first, it is said that the galaxy sucks, is the worst ship in the game, and needs to be fixed. then some one who the pve was built to cater too, someone who cant use any ship to 10% of its potential anyway so they would have no frame of reference as to what sucks or doesn't, tries to refute that, and say nothing is wrong with it.
for some reason, i bother to point out 5-10 different ways its worse then every cruiser alternative, cause i'd like to keep as argument as stupid as 'theres nothing wrong with the ship' beaten down before it picks up any more steam.
then those people pivot, saying oh well the ship sucked in the show anyway, and im trolled into presenting strait from canon and tech manual sources information, that i dont even have to embellish or exaggerate, that shows how incorrect that is.
then they pivot once again, dismissing, insulting, trying to establish as a fact that theres no way to draw any hard conclusions, definitive facts, or benchmarks from any of the canon at all. oh, and making some of the most TRIBBLE analogies ive ever seen in the process. unicorns? really? how is that an analogy for 7+ years of galaxy class screen time and hard documentation?
then everyone is thoroughly annoyed at all that drama, and goes back to saying well how it did in canon doesn't mater, it just shouldn't be as bad of a ship as it is, given an assortment of valid reasons.
oh, but here we are, back at the beginning of the cycle. i already see step 2 beginning again. when i want to feel disappointed or stupefied i look to the naysayers in this thread, and they never let me down.
Welcome to the internet! lol.
I think because of ppl like this, our issue doesn't get taken seriously by the devs. If there where a consensus among the commmunity about the GCS, the devs wouldn't refer to us as a small group of ppl being nothing more than a exception, while the broad mass is OK with Cruisers and the GCS in general.
What i don't really get is, if those ppl don't like the GCS why care about it in the first place?
Why not ignoring it in the first place, i mean they have already won. It's the worst ship in the game, what else could they want it to be?
Strangely, when it comes to PvP balance stuff, Cryptics devs listen to the small group of hardcore PvPers, regardless if those changes do affect other game areas besides PvP. So at one time they decide to listen to a small group of outsiders and on the other case they don't.
Personally, my health doesn't allow me to spend as much time and energy to fight and argue for this matter as before. STO won't change overnight into a good Star Trek game and the GCS surely wont become a good ship as long as the same ppl are in charge of Cryptic.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I think because of ppl like this, our issue doesn't get taken seriously by the devs. If there where a consensus among the commmunity about the GCS, the devs wouldn't refer to us as a small group of ppl being nothing more than a exception, while the broad mass is OK with Cruisers and the GCS in general.
What i don't really get is, if those ppl don't like the GCS why care about it in the first place?
Why not ignoring it in the first place, i mean they have already won. It's the worst ship in the game, what else could they want it to be?
Strangely, when it comes to PvP balance stuff, Cryptics devs listen to the small group of hardcore PvPers, regardless if those changes do affect other game areas besides PvP. So at one time they decide to listen to a small group of outsiders and on the other case they don't.
Personally, my health doesn't allow me to spend as much time and energy to fight and argue for this matter as before. STO won't change overnight into a good Star Trek game and the GCS surely wont become a good ship as long as the same ppl are in charge of Cryptic.
I as a knowledegable fellow and fan of many a different IP, I wouldn't take us seriously either, we are a ll nut bags driven by our love of one thing or another.
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
just so it;s known i rarely use the show for any thing and mostly use the written TNG bible for the show form 1989 or the tech manuals written by Okuda, sternbach, zimmerman, and drexler the producers of TNG and DS9 and the creators of the enterpise D and the galaxy class ships shown in the different series
The problem with that is that that was written to mesh what was in the show to make some degree of sense, especially all of the technobabble involved. Those guys used the book as a way to cover up the problems and inconsistencies of the show, somewhat as a face-saving feature. Another problem is that other Star Trek IP ships weren't given half as much effort in their books, the others were just mailed in (partially because they could be).
on the countrary, that is exactly why i, neo1nx, refute all his point ( even if i didn't really begun to argue with him ) because they are base on what we see on the show.
arguing that this ship is good or not, because it is or is not, what like someone think it was on the show is a moot point.
the only things that can be concluded from the show is general realistic evidence, like a shuttle will not outgun a cruiser for example.
on the same logic an ambassador should not outgunned a galaxy that is meant to replaced him.
if a game developper made a game where shuttles would outgunned cruiser, one would be in their right to said that this is not an accurate representation of star trek universe.
but that is just as far as we can go, the rest is indeed "the writers fault" and is mostly irrelevant for a game where you have to have a balance.
that is where i have already demonstrate that cryptic made the galaxy wrong, when you compared it to ANY other cruiser and try to find something that he can do as good or better than the rest.
even free RA ship outperformed this cstore cruiser, no need to be a genious to see that something is wrong, and no need of a thousand canon evidences either.
Just as much as the down sides could be considered the writers fault, it can just as much be said about the amount of puffery the ship received as well. The ship was over promised by dreams of Utopian perfection script writing. The ship wasn't that bad, but it surely isn't as good as the fanatics here are claiming.
How about this, I'll buy the ship for what he thinks its worth, and I'll sell it to you for what you think its worth.
Agreed. The absence of a universal slot on the C-Store Galaxy Retrofit is one of those things that makes me scratch my head in wonder. The same goes for the Galaxy-X.
I suspect universal slots would silence many of the complaints regarding the Exploration and Dreadnought Cruisers, since they would add flexibility for players.
Apparently, universal slots are also a cure for cancer too. Which ones do people want? Ive seen people argue a LTCMDR and a LT uni', and thats really overboard. Most of the people in here want the ship to be tactically focused while saying those uni's could be used for anything, but we know which way they want to go. The ship doesn't need high level/ multiple uni's. If Cryptic made engineering boff skills worth a darn, there wouldn't be a reason for people to complain. This is where the focus should be and it benefits all cruisers, especially the Explorer.
The problem with that is that that was written to mesh what was in the show to make some degree of sense, especially all of the technobabble involved. Those guys used the book as a way to cover up the problems and inconsistencies of the show, somewhat as a face-saving feature. Another problem is that other Star Trek IP ships weren't given half as much effort in their books, the others were just mailed in (partially because they could be).
the one i have was written before the show was even aired especially the bible
Apparently, universal slots are also a cure for cancer too. Which ones do people want? Ive seen people argue a LTCMDR and a LT uni', and thats really overboard. Most of the people in here want the ship to be tactically focused while saying those uni's could be used for anything, but we know which way they want to go. The ship doesn't need high level/ multiple uni's. If Cryptic made engineering boff skills worth a darn, there wouldn't be a reason for people to complain. This is where the focus should be and it benefits all cruisers, especially the Explorer.
for a uni i want the ensign. only change that needs to be made or make it sci. there is already a tack version the gal-x. yes it would have the exact same BO lay out of the star cruiser but at least then the gal-r could be an ok team healer/tank
i also fully support redone/improved low level eng skills (or eng skills in general)
first, it is said that the galaxy sucks, is the worst ship in the game, and needs to be fixed. then some one who the pve was built to cater too, someone who cant use any ship to 10% of its potential anyway so they would have no frame of reference as to what sucks or doesn't, tries to refute that, and say nothing is wrong with it.
for some reason, i bother to point out 5-10 different ways its worse then every cruiser alternative, cause i'd like to keep as argument as stupid as 'theres nothing wrong with the ship' beaten down before it picks up any more steam.
then those people pivot, saying oh well the ship sucked in the show anyway, and im trolled into presenting strait from canon and tech manual sources information, that i dont even have to embellish or exaggerate, that shows how incorrect that is.
then they pivot once again, dismissing, insulting, trying to establish as a fact that theres no way to draw any hard conclusions, definitive facts, or benchmarks from any of the canon at all. oh, and making some of the most TRIBBLE analogies ive ever seen in the process. unicorns? really? how is that an analogy for 7+ years of galaxy class screen time and hard documentation?
then everyone is thoroughly annoyed at all that drama, and goes back to saying well how it did in canon doesn't mater, it just shouldn't be as bad of a ship as it is, given an assortment of valid reasons.
oh, but here we are, back at the beginning of the cycle. i already see step 2 beginning again. when i want to feel disappointed or stupefied i look to the naysayers in this thread, and they never let me down.
DDIS,
Do you ever think that maybe you as well have taken it to the extreme? Maybe that's why you think its "stupidity" when others disagree with you. I will go as far as to say as some of the arguments made have been weak that are in direct opposition to any change, but you also leave little room for acceptance of others ideas as well.
The more that people prattle on using positive examples, while rejecting the negative ones as bad writing, lends no credibility an argument for either side. You leave no room for common ground with people of other points of view. To the one guys defense, the Galaxy IS as much of a "unicorn" as anything involving Star Trek, Star Wars, BSG and others. There is no "hard documentation" of a ship that doesn't exist (seriously, it really doesn't exist.)
As far as screen time, the biggest example of the ships success was when a real captain caught a bunch of ships in a precarious position and used mines (probably available to any Starfleet vessel) to take create its win, heck Jelico could have done that with a J-class in the same situation (equipped with a shuttle craft.) Most of the enemies faced in TNG were lower level to even the most average Fed' ship. For every time the ship was "good" there was a time where it wasn't. The Galaxy is a good ship in ST IP, but its just not what you and some argue it to be. You play just as much a role in this circle as the guy whole calls your beloved ship a unicorn.
for a uni i want the ensign. only change that needs to be made or make it sci. there is already a tack version the gal-x. yes it would have the exact same BO lay out of the star cruiser but at least then the gal-r could be an ok team healer/tank
i also fully support redone/improved low level eng skills (or eng skills in general)
What you want has merit, but there are people who want the thing to be an ad-hoc battle cruiser equivalent (albeit missing the fourth tac console), and that's where I take umbrage. Its an Explorer and should be used in that role for the game. Make engie powers good and the ship will improve dramatically.
I as a knowledegable fellow and fan of many a different IP, I wouldn't take us seriously either, we are a ll nut bags driven by our love of one thing or another.
