Okay. Let me try to put it this way. There are currently two roles that the Galaxy has:
1) Extra heavy Eng focus. What can the Galaxy do mechanically that other cruisers can't? Force you to take 3 Ensign Eng powers. The problem here is not that there is no mechanical role for the ship, it's that people don't want that role.
2) Being a cruiser that reminds you of a ship that you liked from a show you liked. This is a legitimate role as well - it's the reason there was a push to put the Iconic ships into the game at VA level in the first place. The problem here is that some people feel like possibly having to choose between the mechanical role they like and the aesthetics that they like is "unfair", even though almost every player in the game has to make this very choice.
What Whamhammer is saying is that attempting to change the mechanical role of the Galaxy by changing its officer seating is unlikely to be a good one, since the options seem to either be stepping on the toes of another cruiser by replicating the seating, creating an op cruiser that obsoletes everything else, or creating a seating that shifts from one undesirable role to another.
Thus, the solution he proposes it to make the mechanical role of the Galaxy right now more desirable, by finding a way to make slotting 3 Eng powers something you would choose to do sometimes, rather than something you are forced to do because you want to fly the Galaxy.
What you and others are basically saying is that making all eng powers better doesn't solve your problem, because your problem isn't that the Galaxy isn't good enough to use. Instead, your problem is that you feel like other ships have advantages that the Galaxy doesn't, and that you will still prefer doing more damage or whatever over having a more efficient Eng heavy setup.
What that proves is that this is basically not about making the Galaxy mechanically better in a vacuum, it's about making the Galaxy mechanically better than other options. The thing that's sad is that Whamhammer is about the only one who has come up with a solution to the mechanical problem with the Galaxy that could actually result in what people profess to want (a "balanced" Galaxy with a defined, desirable mechanical goal that doesn't step on any toes), yet he can't get traction with it at all, because he was trying to solve the problem people said they had. Until people are willing to be honest about what they really want, there's no point to this thread.
^^^^This part that is quoted is my point. And thank you Mr. S.
Enough with your little P***ing contest. Put your E-Peen's away. Tha Galaxy needs to be revisited, we all know it, we have differnet opinions on HOW it should be done.
All this should be friendly debates not shouting matches. So come on, get over yourselves and get back to the ship. Please.
I'm not sure if this has been brought up and already spat on, and frankly I'm not bored enough to go read all 449 pages of this thread to find out, but I would love to see the Galaxy have a BOFF layout similar to a D'deridex.
I'm not really sure what's wrong with a ship having a similar BOFF layout to another ship. I mean there are only so many combinations you can have.
The problem with (one factions) ship to have the same layout as another (same factions) ships is that Cryptic won't likely do it because unless its a skin someone wants, no one would buy a second copy. It's basically attrition into its own sales. Other factions ships are a different story, but the Romulans are cross faction, so that might be why.
Okay. Let me try to put it this way. There are currently two roles that the Galaxy has:
1) Extra heavy Eng focus. What can the Galaxy do mechanically that other cruisers can't? Force you to take 3 Ensign Eng powers. The problem here is not that there is no mechanical role for the ship, it's that people don't want that role.
heavy eng focus is not a role, it a layout status.
and no they are many people that want to tank, if that what you were trying to said, but none of them want to suck about it, that different.
look: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...=909601&page=2
the guy ask for advice on wich to choose between a galaxy and a star cruiser for tanking purpose, guess what he choose in the end... the galax....hahaha, well no, bad luck, he choose the star cruiser:rolleyes:
2) Being a cruiser that reminds you of a ship that you liked from a show you liked. This is a legitimate role as well
no, again, this is not a role in gameplay term, it is a preference.
no one should be punish for his preferences, altrought i do anderstand why it happened to that ship.
many players want to play with the galaxy, there is no reason for cryptic to make it efficient, it will sell anyway, let keep these good layout for our lockboxships
What Whamhammer is saying is that attempting to change the mechanical role of the Galaxy by changing its officer seating is unlikely to be a good one, since the options seem to either be stepping on the toes of another cruiser by replicating the seating
no, that what most people like you are trying to make bielieve, they are still some possibilities in term of bo layout that would not come into anyone toes, if only cryptic desire to do so for the galaxy, it is still time.
creating an op cruiser that obsoletes everything else
you mean like the avenger or lockbox ships? cryptic didn't seem to have a problem with that, why should we?
ho, i known, it because it is a galaxy, well that make sense.
or creating a seating that shifts from one undesirable role to another.
more likely to something that have no role into something that have one, finally.
Thus, the solution he proposes it to make the mechanical role of the Galaxy right now more desirable, by finding a way to make slotting 3 Eng powers something you would choose to do sometimes, rather than something you are forced to do because you want to fly the Galaxy.
no, the solution he propose is a far strech idea that the galaxy will have a role simply by the result of better engie power being added to the game.
wich i still wait the proof that this will do what he claim.
What you and others are basically saying is that making all eng powers better doesn't solve your problem, because your problem isn't that the Galaxy isn't good enough to use. Instead, your problem is that you feel like other ships have advantages that the Galaxy doesn't, and that you will still prefer doing more damage or whatever over having a more efficient Eng heavy setup.
yes, because this more efficient eng setup is also something that will be given to other cruiser as well, so the problem will remain the same and nothing will change with the role of the galaxy.
but don't get me wrong, better and more efficient eng power is still welcome, just like the cruiser command, but don't think even for a second that this would change anything to the galaxy problem.
better engie power and eficiency is a cruiser problem, not a specific galaxy problem.
What that proves is that this is basically not about making the Galaxy mechanically better in a vacuum, it's about making the Galaxy mechanically better than other options
no, it is you who concluded that. so let me rephrase your sentence.
it's not about making the galaxy mechanically better than other options, it about making the galaxy.... an option, period.
you see, that sound strange huh? since everyone is used to use the ship as a good skin and nothing more.
The thing that's sad is that Whamhammer is about the only one who has come up with a solution to the mechanical problem with the Galaxy that could actually result in what people profess to want (a "balanced" Galaxy with a defined, desirable mechanical goal that doesn't step on any toes)
what whamhammer come about is not a solution, it is a claim of a solution, he has yet to proove me that his "solution" would do what he claim it will.
Until people are willing to be honest about what they really want, there's no point to this thread.
since everyone got a different idea about what this ship should be, pretending to solve that is indeed pointless.
there is however a consensus that this ship is not were is suppose to be in term of role and efficiency, and many time even the people that desire it to be as powerfull as a regent in the first place show that they were ok to accept the cryptic view of the ship in tanking/healing/support role, and support a better layout that would go that way.
Of course, from my perspective, the fact that people don't like the Galaxy's role is not even a problem that is worthy of consideration in principle
i can agree with that, with reserve, but i can.
cryptic choose this ship to be a tank in this game, we may not be agree with that, but in the end it is irelevant, because indeed everyone will have his opinion, and to be honest this ship was portraye more than something that can take damage than one that is a DPS killer in the show.
so the cruiser tanking role look somehow more appropriate than the one of an escort for example.
but that don't change the fact that even if cryptic choose this role, it should then be a real option in that one.
I'm not sure why Galaxy fans don't "deserve" to be on the bottom? Why is it totally unreasonable that, like the Aquarius, the Galaxy exists more as a fluff option than a competitive one?
and i am not sure why there must be a 2500zen ship to be fluff in this game?
and why just 1, why not 5 cstore ship?
why just the galaxy?
just because?
Don't give me that "all ships should be equal" tripe - a game where all options are equal is one in which all choices are meaningless. Either the ship and power selection has a meaningful effect on game play, or it does not. If it does have a meaningful effect, then there must be winners and losers - powers/ships that work better or are easier to use, as well as options that are less optimal, but can be made to work with effort.
i would certainly give you the " all cstore ship should be a real option to choose from"
and not some biewtiful tier4 skin that you can use at tier5.
