I still can't get over how much better the Temer, a FREE ship, is compared to the legendary B'rel.
Compare it to the legendary T'liss and the B'rel is significantly less value.
Hell even if you compare it to a fleet M'Chala the legendary does not provide any value versus the cost.
If you compare previous legendary ships versus their normal counterparts you see a significant improvement and value.
If you are going to charge a signifcant fee you need to provide significant value. Especialy when you throw a FREE event ship at people that is better than the one you want a large amount of money for.
I still can't get over how much better the Temer, a FREE ship, is compared to the legendary B'rel.
Compare it to the legendary T'liss and the B'rel is significantly less value.
Hell even if you compare it to a fleet M'Chala the legendary does not provide any value versus the cost.
If you compare previous legendary ships versus their normal counterparts you see a significant improvement and value.
If you are going to charge a signifcant fee you need to provide significant value. Especialy when you throw a FREE event ship at people that is better than the one you want a large amount of money for.
I do agree it is not as good as the Temer, but after comparing other legendary ships and their counterparts I don't agree, I do agree that the pack doesn't contain enough value though. I wouldn't sneeze at a lt com and com specialist seating on the b'rel, it has intel which is one of the better specializations and some of the lower seating pilot abilities like hold together etc. My only complaint is even though it has a full uni set up It can't do a science commander very well with only 2 science consoles, if they were 4 science then it be better, I would also increase the impulse mod.
Heck the dreadnought Oddy only has one commander command seating for some reason. I also wish the b'rel was a Intel commander instead as surgical strikes is still very good for burst even though there aren't very many good ways to lower its cooldown. Where as reroute to reserves is just bad with its short duration and goes on cooldown with rapid fire etc. That is part of the problem with specialist abilities they don't have much support outside of a couple traits, no doff or skill support.
Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
Flexibility? The L. Vorcha has one more uni BOFF slot over the Vor'ral. True, but barely, and only if you don't have a plan to do a build with no science BOFF.
Defense abilities? Like suppression barrage? CIF is arguably better. Overwhelm emitters is nice too, but are they better than standard engineering powers somehow? I'll give that you have more options, but whether they are meaningful is questionable.
Price point, this one is obvious, but it can't be understated that this is also in whether the L. Vorcha is actually worth the increased price. If every "plus" the L. Vorcha has is only a slight advantage, this hurts it more.
Energy weapons build is better with the (original) L.Vorcha? How do you figure that? Command doesn't do much for you here. The MW BOFF is only an LT, while Temporal has rapid decay and recursive shearing to play with, and you can't just ignore the Temporal death ray. 5/3 with the low turn rate is not good for a cannon ship, and DBB isn't much better.
If the goal was flexibility of the boff seating, it objectively has a larger pool of abilities it can draw from. Whether you consider that a large enough pool of abilities to make you want to buy the ship is a choice you would have to make for yourself, but if we're considering stuff based on stats alone, then by the stats it does have a larger pool.
As to defense abilities Command actually has some of the more potent boff based defensives. Rally Point Marker gives a nice chunk of healing to hull and shields, and in larger quantities than Engineering Team on average. Plus it can give a heal to allies that enter the ring even if only once. Overwhelm Emitters can be used offensively or defensively to zap shields from a target and restore your own. Needs of the Many can be used to cheese a heal to an ally about to die with some secondary shielding. Subspace Interception can be used to give an immunity to an ally in a pinch as well. Finally Suppression Barrage is probably the most potent of them. It grants a large damage reduction by shaving a large percentage off outgoing enemy damage. This percentage can stack with similar abilities like Emit Unstable Warp Bubble to debuff their damage into near nothingness.
As for energy weapons builds, I never said it was better. I said you get more abilities to choose from. Even if one doesn't consider it alot extra, you do get a larger pool of power to pick from. For the temporal death star laser as some call it, it can definitely be potent, I will give you that. However for folks to act like Command is completely useless (not saying you specifically, but in a general sense) is just foolish. Folks are allowed to like what they like, but they do themselves a disservice by not even considering the abilities command has to offer.
Who is saying that someone can't like the ship? I don't recall reading anyone being shouted down because they said they liked the L Vor'cha in its original stats.
Even if you do want to tank with it though, there are better options. I don't see what the L. Vor'cha does for tanking that other ships can't do better. You can tank with a Defiant if you want, that doesn't make it the best choice for it.
Again, though, who is saying you can't do what you want with it?
No one has said that one can't like the ship, as that was never the issue. The issue is someone asserting their subjective that the ship is bad, as objective fact that applies to everyone and every type of build named. If one doesn't like the ship, okay fine. But to say the ship is objectively bad at everything including tanking, and trying to assert it as a "noob trap" because it doesn't match what they think the ship should be, nah that's elitism and isn't going to fly. A ship is not objectively bad because it doesn't meet one person's standards of what they think the ship should be. Likewise it's not objectively good either. It's simply a ship that is good or bad for how that person in particular prefers to build.
As to there being better options for tank ships, it depends on what part of the tanking spectrum you're building for. We talking a more off-tank kind of build, a more siege/long game type of tank, or something towards the middle of the spectrum? Otherwise you are correct that there could be better choices out there, which is entirely the point. What is "best" for one particular type of build, may not even be a blip on the radar to another. There is no one size fits all approach to ship building, yet some demonstrate by their actions they view their brand of building as the only valid brand of building.
Command is an objectively inferior specialization. With the exception of a few, the BOFF powers are far too situational, niche, long recharging, and generally a PITA to use well or even at all. The gimmick only becomes useful in long duration battles, and only while you're spamming BOFF abilities, but if half of your abilities are more situational/healing and you have no reason to use them, you're not charging the inspiration very fast, especially so if you're not using command BOFF powers because they suck. That's just a fact.
Command needs serious reworking. It was designed in a different era and flow of the game as one of the first specializations, and doesn't stand up today. Intel needs work too.
And it being inferior doesn't mean you can't like it, nor that you can't find use for some of it. It just means its worse than all the rest, aka bad.
For the way you personally build it may be an inferior spec. Again simply because it's inferior for what you personally like to do or want to do, does not make it an objectively inferior spec to utilize. I will grant you some of the powers can be a PITA to use, but they are still options. We can also debate what abilities and specs are more effective in giving situations, as not every spec and ability will be as effective in each given situation. There is no one size fits all approach to ship building and again what works best for one, may not work best for another.
As for offensive abilities I will grant you that it doesn't have that many of them. One could argue Reroute Power from Life Support for the power boosting if needed, since the debuff to cooldowns can be offset a bit by things like Photonic Officer. Personally I'm not fond of that power, but it's an option. If one can use Phalanx Formation and hit all the rings, it can be a nice little boost. Maybe not the greatest, but it's an option. For Concentrate Firepower, I don't think I need to explain how that ability can be a major boost for anything running a torpedo, especially kinetic heavy builds. Call Emergency Artillery is actually fairly nice with some of the kinetic boosts and other powers as of late.
Then if we take into account the 3 Inspiration abilities, you can cheese even further boosting to your team offensively or defensively. I wouldn't mind seeing a refresh of some of the older specs, but they're far from the terribad level people seem to think they are. Are they going to give you as much in terms of stats as something such as the boosts available from Miracle Worker, no they're not. However not everything needs to be a carbon copy of Miracle Worker or Temporal type abilities. not every spec is meant for every build type in game. If you have certain specs doing everything, then those specs would be OP and deserving of a nerf.
