. There's a lot of vitriol being thrown around here. Devs probably avoid threads like that, so this one may already be too poisonous to get any recognition.
On the other hand, maybe the devs aren't a bunch of panzies and simply haven't noticed it or have chosen to ignore it for other reasons. I really can't do anything other than speculate because... well... the devs aren't here to say anything.
The discussion you SHOULD be trying to have is why, given your strong feelings on the subject, hasn't the Galaxy been fixed yet.
No. This is perhaps the debate you would like to have or change it into, but it is not the one going on here. If this is what you really want to discuss, go start your own thread on the topic and stop completely derailing this one.
You're right, there probably is a reason, but the STO devs have never shared it with us and we aren't privy to their reasoning or lack thereof. You have posited a non-falsifiable assertion. Any answers to your question can only be speculative since we have no data to work with. That's bad science.
It would be like intercepting a short alien transmission, finally confirming the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, and then trying to discuss their dining etiquette based on a short "hello." What you want to discuss is worth discussing, but its a conversation you can only have with the devs because they're the only ones who can answer you. Bringing it up here is only derailing.
What is... or was trying to be discussed here, is a comparative analysis of the Galaxy class and other vessels at its tier. This can be done with hard data: math. This is good science and it is an issue we can make progress with. Perhaps the devs will chime in and say "actually you've got it all bass-ackwards and here's why," but that's something only they can do.
but so far people are so wrapped up in the idea that any dissent is necessarily either based on ignorance of the "facts" (or else is a troll) that that discussion can't happen.
This is because your "dissent" is actually unrelated to the topic at hand. You say the Galaxy is just fine the way it is. In the sense that it is functional you are correct, the Galaxy is just fine, but that's not what people are trying to discuss here.
This thread is discussing how the Galaxy is comparatively inferior and what improvements might be made to bring it up to par. I believe I previously mentioned that good enough isn't good enough for us. We want the galaxy to be great and you want to ask us why. That's not what we're here to talk about.
Basically you've come to Oktoberfest and are asking everyone why they're wasting their time drinking beer when they should be drinking wine, and are continually frustrated when everyone answers "Because we're here to drink BEER!"
That maybe, on balance, no matter how strongly they feel about this issue, it might not be that important in the wider context of the game?
Of course it isn't! It's a single ship amongst dozens, but it's one the people here really like and want to shine. STO isn't going to crash and there won't be a massive exodus of disappointed players if this issue is never fixed to our satisfaction, but it is the issue that people have chosen to discuss here. Asking why is beyond pointless. The answer is a tautology. "Why are we talking about X here? Because that's what we're here to talk about."
More confusing here is that you seemed to have changed the angle of your argument from "If it's so broken, why haven't they fixed it?" to "What's the point?" Please decide on and remain consistent with your arguments.
Or that the effort required to solve the problem might exceed the benefits?
So now you admit there is a problem, but ask if it is even worth the time and effort and to fix it? That is totally irrelevant. As I and many others before me have stated already, this thread is discussing the shortcomings of the Galaxy and suggesting improvements, not whether it is pheasible or even necessary for the devs to implement the changes proposed.
You've also changed your core argument again here, from "What's the point?" to "Will they even bother?"
First, this is one forum thread among hundreds. Unless it's a pinned post you shouldn't be expecting many folks to show up.
Second, I propose an experiment a few of us should run here: head into a public area with lots of players and ask people what they think of the Galaxy class, not as an icon of Star Trek, but as a playable ship in STO. It's important to make that distinction be some people's answers may be opposite depending on the context. Mine would, anyway.
And third, majority is no grounds for determining fact. A majority of planet Earth still believes the sun is a god, or that it orbits us (if they understand anything about orbits at all), or they don't know the difference between a planet and a star.
Science, which includes the field of mathematics, is a far better guide to the truth. The math here says the Galaxy is a sub-optimal vessel by a wide margin. Sub-optimal does not mean useless, in fact it still perform brilliantly, but it has to try a lot harder. It's also fine to be suboptimal, but not by a wide margin.
This is also a fair a point and there could be a number of reasons. There's a lot of vitriol being thrown around here. Devs probably avoid threads like that, so this one may already be too poisonous to get any recognition.
On the other hand, maybe the devs aren't a bunch of panzies and simply haven't noticed it or have chosen to ignore it for other reasons. I really can't do anything other than speculate because... well... the devs aren't here to say anything.
No. This is perhaps the debate you would like to have or change it into, but it is not the one going on here. If this is what you really want to discuss, go start your own thread on the topic and stop completely derailing this one.
You're right, there probably is a reason, but the STO devs have never shared it with us and we aren't privy to their reasoning or lack thereof. You have posited a non-falsifiable assertion. Any answers to your question can only be speculative since we have no data to work with. That's bad science.
It would be like intercepting a short alien transmission, finally confirming the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, and then trying to discuss their dining etiquette based on a short "hello." What you want to discuss is worth discussing, but its a conversation you can only have with the devs because they're the only ones who can answer you. Bringing it up here is only derailing.
What is... or was trying to be discussed here, is a comparative analysis of the Galaxy class and other vessels at its tier. This can be done with hard data: math. This is good science and it is an issue we can make progress with. Perhaps the devs will chime in and say "actually you've got it all bass-ackwards and here's why," but that's something only they can do.
This is because your "dissent" is actually unrelated to the topic at hand. You say the Galaxy is just fine the way it is. In the sense that it is functional you are correct, the Galaxy is just fine, but that's not what people are trying to discuss here.
This thread is discussing how the Galaxy is comparatively inferior and what improvements might be made to bring it up to par. I believe I previously mentioned that good enough isn't good enough for us. We want the galaxy to be great and you want to ask us why. That's not what we're here to talk about.
Basically you've come to Oktoberfest and are asking everyone why they're wasting their time drinking beer when they should be drinking wine, and are continually frustrated when everyone answers "Because we're here to drink BEER!"
Of course it isn't! It's a single ship amongst dozens, but it's one the people here really like and want to shine. STO isn't going to crash and there won't be a massive exodus of disappointed players if this issue is never fixed to our satisfaction, but it is the issue that people have chosen to discuss here. Asking why is beyond pointless. The answer is a tautology. "Why are we talking about X here? Because that's what we're here to talk about."
More confusing here is that you seemed to have changed the angle of your argument from "If it's so broken, why haven't they fixed it?" to "What's the point?" Please decide on and remain consistent with your arguments.
So now you admit there is a problem, but ask if it is even worth the time and effort and to fix it? That is totally irrelevant. As I and many others before me have stated already, this thread is discussing the shortcomings of the Galaxy and suggesting improvements, not whether it is pheasible or even necessary for the devs to implement the changes proposed.
You've also changed your core argument again here, from "What's the point?" to "Will they even bother?"
hehehe, you have just exposed all his hypocrisys here.
notice that anything that could be use to make us look like 14 years old selfish galaxy fanboy has and will be use by this guy to try to discredit us.
at least he make this thread going...
so unlike the galaxy, he is not totally useless;)
Now that I've posted yet another waterfall of quotes and rebuttals, I think maybe it's high time we returned to the issue everyone here actually came to discuss.
"Why does the Galaxy suck?"
Allow me to offer my two pence, which I'm sure scores of others have already iterated upon. It's too slow, has terrible bridge seating, and lacks a third tactical console. Now to explain myself and offer some solutions.
Issue 1: It turns like a drunk whale.
Wow. This is really annoying. As it is, the Galaxy is meant to be a beam boat, woe to the fool who tries to put torpedoes on it. Sure it can turn pretty well if you separate the saucer, but then it's not really a cruiser anymore, as the stats change to be more like an escort. Plus it looks pretty gimpy like that. She's supposed to be a classy lady, not schizophrenic tart who removes her top at the first sign of danger.
Solution 1a: Lose some weight, fatty.
The easiest solution is just to improve the turning. In my opinion nothing but a carrier should corner so badly... which brings me to my second proposed solution.
Solution 1b: What a MILF!
Mothership I'd Like to Fly. Get your heads out of the gutter. Instead of turning better the Galaxy would be a perfect candidate to be a carrier ship. According to specs and a whole bunch of episodes she's already got two docking bays and one of them is quite large. I think she's got enough capacity between them to host a wing fighter craft. Just the one wing, though. She's got 8 guns on her and doesn't need a full carrier compliment.
Issue 2: A Smart Car has better seating.
Does anyone remember the episode when the showed up somewhere and no one was intimidated because everyone knew it was little more than a giant ball of HP? Or all the times the crew was faced with a scientific puzzle they couldn't solve because the ship didn't have enough treknobabboratories to modify the proper phase variance? I don't either.
The ship has way too much engineering focus, to the point that no matter what set of abilities you use, somebody is going to end up with some redundant or rarely used powers. I usually left my ensign slot unmanned, for instance.
Solution 2: The SUV of Starfleet.
My preferred boff layout would be an engineering Cmdr slot, a science Lt Cmdr slot, 2 tactical Lt slots, and keep the ensign engineering. First and foremost the Galaxy class is an exploration cruiser. It makes sense to have an engineering and science focus, with ancillary systems dedicated to combat. I can certainly see the argument for reversing the tactical and science consoles I've proposed: having a tactical Lt Cmdr and 2 Lt sciences, but I don't think that would fit with the canon quite as well.