The disconnect is that doing this presupposes that doing more damage with my weapons because I pushed a red button is a meaningful play difference from doing more damage with exotic particles because I pushed a blue button. Those, to me, are the same play style - they both focus on doing damage as efficiently as possible to finish the mission ASAP. The only way for meaningful play differences to exist in my book is for some ships to be "better" than others in the sense that some will be more efficient about finishing missions faster. Put another way, I think play differences are all about the goals you have (do I want to go as fast as possible, or do I want to have fun dorking around with my friends? etc.), and not about how you choose to achieve what you perceive to be the goal everyone SHOULD have.
In this context, I feel like the Galaxy is able to do anything, even PvP, if you are good enough player. If you are not good enough, you have two options: Play something "better" for your style/skill, or try to become better at using what the Galaxy does have better.
you known what? i really like to copy and past this last paragraph and make a thread about it in the pvp forum, just to see the response of pvper with the affirmation that the galaxy retrofit is able to do anything, even in pvp.
ho yeah, that should be really good.
tomorow, i will do it:D
maybe 2 separate thread, one for pug, and one for premade,hmmm will be good.
Its not just the Galaxy that needs to be redone, the ENTIRE Engineering Boff Powers need to be changed. So that they are more useful in general and have more interesting offensive options like; (Just a few of my ideas for sprucing Engineering powers.)
**Zero Elevation Phaser Sweep (30 second cooldown)
- Fires beam arrays 360 in a circular pattern.
- Decloaks any ship within 5km for 5 seconds with 5 second cloak disabled.
- Triangulates on any shield impact with Quantum/Photon Torpedo allowing the torpedo to instantly lock and disable a random subsystem for 2 seconds.
**Tuvok Maneuver (2 min cooldown)
- Ejects an antimatter containment pod.
- Fires phasers just as the ship gets a 50% impulse and turn rate speed
- Resulting explosion causes a 2 second disable and applies "Antimatter Plasma Fire"
Also ADD SCALING DAMAGE to Engineering and Science team which Tactical Team currently has to not penalize tac-less ships.
its pretty pointless to explain to most in this sub forum why it sucks. they dont even have the frame of reference to understand. they have never pvped, or do not regularly, and they think whatever can get them through pve is somehow fine. they dont run any ship near their potential so limitations and advantages are completely invisible to them.
I've PvP'ed plenty, recently not as much as I would like because of time diffuiculties. (between new child, finishing my degree, family, friends and work). Most of my time is grinding lately because ym fleet has slowndown just before we hit T4 for everything (want those goodies).My Engie'/Excel' build might not be perfect, but I am not afraid to use it in PvP and have done well with it. My build is set up with PvP in mind.
I would love to work with some guys to team up with that actually do teamwork, but said problems have made it hard to find some people and time to do it. Otherwise, PvP is the end goal, and where the game should be for end-game users. Say what you want about, but I certainly have the frame of reference to understand.
I guess its just that some of us aren't as awesome as you that we have an impeded capability of understanding your superior logic.
for tanking i use the fleet ambassador with the uni LT used for sci. way better set up for tanking then the galaxies set up as it's current set up makes it actually a pretty poor tank boff wise
which is why i would love it if the gal could have a LTC uni so i could put sci there but i know that would never happen so all i want is for it to have the same boff as the fleet negh'var.... it's KDF mirror and just get a ens uni
heavy eng focus is not a role, it a layout status.
and no they are many people that want to tank, if that what you were trying to said, but none of them want to suck about it, that different.
The anvil is a role when there is a hammer, right now the anvil is weak, so people only bother having hammers. Engineering heavy ships should be able to be the anvil, but its poor parity with hammers (tactically heavy ships) tends for everyone to just go hammer. I'd like to see both be prevalent.
no, the solution he propose is a far strech idea that the galaxy will have a role simply by the result of better engie power being added to the game.
wich i still wait the proof that this will do what he claim.
To you and others, its a far stretch, to others its not. See below regarding to the proof (which you would still disagree with if I did prove it).
yes, because this more efficient eng setup is also something that will be given to other cruiser as well, so the problem will remain the same and nothing will change with the role of the galaxy.
but don't get me wrong, better and more efficient eng power is still welcome, just like the cruiser command, but don't think even for a second that this would change anything to the galaxy problem.
better engie power and eficiency is a cruiser problem, not a specific galaxy problem.
Again, it seems unless the Galaxy is made better than some other cruiser, you think its a bad idea.
If the performance increases when its facing an escort or sci ship in PvP, I call that a win.
no, it is you who concluded that. so let me rephrase your sentence.
it's not about making the galaxy mechanically better than other options, it about making the galaxy.... an option, period.
you see, that sound strange huh? since everyone is used to use the ship as a good skin and nothing more.
what whamhammer come about is not a solution, it is a claim of a solution, he has yet to proove me that his "solution" would do what he claim it will.
What everyone has put forth is a claim of solution. Unless the solution is accepted and proven true, all of them are claims.
As far as my "proving" what I said, all your going to do is move the goalposts of what a goal would be (since there are many exact ideas to what the goal exactly is) and talk it down anyways. I have a feeling that Cryptic could do the things I have said, make it a better ship, and you would still say how bad of an idea it would be.
i can agree with that, with reserve, but i can.
cryptic choose this ship to be a tank in this game, we may not be agree with that, but in the end it is irelevant, because indeed everyone will have his opinion, and to be honest this ship was portraye more than something that can take damage than one that is a DPS killer in the show.
so the cruiser tanking role look somehow more appropriate than the one of an escort for example.
but that don't change the fact that even if cryptic choose this role, it should then be a real option in that one.
I agree, and I think that there is more than one way to do it and I think addressing skills and consoles would be a darned good place to put much of that effort.
The anvil is a role when there is a hammer, right now the anvil is weak, so people only bother having hammers. Engineering heavy ships should be able to be the anvil, but its poor parity with hammers (tactically heavy ships) tends for everyone to just go hammer. I'd like to see both be prevalent.
you are comparing the role of tactical ship with the one of the tank/healer ship, wich i don't.
from the start, my point is that in the heal/tank role the galaxy is a non option in comparison to other tank/healer cruiser.
and not, that it is a non option against tactical cruiser, because that is not his role.
That would depend on the changes they make to some skills, wouldn't it?
no, just like i explain to you many time now.
To you and others, its a far stretch, to others its not. See below regarding to the proof (which you would still disagree with if I did prove it).
that this is a far strech idea or not, is not a matter of opinion here, but logic and proof.
you said that your solution would give a role to the galaxy, so that mean that you have a precise idea of how it would operate that change.
so that also mean that this is something that can be logically demonstrate.
if you can't demonstrate it, it mean that it is more a far strech opinion than a tangible solution.
why would one hesitate to demonstrate something that he known he have some proof of?
one can not disagree with a proof, by the same definition of what a proof is.
Again, it seems unless the Galaxy is made better than some other cruiser, you think its a bad idea.
to that i will responde, that to you and some well known others, it seems that any change made to the galaxy that will result in something different than being a luxuary ( 2500zen ) star cruiser clone skin, is a bad idea.
If the performance increases when its facing an escort or sci ship in PvP, I call that a win.
first, that what the cruiser command are for.
second, i would call a win, anything that would render the galaxy retrofit a real option in regard to other cruiser in it same categorie.
to give an exagerated example, let said that the shuttle have acces to cruiser command.
it will give them performance increase when they will facing escort or sci ship, but would anyone still choose them instead of a regular cruiser to face escort? no.
again, this was an exagerated example but one that describe very well the situation of the galaxy.
other than it look there is no reason to choose a galaxy other a star cruiser, ambassador or odyssey.
no matter that he don't have the same firepower or that he don't turn as good or can't tank as long, there is just no useful bo combination that can be found, no special abilities that can not be reproduced in any of these ships.
if you have trouble to find a Synonym to redundant, i can give you one: galaxy retrofit.