Overall you are entitled to your opinion that it's bad, and for you that may very well be the case for the way you build. If it is then I'm sorry it doesn't work for you. It's no different than when they put out a ship's super heavy on science or super heavy on tac oriented abilities, those ships generally are not the best choices for how I like to build. Them differing from my preferred playstyle doesn't make them objectively bad ships, it means they would be inferior choices for how I like to play.
Calling a ship objectively bad, even if it isn't, is neither elitism nor gatekeeping, it is an opinion that may or may not be backed up by facts.
No one can possibly stop someone from buying a bad ship and thus gatekeep. It is impossible and absurd to suggest.
It also can't be elitism when there's zero social impact in any of this here. No one is saying they won't let you in their group because you fly the L. Vor'cha, or that they are better than you because you fly that ship or any other. People say any given ship is bad because of how it compares to similar ships and that is not elitism, its analysis.
Example of what I'm talking about below.
Did you reply to anybody particular in this thread? I don’t think so because the ship is bad at everything you mention your post.
Have fun getting and playing it. I will have fun not getting and playing it. What I also will have fun at is to continue to point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap in these forums in the future. It’s not remotely worth the price cryptic is asking.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. Saying it's not worth the price is an opinion and perfectly fine. Saying the ship is bad and then going on to "point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap" is not fine, and is attempting to prop oneself up as an arbiter of what is a good or bad release.
Saying "I think this is an all around bad ship" is an opinion. Someone saying the ship works for tanking and how they like to build and someone saying "no it's bad at everything you named," is elitism and gatekeeping. The first is giving an opinion. The second example is Guy A trying to tell Guy B that he's wrong about the ship being bad, and that Guy B is wrong about the ship working for his builds and how he likes to play, purely because Guy A says it's bad. In other words Guy A is essentially saying that Guy B is wrong for preferring to play differently than him and has committed wrongthink or in this case wrongplay. Guy A is propping himself up as some kind of authority on what is a good or bad ship and asserting that he is objectively right that a ship is bad for how another person prefers to play the game, even though that other person has said that it's not. That is the very definition of elitism in gaming.
Trying to then assert the ship as a noob trap is where the gatekeeping comes into play, as one is trying to assert those who buy the ship are noobs that fell into a trap. Again Guy A is welcome to his opinion that the ship is bad, and folks are falling into a money trap. However he does not get to turn around and assert that opinion as objective fact purely because he has decided it's a bad ship. If folks think it's a bad buy, by all means they're entitled to that opinion and to voice said opinion.
Someone doesn't like the ships, that's fine. They think it's a bad buy, that's fine. They want to tell other folks "I don't think you'll like the ships compared to (insert other ships here)", that's also fine. Those are valid opinions whether I agree with those opinions or not. Folks are free to voice those opinions whether I agree with them or not. Where it crosses the line is when someone then tries to assert those opinions as objective fact and weaponize those opinions against folks in the community. That is not going to fly. Giving one's opinions is fine, trying to beat people over the head with it is not.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
I just gotta chime in here and say, tho I have no problems with the ships stats as they were (mainly, greedily, as I have no desire to get this overpriced bundle of digits).
But I do have a major problem with a forum moderator who accuses people of gatekeeping and then gatekeeps their convo by editing every post out of the conversation that disagrees with their point.
I just gotta chime in here and say, tho I have no problems with the ships stats as they were (mainly, greedily, as I have no desire to get this overpriced bundle of digits).
But I do have a major problem with a forum moderator who accuses people of gatekeeping and then gatekeeps their convo by editing every post out of the conversation that disagrees with their point.
Don't try to assert a subjective opinion as objective fact and and weaponize it against other players and there won't be a problem, simple as that. See the final part of my post if you want an example of what I'm talking about.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
I just gotta chime in here and say, tho I have no problems with the ships stats as they were (mainly, greedily, as I have no desire to get this overpriced bundle of digits).
But I do have a major problem with a forum moderator who accuses people of gatekeeping and then gatekeeps their convo by editing every post out of the conversation that disagrees with their point.
Don't try to assert a subjective opinion as objective fact and and weaponize it against other players and there won't be a problem, simple as that. See the final part of my post if you want an example of what I'm talking about.
Once again, saying that a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration is not subjective, but comes from years of experience, experimentation and trial-and-errors that showed what is or isn't a good ship.
Nor has anyone tried to "weaponize it against other players".
The only thing we're guilty of is disagreeing with your own opinions and calling you out on your behaviour.
If there's someone here that is "gatekeeping" anything, and weaponizing their opinion via threats of moderation, is you.
And now that I have pretty much assured my ban (temp or perma), I thank everyone that came to my defense - even and especially those with which I have maintened pretty heated discussions in the past.
I'll see you guys in game.
Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
I have to say, I'm of the opinion that this whole bundle seems like an experiment in how minor of a change can you make to a ship and still get to call it a new variant, whilst also charging twice as much.
After reading & looking at the announcement for a few minutes, & nothing is popping-out at me as terrible, but it's all rather bland & I dare say the 1 thing that was given the most time & attention to this "legendary" Ambassador was the Horatio visual.
Fleet Yamaguchi's combined hull/shield is 2.585 with turn-rate of 7 & this "legendary" Ambassador's combined hull/shield is 2.575 with a turn-rate of 7.5 which to me is within expected balancing alignment.
Impulse & inertia ratings are the same. Fleet Yamaguchi get +5 to all pwr levels while "legendary" Ambassador only gets +5 pwr to wpn & shld & aux lol
Both receive full Cruiser Commands & Molecular Reconstruction.
Only 1 BOFF seat has changed & that's from the Fleet Yamaguchi's: Ensign Tac to "legend" Ambassador's Ensign Uni.
This is a blinked & you missed it slightly better offering than the "legendary" B'rel when compared to it's previous versions.
So with this "legendary" Ambassador when compared to Fleet Yamaguchi:
lose a combined hull/shield of .10 for a better .5 turn-rate
Yeah this is really not such a stand out package for the price. I'm getting it as a gift and even someone else's money toward it does not add any additional value for me.
And someone get darkbladejk a TRIBBLE snickers, dude is hangry.
Darkblade your a little too happy with your admin powers. You do realize the Grandnagus has been here since day one right? I remember those days very well.
Anyways for the Vor'cha its an improvement, but my money already went for the lifetime sub. Something Ive been holding out on since the game went ftp. The only item with the Vor'cha that bothers me now is a non tactical commander slot, now that would be legendary for a ship like that. At anyrate its allot better then it was. Some people prefer other specializations I get that but Ive always treated those as a support item myself. Then again Ive not done pvp in space for many years, and that is something that requires tweaking every inch of your ship.
Well another pretty meh starship trait basically just the temporal specialization Continuity , only one standout with the b'rel's trait. At least the ship looks good, though I was never a fan of the enterprise C. I really wish there was more then one stand out trait, unless the excelsior one is like a really large increase in hull... Then maybe you could possible make a smaller ship a hull tank or get more crit with Tyler's Duality.
Once again, saying that a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration is not subjective, but comes from years of experience, experimentation and trial-and-errors that showed what is or isn't a good ship.
Nor has anyone tried to "weaponize it against other players".
The only thing we're guilty of is disagreeing with your own opinions and calling you out on your behaviour.
If there's someone here that is "gatekeeping" anything, and weaponizing their opinion via threats of moderation, is you.
And now that I have pretty much assured my ban (temp or perma), I thank everyone that came to my defense - even and especially those with which I have maintened pretty heated discussions in the past.
I'll see you guys in game.
