rejecting basic mathematics associated with the implementation of the ship and the boff power selections available. leaving it with less damage potential then other options due to both tac console and boff options, and less tanking ability than other ships due to shares timers on engie boff abilities
basic realisation that doing damage is how to win in an environment based on killing targets equates to cowardice according to you. how very quaint.
No, cowardice is projecting your own fears that if someone ELSE doesn't do an extra special good job, you won't get the results you want. Basically, you are absolving yourself of responsibility to do your job under the guise of demanding a higher level of "competence" from others than you seem to demand from yourself. You don't see it the same way, and I have absolutely no interest in trying to prove that your view of the situation is "wrong". I will merely, again, affirm that my position is neither irrational nor unreasonable. Your view seems to be that it is selfish to not accede to what you feel are the reasonable requests of others. My view is it is selfish to make the requests in the first place.
Second, I'm not the one denying the mathematics here. The Galaxy does plenty of damage to be useful in any role you want to put it in. ANY ROLE. Your denial of that flies in the face of the iron-clad fact that I have used it and never felt useless. The tired response of "you'd do better in another ship" is, as I pointed out, a mirage. I'm not in another ship, nor am I going to choose to change to assuage your fear that you're not good enough to complete a mission without an optimized team carrying you to victory.
Your argument is merely that the Galaxy doesn't kill stuff as fast as you want. Stop acting like it is impossible to complete missions in one. It does, in fact, kill stuff, and the degree to which it's damage potential is 'too low' is vastly overstated by you and the rest of the people who want a change. You will say that it is better to kill stuff faster. I disagree, because my goal isn't often to finish a mission in anything under the optional timer. A mission taking too long to me is a non-issue, because the point of the game to me is to play the game, not to finish everything fast enough to ensure that nobody questions my internet cred.
read above. you are being entirely unreasonable. for the reasons i already pointed out.
a competitive galaxy would not prevent you from doing the same thing you do now. it would simply add the option to do better for those who want it.
The "reasons" you pointed out above are simply a restatement of the ground we've gone over again and again. I know what your argument is, why you believe it, and I acknowledge that it is, at least, a reasonable way to look at the game. You keep acting like it is not possible for both your views and my views to be valid, and then when I point out that, in fact, it's not possible to 'disprove' either one, you will mistakenly accuse me of being wishy-washy for pointing out (again) that you can't prove that your view is the only reasonable one.
As for the "You can still do whatever, and other people would benefit from it" - this is unquestionably the best argument that the Galaxy fans have, but it's still not that good. First, it basically concedes that there is no benefit to me of the change, and at best attempts to make me feel bad for "denying" people an option that you assume costs me nothing. At best, your argument operates from a standpoint of "you gain nothing, but also lose nothing, so just accept it." That is a weak justification indeed. Moreover, I do think, on the whole, that making changes would end up being more harmful than beneficial, not just to me, but to the player base at large. I think there are reasons to believe the fixes proposed are unlikely to resolve the "Galaxy is the worst" issue without creating another theoretical "goat" of a ship, which means the problem isn't really solved, just shoved on to a different ship and different group of players than the ones you care about.
Further, I think there is a justifiable fear that even if it did work without obsoleting other ships, there would be people who were upset that resources were spent on a ship that they don't care about, instead of on something they feel is more pressing. Since I also suspect that the group of players who would be angered by such a move exceeds the number of players who would benefit and be happy, I think the costs outweigh the benefits. I also think that the costs in dev time needed to adjust the seating, the consoles, etc, and push that change out live without breaking anything is more substantial than people suspect, else I think it would already have been done with some ships. Given the seemingly minor benefit to the game as a whole, let alone the complete lack of benefit to me as an individual, it doesn't seem like a prudent investment of resources.
doing any role and being competaint in that role are vary different
i could be a team healer in a shuttle. it can do the role it is a horrible option but it can do it. i could also tank in a shuttle again it would be horrible but it could do it
the gal-r and fleet gal-r is the shuttle of cruisers. it can do the job... eventual but you are hurting your team by flying one. wnat to be a team healer? fly the FREE star cruiser and do better.
heck the cheyenne the kitbash special with 4 sharpie pens for engines is a better cruiser then the gal-r
still waiting for him to name 1 thing a galaxy class can do better then any other cruiser, hell any 1 thing it can do as well as any cruiser. if there was anything it could do as well or better, this thread would not exist.
ive been trying to figure out were he could possibly be coming from, and i think its just that he is the opposite of a minmaxer, so flying something wholly inferior doesn't bother him. maybe its something he cant even recognize. but, for some reason, he is dead set on defending his right to fly a sucky ship, and your a terrible person for saying he should pull his own weight in all team content. teams succeed in spite of you, if your ok with that, your names proboly mrtshead. theres a giant lack of reason why not to buff the ship as well, in this argument. unless you really get something out of being mediocre.
its no to big a deal in most pve, but you can truly be the bane of your teams existence if you bring that ship into pvp. if it isnt a 1 sided match, your waist of space presence can contribute to the match dragging on for an hour or more. i know, ive been that guy a few times in a galaxy, doing pvp. there was absolutely no decisive way to effect the enemy in that ship, and its ability to keep itself alive is below average too.
at least we have all the power creep to thank for allowing any of the pve to be completed by any quality of ship and player. the vast majority of it is built for those that cant get more then about 10% of a ships potential out of it, why the hell is it relevant to say a galaxy can successfully slog through it all? theres not a more useless point to try to make, then to say oh but the galaxy can complete all the content in game with flying colors! ya, and so can a shuttle. you can blow through an stf with tier 3 ships, EASILY. if you like that horrible station setup, go fly an ody, at least you can get better console setups to go with it.
to defend this literally insane opinion of his, all he can do is attack the way something is argued, not any of the points. or like hes trying to establish reasonable doubt on things we all know are true about the ship, like he can get its suckyness acquitted or something. there is not reasonable doubt about this combinations of station powers. the galaxy class is an extreamly bad ship compared to all other alternatives, this can be proven in practice, by real numbers in a parcer, or on paper with simple build theory craft.
i can go through that painstakingly if you wish, to literally prove it.
to say that just an opinion, or that its an unknowable, or theres to many variables, i really dont understand this, its all knowable to me. i know what all the force multipliers do on their own, how to make good combinations of them, how to generate good spike or good sustained, how to heal and tank and at what point you activate certain heals and resists to prolong yours and others life the longest. all these things require certain basic components, the galaxy lacks a station setup that can create a build that can do any of these things above a mediocre level. its truly shocking that at this point, it can be debated that this ship is in need of changing.
doing any role and being competaint in that role are vary different
i could be a team healer in a shuttle. it can do the role it is a horrible option but it can do it. i could also tank in a shuttle again it would be horrible but it could do it
the gal-r and fleet gal-r is the shuttle of cruisers. it can do the job... eventual but you are hurting your team by flying one. wnat to be a team healer? fly the FREE star cruiser and do better.
heck the cheyenne the kitbash special with 4 sharpie pens for engines is a better cruiser then the gal-r
with cmdr eng
ltc eng
lt sci
lt tac
ens tac
and a 4/3/3 console layout and 8 turn
whenever i go from my fleet galaxy to another ship, it tends to be my fleet heavy. and im able to do twice as well in it as i just did with the galaxy, with just the seemingly tiny difference between them. im able to run the much stronger EPtS3, im able to run APB along with my FAW, and theres still room for DEM3, RSP2, and the often handy ET1. not to mention the turn rate is 2 points better at its base, making a huge difference for protecting shield faceings from focus fire, and keeping all 8 guns on a target.
compare that to the galaxyR though, and i give up my attack pastern, a tac console, EPtS3 capability, and im left with a LTC station i have nothing useful for. AB is TRIBBLE, HE clears it instantly or theres EWP that nearly useless on a ship with 6 base turn that cant slot APO. i could use ET3 or EPtS3 in that slot, but then im effectively running a ship without the 5 boff slot. what am i getting in exchange for a useless LTC level station slot? turns out nothing, the ship has the worst mobility and least damage dealing any cruiser could have, in every category of measurement, it loses. what am i missing out on? everything an excelsior or ambassador could slot with their LTC tac or sci. even that fleet heavy, with its ENS station not used for eng, can be great, and comfortably cover all the defensive basses without any overlap or redundancy.
holy TRIBBLE the ship is bad, dont even get me started on how bad a heal boat it is
I have to agree. Most ships - even ships that only have 2 tac consoles or subpar boff layouts - have something they're good at. If there was something the Galaxy could do well, some niche it could fill that 3 other ships couldn't fill better - there wouldn't be a problem.
But, as this thread indicates, clearly, there is a problem. To me, it seems to result largely from the fact that the ship in question is the most seen ship in Star Trek. There isn't a worse choice for a ship to make absolutely redundant (well, except the Constitution, but that's a moot point). The Galaxy - a ship that people are going to want to fly and have fun in seeing as this is a Star Trek game - is irrelevant. That's not good on any level.
Compare it to any similar ship and you'll see the problem. The Operations Odyssey laughs at the Galaxy. The Science Odyssey, Star Cruiser and Ambassador do anything it can do, but better. And then there's the Negh'var: compared to the Galaxy, the Fleet Negh'var gives up 1,100 hull. What does it gain? A cloak, +3(!) turn rate, cannon usage, and even a universal ensign. How is that fair?
The bottom line (as it seems to me, at least - I do make this disclaimer :P) is that the Galaxy has no reason to exist in the ship lineup as is, other than the fact it is a very prominent canon ship. From a basic gameplay standpoint, that's a bad situation, and something needs to be changed, whether it's a buff to the Galaxy or even something more drastic. But that poor, poor ship needs something.
OP: The Galaxy class has a woefully low level of chocolate in this game. It clearly needs more chocolate. Why on earth haven't the devs fixed this glaring and obvious oversight?
Many follow on posters: YEAH! We love chocolate! Let's get some more chocolate in here. How dare the stupid, vindictive, horrible Devs deny the most iconic ship in the game its rightful amount of chocolate?! They should be ashamed for not increasing the level of chocolate immediately. In fact, the Galaxy should have the most chocolate in the entire game! This needs to happen right away, and if it doesn't, it's proof that the devs are either incompetent or monsters.
Dissent: Woah, hold on. The Galaxy actually has enough chocolate to do anything in the game, and it certainly doesn't need to have the MOST chocolate.
Poster: Actually, in canon, the Galaxy not only had the most chocolate of its era, it had the most chocolate of any area, ever. In fact, in the tech manual Milton Hershey said that the Galaxy has the most chocolate, because it stacked the boxes right next to each other, so that you actually get more chocolate per box than if you spread them around.
Dissent: That makes no sense. There's no way packing the boxes next to each other increases the amount of chocolate in a box. If anything, packing them that way DECREASES the amount chocolate the ship has overall, because of all the extra packaging. Plus, I never felt like the Galaxy had all that much chocolate in the show. I mean, it was full of school kids - it would be stupid to put kids on a ship intended to deliver chocolate, because they would eat it all, and might get sick. Finally, in the movies, the Sovereign clearly was intended to be an upgrade to the Galaxy, and had better chocolate technology by design.
