All the tech manual and canon (Correct spelling folks, 'Cannon' is a different thing altogether) talk is next to completely irrelevant in this discussion really. These should only be used as 'loose guidelines'. Gameplay and balance take top priority.
That being said, I cannot for the life of me understand why some people get argumentative at the suggestion that the Galaxy get a pass and fix it so desperately needs. If you don't like the ship, chances are you don't fly it. The Galaxy getting reworked will not affect your game experience.
I'm not against any improvements on the Galaxy, the proper ones are a good idea. I actually own the Gal-X and R and use them from time to time. I am against the whole idea of the Galaxy being worshiped as this tremendous, but yet maneuverable, battleship that is far superior to any ships that were built after it, even other ships named "Enterprise" a ship name of the highest tradition for Starfleet, and that nothing can or will replace it. The whole fandom-forth is doing as much to turn peoples opinions as anything else. My whole point is that the higher tier Engineer BoFF skills need to be brought up to a level of effectiveness that the Tac and Sci are, and the Ensign abilities will fall in line.
As far as the Excel' being the best Fed' cruiser in the game, you are right. By all means the newest and most advanced ships should be the best, which lends more of an argument for the Sovy/Regent to be the best,but I know that it i just a game and wont get offended by it. The whole cruiser concept needs reworking and the Galaxy shouldnt be the top dog once its done (if it is ever done).
Heck, the fanboys wont even accept that in 40 years since Nemesis that there are more powerful ships out there. They are so stuck on those phaser strips as gospel and deny that technology advances could surpass them, ever. I'm just glad that they aren't in charge of the US Navies procurement department because they'd still be retrofitting the Missouri because it was the large battleship we had.
Exactly! And there is PLENTY of precedent in Star Trek where a MUCH smaller vessel/object completely overwhelmed a much larger vessels defenses. (Nomad in "The Changeling"; Orion scout vessel in "Journey To Babel"; alien probe in "The Arsenal Of Freedom"; another alien probe in "The Nth Degree"). When this is brought up, the Galaxy fanboys then scream their favorite mantra: "It's The Writers' Fault".
By their logic, a ENIAC must be a more powerful computer since it is larger than a notebook. They just refuse to accept that CBS/Paramount has LONG since decided that the Sovereign class was going to be accepted as the most powerful ship, and effectively poured cold water on the Galaxy fanboys dreams of "modularity" and "phaser emitters".
Exactly! And there is PLENTY of precedent in Star Trek where a MUCH smaller vessel/object completely overwhelmed a much larger vessels defenses. (Nomad in "The Changeling"; Orion scout vessel in "Journey To Babel"; alien probe in "The Arsenal Of Freedom"; another alien probe in "The Nth Degree"). When this is brought up, the Galaxy fanboys then scream their favorite mantra: "It's The Writers' Fault".
By their logic, a ENIAC must be a more powerful computer since it is larger than a notebook. They just refuse to accept that CBS/Paramount has LONG since decided that the Sovereign class was going to be accepted as the most powerful ship, and effectively poured cold water on the Galaxy fanboys dreams of "modularity" and "phaser emitters".
That arguement falls flat on its face when you introduce the Odyssey... a useless ship from the 25th Century and then remember what Starfleet will become... The Universe Class... anyone wanna mess with that ship and transdimensional shielding?
I'm not against any improvements on the Galaxy, the proper ones are a good idea. I actually own the Gal-X and R and use them from time to time. I am against the whole idea of the Galaxy being worshiped as this tremendous, but yet maneuverable, battleship that is far superior to any ships that were built after it, even other ships named "Enterprise" a ship name of the highest tradition for Starfleet, and that nothing can or will replace it. The whole fandom-forth is doing as much to turn peoples opinions as anything else. My whole point is that the higher tier Engineer BoFF skills need to be brought up to a level of effectiveness that the Tac and Sci are, and the Ensign abilities will fall in line.
Great point! This whole "fandom-froth" that these Galaxy Fanboys display does turn many people off because often they do it at the expense of other ships, that people feel just as strongly about, as the Galaxy fanboys feel about their "space hotel". They pick and choose what sources, episodes, writers, and producers they want to listen to when it AGREES with their points, and belittle and disregard those very same sources when it doesn't conform to their beliefs.
The problem is that they (Galaxy fanboys) do it so BADLY, that their rank hypocrisy does make them appear to be delusionally "fandom-frothing", ESPECIALLY when they are portraying the 20+ year old "TNG Tech Manual" as an almost religious sacrament. It gains them absolutely NO sympathy from most other players (and apparently Cryptic as well), and many of them seem to be absolutely indignant that we other players have the "nerve" not to FULLY accept and embrace THEIR perception of what the Galaxy class ships should be.
maybe the galaxy is a little too engineering focus and at the very least the is the ensign engineering doff was a universal that would offer up some options for a little flexibility for different starfleet jobs. also maybe the galaxy could use one more science and tactical consoles.
the galaxy x and the sovy should almost function in simular roles as engineering/tactial battle cruisers while still having some science.
the galaxy r should a little more of a science/tactial while keeping most of the engineering powers but only giving up the ensign engineer doff. or have the ensign as universal to have the galaxy r as a jack or all trades and master or none.
if i were to offer a radical option to have u universal captain or commander added to all galaxy class with the current galaxy family set up
the best tanks are galaxy, the neh'var, teir 5 d'dredrex retrofit, tier 5 romulan in game ship, both the borquias and oddysse class maybe with out their special consoles for more armor consoles. both the ambassador and kamareg as science/tank. excelsior class as dps/tank.
