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.
Uh, look at DDIS's first line in the bit I quoted. It is, and I quote (again):
"skill will get you no were when in no possible situations would any damage numbers add up enough to actually kills something."
Uh, look at DDIS's first line in the bit I quoted. It is, and I quote (again):
"skill will get you no were when in no possible situations would any damage numbers add up enough to actually kills something."
That line does not clearly state the characterization which you presented:
"I have won PvP matchups while using a Galaxy. I have completed STFs successfully while in a Galaxy. I have had fun while in a Galaxy. Your position that there is no possible situation where those things could happen is thus provably false."
That line does not clearly state the characterization which you presented:
"I have won PvP matchups while using a Galaxy. I have completed STFs successfully while in a Galaxy. I have had fun while in a Galaxy. Your position that there is no possible situation where those things could happen is thus provably false."
Try again.
Actually, it does. The assertion was that there was no possible situation in which a Galaxy class could kill something. If that is true, then I could never win a PvP matchup, yet I have. If that was true, then I could never successfully complete any PvE mission at all (of which STFs are a subset), yet I have. If it were true, I would be unable to enjoy using a Galaxy class, yet I can.
If you have a critical distinction between what you think DDIS is saying and what I was responding to, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, I'll accept your apology for wasting my time.
Actually it might. That's the issue I have with your arguments. You take a poorly constructed sentence, apply the narrowest interpretation that supports your position, then claim that it disproves the broader concepts in the opposing position. This is evident in the following:
The assertion was that there was no possible situation in which a Galaxy class could kill something. If that is true, then I could never win a PvP matchup, yet I have. If that was true, then I could never successfully complete any PvE mission at all (of which STFs are a subset), yet I have. If it were true, I would be unable to enjoy using a Galaxy class, yet I can.
If you have a critical distinction between what you think DDIS is saying and what I was responding to, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, I'll accept your apology for wasting my time.
No. I won't be apologizing. Nor am I going to go off track and argue minutia with you, as you have already failed to respond to my question, as to whether my misunderstanding your point (a statement that was in no way established as accurate, btw) was my fault or yours.
You can continue this line of discussion in the manner you have so far. If, you do not realize what you are doing, then you will not accept my assessment. If, you do realize what you are doing, then you won't care. In either case, it will be like trying to nail jello to a tree; you can only keep it there with constant hammering.
Probably bc you had a team with you or your 1vs1 opponents weren't PvPers.
Excellent point. Thanks for admitting that, as I said, there are probably situations where someone can use skill and planning to overcome the Galaxy's drawbacks.
I've beaten tac Fleet Galaxy pilots with my engineer in the fleet Nova but I wouldn't classify them as good pvpers. At most it should have been a draw. There's not a single PvP character or build I have that would lose to a Fleet Galaxy 1vs1.
And if you love the ship so much why are you arguing against any improvements for it? If you enjoy it as is then great. If role-playing is your thing wonderful. But don't knock people who want this iconic ship to be well represented in STO as it was on the shows.
A) I don't love it so much, I'm more or less apathetic. I can have fun with it, but it's certainly not my favorite ship to fly, because it wasn't my favorite ship from the shows.
If I did love it, why would I want/need to change it? I'm capable of recognizing that something is not "the best", and still being happy with it.
C) Even with the changes, I wouldn't love it, so what advantage do the changes have for me?
D) It is accurately represented in game, based on how I interpret the show. You and others are free to disagree with that, but since none of us have any control over how the ship is portrayed here, and since there is no possible way to "prove" that one subjective interpretation is "right", it doesn't really matter.
Actually it might. That's the issue I have with your arguments. You take a poorly constructed sentence, apply the narrowest interpretation that supports your position, then claim that it disproves the broader concepts in the opposing position. This is evident in the following:
The statement in question was a claim that would be expressed in formal logic thusly:
If Galaxy then Not Win.
The contrapositive to that position would be:
If Win, then Not Galaxy.
That claim is not narrow at all - it is overbroad and over-certain, which is my point.
(You have yet to show how that is a mischaracterization of the claim, btw).
If your quibble is that I am choosing to read the statement literally, instead of as the hyperbole it is, you have to recognize that while rhetorically it's clearly hyperbole, in the context of this discussion, that's not how people use it. They are trying to have it both ways, by asserting that if you disagree with them you are necessarily wrong, because everyone knows it's impossible to do anything in a Galaxy class. If you point out that, in fact, not everyone knows that, then they accuse you of being pedantic or equivocating about language, as you are doing.
