Haven't seen anyone make a case for change based upon what the game needs.
What, then, would you characterize the argument in favor of change as? I started by asserting that it was based on a subjective judgement, and that people might disagree. I was told that I was wrong and a fool because objectively the Galaxy is broken and needs to be fixed. If I am misreading that as attempting to justify the change on the basis of being objectively necessary, then what is it?
To be clear, this is not a passive-aggressive use of a rhetorical question to score points. I'm genuinely curious - how would you classify the justifications being offered to support the change?
You are right. If, that was what you were doing, I suspect there would not be as many objections to your posts.
That IS what I've been doing. That I have repeatedly failed to get that across stems from a host of issues, including but not limited to the fact that I choose a slightly subtle and non-obvious way of addressing it, as well as the fact that I, like many of the posters in this thread, am not always a great net citizen about monitoring my tone. Mea culpa.
Nevertheless, I also think there's a large element of "I don't like his position, so it must be wrong" going on here, which is causing people to suffer from what was once characterized on a Warhammer 40K forum as "fleet of post", a special rule wherein in lieu of thinking in the thinking phase, people instead make d6 posts.
And yes, you are welcome to feel like I do the same thing. My affirmative defense against that claim of hypocrisy is that I believe the care with which I consider my posts is evident in the way in which I present detailed reasoning in my responses, even if that reasoning isn't something everyone agrees with.
Beyond which, even if it's true that I am guilty of being so entrenched in my position that I react out of form, rather than reason, that doesn't mean I'm not correct about my conclusions, nor does it mean that I'm wrong that about other people doing it too.
Basically, I'm saying that if its true that the issue here is simply that I've been misunderstood, then I'm willing to cop to being partially responsible for that. Hopefully that's sufficient to avoid a fruitless derail into a discussion of exactly how much blame should be ascribed, because I really don't think it matters. Instead, if, at least we are at the point where I can ask if the change is a good idea without being shouted down as automatically ridiculous, then let's have that discussion.
It's not ironic at all. I suspect strongly that despite the fact that I have repeatedly explicitly acknowledged that it is not wrong to be unhappy with the Galaxy people are still reacting to "but I disagree" as an attempt to prove them "wrong" anyway, and so they react as if my claim is self-contradictory. It really, really, really isn't. The opinions at play here are not mutually exclusive, nor are they zero-sum. It doesn't, in any way, undermine the validity of my opinion that you disagree, or vice versa. Me saying I have a right to enjoy black liquorice doesn't in any way obligate you to start enjoying the foul stuff too.
I would like to begin with this, as I hope it will be entertaining and enlightening to all. I will continue with a more comprehensive, point by point reply later. Perhaps tomorrow. It's getting late where I am and I hear League of Legends calling me to battle.
Imagine, if you will, a civil discourse somewhere. Perhaps in a real forum of some sort, between learned men. The topic of the day is... we'll go with something inoffensive and boring: Evolution.
For a time the discussion progresses on the finer points of evolutionary processes. There is some disagreement amongst the learned men about the competing concepts of survival and altruism. Suddenly another learned man enters stage right, bringing a chair to the table. No one takes notice as this has happened several times before.
Everyone expects another interesting take on the issue at hand, but no! Instead of a meaningful addition or criticism of the topic they say, "But what if God just created everything? That pre-empts the entire issue! It's pointless to discuss evolution until we can prove God didn't do it."
The other learned men collectively facepalm and turn to the moderator. "That is another topic entirely," he says. "We have begun with the presupposition that Evolutionary theory is true and proceeded from that point. Kindly keep your inquiries and assertions within that context."
"But this is folly! What if it isn't true? This is more important!" says the new arrival.
"Get off the stage!" yells someone in the audience.
"But it's meaningless unless we make that conclusion first!"
A cacophany of booing accompanied by a light rain of tomatoes flows from the audience. The new guy refuses to leave, intent on having his debate take priority. Nothing further is accomplished because everyone is too busy throwing tomatoes, yelling, and wishing this building had security. The end.
This is where you have brought us.
I also posit that this hypothetical situation would be no different, nor the learned men and audience any less justified in their response if the roles of science and religion were reversed in this little theater of the mind. Bringing religion into a scientific debate is just as inappropriate and disruptive as bringing up science in a religious debate.
Pre-empting your pastor's reading of genesis with a lesson on the big bang theory is not okay.
I see where your coming from, but I still think you are missing the key element here of the call to action. I refer you to my version of the Oktoberfest analogy. It's not a case of someone who hates beer crashing Oktoberfest. It's a case of someone who hates beer attending a debate about how the town should implement Oktoberfest, and asking if the party should even happen in the first place. Even if you feel like the answer to that question is "yes", it's not outside the scope of the discussion to ask the question.
I would characterize your arguments as non-sequitur. A thing not being A does not necessarily make it B.
But then I suspect you already know this, Jello.
I see. So am I to take this to again be basically a dismissal of the idea that it's worth asking if changing the Galaxy is a good idea in the first place? I guess I misinterpreted your challenge to my characterization of the thread as a substantive question. Sorry for wasting your time.
more like showing up and finding out somebody switched an ironically good beer with something that tastes like dish water brewed with old sneakers, featuring an weaker alcahol content than bud-light. and having to deal with someone saying its fine because they like it, when it could be something up to par with the rest of the stuff there.
then have to deal with that person making speeches about how its all personal taste and you cant prove to them that its disgusting, because its all subjective.
Sure, I'll run with this analogy, because it's more or less apt. You simply have to add the part where the people who are disgusted with the replacement beer are demanding that the Oktoberfest organizers "do something", and offering solutions that are possibly impractically expensive, not universally accepted (because not everyone cares about the beer that was replaced, and not everyone hates the replacement), and that might not even make all the offended parties happy (because they can't exactly agree on what exactly should be done to fix the problem in the first place).
