test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Weapone Hardpoints

alexindcobraalexindcobra Member Posts: 608
edited August 2012 in Federation Discussion
I have noticed that there are alot of weapon hardpoints that aren't being used on the canon ships in STO.

Galaxy: when you load 4 phasers on the foward weapon slots, 4 beams fire out of the sauser's one dorsal array. That don't make sense and was not fired like that in the show. The sauser has a ventral array that should be used as well. The two phaser strips on the pylons are not being used as well. They do fire forward, aslo. When the sauser is separated the Drive section is firing phasers from an odd location and not from its hardpoints.

Nebula: This ship does not use its ventral phaser array when firing beam weapons. The topedos seem to fire straight from the hull and not from a laucher position. It was shown that torpedos can launch from the module above the sauser section on the TNG. In the game, the is not torpedo lauche location at all on this ship.

Galaxy Dreadnought: Same as the Galaxy, the sauser is not using ventral phaser array. The 3 phaser blisters on the warp engine nacelles are not being used. The should be put into action so 4 beams do apear to come out of one array.

I can go on and on about each canon ship. The Devs need to read Memory Alpha and Beta to get details of where the weapons should fire from on each ship.
Post edited by alexindcobra on
«1

Comments

  • dknight0001dknight0001 Member Posts: 1,542
    edited August 2012
    Valid point, but it's been the same for over 2 years, but don't worry it's due to be fixed after KDF is finished and they launch a full and complete Romulan Faction.

    Best Estimate: Never.
    I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. :confused:
    If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
    When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
  • futurepastnowfuturepastnow Member Posts: 3,660 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I don't like the way dual beam banks almost always fire from the edge of the saucer on the Galaxy, Sovereign, Odyssey, and other ships. Their beams should originate from the general location of the phaser strips like the beam arrays do.
  • unangbangkayunangbangkay Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I don't like the way dual beam banks almost always fire from the edge of the saucer on the Galaxy, Sovereign, Odyssey, and other ships. Their beams should originate from the general location of the phaser strips like the beam arrays do.

    I'm OK with the switch from Phaser Strips to hardpoints because, well, since STO can't do the "phaser strip" visual effect any more, hardpoints are the only option :(
  • alexindcobraalexindcobra Member Posts: 608
    edited August 2012
    There supposed to be a mixture of phaser strips and hardpoints. All the modern canon ship have a mixture. If you can make this program, then you can make any visual effect you like. I bring this up because they made sure the Odyssey fires from its different hardpoints and strips. What about the rest of the ships? If a person employs dual beams and the ship does not have dual phaser banks or cannon implacements, then beams should fire arranged vertically from the dorsal and ventral strips instead of horizontally out of the sauser tips. The Nebula need to have a torpedo port on the upper module and fire from there and not out of the deflector dish. The Dreadnought needs to use it's very visible, phaser blister that are on the engine nacelles instead of firing all forward weapons out of the sauser.
  • unangbangkayunangbangkay Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    It's a pretty wide assumption to make that any program can efficiently manage any visual effect. Since you nor I did not create the graphics engine (and do not have access to it or STO's assets), it's best not to presume what devs can and cannot do without their own word.

    And, think a bit on what the "phaser strip" animation looks like, with two beams converging to shoot from any point on the strip. I would bet that that is tougher to do in an exacting way compared to making a beam originate from a designated point on the model.

    I'll sympathize with your concern over torpedo ports and phaser hardpoints not being where they "should" be (keeping in mind that this is Star Trek's future and designs could have changed in the 40 years since TNG). But again, there could be technical or even creative reasons for not putting them there. You'll only make yourself angry if you ascribe any problem down to incompetence or laziness.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    the galaxy should be fireing all its beams fore and aft from the main saucer phaser arrays like the saucer pet does. only when separated should any of those punny secondary hull arrays be used. short of that, the 2 aft arrays on the back of the galaxy's neck should have half the hardpoints for dorcel fire, just like how half the ventral phasers fire from the pylons and half by the aft torp launcher.

    i HATE how the dorcel aft phasers on the odyssey fire from the end of the warp nacelles, it looks TRIBBLE.
  • dashuk2381dashuk2381 Member Posts: 230 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    the galaxy should be fireing all its beams fore and aft from the main saucer phaser arrays like the saucer pet does. only when separated should any of those punny secondary hull arrays be used. short of that, the 2 aft arrays on the back of the galaxy's neck should have half the hardpoints for dorcel fire, just like how half the ventral phasers fire from the pylons and half by the aft torp launcher.

    i HATE how the dorcel aft phasers on the odyssey fire from the end of the warp nacelles, it looks TRIBBLE.


