Shouldn't cruisers field 8 weapons, science ships 6 and escorts respectively 4 weapons total? Your default cruiser setup would be 4/4, default sci 3/3 and default escort maybe 3/1 - those ships are supposed to fly hit and run charges and outmanneuvre the enemy, maybe dropping a mine on their retreat. Sure, weapon damage had to be balanced a bit but the point is that excorts shouldn't do most damage per se, at least not the way they do now. The whole nonsense with going 5 weapons on one end or the other is just a symptom of the power creep we witness in the game. Cryptic manneuvred themselves in a dead end since new ships have to be tactical superior and feature even more weapons to be of any worth. Meh.
What i would love to see is a revamp/re-classification of Starfleets in STO, similar like they did with Romulan Warbirds.
Basicly all Starfleet ships should become Starships, which are light, medium and heavy Cruisers, plus Command ships and one or two escorts and science ships.
Just some examples and their characteristics:
Light Cruisers - Excelsior, Intrepid - Agile, mostly depending on shields, balanced BOFF/Console Layout
Medium Cruisers - Stargazer Class, Ambassador - Medium strong ships, excelling at only one area (BOFF/Consoles)
Heavy Cruisers - Akira, Sovereign - Very strong offensive, good defensive , bigger emphsasis on offensive BOFF/Consoles
Command ships - Galaxy, Odyssey - Slow, heavy defense and offense, special abilities, balanced BOFF/Console Layout
Escorts - Patrol Escort, Defiant - Fast glass cannons, surviving through speed and maneuverability
Science - Nova, Olympic - similar to light crusiers, but heavy relying on science abilities
A Galaxy class usually leads and supports an operation due to her vast possiblities: She can oversee an entire colonization operation with her auxilliary craft, transportation capabilities and so on. She can lead deep space exploration missions and also function as a anchorpoint in tactical engagements but in any case she operates differently from all the other ship classes due to her overall function. In combat for example, a Galaxy would not fly impressive evasive mannneuvres but instead soak up most of the damage and on the offense simply steamroll the enemy - but send her in doing that without support and she's toast. Hence my idea as to treat her like an evolution of the Ambassador Class which is reflected in the BOFF setup which happens to be a mirror of her little sister's layout as well, basically to reflect a consistency of the Galaxy and Nebula development projects.
I like that idea. Maybe she could be something similar as in Birth of the Federation, acting as Command Ship.
(maybe something similar like the Dominion dreadnoughts aoe Buff)
EDIT: Maybe it does help explain my attempt when I say that I am not embarrased flying a Gal-R atm in-game. I also play a Nebula and I enjoy both. I know they are not top-notch and the setups have problems and it's not a good tribute to the ships we saw in the shows but I'm also not ranting about how slow they turn or how crappy they are. I fly my Galaxy proud, take her to STFs and into other PvE actions and score 2nd places quite regular, though most of the time it's 3rd. I think they need reasonable improvements but not a too optimistic fan treatment.
Maybe you are right.
But personally i must disagree, i feel embarassed by the GCS by all means. Being outgunned by every other ship is just frustrating.
Just a example, when doing a Fleet actions and fighting a smaller group of enemy NPCs and 100% sure there will be some little annoying escort joining in and kill all enemies in seconds, before i even have the chance to do any noticeable damage.
That was just one example (and not a real good one:o) but i hope you get the point.
The big powerful Galaxy Class should be able to do that and save the little escort, not the other way round.
I just hate the trinity system.
It's really late now, so sorry for any typos.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
The last thing i heard was that they wanted to give it a saucer seperation and make the Phaser lance something like a shotgun phaser -thing when in seperation mode. Althrough i miss the point of that, they obviously think it would be something "cool" in their eyes.
Actually the 'Shotgun Phaser' is already in the game. It's listed in the Galaxy X's power tray on Live and Tribble - you just can't saucer sep to use it. It's been listed in the ship's powers for about six months or so. It slipped in for the two weeks you could use the fleet skin on the Galaxy-X. They removed the fleet skin, but left the 'Shotgun'.