As far as my "proving" what I said, all your going to do is move the goalposts of what a goal would be (since there are many exact ideas to what the goal exactly is) and talk it down anyways.
and as far as i can see, i have been very consistent from the beguining on that point.
you, on the other hand, beguin to change it lately.
we were talking about giving a role to the galaxy in comparison to other cruiser in the same categorie.
you claim that you would have a solution to that, wich i ask you to proove it.
since you are unable to do so, you are now speaking about increasing it performance against escort and science ship.
so who is really moving the goalpost here?
I have a feeling that Cryptic could do the things I have said, make it a better ship, and you would still say how bad of an idea it would be.
the cruiser command make the galaxy retrofit a better ship, daes it make it a real option to choose over other cruiser, still not, even tho it got 4 of them.
why? because this is not something directly adressed to the galaxy but to all cruiser, same with your proposal.
is it a bad idea that some change in the game make the galaxy better? of course not.
but it is a bad idea to bielieve that a general cruiser fix would make the galaxy a viable option in regard to other cruiser.
I agree, and I think that there is more than one way to do it and I think addressing skills and consoles would be a darned good place to put much of that effort.
adressing skills and console is a good way to start indeed, but not the end.
Why are the players in conflict? The vast majority of this game is co-operative PvE. Even in competition, why are the players "in conflict"? Why is it not the case that the players are using their competition with each other to create a cooperative, fun experience?
Basically, before you even get to use competitive balance as a yardstick, you need to defend why it is a useful measure, and why it is a good one.
player a) has the potential to destroy the other, thus winning.
player b) has the potential to cause stalemate where nobody wins.
who is most likely going to come out on top?
why is this useless disparity being pushed for?
Because that's not what's actually being pushed for? Because PvP balance isn't important? Because PvP isn't a 1 on 1 experience? Because some people reject the hyperbolic notion that certain ships and combinations are "useless"? Because some people are willing to accept that skill and planning can make up for a lot of gear imbalance? There are any number of reasons to disagree with you, and all of them are at least as valid the position you are taking.
for all the sophistry you pinched into this thread, you still havnt established why equal investment and equal ability should result in one player the victim by design. which in this game, is the galaxy.
It's not sophistry. The fact that you don't (or can't) defend your core assumptions doesn't make me wrong or illogical to question them. You continue to present your arguments in terms of obviously fallacious absolutes, and then get in a snit when people have the audacity to point out that nothing you say is anything more than a personal opinion.
Guess what, I have opinions too:
Galaxy players aren't victims. The ship works fine. I've used it, even in PvP, and had fun, including the kind of fun you would recognize (as in, "winning" matches/duels). I've contributed meaningfully in every mission I've ever done with a team, and I've never felt any need to apologize for bringing whatever I want into an STF or a PvP arena. You are welcome to have different perceptions of reality than me, I don't care. You cannot "prove" that I'm mistaken about what I perceive, nor can you "prove" that I'm lying, or that your contrary perceptions are "better" than mine. You and I see the world differently, which shouldn't matter, but does here because you haven't yet found a way to justify your demands for change outside of your mistaken belief that it is somehow objectively "correct", so when I disprove that core assumption, your argument falls apart.
Of course, you could try to support your argument by saying it does more good than bad, but that basically boils down to "it makes people happier than they are now". The issue is that while the changes might make YOU happy, there is no real evidence that they would make the majority of players happy, nor that the level of happiness the changes would bring are large enough to justify time invested. As I've said all along, this always inevitably collapses back down to "I want changes because I prefer them". It's fine to think that way. It's certainly also fine to express that idea. It's less fine to act like your personal preferences have some sort of imprimatur of "truth" simply because you think a plurality or even majority of internet screen-names agrees with you.
right, because people should just be penalised for equal investment just because of some utterly selfish and juvenile idea that others are there just to be victims to people that chose to play a prometheus over a galaxy despite both being cruisers.
No, of course not, but since I don't think Galaxy players are being punished, I don't see why this matters. I've never felt punished when I used mine. I also don't see why, if you feel punished for running the Galaxy, you don't use something else, or play a different game? It's not like anyone forces you to use a Galaxy. Insofar as punishment can be said to result from using a Galaxy, I feel like it's entirely self-inflicted.
I certainly don't think that people who disagree with you are doing so from an assumption that others are in game simply to be victims... that sounds more like the projections of someone who is so wrapped up in the idea of competition as a way of determining value that he can't even consider the idea that someone might find it fun to play hard, regardless of "winning" or "losing", as well as regardless of who had a slight advantage/disadvantage.
no amount of skill and planning will change that between 2 equal opponents, with equal investment, the galaxies best hope is stalemate where others could actually win. because that is built into the game with the very notion of being a "tank".
Are you for real with this?
Sigh.
Yet another example of sloganeering instead of actually thinking. Yes, this looks like a good soundbite, but it's on face an absurd statement. You are literally saying that no amount of additional skill over your opponent will help you beat that opponent if he has the same skill level as you. This is the rough equivalent of saying "If you have infinity skill in the Galaxy, someone else will have infinity plus one skill in their ship, so you're still screwed". It's also provably false, since you forget that luck can also play a role in a match that is otherwise very even.
I would love to work with some guys to team up with that actually do teamwork, but said problems have made it hard to find some people and time to do it. Otherwise, PvP is the end goal, and where the game should be for end-game users. Say what you want about, but I certainly have the frame of reference to understand.
id like to think no one has impeded capability of understanding, but people most certainly have an impeded capability of actually learning to play, so they actually know enough not to post cringe worthy ideas.
Yet another example of sloganeering instead of actually thinking. Yes, this looks like a good soundbite, but it's on face an absurd statement. You are literally saying that no amount of additional skill over your opponent will help you beat that opponent if he has the same skill level as you. This is the rough equivalent of saying "If you have infinity skill in the Galaxy, someone else will have infinity plus one skill in their ship, so you're still screwed". It's also provably false, since you forget that luck can also play a role in a match that is otherwise very even.
its like you dont even play the game. you actually think stale mates cant happen? that they arent incredible common, basically the rule, unless its 2 tac escorts fighting?
Why are the players in conflict? The vast majority of this game is co-operative PvE. Even in competition, why are the players "in conflict"? Why is it not the case that the players are using their competition with each other to create a cooperative, fun experience?
Basically, before you even get to use competitive balance as a yardstick, you need to defend why it is a useful measure, and why it is a good one.
Because that's not what's actually being pushed for? Because PvP balance isn't important? Because PvP isn't a 1 on 1 experience? Because some people reject the hyperbolic notion that certain ships and combinations are "useless"? Because some people are willing to accept that skill and planning can make up for a lot of gear imbalance? There are any number of reasons to disagree with you, and all of them are at least as valid the position you are taking.
seeing as this is your opinion of pvp, no one should be surprised.
its like you dont even play the game. you actually think stale mates cant happen? that they arent incredible common, basically the rule, unless its 2 tac escorts fighting?
Its like you don't even read, or bother to think about what you're reading. I said that skill could overcome the minor drawbacks to the Galaxy if one was so inclined. Skollulfr's response was so nonsensical that it crossed over from fallacy to farce. His response was that no amount of skill could overcome the fact that if you have equal skill you can't win. That is pants-on-head dumb, is what I was saying.
Yes, stalemates happen, especially in 1v1 settings, because the game isn't/wasn't balanced around that. That doesn't change the fact that a sufficient advantage in skill can break that stalemate.
seeing as this is your opinion of pvp, no one should be surprised.
Exactly. Nobody should be surprised that my wholly legitimate, carefully explained, well defended, and non-threatening view of PvP has caused me to have divergent conclusions from you. Again, this wouldn't be a problem if you would just grow up and admit that maybe I have a point about how different people can reasonably value different things, play different ways, and most importantly enjoy the game without one person having to declare a particular viewpoint to be "better" than the other.