With two tactical slots you can still get a pair of tac teams and two basic weapon abilities like Fire at Will, Overcharged, Torpedo Spread, or High Yield. She's a science ship, but she's got some teeth. The Lt Cmdr slot opens up some high end science abilities like Grav Well and whatnot. With the size of the Galaxy class's deflector and all the science facilities aboard, I expect more than just hazard emitters, science teams, and tractor beams.
Issue 3: All gums.
The Galaxy class was made to be an explorer, a great big long range vessel capable of being entirely self sufficient, barring disaster, for extended lengths of time. That means better than average crew quarters, holodecks, a whole bunch of laboratories, plenty of engineering staff and supplies to keep the ship in good maintenance... and GUNS. You don't know what you're going to encounter there in the great unknown, so you pack some serious just in case hardware for those close encounters of the ugly kind.
The current Galaxy class does not have the consoles it needs to be a formidable opponent, even with 8 guns and a hypothetical boff refit of 2 Lt tactical stations. With the addition of a single carrier squadron, I think 2 tactical consoles would be fine, but right now the Galaxy doesn't have any of these proposed features.
Solution 3: Dentures.
She needs a third tactical console. Maybe take away an engineering console in trade, I'd be fine with that. Then she'd be pretty even across the board; a perfect fit for a vessel that's supposed to do everything.
First, this is one forum thread among hundreds. Unless it's a pinned post you shouldn't be expecting many folks to show up.
My point was a pre-emption of the claim that OBVIOUSLY a majority of people care about this, because the thread is so long yadda yadda. I'm laying that groundwork now, because it will become important if/when this thread turns into something useful, instead of a trainwreck of reason propelled by people's inability to properly analyze arguments.
Second, I propose an experiment a few of us should run here: head into a public area with lots of players and ask people what they think of the Galaxy class, not as an icon of Star Trek, but as a playable ship in STO. It's important to make that distinction be some people's answers may be opposite depending on the context. Mine would, anyway.
You forgot to add some important questions to your poll - namely "do you currently own a Galaxy class?", "Do you desire a change to the Galaxy?", "How likely would you be to buy a new Galaxy class? At what price point?" "If instead of a new ship, the current ship was changed, would you be likely to buy it?" "If only the fleet version were changed, would that affect your decision?" "How would you rate the following in terms of priority: revised/new Galaxy class, new canon federation ships (New Orleans class, etc), new Cryptic original designs, new non-federation (KDF/Republic) ships, new mission content, updates to foundry content, bug fixes to current ships, new skins for existing ships?" I am absolutely behind this sort of in depth research, because it is one of the only way to get the kind of information that would help to justify or dejustify changing the Galaxy.
And third, majority is no grounds for determining fact. A majority of planet Earth still believes the sun is a god, or that it orbits us (if they understand anything about orbits at all), or they don't know the difference between a planet and a star.
Science, which includes the field of mathematics, is a far better guide to the truth. The math here says the Galaxy is a sub-optimal vessel by a wide margin. Sub-optimal does not mean useless, in fact it still perform brilliantly, but it has to try a lot harder. It's also fine to be suboptimal, but not by a wide margin.
First, yes, I know that majority doesn't determine fact. That's partially my point. It doesn't matter how many people like/dislike something, those numbers don't make something objectively good or bad.
Second, things like "good/bad/suboptimal by acceptable margin/suboptimal by a wide margin" are all value judgements that cannot be proven by science. Math can tell you that the Galaxy does X damage. It cannot tell you if that number is sufficient for you to feel like the ship is useful or not. That is a value judgement, and people can disagree on those values without being unreasonable.
The hitch is that I am being told (basically) that my value judgement is wrong and unreasonable because it so completely flies in the face of accepted convention. This is wrong, because as you have pointed out we don't actually have the evidence to know what the "accepted convention" really is, nor how deeply any consensus on this issue runs, and even if we DID know, well, as you say, pure majority agreement on an issue doesn't make something true, especially when that thing cannot be "proven" scientifically one way or the other.
No. This is perhaps the debate you would like to have or change it into, but it is not the one going on here. If this is what you really want to discuss, go start your own thread on the topic and stop completely derailing this one.
Yes. The purpose of the thread is to propose a change to the Galaxy class, to fix it's perceived shortcomings. The question of "Is this a good idea?" is vital to that discussion. It literally doesn't matter how much some people want it to happen, if, on balance, it ends up being not worth the time and energy to make the change. This should not be a concept that is this difficult for people to grasp, yet in the context of this thread it is impossible to get to because we're stuck with people who want to assume that all dissenting voices are objectively wrong, so there is no need to engage with them.
You're right, there probably is a reason, but the STO devs have never shared it with us and we aren't privy to their reasoning or lack thereof. You have posited a non-falsifiable assertion. Any answers to your question can only be speculative since we have no data to work with. That's bad science.
I'm right, there's definitely A reason, unless you decide to through causality out the window. You're right, we can't know the reason for certain. What's more important is that the question isn't even if there are reasons or not, it's are those reasons actually sufficient or not. You are absolutely right that these kinds of suppositions and subjective discussions are bad science. That's why they are NOT SCIENCE, and why I have been saying all along that people need to stop trying to objectively prove their subjective opinions true.
Put another way, I know that my opinions are non-falsifiable. I am saying that the whole core concept of the thread, that the Galaxy is useless, is non-falsifiable, and thus "bad science". Thus, people should stop treating it as an objective claim that they have "proven", and instead as a subjective interpretation that is not necessarily universal, and is open to discussion.
It would be like intercepting a short alien transmission, finally confirming the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, and then trying to discuss their dining etiquette based on a short "hello." What you want to discuss is worth discussing, but its a conversation you can only have with the devs because they're the only ones who can answer you. Bringing it up here is only derailing.
What is... or was trying to be discussed here, is a comparative analysis of the Galaxy class and other vessels at its tier. This can be done with hard data: math. This is good science and it is an issue we can make progress with. Perhaps the devs will chime in and say "actually you've got it all bass-ackwards and here's why," but that's something only they can do.
First, I think you are misreading the purpose of the thread. It is not merely to compare the Galaxy to other ships, but rather to propose a solution to the perceived problem arising from that comparison. Is quantitatively analyzing the Galaxy good science? Sure. Is taking that analysis and creating a subjective judgement based on it good science? No. It's not an unreasonable thing to do, but it's not science anymore. It's interpretation, or opinion. Taking those opinions a step further, and proposing a solution? Also reasonable, but also not science, and certainly is something that is open to question.
This is because your "dissent" is actually unrelated to the topic at hand. You say the Galaxy is just fine the way it is. In the sense that it is functional you are correct, the Galaxy is just fine, but that's not what people are trying to discuss here.
It's not a derail at all - the discussion of whether a proposal is a good idea or not is absolutely germane to the discussion. For example, what if the topic of a thread was "How should the Devs add Imperial Class Star Destroyers to the game?". Would it be legitimate for someone to go into that thread and say "They shouldn't"? The same principle applies here. If the question is "How should the Galaxy be improved?", "It shouldn't" is a legitimate answer, even if it's not the one you agree with, or want to hear.
This thread is discussing how the Galaxy is comparatively inferior and what improvements might be made to bring it up to par. I believe I previously mentioned that good enough isn't good enough for us. We want the galaxy to be great and you want to ask us why. That's not what we're here to talk about.
Basically you've come to Oktoberfest and are asking everyone why they're wasting their time drinking beer when they should be drinking wine, and are continually frustrated when everyone answers "Because we're here to drink BEER!"
Your analogy is inapt, because it loses the part of the thread where action is being proposed. If the thread was merely "what do you like/dislike" about the Galaxy", that would be one thing. This is not that. A better analogy might be something like:
A group of Beer aficionados decides to hold a public debate about the best way to throw an Oktoberfest festival in the town. Someone attends, asking if an Oktoberfest festival is really necessary in the first place. Certainly, regardless of how that discussion goes down, the question was a valid one, right?
Of course it isn't! It's a single ship amongst dozens, but it's one the people here really like and want to shine. STO isn't going to crash and there won't be a massive exodus of disappointed players if this issue is never fixed to our satisfaction, but it is the issue that people have chosen to discuss here. Asking why is beyond pointless. The answer is a tautology. "Why are we talking about X here? Because that's what we're here to talk about."
So... right, this is basically my point. The game doesn't need the Galaxy fixed in any objective sense. It's thus not wrong or off-topic or selfish or trollish or unreasonable to attempt to address the question of if a change is a good idea at all. What is happening here is that people are constantly trying to squash that discussion through spurious assertions of superiority based in a mistaken believe that they have an objective claim to truth.
More confusing here is that you seemed to have changed the angle of your argument from "If it's so broken, why haven't they fixed it?" to "What's the point?" Please decide on and remain consistent with your arguments.
It's not inconsistent at all - my point is that logically there must be SOME reason no action has been taken, and then I suggest that one of those reasons might be that the cost outweighs the benefit (what you characterize accurately, if bluntly, as "what's the point").
So now you admit there is a problem, but ask if it is even worth the time and effort and to fix it? That is totally irrelevant. As I and many others before me have stated already, this thread is discussing the shortcomings of the Galaxy and suggesting improvements, not whether it is pheasible or even necessary for the devs to implement the changes proposed.
You've also changed your core argument again here, from "What's the point?" to "Will they even bother?"
Last bit first - no, haven't changed the core of my argument at all - this is just another way of asking the same question - is a change a good idea or not?
Second, I've admitted all along that there is a problem insofar as some people are unhappy. What I've also maintained is that the problem is not universal and objectively true - that is to say, it doesn't affect everyone equally, or even at all. This means that dissenting ideas are possible, which further means that those ideas may actually provide a sufficient reason to not implement the change.