As for the two ltcom slots - that would be a hell of a build. I'd go for it in a heartbeat.
Theres so many good ideas and yet not one reply or even a quick hello from a dev. Kinda disappointing that a thread could go on this long and not even be touched by one single dev.
Fact remains that the fighters used in the dominion war had to have a mothership.
Small ships like that simply just would not have the warp capabilities needed to keep up with capital ships.
And we know for a fact that a Galaxy Class starship do carry starfleet runabouts, and can carry a number of them.
Fighters are in fact comparable to runabouts to size and could easily be carrier in shuttlebays.
Wether you like it or not, the Galaxy class has the capability and very likely did carry fighters into battle during the Dominion war.
All starships can and did carry shuttles and yes they deployed them in fleet battles
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Actually in the dominion wars its was pretty clear that starships simply carried their craft into battle, deployed them and left them to fend for themselves.
Not surprising, considering that with the sheer power of the particle weapons used pretty much meant there would be nothing left to repair if hit.
Not to mention that once the battle begun, returning to the mothership would be impossible, as dropping the shields would put the ship at great risk.
The Galaxy class starship has 3 shuttlebays and 5 hangar bays for shuttle storage.
And its main shuttlebay is absolutely massive, so massive that its only been seen on the studio model and never as a full scale set.
I am not saying it should be a carrier.
But I am saying that there is no canonical reason whatsoever that prevents it from serving as a large flight-deck cruiser.
And IMO ALL federation starships should at least be able to deploy one hangar of standard shuttlecraft.
Something we know for a fact that they ALL carried.
personally i think that when they made shuttles warp capable, they basically broke the neck for carriers beeing viable in Star trek alltogether.
atleast a carrier that is engaging into combat himself.
If space fighters would be a tactical asset in space combat, which is highly doubtable, why not simply place tham on a launchbase on a habitable planet in a nearby system.
actually isn't that exactly what they allways say in the shows when they say: "system XY is perfect to launch an attack into several enemy sectors/systems...bla bla"
and what does suply line even mean in an age where components can be replicated in seconds.
for all we have seen, a ship like the galaxy class could very well be a fighter production facility...even on voyager they build 1-3 delta flyers during those 7 years.
(but they ran out of torpedos, too bad if you didn't bring the scematics to REPLICATE one with you)
BTW an idea for cruisers right there: making projectile weapons actually a replicatable commodity which costs EC, making them during combat is not possible...smaller vessels only carry a limited amount, larger vessels carry hundrets into combat.
every ship is standard equipped with a front torp launcher, cruisers and certain sci vessels have rear launchers too.
abilities like torpedo spread and HY are no longer tac boff powers, but tied to the specific launcher one equips...a spread launcher functions for instance like the boff power torp spread (every 30 sec you can load a spread that consumes 3 torps)
also, specific torp launchers increase the dmg output of specific torp types...[Photon torpedo wide spread launch tube] would give photons 20% more dmg, other torps fired with that specific tube would function normaly but would not benefit from the dmg boost.
also rate of fire would be determined by the torp tube, similar to the impulse modifier. each torpedo type has a base value (quantums higher than photons) the tube then mods those values so you can have tubes that fire more rapidly but exhaust your complement faster.
(...)
and what does suply line even mean in an age where components can be replicated in seconds.
for all we have seen, a ship like the galaxy class could very well be a fighter production facility...even on voyager they build 1-3 delta flyers during those 7 years.
(but they ran out of torpedos, too bad if you didn't bring the scematics to REPLICATE one with you)(...)
People often confuse replicators with magic that lets things just appear even claiming that they are proof that Star Treks timeline does not suffer any form of resource scarcity. A replicator is simply a form of transporter that lets you assemble things very fast - but you still need the resources to construct those parts, meaning you cannot simply replicate a shuttlecraft without it draining on your resources. The thing with torpedoes is that they are indeed not replicatable, at least the warhead is. You can replicate as many casings as you want given you have the resources but you still need to assemble the warheads manually which requires special resources. Or something like that
BTW an idea for cruisers right there: making projectile weapons actually a replicatable commodity which costs EC, making them during combat is not possible...smaller vessels only carry a limited amount, larger vessels carry hundrets into combat.
every ship is standard equipped with a front torp launcher, cruisers and certain sci vessels have rear launchers too.
abilities like torpedo spread and HY are no longer tac boff powers, but tied to the specific launcher one equips...a spread launcher functions for instance like the boff power torp spread (every 30 sec you can load a spread that consumes 3 torps)
I'd like that. Like I stated earlier, the whole weapon slot setup is a really wonky concept to begin with and should be revised - though that's one of those fundamental gameplay changes that does not occured.