Of course, you can't admit that, because you're afraid that if you abandon the pretext that it is possible to objectively determine who is playing the game the "right way", it basically guts your justification for demanding changes you want. At best, your argument would boil down to "more people like my opinion than yours", which I think we can agree is the epitome of a craven attempt to bully people with a crass appeal to peer pressure, instead of actually engaging with people who disagree with you.
I wish I could say this would be the last time I'd demonstrate the futility of your attempt to prove "opinions" to be "facts", but I'm sure it won't be. Nevertheless, here it is again, as clear as I can make it:
The Galaxy has three Engineering Ensign powers.
See how this is something that requires no judgement, and can be proven objectively? That's what a fact is. Now, on the other hand, here is an opinion:
Having three Engineering Ensign powers is bad.
See the difference? This requires a subjective claim, and thus can't EVER be anything but an opinion. That doesn't even mean it's a bad opinion, nor that it is baseless, but it is not a fact, and yet you keep treating it as one. My project this entire time has been to try to get you to grasp that very simple, very powerful concept. The things you believe in aren't necessarily true, and so you can't use them to justify your call to change things on the basis of what is objectively true.
I'm not sure if you think me telling you your argument is bad is the same thing as saying your opinion is invalid (it's not), or that me disagreeing with you means that I'm saying you have no right to your opinion (I'm not), or if you think statements like "Your opinion can't ever be proven objectively right" means the same thing as "Your opinion is is objectively wrong" (it doesn't), or what. Whatever the case, again, to be clear, you are allowed to like the Galaxy. You are allowed to think it's bad. You are even allowed to express those feelings. You can state your desires, make suggestions, whatever. What you should NOT do is demand things based on your opinions and desires, and you especially should not attempt to dismiss the contrary opinions and desires of other people in the course of making those demands.
For someone who has such a firm grasp on the difference between the subjective and the objective, you apparently have no problem in using a flowing mixture of both elements to support your positions.
last galaxy i saw in an stf i ended up babysitting.
i was using a risian turret boat & still killing faster than it was while healing it.
not to mention, the"you cant prove it bla bla bla" argument you are making is poster-child sophistry.
Your anecdote is not better than mine. I can make a Galaxy work fine - the fact that some people can't doesn't change that. And repeating my flawless and frankly self-evidently true argument in a mocking tone does not, in fact, disprove my argument, nor justify your claim that it is a logical fallacy or rhetorical trick.
where we differ is that i want a volume based system where people can specialise their chosen ship toward a given goal in a dynamic way.
all you want is to deny people the oppertunity to take the item they perchased an actually push competitive boundaries. all because you have taken an utterly mushy position of "well im having fun so everything is fine because me me me me".
A volume based system is not objectively better, you just like it more. You haven't demonstrated that it will make most or even many players happy, because you can't even acknowledge that different players might want different things than you. Your entire argument is centered around your ego-driven assumption that you've got it all figured out, and that any dissenting views are automatically either wrong or immoral. And yet, somehow, you think I'm the one who's being self-centered.
You want the game to be something its not, and the kicker is you don't even have the perspective to realize that even if your suggestions weren't (IMO) wrong-headed, they are utterly impossible to implement given the state of the game now. I not denying anyone anything, because I'm not in a position to make decisions about how the game works, nor am I demanding any kind of change. I am, at best, rejecting the rationale you have offered for your demands on the basis that they have no force beyond your opinions.
again, with the sophistry. sophistry [sof-uh-stree]
noun, plural sophistries. 1.a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2.a false argument; sophism.
the basis of what your argument is, is a wishy-washy "waa waa waa its all subjective you cant prove it cause its all fiction & preference in the end".
I know what the definition of sophistry is, but I strongly suspect you don't. You seem to employ it as a catchphrase whenever you feel frustrated by an argument that you can't otherwise grapple with. Here you have neglected to even address my point, other than to restate it mockingly, nor have you demonstrated what, if anything about the claim that subjective things are subjective is controversial, fallacious, or even just not self evidently true. Preferences ARE subjective, as are interpretations of fiction. I'm sorry that you chose to present your argument as an objective one, but it just isn't.
entire perpose of tank, try to force stalemate.
unless you use cheese mechanics to squeese dps out is a platform designed to be a target for other to shoot untill they get bored & make a mistake.
So, tanks are supposed to force a stalemate by not dying. The proof for this is if you use the tools tanks have to do damage, you are evidently being "cheesy" (which is a subjective claim btw), and that Tanks are supposed to wait for the other to make a mistake. This is nonsense, in the literal sense that it isn't even worth trying to engage it as presented.
Instead, here's what I think you mean, sans subjective hyperbole and self-disproving statements:
Tanks are designed to draw out a fight long enough to wear down an opponent, either physically (through pressure damage) or mentally (by frustrating opponents into making a mistake). This kind of play is unrewarding to Skollulfr.
I have no arguments if that is, in fact, an accurate translation. That is not, btw, the same as a stalemate. Now, I'm not saying that stalemates aren't possible, or even common between certain builds. I'm just saying that "taking longer to force a decision than I want" is not the same thing as a "Stalemate". I also think that if there was more objective based PvP it would be pretty easy to show that a result where neither party was destroyed is not necessarily a "tie".
sophistry as padding for hyperbolic false dichotomy.
No. Again, I don't think you know what these words mean. If you do, then please explain how they apply to the post in question. Spoiler alert: They don't.
two equally skilled players, both in the same ship same skills same skill build, one with mk10 common gear, the other in fleet gear. guess who dief very quicly to the other one.
It would be a guess who dies, because that's not anything close to a forgone conclusion, and it's laughable that you think it is.
Also, irrelevant. My position is that skill can overcome the shortcomings of gear. You are again attempting to disprove that skill can make a difference by using a nonsense hypothetical that specifically removes skill from the equation.
repeat the same experiment, one in a full speck galaxy, one in an alpha bop with green gear, and patience as their only skill + a little bit of knowledge of hold counters, galaxy mightn't even see it coming.
and unless the bop pilot messes up, the galaxy has no counter. it cant run, it cant chase, and if the bop pilot doesnt mess it up, the galaxy cant lock it down long enough to kill it. its just a victim of the aggression of the bop pilot.
why? because its a tank. and tanks arent allowed to fight back.
So, again, you are ignoring my point that the more skillful player will likely win that contest. Actually, it's worse than that - you are admitting that the BoP player will lose if he is out-played by the Galaxy player, you just don't realize that there are things the Galaxy player can do to encourage the BoP to "mess up". Basically, again, all you've proven is you are incapable of dealing with my actual argument, and instead must fall back on what you think are clever sounding slogans and soundbites with no real reasoning power behind them.
For someone who has such a firm grasp on the difference between the subjective and the objective, you apparently have no problem in using a flowing mixture of both elements to support your positions.
Its like you don't even read, or bother to think about what you're reading. I said that skill could overcome the minor drawbacks to the Galaxy if one was so inclined. Skollulfr's response was so nonsensical that it crossed over from fallacy to farce. His response was that no amount of skill could overcome the fact that if you have equal skill you can't win. That is pants-on-head dumb, is what I was saying.
Yes, stalemates happen, especially in 1v1 settings, because the game isn't/wasn't balanced around that. That doesn't change the fact that a sufficient advantage in skill can break that stalemate.
skill will get you no were when in no possible situations would any damage numbers add up enough to actually kills something. you could do everything perfect and at the best possible time and your most likely never going to get through a shield faceing with something like a galaxy. again, its like you dont even play. the galaxy drawbacks are damning and fundamental. and like always, anything you could do with a galaxy you could do drastically better in any other cruiser. healing or damage. an ody could put out 2 or 3 times the heal numbers, and the avenger could easily double or triple the DPS. even a fleet star and fleet heavy, with just a bit better turn rate, better consoles, and bester ENS station are at least 50% better. the gap between the galaxy and the 'second worst' ships is huge.