Again, this is hardly irrelevant to the discussion. If you are attempting to characterize this thread as merely about spitballing "what-ifs" without any direct call to action, then I would say that the number of people in here who seem upset that the Devs haven't implemented any of the "simple" and "obvious" solutions posited belies that characterization.
So... right, this is basically my point. The game doesn't need the Galaxy fixed in any objective sense.
Haven't seen anyone make a case for change based upon what the game needs.
It's thus not wrong or off-topic or selfish or trollish or unreasonable to attempt to address the question of if a change is a good idea at all.
You are right. If, that was what you were doing, I suspect there would not be as many objections to your posts.
What is happening here is that people are constantly trying to squash that discussion through spurious assertions of superiority based in a mistaken believe that they have an objective claim to truth.
that is what mrshead have succed to make you bielieve that we are claiming this.
when we said that this ship is useless, it is not in regard to the level of it performance.
we known it is capable even tho it is the less efficient ship.
he offert no advantage, no niche or whatsoever in comparison to ANY other cruiser.
for example the exelsior have better firepower potential than an ambassador, while the ambassador got more tanking potential.
you can do this kind of reasoning with the galaxy, because of it bo layout and turnrate inertia, there is NOTHING you can do better than ANY other cruiser.
hence if a ship offert no advantage but only drawback, you can't , reasonably, intelligently and logically included him in a pannel of ship choice.
it is redundant, only a player that absolutly want to have a galaxy will choose it.
but in a gameplay choice, it is useless.
For the infinity-billionth time, your definition of useless is not the only way to evaluate things. You keep saying the ship is useless because there's no reason to choose it in the game, unless a player really wants to fly a Galaxy. So, in other words, there is a reason to choose it, you just don't think that reason is sufficient. What you really mean, I think, is that while at some level all players have to give up mechanical advantages in some area in order to fly the ships they like, in your opinion Galaxy players give up too much in return for flying a ship they like. That's fine that you feel that way, but note the part where it's an opinion, not a fact. Everything I've said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
You can prove that the Galaxy mechanically underperforms all you want, but it doesn't "prove" the value of the ship to anyone but you. Other people will certainly agree with you, but some people will certainly disagree with your valuation, even if they agree with the math that says the Galaxy gives up a lot in the game. It's like how people can agree that a foot long sub from Subway is $5, but might disagree on the value proposition that represents. Some might think it's a good deal for a fresh sub hand-crafted to order by trained sandwich technicians. Some might think it's a ripoff for a sub-standard sandwich desultorily slapped together by a surly college student.
Haven't seen anyone make a case for change based upon what the game needs.
What, then, would you characterize the argument in favor of change as? I started by asserting that it was based on a subjective judgement, and that people might disagree. I was told that I was wrong and a fool because objectively the Galaxy is broken and needs to be fixed. If I am misreading that as attempting to justify the change on the basis of being objectively necessary, then what is it?
To be clear, this is not a passive-aggressive use of a rhetorical question to score points. I'm genuinely curious - how would you classify the justifications being offered to support the change?
You are right. If, that was what you were doing, I suspect there would not be as many objections to your posts.
That IS what I've been doing. That I have repeatedly failed to get that across stems from a host of issues, including but not limited to the fact that I choose a slightly subtle and non-obvious way of addressing it, as well as the fact that I, like many of the posters in this thread, am not always a great net citizen about monitoring my tone. Mea culpa.
Nevertheless, I also think there's a large element of "I don't like his position, so it must be wrong" going on here, which is causing people to suffer from what was once characterized on a Warhammer 40K forum as "fleet of post", a special rule wherein in lieu of thinking in the thinking phase, people instead make d6 posts.
And yes, you are welcome to feel like I do the same thing. My affirmative defense against that claim of hypocrisy is that I believe the care with which I consider my posts is evident in the way in which I present detailed reasoning in my responses, even if that reasoning isn't something everyone agrees with.
Beyond which, even if it's true that I am guilty of being so entrenched in my position that I react out of form, rather than reason, that doesn't mean I'm not correct about my conclusions, nor does it mean that I'm wrong that about other people doing it too.
Basically, I'm saying that if its true that the issue here is simply that I've been misunderstood, then I'm willing to cop to being partially responsible for that. Hopefully that's sufficient to avoid a fruitless derail into a discussion of exactly how much blame should be ascribed, because I really don't think it matters. Instead, if, at least we are at the point where I can ask if the change is a good idea without being shouted down as automatically ridiculous, then let's have that discussion.
It's not ironic at all. I suspect strongly that despite the fact that I have repeatedly explicitly acknowledged that it is not wrong to be unhappy with the Galaxy people are still reacting to "but I disagree" as an attempt to prove them "wrong" anyway, and so they react as if my claim is self-contradictory. It really, really, really isn't. The opinions at play here are not mutually exclusive, nor are they zero-sum. It doesn't, in any way, undermine the validity of my opinion that you disagree, or vice versa. Me saying I have a right to enjoy black liquorice doesn't in any way obligate you to start enjoying the foul stuff too.
I would like to begin with this, as I hope it will be entertaining and enlightening to all. I will continue with a more comprehensive, point by point reply later. Perhaps tomorrow. It's getting late where I am and I hear League of Legends calling me to battle.
Imagine, if you will, a civil discourse somewhere. Perhaps in a real forum of some sort, between learned men. The topic of the day is... we'll go with something inoffensive and boring: Evolution.
For a time the discussion progresses on the finer points of evolutionary processes. There is some disagreement amongst the learned men about the competing concepts of survival and altruism. Suddenly another learned man enters stage right, bringing a chair to the table. No one takes notice as this has happened several times before.
Everyone expects another interesting take on the issue at hand, but no! Instead of a meaningful addition or criticism of the topic they say, "But what if God just created everything? That pre-empts the entire issue! It's pointless to discuss evolution until we can prove God didn't do it."
The other learned men collectively facepalm and turn to the moderator. "That is another topic entirely," he says. "We have begun with the presupposition that Evolutionary theory is true and proceeded from that point. Kindly keep your inquiries and assertions within that context."
"But this is folly! What if it isn't true? This is more important!" says the new arrival.
"Get off the stage!" yells someone in the audience.
"But it's meaningless unless we make that conclusion first!"
A cacophany of booing accompanied by a light rain of tomatoes flows from the audience. The new guy refuses to leave, intent on having his debate take priority. Nothing further is accomplished because everyone is too busy throwing tomatoes, yelling, and wishing this building had security. The end.
This is where you have brought us.
I also posit that this hypothetical situation would be no different, nor the learned men and audience any less justified in their response if the roles of science and religion were reversed in this little theater of the mind. Bringing religion into a scientific debate is just as inappropriate and disruptive as bringing up science in a religious debate.
Pre-empting your pastor's reading of genesis with a lesson on the big bang theory is not okay.
I see where your coming from, but I still think you are missing the key element here of the call to action. I refer you to my version of the Oktoberfest analogy. It's not a case of someone who hates beer crashing Oktoberfest. It's a case of someone who hates beer attending a debate about how the town should implement Oktoberfest, and asking if the party should even happen in the first place. Even if you feel like the answer to that question is "yes", it's not outside the scope of the discussion to ask the question.
I would characterize your arguments as non-sequitur. A thing not being A does not necessarily make it B.
But then I suspect you already know this, Jello.
I see. So am I to take this to again be basically a dismissal of the idea that it's worth asking if changing the Galaxy is a good idea in the first place? I guess I misinterpreted your challenge to my characterization of the thread as a substantive question. Sorry for wasting your time.
more like showing up and finding out somebody switched an ironically good beer with something that tastes like dish water brewed with old sneakers, featuring an weaker alcahol content than bud-light. and having to deal with someone saying its fine because they like it, when it could be something up to par with the rest of the stuff there.
then have to deal with that person making speeches about how its all personal taste and you cant prove to them that its disgusting, because its all subjective.
Sure, I'll run with this analogy, because it's more or less apt. You simply have to add the part where the people who are disgusted with the replacement beer are demanding that the Oktoberfest organizers "do something", and offering solutions that are possibly impractically expensive, not universally accepted (because not everyone cares about the beer that was replaced, and not everyone hates the replacement), and that might not even make all the offended parties happy (because they can't exactly agree on what exactly should be done to fix the problem in the first place).