You have a warped idea of what subjective/objective actually are. If one were to say "the Legend B'rel is better at turning than the Legend Vorcha," that is an objectively true statement based on the Vorcha having a turn of 10, and B'rel a turn of 23.5. In that instance you are looking at passively observable stats with the goal of turn rate in mind. If one were to say "the Vorcha gets more weapons than the B'rel" that would be another objectively true statement since the Vorcha has 8 weapon slots, and the B'rel only has 7 even with the Experimental Weapon slot. Those are statements that can be observed and proven true by basic passive stats.
Next I will point you to the bit of your post in bold that I have highlighted. You say none has tried to weaponize opinions against others, and you say you're simply voicing difference of opinion. Yet in the highlighted section you assert a ship can be, and is objectively bad for not meeting YOUR standards of what the ship's configuration and specialist seating should be. Simultaneously appealing to authority you believe you are granted based on YOUR experience, YOUR experimentation, and YOUR trial and error. In doing so you are making a declaratory statement that you are attempting to apply to the entire community. It can't be you simply disliking the ship and it being bad for what you personally like to do. No it's universally bad across the board even for folks like myself and others who don't play the same way you do. Any poor sap who thinks otherwise the ship isn't objectively bad is just committing wrongthink or wrongplay.
Who on Q's green earth elected you to a position where your experience, your experimentation or similar counts for more than that of myself or any other person in the community? You are one person with one opinion about how this game should be, among millions of people who play this game. Why should your experience and so on count for more than that of anyone else? Not everyone in this game plays like you, builds like you, or flies like you. Not everyone has the same goals as you in this game. If you don't like the ship, you're entitled to that opinion. If you think other folks won't like the ship, you're entitled to that opinion as well. However when you start saying something is objectively bad and making declaratory statements like your line in bold above, it's ceased to be your opinion and is you attempting to push subjective opinion as objective fact, aka elitism and gatekeeping. At that point you are attempting to tell others what their opinion must be and should be, and that they are somehow committing wrongthink or wrongplay if they dare disagree with you. THAT is how opinions are being weaponized.
Saying "I think it's a bad ship based on my experience" and debating build theory are one thing. Attempting to assert your experience as the universal standard and universal experience of the community by asserting is at objective fact, is something else entirely. The first thing is cool, the second is not.
Also you're not going to get temp or perma banned. For that matter you've not even been given a warning. You've definitely made me want to slam my head against a wall repeatedly, but that's it.
Darkblade your a little too happy with your admin powers. You do realize the Grandnagus has been here since day one right? I remember those days very well.
Time spent here on the forum does not grant one immunity from moderation if/when that time comes, be they here since beta or having joined last week.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
However when you start saying something is objectively bad and making declaratory statements like your line in bold above, it's ceased to be your opinion and is you attempting to push subjective opinion as objective fact, aka elitism and gatekeeping. At that point you are attempting to tell others what their opinion must be and should be, and that they are somehow committing wrongthink or wrongplay if they dare disagree with you. THAT is how opinions are being weaponized.
Wrong.
She is saying things about powers and functions in the game.. NOT about the people that use them or like them. What YOU are doing is taking things she says about game mechanics, and you are twisting them to apply to players themselves and that sir is wrong. Having an objection to a game mechanic, feature, or trait does not make that player biased against people who might use them.
We can debate the merits of what she says.. that's fine. Saying one power or ability is 'better' then another is an opinion, but it's an opinion formulated from a consensus that you can see in the reactions of the player base as a whole. There is a reason that you are the only one arguing that these stats are acceptable for a 'Legendary' ship. It's because the majority have come to certain conclusions about how things works based on in game performance as well as comparison to similarly priced items. Her entire post is about the ships and their comparable value. Your entire post is about the player and you are attacking the player based on nothing but your personal disagreement with their stance.
I stood up for you before when people accused you of abusing your power because I felt they were wrong, no longer. What you are doing in this thread is completely unacceptable, it's flat out wrong. Disagreeing with you is not a violation of forum rules. We have disagreed in the past, but I never thought you crossed the line before this. I honestly don't understand what you're doing in this thread.. it's not like you and I think you need to consider your words and accusations more carefully.
She is saying things about powers and functions in the game.. NOT about the people that use them or like them. What YOU are doing is taking things she says about game mechanics, and you are twisting them to apply to players themselves and that sir is wrong. Having an objection to a game mechanic, feature, or trait does not make that player biased against people who might use them.
We can debate the merits of what she says.. that's fine. Saying one power or ability is 'better' then another is an opinion, but it's an opinion formulated from a consensus that you can see in the reactions of the player base as a whole. There is a reason that you are the only one arguing that these stats are acceptable for a 'Legendary' ship. It's because the majority have come to certain conclusions about how things works based on in game performance as well as comparison to similarly priced items. Her entire post is about the ships and their comparable value. Your entire post is about the player and you are attacking the player based on nothing but your personal disagreement with their stance.
I stood up for you before when people accused you of abusing your power because I felt they were wrong, no longer. What you are doing in this thread is completely unacceptable, it's flat out wrong. Disagreeing with you is not a violation of forum rules. We have disagreed in the past, but I never thought you crossed the line before this. I honestly don't understand what you're doing in this thread.. it's not like you and I think you need to consider your words and accusations more carefully.
I'm going to make this as crystal clear as I can. Folks are welcome to their opinions on whether they believe these ships are good or bad. Folks are free to think the ships are worth the money or not. Folks are free to voice their opinions on what they would like to have seen be different about the ships such as "I wish it had been Miracle Worker primary instead of command" as just one example. Folks are free to think someone else may like/dislike the ships. Folks are free to like/dislike game functions. Folks are free to say "I think (insert ship, power, or mechanic here) is bad based on my experience." Folks are free to voice all of those opinions, and any other opinions they may have in the positive or negative provided it's done in a civil manor. What folks are not free to do is turn around and assert their subjective opinions as objective fact and try to apply that to the entire community.
She wants to think the ships are bad based on her experience, that's fine. Peter wants to think the ships are "bad joke noob traps" he's welcome to that opinion. Where it crosses the line into elitism and gatekeeping is when one then attempts to push those opinions as objective fact and apply that to the entire community. I previously made the statements that the ships are not objectively bad because certain people don't like them, likewise the opposite would also be true. I also made the statement that the ships would make great tanks for how I like to build. I was then told "you're wrong, those ships are objectively bad at everything you named." I was then told by her and one or two others essentially the same thing.
So because she and others have decided the ships are bad based on THEIR experience, THEIR experimentation, and similar, myself and folks like me are objectively wrong about what will work for OUR builds and how WE prefer to play the game independent from them. Because THEY have decided the ships are bad, myself and the rest of the community are objectively wrong and should just take their word for it based on some perceived authority they believe they are granted by THEIR experience, THEIR experimentation or similar. Sorry that's not how that works, and the moment it became a declaratory statement of the ships being bad, it ceased to be opinion based and crossed the line into elitism and gatekeeping whether they intended it come off that way or not. Had either of them said "I think you're going to be disappointed with the ships based off our experimentation," that at least is a fair opinion. However that's not what happened. A declaratory statement was made on more than one occasion, which can be seen above.
Once again, saying that a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration is not subjective, but comes from years of experience, experimentation and trial-and-errors that showed what is or isn't a good ship.
Nor has anyone tried to "weaponize it against other players".
Did you reply to anybody particular in this thread? I don’t think so because the ship is bad at everything you mention your post.
Have fun getting and playing it. I will have fun not getting and playing it. What I also will have fun at is to continue to point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap in these forums in the future. It’s not remotely worth the price cryptic is asking.
I have highlighted the relevant portions in bold for you. Those are declaratory statements being asserted as fact. That is not someone pushing an opinion. Both bits are attempting to assert themselves as to what is or isn't a bad ship based on what THEY personally believe a ship should be. Once again so this isn't confused: Folks are welcome to their opinions of what is a good or bad ship to voice those opinions. They do not however to get to push those opinions as objective fact that applies to the entire community, and declare folks who disagree are wrong.
