Do you seriously think the federation builds the largest Starfleet ship ever, without considering that there could be a war in that ships lifetime?
On the other hand there is no on screen statement that the Sovereign was built for war or is a more combat heavy ship than the GCS.
The GCS is a multi mission ship, if you don't know what that means then please read some older posts, there are thousands explaining this.
The thing is not all things are equal between the GCS and the Sov. The GCS has 8 seasons of hero ship activities verses the Sov's 3 movies.
The GCS has a technical manual. The Sov does not. The closest I could come to one was the USS Enterprise owners manual that had specs on all the Enterprises and had Michael Okuda as a technical consultant. The only thing Sov fans have are the script to First Contact and the designer's notes.
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.
The Galaxy class can emit phasers from areas with no visible emitters, and also from torpedo tubes.
Going above warp 5 damages subspace.
Going above warp 10 turns you into a lizard.
Flying really fast around a regular old star like the sun can send you back in time. And basically any ship can do this.
And so on. There's plenty of stupid stuff in the "hard canon" - it's really not the bastion of reason you want it to be.
First, where phasers fire from in game does seem rather random.
From evidence only in one area of space.
Even the producers want to ignore that lack of reasoning.
used in TOS twice and the movies once. Mentioned in game as something they keep the lid on but, yes it IS canon.
If you want to argue that the Technical manual is not a bible for the show why not ask if there really is a giant rubber ducky under the bridge? (pg.11)
Or that an important medical bar is how much medical insurance a patient has. (pg.148)
The arguments for improving the Galaxy are valid as there are canon references showing she is not as bad as she appears in game. There are multiple ways this can be fixed. One fixes all cruisers.
Another suggestion is to make her more competitive in the game now versus escorts by making her more like an escort.
And then the suggestions to make her as much of a jack of all trades as she was shown.
I think the problem is when she was looked at they remembered that phrase ends with "And master of none" and forgot to give the jack of all part much of a pass.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
That hole in the side of the Borg Cube that the Fleet put there AFTER Picard showed up and told them where to fire.
That hole is Smaller than any of the three holes that the Galaxy punched into a Borg Cube solo.
The GCS has fired more torpedoes in a single shot than any other ship seen on screen.
The GCS has also fired faster than any other ship seen on screen.
In Yesterday's Enterprise we see the GCS flat out destroy a K'Vort class KDF vessel.
The Phasers were the same ones equipped as in the Prime universe.
While you are entitled to your own opinion. So are we.
Ours just happens to be a better informed one as far as a sci-fi can be.
The tech manual is backed up by on-screen dialog and visual effects.
In the Dominion War there was not a single Galaxy lost to enemy forces.
The Odyssey was not lost during the war. That was before the war started.
And that was after the ship had been engaged against the "mighty" bug ships without shields and minimally effective weapons for over 10 minutes.
Best part about that fight that GCS critics ignore? The ship was capable of leaving the battle under her own power and at her own discretion.
Furthermore in the Dominion War we see the GCS owning Cardassian and Dominion ships left and right. Despite having orders to fly straight on to DS9 should any ship get through the lines, the Galaxy Captains turned around and attacked the enemy fleet from the rear. That means that they went right through the enemy fleet like a hot knife through butter. Even beating the Defiant and her escorts through the enemy line.
As for the GCS being built during peace and as a lux cruiser??
Hardly. As has been repeatedly mentioned, the Galaxy was designed during some of the most tumultuous times for the Federation prior to the Dominion War.
She was fighting on several fronts. The Tzenkethi wars, the Tholians, the Cardassians(longest Fed Conflict to date). And when the GCS and its sister ship the Nebula launched, those conflicts suddenly evaporated.
There are two combat vessels in Star Fleet. The Defiant and the Prometheus.
One is a weapons platform strapped to an engine. The other is a one trick pony.
As for having families and children onboard.
I'm curious what you would be equipping on your vessels if you were placing a family on it?
Knowing full well that it could encounter anything from a space flea, to a god in unexplored space?
Yeah, I'd totally be negligent and give it a pea shooter.
I'd say they should give it a similar BOFF/console layout like the D'Deridex -R since both ships are supposed to be roughly equal anyway.
Since the GCS can't equip DHCs and has no singularity gimmics, i think it would be justifyable to turn the D'D -Rs (what a awful abbreviation, lol) ensign tac+uni into a lt. universal or a engineer.
Even the GCS haters should be satisfied with this, since the GCS would still be inferior to their beloved Sov and most other ships.
"...'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
pro-tip, if you dont care either way, then you wouldnt by trying to convince others. which you are doing with all the baselessness you imply of others.
given you claim you are going to be enjoying the games regardless of it having a fair competitive environment, there is no reason for you to care about those who do want a fair competitive environment.
so why are you even here except to whiteknight for a system that isnt working?
I'm not interested in going around with you on this because I've done it before, and it never goes anywhere, not because I don't care. I think it would be desirable if more people understood what I was saying, because I think it would be nice if more posters abandoned the need to pretend that it is possible to prove an opinion "true". You are allowed to have your opinion, and I'm allowed to have mine, and you are always going to prefer yours, and I'm always going to prefer mine. The difference between us is that I acknowledge this, and I don't structure my opinions or arguments on the faulty assumption that one of us must be "right", whereas you do, because (I suspect) the idea that there is no "right" answer rubs you the wrong way.
The irony of this is that since the attempt to prove yourself right is on face an absurd impossibility, it means you just keep being wrong.
Hmmm... So where does the favortism stop? Thanks to the TNG series I like the Galaxy as much as the next guy but its not my favorite vessel in the IP. So what of the favorites of other fans? After the Galaxy gets its redesign and buffing, what of the others? When does it stop (is it based on monetary gain for Cryptic?) and how will balance be maintained over fan rose-colored glasses of expectation?
Frankly, the game needs an unalterable wieght class for vessels tied to purpose and classification or this whole debate just continues to be a spiraling game of popularity over fact.
The trinity be damned. Plot capabilites set aside (because we all know the plot had more to do with a vessels abilities than any Tech manual) how will everyone feel if thier favorite doesnt live up to the hype?
it is not about favortism, the galaxy, as a cstore ship in cryptic business system is illogical since it is less efficient as some free token RA ship.
we don't want the galaxy to be "better" just because.
we want it because as of today it daesn't live up to it sctore status.
the DDeridex got a better treatement, the negvar ( gecko even speak about doing a new refit of this ship in the future) also, the scimitar is just exeptional.
i can't speak much about the klingon side but i don't think that you can find an iconic ship that is as "bad" as the galaxy in klink, romulan and federation camp.
some people try to proove that cryptic made it wrong by comparing the tv show performance to the game performance of the ship, but that is not neccesary since the ship already don't fit in the selling model cryptic put in place.
do we have a "what your beef with the negvar" thread in the forum?
do we have 1 for the intrepid, the defiant, the DDeridex, prometheus, akira, ambassador, sovereign,exelsior... do i forget some?
they are some thread for some of these ship but they rarely go beyond 100 pages, if ever.
so it is not about a selfish desire to see our favorite ship to be better than every other, it is about it to be as good.
the core of the people that push this thread have agree that the best solution for this ship is the one of don'tdrunkimshoot, we also got a signature for it.
the other that you might have seen posting unrealistic solution from time to time are the same that come on every thread posting selfish unrealistic nonsense.
these one should not be put in the same bag as we
so you arer trying to use nihilism as a tool in discussion over how to improve a game while using false dichotomy to polarise the directions the discussion can take to your own ends.
deceitful trolling. at best an attempt to derail the thread with sophistry.
No, I am questioning the underlying assumptions of the posters in the tread. You don't get to decide what is and is not a valid line of inquiry. If you want to argue "canon says the Galaxy is the most powerful warship", asking if canon is a valid tool to begin with is a legitimate, even obvious line of questioning. Similarly, if you want to argue that the game is unbalanced because certain ships can't compete, questioning the way in which you are defining things is totally valid. If the best defense you can muster on those fronts boils down to "because I can't accept any other viewpoint", well, forgive me if that ultimately isn't persuasive.
I disagree with the assumptions you and other posters are making, and I believe I have demonstrated why they are questionable, and why the fact that they are questionable causes the entire following reasoning to be fruit of the poisoned tree, so to speak. I'm not going to tell you that you can't simply choose to accept your assumptions anyway, any more than I would presume to instruct anyone on accepting any other personal article of faith. I'm simply asking you to recognize that you are doing so, and to stop acting like you have the one true answer, because there likely is no such thing.
It's not nihilism, nor is it trolling. It's simply reasoned agnosticism. If that feels trollish to you, all I can do is say that I don't believe it is, it's just a line of questioning that makes you uncomfortable.