Oh, and btw: No on Galaxy carriers.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
personally i think that when they made shuttles warp capable, they basically broke the neck for carriers beeing viable in Star trek alltogether.
atleast a carrier that is engaging into combat himself.
If space fighters would be a tactical asset in space combat, which is highly doubtable, why not simply place tham on a launchbase on a habitable planet in a nearby system.
actually isn't that exactly what they allways say in the shows when they say: "system XY is perfect to launch an attack into several enemy sectors/systems...bla bla"
Actually thats not true.
Yes shuttles and fighters are warp capable, but they are limited to Warp 5, which is extremely slow given the exponential curve of Warp factors.
This does not make them viable for fast deployment under their own power.
Fighters on their own are also not viable.
They work as part of a greater whole in fleet actions supported by capital ships.
People often confuse replicators with magic that lets things just appear even claiming that they are proof that Star Treks timeline does not suffer any form of resource scarcity. A replicator is simply a form of transporter that lets you assemble things very fast - but you still need the resources to construct those parts, meaning you cannot simply replicate a shuttlecraft without it draining on your resources. The thing with torpedoes is that they are indeed not replicatable, at least the warhead is. You can replicate as many casings as you want given you have the resources but you still need to assemble the warheads manually which requires special resources. Or something like that
I'd like that. Like I stated earlier, the whole weapon slot setup is a really wonky concept to begin with and should be revised - though that's one of those fundamental gameplay changes that does not occured.
Oh, and btw: No on Galaxy carriers.
yes, i understand that there are certain resources involved, if you build a glass vase the replicator needs a deposit of the basic ingrediants of glass somewhere.
But, the ore for complex machinery can be found in asteroid belts etc...
and all it needs from there on is storage capacitiy.
on the torpedos: the only non replicateable resource would be antimatter in my opinion, though the enterprise seems to have vast amounts onboard...and actually judging by the yield of a photon torpedo, i'd say that no more that a single or a few antimatter particles or atoms are involved.
even if the ship would only carry a few gramms of antimatter...it would be enough to equip millions of torpedos.
to replicate the rest all you need is cargobays full of most of the elements of the periodic table. rare metals making the largest part of this deposit no doubt.
other more "common" elemets can be harvested while close to star systems.
I'm not sure if the rules would be applied during time of war however in a TNG episode they discovered that warp drive was detrimental to subspace (if exposed enough). So Starfleet limited warp speed to warp 5 except under extreme emergency.
So technically, if the rules were observed even in times of war, shuttles would be able to keep up with the capital ships. I agree with your final point however. Unless they employ swarm tactics, fighters by themselves are useless.
Its difficult to say how much stock to put into that episode, as its one of the man inconsistencies of Star trek, as the "Warp 5" limit on starships was never heard of or spoken of again.
Though it was implied that it was a temporary restriction whil the matter was investigated.
It may even well be that the conditions present in the Hekaras Corridor were such that Warp Drive damaged that region but not normal space.
But still for the sake or argument, Its extremely unlikely the rules would be observed in war, especially since it was federation rules imposed on the Federation by the Federation council, while the other powers have no such known rules limiting them.
The warp 5 speed limit went away with Voyager. Her nacelles and the way they 'flexed' were for a variable warp geometry - so it was more efficient and didn't damage subspace. I'd imagine all ships built after the Intrepid class had the same tech without needing the weakness of moving pylons.
The Odyssey's unique split saucer pylon reduces subspace wake at higher warp speeds.
