Cant say where you see all these galaxies running about cause as I said I rarely see one and if I do its mostly the Tier 4 not the tier 5 you have to pay for. I don't see a ton of different federation ships, I see alot of different ships split between the Feds, Klingons, Romulans, and lockbox ships. I mostly see the same Federation ships over and over, as in same type of science the Vesta, escorts are usually the Defiant, and cruisers are now the Avenger.
I'm not saying I see a majority of Galaxies about, I'm saying that I see them often enough to disbelieve the claim that they are under-represented. If you want something that IS under-represented, when was the last time you saw anyone in an Aquarious?
As for the stuff you wrote in the quote, about how it's bad business to sell an obsolete product - uh, no, it's not. If you can make money off a product without putting more money into developing it, why bother? Especially in a digital marketplace, where there's no real costs for "storage" of the digital good, nor concerns about using up limited inventory space, there's really no business incentive to improve a product, rather than simply letting it sit, and letting customers choose to buy it or not as is.
Is it "nice" to do so? I dunno, but I don't really care about that. All I'm saying is people can choose to pay the price or not - those that did in the past got their money's worth then. Those that do now know (or at least should know) what they're getting into. There is no obligation to upgrade a product simply because later products came out which are better. And again, upgrading previous ships to the level of the new ships basically defeats the purpose for including them in the first place.
Finally, yes, I do think players should be made to make choices, and I do think it is unreasonable to expect to get everything you want. I think the tension there is the REASON we have a variety of ships in the game now, and I think that changing ships to decouple the hull model from the BOFF seating, or whatever, would result in a net decrease in variety.
Honestly I don't understand your argument but probably never will. To say ppl should just deal with stuff in a game is to me weird. I just deal with stuff enough in real life and don't need that as a choice in the games I play for fun.
And I find it weird that people think that the correct response to a leisure activity that isn't fun is "change the rules to suit me!" instead of "I'll go find something else to do".
I'm not saying I see a majority of Galaxies about, I'm saying that I see them often enough to disbelieve the claim that they are under-represented. If you want something that IS under-represented, when was the last time you saw anyone in an Aquarious?
Haven't ever seen one flown by a player yet. Though it was never in movies tv show or anything that I'm concerned with. I'm trying to improve the Galaxy, though I'd like the intrepid to get alittle love down the road also.
As for the stuff you wrote in the quote, about how it's bad business to sell an obsolete product - uh, no, it's not. If you can make money off a product without putting more money into developing it, why bother? Especially in a digital marketplace, where there's no real costs for "storage" of the digital good, nor concerns about using up limited inventory space, there's really no business incentive to improve a product, rather than simply letting it sit, and letting customers choose to buy it or not as is.
Why put money into it I don't know so you can sell more and don't have ppl keeping a thread alive for what is it now 435 pages worth of conversation (or argument). Why sell a bad product that is so easily fixed. Why argue amongst ppl to keep this from happening. You have some beef with the Galaxy? Selling broken or bad things is never a great idea, it makes your company looks bad and loses customers. Why go down that road when there are other options. I don't understand why you don't want or even care unless your arguing just to argue.
Is it "nice" to do so? I dunno, but I don't really care about that. All I'm saying is people can choose to pay the price or not - those that did in the past got their money's worth then. Those that do now know (or at least should know) what they're getting into. There is no obligation to upgrade a product simply because later products came out which are better. And again, upgrading previous ships to the level of the new ships basically defeats the purpose for including them in the first place.
Again gonna disagree. There is no obligation to upgrade a product once you replace it with a newer product, however if your selling that product still and not making the next product to replace but be a different option, calling your next product just as good with different options from the older design when u know it burns houses down or just works crappy its a better idea to either stop selling it or fix it to be a stand alone product of its own. You don't simple just keep selling stuff that is bad cause you got alot in stock. At least not those that want to stay in business and have happy returning customers.
Finally, yes, I do think players should be made to make choices, and I do think it is unreasonable to expect to get everything you want. I think the tension there is the REASON we have a variety of ships in the game now, and I think that changing ships to decouple the hull model from the BOFF seating, or whatever, would result in a net decrease in variety.
Making players make choices is fine. Make them decide things that need to be chosen though. What type of ship they want to fly not what type of boff seating and console setup they want to fly. I mean really does that make sense to you. Choosing is a great thing but choosing based on performance instead of what you like in a game that for entertainment isn't. I'm not even sure what your thinking is that would make less variety then there is now. Sure there would be alot playing their favorite ships but there would be others that just play the newest or latest or just something exotic. Don't understand how there could be less different types flying around if everyone got to chose their favorite skin with the loadouts they would want.
And I find it weird that people think that the correct response to a leisure activity that isn't fun is "change the rules to suit me!" instead of "I'll go find something else to do".
I find it weird that your solution to a problem is walk away without trying to make it better. Ofcourse noone can ever get everything they want but it don't hurt to try to get some things changed to make yourself or/and others happy. Your way is just leave if you don't like the way I play find another basketball to play with. Sorry I think you should atleast ask if the rules can be changed to suit your style or want you want out of the game. Keep taking your ball and going home by all means. Just not something I personally do. As for the statement that change the rules to suit me I'm only asking them to change a ship to perform equally as well as all other cruisers ingame. Sure a secondary proposal that I and some others want is something bigger. Don't know if I say being able to assign ship boff slots and console slots is changing the rules. Kinda more like asking if we can stop playing basketball with the football as it harder to put it in the goal.
why do people spend so much time arguing against something that would in no way negatively effect them? and then make arguments like, no your wrong! in the face of actual evidence?
(...)
The impasse here is always going to be you (collectively referring to Galaxy fans) need to impose your will on others to get what you want, and I reject your right to do so, since you can articulate zero reasons why I should beyond your personal, petty desires.
(...)
Fleet Negh'Var Heavy Battle Cruiser:
Lt Tac, Cmdr Eng, LtCdr Eng, --> Ens Uni <--, Lt Sci
3/5/2 Consoles
The canon debate is indeed irrelevant for STO and very subjective. While some see the ultimate battleship in the Galaxy for some reason, some see it akin to a rennaisance marchantman "Explorer" and some want it to have all universal stations, because. We aren't going anywhere with that. But the above posted example why the Galaxy doesn't get the same treatment as it's exact mirror version is a legitimate one or why didn't they use the Refit as the base model for the Fleet version at least. That's pretty much all "we" are asking for.
^ 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
The canon debate is indeed irrelevant for STO and very subjective. While some see the ultimate battleship in the Galaxy for some reason, some see it akin to a rennaisance marchantman "Explorer" and some want it to have all universal stations, because. We aren't going anywhere with that. But the above posted example why the Galaxy doesn't get the same treatment as it's exact mirror version is a legitimate one or why didn't they use the Refit as the base model for the Fleet version at least. That's pretty much all "we" are asking for.
not even i see it as an ultimate battleship. thats not what ive been trying to convey at all. fact is the galaxy is a modular ship. fact is the enterprise D was a love boat flying embassy, fact is we saw what a full battleship configuration on a galaxy class would look like in yesterdays enterprise. it can function as ether or, depending on how its kiltted out. its not limited to 1 possible configuration. you saw them passing as battleships during the dominion war, simply by having that modular space nearly empty, just to get them into action as quick as possible. they would have been no good serving any other purpose, other then fighting at that time. your gonna have to remind me what you would call the largest ship class in the fleet, thats good for nothing but fighting, i cant recall.
try to say battleship and galaxy in the same post and everyone start doing back flips around here. i do think this modular nature of the ship should be reflected in the station setup though. the setup of all the other canon ships in game are clearly inspired by the canon. only in this thread's though is that completely inadmissible evidence. as far as balance goes, the less maneuverable it is the more it should have trying to make up for that. any ship launched now has a universal station or 2, its a stranded feature now. but no, galaxy has to stay in STO's dark ages. yall need to put things in perspective.
@ DDIS: I wasn't referring to you in particular, it was just a general statement to show that there is indeed no "design" everyone agrees on based on canon reference I don't know if it's this thread but there are suggestions of Cmdr. Tac boffs on the forum and the like.
I do concur that the Galaxy should be more versatile in the game and if it would be possible to create a new one from scratch I have a different design in my head as well (I'd go with the Science/Eng switched Nebula and balacned console slots for that). Though I also stand by my statement that the Gal would always serve as a makeshift "warship" at best (like said merchantmen were refitted for combat if need arose) and while having formidable armament it would always lack behind true battlecruisers.
The best we can do is take what's in-game and ask why it does not at least gets the same treatment as it's exact counterpart, or why the Venture refit has no Fleet/R version or why it's model is still the three year old low poly version etc.
^ 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
borg called it the most powerful in the fleet, and it didn't explode in 1 hit when the borg actually shot at it, unlike just about everything else.
Not exploding and actually making a direct impact on defeating an enemy are two far different things. Its similar to the difference between a politician who writes a bill, and the politician who votes "present".
you weren't paying attention to what they were doing then. hitting a few cardasian ships over and over to get them to break rank.
I seriously doubt they sent nine waves of fighters, one wave at a time to attack a target, especially after the first few waves didn''t work. THat would be parallel genius to Pickett's charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett's_Charge
They cant just make bulk goods smaller, they arent micro chips. whatever they end up making smaller they could just stack more of in the larger cargo bays.
Actually, they can. The can use replicators to convert generic matter to what they need so X amount of each supply doesn't need to be stored to keep a high service level, which requires less overall space. Also a ship like the Sovy' isn't supposed to go as long without replenishment, it isn't a long-range explorer. Shorter mission profile and duration requires less supplies.
smaller labs and quarters? are they shrinking people now too?
Every crewmen doesn't need their own personal suite or even a room with only one roommate. We saw on a Voyager episode where Excelsior actually used bunk bedding for junior officer quartering.
longer arrays have more emitters. a shorter array has less emitters, so a shorter array will NEVER be as powerful as a longer array. thats the most fundamental and basic concept behind arrays and the emitters they are made from. if they made emitters smaller and more powerful at the same time, then they would just end up putting more emitters into the space allotted for long arrays. how many times do you need to be reminded of this?
As many times as you need to keep telling yourself that its gospel. Even if we go along with it, the ship would need to have more power distribution, generation and maintenance. Plus, simple physics of energy states that the longer an array is the more power bleed it has by moving energy from the beginning power source the power network to each emitter and from each emitter to the focal point. If longer arrays and more emitters are better, why not just plaster them all over the saucer by coiling and winding them, that would be even more powerful than a strip, wouldn't it?
i've got that book and read that part. ive never said that was a lone feature of the galaxy, i figure the space that can be modular is of much higher % then average. most of the bird of prey is pretty set in stone.
And and where does a higher percentage of re-configurable area stop being an asset and becomes a liability? Having the bigger (mass) ship means each cubic foot (meter) has to have X amount of support to keep the ship fully operational. A tactically focused ship needs less space for labs, cargo holds and crew quartering. Foregoing that space requirement increases the effectiveness of the ship during operations and reduces maintenance requirements. It looses some by having less area to soak damage, but its a viable swap.
since the galaxy has twice the space/tonnage of a sovereign, they could have the weight of an entire sovereign class in science labs and embassys, wile the the other half of the ship has everything the sovereign has. in so many ways its absurd to directly compare these 2 ships.
Hardcore Galaxy fans have been trying to compare the two for quite some time.
And you don't think that space/tonnage doesn't have a detrimental cost of efficiency of operations? Those areas still need support and power to keep the ship as a whole functional. Even if power is "shut-off" to areas, a certain amount of power is needed to supply the areas with enough energy to still connect them to the ship, have minimal life support (for oxygen and keep the areas from bringing down the overall temperature of neighboring areas of the ship. And to sustain the network needed for emergency force-fields, internal sensors and such.
if they could make the galaxy smaller, wile its guns arent also shrank, then that ship is surely a leaner and meaner fighting machine then the galaxy. all that bloated space the galaxy has is what allows it to have arrays as large and torpedo launchers as large as it does.