Let me make this very simple - is it possible that a reasonable person could enjoy playing Star Trek Online while using a Galaxy class ship? If your answer is no, then I see no reason to discuss anything with you, since you are effectively attempting to quash my right to disagree, and I find that loathsome. If the answer is yes, then aren't I right that this discussion should be about the need/desirability for change in the context of those differing viewpoints, instead of being about the nigh impossible project of proving that a reasonable preference is nonetheless objectively wrong?
Basically, if it is possible to reasonably feel like the current state of the Galaxy is an unimportant issue, then it cannot be true that the Galaxy is objectively in need of revision. Thus, the discussion necessarily should turn to how to justify the changes in the context of differing opinions, but instead of doing that, the Galaxy fans have simply re-entrenched on the claim that anyone who doesn't think there's a problem, for any reason, is either a troll, a fool, a liar, a psychopath, or all of the above.
People need to understand this. I am not saying people who dislike the Galaxy are wrong to do so. I am saying that dislike is not universal, automatic, or objectively true. It is objectively true that SOME people don't like it, as it is objectively true that some people DO. The Galaxy fans, rather than admitting this, have sought to delegitimize any dissenting voice as unreasonable, so they could justify their desire for change without actually engaging in a discussion of why that might or might not be desirable to other people.
No. I won't be apologizing. Nor am I going to go off track and argue minutia with you, as you have already failed to respond to my question, as to whether my misunderstanding your point (a statement that was in no way established as accurate, btw) was my fault or yours.
You can continue this line of discussion in the manner you have so far. If, you do not realize what you are doing, then you will not accept my assessment. If, you do realize what you are doing, then you won't care. In either case, it will be like trying to nail jello to a tree; you can only keep it there with constant hammering.
I didn't respond to your question because it looked to me like obvious flame bait with an obvious answer. How does me answering that further the discussion, and why is it important to assign blame for your failure to understand? You didn't understand, that's all that matters. Having a throw down about who failed whom wouldn't fix anything.
I have won PvP matchups while using a Galaxy. I have completed STFs successfully while in a Galaxy. I have had fun while in a Galaxy. Your position that there is no possible situation where those things could happen is thus provably false.
The argument you are supposed to be making is something like:
"I feel like there are many situations where I would perform better in a non-Galaxy ship, and I feel like that's important to me."
That is fine. But you can't tell me that the ship is literally impossible to use, since I have actually used it successfully.
watching you try to bend over backwards to defend this has been hilarious the last few page. your responding to a paragraph about dueling, not 5v5 pvp. the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried. ive built the most damaging galaxy class possible and its still a joke, the same basic build minus some redundant defensive things works much better on any other tac cruiser. i made no statement like that at all, cute that all you can do is paint someone as absurd and obtuse with misscharacterizations and argue with that straw man, instead of arguing with the actual person.
I'm not dismissive of PvP at all - I do it a lot and I'm fairly good at it. I am dismissive of the idea that only PvP matters, and that any other way of playing is "wrong".
See, like this right here. I'm dismissive of your assertion that your way of playing is "right", because it just isn't. There isn't one right way to play. There isn't even one right way to "not suck". Those are subjective terms, and my definition is different from yours. The difference between us is I am not dismissing your opinion, I"m dismissing your right to attempt to bully people into agreeing with you. Put another way, I'm insisting that you stop dismissing the people who disagree with you, and that you are so tied up in your subjective opinions that you are treating that disagreement as though it were somehow an attack on your opinions.
another attempt at attacking some fictional position of mine. im not even sure what your going on about, what this right way is supposed to be. i didn't mention any 1 way not to suck, i said do anything not to suck, build and use anything that actually is effective. the point of this thread is that theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective, it can merely get by and be background noise. pvp is all about diversity, whatever works works. the difference between you and me is im engaging you, and your engaging some imaginary version of me with crazy positions.
Eh, I'm not going to get into an epeen contest with you about who has what superior claim to authority via skill. I am confident that I have sufficient skill and systems mastery to justify my claims, but that doesn't even matter, because you are still just flat wrong about what it means to be objective or subjective. I can find uses and value in a three eng ensign set up. It's not my favorite, but I can make it work. That's the objective thing. Objectively, by my own standards and in my own play experience, the Galaxy class is perhaps not ideal, but workable. I feel like you keep falling into the trap of mistaking things that you feel strongly about for things that must be universally true.