I believe the Federation shared the information it had gathered with all its allies. I think Picard even said they would observe them (long time since I seen the episode, could be wrong)
Its likely as someone else mentions that Voyager, giving the type of series it was fixed that idea on purpose and hence lifted that restriction. Or giving they were 70,000LY from home they chose to ignore. If that is the case then your initial comment would stand, fighters and shuttles would be left behind by high warp capable capital ships.
Pleasure debating with you, sir! :P
THe restriction was observed by all major factions in the Alpha beta quadrant. Interpid class was design to minimize damage to subspace. But Perhaps by DW they found away to minimize damage with pre Intrepid engines.
I think a 5/3 weapon layout wouldn't be so bad for starfleet Cruisers in general, since they aren't alowed to use DHCs anyway.
Heck even a 5/4 layout wouldn't be so bad, at least at some ships with very low turnrate.
At least it would give them something unique.
Another possibility i could imagine would be some Heavy Beam emitters, doing more damage as a standard Beam Array with a 270 degrees fireing arc . (let's be honest a DHC 45deg fireing arc is not a prolem for a fast turning Escort anyway, so where's their drawback they have to overcome?)
If they offer 5/3 cruiser-wide that's one thing, this is another (btw I'm not a fan of the Andorian ship with the 5/2 setup, I don't think they give anything up of value in the setup).If they do this (especially 5/4) with the "Tier 6" (whatever the next generation of ship) that would be okay, but its overboard in compensation.
As far as the heavy beam, you want it to have a wider arc than the standard beam array? I think it should (especially if more than one can be mounted on a ship) be slightly smaller (maybe 200-210').
if your not broad siding, your damage is pretty poor with just 4 beams. and like hell its not common to broad side. it can be a bit more difficult to hit targets at their speediest with all 8, but if your any good at flying you have 8 on your target nearly the whole time. with 5/3, there would be ether more or less fire on a target depending on which side a ship is trying to get on. getting behind the galaxy would be more advantages, it would actually mater what side you hid behind.
So you are trying to tell me, that if a statistical analysis of firing instances of cruiser was undertaken against an intelligent target that broadsides, with such a narrow arc, the outcomes of broadsides would be more than 20% of the time?
As far as getting behind the Galaxy (and other less maneuverable ships) being even more advantageous, with an increased FA attack and the typical cruiser player not being able to defend his aft, the trade-off is far more changing in favor of increased FA firepower.
so the LTC gets used for tac, so what. its still a beam array cruiser with just about the worst turn there is, hardly the best way to deal damage. it would be far more useful to a team if ether universals were used for sci, maybe even both. thats how a galaxy class will finally be useful in pvp. and your not stuck with an ultra sci cruiser if thats not what you want, you can make one of the better tac cruisers out of it instead.
While working to nullify the advantages of ships such as the Odyssey's, Fleet Nebula, Fleet Star Cruiser, Fleet Assault Cruiser at the same time, gratz!
Theres so many good ideas and yet not one reply or even a quick hello from a dev. Kinda disappointing that a thread could go on this long and not even be touched by one single dev.
This is the one thing that I think everyone here can agree on. One would hope that the PWE staff that are seen floating through other thread could stop in and say hi, maybe address some points, clarify roles and just about everything else that could be considered being involved in game development. Part of the reason for this sort of forum is not only to create a community for the game and have a culture of players, but to be able to mine the information put here by customers to find out the state of the game and what direction the game should go. The fact that there has been no dev/team involvement in this (and other long running threads) is that they are either A) truly not aware of the gold-mine of information offered via forums or they favor the "avoidance" management technique, which only works for problems they consider "too small to have an effect on operations" or that they just don't know/care to handle the problem and hopes it goes away.
What i would love to see is a revamp/re-classification of Starfleets in STO, similar like they did with Romulan Warbirds.
Basicly all Starfleet ships should become Starships, which are light, medium and heavy Cruisers, plus Command ships and one or two escorts and science ships.