Not really, refer to my point about coiling and winding the arrays.
in a fleet 20k strong, hundreds seems low ball. a great deal of these ships is proboly created by industrial replicators, however that works. im sure theres a great deal of traditional tooling required too. thats also why i think its absurd to think that the saber, norway, steam runner, akira, and sovereign were all designed, created, and mass produced in the time between the first cube attack and the second. in universe they proboly have been in development since the late 2350.
We don't really know, but we do know that we have seen the Galaxy class is in smaller numbers than the workhorse ships, and if the Galaxy is a critical role to the defense of the Federation AND technologies have improved to increase economies of scale, the percentage of Galaxies would have been higher, along with seeing more Intrepid's, Nebulae, and Sovereign. But we didn't.
not even i see it as an ultimate battleship. thats not what ive been trying to convey at all. fact is the galaxy is a modular ship. fact is the enterprise D was a love boat flying embassy, fact is we saw what a full battleship configuration on a galaxy class would look like in yesterdays enterprise.
Honestly, aside from the BOff stations being moved around a little, dimmed lights, crew eating rations, and most of the people on the ship wearing crossing-guard belts, there really wasn't much difference.
it can function as ether or, depending on how its kiltted out. its not limited to 1 possible configuration. you saw them passing as battleships during the dominion war
I saw them as passing as heavy cruisers, by every bit of the sense of what a heavy cruiser does.
simply by having that modular space nearly empty, just to get them into action as quick as possible. they would have been no good serving any other purpose, other then fighting at that time. your gonna have to remind me what you would call the largest ship class in the fleet, thats good for nothing but fighting, i cant recall.
Bigger doesn't always mean better for fighting, it means bigger. Empty space is actually detriment to a ship, unless its the only place where its taking damage.
i do think this modular nature of the ship should be reflected in the station setup though. the setup of all the other canon ships in game are clearly inspired by the canon. only in this thread's though is that completely inadmissible evidence. as far as balance goes, the less maneuverable it is the more it should have trying to make up for that. any ship launched now has a universal station or 2, its a stranded feature now. but no, galaxy has to stay in STO's dark ages. yall need to put things in perspective.
Modular doesn't equal better station set ups. One might be able to argue console setups, but certainly not BOffs. Also even a large ship that is modular still gives a great deal up maintain flexibility. All of that modular tonnage and space comes at a cost on power distribution networks, maintenance requirements, and space to make a modular space work, instead of just "welding in" what a non modular ship has to be fitted with. Modular designs should be flexible, but at a price.
As a relative newcomer to the game and a lifelong Trek fan, I feel that cryptic hit the nail on the head with their interpretation of the Galaxy, even based on cannon.
In the shows, we see the Galaxy ships either engaging a bunch if targets at once or unleashing some torpedos at a target with a terribly powerful full array burst. The ship in game can do this as well; BFAW or BOL. Granted the LT tax isn't the best for offense, but even in the show, offense isn't what this ship is about.
Even in show, these ships are hideously powerful tanks, plain and simple. They're capital ships that carry and support a fleet of smaller ships with greater damage potential but who are much easier to kill. This is exactly how we see them being utilised in canon during fleet engagements.
The only beef I have with the Galaxy family is the X. That thing IS the warship everyone wants the GR to be and should be treated as such. It is every bit as much a tactical cruiser as the Avenger.
Yet frequently we saw the Galaxy do devastating damage to hostile ships when it needed to defend itself. In "Q Who" where we introduced to the Borg the Enterprise shot out huge chunks of it's hull. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNyHb8tHJ0E at about 7:00mins it's really powerful. The same is the case in DS9's sacrifice of angels those two Galaxies (I presume the Venture and Galaxy) really hitting that poor Galor hard with their combined phaser fire.
Back to actual gameplay, there are far better tanks in STO than the Galaxy-R simply for their bridge officer seating. Three ensign BOFF's is crippling since you can only have a max of two Emergency Power to X abilities cycling, anything else is just a waste. This is one of the biggest issues with the Galaxy-R with many asking for it to be given a universal ensign or lieutenant slot. At least this way we could decide if we wanted it to be given more science or engineering focus. Another issue is that with the way PvE content is laid out in STO now DPS is everything, a team doesn't need an indestructible tank against the likes of Borg Cubes or Command Ships when a few escorts can just blast the target to pieces in a matter of seconds. This is why the Galaxy is so crippled. It's given too much focus on tanking, a fairly redundant role in end game content (where everything is on a timer etc).
To summarise: Poor BOFF layout means it can not be a great tank and it doesn't have the firepower to get decent enough DPS.
My "easy" fix - Eiether an Ensign or Lieutenant Universal BOFF slot, and for the fleet version move one engineering console to tactical to allow three tactical consoles.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
why do people spend so much time arguing against something that would in no way negatively effect them? and then make arguments like, no your wrong! in the face of actual evidence?
TBH, i am asking myself the same thing for months now.
It's like i would argue against a new developed porsche car, althrough i would never buy one, even if i had the money (no offense).
I think the people you mentioned are just bored and looking for a fight. As much as i can see, it is completely pointless to argue anymore, these ppl are not interested in a discussion, they just want to fight. If it wheren't about the GCS it would be some other thing.
Personally i don't have the energy and health to waist my time in arguing about the same stuff over and over again. This discussion goes in circles in the last several hundred pages.
I am really bored to dig out the same arguments over and over again, just to counter the same old arguments the GCS opposers come up with all the time.
The people that would really make a difference (the devs) keep their hands off this thread only because they don't want to step on anyones toes (in the best case).
So what do the GCS opposers really want?
They obviously want to keep a (most iconic Star Trek) ship totally under perfoming althrough they aren't interested to fly it anyways...
The only thing i can say to them is: Congratulations, guys you have already won!
Everyone else who is actually interested in using the Galaxy Class (and has even spend some money in it) looses as always.
***Sarcasm ON***
That's what i call good customer service Cryptic!
***Sarcasm OFF***
I mean in a game that doesn't really care about beliveability anyways (galor Class and Excelsior outgun a GCS, by DESIGN), who cares if a GCS would be a bit stronger and more playable than now?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
why do people spend so much time arguing against something that would in no way negatively effect them? and then make arguments like, no your wrong! in the face of actual evidence?
I have a feeling that you are mostly talking about "Mr. S", but in a way its encroaching on me and other people that don't agree with your (and certain others) takes on changing the ship for the better.
I myself have different opinions than you (and others) on how to improve the ship. I also own a Gal-R and Gal-X (didn't buy the Venture due to it really wouldn't do anything more for me than add a skin I really didn't need and a console that I didn't want to use), so I have just as much right as you to throw my two cents (preferably at Canadian value) in.
I see ways that will not only improve the Explorers effectiveness, but also address a whole group of ships at the same time. I am looking at possibilities that are more than one tree, but a whole forest of betterment.
DD', you and others are just as guilty of pointing the "No, your'e wrong" finger at people when someone brings up "evidence" that contradicts your point. True, sometimes you are objective regarding flaws, but it seems more often than not that its only when you bring it up, when someone else does, they are obviously in the wrong.
Just because I don't agree with your statements doesn't make me someone who doesn't want to improve the ship, it just means I want to do it differently than you see it.
You are conflating two issues - the canon debate, which is subjective and also doesn't matter, and the balance debate, which is less subjective but still doesn't matter.
And I can't be more clear about that- your balance concerns are irrelevant, because I don't care in the slightest that you feel like it's "not fair" that other ships have shinier toys, because the only reason you can articulate for why that matters is your notion that you should compete with other players, even in cooperative PvE, and I reject that notion out of hand. I don't care that you disagree, because there is literally not one single thing you can ever say to change my mind, just like there is evidently nothing I will ever be able to say to make you understand that your viewpoint isn't the only valid one, nor the "most common", nor the "default", nor preferable for any number of reasons you might think it is.
my, and others, balance concerns are not irrelevant because YOU think it is.
you are not the ultimate voice to dictate to other what is relevant and what is not.
in case like this, i would said that the majority opinion dictate what is relevant.
when cryptic introduce the DDeridex in tribble server for testing before LOR, this ship have a similar bo layout than the galaxy.
a big bunch of people complained to cryptic in the forum, saying that they will never buying such a TRIBBLE, that they already have 1 galaxy in game, they don't need a second.
it seem that cryptic judge their "balanced" concern to be valid since they completely rework the bo layout of the ship afterward.
so cryptic rework a ship to be more efficient, and thus not loosing money, just by listening to a bunch of people on the forum?
or can we safely said that they do it because they realize that this " viewpoint" was indeed the most common one, and by opposing it they would certainly loose money.
We?ve listened to your feedback and have made the ship even more competitive by adding a single hangar bay that is equipped with Scorpion Fighter hangar pets to it.
ho!!!? they use the word competitive!.... strange.... they must be a great demand for competitive ship after all, if cryptic see the need to render their ship MORE competitive.
so in that case i will trust cryptic's wallet that concluded that this seem to be the most common demand of player, and not your esoteric point of view on the question.
Did it occur to you that if people keep coming in with the "wrong" notion that the Galaxy should suck, that maybe, just maybe, it's not THEM that's wrong about how the ship is "properly" perceived?
every new people that came into this thread are not all opposed to a revamp galaxy, in fact they are more people who are agree than people who are oppose to it, clearly.
but to bielieve that there must be a ship that suck, a ship that is not as good as anyone else in a define role, a ship that add nothing to the game diversity in the end..... that is wrong, and that as nothing to do with fact that is is a galaxy.
Even your attempt to respond here just proves my point - you keep thinking of this as a debate between the Galaxy fans who are "right" about what canon says, and the newcomers who need to be educated by the true believers. Again, it's the Galaxy fans who are seeking to impose a view on others, merely for their own benefit. It's distasteful.
if there is something that is proven here, is you absolute desire to make all of us look like what your describing.
i am not the one arguing in eternity about some "canon evidence " here, as i already said it a thousand time, theses canon things are almost irrelevant and really too much subjective to be of a real interest for the game.
we said that this ship is not good at anything in this game, then some people come here and state that it should suck because it seem to them that it suck in canon, so who are the one trying to educated the other here?
So, you concede that there is zero chance this thread will ever have the desired effect? I'll grant that it's not a unique phenomenon to this thread, but it certainly seems like you've just admitted that this is nothing more than the idle venting of a small group of die-hard fans (which, in fact, is exactly what I think it is). My only question is, can I quote you the next time someone gets up in arms about there being no Dev response?
you took 2 assumption here.
first, that i have concede something to you.
second, that i think that the goal of this thread is to have a dev posting in it.
unlike you i don't have the pretention to speak for others, anyone if free to bielieve what the goal of this thread is.
for my part the goal of this tread is to bring cryptic attention to the galaxy family so that they can reworked it.
i don't care that a dev post in this thread, i care that a dev change the galaxy family.
idle venting of a small group of die-hard fans is indeed exactly what YOU think it is, hence, you bias point of view on the question.
can I quote you the next time someone gets up in arms about there being no Dev response?
the most logical things to do if this happened again, is to question the guy why he bielieve that a dev would post here anyway, more than directly assuming that his bielief is generally share, don't you think?
No, actually, you don't understand. My point is very simple - what matters is having fun. Further, I assert that if you couch your fun in terms of "doing better than other people", you are setting yourself up for disappointment (since you probably aren't actually better than other players), and you are acting a bit juvenile. PvP, PvE, whatever, it shouldn't matter if you are "winning" or "losing" versus other players, as long as the game itself is fun. If the game is NOT fun, and you can't enjoy it without feeling like a "winner", then go play something else.
what exactly in what i said drawn you to the conclusion that i found fun only by being better than others?
you like doing this don't you? take the stereotype juvenile gamer and trown it to everyone who dare speak about competitivity.
daes it reassure you in your "maturity" level to do that?.
so before you continue to pretend to known where i found fun i am going to explained it to you, so there will be no future confusion.
my fun is not to be the best, but to strive to be one of the best, even tho i perfectly known that this will be very unlikely.
like harry kim said, it is not the destination that matter, it is the journey.
Losing to a worthy opponent is a learning experience, even something to look forward to, and is never something to feel shame over.
you learn more when you loose than when you win.
having a good fight is fun, wining or losing is not important in the end but fighting on an equal footing is, that is the base of all competition.