Unless there's some kind of Da Vinci Code shenanigans at play, words have meaning. When someone says things like the statements in bold, how else am I or anyone else supposed to take those statements other than face value? If they don't mean what they say, then how else are they supposed to be interpreted? Disagreeing with me does not break forum rules. If I tried to ban everyone I disagreed with on here, then this place would be a ghost town several times over. What does break forum rules however is attempting to push one's subjective opinion as fact, and basically accuse others of wrongthink or wrongplay for disagreeing with what THEY consider a bad ship or item.
We can debate the merits of what she says.. that's fine. Saying one power or ability is 'better' then another is an opinion, but it's an opinion formulated from a consensus that you can see in the reactions of the player base as a whole. There is a reason that you are the only one arguing that these stats are acceptable for a 'Legendary' ship. It's because the majority have come to certain conclusions about how things works based on in game performance as well as comparison to similarly priced items. Her entire post is about the ships and their comparable value. Your entire post is about the player and you are attacking the player based on nothing but your personal disagreement with their stance.
I pulled this section of your post out as there is a point that needs to be reiterated. Simply because a majority of people agree on a point, it does NOT make them automatically correct or those who disagree automatically wrong. The majority of society could come together tomorrow and form a consensus that murder, slavery, theft, and a host of other evils are no longer morally wrong. After all since the majority of society agrees on it, they must be right. While those are extreme examples, you and I both know that's not how things work. Majority consensus does NOT make something automatically good or bad, nor does it make those who disagree with the majority automatically wrong. In a game like STO there is more than one way of building, more than one way of flying, more than one way of playing and doing things. There is no one size fits all best approach to the game. I play as a tank where as another person may play energy dps, or science space wizardry, or even kinetic torpedo builds. You have 4 different ways of playing the game in that example, and all of them valid play choices. My fun is not wrong, nor is their fun wrong.
If folks want to make a value comparison, that's a fair debate. What is not going to fly however is asserting another person is objectively wrong because they disagree with the "majority consensus" or what have you.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
Those are declaratory statements being asserted as fact.
The question is...so what? I mean, sure it might be silly to think "my opinion = fact", but what FORUM RULE is it breaking?
That is the part I (and apparently others) don't understand. You seem to be blanking posts that are not actually breaking any describable forum rules.
You also apparently did something to this thread where it doesn't move when people post in it like every other thread. I mean, what in the world is going on here?
You keep putting up the same text wall that's been addressed.. you're not listening man. You really need someone to frame every single statement with the words 'In my Opinion' or you're going to attack them? Really man?
If someone says 'that ship sucks,' is it really needed to put 'in my opinion' before it for you to know that it's an opinion? She posted why she feels the ships are not up to standard, as did I. We both posted our reasoning for why we feel that way, a reasoning you don't agree with.. again.. fine. We accept in game testing, mathematical testing of how things preform in game and majority opinion to come to a conclusion that we believe factual. You do not accept that methodology.. again.. fine.
The issue again.. is that you're attacking her personally for this and then you're accusing us of the very crime you're committing yourself. She posts an opinion of the ships, not of people.. of the ships. You then counter and call her an 'Elitist,' an opinion of the player. You then accuse her of 'gatekeeping' for having that opinion.. again an accusation against the player. No one ever said a word against anyone that likes these ships. You turned it personal sir, you started calling people names and listing opinions as forum violations as an excuse to moderate and that is not right.
Dark, we're not going to agree on this pack. That's cool man.. and if you like the pack, and think it's a good value then by all means buy the pack. No one is judging you or anyone else because you plan to buy it, and I sincerely hope you get your moneys worth from it. Jenny and I think the pack is a poor value, that's how we feel.. obviously that can be debated because you disagree. What needs to stop is attacking people personally for having a different opinion.
I will just say this one more time and then I will withdrawal from this discussion for the greater good. I don't feel this part of my post is being heard so here it is for the last time..
Disagreeing with a forum moderator on an in game item, process or function is not a forum violation. Thinking something is not worth the money being asked is not Elitism. Comparing similarly priced items and finding one of them lacking is not wrong nor is it in any way a direct judgement on people that think that item is a good value. If someone finds this pack a good value, they should buy it. Those of us that don't will express our opinion why we feel that way and we are not wrong for doing so.
You also apparently did something to this thread where it doesn't move when people post in it like every other thread. I mean, what in the world is going on here?
I noticed that too.. it's not being 'locked' but it's being forced onto the later pages so no one will see it. Perhaps one should consider why you would want this? If nothing you said was a violation or abuse then there is no reason to push it under the rug.
Disagreeing with a forum moderator on an in game item, process or function is not a forum violation. Thinking something is not worth the money being asked is not Elitism. Comparing similarly priced items and finding one of them lacking is not wrong nor is it in any way a direct judgement on people that think that item is a good value. If someone finds this pack a good value, they should buy it. Those of us that don't will express our opinion why we feel that way and we are not wrong for doing so.
So much this!
And it's so true that the moment a friend or a fleetmate should say "Yo guys, I bought the Legendary Bundle and I plan to use *insert ship name*, any advice?" I will be all over that to try and help them out with creating their build, no matter what use they want to make of the ship.
If people want to buy this bundle, good for them. I won't, some as many others will not, and the reasons why are all explained time and again in this thread.
That is not being an elitist, that is not gatekeeping and it certainly does not justify personal attacks, from a moderator no less, because he disagree.
You also apparently did something to this thread where it doesn't move when people post in it like every other thread. I mean, what in the world is going on here?
I noticed that too.. it's not being 'locked' but it's being forced onto the later pages so no one will see it. Perhaps one should consider why you would want this? If nothing you said was a violation or abuse then there is no reason to push it under the rug.
Also this. I wondered why the thread seemed to have "disappeared". Imagine my surprise when I went to check page 2 and saw that not only the thread was there and not closed down, but also that it had new posts.
All in all, I think @seaofsorrows had the right idea so... thanks to everyone that shared their constructive criticism. It made for a nice discussione while it lasted, but it's high time I leave this mess behind.
Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
Happened when they altered the Disco beam weapon visuals and made them less screen accurate. Like a 5 page topic and a mod just didn't want to see it anymore. Closed.
I'm honestly surprised this hasn't just been thrown into the FCT pit, along side other things they want us to forgets, like Foundry, exploration, in-game calendars that were more accurate than the CM...
Those are declaratory statements being asserted as fact.
The question is...so what? I mean, sure it might be silly to think "my opinion = fact", but what FORUM RULE is it breaking?
That is the part I (and apparently others) don't understand. You seem to be blanking posts that are not actually breaking any describable forum rules.
You also apparently did something to this thread where it doesn't move when people post in it like every other thread. I mean, what in the world is going on here?
Since you want to know what specific section it refers to, see below.
In asserting one's subjective opinion as objective fact, and basically telling others they're wrong for disagreeing, or basically accusing them of wrongthink or wrongplay, one is falling into territory of the first section there.
You keep putting up the same text wall that's been addressed.. you're not listening man. You really need someone to frame every single statement with the words 'In my Opinion' or you're going to attack them? Really man?
If someone says 'that ship sucks,' is it really needed to put 'in my opinion' before it for you to know that it's an opinion? She posted why she feels the ships are not up to standard, as did I. We both posted our reasoning for why we feel that way, a reasoning you don't agree with.. again.. fine. We accept in game testing, mathematical testing of how things preform in game and majority opinion to come to a conclusion that we believe factual. You do not accept that methodology.. again.. fine.
