There a lot of ppl supporting our goal, i wouldn't say it failed to get widespread support.
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.
Again, I get your point about the Galaxy being underpowered. Although in my personal opinion, it was shown as a mediocre ship, I do think that it having only two tactical console slots is underpowered. Where you guys seem to be oblivious or indifferent about is that you in your attempts to further you goals, you alienate fans of other ships, and seem surprised when they don't automatically accept YOUR version of ships and episode.
For every "it's the writers' fault" that you guys come up with when the ship doesn't perform well, that same mantra can be used against you and the GCS too when it does perform ok. The "cherry picking" of what canon you want to accept and what canon you don't want to accept ("its' the writers' fault") opens you guys up to criticism and ridicule, and destroys your creditability with other players (which you deem as "Galaxy Haters"), and I'm sure that your constant insults of the devs haven't won you any fans there either.
BTW, no you don't have to "accept" what Cryptic gives you. As it is a voluntary game, you can simply stop playing if you don't like what it represents. Or alternatively, you could try to actually contact CBS directly and complain to them. If your "silent majority" numbers are as high as you claim, then it should be sufficient enough to get their attention, although I question whether your "silent majority" is as large as you think.
Again, I get your point about the Galaxy being underpowered. Although in my personal opinion, it was shown as a mediocre ship, I do think that it having only two tactical console slots is underpowered. Where you guys seem to be oblivious or indifferent about is that you in your attempts to further you goals, you alienate fans of other ships, and seem surprised when they don't automatically accept YOUR version of ships and episode.
2 tac console ship not underpowered? This game is about DPS and Galaxy sucks at it makes it underpowered. The ship is game is weaker then a lot of ships it should not be.
So people wanting a improved Galaxy = alienating fans of other ships = fail. No one is trying to alienate anyone except the people who are against the Galaxy getting any kind of improvement. The makers of the game are alienating a lot of fans by making actual STAR TREK ships obsolete compared to lock box ship and other ship that are not from a STAR TREK episode or movie.
2 tac console ship not underpowered? This game is about DPS and Galaxy sucks at it makes it underpowered. The ship is game is weaker then a lot of ships it should not be.
So people wanting a improved Galaxy = alienating fans of other ships = fail. No one is trying to alienate anyone except the people who are against the Galaxy getting any kind of improvement. The makers of the game are alienating a lot of fans by making actual STAR TREK ships obsolete compared to lock box ship and other ship that are not from a STAR TREK episode or movie.
I did say that I thought that it was underpowered.
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?
Yes. You are asking for time and resources to be spent on a change that ONLY benefits you, ONLY because of your personal interpretation of what should be (which is an entirely personal and subjective thing, and is in no way superior to my diametrically opposite interpretation). I am saying there is no conceivable benefit to me (and probably many others), and at least a few potential downsides. You are saying I should ignore that and simply accept the changes anyway, because you really, REALLY want them. This is the definition of selfish, childish, self-centered, ego driven behavior.
if i didn't knew better i would have conclude that this is the result of personal hate feeling from someone in cryptic...
And this is my proof of the above. There's no conspiracy against Galaxy fans, it's simply that Cryptic disagrees with your interpretation of what matters in the game, and how the Galaxy should be. You have stated your reasons for why it should be otherwise, and evidently those reasons are not compelling. Certainly they aren't convincing to me. Acting like you're being put upon because you didn't get your way, is, again, childish.
Here's my thoughts on whole Galaxy vs. Excelsior vs. Soveriegn debate going on here:
1. The Galaxy was designed as a long duration exploration vessel with sufficient engineering resources to solve any problem that might come up, coupled with state of the art science facilities with room for personnel unused to long duration space flight to bring family along. Her weaponry, while formidable, was designed from a defensive perspective, quick response, but no staying power. It's basically a mobile starbase if you think about it. It wasn't portrayed as such in the show because that would be boring(ish).
2. The Excelsior was designed, originally in the 23rd century, as an experimental test bed. This suggest the interior would be completely modular outside of structural supports thus allowing ever newer and more advanced technology to be installed easily and across the entire complement. This would give the Excelsior superior marks in all categories except crew complement, as she's, by modern standards, a small ship. I doubt the Galaxy was constructed with such modularity in mind and thus can not be upgraded as easily or completely.
3. The Sovereign was designed to be much more offensive in nature, the center of an Anti-Borg task force made up of multiple Sovereigns with Defiants along side. She has more and better placed phaser arrays and photon launchers on multiple axises. However her primary weapon is the Quantum Torpedo Launcher. While this was "nerfed" in later appearances and in STO, the original conception was that it fired quantum instabilities or something like that directly without a need for torpedo casings. This almost counts as a Wave Motion Gun.