Secondly, again, you've proven my point for me - I agree that self-improvement is a worthy goal, but you keep conflating improving over your previous best efforts to improving over someone else's results. In other words, you're not talking about self improvement at all - you're talking about improving your perceived ranking versus other players, and mistaking that for self improvement, which is sad.
no, once again your stereotype profile gamer manager as kick in.
what i, and many others ask here is that the ship be on equal footing with other, so that there we will be able to make the difference by our own skills.
and not using these skill and knowlege to just keep up with the rest of the game ( and keep up is a big word for that), there is a sensible difference.
your statement sound more like a fat boy eating donut on a couch everyday, stating to a homeless child on the street that he should be happy with it stale bread and not asking for more because that would be at the expense of someone esles's situation.
Also, the reason you gave... isn't one. There's no rule that says that everyone has to agree that the cost of an item matches it's perceived value. So, no. Not persuasive.
their is certainly no written rule for it, however if you try to ignore it, you will paid the price for it, the DDeridex and the Ar'Kif Tactical Warbird Retrofit are a very good example of that
Yeah, I didn't say the solutions would not be perfect, I said I suspect they would either not work at all, or make the game worse. It's not a matter of making perfect the enemy of good, it's that your solutions have a long, long way to go before they become good in the first place.
And again, it's YOUR burden to prove that I'm wrong, since you're the one advocating change.
the DDIS build for this ship make it unique, it make it have a role that haven't been created yet by any ship in the game, thus giving more option to people and render a ship that was previously useless into something usefull.
the ship as it is now is useless for any purpose one can think of it, and indeed make the game worse than what it could have been.
that is the logical proof i give you, up to you known to proove me wrong, good luck.
TBH, i am asking myself the same thing for months now.
It's like i would argue against a new developed porsche car, althrough i would never buy one, even if i had the money (no offense).
I think the people you mentioned are just bored and looking for a fight. As much as i can see, it is completely pointless to argue anymore, these ppl are not interested in a discussion, they just want to fight. If it wheren't about the GCS it would be some other thing.
Personally i don't have the energy and health to waist my time in arguing about the same stuff over and over again. This discussion goes in circles in the last several hundred pages.
I am really bored to dig out the same arguments over and over again, just to counter the same old arguments the GCS opposers come up with all the time.
The people that would really make a difference (the devs) keep their hands off this thread only because they don't want to step on anyones toes (in the best case).
So what do the GCS opposers really want?
They obviously want to keep a (most iconic Star Trek) ship totally under perfoming althrough they aren't interested to fly it anyways...
The only thing i can say to them is: Congratulations, guys you have already won!
Everyone else who is actually interested in using the Galaxy Class (and has even spend some money in it) looses as always.
***Sarcasm ON***
That's what i call good customer service Cryptic!
***Sarcasm OFF***
I mean in a game that doesn't really care about beliveability anyways (galor Class and Excelsior outgun a GCS, by DESIGN), who cares if a GCS would be a bit stronger and more playable than now?
The question I have for you is how exactly do you qualify a person as an "opposer"? It seems that even people who don't directly agree with your (and some others) ideas, but have ideas of their own to improve the ship get thrown in as an "opposer"/"hater"/etc.. Does someone really have to be a "true believer" in what some people that post on this tread believe in order to have their ideas accepted as not "heretical"?
I agree that the Exploration cruisers have a bum wrap going on them and should be improved, but not in the same way as you or DD' argue. I also think that it is unfortunate and telling that the dev's haven't come to this thread to discuss the issue. I have a Gal-R and a Gal-X that I would love for one of my engies' to use, but engineering powers are weak. If I wanted a LTCMDR tac (with or w/o another boff of some other rank) and more tac consoles, I would use one of the available ships (which I do). I want that big' ole' bird to b distinguishable on her own and not a cookie cutter of some other ship. If you guys get your way, it wont be much different from the other tac' cruisers in the game.
I am genuinely sorry that you have some sort of ailment that taxes your strength, and I do you that you recover, but I can't defer my opinion because of your current state. There are people who have as much stake in the game and in Exploration cruisers as what some could see as the "true-believers" here, but disagreement is questionably tolerated, and those who don't stay in line. I find that just as objectionable as the current state of the Exploration cruisers in current STO form.
you are not the ultimate voice to dictate to other what is relevant and what is not.
in case like this, i would said that the majority opinion dictate what is relevant.
The fact is that no one is the ultimate voice here. As far as "majority opinion", lets argue that ten people are active on this thread that hold one idea for fixing the ship, while they may be considered a "majority" in this thread, they are far from being a majority in the game. Even if was one-hundred people in the thread, its far from a majority.
when cryptic introduce the DDeridex in tribble server for testing before LOR, this ship have a similar bo layout than the galaxy.
a big bunch of people complained to cryptic in the forum, saying that they will never buying such a TRIBBLE, that they already have 1 galaxy in game, they don't need a second.
it seem that cryptic judge their "balanced" concern to be valid since they completely rework the bo layout of the ship afterward.
so cryptic rework a ship to be more efficient, and thus not loosing money, just by listening to a bunch of people on the forum?
or can we safely said that they do it because they realize that this " viewpoint" was indeed the most common one, and by opposing it they would certainly loose money.
ho!!!? they use the word competitive!.... strange.... they must be a great demand for competitive ship after all, if cryptic see the need to render their ship MORE competitive.
so in that case i will trust cryptic's wallet that concluded that this seem to be the most common demand of player, and not your esoteric point of view on the question.
The Explorer isn't as good as it should be, but there still are many routes that dev's can go to improve it.
every new people that came into this thread are not all opposed to a revamp galaxy, in fact they are more people who are agree than people who are oppose to it, clearly.
but to bielieve that there must be a ship that suck, a ship that is not as good as anyone else in a define role, a ship that add nothing to the game diversity in the end..... that is wrong, and that as nothing to do with fact that is is a galaxy.
I believe you on that, but changing the ship in a way to drive it to a tactical focus (and thats what will happen with uni-boffs and increased tac' consoles, or even uni-consoles) like just about all of the newer ships does little to add to the games diversity value.
if there is something that is proven here, is you absolute desire to make all of us look like what your describing.
i am not the one arguing in eternity about some "canon evidence " here, as i already said it a thousand time, theses canon things are almost irrelevant and really too much subjective to be of a real interest for the game.
we said that this ship is not good at anything in this game, then some people come here and state that it should suck because it seem to them that it suck in canon, so who are the one trying to educated the other here?
While I do not agree that the ship should suck, I don't totally think he believes it either. I think that he responds like he does because he has seen the ship do well and not do well in the show, and one sided canonical "evidence" that get pushed probably irritates him. I know that you have made your point on canon's degree of relevance, which I agree is subjective, others in the game have not and have pushed it ad-nauseam.
what i, and many others ask here is that the ship be on equal footing with other, so that there we will be able to make the difference by our own skills.
and not using these skill and knowlege to just keep up with the rest of the game ( and keep up is a big word for that), there is a sensible difference.
My question is what exactly is "equal footing"? Can it only be achieved by making the ship more tactical by means of Uni (Tac) Boffs and more tac consoles? Theres more than one way to skin a cat.
the DDIS build for this ship make it unique, it make it have a role that haven't been created yet by any ship in the game, thus giving more option to people and render a ship that was previously useless into something usefull.
the ship as it is now is useless for any purpose one can think of it, and indeed make the game worse than what it could have been.
that is the logical proof i give you, up to you known to proove me wrong, good luck.
I don't think that DDIS build really makes it all that unique, it actually makes it just like most other cruisers that are now in the game. If the ship was truly unique, it would be through making engineering skills and consoles on par with tac and science. The Explorer has those in spades, improving those will held it dramatically.
The fact is that no one is the ultimate voice here. As far as "majority opinion", lets argue that ten people are active on this thread that hold one idea for fixing the ship, while they may be considered a "majority" in this thread, they are far from being a majority in the game. Even if was one-hundred people in the thread, its far from a majority.
the majority opinion i was reffering to wasn't the one on this thread, but the one on the DDeridex and the Ar'Kif Tactical Warbird Retrofit, and that was just to exposed his denial attitude to the fact that the majority of player will alway supported a more competitive ship.
The Explorer isn't as good as it should be, but there still are many routes that dev's can go to improve it.
i sincerely hope you are right for the sake of the player that want to fly this ship.
what i mean by that, is that i hope that their is a "cryptic way" to improve it without make it overpowered somehow, or redundant.
I believe you on that, but changing the ship in a way to drive it to a tactical focus (and thats what will happen with uni-boffs and increased tac' consoles, or even uni-consoles) like just about all of the newer ships does little to add to the games diversity value.
my opinion is that this ship is so lacking in firepower, that it must have more tactical bo power, just what i call the minimum as of today.
i don't want to transform it into a tactical cruiser, but there is something to do in that area.
the ambassador layout would have been perfect, it got 1 more ensign tactical wich open more versatility and sustained firepower in offensive build without ( and by far ) being the killer tactical cruiser and he don't have to deal with the 3nd engi ensign problem.
it ltcommander science is very good for tanking .
and all that could have been done with the same turn rate (6 ) and the same number of tactical console (2 ) wich would have result in something already less efficient than the ambassador, but still much more better than what it is now.
yet, no one in his own mind call the ambassador a tactical cruiser.
it is much more about giving him the base versatility that today ship have more than trandforming it into a moretacticaldreadship.
My question is what exactly is "equal footing"? Can it only be achieved by making the ship more tactical by means of Uni (Tac) Boffs and more tac consoles? Theres more than one way to skin a cat.
equal footing mean same efficiency in a given role, that is not neccesaraly tactical.
let take the star cruiser example , can i said that the galaxy is on equal footing than him on tanking abilitie?
obviously, for the reason that we have already enumerated we can said that it isn't.
so ok, the galaxy don't tank as good as a star cruiser, well, ok, that not a problem, there nothing that said that the galaxy should be the best tank in the game.
so what other roles, gameplay style or little advantage can we found him compared to the star cruiser, what specific build will allow him to do something that the star cruiser will not be able to do.
nothing, there is nothing and that the problem, this ship is completely redundant, it is a low tiers star cruiser.
that is not the case of the ambassador.
so we are not on equal footing concerning role and diversity, if the ship being rework with a role in mind that would be different than what a star cruiser can do it would then be on equal footing.
because right now, not even talking about firepower, we are an inneficient version of the star cruiser.
tier4 star cruiser.
I don't think that DDIS build really makes it all that unique, it actually makes it just like most other cruisers that are now in the game. If the ship was truly unique, it would be through making engineering skills and consoles on par with tac and science. The Explorer has those in spades, improving those will held it dramatically.
what is unique about the DDIS build is the playstyle intention.
yes if you see it from a tactical point of view it is something that have already been done, but like i said before people that want to go that way with a ship like that will be disapointed.
but the biggest problem for me is that it took away some of the odyssey advantages, namely the universal bo.
make it directly fixed science bo would have been good to cut any confusion, but i doubt this to be a popular way to fix the ship.
hence the neccesity to have universal, to let people realize that tactical is not the better way, on their own.
bah, there is still no perfect solution.
I have a feeling that you are mostly talking about "Mr. S", but in a way its encroaching on me and other people that don't agree with your (and certain others) takes on changing the ship for the better.
I myself have different opinions than you (and others) on how to improve the ship. I also own a Gal-R and Gal-X (didn't buy the Venture due to it really wouldn't do anything more for me than add a skin I really didn't need and a console that I didn't want to use), so I have just as much right as you to throw my two cents (preferably at Canadian value) in.
I see ways that will not only improve the Explorers effectiveness, but also address a whole group of ships at the same time. I am looking at possibilities that are more than one tree, but a whole forest of betterment.
DD', you and others are just as guilty of pointing the "No, your'e wrong" finger at people when someone brings up "evidence" that contradicts your point. True, sometimes you are objective regarding flaws, but it seems more often than not that its only when you bring it up, when someone else does, they are obviously in the wrong.
Just because I don't agree with your statements doesn't make me someone who doesn't want to improve the ship, it just means I want to do it differently than you see it.