To quote your quote of Yreo'
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Welcome to the internet! lol.
I think because of ppl like this, our issue doesn't get taken seriously by the devs. If there where a consensus among the commmunity about the GCS, the devs wouldn't refer to us as a small group of ppl being nothing more than a exception, while the broad mass is OK with Cruisers and the GCS in general.
What i don't really get is, if those ppl don't like the GCS why care about it in the first place?
Why not ignoring it in the first place, i mean they have already won. It's the worst ship in the game, what else could they want it to be?
Strangely, when it comes to PvP balance stuff, Cryptics devs listen to the small group of hardcore PvPers, regardless if those changes do affect other game areas besides PvP. So at one time they decide to listen to a small group of outsiders and on the other case they don't.
Personally, my health doesn't allow me to spend as much time and energy to fight and argue for this matter as before. STO won't change overnight into a good Star Trek game and the GCS surely wont become a good ship as long as the same ppl are in charge of Cryptic.
This is the reason why there is a problem here. Some fanatics of the Explorer literally think of this as a win/lose thing. They think that if one doesn't agree with them that they are against them . This is why there is an "us vs. them" mentality. There is no consensus because there can be no real agreement if one side thinks that the other is out to make them "lose." The GCS fanatics are so overprotective of their "prize" that there is no room for consensus. Instead, its easier to call all of those who disagree with them as "haters" and blame Cryptic and point out the their corporate enemies because the ship isn't the way that they want it (and it has to be that way.) How many members of this thread took potshots at Geko in that thread that is designed to do such?
A good canon interpretation within STOs limitations would be either a ENG heavy Nebula (CMDR Eng, LTC Sci, LT Tac, LT Uni, ENS Eng) or a "small oddyssey" since it's basically it's predecessor (CMDR Eng, LTC Eng, LT Tac, LT Uni, ENS Sci). A good (and reasonable) gameplay fix would be a universal ENS for the fleet version because the Negh'Var has it, too. A third tactical console would make sense because the Ambassador and the Excelsior as well as the freaking Nova (a non-combatant vessel) have those as well. Alternatively a comm array boost for 2 tac console cruisers or revampeg engineering consoles/boff skills would help as well.
I don't think these are unreasonable or "fanatic" suggestions. They are just attempts for a better in-game representation of the largest canon Starcruiser Starfleet ever build. Though I grant you that, it's an Explorer - like most of Starfleets ships. They fight their battles with those Explorers, not with battleships. That's why a LTC tac (uni) and more than 3 tac consoles are, in my opinion, unreasonable. Although the "OP Galaxy" suggestions are off the table for quite some time, at least that's my impression, whamhammer.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Lol. I'm sorry you feel this way, but the fact is your argument is objectively bad, and have yet to come up with a response that isn't based on your own opinions. Consistently, you have argued from a standpoint of "I don't like it, so it's wrong", while I have come from a standpoint of "your argument is bad, so I don't like it."
first, it is said that the galaxy sucks, is the worst ship in the game, and needs to be fixed. then some one who the pve was built to cater too, someone who cant use any ship to 10% of its potential anyway so they would have no frame of reference as to what sucks or doesn't, tries to refute that, and say nothing is wrong with it.
I'm not sure if you're trying to slam my game skill or system knowledge here, or even who you are trying to refer to here, but rest assured, I'm very, very good at this game. I also think you misunderstand my position that the Galaxy is not broken, or at least you misunderstand my intent with that claim. I'm saying that the Galaxy is not broken with regards to the actual content of the game. That is, you can make a Galaxy function in any mission, and even in PvP if you work at it. It's simply not optimal. That's not the same as "useless" or "broken", though.
The purpose of this claim was to refocus the discussion on the lie you keep spouting that you aren't aiming to make the ship OP, or outshine anything else, etc. See, your problem isn't that the Galaxy is impossible to use. It's that it's not better than any other option for any reason other than it looks like ship you liked from that one show. This is a problem that cannot be solved by any means other than making the Galaxy a mechanically better option than something else.
Look at the immediate fall out after the comm array got added. We don't see people saying "Yay, the Galaxy is stronger", we see people talking about how the problem wasn't solved, because the Galaxy is still at the back of the cruiser pack. It won't matter if the Galaxy is made "better" than it is not, unless it is made "better" than some other ship too. Now, if you were honest about your goals, that would be one thing - still kind of a **** move to argue that someone else should have to be the worst ship because you like the Galaxy so much, but, at least you'd be open about it, and maybe we could discuss the merits of that position. But instead, you'll simply proclaim that I don't know what I'm talking about, and reiterate your asinine position that "Worst ship" necessarily means "useless".
for some reason, i bother to point out 5-10 different ways its worse then every cruiser alternative, cause i'd like to keep as argument as stupid as 'theres nothing wrong with the ship' beaten down before it picks up any more steam.
And the funny thing is, you've failed utterly to beat the argument down, because you didn't understand it in the first place. Here, I'll help you out, or possibly blow your mind: The Galaxy is the worst end-game ship. Hell, it might even be worse than some Tier 4 ships. Certainly any other cruiser is a better choice mechanically. The ship is not broken, though, because it can do anything in the game, even though it can't do it well. Some ship is always going to be the worst, and it sucks that it's your favorite, but them's the breaks.
Oh, and please, for the love of god, I wish people would stop acting like I don't understand the Eng cooldown powers conflict. I get it - the Eng ensign means you have to take Eng Team I. I get that taking Eng Team I means you probably won't cycle TT at the max rate. I get that with an A2B build the ship is highly inefficient. None of that means the ship is mechanically broken. It's just not very good, but if you would stop worrying about comparing your epeen to other players, it wouldn't matter, because you can still play the game and have fun.
If your counter is that it is no fun to be "punished" with a mechanically inferior choice, then congratulations! You've just made my point that the intent here isn't to just make the Galaxy better than it is now, it's to make the Galaxy better than other choices, so that you don't feel as "punished" for flying the ship you like. Instead, you want someone else to be "punished" for flying a lesser known ship that they have the audacity to like. Good job.
Also, if you require feeling superior to others to have fun, you might want to get that looked at.
then those people pivot, saying oh well the ship sucked in the show anyway, and im trolled into presenting strait from canon and tech manual sources information, that i dont even have to embellish or exaggerate, that shows how incorrect that is.
The ship did suck in the shows, IN MY OPINION. The ship didn't suck in the shows, IN YOUR OPINION. Guess who's right? Nobody! Because there are zero "facts" here. You choose to look at one set of information, I look at another. We both have reasons to consider our positions valid. We could just leave it there, but the problem for you is that you feel the need to have something, anything "objective" you can use to justify the changes you want to make. My position doesn't require you to agree with my opinion, it just requires that I demonstrate that it is legitimate. I have done so. You thus have no objective claim to superior knowledge to back up your call for change. It's just "I like this ship and I want it to be better", and nothing more.
then they pivot once again, dismissing, insulting, trying to establish as a fact that theres no way to draw any hard conclusions, definitive facts, or benchmarks from any of the canon at all. oh, and making some of the most TRIBBLE analogies ive ever seen in the process. unicorns? really? how is that an analogy for 7+ years of galaxy class screen time and hard documentation?
Yes, it is exactly like unicorns. You ever do a google search on unicorns? Take a look at how much "hard documentation" there is on the properties of unicorns, and how many passionate debates there are about how they really are. That's a mirror for you. That's EXACTLY how ridiculous you look when you claim that there is some way to "know" whose opinion is "right". Oh, and btw, this is not a "Pivot" - this was always my position from the outset - though I am finally gratified that you're acknowledging this section of the argument, even if you can't seem to engage with it meaningfully.
then everyone is thoroughly annoyed at all that drama, and goes back to saying well how it did in canon doesn't mater, it just shouldn't be as bad of a ship as it is, given an assortment of valid reasons.
oh, but here we are, back at the beginning of the cycle. i already see step 2 beginning again. when i want to feel disappointed or stupefied i look to the naysayers in this thread, and they never let me down.
I feel the same way - after teaching logic to bright, intelligent young people, I like to come here to slum it. I've actually used some of the positions in this thread to illustrate common failures of reason, so, there's that, at least.
The biggest problem with the Galaxy in the game are the ships it's known to be superior to that completely blow it away in game. There are times when a Galor fires on the Enterprise - where the only response from Picard and the crew is mild annoyance. You don't see ANYTHING in this game show 'mild annoyance' if a player operated Galor is on their tail. Between the boff stations and the spiral waves - you're in for far more fight then 'mild annoyance'.
The biggest problem with the thread is - it's broken four hundred pages with absolutely no developer comment. I don't agree with the developer bashing in the slightest, but it would be nice for one of them to sit down and explain why the ship fits the way it does and not 'just is'. People want the Galaxy more tac oriented because at the moment - that's the game's focus.
As for me - I would prefer a ltcom universal as the only real change. It would give the tac fans the firepower they want, it would let people who like the ship as it is keep it that way, and the science abilities could either make it a good support ship or a magnificent healer. Imagine being able to catch an ally with TSS 3 and Extend Shield 3 - they would be a fortress... They could even extend that universal coverage to something truly unique and interesting. 4 Eng consoles, 2 Sci, 2 Tac, 1 Universal Console slot for Retrofit, 2 Universal Console slots for Fleet Retro - (can slot any consoles, eng, sci, or tac)
A good canon interpretation within STOs limitations would be either a ENG heavy Nebula (CMDR Eng, LTC Sci, LT Tac, LT Uni, ENS Eng) or a "small oddyssey" since it's basically it's predecessor (CMDR Eng, LTC Eng, LT Tac, LT Uni, ENS Sci). A good (and reasonable) gameplay fix would be a universal ENS for the fleet version because the Negh'Var has it, too. A third tactical console would make sense because the Ambassador and the Excelsior as well as the freaking Nova (a non-combatant vessel) have those as well. Alternatively a comm array boost for 2 tac console cruisers or revampeg engineering consoles/boff skills would help as well.