Poster: Look, I'm an expert on imaginary chocolate delivery, and I've thought about this a lot. You're assuming things based on modern packaging, when future packaging would be much, much better. As far as your little interpretation of the show goes, you're just wrong. The tech manual says otherwise, and I can make everything in the show consistent with it. It's really the way I say.
Dissent: It's not "really" anything, because it's not real. The tech manual is clearly junk science, and is contradicted by the notes from the movie. Whatever. Look, you can view the canon your way, we'll view it another way, it doesn't really matter because canon isn't a good way to set up the game anyway, since its so fluid and subjective.
Poster: It's not subjective at all. Nothing is subjective. If you can't see that objectively the ship is supposed to have more chocolate in canon, and objectively it has the least amount of chocolate in the game, then I don't know what. It's obvious the Galaxy is completely useless right now to every thinking person. It's like you don't even play the game.
Dissent: I play the game just fine, I just don't think chocolate is that important, I don't think you have the only possible interpretation of how canon treats chocolate, and I know that it's not true that the Galaxy is useless, because I use it just fine. You might not be able to deliver chocolate effectively with it, but I can, certainly well enough to be successful in the game.
Poster: LOL if you hate chocolate, what do you think is important in this game? There's no way anyone can be successful in a Galaxy, because the only criteria for success is how fast you deliver chocolate. If you can't recognize that simple truth, you are beyond reason.
Dissent: I don't hate chocolate, I just don't think it's the most important thing. I prefer black liquorice, and I think focusing on chocolate is narrow-minded and limiting. I also don't define success as "delivering chocolate as fast as possible", because once you get to a certain chocolate delivery threshold (which is possible to achieve in the Galaxy), then you complete any content in the game. Again, I'm not sure why this simple point is escaping you. This is all subjective. You are choosing what to value, and you are using your choices to attempt to paint people who think differently from you as unreasonable. This is bush-league level argumentation, and I will be sarcastically patient in tone with you over and over again in a futile attempt to get you to see where I'm coming from.
Poster: You are simply an unreasonable newb who forces other people to accept your black liquorice because you are too wrapped up in your pedantic and fallacious argument to understand that the only thing that matters is bringing chocolate to the party, and literally any other ship would bring more chocolate than the Galaxy, so you are ruining the party for your teammates by being selfish. Everyone knows that chocolate is the best, and everyone hates black liquorice. Only a selfish troll would ever say otherwise.
Dissent: Look, you might be too narrow-minded to understand that things that you like, or even things that MANY people like, are not the same things as things that EVERYBODY likes, but I'm not. More to the point, I can bring enough chocolate to the party in a Galaxy to make sure the party is fun for everyone, so I think it's selfish to tell me that I have to change my ways simply because people want more chocolate than they really need.
Poster: No, you are selfish and a troll for not realizing that by showing up in the Galaxy, you are denying your team the chocolate they could have had if you only used a better ship. Thus, you are preventing your team from getting all the chocolate they deserve because you are selfishly focused on your own insane position that black liquorice is worth anything. There is no way the Galaxy can bring enough chocolate to be fun.
Dissent: I've done it, though, so that last statement is provably false. I think what you want to say is you think that it's more difficult to bring chocolate with the Galaxy, and that you think many people might be happier if that were changed. Certainly some people would not be happy with the change, and most people probably wouldn't care. I think if you could see past the choco-focused way you're looking at the game you might have more fun.
Poster: YOUR argument is provably false, because it's a dichotomous fallacy wrapped in a straw man sophistry. Stop pretending that things are relative, and admit that the only valid way to view the world is mine.
Dissent: Wow, uh, you're basically a clown. I don't think you know what most of those words mean, and you haven't substantively engaged my argument. What's especially stupid is that I'm not even saying you are wrong to like chocolate, I'm saying that some people are allowed to like black liquorice, and you are basically being a narrow-minded bigot.
Poster: Whatever, you're a troll. In any case, why would you challenge this, because you could still pretend to like black liquorice like the worthless scrub you are, if only you wouldn't selfishly deny others their chocolate.
Dissent: That last part sort of makes sense, but I think if you look at the big picture, you'll see that there are at least reasons why, even though some people might be happy, it wouldn't be good for the game as a whole to mess around with who gets how much chocolate. Can we please move past the part of the conversation where you deny that any possibility for reasonable dissent exists, and move to talking about why, given that it's not automatically objectively true that the Galaxy needs to be change, a change might or might not be a good idea.
Poster: Whatever, this guy is a fool and a liar. He want to prevent us from getting the chocolate we deserve because he's a crazy black liquorice newb. He won't even argue properly, instead he just tries to make it seem like multiple views are valid so he doesn't have to admit that he's wrong about hating chocolate and being a selfish prick.
Poster: I agree, black liquorice sucks.
Poster: I can't even get where he's coming from. It's utterly impossible that someone could like black liquorice unless he/she was so unreasoning as to be a sub-human creature that we should continue to dismiss as irrelevant.
Dissent: TRIBBLE it. Being a pedantic prick didn't work, being sarcastically patient didn't work, restating my argument as simply and reasonably as I could didn't work. These guys don't want discussion, they seem to just want to vent their incredulous outrage that someone would dare question their truisms. I guess I will try satirizing the whole thing, see if that let's people see how silly they are being, and move us forward. If not, maybe it will be funny, but I'm too tired (and possibly drunk) to know for sure.
tl;dr. some TRIBBLE about chocolate, more analogies, a parity of the thread, lets try to make everyone but me look stupid.
cant debate, loses on the facts every time, no coherent response on the subject, tries to attacks the way a person presents facts, still cant refute them, can only troll.
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.
Your feelings are Irrelevant as it is plain and simple the truth, hence why the Galaxy needs an update to compete in the tier 5 ships its been assigned to.
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.
People at this point dont THINK that it is a failure it is. It was put into game as a tank but this game has no need use or design to have tanks. Hull and shields don't make that much difference if you got the firepower and since most to all objectives rely on having dps it is not wanted in a team where someone could have brought something else and done a much better job. This is one of those cases where if you get everything done noone complains but if you miss the bonus everyone is gonna see that some guy in the galaxy and say thats their problem. What you expect from ppl and what you get will often be two very different things. All this could easily be avoided if they had kept tanks needed and made cruisers and ships with lower dps like the G-R fill that role well. But they didn't.
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.
You act as if this is so personal. Why should you have to stop playing your galaxy as if ppl here are going to take it away, yet you fight so hard against it being updated. Its simple Illogical.
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.
Could have done it better in another ship and again this is one of those if you pull it off as a healer your gonna be fine if you don't you'll see them blaming you or they will just quietly complain between themselves or other groupmates.
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.
Play the game anyway you want I could care less, hell run around in a tier 1 doing estf's for all I care or a shuttle for that matter. Honestly if I'm uncomfortable with how someone is doing something I simply ignore it and play somewhere else or leave the STF. Whether you feel your right or wrong only really should matter to you. I just can't understand why if you have even a hint of a little clue that the galaxy is under performing why you would fight so hard to keep it that way if your actually really using one. Makes no sense but then again most Real Life don't so there you go. Have fun flying a under preforming ship and complaining about using it being your choice on the forums while saying its old and shouldn't be updated...
Whole Crapload of Nonsense and something about Chocolate. .
Ok maybe it had a point but I really couldn't read past the second line about some nonsense about chocolate. Sure he was building up to something to make his point though I'm really unsure what he actually is going for anymore other then he willing to use a whole lot of different arguments to keep this ship from being updated to the point that he flying one and proving it can do a lackluster job and skirt on by on the shoulders of others and noone should tell him how to play.
Honestly I can't understand why anyone that wanting to fly a galaxy would fight this hard to keep it from being updated on the basic that if you really try hard it will do okay... I guess I could spend a bunch of Dilithium and energy credits and make it an ok ship but rather not have to and have a decent ship on a budget that don't break the bank. You can make tier 4 preform well if you spend enough but its alot easier to do the same in a tier 5 and alot less expensive.
Carry on playing the ship the way you want to. But how about you let us go on with this thread about improving it without nonsense.
If I may be so bold, I will attempt to, a bit haphazardly and with some possible omissions of the finer details, summarize the entire massive disagreement that is current plaguing the thread.
I fully admit that I have not read everything, but after going through about a dozen walls of text, all of which are quite articulately argued, I have begun to notice a pattern here. Again I caution that, not having the patience to read through everything, the pattern I present may be incomplete, but I believe it covers the gist of what is currently transpiring, though perhaps not how it began.
Here goes.
Everybody: The Galaxy class sucks. All these other ships are so much or at least marginally better. Seems like Cryptic went out of its way to make it the worst thing possible.
That guy: What are you guys talking about? The Galaxy class is a great ship! I love it and I do well with it.
Everybody: That's super you enjoy the game with your favorite ship. It still sucks.
That guy: Nuh-uh! It's awesome! I have lotsa fun and performs just fine!
Everybody: That's super you enjoy the game with your favorite ship. It still sucks. I can prove it with math.
That guy: Nuh-uh! It's awesome! I have lotsa fun and performs just fine!
Everybody: That's super you enjoy the game with your favorite ship. It still sucks. I can prove it with math and the established canon.
That guy: Nuh-uh! It's awesome! I have lotsa fun and performs just fine!
Everybody: That's super you enjoy the game with your favorite ship. It still sucks. I can prove it with math and the established canon. Just because it's the worst ship in the game from a statistical perspective in virtually every way we can look it doesn't mean the ship is objectively terrible. It's obviously a capable vessel, but it's still the least capable vessel at its tier... and a couple tiers below it, too.
That guy: Parody everything! Also chocolate! (This was actually quite amusing. Everyone should read through it.)
Some arrogant new guy: If I may be so bold....
My analysis of this is that somehow somebody's poured some oil into a jar of water. Two mutually exclusive issues are being debated as though they are the same. Both sides have obviously made tangents into the opposition's territory, but the core arguments appear to be on totally different wavelengths.
mrtshead, you are correct as I understand your argument. The ship is indeed fun to play in. It's a classic icon of the Star Trek mythos and it just looks awesome. Beyond appearances and sentimental value it is certainly a capable vessel that can indeed clear all game content and it performs at least adequately, sometimes even if PVP.
Everybody else, you are also correct. Comparatively speaking the Galaxy class is an utter disappointment in every regard. It turns like a bus made of uranium, shoots like a pellet gun, and it has some mighty uncomfortable bridge seating. This is frustrating because in the show it turned on a dime, threw down like Bruce Lee, and it had enough work space on the bridge for everyone. When it showed up on the scene Klingons began to consider diplomacy and Romulans started nervously double checking their cloaking devices.
The Galaxy is an awesome ship. It's capable. To say it is useless is dishonest. It can succeed, but it doesn't succeed very well. Lesser ships can easily outperform it and that's a problem because it demonstrates bad game balance. A top tier ship should perform like its top tier associates. At best it is adequate, but the people who love it want it to be great. Surely the best of intentions were behind its design, but ultimately it was born obsolete. She has no teeth and gets around on a walker. Is it so much to ask for some dentures and a hoveround? It's about time the old girl got some TLC.
If I may be so bold, I will attempt to, a bit haphazardly and with some possible omissions of the finer details, summarize the entire massive disagreement that is current plaguing the thread.
