Well, if you read me carefully I am in fact not saying that exactly.
I am saying that to assert that the minority here are not proportional to the whole requires an extra element to affect that.
Consider an ocean.
It is huge and has many bits and pieces floating or living in it.
However, if one were to put your hand in and grab a handful, its reasonable to assume it will be sea water and not, say, a fish.
An online community isn't an ocean though. Water, fish, and other elements of the ocean do not behave the same way our community does. And the analogy that a handful of seawater is like the vocal minority of an MMO community is absurd.
Let's look at the facts. We have a little(and I use that term loosely) ship called the Galaxy-X(or Galaxy-R, but they're interchangeable in this paragraph). A portion of the game's population apparently do not like certain elements of its features. A portion of those players have decided to come on the forums to complain.
However, the ones who do not have a problem(or much of a problem) with the Galaxy-R/X's is more unlikely to hop on the forums and complain. Why? Because they're either content with their ship, or they're indifferent. Some might hop on the forums to say that the ship is A-okay, but not many would.
I'm not saying that the vocal minority doesn't represent the majority, but that does logically say that the vocal minority might not be a good representation of the majority.
Yes it does. Usually, the smaller the sample, the less accurate of a reflection of the bigger whole it is. This is because it contains less information. Though it might be a very accurate representation. However, that would all be by chance.
Thus, if you can demonstrate a reason why we are not proportional then that is a valid basis to assert that we are not proportional.
I do not have to demonstrate anything, as I'm not the one asserting anything. You are. You're attempting to shift the burden of proof and demand proof on the contrary. I have explained to you why it's fallacious, and further explanation will just get me repeating myself. You are asserting that a small group is by default proportional to the whole, but haven't demonstrated that. Occam's Razor says nothing absolute about anything. It's merely a guideline, not a logical absolute.
Yes, it's premature, but according to that page, that was the only improvements that the Galaxy was getting, and players have noticed that when Cryptic is set on something... they're set on something. You don't represent the majority of STO players either. Honestly, I think players are kind of overreacting too.
That is the constant state of the forums on STO. Every new ship is going to either be useless or break the game. There's no point in arguing, it's like trying to hold back the tides.
no one from cryptic is probably even reading this so unfortunatly roll on the 6th the ship will be here and will go back into mothballs,the galaxy X was always one of the few ships i wanted to fly,4 years later gets a overhaul and major downer,i can live without these new tweaks just want a lt comm tac station thats all nothing more,nothing to do with being overpowered just want to fly one of my favourite ships and use a decent lt comm firing mode to make it feel special like in the episode all good things.
To start the Avenger is a battlecruiser, dont bring up cruisers so you can go around spreading disinformation.
Second the JHDC IS flimsy, I seen many blowing up when they come out to the point I assumed the ship sucked and guess what? its the Achilles heel of the ship, it have barely any damage control and when it starts to get hit, it cannot really do much about, doesnt make it a BAD ship but certainly not something that can just take punishment.
And the Scimitar? I seen so many 20k wonders in ISE that I dont even bother with trying to heal them because it CAN have SOME damage control but -40 power to shields REALLY hurts, can tank with a few tricks but said tricks can be done on cruisers with ease (outside a couple that can only be done on Warbirds).
But this just further proves what I been saying, this isnt about have a Lt. Cmdr universal ... this is about having a Lt. Cmdr Tactical ... a Lt and Lt Cmdr Tactical.
So, you are willing to accept the other DNs have quirks, but not that the GalX might sacrifice tactical strength for engineer survivability? Sure, it's not going to be able to dish out the DPS, but maybe after saucer sep when it has a turn of 16, and has RSP3 and 2x EPS3 isn't a bad trade for it? Sure, a uni slot would be better, but what it has doesn't completely lack it's usefulness.
no one from cryptic is probably even reading this so unfortunatly roll on the 6th the ship will be here and will go back into mothballs,the galaxy X was always one of the few ships i wanted to fly,4 years later gets a overhaul and major downer,i can live without these new tweaks just want a lt comm tac station thats all nothing more,nothing to do with being overpowered just want to fly one of my favourite ships and use a decent lt comm firing mode to make it feel special like in the episode all good things.