Finally, arguing that neither of us has a right to declare our vision superior doesn't mean I don't still think your vision is bad and my vision is better. However, since you and others are the ones making the call for change, it is you who has the affirmative burden of proof.
Oh, on a personal note, if you are going to accuse me of logical fallacy, please provide an example, and explain why it is fallacious. Note that argument by analogy, deconstruction, and satire are not, in themselves, automatically fallacious.
First of all, it's not irrelevant at all, because the bedrock of your argument is a claim to the superior accuracy of your "evidence", which you then use to dismiss any counter evidence, all the while claiming to be open minded and objective. Take away that claim, and your entire argument falls to pieces. What you are trying to say here is "I wanted us to have a discussion that started with the premise that I am right, and then we would figure out how much right-er I can be". That's not a discussion, though, so that's not ever what was going to happen.
Oh, and I'm still having fun - sorry if you're not.
of course your having fun, this is how trolls have fun. i have you at a disadvantage. im aware of all the canon evidence there is, and it supports my position. still, most people try pointing out things that happen in canon to disprove my position, even poloron beam is decent enough to do that sometimes. you keep saying i reject evidence, wile at the same time presenting nothing. its pretty remarkable really, at this point, after all your lambasting walls of text. if all you can do is try to break the 4th wall to prove im wrong, your off topic.
Okay, first of all, go watch the "Galaxy Class Firepower" clip on youtube. Note at 1:55 where the Enterprise starts shooting phasers from it's forward torpedo bay? Yeah, that's the consistency you're talking about, right?
Also, you are still laboring under faulty, circular reasoning - you are saying that the tech manual is true because you can make up reasons why the inconsistencies go away, which means everything fits like a glove.
its a good thing vfx errors dont prove anything ether way. they are acknowledged errors, beams firing from odd positions. if you want to be a stickler, ok, theres a phaser bank in the torpedoe launcher, fine, its canon. the nacelle struts can fire beams too, must be non arrays, because theres no visible array there. dont know why weapons were installed in these places, but they were. oh well! doesn't effect the shot fired from arrays being nice and consistent, and thats whats in question remember? you dont even need a tech manual background information to see how they work, that glow has to be there for some reason. it being there is more likely to imply greater power shots then the absence of a glow. and would ya look at that, the licensed tech manual confirms the obvious.
Let me try explaining it this way: You are saying that nothing directly contradicts the tech manual in a way as to call it into question. Even if you were right about that claim (and I don't think you are), it doesn't mean that the tech manual is correct, because there is not one single affirmative shred of evidence that it is.
official licensed product. deal with it. i already posted the the status of their legitimacy, probably 10 pages ago now.
Never in TNG is it required that we believe the Enterprise D is a formidable warship. A powerful vessel, certainly, but not a warship. We don't really ever see the Enterprise winning fights against equal level opponents, like D'Deridex warbirds, on the strength of her firepower. Instead, we see the Enterprise winning because her captain and crew use their skills, their reason, and often their superior sense of morality to carry the day.
Similarly, we DO see the Sovereign class, the Defiant class, the Prometheus class winning fights through strength of arms. What we don't see is anyone saying things like "Man, this new ship is nice and all, but right about now I miss the old Galaxy's big guns", or anything like that. In addition, we don't see ships being designed to maximize strip length, even when we know those ships are being built for combat, and even though there's no reason anywhere in the canon why they shouldn't have those longer strips. Yet, they seem to be successful combat vessels anyway.
not using it does not prove it does not have the arsenal. im not even claiming its a warship, federation ships are a middle ground of military and science, all of them. they can have both strong weapons and strong science labs, with a select few heavily leaning toward 1 or the other. a klingon would consider the defiant luxurious.
the point of the show was not how well federation ships could oppress and conquer, but to explore and out think the enemy. often time there was no conflict because the enemy commander knew picking a fight with a GCS was stupid under the most ideal circumstances. romulan commanders only got bold when they had 2 D'deridex on their side. cardasian galors were nearly harmless to galaxy's and nebula's. even when a nebula got its shields remotely lowered, it still blew them away with ease. for the galaxy class to be gutless and toothless is simply not consistent with the intelligence level star fleet possesses and the conditions at the time of its creation that i mentioned.
there are plenty of shows of force as well, i mentioned several already that show how powerful it is when its actually fireing shots in anger. theres a real selective memory when it comes to how it did on conflicts. even the E got similar railroading like the D consistently got, in insurrection. put in a position were it couldn't fight for TRIBBLE, and the enemy had an advantage. in nemisis it even got its core knocked out before the fight started. though my position is that didn't lower its combat potential, that bit i said about warp cores you agreed with, it was only a mater of time before the ship, still perfectly intact, just ran out of gas and couldn't fight anymore. its been the same for every fight situation in tng. it always had its shield bypassed, or it was protecting something at its own expense, or it was the borg that was undamagable, or the target was the manifestation of a god like alien, and was unharmable. those were the conditions of every fight a GCS was the featured ship of. they could not ever put it in a situation were it was in a strait fight, most likely due to effects limitations. voyager, the defient, and the NX 01 got in strait fights all the time, thanks to cgi. only some times did something tie an arm around thier back, for added drama
This means that there is nothing inconsistent with the view that other ships replaced the Galaxy as the "big guns", either. You have exactly zero on screen canon evidence to back up your claim, for the same reason you keep saying I have none - the on screen evidence can be easily made to be consistent with either view. Couple that with the fact that the on screen evidence is also internally inconsistent, and again, your position boils down to a stubborn insistence that we must accept the Tech Manual, but we really don't have to. It's not 'more true' than what later designers said, you just like it more.
And that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is, and it is never going to persuade anyone that you are "right", unless they already accept your premise anyway.
you cant just say that im wrong because its possible to use the evidence i use, against me, you have to actually come up with something to use against me, to show this alleged grave inconsistency. we both know you cant, i doubt your comfortable getting that nerdy. i honestly use the tech manual for JUST 2 pieces on information, the part about its modular construction, and the basic workings of phaser arrays, which is already obvious without the tech manual. i need to reference it for nothing else. the on screen evidence ive mentioned can easily be used to benchmark what the ships can do. the holes a GCS can make in a cube that are larger then the GCS that made them, the volume of torps it can fire, thats actually quite a bit more then exactly zero on screen canon evidence to back up my claims. your not interested in that debate though, just walls of text with sweeping statements and saying thats its all fiction, like thats news to anyone.
Declaring your fictional evidence to be valid, then using that declaration as justification to create new fictional explanations to explain away the anomalies and errors in your interpretation, then using those pieces of fictional evidence as further evidence that your initial fictional evidence was correct is hardly "debating this correctly". It's not debating at all, it's circular reasoning.
ive been at this a wile, ive yet to find evidence thats not fiction. because its a tv show. seeing as its all fictional evidence, the fact that its fiction is irreverent. there are the events in canon, thats it. thats the evidence. theory crafting missing details is just a fun exercise. i dont rely on any of it to prove the basics, its all there plain to see.
Let me demonstrate exactly what you are doing. Let's say I decide one day that Starfleet phasers are powered by Unicorn blood. Nothing in the show contradicts that claim, right? I mean, phasers from the Enterprise D are red, the color of blood (except when the frequency changes, but that just means they are accessing more of the blood's magic sparkle powers), and the rarity of unicorn blood would explain why they can't make every ship have long phaser strips. It also explains why strips have to be more or less straight, because unicorn blood is actually especially viscous, even in a plasma state, because of all the nadion particles in it. Oh, as an added benefit, sometimes some of the unicorn magic wears off on the rest of the ship, which allows for extra shots to be fired from non-phaser locations.
ya, your just here to troll, thats pretty clear now. the phasers are run off plasma, the energy carrying medium everything on the ship uses. that something from the show that contradicts your unicorn blood theory. 3/10 for disappointing me, being yet another that cant debate the ships by using the actual canon.
False claim is false - if you want to run an Engineering based tank, no ship does it better. More to the point, something, somewhere, is always going to have "the worst" stats, at least in your opinion, just as something is going to have "the best", again, in your opinion. The genius of STO's design is that there is no content that requires "the best", so even if the ship you like is "the worst", it will still get the job done. The Galaxy doesn't "need" anything, some players just WANT more firepower, because they are frustrated that the ship they like doesn't support the play style they like.