I fully admit that I have not read everything, but after going through about a dozen walls of text, all of which are quite articulately argued, I have begun to notice a pattern here. Again I caution that, not having the patience to read through everything, the pattern I present may be incomplete, but I believe it covers the gist of what is currently transpiring, though perhaps not how it began.
Here goes.
you have won the entire thread, thats exactly what has gone on here.
If I may be so bold, I will attempt to, a bit haphazardly and with some possible omissions of the finer details, summarize the entire massive disagreement that is current plaguing the thread.
I fully admit that I have not read everything, but after going through about a dozen walls of text, all of which are quite articulately argued, I have begun to notice a pattern here. Again I caution that, not having the patience to read through everything, the pattern I present may be incomplete, but I believe it covers the gist of what is currently transpiring, though perhaps not how it began.
Here goes.
My analysis of this is that somehow somebody's poured some oil into a jar of water. Two mutually exclusive issues are being debated as though they are the same. Both sides have obviously made tangents into the opposition's territory, but the core arguments appear to be on totally different wavelengths.
mrtshead, you are correct as I understand your argument. The ship is indeed fun to play in. It's a classic icon of the Star Trek mythos and it just looks awesome. Beyond appearances and sentimental value it is certainly a capable vessel that can indeed clear all game content and it performs at least adequately, sometimes even if PVP.
Everybody else, you are also correct. Comparatively speaking the Galaxy class is an utter disappointment in every regard. It turns like a bus made of uranium, shoots like a pellet gun, and it has some mighty uncomfortable bridge seating. This is frustrating because in the show it turned on a dime, threw down like Bruce Lee, and it had enough work space on the bridge for everyone. When it showed up on the scene Klingons began to consider diplomacy and Romulans started nervously double checking their cloaking devices.
The Galaxy is an awesome ship. It's capable. To say it is useless is dishonest. It can succeed, but it doesn't succeed very well. Lesser ships can easily outperform it and that's a problem because it demonstrates bad game balance. A top tier ship should perform like its top tier associates. At best it is adequate, but the people who love it want it to be great. Surely the best of intentions were behind its design, but ultimately it was born obsolete. She has no teeth and gets around on a walker. Is it so much to ask for some dentures and a hoveround? It's about time the old girl got some TLC.
Carry on playing the ship the way you want to. But how about you let us go on with this thread about improving it without nonsense.
Well, let's see. This thread is almost 11 months old, has 458 pages and almost 4600 individual posts, and has made evidently zero progress towards your goal. So far you've gotten virtually no traction on this in the wider community - the consensus you imagine agreeing with you hasn't really appeared, and it's just the same strident voices over and over and over and over again in this thread. No devs have commented, and there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "Why are we being ignored?!"
My point is that what you have been doing has obviously not been working, and I think it's obvious that the way in which people have structured the argument is a big part of the reason. The discussion you SHOULD be trying to have is why, given your strong feelings on the subject, hasn't the Galaxy been fixed yet. There must be some reason why that is so, but so far people are so wrapped up in the idea that any dissent is necessarily either based on ignorance of the "facts" (or else is a troll) that that discussion can't happen. You can't expect to progress the discussion when your only response to perfectly valid and reasonable dissent is to shout it down based on hyperbolic absolutes that somewhere along the line started becoming accepted as some sort of group-think dogma.
So, are people in general ready yet to admit that it is possible that some people won't agree with them, and that such disagreement isn't necessarily ignorant, nor immoral? That maybe, on balance, no matter how strongly they feel about this issue, it might not be that important in the wider context of the game? Or that the effort required to solve the problem might exceed the benefits?
Or do you need another 460 pages of venting spleen and incredulous outrage before you see that it's not working?
The Galaxy class is usable and capable in PvE. My Engineer takes great pleasure in upstaging Escort jocks during CSE runs by defending Kang without Kang taking a scratch, although my Sci in a Fleet Nebula also gets that kick as well.
Is it however fun to play and use compared to a Ambassador/Excelsior/Sovereign/Avenger or even a Nebula ? god no ! after using the aforementioned ships piloting a Galaxy feels as bad as having teeth pulled. Its slow, low dps and everything after using any other tier 5 ship feels like god dam hard work and grind.
Everything bad about a ship in the game as it stands at present the Galaxy represents.
1. Lack of tactical abilities
2. Terrible turn rate
3. Poor Boff seating./ Lack of versatility
5. Poor console layout.
If Cryptic refuse or have no intention on changing the boff or console layout of this ship, the least they could do is increase the inertia and turn rate of the ship as a trade off for the Engineering heavy boff and Console layout to allow for better tanking to bring another shield facing to bear quicker.
Basically the C-Store and Fleet Galaxy are subpar. sold as Tier 5 and Fleet level but are outperformed by the Tier 4 Sovereign/Starcruiser and Defiant.
So in summary Galaxy is usable at end game however its performance compared to other Tier 5 and 4 ships is horrible.
It should not be being outperformed by Tier 4 ships. ships that are free to obtain over a ship you have to pay for outside of earning dil to zen conversion
Well, let's see. This thread is almost 11 months old, has 458 pages and almost 4600 individual posts, and has made evidently zero progress towards your goal. So far you've gotten virtually no traction on this in the wider community - the consensus you imagine agreeing with you hasn't really appeared, and it's just the same strident voices over and over and over and over again in this thread. No devs have commented, and there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "Why are we being ignored?!"
threads like this created things like the regent and a tier 5 akira. it also caused the d'deridex that originally had the galaxy R terrible station setup to have a complete rework before LoR launched. its people like you that derail this thread and drag it through the gutter, when you even put into question the FACT that the galaxy R is the worst ship in the game.
My point is that what you have been doing has obviously not been working, and I think it's obvious that the way in which people have structured the argument is a big part of the reason. The discussion you SHOULD be trying to have is why, given your strong feelings on the subject, hasn't the Galaxy been fixed yet. There must be some reason why that is so, but so far people are so wrapped up in the idea that any dissent is necessarily either based on ignorance of the "facts" (or else is a troll) that that discussion can't happen. You can't expect to progress the discussion when your only response to perfectly valid and reasonable dissent is to shout it down based on hyperbolic absolutes that somewhere along the line started becoming accepted as some sort of group-think dogma.
i know exactly why this hasn't been addressed. they are waiting to do anything galaxy related till they have second generation sep tech working on the galaxy model, the venture neck being at a different elevation is what seems to be causing a problem. thats whats holding up a fleet galaxy X too, sep capability for that ship will launch with it. i couldn't care less about that stupid smother looking tech though, trash it already
So, are people in general ready yet to admit that it is possible that some people won't agree with them, and that such disagreement isn't necessarily ignorant, nor immoral? That maybe, on balance, no matter how strongly they feel about this issue, it might not be that important in the wider context of the game? Or that the effort required to solve the problem might exceed the benefits?
Or do you need another 460 pages of venting spleen and incredulous outrage before you see that it's not working?
right, coming out with better and better ships is in no way important to the context, or success of this game. why then, do people keep drooling over all the beter and better ships that get released, when all you really need is some POS like the galaxy R to complete everything? i play this game for the pvp, nothing maters more then all the details you proboly consider minutia. i want to use the galaxy as one of my main ships. i cant do that because its such a horrible ship. i cant have fun pvping if im using a horrible ship, im not competitive and im a drag on the rest of the team for my vanity. people that arent as in to the competitive aspect of the game as me will benefit from another good ship becoming an option, their enjoyment of the game could only increase. are you ever going to explain why there shouldn't be an improved galaxy class? there was literally an improved sovereign released already.
The Galaxy is an awesome ship. It's capable. To say it is useless is dishonest. It can succeed, but it doesn't succeed very well.
that is what mrshead have succed to make you bielieve that we are claiming this.
when we said that this ship is useless, it is not in regard to the level of it performance.
we known it is capable even tho it is the less efficient ship.
he offert no advantage, no niche or whatsoever in comparison to ANY other cruiser.
for example the exelsior have better firepower potential than an ambassador, while the ambassador got more tanking potential.
you can do this kind of reasoning with the galaxy, because of it bo layout and turnrate inertia, there is NOTHING you can do better than ANY other cruiser.
hence if a ship offert no advantage but only drawback, you can't , reasonably, intelligently and logically included him in a pannel of ship choice.
it is redundant, only a player that absolutly want to have a galaxy will choose it.
but in a gameplay choice, it is useless.
Well, let's see. This thread is almost 11 months old, has 458 pages and almost 4600 individual posts, and has made evidently zero progress towards your goal.
So far you've gotten virtually no traction on this in the wider community - the consensus you imagine agreeing with you hasn't really appeared.
First, this is one forum thread among hundreds. Unless it's a pinned post you shouldn't be expecting many folks to show up.
Second, I propose an experiment a few of us should run here: head into a public area with lots of players and ask people what they think of the Galaxy class, not as an icon of Star Trek, but as a playable ship in STO. It's important to make that distinction be some people's answers may be opposite depending on the context. Mine would, anyway.
And third, majority is no grounds for determining fact. A majority of planet Earth still believes the sun is a god, or that it orbits us (if they understand anything about orbits at all), or they don't know the difference between a planet and a star.
Science, which includes the field of mathematics, is a far better guide to the truth. The math here says the Galaxy is a sub-optimal vessel by a wide margin. Sub-optimal does not mean useless, in fact it still perform brilliantly, but it has to try a lot harder. It's also fine to be suboptimal, but not by a wide margin.
No devs have commented, and there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "Why are we being ignored?!"
This is also a fair a point and there could be a number of reasons. There's a lot of vitriol being thrown around here. Devs probably avoid threads like that, so this one may already be too poisonous to get any recognition.
On the other hand, maybe the devs aren't a bunch of panzies and simply haven't noticed it or have chosen to ignore it for other reasons. I really can't do anything other than speculate because... well... the devs aren't here to say anything.
The discussion you SHOULD be trying to have is why, given your strong feelings on the subject, hasn't the Galaxy been fixed yet.
No. This is perhaps the debate you would like to have or change it into, but it is not the one going on here. If this is what you really want to discuss, go start your own thread on the topic and stop completely derailing this one.
You're right, there probably is a reason, but the STO devs have never shared it with us and we aren't privy to their reasoning or lack thereof. You have posited a non-falsifiable assertion. Any answers to your question can only be speculative since we have no data to work with. That's bad science.
It would be like intercepting a short alien transmission, finally confirming the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, and then trying to discuss their dining etiquette based on a short "hello." What you want to discuss is worth discussing, but its a conversation you can only have with the devs because they're the only ones who can answer you. Bringing it up here is only derailing.
What is... or was trying to be discussed here, is a comparative analysis of the Galaxy class and other vessels at its tier. This can be done with hard data: math. This is good science and it is an issue we can make progress with. Perhaps the devs will chime in and say "actually you've got it all bass-ackwards and here's why," but that's something only they can do.
but so far people are so wrapped up in the idea that any dissent is necessarily either based on ignorance of the "facts" (or else is a troll) that that discussion can't happen.
This is because your "dissent" is actually unrelated to the topic at hand. You say the Galaxy is just fine the way it is. In the sense that it is functional you are correct, the Galaxy is just fine, but that's not what people are trying to discuss here.
This thread is discussing how the Galaxy is comparatively inferior and what improvements might be made to bring it up to par. I believe I previously mentioned that good enough isn't good enough for us. We want the galaxy to be great and you want to ask us why. That's not what we're here to talk about.