I REALLY WANT to buy a Gal-X but only if they give it what it truly deserves, otherwise I'll stick with my Veteran Galaxy.
A dreadnought is a big slow tactical ship , so it should have extra Tactical BOff potential slots like a Lt. Cmdr universal slot, additional tactical Console slot (meaning 4), integrate a zero-slot saucer separation (really this is not something that you connect a couple of conduits to - its a part of the design of the ship) and add appropriate specifications.
They shouldn't bother with a separate Fleet ship since C-Store ships are Fleet level ships.
Star Trek Battles Channel - Play Star Trek like they did in the series!Avatar: pinterest-com/pin/14003448816884219Are you sure it isn't time for a "colorful metaphor"? --Spock in 'The Voyage Home' SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
In my fleet is the same, most of us are Star Trek fans and love this ships, but no one is going to buy it due to the fact that it is the same bad ship with hangar bay.
if everything you depend on has to have a lt comm tac slot to be good ....then maybe its not the ship ...it you improvise adapt and over come ....hell i know of people with the ship as it sits right now that can actually one shot people with it ...but i guess they have learned to play ...yeah im sure thats it
"Cryptic, I am not going to buy this unless you make it OP"
Yes, clearly we need to "fix" the Galaxy by powercreep the living daylights out of it and make every single Federation cruiser obsolete, rise-and-repeat.
Lost revenue? either you own the ship and are looking out to make it OP or you dont and dont care less outside making it OP.
Why always abscond into this hyperbole? I think it's not at all unfair of ppl to ask themselves "Why should I buy this ship?" As in: does it offer me a good incentive to buy it? The Galaxies are older ships already. So, when offering them as a reboot, it's only logical, and completely justified, to ask whether they can hold their own against the multitude of good ships being released to date.
Yup, the Gal-X really needs a Lt.Com Tactical, or Lt.Com Universal like the Oddy. A Universal Ensign is better than a Eng Ensign, but not by much. You make it Tac (as most will do) and it just makes it like the Assault Cruiser. Gal-X can mount cannons, but can only use 1 level 1 cannon power so is a waste (ignoring the fact that the turn rate makes dual cannons pointless in the first place)
Yup, the Gal-X really needs a Lt.Com Tactical, or Lt.Com Universal like the Oddy. A Universal Ensign is better than a Eng Ensign, but not by much. You make it Tac (as most will do) and it just makes it like the Assault Cruiser. Gal-X can mount cannons, but can only use 1 level 1 cannon power so is a waste (ignoring the fact that the turn rate makes dual cannons pointless in the first place)
16 turn (17 with the the set) is too slow for cannons?
I REALLY WANT to buy a Gal-X but only if they give it what it truly deserves, otherwise I'll stick with my Veteran Galaxy.
A dreadnought is a big slow tactical ship , so it should have extra Tactical BOff potential slots like a Lt. Cmdr universal slot, additional tactical Console slot (meaning 4), integrate a zero-slot saucer separation (really this is not something that you connect a couple of conduits to - its a part of the design of the ship) and add appropriate specifications.
They shouldn't bother with a separate Fleet ship since C-Store ships are Fleet level ships.
This one I'll get a bit more intellectual with, since the actual definition of a 'dreadnought' does not apply to Star Trek vessels, so first things first, the term needs to be redefined in regards to Star Trek vessels.
So, in-game terms, what constitutes a dreadnought? If we go with your definition, a big slow tactical ship, than the Avenger is a dreadnought, the Mogh and Bortas would be dreads, and to a lesser extent the Odyssey Tactical and Assault Refit could be classified as dreadnoughts.
Also, absolutely in no-way are all of the C-store vessels Fleet level, aside from a select few.
I don't actually have an answer, since the JHDC and Scimitar-classes have quite a lot in common (heavy tactical abilities, two hangars, etc...), yet the Galaxy Dreadnought doesn't follow the standards set by those ships as dreadnoughts. I would say that a dreadnought would be a sub-type of an existing class of vessel that performs beyond the standards of that class, but the Galaxy Dread is not much of an upgrade of the base Galaxy Retrofit in regards to defenses or offensive abilities, so that doesn't really apply either. Essentially, everyone is arguing semantics with no clear definition of what is being argued.