TBH, I think what they wrote was mostly adressed at the people comming in and saying the ship needs no improvements whatsoever because - "I don't like it", "It's a space hotel", "It's old", "It was built for fishing" or whatever other nonesence that has very little to do with the reality of the game.
It's not people like you that may have different, but yet constructive ideas. It's people that have some weird psychologic issues with the ship and don't want to see it as viable at end game even if they don't use it, don't care about it and it would in no way affect their game. That's just weird.
I have a few very different ideas of improving the Galaxy class than many others myself and I have posted them in this thread before, although I do support ddis's idea even if it's quite different than mine, because even seing his idea implemented would mean some improvement for this ship that has such an iconic status in Star Trek, while Cryptic has made it the worst of the worst. What is even worse, they didn't do this on purpose, but with all the hunt for easy cash and blatant power creep they managed to bork their own intended game mechanic which unfortunately reflects mostly on this ship.
They wanna bork their entire game mechanic? What the heck it's their game, it's not like they didn't bork the KDF or PvP or many other things.....but having the Galaxy class, the iconic Enterprise-D, they most shown starship on air in the history of Star Trek in such a lousy position in game is just a bad joke.
I would even accept her state if there was some consitency in all of it and the Galaxy is surpassed in preformance by the new ships. But having far older ship preforming better in the design of Cryptic's own end game content is just unacceptable and needs to be fixed one way or another.
The question I have for you is how exactly do you qualify a person as an "opposer"? It seems that even people who don't directly agree with your (and some others) ideas, but have ideas of their own to improve the ship get thrown in as an "opposer"/"hater"/etc.. Does someone really have to be a "true believer" in what some people that post on this tread believe in order to have their ideas accepted as not "heretical"?
I agree that the Exploration cruisers have a bum wrap going on them and should be improved, but not in the same way as you or DD' argue. I also think that it is unfortunate and telling that the dev's haven't come to this thread to discuss the issue. I have a Gal-R and a Gal-X that I would love for one of my engies' to use, but engineering powers are weak. If I wanted a LTCMDR tac (with or w/o another boff of some other rank) and more tac consoles, I would use one of the available ships (which I do). I want that big' ole' bird to b distinguishable on her own and not a cookie cutter of some other ship. If you guys get your way, it wont be much different from the other tac' cruisers in the game.
I am genuinely sorry that you have some sort of ailment that taxes your strength, and I do you that you recover, but I can't defer my opinion because of your current state. There are people who have as much stake in the game and in Exploration cruisers as what some could see as the "true-believers" here, but disagreement is questionably tolerated, and those who don't stay in line. I find that just as objectionable as the current state of the Exploration cruisers in current STO form.
I wasn't explicit talking about you.
I know we do not agree THAT much.
TBH, I think what they wrote was mostly adressed at the people comming in and saying the ship needs no improvements whatsoever because - "I don't like it", "It's a space hotel", "It's old", "It was built for fishing" or whatever other nonesence that has very little to do with the reality of the game.
It's not people like you that may have different, but yet constructive ideas. It's people that have some weird psychologic issues with the ship and don't want to see it as viable at end game even if they don't use it, don't care about it and it would in no way affect their game. That's just weird.
I have a few very different ideas of improving the Galaxy class than many others myself and I have posted them in this thread before, although I do support ddis's idea even if it's quite different than mine, because even seing his idea implemented would mean some improvement for this ship that has such an iconic status in Star Trek, while Cryptic has made it the worst of the worst. What is even worse, they didn't do this on purpose, but with all the hunt for easy cash and blatant power creep they managed to bork their own intended game mechanic which unfortunately reflects mostly on this ship.
They wanna bork their entire game mechanic? What the heck it's their game, it's not like they didn't bork the KDF or PvP or many other things.....but having the Galaxy class, the iconic Enterprise-D, they most shown starship on air in the history of Star Trek in such a lousy position in game is just a bad joke.
I would even accept her state if there was some consitency in all of it and the Galaxy is surpassed in preformance by the new ships. But having far older ship preforming better in the design of Cryptic's own end game content is just unacceptable and needs to be fixed one way or another.
I couldn't have said it better, my friend.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I have a feeling that you are mostly talking about "Mr. S", but in a way its encroaching on me and other people that don't agree with your (and certain others) takes on changing the ship for the better.
I myself have different opinions than you (and others) on how to improve the ship. I also own a Gal-R and Gal-X (didn't buy the Venture due to it really wouldn't do anything more for me than add a skin I really didn't need and a console that I didn't want to use), so I have just as much right as you to throw my two cents (preferably at Canadian value) in.
I see ways that will not only improve the Explorers effectiveness, but also address a whole group of ships at the same time. I am looking at possibilities that are more than one tree, but a whole forest of betterment.
DD', you and others are just as guilty of pointing the "No, your'e wrong" finger at people when someone brings up "evidence" that contradicts your point. True, sometimes you are objective regarding flaws, but it seems more often than not that its only when you bring it up, when someone else does, they are obviously in the wrong.
Just because I don't agree with your statements doesn't make me someone who doesn't want to improve the ship, it just means I want to do it differently than you see it.
i dont think you have all the perspective you need to understand why i posted the build for it that i did. if all you can see is a LTC tac you are so missing the point/have never pvped or are at least any good at it. same for everyone that thinks the ship is remotely fine. who cares if you can do any of the pve in it, i can do any of the pve in a shuttle. so what if it could have a LTC tac, it would be the worst tactical cruiser with an LTC tac, 6 turn, 3 tac consoles or less. it would have vast potential to be the opposite of a a LTC tac cruiser though. the only way to do that is to give it heavy universal, and no built in tac so you could go completely with out it, otherwise its just basically an ody clone. it could be the most powerful anti tactical cruiser in pvp, or for the kirks out there, my self often included, we could use the ship and actually deal somewhat competitive, non team liability, damage with it.
as far as everything else goes, it really seems like you just disagree with what ever i say, no mater what it is. treat the canon im rattling off as something i invented myself, and is some how all my own opinion, when its all there on screen, with a few things clarified in a tech manual. i dont need to have my own opinion, i have enough canon to properly benchmark the thing, and enough information on how certain weapons systems work to benchmark everything firepower. and since all the other ships are the same thing, with really the only major difference being scale save for a few outliers, its pretty easy to then benchmark every other ship useing the exact same tech. you mistake me flat out telling someone they are wrong when they dont agree with me, with them having an opinion that is counter to canon, and me pointing that out. i think most of the canon is silly, most of the things i do defend dont make sense, but i do so because without the canon its not star trek, its generic setting scifi.
oh and if a galaxy class is literally acting as a battleship im going to say that yes, in that instance it was a battleship. its just a word to describe the largest military vessel. they called an old ambassador, a ship half the size of a galaxy, a heavy cruiser. the galaxy is a tier above that, the terribly vague and open ended label, explorer. explore seems to mean a capital ship comparable to something major galactic competitors would call a battleship, plus an extrema amount of typical federation... everything else. even the sovereign is called an explorer, type 2!
this parasitic loss issue you keep trying to apply to arrays is pointless. it doesn't mater if you think some real world electricity loss issue would render them useless, it so obviously doesn't. arrays wouldn't exist at all if you were right. any other theory you have that would make the documented workings of arrays make no sense must also be thrown out. the actual canon is right no mater what.
parasitic loss? how much parasitic loss do you think there is in antimatter storage tanks? theres actually none, if there was any the ship explodes. the plasma that runs the ship and its weapons, uses that same plasma in magnetic containment technology, there proboly isn't even waist heat anywhere in the EPS system, otherwise the crew wouldn't be touching conduits all the time in the show like it was just a water pipe.
people dont like when someone trys to push their version of things on everyone else? i dont like it when people try to post there version of how things are, when its completely counter to the canon, which everything i say is based on. and then handwave and dismiss it and try to broad brush it like theres isn't any exact piece of information you could possible pull from any of it. very little is actually vague or open to question, if you spent 5 minutes googling, or just finding a clip on youtube. wile this is all a separate mater from the galaxy in game, when these things are discuses, the only source of admissible information is the canon. dismiss the canon then you dismiss the show, do that and your talking about nothing. no one has actually given me a shared of canon evidence back at me to try to disprove something i submit. show me were the source material flat out disproves anything i say.
and its gonna need to be better then just pointing out a situation were the galaxy was terrible. did the ship not do so well in one situation? well in this other situation it didn't, and theres no reason other then poor constancy on the writers part to blame for that poorer performance. that poor performance did not cancel out the good performance. its to bad there weren't episodes about a hearing were riker has to explain how 3 fiirengi overpowered a ship of 1000 people, or why the ship didn't fire more then once at a bird of prey that bypassed their shield. or why the ship only gets to show off the extent of its power when it faces a ship impossible to defeat like an imaginary hosnoke warship or borg cube. voyager had its faults, but at least the ship was pretty consistently powerful, wile the characters and stories were consistently subpar. oh well, no fiction is going to be perfect, certainly not TNG.
crusers as a collective whole at the moment are borderline op. some arent borderline. helping all the trees by buffing eng skills would be disastrous to the health of the game. and buff every single non cruiser too, wile the galaxy yet again does not move up from its position of worst at everything. if there was more ENG skills at ens, i could justify running EPtS3 and EPtW3 on any of the cruisers with a COM and LTC eng. when i can do that, and there isn't 3 good skills other then ET1 to chose from at ENS, the galaxy just lost. again.
i dont think you have all the perspective you need to understand why i posted the build for it that i did. if all you can see is a LTC tac you are so missing the point/have never pvped or are at least any good at it. same for everyone that thinks the ship is remotely fine. who cares if you can do any of the pve in it, i can do any of the pve in a shuttle. so what if it could have a LTC tac, it would be the worst tactical cruiser with an LTC tac, 6 turn, 3 tac consoles or less. it would have vast potential to be the opposite of a a LTC tac cruiser though. the only way to do that is to give it heavy universal, and no built in tac so you could go completely with out it, otherwise its just basically an ody clone. it could be the most powerful anti tactical cruiser in pvp, or for the kirks out there, my self often included, we could use the ship and actually deal somewhat competitive, non team liability, damage with it.
I actually do have perspective, its just not in alignment with yours. Doesn't make either one of ours better than the others, just different.
as far as everything else goes, it really seems like you just disagree with what ever i say, no mater what it is. treat the canon im rattling off as something i invented myself, and is some how all my own opinion, when its all there on screen, with a few things clarified in a tech manual. i dont need to have my own opinion, i have enough canon to properly benchmark the thing, and enough information on how certain weapons systems work to benchmark everything firepower. and since all the other ships are the same thing, with really the only major difference being scale save for a few outliers, its pretty easy to then benchmark every other ship useing the exact same tech. you mistake me flat out telling someone they are wrong when they dont agree with me, with them having an opinion that is counter to canon, and me pointing that out. i think most of the canon is silly, most of the things i do defend dont make sense, but i do so because without the canon its not star trek, its generic setting scifi.
As far as "everything else you say", not really, but if it makes you more content in that notion, go for it. I would argue that there was canon before tech manuals was out and explanations to make up for how things worked. Canon has just as much to do (if not more) the people than the tech', especially since more attention is given to some ships and some tech. Kirk and Spock and McCoy and the Connie-prise weren't awesome because they were hyper analyzed, down to special effects or how a beam hit a target (honestly we never really saw those things), there's no real analysis of TOS. Even the technical manual for that era was generic. How do you analyze that versus TNG/DS9/Voyager/..... etc. You can't.
oh and if a galaxy class is literally acting as a battleship im going to say that yes, in that instance it was a battleship. its just a word to describe the largest military vessel. they called an old ambassador, a ship half the size of a galaxy, a heavy cruiser. the galaxy is a tier above that, the terribly vague and open ended label, explorer. explore seems to mean a capital ship comparable to something major galactic competitors would call a battleship, plus an extrema amount of typical federation... everything else. even the sovereign is called an explorer, type 2!