Great point! This whole "fandom-froth" that these Galaxy Fanboys display does turn many people off because often they do it at the expense of other ships, that people feel just as strongly about, as the Galaxy fanboys feel about their "space hotel". They pick and choose what sources, episodes, writers, and producers they want to listen to when it AGREES with their points, and belittle and disregard those very same sources when it doesn't conform to their beliefs.
The problem is that they (Galaxy fanboys) do it so BADLY, that their rank hypocrisy does make them appear to be delusionally "fandom-frothing", ESPECIALLY when they are portraying the 20+ year old "TNG Tech Manual" as an almost religious sacrament. It gains them absolutely NO sympathy from most other players (and apparently Cryptic as well), and many of them seem to be absolutely indignant that we other players have the "nerve" not to FULLY accept and embrace THEIR perception of what the Galaxy class ships should be.
Who wouldn't? Why would someone try and prove a point by using sources to counteract their argument? Obviously someone doesn't know how to argue, if they choose to use that "method". As for belittling and disregarding, I (as a "Galaxy fanboy" according to you) don't do that. I supply proof from the shows or apocryphal sources, not baseless, weak retaliations. Your assumptions on a lot of the people in this forum is just that. Large, broad assumptions.
Again, a huge broad assumption. I already accepted the ingame Galaxy, despite the fact that it sucks (yes, I admit it. Galaxy-class starships in this game suck.) Heck, I even flew STO's Fleet Galaxy-class for four consecutive months, learning how to fly this ship. Yeah, it would be nice to have a redo (Drunk's idea is great), but I don't believe it will happen, and have accepted the ingame ship for what it is.
There's something interesting, actually, that I've noticed. Every time you bring up "Galaxy fanboys" and your stereotypical view of how they whine and complain about STO's Galaxy-class, every time I've responded with the fact that I myself am a Galaxy fanboy, according to your definition. Yet I've accepted it; which completely breaks apart your definition. Strangely enough, I haven't heard any rebuttal to that... so you admit that your term is broken? Or are you "disregard those very same sources when it doesn't conform to [your] beliefs"?
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Heck, the fanboys wont even accept that in 40 years since Nemesis that there are more powerful ships out there. They are so stuck on those phaser strips as gospel and deny that technology advances could surpass them, ever. I'm just glad that they aren't in charge of the US Navies procurement department because they'd still be retrofitting the Missouri because it was the large battleship we had.
um the Missouri was retired because it was too expensive to keep with its WW2 engines not because it was obsolete it got a full upgrade for gulf war one. in fact the other iowas are still required to be maintained in case of reactivation. in fact the navy still hasent managed to find a cheaper navel gunfire support ship since the zimwalt class was deamed to expensive
What games did the Sovereign do more damage than the Galaxy class?
Why is it a failure of the enterprise to get beaten by 2 klingon waships (rascals) when a vorcha also got beaten by 2 similar if not the same type of klingon waships isnt? (redemption part 1).
I love the 'canon' debates in this thread as the once piece of canon I always bring up is always summarily dismissed - namely:
Plus, everytime I post it - the Galaxy Class defense force comes up with excuse after excuse (much like they do with every TNG canon example that shows the Galaxy Class in a less then 'Super Cruiser' light.)
And again, here's the thing: You players that want the Galaxy Class improved -- more power to you. Just quit trying to use 'canon' examples as the DON'T show the Galaxy Class in the way you think it should be. From a TNG canon perspective (which also means throw out the TNG Tech manual as ONLY stuff shown on TV or Feature Film is actually canon); Cryptic did a pretty good job on the Galaxy Class.
So, again, dpo continue to petition for the changes you want, but don't try to use TNG canon to support them, because it just plain doesn't.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
i have to ask why when comparing the galaxy and sov is there such a violent reaction from the "anti-gal" fans(sov ambass difiant and exel) at the mention that the gal might be comparable but no problem with a 100+ year ship out guning modern ones?
also, the galaxy was starfleets flagship, and i have a hard time believing that starfleet would chose a ship from the Disney or carnival cruse lines for it so drop the "space hotel" bull ****
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
i have to ask why when comparing the galaxy and sov is there such a violent reaction from the "anti-gal" fans(sov ambass difiant and exel) at the mention that the gal might be comparable but no problem with a 100+ year ship out guning modern ones?
also, the galaxy was starfleets flagship, and i have a hard time believing that starfleet would chose a ship from the Disney or carnival cruse lines for it so drop the "space hotel" bull ****
if the Gal can receive modern/current tech to surpass the Sovereign then why can't the Ambassador or Exel receive the same upgrades and maybe surpass the Gal?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Plus, everytime I post it - the Galaxy Class defense force comes up with excuse after excuse (much like they do with every TNG canon example that shows the Galaxy Class in a less then 'Super Cruiser' light.)