What I acknowledge is subjective are the standards which I use, as well as my own perceptions of what it means to meet them. You are free to say that I don't meet your standards. I am free to say that is utterly irrelevant, because your standards are only YOUR standards, and that you have no right to impose them on others. I can't fathom why this is so tough for you to grasp. Clearly, you have no trouble understanding that my standards need not apply to you, why can't you see that the reverse is self-evidently true?
you can make it work. congratulations. every time any of us slums in our galaxy R we make it work. and every time we stop using it, no mater what ship we use next, we are more effective. the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth. name 1 thing it can do better then any other cruiser, no mater how small. just 1 thing. if your claim to skill is sufficient, surely you can come up with a single thing. if not, ether your skill is weak or your argument is fundamentally flawed. there is no worst escort, there is no worse sci ship, its not ok for there to be a worst cruiser. especially not one thats so iconic and a fan favorite.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
No, it's not quite the same statement. It's literally logically exactly the same statement.
Not hardly. Caveats and qualifiers serve distinct functions in modifying the meaning of the words with which they are used in conjunction. If the meaning is different, they cannot be literally logically exactly the same statement. You were not aware of this?
It is of note though, that as you have focused on the most convenient narrow interpretation of others statements, you have no problem in embracing the broadest and most generous interpretations of your own.
Not hardly. Caveats and qualifiers serve distinct functions in modifying the meaning of the words with which they are used in conjunction. If the meaning is different, they cannot be literally logically exactly the same statement. You were not aware of this?
It is of note though, that as you have focused on the most convenient narrow interpretation of others statements, you have no problem in embracing the broadest and most generous interpretations of your own.
See, you are asserting that there is a distinction in the statements, or that there are different potential interpretations, while simultaneously failing to demonstrate either claim. I cannot correct your misunderstanding unless you are explicit about what it is. I also strongly suspect you are mistaking differences in syntax for differences in logic. As an example:
All lions are mammals.
A creature is a lion only if it is a mammal.
No creature is a lion unless it is also a mammal.
A non-mammal is not a lion.
Only mammals can possibly be lions.
These sentences are all logically identical, in that they convey exactly the same meaning, despite being very difference in syntax. Similarly, the two claims you are quoting differ in organization, but not at all in logic:
"there are probably situations where someone can use skill and planning to overcome the Galaxy's drawbacks."
and
"I said that skill could overcome the minor drawbacks to the Galaxy if one was so inclined."
Both impart the same logical assertion - Skill is a possible (but not certain) way to manage the problems people have with the Galaxy's setup. The sentences are arranged differently, but there's no difference in the imparted meaning. The phrase "if one was so inclined" does nothing but indicate again that this is a choice someone could make, not a mandatory requirement for play, which is mirrored in the logic of the first sentence. "Minor drawbacks" and "drawbacks" are logically identical as well, for the same reason that "many/few/some" are all logically the same statement.
See, you are asserting that there is a distinction in the statements, or that there are different potential interpretations, while simultaneously failing to demonstrate either claim.
watching you try to bend over backwards to defend this has been hilarious the last few page. your responding to a paragraph about dueling, not 5v5 pvp. the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried. ive built the most damaging galaxy class possible and its still a joke, the same basic build minus some redundant defensive things works much better on any other tac cruiser. i made no statement like that at all, cute that all you can do is paint someone as absurd and obtuse with misscharacterizations and argue with that straw man, instead of arguing with the actual person.
Again, not a strawman, or a mischaracterization. If your intent was to caveat that claim that in no possible situations can a Galaxy class kill something to be only applying to 1v1 PvP, you should have been explicit in that. The context that you were quoting was about two issues - whether skill could make a difference in general, and the non-issue of "do stalemates happen in 1v1". It appears you believe you were clearly ONLY talking about the 1v1 component, but the phrasing of "no possible situation" was so broad as to make that at best unclear. Regardless, even in the context of only 1v1 PvP, my point remains. I have beaten players 1v1 while using a Galaxy, thus there is at least one possible situation where your claim is false. Thus, your claim is false. Amend your absolutes, and you will fix that problem.
Now onto the really hilarious part. This claim:
the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried.
Is still doing the same thing, even though it's now explicitly in the context of 1v1. Your statement is untrue. All you need to accept is that the argument you want to make is this:
In some, possibly even a majority of cases, a Galaxy class cannot win unless the opponent is substantially less skilled than the Galaxy captain. There maybe a certain threshold of opponent skill at which the Galaxy can no longer reasonably expect to ever prevail. I have experimentally verified that I personally cannot use a Galaxy to a level I find acceptable, and I strongly suspect this will be the case with others, but I cannot, of course, rule out the possibility that someone else's results may be different.