When the person who likes the disgusting beer speaks up, he gets roundly shouted down for being ignorant, since OF COURSE everyone can see the new beer is disgusting. So, he responds that actually, it's not obvious to everyone that the beer is disgusting, it's just an opinion that isn't universally shared, and so maybe don't act like it's unreasonable to say that the "problem" is not a big enough deal to worry about, no matter how personally offensive it is to you as an individual. And that's where we are.
hes never going to give up this charade were he claims you cant actually prove it sucks, he will insist theres reasonable doubt forever. if he doesn't, his position crumbles.
this has nothing to do with point of view, its simply impossible to make the galaxy as good as any other cruiser at dealing damage, or being a healer. the station setup does not allow for it, no mater what combination you try. those are the 2 things cruisers are capable of doing, other then be a part of your RP experience. but then it doesn't mater much if the ship sucks or not, so it might as well not be the worst, but pretty good instead. still waiting for a justification for why it should not be made a little better.
one of the earlier ideas was to make not just 1 improved galaxy, in the c store, fleet store, or a change to the current one, but to make a 3 pack. many things have changed since that was last talked about, like the rise of the beam boats as the DPS powerhouses in game, and the addition of the carrier commands. so how about a galaxy 3 pack, were there are 3 variants and each is a different sub type of cruiser
galaxy carrier- flight deck cruiser auras COM eng LTC sci LT eng LT tac ENS sci
4/4/2 consoles
1 hanger
galaxy cruiser- cruiser auras
COM eng LTC uni
LT uni LT sci
ENS sci
4/3/3 consoles
galaxy dreadnought (not the galaxy X)- dreadnought cruiser auras
COM eng LTC tac LT uni
LT uni ENS sci
4/2/4 consoles
with the 3 pack, you could have a galaxy type that would make a very good sci heavy support cruiser that has a hanger, without makeing the only galaxy class available be a 2 aura command flight deck cruiser. the second variant is the typical super versatile galaxy cruiser with all 4 commands, and the 3rd is a galaxy based on the one from yesterdays enterprise or a galaxy class in service during the dominion war. would make sense that variants like this would be around, considering the dominion war pales in comparison to the state of the galaxy in 2409. everyone could have a galaxy variant that suited their play style best, with the correct auras suited to each cruiser's sub type, and those worried about tac cruiser power creep can rest assured that the avenger, monbosh, galor, etc... and several other tac cruisers would still be better tac ships then even the most tac heavy of these 3 available.
were does the galaxy X fit in? well, it would be like the 4th ship in this 3 pack. its station setup should be the same as the galaxy dreadknot's is, listed above. whatever consoles or weapons that would fit on any of the 3 ships in this pack should also fit on the galaxy X, though it remains the only ship of the 4 that has the lance and cloak.
Maybe it's not a charade. Who knows? People are easily deluded and will often chastise others for the very same behavior they themselves are manifesting. We're all crazy. It's our nature.
Maybe it's not a charade. Who knows? People are easily deluded and will often chastise others for the very same behavior they themselves are manifesting. We're all crazy. It's our nature.
very subtle lol. i hate to say i know im right or something, but in this post i deconstruct a fleet galaxy and fleet heavy build, pointing out how strained the galaxy build is and how well the heavy build covers all bases with no redundancy and nothing unideal.
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
its basically hard science that the galaxy R station selection sucks, when you apply just a little build theory craft to it. its not something thats too complicated, its not something that has to many factors at work to ever say something truly definitive, its a combination of 12 very well known factors, combined in all sorts of different ways.
I'm still not hooked on the 3-pack idea. Why should I pay for the third time for a competent Galaxy Class. And why should there be not less than 6 different Galaxy variants in the store?
Instead, I'll quote myself from an neighbouring thread:
I don't think the 2 tac console ships need a third one if only Cryptic had used the opportunity of "Cruiser Commands" to make these ships "Command Cruisers" essentially. They could still buff those commands for the Exploration-R, Star Cruiser, Odyssey and Heavy Cruiser-R and the Negh'Var on KDF site (which already loses out on one command being a battle cruiser).
Other than that, the game works on the assumption that Tac, Sci and Eng consoles are balanced, which they clearly aren't. Same goes for BOFFs. The devs (at least Geko) claim again and again that everything is fine and balanced, though it is no secret that clearly tactical abilities and stats make this game due to the lack of different content.
Just boosting tactical abilities on old ships however is cheap game in my opinion. Tac consoles shouldn't only enhance damage while Eng and Sci consoles should have the possibility to do so as well, meaning that a 5 Eng or 5 Sci console ship can actually use those consoles to great effect.
And somebody else mentioned the Galaxies turn rate. Turn rate is not an issue!!!. You can use RCS consoles and the friggin Saucer Seperation to counter that and the new cruiser command. Stop demanding base turn increases. On the other hand, lacking damage potential (and thus inability to pull aggro, just in case people will bring up that it's a tank and everything is fine) cannot be countered by any means.
I'd propose: 1. Buff cruiser commands on "Command Vessels" (2 tac T5 cruisers, Negh'Var and Bortas) 2. Make general damage consoles (which are weaker then specialized tac ones) available for Engineering console slots. That would benefit science vessels as well, not only the eng heavy ones. 3. Give sci vessels some special abilities as well. They deserve that. 4. Balance BOFF abilities. 5. Give the fleet Gal-R her universal ENS. It's the Negh'Vars mirror.
I think that this would not only help the Explo-R but also other cruisers as well as science ships and make the "command ships" even more valuable in fleet actions.
^ 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
For the infinity-billionth time, your definition of useless is not the only way to evaluate things. You keep saying the ship is useless because there's no reason to choose it in the game, unless a player really wants to fly a Galaxy. So, in other words, there is a reason to choose it, you just don't think that reason is sufficient.
there is indeed a reason to choose it, but this reason is not base on gamaplay stats or role, but on a purely subjectiv preference about it look and iconic status.
and since this is not, like all subjective things, something that can be applie to everyone ( yes even if i find it unconceivable that someone do not like the galaxy look, that could happened:) ) it can't gain the status of a reason since it can not succeded to meet everyone own taste about that.
hard data is not subject to that, either a ship can perform as good or better than any other or he can't, taste or bielief daesn't enter in the equation.
What you really mean, I think, is that while at some level all players have to give up mechanical advantages in some area in order to fly the ships they like, in your opinion Galaxy players give up too much in return for flying a ship they like.
almost that, but with the tiny difference that it is not an opinion, it is a fact.
That's fine that you feel that way, but note the part where it's an opinion, not a fact. Everything I've said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
it is not a feeling, it is a fact, one that can be demonstrate and will prooven true in every situation and for everyone, like all fact are, unlike opinion.
Everything we said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
You can prove that the Galaxy mechanically underperforms all you want, but it doesn't "prove" the value of the ship to anyone but you
it proove that this ship is not a real choice gameplay wise but an illusion of choice.
the fact that some people might don't care about it daesn't diminish the reality of that fact.
don't mix up the perceive value of a ship with it mechanical value, one is subject to debate, the other is not.
it is a constant.
the fact that a ship must have a role gameplay wise is not something that cryptic dismissed in the creation process of all the other ship in game, the role come first.
the problem with the galaxy is that cryptic didn't made it with a role gameplaywise but with the dogme idea that it must be inferior to the sovereign.
and since the free assault cruiser is already not particulary good gameplaywise we ended up with this atrocity stats ship.
we are here to bring this to cryptic attention, so that they can correct that.
if some people disagree with the idea that this ship must be a real choice gameplaywise they should make a thread for it.
that an exellent idea, since you claim that they might be a bunch of people that would support the fact that a ship shoudn't have a role gameplaywise because it is not very important in the end.
Thanks everyone who has responded with "LOL he's a delusional troll who wants to force his opinion on us like a giant hypocrite" for again proving that people are doing exactly what I am critiquing. If my only goal here is to prevent you from getting any changes to the Galaxy, then I suppose I should be grateful for your inability to grow your argument beyond this stage, as you have become your own worst enemies in terms of reasonable persuasive argument is concerned. Nevertheless, here's my attempt, again, to make people see that maybe, just maybe, I have a point:
I don't care if you feel like the Galaxy sucks. I'm not saying that you are wrong to think that. I'm saying you are wrong to assume that OPINION, no matter how well supported you think it to be, is a universal fact. Further, I'm saying you are wrong to assume that having said opinion, reasonable as it is, provides sufficient justification to change the Galaxy. This is, to me, manifestly obvious. Here's another one of those dreaded analogies to drive the point home:
I like the Prometheus line of escorts, especially the Cerberus skin. However, the Cerberus skin has clipping errors when separated, as well as some minor texture issues. In addition, I don't like coming to a stop to separate the ship (which is decidedly not canon in any case) and I hate that the wrong parts fly back together. This means I don't like using the MVAM console, which is a shame. Objectively, this is a "problem", in that I can prove it is worse than the MVAM mode on the Ha' Kona or the Chevron Separation on the Odyssey, for no reason at all except that Cryptic hasn't gotten around to fixing it.
Further, the Fleet version mirrors the MVAE station seating, which I feel is somewhat irritating, as the presence of the third Tac ensign means it's not really possible to run the ship with an all cannon/turret build. The sci Lt Commander is nice, but the tradeoff in terms of losing the Tac Lt Commander is probably not worth it. Overall I think the seating was once acceptable, but in the modern environment I think it is at a disadvantage in that it can't really take advantage of some of the best DOFF/power combos in the game. In my estimation, there is nothing that the MVAE does that couldn't be done better in another ship, except for the gimmick of Multi-Vector mode, which, again, I don't like to use.
In short, I feel like the MVAE could use some love. The key here is that I recognize that most of what I just said doesn't matter to other people. I further recognize that some people will look at the facts I listed about the ship and decide that they disagree that there is a sweeping problem with the MVAE that needs some attention. Because I recognize these things, instead of posting about "Why do you hate the MVAE?! I have the sad feels and you must fix it!!", I stopped and thought about it - why didn't Cryptic change the MVAM console when they made the new one for the Ha' Kona?
Turns out there's an answer - fixing it requires resources from both the art team and the systems team, and those resources are better spent elsewhere. I further recognize that while the MVAE doesn't have the "perfect" seating, and can be outperformed by other ships, it's not "broken" in the sense that I can do anything in the game, and my personal level of skill can make up for much of that difference. Thus, it seems clear to me that no "fix" will be coming soon, nor do I expect one, because in the larger context of the game, no matter how much it matters to me, it's just not that important.