Basically you've come to Oktoberfest and are asking everyone why they're wasting their time drinking beer when they should be drinking wine, and are continually frustrated when everyone answers "Because we're here to drink BEER!"
That maybe, on balance, no matter how strongly they feel about this issue, it might not be that important in the wider context of the game?
Of course it isn't! It's a single ship amongst dozens, but it's one the people here really like and want to shine. STO isn't going to crash and there won't be a massive exodus of disappointed players if this issue is never fixed to our satisfaction, but it is the issue that people have chosen to discuss here. Asking why is beyond pointless. The answer is a tautology. "Why are we talking about X here? Because that's what we're here to talk about."
More confusing here is that you seemed to have changed the angle of your argument from "If it's so broken, why haven't they fixed it?" to "What's the point?" Please decide on and remain consistent with your arguments.
Or that the effort required to solve the problem might exceed the benefits?
So now you admit there is a problem, but ask if it is even worth the time and effort and to fix it? That is totally irrelevant. As I and many others before me have stated already, this thread is discussing the shortcomings of the Galaxy and suggesting improvements, not whether it is pheasible or even necessary for the devs to implement the changes proposed.
You've also changed your core argument again here, from "What's the point?" to "Will they even bother?"
First, this is one forum thread among hundreds. Unless it's a pinned post you shouldn't be expecting many folks to show up.
Second, I propose an experiment a few of us should run here: head into a public area with lots of players and ask people what they think of the Galaxy class, not as an icon of Star Trek, but as a playable ship in STO. It's important to make that distinction be some people's answers may be opposite depending on the context. Mine would, anyway.
And third, majority is no grounds for determining fact. A majority of planet Earth still believes the sun is a god, or that it orbits us (if they understand anything about orbits at all), or they don't know the difference between a planet and a star.
Science, which includes the field of mathematics, is a far better guide to the truth. The math here says the Galaxy is a sub-optimal vessel by a wide margin. Sub-optimal does not mean useless, in fact it still perform brilliantly, but it has to try a lot harder. It's also fine to be suboptimal, but not by a wide margin.
This is also a fair a point and there could be a number of reasons. There's a lot of vitriol being thrown around here. Devs probably avoid threads like that, so this one may already be too poisonous to get any recognition.
On the other hand, maybe the devs aren't a bunch of panzies and simply haven't noticed it or have chosen to ignore it for other reasons. I really can't do anything other than speculate because... well... the devs aren't here to say anything.
No. This is perhaps the debate you would like to have or change it into, but it is not the one going on here. If this is what you really want to discuss, go start your own thread on the topic and stop completely derailing this one.
You're right, there probably is a reason, but the STO devs have never shared it with us and we aren't privy to their reasoning or lack thereof. You have posited a non-falsifiable assertion. Any answers to your question can only be speculative since we have no data to work with. That's bad science.
It would be like intercepting a short alien transmission, finally confirming the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, and then trying to discuss their dining etiquette based on a short "hello." What you want to discuss is worth discussing, but its a conversation you can only have with the devs because they're the only ones who can answer you. Bringing it up here is only derailing.
What is... or was trying to be discussed here, is a comparative analysis of the Galaxy class and other vessels at its tier. This can be done with hard data: math. This is good science and it is an issue we can make progress with. Perhaps the devs will chime in and say "actually you've got it all bass-ackwards and here's why," but that's something only they can do.
This is because your "dissent" is actually unrelated to the topic at hand. You say the Galaxy is just fine the way it is. In the sense that it is functional you are correct, the Galaxy is just fine, but that's not what people are trying to discuss here.
This thread is discussing how the Galaxy is comparatively inferior and what improvements might be made to bring it up to par. I believe I previously mentioned that good enough isn't good enough for us. We want the galaxy to be great and you want to ask us why. That's not what we're here to talk about.
Basically you've come to Oktoberfest and are asking everyone why they're wasting their time drinking beer when they should be drinking wine, and are continually frustrated when everyone answers "Because we're here to drink BEER!"
Of course it isn't! It's a single ship amongst dozens, but it's one the people here really like and want to shine. STO isn't going to crash and there won't be a massive exodus of disappointed players if this issue is never fixed to our satisfaction, but it is the issue that people have chosen to discuss here. Asking why is beyond pointless. The answer is a tautology. "Why are we talking about X here? Because that's what we're here to talk about."
More confusing here is that you seemed to have changed the angle of your argument from "If it's so broken, why haven't they fixed it?" to "What's the point?" Please decide on and remain consistent with your arguments.
So now you admit there is a problem, but ask if it is even worth the time and effort and to fix it? That is totally irrelevant. As I and many others before me have stated already, this thread is discussing the shortcomings of the Galaxy and suggesting improvements, not whether it is pheasible or even necessary for the devs to implement the changes proposed.
You've also changed your core argument again here, from "What's the point?" to "Will they even bother?"
hehehe, you have just exposed all his hypocrisys here.
notice that anything that could be use to make us look like 14 years old selfish galaxy fanboy has and will be use by this guy to try to discredit us.
at least he make this thread going...
so unlike the galaxy, he is not totally useless;)
Now that I've posted yet another waterfall of quotes and rebuttals, I think maybe it's high time we returned to the issue everyone here actually came to discuss.
"Why does the Galaxy suck?"
Allow me to offer my two pence, which I'm sure scores of others have already iterated upon. It's too slow, has terrible bridge seating, and lacks a third tactical console. Now to explain myself and offer some solutions.
Issue 1: It turns like a drunk whale.
Wow. This is really annoying. As it is, the Galaxy is meant to be a beam boat, woe to the fool who tries to put torpedoes on it. Sure it can turn pretty well if you separate the saucer, but then it's not really a cruiser anymore, as the stats change to be more like an escort. Plus it looks pretty gimpy like that. She's supposed to be a classy lady, not schizophrenic tart who removes her top at the first sign of danger.
Solution 1a: Lose some weight, fatty.
The easiest solution is just to improve the turning. In my opinion nothing but a carrier should corner so badly... which brings me to my second proposed solution.
Solution 1b: What a MILF!
Mothership I'd Like to Fly. Get your heads out of the gutter. Instead of turning better the Galaxy would be a perfect candidate to be a carrier ship. According to specs and a whole bunch of episodes she's already got two docking bays and one of them is quite large. I think she's got enough capacity between them to host a wing fighter craft. Just the one wing, though. She's got 8 guns on her and doesn't need a full carrier compliment.
Issue 2: A Smart Car has better seating.
Does anyone remember the episode when the showed up somewhere and no one was intimidated because everyone knew it was little more than a giant ball of HP? Or all the times the crew was faced with a scientific puzzle they couldn't solve because the ship didn't have enough treknobabboratories to modify the proper phase variance? I don't either.
The ship has way too much engineering focus, to the point that no matter what set of abilities you use, somebody is going to end up with some redundant or rarely used powers. I usually left my ensign slot unmanned, for instance.
Solution 2: The SUV of Starfleet.
My preferred boff layout would be an engineering Cmdr slot, a science Lt Cmdr slot, 2 tactical Lt slots, and keep the ensign engineering. First and foremost the Galaxy class is an exploration cruiser. It makes sense to have an engineering and science focus, with ancillary systems dedicated to combat. I can certainly see the argument for reversing the tactical and science consoles I've proposed: having a tactical Lt Cmdr and 2 Lt sciences, but I don't think that would fit with the canon quite as well.
With two tactical slots you can still get a pair of tac teams and two basic weapon abilities like Fire at Will, Overcharged, Torpedo Spread, or High Yield. She's a science ship, but she's got some teeth. The Lt Cmdr slot opens up some high end science abilities like Grav Well and whatnot. With the size of the Galaxy class's deflector and all the science facilities aboard, I expect more than just hazard emitters, science teams, and tractor beams.
Issue 3: All gums.
The Galaxy class was made to be an explorer, a great big long range vessel capable of being entirely self sufficient, barring disaster, for extended lengths of time. That means better than average crew quarters, holodecks, a whole bunch of laboratories, plenty of engineering staff and supplies to keep the ship in good maintenance... and GUNS. You don't know what you're going to encounter there in the great unknown, so you pack some serious just in case hardware for those close encounters of the ugly kind.
The current Galaxy class does not have the consoles it needs to be a formidable opponent, even with 8 guns and a hypothetical boff refit of 2 Lt tactical stations. With the addition of a single carrier squadron, I think 2 tactical consoles would be fine, but right now the Galaxy doesn't have any of these proposed features.
Solution 3: Dentures.
She needs a third tactical console. Maybe take away an engineering console in trade, I'd be fine with that. Then she'd be pretty even across the board; a perfect fit for a vessel that's supposed to do everything.
First, this is one forum thread among hundreds. Unless it's a pinned post you shouldn't be expecting many folks to show up.
My point was a pre-emption of the claim that OBVIOUSLY a majority of people care about this, because the thread is so long yadda yadda. I'm laying that groundwork now, because it will become important if/when this thread turns into something useful, instead of a trainwreck of reason propelled by people's inability to properly analyze arguments.
Second, I propose an experiment a few of us should run here: head into a public area with lots of players and ask people what they think of the Galaxy class, not as an icon of Star Trek, but as a playable ship in STO. It's important to make that distinction be some people's answers may be opposite depending on the context. Mine would, anyway.
You forgot to add some important questions to your poll - namely "do you currently own a Galaxy class?", "Do you desire a change to the Galaxy?", "How likely would you be to buy a new Galaxy class? At what price point?" "If instead of a new ship, the current ship was changed, would you be likely to buy it?" "If only the fleet version were changed, would that affect your decision?" "How would you rate the following in terms of priority: revised/new Galaxy class, new canon federation ships (New Orleans class, etc), new Cryptic original designs, new non-federation (KDF/Republic) ships, new mission content, updates to foundry content, bug fixes to current ships, new skins for existing ships?" I am absolutely behind this sort of in depth research, because it is one of the only way to get the kind of information that would help to justify or dejustify changing the Galaxy.
And third, majority is no grounds for determining fact. A majority of planet Earth still believes the sun is a god, or that it orbits us (if they understand anything about orbits at all), or they don't know the difference between a planet and a star.
Science, which includes the field of mathematics, is a far better guide to the truth. The math here says the Galaxy is a sub-optimal vessel by a wide margin. Sub-optimal does not mean useless, in fact it still perform brilliantly, but it has to try a lot harder. It's also fine to be suboptimal, but not by a wide margin.
First, yes, I know that majority doesn't determine fact. That's partially my point. It doesn't matter how many people like/dislike something, those numbers don't make something objectively good or bad.
Second, things like "good/bad/suboptimal by acceptable margin/suboptimal by a wide margin" are all value judgements that cannot be proven by science. Math can tell you that the Galaxy does X damage. It cannot tell you if that number is sufficient for you to feel like the ship is useful or not. That is a value judgement, and people can disagree on those values without being unreasonable.
The hitch is that I am being told (basically) that my value judgement is wrong and unreasonable because it so completely flies in the face of accepted convention. This is wrong, because as you have pointed out we don't actually have the evidence to know what the "accepted convention" really is, nor how deeply any consensus on this issue runs, and even if we DID know, well, as you say, pure majority agreement on an issue doesn't make something true, especially when that thing cannot be "proven" scientifically one way or the other.