Context clues are important. When someone says "I don’t think so because the ship is bad at everything you mention your post.
Have fun getting and playing it. I will have fun not getting and playing it. What I also will have fun at is to continue to point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap in these forums in the future. It’s not remotely worth the price cryptic is asking.," or "saying that a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration is not subjective, but comes from years of experience, experimentation and trial-and-errors that showed what is or isn't a good ship," they are asserting their subjective opinion as objective fact.
The bits in bold make clear this is not folks trying to assert an opinion, but them trying to assert what they believe to be an objective fact. If it's "the ship is bad at everything you mention in your post" and "saying a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration IS NOT SUBJECTIVE" that is NOT pushing an opinion, but declaring in plain black and white that myself and others are objectively wrong for disagreeing with them, and committing wrongthink or wrongplay. When someone clearly says in plain black and white "is not subjective" or "the ship is bad at everything you mention. I will have fun continuing to point out bad joke noob traps in the future," that's NOT giving an opinion. That's trying to push a standard on the entire community based on THEIR experience, THEIR experimentation or similar, and thus crosses into elitism and gatekeeping. Elitism in asserting that folks who disagree are simply wrong. It can't be that different folks play differently and simply have different standards of judging ships, no they're just wrong for daring to disagree. It's also gatekeeping in attempting to declare what is or isn't a "bad joke noob trap." As I said prior, why should their experimentation and experience be given anymore weight than that of anyone else? Who elected them to a position where they get to decide for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY what is and isn't a bad ship? Someone wants to think a ship is bad, as they clearly do, that's fine. Otherwise to assert someone is objectively wrong because they like a ship you don't (general sense of word you and not you specifically), nah that's not going to fly. No one single player or group of players gets to make that decision for the community.
I accept people saying "the ship is bad for how we like to play based off methodology X". I wholly reject people saying "the ship is objectively bad because of methodology X that we use." Simply because "the majority" agree to something does not make them automatically right or wrong. The "majority" could agree tomorrow that murder, theft, slavery and a host of other evils are no longer morally wrong, and those things would still be evil and wrong. If the majority agreeing on something suddenly makes them automatically right or wrong, then humanity is up the creek without a paddle and no hope of recovery.
The issue again.. is that you're attacking her personally for this and then you're accusing us of the very crime you're committing yourself. She posts an opinion of the ships, not of people.. of the ships. You then counter and call her an 'Elitist,' an opinion of the player. You then accuse her of 'gatekeeping' for having that opinion.. again an accusation against the player. No one ever said a word against anyone that likes these ships. You turned it personal sir, you started calling people names and listing opinions as forum violations as an excuse to moderate and that is not right.
Dark, we're not going to agree on this pack. That's cool man.. and if you like the pack, and think it's a good value then by all means buy the pack. No one is judging you or anyone else because you plan to buy it, and I sincerely hope you get your moneys worth from it. Jenny and I think the pack is a poor value, that's how we feel.. obviously that can be debated because you disagree. What needs to stop is attacking people personally for having a different opinion.
You ever hear the old saying "judge the sin but not the sinner"? In other words you can attack a position one holds without attacking the person. I said the statements made were elitist and gatekeeping, I did not make a statement about them as people. I don't roll that way and believe it's possible to attack a person's position and have passionate debates without it being an attack on the person. By your own logic, if disagreeing with someone counts as a personal attack, then as you said we should shut down the forums and call it a day. Again words have meaning, and when someone suggests in plain black and white "it's not subjective" or "you're wrong" what other way is a person supposed to take that statement other than what they mean? I'm not a Betazoid mind reader, folks either mean what they say or they don't. If they don't mean what they say, then why say it that way? I posted the relevant section of rules above if you want to know the specific violation. Again, posting an opinion is one thing, trying to assert that opinion as objective fact and accuse others of wrongthink or wrongplay essentially is something else entirely. If folks don't like a ship, okay fine they're entitled to that opinion. Otherwise a ship is NOT objectively bad just because they don't like it. At that point it's a ship existing and them being offended it didn't meet THEIR standards of what they thought a ship should be. Not every ship is going to appeal to every person, and not every ship is meant for every kind of build style. That doesn't make a ship bad, it just means you're not the target audience for that particular ship. I'm generally not a science guy, so typically sci heavy ships don't appeal to me. It doesn't make those ships objectively bad, they're just not a good fit for what I like to do normally.
Having a difference of opinion is fine, and I'm sorry you guys don't like the ships. I hope you guys do get the pack of ships you like in the future. Having a difference of opinion was not the issue. Attempting to assert they are objectively right because of THEIR experience and how they play IS the issue. That is something I will call attention to each and every time. Folks are not wrong for thinking it's poor value or disliking the ships. They ARE however wrong for asserting themselves objectively right on them being bad ships. They are not bad ships, they are just bad for how they personally like to play.
Disagreeing with a forum moderator on an in game item, process or function is not a forum violation. Thinking something is not worth the money being asked is not Elitism. Comparing similarly priced items and finding one of them lacking is not wrong nor is it in any way a direct judgement on people that think that item is a good value. If someone finds this pack a good value, they should buy it. Those of us that don't will express our opinion why we feel that way and we are not wrong for doing so.
See above. Disagreeing is fine, voicing different opinions is fine. Complaining about a game function, so long as it doesn't turn into a Cryptic bashing rant, is fine. Saying it's not worth the money is fine. You want to compare value, that's also fine. Folks have disagreed with me hundreds of times on this forum and elsewhere in game, and there was no issue. In fact I've had some pretty heated debates with people on here prior to now and there was little to no issue. Likewise by your line of logic, disagreeing with their opinion does NOT make me objectively wrong about the ships. They're free to think I'm making a bad call. To assert that I am objectively making a bad call however and buying into a "bad joke noob trap" or similarly say "calling a ship bad based on stats and configuration isn't subjective" however IS an issue. Calling that line of logic out for what it is, isn't a personal attack either. You can express your opinions all day long, just don't try to beat people over the head with them and try to assert they are objectively wrong for their opinion differing from yours. It's really that simple.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
Comments
Compare it to the legendary T'liss and the B'rel is significantly less value.
Hell even if you compare it to a fleet M'Chala the legendary does not provide any value versus the cost.
If you compare previous legendary ships versus their normal counterparts you see a significant improvement and value.
If you are going to charge a signifcant fee you need to provide significant value. Especialy when you throw a FREE event ship at people that is better than the one you want a large amount of money for.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Heck the dreadnought Oddy only has one commander command seating for some reason. I also wish the b'rel was a Intel commander instead as surgical strikes is still very good for burst even though there aren't very many good ways to lower its cooldown. Where as reroute to reserves is just bad with its short duration and goes on cooldown with rapid fire etc. That is part of the problem with specialist abilities they don't have much support outside of a couple traits, no doff or skill support.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
As to defense abilities Command actually has some of the more potent boff based defensives. Rally Point Marker gives a nice chunk of healing to hull and shields, and in larger quantities than Engineering Team on average. Plus it can give a heal to allies that enter the ring even if only once. Overwhelm Emitters can be used offensively or defensively to zap shields from a target and restore your own. Needs of the Many can be used to cheese a heal to an ally about to die with some secondary shielding. Subspace Interception can be used to give an immunity to an ally in a pinch as well. Finally Suppression Barrage is probably the most potent of them. It grants a large damage reduction by shaving a large percentage off outgoing enemy damage. This percentage can stack with similar abilities like Emit Unstable Warp Bubble to debuff their damage into near nothingness.