Now, I am sorry that some Galaxy fans feel like their favorite ship isn't the warship they want, but to me, that matches the show pretty exactly. If the Galaxy gets more powerful, should I then cry and complain that other ships are now too weak in relation to the Galaxy?
not only are you bad at having a conversation about the canon, your bad at the game too. having so many eng skills that your paralyzed by system cooldowns makes your ship an inferior healer or tank then any other cruiser. even the more tac heavy cruisers. the best cruiser tank is an odyssey with the LTC used for sci, so it has 5 sci skills, that couldn't be a farer cry from the setup the falaxy has. there being a worst ship is poor game design. everything should have a niche, have disadvantages, and have advantages. pointing out the canon capabilities of the galaxy class and how powerful it is gives legitimacy to the fact that it should not be the absolute worst ship in the game.
appealing to the lowliest of low casuals that cant use their ship to 10% of its potential is genius? good god man.
no. you are strawmanning my position.
iv argued against hero stats consistantly, so, you just put your foot in it there. while you have demonstrated wanting to maintain the status quo despite the flaws in the game model that are pointed out.
Actually, that first part was not directed at you, though I can see how you would make that mistake. That part was in reference to the thread we're in. You make a different set of assumptions which are:
That we should consider the game from a competitive, rather than collaborative perspective.
That 'being competitive' means doing a bunch of damage
That any other viewpoint is on face absurd.
Those are the core ones. I think each of them is questionable. If you want me to explain why again, that's a discussion that can be held elsewhere. Or, you know, you can just look up the forums from when we've already hashed this all out.
you are taking a side. you are taking the side of opposing change, and are just using sophistry to pretend otherwise.
You are being ridiculous at this point. If you really think "rejecting an argument" is the same thing as "affirmatively asserting a claim to truth and a need for action", you don't understand even the fundamentals of what I'm talking about.
Here's why what you're saying here is bad logic:
I assert you are a Llama. My evidence for this is that Llamas have internet access, and so do you. In addition, I've seen no evidence that you are not a Llama, and any evidence you present can probably be ascribed to the Llama conspiracy I just decided to believe in. According to you, you now have an affirmative burden to prove that you are not a Llama. It is insufficient to merely show that my evidence is nonsense, because the act of denying your Llama-hood is, in your mind, taking a side.
Now, because it's your favorite thing to do, let me nip your accusation of strawmanning in the bud. I am using argument by analogy here - I am saying that from my perspective, the arguments you present to make your case (as well as the arguments presented about the Galaxy by others in this thread) are as nonsensical as the ones I presented. You will obviously disagree about that point - it's irrelevant, though, because my point here is simply that there is a difference in making a claim and denying a claim - the reasonableness of the evidence presented doesn't actually change that. If you think it does, please explain why, without resorting to fallacies like "because it's common sense".
weaselling. declaring everything subjective to the point there can be no proof beyond preference then doleing out 'burden of proof'?
I'm not saying everything is subjective, (in fact, I'm pretty comfortable with a fair number of claims about the objective nature of logic and reasoning) I'm saying everything you are choosing to base your positions on are subjective. The fact that you can't base your opinion on anything objective isn't my fault, and isn't unique to you - I don't have an objective basis for my believe that the game is fun and enjoyable. The difference is I don't go around pretending that my opinion is some sort of universal truth. You do, and I think you should probably stop doing that.
of course your having fun, this is how trolls have fun. i have you at a disadvantage. im aware of all the canon evidence there is, and it supports my position. still, most people try pointing out things that happen in canon to disprove my position, even poloron beam is decent enough to do that sometimes. you keep saying i reject evidence, wile at the same time presenting nothing. its pretty remarkable really, at this point, after all your lambasting walls of text. if all you can do is try to break the 4th wall to prove im wrong, your off topic.
Okay. No. I am not trolling you. There is nothing unfair or irrelevant about questioning the value of canon as a source in general, and the definition of canon you use to exclude anything that doesn't fit your mindset in particular. You keep acting like the assumptions you've made here are automatic and unassailable, and I think it is reasonable to disagree with that - I'm sorry that my questioning upsets you, but honestly, that doesn't make me doing it malicious, unfair, fallacious, or any of the other pejoratives you think apply. If I'm really getting under your skin, might that not mean there even the slightest shred of possibility I have a point?
In addition, I will point you to my answer to skollulfr about the need for evidence. I am not trying to prove anything, I am merely systematically rejecting your argument by showing your evidence doesn't establish the claim you are making in the first place, because it rests on assumptions that are unsupportable (or at least that you have failed to support thus far). There is a difference, and its a powerful enough one that actually presents what I suspect is an insurmountable disadvantage to YOU.
I will also say that your tone at this point comes across as someone who can't understand why he can't nerd-shame me into submission because I won't bow to his superior canon knowledge. I'm sure that's not your intent, but please understand that unless you can come up with a reason why we should accept your view of canon, crowing about your canon knowledge is at best irrelevant.
Let me try to put my argument out there in a different way, and see if this helps
I read the tech manual and dismissed it as nonsensical garbage. I still enjoyed TNG, and the following movies. Nothing happened in the shows that required me to accept the stuff from the manual I thought was silly. I choose to go along with what is obviously the intent of the writers, directors, and artists who make the show - I don't really worry so much about the finer details, because in the end, I recognize they are all nonsense, or at best pseudo-science anyway. In effect, I consider it to be just as "realistic" as say Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings.
My girlfriend is a casual Star Trek fan. She's never read the technical manual. The inner mechanics of the ships never bothered her while watching the show, and when I asked her which was a stronger warship the Ent E or Ent D, she instantly said "E, the Sovereign class is a sexy ship", and was surprised to find that there were people who believed the Galaxy class was actually more powerful.
You read the tech manual, enjoyed it, and considered it to be realistic. You appear to derive at least some enjoyment from making everything line up, even when it is inconsistent on the surface, and you appear to also enjoy having a categorical understanding of how things "really" work, even when it contradicts the intentions of the show runners.
My question to you is: Who is the superior Star Trek fan? Whose word should we take for what Star Trek "really" is?
If your impulse was at any level to arrange those three fans in a hierarchy, there's your problem right there. The question is nonsense. All three are fans, all three are entitled to their opinions, and no-one can possibly say that one person's opinion is 'better' than the rest. There's no social contract that Trek fans signed saying that we must accept all parts of Trek, even the stuff that seems stupid to us, that the show would be better off without. Crucially, being a fan is not a competition, and you don't win anything by having a doctrinaire view of canon, except perhaps looking like an elitist jerk.
Oh, and by the by, I know phasers run on plasma energy systems, that's why I made sure to point out that the nadion content in unicorn bloods means it is even viscous in its plasma state. Anything can be made into a plasma, after all, but no sources ever say what kind of plasma, so I felt a need to helpfully fill that blank. Since that was your only objection, should we now presume that it is canon that phasers run on unicorn blood? After all, even though it's clearly nonsense, it also clearly lines up with (or can be made consistent with) everything we see on screen (including the things you dismissed as FX errors), and you haven't actually presented any canon evidence that it is not.
as a hobby, i 'stat' ships at a very basic level, mostly for how they would do in a fight. these stats are purely based on how they perform on screen, and based on the tech established in the tech manual, i try to capture every nuance they present. quite simply, taking all the on screen evidence into account, the galaxy class is without peer. theres very little evidence to the contrary, and you dont have to bend over backwards to come up with explanation for any seeming anomaly.
its common to say, oh the galaxy is fine, shes pretty much as crappy in the show as she is in game. que me saying thats absolutely wrong! and heres why. more times then i can count in this thread. my little hobby, and the rating the galaxy class gets in it, at least shows that its worthy of being better then it is in game. if we are not at least trying to give the ships a canonish feel, theres no reason to ever attach the star trek them to this game.
ship vs ship discussions are as old as the internet, and based purely on the canon available. the internet consensus, of anyone who has spent way to much time examining this subject, im not the only one, is that the galaxy is stronger then the sovereign. those that think the opposite have little but emotion or out of universe evidence to present, as far as ive seen. its all harmless fun, its always nice to see a credible counter argument, and debate the topic. we might as well be speaking different languages, if your not trying to refute with just benchmark able canon examples.
it is not about favortism, the galaxy, as a cstore ship in cryptic business system is illogical since it is less efficient as some free token RA ship.
we don't want the galaxy to be "better" just because.
we want it because as of today it daesn't live up to it sctore status.
the DDeridex got a better treatement, the negvar ( gecko even speak about doing a new refit of this ship in the future) also, the scimitar is just exeptional.
i can't speak much about the klingon side but i don't think that you can find an iconic ship that is as "bad" as the galaxy in klink, romulan and federation camp.
some people try to proove that cryptic made it wrong by comparing the tv show performance to the game performance of the ship, but that is not neccesary since the ship already don't fit in the selling model cryptic put in place.
do we have a "what your beef with the negvar" thread in the forum?
do we have 1 for the intrepid, the defiant, the DDeridex, prometheus, akira, ambassador, sovereign,exelsior... do i forget some?
they are some thread for some of these ship but they rarely go beyond 100 pages, if ever.
so it is not about a selfish desire to see our favorite ship to be better than every other, it is about it to be as good.
the core of the people that push this thread have agree that the best solution for this ship is the one of don'tdrunkimshoot, we also got a signature for it.
the other that you might have seen posting unrealistic solution from time to time are the same that come on every thread posting selfish unrealistic nonsense.
these one should not be put in the same bag as we
The BortasQu is fairly poor design of a vessel but Im not in the thread to becry what I think may be a poor KDF vessel or even stifle the growth of what you and other fans think the Galaxy needs.