Exactly. Nobody should be surprised that my wholly legitimate, carefully explained, well defended, and non-threatening view of PvP has caused me to have divergent conclusions from you. Again, this wouldn't be a problem if you would just grow up and admit that maybe I have a point about how different people can reasonably value different things, play different ways, and most importantly enjoy the game without one person having to declare a particular viewpoint to be "better" than the other.
your extreamly dismissive of pvp, actually. basically a joke of a position. thats the only part of the game were something called balance comes into play, because your competing against other players in other playable ships. if there was no pvp, no one would even bring up balance, they would just want inferior things buffed.
Of course, you can't admit that, because you're afraid that if you abandon the pretext that it is possible to objectively determine who is playing the game the "right way", it basically guts your justification for demanding changes you want. At best, your argument would boil down to "more people like my opinion than yours", which I think we can agree is the epitome of a craven attempt to bully people with a crass appeal to peer pressure, instead of actually engaging with people who disagree with you.
the 'right way' is not sucking, knowing how to make a ship effective no mater how you do it, and actually being able to defend yourself. thats a fairly broad all encompassing concept. but i can see how you would like to paint someone whos not you with some sort of narrow view on things, would be hard to argue against the 'right way' if you didnt.
I wish I could say this would be the last time I'd demonstrate the futility of your attempt to prove "opinions" to be "facts", but I'm sure it won't be. Nevertheless, here it is again, as clear as I can make it:
The Galaxy has three Engineering Ensign powers.
See how this is something that requires no judgement, and can be proven objectively? That's what a fact is. Now, on the other hand, here is an opinion:
Having three Engineering Ensign powers is bad.
See the difference? This requires a subjective claim, and thus can't EVER be anything but an opinion. That doesn't even mean it's a bad opinion, nor that it is baseless, but it is not a fact, and yet you keep treating it as one. My project this entire time has been to try to get you to grasp that very simple, very powerful concept. The things you believe in aren't necessarily true, and so you can't use them to justify your call to change things on the basis of what is objectively true.
I'm not sure if you think me telling you your argument is bad is the same thing as saying your opinion is invalid (it's not), or that me disagreeing with you means that I'm saying you have no right to your opinion (I'm not), or if you think statements like "Your opinion can't ever be proven objectively right" means the same thing as "Your opinion is is objectively wrong" (it doesn't), or what. Whatever the case, again, to be clear, you are allowed to like the Galaxy. You are allowed to think it's bad. You are even allowed to express those feelings. You can state your desires, make suggestions, whatever. What you should NOT do is demand things based on your opinions and desires, and you especially should not attempt to dismiss the contrary opinions and desires of other people in the course of making those demands.
if you had a drop of skill you would know thats not a subjective claim. it can be demonstrated that its a horrible station combination that has terrible opportunity cost for anything your trying to make the ship do. your in denial, and your gravely ignorant so from your prospective this all seems unknowable. its all actually quite simple when you get a proper grasp of the meta, everything is quantifiable, i can look at a set of items, a combination of station powers, stats like hitpoints and turn rates, and know EXACTLY how a ship will perform in practice. because ive pvped with and against it all, ive seen every single thing at its breaking point. that is frame of reference, if you cant say the same, you dont have it.
Jesus christ you guys work fast and argue hard. I know I'm behind, but if I spend an hour trying to dig up my last post, and say anything related to someone's argument, it'll be so old no one will care.
Umm, if I try to jump in now, I'll only drown to death faster than a gunshot wound to the brain.
So as I carefully back out, I say, with all pleasantness, "May the best man win, and best of luck."
Hopefully in due time, I can rejoin the conversation here again.
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
skill will get you no were when in no possible situations would any damage numbers add up enough to actually kills something. you could do everything perfect and at the best possible time and your most likely never going to get through a shield faceing with something like a galaxy. again, its like you dont even play. the galaxy drawbacks are damning and fundamental. and like always, anything you could do with a galaxy you could do drastically better in any other cruiser. healing or damage. an ody could put out 2 or 3 times the heal numbers, and the avenger could easily double or triple the DPS. even a fleet star and fleet heavy, with just a bit better turn rate, better consoles, and bester ENS station are at least 50% better. the gap between the galaxy and the 'second worst' ships is huge.
I have won PvP matchups while using a Galaxy. I have completed STFs successfully while in a Galaxy. I have had fun while in a Galaxy. Your position that there is no possible situation where those things could happen is thus provably false.
The argument you are supposed to be making is something like:
"I feel like there are many situations where I would perform better in a non-Galaxy ship, and I feel like that's important to me."
That is fine. But you can't tell me that the ship is literally impossible to use, since I have actually used it successfully.
your extreamly dismissive of pvp, actually. basically a joke of a position. thats the only part of the game were something called balance comes into play, because your competing against other players in other playable ships. if there was no pvp, no one would even bring up balance, they would just want inferior things buffed.
I'm not dismissive of PvP at all - I do it a lot and I'm fairly good at it. I am dismissive of the idea that only PvP matters, and that any other way of playing is "wrong".
the 'right way' is not sucking, knowing how to make a ship effective no mater how you do it, and actually being able to defend yourself. thats a fairly broad all encompassing concept. but i can see how you would like to paint someone whos not you with some sort of narrow view on things, would be hard to argue against the 'right way' if you didnt.
See, like this right here. I'm dismissive of your assertion that your way of playing is "right", because it just isn't. There isn't one right way to play. There isn't even one right way to "not suck". Those are subjective terms, and my definition is different from yours. The difference between us is I am not dismissing your opinion, I"m dismissing your right to attempt to bully people into agreeing with you. Put another way, I'm insisting that you stop dismissing the people who disagree with you, and that you are so tied up in your subjective opinions that you are treating that disagreement as though it were somehow an attack on your opinions.
if you had a drop of skill you would know thats not a subjective claim. it can be demonstrated that its a horrible station combination that has terrible opportunity cost for anything your trying to make the ship do. your in denial, and your gravely ignorant so from your prospective this all seems unknowable. its all actually quite simple when you get a proper grasp of the meta, everything is quantifiable, i can look at a set of items, a combination of station powers, stats like hitpoints and turn rates, and know EXACTLY how a ship will perform in practice. because ive pvped with and against it all, ive seen every single thing at its breaking point. that is frame of reference, if you cant say the same, you dont have it.
Eh, I'm not going to get into an epeen contest with you about who has what superior claim to authority via skill. I am confident that I have sufficient skill and systems mastery to justify my claims, but that doesn't even matter, because you are still just flat wrong about what it means to be objective or subjective. I can find uses and value in a three eng ensign set up. It's not my favorite, but I can make it work. That's the objective thing. Objectively, by my own standards and in my own play experience, the Galaxy class is perhaps not ideal, but workable. I feel like you keep falling into the trap of mistaking things that you feel strongly about for things that must be universally true.
What I acknowledge is subjective are the standards which I use, as well as my own perceptions of what it means to meet them. You are free to say that I don't meet your standards. I am free to say that is utterly irrelevant, because your standards are only YOUR standards, and that you have no right to impose them on others. I can't fathom why this is so tough for you to grasp. Clearly, you have no trouble understanding that my standards need not apply to you, why can't you see that the reverse is self-evidently true?
Just bc you can complete ESTFS and have dualed some incompetent people in 1vs1's in the Galaxy doesn't mean the ship is fine either.
My fleet could all jump in tier 3 ships and complete ESTFS with the optional. Just bc a ship is workable doesn't mean it's competitive.
It does, depending on your definition of competitive. My definition is "gives me a reasonable chance to be successful no matter what I choose to do". And the Galaxy does that, in my estimation.
And even if it doesn't, it doesn't matter if "being competitive" isn't the point of the game.