    I was actually just about to mention how stupid the Oddy looks when using BFAW and it's shooting out of the nacelles, lol.
  • unangbangkayunangbangkay Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    dashuk2381 wrote: »
    I was actually just about to mention how stupid the Oddy looks when using BFAW and it's shooting out of the nacelles, lol.

    Nacelle hardpoints are canon. The OP's in fact complaining that the Galaxy doesn't fire from the nacelles.

    Personally I don't really like nacelle weapons either (unless they're on small ships and forward-facing like the Defiant). Why would you mount your guns on the bits of your ship that tend to EXPLODE when hit? What if the enemy targets those bits and BOOM, you "Ejected Warp Plasma" in a bad, bad way.

    But that's the way things are, and it's a valid option.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Nacelle hardpoints are canon. The OP's in fact complaining that the Galaxy doesn't fire from the nacelles.

    Personally I don't really like nacelle weapons either (unless they're on small ships and forward-facing like the Defiant). Why would you mount your guns on the bits of your ship that tend to EXPLODE when hit? What if the enemy targets those bits and BOOM, you "Ejected Warp Plasma" in a bad, bad way.

    But that's the way things are, and it's a valid option.

    its the exception, not the rule. it shows up no were else, and the galaxy X is more imaginary then hard canon. aside from that, it looks STUPID
  • unangbangkayunangbangkay Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    its the exception, not the rule. it shows up no were else, and the galaxy X is more imaginary then hard canon. aside from that, it looks STUPID

    Why so hostile? You do know that I'm agreeing with you, right?

    That said, why are you so angry about Galaxy hardpoints not conforming to canon when the Gal-X, a ship that exists in Star Trek (your limited definition of what is canon doesn't apply) has canon hardpoints? Should only some ships, the ones you like, be canon?
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Why so hostile? You do know that I'm agreeing with you, right?

    That said, why are you so angry about Galaxy hardpoints not conforming to canon when the Gal-X, a ship that exists in Star Trek (your limited definition of what is canon doesn't apply) has canon hardpoints? Should only some ships, the ones you like, be canon?

    i think my avatar pic makes all my posts sound a lot more aggressive then they are. im not really interested in debating weather the galaxy X truly exits in the course the prime universe took, the future in AGT did not happen, and was a creation of Q's anyway. that doesn't mean an 'upgrade' to the galaxy class like that wouldn't ever happen in any other universe, but i could go into detail as to why none of the additions make any sense in the context of trek science. maybe later. the galaxy X is a large part of why the nice looking galaxy R sucks so much its basically unusable competitively. i have a whole lot of reasons for not liking it. but i wasn't trying to shout my last post or anything.
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    It's just lazyness on Cryptic's part tbh. They do not care about already sold content/created content. I find dual beam banks hardpoints on Galaxy/Nebula saucer stupid. It LOOK STUPID and it is so since beta.

    Funny is, Nebula utilitizes nice aft hard points, both on the sides of mission pod as well as on the nacelle pilon's phaser strips. I guess it's because it was implement later. It would probably take few hours to fix phaser strips on Galaxy.

    But since the ship is on official Cryptic hatelists, all feedback regarding it is thoroughly ignored I doubt anything with it will be ever fixed.
    "Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
  • gstamo01gstamo01 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Hey now, just because the game is called Star Trek Online, it does not mean it has anything to do with Star Trek.. :P
    You know Cryptic has Jumped the Proverbial Shark when they introduced Tractor Pulling to Star Trek Online! :D
  • alexindcobraalexindcobra Member Posts: 608
    edited August 2012
    the galaxy should be fireing all its beams fore and aft from the main saucer phaser arrays like the saucer pet does. only when separated should any of those punny secondary hull arrays be used. short of that, the 2 aft arrays on the back of the galaxy's neck should have half the hardpoints for dorcel fire, just like how half the ventral phasers fire from the pylons and half by the aft torp launcher.

    i HATE how the dorcel aft phasers on the odyssey fire from the end of the warp nacelles, it looks TRIBBLE.

