Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,051
# 291
09-28-2012, 08:18 PM
Yeah, the devs are apparently a bit choosey about the threads they read/answer.

Seriously, do we want something entirely impossible?
Would it turn the ship "balance" upside down?
Maybe it would be too much work?
Are we too few, maybe they think no one else cares about the Galaxy Class?
Would a Galaxy Class that is more versatile become a threat to their beloved Escorts?
Or do they just think there is nothing to gain from making the Galaxy Class a more fun to fly ship?
What do you think?

Thank you for reading.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 115
# 292
09-29-2012, 08:16 AM
I think they choose whats most important to work on for next release.

New lockbox Items?
new ships?
Balance and fix old ships?
New content?
Fix KDF?

And Lockbox will always win. Look at the amount of stuff in the new lockbox. From ships to Consoles with Set Bonuses. That you HAVE to have lobi for to purchase.

Fixing/Balancing old stuff is stuff people already bought. How much would they make fixing old ships that were account wide unlocks VS making new stuff thats locked to one character?

And making Set bonuses where you want more then just the Grand prize out of the Lockbox, you want more then one thing outta the gamble, its a good win/win for cash flow I'm sure.

And Im not a F2P guy, I've spent plenty. But now at that point where I have to choose if I support this single character system much. Im not throwing out the kinda cash it would take to get a gamble console set for each toon I run.

I did buy several C-Store and fleet ships. I wanted each toon to be their own experience. But, not paying to gamble on each toon. So to continue means I gotta pick what 1 toon is my main. And the DPS way the game is focused means Tac is all that matters in my eyes.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,051
# 293
09-29-2012, 09:01 AM
That's why i am in favour of them making a "mirror" Galaxy Class. They would make money PLUS there would finally be a acceptable Galaxy Class in this game.
Hull HP, BOFF & Console Layout of the Regent Class, just the looks of a Galaxy. I think it would be awesome.
In exchange for its (still) low maneuverability this "mirror" Galaxy could keep it's Saucer Seperation function.

I would buy it instantly, twice.

Thank you for reading.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,696
# 294
09-29-2012, 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
The owners of Star Trek apparently have developed a bizarre opinion about who is capable to make a Star Trek product, lol.
Yes, that they do

Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
I haven't seen ANYTHING Enterprise -E did which the previous enterprise couldn't.
With regard to this, Starfleet had developed new technology that the Galaxy class just wasn't capable of running (the sovi had better shields, impulse drive, power system, warp drive, tactical systems and sensor arrays) and as we all know the flagship ALWAYS hosts the fleets best technology, it's more of a test bed that some of the high end science ships. Not only that but Starfleet was working on a new look as well, a more streamlined and sleek design for their ships (which turned out to be an improvement upon their combat capability and as it happens their ability to drive into other ships, it also showed development of their own rather than using their neighbours designs for inspiration (see klingon ships then look at the Galaxy class)), frankly the bulky Galaxy design was just that, bulky, which was it's primary design flaw as it wasn't a brilliant turner and should an enemy escape the forward phaser banks the Galaxy was at an immediate and severe disadvantage, which happens to be the reason the galaxy was only the flagship for 7 years (compared to other more successful designs (such as the Excelsior) which were far longer).

I'm sorry to say that the Galaxy turn rate is close to right in game, I think it could use an extra point but it should never be fast due to it's bulk, I think what it is missing is that 90 degree arc of death in front of it (all the ships weaknesses but none of it's strengths), with it's low turn rate and speed it more than pays for the hull it has and fire-power it lacks.

Just my 2 pence
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 243
# 295
09-29-2012, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
With regard to this, Starfleet had developed new technology that the Galaxy class just wasn't capable of running (the sovi had better shields, impulse drive, power system, warp drive, tactical systems and sensor arrays) and as we all know the flagship ALWAYS hosts the fleets best technology, it's more of a test bed that some of the high end science ships.
How do you know Galaxy wasn't capable of using newer technology? Better Warp Drive? You can't have a much better warp drive when it's already near 9,99 and Sovereign was a step backwards - have a look at the size of the nacelles. So long and so little gain.