Just some examples and their characteristics:
Light Cruisers - Excelsior, Intrepid - Agile, mostly depending on shields, balanced BOFF/Console Layout
Medium Cruisers - Stargazer Class, Ambassador - Medium strong ships, excelling at only one area (BOFF/Consoles)
Heavy Cruisers - Akira, Sovereign - Very strong offensive, good defensive , bigger emphsasis on offensive BOFF/Consoles
Command ships - Galaxy, Odyssey - Slow, heavy defense and offense, special abilities, balanced BOFF/Console Layout
Escorts - Patrol Escort, Defiant - Fast glass cannons, surviving through speed and maneuverability
Science - Nova, Olympic - similar to light crusiers, but heavy relying on science abilities
Maybe if Promethius type ships are light cruisers and the Excel's and Akiras are medium. And Star Cruisers are heavy
in the case of space combat (ok, as much as a fighter would never be smaller than a ~100 meter frigate, laws of physics make that clear), the purpose of the carrier is not the same as it is on the ocean.
in space the carrier is there to provide mobile repairs, maintenance & logistics/supply platform to the auxiliary craft, not to be some high traffic flight deck.
If they offer 5/3 cruiser-wide that's one thing, this is another (btw I'm not a fan of the Andorian ship with the 5/2 setup, I don't think they give anything up of value in the setup).If they do this (especially 5/4) with the "Tier 6" (whatever the next generation of ship) that would be okay, but its overboard in compensation.
As far as the heavy beam, you want it to have a wider arc than the standard beam array? I think it should (especially if more than one can be mounted on a ship) be slightly smaller (maybe 200-210').
Actually i was thinking about the 5th weapon slot as a representation of the GCSs big phaser array. (5 slots as a representation of the GCSs emitter array to be more precisely)
The heavy phaser (which should be 250 degrees like a standard BA just more damage) would be another possibility.
To be honest STO game mechanic is a bit too limited IMO to create a good representation of the GCS, i wish STO where a bit like "ST:the final unity".
I think the Galaxy Class should get something special, and that's not just the saucer seperation (which is just a nice gimmick but without any tactical value IMO) but a cross between the -Xs Phaser lance and a standard Beam Array. This could be just a special console (restricted for GCS only).
Cryptic actually showed they CAN make ships as they should be for the fans otherwise we wouldn't have the Vesta + variants which are exemplary made by Cryptics devs.
And personally i strongly doubt that the Vesta or the according books have even nearly as much fans as TNG or the GCS.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
So you are trying to tell me, that if a statistical analysis of firing instances of cruiser was undertaken against an intelligent target that broadsides, with such a narrow arc, the outcomes of broadsides would be more than 20% of the time?
As far as getting behind the Galaxy (and other less maneuverable ships) being even more advantageous, with an increased FA attack and the typical cruiser player not being able to defend his aft, the trade-off is far more changing in favor of increased FA firepower.
of course. my own beam boats are nearly always hitting my target with 8 beams. and when FAW is on, all 8 beams are always fireing. broadsiding is not hard. 5 forward weapons would make it slightly beter for single cannon builds, and when aproching a target before turning sideways, you would have an extra beam firing. its something different.
While working to nullify the advantages of ships such as the Odyssey's, Fleet Nebula, Fleet Star Cruiser, Fleet Assault Cruiser at the same time, gratz!
not only should they not add anymore cruisers to the game, they should remove some because some ships can have real similar setups! :rolleyes: guess what the oddy can do? nullify the galaxy by being able to imitate its station setup.
my proposed galaxy cant duplicate the regent, and doesn't even have 4 tac consoles, the fleet star cruisers was made 100% redundant by the odyssey years ago, the nebula is a sci ship with a commander sci and sensor analysis, T:SS and 6 weapons. my proposed galaxy does the least steeping on and does the least to make anything else redundant, then any other proposed setup in this thread, including my 3 pack idea. with
Actually i was thinking about the 5th weapon slot as a representation of the GCSs big phaser array. (5 slots as a representation of the GCSs emitter array to be more precisely)
The heavy phaser (which should be 250 degrees like a standard BA just more damage) would be another possibility.
In a way it could work in a similar way to the Andorian Kumari wing cannons. There would be one difference - the wing cannons can be unequiped for another weapon even though all the set bonuses are tied to having them equiped.