    Nagative, Nagative!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go back at look at "Best of Both Worlds" and you will see all the foward firing positions. If you don't have a copy of the episode, then got read about the Galaxy Class in Memery Alpha.
  • alexindcobraalexindcobra Member Posts: 608
    edited August 2012
    its the exception, not the rule. it shows up no were else, and the galaxy X is more imaginary then hard canon. aside from that, it looks STUPID

    Oh, yeah? Well, soft canon this! The USS Venture was a Galaxy Class starship that lead Galaxy wings during the Dominion War and It has phaser blisters on top of its nacelles. Read all about it in Memory Alpha, or as I always say, watch Star Trek.
  • alexindcobraalexindcobra Member Posts: 608
    edited August 2012
    i think my avatar pic makes all my posts sound a lot more aggressive then they are. im not really interested in debating weather the galaxy X truly exits in the course the prime universe took, the future in AGT did not happen, and was a creation of Q's anyway. that doesn't mean an 'upgrade' to the galaxy class like that wouldn't ever happen in any other universe, but i could go into detail as to why none of the additions make any sense in the context of trek science. maybe later. the galaxy X is a large part of why the nice looking galaxy R sucks so much its basically unusable competitively. i have a whole lot of reasons for not liking it. but i wasn't trying to shout my last post or anything.

    Yes, your face offends me. Just kidding. Just because the Enterprise-D itself didn't make that future possible doesn't mean that the Dreadnought ship disign wasn't in the future.
  • alexindcobraalexindcobra Member Posts: 608
    edited August 2012
    Futures and Alternate Futures are mainly about the people and outcomes, not ship designs. Remember the episode with Warf traveling home from a tournament and ending up in another universe? When he try to return to his own universe it causeed a convergence of all the different universes. All the Enterprises looked the same and had same disigns. Just the people and outcomes were different.

    The episode of Voyager("Endgame") Admiral Janeway comes from the future to change what happens in the past. She helped Voyager come home faster than when they were supposed to, thus rewriting history and turning the future into an altrenate one. All the ship designs still came to pass just the outcomes of people changed.

    For a real life example, The US came up with the Atomic bomb in the 1940's, but if we would not of captured those scientist from Germany, the TRIBBLE would of had the bomb. If Germany was prevented from making the bomb, and the US was not working on it, then Japan would of had the Atomic Bomb. Japan was also working on designing a nuclear bomb but they had prioritized working on the Radar gun instead. If enough time would of past where they found that the Radar Gun was ineffective, they would of came up with the Atomic Bomb. That said, the Atomic bomb would came into existence, regardless of which county thought of it first.
  • nyniknynik Member Posts: 1,628 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I wish Al Rivera could schedule some development time to create Hardpoint strips on appropriate ships (nearly all Starfleet ships).

    The firing beam could fire from any point along the hardpoint phaser strip, although it would fire from the point closest to the target. Each time it fired it would initiate a very quick pre-fire animation where the charge builds up from opposing ends of the strip, run along it, and then meet and fire. Just like we saw on TV. Check this video @ 23 seconds (for one example) of Galaxy firing animations (some are ingame) - but I really want that charging animation!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734afLFPds#t=0m23s

    STO's mainstay is space combat. I just don't get why the investment into hardpoint IP-accuracy... just stopped.
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    What I would love most, is that beam arrays stacked to one single beam, instead seeing 4 copies from same hardpoint. I wish there would be some beam arrays that take 1, 2, or even 4 forward slots to act as one beam.

    The reason i dislike all beam cruisers is how stupidly it looks broadside.
    "Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
  • nyniknynik Member Posts: 1,628 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I can agree with that. On-screen, multiple beams could be fired at the same time from the same strip (with each shot having a mini charge animation too).. oh, it would be sweet.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Nagative, Nagative!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go back at look at "Best of Both Worlds" and you will see all the foward firing positions. If you don't have a copy of the episode, then got read about the Galaxy Class in Memery Alpha.

    they weren't firing to deal max damage, they were firing as many beams as possible to hit the cube with as many different beam frequencies as possible to get some kind of effect. you never see a galaxy class fire like that again.
    Oh, yeah? Well, soft canon this! The USS Venture was a Galaxy Class starship that lead Galaxy wings during the Dominion War and It has phaser blisters on top of its nacelles. Read all about it in Memory Alpha, or as I always say, watch Star Trek.

    it was only seen like that when they hadn't repaired the damage to the 4 foot model they inflicted to it when they added all that TRIBBLE to it for AGT. that same ship was later seen in cgi without those nacelle mounts.
    dalnar83 wrote: »
    What I would love most, is that beam arrays stacked to one single beam, instead seeing 4 copies from same hardpoint. I wish there would be some beam arrays that take 1, 2, or even 4 forward slots to act as one beam.