When the person who likes the disgusting beer speaks up, he gets roundly shouted down for being ignorant, since OF COURSE everyone can see the new beer is disgusting. So, he responds that actually, it's not obvious to everyone that the beer is disgusting, it's just an opinion that isn't universally shared, and so maybe don't act like it's unreasonable to say that the "problem" is not a big enough deal to worry about, no matter how personally offensive it is to you as an individual. And that's where we are.
hes never going to give up this charade were he claims you cant actually prove it sucks, he will insist theres reasonable doubt forever. if he doesn't, his position crumbles.
this has nothing to do with point of view, its simply impossible to make the galaxy as good as any other cruiser at dealing damage, or being a healer. the station setup does not allow for it, no mater what combination you try. those are the 2 things cruisers are capable of doing, other then be a part of your RP experience. but then it doesn't mater much if the ship sucks or not, so it might as well not be the worst, but pretty good instead. still waiting for a justification for why it should not be made a little better.
one of the earlier ideas was to make not just 1 improved galaxy, in the c store, fleet store, or a change to the current one, but to make a 3 pack. many things have changed since that was last talked about, like the rise of the beam boats as the DPS powerhouses in game, and the addition of the carrier commands. so how about a galaxy 3 pack, were there are 3 variants and each is a different sub type of cruiser
galaxy carrier- flight deck cruiser auras COM eng LTC sci LT eng LT tac ENS sci
4/4/2 consoles
1 hanger
galaxy cruiser- cruiser auras
COM eng LTC uni
LT uni LT sci
ENS sci
4/3/3 consoles
galaxy dreadnought (not the galaxy X)- dreadnought cruiser auras
COM eng LTC tac LT uni
LT uni ENS sci
4/2/4 consoles
with the 3 pack, you could have a galaxy type that would make a very good sci heavy support cruiser that has a hanger, without makeing the only galaxy class available be a 2 aura command flight deck cruiser. the second variant is the typical super versatile galaxy cruiser with all 4 commands, and the 3rd is a galaxy based on the one from yesterdays enterprise or a galaxy class in service during the dominion war. would make sense that variants like this would be around, considering the dominion war pales in comparison to the state of the galaxy in 2409. everyone could have a galaxy variant that suited their play style best, with the correct auras suited to each cruiser's sub type, and those worried about tac cruiser power creep can rest assured that the avenger, monbosh, galor, etc... and several other tac cruisers would still be better tac ships then even the most tac heavy of these 3 available.
were does the galaxy X fit in? well, it would be like the 4th ship in this 3 pack. its station setup should be the same as the galaxy dreadknot's is, listed above. whatever consoles or weapons that would fit on any of the 3 ships in this pack should also fit on the galaxy X, though it remains the only ship of the 4 that has the lance and cloak.
Maybe it's not a charade. Who knows? People are easily deluded and will often chastise others for the very same behavior they themselves are manifesting. We're all crazy. It's our nature.
Maybe it's not a charade. Who knows? People are easily deluded and will often chastise others for the very same behavior they themselves are manifesting. We're all crazy. It's our nature.
very subtle lol. i hate to say i know im right or something, but in this post i deconstruct a fleet galaxy and fleet heavy build, pointing out how strained the galaxy build is and how well the heavy build covers all bases with no redundancy and nothing unideal.
whenever i go from my fleet galaxy to another ship, it tends to be my fleet heavy. and im able to do twice as well in it as i just did with the galaxy, with just the seemingly tiny difference between them. im able to run the much stronger EPtS3, im able to run APB along with my FAW, and theres still room for DEM3, RSP2, and the often handy ET1. not to mention the turn rate is 2 points better at its base, making a huge difference for protecting shield faceings from focus fire, and keeping all 8 guns on a target.
compare that to the galaxyR though, and i give up my attack pastern, a tac console, EPtS3 capability, and im left with a LTC station i have nothing useful for. AB is TRIBBLE, HE clears it instantly or theres EWP that nearly useless on a ship with 6 base turn that cant slot APO. i could use ET3 or EPtS3 in that slot, but then im effectively running a ship without the 5 boff slot. what am i getting in exchange for a useless LTC level station slot? turns out nothing, the ship has the worst mobility and least damage dealing any cruiser could have, in every category of measurement, it loses. what am i missing out on? everything an excelsior or ambassador could slot with their LTC tac or sci. even that fleet heavy, with its ENS station not used for eng, can be great, and comfortably cover all the defensive basses without any overlap or redundancy.
holy TRIBBLE the ship is bad, dont even get me started on how bad a heal boat it is
its basically hard science that the galaxy R station selection sucks, when you apply just a little build theory craft to it. its not something thats too complicated, its not something that has to many factors at work to ever say something truly definitive, its a combination of 12 very well known factors, combined in all sorts of different ways.
I'm still not hooked on the 3-pack idea. Why should I pay for the third time for a competent Galaxy Class. And why should there be not less than 6 different Galaxy variants in the store?
Instead, I'll quote myself from an neighbouring thread:
I don't think the 2 tac console ships need a third one if only Cryptic had used the opportunity of "Cruiser Commands" to make these ships "Command Cruisers" essentially. They could still buff those commands for the Exploration-R, Star Cruiser, Odyssey and Heavy Cruiser-R and the Negh'Var on KDF site (which already loses out on one command being a battle cruiser).
Other than that, the game works on the assumption that Tac, Sci and Eng consoles are balanced, which they clearly aren't. Same goes for BOFFs. The devs (at least Geko) claim again and again that everything is fine and balanced, though it is no secret that clearly tactical abilities and stats make this game due to the lack of different content.
Just boosting tactical abilities on old ships however is cheap game in my opinion. Tac consoles shouldn't only enhance damage while Eng and Sci consoles should have the possibility to do so as well, meaning that a 5 Eng or 5 Sci console ship can actually use those consoles to great effect.