That, above, is what you mean. That is what you can reasonably defend. This fetish you have for arguing only in absolutes does you no favors.
another attempt at attacking some fictional position of mine. im not even sure what your going on about, what this right way is supposed to be. i didn't mention any 1 way not to suck, i said do anything not to suck, build and use anything that actually is effective. the point of this thread is that theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective, it can merely get by and be background noise. pvp is all about diversity, whatever works works. the difference between you and me is im engaging you, and your engaging some imaginary version of me with crazy positions.
Again, you are doing exactly what I have been accusing you of. "theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective" is simply untrue. The correct argument is as follows:
There is nothing in the game that I value that the Galaxy does well, so the Galaxy has little use to me personally. I'm sure some other people feel the same way, and I suspect that at the very least a plurality of players would agree that a change is a good idea.
The tragedy is that you might even be able to put together a persuasive argument if you would get past the conceit that stating something in absolutes is a "stronger" or "better" argument.
you can make it work. congratulations. every time any of us slums in our galaxy R we make it work. and every time we stop using it, no mater what ship we use next, we are more effective. the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth. name 1 thing it can do better then any other cruiser, no mater how small. just 1 thing. if your claim to skill is sufficient, surely you can come up with a single thing. if not, ether your skill is weak or your argument is fundamentally flawed. there is no worst escort, there is no worse sci ship, its not ok for there to be a worst cruiser. especially not one thats so iconic and a fan favorite.
"the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth."
Sigh.
The Galaxy is a ship many players feel is the least effective.
Also - worst escort: Aquarius. I guess we need to fix it as well. Next worst? Defiant - seating is too limited, forces you to take at least one beam or torp. Need to fix that as well.
Sci ships? Opposite problem. I'm not sure what the worst is, but I'm not sure why you take anything other than a Vesta line or a Wells for pure science. Guess since those two ships can do any meaningful sci job better than any other sci ship, all other sci ships are useless.
Finally, no, sorry, it's actually fine that a ship that you like is "the worst". It's even fine that a ship that many or most people like is the "the worst". Why would it not be fine, other than it simply irritates you?
That simply means that your team did the work you couldn't. Even if your role was support you would have been able to support your team better in another ship. Your team won in spite of you.
Bringing the most out of the galaxy is still less than a comparable build with another cruiser.
My team won in spite of me because even though I was unarguably effective in the match I wasn't as effective as a hypothetical version of me in a different ship? Do you treat everyone this way? If a teammate shows up in a non-edalgo approved build, does that mean they are useless because they don't measure up to the hypothetical version you think they should be? Or is it just people in the Galaxy class that you unfairly malign?
I welcome different varieties of builds and ship types but there's a difference between flying the ship you like bc you like it and trying to excel while choosing to use inferior equipment.
You've contradicted yourself do many times and have no good answers to how the Galaxy is competitive after I had to spell out what competitive means to you that you have to resort to attacking how people argue instead admitting the point you are trying to argue is proven invalid. Suck it up and move on. You're wrong and don't want to admit it and want to have the last word.
Please point out a single contradiction, so that I might learn. Please explain how my answers are insufficient, so that I might see how I fail. Please explain why my tactic of exploding the justifications used to support peoples' arguments is not, in fact, an effective one. Please demonstrate how you have proven that your opinions are anything more than that.
Alternately, simply admit that the problem here isn't that I'm wrong, it's that you and I fundamentally disagree on what we value and how we play the game. If we can get you to the point where you can understand that its possible for us to disagree, and yet also understand that neither view is "right", "wrong", "better", or "worse", then we'll have real progress. I despair for that ever happening, though.
Please point out a single contradiction, so that I might learn. Please explain how my answers are insufficient, so that I might see how I fail. Please explain why my tactic of exploding the justifications used to support peoples' arguments is not, in fact, an effective one. Please demonstrate how you have proven that your opinions are anything more than that.
Alternately, simply admit that the problem here isn't that I'm wrong, it's that you and I fundamentally disagree on what we value and how we play the game. If we can get you to the point where you can understand that its possible for us to disagree, and yet also understand that neither view is "right", "wrong", "better", or "worse", then we'll have real progress. I despair for that ever happening, though.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
My team won in spite of me because even though I was unarguably effective in the match I wasn't as effective as a hypothetical version of me in a different ship? Do you treat everyone this way? If a teammate shows up in a non-edalgo approved build, does that mean they are useless because they don't measure up to the hypothetical version you think they should be? Or is it just people in the Galaxy class that you unfairly malign?