No. This is perhaps the debate you would like to have or change it into, but it is not the one going on here. If this is what you really want to discuss, go start your own thread on the topic and stop completely derailing this one.
Yes. The purpose of the thread is to propose a change to the Galaxy class, to fix it's perceived shortcomings. The question of "Is this a good idea?" is vital to that discussion. It literally doesn't matter how much some people want it to happen, if, on balance, it ends up being not worth the time and energy to make the change. This should not be a concept that is this difficult for people to grasp, yet in the context of this thread it is impossible to get to because we're stuck with people who want to assume that all dissenting voices are objectively wrong, so there is no need to engage with them.
You're right, there probably is a reason, but the STO devs have never shared it with us and we aren't privy to their reasoning or lack thereof. You have posited a non-falsifiable assertion. Any answers to your question can only be speculative since we have no data to work with. That's bad science.
I'm right, there's definitely A reason, unless you decide to through causality out the window. You're right, we can't know the reason for certain. What's more important is that the question isn't even if there are reasons or not, it's are those reasons actually sufficient or not. You are absolutely right that these kinds of suppositions and subjective discussions are bad science. That's why they are NOT SCIENCE, and why I have been saying all along that people need to stop trying to objectively prove their subjective opinions true.
Put another way, I know that my opinions are non-falsifiable. I am saying that the whole core concept of the thread, that the Galaxy is useless, is non-falsifiable, and thus "bad science". Thus, people should stop treating it as an objective claim that they have "proven", and instead as a subjective interpretation that is not necessarily universal, and is open to discussion.
It would be like intercepting a short alien transmission, finally confirming the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, and then trying to discuss their dining etiquette based on a short "hello." What you want to discuss is worth discussing, but its a conversation you can only have with the devs because they're the only ones who can answer you. Bringing it up here is only derailing.
What is... or was trying to be discussed here, is a comparative analysis of the Galaxy class and other vessels at its tier. This can be done with hard data: math. This is good science and it is an issue we can make progress with. Perhaps the devs will chime in and say "actually you've got it all bass-ackwards and here's why," but that's something only they can do.
First, I think you are misreading the purpose of the thread. It is not merely to compare the Galaxy to other ships, but rather to propose a solution to the perceived problem arising from that comparison. Is quantitatively analyzing the Galaxy good science? Sure. Is taking that analysis and creating a subjective judgement based on it good science? No. It's not an unreasonable thing to do, but it's not science anymore. It's interpretation, or opinion. Taking those opinions a step further, and proposing a solution? Also reasonable, but also not science, and certainly is something that is open to question.
This is because your "dissent" is actually unrelated to the topic at hand. You say the Galaxy is just fine the way it is. In the sense that it is functional you are correct, the Galaxy is just fine, but that's not what people are trying to discuss here.
It's not a derail at all - the discussion of whether a proposal is a good idea or not is absolutely germane to the discussion. For example, what if the topic of a thread was "How should the Devs add Imperial Class Star Destroyers to the game?". Would it be legitimate for someone to go into that thread and say "They shouldn't"? The same principle applies here. If the question is "How should the Galaxy be improved?", "It shouldn't" is a legitimate answer, even if it's not the one you agree with, or want to hear.
This thread is discussing how the Galaxy is comparatively inferior and what improvements might be made to bring it up to par. I believe I previously mentioned that good enough isn't good enough for us. We want the galaxy to be great and you want to ask us why. That's not what we're here to talk about.
Basically you've come to Oktoberfest and are asking everyone why they're wasting their time drinking beer when they should be drinking wine, and are continually frustrated when everyone answers "Because we're here to drink BEER!"
Your analogy is inapt, because it loses the part of the thread where action is being proposed. If the thread was merely "what do you like/dislike" about the Galaxy", that would be one thing. This is not that. A better analogy might be something like:
A group of Beer aficionados decides to hold a public debate about the best way to throw an Oktoberfest festival in the town. Someone attends, asking if an Oktoberfest festival is really necessary in the first place. Certainly, regardless of how that discussion goes down, the question was a valid one, right?
Of course it isn't! It's a single ship amongst dozens, but it's one the people here really like and want to shine. STO isn't going to crash and there won't be a massive exodus of disappointed players if this issue is never fixed to our satisfaction, but it is the issue that people have chosen to discuss here. Asking why is beyond pointless. The answer is a tautology. "Why are we talking about X here? Because that's what we're here to talk about."
So... right, this is basically my point. The game doesn't need the Galaxy fixed in any objective sense. It's thus not wrong or off-topic or selfish or trollish or unreasonable to attempt to address the question of if a change is a good idea at all. What is happening here is that people are constantly trying to squash that discussion through spurious assertions of superiority based in a mistaken believe that they have an objective claim to truth.
More confusing here is that you seemed to have changed the angle of your argument from "If it's so broken, why haven't they fixed it?" to "What's the point?" Please decide on and remain consistent with your arguments.
It's not inconsistent at all - my point is that logically there must be SOME reason no action has been taken, and then I suggest that one of those reasons might be that the cost outweighs the benefit (what you characterize accurately, if bluntly, as "what's the point").
So now you admit there is a problem, but ask if it is even worth the time and effort and to fix it? That is totally irrelevant. As I and many others before me have stated already, this thread is discussing the shortcomings of the Galaxy and suggesting improvements, not whether it is pheasible or even necessary for the devs to implement the changes proposed.
You've also changed your core argument again here, from "What's the point?" to "Will they even bother?"
Last bit first - no, haven't changed the core of my argument at all - this is just another way of asking the same question - is a change a good idea or not?
Second, I've admitted all along that there is a problem insofar as some people are unhappy. What I've also maintained is that the problem is not universal and objectively true - that is to say, it doesn't affect everyone equally, or even at all. This means that dissenting ideas are possible, which further means that those ideas may actually provide a sufficient reason to not implement the change.
Again, this is hardly irrelevant to the discussion. If you are attempting to characterize this thread as merely about spitballing "what-ifs" without any direct call to action, then I would say that the number of people in here who seem upset that the Devs haven't implemented any of the "simple" and "obvious" solutions posited belies that characterization.
So... right, this is basically my point. The game doesn't need the Galaxy fixed in any objective sense.
Haven't seen anyone make a case for change based upon what the game needs.
It's thus not wrong or off-topic or selfish or trollish or unreasonable to attempt to address the question of if a change is a good idea at all.
You are right. If, that was what you were doing, I suspect there would not be as many objections to your posts.
What is happening here is that people are constantly trying to squash that discussion through spurious assertions of superiority based in a mistaken believe that they have an objective claim to truth.
that is what mrshead have succed to make you bielieve that we are claiming this.
when we said that this ship is useless, it is not in regard to the level of it performance.
we known it is capable even tho it is the less efficient ship.
he offert no advantage, no niche or whatsoever in comparison to ANY other cruiser.
for example the exelsior have better firepower potential than an ambassador, while the ambassador got more tanking potential.
you can do this kind of reasoning with the galaxy, because of it bo layout and turnrate inertia, there is NOTHING you can do better than ANY other cruiser.
hence if a ship offert no advantage but only drawback, you can't , reasonably, intelligently and logically included him in a pannel of ship choice.
it is redundant, only a player that absolutly want to have a galaxy will choose it.
but in a gameplay choice, it is useless.
For the infinity-billionth time, your definition of useless is not the only way to evaluate things. You keep saying the ship is useless because there's no reason to choose it in the game, unless a player really wants to fly a Galaxy. So, in other words, there is a reason to choose it, you just don't think that reason is sufficient. What you really mean, I think, is that while at some level all players have to give up mechanical advantages in some area in order to fly the ships they like, in your opinion Galaxy players give up too much in return for flying a ship they like. That's fine that you feel that way, but note the part where it's an opinion, not a fact. Everything I've said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
You can prove that the Galaxy mechanically underperforms all you want, but it doesn't "prove" the value of the ship to anyone but you. Other people will certainly agree with you, but some people will certainly disagree with your valuation, even if they agree with the math that says the Galaxy gives up a lot in the game. It's like how people can agree that a foot long sub from Subway is $5, but might disagree on the value proposition that represents. Some might think it's a good deal for a fresh sub hand-crafted to order by trained sandwich technicians. Some might think it's a ripoff for a sub-standard sandwich desultorily slapped together by a surly college student.
Comments
No, cowardice is projecting your own fears that if someone ELSE doesn't do an extra special good job, you won't get the results you want. Basically, you are absolving yourself of responsibility to do your job under the guise of demanding a higher level of "competence" from others than you seem to demand from yourself. You don't see it the same way, and I have absolutely no interest in trying to prove that your view of the situation is "wrong". I will merely, again, affirm that my position is neither irrational nor unreasonable. Your view seems to be that it is selfish to not accede to what you feel are the reasonable requests of others. My view is it is selfish to make the requests in the first place.
Second, I'm not the one denying the mathematics here. The Galaxy does plenty of damage to be useful in any role you want to put it in. ANY ROLE. Your denial of that flies in the face of the iron-clad fact that I have used it and never felt useless. The tired response of "you'd do better in another ship" is, as I pointed out, a mirage. I'm not in another ship, nor am I going to choose to change to assuage your fear that you're not good enough to complete a mission without an optimized team carrying you to victory.
Your argument is merely that the Galaxy doesn't kill stuff as fast as you want. Stop acting like it is impossible to complete missions in one. It does, in fact, kill stuff, and the degree to which it's damage potential is 'too low' is vastly overstated by you and the rest of the people who want a change. You will say that it is better to kill stuff faster. I disagree, because my goal isn't often to finish a mission in anything under the optional timer. A mission taking too long to me is a non-issue, because the point of the game to me is to play the game, not to finish everything fast enough to ensure that nobody questions my internet cred.
The "reasons" you pointed out above are simply a restatement of the ground we've gone over again and again. I know what your argument is, why you believe it, and I acknowledge that it is, at least, a reasonable way to look at the game. You keep acting like it is not possible for both your views and my views to be valid, and then when I point out that, in fact, it's not possible to 'disprove' either one, you will mistakenly accuse me of being wishy-washy for pointing out (again) that you can't prove that your view is the only reasonable one.
As for the "You can still do whatever, and other people would benefit from it" - this is unquestionably the best argument that the Galaxy fans have, but it's still not that good. First, it basically concedes that there is no benefit to me of the change, and at best attempts to make me feel bad for "denying" people an option that you assume costs me nothing. At best, your argument operates from a standpoint of "you gain nothing, but also lose nothing, so just accept it." That is a weak justification indeed. Moreover, I do think, on the whole, that making changes would end up being more harmful than beneficial, not just to me, but to the player base at large. I think there are reasons to believe the fixes proposed are unlikely to resolve the "Galaxy is the worst" issue without creating another theoretical "goat" of a ship, which means the problem isn't really solved, just shoved on to a different ship and different group of players than the ones you care about.
