Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 259
# 21
09-15-2012, 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginobaldelli823 View Post
The Galaxy Class ship from TNG was a ship of peace, designed with exploration in mind first it was large to hold a large crew and science facilities. It was fast (its been a while) in the first episode while tyring to outrun Q they got the ship up to almost Warp 9.95 or 6 i think. But it has always lacked in firepower,
I call this BS. In the episode "The Best of Both Worlds" the voice of Borg explicitly states: "Capt Jean-Luc Picard, you lead the strongest ship in the Federation". Take into account it hase 12 (!) phaser arrays, two torpedo launchers and 250 torpedoes. Ship of peace my arse.

Quote:
prime example of this was in the movie Star Trek Generations in orbit of Viridian III, the Enterprise-D (which had been refittedvto some degree...look at the bridge layout if you do not believe me.) scored a direct hit from the primary forward phaser array against the shields of a 20 year old bird of prey and while the impact was impressive to see when the next time you see inside the bird of prey they are not expericing many problem from the Flagship of the Federation (at the time) hitting them repeditly with multiple phaser strikes.
You do realise that they can show whatever they want doesn't matter how dumb it is? Why didn't they change the shield modulation? They wanted the ship destroyed in the film so they destroyed it. In the show there were multiple errors on various occasions i.e. Bird of Prey changing size between episodes so not everything they show is plausible.

Quote:
So yes the Galaxy is lacking in the firepower dept. but it has always been lacking in that dept.
It's natural that newer ships tend to be better than their predecessors but I say again - the tale of Galaxy being a weak ship as far as offensive in concerned is a pile of c***.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 22
09-15-2012, 01:18 AM
The Galaxy class will never be properly fixed. I've advocated time and time again for a universal ensign and a third tactical console for the fleet version so that it matches the fleet Negh'var. Cryptic's official response in a radio interview was "DERP ITS FINE AS IT IS LOL", which proves that Cryptic doesn't care what the players think about this issue.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,618
# 23
09-15-2012, 01:44 AM
I dont really understand why every one thinks it so bad. Almost every argument I have herd is subjective with no real evidence.

Some numbers.
-------------Galaxy R---------Star cruiser---------Assault cruiser---------Dread
hull----------40000--------------39000-----------------39000--------------40000
shield mod---1.0------------------1.0--------------------1.0-----------------1.0
turn rate------6---------------------7----------------------7--------------------6
consoles----4/3/2----------------4/3/2-----------------4/2/3---------------4/3/2
device slots---4--------------------4----------------------4--------------------4

The only real difference between these ships in the ensign level BO slot. So the real problem is the same as the defiant r and the intrepid r, there arent enough useful ensign level powers to really use 3 ensign slots for one career.

A simple solution would be to allow you to use any costume on the t5 and up cuisers. We have seen this is possible with the mirror universe ships. Then your galaxy or soc or whatever can have either of the cruiser bo layouts you want. Hell if they add in a lock out for c-sotre ships then all you have to do is own the ship and you can skin it as you please. you could have a galaxy with an excelsior lay out. saucer sep would have to be bound to only the galaxy skon somehow tho and you would have to lock the skins so you couldn't mix them.
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln

Last edited by disposeableh3r0; 09-15-2012 at 02:54 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 598
# 24
09-15-2012, 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginobaldelli823 View Post
The Galaxy Class ship from TNG was a ship of peace, designed with exploration in mind first it was large to hold a large crew and science facilities. It was fast (its been a while) in the first episode while tyring to outrun Q they got the ship up to almost Warp 9.95 or 6 i think. But it has always lacked in firepower, prime example of this was in the movie Star Trek Generations in orbit of Viridian III, the Enterprise-D (which had been refittedvto some degree...look at the bridge layout if you do not believe me.) scored a direct hit from the primary forward phaser array against the shields of a 20 year old bird of prey and while the impact was impressive to see when the next time you see inside the bird of prey they are not expericing many problem from the Flagship of the Federation (at the time) hitting them repeditly with multiple phaser strikes. Now with the onset of the Dominion Wars the Galaxy class ship did get a power boost to help fight the larger Jam Haddar ships and the Cardassian ships, but with the launch of the Soverign class ship the Galaxy did take a second seat to the development of the "Battle" cruiser. So yes the Galaxy is lacking in the firepower dept. but it has always been lacking in that dept. It's primary strenght is its ability to absorb, shake off, and deflect damage for long periods of time while it works on taking out the attacking ship(s).
It was a ship of peace designed to turn into a battlesip at will. It was no cruise liner just because it had families onboard. The ship was not lacking power in Generations. Dr. Soran helped the Klingons find out what the shield modulation frequency so there weapons can penetrate. After the first two torpedo hit the hull they damage the warpcore causing the ship to lose power. That would make the phasers weak. You can watch the movie again or you can check Memory Alpha. There is no refference in any Star Trek Dattabase say that the Galaxy was lacking in phaser power.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 598
# 25
09-15-2012, 03:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
I dont really understand why every one thinks it so bad. Almost every argument I have herd is subjective with no real evidence.