Quote:
frankly the bulky Galaxy design was just that, bulky, which was it's primary design flaw as it wasn't a brilliant turner and should an enemy escape the forward phaser banks the Galaxy was at an immediate and severe disadvantage
Have you ever seen Star Trek on TV? Take a look at a sharp and fast turn when escaping the Borg cube.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,696
# 296
09-29-2012, 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjumetley View Post
How do you know Galaxy wasn't capable of using newer technology? Better Warp Drive? You can't have a much better warp drive when it's already near 9,99 and Sovereign was a step backwards - have a look at the size of the nacelles. So long and so little gain.
Ok I don't remember when I found this out it's been a while since I did watch the show or the films for that matter, however I believe it was more efficient (just because it can't reach higher speeds doesn't mean it isn't better).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjumetley View Post
Have you ever seen Star Trek on TV? Take a look at a sharp and fast turn when escaping the Borg cube.
I'm talking as standard, unless it HAD to turn fast (in which case they pulled off some clever engineering trick prolonged use of which I believe to be dangerous). I have watched every episode of TNG, DS9 and VOY on different occasions however that is a lot of detail to remember and sadly it has been a while as well so I will happily admit my info may not be perfectly accurate
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,658
# 297
09-29-2012, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by angrytarg View Post
You know, commanding a small wing of Peregrines or KDF fighters which warp in on the battlefield, strike and damage/disable a single target and then get the hell out of there would be a cool feature to have. But carrying fighters into battle is not a good plan.
This is how I was hoping at least Fed fighters would work, so instead of fighter bays you'd have "Subspace Comms" or somesuch to call in warp capable fighters and gunships. So instead of "Carriers", Starfleeet would have "Command and Control" ships. All it'd take is for destroyed fighters to warp out instead of blow up when they pass a damage threshold.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,964
# 298
09-29-2012, 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
Yes, that they do



With regard to this, Starfleet had developed new technology that the Galaxy class just wasn't capable of running (the sovi had better shields, impulse drive, power system, warp drive, tactical systems and sensor arrays) and as we all know the flagship ALWAYS hosts the fleets best technology, it's more of a test bed that some of the high end science ships. Not only that but Starfleet was working on a new look as well, a more streamlined and sleek design for their ships (which turned out to be an improvement upon their combat capability and as it happens their ability to drive into other ships, it also showed development of their own rather than using their neighbours designs for inspiration (see klingon ships then look at the Galaxy class)), frankly the bulky Galaxy design was just that, bulky, which was it's primary design flaw as it wasn't a brilliant turner and should an enemy escape the forward phaser banks the Galaxy was at an immediate and severe disadvantage, which happens to be the reason the galaxy was only the flagship for 7 years (compared to other more successful designs (such as the Excelsior) which were far longer).

I'm sorry to say that the Galaxy turn rate is close to right in game, I think it could use an extra point but it should never be fast due to it's bulk, I think what it is missing is that 90 degree arc of death in front of it (all the ships weaknesses but none of it's strengths), with it's low turn rate and speed it more than pays for the hull it has and fire-power it lacks.

Just my 2 pence
funny, i don't recall anyone ever stating that the enterprise E was the flagship, its just sort of what everyone decided to assume.

the sovereign is NOT a galaxy replacement, they are in completely different size tiers. the galaxy is the fleet's battleship, the sovereign is only a large heavy cruiser. the volume of the galaxy is actually 2.4 times greater then the sovereign, they arent even comparable.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8...izecompare.jpg

the equipment the sovereign comes with being a bit more advanced is due in part that the design is about a decade newer, the scheduled major refits all ships have will even that out, throughout tng there was mention all the time of refits.

there was nothing fundamentally flawed about the galaxy, quite the opposite. its internal compartments were almost completely modular and could be swamped out as needed. the enterprise D even launched with 35% of its interior unutilized, ready for mission specific equipment and sections to be swapped in as needed. the galaxy class assembled during the ramp up to the dominian war had even less of their interior filled out.

the only galaxy we are very familiar with was the enterprise, and it was clearly loaded to the gills with scientific and exploration specific equipment, and maximum comfort and crew support, someone even decided it would be safe enough to bring along the crew's civilian families. it was a bit of a guilded flagship, built to impress wile on diplomatic missions. a more utilitarion, more military focused layout is just as capable of being installed in a galaxy

its likely that the sovereign has a higher % of its space taken up by tactical systems, but again the sovereign is 2.4 times smaller. if it wasn't for the galaxy's hugeness, it wouldn't have room for its 2 massive torpedo launchers and its longest by far phaser arrays. those main phaser arrays can hit anything they have line of sight with at full power. thats part of why arrays are so great, they have unlimited fireing arc. any place the main array is in a blind spot of, theres 4 or 5 small arrays pointing at you.