Think your missing the point by a mile. Anything you can do any build you use with a Galaxy you can do in another ship and will excel at. Whether its a damage or support or tank in pvp or pve using a different ship will yield greater results. There for using the galaxy actually gimps the rest of the team as if you were using another ship it would increase their chances making them work less for the same result.
with only 2 tactical consoles the galaxy is Gimped from the start and is bacicall a worthless ship
The fleet regent and avenger can tank just as well with 50% + the firepower of the Galaxy and double + the tactical bridge officer ability's
The game has no use for a pure tank which is what the galaxy is therefore its a useless ship
with only 2 bridge officer stations the galaxy should have 5 tactical consoles so it can at least do serious sustained damage
anyone who says the galaxy is fine like it is Is really just a troll
to anyone new people ...dont buy the galaxy there are much better choices to spend your zen on
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Think your missing the point by a mile. Anything you can do any build you use with a Galaxy you can do in another ship and will excel at. Whether its a damage or support or tank in pvp or pve using a different ship will yield greater results. There for using the galaxy actually gimps the rest of the team as if you were using another ship it would increase their chances making them work less for the same result.
No, I'm not missing that point. I'm REJECTING that line of thinking. There's a huge difference. I'm saying that I acknowledge that some people think this way, but I don't, and I never will, and I won't accept that it is the only valid way to think about things. I think it's illogical to complain that I, as a good player, chose to come and compete in a ship that you feel isn't up to par. Who cares if you think I could have done a better job in another ship. I still DID MY JOB. Stop trying to compare me to what your think I would have been like in an alternate universe where I only brought ships you approve of to the party. Compare me to the needs of the mission. If I met or exceeded those, then you have nothing to complain about.
Basically, I would never tell someone they were gimping the team because they weren't exceeding my expectations. I think that's a reasonable position to take. I also am certain I can play up to or beyond any reasonable expectations that people have of a PuG teammate while using a Galaxy. The issue is that people are so stuck in this mindset of "the Galaxy is the worst ship", that even when they admit that it is sufficient to get any job in the game done they STILL act like it is a failure because it didn't get the job done better.
I feel like such thinking is vaguely greedy and a bit cowardly. It's like saying you are so unsure of your own ability to play effectively that you demand that I make up for it by being even better, and then getting angry when we "only" win by a few kills, or "only" have a couple of minutes left on the mission timer. From the other side, I know people think its selfish to be more concerned with my own fun than with the feelings of people who feel 'punished' when they perceive that their team is under-optimized. I simply disagree with that analysis of the situation. It seems silly to complain that if I show up in a Galaxy I am gimping us relative to me showing up in <other ship>, because me in <other ship> doesn't exist. You are basically accusing me of being selfish for denying you something that isn't even real in the first place.
From my perspective, I'm not demanding anything from those players, I'm simply rejecting their selfish attempts to make me play the way they want me to. In a pre-made, sure, there is a place for having people discuss what they expect from each other's builds, but in a PuG situation I feel like the inherent social contract is "I will try my very best to complete the mission with the people/ships on hand, and I will not get bent out of shape when the random people I work with aren't exactly what I would choose". If someone says "I'll heal", and then doesn't, well... that's one thing. If someone says "I'll heal", and does, it seems selfish to me to quibble about the way they did it, or to feel entitled to have that person play something different just so you don't feel like you are missing out on the hypothetical better healer they might have been in another ship.
If my position still seems unreasonable, then I don't know what else to say. I will continue to defend my right to play the game the way I want to, and I will continue to defend my claim that I am not unreasonable in my position about the Galaxy and the (lack of) a need for change. If you want to have a discussion about why, on balance making changes to the Galaxy make sense, even given the reasonable opposition to it, that's fine. If all you want to do is "prove" that I'm unreasonable for daring to disagree with the hyperbolic group-think of the forums, well, that's never going to happen, and I think that is an unreasonable position to take.
Comments
Uh, look at DDIS's first line in the bit I quoted. It is, and I quote (again):
"skill will get you no were when in no possible situations would any damage numbers add up enough to actually kills something."
It isn't because, as I said, I've PvPed successfully in a Galaxy class.
That line does not clearly state the characterization which you presented:
"I have won PvP matchups while using a Galaxy. I have completed STFs successfully while in a Galaxy. I have had fun while in a Galaxy. Your position that there is no possible situation where those things could happen is thus provably false."
Try again.
Actually, it does. The assertion was that there was no possible situation in which a Galaxy class could kill something. If that is true, then I could never win a PvP matchup, yet I have. If that was true, then I could never successfully complete any PvE mission at all (of which STFs are a subset), yet I have. If it were true, I would be unable to enjoy using a Galaxy class, yet I can.
If you have a critical distinction between what you think DDIS is saying and what I was responding to, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, I'll accept your apology for wasting my time.