And somebody else mentioned the Galaxies turn rate. Turn rate is not an issue!!!. You can use RCS consoles and the friggin Saucer Seperation to counter that and the new cruiser command. Stop demanding base turn increases. On the other hand, lacking damage potential (and thus inability to pull aggro, just in case people will bring up that it's a tank and everything is fine) cannot be countered by any means.
I'd propose: 1. Buff cruiser commands on "Command Vessels" (2 tac T5 cruisers, Negh'Var and Bortas) 2. Make general damage consoles (which are weaker then specialized tac ones) available for Engineering console slots. That would benefit science vessels as well, not only the eng heavy ones. 3. Give sci vessels some special abilities as well. They deserve that. 4. Balance BOFF abilities. 5. Give the fleet Gal-R her universal ENS. It's the Negh'Vars mirror.
I think that this would not only help the Explo-R but also other cruisers as well as science ships and make the "command ships" even more valuable in fleet actions.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
For the infinity-billionth time, your definition of useless is not the only way to evaluate things. You keep saying the ship is useless because there's no reason to choose it in the game, unless a player really wants to fly a Galaxy. So, in other words, there is a reason to choose it, you just don't think that reason is sufficient.
there is indeed a reason to choose it, but this reason is not base on gamaplay stats or role, but on a purely subjectiv preference about it look and iconic status.
and since this is not, like all subjective things, something that can be applie to everyone ( yes even if i find it unconceivable that someone do not like the galaxy look, that could happened:) ) it can't gain the status of a reason since it can not succeded to meet everyone own taste about that.
hard data is not subject to that, either a ship can perform as good or better than any other or he can't, taste or bielief daesn't enter in the equation.
What you really mean, I think, is that while at some level all players have to give up mechanical advantages in some area in order to fly the ships they like, in your opinion Galaxy players give up too much in return for flying a ship they like.
almost that, but with the tiny difference that it is not an opinion, it is a fact.
That's fine that you feel that way, but note the part where it's an opinion, not a fact. Everything I've said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
it is not a feeling, it is a fact, one that can be demonstrate and will prooven true in every situation and for everyone, like all fact are, unlike opinion.
Everything we said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
You can prove that the Galaxy mechanically underperforms all you want, but it doesn't "prove" the value of the ship to anyone but you
it proove that this ship is not a real choice gameplay wise but an illusion of choice.
the fact that some people might don't care about it daesn't diminish the reality of that fact.
don't mix up the perceive value of a ship with it mechanical value, one is subject to debate, the other is not.
it is a constant.
the fact that a ship must have a role gameplay wise is not something that cryptic dismissed in the creation process of all the other ship in game, the role come first.
the problem with the galaxy is that cryptic didn't made it with a role gameplaywise but with the dogme idea that it must be inferior to the sovereign.
and since the free assault cruiser is already not particulary good gameplaywise we ended up with this atrocity stats ship.
we are here to bring this to cryptic attention, so that they can correct that.
if some people disagree with the idea that this ship must be a real choice gameplaywise they should make a thread for it.
that an exellent idea, since you claim that they might be a bunch of people that would support the fact that a ship shoudn't have a role gameplaywise because it is not very important in the end.
Thanks everyone who has responded with "LOL he's a delusional troll who wants to force his opinion on us like a giant hypocrite" for again proving that people are doing exactly what I am critiquing. If my only goal here is to prevent you from getting any changes to the Galaxy, then I suppose I should be grateful for your inability to grow your argument beyond this stage, as you have become your own worst enemies in terms of reasonable persuasive argument is concerned. Nevertheless, here's my attempt, again, to make people see that maybe, just maybe, I have a point:
I don't care if you feel like the Galaxy sucks. I'm not saying that you are wrong to think that. I'm saying you are wrong to assume that OPINION, no matter how well supported you think it to be, is a universal fact. Further, I'm saying you are wrong to assume that having said opinion, reasonable as it is, provides sufficient justification to change the Galaxy. This is, to me, manifestly obvious. Here's another one of those dreaded analogies to drive the point home:
I like the Prometheus line of escorts, especially the Cerberus skin. However, the Cerberus skin has clipping errors when separated, as well as some minor texture issues. In addition, I don't like coming to a stop to separate the ship (which is decidedly not canon in any case) and I hate that the wrong parts fly back together. This means I don't like using the MVAM console, which is a shame. Objectively, this is a "problem", in that I can prove it is worse than the MVAM mode on the Ha' Kona or the Chevron Separation on the Odyssey, for no reason at all except that Cryptic hasn't gotten around to fixing it.
Further, the Fleet version mirrors the MVAE station seating, which I feel is somewhat irritating, as the presence of the third Tac ensign means it's not really possible to run the ship with an all cannon/turret build. The sci Lt Commander is nice, but the tradeoff in terms of losing the Tac Lt Commander is probably not worth it. Overall I think the seating was once acceptable, but in the modern environment I think it is at a disadvantage in that it can't really take advantage of some of the best DOFF/power combos in the game. In my estimation, there is nothing that the MVAE does that couldn't be done better in another ship, except for the gimmick of Multi-Vector mode, which, again, I don't like to use.
In short, I feel like the MVAE could use some love. The key here is that I recognize that most of what I just said doesn't matter to other people. I further recognize that some people will look at the facts I listed about the ship and decide that they disagree that there is a sweeping problem with the MVAE that needs some attention. Because I recognize these things, instead of posting about "Why do you hate the MVAE?! I have the sad feels and you must fix it!!", I stopped and thought about it - why didn't Cryptic change the MVAM console when they made the new one for the Ha' Kona?
Turns out there's an answer - fixing it requires resources from both the art team and the systems team, and those resources are better spent elsewhere. I further recognize that while the MVAE doesn't have the "perfect" seating, and can be outperformed by other ships, it's not "broken" in the sense that I can do anything in the game, and my personal level of skill can make up for much of that difference. Thus, it seems clear to me that no "fix" will be coming soon, nor do I expect one, because in the larger context of the game, no matter how much it matters to me, it's just not that important.