Lastly, I'll just throw out that if the Gal-X was given the more tactical focused Boff seating, it would be directly competing with several other Starfleet vessels that are out there, notably the Avenger, Tactical Odyssey, and Assault Refit.... do we REALLY need 4 tactical focused cruisers?
Oh really...then how come this Galaxy revamp is so badly designed......there is a very large thread with how to make it better in it. None of that appears to have been taken on by the devs.
Cryptic really need to learn how to actually read forum posts, instead of just looking at them and saying, oh look forum posts.
Agreed. In fact, they should pitch in and work with the community to build a vessel that the community will use.
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!
Aw, c'mon, you know you want a REAL dreadnought, one that don't use anything but big guns like blue water DNs! Can't carry anything but dual cannons or dual beams, arcs split between front and rear, the works!
Here is the thing, if you looking for a tactical cruiser there is the Avenger and we go back to the "hyperbole" were everything MUST be better that the previous so "you buy it".
The incentive is simple, do you want it or not ... not do I want a ship BECAUSE its beats everything that exists with a stick because then we get the exact same question, why should anyone buy a Avenger? why should anyone buy a Sovy? why should anyone buy a Odyssey?
This would became a vicious cycle of +1 over a ship that had a +1.
And yet this inevitable vicious circle you decry is *exactly* what we've been in, ever since PWE went P2W. It's the main reason for the current power creep. Without it, a P2W MMO can not exist: if you want to sell something, it must be better than what ppl already had. Much like you're not going to buy a new TV set, unless it's a significant step up from the one you already have. You may not like this, but it's true, and unavoidable within the P2W model.
Yes, there will be some marginal sales based on looks, and other fringe factors. But the bottom line for most ppl will still be "Does it offer me something beyond what I already have?" And to equate that with cries for an OP ship, is just sily.. and a hyperbole.
I see the Avenger come up as a comparison or alternative to the Galaxy X... There is no comparison, they are different class of ships. Apples and oranges.
If people JUST want a better ship, there are plenty of them out there to choose from.
This is not about wanting the Galaxy X to be OP either. It really shouldn't be... or better yet, doesn't have to be. This is just about wanting the Galaxy ships (or at least the X) to be a better ship, in and of itself.
The reboot should bring it up a notch or two from what it should have been for it's timeline within STO. It needs something to differentiate it from the other cruisers, for example, the T5 Ambassador ship brought something a little different to the cruiser line of ships that makes it interesting and fun. The Science BOff slot gives it a little extra something fun and interesting... and it's not OP either. The proposed Universal Ensign slot does not really change much to really make any difference, IMO.
Just in case this has come up as a case of argument - you can't compare it to TV, movies or books because those facts really cannot translate into the game.
EDIT: An universal console slot would attribute to the modular design of the Galaxy ships (see Memory Alpha.) But would that make it OP?
[/soapbox]
This is at least how I think and feel about the discussions so far. Thanks.
Star Trek Battles Channel - Play Star Trek like they did in the series!Avatar: pinterest-com/pin/14003448816884219Are you sure it isn't time for a "colorful metaphor"? --Spock in 'The Voyage Home' SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
I see the Avenger come up as a comparison or alternative to the Galaxy X... There is no comparison, they are different class of ships. Apples and oranges.
If people JUST want a better ship, there are plenty of them out there to choose from.
This is not about wanting the Galaxy X to be OP either. It really shouldn't be... or better yet, doesn't have to be. This is just about wanting the Galaxy ships (or at least the X) to be a better ship, in and of itself.
The reboot should bring it up a notch or two from what it should have been for it's timeline within STO. It needs something to differentiate it from the other cruisers, for example, the T5 Ambassador ship brought something a little different to the cruiser line of ships that makes it interesting and fun. The Science BOff slot gives it a little extra something fun and interesting... and it's not OP either. The proposed Universal Ensign slot does not really change much to really make any difference, IMO.
Just in case this has come up as a case of argument - you can't compare it to TV, movies or books because those facts really cannot translate into the game.