Go ahead and call it as you see it, we obviously differ on how battleships operate, don't expect anyone else to bow to your opinion as much as anyone else expects for you to bow to theirs. Heavy cruisers are more likely to form up like that and push an area, where a battleship would either stay on the outside or just plow right through the middle.
this parasitic loss issue you keep trying to apply to arrays is pointless. it doesn't mater if you think some real world electricity loss issue would render them useless, it so obviously doesn't. arrays wouldn't exist at all if you were right. any other theory you have that would make the documented workings of arrays make no sense must also be thrown out. the actual canon is right no mater what.
parasitic loss? how much parasitic loss do you think there is in antimatter storage tanks? theres actually none, if there was any the ship explodes. the plasma that runs the ship and its weapons, uses that same plasma in magnetic containment technology, there proboly isn't even waist heat anywhere in the EPS system, otherwise the crew wouldn't be touching conduits all the time in the show like it was just a water pipe.
people dont like when someone trys to push their version of things on everyone else? i dont like it when people try to post there version of how things are, when its completely counter to the canon, which everything i say is based on. and then handwave and dismiss it and try to broad brush it like theres isn't any exact piece of information you could possible pull from any of it. very little is actually vague or open to question, if you spent 5 minutes googling, or just finding a clip on youtube. wile this is all a separate mater from the galaxy in game, when these things are discuses, the only source of admissible information is the canon. dismiss the canon then you dismiss the show, do that and your talking about nothing. no one has actually given me a shared of canon evidence back at me to try to disprove something i submit. show me were the source material flat out disproves anything i say.
and its gonna need to be better then just pointing out a situation were the galaxy was terrible. did the ship not do so well in one situation? well in this other situation it didn't, and theres no reason other then poor constancy on the writers part to blame for that poorer performance. that poor performance did not cancel out the good performance. its to bad there weren't episodes about a hearing were riker has to explain how 3 fiirengi overpowered a ship of 1000 people, or why the ship didn't fire more then once at a bird of prey that bypassed their shield. or why the ship only gets to show off the extent of its power when it faces a ship impossible to defeat like an imaginary hosnoke warship or borg cube. voyager had its faults, but at least the ship was pretty consistently powerful, wile the characters and stories were consistently subpar. oh well, no fiction is going to be perfect, certainly not TNG.
Back to praise the writers for good, blame the writers for bad.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't buy all the "canon" reasoning behind how the people in the Fast and Furious series also pull stuff off. I am actually less forgiving to them.
crusers as a collective whole at the moment are borderline op. some arent borderline. helping all the trees by buffing eng skills would be disastrous to the health of the game. and buff every single non cruiser too, wile the galaxy yet again does not move up from its position of worst at everything. if there was more ENG skills at ens, i could justify running EPtS3 and EPtW3 on any of the cruisers with a COM and LTC eng. when i can do that, and there isn't 3 good skills other then ET1 to chose from at ENS, the galaxy just lost. again.
Your opinions on cruisers is that, your opinion. And if all cruisers are op as you have said ("crusers as a collective whole at the moment are borderline op. some arent borderline." meaning all are op). Wouldn't that mean that Galaxy was op? As far as cruisers with a CMDR and LTCMDR, lets see what they are : Gal-R( and fleet), Gal-X, Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit, and Odyssey(if you use the uni as engineering). Half of those are Galaxy class, three of them are slower ships, and I wont even go into the Heavy cruiser retro because I am still trying to figure out why it is even at the fleet ship level. As far as ensign level slots, my Excel' has the same amount of engie ensigns as those four I have just mentioned and I have different lower level eptx that I am not as likely to use but in special pinches (EPTE) and backup copies for when the primaries are down and I really need a boost.
I wasn't explicit talking about you.
I know we do not agree THAT much.[/QUOTE]
Even though you weren't explicitly talking about me doesn't mean that you weren't pointing in my direction either. I would like to think that I wasn't even considered in that sense, but I do have questions to the actual intent.
as far as everything else goes, it really seems like you just disagree with what ever i say, no mater what it is. treat the canon im rattling off as something i invented myself, and is some how all my own opinion, when its all there on screen, with a few things clarified in a tech manual.
Most of it IS stuff you've invented yourself. You extrapolate from one or two lines, and argue that the ONLY way those lines could make sense is if yadda yadda, and then act like we are supposed to treat your guess work as gospel. The phaser strip debacle is a prime example. At no point and in no way is the stupid "longer = more powerful" idea ever, ever mentioned on screen. Never. Not one time. No, the chunks blown out of the borg cube don't prove that, because we never get to see what (say) the Defiants cannons would have done in the same situation. We have no basis for the comparisons that you are making.
Moreover, again, there's no reason to take the Tech Manual as canon, and then ignore things like the design notes for the TNG movies, where it's explicitly stated that the intent was for the Sovereign to be a better, more powerful ship than the Galaxy. And before you fall back on a claim that the movies didn't have the same editorial oversight that the shows did, or whatever, note that you've already admitted that the shows were woefully inconsistent in the way they portrayed the ship.
Meanwhile, you say things like "the bad performance didn't cancel out the good one", while completely disregarding the obvious corollary that the good performance didn't cancel out the bad either - both are "canon" and both are valid. You don't get to say one is "right" simply because you like it.
i dont need to have my own opinion, i have enough canon to properly benchmark the thing, and enough information on how certain weapons systems work to benchmark everything firepower. and since all the other ships are the same thing, with really the only major difference being scale save for a few outliers, its pretty easy to then benchmark every other ship useing the exact same tech. you mistake me flat out telling someone they are wrong when they dont agree with me, with them having an opinion that is counter to canon, and me pointing that out. i think most of the canon is silly, most of the things i do defend dont make sense, but i do so because without the canon its not star trek, its generic setting scifi.
Two things. First, way to double down on "I'm objectively right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong", even while demonstrating that you do, in fact, require copious amounts of assumption and guesswork to make your interpretation of canon work. The big one here is your assumption that the tech on the ships is pretty much the same, except for scale. There is no proof of that. You simply assume that to be true, and you confuse the fact that you are making a reasonable assumption with the idea that you are inferring an absolute truth. It's equally reasonable to assume that technology changes. You will say "but the Galaxy was designed to be upgraded!", to which I say "Yeah, an the Titanic was designed not to sink. How'd that work out again?".
Second, will always disagree with you if you think that the key feature of Star Trek is not, say, the stories and characters, or even the broader themes of exploration (not just of space, but also the exploration of different cultures and moral questions), but rather that the essence of Star Trek is merely blind adherence to a set of arbitrary (and admittedly silly) facts you call canon. Sorry to say, I think Trek is less black and white and more complex than that.
and its gonna need to be better then just pointing out a situation were the galaxy was terrible. did the ship not do so well in one situation? well in this other situation it didn't, and theres no reason other then poor constancy on the writers part to blame for that poorer performance. that poor performance did not cancel out the good performance.
Which, again, just proves that the canon you hold so dear is nothing more than an inconsistent collection of story elements that can be interpreted in multiple ways. You say that the stuff that does, in fact, directly contradict your view doesn't count because it's "bad writing", but when people point out that your view is based almost entirely on the mary-sue sentimentality of a science illiterate hack, well, they're just being unreasonable.
crusers as a collective whole at the moment are borderline op. some arent borderline. helping all the trees by buffing eng skills would be disastrous to the health of the game. and buff every single non cruiser too, wile the galaxy yet again does not move up from its position of worst at everything.
And this again proves that it's not a "balance issue" at all, it's an epeen envy trip that other ships got shinier toys. Galaxy is fine as is, as long as you don't presume that the point of the game is to gamer-shame other players by having better pews than they do. If, instead, the point of the game is to play the game and have fun, the Galaxy can do all of that just fine.
Second, will always disagree with you if you think that the key feature of Star Trek is not, say, the stories and characters, or even the broader themes of exploration (not just of space, but also the exploration of different cultures and moral questions), but rather that the essence of Star Trek is merely blind adherence to a set of arbitrary (and admittedly silly) facts you call canon. Sorry to say, I think Trek is less black and white and more complex than that.
....
Which, again, just proves that the canon you hold so dear is nothing more than an inconsistent collection of story elements that can be interpreted in multiple ways. You say that the stuff that does, in fact, directly contradict your view doesn't count because it's "bad writing", but when people point out that your view is based almost entirely on the mary-sue sentimentality of a science illiterate hack, well, they're just being unreasonable.
I concur with that assessment, sans the "mary-sue" characterization. However it does not support the following statement.
And this again proves that it's not a "balance issue" at all, it's an epeen envy trip that other ships got shinier toys. Galaxy is fine as is, as long as you don't presume that the point of the game is to gamer-shame other players by having better pews than they do. If, instead, the point of the game is to play the game and have fun, the Galaxy can do all of that just fine.
It proves nothing other than canon is full of contradictory elements, which allow for differing positions to use it for support.
Nor does it support the assertion that the Galaxy only being found deficient by those who suffer from an irrational lack of self-esteem.
The Galaxy represented in this game is not fine, in my opinion, with relation to other ships in the game.
My presumption is that the point of this game is to wring as much profit from micro-transactions as possible. Envy is a powerful motivator to that end.
I concur with that assessment, sans the "mary-sue" characterization. However it does not support the following statement.
It proves nothing other than canon is full of contradictory elements, which allow for differing positions to use it for support.
Nor does it support the assertion that the Galaxy only being found deficient by those who suffer from an irrational lack of self-esteem.
The Galaxy represented in this game is not fine, in my opinion, with relation to other ships in the game.
My presumption is that the point of this game is to wring as much profit from micro-transactions as possible. Envy is a powerful motivator to that end.
I agree with your assessment, the canon really isn't consistent enough, across the Star Trek board, for comparisons. There is no real way to normalize the canon between different series, shows, episodes, even scenes for real value.
If one is to take canon as canon, each of the ships have too much variability in their own performance to take stock in.
I agree with your assessment, the canon really isn't consistent enough, across the Star Trek board, for comparisons. There is no real way to normalize the canon between different series, shows, episodes, even scenes for real value.
If one is to take canon as canon, each of the ships have too much variability in their own performance to take stock in.
But I think at the very least we can agree on that it doesn't make much sense that two of it's presumed predecessors feature more firepower than this ship. I agree that we have learned through the course of this thread that there is no definitive canon support for anything. I want to note that, for me personally, much of what DDIS states sounds alright to me regarding the phaser debate and everything and much of it fits in my personal view of Star Trek, but I cannot agree on everything he states or on many things other people state so in the end it seems all very subjective. But the fact that the excelsior and the Ambassador feature more firepower (in terms of tactical consoles) makes no real sense. This is some "canon" I think all can agree on.
But that's merely a side note since "canon" in no way shape or form has any value in STO. It is a game and star Trek games have always made up their own rules, STO in particular is a good example of not even trying to resemble the shows or movies. So what's left are gameplay matters and the least basic bit we can agree on (I presume) is that it's odd why the (Fleet) Gal-R didn't recieve the same treatment as it's exact mirror KDF counterpart and that's the damn universal ensign
^ 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
But I think at the very least we can agree on that it doesn't make much sense that two of it's presumed predecessors feature more firepower than this ship. I agree that we have learned through the course of this thread that there is no definitive canon support for anything. I want to note that, for me personally, much of what DDIS states sounds alright to me regarding the phaser debate and everything and much of it fits in my personal view of Star Trek, but I cannot agree on everything he states or on many things other people state so in the end it seems all very subjective. But the fact that the excelsior and the Ambassador feature more firepower (in terms of tactical consoles) makes no real sense. This is some "canon" I think all can agree on.
But that's merely a side note since "canon" in no way shape or form has any value in STO. It is a game and star Trek games have always made up their own rules, STO in particular is a good example of not even trying to resemble the shows or movies. So what's left are gameplay matters and the least basic bit we can agree on (I presume) is that it's odd why the (Fleet) Gal-R didn't recieve the same treatment as it's exact mirror KDF counterpart and that's the damn universal ensign
I agree, it would be almost impossible to integrate Star Trek canon into an MMO, especially since the canon is all over the place regarding consistency and maintenance for every aspect of the universe.
As far as Excel' Ambassador vs. Galaxy, the biggest issue I have is that the system doesn't really seem to allow ships to be distinctive and yet on parity power-wise. Engineer skills and consoles should be just as powerful as Tactical, and the same with science. Every ship, no matter where its boffs are slotted shouldn't be less playable than another.