I merely am trying to impress the fact upon you all that your love for the Galaxy can and has at times gone beyond balance due to that same affection for it clouding the line of where balance may exist and fan driven impression of its capabilities exist.
Question: What if the Galaxy was crappy. quote unqoute, but the Enterprise-D was exceptional only because it carried the Enterprise name and had a Captain like Picard and his entire crew?
I'm just wondering, because I'm thinking to myself, would the First Contact with the Dominion have gone better or not if the Enterprise and Picard & co. were there instead of the Odyssey and Keogh... wait, it said their shields were ineffective against Phased Polaron... good question, how would Picard & co. have handled that?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "Look at me I'm a target!" "Fire the Lance on my mark... MARK! "How many times have we gone into the breach again R'shee?" My proposal for a Galaxy bundle
Well, I bought one since everyone was complaining about the Galaxy Class in the game. I can get 2nd or 3rd place in Crystalline Catastrophe with this Aux2Bat build. I think it works best with the Eng as they have a lot of power abilities along with enhanced Efficient bridge officers and the warp core I use. It can blow things up and tank like hell in ESTF runs as well as tested in Infected and KA space.
The BortasQu is fairly poor design of a vessel but Im not in the thread to becry what I think may be a poor KDF vessel or even stifle the growth of what you and other fans think the Galaxy needs.
I merely am trying to impress the fact upon you all that your love for the Galaxy can and has at times gone beyond balance due to that same affection for it clouding the line of where balance may exist and fan driven impression of its capabilities exist.
I haven't read the last couple pages so forgive me if i'm too much off topic.
With every new released ship the tolerance of what is "beyond Balance" and what is not, gets pushed forward. What was OP yresterday may be standard tomorrow, at the speed Cryptic is releasing new OP escorts for example.
So i think asking for a more "true" Galaxy Class isn't too much to ask for, as long as comparable ships in STO already exist. no one want's a Uber GCS.
Instead of talking about what the GCS isn't we should start talking about how to improve it. But that is only possible in a constructive environment IMHO.
What confuses me is that some people are arguing against a improvement of the GCS without even liking the ship or flying one in game.
Are its weapons stronger compared to a Sovereign? WHO CARES?
Did anyone care to discuss the same thing about the possible BOFF and Console Layout of a D'Deridex Warbird, Scirmitar or Valdore (Mogai) class?
No, of course not. Because the important thing is that the ship should FEEL like a Warbird for example.
And that's the problem i have with the GCS in STO. It's not even nearly the ship i would expect when flying a Galaxy Class. For example when doing a fleet Action, every other ship has more teeth. Even when turning the ship, a Romulan ship the same size turns double as fast.
It just feels like a obsolete and old oil tanker, even compared to a much older Excelsior or Ambassador class. I think that's just not right.
Other games like Birth of the Federation, Bridge Commander, Starfleet Command III even Legacy have had a better Galaxy Class than STO.
To be honset, when i first saw the Galaxy-R, i thought it was some kind of aprils joke, because i still can't understand how a serious game designer could make the Galaxy Class such a boring ship like that.
I'm not saying it should get a "i - win - button", but the GCS shouldn't be so boring and to be frankly it's embarrassing when doing missions together with other people and to see how little offensive this ship is capable of.
Instead ot circling around the same questions over and over, i think we should try another approach in this discussion.
How is the Galaxy Class being made in other games?
Which game had a better/worse Galaxy Class representation?
What are the differences to STO ?
... and could the GCS made more like in another game?
Sorry for typos, need to sleep.
"...'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
There is nothing unfair or irrelevant about questioning the value of canon as a source in general, and the definition of canon you use to exclude anything that doesn't fit your mindset in particular.
Here's the definition of "canon" as defined by Bernt Schneider of Ex Astris Scientia, a prime source of conveying canon data and dervatives:
"In fiction, the officially authorized interpretation of characters and events. In fandom, the term is often used to distinguish between 'canonical' accounts (i.e. those authorized by the copyright holder) and those of fan fiction, sometimes called fanon..."
"officially authorized interpretation of characters and events". Meaning, in the Trek universe, the characters and/or events that actually "happened".
It is all fine and well to discuss fanon information, but in actually comparing data of a serious tone, canon information and logical derivatives are the only accepted and credible form of proof.
In addition, I will point you to my answer to skollulfr about the need for evidence. I am not trying to prove anything, I am merely systematically rejecting your argument by showing your evidence doesn't establish the claim you are making in the first place, because it rests on assumptions that are unsupportable (or at least that you have failed to support thus far). There is a difference, and its a powerful enough one that actually presents what I suspect is an insurmountable disadvantage to YOU.
I will also say that your tone at this point comes across as someone who can't understand why he can't nerd-shame me into submission because I won't bow to his superior canon knowledge. I'm sure that's not your intent, but please understand that unless you can come up with a reason why we should accept your view of canon, crowing about your canon knowledge is at best irrelevant.
Again, canon information and logical deductions are the only form of accepted and credible proof in serious Trek discussions. You can go believe or quote all the fandom you like. The discussion revolves around what actually "happened", and not about what novel authors or the Animated Series or something thought up in the shower has created.
If there's anything I know about Drunk, it's that he uses proof (canon and/or apocryphal sources) to back up his claims, systematically and with logical deductions. It's not knowledge, it's effective fulfillment of his thesis.
Let me try to put my argument out there in a different way, and see if this helps
I read the tech manual and dismissed it as nonsensical garbage. I still enjoyed TNG, and the following movies. Nothing happened in the shows that required me to accept the stuff from the manual I thought was silly. I choose to go along with what is obviously the intent of the writers, directors, and artists who make the show - I don't really worry so much about the finer details, because in the end, I recognize they are all nonsense, or at best pseudo-science anyway. In effect, I consider it to be just as "realistic" as say Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings.
My girlfriend is a casual Star Trek fan. She's never read the technical manual. The inner mechanics of the ships never bothered her while watching the show, and when I asked her which was a stronger warship the Ent E or Ent D, she instantly said "E, the Sovereign class is a sexy ship", and was surprised to find that there were people who believed the Galaxy class was actually more powerful.
You read the tech manual, enjoyed it, and considered it to be realistic. You appear to derive at least some enjoyment from making everything line up, even when it is inconsistent on the surface, and you appear to also enjoy having a categorical understanding of how things "really" work, even when it contradicts the intentions of the show runners.
My question to you is: Who is the superior Star Trek fan? Whose word should we take for what Star Trek "really" is?
No one is any more superior to anyone else. We are all fans, plain and simple.
And since all fans are equal, the producers of the show and all personnel involved with the show's creation, including all canon and apocryphal sources, are considered to be on a higher level. In short, it is their word, and not anyone else's.
The TNG Technical Manual was written by Okuda and Sternbach, two of the show's leading personnel. It's considered to be an apocryphal source not because of who the authors are, but because the intent of the published manual was to help writers know their Trek technology when writing episodes for Star Trek: The Next Generation. It's a benchmark for technology consistency and accuracy throughout the show (and probably implemented in Deep Space Nine in the early seasons).
So for all intents and purposes in serious discussions like this one, apocryphal sources like the TNG Tech Manual do say how things "work".
Oh, and by the by, I know phasers run on plasma energy systems, that's why I made sure to point out that the nadion content in unicorn bloods means it is even viscous in its plasma state. Anything can be made into a plasma, after all, but no sources ever say what kind of plasma, so I felt a need to helpfully fill that blank. Since that was your only objection, should we now presume that it is canon that phasers run on unicorn blood? After all, even though it's clearly nonsense, it also clearly lines up with (or can be made consistent with) everything we see on screen (including the things you dismissed as FX errors), and you haven't actually presented any canon evidence that it is not.
...What?
The Galaxy-class starship when launched didn't have bio-neural circuitry. There was no existing fusion of technology and bio-matter in the computer, power, or any electrical system on the ship. How can unicorn blood, a biological fluid, be used to power a system not designed for that type of energy transfer method?