EDIT: An universal console slot would attribute to the modular design of the Galaxy ships (see Memory Alpha.) But would that make it OP?
[/soapbox]
This is at least how I think and feel about the discussions so far. Thanks.
Thats a valid point. The thing is, just by adding saucer sep, the GalX already gets some unique properties - it becomes an engineering escort carrier. It's going to be drifting all over the place, but with a 17+ turn rate, it will be able to do things no other cruiser can do. It may or may not be particularly effective, but it certainly will be unique and I am sure people will rise up to the challenge of finding interesting ways to try and make it work.
This is not about wanting the Galaxy X to be OP either.
A lot of the suggestions coming from these threads would seem to run counter to your comment though. People keep trying to shove OP type layouts onto the ship. And are stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath if they don't get that.
This is just about wanting the Galaxy ships (or at least the X) to be a better ship, in and of itself.
To paraphrase the many many fun responders in any an every T5 Connie thread:
They've already made their money. This "reboot" is just to squeeze a few more bucks out of these ships. They are hoping to get the people that don't know anything about ship building to fork out a few bucks for these bad ships.
Comments
Let's look at the facts. We have a little(and I use that term loosely) ship called the Galaxy-X(or Galaxy-R, but they're interchangeable in this paragraph). A portion of the game's population apparently do not like certain elements of its features. A portion of those players have decided to come on the forums to complain.
However, the ones who do not have a problem(or much of a problem) with the Galaxy-R/X's is more unlikely to hop on the forums and complain. Why? Because they're either content with their ship, or they're indifferent. Some might hop on the forums to say that the ship is A-okay, but not many would.
I'm not saying that the vocal minority doesn't represent the majority, but that does logically say that the vocal minority might not be a good representation of the majority.
That is still shifting the burden of proof, Occam's Razor or not.
Yes it does. Usually, the smaller the sample, the less accurate of a reflection of the bigger whole it is. This is because it contains less information. Though it might be a very accurate representation. However, that would all be by chance.
I do not have to demonstrate anything, as I'm not the one asserting anything. You are. You're attempting to shift the burden of proof and demand proof on the contrary. I have explained to you why it's fallacious, and further explanation will just get me repeating myself. You are asserting that a small group is by default proportional to the whole, but haven't demonstrated that. Occam's Razor says nothing absolute about anything. It's merely a guideline, not a logical absolute.
Demonstrate that claim, hun. Demonstrate it.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
That is the constant state of the forums on STO. Every new ship is going to either be useless or break the game. There's no point in arguing, it's like trying to hold back the tides.
So, you are willing to accept the other DNs have quirks, but not that the GalX might sacrifice tactical strength for engineer survivability? Sure, it's not going to be able to dish out the DPS, but maybe after saucer sep when it has a turn of 16, and has RSP3 and 2x EPS3 isn't a bad trade for it? Sure, a uni slot would be better, but what it has doesn't completely lack it's usefulness.
Periods and grammar are your friends.
Well....it took what,....3 years to get a start to fixing the Gals? .... So maybe 2017?
A dreadnought is a big slow tactical ship , so it should have extra Tactical BOff potential slots like a Lt. Cmdr universal slot, additional tactical Console slot (meaning 4), integrate a zero-slot saucer separation (really this is not something that you connect a couple of conduits to - its a part of the design of the ship) and add appropriate specifications.
They shouldn't bother with a separate Fleet ship since C-Store ships are Fleet level ships.
SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
Half-true at best. Straight up wrong at the worst.
if everything you depend on has to have a lt comm tac slot to be good ....then maybe its not the ship ...it you improvise adapt and over come ....hell i know of people with the ship as it sits right now that can actually one shot people with it ...but i guess they have learned to play ...yeah im sure thats it
Why always abscond into this hyperbole? I think it's not at all unfair of ppl to ask themselves "Why should I buy this ship?" As in: does it offer me a good incentive to buy it? The Galaxies are older ships already. So, when offering them as a reboot, it's only logical, and completely justified, to ask whether they can hold their own against the multitude of good ships being released to date.
16 turn (17 with the the set) is too slow for cannons?