As for energy weapons builds, I never said it was better. I said you get more abilities to choose from. Even if one doesn't consider it alot extra, you do get a larger pool of power to pick from. For the temporal death star laser as some call it, it can definitely be potent, I will give you that. However for folks to act like Command is completely useless (not saying you specifically, but in a general sense) is just foolish. Folks are allowed to like what they like, but they do themselves a disservice by not even considering the abilities command has to offer.
No one has said that one can't like the ship, as that was never the issue. The issue is someone asserting their subjective that the ship is bad, as objective fact that applies to everyone and every type of build named. If one doesn't like the ship, okay fine. But to say the ship is objectively bad at everything including tanking, and trying to assert it as a "noob trap" because it doesn't match what they think the ship should be, nah that's elitism and isn't going to fly. A ship is not objectively bad because it doesn't meet one person's standards of what they think the ship should be. Likewise it's not objectively good either. It's simply a ship that is good or bad for how that person in particular prefers to build.
As to there being better options for tank ships, it depends on what part of the tanking spectrum you're building for. We talking a more off-tank kind of build, a more siege/long game type of tank, or something towards the middle of the spectrum? Otherwise you are correct that there could be better choices out there, which is entirely the point. What is "best" for one particular type of build, may not even be a blip on the radar to another. There is no one size fits all approach to ship building, yet some demonstrate by their actions they view their brand of building as the only valid brand of building.
For the way you personally build it may be an inferior spec. Again simply because it's inferior for what you personally like to do or want to do, does not make it an objectively inferior spec to utilize. I will grant you some of the powers can be a PITA to use, but they are still options. We can also debate what abilities and specs are more effective in giving situations, as not every spec and ability will be as effective in each given situation. There is no one size fits all approach to ship building and again what works best for one, may not work best for another.
As for offensive abilities I will grant you that it doesn't have that many of them. One could argue Reroute Power from Life Support for the power boosting if needed, since the debuff to cooldowns can be offset a bit by things like Photonic Officer. Personally I'm not fond of that power, but it's an option. If one can use Phalanx Formation and hit all the rings, it can be a nice little boost. Maybe not the greatest, but it's an option. For Concentrate Firepower, I don't think I need to explain how that ability can be a major boost for anything running a torpedo, especially kinetic heavy builds. Call Emergency Artillery is actually fairly nice with some of the kinetic boosts and other powers as of late.
Then if we take into account the 3 Inspiration abilities, you can cheese even further boosting to your team offensively or defensively. I wouldn't mind seeing a refresh of some of the older specs, but they're far from the terribad level people seem to think they are. Are they going to give you as much in terms of stats as something such as the boosts available from Miracle Worker, no they're not. However not everything needs to be a carbon copy of Miracle Worker or Temporal type abilities. not every spec is meant for every build type in game. If you have certain specs doing everything, then those specs would be OP and deserving of a nerf.
Overall you are entitled to your opinion that it's bad, and for you that may very well be the case for the way you build. If it is then I'm sorry it doesn't work for you. It's no different than when they put out a ship's super heavy on science or super heavy on tac oriented abilities, those ships generally are not the best choices for how I like to build. Them differing from my preferred playstyle doesn't make them objectively bad ships, it means they would be inferior choices for how I like to play.
Example of what I'm talking about below.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. Saying it's not worth the price is an opinion and perfectly fine. Saying the ship is bad and then going on to "point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap" is not fine, and is attempting to prop oneself up as an arbiter of what is a good or bad release.
Saying "I think this is an all around bad ship" is an opinion. Someone saying the ship works for tanking and how they like to build and someone saying "no it's bad at everything you named," is elitism and gatekeeping. The first is giving an opinion. The second example is Guy A trying to tell Guy B that he's wrong about the ship being bad, and that Guy B is wrong about the ship working for his builds and how he likes to play, purely because Guy A says it's bad. In other words Guy A is essentially saying that Guy B is wrong for preferring to play differently than him and has committed wrongthink or in this case wrongplay. Guy A is propping himself up as some kind of authority on what is a good or bad ship and asserting that he is objectively right that a ship is bad for how another person prefers to play the game, even though that other person has said that it's not. That is the very definition of elitism in gaming.
Trying to then assert the ship as a noob trap is where the gatekeeping comes into play, as one is trying to assert those who buy the ship are noobs that fell into a trap. Again Guy A is welcome to his opinion that the ship is bad, and folks are falling into a money trap. However he does not get to turn around and assert that opinion as objective fact purely because he has decided it's a bad ship. If folks think it's a bad buy, by all means they're entitled to that opinion and to voice said opinion.
Someone doesn't like the ships, that's fine. They think it's a bad buy, that's fine. They want to tell other folks "I don't think you'll like the ships compared to (insert other ships here)", that's also fine. Those are valid opinions whether I agree with those opinions or not. Folks are free to voice those opinions whether I agree with them or not. Where it crosses the line is when someone then tries to assert those opinions as objective fact and weaponize those opinions against folks in the community. That is not going to fly. Giving one's opinions is fine, trying to beat people over the head with it is not.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
But I do have a major problem with a forum moderator who accuses people of gatekeeping and then gatekeeps their convo by editing every post out of the conversation that disagrees with their point.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Once again, saying that a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration is not subjective, but comes from years of experience, experimentation and trial-and-errors that showed what is or isn't a good ship.
Nor has anyone tried to "weaponize it against other players".
The only thing we're guilty of is disagreeing with your own opinions and calling you out on your behaviour.
If there's someone here that is "gatekeeping" anything, and weaponizing their opinion via threats of moderation, is you.
And now that I have pretty much assured my ban (temp or perma), I thank everyone that came to my defense - even and especially those with which I have maintened pretty heated discussions in the past.
I'll see you guys in game.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
After reading & looking at the announcement for a few minutes, & nothing is popping-out at me as terrible, but it's all rather bland & I dare say the 1 thing that was given the most time & attention to this "legendary" Ambassador was the Horatio visual.
Fleet Yamaguchi's combined hull/shield is 2.585 with turn-rate of 7 & this "legendary" Ambassador's combined hull/shield is 2.575 with a turn-rate of 7.5 which to me is within expected balancing alignment.
Impulse & inertia ratings are the same. Fleet Yamaguchi get +5 to all pwr levels while "legendary" Ambassador only gets +5 pwr to wpn & shld & aux lol
Both receive full Cruiser Commands & Molecular Reconstruction.
Only 1 BOFF seat has changed & that's from the Fleet Yamaguchi's: Ensign Tac to "legend" Ambassador's Ensign Uni.
This is a blinked & you missed it slightly better offering than the "legendary" B'rel when compared to it's previous versions.
So with this "legendary" Ambassador when compared to Fleet Yamaguchi:
lose a combined hull/shield of .10 for a better .5 turn-rate
lose +5 pwr to engines straight-out
trade Ensign Tac seat for a Ensign Uni seat
gain a good looking Horatio visual
gain the starship trait Lost In Time
And someone get darkbladejk a TRIBBLE snickers, dude is hangry.
Anyways for the Vor'cha its an improvement, but my money already went for the lifetime sub. Something Ive been holding out on since the game went ftp. The only item with the Vor'cha that bothers me now is a non tactical commander slot, now that would be legendary for a ship like that. At anyrate its allot better then it was. Some people prefer other specializations I get that but Ive always treated those as a support item myself. Then again Ive not done pvp in space for many years, and that is something that requires tweaking every inch of your ship.