And again, here's the thing: You players that want the Galaxy Class improved -- more power to you. Just quit trying to use 'canon' examples as the DON'T show the Galaxy Class in the way you think it should be. From a TNG canon perspective (which also means throw out the TNG Tech manual as ONLY stuff shown on TV or Feature Film is actually canon); Cryptic did a pretty good job on the Galaxy Class.
So, again, dpo continue to petition for the changes you want, but don't try to use TNG canon to support them, because it just plain doesn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-UEkkvpcSg Voyager was completed decimated by that physical hit. The starship Odyssey remained intact by its physical hit. Only because the ship lost containment did the ship explode.
And actually, the TNG Tech Manual is not "not canon" - it's apocryphal, meaning "In Star Trek fandom, the term "apocryphal" represents any information that is not canon in a narrow sense, but is by some treated like or accepted as canon. This may include The Animated Series, the books by Jeri Taylor, reference books or deleted scenes."
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Because you are being trolled, they are wrong and know it
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Who wouldn't? Why would someone try and prove a point by using sources to counteract their argument? Obviously someone doesn't know how to argue, if they choose to use that "method". As for belittling and disregarding, I (as a "Galaxy fanboy" according to you) don't do that. I supply proof from the shows or apocryphal sources, not baseless, weak retaliations. Your assumptions on a lot of the people in this forum is just that. Large, broad assumptions.
Again, a huge broad assumption. I already accepted the ingame Galaxy, despite the fact that it sucks (yes, I admit it. Galaxy-class starships in this game suck.) Heck, I even flew STO's Fleet Galaxy-class for four consecutive months, learning how to fly this ship. Yeah, it would be nice to have a redo (Drunk's idea is great), but I don't believe it will happen, and have accepted the ingame ship for what it is.
There's something interesting, actually, that I've noticed. Every time you bring up "Galaxy fanboys" and your stereotypical view of how they whine and complain about STO's Galaxy-class, every time I've responded with the fact that I myself am a Galaxy fanboy, according to your definition. Yet I've accepted it; which completely breaks apart your definition. Strangely enough, I haven't heard any rebuttal to that... so you admit that your term is broken? Or are you "disregard those very same sources when it doesn't conform to [your] beliefs"?
So if you think that one POSSIBLE exception invalidates the rule, I invite you to go back to ALL of the previous pages and see how you Galaxy fanboys have behaved. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste anytime with your "it's not all so your argument is invalid" weak argument. If what I say doesn't apply to you, then "keep it moving" and ignore it. It's as simple as that.
Also, reread my post regarding argument style(s) and how BADLY you Galaxy fanboys display you're hypocrisy and how it invalidates any sympathy that you may otherwise get. The "proof is in the pudding" since DOESN'T seem to be widespread support from the rest of the STO community for your "cause" after THREE YEARS of complaining about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-UEkkvpcSg Voyager was completed decimated by that physical hit. The starship Odyssey remained intact by its physical hit. Only because the ship lost containment did the ship explode.
."
Yet another excuse. Where in "The Jem'Hadar" did it state that the ship lost containment? And what is your point?
So now that the Scimitar has been revised and is being released on the C-Store for a fricking ridiculous price. Do you guys think we'll see a revised Galaxy/Sovereign/Intrepid?
also, the galaxy was starfleets flagship, and i have a hard time believing that starfleet would chose a ship from the Disney or carnival cruse lines for it so drop the "space hotel" bull ****
Yet Starfleet:
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard) who already lost a ship because he was UNWILLING to fire back until the ship he was in Command of (the U.S.S. Star Gazer) was virtually destroyed/unsalvageable.
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard) who repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to return until his shields were down, and the ship itself was damaged, and he had taken crew casualties.
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard), who called for Staff conferences in the MIDDLE of combat situations (source: TNG episode: "Q-Who".)
So, why would they give this Captain such a ship, and designate it the 'Flagship'?
1) Because it can take damage well (They knew Picard didn't need a ship that dishes out damage - he needed one that can take it.)
2) Because federation policy isn't about 'fighting' it's about 'diplomacy' and by pasty actions, Picard had demonstrated his desire to talk (even past the point where even under Star Fleet Regs., he SHOULD fight/return fire.)
It's why Captain Jellico was given command of the Excelsior Class U.S.S. Cairo <--- here's a Captain that knows how to fight; so he gets a ship that can dish it out)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Plus, everytime I post it - the Galaxy Class defense force comes up with excuse after excuse (much like they do with every TNG canon example that shows the Galaxy Class in a less then 'Super Cruiser' light.)
And again, here's the thing: You players that want the Galaxy Class improved -- more power to you. Just quit trying to use 'canon' examples as the DON'T show the Galaxy Class in the way you think it should be. From a TNG canon perspective (which also means throw out the TNG Tech manual as ONLY stuff shown on TV or Feature Film is actually canon); Cryptic did a pretty good job on the Galaxy Class.
So, again, dpo continue to petition for the changes you want, but don't try to use TNG canon to support them, because it just plain doesn't.
This is how these Galaxy fanboys "roll". There is ALWAYS an excuse for the Galaxy/Ent-D when it does crappy, but they sure don't want to hear the same excuses about other ships (Sovereign, Defiant, Prometheus, Excelsior) when they don't do well, or even when they DO perform well, all of a sudden it's a "hero ship", as if their beloved "space hotel" wasn't a "hero ship" as well and benefitted from that "hero" status (all too convenient nebulas to hide in, last minute saves, enemies who were ALWAYS gracious enough to give the Ent-D time to come up with a last minute plan instead of immediately trying to blow them to bits, etc.)