It does, depending on your definition of competitive. My definition is "gives me a reasonable chance to be successful no matter what I choose to do". And the Galaxy does that, in my estimation.
so by that then you think a shuttle is competitive
I have had fun while in a Galaxy. Your position that there is no possible situation where those things could happen is thus provably false.
Please point to where this this position was clearly stated in the manner which you have presented it, else admit that you characterization of their position is false.
Comments
^^^^This part that is quoted is my point. And thank you Mr. S.
That's been my point for quite some time now.
The problem with (one factions) ship to have the same layout as another (same factions) ships is that Cryptic won't likely do it because unless its a skin someone wants, no one would buy a second copy. It's basically attrition into its own sales. Other factions ships are a different story, but the Romulans are cross faction, so that might be why.
heavy eng focus is not a role, it a layout status.
and no they are many people that want to tank, if that what you were trying to said, but none of them want to suck about it, that different.
look:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...=909601&page=2
the guy ask for advice on wich to choose between a galaxy and a star cruiser for tanking purpose, guess what he choose in the end... the galax....hahaha, well no, bad luck, he choose the star cruiser:rolleyes:
no, again, this is not a role in gameplay term, it is a preference.
no one should be punish for his preferences, altrought i do anderstand why it happened to that ship.
many players want to play with the galaxy, there is no reason for cryptic to make it efficient, it will sell anyway, let keep these good layout for our lockboxships
no, that what most people like you are trying to make bielieve, they are still some possibilities in term of bo layout that would not come into anyone toes, if only cryptic desire to do so for the galaxy, it is still time.
you mean like the avenger or lockbox ships? cryptic didn't seem to have a problem with that, why should we?
ho, i known, it because it is a galaxy, well that make sense.
more likely to something that have no role into something that have one, finally.
no, the solution he propose is a far strech idea that the galaxy will have a role simply by the result of better engie power being added to the game.
wich i still wait the proof that this will do what he claim.
yes, because this more efficient eng setup is also something that will be given to other cruiser as well, so the problem will remain the same and nothing will change with the role of the galaxy.
but don't get me wrong, better and more efficient eng power is still welcome, just like the cruiser command, but don't think even for a second that this would change anything to the galaxy problem.
better engie power and eficiency is a cruiser problem, not a specific galaxy problem.
no, it is you who concluded that. so let me rephrase your sentence.
it's not about making the galaxy mechanically better than other options, it about making the galaxy.... an option, period.
you see, that sound strange huh? since everyone is used to use the ship as a good skin and nothing more.
what whamhammer come about is not a solution, it is a claim of a solution, he has yet to proove me that his "solution" would do what he claim it will.
since everyone got a different idea about what this ship should be, pretending to solve that is indeed pointless.
there is however a consensus that this ship is not were is suppose to be in term of role and efficiency, and many time even the people that desire it to be as powerfull as a regent in the first place show that they were ok to accept the cryptic view of the ship in tanking/healing/support role, and support a better layout that would go that way.
i can agree with that, with reserve, but i can.
cryptic choose this ship to be a tank in this game, we may not be agree with that, but in the end it is irelevant, because indeed everyone will have his opinion, and to be honest this ship was portraye more than something that can take damage than one that is a DPS killer in the show.
so the cruiser tanking role look somehow more appropriate than the one of an escort for example.
but that don't change the fact that even if cryptic choose this role, it should then be a real option in that one.
and i am not sure why there must be a 2500zen ship to be fluff in this game?
and why just 1, why not 5 cstore ship?
why just the galaxy?
just because?
i would certainly give you the " all cstore ship should be a real option to choose from"
and not some biewtiful tier4 skin that you can use at tier5.
you known what? i really like to copy and past this last paragraph and make a thread about it in the pvp forum, just to see the response of pvper with the affirmation that the galaxy retrofit is able to do anything, even in pvp.
ho yeah, that should be really good.
tomorow, i will do it:D
maybe 2 separate thread, one for pug, and one for premade,hmmm will be good.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Its not just the Galaxy that needs to be redone, the ENTIRE Engineering Boff Powers need to be changed. So that they are more useful in general and have more interesting offensive options like; (Just a few of my ideas for sprucing Engineering powers.)
**Zero Elevation Phaser Sweep (30 second cooldown)
- Fires beam arrays 360 in a circular pattern.
- Decloaks any ship within 5km for 5 seconds with 5 second cloak disabled.
- Triangulates on any shield impact with Quantum/Photon Torpedo allowing the torpedo to instantly lock and disable a random subsystem for 2 seconds.
**Tuvok Maneuver (2 min cooldown)
- Ejects an antimatter containment pod.
- Fires phasers just as the ship gets a 50% impulse and turn rate speed
- Resulting explosion causes a 2 second disable and applies "Antimatter Plasma Fire"
Also ADD SCALING DAMAGE to Engineering and Science team which Tactical Team currently has to not penalize tac-less ships.
I've PvP'ed plenty, recently not as much as I would like because of time diffuiculties. (between new child, finishing my degree, family, friends and work). Most of my time is grinding lately because ym fleet has slowndown just before we hit T4 for everything (want those goodies).My Engie'/Excel' build might not be perfect, but I am not afraid to use it in PvP and have done well with it. My build is set up with PvP in mind.
I would love to work with some guys to team up with that actually do teamwork, but said problems have made it hard to find some people and time to do it. Otherwise, PvP is the end goal, and where the game should be for end-game users. Say what you want about, but I certainly have the frame of reference to understand.
I guess its just that some of us aren't as awesome as you that we have an impeded capability of understanding your superior logic.
which is why i would love it if the gal could have a LTC uni so i could put sci there but i know that would never happen so all i want is for it to have the same boff as the fleet negh'var.... it's KDF mirror and just get a ens uni
The anvil is a role when there is a hammer, right now the anvil is weak, so people only bother having hammers. Engineering heavy ships should be able to be the anvil, but its poor parity with hammers (tactically heavy ships) tends for everyone to just go hammer. I'd like to see both be prevalent.
That would depend on the changes they make to some skills, wouldn't it?
To you and others, its a far stretch, to others its not. See below regarding to the proof (which you would still disagree with if I did prove it).
Again, it seems unless the Galaxy is made better than some other cruiser, you think its a bad idea.
If the performance increases when its facing an escort or sci ship in PvP, I call that a win.
no, it is you who concluded that. so let me rephrase your sentence.
it's not about making the galaxy mechanically better than other options, it about making the galaxy.... an option, period.
you see, that sound strange huh? since everyone is used to use the ship as a good skin and nothing more.
What everyone has put forth is a claim of solution. Unless the solution is accepted and proven true, all of them are claims.
As far as my "proving" what I said, all your going to do is move the goalposts of what a goal would be (since there are many exact ideas to what the goal exactly is) and talk it down anyways. I have a feeling that Cryptic could do the things I have said, make it a better ship, and you would still say how bad of an idea it would be.