Next I will point you to the bit of your post in bold that I have highlighted. You say none has tried to weaponize opinions against others, and you say you're simply voicing difference of opinion. Yet in the highlighted section you assert a ship can be, and is objectively bad for not meeting YOUR standards of what the ship's configuration and specialist seating should be. Simultaneously appealing to authority you believe you are granted based on YOUR experience, YOUR experimentation, and YOUR trial and error. In doing so you are making a declaratory statement that you are attempting to apply to the entire community. It can't be you simply disliking the ship and it being bad for what you personally like to do. No it's universally bad across the board even for folks like myself and others who don't play the same way you do. Any poor sap who thinks otherwise the ship isn't objectively bad is just committing wrongthink or wrongplay.
Who on Q's green earth elected you to a position where your experience, your experimentation or similar counts for more than that of myself or any other person in the community? You are one person with one opinion about how this game should be, among millions of people who play this game. Why should your experience and so on count for more than that of anyone else? Not everyone in this game plays like you, builds like you, or flies like you. Not everyone has the same goals as you in this game. If you don't like the ship, you're entitled to that opinion. If you think other folks won't like the ship, you're entitled to that opinion as well. However when you start saying something is objectively bad and making declaratory statements like your line in bold above, it's ceased to be your opinion and is you attempting to push subjective opinion as objective fact, aka elitism and gatekeeping. At that point you are attempting to tell others what their opinion must be and should be, and that they are somehow committing wrongthink or wrongplay if they dare disagree with you. THAT is how opinions are being weaponized.
Saying "I think it's a bad ship based on my experience" and debating build theory are one thing. Attempting to assert your experience as the universal standard and universal experience of the community by asserting is at objective fact, is something else entirely. The first thing is cool, the second is not.
Also you're not going to get temp or perma banned. For that matter you've not even been given a warning. You've definitely made me want to slam my head against a wall repeatedly, but that's it.
Time spent here on the forum does not grant one immunity from moderation if/when that time comes, be they here since beta or having joined last week.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Wrong.
She is saying things about powers and functions in the game.. NOT about the people that use them or like them. What YOU are doing is taking things she says about game mechanics, and you are twisting them to apply to players themselves and that sir is wrong. Having an objection to a game mechanic, feature, or trait does not make that player biased against people who might use them.
We can debate the merits of what she says.. that's fine. Saying one power or ability is 'better' then another is an opinion, but it's an opinion formulated from a consensus that you can see in the reactions of the player base as a whole. There is a reason that you are the only one arguing that these stats are acceptable for a 'Legendary' ship. It's because the majority have come to certain conclusions about how things works based on in game performance as well as comparison to similarly priced items. Her entire post is about the ships and their comparable value. Your entire post is about the player and you are attacking the player based on nothing but your personal disagreement with their stance.
I stood up for you before when people accused you of abusing your power because I felt they were wrong, no longer. What you are doing in this thread is completely unacceptable, it's flat out wrong. Disagreeing with you is not a violation of forum rules. We have disagreed in the past, but I never thought you crossed the line before this. I honestly don't understand what you're doing in this thread.. it's not like you and I think you need to consider your words and accusations more carefully.
I'm going to make this as crystal clear as I can. Folks are welcome to their opinions on whether they believe these ships are good or bad. Folks are free to think the ships are worth the money or not. Folks are free to voice their opinions on what they would like to have seen be different about the ships such as "I wish it had been Miracle Worker primary instead of command" as just one example. Folks are free to think someone else may like/dislike the ships. Folks are free to like/dislike game functions. Folks are free to say "I think (insert ship, power, or mechanic here) is bad based on my experience." Folks are free to voice all of those opinions, and any other opinions they may have in the positive or negative provided it's done in a civil manor. What folks are not free to do is turn around and assert their subjective opinions as objective fact and try to apply that to the entire community.
She wants to think the ships are bad based on her experience, that's fine. Peter wants to think the ships are "bad joke noob traps" he's welcome to that opinion. Where it crosses the line into elitism and gatekeeping is when one then attempts to push those opinions as objective fact and apply that to the entire community. I previously made the statements that the ships are not objectively bad because certain people don't like them, likewise the opposite would also be true. I also made the statement that the ships would make great tanks for how I like to build. I was then told "you're wrong, those ships are objectively bad at everything you named." I was then told by her and one or two others essentially the same thing.
So because she and others have decided the ships are bad based on THEIR experience, THEIR experimentation, and similar, myself and folks like me are objectively wrong about what will work for OUR builds and how WE prefer to play the game independent from them. Because THEY have decided the ships are bad, myself and the rest of the community are objectively wrong and should just take their word for it based on some perceived authority they believe they are granted by THEIR experience, THEIR experimentation or similar. Sorry that's not how that works, and the moment it became a declaratory statement of the ships being bad, it ceased to be opinion based and crossed the line into elitism and gatekeeping whether they intended it come off that way or not. Had either of them said "I think you're going to be disappointed with the ships based off our experimentation," that at least is a fair opinion. However that's not what happened. A declaratory statement was made on more than one occasion, which can be seen above.
I have highlighted the relevant portions in bold for you. Those are declaratory statements being asserted as fact. That is not someone pushing an opinion. Both bits are attempting to assert themselves as to what is or isn't a bad ship based on what THEY personally believe a ship should be. Once again so this isn't confused: Folks are welcome to their opinions of what is a good or bad ship to voice those opinions. They do not however to get to push those opinions as objective fact that applies to the entire community, and declare folks who disagree are wrong.
Unless there's some kind of Da Vinci Code shenanigans at play, words have meaning. When someone says things like the statements in bold, how else am I or anyone else supposed to take those statements other than face value? If they don't mean what they say, then how else are they supposed to be interpreted? Disagreeing with me does not break forum rules. If I tried to ban everyone I disagreed with on here, then this place would be a ghost town several times over. What does break forum rules however is attempting to push one's subjective opinion as fact, and basically accuse others of wrongthink or wrongplay for disagreeing with what THEY consider a bad ship or item.
I pulled this section of your post out as there is a point that needs to be reiterated. Simply because a majority of people agree on a point, it does NOT make them automatically correct or those who disagree automatically wrong. The majority of society could come together tomorrow and form a consensus that murder, slavery, theft, and a host of other evils are no longer morally wrong. After all since the majority of society agrees on it, they must be right. While those are extreme examples, you and I both know that's not how things work. Majority consensus does NOT make something automatically good or bad, nor does it make those who disagree with the majority automatically wrong. In a game like STO there is more than one way of building, more than one way of flying, more than one way of playing and doing things. There is no one size fits all best approach to the game. I play as a tank where as another person may play energy dps, or science space wizardry, or even kinetic torpedo builds. You have 4 different ways of playing the game in that example, and all of them valid play choices. My fun is not wrong, nor is their fun wrong.
If folks want to make a value comparison, that's a fair debate. What is not going to fly however is asserting another person is objectively wrong because they disagree with the "majority consensus" or what have you.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
The question is...so what? I mean, sure it might be silly to think "my opinion = fact", but what FORUM RULE is it breaking?
That is the part I (and apparently others) don't understand. You seem to be blanking posts that are not actually breaking any describable forum rules.
You also apparently did something to this thread where it doesn't move when people post in it like every other thread. I mean, what in the world is going on here?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If someone says 'that ship sucks,' is it really needed to put 'in my opinion' before it for you to know that it's an opinion? She posted why she feels the ships are not up to standard, as did I. We both posted our reasoning for why we feel that way, a reasoning you don't agree with.. again.. fine. We accept in game testing, mathematical testing of how things preform in game and majority opinion to come to a conclusion that we believe factual. You do not accept that methodology.. again.. fine.