Actually it might. That's the issue I have with your arguments. You take a poorly constructed sentence, apply the narrowest interpretation that supports your position, then claim that it disproves the broader concepts in the opposing position. This is evident in the following:
No. I won't be apologizing. Nor am I going to go off track and argue minutia with you, as you have already failed to respond to my question, as to whether my misunderstanding your point (a statement that was in no way established as accurate, btw) was my fault or yours.
You can continue this line of discussion in the manner you have so far. If, you do not realize what you are doing, then you will not accept my assessment. If, you do realize what you are doing, then you won't care. In either case, it will be like trying to nail jello to a tree; you can only keep it there with constant hammering.
Excellent point. Thanks for admitting that, as I said, there are probably situations where someone can use skill and planning to overcome the Galaxy's drawbacks.
I'll let someone else answer this for me:
A) I don't love it so much, I'm more or less apathetic. I can have fun with it, but it's certainly not my favorite ship to fly, because it wasn't my favorite ship from the shows.
C) Even with the changes, I wouldn't love it, so what advantage do the changes have for me?
D) It is accurately represented in game, based on how I interpret the show. You and others are free to disagree with that, but since none of us have any control over how the ship is portrayed here, and since there is no possible way to "prove" that one subjective interpretation is "right", it doesn't really matter.
Maybe you did say that. You also said:
Not quite the same statement, is it?
The statement in question was a claim that would be expressed in formal logic thusly:
If Galaxy then Not Win.
The contrapositive to that position would be:
If Win, then Not Galaxy.
That claim is not narrow at all - it is overbroad and over-certain, which is my point.
(You have yet to show how that is a mischaracterization of the claim, btw).
If your quibble is that I am choosing to read the statement literally, instead of as the hyperbole it is, you have to recognize that while rhetorically it's clearly hyperbole, in the context of this discussion, that's not how people use it. They are trying to have it both ways, by asserting that if you disagree with them you are necessarily wrong, because everyone knows it's impossible to do anything in a Galaxy class. If you point out that, in fact, not everyone knows that, then they accuse you of being pedantic or equivocating about language, as you are doing.
Let me make this very simple - is it possible that a reasonable person could enjoy playing Star Trek Online while using a Galaxy class ship? If your answer is no, then I see no reason to discuss anything with you, since you are effectively attempting to quash my right to disagree, and I find that loathsome. If the answer is yes, then aren't I right that this discussion should be about the need/desirability for change in the context of those differing viewpoints, instead of being about the nigh impossible project of proving that a reasonable preference is nonetheless objectively wrong?
Basically, if it is possible to reasonably feel like the current state of the Galaxy is an unimportant issue, then it cannot be true that the Galaxy is objectively in need of revision. Thus, the discussion necessarily should turn to how to justify the changes in the context of differing opinions, but instead of doing that, the Galaxy fans have simply re-entrenched on the claim that anyone who doesn't think there's a problem, for any reason, is either a troll, a fool, a liar, a psychopath, or all of the above.
People need to understand this. I am not saying people who dislike the Galaxy are wrong to do so. I am saying that dislike is not universal, automatic, or objectively true. It is objectively true that SOME people don't like it, as it is objectively true that some people DO. The Galaxy fans, rather than admitting this, have sought to delegitimize any dissenting voice as unreasonable, so they could justify their desire for change without actually engaging in a discussion of why that might or might not be desirable to other people.
I didn't respond to your question because it looked to me like obvious flame bait with an obvious answer. How does me answering that further the discussion, and why is it important to assign blame for your failure to understand? You didn't understand, that's all that matters. Having a throw down about who failed whom wouldn't fix anything.
No, it's not quite the same statement. It's literally logically exactly the same statement.
watching you try to bend over backwards to defend this has been hilarious the last few page. your responding to a paragraph about dueling, not 5v5 pvp. the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried. ive built the most damaging galaxy class possible and its still a joke, the same basic build minus some redundant defensive things works much better on any other tac cruiser. i made no statement like that at all, cute that all you can do is paint someone as absurd and obtuse with misscharacterizations and argue with that straw man, instead of arguing with the actual person.
another attempt at attacking some fictional position of mine. im not even sure what your going on about, what this right way is supposed to be. i didn't mention any 1 way not to suck, i said do anything not to suck, build and use anything that actually is effective. the point of this thread is that theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective, it can merely get by and be background noise. pvp is all about diversity, whatever works works. the difference between you and me is im engaging you, and your engaging some imaginary version of me with crazy positions.
you can make it work. congratulations. every time any of us slums in our galaxy R we make it work. and every time we stop using it, no mater what ship we use next, we are more effective. the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth. name 1 thing it can do better then any other cruiser, no mater how small. just 1 thing. if your claim to skill is sufficient, surely you can come up with a single thing. if not, ether your skill is weak or your argument is fundamentally flawed. there is no worst escort, there is no worse sci ship, its not ok for there to be a worst cruiser. especially not one thats so iconic and a fan favorite.