I agree, and I think that there is more than one way to do it and I think addressing skills and consoles would be a darned good place to put much of that effort.
you are comparing the role of tactical ship with the one of the tank/healer ship, wich i don't.
from the start, my point is that in the heal/tank role the galaxy is a non option in comparison to other tank/healer cruiser.
and not, that it is a non option against tactical cruiser, because that is not his role.
no, just like i explain to you many time now.
that this is a far strech idea or not, is not a matter of opinion here, but logic and proof.
you said that your solution would give a role to the galaxy, so that mean that you have a precise idea of how it would operate that change.
so that also mean that this is something that can be logically demonstrate.
if you can't demonstrate it, it mean that it is more a far strech opinion than a tangible solution.
why would one hesitate to demonstrate something that he known he have some proof of?
one can not disagree with a proof, by the same definition of what a proof is.
to that i will responde, that to you and some well known others, it seems that any change made to the galaxy that will result in something different than being a luxuary ( 2500zen ) star cruiser clone skin, is a bad idea.
first, that what the cruiser command are for.
second, i would call a win, anything that would render the galaxy retrofit a real option in regard to other cruiser in it same categorie.
to give an exagerated example, let said that the shuttle have acces to cruiser command.
it will give them performance increase when they will facing escort or sci ship, but would anyone still choose them instead of a regular cruiser to face escort? no.
again, this was an exagerated example but one that describe very well the situation of the galaxy.
other than it look there is no reason to choose a galaxy other a star cruiser, ambassador or odyssey.
no matter that he don't have the same firepower or that he don't turn as good or can't tank as long, there is just no useful bo combination that can be found, no special abilities that can not be reproduced in any of these ships.
if you have trouble to find a Synonym to redundant, i can give you one: galaxy retrofit.
and as far as i can see, i have been very consistent from the beguining on that point.
you, on the other hand, beguin to change it lately.
we were talking about giving a role to the galaxy in comparison to other cruiser in the same categorie.
you claim that you would have a solution to that, wich i ask you to proove it.
since you are unable to do so, you are now speaking about increasing it performance against escort and science ship.
so who is really moving the goalpost here?
the cruiser command make the galaxy retrofit a better ship, daes it make it a real option to choose over other cruiser, still not, even tho it got 4 of them.
why? because this is not something directly adressed to the galaxy but to all cruiser, same with your proposal.
is it a bad idea that some change in the game make the galaxy better? of course not.
but it is a bad idea to bielieve that a general cruiser fix would make the galaxy a viable option in regard to other cruiser.
adressing skills and console is a good way to start indeed, but not the end.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Why are the players in conflict? The vast majority of this game is co-operative PvE. Even in competition, why are the players "in conflict"? Why is it not the case that the players are using their competition with each other to create a cooperative, fun experience?
Basically, before you even get to use competitive balance as a yardstick, you need to defend why it is a useful measure, and why it is a good one.
Because that's not what's actually being pushed for? Because PvP balance isn't important? Because PvP isn't a 1 on 1 experience? Because some people reject the hyperbolic notion that certain ships and combinations are "useless"? Because some people are willing to accept that skill and planning can make up for a lot of gear imbalance? There are any number of reasons to disagree with you, and all of them are at least as valid the position you are taking.
It's not sophistry. The fact that you don't (or can't) defend your core assumptions doesn't make me wrong or illogical to question them. You continue to present your arguments in terms of obviously fallacious absolutes, and then get in a snit when people have the audacity to point out that nothing you say is anything more than a personal opinion.
Guess what, I have opinions too:
Galaxy players aren't victims. The ship works fine. I've used it, even in PvP, and had fun, including the kind of fun you would recognize (as in, "winning" matches/duels). I've contributed meaningfully in every mission I've ever done with a team, and I've never felt any need to apologize for bringing whatever I want into an STF or a PvP arena. You are welcome to have different perceptions of reality than me, I don't care. You cannot "prove" that I'm mistaken about what I perceive, nor can you "prove" that I'm lying, or that your contrary perceptions are "better" than mine. You and I see the world differently, which shouldn't matter, but does here because you haven't yet found a way to justify your demands for change outside of your mistaken belief that it is somehow objectively "correct", so when I disprove that core assumption, your argument falls apart.
Of course, you could try to support your argument by saying it does more good than bad, but that basically boils down to "it makes people happier than they are now". The issue is that while the changes might make YOU happy, there is no real evidence that they would make the majority of players happy, nor that the level of happiness the changes would bring are large enough to justify time invested. As I've said all along, this always inevitably collapses back down to "I want changes because I prefer them". It's fine to think that way. It's certainly also fine to express that idea. It's less fine to act like your personal preferences have some sort of imprimatur of "truth" simply because you think a plurality or even majority of internet screen-names agrees with you.
No, of course not, but since I don't think Galaxy players are being punished, I don't see why this matters. I've never felt punished when I used mine. I also don't see why, if you feel punished for running the Galaxy, you don't use something else, or play a different game? It's not like anyone forces you to use a Galaxy. Insofar as punishment can be said to result from using a Galaxy, I feel like it's entirely self-inflicted.
I certainly don't think that people who disagree with you are doing so from an assumption that others are in game simply to be victims... that sounds more like the projections of someone who is so wrapped up in the idea of competition as a way of determining value that he can't even consider the idea that someone might find it fun to play hard, regardless of "winning" or "losing", as well as regardless of who had a slight advantage/disadvantage.
Are you for real with this?
Sigh.
Yet another example of sloganeering instead of actually thinking. Yes, this looks like a good soundbite, but it's on face an absurd statement. You are literally saying that no amount of additional skill over your opponent will help you beat that opponent if he has the same skill level as you. This is the rough equivalent of saying "If you have infinity skill in the Galaxy, someone else will have infinity plus one skill in their ship, so you're still screwed". It's also provably false, since you forget that luck can also play a role in a match that is otherwise very even.
/channel_join organizedpvp
/channel_join tyler durden
best way to connect to the high quality pvp available
http://888chan.org/cow/src/137571979087.jpg
id like to think no one has impeded capability of understanding, but people most certainly have an impeded capability of actually learning to play, so they actually know enough not to post cringe worthy ideas.
its like you dont even play the game. you actually think stale mates cant happen? that they arent incredible common, basically the rule, unless its 2 tac escorts fighting?
seeing as this is your opinion of pvp, no one should be surprised.
Its like you don't even read, or bother to think about what you're reading. I said that skill could overcome the minor drawbacks to the Galaxy if one was so inclined. Skollulfr's response was so nonsensical that it crossed over from fallacy to farce. His response was that no amount of skill could overcome the fact that if you have equal skill you can't win. That is pants-on-head dumb, is what I was saying.
Yes, stalemates happen, especially in 1v1 settings, because the game isn't/wasn't balanced around that. That doesn't change the fact that a sufficient advantage in skill can break that stalemate.
Exactly. Nobody should be surprised that my wholly legitimate, carefully explained, well defended, and non-threatening view of PvP has caused me to have divergent conclusions from you. Again, this wouldn't be a problem if you would just grow up and admit that maybe I have a point about how different people can reasonably value different things, play different ways, and most importantly enjoy the game without one person having to declare a particular viewpoint to be "better" than the other.
Of course, you can't admit that, because you're afraid that if you abandon the pretext that it is possible to objectively determine who is playing the game the "right way", it basically guts your justification for demanding changes you want. At best, your argument would boil down to "more people like my opinion than yours", which I think we can agree is the epitome of a craven attempt to bully people with a crass appeal to peer pressure, instead of actually engaging with people who disagree with you.
I wish I could say this would be the last time I'd demonstrate the futility of your attempt to prove "opinions" to be "facts", but I'm sure it won't be. Nevertheless, here it is again, as clear as I can make it:
The Galaxy has three Engineering Ensign powers.
See how this is something that requires no judgement, and can be proven objectively? That's what a fact is. Now, on the other hand, here is an opinion:
Having three Engineering Ensign powers is bad.
See the difference? This requires a subjective claim, and thus can't EVER be anything but an opinion. That doesn't even mean it's a bad opinion, nor that it is baseless, but it is not a fact, and yet you keep treating it as one. My project this entire time has been to try to get you to grasp that very simple, very powerful concept. The things you believe in aren't necessarily true, and so you can't use them to justify your call to change things on the basis of what is objectively true.
I'm not sure if you think me telling you your argument is bad is the same thing as saying your opinion is invalid (it's not), or that me disagreeing with you means that I'm saying you have no right to your opinion (I'm not), or if you think statements like "Your opinion can't ever be proven objectively right" means the same thing as "Your opinion is is objectively wrong" (it doesn't), or what. Whatever the case, again, to be clear, you are allowed to like the Galaxy. You are allowed to think it's bad. You are even allowed to express those feelings. You can state your desires, make suggestions, whatever. What you should NOT do is demand things based on your opinions and desires, and you especially should not attempt to dismiss the contrary opinions and desires of other people in the course of making those demands.