Some numbers.
Galaxy R Star cruiser Assault cruiser Dread
hull 40000 39000 39000 40000
shield mod 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
turn rate 6 7 7 6
consoles 4/3/2 4/3/2 4/2/3 4/3/2
device slots 4 4 4 4

The only real difference between these ships in the ensign level BO slot. So the real problem is the same as the defiant r and the intrepid r, there arent enough useful ensign level powers to really use 3 ensign slots for one career.

A simple solution would be to allow you to use any costume on the t5 and up cuisers. We have seen this is possible with the mirror universe ships. Then your galaxy or soc or whatever can have either of the cruiser bo layouts you want. Hell if they add in a lock out for c-sotre ships then all you have to do is own the ship and you can skin it as you please. you could have a galaxy with an excelsior lay out. saucer sep would have to be bound to only the galaxy skon somehow tho and you would have to lock the skins so you couldn't mix them.
You can not compare ship performance using hit point numbers, shield mod numbers and default turnrates. If that were so, escorts would be the worst ships to play in the game, but that's not the case. Its after you add in your best skill tree set up, consoles and equipment then those default stats change. The Galaxy-R fairs the worst out of all the cruisers. You can put in the Galaxy-R the exact same equipment you put in your Dreadnought and you well see that Galaxy-r shield and weapon power far less and the shield will be squishier. That's why you have to test things, don't just believe the stats on it first.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,182
# 26
09-15-2012, 03:06 AM
I agree. If any ship in Starfleet is meant to be "versatile" it is the Galaxy.

The issue with this ship shows once again how fundamentally wrong the basic principles of STO are. Originally, universal BO slots were a thing for the KDF. Why? Klingons are highly specialized. Starfleet is the universal force with more emphasis on peacekeeping, exploration and science. And so should the Galaxy. Give the R at least a universal ENS to work with, make the seperation console a built-in ability (WHY is this a console anyway? The only other ship you can put it in is the T4 variant, right? Each and every ship below T5 is obsolete anyways...) and everything is fine.

It's bad enpugh that DPS is everything which defines a ship's usefullness in this game, but this will absolutely never change since it is the limited game mechanic the engine seems to offer. But at least show some respect for the most iconic ship in the fleet which probably got this game the majority of players, at least back in the day this game somehow still resembled Star Trek.
-> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- -> Click if you prefer the old forum design! <-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 27
09-15-2012, 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by angrytarg View Post
I agree. If any ship in Starfleet is meant to be "versatile" it is the Galaxy.

The issue with this ship shows once again how fundamentally wrong the basic principles of STO are. Originally, universal BO slots were a thing for the KDF. Why? Klingons are highly specialized. Starfleet is the universal force with more emphasis on peacekeeping, exploration and science. And so should the Galaxy. Give the R at least a universal ENS to work with, make the seperation console a built-in ability (WHY is this a console anyway? The only other ship you can put it in is the T4 variant, right? Each and every ship below T5 is obsolete anyways...) and everything is fine.
I am puzzeling myself about this since start of STO.
The klingons have ships more versatile than starfleet? Have the devs ever watched a show AFTER the TOS movies?

I mean every bridge station on a starfleet ship (late 24th century) was programmable (LCARS), so they could be configurated to serve as any other station. This means translated to STO that Starfleet ships should have practically all universal BOFF slots.
I am not demanding this of course, but starfleet ships should be much more versatile in this matter.
For me this is just another sign that the devs do not really care about Star Trek, they just realize their agenda of how "their" sci fi game has to be.



Quote:
Originally Posted by angrytarg View Post
It's bad enpugh that DPS is everything which defines a ship's usefullness in this game, but this will absolutely never change since it is the limited game mechanic the engine seems to offer. But at least show some respect for the most iconic ship in the fleet which probably got this game the majority of players, at least back in the day this game somehow still resembled Star Trek.
I'm absolutely on your side.

This ship is more than just a ship, it is the most iconic vessel in Star Trek (at least for some of us).
Why do the devs insist to make it a useless brick without firepower? (even if some of them apparently deeply hate it, i don't know why and i don't really care.)

I mean that ship was built to operate far away from any reinforcements, it needs to be able to strike back in case of a battle. It's Phaser array where the most powerful ever built in Starfleet history, and i am sure that they have been updated over the years, so they still must deal massive damage.
The Galaxy Class in STO is far from this. It is just a unmaneuverable, boring, un-versatile ship with virtually no noticeable firepower.
I can already hear the devs say, "but we have given you the saucer seperation...)
Adding the Saucer seperation doesn't help very much, because that ship still has way to little firepower. What is it good for zipping around your enemy without (still) doing no noticeable damage?
I mean you can't even use it as a torpedo boat because the tac BOFF slots are a joke.

Sorry i shouldn't overexcite
so much about this, they won't change anything anyway.