The Galaxy fanboys simply don't want anyone else to apply to their "space hotel" the same "standards" that they do to other ships (Sovereign, Defiant, Prometheus, Excelsior). Hence that garbage "defense" of theirs: It's the writers' fault".
So if you think that one POSSIBLE exception invalidates the rule, I invite you to go back to ALL of the previous pages and see how you Galaxy fanboys have behaved. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste anytime with your "it's not all so your argument is invalid" weak argument. If what I say doesn't apply to you, then "keep it moving" and ignore it. It's as simple as that.
It's not possible, because it actually exists. I'm the exception to your "set in stone" definition of a fanboy. Let's put it another way.
Polaronbeam says: Galaxy fanboys, you all are! Why? Because you have bad arguments, baselessly invalidate an opposition, and insist that the Galaxy is the most dominant cruiser in the game... and here's why: All evidence against the Galaxy is auto-invalidated!
stardestroyer says: Bad arguments? Nope. Invalidate opposition with no proof? Nope, I use proof. Insist that Galaxy is dominant? Nope, I have accepted the ingame ship, even though I "wish" and "hope" it was different. Do I invalidate proof? Nope.
It's not "possible", it IS. And it is incredibly arrogant to speak as if you are me.
So, because I am a "Galaxy fanboy" but I simultaneously break your concept of one, that must mean your definition is TRIBBLE. Meaning, invalidated. And you had the chance in that above post to come up with a clever argument, but you didn't. "If what I say doesn't apply to you, then "keep it moving" and ignore it" is what you said, which isn't a rebuttal at all!
You are the one here using bad arguments (actually correction, "NO" arguments is a more accurate term"), you baselessly invalidate opposition, like "straw manning" instead of rebuttals (Thanks skollulfr for the definition ). The only thing separating you from your own broken term of a Galaxy fanboy is the insistence of a Galaxy-class being the most dominant cruiser.
This thread is for discussing the Galaxy-class starship. If you can't even make a relevant argument about the ship, or even a relevant rebuttal, then you'll find a tough time getting people to sway to your side. Unless, of course, you are here simply to invoke anger and forum rage, in which case, please leave.
Yet another excuse. Where in "The Jem'Hadar" did it state that the ship lost containment? And what is your point?
"EXCUSE": "A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense."
"COUNTEREVIDENCE": 1. (philosophy, law, sciences) Evidence which tends to disprove a claim or hypothesis.
"Counterevidence" is the word you are looking for. An excuse is justifying a fault or offense. How is the destruction of the Odyssey "offensive"?
And it didn't state that the ship lost containment. So tell me, how did it blow up? It's been stated continuously that a ship has a warp reactor core, which if it explodes, destroys the entire ship (stated in every Star Trek series, and even movies). The warp reactor core has been seen in the bottom of the ship, in the Enterprise-D's master systems display, and cited on Deck 36 by numerous episodes. That's where the ship was rammed.
My point? Crypticarmsman said that the scenes involving the Odyssey are routinely discounted by pro-Galaxy supporters in this thread. I offered a different type of counterevidence related to Federation ships and physical impacts, which does not "throw out" the Odyssey incident, but instead offers a different take.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard) who already lost a ship because he was UNWILLING to fire back until the ship he was in Command of (the U.S.S. Star Gazer) was virtually destroyed/unsalvageable.
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard) who repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to return until his shields were down, and the ship itself was damaged, and he had taken crew casualties.
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard), who called for Staff conferences in the MIDDLE of combat situations (source: TNG episode: "Q-Who".)
So, why would they give this Captain such a ship, and designate it the 'Flagship'?
1) Because it can take damage well (They knew Picard didn't need a ship that dishes out damage - he needed one that can take it.)
2) Because federation policy isn't about 'fighting' it's about 'diplomacy' and by pasty actions, Picard had demonstrated his desire to talk (even past the point where even under Star Fleet Regs., he SHOULD fight/return fire.)
It's why Captain Jellico was given command of the Excelsior Class U.S.S. Cairo <--- here's a Captain that knows how to fight; so he gets a ship that can dish it out)
Good points! And despite the Galaxy fanboys rambling about how the Ent-D was built during "wartime", it was still less powerful than an AVERAGE Romulan Warbird that wasn't even tying to seriously cause them damage and yet DID ("Tin Man").
So, even though the Ent-D had experienced their fight with the Borg, the Ent-D STILL had not incorporated any "lessons learned" strategies to improve their shield technology. Where was this famed "modularity" then? (I know - "it's the writers fault" right?
It's not possible, because it actually exists. I'm the exception to your "set in stone" definition of a fanboy. Let's put it another way.
"EXCUSE": "A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense."
"COUNTEREVIDENCE": 1. (philosophy, law, sciences) Evidence which tends to disprove a claim or hypothesis.
"Counterevidence" is the word you are looking for. An excuse is justifying a fault or offense. How is the destruction of the Odyssey "offensive"?