    The reason i dislike all beam cruisers is how stupidly it looks broadside.

    ships with phaser arrays do not fire 8 beams at 1 target if they want to deal maximum damage. in the case of the galaxy class with the largest most powerful array on any starfleet ship, its larger dorcel array has 200 emitters in it. during a full array discharge, the moving glow effect you see is the energy stored in each emitter traveling to the fireing point, it can all be discharged in 1 blast anywhere on the array. the effect of a lot of emitters in an array is additive, it really is as simple as the longer the array, the more powerful your per shot damage will be. thats why you basically never see a galaxy class use an array other then its main saucer arrays, they are only really their for point defense of targets outside the fireing arc of the main arrays.

    this is why the galaxy X lance makes no sense, what a step backward. the ship already has the biggest gun in the fleet, with a nearly unlimited fireing arc, yet they strap this redundant low arc death ray with all the disadvantages the weapons they used had before they went to arrays. the best thing about arrays are its packaging, they don't need this enormous barrel to fire powerful shots, its spread out across the surface of the ship, the only significant space it takes up internally is the large amount of EPS conduits running to groups of emitters. as always, it was as powerful as the writers wanted it to be, just like how the writers made the enterprise this weak underdog in nearly every other episode.

    the worst part is, the galaxy is the weakest offensive cruiser in game when it had the most firepower in canon. at
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734afLFPds#t=0m38s, it fires 10 torpedoes in less then a second, and several full array discharges at 1 a second. there hasn't been any other on screen moment were a galaxy got to flex its muscles like that, and it was only allowed to because its target was invincible or imaginary or whatever. every time you see a galaxy class get its TRIBBLE kicked, and it didn't put out a show of force like that, its basically canon violating and writers hamstringing the ship. the Odyssey fight and generations fight, and the rascals fight would have been over in about 2 seconds if the galaxy was allowed to fire like that more often.

    this game treated beam weapons so incorrectly that its basically unsalvageable. phasers are the only energy type that is comparable with arrays. there are no disruptor arrays or polaron arrays, all these weapons are basically fired out of a bank or gun barrel, no one else has ever been seen using anything like phaser arrays. in game if they were done correctly they would be extreamly overpowered, a galaxy class would be fireing a beam that did more damage per shot then a DHC with a 360 degree fireing arc. the very least we can hope for is better hardpoint placement, so beams regardless of how many there are fire from the correct spots.
  • alexindcobraalexindcobra Member Posts: 608
    edited August 2012
    they weren't firing to deal max damage, they were firing as many beams as possible to hit the cube with as many different beam frequencies as possible to get some kind of effect. you never see a galaxy class fire like that again.


    it was only seen like that when they hadn't repaired the damage to the 4 foot model they inflicted to it when they added all that TRIBBLE to it for AGT. that same ship was later seen in cgi without those nacelle mounts.


    ships with phaser arrays do not fire 8 beams at 1 target if they want to deal maximum damage. in the case of the galaxy class with the largest most powerful array on any starfleet ship, its larger dorcel array has 200 emitters in it. during a full array discharge, the moving glow effect you see is the energy stored in each emitter traveling to the fireing point, it can all be discharged in 1 blast anywhere on the array. the effect of a lot of emitters in an array is additive, it really is as simple as the longer the array, the more powerful your per shot damage will be. thats why you basically never see a galaxy class use an array other then its main saucer arrays, they are only really their for point defense of targets outside the fireing arc of the main arrays.

    this is why the galaxy X lance makes no sense, what a step backward. the ship already has the biggest gun in the fleet, with a nearly unlimited fireing arc, yet they strap this redundant low arc death ray with all the disadvantages the weapons they used had before they went to arrays. the best thing about arrays are its packaging, they don't need this enormous barrel to fire powerful shots, its spread out across the surface of the ship, the only significant space it takes up internally is the large amount of EPS conduits running to groups of emitters. as always, it was as powerful as the writers wanted it to be, just like how the writers made the enterprise this weak underdog in nearly every other episode.