I don't think these are unreasonable or "fanatic" suggestions. They are just attempts for a better in-game representation of the largest canon Starcruiser Starfleet ever build. Though I grant you that, it's an Explorer - like most of Starfleets ships. They fight their battles with those Explorers, not with battleships. That's why a LTC tac (uni) and more than 3 tac consoles are, in my opinion, unreasonable. Although the "OP Galaxy" suggestions are off the table for quite some time, at least that's my impression, whamhammer.
I guess that depends on what "quite some time" is. I could swear I saw one last week.
A LT uni is fine. But when people have been pushing LTCMDR uni's (as well as LTCMDR + LT uni's) that where it gets overboard.
A third Tac console is fine (for the Fleet version), but I really think that five engie consoles is useful too, especially if they should do something like make generic weapon type consoles engie's.
The whole "threesome" deal (either ships or equipment) is too much too. I argue that a "Heavy Beam Array" would fit in just fine though.
What would really make the ship shine is having engineer skill parity to tactical and sci
The biggest problem with the Galaxy in the game are the ships it's known to be superior to that completely blow it away in game. There are times when a Galor fires on the Enterprise - where the only response from Picard and the crew is mild annoyance. You don't see ANYTHING in this game show 'mild annoyance' if a player operated Galor is on their tail. Between the boff stations and the spiral waves - you're in for far more fight then 'mild annoyance'.
If I am in a ship and some other ship shoots at me, no matter my ships capabilities, I am going to be far more than "mildly annoyed." I am going to do everything in my power to knock that captains pretty little ship out of my sky. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take kindly if my enemies were just to roll over on account that I am driving some pretty thing either ... (20 second mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OR2lKvPoZE
The biggest problem with the thread is - it's broken four hundred pages with absolutely no developer comment. I don't agree with the developer bashing in the slightest, but it would be nice for one of them to sit down and explain why the ship fits the way it does and not 'just is'.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I have posed it in public several times. Can't help much more there.
As for me - I would prefer a ltcom universal as the only real change. It would give the tac fans the firepower they want, it would let people who like the ship as it is keep it that way, and the science abilities could either make it a good support ship or a magnificent healer. Imagine being able to catch an ally with TSS 3 and Extend Shield 3 - they would be a fortress... They could even extend that universal coverage to something truly unique and interesting. 4 Eng consoles, 2 Sci, 2 Tac, 1 Universal Console slot for Retrofit, 2 Universal Console slots for Fleet Retro - (can slot any consoles, eng, sci, or tac)
Yeah, I see people lining up right now for the science LTCMDR slot when its something already equipped on the Ambassador (like that TSS3 and ES3.) Face it, its just going to be used as a LTCMDR tac', no use in pretending its a ploy for anything else.
And now theres a cry for uni consoles for the ship? Lets guess what will fill those slots. Can I get that one on any other class to while I am at it? Really, there are plenty of ships out there that have the setup you are looking for, why not use them?
No ship in this game should be able to do all of the things that the fanatics here talk about on the T.V. show, why not just make a push to make the Engie skills good enough to give the Explorer parity and be really good at a unique roll?
I for one would have been delighted if the Galaxy got the Ambassador's boff/console layout - and the Ambassador was just an unlockable skin. I personally love the way the Ambassador handles.
Yes - Engineering powers need worked on to make engineer heavy ships more viable. But that will cause game wide balance issues and more bugs that the game really doesn't need right now. Giving a single ship a balance pass to make it competitive in the dps heavy content that Cryptic keeps giving us would be far simpler. I fly the Recon Vesta variant, I love that ship and probably wouldn't change even if the Galaxy was updated - but do you know how many times I see a Galaxy enter an Elite STF and have someone start trash talking the Galaxy pilot for being a noob just because of the ship?
I completely agree that the ship shouldn't be able to do everything that it could in the show - some episodes the Galaxy is more powerful then she had any right to be, some episodes she was a wet kitten. But the same thing applies to every television ship - and the writers involved.
Even an aux2bat Galaxy will take twice as long to destroy even a soft target then it will any other ship in the game. Nanite Generators top of the list. And no - I'm not pushing for universal consoles - it was just a passing idea. I do know that my preferred playstyle, I think I would prefer a ltcom sci to tac - just because grav well 1 or TSS 3 are more fun then beam spam. They're more useful too - as a support tactic - then brute force in my opinion.
Do you ever think that maybe you as well have taken it to the extreme? Maybe that's why you think its "stupidity" when others disagree with you. I will go as far as to say as some of the arguments made have been weak that are in direct opposition to any change, but you also leave little room for acceptance of others ideas as well.
its stupidity to deny what happened in the show, and handwave it when it conflicts with a person's opinion that the galaxy sucks. its also hypocritical to have an opinion ether way if your going to follow that up with 'its not real' to discredit any information that could tell us ether way. just say i dont like the galaxy class, and then leave a thread alone about the galaxy class. its stupid to pivot every time i go to the trouble to site canon to support my position. its not really my position, or opinion, thats a misscharacterization. im telling you what actually happened. destroying a ton of volume of cube in 3 shots happened. the show of force against the honsuke warship actually happened. hull tanking the 3 bug ships for ~10 minutes actually happened. there being a moving glow effect on phaser arrays actually happens. these things happened, to say otherwise is stupid. when i say actually happened, i mean in the show. yes its not beneath you to try to pivot and focus on me saying actually happened, as if i were referring to real life, not actually happened in the show.
The more that people prattle on using positive examples, while rejecting the negative ones as bad writing, lends no credibility an argument for either side. You leave no room for common ground with people of other points of view. To the one guys defense, the Galaxy IS as much of a "unicorn" as anything involving Star Trek, Star Wars, BSG and others. There is no "hard documentation" of a ship that doesn't exist (seriously, it really doesn't exist.)
you would like to argue with the person your referring to here, but he doesn't exist. i didn't ignore the times the galaxy lost out, i included them every time i go on a rant, in hopes to show objectivity, but every discrediting response to me loves to say how i ignore them. here we go again with the 'its not real' pivot. i forgot to include that one. i am aware star trek is a work of fiction. but if you are going to just handwave that everything that happened in the show means nothing, just stop talking. you are trolling a debate about on screen performance.
theres a thing about its worst and its best though, they dont hold equal weight. when the ships shows a certain level of capability at one point, and then for no reason does not put up that same level of fight and ends up loseing another time, thats ether gross incompetence or bad writing/plothole/a breach of canon. its best cant be dismissed as easily as its worst, and thats what should be focused on, thats its actual capability. for stating the ship in a game its best= its actual capability, doing poorer then that is the crews fault, and in game your fault. i understand this leaves little room to argue, but thats ok. there are not 2 equal sides to every argument. there are facts, there are what actually happened in canon, thats it.
and if you dont think theres any hard benchmarks to be found in the canon, you are in serious denial. under performing at another time does not cancel out a better performance a previous time.
As far as screen time, the biggest example of the ships success was when a real captain caught a bunch of ships in a precarious position and used mines (probably available to any Starfleet vessel) to take create its win, heck Jelico could have done that with a J-class in the same situation (equipped with a shuttle craft.) Most of the enemies faced in TNG were lower level to even the most average Fed' ship. For every time the ship was "good" there was a time where it wasn't. The Galaxy is a good ship in ST IP, but its just not what you and some argue it to be. You play just as much a role in this circle as the guy whole calls your beloved ship a unicorn.
not even remotely close. i never even mention the actual stand off because there wasn't even an actual battle. it was the crew outwiting, not outgunning, as is the usual in TNG. but not this game, its all about shooting and shooting only. it would be dull otherwise, at least in a MMO. whats more telling is from the episode 'the wounded' were a galor opens fire on the enterprise, and its hits dont even cause camera shake. i believe they refer to that as a top of the line galor as well.
thats a hard benchmark, 1 galor is basically no threat to a galaxy class. another is 3 bug ships not being able to destroy a galaxy class by shooting its hull for 10 minutes. against the same number and type of opponents, the defient being heavily damaged and disabled in 2 or 3 minutes, is a benchmark. the lakota and defiant breaking even in their fight is a benchmark for both, and sheds a large amount of light on were they stand in ship firepower hierarchy. the observed amount of torps a galaxy class can fire at once might be its best, though its possible it could have fired more. at the very least we have seen nothing come close to what we have seen a galaxy fire. benchmarks
Apparently, universal slots are also a cure for cancer too. Which ones do people want? Ive seen people argue a LTCMDR and a LT uni', and thats really overboard. Most of the people in here want the ship to be tactically focused while saying those uni's could be used for anything, but we know which way they want to go. The ship doesn't need high level/ multiple uni's. If Cryptic made engineering boff skills worth a darn, there wouldn't be a reason for people to complain. This is where the focus should be and it benefits all cruisers, especially the Explorer.
how is it overboard when a sci ship and escort already have that configuration? with only 2 of the 3 station types set in stone, allowing for you to totally forgo 1 of the 3 if you wanted to.
there is no cruiser with a station setup in that style yet, would you rather something slow and fat like the galaxy have it, or something that turns real well like an excelsior or avenger having a station setup like that? or how about an even slower or fater cruiser then the ody or galaxy being introduced, that make absolutely no sense in universe. the station setup will instead go to a smaller cruiser, its easier to justify their existence. will you be there to call it out as op, this new cruiser that will eventually have that style of station setup, or are you only against it because it would go to the galaxy class?
the type of stations my proposed galaxy could go without is tactical too. you dont think thats possible, because your a pve'er i guess, but whatever. its pretty hilarious that you dont see how much more effective the ship would be if the LTC or LT was used for sci too, with only the LT used for tac, or neither. its performance as a non tac ship would be twice what its performance as a tac ship would be. that station setup style is safer and will have less impact on cruiser hierarchy if it goes to an under performer, instead of a cruiser thats got mostly favorable stats otherwise. its a station setup thats will show up eventually, its only a mater of time.
and again, it would make the galaxy the lowest performing tac crusier that could have a LTC tac of them all, its not displacing anything. thats the best part about my proposed setup id think, it should win over people so super duper worried that the regent or excelsior would get replaced.