Live long and prosper.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit

Last edited by yreodred; 09-15-2012 at 04:29 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,182
# 28
09-15-2012, 05:00 AM
Once again, kudos to you yreodred I'g glad there are still people sharing this point of view, your postings are always a balm for my aching trekkie-nerves

I'm not voting for universal-boff-slots per se on all vessels, it's okay to have some kind of basic specialization at least gameplay-wise. And canonically it also makes sense. The cruisers are meant to be the independent universal ships operating on their own without much support. Science vessels can do specialized missions with highly specialized equipment, smaller crew compartiment etc. while "escorts" (though the term refers to a function, not a class of ships) should be specialized in tactical situations. The Defiant was meant as a dedicated warship, after all. So was the Sovereign designed with tactical engagements in mind.

But especially cruisers but also science vessels should at least get one universal slot. Of course, that means that you cannot sell a new ship fpr 2000Z every time you release a new BOFF-layout...

This idea would also work for ground equipment. Why are there 6 types of rifles when the Starfleet standard issue rifles were clearly seen to be as versatile as a starship in terms of flexiblility? You could grand the players the ability to modify the weapons and equipment to fit a specific purpose.

The Red side would benefit fropm specialization, though. Not as versataile but more sophisticated in its metier. The Battlecruiser has a overall lower defense performance but does more damage but may be countered by science skills - you never know what kind of specialization the other captain has. And if all fails, call in a wing of BoP to your support - klingons have lot of these fragile but powerful ships at their disposal. On the ground, the Warrior may only have his rapid-firing short range disruptor (I think of "Klingon Honor Guard" where the disruptor rifle is actually a pistol combined with a "rifle" add-on ) but has more armour and could summon battle targs (oh how I want a targ-handling ability XD ).
-> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- -> Click if you prefer the old forum design! <-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 259
# 29
09-15-2012, 05:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by angrytarg View Post
WHY is this a console anyway? The only other ship you can put it in is the T4 variant, right? Each and every ship below T5 is obsolete anyways...
There's also a fleet version of Galaxy, so the separation has to be bound to a console.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 30
09-15-2012, 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by angrytarg View Post
Once again, kudos to you yreodred I'g glad there are still people sharing this point of view, your postings are always a balm for my aching trekkie-nerves
You're welcome.
I am glad that i am not the only one who sees STO primary as a Star Trek game than as a MMO.

My heart bleeds when i think about the possibilities this game could have if the developers would decide to make it more like a serious Star Trek game instead of this
parody of the Star Trek universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by angrytarg View Post
I'm not voting for universal-boff-slots per se on all vessels, it's okay to have some kind of basic specialization at least gameplay-wise. And canonically it also makes sense. The cruisers are meant to be the independent universal ships operating on their own without much support. Science vessels can do specialized missions with highly specialized equipment, smaller crew compartiment etc. while "escorts" (though the term refers to a function, not a class of ships) should be specialized in tactical situations. The Defiant was meant as a dedicated warship, after all. So was the Sovereign designed with tactical engagements in mind.

But especially cruisers but also science vessels should at least get one universal slot. Of course, that means that you cannot sell a new ship fpr 2000Z every time you release a new BOFF-layout...
Thats exactly my point.
Crusiers should be allround ships not just flying (but indestructable) tanks with no offensive power.
They should be much more versatile, but without outclassing Escorts or science vessels.
I know this could be hard, because most people in MMOs tend to Min Maxing everything and so ship have to be somehow extreme too.

The devs should be bold enough to make at least SOME cruisers more versatile and the Galaxy Class ist the best candidate for that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by angrytarg View Post
This idea would also work for ground equipment. Why are there 6 types of rifles when the Starfleet standard issue rifles were clearly seen to be as versatile as a starship in terms of flexiblility? You could grand the players the ability to modify the weapons and equipment to fit a specific purpose.

The Red side would benefit fropm specialization, though. Not as versataile but more sophisticated in its metier. The Battlecruiser has a overall lower defense performance but does more damage but may be countered by science skills - you never know what kind of specialization the other captain has. And if all fails, call in a wing of BoP to your support - klingons have lot of these fragile but powerful ships at their disposal. On the ground, the Warrior may only have his rapid-firing short range disruptor (I think of "Klingon Honor Guard" where the disruptor rifle is actually a pistol combined with a "rifle" add-on ) but has more armour and could summon battle targs (oh how I want a targ-handling ability XD ).
Man i think we are on the same wavelenght here.

I know it is not on topic but it always bothered me that phaser pistols have two different kinds of look. (compression and stun phaser pistols for example.) For me it is just another example how much they must hate TNG design. I mean i am ok, if they don't like it. But they make this game for us, not for themselves. They should keep their personal taste and feelings for themselves and design Star Trek equipment and other things in this game more professional (more aligned to previous Star Trek designs).
It just makes me sick when i see things like that, deliberately made wrong, just as the Galaxy Class and most other Starfleet ships.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jjumetley View Post
There's also a fleet version of Galaxy, so the separation has to be bound to a console.
There is no reason why that ship shouldn't have a integrated saucer seperation ability.

Live long and prosper.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55 PM.