In fact, regardless of how easy and obvious the changes I want are, the fact is that actually implementing those changes is fraught with difficulties. If the seating changes, what happens to BOFFs that are slotted in a seat that no longer exists? Could easily become a problem. Okay, so now Cryptic has to code a solution for that problem, which needs to be bug-tested etc. all of which increases the development cost, both in actual cost (wages etc) and opportunity cost (not working on new ships/content that would make more money/affect more people).
Further, how are they paying for these changes? They can't re-sell the MVAE without enraging the people who already bought it (some of them twice - fleet and MVAE c-store), but the changes They're making aren't likely to cause very many people to go back and buy it, so this is basically a money loser for Cryptic. It still might be worth doing if it would garner the goodwill of the player base, but you know that the first post after the Dev blog announcing the balance pass to the MVAE would be something like "So, you spent time and energy on this, instead of on <ship or issue poster feels is more important>? Ridiculous. Way to go Craptic.". It seems like such a change would really only be worth doing, then, in the context of a larger rebalancing of many of the older ships. Maybe that would be a good idea, but again, it's not necessarily a money maker, and the more effort Cryptic puts into doing things that don't make them money, the harder it becomes for them to justify doing them.
Does that make it more clear? I am not saying that people are wrong to want a change to the Galaxy. I'm not trying to "force" my opinion that everything is fine on you. I'm saying that in the face of the fact that at least some people don't share your opinion that this is a huge problem, your argument to support making a change can't merely be based on your righteous indignation about the situation. My evaluation of the likely outcome of such a change is as follows:
A number of Galaxy fans are happy. Another segment of Galaxy fans are unhappy, either because Cryptic "forced" them to buy another new version of the Galaxy, or because the changes didn't go far enough, and thus are only a 'good start'. In the case of "buy a new version of the Galaxy", sales are modest at best, because there just isn't that much demand for the ship, but the backlash from players who feel like its a ripoff and a waste of dev resources is pretty intense. In the case of simply changing the current ship, there is a smaller (but still significant) backlash from other players who feel like their concerns are being unfairly ignored in favor of a small cabal of noisy players, while the vast, vast majority of the player base simply shrugs and moves on, not caring one way or another. Sales of the Galaxy ships don't spike up, because most people who want to fly a Galaxy already bought one, or were going to buy one anyway. Thus, in any case, Cryptic likely doesn't make money and likely doesn't substantially improve the gameplay experience for the majority of the player base, nor have they substantially reduced the number of complaints people have about the game, just shifted who is complaining about what. The benefit, then, if any, is likely not worth the effort expended to make the change.
And that, as they say, is what Cryptic's "beef" with the Galaxy likely is.
Thanks for the wall of lol. I mean... are we really supposed to be concerned with the welfare of unemployed BOFFs?
Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Even if you assumed that I meant the bit about the problem being one of the RP feelings of BOFFs, and not a reference to the potential coding difficulties of making a change to ships that currently exist, you know it's only one tiny part of the argument. It's true, that would be a terrible reason for you to care. The other reasons, which you have ignored, are still not terrible.
Note that I have three defenses against this attack - first, It's obviously spurious, since the context makes it clear that I was referring to a coding problem on the back end, not some RP fantasy. Second, even if my language was unclear there, my clarification should make it obvious what I mean, and the clarification is not vulnerable to the accusation you are making (that this is a ridiculous thing to think about on face). Third, even if I'm somehow wrong about both those things, I've still built in other components to the overall argument that you are still ignoring, and those other pieces are sufficient to make my case with or without this specific element.
Regardless, if you really wanted to take me to task for being a hypocrite on the issue of assuming unproven/unprovable judgements are "facts", you should've gone after the line "You know the first post after the dev blog...", which I will now officially amend to "It seems highly likely, given the way people have reacted to dev blogs in the past, that one of the first responses to the announcement of a balance pass to the MVAE would be..." (the rest is the quote, which is unchanged).
The problem here is with your definitions of "competitive" "opinion " and mathematical facts.
No, it isn't. The problem here is that you keep assuming that your definitions of the key terms are the only possible ones, instead of merely being the ones that you prefer.
I agree that the Galaxy does less damage than other cruisers. I agree that the Galaxy doesn't do anything in particular better than any other ship. You have conceded that the Galaxy can do anything in the game, even if it can't do it as easily as other ships. I look at this situation and say "Okay, so, no problem". You look at it and say "Yes, huge problem". Those are both OPINIONS. Yours is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in your terms. Mine is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in my terms. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I'm saying you are confusing the degree to which you like your argument and dislike mine with the degree to which you are "right" and I am "wrong".
It doesn't even matter anymore, though, because you've granted everything I was after:
Is it preferred for those in the community who would like to fly it WHILE being competitive? Absolutely
This is my point. Change isn't necessary, it's just something a small segment of the community wants. That small segment needs to do more to demonstrate that it's a good idea than they have done in this thread. It's not about "do some people desire change", or even "is it reasonable to desire change", it's about "Does the desire of this small segment justify making the change, on balance?" It seems like you've just conceded that the answer to that question is "Not necessarily".
Your confusion around what has been mathematically proven and what is opinion, what is competitive and what people in STO want is highly comical at this point.
2+2 = 4. That is a fact.
4 is more than 3. Also fact.
4 is better than 3, because bigger numbers are better. Opinion.
4 is so much better than 3 that 3 is a useless number, because all that matters in this game is addition and multiplication, and in any of those operations where I use could use a 3, a 4 would result in a bigger number, which is better. Value judgement, based on a opinions which are subjective interpretations of facts.
Again, I'm not telling you that you should not feel slighted. That's a pointless argument. I'm telling you something you've already agreed to: That your feelings aren't a sufficient justification to make a change necessary.