In the idea of a 5/3 Galaxy layout, the 5-th fore weapon could be the heavy beam array that unlike the wing cannons can't be switched with anything else, so you'll have to use it. I am aware that this in a way forces the use of phasers, but frankly I don't care.
Comments
Basicly all Starfleet ships should become Starships, which are light, medium and heavy Cruisers, plus Command ships and one or two escorts and science ships.
Just some examples and their characteristics:
Light Cruisers - Excelsior, Intrepid - Agile, mostly depending on shields, balanced BOFF/Console Layout
Medium Cruisers - Stargazer Class, Ambassador - Medium strong ships, excelling at only one area (BOFF/Consoles)
Heavy Cruisers - Akira, Sovereign - Very strong offensive, good defensive , bigger emphsasis on offensive BOFF/Consoles
Command ships - Galaxy, Odyssey - Slow, heavy defense and offense, special abilities, balanced BOFF/Console Layout
Escorts - Patrol Escort, Defiant - Fast glass cannons, surviving through speed and maneuverability
Science - Nova, Olympic - similar to light crusiers, but heavy relying on science abilities
I like that idea. Maybe she could be something similar as in Birth of the Federation, acting as Command Ship.
(maybe something similar like the Dominion dreadnoughts aoe Buff)
Maybe you are right.
But personally i must disagree, i feel embarassed by the GCS by all means. Being outgunned by every other ship is just frustrating.
Just a example, when doing a Fleet actions and fighting a smaller group of enemy NPCs and 100% sure there will be some little annoying escort joining in and kill all enemies in seconds, before i even have the chance to do any noticeable damage.
That was just one example (and not a real good one:o) but i hope you get the point.
The big powerful Galaxy Class should be able to do that and save the little escort, not the other way round.
I just hate the trinity system.
It's really late now, so sorry for any typos.
Actually the 'Shotgun Phaser' is already in the game. It's listed in the Galaxy X's power tray on Live and Tribble - you just can't saucer sep to use it. It's been listed in the ship's powers for about six months or so. It slipped in for the two weeks you could use the fleet skin on the Galaxy-X. They removed the fleet skin, but left the 'Shotgun'.
As for the two ltcom slots - that would be a hell of a build. I'd go for it in a heartbeat.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
nope, only a little over 7 month;)
and why would they comment? they have no plans for the galaxy class...so why leave a comment that would only upset people further?
Small ships like that simply just would not have the warp capabilities needed to keep up with capital ships.
And we know for a fact that a Galaxy Class starship do carry starfleet runabouts, and can carry a number of them.
Fighters are in fact comparable to runabouts to size and could easily be carrier in shuttlebays.
Wether you like it or not, the Galaxy class has the capability and very likely did carry fighters into battle during the Dominion war.
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Not surprising, considering that with the sheer power of the particle weapons used pretty much meant there would be nothing left to repair if hit.
Not to mention that once the battle begun, returning to the mothership would be impossible, as dropping the shields would put the ship at great risk.
The Galaxy class starship has 3 shuttlebays and 5 hangar bays for shuttle storage.
And its main shuttlebay is absolutely massive, so massive that its only been seen on the studio model and never as a full scale set.
I am not saying it should be a carrier.
But I am saying that there is no canonical reason whatsoever that prevents it from serving as a large flight-deck cruiser.
And IMO ALL federation starships should at least be able to deploy one hangar of standard shuttlecraft.
Something we know for a fact that they ALL carried.
atleast a carrier that is engaging into combat himself.
If space fighters would be a tactical asset in space combat, which is highly doubtable, why not simply place tham on a launchbase on a habitable planet in a nearby system.
actually isn't that exactly what they allways say in the shows when they say: "system XY is perfect to launch an attack into several enemy sectors/systems...bla bla"
and what does suply line even mean in an age where components can be replicated in seconds.
for all we have seen, a ship like the galaxy class could very well be a fighter production facility...even on voyager they build 1-3 delta flyers during those 7 years.