It doesn't line up with everything seen on screen, and canon information supports that the Intrepid-class was the leading ship with bio-neural technology, not the Galaxy-class. (Janeway made a passing remark in VOY: "Relativity").
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!
In the Canon gene robbenbury approved ship construction manual
Dreadnoughts outgun Battleships
Battleships more armor/shields than Battlecruisers
Battlecruisers outgun cruisers
Cruisers outgun destroyers
Destroyers outgun escorts
Escorts outgun Corvettes
Corvetts outgun fighters
fighters outgun shuttles
A very few ships are missing and a few have some other perks but this list is very accurate
to what the creator wanted
The TNG manual was rejected by gene roddenbury and FASA'a lisence canceled and is NOT considered Canon for that reason
The weight of the Galaxy 5 million tons broke canon as did ultra warp speed which rendered the entire game already made useless
you could cross the Federation with ultrawarp in a few minutes where it actually took 6 months to cross it at warp 7
Fasa and the producers of TNG thought they could bully gene..............Wrong
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
Question: What if the Galaxy was crappy. quote unqoute, but the Enterprise-D was exceptional only because it carried the Enterprise name and had a Captain like Picard and his entire crew?
I'm just wondering, because I'm thinking to myself, would the First Contact with the Dominion have gone better or not if the Enterprise and Picard & co. were there instead of the Odyssey and Keogh... wait, it said their shields were ineffective against Phased Polaron... good question, how would Picard & co. have handled that?
Two exceptional officers have a good chance of either remodulating so their shields work or at minimum keep damage control at a high level. (Speaking of Geordi and Data.)
Worf on weapons, and you would have had crippled assault ships. Not damaged ones that kept harassing the runabouts then rammed you.
Enterprise D crew has experience with impacts and would have fired their navigational thrusters and tractor beams to divert the final suicide strike.
In short the message given was. "We are the Dominion, you cannot stop us."
What Picard's crew would have given was. "We are unimpressed."
Edits Add: Also no ship is good with a crappy crew, and even a poor ship can be a threat with a good one. The Galaxy class herself shows she is a step above her ancestors, that is not shown in game.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
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!
A special case is made for "non-fiction" reference books such as The Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Chronology, TNG Technical Manual and DS9 Technical Manual. Unlike the novels and novelizations, these reference manuals have never been explicitly named as non-canon, and the fact that they were officially sanctioned by Paramount and given to episode writers as guides serves to give them an aura of credibility. Roddenberry himself considered it part of the "background" of Star Trek. Meanwhile, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, two art and technical consultants since Star Trek: The Next Generation and the authors of several of these reference books, considered their work "pretty official".
Based on the amount of creative control Roddenberry exerted over the first seasons of Star Trek, some people argue that only Roddenberry-approved material should be considered canon. Such an approach would eliminate from canon anything Roddenberry didn't like, as well as everything made after his death, including six movies and three TV series.
However, Roddenberry himself pre-emptively rebuked such an attitude. He had hoped that Star Trek would go on after his death. As Star Trek was constantly improved by each following generation, he expected people to look back upon its humble beginnings as just that, the simple beginnings of something much bigger and better. Roddenberry clearly never intended Star Trek to be limited to his work, but to include all the hopefully superior work of future generations.
There is another point on it that is a little scary though.
As a rule, all Star Trek TV series that aired are considered canon, However, this policy does not make clear which version of the shows is the canon one. For example, the remastered TOS episodes released in 2006 present several visual differences from the episodes originally aired.
To further complicate matters, it has been noted that Gene Roddenberry was something of a revisionist when it came to canon. People who worked with Roddenberry remember that he used to handle canon not on a series-by-series basis nor an episode-by-episode basis, but point by point. If he changed his mind on something, or if a fact in one episode contradicted what he considered to be a more important fact in another episode, he had no problem declaring that specific point non-canon.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
i can't speak much about the klingon side but i don't think that you can find an iconic ship that is as "bad" as the galaxy in klink, romulan and federation camp.
Actually, the B'rel desperately needs another look and balance pass.
In many terms, it's fate is similar to the Galaxy - the fleet version received a 4-th engineering console that makes no sense on a ship like the B'rel, it is facing issues to punch through the defense bonuses of all the reputation passives with 3 tactical consoles for the short amount of time it can engage in combat due to only 24k of hull.
The BortasQu is fairly poor design of a vessel but Im not in the thread to becry what I think may be a poor KDF vessel or even stifle the growth of what you and other fans think the Galaxy needs.
I merely am trying to impress the fact upon you all that your love for the Galaxy can and has at times gone beyond balance due to that same affection for it clouding the line of where balance may exist and fan driven impression of its capabilities exist.
With all due respect Roach, and remember this is comming from a KDF player first and foremost, regardless of my sig. that supports a better Galaxy class - the Bortasqu' is one beast of a ship. I'm going to even go that extra mile and say (as if I didn't say this before:P) that to me it's still the best ship in STO. Her only problem is people's expectations from KDF battlecruisers, once you go past that it's one hell of a ship.
At least in my opinion, compared to the Galaxy it's like comparing a Chevrolet Camaro with a Yugo.
Also, you must take into consideration that the Bortasqu' is Cryptic's own imagined design and people are more attached and care about the preformace of the ships they saw in the shows than these new creations. That's why I mentioned the B'rel before.
The sad truth is that the Galaxy's intended role in STO is obsolete and either the role should be brought back or the ship should be upgraded to compete in an environment that doesn't need tanks.
Simply put, having the icon ship of TNG - the series tha according to many revived Star Trek, be completely useless in STO's game environment is not fair, not to the fans and not to the franchise. I hope it's very clear by now that noone here wants an OP battleship, not even a cruiser that would be in the Top 3 Fed. cruisers, but just a Galaxy that fares better in end-game content and doesn't make others trash you or leave an event for bringing one.
Question: What if the Galaxy was crappy. quote unqoute, but the Enterprise-D was exceptional only because it carried the Enterprise name and had a Captain like Picard and his entire crew?
I'm just wondering, because I'm thinking to myself, would the First Contact with the Dominion have gone better or not if the Enterprise and Picard & co. were there instead of the Odyssey and Keogh... wait, it said their shields were ineffective against Phased Polaron... good question, how would Picard & co. have handled that?
The Dominion did not have to destroy the U.S.S. Odyssey. It was retreating. They also already had Eris on board and set to make her way onto DS9 before that.
So why the kamikaze attack? To make a clear point - we can take down the apex ship of your fleet and we're even determined to go the extra mile to do it. They knew that losing a Galaxy class like that would bring fear in Starfleet's hearts and that's exactly the effect they wanted to make.
How would Picard fare? Probably much better, because the "D" was a hero ship and had plot armor. That doesn't mean that the Galaxy class is weak.
How do you think the Defiant with Sisko's crew would fare in the place of U.S.S. Valiant against the Dominion Dreadnought? Do you think they'd be all blown to pieces being the hero ship and wearing the plot armor?
Well, I bought one since everyone was complaining about the Galaxy Class in the game. I can get 2nd or 3rd place in Crystalline Catastrophe with this Aux2Bat build. I think it works best with the Eng as they have a lot of power abilities along with enhanced Efficient bridge officers and the warp core I use. It can blow things up and tank like hell in ESTF runs as well as tested in Infected and KA space.
When the CE special event for the bonus dilithium was on, I got 1-st place with my Galaxy-R on more than a dozen occassions. Oh, happy times!
The thing is, the CE event is one of the few (two?) end-game encounters that take other things into consideration besides raw DPS. That's why the Galaxy can own it. And that's what I'm continiously talking about in this thread - the roles of healing and tanking should be brought back if they are determined to force the "trinity" nonsence on us.
Other end-game encounters rely only on DPS and there's where the Galaxy is lost. If they made all end-game encounters dependable on the roles the intended the ships for, we probably wouldn't have this discussion here.
A special case is made for "non-fiction" reference books such as The Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Chronology, TNG Technical Manual and DS9 Technical Manual. Unlike the novels and novelizations, these reference manuals have never been explicitly named as non-canon, and the fact that they were officially sanctioned by Paramount and given to episode writers as guides serves to give them an aura of credibility. Roddenberry himself considered it part of the "background" of Star Trek. Meanwhile, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, two art and technical consultants since Star Trek: The Next Generation and the authors of several of these reference books, considered their work "pretty official".
Maybe it's just me, but i think that doesn't sound like Roddenberry would have opposed them. Quite the contrary IMO.
If anything the TNG Manual should be considered as semi canon. As long as nothing contradics it they are valid.