its fine that the galaxy turns as poorly as it does in game, IF it had an advantage that made up for it, like a hugely powerfull phaser array with a 320 degree firing arc, like it has in canon. but it gets nothing, and a HORRIBLE station setup, its just has huge disadvantages and smaller ships like the excelsior simply don't have, the small ships give up nothing for their passable turn rate.
______________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordlalo View Post
I just wanted to say, I've never seen a more disturbing avatar
the pvp build and help thread
gateway links(should actually work now) -->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus

Last edited by dontdrunkimshoot; 09-29-2012 at 07:22 PM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 216
# 299
09-29-2012, 08:22 PM
^ What he said
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,051
# 300
09-29-2012, 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
funny, i don't recall anyone ever stating that the enterprise E was the flagship, its just sort of what everyone decided to assume.

the sovereign is NOT a galaxy replacement, they are in completely different size tiers. the galaxy is the fleet's battleship, the sovereign is only a large heavy cruiser. the volume of the galaxy is actually 2.4 times greater then the sovereign, they arent even comparable.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8...izecompare.jpg

the equipment the sovereign comes with being a bit more advanced is due in part that the design is about a decade newer, the scheduled major refits all ships have will even that out, throughout tng there was mention all the time of refits.

there was nothing fundamentally flawed about the galaxy, quite the opposite. its internal compartments were almost completely modular and could be swamped out as needed. the enterprise D even launched with 35% of its interior unutilized, ready for mission specific equipment and sections to be swapped in as needed. the galaxy class assembled during the ramp up to the dominian war had even less of their interior filled out.

the only galaxy we are very familiar with was the enterprise, and it was clearly loaded to the gills with scientific and exploration specific equipment, and maximum comfort and crew support, someone even decided it would be safe enough to bring along the crew's civilian families. it was a bit of a guilded flagship, built to impress wile on diplomatic missions. a more utilitarion, more military focused layout is just as capable of being installed in a galaxy

its likely that the sovereign has a higher % of its space taken up by tactical systems, but again the sovereign is 2.4 times smaller. if it wasn't for the galaxy's hugeness, it wouldn't have room for its 2 massive torpedo launchers and its longest by far phaser arrays. those main phaser arrays can hit anything they have line of sight with at full power. thats part of why arrays are so great, they have unlimited fireing arc. any place the main array is in a blind spot of, theres 4 or 5 small arrays pointing at you.
I fully agree with everything you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
its fine that the galaxy turns as poorly as it does in game, IF it had an advantage that made up for it, like a hugely powerfull phaser array with a 320 degree firing arc, like it has in canon. but it gets nothing, and a HORRIBLE station setup, its just has huge disadvantages and smaller ships like the excelsior simply don't have, the small ships give up nothing for their passable turn rate.
These are it's main flaws in STO in my opinion.
The devs seem to regard low maneuverability a just a secondary disadvantage, which it isn't.
And i couldn't agree more about the BOFF layout, it's extremely improper for a multi role ship like the Galaxy Class. It it just too passive, making the ship nothing more than a flying targeting exercise for Klingon players in PvP with no means of fighting back. I wonder why some players even bother to equip that ship with weapons in the first place when going to PvP, it doesn't matter anyways.

In my opinion, the Galaxy Class should have tha most flexible BOFF layout of all Federation ships.

Maybe something like this:
Engineering: Cmdr
Engineering: Lt.

Universal: Lt. Cmdr
Universal: Lt.
Universal: Ensign


Additionally it should get a additional univerversal console slot.


But since this ship is already in the Game, the devs won't do anything we are suggesting here. (no $$)

Thats why i would like to see them making a special or a mirror version of that ship with a more "beefy" BOFF and Console Layout. Cryptic could make some money without much work, the "nay" sayers could keep their flying brick and we could finally have a useful and more worthy Galaxy Class.


Thank you for reading.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 08:23 PM.