And it didn't state that the ship lost containment. So tell me, how did it blow up? It's been stated continuously that a ship has a warp reactor core, which if it explodes, destroys the entire ship (stated in every Star Trek series, and even movies). The warp reactor core has been seen in the bottom of the ship, in the Enterprise-D's master systems display, and cited on Deck 36 by numerous episodes. That's where the ship was rammed.
My point? Crypticarmsman said that the scenes involving the Odyssey are routinely discounted by pro-Galaxy supporters in this thread. I offered a different type of counterevidence related to Federation ships and physical impacts, which does not "throw out" the Odyssey incident, but instead offers a different take.
Nope. "Excuse" fits PERFECTLY the "arguments" you Galaxy fanboys attempt to put together.
Nope. "Excuse" fits PERFECTLY the "arguments" you Galaxy fanboys attempt to put together.
Again, your term of fanboy is broken. It no longer has any meaning.
Oh, and by the way, you didn't even address how it's broken. Talk about the "arguments" YOU attempt to put together.
In regards to the definitions. You STILL have not answered the question. Answer the question please. How is the destruction of the Odyssey "offensive"? And what is your idea of how the ship blew up?
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard) who already lost a ship because he was UNWILLING to fire back until the ship he was in Command of (the U.S.S. Star Gazer) was virtually destroyed/unsalvageable.
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard) who repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to return until his shields were down, and the ship itself was damaged, and he had taken crew casualties.
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard), who called for Staff conferences in the MIDDLE of combat situations (source: TNG episode: "Q-Who".)
So, why would they give this Captain such a ship, and designate it the 'Flagship'?
1) Because it can take damage well (They knew Picard didn't need a ship that dishes out damage - he needed one that can take it.)
2) Because federation policy isn't about 'fighting' it's about 'diplomacy' and by pasty actions, Picard had demonstrated his desire to talk (even past the point where even under Star Fleet Regs., he SHOULD fight/return fire.)
It's why Captain Jellico was given command of the Excelsior Class U.S.S. Cairo <--- here's a Captain that knows how to fight; so he gets a ship that can dish it out)
now wait...
you?... you seriously suggest that starfleet put more than 20 years development on a starship to make it fit 1 ( one! ) starfleet captain "playstyle" ( <---- if i may, hehe ).
they should have name it the "picard class starship" rather then the galaxy class starship then.
but that is coherent and would explain why they where what? only 6 of them build at the beguining?
since it was build to take a beating it sure need spare part for it 50 years or so, livespan!
construct a ship for one captain, yeah it sure must be the explanation.
Question to the guys who are against the Galaxy being retrofitted and made more competitive in this game. You refer to the shows on how the Galaxy was not a combat vessel, Linked youtube vids of her fails, referred her fails in episodes and appear to discount the episodes that show her in a good light, tell us how weak it was and this evidence shows the ship is not what we fanboys think it is.
On this basis, what evidence do we have from the shows to prove the Excelsior is a better combat vessel than the Galaxy, the Ambassador being a better combat vessel than the Galaxy and a having better Science abilities, and the Cheyenne being a better combat ship.
What evidence is there to show that these ships are superior or should be superior combat wise or Science wise over the Galaxy.
Remember the Galaxy was the lead ship for a T.V series where the show was about the human condition and was more science fiction than the TOS cowboys and bar brawls in space. It was a more thoughtful Trek where the crew out smarted the opponent rather than punched them into submission.
Lets talk Excelsior TNG she was pretty much a ferry for transporting diplomats and Admirals around the Federation, DS9 She performed very poorly during the Dominion War. Was cannon fodder not a single kill shown on screen, the Galaxy out performed her in the fleet fights we saw.
Ambassador. We know 1 was present and destroyed at Wolf 359. One was part of the Picards task force in his attempt to block Romulan Support to the Duras sisters. And we know the Ent-C defended valiantly a Klingon Outpost against 3 warbirds before going down in flames. Mainly due to being able to out maneuver them.
The Cheyenne. Kitbash ship used for the BOBW graveyard scene
So please why are these 3 ships setup with better combat abilities boff and console setups, than the Galaxy and one has access to better Science abilities when from what we have seen with our own 2 eyes the Galaxy has the better feats.
Are we assuming the Excelsior, Ambassador Cheyenne are better, Because i haven't seen anything through any Star Trek episodes that shows them to be better than a Galaxy
I see a lot of people also go on about the Odysseys loss to the JemHadar and yes her weapons and shields didn't seem to be doing jack in that fight, but hey here comes a bad TRIBBLE new enemy, we need to make it look like they are bad TRIBBLE, we need to symbolize how bad TRIBBLE they are, what ship shall we have them destroy to show how bad TRIBBLE they are. A Miranda, a Excelsior, a Ambassador no no no, here we go our top of line and best ship the Galaxy, this will send chills down our views spine seeing a ship that looks like the Enterprise being carved up like a roast.
you?... you seriously suggest that starfleet put more than 20 years development on a starship to make it fit 1 ( one! ) starfleet captain "playstyle" ( <---- if i may, hehe ).
they should have name it the "picard class starship" rather then the galaxy class starship then.
but that is coherent and would explain why they where what? only 6 of them build at the beguining?
since it was build to take a beating it sure need spare part for it 50 years or so, livespan!
construct a ship for one captain, yeah it sure must be the explanation.