So if i had my druthers the following would be the layout:
The base Galaxy would have a LT tactical, an LTC engineer, an LT engineer, an LTC Science and an Ens. Science
The base Excelsior would have an LT Tactical, a Commander Engineer, an LT engineer and an Ens. Engineer and a LT Science
The base Sovereign would have and LTC tactical, 2 LTC engineers, an LT engineer and an LT science
All of this would be up in the air with the fleet and refit versions, but IMO Fleet versions should have higher base HP, a better base accuracy and maybe a faster base warp speed.
Yes. You are asking for time and resources to be spent on a change
Look how fast they made a change to improve the newest Romulan ship when it was not selling well for not having much difference from other ships. Why can't they do a small change for Galaxy Class? Their are lots of new people coming to the game make Galaxy class better you would get more sales from them.
The only thing I can take away is they just don't care about the Galaxy Class. If they improved it their would be a lot of happy people not just those who post in forum but also those that don't visit forums or am I to believe their are not many TNG fans playing the game. How can anyone not be happy about them improving actual STAR TREK stuff from the game I just don't understand it.
The Excelsior was designed, originally in the 23rd century, as an experimental test bed. This suggest the interior would be completely modular outside of structural supports thus allowing ever newer and more advanced technology to be installed easily and across the entire complement. This would give the Excelsior superior marks in all categories except crew complement, as she's, by modern standards, a small ship. I doubt the Galaxy was constructed with such modularity in mind and thus can not be upgraded as easily or completely.
The Galaxy had a major upgrade with the Galaxy X showing that it can be upgraded easily.
When Edward Jellico took over command of the ship for a short time he had changes made to make the ship fare better in battle should the need arrive with trouble involving Cardassians.
But not enough that it should get some sort of upgrade or am I getting the wrong vibe from you about it being improved in some way?
I do think that it could use some improving, such as additional tac abilities/consoles. But I don't think that it should be more powerful than a Sovereign, or some of the other ships.
I do think that it could use some improving, such as additional tac abilities/consoles. But I don't think that it should be more powerful than a Sovereign, or some of the other ships.
Yes I agree no better then the Sovereign just better then it currently is all I would like.
Yes I agree no better then the Sovereign just better then it currently is all I would like.
Okay, so the Sovereign currently has the same number of weapons, no ability to saucer-sep, and one more tac console and one additional tac Ensign power. What should we add to the Galaxy so that it is not "more powerful" than the Sovereign, yet is also "better" than what it is now? This system really isn't all that granular, is the problem.
As for the Romulan ship thing, we have no idea why the change was made - given that it came with an art change, there's at least some reason to think this was a change in the works from before the ship was actually released. I highly doubt they looked at the ship and after less than a week said "Not selling well enough, give it a hanger, update the art, push it live". In any case, the issues here are slightly different. The problem people had with the Tactical Warbird was that it didn't seem to have a clear role in the Romulan fleet. The Galaxy, on the other hand, DOES have a clear role (Eng-heavy support), but people don't like that role for one reason or another.
Okay, so the Sovereign currently has the same number of weapons, no ability to saucer-sep, and one more tac console and one additional tac Ensign power. What should we add to the Galaxy so that it is not "more powerful" than the Sovereign, yet is also "better" than what it is now? This system really isn't all that granular, is the problem.
Galaxy -1 Turn without being Saucer Separated
Much less DPS capable with only 1 Tactical Bridge officer of Lieutenant level totaling 2 less tactical powers and 1 less tactical console.
If they made the ensign slot universal it would help the Galaxy. Use it as tactical can have Tactical Team , Fire at Will 1 and Attack Pattern Beta 1 among tactical officers.
Right now the Galaxy is less DPS capable and has equal Science abilities if the Sovereign uses its universal as a Sci which it should.
The following is another thing I think they can do with the Galaxy and comparing it to a Nebula and Ambassador
Well, since the new tactical warbird got an update, maybe there's still hope for our favourite ship.
"...'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 was there a lot of complaining in the forums about the Tac Warbird?
I'm getting the feeling they only did that because the Aftermath of Romulus thing is still their big number. Feds aren't as exotic or as exciting as Rommie stuff right now.
Since this is my first post in this thread, let me say that I also agree, the Galaxy needs an update, and personally, I thing the Galaxy Dreadnought could use an update as well. I always loved the original, but the Gal-X... That's my baby too. (Devs, if you ever see this, which I doubt, hurry up with the Dread's saucer separation coding bugs! It'll give me a reason to buy the Gal Refit thingy!