This means in this discussion we have the opinion of one group arguing against the GCS, based on pure speculation and dislike against the Galaxy Class and there is another group favouring the GCS by arguing based on speculation PLUS the semi canon TNG book...
On the other hand we have Cryptic that doesn't care about anything except their own opinion which is Capt. Geckos.
"...'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
Comments
The thing is not all things are equal between the GCS and the Sov. The GCS has 8 seasons of hero ship activities verses the Sov's 3 movies.
The GCS has a technical manual. The Sov does not. The closest I could come to one was the USS Enterprise owners manual that had specs on all the Enterprises and had Michael Okuda as a technical consultant. The only thing Sov fans have are the script to First Contact and the designer's notes.
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.
First, where phasers fire from in game does seem rather random.
From evidence only in one area of space.
Even the producers want to ignore that lack of reasoning.
used in TOS twice and the movies once. Mentioned in game as something they keep the lid on but, yes it IS canon.
If you want to argue that the Technical manual is not a bible for the show why not ask if there really is a giant rubber ducky under the bridge? (pg.11)
Or that an important medical bar is how much medical insurance a patient has. (pg.148)
The arguments for improving the Galaxy are valid as there are canon references showing she is not as bad as she appears in game. There are multiple ways this can be fixed. One fixes all cruisers.
Another suggestion is to make her more competitive in the game now versus escorts by making her more like an escort.
And then the suggestions to make her as much of a jack of all trades as she was shown.
I think the problem is when she was looked at they remembered that phrase ends with "And master of none" and forgot to give the jack of all part much of a pass.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Since the GCS can't equip DHCs and has no singularity gimmics, i think it would be justifyable to turn the D'D -Rs (what a awful abbreviation, lol) ensign tac+uni into a lt. universal or a engineer.
Even the GCS haters should be satisfied with this, since the GCS would still be inferior to their beloved Sov and most other ships.
I'm not interested in going around with you on this because I've done it before, and it never goes anywhere, not because I don't care. I think it would be desirable if more people understood what I was saying, because I think it would be nice if more posters abandoned the need to pretend that it is possible to prove an opinion "true". You are allowed to have your opinion, and I'm allowed to have mine, and you are always going to prefer yours, and I'm always going to prefer mine. The difference between us is that I acknowledge this, and I don't structure my opinions or arguments on the faulty assumption that one of us must be "right", whereas you do, because (I suspect) the idea that there is no "right" answer rubs you the wrong way.
The irony of this is that since the attempt to prove yourself right is on face an absurd impossibility, it means you just keep being wrong.
it is not about favortism, the galaxy, as a cstore ship in cryptic business system is illogical since it is less efficient as some free token RA ship.
we don't want the galaxy to be "better" just because.
we want it because as of today it daesn't live up to it sctore status.
the DDeridex got a better treatement, the negvar ( gecko even speak about doing a new refit of this ship in the future) also, the scimitar is just exeptional.
i can't speak much about the klingon side but i don't think that you can find an iconic ship that is as "bad" as the galaxy in klink, romulan and federation camp.
some people try to proove that cryptic made it wrong by comparing the tv show performance to the game performance of the ship, but that is not neccesary since the ship already don't fit in the selling model cryptic put in place.
do we have a "what your beef with the negvar" thread in the forum?
do we have 1 for the intrepid, the defiant, the DDeridex, prometheus, akira, ambassador, sovereign,exelsior... do i forget some?
they are some thread for some of these ship but they rarely go beyond 100 pages, if ever.
so it is not about a selfish desire to see our favorite ship to be better than every other, it is about it to be as good.
the core of the people that push this thread have agree that the best solution for this ship is the one of don'tdrunkimshoot, we also got a signature for it.
the other that you might have seen posting unrealistic solution from time to time are the same that come on every thread posting selfish unrealistic nonsense.
these one should not be put in the same bag as we
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
No, I am questioning the underlying assumptions of the posters in the tread. You don't get to decide what is and is not a valid line of inquiry. If you want to argue "canon says the Galaxy is the most powerful warship", asking if canon is a valid tool to begin with is a legitimate, even obvious line of questioning. Similarly, if you want to argue that the game is unbalanced because certain ships can't compete, questioning the way in which you are defining things is totally valid. If the best defense you can muster on those fronts boils down to "because I can't accept any other viewpoint", well, forgive me if that ultimately isn't persuasive.
I disagree with the assumptions you and other posters are making, and I believe I have demonstrated why they are questionable, and why the fact that they are questionable causes the entire following reasoning to be fruit of the poisoned tree, so to speak. I'm not going to tell you that you can't simply choose to accept your assumptions anyway, any more than I would presume to instruct anyone on accepting any other personal article of faith. I'm simply asking you to recognize that you are doing so, and to stop acting like you have the one true answer, because there likely is no such thing.
It's not nihilism, nor is it trolling. It's simply reasoned agnosticism. If that feels trollish to you, all I can do is say that I don't believe it is, it's just a line of questioning that makes you uncomfortable.
Finally, arguing that neither of us has a right to declare our vision superior doesn't mean I don't still think your vision is bad and my vision is better. However, since you and others are the ones making the call for change, it is you who has the affirmative burden of proof.
Oh, on a personal note, if you are going to accuse me of logical fallacy, please provide an example, and explain why it is fallacious. Note that argument by analogy, deconstruction, and satire are not, in themselves, automatically fallacious.
of course your having fun, this is how trolls have fun. i have you at a disadvantage. im aware of all the canon evidence there is, and it supports my position. still, most people try pointing out things that happen in canon to disprove my position, even poloron beam is decent enough to do that sometimes. you keep saying i reject evidence, wile at the same time presenting nothing. its pretty remarkable really, at this point, after all your lambasting walls of text. if all you can do is try to break the 4th wall to prove im wrong, your off topic.
its a good thing vfx errors dont prove anything ether way. they are acknowledged errors, beams firing from odd positions. if you want to be a stickler, ok, theres a phaser bank in the torpedoe launcher, fine, its canon. the nacelle struts can fire beams too, must be non arrays, because theres no visible array there. dont know why weapons were installed in these places, but they were. oh well! doesn't effect the shot fired from arrays being nice and consistent, and thats whats in question remember? you dont even need a tech manual background information to see how they work, that glow has to be there for some reason. it being there is more likely to imply greater power shots then the absence of a glow. and would ya look at that, the licensed tech manual confirms the obvious.
official licensed product. deal with it. i already posted the the status of their legitimacy, probably 10 pages ago now.
not using it does not prove it does not have the arsenal. im not even claiming its a warship, federation ships are a middle ground of military and science, all of them. they can have both strong weapons and strong science labs, with a select few heavily leaning toward 1 or the other. a klingon would consider the defiant luxurious.
the point of the show was not how well federation ships could oppress and conquer, but to explore and out think the enemy. often time there was no conflict because the enemy commander knew picking a fight with a GCS was stupid under the most ideal circumstances. romulan commanders only got bold when they had 2 D'deridex on their side. cardasian galors were nearly harmless to galaxy's and nebula's. even when a nebula got its shields remotely lowered, it still blew them away with ease. for the galaxy class to be gutless and toothless is simply not consistent with the intelligence level star fleet possesses and the conditions at the time of its creation that i mentioned.
there are plenty of shows of force as well, i mentioned several already that show how powerful it is when its actually fireing shots in anger. theres a real selective memory when it comes to how it did on conflicts. even the E got similar railroading like the D consistently got, in insurrection. put in a position were it couldn't fight for TRIBBLE, and the enemy had an advantage. in nemisis it even got its core knocked out before the fight started. though my position is that didn't lower its combat potential, that bit i said about warp cores you agreed with, it was only a mater of time before the ship, still perfectly intact, just ran out of gas and couldn't fight anymore. its been the same for every fight situation in tng. it always had its shield bypassed, or it was protecting something at its own expense, or it was the borg that was undamagable, or the target was the manifestation of a god like alien, and was unharmable. those were the conditions of every fight a GCS was the featured ship of. they could not ever put it in a situation were it was in a strait fight, most likely due to effects limitations. voyager, the defient, and the NX 01 got in strait fights all the time, thanks to cgi. only some times did something tie an arm around thier back, for added drama
you cant just say that im wrong because its possible to use the evidence i use, against me, you have to actually come up with something to use against me, to show this alleged grave inconsistency. we both know you cant, i doubt your comfortable getting that nerdy. i honestly use the tech manual for JUST 2 pieces on information, the part about its modular construction, and the basic workings of phaser arrays, which is already obvious without the tech manual. i need to reference it for nothing else. the on screen evidence ive mentioned can easily be used to benchmark what the ships can do. the holes a GCS can make in a cube that are larger then the GCS that made them, the volume of torps it can fire, thats actually quite a bit more then exactly zero on screen canon evidence to back up my claims. your not interested in that debate though, just walls of text with sweeping statements and saying thats its all fiction, like thats news to anyone.