Nope - not at all suggesting they designed it 'for him' (aka Picard); but that said, they KNEW the design would fit his style of Command (along with all Fed Captains who might be like him) -- which is why he got to command one.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Comments
I'm not against any improvements on the Galaxy, the proper ones are a good idea. I actually own the Gal-X and R and use them from time to time. I am against the whole idea of the Galaxy being worshiped as this tremendous, but yet maneuverable, battleship that is far superior to any ships that were built after it, even other ships named "Enterprise" a ship name of the highest tradition for Starfleet, and that nothing can or will replace it. The whole fandom-forth is doing as much to turn peoples opinions as anything else. My whole point is that the higher tier Engineer BoFF skills need to be brought up to a level of effectiveness that the Tac and Sci are, and the Ensign abilities will fall in line.
As far as the Excel' being the best Fed' cruiser in the game, you are right. By all means the newest and most advanced ships should be the best, which lends more of an argument for the Sovy/Regent to be the best,but I know that it i just a game and wont get offended by it. The whole cruiser concept needs reworking and the Galaxy shouldnt be the top dog once its done (if it is ever done).
Exactly! And there is PLENTY of precedent in Star Trek where a MUCH smaller vessel/object completely overwhelmed a much larger vessels defenses. (Nomad in "The Changeling"; Orion scout vessel in "Journey To Babel"; alien probe in "The Arsenal Of Freedom"; another alien probe in "The Nth Degree"). When this is brought up, the Galaxy fanboys then scream their favorite mantra: "It's The Writers' Fault".
By their logic, a ENIAC must be a more powerful computer since it is larger than a notebook. They just refuse to accept that CBS/Paramount has LONG since decided that the Sovereign class was going to be accepted as the most powerful ship, and effectively poured cold water on the Galaxy fanboys dreams of "modularity" and "phaser emitters".
That arguement falls flat on its face when you introduce the Odyssey... a useless ship from the 25th Century and then remember what Starfleet will become... The Universe Class... anyone wanna mess with that ship and transdimensional shielding?
Great point! This whole "fandom-froth" that these Galaxy Fanboys display does turn many people off because often they do it at the expense of other ships, that people feel just as strongly about, as the Galaxy fanboys feel about their "space hotel". They pick and choose what sources, episodes, writers, and producers they want to listen to when it AGREES with their points, and belittle and disregard those very same sources when it doesn't conform to their beliefs.
The problem is that they (Galaxy fanboys) do it so BADLY, that their rank hypocrisy does make them appear to be delusionally "fandom-frothing", ESPECIALLY when they are portraying the 20+ year old "TNG Tech Manual" as an almost religious sacrament. It gains them absolutely NO sympathy from most other players (and apparently Cryptic as well), and many of them seem to be absolutely indignant that we other players have the "nerve" not to FULLY accept and embrace THEIR perception of what the Galaxy class ships should be.
the galaxy x and the sovy should almost function in simular roles as engineering/tactial battle cruisers while still having some science.
the galaxy r should a little more of a science/tactial while keeping most of the engineering powers but only giving up the ensign engineer doff. or have the ensign as universal to have the galaxy r as a jack or all trades and master or none.
if i were to offer a radical option to have u universal captain or commander added to all galaxy class with the current galaxy family set up
the best tanks are galaxy, the neh'var, teir 5 d'dredrex retrofit, tier 5 romulan in game ship, both the borquias and oddysse class maybe with out their special consoles for more armor consoles. both the ambassador and kamareg as science/tank. excelsior class as dps/tank.
Who wouldn't? Why would someone try and prove a point by using sources to counteract their argument? Obviously someone doesn't know how to argue, if they choose to use that "method". As for belittling and disregarding, I (as a "Galaxy fanboy" according to you) don't do that. I supply proof from the shows or apocryphal sources, not baseless, weak retaliations. Your assumptions on a lot of the people in this forum is just that. Large, broad assumptions.
Again, a huge broad assumption. I already accepted the ingame Galaxy, despite the fact that it sucks (yes, I admit it. Galaxy-class starships in this game suck.) Heck, I even flew STO's Fleet Galaxy-class for four consecutive months, learning how to fly this ship. Yeah, it would be nice to have a redo (Drunk's idea is great), but I don't believe it will happen, and have accepted the ingame ship for what it is.
There's something interesting, actually, that I've noticed. Every time you bring up "Galaxy fanboys" and your stereotypical view of how they whine and complain about STO's Galaxy-class, every time I've responded with the fact that I myself am a Galaxy fanboy, according to your definition. Yet I've accepted it; which completely breaks apart your definition. Strangely enough, I haven't heard any rebuttal to that... so you admit that your term is broken? Or are you "disregard those very same sources when it doesn't conform to [your] beliefs"?
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
um the Missouri was retired because it was too expensive to keep with its WW2 engines not because it was obsolete it got a full upgrade for gulf war one. in fact the other iowas are still required to be maintained in case of reactivation. in fact the navy still hasent managed to find a cheaper navel gunfire support ship since the zimwalt class was deamed to expensive
I love the 'canon' debates in this thread as the once piece of canon I always bring up is always summarily dismissed - namely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Dyttwwrbdyk#t=122s
Plus, everytime I post it - the Galaxy Class defense force comes up with excuse after excuse (much like they do with every TNG canon example that shows the Galaxy Class in a less then 'Super Cruiser' light.)