I for one would have been delighted if the Galaxy got the Ambassador's boff/console layout - and the Ambassador was just an unlockable skin. I personally love the way the Ambassador handles.
I actually argued a bit back for the Star and Exploration cruisers to be merged together as a class. I don't think the Explorer should handle live the Ambassador, way too big.
Yes - Engineering powers need worked on to make engineer heavy ships more viable. But that will cause game wide balance issues and more bugs that the game really doesn't need right now. Giving a single ship a balance pass to make it competitive in the dps heavy content that Cryptic keeps giving us would be far simpler. I fly the Recon Vesta variant, I love that ship and probably wouldn't change even if the Galaxy was updated - but do you know how many times I see a Galaxy enter an Elite STF and have someone start trash talking the Galaxy pilot for being a noob just because of the ship?
I see Galaxies all the time and haven't seen them getting harassed for quite some time. The guy running around in the Connie refit, yes, but not a T5 and up cruiser.
I completely agree that the ship shouldn't be able to do everything that it could in the show - some episodes the Galaxy is more powerful then she had any right to be, some episodes she was a wet kitten. But the same thing applies to every television ship - and the writers involved.
Even an aux2bat Galaxy will take twice as long to destroy even a soft target then it will any other ship in the game. Nanite Generators top of the list. And no - I'm not pushing for universal consoles - it was just a passing idea. I do know that my preferred playstyle, I think I would prefer a ltcom sci to tac - just because grav well 1 or TSS 3 are more fun then beam spam. They're more useful too - as a support tactic - then brute force in my opinion.
I seriously doubt it would take twice as long, especially when it is easier for the Exploration cruiser to keep its power levels higher than other ships. My Fleet nebula probably takes more time and effort to take down a target there than a Fleet Exploration cruiser would.
its stupidity to deny what happened in the show, and handwave it when it conflicts with a person's opinion that the galaxy sucks. its also hypocritical to have an opinion ether way if your going to follow that up with 'its not real' to discredit any information that could tell us ether way. just say i dont like the galaxy class, and then leave a thread alone about the galaxy class. its stupid to pivot every time i go to the trouble to site canon to support my position. its not really my position, or opinion, thats a misscharacterization. im telling you what actually happened. destroying a ton of volume of cube in 3 shots happened. the show of force against the honsuke warship actually happened. hull tanking the 3 bug ships for ~10 minutes actually happened. there being a moving glow effect on phaser arrays actually happens. these things happened, to say otherwise is stupid. when i say actually happened, i mean in the show. yes its not beneath you to try to pivot and focus on me saying actually happened, as if i were referring to real life, not actually happened in the show.
You know what, if I hated the Galaxy, I would say so. What I don't like is the amount of froth generated of "facts" to support an argument and then complaints that other "facts" aren't "real" because it was "bad writing" when both were purely because of writing.
To try to make the ship a carbon copy of other ships that are already out there. There is a perfectly good role for an engineering heavy ships if the engie skills would be improved. I don't like the artificial forcing to try to make the ship a carbon copy capability of other ships out there.
What I dont like is the attitude fanatics have when people don't agree with the fanatical position.
What I dont like is the attitude that fanatics have the Cryptic is out to get them.
you would like to argue with the person your referring to here, but he doesn't exist. i didn't ignore the times the galaxy lost out, i included them every time i go on a rant, in hopes to show objectivity, but every discrediting response to me loves to say how i ignore them. here we go again with the 'its not real' pivot. i forgot to include that one. i am aware star trek is a work of fiction. but if you are going to just handwave that everything that happened in the show means nothing, just stop talking. you are trolling a debate about on screen performance.
Possibly its that you are overbearing on some aspects of "screen performance." I also think that you place way too much dependence on "canon" for a game that it will be impossible for it to replicate. I also think that you place too much emphasis on what other ships have that your pretty-little doesn't, especially when there are other option are out there and you seem to not accept that and want to carbon copy them onto your fav'.
theres a thing about its worst and its best though, they dont hold equal weight. when the ships shows a certain level of capability at one point, and then for no reason does not put up that same level of fight and ends up loseing another time, thats ether gross incompetence or bad writing/plothole/a breach of canon. its best cant be dismissed as easily as its worst, and thats what should be focused on, thats its actual capability. for stating the ship in a game its best= its actual capability, doing poorer then that is the crews fault, and in game your fault. i understand this leaves little room to argue, but thats ok. there are not 2 equal sides to every argument. there are facts, there are what actually happened in canon, thats it.
Um, it has no actual capability, even if it did, the variance between best and worst would show a degree of unreliability. Both sides of canon are actually what "happened" not just the good, and those high points would be considered max and the low points would be the min. What would be expected would be in between.
and if you dont think theres any hard benchmarks to be found in the canon, you are in serious denial. under performing at another time does not cancel out a better performance a previous time.
not even remotely close. i never even mention the actual stand off because there wasn't even an actual battle. it was the crew outwiting, not outgunning, as is the usual in TNG. but not this game, its all about shooting and shooting only. it would be dull otherwise, at least in a MMO. whats more telling is from the episode 'the wounded' were a galor opens fire on the enterprise, and its hits dont even cause camera shake. i believe they refer to that as a top of the line galor as well.
thats a hard benchmark, 1 galor is basically no threat to a galaxy class. another is 3 bug ships not being able to destroy a galaxy class by shooting its hull for 10 minutes. against the same number and type of opponents, the defient being heavily damaged and disabled in 2 or 3 minutes, is a benchmark. the lakota and defiant breaking even in their fight is a benchmark for both, and sheds a large amount of light on were they stand in ship firepower hierarchy. the observed amount of torps a galaxy class can fire at once might be its best, though its possible it could have fired more. at the very least we have seen nothing come close to what we have seen a galaxy fire. benchmarks
And all of that actually points to it being tankier and using more torpedo volley skill.
how is it overboard when a sci ship and escort already have that configuration? with only 2 of the 3 station types set in stone, allowing for you to totally forgo 1 of the 3 if you wanted to.
there is no cruiser with a station setup in that style yet, would you rather something slow and fat like the galaxy have it, or something that turns real well like an excelsior or avenger having a station setup like that? or how about an even slower or fater cruiser then the ody or galaxy being introduced, that make absolutely no sense in universe. the station setup will instead go to a smaller cruiser, its easier to justify their existence. will you be there to call it out as op, this new cruiser that will eventually have that style of station setup, or are you only against it because it would go to the galaxy class?
the type of stations my proposed galaxy could go without is tactical too. you dont think thats possible, because your a pve'er i guess, but whatever. its pretty hilarious that you dont see how much more effective the ship would be if the LTC or LT was used for sci too, with only the LT used for tac, or neither. its performance as a non tac ship would be twice what its performance as a tac ship would be. that station setup style is safer and will have less impact on cruiser hierarchy if it goes to an under performer, instead of a cruiser thats got mostly favorable stats otherwise. its a station setup thats will show up eventually, its only a mater of time.
and again, it would make the galaxy the lowest performing tac crusier that could have a LTC tac of them all, its not displacing anything. thats the best part about my proposed setup id think, it should win over people so super duper worried that the regent or excelsior would get replaced.
We all really know what the point of your proposal are, to make it very tactically based and there are plenty of tactically based ships out there. What will this ship do that the others cant?
Lol. I'm sorry you feel this way, but the fact is your argument is objectively bad, and have yet to come up with a response that isn't based on your own opinions. Consistently, you have argued from a standpoint of "I don't like it, so it's wrong", while I have come from a standpoint of "your argument is bad, so I don't like it."
I'm not sure if you're trying to slam my game skill or system knowledge here, or even who you are trying to refer to here, but rest assured, I'm very, very good at this game. I also think you misunderstand my position that the Galaxy is not broken, or at least you misunderstand my intent with that claim. I'm saying that the Galaxy is not broken with regards to the actual content of the game. That is, you can make a Galaxy function in any mission, and even in PvP if you work at it. It's simply not optimal. That's not the same as "useless" or "broken", though.
The purpose of this claim was to refocus the discussion on the lie you keep spouting that you aren't aiming to make the ship OP, or outshine anything else, etc. See, your problem isn't that the Galaxy is impossible to use. It's that it's not better than any other option for any reason other than it looks like ship you liked from that one show. This is a problem that cannot be solved by any means other than making the Galaxy a mechanically better option than something else.
Look at the immediate fall out after the comm array got added. We don't see people saying "Yay, the Galaxy is stronger", we see people talking about how the problem wasn't solved, because the Galaxy is still at the back of the cruiser pack. It won't matter if the Galaxy is made "better" than it is not, unless it is made "better" than some other ship too. Now, if you were honest about your goals, that would be one thing - still kind of a **** move to argue that someone else should have to be the worst ship because you like the Galaxy so much, but, at least you'd be open about it, and maybe we could discuss the merits of that position. But instead, you'll simply proclaim that I don't know what I'm talking about, and reiterate your asinine position that "Worst ship" necessarily means "useless".
And the funny thing is, you've failed utterly to beat the argument down, because you didn't understand it in the first place. Here, I'll help you out, or possibly blow your mind: The Galaxy is the worst end-game ship. Hell, it might even be worse than some Tier 4 ships. Certainly any other cruiser is a better choice mechanically. The ship is not broken, though, because it can do anything in the game, even though it can't do it well. Some ship is always going to be the worst, and it sucks that it's your favorite, but them's the breaks.
Oh, and please, for the love of god, I wish people would stop acting like I don't understand the Eng cooldown powers conflict. I get it - the Eng ensign means you have to take Eng Team I. I get that taking Eng Team I means you probably won't cycle TT at the max rate. I get that with an A2B build the ship is highly inefficient. None of that means the ship is mechanically broken. It's just not very good, but if you would stop worrying about comparing your epeen to other players, it wouldn't matter, because you can still play the game and have fun.