ive been at this a wile, ive yet to find evidence thats not fiction. because its a tv show. seeing as its all fictional evidence, the fact that its fiction is irreverent. there are the events in canon, thats it. thats the evidence. theory crafting missing details is just a fun exercise. i dont rely on any of it to prove the basics, its all there plain to see.
ya, your just here to troll, thats pretty clear now. the phasers are run off plasma, the energy carrying medium everything on the ship uses. that something from the show that contradicts your unicorn blood theory. 3/10 for disappointing me, being yet another that cant debate the ships by using the actual canon.
not only are you bad at having a conversation about the canon, your bad at the game too. having so many eng skills that your paralyzed by system cooldowns makes your ship an inferior healer or tank then any other cruiser. even the more tac heavy cruisers. the best cruiser tank is an odyssey with the LTC used for sci, so it has 5 sci skills, that couldn't be a farer cry from the setup the falaxy has. there being a worst ship is poor game design. everything should have a niche, have disadvantages, and have advantages. pointing out the canon capabilities of the galaxy class and how powerful it is gives legitimacy to the fact that it should not be the absolute worst ship in the game.
appealing to the lowliest of low casuals that cant use their ship to 10% of its potential is genius? good god man.
Actually, that first part was not directed at you, though I can see how you would make that mistake. That part was in reference to the thread we're in. You make a different set of assumptions which are:
That we should consider the game from a competitive, rather than collaborative perspective.
That 'being competitive' means doing a bunch of damage
That any other viewpoint is on face absurd.
Those are the core ones. I think each of them is questionable. If you want me to explain why again, that's a discussion that can be held elsewhere. Or, you know, you can just look up the forums from when we've already hashed this all out.
You are being ridiculous at this point. If you really think "rejecting an argument" is the same thing as "affirmatively asserting a claim to truth and a need for action", you don't understand even the fundamentals of what I'm talking about.
Here's why what you're saying here is bad logic:
I assert you are a Llama. My evidence for this is that Llamas have internet access, and so do you. In addition, I've seen no evidence that you are not a Llama, and any evidence you present can probably be ascribed to the Llama conspiracy I just decided to believe in. According to you, you now have an affirmative burden to prove that you are not a Llama. It is insufficient to merely show that my evidence is nonsense, because the act of denying your Llama-hood is, in your mind, taking a side.
Now, because it's your favorite thing to do, let me nip your accusation of strawmanning in the bud. I am using argument by analogy here - I am saying that from my perspective, the arguments you present to make your case (as well as the arguments presented about the Galaxy by others in this thread) are as nonsensical as the ones I presented. You will obviously disagree about that point - it's irrelevant, though, because my point here is simply that there is a difference in making a claim and denying a claim - the reasonableness of the evidence presented doesn't actually change that. If you think it does, please explain why, without resorting to fallacies like "because it's common sense".
I'm not saying everything is subjective, (in fact, I'm pretty comfortable with a fair number of claims about the objective nature of logic and reasoning) I'm saying everything you are choosing to base your positions on are subjective. The fact that you can't base your opinion on anything objective isn't my fault, and isn't unique to you - I don't have an objective basis for my believe that the game is fun and enjoyable. The difference is I don't go around pretending that my opinion is some sort of universal truth. You do, and I think you should probably stop doing that.
Okay. No. I am not trolling you. There is nothing unfair or irrelevant about questioning the value of canon as a source in general, and the definition of canon you use to exclude anything that doesn't fit your mindset in particular. You keep acting like the assumptions you've made here are automatic and unassailable, and I think it is reasonable to disagree with that - I'm sorry that my questioning upsets you, but honestly, that doesn't make me doing it malicious, unfair, fallacious, or any of the other pejoratives you think apply. If I'm really getting under your skin, might that not mean there even the slightest shred of possibility I have a point?
In addition, I will point you to my answer to skollulfr about the need for evidence. I am not trying to prove anything, I am merely systematically rejecting your argument by showing your evidence doesn't establish the claim you are making in the first place, because it rests on assumptions that are unsupportable (or at least that you have failed to support thus far). There is a difference, and its a powerful enough one that actually presents what I suspect is an insurmountable disadvantage to YOU.
I will also say that your tone at this point comes across as someone who can't understand why he can't nerd-shame me into submission because I won't bow to his superior canon knowledge. I'm sure that's not your intent, but please understand that unless you can come up with a reason why we should accept your view of canon, crowing about your canon knowledge is at best irrelevant.
Let me try to put my argument out there in a different way, and see if this helps
I read the tech manual and dismissed it as nonsensical garbage. I still enjoyed TNG, and the following movies. Nothing happened in the shows that required me to accept the stuff from the manual I thought was silly. I choose to go along with what is obviously the intent of the writers, directors, and artists who make the show - I don't really worry so much about the finer details, because in the end, I recognize they are all nonsense, or at best pseudo-science anyway. In effect, I consider it to be just as "realistic" as say Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings.
My girlfriend is a casual Star Trek fan. She's never read the technical manual. The inner mechanics of the ships never bothered her while watching the show, and when I asked her which was a stronger warship the Ent E or Ent D, she instantly said "E, the Sovereign class is a sexy ship", and was surprised to find that there were people who believed the Galaxy class was actually more powerful.
You read the tech manual, enjoyed it, and considered it to be realistic. You appear to derive at least some enjoyment from making everything line up, even when it is inconsistent on the surface, and you appear to also enjoy having a categorical understanding of how things "really" work, even when it contradicts the intentions of the show runners.
My question to you is: Who is the superior Star Trek fan? Whose word should we take for what Star Trek "really" is?
If your impulse was at any level to arrange those three fans in a hierarchy, there's your problem right there. The question is nonsense. All three are fans, all three are entitled to their opinions, and no-one can possibly say that one person's opinion is 'better' than the rest. There's no social contract that Trek fans signed saying that we must accept all parts of Trek, even the stuff that seems stupid to us, that the show would be better off without. Crucially, being a fan is not a competition, and you don't win anything by having a doctrinaire view of canon, except perhaps looking like an elitist jerk.
Oh, and by the by, I know phasers run on plasma energy systems, that's why I made sure to point out that the nadion content in unicorn bloods means it is even viscous in its plasma state. Anything can be made into a plasma, after all, but no sources ever say what kind of plasma, so I felt a need to helpfully fill that blank. Since that was your only objection, should we now presume that it is canon that phasers run on unicorn blood? After all, even though it's clearly nonsense, it also clearly lines up with (or can be made consistent with) everything we see on screen (including the things you dismissed as FX errors), and you haven't actually presented any canon evidence that it is not.
its common to say, oh the galaxy is fine, shes pretty much as crappy in the show as she is in game. que me saying thats absolutely wrong! and heres why. more times then i can count in this thread. my little hobby, and the rating the galaxy class gets in it, at least shows that its worthy of being better then it is in game. if we are not at least trying to give the ships a canonish feel, theres no reason to ever attach the star trek them to this game.
ship vs ship discussions are as old as the internet, and based purely on the canon available. the internet consensus, of anyone who has spent way to much time examining this subject, im not the only one, is that the galaxy is stronger then the sovereign. those that think the opposite have little but emotion or out of universe evidence to present, as far as ive seen. its all harmless fun, its always nice to see a credible counter argument, and debate the topic. we might as well be speaking different languages, if your not trying to refute with just benchmark able canon examples.
The BortasQu is fairly poor design of a vessel but Im not in the thread to becry what I think may be a poor KDF vessel or even stifle the growth of what you and other fans think the Galaxy needs.
I merely am trying to impress the fact upon you all that your love for the Galaxy can and has at times gone beyond balance due to that same affection for it clouding the line of where balance may exist and fan driven impression of its capabilities exist.
R.I.P
I'm just wondering, because I'm thinking to myself, would the First Contact with the Dominion have gone better or not if the Enterprise and Picard & co. were there instead of the Odyssey and Keogh... wait, it said their shields were ineffective against Phased Polaron... good question, how would Picard & co. have handled that?
"Look at me I'm a target!"
"Fire the Lance on my mark... MARK!
"How many times have we gone into the breach again R'shee?"
My proposal for a Galaxy bundle
>>Link to Build<<
I haven't read the last couple pages so forgive me if i'm too much off topic.
With every new released ship the tolerance of what is "beyond Balance" and what is not, gets pushed forward. What was OP yresterday may be standard tomorrow, at the speed Cryptic is releasing new OP escorts for example.