In fact, regardless of how easy and obvious the changes I want are, the fact is that actually implementing those changes is fraught with difficulties. If the seating changes, what happens to BOFFs that are slotted in a seat that no longer exists? Could easily become a problem. Okay, so now Cryptic has to code a solution for that problem, which needs to be bug-tested etc. all of which increases the development cost, both in actual cost (wages etc) and opportunity cost (not working on new ships/content that would make more money/affect more people).
Further, how are they paying for these changes? They can't re-sell the MVAE without enraging the people who already bought it (some of them twice - fleet and MVAE c-store), but the changes They're making aren't likely to cause very many people to go back and buy it, so this is basically a money loser for Cryptic. It still might be worth doing if it would garner the goodwill of the player base, but you know that the first post after the Dev blog announcing the balance pass to the MVAE would be something like "So, you spent time and energy on this, instead of on <ship or issue poster feels is more important>? Ridiculous. Way to go Craptic.". It seems like such a change would really only be worth doing, then, in the context of a larger rebalancing of many of the older ships. Maybe that would be a good idea, but again, it's not necessarily a money maker, and the more effort Cryptic puts into doing things that don't make them money, the harder it becomes for them to justify doing them.
Does that make it more clear? I am not saying that people are wrong to want a change to the Galaxy. I'm not trying to "force" my opinion that everything is fine on you. I'm saying that in the face of the fact that at least some people don't share your opinion that this is a huge problem, your argument to support making a change can't merely be based on your righteous indignation about the situation. My evaluation of the likely outcome of such a change is as follows:
A number of Galaxy fans are happy. Another segment of Galaxy fans are unhappy, either because Cryptic "forced" them to buy another new version of the Galaxy, or because the changes didn't go far enough, and thus are only a 'good start'. In the case of "buy a new version of the Galaxy", sales are modest at best, because there just isn't that much demand for the ship, but the backlash from players who feel like its a ripoff and a waste of dev resources is pretty intense. In the case of simply changing the current ship, there is a smaller (but still significant) backlash from other players who feel like their concerns are being unfairly ignored in favor of a small cabal of noisy players, while the vast, vast majority of the player base simply shrugs and moves on, not caring one way or another. Sales of the Galaxy ships don't spike up, because most people who want to fly a Galaxy already bought one, or were going to buy one anyway. Thus, in any case, Cryptic likely doesn't make money and likely doesn't substantially improve the gameplay experience for the majority of the player base, nor have they substantially reduced the number of complaints people have about the game, just shifted who is complaining about what. The benefit, then, if any, is likely not worth the effort expended to make the change.
And that, as they say, is what Cryptic's "beef" with the Galaxy likely is.
Comments
I fully admit that I have not read everything, but after going through about a dozen walls of text, all of which are quite articulately argued, I have begun to notice a pattern here. Again I caution that, not having the patience to read through everything, the pattern I present may be incomplete, but I believe it covers the gist of what is currently transpiring, though perhaps not how it began.
Here goes.
My analysis of this is that somehow somebody's poured some oil into a jar of water. Two mutually exclusive issues are being debated as though they are the same. Both sides have obviously made tangents into the opposition's territory, but the core arguments appear to be on totally different wavelengths.
mrtshead, you are correct as I understand your argument. The ship is indeed fun to play in. It's a classic icon of the Star Trek mythos and it just looks awesome. Beyond appearances and sentimental value it is certainly a capable vessel that can indeed clear all game content and it performs at least adequately, sometimes even if PVP.
Everybody else, you are also correct. Comparatively speaking the Galaxy class is an utter disappointment in every regard. It turns like a bus made of uranium, shoots like a pellet gun, and it has some mighty uncomfortable bridge seating. This is frustrating because in the show it turned on a dime, threw down like Bruce Lee, and it had enough work space on the bridge for everyone. When it showed up on the scene Klingons began to consider diplomacy and Romulans started nervously double checking their cloaking devices.
The Galaxy is an awesome ship. It's capable. To say it is useless is dishonest. It can succeed, but it doesn't succeed very well. Lesser ships can easily outperform it and that's a problem because it demonstrates bad game balance. A top tier ship should perform like its top tier associates. At best it is adequate, but the people who love it want it to be great. Surely the best of intentions were behind its design, but ultimately it was born obsolete. She has no teeth and gets around on a walker. Is it so much to ask for some dentures and a hoveround? It's about time the old girl got some TLC.
you have won the entire thread, thats exactly what has gone on here.
ROFLOL pretty much the winner in this one.
Well, let's see. This thread is almost 11 months old, has 458 pages and almost 4600 individual posts, and has made evidently zero progress towards your goal. So far you've gotten virtually no traction on this in the wider community - the consensus you imagine agreeing with you hasn't really appeared, and it's just the same strident voices over and over and over and over again in this thread. No devs have commented, and there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "Why are we being ignored?!"
My point is that what you have been doing has obviously not been working, and I think it's obvious that the way in which people have structured the argument is a big part of the reason. The discussion you SHOULD be trying to have is why, given your strong feelings on the subject, hasn't the Galaxy been fixed yet. There must be some reason why that is so, but so far people are so wrapped up in the idea that any dissent is necessarily either based on ignorance of the "facts" (or else is a troll) that that discussion can't happen. You can't expect to progress the discussion when your only response to perfectly valid and reasonable dissent is to shout it down based on hyperbolic absolutes that somewhere along the line started becoming accepted as some sort of group-think dogma.
So, are people in general ready yet to admit that it is possible that some people won't agree with them, and that such disagreement isn't necessarily ignorant, nor immoral? That maybe, on balance, no matter how strongly they feel about this issue, it might not be that important in the wider context of the game? Or that the effort required to solve the problem might exceed the benefits?
Or do you need another 460 pages of venting spleen and incredulous outrage before you see that it's not working?
Is it however fun to play and use compared to a Ambassador/Excelsior/Sovereign/Avenger or even a Nebula ? god no ! after using the aforementioned ships piloting a Galaxy feels as bad as having teeth pulled. Its slow, low dps and everything after using any other tier 5 ship feels like god dam hard work and grind.
Everything bad about a ship in the game as it stands at present the Galaxy represents.
1. Lack of tactical abilities
2. Terrible turn rate
3. Poor Boff seating./ Lack of versatility
5. Poor console layout.
If Cryptic refuse or have no intention on changing the boff or console layout of this ship, the least they could do is increase the inertia and turn rate of the ship as a trade off for the Engineering heavy boff and Console layout to allow for better tanking to bring another shield facing to bear quicker.
Basically the C-Store and Fleet Galaxy are subpar. sold as Tier 5 and Fleet level but are outperformed by the Tier 4 Sovereign/Starcruiser and Defiant.
So in summary Galaxy is usable at end game however its performance compared to other Tier 5 and 4 ships is horrible.
It should not be being outperformed by Tier 4 ships. ships that are free to obtain over a ship you have to pay for outside of earning dil to zen conversion
threads like this created things like the regent and a tier 5 akira. it also caused the d'deridex that originally had the galaxy R terrible station setup to have a complete rework before LoR launched. its people like you that derail this thread and drag it through the gutter, when you even put into question the FACT that the galaxy R is the worst ship in the game.
i know exactly why this hasn't been addressed. they are waiting to do anything galaxy related till they have second generation sep tech working on the galaxy model, the venture neck being at a different elevation is what seems to be causing a problem. thats whats holding up a fleet galaxy X too, sep capability for that ship will launch with it. i couldn't care less about that stupid smother looking tech though, trash it already
right, coming out with better and better ships is in no way important to the context, or success of this game. why then, do people keep drooling over all the beter and better ships that get released, when all you really need is some POS like the galaxy R to complete everything? i play this game for the pvp, nothing maters more then all the details you proboly consider minutia. i want to use the galaxy as one of my main ships. i cant do that because its such a horrible ship. i cant have fun pvping if im using a horrible ship, im not competitive and im a drag on the rest of the team for my vanity. people that arent as in to the competitive aspect of the game as me will benefit from another good ship becoming an option, their enjoyment of the game could only increase. are you ever going to explain why there shouldn't be an improved galaxy class? there was literally an improved sovereign released already.
that is what mrshead have succed to make you bielieve that we are claiming this.
when we said that this ship is useless, it is not in regard to the level of it performance.
we known it is capable even tho it is the less efficient ship.
he offert no advantage, no niche or whatsoever in comparison to ANY other cruiser.
for example the exelsior have better firepower potential than an ambassador, while the ambassador got more tanking potential.
you can do this kind of reasoning with the galaxy, because of it bo layout and turnrate inertia, there is NOTHING you can do better than ANY other cruiser.
hence if a ship offert no advantage but only drawback, you can't , reasonably, intelligently and logically included him in a pannel of ship choice.
it is redundant, only a player that absolutly want to have a galaxy will choose it.
but in a gameplay choice, it is useless.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
First, this is one forum thread among hundreds. Unless it's a pinned post you shouldn't be expecting many folks to show up.
Second, I propose an experiment a few of us should run here: head into a public area with lots of players and ask people what they think of the Galaxy class, not as an icon of Star Trek, but as a playable ship in STO. It's important to make that distinction be some people's answers may be opposite depending on the context. Mine would, anyway.
And third, majority is no grounds for determining fact. A majority of planet Earth still believes the sun is a god, or that it orbits us (if they understand anything about orbits at all), or they don't know the difference between a planet and a star.
Science, which includes the field of mathematics, is a far better guide to the truth. The math here says the Galaxy is a sub-optimal vessel by a wide margin. Sub-optimal does not mean useless, in fact it still perform brilliantly, but it has to try a lot harder. It's also fine to be suboptimal, but not by a wide margin.