As far as firepower, the ships have the same firepower, but the difference in consoles and BOff stations limits the effectiveness of that firepower. I think the larger, more lethargic cruisers should have solitary access to some sort of bonus that benefits beam use and improve the outcomes of their weapons. I think that there a plenty of things that can be done to improve our massive friends in space without making them cookie-cutter layouts that are an "nth" degree away from being the same as other ships.
I could easily envision a universal ensign for the Explorers or maybe a second dedicated tactical LT, but the other changes that will make the ship good should come through improvements to the properties of engineering in the game. Otherwise there will be few directions that this game can go with in the future of in-game ships.
Comments
I'm not saying I see a majority of Galaxies about, I'm saying that I see them often enough to disbelieve the claim that they are under-represented. If you want something that IS under-represented, when was the last time you saw anyone in an Aquarious?
As for the stuff you wrote in the quote, about how it's bad business to sell an obsolete product - uh, no, it's not. If you can make money off a product without putting more money into developing it, why bother? Especially in a digital marketplace, where there's no real costs for "storage" of the digital good, nor concerns about using up limited inventory space, there's really no business incentive to improve a product, rather than simply letting it sit, and letting customers choose to buy it or not as is.
Is it "nice" to do so? I dunno, but I don't really care about that. All I'm saying is people can choose to pay the price or not - those that did in the past got their money's worth then. Those that do now know (or at least should know) what they're getting into. There is no obligation to upgrade a product simply because later products came out which are better. And again, upgrading previous ships to the level of the new ships basically defeats the purpose for including them in the first place.
Finally, yes, I do think players should be made to make choices, and I do think it is unreasonable to expect to get everything you want. I think the tension there is the REASON we have a variety of ships in the game now, and I think that changing ships to decouple the hull model from the BOFF seating, or whatever, would result in a net decrease in variety.
And I find it weird that people think that the correct response to a leisure activity that isn't fun is "change the rules to suit me!" instead of "I'll go find something else to do".
I find it weird that your solution to a problem is walk away without trying to make it better. Ofcourse noone can ever get everything they want but it don't hurt to try to get some things changed to make yourself or/and others happy. Your way is just leave if you don't like the way I play find another basketball to play with. Sorry I think you should atleast ask if the rules can be changed to suit your style or want you want out of the game. Keep taking your ball and going home by all means. Just not something I personally do. As for the statement that change the rules to suit me I'm only asking them to change a ship to perform equally as well as all other cruisers ingame. Sure a secondary proposal that I and some others want is something bigger. Don't know if I say being able to assign ship boff slots and console slots is changing the rules. Kinda more like asking if we can stop playing basketball with the football as it harder to put it in the goal.
Exploration Cruiser:
Lt Tac, Cmdr Eng, Lt Eng, Lt Sci
2/3/2 Consoles
Vor'cha Battle Cruiser:
Lt Tac, Cmdr Eng, Lt Eng, Lt Sci
2/3/2 Consoles
Exploration Cruiser Retrofit:
Lt Tac, Cmdr Eng, LtCdr Eng, Ens Eng, Lt Sci
2/4/3 Consoles
Negh'Var Heavy Battle Cruiser:
Lt Tac, Cmdr Eng, LtCdr Eng, Ens Eng, Lt Sci
3/4/2 Consoles
Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit:
Lt Tac, Cmdr Eng, LtCdr Eng, Ens Eng, Lt Sci
2/5/3 Consoles
Fleet Negh'Var Heavy Battle Cruiser:
Lt Tac, Cmdr Eng, LtCdr Eng, --> Ens Uni <--, Lt Sci
3/5/2 Consoles
The canon debate is indeed irrelevant for STO and very subjective. While some see the ultimate battleship in the Galaxy for some reason, some see it akin to a rennaisance marchantman "Explorer" and some want it to have all universal stations, because. We aren't going anywhere with that. But the above posted example why the Galaxy doesn't get the same treatment as it's exact mirror version is a legitimate one or why didn't they use the Refit as the base model for the Fleet version at least. That's pretty much all "we" are asking for.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
not even i see it as an ultimate battleship. thats not what ive been trying to convey at all. fact is the galaxy is a modular ship. fact is the enterprise D was a love boat flying embassy, fact is we saw what a full battleship configuration on a galaxy class would look like in yesterdays enterprise. it can function as ether or, depending on how its kiltted out. its not limited to 1 possible configuration. you saw them passing as battleships during the dominion war, simply by having that modular space nearly empty, just to get them into action as quick as possible. they would have been no good serving any other purpose, other then fighting at that time. your gonna have to remind me what you would call the largest ship class in the fleet, thats good for nothing but fighting, i cant recall.
try to say battleship and galaxy in the same post and everyone start doing back flips around here. i do think this modular nature of the ship should be reflected in the station setup though. the setup of all the other canon ships in game are clearly inspired by the canon. only in this thread's though is that completely inadmissible evidence. as far as balance goes, the less maneuverable it is the more it should have trying to make up for that. any ship launched now has a universal station or 2, its a stranded feature now. but no, galaxy has to stay in STO's dark ages. yall need to put things in perspective.
I do concur that the Galaxy should be more versatile in the game and if it would be possible to create a new one from scratch I have a different design in my head as well (I'd go with the Science/Eng switched Nebula and balacned console slots for that). Though I also stand by my statement that the Gal would always serve as a makeshift "warship" at best (like said merchantmen were refitted for combat if need arose) and while having formidable armament it would always lack behind true battlecruisers.
The best we can do is take what's in-game and ask why it does not at least gets the same treatment as it's exact counterpart, or why the Venture refit has no Fleet/R version or why it's model is still the three year old low poly version etc.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Not exploding and actually making a direct impact on defeating an enemy are two far different things. Its similar to the difference between a politician who writes a bill, and the politician who votes "present".
I seriously doubt they sent nine waves of fighters, one wave at a time to attack a target, especially after the first few waves didn''t work. THat would be parallel genius to Pickett's charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett's_Charge
Actually, they can. The can use replicators to convert generic matter to what they need so X amount of each supply doesn't need to be stored to keep a high service level, which requires less overall space. Also a ship like the Sovy' isn't supposed to go as long without replenishment, it isn't a long-range explorer. Shorter mission profile and duration requires less supplies.
Every crewmen doesn't need their own personal suite or even a room with only one roommate. We saw on a Voyager episode where Excelsior actually used bunk bedding for junior officer quartering.
As many times as you need to keep telling yourself that its gospel. Even if we go along with it, the ship would need to have more power distribution, generation and maintenance. Plus, simple physics of energy states that the longer an array is the more power bleed it has by moving energy from the beginning power source the power network to each emitter and from each emitter to the focal point. If longer arrays and more emitters are better, why not just plaster them all over the saucer by coiling and winding them, that would be even more powerful than a strip, wouldn't it?
And and where does a higher percentage of re-configurable area stop being an asset and becomes a liability? Having the bigger (mass) ship means each cubic foot (meter) has to have X amount of support to keep the ship fully operational. A tactically focused ship needs less space for labs, cargo holds and crew quartering. Foregoing that space requirement increases the effectiveness of the ship during operations and reduces maintenance requirements. It looses some by having less area to soak damage, but its a viable swap.
Hardcore Galaxy fans have been trying to compare the two for quite some time.
And you don't think that space/tonnage doesn't have a detrimental cost of efficiency of operations? Those areas still need support and power to keep the ship as a whole functional. Even if power is "shut-off" to areas, a certain amount of power is needed to supply the areas with enough energy to still connect them to the ship, have minimal life support (for oxygen and keep the areas from bringing down the overall temperature of neighboring areas of the ship. And to sustain the network needed for emergency force-fields, internal sensors and such.
Not really, refer to my point about coiling and winding the arrays.
We don't really know, but we do know that we have seen the Galaxy class is in smaller numbers than the workhorse ships, and if the Galaxy is a critical role to the defense of the Federation AND technologies have improved to increase economies of scale, the percentage of Galaxies would have been higher, along with seeing more Intrepid's, Nebulae, and Sovereign. But we didn't.
Honestly, aside from the BOff stations being moved around a little, dimmed lights, crew eating rations, and most of the people on the ship wearing crossing-guard belts, there really wasn't much difference.
I saw them as passing as heavy cruisers, by every bit of the sense of what a heavy cruiser does.
Bigger doesn't always mean better for fighting, it means bigger. Empty space is actually detriment to a ship, unless its the only place where its taking damage.
Because it isn't a battleship, we have actually had this conversation to where it made sense to. Remember capital ships?
Modular doesn't equal better station set ups. One might be able to argue console setups, but certainly not BOffs. Also even a large ship that is modular still gives a great deal up maintain flexibility. All of that modular tonnage and space comes at a cost on power distribution networks, maintenance requirements, and space to make a modular space work, instead of just "welding in" what a non modular ship has to be fitted with. Modular designs should be flexible, but at a price.
In the shows, we see the Galaxy ships either engaging a bunch if targets at once or unleashing some torpedos at a target with a terribly powerful full array burst. The ship in game can do this as well; BFAW or BOL. Granted the LT tax isn't the best for offense, but even in the show, offense isn't what this ship is about.
Even in show, these ships are hideously powerful tanks, plain and simple. They're capital ships that carry and support a fleet of smaller ships with greater damage potential but who are much easier to kill. This is exactly how we see them being utilised in canon during fleet engagements.
The only beef I have with the Galaxy family is the X. That thing IS the warship everyone wants the GR to be and should be treated as such. It is every bit as much a tactical cruiser as the Avenger.
Back to actual gameplay, there are far better tanks in STO than the Galaxy-R simply for their bridge officer seating. Three ensign BOFF's is crippling since you can only have a max of two Emergency Power to X abilities cycling, anything else is just a waste. This is one of the biggest issues with the Galaxy-R with many asking for it to be given a universal ensign or lieutenant slot. At least this way we could decide if we wanted it to be given more science or engineering focus. Another issue is that with the way PvE content is laid out in STO now DPS is everything, a team doesn't need an indestructible tank against the likes of Borg Cubes or Command Ships when a few escorts can just blast the target to pieces in a matter of seconds. This is why the Galaxy is so crippled. It's given too much focus on tanking, a fairly redundant role in end game content (where everything is on a timer etc).
To summarise: Poor BOFF layout means it can not be a great tank and it doesn't have the firepower to get decent enough DPS.
My "easy" fix - Eiether an Ensign or Lieutenant Universal BOFF slot, and for the fleet version move one engineering console to tactical to allow three tactical consoles.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
this way it gives the cmdr eng and LTC eng, a LT tac, a ensign sci, and then a LT to do what ever
personally i would use the LT as sci
TBH, i am asking myself the same thing for months now.
It's like i would argue against a new developed porsche car, althrough i would never buy one, even if i had the money (no offense).
I think the people you mentioned are just bored and looking for a fight. As much as i can see, it is completely pointless to argue anymore, these ppl are not interested in a discussion, they just want to fight. If it wheren't about the GCS it would be some other thing.
Personally i don't have the energy and health to waist my time in arguing about the same stuff over and over again. This discussion goes in circles in the last several hundred pages.
I am really bored to dig out the same arguments over and over again, just to counter the same old arguments the GCS opposers come up with all the time.
The people that would really make a difference (the devs) keep their hands off this thread only because they don't want to step on anyones toes (in the best case).
So what do the GCS opposers really want?
They obviously want to keep a (most iconic Star Trek) ship totally under perfoming althrough they aren't interested to fly it anyways...
The only thing i can say to them is: Congratulations, guys you have already won!
Everyone else who is actually interested in using the Galaxy Class (and has even spend some money in it) looses as always.
***Sarcasm ON***
That's what i call good customer service Cryptic!