Further, I think there is a justifiable fear that even if it did work without obsoleting other ships, there would be people who were upset that resources were spent on a ship that they don't care about, instead of on something they feel is more pressing. Since I also suspect that the group of players who would be angered by such a move exceeds the number of players who would benefit and be happy, I think the costs outweigh the benefits. I also think that the costs in dev time needed to adjust the seating, the consoles, etc, and push that change out live without breaking anything is more substantial than people suspect, else I think it would already have been done with some ships. Given the seemingly minor benefit to the game as a whole, let alone the complete lack of benefit to me as an individual, it doesn't seem like a prudent investment of resources.
i could be a team healer in a shuttle. it can do the role it is a horrible option but it can do it. i could also tank in a shuttle again it would be horrible but it could do it
the gal-r and fleet gal-r is the shuttle of cruisers. it can do the job... eventual but you are hurting your team by flying one. wnat to be a team healer? fly the FREE star cruiser and do better.
heck the cheyenne the kitbash special with 4 sharpie pens for engines is a better cruiser then the gal-r
with cmdr eng
ltc eng
lt sci
lt tac
ens tac
and a 4/3/3 console layout and 8 turn
ive been trying to figure out were he could possibly be coming from, and i think its just that he is the opposite of a minmaxer, so flying something wholly inferior doesn't bother him. maybe its something he cant even recognize. but, for some reason, he is dead set on defending his right to fly a sucky ship, and your a terrible person for saying he should pull his own weight in all team content. teams succeed in spite of you, if your ok with that, your names proboly mrtshead. theres a giant lack of reason why not to buff the ship as well, in this argument. unless you really get something out of being mediocre.
its no to big a deal in most pve, but you can truly be the bane of your teams existence if you bring that ship into pvp. if it isnt a 1 sided match, your waist of space presence can contribute to the match dragging on for an hour or more. i know, ive been that guy a few times in a galaxy, doing pvp. there was absolutely no decisive way to effect the enemy in that ship, and its ability to keep itself alive is below average too.
at least we have all the power creep to thank for allowing any of the pve to be completed by any quality of ship and player. the vast majority of it is built for those that cant get more then about 10% of a ships potential out of it, why the hell is it relevant to say a galaxy can successfully slog through it all? theres not a more useless point to try to make, then to say oh but the galaxy can complete all the content in game with flying colors! ya, and so can a shuttle. you can blow through an stf with tier 3 ships, EASILY. if you like that horrible station setup, go fly an ody, at least you can get better console setups to go with it.
to defend this literally insane opinion of his, all he can do is attack the way something is argued, not any of the points. or like hes trying to establish reasonable doubt on things we all know are true about the ship, like he can get its suckyness acquitted or something. there is not reasonable doubt about this combinations of station powers. the galaxy class is an extreamly bad ship compared to all other alternatives, this can be proven in practice, by real numbers in a parcer, or on paper with simple build theory craft.
i can go through that painstakingly if you wish, to literally prove it.
to say that just an opinion, or that its an unknowable, or theres to many variables, i really dont understand this, its all knowable to me. i know what all the force multipliers do on their own, how to make good combinations of them, how to generate good spike or good sustained, how to heal and tank and at what point you activate certain heals and resists to prolong yours and others life the longest. all these things require certain basic components, the galaxy lacks a station setup that can create a build that can do any of these things above a mediocre level. its truly shocking that at this point, it can be debated that this ship is in need of changing.
whenever i go from my fleet galaxy to another ship, it tends to be my fleet heavy. and im able to do twice as well in it as i just did with the galaxy, with just the seemingly tiny difference between them. im able to run the much stronger EPtS3, im able to run APB along with my FAW, and theres still room for DEM3, RSP2, and the often handy ET1. not to mention the turn rate is 2 points better at its base, making a huge difference for protecting shield faceings from focus fire, and keeping all 8 guns on a target.
compare that to the galaxyR though, and i give up my attack pastern, a tac console, EPtS3 capability, and im left with a LTC station i have nothing useful for. AB is TRIBBLE, HE clears it instantly or theres EWP that nearly useless on a ship with 6 base turn that cant slot APO. i could use ET3 or EPtS3 in that slot, but then im effectively running a ship without the 5 boff slot. what am i getting in exchange for a useless LTC level station slot? turns out nothing, the ship has the worst mobility and least damage dealing any cruiser could have, in every category of measurement, it loses. what am i missing out on? everything an excelsior or ambassador could slot with their LTC tac or sci. even that fleet heavy, with its ENS station not used for eng, can be great, and comfortably cover all the defensive basses without any overlap or redundancy.
holy TRIBBLE the ship is bad, dont even get me started on how bad a heal boat it is
But, as this thread indicates, clearly, there is a problem. To me, it seems to result largely from the fact that the ship in question is the most seen ship in Star Trek. There isn't a worse choice for a ship to make absolutely redundant (well, except the Constitution, but that's a moot point). The Galaxy - a ship that people are going to want to fly and have fun in seeing as this is a Star Trek game - is irrelevant. That's not good on any level.
Compare it to any similar ship and you'll see the problem. The Operations Odyssey laughs at the Galaxy. The Science Odyssey, Star Cruiser and Ambassador do anything it can do, but better. And then there's the Negh'var: compared to the Galaxy, the Fleet Negh'var gives up 1,100 hull. What does it gain? A cloak, +3(!) turn rate, cannon usage, and even a universal ensign. How is that fair?
The bottom line (as it seems to me, at least - I do make this disclaimer :P) is that the Galaxy has no reason to exist in the ship lineup as is, other than the fact it is a very prominent canon ship. From a basic gameplay standpoint, that's a bad situation, and something needs to be changed, whether it's a buff to the Galaxy or even something more drastic. But that poor, poor ship needs something.
Many follow on posters: YEAH! We love chocolate! Let's get some more chocolate in here. How dare the stupid, vindictive, horrible Devs deny the most iconic ship in the game its rightful amount of chocolate?! They should be ashamed for not increasing the level of chocolate immediately. In fact, the Galaxy should have the most chocolate in the entire game! This needs to happen right away, and if it doesn't, it's proof that the devs are either incompetent or monsters.
Dissent: Woah, hold on. The Galaxy actually has enough chocolate to do anything in the game, and it certainly doesn't need to have the MOST chocolate.
Poster: Actually, in canon, the Galaxy not only had the most chocolate of its era, it had the most chocolate of any area, ever. In fact, in the tech manual Milton Hershey said that the Galaxy has the most chocolate, because it stacked the boxes right next to each other, so that you actually get more chocolate per box than if you spread them around.
Dissent: That makes no sense. There's no way packing the boxes next to each other increases the amount of chocolate in a box. If anything, packing them that way DECREASES the amount chocolate the ship has overall, because of all the extra packaging. Plus, I never felt like the Galaxy had all that much chocolate in the show. I mean, it was full of school kids - it would be stupid to put kids on a ship intended to deliver chocolate, because they would eat it all, and might get sick. Finally, in the movies, the Sovereign clearly was intended to be an upgrade to the Galaxy, and had better chocolate technology by design.
Poster: Look, I'm an expert on imaginary chocolate delivery, and I've thought about this a lot. You're assuming things based on modern packaging, when future packaging would be much, much better. As far as your little interpretation of the show goes, you're just wrong. The tech manual says otherwise, and I can make everything in the show consistent with it. It's really the way I say.
Dissent: It's not "really" anything, because it's not real. The tech manual is clearly junk science, and is contradicted by the notes from the movie. Whatever. Look, you can view the canon your way, we'll view it another way, it doesn't really matter because canon isn't a good way to set up the game anyway, since its so fluid and subjective.
Poster: It's not subjective at all. Nothing is subjective. If you can't see that objectively the ship is supposed to have more chocolate in canon, and objectively it has the least amount of chocolate in the game, then I don't know what. It's obvious the Galaxy is completely useless right now to every thinking person. It's like you don't even play the game.
Dissent: I play the game just fine, I just don't think chocolate is that important, I don't think you have the only possible interpretation of how canon treats chocolate, and I know that it's not true that the Galaxy is useless, because I use it just fine. You might not be able to deliver chocolate effectively with it, but I can, certainly well enough to be successful in the game.
Poster: LOL if you hate chocolate, what do you think is important in this game? There's no way anyone can be successful in a Galaxy, because the only criteria for success is how fast you deliver chocolate. If you can't recognize that simple truth, you are beyond reason.
Dissent: I don't hate chocolate, I just don't think it's the most important thing. I prefer black liquorice, and I think focusing on chocolate is narrow-minded and limiting. I also don't define success as "delivering chocolate as fast as possible", because once you get to a certain chocolate delivery threshold (which is possible to achieve in the Galaxy), then you complete any content in the game. Again, I'm not sure why this simple point is escaping you. This is all subjective. You are choosing what to value, and you are using your choices to attempt to paint people who think differently from you as unreasonable. This is bush-league level argumentation, and I will be sarcastically patient in tone with you over and over again in a futile attempt to get you to see where I'm coming from.
Poster: You are simply an unreasonable newb who forces other people to accept your black liquorice because you are too wrapped up in your pedantic and fallacious argument to understand that the only thing that matters is bringing chocolate to the party, and literally any other ship would bring more chocolate than the Galaxy, so you are ruining the party for your teammates by being selfish. Everyone knows that chocolate is the best, and everyone hates black liquorice. Only a selfish troll would ever say otherwise.
Dissent: Look, you might be too narrow-minded to understand that things that you like, or even things that MANY people like, are not the same things as things that EVERYBODY likes, but I'm not. More to the point, I can bring enough chocolate to the party in a Galaxy to make sure the party is fun for everyone, so I think it's selfish to tell me that I have to change my ways simply because people want more chocolate than they really need.
Poster: No, you are selfish and a troll for not realizing that by showing up in the Galaxy, you are denying your team the chocolate they could have had if you only used a better ship. Thus, you are preventing your team from getting all the chocolate they deserve because you are selfishly focused on your own insane position that black liquorice is worth anything. There is no way the Galaxy can bring enough chocolate to be fun.
Dissent: I've done it, though, so that last statement is provably false. I think what you want to say is you think that it's more difficult to bring chocolate with the Galaxy, and that you think many people might be happier if that were changed. Certainly some people would not be happy with the change, and most people probably wouldn't care. I think if you could see past the choco-focused way you're looking at the game you might have more fun.
Poster: YOUR argument is provably false, because it's a dichotomous fallacy wrapped in a straw man sophistry. Stop pretending that things are relative, and admit that the only valid way to view the world is mine.
Dissent: Wow, uh, you're basically a clown. I don't think you know what most of those words mean, and you haven't substantively engaged my argument. What's especially stupid is that I'm not even saying you are wrong to like chocolate, I'm saying that some people are allowed to like black liquorice, and you are basically being a narrow-minded bigot.
Poster: Whatever, you're a troll. In any case, why would you challenge this, because you could still pretend to like black liquorice like the worthless scrub you are, if only you wouldn't selfishly deny others their chocolate.
Dissent: That last part sort of makes sense, but I think if you look at the big picture, you'll see that there are at least reasons why, even though some people might be happy, it wouldn't be good for the game as a whole to mess around with who gets how much chocolate. Can we please move past the part of the conversation where you deny that any possibility for reasonable dissent exists, and move to talking about why, given that it's not automatically objectively true that the Galaxy needs to be change, a change might or might not be a good idea.
Poster: Whatever, this guy is a fool and a liar. He want to prevent us from getting the chocolate we deserve because he's a crazy black liquorice newb. He won't even argue properly, instead he just tries to make it seem like multiple views are valid so he doesn't have to admit that he's wrong about hating chocolate and being a selfish prick.