This is also a fair a point and there could be a number of reasons. There's a lot of vitriol being thrown around here. Devs probably avoid threads like that, so this one may already be too poisonous to get any recognition.
On the other hand, maybe the devs aren't a bunch of panzies and simply haven't noticed it or have chosen to ignore it for other reasons. I really can't do anything other than speculate because... well... the devs aren't here to say anything.
No. This is perhaps the debate you would like to have or change it into, but it is not the one going on here. If this is what you really want to discuss, go start your own thread on the topic and stop completely derailing this one.
You're right, there probably is a reason, but the STO devs have never shared it with us and we aren't privy to their reasoning or lack thereof. You have posited a non-falsifiable assertion. Any answers to your question can only be speculative since we have no data to work with. That's bad science.
It would be like intercepting a short alien transmission, finally confirming the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, and then trying to discuss their dining etiquette based on a short "hello." What you want to discuss is worth discussing, but its a conversation you can only have with the devs because they're the only ones who can answer you. Bringing it up here is only derailing.
What is... or was trying to be discussed here, is a comparative analysis of the Galaxy class and other vessels at its tier. This can be done with hard data: math. This is good science and it is an issue we can make progress with. Perhaps the devs will chime in and say "actually you've got it all bass-ackwards and here's why," but that's something only they can do.
This is because your "dissent" is actually unrelated to the topic at hand. You say the Galaxy is just fine the way it is. In the sense that it is functional you are correct, the Galaxy is just fine, but that's not what people are trying to discuss here.
This thread is discussing how the Galaxy is comparatively inferior and what improvements might be made to bring it up to par. I believe I previously mentioned that good enough isn't good enough for us. We want the galaxy to be great and you want to ask us why. That's not what we're here to talk about.
Basically you've come to Oktoberfest and are asking everyone why they're wasting their time drinking beer when they should be drinking wine, and are continually frustrated when everyone answers "Because we're here to drink BEER!"
Of course it isn't! It's a single ship amongst dozens, but it's one the people here really like and want to shine. STO isn't going to crash and there won't be a massive exodus of disappointed players if this issue is never fixed to our satisfaction, but it is the issue that people have chosen to discuss here. Asking why is beyond pointless. The answer is a tautology. "Why are we talking about X here? Because that's what we're here to talk about."
More confusing here is that you seemed to have changed the angle of your argument from "If it's so broken, why haven't they fixed it?" to "What's the point?" Please decide on and remain consistent with your arguments.
So now you admit there is a problem, but ask if it is even worth the time and effort and to fix it? That is totally irrelevant. As I and many others before me have stated already, this thread is discussing the shortcomings of the Galaxy and suggesting improvements, not whether it is pheasible or even necessary for the devs to implement the changes proposed.
You've also changed your core argument again here, from "What's the point?" to "Will they even bother?"
hehehe, you have just exposed all his hypocrisys here.
notice that anything that could be use to make us look like 14 years old selfish galaxy fanboy has and will be use by this guy to try to discredit us.
at least he make this thread going...
so unlike the galaxy, he is not totally useless;)
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
ho!
i almost forget!!
http://img.pandawhale.com/28643-Citi...-appl-xIlv.gif
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
"Why does the Galaxy suck?"
Allow me to offer my two pence, which I'm sure scores of others have already iterated upon. It's too slow, has terrible bridge seating, and lacks a third tactical console. Now to explain myself and offer some solutions.
Issue 1: It turns like a drunk whale.
Wow. This is really annoying. As it is, the Galaxy is meant to be a beam boat, woe to the fool who tries to put torpedoes on it. Sure it can turn pretty well if you separate the saucer, but then it's not really a cruiser anymore, as the stats change to be more like an escort. Plus it looks pretty gimpy like that. She's supposed to be a classy lady, not schizophrenic tart who removes her top at the first sign of danger.
Solution 1a: Lose some weight, fatty.
The easiest solution is just to improve the turning. In my opinion nothing but a carrier should corner so badly... which brings me to my second proposed solution.
Solution 1b: What a MILF!
Mothership I'd Like to Fly. Get your heads out of the gutter. Instead of turning better the Galaxy would be a perfect candidate to be a carrier ship. According to specs and a whole bunch of episodes she's already got two docking bays and one of them is quite large. I think she's got enough capacity between them to host a wing fighter craft. Just the one wing, though. She's got 8 guns on her and doesn't need a full carrier compliment.
Issue 2: A Smart Car has better seating.
Does anyone remember the episode when the showed up somewhere and no one was intimidated because everyone knew it was little more than a giant ball of HP? Or all the times the crew was faced with a scientific puzzle they couldn't solve because the ship didn't have enough treknobabboratories to modify the proper phase variance? I don't either.
The ship has way too much engineering focus, to the point that no matter what set of abilities you use, somebody is going to end up with some redundant or rarely used powers. I usually left my ensign slot unmanned, for instance.
Solution 2: The SUV of Starfleet.
My preferred boff layout would be an engineering Cmdr slot, a science Lt Cmdr slot, 2 tactical Lt slots, and keep the ensign engineering. First and foremost the Galaxy class is an exploration cruiser. It makes sense to have an engineering and science focus, with ancillary systems dedicated to combat. I can certainly see the argument for reversing the tactical and science consoles I've proposed: having a tactical Lt Cmdr and 2 Lt sciences, but I don't think that would fit with the canon quite as well.
With two tactical slots you can still get a pair of tac teams and two basic weapon abilities like Fire at Will, Overcharged, Torpedo Spread, or High Yield. She's a science ship, but she's got some teeth. The Lt Cmdr slot opens up some high end science abilities like Grav Well and whatnot. With the size of the Galaxy class's deflector and all the science facilities aboard, I expect more than just hazard emitters, science teams, and tractor beams.
Issue 3: All gums.
The Galaxy class was made to be an explorer, a great big long range vessel capable of being entirely self sufficient, barring disaster, for extended lengths of time. That means better than average crew quarters, holodecks, a whole bunch of laboratories, plenty of engineering staff and supplies to keep the ship in good maintenance... and GUNS. You don't know what you're going to encounter there in the great unknown, so you pack some serious just in case hardware for those close encounters of the ugly kind.
The current Galaxy class does not have the consoles it needs to be a formidable opponent, even with 8 guns and a hypothetical boff refit of 2 Lt tactical stations. With the addition of a single carrier squadron, I think 2 tactical consoles would be fine, but right now the Galaxy doesn't have any of these proposed features.
Solution 3: Dentures.
She needs a third tactical console. Maybe take away an engineering console in trade, I'd be fine with that. Then she'd be pretty even across the board; a perfect fit for a vessel that's supposed to do everything.
My point was a pre-emption of the claim that OBVIOUSLY a majority of people care about this, because the thread is so long yadda yadda. I'm laying that groundwork now, because it will become important if/when this thread turns into something useful, instead of a trainwreck of reason propelled by people's inability to properly analyze arguments.
You forgot to add some important questions to your poll - namely "do you currently own a Galaxy class?", "Do you desire a change to the Galaxy?", "How likely would you be to buy a new Galaxy class? At what price point?" "If instead of a new ship, the current ship was changed, would you be likely to buy it?" "If only the fleet version were changed, would that affect your decision?" "How would you rate the following in terms of priority: revised/new Galaxy class, new canon federation ships (New Orleans class, etc), new Cryptic original designs, new non-federation (KDF/Republic) ships, new mission content, updates to foundry content, bug fixes to current ships, new skins for existing ships?" I am absolutely behind this sort of in depth research, because it is one of the only way to get the kind of information that would help to justify or dejustify changing the Galaxy.
First, yes, I know that majority doesn't determine fact. That's partially my point. It doesn't matter how many people like/dislike something, those numbers don't make something objectively good or bad.
Second, things like "good/bad/suboptimal by acceptable margin/suboptimal by a wide margin" are all value judgements that cannot be proven by science. Math can tell you that the Galaxy does X damage. It cannot tell you if that number is sufficient for you to feel like the ship is useful or not. That is a value judgement, and people can disagree on those values without being unreasonable.
The hitch is that I am being told (basically) that my value judgement is wrong and unreasonable because it so completely flies in the face of accepted convention. This is wrong, because as you have pointed out we don't actually have the evidence to know what the "accepted convention" really is, nor how deeply any consensus on this issue runs, and even if we DID know, well, as you say, pure majority agreement on an issue doesn't make something true, especially when that thing cannot be "proven" scientifically one way or the other.
Yes. The purpose of the thread is to propose a change to the Galaxy class, to fix it's perceived shortcomings. The question of "Is this a good idea?" is vital to that discussion. It literally doesn't matter how much some people want it to happen, if, on balance, it ends up being not worth the time and energy to make the change. This should not be a concept that is this difficult for people to grasp, yet in the context of this thread it is impossible to get to because we're stuck with people who want to assume that all dissenting voices are objectively wrong, so there is no need to engage with them.
I'm right, there's definitely A reason, unless you decide to through causality out the window. You're right, we can't know the reason for certain. What's more important is that the question isn't even if there are reasons or not, it's are those reasons actually sufficient or not. You are absolutely right that these kinds of suppositions and subjective discussions are bad science. That's why they are NOT SCIENCE, and why I have been saying all along that people need to stop trying to objectively prove their subjective opinions true.