No, it isn't. The problem here is that you keep assuming that your definitions of the key terms are the only possible ones, instead of merely being the ones that you prefer.
....
Again, I'm not telling you that you should not feel slighted. That's a pointless argument. I'm telling you something you've already agreed to: That your feelings aren't a sufficient justification to make a change necessary.
Call it irony or hypocrisy, but it's plainly evinced in the above quotation.
You're right, confusion on this point is comical.
Actually, it's gone past comical and become kinda sad.
Majority of the previous arguments in this thread are based off of canon which is highly subjective. STO mechanics are not.
The mechanics may not be subjective, but the interpretation of which parts are important, and why, certainly is.
Again, you've already conceded my point. Change isn't necessary. It's just something you and some unknown segment of the population desire. You've done no work to demonstrate that said portion of the population is actually significant enough to make the work worthwhile, except assume that it's a majority because you assume that only your way of viewing the world is rational, which is why your argument fails.
Call it irony or hypocrisy, but it's plainly evinced in the above quotation.
Oh noes, I'm going to respond to you again! I'm falling for it AGAIN.
It is not hypocritical at all. I'm not saying that your definitions are unacceptable or unreasonable. I'm not saying they are "wrong". I'm saying they are not the only ones that are reasonable. I'm saying that people can disagree on those definitions. I'm not saying you have to accept my definitions personally and change your own opinions. I'm saying you should stop assuming that if I don't change my views to match yours, I'm being unreasonable. Basically I'm saying you don't have to agree with me, but you have to accept that I hold the opinions that I do, and that it's not possible or necessary for you to "prove" that my opinions are "wrong". I'm also saying that your argument is unpersuasive precisely because it depends on assuming as fact that every reasonable person will think the same way you do, when that is demonstrably not true. I think your argument would be more persuasive (though, perhaps still not enough to change my mind) if instead you based it around a reasonable projected cost/benefit analysis, instead of around your spurious claim to a universal truth.
Oh noes, I'm going to respond to you again! I'm falling for it AGAIN.
It is not hypocritical at all. I'm not saying that your definitions are unacceptable or unreasonable. I'm not saying they are "wrong". I'm saying they are not the only ones that are reasonable. I'm saying that people can disagree on those definitions.
Communication via language is predicated on a common definition of terms. So no, you cannot adopt your own set of definitions and reasonably expect others to accept that as your prerogative.
I'm not saying you have to accept my definitions personally and change your own opinions. I'm saying you should stop assuming that if I don't change my views to match yours, I'm being unreasonable.
Have you considered the possibility that you are being unreasonable? Or are you not capable of being so?
Basically I'm saying you don't have to agree with me, but you have to accept that I hold the opinions that I do, and that it's not possible or necessary for you to "prove" that my opinions are "wrong". I'm also saying that your argument is unpersuasive precisely because it depends on assuming as fact that every reasonable person will think the same way you do, when that is demonstrably not true. I think your argument would be more persuasive (though, perhaps still not enough to change my mind) if instead you based it around a reasonable projected cost/benefit analysis, instead of around your spurious claim to a universal truth.
The irony! It burns us!
Right back at you.
Yep. I knew this would be a futile endeavor when I engaged. Yet I was compelled to do so. I are sad.
Excuse me, but could you two or three people please use an instant messenger or email to fight each other? You have reached a level that might let the idea of locking this thread down look almost reasonable.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Comments
What, then, would you characterize the argument in favor of change as? I started by asserting that it was based on a subjective judgement, and that people might disagree. I was told that I was wrong and a fool because objectively the Galaxy is broken and needs to be fixed. If I am misreading that as attempting to justify the change on the basis of being objectively necessary, then what is it?
To be clear, this is not a passive-aggressive use of a rhetorical question to score points. I'm genuinely curious - how would you classify the justifications being offered to support the change?
That IS what I've been doing. That I have repeatedly failed to get that across stems from a host of issues, including but not limited to the fact that I choose a slightly subtle and non-obvious way of addressing it, as well as the fact that I, like many of the posters in this thread, am not always a great net citizen about monitoring my tone. Mea culpa.
Nevertheless, I also think there's a large element of "I don't like his position, so it must be wrong" going on here, which is causing people to suffer from what was once characterized on a Warhammer 40K forum as "fleet of post", a special rule wherein in lieu of thinking in the thinking phase, people instead make d6 posts.
And yes, you are welcome to feel like I do the same thing. My affirmative defense against that claim of hypocrisy is that I believe the care with which I consider my posts is evident in the way in which I present detailed reasoning in my responses, even if that reasoning isn't something everyone agrees with.
Beyond which, even if it's true that I am guilty of being so entrenched in my position that I react out of form, rather than reason, that doesn't mean I'm not correct about my conclusions, nor does it mean that I'm wrong that about other people doing it too.
Basically, I'm saying that if its true that the issue here is simply that I've been misunderstood, then I'm willing to cop to being partially responsible for that. Hopefully that's sufficient to avoid a fruitless derail into a discussion of exactly how much blame should be ascribed, because I really don't think it matters. Instead, if, at least we are at the point where I can ask if the change is a good idea without being shouted down as automatically ridiculous, then let's have that discussion.
It's not ironic at all. I suspect strongly that despite the fact that I have repeatedly explicitly acknowledged that it is not wrong to be unhappy with the Galaxy people are still reacting to "but I disagree" as an attempt to prove them "wrong" anyway, and so they react as if my claim is self-contradictory. It really, really, really isn't. The opinions at play here are not mutually exclusive, nor are they zero-sum. It doesn't, in any way, undermine the validity of my opinion that you disagree, or vice versa. Me saying I have a right to enjoy black liquorice doesn't in any way obligate you to start enjoying the foul stuff too.