Poster: I agree, black liquorice sucks.
Poster: I can't even get where he's coming from. It's utterly impossible that someone could like black liquorice unless he/she was so unreasoning as to be a sub-human creature that we should continue to dismiss as irrelevant.
Dissent: TRIBBLE it. Being a pedantic prick didn't work, being sarcastically patient didn't work, restating my argument as simply and reasonably as I could didn't work. These guys don't want discussion, they seem to just want to vent their incredulous outrage that someone would dare question their truisms. I guess I will try satirizing the whole thing, see if that let's people see how silly they are being, and move us forward. If not, maybe it will be funny, but I'm too tired (and possibly drunk) to know for sure.
Since I can't embed for some reason, Here's my response to that.
cant debate, loses on the facts every time, no coherent response on the subject, tries to attacks the way a person presents facts, still cant refute them, can only troll.
Play the game anyway you want I could care less, hell run around in a tier 1 doing estf's for all I care or a shuttle for that matter. Honestly if I'm uncomfortable with how someone is doing something I simply ignore it and play somewhere else or leave the STF. Whether you feel your right or wrong only really should matter to you. I just can't understand why if you have even a hint of a little clue that the galaxy is under performing why you would fight so hard to keep it that way if your actually really using one. Makes no sense but then again most Real Life don't so there you go. Have fun flying a under preforming ship and complaining about using it being your choice on the forums while saying its old and shouldn't be updated...
Ok maybe it had a point but I really couldn't read past the second line about some nonsense about chocolate. Sure he was building up to something to make his point though I'm really unsure what he actually is going for anymore other then he willing to use a whole lot of different arguments to keep this ship from being updated to the point that he flying one and proving it can do a lackluster job and skirt on by on the shoulders of others and noone should tell him how to play.
Honestly I can't understand why anyone that wanting to fly a galaxy would fight this hard to keep it from being updated on the basic that if you really try hard it will do okay... I guess I could spend a bunch of Dilithium and energy credits and make it an ok ship but rather not have to and have a decent ship on a budget that don't break the bank. You can make tier 4 preform well if you spend enough but its alot easier to do the same in a tier 5 and alot less expensive.
Carry on playing the ship the way you want to. But how about you let us go on with this thread about improving it without nonsense.
I fully admit that I have not read everything, but after going through about a dozen walls of text, all of which are quite articulately argued, I have begun to notice a pattern here. Again I caution that, not having the patience to read through everything, the pattern I present may be incomplete, but I believe it covers the gist of what is currently transpiring, though perhaps not how it began.
Here goes.
My analysis of this is that somehow somebody's poured some oil into a jar of water. Two mutually exclusive issues are being debated as though they are the same. Both sides have obviously made tangents into the opposition's territory, but the core arguments appear to be on totally different wavelengths.
mrtshead, you are correct as I understand your argument. The ship is indeed fun to play in. It's a classic icon of the Star Trek mythos and it just looks awesome. Beyond appearances and sentimental value it is certainly a capable vessel that can indeed clear all game content and it performs at least adequately, sometimes even if PVP.
Everybody else, you are also correct. Comparatively speaking the Galaxy class is an utter disappointment in every regard. It turns like a bus made of uranium, shoots like a pellet gun, and it has some mighty uncomfortable bridge seating. This is frustrating because in the show it turned on a dime, threw down like Bruce Lee, and it had enough work space on the bridge for everyone. When it showed up on the scene Klingons began to consider diplomacy and Romulans started nervously double checking their cloaking devices.
The Galaxy is an awesome ship. It's capable. To say it is useless is dishonest. It can succeed, but it doesn't succeed very well. Lesser ships can easily outperform it and that's a problem because it demonstrates bad game balance. A top tier ship should perform like its top tier associates. At best it is adequate, but the people who love it want it to be great. Surely the best of intentions were behind its design, but ultimately it was born obsolete. She has no teeth and gets around on a walker. Is it so much to ask for some dentures and a hoveround? It's about time the old girl got some TLC.
you have won the entire thread, thats exactly what has gone on here.
ROFLOL pretty much the winner in this one.
Well, let's see. This thread is almost 11 months old, has 458 pages and almost 4600 individual posts, and has made evidently zero progress towards your goal. So far you've gotten virtually no traction on this in the wider community - the consensus you imagine agreeing with you hasn't really appeared, and it's just the same strident voices over and over and over and over again in this thread. No devs have commented, and there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "Why are we being ignored?!"
My point is that what you have been doing has obviously not been working, and I think it's obvious that the way in which people have structured the argument is a big part of the reason. The discussion you SHOULD be trying to have is why, given your strong feelings on the subject, hasn't the Galaxy been fixed yet. There must be some reason why that is so, but so far people are so wrapped up in the idea that any dissent is necessarily either based on ignorance of the "facts" (or else is a troll) that that discussion can't happen. You can't expect to progress the discussion when your only response to perfectly valid and reasonable dissent is to shout it down based on hyperbolic absolutes that somewhere along the line started becoming accepted as some sort of group-think dogma.
So, are people in general ready yet to admit that it is possible that some people won't agree with them, and that such disagreement isn't necessarily ignorant, nor immoral? That maybe, on balance, no matter how strongly they feel about this issue, it might not be that important in the wider context of the game? Or that the effort required to solve the problem might exceed the benefits?
Or do you need another 460 pages of venting spleen and incredulous outrage before you see that it's not working?
Is it however fun to play and use compared to a Ambassador/Excelsior/Sovereign/Avenger or even a Nebula ? god no ! after using the aforementioned ships piloting a Galaxy feels as bad as having teeth pulled. Its slow, low dps and everything after using any other tier 5 ship feels like god dam hard work and grind.
Everything bad about a ship in the game as it stands at present the Galaxy represents.
1. Lack of tactical abilities
2. Terrible turn rate
3. Poor Boff seating./ Lack of versatility
5. Poor console layout.
If Cryptic refuse or have no intention on changing the boff or console layout of this ship, the least they could do is increase the inertia and turn rate of the ship as a trade off for the Engineering heavy boff and Console layout to allow for better tanking to bring another shield facing to bear quicker.
Basically the C-Store and Fleet Galaxy are subpar. sold as Tier 5 and Fleet level but are outperformed by the Tier 4 Sovereign/Starcruiser and Defiant.
So in summary Galaxy is usable at end game however its performance compared to other Tier 5 and 4 ships is horrible.
It should not be being outperformed by Tier 4 ships. ships that are free to obtain over a ship you have to pay for outside of earning dil to zen conversion
threads like this created things like the regent and a tier 5 akira. it also caused the d'deridex that originally had the galaxy R terrible station setup to have a complete rework before LoR launched. its people like you that derail this thread and drag it through the gutter, when you even put into question the FACT that the galaxy R is the worst ship in the game.
i know exactly why this hasn't been addressed. they are waiting to do anything galaxy related till they have second generation sep tech working on the galaxy model, the venture neck being at a different elevation is what seems to be causing a problem. thats whats holding up a fleet galaxy X too, sep capability for that ship will launch with it. i couldn't care less about that stupid smother looking tech though, trash it already
right, coming out with better and better ships is in no way important to the context, or success of this game. why then, do people keep drooling over all the beter and better ships that get released, when all you really need is some POS like the galaxy R to complete everything? i play this game for the pvp, nothing maters more then all the details you proboly consider minutia. i want to use the galaxy as one of my main ships. i cant do that because its such a horrible ship. i cant have fun pvping if im using a horrible ship, im not competitive and im a drag on the rest of the team for my vanity. people that arent as in to the competitive aspect of the game as me will benefit from another good ship becoming an option, their enjoyment of the game could only increase. are you ever going to explain why there shouldn't be an improved galaxy class? there was literally an improved sovereign released already.
that is what mrshead have succed to make you bielieve that we are claiming this.
when we said that this ship is useless, it is not in regard to the level of it performance.
we known it is capable even tho it is the less efficient ship.
he offert no advantage, no niche or whatsoever in comparison to ANY other cruiser.
for example the exelsior have better firepower potential than an ambassador, while the ambassador got more tanking potential.
you can do this kind of reasoning with the galaxy, because of it bo layout and turnrate inertia, there is NOTHING you can do better than ANY other cruiser.
hence if a ship offert no advantage but only drawback, you can't , reasonably, intelligently and logically included him in a pannel of ship choice.
it is redundant, only a player that absolutly want to have a galaxy will choose it.
but in a gameplay choice, it is useless.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
First, this is one forum thread among hundreds. Unless it's a pinned post you shouldn't be expecting many folks to show up.
Second, I propose an experiment a few of us should run here: head into a public area with lots of players and ask people what they think of the Galaxy class, not as an icon of Star Trek, but as a playable ship in STO. It's important to make that distinction be some people's answers may be opposite depending on the context. Mine would, anyway.
And third, majority is no grounds for determining fact. A majority of planet Earth still believes the sun is a god, or that it orbits us (if they understand anything about orbits at all), or they don't know the difference between a planet and a star.
Science, which includes the field of mathematics, is a far better guide to the truth. The math here says the Galaxy is a sub-optimal vessel by a wide margin. Sub-optimal does not mean useless, in fact it still perform brilliantly, but it has to try a lot harder. It's also fine to be suboptimal, but not by a wide margin.
This is also a fair a point and there could be a number of reasons. There's a lot of vitriol being thrown around here. Devs probably avoid threads like that, so this one may already be too poisonous to get any recognition.
On the other hand, maybe the devs aren't a bunch of panzies and simply haven't noticed it or have chosen to ignore it for other reasons. I really can't do anything other than speculate because... well... the devs aren't here to say anything.
No. This is perhaps the debate you would like to have or change it into, but it is not the one going on here. If this is what you really want to discuss, go start your own thread on the topic and stop completely derailing this one.
You're right, there probably is a reason, but the STO devs have never shared it with us and we aren't privy to their reasoning or lack thereof. You have posited a non-falsifiable assertion. Any answers to your question can only be speculative since we have no data to work with. That's bad science.
It would be like intercepting a short alien transmission, finally confirming the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, and then trying to discuss their dining etiquette based on a short "hello." What you want to discuss is worth discussing, but its a conversation you can only have with the devs because they're the only ones who can answer you. Bringing it up here is only derailing.
What is... or was trying to be discussed here, is a comparative analysis of the Galaxy class and other vessels at its tier. This can be done with hard data: math. This is good science and it is an issue we can make progress with. Perhaps the devs will chime in and say "actually you've got it all bass-ackwards and here's why," but that's something only they can do.
This is because your "dissent" is actually unrelated to the topic at hand. You say the Galaxy is just fine the way it is. In the sense that it is functional you are correct, the Galaxy is just fine, but that's not what people are trying to discuss here.
This thread is discussing how the Galaxy is comparatively inferior and what improvements might be made to bring it up to par. I believe I previously mentioned that good enough isn't good enough for us. We want the galaxy to be great and you want to ask us why. That's not what we're here to talk about.
Basically you've come to Oktoberfest and are asking everyone why they're wasting their time drinking beer when they should be drinking wine, and are continually frustrated when everyone answers "Because we're here to drink BEER!"