Ahem, the Avenger is over there ->, since that seems to be what you're asking for.
This one I'll get a bit more intellectual with, since the actual definition of a 'dreadnought' does not apply to Star Trek vessels, so first things first, the term needs to be redefined in regards to Star Trek vessels.
So, in-game terms, what constitutes a dreadnought? If we go with your definition, a big slow tactical ship, than the Avenger is a dreadnought, the Mogh and Bortas would be dreads, and to a lesser extent the Odyssey Tactical and Assault Refit could be classified as dreadnoughts.
Also, absolutely in no-way are all of the C-store vessels Fleet level, aside from a select few.
I don't actually have an answer, since the JHDC and Scimitar-classes have quite a lot in common (heavy tactical abilities, two hangars, etc...), yet the Galaxy Dreadnought doesn't follow the standards set by those ships as dreadnoughts. I would say that a dreadnought would be a sub-type of an existing class of vessel that performs beyond the standards of that class, but the Galaxy Dread is not much of an upgrade of the base Galaxy Retrofit in regards to defenses or offensive abilities, so that doesn't really apply either. Essentially, everyone is arguing semantics with no clear definition of what is being argued.
Lastly, I'll just throw out that if the Gal-X was given the more tactical focused Boff seating, it would be directly competing with several other Starfleet vessels that are out there, notably the Avenger, Tactical Odyssey, and Assault Refit.... do we REALLY need 4 tactical focused cruisers?
Agreed. In fact, they should pitch in and work with the community to build a vessel that the community will use.
EDIT: http://i770.photobucket.com/albums/xx345/stardestroyer001/Untitled-1_zps894dd9c9.png
Fleet Galaxy-X has no model changes.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
oh stop it ....you are dismissed
And yet this inevitable vicious circle you decry is *exactly* what we've been in, ever since PWE went P2W. It's the main reason for the current power creep. Without it, a P2W MMO can not exist: if you want to sell something, it must be better than what ppl already had. Much like you're not going to buy a new TV set, unless it's a significant step up from the one you already have. You may not like this, but it's true, and unavoidable within the P2W model.
Yes, there will be some marginal sales based on looks, and other fringe factors. But the bottom line for most ppl will still be "Does it offer me something beyond what I already have?" And to equate that with cries for an OP ship, is just sily.. and a hyperbole.
I see the Avenger come up as a comparison or alternative to the Galaxy X... There is no comparison, they are different class of ships. Apples and oranges.
If people JUST want a better ship, there are plenty of them out there to choose from.
This is not about wanting the Galaxy X to be OP either. It really shouldn't be... or better yet, doesn't have to be. This is just about wanting the Galaxy ships (or at least the X) to be a better ship, in and of itself.
The reboot should bring it up a notch or two from what it should have been for it's timeline within STO. It needs something to differentiate it from the other cruisers, for example, the T5 Ambassador ship brought something a little different to the cruiser line of ships that makes it interesting and fun. The Science BOff slot gives it a little extra something fun and interesting... and it's not OP either. The proposed Universal Ensign slot does not really change much to really make any difference, IMO.
Just in case this has come up as a case of argument - you can't compare it to TV, movies or books because those facts really cannot translate into the game.
EDIT: An universal console slot would attribute to the modular design of the Galaxy ships (see Memory Alpha.) But would that make it OP?
[/soapbox]
This is at least how I think and feel about the discussions so far. Thanks.
SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
Thats a valid point. The thing is, just by adding saucer sep, the GalX already gets some unique properties - it becomes an engineering escort carrier. It's going to be drifting all over the place, but with a 17+ turn rate, it will be able to do things no other cruiser can do. It may or may not be particularly effective, but it certainly will be unique and I am sure people will rise up to the challenge of finding interesting ways to try and make it work.
proof, not speculation plz.
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10052253
Why are you not rejoicing?
A lot of the suggestions coming from these threads would seem to run counter to your comment though. People keep trying to shove OP type layouts onto the ship. And are stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath if they don't get that.
To paraphrase the many many fun responders in any an every T5 Connie thread:
Geko said no. This is a dead horse.
CBS ... er, I mean Geko, kind of said no. In a recent interview even.