So i think asking for a more "true" Galaxy Class isn't too much to ask for, as long as comparable ships in STO already exist. no one want's a Uber GCS.
Instead of talking about what the GCS isn't we should start talking about how to improve it. But that is only possible in a constructive environment IMHO.
What confuses me is that some people are arguing against a improvement of the GCS without even liking the ship or flying one in game.
Are its weapons stronger compared to a Sovereign? WHO CARES?
Did anyone care to discuss the same thing about the possible BOFF and Console Layout of a D'Deridex Warbird, Scirmitar or Valdore (Mogai) class?
No, of course not. Because the important thing is that the ship should FEEL like a Warbird for example.
And that's the problem i have with the GCS in STO. It's not even nearly the ship i would expect when flying a Galaxy Class. For example when doing a fleet Action, every other ship has more teeth. Even when turning the ship, a Romulan ship the same size turns double as fast.
It just feels like a obsolete and old oil tanker, even compared to a much older Excelsior or Ambassador class. I think that's just not right.
Other games like Birth of the Federation, Bridge Commander, Starfleet Command III even Legacy have had a better Galaxy Class than STO.
To be honset, when i first saw the Galaxy-R, i thought it was some kind of aprils joke, because i still can't understand how a serious game designer could make the Galaxy Class such a boring ship like that.
I'm not saying it should get a "i - win - button", but the GCS shouldn't be so boring and to be frankly it's embarrassing when doing missions together with other people and to see how little offensive this ship is capable of.
Instead ot circling around the same questions over and over, i think we should try another approach in this discussion.
How is the Galaxy Class being made in other games?
Which game had a better/worse Galaxy Class representation?
What are the differences to STO ?
... and could the GCS made more like in another game?
Sorry for typos, need to sleep.
Please brace for incoming wall of text.
Here's the definition of "canon" as defined by Bernt Schneider of Ex Astris Scientia, a prime source of conveying canon data and dervatives:
"officially authorized interpretation of characters and events". Meaning, in the Trek universe, the characters and/or events that actually "happened".
It is all fine and well to discuss fanon information, but in actually comparing data of a serious tone, canon information and logical derivatives are the only accepted and credible form of proof.
Again, canon information and logical deductions are the only form of accepted and credible proof in serious Trek discussions. You can go believe or quote all the fandom you like. The discussion revolves around what actually "happened", and not about what novel authors or the Animated Series or something thought up in the shower has created.
If there's anything I know about Drunk, it's that he uses proof (canon and/or apocryphal sources) to back up his claims, systematically and with logical deductions. It's not knowledge, it's effective fulfillment of his thesis.
No one is any more superior to anyone else. We are all fans, plain and simple.
And since all fans are equal, the producers of the show and all personnel involved with the show's creation, including all canon and apocryphal sources, are considered to be on a higher level. In short, it is their word, and not anyone else's.
The TNG Technical Manual was written by Okuda and Sternbach, two of the show's leading personnel. It's considered to be an apocryphal source not because of who the authors are, but because the intent of the published manual was to help writers know their Trek technology when writing episodes for Star Trek: The Next Generation. It's a benchmark for technology consistency and accuracy throughout the show (and probably implemented in Deep Space Nine in the early seasons).
So for all intents and purposes in serious discussions like this one, apocryphal sources like the TNG Tech Manual do say how things "work".
...What?
The Galaxy-class starship when launched didn't have bio-neural circuitry. There was no existing fusion of technology and bio-matter in the computer, power, or any electrical system on the ship. How can unicorn blood, a biological fluid, be used to power a system not designed for that type of energy transfer method?
It doesn't line up with everything seen on screen, and canon information supports that the Intrepid-class was the leading ship with bio-neural technology, not the Galaxy-class. (Janeway made a passing remark in VOY: "Relativity").
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
In the Canon gene robbenbury approved ship construction manual
Dreadnoughts outgun Battleships
Battleships more armor/shields than Battlecruisers
Battlecruisers outgun cruisers
Cruisers outgun destroyers
Destroyers outgun escorts
Escorts outgun Corvettes
Corvetts outgun fighters
fighters outgun shuttles
A very few ships are missing and a few have some other perks but this list is very accurate
to what the creator wanted
The TNG manual was rejected by gene roddenbury and FASA'a lisence canceled and is NOT considered Canon for that reason
The weight of the Galaxy 5 million tons broke canon as did ultra warp speed which rendered the entire game already made useless
you could cross the Federation with ultrawarp in a few minutes where it actually took 6 months to cross it at warp 7
Fasa and the producers of TNG thought they could bully gene..............Wrong
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
They got him to quit so the franchise could be saved didn't they? Or did he leave on his own knowing he was ruining it?
When he walked away I wonder, did he carry a suitcase full of money from the producers?
Two exceptional officers have a good chance of either remodulating so their shields work or at minimum keep damage control at a high level. (Speaking of Geordi and Data.)
Worf on weapons, and you would have had crippled assault ships. Not damaged ones that kept harassing the runabouts then rammed you.
Enterprise D crew has experience with impacts and would have fired their navigational thrusters and tractor beams to divert the final suicide strike.
In short the message given was. "We are the Dominion, you cannot stop us."
What Picard's crew would have given was. "We are unimpressed."
Edits Add: Also no ship is good with a crappy crew, and even a poor ship can be a threat with a good one. The Galaxy class herself shows she is a step above her ancestors, that is not shown in game.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I'd like to see proof of that please.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
There is another point on it that is a little scary though.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Actually, the B'rel desperately needs another look and balance pass.
In many terms, it's fate is similar to the Galaxy - the fleet version received a 4-th engineering console that makes no sense on a ship like the B'rel, it is facing issues to punch through the defense bonuses of all the reputation passives with 3 tactical consoles for the short amount of time it can engage in combat due to only 24k of hull.
With all due respect Roach, and remember this is comming from a KDF player first and foremost, regardless of my sig. that supports a better Galaxy class - the Bortasqu' is one beast of a ship. I'm going to even go that extra mile and say (as if I didn't say this before:P) that to me it's still the best ship in STO. Her only problem is people's expectations from KDF battlecruisers, once you go past that it's one hell of a ship.
At least in my opinion, compared to the Galaxy it's like comparing a Chevrolet Camaro with a Yugo.
Also, you must take into consideration that the Bortasqu' is Cryptic's own imagined design and people are more attached and care about the preformace of the ships they saw in the shows than these new creations. That's why I mentioned the B'rel before.
The sad truth is that the Galaxy's intended role in STO is obsolete and either the role should be brought back or the ship should be upgraded to compete in an environment that doesn't need tanks.
Simply put, having the icon ship of TNG - the series tha according to many revived Star Trek, be completely useless in STO's game environment is not fair, not to the fans and not to the franchise. I hope it's very clear by now that noone here wants an OP battleship, not even a cruiser that would be in the Top 3 Fed. cruisers, but just a Galaxy that fares better in end-game content and doesn't make others trash you or leave an event for bringing one.
The Dominion did not have to destroy the U.S.S. Odyssey. It was retreating. They also already had Eris on board and set to make her way onto DS9 before that.
So why the kamikaze attack? To make a clear point - we can take down the apex ship of your fleet and we're even determined to go the extra mile to do it. They knew that losing a Galaxy class like that would bring fear in Starfleet's hearts and that's exactly the effect they wanted to make.
How would Picard fare? Probably much better, because the "D" was a hero ship and had plot armor. That doesn't mean that the Galaxy class is weak.
How do you think the Defiant with Sisko's crew would fare in the place of U.S.S. Valiant against the Dominion Dreadnought? Do you think they'd be all blown to pieces being the hero ship and wearing the plot armor?
When the CE special event for the bonus dilithium was on, I got 1-st place with my Galaxy-R on more than a dozen occassions.
The thing is, the CE event is one of the few (two?) end-game encounters that take other things into consideration besides raw DPS. That's why the Galaxy can own it. And that's what I'm continiously talking about in this thread - the roles of healing and tanking should be brought back if they are determined to force the "trinity" nonsence on us.
Other end-game encounters rely only on DPS and there's where the Galaxy is lost. If they made all end-game encounters dependable on the roles the intended the ships for, we probably wouldn't have this discussion here.
QFT!
If anything the TNG Manual should be considered as semi canon. As long as nothing contradics it they are valid.
This means in this discussion we have the opinion of one group arguing against the GCS, based on pure speculation and dislike against the Galaxy Class and there is another group favouring the GCS by arguing based on speculation PLUS the semi canon TNG book...
On the other hand we have Cryptic that doesn't care about anything except their own opinion which is Capt. Geckos.