    the worst part is, the galaxy is the weakest offensive cruiser in game when it had the most firepower in canon. at
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734afLFPds#t=0m38s, it fires 10 torpedoes in less then a second, and several full array discharges at 1 a second. there hasn't been any other on screen moment were a galaxy got to flex its muscles like that, and it was only allowed to because its target was invincible or imaginary or whatever. every time you see a galaxy class get its TRIBBLE kicked, and it didn't put out a show of force like that, its basically canon violating and writers hamstringing the ship. the Odyssey fight and generations fight, and the rascals fight would have been over in about 2 seconds if the galaxy was allowed to fire like that more often.

    this game treated beam weapons so incorrectly that its basically unsalvageable. phasers are the only energy type that is comparable with arrays. there are no disruptor arrays or polaron arrays, all these weapons are basically fired out of a bank or gun barrel, no one else has ever been seen using anything like phaser arrays. in game if they were done correctly they would be extreamly overpowered, a galaxy class would be fireing a beam that did more damage per shot then a DHC with a 360 degree fireing arc. the very least we can hope for is better hardpoint placement, so beams regardless of how many there are fire from the correct spots.

    it doesn't matter, its still was firing all foward arcs. This game is only one of two Star Trek Games the doesn't fire all the weapons properly. I have played almost all existing Star Trek games, and they use all of the existing strips and hardpoints.

    It was not the same model as the Dreadnought Enterprise model. In fact the nacelle phaser blisters were facing the opposite direction than the "All Good Things" Model. You also must know that the CGI ships almost always never look exactly like the actual model ships. CGI have some dimentional errors just as ships in the game do. It takes a detailed eye to catch these differences.

    The Lance make alot of sence because the Klingons have made very large tough ships that normal phasers have a harder time penitrating. The Dreadnought was made to be a difference against overwhelming odds. The Dreadnought was not called by namesake because its was full of mediocre weapons to be matched by opponents. It was to overpower great numbers of opponents. The Lance's size helps it incorperate convergence of many lasers or particle beams into one great powerful beam, the same way very power lasers are made on Earth, today. The Lance need that extra power to cut through shields, and hull like a hot knife through butter.

    It doesn't matter if you don't like the ship or not. The ship is made by makers of Star Trek and now it exist. This thread is not about who likes the Galaxy-X or not. Its about making the weapons fire out of the existing strips or hardpoints versus firing out of random hull locations.
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    it doesn't matter, its still was firing all foward arcs. This game is only one of two Star Trek Games the doesn't fire all the weapons properly. I have played almost all existing Star Trek games, and they use all of the existing strips and hardpoints.

    It was not the same model as the Dreadnought Enterprise model. In fact the nacelle phaser blisters were facing the opposite direction than the "All Good Things" Model. You also must know that the CGI ships almost always never look exactly like the actual model ships. CGI have some dimentional errors just as ships in the game do. It takes a detailed eye to catch these differences.

    The Lance make alot of sence because the Klingons have made very large tough ships that normal phasers have a harder time penitrating. The Dreadnought was made to be a difference against overwhelming odds. The Dreadnought was not called by namesake because its was full of mediocre weapons to be matched by opponents. It was to overpower great numbers of opponents. The Lance's size helps it incorperate convergence of many lasers or particle beams into one great powerful beam, the same way very power lasers are made on Earth, today. The Lance need that extra power to cut through shields, and hull like a hot knife through butter.

    It doesn't matter if you don't like the ship or not. The ship is made by makers of Star Trek and now it exist. This thread is not about who likes the Galaxy-X or not. Its about making the weapons fire out of the existing strips or hardpoints versus firing out of random hull locations.

    I couldnt care less about the stats, but how it looks tbh. If I have 3 beam arrays equiped in front, let them be merged to single beam. Not numerical but visually.
    "Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
  • baudlbaudl Member Posts: 4,060 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    but before beam visuals are changed, cryptic needs to make the cannon bolts move much, much faster...
    Go pro or go home
  • wotertoolwotertool Member Posts: 99 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    That suggestion is great because I always hated the hardpoints they use on the Sovereign.

    It has very long arrays which would be able to fire backwards but Cryptic chose the end of the Sov which also shoots through it's warpengines.

    The same with the Negh'Var. It's "triangle" on the back of the ship has arrays which looks forward but only shoots backwards and to the sites.