Imagine, if you will, a civil discourse somewhere. Perhaps in a real forum of some sort, between learned men. The topic of the day is... we'll go with something inoffensive and boring: Evolution.
For a time the discussion progresses on the finer points of evolutionary processes. There is some disagreement amongst the learned men about the competing concepts of survival and altruism. Suddenly another learned man enters stage right, bringing a chair to the table. No one takes notice as this has happened several times before.
Everyone expects another interesting take on the issue at hand, but no! Instead of a meaningful addition or criticism of the topic they say, "But what if God just created everything? That pre-empts the entire issue! It's pointless to discuss evolution until we can prove God didn't do it."
The other learned men collectively facepalm and turn to the moderator. "That is another topic entirely," he says. "We have begun with the presupposition that Evolutionary theory is true and proceeded from that point. Kindly keep your inquiries and assertions within that context."
"But this is folly! What if it isn't true? This is more important!" says the new arrival.
"Get off the stage!" yells someone in the audience.
"But it's meaningless unless we make that conclusion first!"
A cacophany of booing accompanied by a light rain of tomatoes flows from the audience. The new guy refuses to leave, intent on having his debate take priority. Nothing further is accomplished because everyone is too busy throwing tomatoes, yelling, and wishing this building had security. The end.
This is where you have brought us.
I also posit that this hypothetical situation would be no different, nor the learned men and audience any less justified in their response if the roles of science and religion were reversed in this little theater of the mind. Bringing religion into a scientific debate is just as inappropriate and disruptive as bringing up science in a religious debate.
Pre-empting your pastor's reading of genesis with a lesson on the big bang theory is not okay.
P.S. Dear admins: please don't ban me.
I would characterize your arguments as non-sequitur. A thing not being A does not necessarily make it B.
But then I suspect you already know this, Jello.
I see where your coming from, but I still think you are missing the key element here of the call to action. I refer you to my version of the Oktoberfest analogy. It's not a case of someone who hates beer crashing Oktoberfest. It's a case of someone who hates beer attending a debate about how the town should implement Oktoberfest, and asking if the party should even happen in the first place. Even if you feel like the answer to that question is "yes", it's not outside the scope of the discussion to ask the question.
I see. So am I to take this to again be basically a dismissal of the idea that it's worth asking if changing the Galaxy is a good idea in the first place? I guess I misinterpreted your challenge to my characterization of the thread as a substantive question. Sorry for wasting your time.
Sure, I'll run with this analogy, because it's more or less apt. You simply have to add the part where the people who are disgusted with the replacement beer are demanding that the Oktoberfest organizers "do something", and offering solutions that are possibly impractically expensive, not universally accepted (because not everyone cares about the beer that was replaced, and not everyone hates the replacement), and that might not even make all the offended parties happy (because they can't exactly agree on what exactly should be done to fix the problem in the first place).
When the person who likes the disgusting beer speaks up, he gets roundly shouted down for being ignorant, since OF COURSE everyone can see the new beer is disgusting. So, he responds that actually, it's not obvious to everyone that the beer is disgusting, it's just an opinion that isn't universally shared, and so maybe don't act like it's unreasonable to say that the "problem" is not a big enough deal to worry about, no matter how personally offensive it is to you as an individual. And that's where we are.
I accept your apology.
this has nothing to do with point of view, its simply impossible to make the galaxy as good as any other cruiser at dealing damage, or being a healer. the station setup does not allow for it, no mater what combination you try. those are the 2 things cruisers are capable of doing, other then be a part of your RP experience. but then it doesn't mater much if the ship sucks or not, so it might as well not be the worst, but pretty good instead. still waiting for a justification for why it should not be made a little better.
galaxy carrier- flight deck cruiser auras
COM eng
LTC sci
LT eng
LT tac
ENS sci
4/4/2 consoles
1 hanger
galaxy cruiser- cruiser auras
COM eng
LTC uni
LT uni
LT sci
ENS sci
4/3/3 consoles
galaxy dreadnought (not the galaxy X)- dreadnought cruiser auras
COM eng
LTC tac
LT uni
LT uni
ENS sci
4/2/4 consoles
with the 3 pack, you could have a galaxy type that would make a very good sci heavy support cruiser that has a hanger, without makeing the only galaxy class available be a 2 aura command flight deck cruiser. the second variant is the typical super versatile galaxy cruiser with all 4 commands, and the 3rd is a galaxy based on the one from yesterdays enterprise or a galaxy class in service during the dominion war. would make sense that variants like this would be around, considering the dominion war pales in comparison to the state of the galaxy in 2409. everyone could have a galaxy variant that suited their play style best, with the correct auras suited to each cruiser's sub type, and those worried about tac cruiser power creep can rest assured that the avenger, monbosh, galor, etc... and several other tac cruisers would still be better tac ships then even the most tac heavy of these 3 available.
were does the galaxy X fit in? well, it would be like the 4th ship in this 3 pack. its station setup should be the same as the galaxy dreadknot's is, listed above. whatever consoles or weapons that would fit on any of the 3 ships in this pack should also fit on the galaxy X, though it remains the only ship of the 4 that has the lance and cloak.
Maybe it's not a charade. Who knows? People are easily deluded and will often chastise others for the very same behavior they themselves are manifesting. We're all crazy. It's our nature.
very subtle lol. i hate to say i know im right or something, but in this post i deconstruct a fleet galaxy and fleet heavy build, pointing out how strained the galaxy build is and how well the heavy build covers all bases with no redundancy and nothing unideal.
its basically hard science that the galaxy R station selection sucks, when you apply just a little build theory craft to it. its not something thats too complicated, its not something that has to many factors at work to ever say something truly definitive, its a combination of 12 very well known factors, combined in all sorts of different ways.
I'm still not hooked on the 3-pack idea. Why should I pay for the third time for a competent Galaxy Class. And why should there be not less than 6 different Galaxy variants in the store?