(but they ran out of torpedos
BTW an idea for cruisers right there: making projectile weapons actually a replicatable commodity which costs EC, making them during combat is not possible...smaller vessels only carry a limited amount, larger vessels carry hundrets into combat.
every ship is standard equipped with a front torp launcher, cruisers and certain sci vessels have rear launchers too.
abilities like torpedo spread and HY are no longer tac boff powers, but tied to the specific launcher one equips...a spread launcher functions for instance like the boff power torp spread (every 30 sec you can load a spread that consumes 3 torps)
also, specific torp launchers increase the dmg output of specific torp types...[Photon torpedo wide spread launch tube] would give photons 20% more dmg, other torps fired with that specific tube would function normaly but would not benefit from the dmg boost.
also rate of fire would be determined by the torp tube, similar to the impulse modifier. each torpedo type has a base value (quantums higher than photons) the tube then mods those values so you can have tubes that fire more rapidly but exhaust your complement faster.
People often confuse replicators with magic that lets things just appear even claiming that they are proof that Star Treks timeline does not suffer any form of resource scarcity. A replicator is simply a form of transporter that lets you assemble things very fast - but you still need the resources to construct those parts, meaning you cannot simply replicate a shuttlecraft without it draining on your resources. The thing with torpedoes is that they are indeed not replicatable, at least the warhead is. You can replicate as many casings as you want given you have the resources but you still need to assemble the warheads manually which requires special resources. Or something like that
I'd like that. Like I stated earlier, the whole weapon slot setup is a really wonky concept to begin with and should be revised - though that's one of those fundamental gameplay changes that does not occured.
Oh, and btw: No on Galaxy carriers.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Actually thats not true.
Yes shuttles and fighters are warp capable, but they are limited to Warp 5, which is extremely slow given the exponential curve of Warp factors.
This does not make them viable for fast deployment under their own power.
Fighters on their own are also not viable.
They work as part of a greater whole in fleet actions supported by capital ships.
yes, i understand that there are certain resources involved, if you build a glass vase the replicator needs a deposit of the basic ingrediants of glass somewhere.
But, the ore for complex machinery can be found in asteroid belts etc...
and all it needs from there on is storage capacitiy.
on the torpedos: the only non replicateable resource would be antimatter in my opinion, though the enterprise seems to have vast amounts onboard...and actually judging by the yield of a photon torpedo, i'd say that no more that a single or a few antimatter particles or atoms are involved.
even if the ship would only carry a few gramms of antimatter...it would be enough to equip millions of torpedos.
to replicate the rest all you need is cargobays full of most of the elements of the periodic table. rare metals making the largest part of this deposit no doubt.
other more "common" elemets can be harvested while close to star systems.
Its difficult to say how much stock to put into that episode, as its one of the man inconsistencies of Star trek, as the "Warp 5" limit on starships was never heard of or spoken of again.
Though it was implied that it was a temporary restriction whil the matter was investigated.
It may even well be that the conditions present in the Hekaras Corridor were such that Warp Drive damaged that region but not normal space.
But still for the sake or argument, Its extremely unlikely the rules would be observed in war, especially since it was federation rules imposed on the Federation by the Federation council, while the other powers have no such known rules limiting them.
The Odyssey's unique split saucer pylon reduces subspace wake at higher warp speeds.
For example.
they could at least show some courtesy by stopping by and said whatever they feel like...like:
" HEY!! you freaking f......g galaxy fanboy, we will NEVER update the galaxy class, hahaha!!!.....hm, well, you can carry on now:rolleyes:
NEVER!!! MUAHAHAHAHA!"
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
THe restriction was observed by all major factions in the Alpha beta quadrant. Interpid class was design to minimize damage to subspace. But Perhaps by DW they found away to minimize damage with pre Intrepid engines.
If they offer 5/3 cruiser-wide that's one thing, this is another (btw I'm not a fan of the Andorian ship with the 5/2 setup, I don't think they give anything up of value in the setup).If they do this (especially 5/4) with the "Tier 6" (whatever the next generation of ship) that would be okay, but its overboard in compensation.