***Sarcasm OFF***
I mean in a game that doesn't really care about beliveability anyways (galor Class and Excelsior outgun a GCS, by DESIGN), who cares if a GCS would be a bit stronger and more playable than now?
now that's not a bad thing but they share the same design being modular so it makes sense it's just funny to me
they also gave away the nebula for free not to long ago
here is the nebula's boff lay out
Commander sci
Lt. Commander eng
Lt. Tac
Ens sci
Lt. Uni
the galaxy could be like this and still be WAY more useful as a tank
Commander Eng
Lt. Commander Sci
Lt. Tac
ens. Eng
Lt. uni
then i realized that's the fleet ambassador except for the ens. being engineering instead of tactical like it is on the ambassador
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I have a feeling that you are mostly talking about "Mr. S", but in a way its encroaching on me and other people that don't agree with your (and certain others) takes on changing the ship for the better.
I myself have different opinions than you (and others) on how to improve the ship. I also own a Gal-R and Gal-X (didn't buy the Venture due to it really wouldn't do anything more for me than add a skin I really didn't need and a console that I didn't want to use), so I have just as much right as you to throw my two cents (preferably at Canadian value) in.
I see ways that will not only improve the Explorers effectiveness, but also address a whole group of ships at the same time. I am looking at possibilities that are more than one tree, but a whole forest of betterment.
DD', you and others are just as guilty of pointing the "No, your'e wrong" finger at people when someone brings up "evidence" that contradicts your point. True, sometimes you are objective regarding flaws, but it seems more often than not that its only when you bring it up, when someone else does, they are obviously in the wrong.
Just because I don't agree with your statements doesn't make me someone who doesn't want to improve the ship, it just means I want to do it differently than you see it.
my, and others, balance concerns are not irrelevant because YOU think it is.
you are not the ultimate voice to dictate to other what is relevant and what is not.
in case like this, i would said that the majority opinion dictate what is relevant.
when cryptic introduce the DDeridex in tribble server for testing before LOR, this ship have a similar bo layout than the galaxy.
a big bunch of people complained to cryptic in the forum, saying that they will never buying such a TRIBBLE, that they already have 1 galaxy in game, they don't need a second.
it seem that cryptic judge their "balanced" concern to be valid since they completely rework the bo layout of the ship afterward.
so cryptic rework a ship to be more efficient, and thus not loosing money, just by listening to a bunch of people on the forum?
or can we safely said that they do it because they realize that this " viewpoint" was indeed the most common one, and by opposing it they would certainly loose money.
same story for the Ar'Kif Tactical Warbird Retrofit, who became the Ar'Kif Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit
http://sto.perfectworld.com/news/?p=984701
ho!!!? they use the word competitive!.... strange.... they must be a great demand for competitive ship after all, if cryptic see the need to render their ship MORE competitive.
so in that case i will trust cryptic's wallet that concluded that this seem to be the most common demand of player, and not your esoteric point of view on the question.
every new people that came into this thread are not all opposed to a revamp galaxy, in fact they are more people who are agree than people who are oppose to it, clearly.
but to bielieve that there must be a ship that suck, a ship that is not as good as anyone else in a define role, a ship that add nothing to the game diversity in the end..... that is wrong, and that as nothing to do with fact that is is a galaxy.
if there is something that is proven here, is you absolute desire to make all of us look like what your describing.
i am not the one arguing in eternity about some "canon evidence " here, as i already said it a thousand time, theses canon things are almost irrelevant and really too much subjective to be of a real interest for the game.
we said that this ship is not good at anything in this game, then some people come here and state that it should suck because it seem to them that it suck in canon, so who are the one trying to educated the other here?
you took 2 assumption here.
first, that i have concede something to you.
second, that i think that the goal of this thread is to have a dev posting in it.
unlike you i don't have the pretention to speak for others, anyone if free to bielieve what the goal of this thread is.
for my part the goal of this tread is to bring cryptic attention to the galaxy family so that they can reworked it.
i don't care that a dev post in this thread, i care that a dev change the galaxy family.
idle venting of a small group of die-hard fans is indeed exactly what YOU think it is, hence, you bias point of view on the question.
the most logical things to do if this happened again, is to question the guy why he bielieve that a dev would post here anyway, more than directly assuming that his bielief is generally share, don't you think?
what exactly in what i said drawn you to the conclusion that i found fun only by being better than others?
you like doing this don't you? take the stereotype juvenile gamer and trown it to everyone who dare speak about competitivity.
daes it reassure you in your "maturity" level to do that?.
so before you continue to pretend to known where i found fun i am going to explained it to you, so there will be no future confusion.
my fun is not to be the best, but to strive to be one of the best, even tho i perfectly known that this will be very unlikely.
like harry kim said, it is not the destination that matter, it is the journey.
Losing to a worthy opponent is a learning experience, even something to look forward to, and is never something to feel shame over.
you learn more when you loose than when you win.
having a good fight is fun, wining or losing is not important in the end but fighting on an equal footing is, that is the base of all competition.
no, once again your stereotype profile gamer manager as kick in.
what i, and many others ask here is that the ship be on equal footing with other, so that there we will be able to make the difference by our own skills.
and not using these skill and knowlege to just keep up with the rest of the game ( and keep up is a big word for that), there is a sensible difference.
your statement sound more like a fat boy eating donut on a couch everyday, stating to a homeless child on the street that he should be happy with it stale bread and not asking for more because that would be at the expense of someone esles's situation.
their is certainly no written rule for it, however if you try to ignore it, you will paid the price for it, the DDeridex and the Ar'Kif Tactical Warbird Retrofit are a very good example of that
the DDIS build for this ship make it unique, it make it have a role that haven't been created yet by any ship in the game, thus giving more option to people and render a ship that was previously useless into something usefull.
the ship as it is now is useless for any purpose one can think of it, and indeed make the game worse than what it could have been.
that is the logical proof i give you, up to you known to proove me wrong, good luck.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
The question I have for you is how exactly do you qualify a person as an "opposer"? It seems that even people who don't directly agree with your (and some others) ideas, but have ideas of their own to improve the ship get thrown in as an "opposer"/"hater"/etc.. Does someone really have to be a "true believer" in what some people that post on this tread believe in order to have their ideas accepted as not "heretical"?
I agree that the Exploration cruisers have a bum wrap going on them and should be improved, but not in the same way as you or DD' argue. I also think that it is unfortunate and telling that the dev's haven't come to this thread to discuss the issue. I have a Gal-R and a Gal-X that I would love for one of my engies' to use, but engineering powers are weak. If I wanted a LTCMDR tac (with or w/o another boff of some other rank) and more tac consoles, I would use one of the available ships (which I do). I want that big' ole' bird to b distinguishable on her own and not a cookie cutter of some other ship. If you guys get your way, it wont be much different from the other tac' cruisers in the game.
I am genuinely sorry that you have some sort of ailment that taxes your strength, and I do you that you recover, but I can't defer my opinion because of your current state. There are people who have as much stake in the game and in Exploration cruisers as what some could see as the "true-believers" here, but disagreement is questionably tolerated, and those who don't stay in line. I find that just as objectionable as the current state of the Exploration cruisers in current STO form.
This I agree with wholeheartedly
The fact is that no one is the ultimate voice here. As far as "majority opinion", lets argue that ten people are active on this thread that hold one idea for fixing the ship, while they may be considered a "majority" in this thread, they are far from being a majority in the game. Even if was one-hundred people in the thread, its far from a majority.
The Explorer isn't as good as it should be, but there still are many routes that dev's can go to improve it.
I believe you on that, but changing the ship in a way to drive it to a tactical focus (and thats what will happen with uni-boffs and increased tac' consoles, or even uni-consoles) like just about all of the newer ships does little to add to the games diversity value.
While I do not agree that the ship should suck, I don't totally think he believes it either. I think that he responds like he does because he has seen the ship do well and not do well in the show, and one sided canonical "evidence" that get pushed probably irritates him. I know that you have made your point on canon's degree of relevance, which I agree is subjective, others in the game have not and have pushed it ad-nauseam.
My question is what exactly is "equal footing"? Can it only be achieved by making the ship more tactical by means of Uni (Tac) Boffs and more tac consoles? Theres more than one way to skin a cat.
I don't think that DDIS build really makes it all that unique, it actually makes it just like most other cruisers that are now in the game. If the ship was truly unique, it would be through making engineering skills and consoles on par with tac and science. The Explorer has those in spades, improving those will held it dramatically.
the majority opinion i was reffering to wasn't the one on this thread, but the one on the DDeridex and the Ar'Kif Tactical Warbird Retrofit, and that was just to exposed his denial attitude to the fact that the majority of player will alway supported a more competitive ship.
i sincerely hope you are right for the sake of the player that want to fly this ship.
what i mean by that, is that i hope that their is a "cryptic way" to improve it without make it overpowered somehow, or redundant.
my opinion is that this ship is so lacking in firepower, that it must have more tactical bo power, just what i call the minimum as of today.
i don't want to transform it into a tactical cruiser, but there is something to do in that area.
the ambassador layout would have been perfect, it got 1 more ensign tactical wich open more versatility and sustained firepower in offensive build without ( and by far ) being the killer tactical cruiser and he don't have to deal with the 3nd engi ensign problem.
it ltcommander science is very good for tanking .
and all that could have been done with the same turn rate (6 ) and the same number of tactical console (2 ) wich would have result in something already less efficient than the ambassador, but still much more better than what it is now.
yet, no one in his own mind call the ambassador a tactical cruiser.
it is much more about giving him the base versatility that today ship have more than trandforming it into a moretacticaldreadship.
equal footing mean same efficiency in a given role, that is not neccesaraly tactical.
let take the star cruiser example , can i said that the galaxy is on equal footing than him on tanking abilitie?
obviously, for the reason that we have already enumerated we can said that it isn't.
so ok, the galaxy don't tank as good as a star cruiser, well, ok, that not a problem, there nothing that said that the galaxy should be the best tank in the game.
so what other roles, gameplay style or little advantage can we found him compared to the star cruiser, what specific build will allow him to do something that the star cruiser will not be able to do.
nothing, there is nothing and that the problem, this ship is completely redundant, it is a low tiers star cruiser.
that is not the case of the ambassador.
so we are not on equal footing concerning role and diversity, if the ship being rework with a role in mind that would be different than what a star cruiser can do it would then be on equal footing.
because right now, not even talking about firepower, we are an inneficient version of the star cruiser.
tier4 star cruiser.
what is unique about the DDIS build is the playstyle intention.
yes if you see it from a tactical point of view it is something that have already been done, but like i said before people that want to go that way with a ship like that will be disapointed.
but the biggest problem for me is that it took away some of the odyssey advantages, namely the universal bo.
make it directly fixed science bo would have been good to cut any confusion, but i doubt this to be a popular way to fix the ship.
hence the neccesity to have universal, to let people realize that tactical is not the better way, on their own.
bah, there is still no perfect solution.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
TBH, I think what they wrote was mostly adressed at the people comming in and saying the ship needs no improvements whatsoever because - "I don't like it", "It's a space hotel", "It's old", "It was built for fishing" or whatever other nonesence that has very little to do with the reality of the game.
It's not people like you that may have different, but yet constructive ideas. It's people that have some weird psychologic issues with the ship and don't want to see it as viable at end game even if they don't use it, don't care about it and it would in no way affect their game. That's just weird.
I have a few very different ideas of improving the Galaxy class than many others myself and I have posted them in this thread before, although I do support ddis's idea even if it's quite different than mine, because even seing his idea implemented would mean some improvement for this ship that has such an iconic status in Star Trek, while Cryptic has made it the worst of the worst. What is even worse, they didn't do this on purpose, but with all the hunt for easy cash and blatant power creep they managed to bork their own intended game mechanic which unfortunately reflects mostly on this ship.
They wanna bork their entire game mechanic? What the heck it's their game, it's not like they didn't bork the KDF or PvP or many other things.....but having the Galaxy class, the iconic Enterprise-D, they most shown starship on air in the history of Star Trek in such a lousy position in game is just a bad joke.
I would even accept her state if there was some consitency in all of it and the Galaxy is surpassed in preformance by the new ships. But having far older ship preforming better in the design of Cryptic's own end game content is just unacceptable and needs to be fixed one way or another.
I know we do not agree THAT much.