Put another way, I know that my opinions are non-falsifiable. I am saying that the whole core concept of the thread, that the Galaxy is useless, is non-falsifiable, and thus "bad science". Thus, people should stop treating it as an objective claim that they have "proven", and instead as a subjective interpretation that is not necessarily universal, and is open to discussion.
Answered below.
First, I think you are misreading the purpose of the thread. It is not merely to compare the Galaxy to other ships, but rather to propose a solution to the perceived problem arising from that comparison. Is quantitatively analyzing the Galaxy good science? Sure. Is taking that analysis and creating a subjective judgement based on it good science? No. It's not an unreasonable thing to do, but it's not science anymore. It's interpretation, or opinion. Taking those opinions a step further, and proposing a solution? Also reasonable, but also not science, and certainly is something that is open to question.
It's not a derail at all - the discussion of whether a proposal is a good idea or not is absolutely germane to the discussion. For example, what if the topic of a thread was "How should the Devs add Imperial Class Star Destroyers to the game?". Would it be legitimate for someone to go into that thread and say "They shouldn't"? The same principle applies here. If the question is "How should the Galaxy be improved?", "It shouldn't" is a legitimate answer, even if it's not the one you agree with, or want to hear.
Your analogy is inapt, because it loses the part of the thread where action is being proposed. If the thread was merely "what do you like/dislike" about the Galaxy", that would be one thing. This is not that. A better analogy might be something like:
A group of Beer aficionados decides to hold a public debate about the best way to throw an Oktoberfest festival in the town. Someone attends, asking if an Oktoberfest festival is really necessary in the first place. Certainly, regardless of how that discussion goes down, the question was a valid one, right?
So... right, this is basically my point. The game doesn't need the Galaxy fixed in any objective sense. It's thus not wrong or off-topic or selfish or trollish or unreasonable to attempt to address the question of if a change is a good idea at all. What is happening here is that people are constantly trying to squash that discussion through spurious assertions of superiority based in a mistaken believe that they have an objective claim to truth.
It's not inconsistent at all - my point is that logically there must be SOME reason no action has been taken, and then I suggest that one of those reasons might be that the cost outweighs the benefit (what you characterize accurately, if bluntly, as "what's the point").
Last bit first - no, haven't changed the core of my argument at all - this is just another way of asking the same question - is a change a good idea or not?
Second, I've admitted all along that there is a problem insofar as some people are unhappy. What I've also maintained is that the problem is not universal and objectively true - that is to say, it doesn't affect everyone equally, or even at all. This means that dissenting ideas are possible, which further means that those ideas may actually provide a sufficient reason to not implement the change.
Again, this is hardly irrelevant to the discussion. If you are attempting to characterize this thread as merely about spitballing "what-ifs" without any direct call to action, then I would say that the number of people in here who seem upset that the Devs haven't implemented any of the "simple" and "obvious" solutions posited belies that characterization.
Haven't seen anyone make a case for change based upon what the game needs.
You are right. If, that was what you were doing, I suspect there would not be as many objections to your posts.
The irony here is almost palpable.
For the infinity-billionth time, your definition of useless is not the only way to evaluate things. You keep saying the ship is useless because there's no reason to choose it in the game, unless a player really wants to fly a Galaxy. So, in other words, there is a reason to choose it, you just don't think that reason is sufficient. What you really mean, I think, is that while at some level all players have to give up mechanical advantages in some area in order to fly the ships they like, in your opinion Galaxy players give up too much in return for flying a ship they like. That's fine that you feel that way, but note the part where it's an opinion, not a fact. Everything I've said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
You can prove that the Galaxy mechanically underperforms all you want, but it doesn't "prove" the value of the ship to anyone but you. Other people will certainly agree with you, but some people will certainly disagree with your valuation, even if they agree with the math that says the Galaxy gives up a lot in the game. It's like how people can agree that a foot long sub from Subway is $5, but might disagree on the value proposition that represents. Some might think it's a good deal for a fresh sub hand-crafted to order by trained sandwich technicians. Some might think it's a ripoff for a sub-standard sandwich desultorily slapped together by a surly college student.
What, then, would you characterize the argument in favor of change as? I started by asserting that it was based on a subjective judgement, and that people might disagree. I was told that I was wrong and a fool because objectively the Galaxy is broken and needs to be fixed. If I am misreading that as attempting to justify the change on the basis of being objectively necessary, then what is it?
To be clear, this is not a passive-aggressive use of a rhetorical question to score points. I'm genuinely curious - how would you classify the justifications being offered to support the change?
That IS what I've been doing. That I have repeatedly failed to get that across stems from a host of issues, including but not limited to the fact that I choose a slightly subtle and non-obvious way of addressing it, as well as the fact that I, like many of the posters in this thread, am not always a great net citizen about monitoring my tone. Mea culpa.
Nevertheless, I also think there's a large element of "I don't like his position, so it must be wrong" going on here, which is causing people to suffer from what was once characterized on a Warhammer 40K forum as "fleet of post", a special rule wherein in lieu of thinking in the thinking phase, people instead make d6 posts.
And yes, you are welcome to feel like I do the same thing. My affirmative defense against that claim of hypocrisy is that I believe the care with which I consider my posts is evident in the way in which I present detailed reasoning in my responses, even if that reasoning isn't something everyone agrees with.
Beyond which, even if it's true that I am guilty of being so entrenched in my position that I react out of form, rather than reason, that doesn't mean I'm not correct about my conclusions, nor does it mean that I'm wrong that about other people doing it too.
Basically, I'm saying that if its true that the issue here is simply that I've been misunderstood, then I'm willing to cop to being partially responsible for that. Hopefully that's sufficient to avoid a fruitless derail into a discussion of exactly how much blame should be ascribed, because I really don't think it matters. Instead, if, at least we are at the point where I can ask if the change is a good idea without being shouted down as automatically ridiculous, then let's have that discussion.
It's not ironic at all. I suspect strongly that despite the fact that I have repeatedly explicitly acknowledged that it is not wrong to be unhappy with the Galaxy people are still reacting to "but I disagree" as an attempt to prove them "wrong" anyway, and so they react as if my claim is self-contradictory. It really, really, really isn't. The opinions at play here are not mutually exclusive, nor are they zero-sum. It doesn't, in any way, undermine the validity of my opinion that you disagree, or vice versa. Me saying I have a right to enjoy black liquorice doesn't in any way obligate you to start enjoying the foul stuff too.
Imagine, if you will, a civil discourse somewhere. Perhaps in a real forum of some sort, between learned men. The topic of the day is... we'll go with something inoffensive and boring: Evolution.
For a time the discussion progresses on the finer points of evolutionary processes. There is some disagreement amongst the learned men about the competing concepts of survival and altruism. Suddenly another learned man enters stage right, bringing a chair to the table. No one takes notice as this has happened several times before.
Everyone expects another interesting take on the issue at hand, but no! Instead of a meaningful addition or criticism of the topic they say, "But what if God just created everything? That pre-empts the entire issue! It's pointless to discuss evolution until we can prove God didn't do it."
The other learned men collectively facepalm and turn to the moderator. "That is another topic entirely," he says. "We have begun with the presupposition that Evolutionary theory is true and proceeded from that point. Kindly keep your inquiries and assertions within that context."
"But this is folly! What if it isn't true? This is more important!" says the new arrival.
"Get off the stage!" yells someone in the audience.
"But it's meaningless unless we make that conclusion first!"
A cacophany of booing accompanied by a light rain of tomatoes flows from the audience. The new guy refuses to leave, intent on having his debate take priority. Nothing further is accomplished because everyone is too busy throwing tomatoes, yelling, and wishing this building had security. The end.
This is where you have brought us.
I also posit that this hypothetical situation would be no different, nor the learned men and audience any less justified in their response if the roles of science and religion were reversed in this little theater of the mind. Bringing religion into a scientific debate is just as inappropriate and disruptive as bringing up science in a religious debate.
Pre-empting your pastor's reading of genesis with a lesson on the big bang theory is not okay.
P.S. Dear admins: please don't ban me.
I would characterize your arguments as non-sequitur. A thing not being A does not necessarily make it B.
But then I suspect you already know this, Jello.
I see where your coming from, but I still think you are missing the key element here of the call to action. I refer you to my version of the Oktoberfest analogy. It's not a case of someone who hates beer crashing Oktoberfest. It's a case of someone who hates beer attending a debate about how the town should implement Oktoberfest, and asking if the party should even happen in the first place. Even if you feel like the answer to that question is "yes", it's not outside the scope of the discussion to ask the question.
I see. So am I to take this to again be basically a dismissal of the idea that it's worth asking if changing the Galaxy is a good idea in the first place? I guess I misinterpreted your challenge to my characterization of the thread as a substantive question. Sorry for wasting your time.
Sure, I'll run with this analogy, because it's more or less apt. You simply have to add the part where the people who are disgusted with the replacement beer are demanding that the Oktoberfest organizers "do something", and offering solutions that are possibly impractically expensive, not universally accepted (because not everyone cares about the beer that was replaced, and not everyone hates the replacement), and that might not even make all the offended parties happy (because they can't exactly agree on what exactly should be done to fix the problem in the first place).
When the person who likes the disgusting beer speaks up, he gets roundly shouted down for being ignorant, since OF COURSE everyone can see the new beer is disgusting. So, he responds that actually, it's not obvious to everyone that the beer is disgusting, it's just an opinion that isn't universally shared, and so maybe don't act like it's unreasonable to say that the "problem" is not a big enough deal to worry about, no matter how personally offensive it is to you as an individual. And that's where we are.