If your counter is that it is no fun to be "punished" with a mechanically inferior choice, then congratulations! You've just made my point that the intent here isn't to just make the Galaxy better than it is now, it's to make the Galaxy better than other choices, so that you don't feel as "punished" for flying the ship you like. Instead, you want someone else to be "punished" for flying a lesser known ship that they have the audacity to like. Good job.
Also, if you require feeling superior to others to have fun, you might want to get that looked at.
The ship did suck in the shows, IN MY OPINION. The ship didn't suck in the shows, IN YOUR OPINION. Guess who's right? Nobody! Because there are zero "facts" here. You choose to look at one set of information, I look at another. We both have reasons to consider our positions valid. We could just leave it there, but the problem for you is that you feel the need to have something, anything "objective" you can use to justify the changes you want to make. My position doesn't require you to agree with my opinion, it just requires that I demonstrate that it is legitimate. I have done so. You thus have no objective claim to superior knowledge to back up your call for change. It's just "I like this ship and I want it to be better", and nothing more.
Yes, it is exactly like unicorns. You ever do a google search on unicorns? Take a look at how much "hard documentation" there is on the properties of unicorns, and how many passionate debates there are about how they really are. That's a mirror for you. That's EXACTLY how ridiculous you look when you claim that there is some way to "know" whose opinion is "right". Oh, and btw, this is not a "Pivot" - this was always my position from the outset - though I am finally gratified that you're acknowledging this section of the argument, even if you can't seem to engage with it meaningfully.
I feel the same way - after teaching logic to bright, intelligent young people, I like to come here to slum it. I've actually used some of the positions in this thread to illustrate common failures of reason, so, there's that, at least.
the entirety of that post was not directed at you, i would have quoted if it wasn't a general response to this thread as a whole.
this whole post falls apart when you notice i dont use the word broken. i could jump in a small craft and do all the story pve content, the only thing broken is how lame pve is. so sorry, your arguing with some other person saying other things, not actually me.
well that amusing, the tirade about me wanting to replace the fun of others with the superior galaxy thats better then everything else. we should rename this thread misscharacteristic what DDIS says, that would be more accurate. how many times do i plainly need to say exactly what i would like, and point out how my changes do no such thing? at least 1 more time i see.
how many different fantasy settings/universes are there that feature unicorns? would anyone like to try to count? how much hard consistency is there you think from all those different settings, regarding magic, elves, dwarves, unicones, anything? the whole point of different fantasy settings is that there are subtle differences about everything.
how does that compare to star trek? well, at least everything in the 24th century is in 1 setting, 1 continuity, 1 universe. ah yes, slumming is a great way to describe dignifying such a stupid comparison with a response.
i have a question, whats the worst escort? whats the worst sci ship? there actually isnt one, everyone of them has a niche, and a useful station setup its the best at useing. some are plainly beter then others sure, cant get past that with fleet ships existing, but beyond that the differences are very small, not enough to make 1 ship useless or 'broken' or anything like that. and no c store ship is plainly worse then anything that was there at launch for free, well, all but one.
i suppose theres the aquariuses, thats the worst escort, but its kinda supposed to be. but it actually performs like an escort admirably, not any worse then any typical escorts. its just plainly more fragile.
this is not the case with cruisers. we can see 1 ship that is the worst, is good for nothing, that will under perform at any job you have it doing. there shouldn't be a worst ship in any category. on that basic principle the galaxy needs a change.
heres my 'armchair pro' will hate it proposed galaxy station setup.
COM eng LTC uni
LT uni LT sci
ENS sci
4/3/3 consoles
oh! you could use all that universal for tac! then your not optimized for a superior to that AtB build. oh! haveing a LTC tac trumps all other tac cruisers! how does a ship with 3 tac consoles and a 6 turn rate out do any other LTC tac equipped cruiser already in the game? oh! just having those uni stations is OP! how? it doesn't out do any other tac cruiser, any cruiser setup it could replicate it couldnt do a beter job at what it does best, and you dont care about its potential as a sci cruiser, so what are you complaining about?
there you have it, my actual position, not some warped and contrived sinister plot to make the galaxy rule everything because its my favorite. i think the station setup is backed up fairly well by canon benchmarks the class set in the shows as well. being such a modular platform, being so science and eng heavy, showing off impressive firepower from time to time, i dont see why its not a perfect fit.
its stupidity to deny what happened in the show, and handwave it when it conflicts with a person's opinion that the galaxy sucks. its also hypocritical to have an opinion ether way if your going to follow that up with 'its not real' to discredit any information that could tell us ether way. just say i dont like the galaxy class, and then leave a thread alone about the galaxy class. its stupid to pivot every time i go to the trouble to site canon to support my position. .
Really???? That 's ALL some of your guys have done here with that tired old mantra "it's the writers' fault" when information is presented that you don't like.
No matter how many times you blather on about "phaser array lengths", clearly Paramount/Viacom/CBS disagrees with you since in EVERY Star Trek game that has been released since the introduction of the Sovereign in 1996, the GCS has ALWAYS been a second or third rate ship at BEST.
You guys can blame everyone that you want, from the writers to the producers to the developers, but the bottom line is that the "powers that be" who control the Intellectual Property of the franchise known as "Star Trek", is going to be the FINAL judge as to how you beloved GCS is going to be portrayed.
BTW, as you are on a PUBLIC forum, then EVERYONE is free to comment on the subject of that forum(s). If you don't want anyone who doesn't share your opinions about this subject, then the answer is simple: Create a "members only" website that can ONLY be accessed by those who think like you. Otherwise, the rule for a PUBLIC FORUM doesn't change simply because it's "you".
Hurling insults at those who disagree with you, is a sure fire way to get people not to take your points seriously, Mr. Expert.
first, it is said that the galaxy sucks, is the worst ship in the game, and needs to be fixed. then some one who the pve was built to cater too, someone who cant use any ship to 10% of its potential anyway so they would have no frame of reference as to what sucks or doesn't, tries to refute that, and say nothing is wrong with it.
I suspect this was partially directed at me, since me posting my (somewhat dissenting) opinion a few pages back, and disagreeing with your counterargument, helped break up this fanboy circle jerk with some serious discussion. I wasn't aware that this thread was for rabid fans only.
Of course, I could be wrong. But just to be on the safe side.......
1. First off, you have no damned idea of my level of play experience.
2. You don't know my playstyle.
3. And I can assure you that I'm more than qualified, as are most of the people who've played this game any significant length of time, to determine what sucks and what doesn't.
4. I never said that it was a perfect ship. But to say it "sucks" is a subjective opinion. The fact that 95%-99% of all game content can be successfully played using this ship speaks volumes. Can it be better? In my opinion, yes. But so can a lot of other ships in this game.
5. You are bordering on personal attacks by implying that other players posting dissenting opinions (or should that be heresy?) here are "stupid".
6. You come across as an elitist with this post. Here's a news flash for ya, Jack. You may hold the opinion that PvE is lame and PvE-only players are clueless. However, such an attitude tends to minimize the point of view that you're trying to "sell" here, in the minds of some.
for some reason, i bother to point out 5-10 different ways its worse then every cruiser alternative, cause i'd like to keep as argument as stupid as 'theres nothing wrong with the ship' beaten down before it picks up any more steam.
Well, on behalf of the Great Unwashed of STO, let me apologize for wasting your time. :rolleyes:
Once again, your elitism shows.
Here's a protip for ya: Having a dissenting opinion isn't stupid. And your opinion isn't necessarily right. It's not your place to suppress opinions (keep counter-arguments "beaten down"). It's your place, like the rest of us, to agree or disagree with it. There is no such thing as a "Galaxy Class Cheka" on these boards.
I'm not refuting that the Galaxy is lacking compared to other cruisers. I'm refuting that it is in need of a major overhaul or that it sucks (from my point of view). But yet when anybody disagrees with the hard-core, rabid Galaxy fans on the matter, they treat it like the dissenters murdered their best friend and kicks puppies. Even when we attempt to use reason and logic to back up our points. So, I'll refrain from repeating my counter-arguments in-depth here, since they offend the fanatics and fanboys so damned much.
then those people pivot, saying oh well the ship sucked in the show anyway, and im trolled into presenting strait from canon and tech manual sources information, that i dont even have to embellish or exaggerate, that shows how incorrect that is.
I cannot speak for anybody else, but I haven't "pivoted" on any of my arguments. And disagreeing with your "expert opinion" isn't trolling, just because you don't like or agree with them.
And as I said earlier in the thread, the performance in-game doesn't reflect canon performance, and vice-versa. It's a fact of STO life. Deal with it.
Pulling out canon source material to prove or disprove anything in relation to how a ship should perform gameplay-wise is an exercise in futility. It's irrelevant. It doesn't make you right or wrong in that regard. It's just means you have an opinion like the rest of us.
Using that argument, the Miranda should be a top-tier ship in-game based on it's canon performance in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". In the game, it's under gunned compared to the Reliant. But it would be futile to do so, since for whatever reason, the devs set it's place in the line-up. Just as they made the Galaxy engineering heavy. Canon has little, if anything, to do with how the ships are set up to run in-game. And probably with good reason, from the developer's point of view.
then they pivot once again, dismissing, insulting, trying to establish as a fact that theres no way to draw any hard conclusions, definitive facts, or benchmarks from any of the canon at all. oh, and making some of the most TRIBBLE analogies ive ever seen in the process. unicorns? really? how is that an analogy for 7+ years of galaxy class screen time and hard documentation?
Well, I can't speak on the issue of analogy usage, but I disagree with the "hard documentation" part. The correct phrase would be "the best information we have to date", since "facts" in a fictional universe can change.
then everyone is thoroughly annoyed at all that drama, and goes back to saying well how it did in canon doesn't mater, it just shouldn't be as bad of a ship as it is, given an assortment of valid reasons.