I couldn't have said it better, my friend.
i dont think you have all the perspective you need to understand why i posted the build for it that i did. if all you can see is a LTC tac you are so missing the point/have never pvped or are at least any good at it. same for everyone that thinks the ship is remotely fine. who cares if you can do any of the pve in it, i can do any of the pve in a shuttle. so what if it could have a LTC tac, it would be the worst tactical cruiser with an LTC tac, 6 turn, 3 tac consoles or less. it would have vast potential to be the opposite of a a LTC tac cruiser though. the only way to do that is to give it heavy universal, and no built in tac so you could go completely with out it, otherwise its just basically an ody clone. it could be the most powerful anti tactical cruiser in pvp, or for the kirks out there, my self often included, we could use the ship and actually deal somewhat competitive, non team liability, damage with it.
as far as everything else goes, it really seems like you just disagree with what ever i say, no mater what it is. treat the canon im rattling off as something i invented myself, and is some how all my own opinion, when its all there on screen, with a few things clarified in a tech manual. i dont need to have my own opinion, i have enough canon to properly benchmark the thing, and enough information on how certain weapons systems work to benchmark everything firepower. and since all the other ships are the same thing, with really the only major difference being scale save for a few outliers, its pretty easy to then benchmark every other ship useing the exact same tech. you mistake me flat out telling someone they are wrong when they dont agree with me, with them having an opinion that is counter to canon, and me pointing that out. i think most of the canon is silly, most of the things i do defend dont make sense, but i do so because without the canon its not star trek, its generic setting scifi.
oh and if a galaxy class is literally acting as a battleship im going to say that yes, in that instance it was a battleship. its just a word to describe the largest military vessel. they called an old ambassador, a ship half the size of a galaxy, a heavy cruiser. the galaxy is a tier above that, the terribly vague and open ended label, explorer. explore seems to mean a capital ship comparable to something major galactic competitors would call a battleship, plus an extrema amount of typical federation... everything else. even the sovereign is called an explorer, type 2!
this parasitic loss issue you keep trying to apply to arrays is pointless. it doesn't mater if you think some real world electricity loss issue would render them useless, it so obviously doesn't. arrays wouldn't exist at all if you were right. any other theory you have that would make the documented workings of arrays make no sense must also be thrown out. the actual canon is right no mater what.
parasitic loss? how much parasitic loss do you think there is in antimatter storage tanks? theres actually none, if there was any the ship explodes. the plasma that runs the ship and its weapons, uses that same plasma in magnetic containment technology, there proboly isn't even waist heat anywhere in the EPS system, otherwise the crew wouldn't be touching conduits all the time in the show like it was just a water pipe.
people dont like when someone trys to push their version of things on everyone else? i dont like it when people try to post there version of how things are, when its completely counter to the canon, which everything i say is based on. and then handwave and dismiss it and try to broad brush it like theres isn't any exact piece of information you could possible pull from any of it. very little is actually vague or open to question, if you spent 5 minutes googling, or just finding a clip on youtube. wile this is all a separate mater from the galaxy in game, when these things are discuses, the only source of admissible information is the canon. dismiss the canon then you dismiss the show, do that and your talking about nothing. no one has actually given me a shared of canon evidence back at me to try to disprove something i submit. show me were the source material flat out disproves anything i say.
and its gonna need to be better then just pointing out a situation were the galaxy was terrible. did the ship not do so well in one situation? well in this other situation it didn't, and theres no reason other then poor constancy on the writers part to blame for that poorer performance. that poor performance did not cancel out the good performance. its to bad there weren't episodes about a hearing were riker has to explain how 3 fiirengi overpowered a ship of 1000 people, or why the ship didn't fire more then once at a bird of prey that bypassed their shield. or why the ship only gets to show off the extent of its power when it faces a ship impossible to defeat like an imaginary hosnoke warship or borg cube. voyager had its faults, but at least the ship was pretty consistently powerful, wile the characters and stories were consistently subpar. oh well, no fiction is going to be perfect, certainly not TNG.
crusers as a collective whole at the moment are borderline op. some arent borderline. helping all the trees by buffing eng skills would be disastrous to the health of the game. and buff every single non cruiser too, wile the galaxy yet again does not move up from its position of worst at everything. if there was more ENG skills at ens, i could justify running EPtS3 and EPtW3 on any of the cruisers with a COM and LTC eng. when i can do that, and there isn't 3 good skills other then ET1 to chose from at ENS, the galaxy just lost. again.
I actually do have perspective, its just not in alignment with yours. Doesn't make either one of ours better than the others, just different.
As far as "everything else you say", not really, but if it makes you more content in that notion, go for it. I would argue that there was canon before tech manuals was out and explanations to make up for how things worked. Canon has just as much to do (if not more) the people than the tech', especially since more attention is given to some ships and some tech. Kirk and Spock and McCoy and the Connie-prise weren't awesome because they were hyper analyzed, down to special effects or how a beam hit a target (honestly we never really saw those things), there's no real analysis of TOS. Even the technical manual for that era was generic. How do you analyze that versus TNG/DS9/Voyager/..... etc. You can't.
Go ahead and call it as you see it, we obviously differ on how battleships operate, don't expect anyone else to bow to your opinion as much as anyone else expects for you to bow to theirs. Heavy cruisers are more likely to form up like that and push an area, where a battleship would either stay on the outside or just plow right through the middle.
this parasitic loss issue you keep trying to apply to arrays is pointless. it doesn't mater if you think some real world electricity loss issue would render them useless, it so obviously doesn't. arrays wouldn't exist at all if you were right. any other theory you have that would make the documented workings of arrays make no sense must also be thrown out. the actual canon is right no mater what.
Back to praise the writers for good, blame the writers for bad.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't buy all the "canon" reasoning behind how the people in the Fast and Furious series also pull stuff off. I am actually less forgiving to them.
Your opinions on cruisers is that, your opinion. And if all cruisers are op as you have said ("crusers as a collective whole at the moment are borderline op. some arent borderline." meaning all are op). Wouldn't that mean that Galaxy was op? As far as cruisers with a CMDR and LTCMDR, lets see what they are : Gal-R( and fleet), Gal-X, Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit, and Odyssey(if you use the uni as engineering). Half of those are Galaxy class, three of them are slower ships, and I wont even go into the Heavy cruiser retro because I am still trying to figure out why it is even at the fleet ship level. As far as ensign level slots, my Excel' has the same amount of engie ensigns as those four I have just mentioned and I have different lower level eptx that I am not as likely to use but in special pinches (EPTE) and backup copies for when the primaries are down and I really need a boost.
I know we do not agree THAT much.[/QUOTE]
Even though you weren't explicitly talking about me doesn't mean that you weren't pointing in my direction either. I would like to think that I wasn't even considered in that sense, but I do have questions to the actual intent.
The ones who say the ship sucks to just to say that it sucks are in the wrong. Some intent of improvement of the ship should be a relevant factor.
Most of it IS stuff you've invented yourself. You extrapolate from one or two lines, and argue that the ONLY way those lines could make sense is if yadda yadda, and then act like we are supposed to treat your guess work as gospel. The phaser strip debacle is a prime example. At no point and in no way is the stupid "longer = more powerful" idea ever, ever mentioned on screen. Never. Not one time. No, the chunks blown out of the borg cube don't prove that, because we never get to see what (say) the Defiants cannons would have done in the same situation. We have no basis for the comparisons that you are making.
Moreover, again, there's no reason to take the Tech Manual as canon, and then ignore things like the design notes for the TNG movies, where it's explicitly stated that the intent was for the Sovereign to be a better, more powerful ship than the Galaxy. And before you fall back on a claim that the movies didn't have the same editorial oversight that the shows did, or whatever, note that you've already admitted that the shows were woefully inconsistent in the way they portrayed the ship.
Meanwhile, you say things like "the bad performance didn't cancel out the good one", while completely disregarding the obvious corollary that the good performance didn't cancel out the bad either - both are "canon" and both are valid. You don't get to say one is "right" simply because you like it.
Two things. First, way to double down on "I'm objectively right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong", even while demonstrating that you do, in fact, require copious amounts of assumption and guesswork to make your interpretation of canon work. The big one here is your assumption that the tech on the ships is pretty much the same, except for scale. There is no proof of that. You simply assume that to be true, and you confuse the fact that you are making a reasonable assumption with the idea that you are inferring an absolute truth. It's equally reasonable to assume that technology changes. You will say "but the Galaxy was designed to be upgraded!", to which I say "Yeah, an the Titanic was designed not to sink. How'd that work out again?".
Second, will always disagree with you if you think that the key feature of Star Trek is not, say, the stories and characters, or even the broader themes of exploration (not just of space, but also the exploration of different cultures and moral questions), but rather that the essence of Star Trek is merely blind adherence to a set of arbitrary (and admittedly silly) facts you call canon. Sorry to say, I think Trek is less black and white and more complex than that.
It's been done, you just dismiss it by saying:
Which, again, just proves that the canon you hold so dear is nothing more than an inconsistent collection of story elements that can be interpreted in multiple ways. You say that the stuff that does, in fact, directly contradict your view doesn't count because it's "bad writing", but when people point out that your view is based almost entirely on the mary-sue sentimentality of a science illiterate hack, well, they're just being unreasonable.
And this again proves that it's not a "balance issue" at all, it's an epeen envy trip that other ships got shinier toys. Galaxy is fine as is, as long as you don't presume that the point of the game is to gamer-shame other players by having better pews than they do. If, instead, the point of the game is to play the game and have fun, the Galaxy can do all of that just fine.
I concur with that assessment, sans the "mary-sue" characterization. However it does not support the following statement.
It proves nothing other than canon is full of contradictory elements, which allow for differing positions to use it for support.
Nor does it support the assertion that the Galaxy only being found deficient by those who suffer from an irrational lack of self-esteem.
The Galaxy represented in this game is not fine, in my opinion, with relation to other ships in the game.
My presumption is that the point of this game is to wring as much profit from micro-transactions as possible. Envy is a powerful motivator to that end.
I agree with your assessment, the canon really isn't consistent enough, across the Star Trek board, for comparisons. There is no real way to normalize the canon between different series, shows, episodes, even scenes for real value.
If one is to take canon as canon, each of the ships have too much variability in their own performance to take stock in.
But I think at the very least we can agree on that it doesn't make much sense that two of it's presumed predecessors feature more firepower than this ship. I agree that we have learned through the course of this thread that there is no definitive canon support for anything. I want to note that, for me personally, much of what DDIS states sounds alright to me regarding the phaser debate and everything and much of it fits in my personal view of Star Trek, but I cannot agree on everything he states or on many things other people state so in the end it seems all very subjective. But the fact that the excelsior and the Ambassador feature more firepower (in terms of tactical consoles) makes no real sense. This is some "canon" I think all can agree on.
But that's merely a side note since "canon" in no way shape or form has any value in STO. It is a game and star Trek games have always made up their own rules, STO in particular is a good example of not even trying to resemble the shows or movies. So what's left are gameplay matters and the least basic bit we can agree on (I presume) is that it's odd why the (Fleet) Gal-R didn't recieve the same treatment as it's exact mirror KDF counterpart and that's the damn universal ensign
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I agree, it would be almost impossible to integrate Star Trek canon into an MMO, especially since the canon is all over the place regarding consistency and maintenance for every aspect of the universe.
As far as Excel' Ambassador vs. Galaxy, the biggest issue I have is that the system doesn't really seem to allow ships to be distinctive and yet on parity power-wise. Engineer skills and consoles should be just as powerful as Tactical, and the same with science. Every ship, no matter where its boffs are slotted shouldn't be less playable than another.
As far as firepower, the ships have the same firepower, but the difference in consoles and BOff stations limits the effectiveness of that firepower. I think the larger, more lethargic cruisers should have solitary access to some sort of bonus that benefits beam use and improve the outcomes of their weapons. I think that there a plenty of things that can be done to improve our massive friends in space without making them cookie-cutter layouts that are an "nth" degree away from being the same as other ships.
I could easily envision a universal ensign for the Explorers or maybe a second dedicated tactical LT, but the other changes that will make the ship good should come through improvements to the properties of engineering in the game. Otherwise there will be few directions that this game can go with in the future of in-game ships.