Instead, I'll quote myself from an neighbouring thread:
I think that this would not only help the Explo-R but also other cruisers as well as science ships and make the "command ships" even more valuable in fleet actions.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
there is indeed a reason to choose it, but this reason is not base on gamaplay stats or role, but on a purely subjectiv preference about it look and iconic status.
and since this is not, like all subjective things, something that can be applie to everyone ( yes even if i find it unconceivable that someone do not like the galaxy look, that could happened:) ) it can't gain the status of a reason since it can not succeded to meet everyone own taste about that.
hard data is not subject to that, either a ship can perform as good or better than any other or he can't, taste or bielief daesn't enter in the equation.
almost that, but with the tiny difference that it is not an opinion, it is a fact.
it is not a feeling, it is a fact, one that can be demonstrate and will prooven true in every situation and for everyone, like all fact are, unlike opinion.
Everything we said flows directly from that tiny but crucial understanding.
it proove that this ship is not a real choice gameplay wise but an illusion of choice.
the fact that some people might don't care about it daesn't diminish the reality of that fact.
don't mix up the perceive value of a ship with it mechanical value, one is subject to debate, the other is not.
it is a constant.
the fact that a ship must have a role gameplay wise is not something that cryptic dismissed in the creation process of all the other ship in game, the role come first.
the problem with the galaxy is that cryptic didn't made it with a role gameplaywise but with the dogme idea that it must be inferior to the sovereign.
and since the free assault cruiser is already not particulary good gameplaywise we ended up with this atrocity stats ship.
we are here to bring this to cryptic attention, so that they can correct that.
if some people disagree with the idea that this ship must be a real choice gameplaywise they should make a thread for it.
that an exellent idea, since you claim that they might be a bunch of people that would support the fact that a ship shoudn't have a role gameplaywise because it is not very important in the end.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I don't care if you feel like the Galaxy sucks. I'm not saying that you are wrong to think that. I'm saying you are wrong to assume that OPINION, no matter how well supported you think it to be, is a universal fact. Further, I'm saying you are wrong to assume that having said opinion, reasonable as it is, provides sufficient justification to change the Galaxy. This is, to me, manifestly obvious. Here's another one of those dreaded analogies to drive the point home:
I like the Prometheus line of escorts, especially the Cerberus skin. However, the Cerberus skin has clipping errors when separated, as well as some minor texture issues. In addition, I don't like coming to a stop to separate the ship (which is decidedly not canon in any case) and I hate that the wrong parts fly back together. This means I don't like using the MVAM console, which is a shame. Objectively, this is a "problem", in that I can prove it is worse than the MVAM mode on the Ha' Kona or the Chevron Separation on the Odyssey, for no reason at all except that Cryptic hasn't gotten around to fixing it.
Further, the Fleet version mirrors the MVAE station seating, which I feel is somewhat irritating, as the presence of the third Tac ensign means it's not really possible to run the ship with an all cannon/turret build. The sci Lt Commander is nice, but the tradeoff in terms of losing the Tac Lt Commander is probably not worth it. Overall I think the seating was once acceptable, but in the modern environment I think it is at a disadvantage in that it can't really take advantage of some of the best DOFF/power combos in the game. In my estimation, there is nothing that the MVAE does that couldn't be done better in another ship, except for the gimmick of Multi-Vector mode, which, again, I don't like to use.
In short, I feel like the MVAE could use some love. The key here is that I recognize that most of what I just said doesn't matter to other people. I further recognize that some people will look at the facts I listed about the ship and decide that they disagree that there is a sweeping problem with the MVAE that needs some attention. Because I recognize these things, instead of posting about "Why do you hate the MVAE?! I have the sad feels and you must fix it!!", I stopped and thought about it - why didn't Cryptic change the MVAM console when they made the new one for the Ha' Kona?
Turns out there's an answer - fixing it requires resources from both the art team and the systems team, and those resources are better spent elsewhere. I further recognize that while the MVAE doesn't have the "perfect" seating, and can be outperformed by other ships, it's not "broken" in the sense that I can do anything in the game, and my personal level of skill can make up for much of that difference. Thus, it seems clear to me that no "fix" will be coming soon, nor do I expect one, because in the larger context of the game, no matter how much it matters to me, it's just not that important.
In fact, regardless of how easy and obvious the changes I want are, the fact is that actually implementing those changes is fraught with difficulties. If the seating changes, what happens to BOFFs that are slotted in a seat that no longer exists? Could easily become a problem. Okay, so now Cryptic has to code a solution for that problem, which needs to be bug-tested etc. all of which increases the development cost, both in actual cost (wages etc) and opportunity cost (not working on new ships/content that would make more money/affect more people).
Further, how are they paying for these changes? They can't re-sell the MVAE without enraging the people who already bought it (some of them twice - fleet and MVAE c-store), but the changes They're making aren't likely to cause very many people to go back and buy it, so this is basically a money loser for Cryptic. It still might be worth doing if it would garner the goodwill of the player base, but you know that the first post after the Dev blog announcing the balance pass to the MVAE would be something like "So, you spent time and energy on this, instead of on <ship or issue poster feels is more important>? Ridiculous. Way to go Craptic.". It seems like such a change would really only be worth doing, then, in the context of a larger rebalancing of many of the older ships. Maybe that would be a good idea, but again, it's not necessarily a money maker, and the more effort Cryptic puts into doing things that don't make them money, the harder it becomes for them to justify doing them.