The issue again.. is that you're attacking her personally for this and then you're accusing us of the very crime you're committing yourself. She posts an opinion of the ships, not of people.. of the ships. You then counter and call her an 'Elitist,' an opinion of the player. You then accuse her of 'gatekeeping' for having that opinion.. again an accusation against the player. No one ever said a word against anyone that likes these ships. You turned it personal sir, you started calling people names and listing opinions as forum violations as an excuse to moderate and that is not right.
Dark, we're not going to agree on this pack. That's cool man.. and if you like the pack, and think it's a good value then by all means buy the pack. No one is judging you or anyone else because you plan to buy it, and I sincerely hope you get your moneys worth from it. Jenny and I think the pack is a poor value, that's how we feel.. obviously that can be debated because you disagree. What needs to stop is attacking people personally for having a different opinion.
I will just say this one more time and then I will withdrawal from this discussion for the greater good. I don't feel this part of my post is being heard so here it is for the last time..
Disagreeing with a forum moderator on an in game item, process or function is not a forum violation. Thinking something is not worth the money being asked is not Elitism. Comparing similarly priced items and finding one of them lacking is not wrong nor is it in any way a direct judgement on people that think that item is a good value. If someone finds this pack a good value, they should buy it. Those of us that don't will express our opinion why we feel that way and we are not wrong for doing so.
I noticed that too.. it's not being 'locked' but it's being forced onto the later pages so no one will see it. Perhaps one should consider why you would want this? If nothing you said was a violation or abuse then there is no reason to push it under the rug.
So much this!
And it's so true that the moment a friend or a fleetmate should say "Yo guys, I bought the Legendary Bundle and I plan to use *insert ship name*, any advice?" I will be all over that to try and help them out with creating their build, no matter what use they want to make of the ship.
If people want to buy this bundle, good for them. I won't, some as many others will not, and the reasons why are all explained time and again in this thread.
That is not being an elitist, that is not gatekeeping and it certainly does not justify personal attacks, from a moderator no less, because he disagree.
Also this. I wondered why the thread seemed to have "disappeared". Imagine my surprise when I went to check page 2 and saw that not only the thread was there and not closed down, but also that it had new posts.
All in all, I think @seaofsorrows had the right idea so... thanks to everyone that shared their constructive criticism. It made for a nice discussione while it lasted, but it's high time I leave this mess behind.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
How far sighted because this thread may fade away but the problems it surfaced won’t.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
That's how it works in STO!
See the subsection regarding flaming/trolling: "You may not post content which contains insults to other users or Perfect World Entertainment Staff, are specifically made to create undue discontent on the forums, disturbances in forum threads, pick fights or otherwise promote unfriendly conversation."
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1191393/perfect-world-entertainment-community-rules-and-policies
In asserting one's subjective opinion as objective fact, and basically telling others they're wrong for disagreeing, or basically accusing them of wrongthink or wrongplay, one is falling into territory of the first section there.
Context clues are important. When someone says "I don’t think so because the ship is bad at everything you mention your post.
Have fun getting and playing it. I will have fun not getting and playing it. What I also will have fun at is to continue to point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap in these forums in the future. It’s not remotely worth the price cryptic is asking.," or "saying that a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration is not subjective, but comes from years of experience, experimentation and trial-and-errors that showed what is or isn't a good ship," they are asserting their subjective opinion as objective fact.
The bits in bold make clear this is not folks trying to assert an opinion, but them trying to assert what they believe to be an objective fact. If it's "the ship is bad at everything you mention in your post" and "saying a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration IS NOT SUBJECTIVE" that is NOT pushing an opinion, but declaring in plain black and white that myself and others are objectively wrong for disagreeing with them, and committing wrongthink or wrongplay. When someone clearly says in plain black and white "is not subjective" or "the ship is bad at everything you mention. I will have fun continuing to point out bad joke noob traps in the future," that's NOT giving an opinion. That's trying to push a standard on the entire community based on THEIR experience, THEIR experimentation or similar, and thus crosses into elitism and gatekeeping. Elitism in asserting that folks who disagree are simply wrong. It can't be that different folks play differently and simply have different standards of judging ships, no they're just wrong for daring to disagree. It's also gatekeeping in attempting to declare what is or isn't a "bad joke noob trap." As I said prior, why should their experimentation and experience be given anymore weight than that of anyone else? Who elected them to a position where they get to decide for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY what is and isn't a bad ship? Someone wants to think a ship is bad, as they clearly do, that's fine. Otherwise to assert someone is objectively wrong because they like a ship you don't (general sense of word you and not you specifically), nah that's not going to fly. No one single player or group of players gets to make that decision for the community.
I accept people saying "the ship is bad for how we like to play based off methodology X". I wholly reject people saying "the ship is objectively bad because of methodology X that we use." Simply because "the majority" agree to something does not make them automatically right or wrong. The "majority" could agree tomorrow that murder, theft, slavery and a host of other evils are no longer morally wrong, and those things would still be evil and wrong. If the majority agreeing on something suddenly makes them automatically right or wrong, then humanity is up the creek without a paddle and no hope of recovery.
You ever hear the old saying "judge the sin but not the sinner"? In other words you can attack a position one holds without attacking the person. I said the statements made were elitist and gatekeeping, I did not make a statement about them as people. I don't roll that way and believe it's possible to attack a person's position and have passionate debates without it being an attack on the person. By your own logic, if disagreeing with someone counts as a personal attack, then as you said we should shut down the forums and call it a day. Again words have meaning, and when someone suggests in plain black and white "it's not subjective" or "you're wrong" what other way is a person supposed to take that statement other than what they mean? I'm not a Betazoid mind reader, folks either mean what they say or they don't. If they don't mean what they say, then why say it that way? I posted the relevant section of rules above if you want to know the specific violation. Again, posting an opinion is one thing, trying to assert that opinion as objective fact and accuse others of wrongthink or wrongplay essentially is something else entirely. If folks don't like a ship, okay fine they're entitled to that opinion. Otherwise a ship is NOT objectively bad just because they don't like it. At that point it's a ship existing and them being offended it didn't meet THEIR standards of what they thought a ship should be. Not every ship is going to appeal to every person, and not every ship is meant for every kind of build style. That doesn't make a ship bad, it just means you're not the target audience for that particular ship. I'm generally not a science guy, so typically sci heavy ships don't appeal to me. It doesn't make those ships objectively bad, they're just not a good fit for what I like to do normally.
Having a difference of opinion is fine, and I'm sorry you guys don't like the ships. I hope you guys do get the pack of ships you like in the future. Having a difference of opinion was not the issue. Attempting to assert they are objectively right because of THEIR experience and how they play IS the issue. That is something I will call attention to each and every time. Folks are not wrong for thinking it's poor value or disliking the ships. They ARE however wrong for asserting themselves objectively right on them being bad ships. They are not bad ships, they are just bad for how they personally like to play.
See above. Disagreeing is fine, voicing different opinions is fine. Complaining about a game function, so long as it doesn't turn into a Cryptic bashing rant, is fine. Saying it's not worth the money is fine. You want to compare value, that's also fine. Folks have disagreed with me hundreds of times on this forum and elsewhere in game, and there was no issue. In fact I've had some pretty heated debates with people on here prior to now and there was little to no issue. Likewise by your line of logic, disagreeing with their opinion does NOT make me objectively wrong about the ships. They're free to think I'm making a bad call. To assert that I am objectively making a bad call however and buying into a "bad joke noob trap" or similarly say "calling a ship bad based on stats and configuration isn't subjective" however IS an issue. Calling that line of logic out for what it is, isn't a personal attack either. You can express your opinions all day long, just don't try to beat people over the head with them and try to assert they are objectively wrong for their opinion differing from yours. It's really that simple.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator