lets put a few things regarding ships and age into perspective. on especially large and impotent ships like the galaxy class, there are always minor upgrades being built into them, equipment swapped in and out, whole interior sections too. this will go on for a stretch of 20 years, then it spends possibly a year getting all its core systems swapped out for whats cutting edge and modern. barring some major advancement that something about the space frame prevents them from implementing, there will be nothing fundamentally obsolete about the ship for 50+ years.
theres really nothing about the galaxy that stands out as some obsoleting factor.so examples of that obsoleting problem are those ship built with ball turrets, it would take a rebuilding of the saucer's frame to retrofit modern guns on those ships, and even with the huge number of excelsior starfleet never deemed it worth it. those were dead end ships that were rapidly becoming a tactical liability back in the early 2360s, thus all the large and mid sized cruisers launched at the time to replace them. even the ambassador had that problem, by the dominion war it was vastly under gunned for its size.
all the classes launched in the 2360s and 70s i have no trouble beveling are still top of the line by 2409, providing they have been properly refit. so its kind of believable, all the different tiers some ships are at. the low tier versions are just ships overdue for their modernizing.
when kirk took command of the enterprise, it was already 20 years old. by wrath of kahn, it had been at least 15 years since the ship got its refit, and when the enterprise A was decommissioned in 2393, the refit constitution class was 23 years old, and just a half measure to milk the constitution class for as long as possible, instead of creating a true replacement that was proboly due in 2370. thats why theres such a huge size gap between the connie and excelsior, imo. the A, being the rebadged yorktown, was most likely one of those original connies from 2245, given its registry number. in 2409, the uss galaxy or venture would basically be in the same position the A was in ST6.
Wasn't the Galaxy class planned to be operated for around 100 years by Starfleet?
Wasn't the Galaxy class planned to be operated for around 100 years by Starfleet?
yep, thus not easily obsoleted by projected further advancement. actually, at 50 years the connie was near the end of its usefulness, a 50 year old galaxy is just broken in.
Wasn't the Galaxy class planned to be operated for around 100 years by Starfleet?
Operate, sure. Be the top of the food chain, I seriously doubt.
Look at it like a proffesional athlete. A talented rookie comes in does ok, gets a little seasoning and is now good to great. Then he gets older, little less quick or physical, but he has the wiles of a veteran now. Finally even that does not keep him in the game. He retires and a new batch of athletes are there.
So at launch it is new it is good. Iron out a few kinks and drop in a few minor upgrades and the ship is seasoned. New ships are emerging and doing some of your jobs better than you. But you are still capable as you are versatile. Eventually, they launch the . . . That will succeed the Oddysey and you are too old to serve any more.
100 years of service.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Operate, sure. Be the top of the food chain, I seriously doubt.
Look at it like a proffesional athlete. A talented rookie comes in does ok, gets a little seasoning and is now good to great. Then he gets older, little less quick or physical, but he has the wiles of a veteran now. Finally even that does not keep him in the game. He retires and a new batch of athletes are there.
So at launch it is new it is good. Iron out a few kinks and drop in a few minor upgrades and the ship is seasoned. New ships are emerging and doing some of your jobs better than you. But you are still capable as you are versatile. Eventually, they launch the . . . That will succeed the Oddysey and you are too old to serve any more.
100 years of service.
Which would be fine - if the Excelsior, Ambassador, Galor, and Vorcha class ships didn't outperform the Galaxy in almost every conceivable way. Using your logic - yes, the Odyssey and Sovereign should best the Galaxy, but the other ships shouldn't hold a candle to her in any of her incarnations. So what we have is an 'aging athlete just passed his prime' being outperformed by the senior citizens walkathon...
Operate, sure. Be the top of the food chain, I seriously doubt.
Look at it like a proffesional athlete. A talented rookie comes in does ok, gets a little seasoning and is now good to great. Then he gets older, little less quick or physical, but he has the wiles of a veteran now. Finally even that does not keep him in the game. He retires and a new batch of athletes are there.
So at launch it is new it is good. Iron out a few kinks and drop in a few minor upgrades and the ship is seasoned. New ships are emerging and doing some of your jobs better than you. But you are still capable as you are versatile. Eventually, they launch the . . . That will succeed the Oddysey and you are too old to serve any more.
100 years of service.
The Galaxy would still be versatile and capable and only when it is no longer capable is it out of service. Galaxy would remain versatile for a long time and should remain capable for as long as a Excelsior has.
A Athlete is not versatile and capable enough to compete with younger Athletes when they get old. They can't be upgraded like a Starship can so comparing a Athlete to Starship does not work.
Which would be fine - if the Excelsior, Ambassador, Galor, and Vorcha class ships didn't outperform the Galaxy in almost every conceivable way. Using your logic - yes, the Odyssey and Sovereign should best the Galaxy, but the other ships shouldn't hold a candle to her in any of her incarnations. So what we have is an 'aging athlete just passed his prime' being outperformed by the senior citizens walkathon...
Agreed, and from my previous posts, why I would like to see the Galaxy class get some love. She does not need to be the best of Tier 5, but she should be superior to tier 4.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
The Galaxy would still be versatile and capable and only when it is no longer capable is it out of service. Galaxy would remain versatile for a long time and should remain capable for as long as a Excelsior has.
A Athlete is not versatile and capable enough to compete with younger Athletes when they get old. They can't be upgraded like a Starship can so comparing a Athlete to Starship does not work.
I think you missed part of my post. I said when the . . . . class usurps the Odyssey will she too old to serve. Meaning when the next 'top of the line' after the current comes out. A ship worthy of getting an Enterprise 'G'.
The one thing that is fun, but really should not be, is us seeing Enterprise and Miranda classes at all in the standard ship progression.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
The Galaxy would still be versatile and capable and only when it is no longer capable is it out of service. Galaxy would remain versatile for a long time and should remain capable for as long as a Excelsior has.
A Athlete is not versatile and capable enough to compete with younger Athletes when they get old. They can't be upgraded like a Starship can so comparing a Athlete to Starship does not work.
I'd say even longer, since the Excelsior wasn't built with the intention of a long lived highly modular spaceframe. The Excelsior was a lucky strike for Starfleet, which made ships like the Galaxy Class actually possible in the first place. Starfleet engineers used the experience gained from ships like the Excelsior and other ships to design the long lived Galaxy Class.
If Cryptics devs had made their homework, the Galaxy Class would be a top ship for at least the middle of the 25th century.
In a long shot, only a few things count when refitting older ships (no matter if one is ten years older or not). One of those things is the internal volume of a ships hull.
So i think if a Sovereign can be upgraded to be a top tier ship in STO, a Galaxy Class could easily be made like this too (in universe).
Strangely no one seemed to be upset when the Regent class was released, but we are discussing here about reworking the Galaxy Class which is just 10 years older?
No one was upset about the Excelsior, quite the contrary. Some ppl actually claimed it would be a matter of course to have a up to date Excelsior and now a up to date Galaxy class is supposed to be a problem?
What about the Ambassador, Galor or D'Kora?
These ships are either from the same decade as the Galaxy Class or even older, but still much better ships than the Galaxy Class...
I think most ppl are forgetting that the Galaxy Class wasn't just one of many ships, it was the biggest and most powerful ship by far ever made by Starfleet. (outsizing the Soverign by far btw.)
Just because it is ten years older doesn't mean anything. Ships get updated and permanently improved.
Even if Strarfleet would release a bigger ship like the GCS like the odyssey, the GCS would still be the second biggest ship in the fleet. Making it completely obsolete in STO is pure humbug and just made that way because the Devs didn't care about the ships in the first place.
@dontdrunk
I agree the Nebula should have at least 4/3 Weapon layout IMO.
"...'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
It's funny to see so many people jump at this thread once, bashing everything in sight and leave for several weeks. lol.
I find it really amazing that exactly these people show some real lack of trek knowledge by claiming things about Starships that have been clearified long ago.
(like claiming the sov. would have replaced the GCS and other humbug like that.)
It's probably because we have more important things to do in our lives other than constantly commiserating about a ship in an online game that has absolutely no response or interest by the devs, any CBS representative, or anyone else who is actually interested in making any changes to the GCS other than the same <50 participants.
And your comment regarding those people, in your OPINION, who show a "real lack of trek knowledge", simply because they don't agree with you, is probably one of the reasons that you guys haven't been able to get a single dev to make a single posting on this thread, let alone make any significant changes to the GCS. You guys really think that ONLY your interpretation of the Star Trek franchise is the correct one.
So these mind-numbing iterations of the SAME ARGUMENTS (Sovereign replaced the Excelsior, Phaser array lengths, Cardassian Wars, etc.) were flatly rejected by CBS/Paramount almost 20 years ago, as seen by the simple fact that the Sovereign has ALWAYS been much more powerful than the Galaxy in EVERY game.
So I and others clearly fail to grasp what you strategy is. Do you really think that Cryptic/CBS/Paramount is going to scrap almost twenty years of precedence because some of you guys believe the GCS is stronger than the Sovereign, based clearly on YOUR opinion?
It's probably because we have more important things to do in our lives other than constantly commiserating about a ship in an online game that has absolutely no response or interest by the devs, any CBS representative, or anyone else who is actually interested in making any changes to the GCS other than the same <50 participants.
TBH, why should i care if you have no interest in the GCS in STO?
Btw, a more friendly tone would be appreciated, my friend.
And your comment regarding those people, in your OPINION, who show a "real lack of trek knowledge", simply because they don't agree with you, is probably one of the reasons that you guys haven't been able to get a single dev to make a single posting on this thread, let alone make any significant changes to the GCS. You guys really think that ONLY your interpretation of the Star Trek franchise is the correct one.
So these mind-numbing iterations of the SAME ARGUMENTS (Sovereign replaced the Excelsior, Phaser array lengths, Cardassian Wars, etc.) were flatly rejected by CBS/Paramount almost 20 years ago, as seen by the simple fact that the Sovereign has ALWAYS been much more powerful than the Galaxy in EVERY game.
So I and others clearly fail to grasp what you strategy is. Do you really think that Cryptic/CBS/Paramount is going to scrap almost twenty years of precedence because some of you guys believe the GCS is stronger than the Sovereign, based clearly on YOUR opinion?
Well someone has to start with highlight whats made wrong.
Allright most games showed the Sovereign being more powerful or whatever than the GCS.
But show me one game that made the GCS have the least firepower than any other cruiser in Starfleet like STO does.
Just because some people don't know what impact their own creations will have on the Star Trek universe doesn't mean we all have to accept their short sighted point of view.
Unlike you, i don't like to accept certain things as they are, especially if i exactly know they are wrong. According to your logic we still would live in the medieval, lol.
Paramount did introduce the Sovereign just because of one reason, to be able to show a more Kirk-ish enterprise, which the audience can more relate to Star Trek. The obviously didn't trust the popu?larity of TNG at that time, so they made the (st:8-10) Enterprise a modernnized Constitution refit looking ship.
For me that's just another example of how little the producers trusted and knew about their own creations.
"...'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
Strangely no one seemed to be upset when the Regent class was released, but we are discussing here about reworking the Galaxy Class which is just 10 years older?
Actually quite a few people were disappointed, and it reflects in the Regent supposedly not selling very well. Personally I think that the ship has managed to make up for that over time, but people were expecting something with a lot more omph. In fact, the original BOff layout was, if I recall correctly, even more tac heavy than the current one.
Ultimately people were disappointed that it resulted in a $25 side-grade from the stock AC with a single (but pretty good) weapon and a console hardly anyone ever uses.
Note I used/use the Regent and the Fleet AC and enjoy both, but the acceptance of the Regent was far from instant, and a lot of people were indeed unhappy with the offering.
Actually quite a few people were disappointed, and it reflects in the Regent supposedly not selling very well. Personally I think that the ship has managed to make up for that over time, but people were expecting something with a lot more omph. In fact, the original BOff layout was, if I recall correctly, even more tac heavy than the current one.
Ultimately people were disappointed that it resulted in a $25 side-grade from the stock AC with a single (but pretty good) weapon and a console hardly anyone ever uses.
Note I used/use the Regent and the Fleet AC and enjoy both, but the acceptance of the Regent was far from instant, and a lot of people were indeed unhappy with the offering.
That may be true, but i can't remember anyone whining about the Regent being too strong, like some are arguing against a proposed GCS revamp.
Personally, i can't follow some peoples base motives. If they hate the GCS why do they care about it in the first place, there are more than enough little annyoing escorts for them to fly.
On the other hand it some of the discomfort against the Regent where about it being to weak, does this justify a even weaker GCS? That would be just begrudging against everyone else. And if so, why don't the same ppl argue for a weaker Excelsior, Ambassador or even Galor Class (not talking about escorts in general)?
"...'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
Just because some people don't know what impact their own creations will have on the Star Trek universe doesn't mean we all have to accept their short sighted point of view.
Unlike you, i don't like to accept certain things as they are, especially if i exactly know they are wrong. According to your logic we still would live in the medieval, lol.
You're 100% right here. Sometimes people write things that are nonsensical, with no sense for how they do/don't fit into the overall narrative of Star Trek. As a great example, basically everything being cited from the TNG tech manual is absurd, and should thus (in my opinion) be discarded. It is at best nonsensical anti-science, and at worse is actively antithetical to the narrative of the show. The Galaxy is not a warship, was never intended to be a warship, and was never depicted as a warship. The claim that it should nevertheless be Starfleet's most effective warship seems on face absurd to me. You are welcome to believe that if you choose - I'm not here to tell you that your aesthetic choices are wrong. I'm here to tell you that they are NOT "right" or "true" in any absolute sense, and that people who disagree with you are thus not "wrong". Including Cryptic.
Paramount did introduce the Sovereign just because of one reason, to be able to show a more Kirk-ish enterprise, which the audience can more relate to Star Trek. The obviously didn't trust the popu?larity of TNG at that time, so they made the (st:8-10) Enterprise a modernnized Constitution refit looking ship.
For me that's just another example of how little the producers trusted and knew about their own creations.
First, I suspect you're flat wrong that the only reason for the Sovereign was to be more connie-like. In fact, that doesn't even make much sense since a) TNG was on tv more recently, and for longer and b) There were two other shows running along side it as well, each of which also departed from the Constitution design. Even if you're right, all that shows is that the producers and art designers never really liked the Galaxy design, and had little faith in its ability to hold up on the big screen. The fact that you, personally like the design doesn't mean that they were wrong, either. I think that the Sovereign is the more interesting, better looking design, and I choose to accept that it is exactly what they producers, writers, directors, and art designers intended - a straight upgrade to the Galaxy, designed primarily for combat with enemies like the Borg or Dominion. All the reasons you will spout for why the Galaxy is or should be superior are just your rationalizations for your opinion, and I can knock them down with rationalizations of my own, but that goes nowhere. The simple fact is we have different tastes, and thus come to different conclusions, and we will never change each other's minds.
The point of all this is that you're still basing your argument that they got the Galaxy "wrong" off your assumption that you are somehow "right", and flailing around trying to "prove" that fake spaceships "really" work this way or that, or that the producers didn't have any idea what they were doing when they changed designs, or that a mythical majority of people exist who agree with you (and that somehow makes you "right"). None of this matters - it all boils down to one thing - you like the Galaxy class. Many other people either don't like it, or don't care one way or the other. Your presumption that "fixing" the Galaxy will make the game "better" really just means "better for you", which is not compelling to the rest of us, and is why I, at least, think this whole thing is childish.
You derailed this thread before, you won't get the chance again. Do not reply to this troll guys.
1 st sry for mi english.
its ok most of us know what he do here, so back to topic:
Whe have a LVL 50 ship from (C) Store what is outperformed by free ship LVL 40
The excuse "its a old ship" has no place,
why ? a much older ship is still active , yes the excelcior (already discused long enof why is here)
Also the ship conception was to be working and easy to update for long time (whe see the ship internal system rearrange in warp fly not a shipyard to face a full escuadron of galors hiding in a nebula)
Also in DS9 whe see lots of time times galaxys like core of the fleet NOT ONLY taking lof of dmg also disabling or destroying galors in his path and keep going (the excelciors fire 2 or 3 times with luck and then get erased from the sky, (whe can discus dev team not doing his home work but will take us to no place)
Thats what whe have so get back to constructive ideas, tks for yuor time reading all this pages of this forum.
and again sry for mi english , no time to check gramar have to go work.
its ok most of us know what he do here, so back to topic:
Whe have a LVL 50 ship from (C) Store what is outperformed by free ship LVL 40
The excuse "its a old ship" has no place,
why ? a much older ship is still active , yes the excelcior (already discused long enof why is here)
Also the ship conception was to be working and easy to update for long time (whe see the ship internal system rearrange in warp fly not a shipyard to face a full escuadron of galors hiding in a nebula)
Also in DS9 whe see lots of time times galaxys like core of the fleet NOT ONLY taking lof of dmg also disabling or destroying galors in his path and keep going (the excelciors fire 2 or 3 times with luck and then get erased from the sky, (whe can discus dev team not doing his home work but will take us to no place)
Thats what whe have so get back to constructive ideas, tks for yuor time reading all this pages of this forum.
and again sry for mi english , no time to check gramar have to go work.
Yes Galaxy is a powerful ship, in DW I figured Second most powerful, STO's Galaxy is TRIBBLE. I can do well with it but needs work. So a simple fix to improve the ship and be more canon, Universal Bo slots for all BO slots And I wouldn't mind a hanger as a bonus.
its ok most of us know what he do here, so back to topic:
Whe have a LVL 50 ship from (C) Store what is outperformed by free ship LVL 40
The excuse "its a old ship" has no place,
why ? a much older ship is still active , yes the excelcior (already discused long enof why is here)
Also the ship conception was to be working and easy to update for long time (whe see the ship internal system rearrange in warp fly not a shipyard to face a full escuadron of galors hiding in a nebula)
Also in DS9 whe see lots of time times galaxys like core of the fleet NOT ONLY taking lof of dmg also disabling or destroying galors in his path and keep going (the excelciors fire 2 or 3 times with luck and then get erased from the sky, (whe can discus dev team not doing his home work but will take us to no place)
Thats what whe have so get back to constructive ideas, tks for yuor time reading all this pages of this forum.
and again sry for mi english , no time to check gramar have to go work.
Yep even during the Domion war we have seen Galaxy Class ships used and doing some nice damage and not being so easily destroy. Their is no reason why the Galaxy should be so bad.
Star Trek Online is terrible with its representation of some ships in this game. Galaxy should not be so weak it should at worst be equal to a Excelsior or Ambassador. All so many people want is for the Galaxy to be made better then it currently is but their are people that seem to confuse that with other things. No one wants it to be OP. No one wants it to be the top dog of Cruiser. All people want is it to be a little bit better.
We can all see that there's no massive advantage to the Galaxy class as a damage dealer (haven't flown the Fleet Retrofit) but it's well know that (even it's on-screen counterpart) the Galaxy class is a battleship. She's a ship that can take one hell of a pounding and deal that damage right back.
By all means it could do with an extra eng console slot or an additional aft weapons slot, but she can deal out some serious hurt when outfitted correctly!
You're 100% right here. Sometimes people write things that are nonsensical, with no sense for how they do/don't fit into the overall narrative of Star Trek. As a great example, basically everything being cited from the TNG tech manual is absurd, and should thus (in my opinion) be discarded. It is at best nonsensical anti-science, and at worse is actively antithetical to the narrative of the show. The Galaxy is not a warship, was never intended to be a warship, and was never depicted as a warship. The claim that it should nevertheless be Starfleet's most effective warship seems on face absurd to me. You are welcome to believe that if you choose - I'm not here to tell you that your aesthetic choices are wrong. I'm here to tell you that they are NOT "right" or "true" in any absolute sense, and that people who disagree with you are thus not "wrong". Including Cryptic.
People who don't follow the (fictional) universes rules can be adressed as wrong IMO.
For you it's anti science, i am ok with that, but even then you should acknowledge that the biggest (in canon) ship ever build isn't likely to be decommmisioned because of a smaller 10 years younger vessel, especailly since these ships are especailly build to last long and being updated constantly. That wouldn't make any sense IMo.
First, I suspect you're flat wrong that the only reason for the Sovereign was to be more connie-like. In fact, that doesn't even make much sense since a) TNG was on tv more recently, and for longer and b) There were two other shows running along side it as well, each of which also departed from the Constitution design. Even if you're right, all that shows is that the producers and art designers never really liked the Galaxy design, and had little faith in its ability to hold up on the big screen. The fact that you, personally like the design doesn't mean that they were wrong, either. I think that the Sovereign is the more interesting, better looking design, and I choose to accept that it is exactly what they producers, writers, directors, and art designers intended - a straight upgrade to the Galaxy, designed primarily for combat with enemies like the Borg or Dominion. All the reasons you will spout for why the Galaxy is or should be superior are just your rationalizations for your opinion, and I can knock them down with rationalizations of my own, but that goes nowhere. The simple fact is we have different tastes, and thus come to different conclusions, and we will never change each other's minds.
I obvioulsy haven't read anything i (or other ppl) have written at the last hundred pages.
It's not just about our preferences, there are reproducible evidence that the GCS should be different to how Cryptic made it.
BTW, the Sovereign design is in no way a upgrade to the GCS design. It's a complete turnaround and a continuation of the Excelsior design. So i think even if we just look at both ships one can asume they are two different design lines, one (GCS) succeeding the Ambassador and the other (SOV) succeeding the Excelsior. If you can't recognize the blatant design differences between both ship designs then i can't help you.
These differences led us to the conclusion that both ships serve a differnt purpose (several pages back).
The point of all this is that you're still basing your argument that they got the Galaxy "wrong" off your assumption that you are somehow "right", and flailing around trying to "prove" that fake spaceships "really" work this way or that, or that the producers didn't have any idea what they were doing when they changed designs, or that a mythical majority of people exist who agree with you (and that somehow makes you "right"). None of this matters - it all boils down to one thing - you like the Galaxy class. Many other people either don't like it, or don't care one way or the other. Your presumption that "fixing" the Galaxy will make the game "better" really just means "better for you", which is not compelling to the rest of us, and is why I, at least, think this whole thing is childish.
So your opinion is more important than mine, which makes you right in calling our (GCS fans) goal childish?
Again i ask, why do ppl care about that ship if they hate it in the first place?
There are more than enough ships in STO to fly, why deny GCS fans a satisfying ship to fly, instead of a teethless brick?
I would like to know from you what do you hope to archive in arguing against a rework of a ship, you don't like or want to fly anyways?
"...'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
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
TBH, why should i care if you have no interest in the GCS in STO?
Btw, a more friendly tone would be appreciated, my friend.
Well someone has to start with highlight whats made wrong.
Allright most games showed the Sovereign being more powerful or whatever than the GCS.
But show me one game that made the GCS have the least firepower than any other cruiser in Starfleet like STO does.
Just because some people don't know what impact their own creations will have on the Star Trek universe doesn't mean we all have to accept their short sighted point of view.
Unlike you, i don't like to accept certain things as they are, especially if i exactly know they are wrong. According to your logic we still would live in the medieval, lol.
Paramount did introduce the Sovereign just because of one reason, to be able to show a more Kirk-ish enterprise, which the audience can more relate to Star Trek. The obviously didn't trust the popu?larity of TNG at that time, so they made the (st:8-10) Enterprise a modernnized Constitution refit looking ship.
For me that's just another example of how little the producers trusted and knew about their own creations.
Sigh. Here we go with yet ANOTHER version of "it's the writer's fault". When ever fact don't line up with what you guys believe, you guy seem to be absolutely incapable of understanding that Star Trek is an intellectual property that can be defined in ANY way that the owner deems fit, whether you like it or not. Look at how many times "Superman" has been changed in the last 15 years. He/she who owns the intellectual property can do what ever they want to, whether you agree with it or not.
It's also glaringly apparent that you guys have no other plan other than the "Boogey Man" Imperative: you think that the more you repeat the same mind numbing arguments and mantras, that eventually they will listen to you. As you can see, that has resulted in a TOTAL failure for you guys.
Although I've had my various run-in with some here on this thread, having more firepower is a fair point. But again, understanding, and AGREEING with your interpretation are two different things. ANY halfway decent writer could come up with a MULTITUE of reasons why it turned out that the Sovereign class was able to have more powerful weapons and was a more capable battleship than the Galaxy could be. But it STILL wouldn't matter since you guys would NEVER accept it anyway.
I'm not sure if it's hubris or a lack of understanding on your parts that make you guys think that you have THE ANSWERS seeing that MOST of your "evidence" consist of NON-CANON sources and speculation. And when canon is brought up that you DON'T like, many of you seem to experience extreme cognitive dissonance, and instead of accepting the "good" with the "bad", you put your heads in the sand and chant "it's the writers fault".
Whether you want to hear this or not, your approach has the appearance of coming across as self serving rather than sympathetic. This is probably one of the reasons that your "cause" has failed to generate any widespread support either among other players or the devs. How can anyone take you seriously when you absolutely refuse to even entertain the possibility that your GCS was shown to have flaws in the shows themselves?
And you say that you don't care what I think. Fair enough. But don't be surprised that Cryptic may feel the same way about you guys too. Many of you have seem to imply that there is a "silent majority" of players who want a GCS that is more powerful than a Sovereign (never gonna happen). Unfortunately for you, as long as they remain "silent", Cryptic/CBS has absolutely no incentive not to continue with following the strategy that they have been.
Hmm, only getting a "302 Found" the document has been moved.
EDIT: forget that i have it.
THANKS!
"...'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
Whether you want to hear this or not, your approach has the appearance of coming across as self serving rather than sympathetic. This is probably one of the reasons that your "cause" has failed to generate any widespread support either among other players or the devs. How can anyone take you seriously when you absolutely refuse to even entertain the possibility that your GCS was shown to have flaws in the shows themselves?
There a lot of ppl supporting our goal, i wouldn't say it failed to get widespread support.
And you say that you don't care what I think. Fair enough. But don't be surprised that Cryptic may feel the same way about you guys too. Many of you have seem to imply that there is a "silent majority" of players who want a GCS that is more powerful than a Sovereign (never gonna happen). Unfortunately for you, as long as they remain "silent", Cryptic/CBS has absolutely no incentive not to continue with following the strategy that they have been.
Maybe you missunderstood me, i was merely reacting like i did, because this has been discussed more than once alone in this thread. Sorry for being a bit snippy.
Of course the GCs shouldn't me more tactical focussed than a Sovereign in STO, but more versatile. No one wants a "i Win" Galaxy Class here. I just wanted to show the GCS wasn't the flying living room some STO players want it to be.
So just because Cryptics does what it always does (ignore what Trek fans want), we should remain silent and accept everything they give us?
Btw, i don't get why GCS haters get so emotional in the first place about this ship. But it's entertaining for sure.
"...'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 point of all this is that you're still basing your argument that they got the Galaxy "wrong" off your assumption that you are somehow "right".
i am sorry, but this is not an assumption, they made this ship wrong!
that a galor, exelsior, ambassador and NOVA, yes a NOVA class are more powerfull than a galaxy class? how can you justify that?
even the risian corvette is better, now really?
btw, who are not in this game? more powerfull than a galaxy class? what ship?
that remind me of what one of the duras sister said in star trek generation:
this is a galaxy class starship! we are no match for them!
i can't hardly bielieve any captain in sto whould said that seeing a galaxy class show up nowaday:rolleyes:
None of this matters - it all boils down to one thing - you like the Galaxy class. Many other people either don't like it, or don't care one way or the other. Your presumption that "fixing" the Galaxy will make the game "better" really just means "better for you", which is not compelling to the rest of us, and is why I, at least, think this whole thing is childish.
ho, because you and other don't care about the galaxy class, everyone that asking for it to be improve are "childish"?
and if it is not compelling for you to improve the galaxy therefore it should not be done?
and we are the one who are been treating of selfish people here?
so i will said that in the end it boild down to one thing:
the galaxy class is a cstore ship and, as such, it should be as efficient as any other cstore ship.
as of today the galaxy class is simply outperformed by a simple starcruiser and free ambassador.
this is the only ship in sto in this case.
if i didn't knew better i would have conclude that this is the result of personal hate feeling from someone in cryptic...
Comments
Wasn't the Galaxy class planned to be operated for around 100 years by Starfleet?
yep, thus not easily obsoleted by projected further advancement. actually, at 50 years the connie was near the end of its usefulness, a 50 year old galaxy is just broken in.
Operate, sure. Be the top of the food chain, I seriously doubt.
Look at it like a proffesional athlete. A talented rookie comes in does ok, gets a little seasoning and is now good to great. Then he gets older, little less quick or physical, but he has the wiles of a veteran now. Finally even that does not keep him in the game. He retires and a new batch of athletes are there.
So at launch it is new it is good. Iron out a few kinks and drop in a few minor upgrades and the ship is seasoned. New ships are emerging and doing some of your jobs better than you. But you are still capable as you are versatile. Eventually, they launch the . . . That will succeed the Oddysey and you are too old to serve any more.
100 years of service.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Which would be fine - if the Excelsior, Ambassador, Galor, and Vorcha class ships didn't outperform the Galaxy in almost every conceivable way. Using your logic - yes, the Odyssey and Sovereign should best the Galaxy, but the other ships shouldn't hold a candle to her in any of her incarnations. So what we have is an 'aging athlete just passed his prime' being outperformed by the senior citizens walkathon...
The Galaxy would still be versatile and capable and only when it is no longer capable is it out of service. Galaxy would remain versatile for a long time and should remain capable for as long as a Excelsior has.
A Athlete is not versatile and capable enough to compete with younger Athletes when they get old. They can't be upgraded like a Starship can so comparing a Athlete to Starship does not work.
Agreed, and from my previous posts, why I would like to see the Galaxy class get some love. She does not need to be the best of Tier 5, but she should be superior to tier 4.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I think you missed part of my post. I said when the . . . . class usurps the Odyssey will she too old to serve. Meaning when the next 'top of the line' after the current comes out. A ship worthy of getting an Enterprise 'G'.
The one thing that is fun, but really should not be, is us seeing Enterprise and Miranda classes at all in the standard ship progression.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I'd say even longer, since the Excelsior wasn't built with the intention of a long lived highly modular spaceframe. The Excelsior was a lucky strike for Starfleet, which made ships like the Galaxy Class actually possible in the first place. Starfleet engineers used the experience gained from ships like the Excelsior and other ships to design the long lived Galaxy Class.
If Cryptics devs had made their homework, the Galaxy Class would be a top ship for at least the middle of the 25th century.
In a long shot, only a few things count when refitting older ships (no matter if one is ten years older or not). One of those things is the internal volume of a ships hull.
So i think if a Sovereign can be upgraded to be a top tier ship in STO, a Galaxy Class could easily be made like this too (in universe).
Strangely no one seemed to be upset when the Regent class was released, but we are discussing here about reworking the Galaxy Class which is just 10 years older?
No one was upset about the Excelsior, quite the contrary. Some ppl actually claimed it would be a matter of course to have a up to date Excelsior and now a up to date Galaxy class is supposed to be a problem?
What about the Ambassador, Galor or D'Kora?
These ships are either from the same decade as the Galaxy Class or even older, but still much better ships than the Galaxy Class...
I think most ppl are forgetting that the Galaxy Class wasn't just one of many ships, it was the biggest and most powerful ship by far ever made by Starfleet. (outsizing the Soverign by far btw.)
Just because it is ten years older doesn't mean anything. Ships get updated and permanently improved.
Even if Strarfleet would release a bigger ship like the GCS like the odyssey, the GCS would still be the second biggest ship in the fleet. Making it completely obsolete in STO is pure humbug and just made that way because the Devs didn't care about the ships in the first place.
@dontdrunk
I agree the Nebula should have at least 4/3 Weapon layout IMO.
It's probably because we have more important things to do in our lives other than constantly commiserating about a ship in an online game that has absolutely no response or interest by the devs, any CBS representative, or anyone else who is actually interested in making any changes to the GCS other than the same <50 participants.
And your comment regarding those people, in your OPINION, who show a "real lack of trek knowledge", simply because they don't agree with you, is probably one of the reasons that you guys haven't been able to get a single dev to make a single posting on this thread, let alone make any significant changes to the GCS. You guys really think that ONLY your interpretation of the Star Trek franchise is the correct one.
So these mind-numbing iterations of the SAME ARGUMENTS (Sovereign replaced the Excelsior, Phaser array lengths, Cardassian Wars, etc.) were flatly rejected by CBS/Paramount almost 20 years ago, as seen by the simple fact that the Sovereign has ALWAYS been much more powerful than the Galaxy in EVERY game.
So I and others clearly fail to grasp what you strategy is. Do you really think that Cryptic/CBS/Paramount is going to scrap almost twenty years of precedence because some of you guys believe the GCS is stronger than the Sovereign, based clearly on YOUR opinion?
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
Noo!
Don't say the 'H' word on this thread. . .:eek:
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I am not asking for a Hanger just some sort of improvement. Any improvement would be welcomed.
Btw, a more friendly tone would be appreciated, my friend.
Well someone has to start with highlight whats made wrong.
Allright most games showed the Sovereign being more powerful or whatever than the GCS.
But show me one game that made the GCS have the least firepower than any other cruiser in Starfleet like STO does.
Just because some people don't know what impact their own creations will have on the Star Trek universe doesn't mean we all have to accept their short sighted point of view.
Unlike you, i don't like to accept certain things as they are, especially if i exactly know they are wrong. According to your logic we still would live in the medieval, lol.
Paramount did introduce the Sovereign just because of one reason, to be able to show a more Kirk-ish enterprise, which the audience can more relate to Star Trek. The obviously didn't trust the popu?larity of TNG at that time, so they made the (st:8-10) Enterprise a modernnized Constitution refit looking ship.
For me that's just another example of how little the producers trusted and knew about their own creations.
Actually quite a few people were disappointed, and it reflects in the Regent supposedly not selling very well. Personally I think that the ship has managed to make up for that over time, but people were expecting something with a lot more omph. In fact, the original BOff layout was, if I recall correctly, even more tac heavy than the current one.
Ultimately people were disappointed that it resulted in a $25 side-grade from the stock AC with a single (but pretty good) weapon and a console hardly anyone ever uses.
Note I used/use the Regent and the Fleet AC and enjoy both, but the acceptance of the Regent was far from instant, and a lot of people were indeed unhappy with the offering.
That may be true, but i can't remember anyone whining about the Regent being too strong, like some are arguing against a proposed GCS revamp.
Personally, i can't follow some peoples base motives. If they hate the GCS why do they care about it in the first place, there are more than enough little annyoing escorts for them to fly.
On the other hand it some of the discomfort against the Regent where about it being to weak, does this justify a even weaker GCS? That would be just begrudging against everyone else. And if so, why don't the same ppl argue for a weaker Excelsior, Ambassador or even Galor Class (not talking about escorts in general)?
You're 100% right here. Sometimes people write things that are nonsensical, with no sense for how they do/don't fit into the overall narrative of Star Trek. As a great example, basically everything being cited from the TNG tech manual is absurd, and should thus (in my opinion) be discarded. It is at best nonsensical anti-science, and at worse is actively antithetical to the narrative of the show. The Galaxy is not a warship, was never intended to be a warship, and was never depicted as a warship. The claim that it should nevertheless be Starfleet's most effective warship seems on face absurd to me. You are welcome to believe that if you choose - I'm not here to tell you that your aesthetic choices are wrong. I'm here to tell you that they are NOT "right" or "true" in any absolute sense, and that people who disagree with you are thus not "wrong". Including Cryptic.
First, I suspect you're flat wrong that the only reason for the Sovereign was to be more connie-like. In fact, that doesn't even make much sense since a) TNG was on tv more recently, and for longer and b) There were two other shows running along side it as well, each of which also departed from the Constitution design. Even if you're right, all that shows is that the producers and art designers never really liked the Galaxy design, and had little faith in its ability to hold up on the big screen. The fact that you, personally like the design doesn't mean that they were wrong, either. I think that the Sovereign is the more interesting, better looking design, and I choose to accept that it is exactly what they producers, writers, directors, and art designers intended - a straight upgrade to the Galaxy, designed primarily for combat with enemies like the Borg or Dominion. All the reasons you will spout for why the Galaxy is or should be superior are just your rationalizations for your opinion, and I can knock them down with rationalizations of my own, but that goes nowhere. The simple fact is we have different tastes, and thus come to different conclusions, and we will never change each other's minds.
The point of all this is that you're still basing your argument that they got the Galaxy "wrong" off your assumption that you are somehow "right", and flailing around trying to "prove" that fake spaceships "really" work this way or that, or that the producers didn't have any idea what they were doing when they changed designs, or that a mythical majority of people exist who agree with you (and that somehow makes you "right"). None of this matters - it all boils down to one thing - you like the Galaxy class. Many other people either don't like it, or don't care one way or the other. Your presumption that "fixing" the Galaxy will make the game "better" really just means "better for you", which is not compelling to the rest of us, and is why I, at least, think this whole thing is childish.
1 st sry for mi english.
its ok most of us know what he do here, so back to topic:
Whe have a LVL 50 ship from (C) Store what is outperformed by free ship LVL 40
The excuse "its a old ship" has no place,
why ? a much older ship is still active , yes the excelcior (already discused long enof why is here)
Also the ship conception was to be working and easy to update for long time (whe see the ship internal system rearrange in warp fly not a shipyard to face a full escuadron of galors hiding in a nebula)
Also in DS9 whe see lots of time times galaxys like core of the fleet NOT ONLY taking lof of dmg also disabling or destroying galors in his path and keep going (the excelciors fire 2 or 3 times with luck and then get erased from the sky, (whe can discus dev team not doing his home work but will take us to no place)
Thats what whe have so get back to constructive ideas, tks for yuor time reading all this pages of this forum.
and again sry for mi english , no time to check gramar have to go work.
Yes Galaxy is a powerful ship, in DW I figured Second most powerful, STO's Galaxy is TRIBBLE. I can do well with it but needs work. So a simple fix to improve the ship and be more canon, Universal Bo slots for all BO slots And I wouldn't mind a hanger as a bonus.
Yep even during the Domion war we have seen Galaxy Class ships used and doing some nice damage and not being so easily destroy. Their is no reason why the Galaxy should be so bad.
Star Trek Online is terrible with its representation of some ships in this game. Galaxy should not be so weak it should at worst be equal to a Excelsior or Ambassador. All so many people want is for the Galaxy to be made better then it currently is but their are people that seem to confuse that with other things. No one wants it to be OP. No one wants it to be the top dog of Cruiser. All people want is it to be a little bit better.