And again, here's the thing: You players that want the Galaxy Class improved -- more power to you. Just quit trying to use 'canon' examples as the DON'T show the Galaxy Class in the way you think it should be. From a TNG canon perspective (which also means throw out the TNG Tech manual as ONLY stuff shown on TV or Feature Film is actually canon); Cryptic did a pretty good job on the Galaxy Class.
So, again, dpo continue to petition for the changes you want, but don't try to use TNG canon to support them, because it just plain doesn't.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
also, the galaxy was starfleets flagship, and i have a hard time believing that starfleet would chose a ship from the Disney or carnival cruse lines for it so drop the "space hotel" bull ****
This statement alone disqualifies you completely.
@everyone else, sorry for my interruption.
Seconded...
But some people are just devoid of common sense...
if the Gal can receive modern/current tech to surpass the Sovereign then why can't the Ambassador or Exel receive the same upgrades and maybe surpass the Gal?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-UEkkvpcSg
Voyager was completed decimated by that physical hit. The starship Odyssey remained intact by its physical hit. Only because the ship lost containment did the ship explode.
And actually, the TNG Tech Manual is not "not canon" - it's apocryphal, meaning "In Star Trek fandom, the term "apocryphal" represents any information that is not canon in a narrow sense, but is by some treated like or accepted as canon. This may include The Animated Series, the books by Jeri Taylor, reference books or deleted scenes."
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Probably this.
I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
And remember to follow the rules.
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
So if you think that one POSSIBLE exception invalidates the rule, I invite you to go back to ALL of the previous pages and see how you Galaxy fanboys have behaved. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste anytime with your "it's not all so your argument is invalid" weak argument. If what I say doesn't apply to you, then "keep it moving" and ignore it. It's as simple as that.
Also, reread my post regarding argument style(s) and how BADLY you Galaxy fanboys display you're hypocrisy and how it invalidates any sympathy that you may otherwise get. The "proof is in the pudding" since DOESN'T seem to be widespread support from the rest of the STO community for your "cause" after THREE YEARS of complaining about it.
Hmmm. Then by your own "logic", maybe that's why Cryptic is ignoring you Galaxy Fanboys because they feel like YOU are wrong and you know it.;)
Yet another excuse. Where in "The Jem'Hadar" did it state that the ship lost containment? And what is your point?
Yet Starfleet:
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard) who already lost a ship because he was UNWILLING to fire back until the ship he was in Command of (the U.S.S. Star Gazer) was virtually destroyed/unsalvageable.
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard) who repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to return until his shields were down, and the ship itself was damaged, and he had taken crew casualties.
- Gave one to a Captain (Jean Luc Picard), who called for Staff conferences in the MIDDLE of combat situations (source: TNG episode: "Q-Who".)
So, why would they give this Captain such a ship, and designate it the 'Flagship'?
1) Because it can take damage well (They knew Picard didn't need a ship that dishes out damage - he needed one that can take it.)
2) Because federation policy isn't about 'fighting' it's about 'diplomacy' and by pasty actions, Picard had demonstrated his desire to talk (even past the point where even under Star Fleet Regs., he SHOULD fight/return fire.)
It's why Captain Jellico was given command of the Excelsior Class U.S.S. Cairo <--- here's a Captain that knows how to fight; so he gets a ship that can dish it out)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
This is how these Galaxy fanboys "roll". There is ALWAYS an excuse for the Galaxy/Ent-D when it does crappy, but they sure don't want to hear the same excuses about other ships (Sovereign, Defiant, Prometheus, Excelsior) when they don't do well, or even when they DO perform well, all of a sudden it's a "hero ship", as if their beloved "space hotel" wasn't a "hero ship" as well and benefitted from that "hero" status (all too convenient nebulas to hide in, last minute saves, enemies who were ALWAYS gracious enough to give the Ent-D time to come up with a last minute plan instead of immediately trying to blow them to bits, etc.)
The Galaxy fanboys simply don't want anyone else to apply to their "space hotel" the same "standards" that they do to other ships (Sovereign, Defiant, Prometheus, Excelsior). Hence that garbage "defense" of theirs: It's the writers' fault".
It's not possible, because it actually exists. I'm the exception to your "set in stone" definition of a fanboy. Let's put it another way.
Polaronbeam says: Galaxy fanboys, you all are! Why? Because you have bad arguments, baselessly invalidate an opposition, and insist that the Galaxy is the most dominant cruiser in the game... and here's why: All evidence against the Galaxy is auto-invalidated!
stardestroyer says: Bad arguments? Nope. Invalidate opposition with no proof? Nope, I use proof. Insist that Galaxy is dominant? Nope, I have accepted the ingame ship, even though I "wish" and "hope" it was different. Do I invalidate proof? Nope.
It's not "possible", it IS. And it is incredibly arrogant to speak as if you are me.
So, because I am a "Galaxy fanboy" but I simultaneously break your concept of one, that must mean your definition is TRIBBLE. Meaning, invalidated. And you had the chance in that above post to come up with a clever argument, but you didn't. "If what I say doesn't apply to you, then "keep it moving" and ignore it" is what you said, which isn't a rebuttal at all!