As far as the heavy beam, you want it to have a wider arc than the standard beam array? I think it should (especially if more than one can be mounted on a ship) be slightly smaller (maybe 200-210').
So you are trying to tell me, that if a statistical analysis of firing instances of cruiser was undertaken against an intelligent target that broadsides, with such a narrow arc, the outcomes of broadsides would be more than 20% of the time?
As far as getting behind the Galaxy (and other less maneuverable ships) being even more advantageous, with an increased FA attack and the typical cruiser player not being able to defend his aft, the trade-off is far more changing in favor of increased FA firepower.
While working to nullify the advantages of ships such as the Odyssey's, Fleet Nebula, Fleet Star Cruiser, Fleet Assault Cruiser at the same time, gratz!
This is the one thing that I think everyone here can agree on. One would hope that the PWE staff that are seen floating through other thread could stop in and say hi, maybe address some points, clarify roles and just about everything else that could be considered being involved in game development. Part of the reason for this sort of forum is not only to create a community for the game and have a culture of players, but to be able to mine the information put here by customers to find out the state of the game and what direction the game should go. The fact that there has been no dev/team involvement in this (and other long running threads) is that they are either A) truly not aware of the gold-mine of information offered via forums or
Maybe if Promethius type ships are light cruisers and the Excel's and Akiras are medium. And Star Cruisers are heavy
Don't forget a command center
The heavy phaser (which should be 250 degrees like a standard BA just more damage) would be another possibility.
To be honest STO game mechanic is a bit too limited IMO to create a good representation of the GCS, i wish STO where a bit like "ST:the final unity".
I think the Galaxy Class should get something special, and that's not just the saucer seperation (which is just a nice gimmick but without any tactical value IMO) but a cross between the -Xs Phaser lance and a standard Beam Array. This could be just a special console (restricted for GCS only).
Cryptic actually showed they CAN make ships as they should be for the fans otherwise we wouldn't have the Vesta + variants which are exemplary made by Cryptics devs.
And personally i strongly doubt that the Vesta or the according books have even nearly as much fans as TNG or the GCS.
That is a good idea as well, the role of crew size is, in effect, minimal, this would help alleviate some of this.
of course. my own beam boats are nearly always hitting my target with 8 beams. and when FAW is on, all 8 beams are always fireing. broadsiding is not hard. 5 forward weapons would make it slightly beter for single cannon builds, and when aproching a target before turning sideways, you would have an extra beam firing. its something different.
not only should they not add anymore cruisers to the game, they should remove some because some ships can have real similar setups! :rolleyes: guess what the oddy can do? nullify the galaxy by being able to imitate its station setup.
my proposed galaxy cant duplicate the regent, and doesn't even have 4 tac consoles, the fleet star cruisers was made 100% redundant by the odyssey years ago, the nebula is a sci ship with a commander sci and sensor analysis, T:SS and 6 weapons. my proposed galaxy does the least steeping on and does the least to make anything else redundant, then any other proposed setup in this thread, including my 3 pack idea. with
COM eng
LTC uni
LT uni
LT sci
ENS sci
you could create these unique setups
COM eng
LTC tac
LT sci
LT sci
ENS sci
COM eng
LTC sci
LT tac
LT sci
ENS sci
COM eng
LTC sci
LT eng
LT sci
ENS sci
COM eng
LTC sci
LT sci
LT sci
ENS sci
COM eng
LTC eng
LT eng
LT sci
ENS sci
COM eng
LTC eng
LT sci
LT sci
ENS sci
COM eng
LTC tac
LT tac
LT sci
ENS sci
'redundent' setups
COM eng
LTC tac
LT eng
LT sci
ENS sci
COM eng
LTC eng
LT tac
LT sci
ENS sci
In a way it could work in a similar way to the Andorian Kumari wing cannons. There would be one difference - the wing cannons can be unequiped for another weapon even though all the set bonuses are tied to having them equiped.
In the idea of a 5/3 Galaxy layout, the 5-th fore weapon could be the heavy beam array that unlike the wing cannons can't be switched with anything else, so you'll have to use it. I am aware that this in a way forces the use of phasers, but frankly I don't care.