I accept your apology.
this has nothing to do with point of view, its simply impossible to make the galaxy as good as any other cruiser at dealing damage, or being a healer. the station setup does not allow for it, no mater what combination you try. those are the 2 things cruisers are capable of doing, other then be a part of your RP experience. but then it doesn't mater much if the ship sucks or not, so it might as well not be the worst, but pretty good instead. still waiting for a justification for why it should not be made a little better.
galaxy carrier- flight deck cruiser auras
COM eng
LTC sci
LT eng
LT tac
ENS sci
4/4/2 consoles
1 hanger
galaxy cruiser- cruiser auras
COM eng
LTC uni
LT uni
LT sci
ENS sci
4/3/3 consoles
galaxy dreadnought (not the galaxy X)- dreadnought cruiser auras
COM eng
LTC tac
LT uni
LT uni
ENS sci
4/2/4 consoles
with the 3 pack, you could have a galaxy type that would make a very good sci heavy support cruiser that has a hanger, without makeing the only galaxy class available be a 2 aura command flight deck cruiser. the second variant is the typical super versatile galaxy cruiser with all 4 commands, and the 3rd is a galaxy based on the one from yesterdays enterprise or a galaxy class in service during the dominion war. would make sense that variants like this would be around, considering the dominion war pales in comparison to the state of the galaxy in 2409. everyone could have a galaxy variant that suited their play style best, with the correct auras suited to each cruiser's sub type, and those worried about tac cruiser power creep can rest assured that the avenger, monbosh, galor, etc... and several other tac cruisers would still be better tac ships then even the most tac heavy of these 3 available.
were does the galaxy X fit in? well, it would be like the 4th ship in this 3 pack. its station setup should be the same as the galaxy dreadknot's is, listed above. whatever consoles or weapons that would fit on any of the 3 ships in this pack should also fit on the galaxy X, though it remains the only ship of the 4 that has the lance and cloak.
Maybe it's not a charade. Who knows? People are easily deluded and will often chastise others for the very same behavior they themselves are manifesting. We're all crazy. It's our nature.
very subtle lol. i hate to say i know im right or something, but in this post i deconstruct a fleet galaxy and fleet heavy build, pointing out how strained the galaxy build is and how well the heavy build covers all bases with no redundancy and nothing unideal.
its basically hard science that the galaxy R station selection sucks, when you apply just a little build theory craft to it. its not something thats too complicated, its not something that has to many factors at work to ever say something truly definitive, its a combination of 12 very well known factors, combined in all sorts of different ways.
I'm still not hooked on the 3-pack idea. Why should I pay for the third time for a competent Galaxy Class. And why should there be not less than 6 different Galaxy variants in the store?
Instead, I'll quote myself from an neighbouring thread:
I think that this would not only help the Explo-R but also other cruisers as well as science ships and make the "command ships" even more valuable in fleet actions.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
there is indeed a reason to choose it, but this reason is not base on gamaplay stats or role, but on a purely subjectiv preference about it look and iconic status.
and since this is not, like all subjective things, something that can be applie to everyone ( yes even if i find it unconceivable that someone do not like the galaxy look, that could happened:) ) it can't gain the status of a reason since it can not succeded to meet everyone own taste about that.
hard data is not subject to that, either a ship can perform as good or better than any other or he can't, taste or bielief daesn't enter in the equation.
almost that, but with the tiny difference that it is not an opinion, it is a fact.
it is not a feeling, it is a fact, one that can be demonstrate and will prooven true in every situation and for everyone, like all fact are, unlike opinion.
Everything we said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
it proove that this ship is not a real choice gameplay wise but an illusion of choice.
the fact that some people might don't care about it daesn't diminish the reality of that fact.
don't mix up the perceive value of a ship with it mechanical value, one is subject to debate, the other is not.
it is a constant.
the fact that a ship must have a role gameplay wise is not something that cryptic dismissed in the creation process of all the other ship in game, the role come first.
the problem with the galaxy is that cryptic didn't made it with a role gameplaywise but with the dogme idea that it must be inferior to the sovereign.
and since the free assault cruiser is already not particulary good gameplaywise we ended up with this atrocity stats ship.
we are here to bring this to cryptic attention, so that they can correct that.
if some people disagree with the idea that this ship must be a real choice gameplaywise they should make a thread for it.
that an exellent idea, since you claim that they might be a bunch of people that would support the fact that a ship shoudn't have a role gameplaywise because it is not very important in the end.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I don't care if you feel like the Galaxy sucks. I'm not saying that you are wrong to think that. I'm saying you are wrong to assume that OPINION, no matter how well supported you think it to be, is a universal fact. Further, I'm saying you are wrong to assume that having said opinion, reasonable as it is, provides sufficient justification to change the Galaxy. This is, to me, manifestly obvious. Here's another one of those dreaded analogies to drive the point home:
I like the Prometheus line of escorts, especially the Cerberus skin. However, the Cerberus skin has clipping errors when separated, as well as some minor texture issues. In addition, I don't like coming to a stop to separate the ship (which is decidedly not canon in any case) and I hate that the wrong parts fly back together. This means I don't like using the MVAM console, which is a shame. Objectively, this is a "problem", in that I can prove it is worse than the MVAM mode on the Ha' Kona or the Chevron Separation on the Odyssey, for no reason at all except that Cryptic hasn't gotten around to fixing it.
Further, the Fleet version mirrors the MVAE station seating, which I feel is somewhat irritating, as the presence of the third Tac ensign means it's not really possible to run the ship with an all cannon/turret build. The sci Lt Commander is nice, but the tradeoff in terms of losing the Tac Lt Commander is probably not worth it. Overall I think the seating was once acceptable, but in the modern environment I think it is at a disadvantage in that it can't really take advantage of some of the best DOFF/power combos in the game. In my estimation, there is nothing that the MVAE does that couldn't be done better in another ship, except for the gimmick of Multi-Vector mode, which, again, I don't like to use.
In short, I feel like the MVAE could use some love. The key here is that I recognize that most of what I just said doesn't matter to other people. I further recognize that some people will look at the facts I listed about the ship and decide that they disagree that there is a sweeping problem with the MVAE that needs some attention. Because I recognize these things, instead of posting about "Why do you hate the MVAE?! I have the sad feels and you must fix it!!", I stopped and thought about it - why didn't Cryptic change the MVAM console when they made the new one for the Ha' Kona?
Turns out there's an answer - fixing it requires resources from both the art team and the systems team, and those resources are better spent elsewhere. I further recognize that while the MVAE doesn't have the "perfect" seating, and can be outperformed by other ships, it's not "broken" in the sense that I can do anything in the game, and my personal level of skill can make up for much of that difference. Thus, it seems clear to me that no "fix" will be coming soon, nor do I expect one, because in the larger context of the game, no matter how much it matters to me, it's just not that important.
In fact, regardless of how easy and obvious the changes I want are, the fact is that actually implementing those changes is fraught with difficulties. If the seating changes, what happens to BOFFs that are slotted in a seat that no longer exists? Could easily become a problem. Okay, so now Cryptic has to code a solution for that problem, which needs to be bug-tested etc. all of which increases the development cost, both in actual cost (wages etc) and opportunity cost (not working on new ships/content that would make more money/affect more people).
Further, how are they paying for these changes? They can't re-sell the MVAE without enraging the people who already bought it (some of them twice - fleet and MVAE c-store), but the changes They're making aren't likely to cause very many people to go back and buy it, so this is basically a money loser for Cryptic. It still might be worth doing if it would garner the goodwill of the player base, but you know that the first post after the Dev blog announcing the balance pass to the MVAE would be something like "So, you spent time and energy on this, instead of on <ship or issue poster feels is more important>? Ridiculous. Way to go Craptic.". It seems like such a change would really only be worth doing, then, in the context of a larger rebalancing of many of the older ships. Maybe that would be a good idea, but again, it's not necessarily a money maker, and the more effort Cryptic puts into doing things that don't make them money, the harder it becomes for them to justify doing them.
Does that make it more clear? I am not saying that people are wrong to want a change to the Galaxy. I'm not trying to "force" my opinion that everything is fine on you. I'm saying that in the face of the fact that at least some people don't share your opinion that this is a huge problem, your argument to support making a change can't merely be based on your righteous indignation about the situation. My evaluation of the likely outcome of such a change is as follows:
A number of Galaxy fans are happy. Another segment of Galaxy fans are unhappy, either because Cryptic "forced" them to buy another new version of the Galaxy, or because the changes didn't go far enough, and thus are only a 'good start'. In the case of "buy a new version of the Galaxy", sales are modest at best, because there just isn't that much demand for the ship, but the backlash from players who feel like its a ripoff and a waste of dev resources is pretty intense. In the case of simply changing the current ship, there is a smaller (but still significant) backlash from other players who feel like their concerns are being unfairly ignored in favor of a small cabal of noisy players, while the vast, vast majority of the player base simply shrugs and moves on, not caring one way or another. Sales of the Galaxy ships don't spike up, because most people who want to fly a Galaxy already bought one, or were going to buy one anyway. Thus, in any case, Cryptic likely doesn't make money and likely doesn't substantially improve the gameplay experience for the majority of the player base, nor have they substantially reduced the number of complaints people have about the game, just shifted who is complaining about what. The benefit, then, if any, is likely not worth the effort expended to make the change.
And that, as they say, is what Cryptic's "beef" with the Galaxy likely is.
Thanks for the wall of lol. I mean... are we really supposed to be concerned with the welfare of unemployed BOFFs?