There is no drama until the zealots among us take offense. Some of the folks on here have posted some good reasons to back up their positions on the matter. And I say this despite not necessarily agreeing with all of them.
oh, but here we are, back at the beginning of the cycle. i already see step 2 beginning again. when i want to feel disappointed or stupefied i look to the naysayers in this thread, and they never let me down.
There are no "naysayers" in this thread (at least recently). Just people who disagree with you, either in full or in part (along with those that do agree with you 100%). "Naysayer" is just a term that you (and others here) use for those of us who don't march in lock-step with the fanatical in this thread. Many of us with differing views on the Galaxy have valid reasons for thinking the way we do, combined with personal game experiences. Your opinion isn't the only valid one, your experiences with the ship is not the only yard stick used to measure the Galaxy Class ship's performance in-game, and you are not necessarily right and the rest of us wrong.
Displays of arrogance and elitist attitudes are unbecoming. Even on a game forum like this. Those of us who don't subscribe to your point of view are not a pack of know-nothing idiots who don't play the game. Some of us, like you, do have views based on our having played the game. Not to mention, having used the Galaxy in the game.
And one last point in general. I'm not a "Galaxy hater". In fact, I rather like the design and enjoy using it in the game. So, to say that's I'm bashing it, or desiring it to remain in some sort of imagined state of "suckatude", would be an incorrect assumption to make. I just disagree with the notion that it's a useless POS that's in need of a major overhaul, and stated my reasons why. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, but until that day, the tin-foil conspiracy will continue.
Honestly though, I don't know if it really would be beneficial for Cryptic to offer that customization. If people spend the Zen on customization, there would be less demand for new ship types and would cut into future ship sales. Unless they make people pay through the nose for a skin design, most of what people will "want" will be customized. Sounds to me almost like a death knell to future ships being released (unless they make a Tier 6 and above and dont let ships cross from t5/Fleet to those higher tiers).
Think honestly you might be surprised by how many ppl start buying ships if they can use it's bo and console slot layout on whatever they want to fly. There are alot of ppl that simple buy what they want to fly and use it mostly then maybe buy the ship that does good in STf or pvp because it has the better layout.
You give someone the option to have their favorite ship x3 with all the different layouts they want and you have persons that never really spent that much before buying a newer ship for it toys and layouts. Lots of ppl like the wide angle quantum torpedo but don't find it a good enough reason to buy the whole ship. Add this as a feature to STO and suddenly not only are they getting the toy but they have another possible layout for the cruiser they are flying already.
Comments
Welcome to the internet! lol.
I think because of ppl like this, our issue doesn't get taken seriously by the devs. If there where a consensus among the commmunity about the GCS, the devs wouldn't refer to us as a small group of ppl being nothing more than a exception, while the broad mass is OK with Cruisers and the GCS in general.
What i don't really get is, if those ppl don't like the GCS why care about it in the first place?
Why not ignoring it in the first place, i mean they have already won. It's the worst ship in the game, what else could they want it to be?
Strangely, when it comes to PvP balance stuff, Cryptics devs listen to the small group of hardcore PvPers, regardless if those changes do affect other game areas besides PvP. So at one time they decide to listen to a small group of outsiders and on the other case they don't.
Personally, my health doesn't allow me to spend as much time and energy to fight and argue for this matter as before. STO won't change overnight into a good Star Trek game and the GCS surely wont become a good ship as long as the same ppl are in charge of Cryptic.
I as a knowledegable fellow and fan of many a different IP, I wouldn't take us seriously either, we are a ll nut bags driven by our love of one thing or another.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Ooooooooooooooohhhhh! Cookies for everybody!! On me!!!
The problem with that is that that was written to mesh what was in the show to make some degree of sense, especially all of the technobabble involved. Those guys used the book as a way to cover up the problems and inconsistencies of the show, somewhat as a face-saving feature. Another problem is that other Star Trek IP ships weren't given half as much effort in their books, the others were just mailed in (partially because they could be).
Just as much as the down sides could be considered the writers fault, it can just as much be said about the amount of puffery the ship received as well. The ship was over promised by dreams of Utopian perfection script writing. The ship wasn't that bad, but it surely isn't as good as the fanatics here are claiming.
How about this, I'll buy the ship for what he thinks its worth, and I'll sell it to you for what you think its worth.
Apparently, universal slots are also a cure for cancer too.
the one i have was written before the show was even aired especially the bible
for a uni i want the ensign. only change that needs to be made or make it sci. there is already a tack version the gal-x. yes it would have the exact same BO lay out of the star cruiser but at least then the gal-r could be an ok team healer/tank
i also fully support redone/improved low level eng skills (or eng skills in general)
DDIS,
Do you ever think that maybe you as well have taken it to the extreme? Maybe that's why you think its "stupidity" when others disagree with you. I will go as far as to say as some of the arguments made have been weak that are in direct opposition to any change, but you also leave little room for acceptance of others ideas as well.
The more that people prattle on using positive examples, while rejecting the negative ones as bad writing, lends no credibility an argument for either side. You leave no room for common ground with people of other points of view. To the one guys defense, the Galaxy IS as much of a "unicorn" as anything involving Star Trek, Star Wars, BSG and others. There is no "hard documentation" of a ship that doesn't exist (seriously, it really doesn't exist.)
As far as screen time, the biggest example of the ships success was when a real captain caught a bunch of ships in a precarious position and used mines (probably available to any Starfleet vessel) to take create its win, heck Jelico could have done that with a J-class in the same situation (equipped with a shuttle craft.) Most of the enemies faced in TNG were lower level to even the most average Fed' ship. For every time the ship was "good" there was a time where it wasn't. The Galaxy is a good ship in ST IP, but its just not what you and some argue it to be. You play just as much a role in this circle as the guy whole calls your beloved ship a unicorn.
What you want has merit, but there are people who want the thing to be an ad-hoc battle cruiser equivalent (albeit missing the fourth tac console), and that's where I take umbrage. Its an Explorer and should be used in that role for the game. Make engie powers good and the ship will improve dramatically.
To quote your quote of Yreo'
This is the reason why there is a problem here. Some fanatics of the Explorer literally think of this as a win/lose thing. They think that if one doesn't agree with them that they are against them . This is why there is an "us vs. them" mentality. There is no consensus because there can be no real agreement if one side thinks that the other is out to make them "lose." The GCS fanatics are so overprotective of their "prize" that there is no room for consensus. Instead, its easier to call all of those who disagree with them as "haters" and blame Cryptic and point out the their corporate enemies because the ship isn't the way that they want it (and it has to be that way.) How many members of this thread took potshots at Geko in that thread that is designed to do such?
I don't think these are unreasonable or "fanatic" suggestions. They are just attempts for a better in-game representation of the largest canon Starcruiser Starfleet ever build. Though I grant you that, it's an Explorer - like most of Starfleets ships. They fight their battles with those Explorers, not with battleships. That's why a LTC tac (uni) and more than 3 tac consoles are, in my opinion, unreasonable. Although the "OP Galaxy" suggestions are off the table for quite some time, at least that's my impression, whamhammer.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Lol. I'm sorry you feel this way, but the fact is your argument is objectively bad, and have yet to come up with a response that isn't based on your own opinions. Consistently, you have argued from a standpoint of "I don't like it, so it's wrong", while I have come from a standpoint of "your argument is bad, so I don't like it."
I'm not sure if you're trying to slam my game skill or system knowledge here, or even who you are trying to refer to here, but rest assured, I'm very, very good at this game. I also think you misunderstand my position that the Galaxy is not broken, or at least you misunderstand my intent with that claim. I'm saying that the Galaxy is not broken with regards to the actual content of the game. That is, you can make a Galaxy function in any mission, and even in PvP if you work at it. It's simply not optimal. That's not the same as "useless" or "broken", though.
The purpose of this claim was to refocus the discussion on the lie you keep spouting that you aren't aiming to make the ship OP, or outshine anything else, etc. See, your problem isn't that the Galaxy is impossible to use. It's that it's not better than any other option for any reason other than it looks like ship you liked from that one show. This is a problem that cannot be solved by any means other than making the Galaxy a mechanically better option than something else.
Look at the immediate fall out after the comm array got added. We don't see people saying "Yay, the Galaxy is stronger", we see people talking about how the problem wasn't solved, because the Galaxy is still at the back of the cruiser pack. It won't matter if the Galaxy is made "better" than it is not, unless it is made "better" than some other ship too. Now, if you were honest about your goals, that would be one thing - still kind of a **** move to argue that someone else should have to be the worst ship because you like the Galaxy so much, but, at least you'd be open about it, and maybe we could discuss the merits of that position. But instead, you'll simply proclaim that I don't know what I'm talking about, and reiterate your asinine position that "Worst ship" necessarily means "useless".
And the funny thing is, you've failed utterly to beat the argument down, because you didn't understand it in the first place. Here, I'll help you out, or possibly blow your mind: The Galaxy is the worst end-game ship. Hell, it might even be worse than some Tier 4 ships. Certainly any other cruiser is a better choice mechanically. The ship is not broken, though, because it can do anything in the game, even though it can't do it well. Some ship is always going to be the worst, and it sucks that it's your favorite, but them's the breaks.
Oh, and please, for the love of god, I wish people would stop acting like I don't understand the Eng cooldown powers conflict. I get it - the Eng ensign means you have to take Eng Team I. I get that taking Eng Team I means you probably won't cycle TT at the max rate. I get that with an A2B build the ship is highly inefficient. None of that means the ship is mechanically broken. It's just not very good, but if you would stop worrying about comparing your epeen to other players, it wouldn't matter, because you can still play the game and have fun.
If your counter is that it is no fun to be "punished" with a mechanically inferior choice, then congratulations! You've just made my point that the intent here isn't to just make the Galaxy better than it is now, it's to make the Galaxy better than other choices, so that you don't feel as "punished" for flying the ship you like. Instead, you want someone else to be "punished" for flying a lesser known ship that they have the audacity to like. Good job.