By all means it could do with an extra eng console slot or an additional aft weapons slot, but she can deal out some serious hurt when outfitted correctly!
Proud Member of the Operational Support (Bug Hunter) Team
For you it's anti science, i am ok with that, but even then you should acknowledge that the biggest (in canon) ship ever build isn't likely to be decommmisioned because of a smaller 10 years younger vessel, especailly since these ships are especailly build to last long and being updated constantly. That wouldn't make any sense IMo.
I obvioulsy haven't read anything i (or other ppl) have written at the last hundred pages.
It's not just about our preferences, there are reproducible evidence that the GCS should be different to how Cryptic made it.
BTW, the Sovereign design is in no way a upgrade to the GCS design. It's a complete turnaround and a continuation of the Excelsior design. So i think even if we just look at both ships one can asume they are two different design lines, one (GCS) succeeding the Ambassador and the other (SOV) succeeding the Excelsior. If you can't recognize the blatant design differences between both ship designs then i can't help you.
These differences led us to the conclusion that both ships serve a differnt purpose (several pages back).
So your opinion is more important than mine, which makes you right in calling our (GCS fans) goal childish?
Again i ask, why do ppl care about that ship if they hate it in the first place?
There are more than enough ships in STO to fly, why deny GCS fans a satisfying ship to fly, instead of a teethless brick?
I would like to know from you what do you hope to archive in arguing against a rework of a ship, you don't like or want to fly anyways?
NOTE: I'm not sure how the forum will handle an 800x250 signature. If it refuses to upload it, I will try making a smaller one.
StarSword-C: http://i770.photobucket.com/albums/xx345/stardestroyer001/Star%20Trek%20Online%20Photos/Banners%20and%20Posters/galaxyadvocationbannerstarsword-c_zps24d4b9e3.png
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Sigh. Here we go with yet ANOTHER version of "it's the writer's fault". When ever fact don't line up with what you guys believe, you guy seem to be absolutely incapable of understanding that Star Trek is an intellectual property that can be defined in ANY way that the owner deems fit, whether you like it or not. Look at how many times "Superman" has been changed in the last 15 years. He/she who owns the intellectual property can do what ever they want to, whether you agree with it or not.
It's also glaringly apparent that you guys have no other plan other than the "Boogey Man" Imperative: you think that the more you repeat the same mind numbing arguments and mantras, that eventually they will listen to you. As you can see, that has resulted in a TOTAL failure for you guys.
Although I've had my various run-in with some here on this thread, having more firepower is a fair point. But again, understanding, and AGREEING with your interpretation are two different things. ANY halfway decent writer could come up with a MULTITUE of reasons why it turned out that the Sovereign class was able to have more powerful weapons and was a more capable battleship than the Galaxy could be. But it STILL wouldn't matter since you guys would NEVER accept it anyway.
I'm not sure if it's hubris or a lack of understanding on your parts that make you guys think that you have THE ANSWERS seeing that MOST of your "evidence" consist of NON-CANON sources and speculation. And when canon is brought up that you DON'T like, many of you seem to experience extreme cognitive dissonance, and instead of accepting the "good" with the "bad", you put your heads in the sand and chant "it's the writers fault".
Whether you want to hear this or not, your approach has the appearance of coming across as self serving rather than sympathetic. This is probably one of the reasons that your "cause" has failed to generate any widespread support either among other players or the devs. How can anyone take you seriously when you absolutely refuse to even entertain the possibility that your GCS was shown to have flaws in the shows themselves?
And you say that you don't care what I think. Fair enough. But don't be surprised that Cryptic may feel the same way about you guys too. Many of you have seem to imply that there is a "silent majority" of players who want a GCS that is more powerful than a Sovereign (never gonna happen). Unfortunately for you, as long as they remain "silent", Cryptic/CBS has absolutely no incentive not to continue with following the strategy that they have been.
EDIT: forget that i have it.
THANKS!
But it's nice to see your opinion.
Maybe you missunderstood me, i was merely reacting like i did, because this has been discussed more than once alone in this thread. Sorry for being a bit snippy.
Of course the GCs shouldn't me more tactical focussed than a Sovereign in STO, but more versatile. No one wants a "i Win" Galaxy Class here. I just wanted to show the GCS wasn't the flying living room some STO players want it to be.
So just because Cryptics does what it always does (ignore what Trek fans want), we should remain silent and accept everything they give us?
Btw, i don't get why GCS haters get so emotional in the first place about this ship. But it's entertaining for sure.
i am sorry, but this is not an assumption, they made this ship wrong!
that a galor, exelsior, ambassador and NOVA, yes a NOVA class are more powerfull than a galaxy class? how can you justify that?
even the risian corvette is better, now really?
btw, who are not in this game? more powerfull than a galaxy class? what ship?
that remind me of what one of the duras sister said in star trek generation:
this is a galaxy class starship! we are no match for them!
i can't hardly bielieve any captain in sto whould said that seeing a galaxy class show up nowaday:rolleyes:
ho, because you and other don't care about the galaxy class, everyone that asking for it to be improve are "childish"?
and if it is not compelling for you to improve the galaxy therefore it should not be done?
and we are the one who are been treating of selfish people here?
so i will said that in the end it boild down to one thing:
the galaxy class is a cstore ship and, as such, it should be as efficient as any other cstore ship.
as of today the galaxy class is simply outperformed by a simple starcruiser and free ambassador.
this is the only ship in sto in this case.
if i didn't knew better i would have conclude that this is the result of personal hate feeling from someone in cryptic...
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271