You are the one here using bad arguments (actually correction, "NO" arguments is a more accurate term"), you baselessly invalidate opposition, like "straw manning" instead of rebuttals (Thanks skollulfr for the definition
This thread is for discussing the Galaxy-class starship. If you can't even make a relevant argument about the ship, or even a relevant rebuttal, then you'll find a tough time getting people to sway to your side. Unless, of course, you are here simply to invoke anger and forum rage, in which case, please leave.
"EXCUSE": "A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense."
"COUNTEREVIDENCE": 1. (philosophy, law, sciences) Evidence which tends to disprove a claim or hypothesis.
"Counterevidence" is the word you are looking for. An excuse is justifying a fault or offense. How is the destruction of the Odyssey "offensive"?
And it didn't state that the ship lost containment. So tell me, how did it blow up? It's been stated continuously that a ship has a warp reactor core, which if it explodes, destroys the entire ship (stated in every Star Trek series, and even movies). The warp reactor core has been seen in the bottom of the ship, in the Enterprise-D's master systems display, and cited on Deck 36 by numerous episodes. That's where the ship was rammed.
My point? Crypticarmsman said that the scenes involving the Odyssey are routinely discounted by pro-Galaxy supporters in this thread. I offered a different type of counterevidence related to Federation ships and physical impacts, which does not "throw out" the Odyssey incident, but instead offers a different take.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Good points! And despite the Galaxy fanboys rambling about how the Ent-D was built during "wartime", it was still less powerful than an AVERAGE Romulan Warbird that wasn't even tying to seriously cause them damage and yet DID ("Tin Man").
So, even though the Ent-D had experienced their fight with the Borg, the Ent-D STILL had not incorporated any "lessons learned" strategies to improve their shield technology. Where was this famed "modularity" then? (I know - "it's the writers fault" right?
Nope. "Excuse" fits PERFECTLY the "arguments" you Galaxy fanboys attempt to put together.
Again, your term of fanboy is broken. It no longer has any meaning.
Oh, and by the way, you didn't even address how it's broken. Talk about the "arguments" YOU attempt to put together.
In regards to the definitions. You STILL have not answered the question. Answer the question please. How is the destruction of the Odyssey "offensive"? And what is your idea of how the ship blew up?
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
now wait...
you?... you seriously suggest that starfleet put more than 20 years development on a starship to make it fit 1 ( one! ) starfleet captain "playstyle" ( <---- if i may, hehe ).
they should have name it the "picard class starship" rather then the galaxy class starship then.
but that is coherent and would explain why they where what? only 6 of them build at the beguining?
since it was build to take a beating it sure need spare part for it 50 years or so, livespan!
construct a ship for one captain, yeah it sure must be the explanation.
and i will also add this:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"cought" "cought" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... HAHA!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
On this basis, what evidence do we have from the shows to prove the Excelsior is a better combat vessel than the Galaxy, the Ambassador being a better combat vessel than the Galaxy and a having better Science abilities, and the Cheyenne being a better combat ship.
What evidence is there to show that these ships are superior or should be superior combat wise or Science wise over the Galaxy.
Remember the Galaxy was the lead ship for a T.V series where the show was about the human condition and was more science fiction than the TOS cowboys and bar brawls in space. It was a more thoughtful Trek where the crew out smarted the opponent rather than punched them into submission.
Lets talk Excelsior TNG she was pretty much a ferry for transporting diplomats and Admirals around the Federation, DS9 She performed very poorly during the Dominion War. Was cannon fodder not a single kill shown on screen, the Galaxy out performed her in the fleet fights we saw.
Ambassador. We know 1 was present and destroyed at Wolf 359. One was part of the Picards task force in his attempt to block Romulan Support to the Duras sisters. And we know the Ent-C defended valiantly a Klingon Outpost against 3 warbirds before going down in flames. Mainly due to being able to out maneuver them.
The Cheyenne. Kitbash ship used for the BOBW graveyard scene
So please why are these 3 ships setup with better combat abilities boff and console setups, than the Galaxy and one has access to better Science abilities when from what we have seen with our own 2 eyes the Galaxy has the better feats.
Are we assuming the Excelsior, Ambassador Cheyenne are better, Because i haven't seen anything through any Star Trek episodes that shows them to be better than a Galaxy
I see a lot of people also go on about the Odysseys loss to the JemHadar and yes her weapons and shields didn't seem to be doing jack in that fight, but hey here comes a bad TRIBBLE new enemy, we need to make it look like they are bad TRIBBLE, we need to symbolize how bad TRIBBLE they are, what ship shall we have them destroy to show how bad TRIBBLE they are. A Miranda, a Excelsior, a Ambassador no no no, here we go our top of line and best ship the Galaxy, this will send chills down our views spine seeing a ship that looks like the Enterprise being carved up like a roast.
Nope - not at all suggesting they designed it 'for him' (aka Picard); but that said, they KNEW the design would fit his style of Command (along with all Fed Captains who might be like him) -- which is why he got to command one.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
HAHAHA I LOVE THOSE RECUTS!
Did you see "Stratagem" before his old channel went down?
EDIT: Found it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUiN9-VgnPM&list=PLyeOqz0Vgsa4JvFqk3uJ5j13rsOxB77kx&index=110 along with all of his episodes.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!