    I also would like it to see only 1 beam per array with a mini loading befor shooting (like in the movies).
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    it doesn't matter, its still was firing all foward arcs. This game is only one of two Star Trek Games the doesn't fire all the weapons properly. I have played almost all existing Star Trek games, and they use all of the existing strips and hardpoints.

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:USS_Enterprise-D_assaulted_by_a_Borg_cube.jpg

    note the scale of the target. nearly all arrays on the ship could hit a faceing that large. thats not the case with any other ship it could posibly shoot at. needle pricking a target with weak shots is a waist of energy, all the power going into a single shot would have a much more devastating effect, something only the saucer phasers are capable of.
    It was not the same model as the Dreadnought Enterprise model. In fact the nacelle phaser blisters were facing the opposite direction than the "All Good Things" Model. You also must know that the CGI ships almost always never look exactly like the actual model ships. CGI have some dimentional errors just as ships in the game do. It takes a detailed eye to catch these differences.

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class_model

    "Labeled USS Venture (NCC-71854), the model was featured at the end of the episode as part of a relief force, interestingly sporting the phaser assemblies on the nacelles as featured in "All Good Things...", albeit in a reverse orientation.

    It's performance in the episode proved to be the very last time, the four-foot model, or any of the physical studio models for that matter, was used as a production asset, the next (new footage) appearance of a Galaxy class vessel in "Call to Arms" already being executed as a CGI effect."

    it also talks about the galaxy X being parts added on to the 4 foot model. you cant see the top of the nacelles during the odyssey battle iirc, it could very well have had those left over nacelle hardpoints as well.
    It doesn't matter if you don't like the ship or not. The ship is made by makers of Star Trek and now it exist. This thread is not about who likes the Galaxy-X or not. Its about making the weapons fire out of the existing strips or hardpoints versus firing out of random hull locations.

    its actually about what looks most canon, and thats all shots coming from the main array. when separated every array on the secondary hull should be used, theres no reason to skip those 2 on the back of the neck. an eventual separated galaxy x can fire from its nacelles all it wants, i could care less.
    wotertool wrote: »
    That suggestion is great because I always hated the hardpoints they use on the Sovereign.

    It has very long arrays which would be able to fire backwards but Cryptic chose the end of the Sov which also shoots through it's warpengines.

    The same with the Negh'Var. It's "triangle" on the back of the ship has arrays which looks forward but only shoots backwards and to the sites.

    I also would like it to see only 1 beam per array with a mini loading befor shooting (like in the movies).

    agreed on the soverign. there are 3 aft arrays on each side of the saucer on the top, and 2 underneath but they could also use the ventral secondary hull array too. along with the arrays on the pylon each could have an aft phaser hardpoint
  • alexindcobraalexindcobra Member Posts: 608
    edited August 2012
    There is only one array that can only be used after sauser separation, and thats the dorsal array of the battle section of the ship. Quit making up stats and adding in facts that are not backed up by any makers of Star Trek or any affiliated site.


    Here, read this whole page and you will learn something. There no need to speculate when there is writen facts.

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    There is only one array that can only be used after sauser separation, and thats the dorsal array of the battle section of the ship. Quit making up stats and adding in facts that are not backed up by any makers of Star Trek or any affiliated site.


    Here, read this whole page and you will learn something. There no need to speculate when there is written facts.

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class

    im not making up anything. thats how phasers work, it is backed up in the tng technical manual made by the makers of star trek, and the glow effect you see on tv before arrays fire. they are the most canon thing next to the tv show because they were made by the staff of the show.

    tng technical manual, see for yourself

    http://www.paragonsigma.com/tempuploads/startrek/Star%20Trek%20-%20TNG%20Technical%20Manual%20182%20Pages.pdf

    page 123. if you need further explanation i can provide it.
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Anyway, we are arguing about ships that are and always be obsole in STO unless console mechanics change (like tripple stats/one from each).

    The way STO is heading, there will be "soon" ships with 6 tactical consoles and such, making ships with 2 tactical consoles even more laughable than they are now.
    "Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
  • dknight0001dknight0001 Member Posts: 1,542
    edited August 2012
    While we are arguing about specific ships now.

    The Original point of Weapons working like they did in the show would be a fantastic visual upgrade for the game.
    I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. :confused:
    If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
    When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
Sign In or Register to comment.