O'RLY...(link)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Not hardly. Caveats and qualifiers serve distinct functions in modifying the meaning of the words with which they are used in conjunction. If the meaning is different, they cannot be literally logically exactly the same statement. You were not aware of this?
It is of note though, that as you have focused on the most convenient narrow interpretation of others statements, you have no problem in embracing the broadest and most generous interpretations of your own.
See, you are asserting that there is a distinction in the statements, or that there are different potential interpretations, while simultaneously failing to demonstrate either claim. I cannot correct your misunderstanding unless you are explicit about what it is. I also strongly suspect you are mistaking differences in syntax for differences in logic. As an example:
All lions are mammals.
A creature is a lion only if it is a mammal.
No creature is a lion unless it is also a mammal.
A non-mammal is not a lion.
Only mammals can possibly be lions.
These sentences are all logically identical, in that they convey exactly the same meaning, despite being very difference in syntax. Similarly, the two claims you are quoting differ in organization, but not at all in logic:
"there are probably situations where someone can use skill and planning to overcome the Galaxy's drawbacks."
and
"I said that skill could overcome the minor drawbacks to the Galaxy if one was so inclined."
Both impart the same logical assertion - Skill is a possible (but not certain) way to manage the problems people have with the Galaxy's setup. The sentences are arranged differently, but there's no difference in the imparted meaning. The phrase "if one was so inclined" does nothing but indicate again that this is a choice someone could make, not a mandatory requirement for play, which is mirrored in the logic of the first sentence. "Minor drawbacks" and "drawbacks" are logically identical as well, for the same reason that "many/few/some" are all logically the same statement.
lol Whatever, Jello.
Again, not a strawman, or a mischaracterization. If your intent was to caveat that claim that in no possible situations can a Galaxy class kill something to be only applying to 1v1 PvP, you should have been explicit in that. The context that you were quoting was about two issues - whether skill could make a difference in general, and the non-issue of "do stalemates happen in 1v1". It appears you believe you were clearly ONLY talking about the 1v1 component, but the phrasing of "no possible situation" was so broad as to make that at best unclear. Regardless, even in the context of only 1v1 PvP, my point remains. I have beaten players 1v1 while using a Galaxy, thus there is at least one possible situation where your claim is false. Thus, your claim is false. Amend your absolutes, and you will fix that problem.
Now onto the really hilarious part. This claim:
the galaxy wont even be able to kill a competent escort, certainly not another competent cruiser in a duel. i know, ive tried.
Is still doing the same thing, even though it's now explicitly in the context of 1v1. Your statement is untrue. All you need to accept is that the argument you want to make is this:
In some, possibly even a majority of cases, a Galaxy class cannot win unless the opponent is substantially less skilled than the Galaxy captain. There maybe a certain threshold of opponent skill at which the Galaxy can no longer reasonably expect to ever prevail. I have experimentally verified that I personally cannot use a Galaxy to a level I find acceptable, and I strongly suspect this will be the case with others, but I cannot, of course, rule out the possibility that someone else's results may be different.
That, above, is what you mean. That is what you can reasonably defend. This fetish you have for arguing only in absolutes does you no favors.
Again, you are doing exactly what I have been accusing you of. "theres nothing you can use a galaxy for that is truly effective" is simply untrue. The correct argument is as follows:
There is nothing in the game that I value that the Galaxy does well, so the Galaxy has little use to me personally. I'm sure some other people feel the same way, and I suspect that at the very least a plurality of players would agree that a change is a good idea.
The tragedy is that you might even be able to put together a persuasive argument if you would get past the conceit that stating something in absolutes is a "stronger" or "better" argument.
"the galaxy being the least effective ship in the game is a universal truth."
Sigh.
The Galaxy is a ship many players feel is the least effective.
Also - worst escort: Aquarius. I guess we need to fix it as well. Next worst? Defiant - seating is too limited, forces you to take at least one beam or torp. Need to fix that as well.
Sci ships? Opposite problem. I'm not sure what the worst is, but I'm not sure why you take anything other than a Vesta line or a Wells for pure science. Guess since those two ships can do any meaningful sci job better than any other sci ship, all other sci ships are useless.
Finally, no, sorry, it's actually fine that a ship that you like is "the worst". It's even fine that a ship that many or most people like is the "the worst". Why would it not be fine, other than it simply irritates you?