Also, if you require feeling superior to others to have fun, you might want to get that looked at.
The ship did suck in the shows, IN MY OPINION. The ship didn't suck in the shows, IN YOUR OPINION. Guess who's right? Nobody! Because there are zero "facts" here. You choose to look at one set of information, I look at another. We both have reasons to consider our positions valid. We could just leave it there, but the problem for you is that you feel the need to have something, anything "objective" you can use to justify the changes you want to make. My position doesn't require you to agree with my opinion, it just requires that I demonstrate that it is legitimate. I have done so. You thus have no objective claim to superior knowledge to back up your call for change. It's just "I like this ship and I want it to be better", and nothing more.
Yes, it is exactly like unicorns. You ever do a google search on unicorns? Take a look at how much "hard documentation" there is on the properties of unicorns, and how many passionate debates there are about how they really are. That's a mirror for you. That's EXACTLY how ridiculous you look when you claim that there is some way to "know" whose opinion is "right". Oh, and btw, this is not a "Pivot" - this was always my position from the outset - though I am finally gratified that you're acknowledging this section of the argument, even if you can't seem to engage with it meaningfully.
I feel the same way - after teaching logic to bright, intelligent young people, I like to come here to slum it. I've actually used some of the positions in this thread to illustrate common failures of reason, so, there's that, at least.
The biggest problem with the thread is - it's broken four hundred pages with absolutely no developer comment. I don't agree with the developer bashing in the slightest, but it would be nice for one of them to sit down and explain why the ship fits the way it does and not 'just is'. People want the Galaxy more tac oriented because at the moment - that's the game's focus.
As for me - I would prefer a ltcom universal as the only real change. It would give the tac fans the firepower they want, it would let people who like the ship as it is keep it that way, and the science abilities could either make it a good support ship or a magnificent healer. Imagine being able to catch an ally with TSS 3 and Extend Shield 3 - they would be a fortress... They could even extend that universal coverage to something truly unique and interesting. 4 Eng consoles, 2 Sci, 2 Tac, 1 Universal Console slot for Retrofit, 2 Universal Console slots for Fleet Retro - (can slot any consoles, eng, sci, or tac)
I guess that depends on what "quite some time" is. I could swear I saw one last week.
A LT uni is fine. But when people have been pushing LTCMDR uni's (as well as LTCMDR + LT uni's) that where it gets overboard.
A third Tac console is fine (for the Fleet version), but I really think that five engie consoles is useful too, especially if they should do something like make generic weapon type consoles engie's.
The whole "threesome" deal (either ships or equipment) is too much too. I argue that a "Heavy Beam Array" would fit in just fine though.
What would really make the ship shine is having engineer skill parity to tactical and sci
If I am in a ship and some other ship shoots at me, no matter my ships capabilities, I am going to be far more than "mildly annoyed." I am going to do everything in my power to knock that captains pretty little ship out of my sky. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take kindly if my enemies were just to roll over on account that I am driving some pretty thing either ... (20 second mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OR2lKvPoZE
I agree wholeheartedly, and I have posed it in public several times. Can't help much more there.
The amount of "people" depends on your definition of "more tac oriented" is.
Yeah, I see people lining up right now for the science LTCMDR slot when its something already equipped on the Ambassador (like that TSS3 and ES3.) Face it, its just going to be used as a LTCMDR tac', no use in pretending its a ploy for anything else.
And now theres a cry for uni consoles for the ship? Lets guess what will fill those slots. Can I get that one on any other class to while I am at it? Really, there are plenty of ships out there that have the setup you are looking for, why not use them?
No ship in this game should be able to do all of the things that the fanatics here talk about on the T.V. show, why not just make a push to make the Engie skills good enough to give the Explorer parity and be really good at a unique roll?
Yes - Engineering powers need worked on to make engineer heavy ships more viable. But that will cause game wide balance issues and more bugs that the game really doesn't need right now. Giving a single ship a balance pass to make it competitive in the dps heavy content that Cryptic keeps giving us would be far simpler. I fly the Recon Vesta variant, I love that ship and probably wouldn't change even if the Galaxy was updated - but do you know how many times I see a Galaxy enter an Elite STF and have someone start trash talking the Galaxy pilot for being a noob just because of the ship?
I completely agree that the ship shouldn't be able to do everything that it could in the show - some episodes the Galaxy is more powerful then she had any right to be, some episodes she was a wet kitten. But the same thing applies to every television ship - and the writers involved.
Even an aux2bat Galaxy will take twice as long to destroy even a soft target then it will any other ship in the game. Nanite Generators top of the list. And no - I'm not pushing for universal consoles - it was just a passing idea. I do know that my preferred playstyle, I think I would prefer a ltcom sci to tac - just because grav well 1 or TSS 3 are more fun then beam spam. They're more useful too - as a support tactic - then brute force in my opinion.
its stupidity to deny what happened in the show, and handwave it when it conflicts with a person's opinion that the galaxy sucks. its also hypocritical to have an opinion ether way if your going to follow that up with 'its not real' to discredit any information that could tell us ether way. just say i dont like the galaxy class, and then leave a thread alone about the galaxy class. its stupid to pivot every time i go to the trouble to site canon to support my position. its not really my position, or opinion, thats a misscharacterization. im telling you what actually happened. destroying a ton of volume of cube in 3 shots happened. the show of force against the honsuke warship actually happened. hull tanking the 3 bug ships for ~10 minutes actually happened. there being a moving glow effect on phaser arrays actually happens. these things happened, to say otherwise is stupid. when i say actually happened, i mean in the show. yes its not beneath you to try to pivot and focus on me saying actually happened, as if i were referring to real life, not actually happened in the show.
you would like to argue with the person your referring to here, but he doesn't exist. i didn't ignore the times the galaxy lost out, i included them every time i go on a rant, in hopes to show objectivity, but every discrediting response to me loves to say how i ignore them. here we go again with the 'its not real' pivot. i forgot to include that one. i am aware star trek is a work of fiction. but if you are going to just handwave that everything that happened in the show means nothing, just stop talking. you are trolling a debate about on screen performance.
theres a thing about its worst and its best though, they dont hold equal weight. when the ships shows a certain level of capability at one point, and then for no reason does not put up that same level of fight and ends up loseing another time, thats ether gross incompetence or bad writing/plothole/a breach of canon. its best cant be dismissed as easily as its worst, and thats what should be focused on, thats its actual capability. for stating the ship in a game its best= its actual capability, doing poorer then that is the crews fault, and in game your fault. i understand this leaves little room to argue, but thats ok. there are not 2 equal sides to every argument. there are facts, there are what actually happened in canon, thats it.
and if you dont think theres any hard benchmarks to be found in the canon, you are in serious denial. under performing at another time does not cancel out a better performance a previous time.
not even remotely close. i never even mention the actual stand off because there wasn't even an actual battle. it was the crew outwiting, not outgunning, as is the usual in TNG. but not this game, its all about shooting and shooting only. it would be dull otherwise, at least in a MMO. whats more telling is from the episode 'the wounded' were a galor opens fire on the enterprise, and its hits dont even cause camera shake. i believe they refer to that as a top of the line galor as well.
thats a hard benchmark, 1 galor is basically no threat to a galaxy class. another is 3 bug ships not being able to destroy a galaxy class by shooting its hull for 10 minutes. against the same number and type of opponents, the defient being heavily damaged and disabled in 2 or 3 minutes, is a benchmark. the lakota and defiant breaking even in their fight is a benchmark for both, and sheds a large amount of light on were they stand in ship firepower hierarchy. the observed amount of torps a galaxy class can fire at once might be its best, though its possible it could have fired more. at the very least we have seen nothing come close to what we have seen a galaxy fire. benchmarks
how is it overboard when a sci ship and escort already have that configuration? with only 2 of the 3 station types set in stone, allowing for you to totally forgo 1 of the 3 if you wanted to.
there is no cruiser with a station setup in that style yet, would you rather something slow and fat like the galaxy have it, or something that turns real well like an excelsior or avenger having a station setup like that? or how about an even slower or fater cruiser then the ody or galaxy being introduced, that make absolutely no sense in universe. the station setup will instead go to a smaller cruiser, its easier to justify their existence. will you be there to call it out as op, this new cruiser that will eventually have that style of station setup, or are you only against it because it would go to the galaxy class?
the type of stations my proposed galaxy could go without is tactical too. you dont think thats possible, because your a pve'er i guess, but whatever. its pretty hilarious that you dont see how much more effective the ship would be if the LTC or LT was used for sci too, with only the LT used for tac, or neither. its performance as a non tac ship would be twice what its performance as a tac ship would be. that station setup style is safer and will have less impact on cruiser hierarchy if it goes to an under performer, instead of a cruiser thats got mostly favorable stats otherwise. its a station setup thats will show up eventually, its only a mater of time.
and again, it would make the galaxy the lowest performing tac crusier that could have a LTC tac of them all, its not displacing anything. thats the best part about my proposed setup id think, it should win over people so super duper worried that the regent or excelsior would get replaced.
I actually argued a bit back for the Star and Exploration cruisers to be merged together as a class. I don't think the Explorer should handle live the Ambassador, way too big.
I see Galaxies all the time and haven't seen them getting harassed for quite some time. The guy running around in the Connie refit, yes, but not a T5 and up cruiser.
I seriously doubt it would take twice as long, especially when it is easier for the Exploration cruiser to keep its power levels higher than other ships. My Fleet nebula probably takes more time and effort to take down a target there than a Fleet Exploration cruiser would.
You know what, if I hated the Galaxy, I would say so. What I don't like is the amount of froth generated of "facts" to support an argument and then complaints that other "facts" aren't "real" because it was "bad writing" when both were purely because of writing.
To try to make the ship a carbon copy of other ships that are already out there. There is a perfectly good role for an engineering heavy ships if the engie skills would be improved. I don't like the artificial forcing to try to make the ship a carbon copy capability of other ships out there.