Does that make it more clear? I am not saying that people are wrong to want a change to the Galaxy. I'm not trying to "force" my opinion that everything is fine on you. I'm saying that in the face of the fact that at least some people don't share your opinion that this is a huge problem, your argument to support making a change can't merely be based on your righteous indignation about the situation. My evaluation of the likely outcome of such a change is as follows:
A number of Galaxy fans are happy. Another segment of Galaxy fans are unhappy, either because Cryptic "forced" them to buy another new version of the Galaxy, or because the changes didn't go far enough, and thus are only a 'good start'. In the case of "buy a new version of the Galaxy", sales are modest at best, because there just isn't that much demand for the ship, but the backlash from players who feel like its a ripoff and a waste of dev resources is pretty intense. In the case of simply changing the current ship, there is a smaller (but still significant) backlash from other players who feel like their concerns are being unfairly ignored in favor of a small cabal of noisy players, while the vast, vast majority of the player base simply shrugs and moves on, not caring one way or another. Sales of the Galaxy ships don't spike up, because most people who want to fly a Galaxy already bought one, or were going to buy one anyway. Thus, in any case, Cryptic likely doesn't make money and likely doesn't substantially improve the gameplay experience for the majority of the player base, nor have they substantially reduced the number of complaints people have about the game, just shifted who is complaining about what. The benefit, then, if any, is likely not worth the effort expended to make the change.
And that, as they say, is what Cryptic's "beef" with the Galaxy likely is.
Thanks for the wall of lol. I mean... are we really supposed to be concerned with the welfare of unemployed BOFFs?
Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Even if you assumed that I meant the bit about the problem being one of the RP feelings of BOFFs, and not a reference to the potential coding difficulties of making a change to ships that currently exist, you know it's only one tiny part of the argument. It's true, that would be a terrible reason for you to care. The other reasons, which you have ignored, are still not terrible.
Note that I have three defenses against this attack - first, It's obviously spurious, since the context makes it clear that I was referring to a coding problem on the back end, not some RP fantasy. Second, even if my language was unclear there, my clarification should make it obvious what I mean, and the clarification is not vulnerable to the accusation you are making (that this is a ridiculous thing to think about on face). Third, even if I'm somehow wrong about both those things, I've still built in other components to the overall argument that you are still ignoring, and those other pieces are sufficient to make my case with or without this specific element.
Regardless, if you really wanted to take me to task for being a hypocrite on the issue of assuming unproven/unprovable judgements are "facts", you should've gone after the line "You know the first post after the dev blog...", which I will now officially amend to "It seems highly likely, given the way people have reacted to dev blogs in the past, that one of the first responses to the announcement of a balance pass to the MVAE would be..." (the rest is the quote, which is unchanged).
Calm down. Breathe. Normal controlled even breaths. This paranoia will pass.
No, it isn't. The problem here is that you keep assuming that your definitions of the key terms are the only possible ones, instead of merely being the ones that you prefer.
I agree that the Galaxy does less damage than other cruisers. I agree that the Galaxy doesn't do anything in particular better than any other ship. You have conceded that the Galaxy can do anything in the game, even if it can't do it as easily as other ships. I look at this situation and say "Okay, so, no problem". You look at it and say "Yes, huge problem". Those are both OPINIONS. Yours is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in your terms. Mine is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in my terms. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I'm saying you are confusing the degree to which you like your argument and dislike mine with the degree to which you are "right" and I am "wrong".
It doesn't even matter anymore, though, because you've granted everything I was after:
This is my point. Change isn't necessary, it's just something a small segment of the community wants. That small segment needs to do more to demonstrate that it's a good idea than they have done in this thread. It's not about "do some people desire change", or even "is it reasonable to desire change", it's about "Does the desire of this small segment justify making the change, on balance?" It seems like you've just conceded that the answer to that question is "Not necessarily".
2+2 = 4. That is a fact.
4 is more than 3. Also fact.
4 is better than 3, because bigger numbers are better. Opinion.
4 is so much better than 3 that 3 is a useless number, because all that matters in this game is addition and multiplication, and in any of those operations where I use could use a 3, a 4 would result in a bigger number, which is better. Value judgement, based on a opinions which are subjective interpretations of facts.
Again, I'm not telling you that you should not feel slighted. That's a pointless argument. I'm telling you something you've already agreed to: That your feelings aren't a sufficient justification to make a change necessary.
You're right, confusion on this point is comical.
Aww shucks, you got me again. I responded to you as if you were actually worth talking to.
Call it irony or hypocrisy, but it's plainly evinced in the above quotation.
Actually, it's gone past comical and become kinda sad.
Same dictionary, different interpretation.
There is not a single shred of evidence to support this claim.
The mechanics may not be subjective, but the interpretation of which parts are important, and why, certainly is.
Again, you've already conceded my point. Change isn't necessary. It's just something you and some unknown segment of the population desire. You've done no work to demonstrate that said portion of the population is actually significant enough to make the work worthwhile, except assume that it's a majority because you assume that only your way of viewing the world is rational, which is why your argument fails.
Oh noes, I'm going to respond to you again! I'm falling for it AGAIN.
It is not hypocritical at all. I'm not saying that your definitions are unacceptable or unreasonable. I'm not saying they are "wrong". I'm saying they are not the only ones that are reasonable. I'm saying that people can disagree on those definitions. I'm not saying you have to accept my definitions personally and change your own opinions. I'm saying you should stop assuming that if I don't change my views to match yours, I'm being unreasonable. Basically I'm saying you don't have to agree with me, but you have to accept that I hold the opinions that I do, and that it's not possible or necessary for you to "prove" that my opinions are "wrong". I'm also saying that your argument is unpersuasive precisely because it depends on assuming as fact that every reasonable person will think the same way you do, when that is demonstrably not true. I think your argument would be more persuasive (though, perhaps still not enough to change my mind) if instead you based it around a reasonable projected cost/benefit analysis, instead of around your spurious claim to a universal truth.
Right back at you.
Communication via language is predicated on a common definition of terms. So no, you cannot adopt your own set of definitions and reasonably expect others to accept that as your prerogative.
Have you considered the possibility that you are being unreasonable? Or are you not capable of being so?
The irony! It burns us!
Yep. I knew this would be a futile endeavor when I engaged. Yet I was compelled to do so. I are sad.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!