I'm not seeing a distinction from you still. Sorry you couldn't support your argument. Better luck next time!
My team won in spite of me because even though I was unarguably effective in the match I wasn't as effective as a hypothetical version of me in a different ship? Do you treat everyone this way? If a teammate shows up in a non-edalgo approved build, does that mean they are useless because they don't measure up to the hypothetical version you think they should be? Or is it just people in the Galaxy class that you unfairly malign?
Please point out a single contradiction, so that I might learn. Please explain how my answers are insufficient, so that I might see how I fail. Please explain why my tactic of exploding the justifications used to support peoples' arguments is not, in fact, an effective one. Please demonstrate how you have proven that your opinions are anything more than that.
Alternately, simply admit that the problem here isn't that I'm wrong, it's that you and I fundamentally disagree on what we value and how we play the game. If we can get you to the point where you can understand that its possible for us to disagree, and yet also understand that neither view is "right", "wrong", "better", or "worse", then we'll have real progress. I despair for that ever happening, though.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
Think your missing the point by a mile. Anything you can do any build you use with a Galaxy you can do in another ship and will excel at. Whether its a damage or support or tank in pvp or pve using a different ship will yield greater results. There for using the galaxy actually gimps the rest of the team as if you were using another ship it would increase their chances making them work less for the same result.
The fleet regent and avenger can tank just as well with 50% + the firepower of the Galaxy and double + the tactical bridge officer ability's
The game has no use for a pure tank which is what the galaxy is therefore its a useless ship
with only 2 bridge officer stations the galaxy should have 5 tactical consoles so it can at least do serious sustained damage
anyone who says the galaxy is fine like it is Is really just a troll
to anyone new people ...dont buy the galaxy there are much better choices to spend your zen on
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
No, I'm not missing that point. I'm REJECTING that line of thinking. There's a huge difference. I'm saying that I acknowledge that some people think this way, but I don't, and I never will, and I won't accept that it is the only valid way to think about things. I think it's illogical to complain that I, as a good player, chose to come and compete in a ship that you feel isn't up to par. Who cares if you think I could have done a better job in another ship. I still DID MY JOB. Stop trying to compare me to what your think I would have been like in an alternate universe where I only brought ships you approve of to the party. Compare me to the needs of the mission. If I met or exceeded those, then you have nothing to complain about.
Basically, I would never tell someone they were gimping the team because they weren't exceeding my expectations. I think that's a reasonable position to take. I also am certain I can play up to or beyond any reasonable expectations that people have of a PuG teammate while using a Galaxy. The issue is that people are so stuck in this mindset of "the Galaxy is the worst ship", that even when they admit that it is sufficient to get any job in the game done they STILL act like it is a failure because it didn't get the job done better.
I feel like such thinking is vaguely greedy and a bit cowardly. It's like saying you are so unsure of your own ability to play effectively that you demand that I make up for it by being even better, and then getting angry when we "only" win by a few kills, or "only" have a couple of minutes left on the mission timer. From the other side, I know people think its selfish to be more concerned with my own fun than with the feelings of people who feel 'punished' when they perceive that their team is under-optimized. I simply disagree with that analysis of the situation. It seems silly to complain that if I show up in a Galaxy I am gimping us relative to me showing up in <other ship>, because me in <other ship> doesn't exist. You are basically accusing me of being selfish for denying you something that isn't even real in the first place.
From my perspective, I'm not demanding anything from those players, I'm simply rejecting their selfish attempts to make me play the way they want me to. In a pre-made, sure, there is a place for having people discuss what they expect from each other's builds, but in a PuG situation I feel like the inherent social contract is "I will try my very best to complete the mission with the people/ships on hand, and I will not get bent out of shape when the random people I work with aren't exactly what I would choose". If someone says "I'll heal", and then doesn't, well... that's one thing. If someone says "I'll heal", and does, it seems selfish to me to quibble about the way they did it, or to feel entitled to have that person play something different just so you don't feel like you are missing out on the hypothetical better healer they might have been in another ship.
If my position still seems unreasonable, then I don't know what else to say. I will continue to defend my right to play the game the way I want to, and I will continue to defend my claim that I am not unreasonable in my position about the Galaxy and the (lack of) a need for change. If you want to have a discussion about why, on balance making changes to the Galaxy make sense, even given the reasonable opposition to it, that's fine. If all you want to do is "prove" that I'm unreasonable for daring to disagree with the hyperbolic group-think of the forums, well, that's never going to happen, and I think that is an unreasonable position to take.
FIXED.