What I dont like is the attitude fanatics have when people don't agree with the fanatical position.
What I dont like is the attitude that fanatics have the Cryptic is out to get them.
Possibly its that you are overbearing on some aspects of "screen performance." I also think that you place way too much dependence on "canon" for a game that it will be impossible for it to replicate. I also think that you place too much emphasis on what other ships have that your pretty-little doesn't, especially when there are other option are out there and you seem to not accept that and want to carbon copy them onto your fav'.
Um, it has no actual capability, even if it did, the variance between best and worst would show a degree of unreliability. Both sides of canon are actually what "happened" not just the good, and those high points would be considered max and the low points would be the min. What would be expected would be in between.
Check out the definition of variation: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/variation
And all of that actually points to it being tankier and using more torpedo volley skill.
We all really know what the point of your proposal are, to make it very tactically based and there are plenty of tactically based ships out there. What will this ship do that the others cant?
the entirety of that post was not directed at you, i would have quoted if it wasn't a general response to this thread as a whole.
this whole post falls apart when you notice i dont use the word broken. i could jump in a small craft and do all the story pve content, the only thing broken is how lame pve is. so sorry, your arguing with some other person saying other things, not actually me.
well that amusing, the tirade about me wanting to replace the fun of others with the superior galaxy thats better then everything else. we should rename this thread misscharacteristic what DDIS says, that would be more accurate. how many times do i plainly need to say exactly what i would like, and point out how my changes do no such thing? at least 1 more time i see.
how many different fantasy settings/universes are there that feature unicorns? would anyone like to try to count? how much hard consistency is there you think from all those different settings, regarding magic, elves, dwarves, unicones, anything? the whole point of different fantasy settings is that there are subtle differences about everything.
how does that compare to star trek? well, at least everything in the 24th century is in 1 setting, 1 continuity, 1 universe. ah yes, slumming is a great way to describe dignifying such a stupid comparison with a response.
i have a question, whats the worst escort? whats the worst sci ship? there actually isnt one, everyone of them has a niche, and a useful station setup its the best at useing. some are plainly beter then others sure, cant get past that with fleet ships existing, but beyond that the differences are very small, not enough to make 1 ship useless or 'broken' or anything like that. and no c store ship is plainly worse then anything that was there at launch for free, well, all but one.
i suppose theres the aquariuses, thats the worst escort, but its kinda supposed to be. but it actually performs like an escort admirably, not any worse then any typical escorts. its just plainly more fragile.
this is not the case with cruisers. we can see 1 ship that is the worst, is good for nothing, that will under perform at any job you have it doing. there shouldn't be a worst ship in any category. on that basic principle the galaxy needs a change.
heres my 'armchair pro' will hate it proposed galaxy station setup.
COM eng
LTC uni
LT uni
LT sci
ENS sci
4/3/3 consoles
oh! you could use all that universal for tac! then your not optimized for a superior to that AtB build. oh! haveing a LTC tac trumps all other tac cruisers! how does a ship with 3 tac consoles and a 6 turn rate out do any other LTC tac equipped cruiser already in the game? oh! just having those uni stations is OP! how? it doesn't out do any other tac cruiser, any cruiser setup it could replicate it couldnt do a beter job at what it does best, and you dont care about its potential as a sci cruiser, so what are you complaining about?
there you have it, my actual position, not some warped and contrived sinister plot to make the galaxy rule everything because its my favorite. i think the station setup is backed up fairly well by canon benchmarks the class set in the shows as well. being such a modular platform, being so science and eng heavy, showing off impressive firepower from time to time, i dont see why its not a perfect fit.
run it as a crowed control team healer
EXACTLY. thank you. thats obviously the best way to utilize that ship with that station setup.
added bonus, you could also run it as a tac cruiser. not that great of a tac cruiser, but the option is there.
Really???? That 's ALL some of your guys have done here with that tired old mantra "it's the writers' fault" when information is presented that you don't like.
No matter how many times you blather on about "phaser array lengths", clearly Paramount/Viacom/CBS disagrees with you since in EVERY Star Trek game that has been released since the introduction of the Sovereign in 1996, the GCS has ALWAYS been a second or third rate ship at BEST.
You guys can blame everyone that you want, from the writers to the producers to the developers, but the bottom line is that the "powers that be" who control the Intellectual Property of the franchise known as "Star Trek", is going to be the FINAL judge as to how you beloved GCS is going to be portrayed.
BTW, as you are on a PUBLIC forum, then EVERYONE is free to comment on the subject of that forum(s). If you don't want anyone who doesn't share your opinions about this subject, then the answer is simple: Create a "members only" website that can ONLY be accessed by those who think like you. Otherwise, the rule for a PUBLIC FORUM doesn't change simply because it's "you".
Hurling insults at those who disagree with you, is a sure fire way to get people not to take your points seriously, Mr. Expert.
I suspect this was partially directed at me, since me posting my (somewhat dissenting) opinion a few pages back, and disagreeing with your counterargument, helped break up this fanboy circle jerk with some serious discussion. I wasn't aware that this thread was for rabid fans only.
Of course, I could be wrong. But just to be on the safe side.......
1. First off, you have no damned idea of my level of play experience.
2. You don't know my playstyle.
3. And I can assure you that I'm more than qualified, as are most of the people who've played this game any significant length of time, to determine what sucks and what doesn't.
4. I never said that it was a perfect ship. But to say it "sucks" is a subjective opinion. The fact that 95%-99% of all game content can be successfully played using this ship speaks volumes. Can it be better? In my opinion, yes. But so can a lot of other ships in this game.
5. You are bordering on personal attacks by implying that other players posting dissenting opinions (or should that be heresy?) here are "stupid".
6. You come across as an elitist with this post. Here's a news flash for ya, Jack. You may hold the opinion that PvE is lame and PvE-only players are clueless. However, such an attitude tends to minimize the point of view that you're trying to "sell" here, in the minds of some.
Well, on behalf of the Great Unwashed of STO, let me apologize for wasting your time. :rolleyes:
Once again, your elitism shows.
Here's a protip for ya: Having a dissenting opinion isn't stupid. And your opinion isn't necessarily right. It's not your place to suppress opinions (keep counter-arguments "beaten down"). It's your place, like the rest of us, to agree or disagree with it. There is no such thing as a "Galaxy Class Cheka" on these boards.
I'm not refuting that the Galaxy is lacking compared to other cruisers. I'm refuting that it is in need of a major overhaul or that it sucks (from my point of view). But yet when anybody disagrees with the hard-core, rabid Galaxy fans on the matter, they treat it like the dissenters murdered their best friend and kicks puppies. Even when we attempt to use reason and logic to back up our points. So, I'll refrain from repeating my counter-arguments in-depth here, since they offend the fanatics and fanboys so damned much.
I cannot speak for anybody else, but I haven't "pivoted" on any of my arguments. And disagreeing with your "expert opinion" isn't trolling, just because you don't like or agree with them.
And as I said earlier in the thread, the performance in-game doesn't reflect canon performance, and vice-versa. It's a fact of STO life. Deal with it.
Pulling out canon source material to prove or disprove anything in relation to how a ship should perform gameplay-wise is an exercise in futility. It's irrelevant. It doesn't make you right or wrong in that regard. It's just means you have an opinion like the rest of us.
Using that argument, the Miranda should be a top-tier ship in-game based on it's canon performance in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". In the game, it's under gunned compared to the Reliant. But it would be futile to do so, since for whatever reason, the devs set it's place in the line-up. Just as they made the Galaxy engineering heavy. Canon has little, if anything, to do with how the ships are set up to run in-game. And probably with good reason, from the developer's point of view.
Well, I can't speak on the issue of analogy usage, but I disagree with the "hard documentation" part. The correct phrase would be "the best information we have to date", since "facts" in a fictional universe can change.
There is no drama until the zealots among us take offense. Some of the folks on here have posted some good reasons to back up their positions on the matter. And I say this despite not necessarily agreeing with all of them.
There are no "naysayers" in this thread (at least recently). Just people who disagree with you, either in full or in part (along with those that do agree with you 100%). "Naysayer" is just a term that you (and others here) use for those of us who don't march in lock-step with the fanatical in this thread. Many of us with differing views on the Galaxy have valid reasons for thinking the way we do, combined with personal game experiences. Your opinion isn't the only valid one, your experiences with the ship is not the only yard stick used to measure the Galaxy Class ship's performance in-game, and you are not necessarily right and the rest of us wrong.
Displays of arrogance and elitist attitudes are unbecoming. Even on a game forum like this. Those of us who don't subscribe to your point of view are not a pack of know-nothing idiots who don't play the game. Some of us, like you, do have views based on our having played the game. Not to mention, having used the Galaxy in the game.
And one last point in general. I'm not a "Galaxy hater". In fact, I rather like the design and enjoy using it in the game. So, to say that's I'm bashing it, or desiring it to remain in some sort of imagined state of "suckatude", would be an incorrect assumption to make. I just disagree with the notion that it's a useless POS that's in need of a major overhaul, and stated my reasons why. Nothing more, nothing less.
Take it down a notch step back and take a very deep breath. over 4k replies lets try and keep rational and non heated.
We cdan always have a heated debate but there is not need to get super argumentative.
So move along back to the basics, and the simpler times.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Think honestly you might be surprised by how many ppl start buying ships if they can use it's bo and console slot layout on whatever they want to fly. There are alot of ppl that simple buy what they want to fly and use it mostly then maybe buy the ship that does good in STf or pvp because it has the better layout.
You give someone the option to have their favorite ship x3 with all the different layouts they want and you have persons that never really spent that much before buying a newer ship for it toys and layouts. Lots of ppl like the wide angle quantum torpedo but don't find it a good enough reason to buy the whole ship. Add this as a feature to STO and suddenly not only are they getting the toy but they have another possible layout for the cruiser they are flying already.