Of course it isn't! It's a single ship amongst dozens, but it's one the people here really like and want to shine. STO isn't going to crash and there won't be a massive exodus of disappointed players if this issue is never fixed to our satisfaction, but it is the issue that people have chosen to discuss here. Asking why is beyond pointless. The answer is a tautology. "Why are we talking about X here? Because that's what we're here to talk about."
More confusing here is that you seemed to have changed the angle of your argument from "If it's so broken, why haven't they fixed it?" to "What's the point?" Please decide on and remain consistent with your arguments.
So now you admit there is a problem, but ask if it is even worth the time and effort and to fix it? That is totally irrelevant. As I and many others before me have stated already, this thread is discussing the shortcomings of the Galaxy and suggesting improvements, not whether it is pheasible or even necessary for the devs to implement the changes proposed.
You've also changed your core argument again here, from "What's the point?" to "Will they even bother?"
hehehe, you have just exposed all his hypocrisys here.
notice that anything that could be use to make us look like 14 years old selfish galaxy fanboy has and will be use by this guy to try to discredit us.
at least he make this thread going...
so unlike the galaxy, he is not totally useless;)
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
ho!
i almost forget!!
http://img.pandawhale.com/28643-Citi...-appl-xIlv.gif
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
"Why does the Galaxy suck?"
Allow me to offer my two pence, which I'm sure scores of others have already iterated upon. It's too slow, has terrible bridge seating, and lacks a third tactical console. Now to explain myself and offer some solutions.
Issue 1: It turns like a drunk whale.
Wow. This is really annoying. As it is, the Galaxy is meant to be a beam boat, woe to the fool who tries to put torpedoes on it. Sure it can turn pretty well if you separate the saucer, but then it's not really a cruiser anymore, as the stats change to be more like an escort. Plus it looks pretty gimpy like that. She's supposed to be a classy lady, not schizophrenic tart who removes her top at the first sign of danger.
Solution 1a: Lose some weight, fatty.
The easiest solution is just to improve the turning. In my opinion nothing but a carrier should corner so badly... which brings me to my second proposed solution.
Solution 1b: What a MILF!
Mothership I'd Like to Fly. Get your heads out of the gutter. Instead of turning better the Galaxy would be a perfect candidate to be a carrier ship. According to specs and a whole bunch of episodes she's already got two docking bays and one of them is quite large. I think she's got enough capacity between them to host a wing fighter craft. Just the one wing, though. She's got 8 guns on her and doesn't need a full carrier compliment.
Issue 2: A Smart Car has better seating.
Does anyone remember the episode when the showed up somewhere and no one was intimidated because everyone knew it was little more than a giant ball of HP? Or all the times the crew was faced with a scientific puzzle they couldn't solve because the ship didn't have enough treknobabboratories to modify the proper phase variance? I don't either.
The ship has way too much engineering focus, to the point that no matter what set of abilities you use, somebody is going to end up with some redundant or rarely used powers. I usually left my ensign slot unmanned, for instance.
Solution 2: The SUV of Starfleet.
My preferred boff layout would be an engineering Cmdr slot, a science Lt Cmdr slot, 2 tactical Lt slots, and keep the ensign engineering. First and foremost the Galaxy class is an exploration cruiser. It makes sense to have an engineering and science focus, with ancillary systems dedicated to combat. I can certainly see the argument for reversing the tactical and science consoles I've proposed: having a tactical Lt Cmdr and 2 Lt sciences, but I don't think that would fit with the canon quite as well.
With two tactical slots you can still get a pair of tac teams and two basic weapon abilities like Fire at Will, Overcharged, Torpedo Spread, or High Yield. She's a science ship, but she's got some teeth. The Lt Cmdr slot opens up some high end science abilities like Grav Well and whatnot. With the size of the Galaxy class's deflector and all the science facilities aboard, I expect more than just hazard emitters, science teams, and tractor beams.
Issue 3: All gums.
The Galaxy class was made to be an explorer, a great big long range vessel capable of being entirely self sufficient, barring disaster, for extended lengths of time. That means better than average crew quarters, holodecks, a whole bunch of laboratories, plenty of engineering staff and supplies to keep the ship in good maintenance... and GUNS. You don't know what you're going to encounter there in the great unknown, so you pack some serious just in case hardware for those close encounters of the ugly kind.
The current Galaxy class does not have the consoles it needs to be a formidable opponent, even with 8 guns and a hypothetical boff refit of 2 Lt tactical stations. With the addition of a single carrier squadron, I think 2 tactical consoles would be fine, but right now the Galaxy doesn't have any of these proposed features.
Solution 3: Dentures.
She needs a third tactical console. Maybe take away an engineering console in trade, I'd be fine with that. Then she'd be pretty even across the board; a perfect fit for a vessel that's supposed to do everything.
My point was a pre-emption of the claim that OBVIOUSLY a majority of people care about this, because the thread is so long yadda yadda. I'm laying that groundwork now, because it will become important if/when this thread turns into something useful, instead of a trainwreck of reason propelled by people's inability to properly analyze arguments.
You forgot to add some important questions to your poll - namely "do you currently own a Galaxy class?", "Do you desire a change to the Galaxy?", "How likely would you be to buy a new Galaxy class? At what price point?" "If instead of a new ship, the current ship was changed, would you be likely to buy it?" "If only the fleet version were changed, would that affect your decision?" "How would you rate the following in terms of priority: revised/new Galaxy class, new canon federation ships (New Orleans class, etc), new Cryptic original designs, new non-federation (KDF/Republic) ships, new mission content, updates to foundry content, bug fixes to current ships, new skins for existing ships?" I am absolutely behind this sort of in depth research, because it is one of the only way to get the kind of information that would help to justify or dejustify changing the Galaxy.
First, yes, I know that majority doesn't determine fact. That's partially my point. It doesn't matter how many people like/dislike something, those numbers don't make something objectively good or bad.
Second, things like "good/bad/suboptimal by acceptable margin/suboptimal by a wide margin" are all value judgements that cannot be proven by science. Math can tell you that the Galaxy does X damage. It cannot tell you if that number is sufficient for you to feel like the ship is useful or not. That is a value judgement, and people can disagree on those values without being unreasonable.
The hitch is that I am being told (basically) that my value judgement is wrong and unreasonable because it so completely flies in the face of accepted convention. This is wrong, because as you have pointed out we don't actually have the evidence to know what the "accepted convention" really is, nor how deeply any consensus on this issue runs, and even if we DID know, well, as you say, pure majority agreement on an issue doesn't make something true, especially when that thing cannot be "proven" scientifically one way or the other.
Yes. The purpose of the thread is to propose a change to the Galaxy class, to fix it's perceived shortcomings. The question of "Is this a good idea?" is vital to that discussion. It literally doesn't matter how much some people want it to happen, if, on balance, it ends up being not worth the time and energy to make the change. This should not be a concept that is this difficult for people to grasp, yet in the context of this thread it is impossible to get to because we're stuck with people who want to assume that all dissenting voices are objectively wrong, so there is no need to engage with them.
I'm right, there's definitely A reason, unless you decide to through causality out the window. You're right, we can't know the reason for certain. What's more important is that the question isn't even if there are reasons or not, it's are those reasons actually sufficient or not. You are absolutely right that these kinds of suppositions and subjective discussions are bad science. That's why they are NOT SCIENCE, and why I have been saying all along that people need to stop trying to objectively prove their subjective opinions true.
Put another way, I know that my opinions are non-falsifiable. I am saying that the whole core concept of the thread, that the Galaxy is useless, is non-falsifiable, and thus "bad science". Thus, people should stop treating it as an objective claim that they have "proven", and instead as a subjective interpretation that is not necessarily universal, and is open to discussion.
Answered below.
First, I think you are misreading the purpose of the thread. It is not merely to compare the Galaxy to other ships, but rather to propose a solution to the perceived problem arising from that comparison. Is quantitatively analyzing the Galaxy good science? Sure. Is taking that analysis and creating a subjective judgement based on it good science? No. It's not an unreasonable thing to do, but it's not science anymore. It's interpretation, or opinion. Taking those opinions a step further, and proposing a solution? Also reasonable, but also not science, and certainly is something that is open to question.
It's not a derail at all - the discussion of whether a proposal is a good idea or not is absolutely germane to the discussion. For example, what if the topic of a thread was "How should the Devs add Imperial Class Star Destroyers to the game?". Would it be legitimate for someone to go into that thread and say "They shouldn't"? The same principle applies here. If the question is "How should the Galaxy be improved?", "It shouldn't" is a legitimate answer, even if it's not the one you agree with, or want to hear.
Your analogy is inapt, because it loses the part of the thread where action is being proposed. If the thread was merely "what do you like/dislike" about the Galaxy", that would be one thing. This is not that. A better analogy might be something like:
A group of Beer aficionados decides to hold a public debate about the best way to throw an Oktoberfest festival in the town. Someone attends, asking if an Oktoberfest festival is really necessary in the first place. Certainly, regardless of how that discussion goes down, the question was a valid one, right?
So... right, this is basically my point. The game doesn't need the Galaxy fixed in any objective sense. It's thus not wrong or off-topic or selfish or trollish or unreasonable to attempt to address the question of if a change is a good idea at all. What is happening here is that people are constantly trying to squash that discussion through spurious assertions of superiority based in a mistaken believe that they have an objective claim to truth.
It's not inconsistent at all - my point is that logically there must be SOME reason no action has been taken, and then I suggest that one of those reasons might be that the cost outweighs the benefit (what you characterize accurately, if bluntly, as "what's the point").
Last bit first - no, haven't changed the core of my argument at all - this is just another way of asking the same question - is a change a good idea or not?
Second, I've admitted all along that there is a problem insofar as some people are unhappy. What I've also maintained is that the problem is not universal and objectively true - that is to say, it doesn't affect everyone equally, or even at all. This means that dissenting ideas are possible, which further means that those ideas may actually provide a sufficient reason to not implement the change.
Again, this is hardly irrelevant to the discussion. If you are attempting to characterize this thread as merely about spitballing "what-ifs" without any direct call to action, then I would say that the number of people in here who seem upset that the Devs haven't implemented any of the "simple" and "obvious" solutions posited belies that characterization.
Haven't seen anyone make a case for change based upon what the game needs.
You are right. If, that was what you were doing, I suspect there would not be as many objections to your posts.
The irony here is almost palpable.
For the infinity-billionth time, your definition of useless is not the only way to evaluate things. You keep saying the ship is useless because there's no reason to choose it in the game, unless a player really wants to fly a Galaxy. So, in other words, there is a reason to choose it, you just don't think that reason is sufficient. What you really mean, I think, is that while at some level all players have to give up mechanical advantages in some area in order to fly the ships they like, in your opinion Galaxy players give up too much in return for flying a ship they like. That's fine that you feel that way, but note the part where it's an opinion, not a fact. Everything I've said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
You can prove that the Galaxy mechanically underperforms all you want, but it doesn't "prove" the value of the ship to anyone but you. Other people will certainly agree with you, but some people will certainly disagree with your valuation, even if they agree with the math that says the Galaxy gives up a lot in the game. It's like how people can agree that a foot long sub from Subway is $5, but might disagree on the value proposition that represents. Some might think it's a good deal for a fresh sub hand-crafted to order by trained sandwich technicians. Some might think it's a ripoff for a sub-standard sandwich desultorily slapped together by a surly college student.