For someone who has such a firm grasp on the difference between the subjective and the objective, you apparently have no problem in using a flowing mixture of both elements to support your positions.
Your anecdote is not better than mine. I can make a Galaxy work fine - the fact that some people can't doesn't change that. And repeating my flawless and frankly self-evidently true argument in a mocking tone does not, in fact, disprove my argument, nor justify your claim that it is a logical fallacy or rhetorical trick.
A volume based system is not objectively better, you just like it more. You haven't demonstrated that it will make most or even many players happy, because you can't even acknowledge that different players might want different things than you. Your entire argument is centered around your ego-driven assumption that you've got it all figured out, and that any dissenting views are automatically either wrong or immoral. And yet, somehow, you think I'm the one who's being self-centered.
You want the game to be something its not, and the kicker is you don't even have the perspective to realize that even if your suggestions weren't (IMO) wrong-headed, they are utterly impossible to implement given the state of the game now. I not denying anyone anything, because I'm not in a position to make decisions about how the game works, nor am I demanding any kind of change. I am, at best, rejecting the rationale you have offered for your demands on the basis that they have no force beyond your opinions.
I know what the definition of sophistry is, but I strongly suspect you don't. You seem to employ it as a catchphrase whenever you feel frustrated by an argument that you can't otherwise grapple with. Here you have neglected to even address my point, other than to restate it mockingly, nor have you demonstrated what, if anything about the claim that subjective things are subjective is controversial, fallacious, or even just not self evidently true. Preferences ARE subjective, as are interpretations of fiction. I'm sorry that you chose to present your argument as an objective one, but it just isn't.
So, tanks are supposed to force a stalemate by not dying. The proof for this is if you use the tools tanks have to do damage, you are evidently being "cheesy" (which is a subjective claim btw), and that Tanks are supposed to wait for the other to make a mistake. This is nonsense, in the literal sense that it isn't even worth trying to engage it as presented.
Instead, here's what I think you mean, sans subjective hyperbole and self-disproving statements:
Tanks are designed to draw out a fight long enough to wear down an opponent, either physically (through pressure damage) or mentally (by frustrating opponents into making a mistake). This kind of play is unrewarding to Skollulfr.
I have no arguments if that is, in fact, an accurate translation. That is not, btw, the same as a stalemate. Now, I'm not saying that stalemates aren't possible, or even common between certain builds. I'm just saying that "taking longer to force a decision than I want" is not the same thing as a "Stalemate". I also think that if there was more objective based PvP it would be pretty easy to show that a result where neither party was destroyed is not necessarily a "tie".
No. Again, I don't think you know what these words mean. If you do, then please explain how they apply to the post in question. Spoiler alert: They don't.
It would be a guess who dies, because that's not anything close to a forgone conclusion, and it's laughable that you think it is.
Also, irrelevant. My position is that skill can overcome the shortcomings of gear. You are again attempting to disprove that skill can make a difference by using a nonsense hypothetical that specifically removes skill from the equation.
So, again, you are ignoring my point that the more skillful player will likely win that contest. Actually, it's worse than that - you are admitting that the BoP player will lose if he is out-played by the Galaxy player, you just don't realize that there are things the Galaxy player can do to encourage the BoP to "mess up". Basically, again, all you've proven is you are incapable of dealing with my actual argument, and instead must fall back on what you think are clever sounding slogans and soundbites with no real reasoning power behind them.
Then you don't understand my position either.
Is that my fault or yours?
skill will get you no were when in no possible situations would any damage numbers add up enough to actually kills something. you could do everything perfect and at the best possible time and your most likely never going to get through a shield faceing with something like a galaxy. again, its like you dont even play. the galaxy drawbacks are damning and fundamental. and like always, anything you could do with a galaxy you could do drastically better in any other cruiser. healing or damage. an ody could put out 2 or 3 times the heal numbers, and the avenger could easily double or triple the DPS. even a fleet star and fleet heavy, with just a bit better turn rate, better consoles, and bester ENS station are at least 50% better. the gap between the galaxy and the 'second worst' ships is huge.
your extreamly dismissive of pvp, actually. basically a joke of a position. thats the only part of the game were something called balance comes into play, because your competing against other players in other playable ships. if there was no pvp, no one would even bring up balance, they would just want inferior things buffed.
the 'right way' is not sucking, knowing how to make a ship effective no mater how you do it, and actually being able to defend yourself. thats a fairly broad all encompassing concept. but i can see how you would like to paint someone whos not you with some sort of narrow view on things, would be hard to argue against the 'right way' if you didnt.
if you had a drop of skill you would know thats not a subjective claim. it can be demonstrated that its a horrible station combination that has terrible opportunity cost for anything your trying to make the ship do. your in denial, and your gravely ignorant so from your prospective this all seems unknowable. its all actually quite simple when you get a proper grasp of the meta, everything is quantifiable, i can look at a set of items, a combination of station powers, stats like hitpoints and turn rates, and know EXACTLY how a ship will perform in practice. because ive pvped with and against it all, ive seen every single thing at its breaking point. that is frame of reference, if you cant say the same, you dont have it.
Umm, if I try to jump in now, I'll only drown to death faster than a gunshot wound to the brain.
So as I carefully back out, I say, with all pleasantness, "May the best man win, and best of luck."
Hopefully in due time, I can rejoin the conversation here again.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
I have won PvP matchups while using a Galaxy. I have completed STFs successfully while in a Galaxy. I have had fun while in a Galaxy. Your position that there is no possible situation where those things could happen is thus provably false.
The argument you are supposed to be making is something like:
"I feel like there are many situations where I would perform better in a non-Galaxy ship, and I feel like that's important to me."
That is fine. But you can't tell me that the ship is literally impossible to use, since I have actually used it successfully.
I'm not dismissive of PvP at all - I do it a lot and I'm fairly good at it. I am dismissive of the idea that only PvP matters, and that any other way of playing is "wrong".
See, like this right here. I'm dismissive of your assertion that your way of playing is "right", because it just isn't. There isn't one right way to play. There isn't even one right way to "not suck". Those are subjective terms, and my definition is different from yours. The difference between us is I am not dismissing your opinion, I"m dismissing your right to attempt to bully people into agreeing with you. Put another way, I'm insisting that you stop dismissing the people who disagree with you, and that you are so tied up in your subjective opinions that you are treating that disagreement as though it were somehow an attack on your opinions.
Eh, I'm not going to get into an epeen contest with you about who has what superior claim to authority via skill. I am confident that I have sufficient skill and systems mastery to justify my claims, but that doesn't even matter, because you are still just flat wrong about what it means to be objective or subjective. I can find uses and value in a three eng ensign set up. It's not my favorite, but I can make it work. That's the objective thing. Objectively, by my own standards and in my own play experience, the Galaxy class is perhaps not ideal, but workable. I feel like you keep falling into the trap of mistaking things that you feel strongly about for things that must be universally true.
What I acknowledge is subjective are the standards which I use, as well as my own perceptions of what it means to meet them. You are free to say that I don't meet your standards. I am free to say that is utterly irrelevant, because your standards are only YOUR standards, and that you have no right to impose them on others. I can't fathom why this is so tough for you to grasp. Clearly, you have no trouble understanding that my standards need not apply to you, why can't you see that the reverse is self-evidently true?
It does, depending on your definition of competitive. My definition is "gives me a reasonable chance to be successful no matter what I choose to do". And the Galaxy does that, in my estimation.
And even if it doesn't, it doesn't matter if "being competitive" isn't the point of the game.
so by that then you think a shuttle is competitive
Please point to where this this position was clearly stated in the manner which you have presented it, else admit that you characterization of their position is false.