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Seriously if CBS said to Cryptic - you can add 1 more C-store super redue retrofit - a T5 connie or a new Galaxy - you know a T5 connie would come out the next week - the sales would be 100 to 1 for the connie.
I honestly cannot say that. I think both have an enough of a following, especially people who like both, that it comes down to the overall stats of the ships in question coming into alignment with play-style.
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.
Dear Lord, were there every plenty of proposed changes for a Sovereign class revamp that were definitely too strong, like a second set of shields , a 9th weapon slot that contained a 360' arc quantum torpedo and more that I can't even conjure at this second.
Its not a hatred for the Galaxy that creates resistance towards proposals here. Most of the arguments for changing the Sovereign was that the "Assault Cruiser" class (much in the first 3 "seasons") was that the "class" supposed to be the most tactically potent cruiser, but it had very little teeth to it in contrast. While there were people making arguments based on canon, most arguments were based on the role the assault cruiser itself, in terms of STO, was supposed to fill.
Most people arguing not on the skin, but the role the type of role that the Exploration cruiser fills in the game. Proponents of the are Galaxy class arguing about the Exploration Cruiser/Galaxy class not because of its ability to perform its described STO function, but because they don't like what it does versus its perceived value from TNG and "tech' manuals". Effectively judging, not by the content of the Exploration Classes character, but by its "skin".
Yes, the Exploration Class doesn't have as good dps as the Assault Cruiser (and just about everything else). To want to supplant the Assault Cruiser with the Exploration Cruiser( and that is what the "3-pack" and other proposals aim to do) just because of the "skin" shows lack of forethought. If Galaxy skin fans want more DPS, they can use the Gal-X, which honestly, has more of a case for its inability to perform its role than the Exploration Cruisers do. The more logical pursuit would be to push for correction of the defects of all cruisers, which would strengthen the Exploration cruiser ability to function in game.
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)?
There is no need to make ANY ship weaker. Fixing the cruiser class through adding value to engineer boff skills (especially CMDR and LTCMDR offensive ones) and fixing drain on cruisers use of beam weapons, the cruisers will have a leg to stand on, and the Exporation Cruisers/Galaxy would be in the best position to take advantage of the changes and have a more successful role in the game.
Here's my thoughts on whole Galaxy vs. Excelsior vs. Soveriegn debate going on here:
1. The Galaxy was designed as a long duration exploration vessel with sufficient engineering resources to solve any problem that might come up, coupled with state of the art science facilities with room for personnel unused to long duration space flight to bring family along. Her weaponry, while formidable, was designed from a defensive perspective, quick response, but no staying power. It's basically a mobile starbase if you think about it. It wasn't portrayed as such in the show because that would be boring(ish).
2. The Excelsior was designed, originally in the 23rd century, as an experimental test bed. This suggest the interior would be completely modular outside of structural supports thus allowing ever newer and more advanced technology to be installed easily and across the entire complement. This would give the Excelsior superior marks in all categories except crew complement, as she's, by modern standards, a small ship. I doubt the Galaxy was constructed with such modularity in mind and thus can not be upgraded as easily or completely.
3. The Sovereign was designed to be much more offensive in nature, the center of an Anti-Borg task force made up of multiple Sovereigns with Defiants along side. She has more and better placed phaser arrays and photon launchers on multiple axises. However her primary weapon is the Quantum Torpedo Launcher. While this was "nerfed" in later appearances and in STO, the original conception was that it fired quantum instabilities or something like that directly without a need for torpedo casings. This almost counts as a Wave Motion Gun.
So if i had my druthers the following would be the layout:
The base Galaxy would have a LT tactical, an LTC engineer, an LT engineer, an LTC Science and an Ens. Science
The base Excelsior would have an LT Tactical, a Commander Engineer, an LT engineer and an Ens. Engineer and a LT Science
The base Sovereign would have and LTC tactical, 2 LTC engineers, an LT engineer and an LT science
All of this would be up in the air with the fleet and refit versions, but IMO Fleet versions should have higher base HP, a better base accuracy and maybe a faster base warp speed.
the galaxy was not pigeonholed to be this toothless frumpy science ship, it was starfleet's new largest and most powerful general purpose ship. 70% of its interior was modular, it could be set up in any way they liked. battleship, long term explorer, or an impressive diplomatic flagship, and any combination in between. stock it came with the largest and most powerful phaser arrays of any starfleet ship, no canon ship has guns half as large, and no ship in sto ether. nothing has been observed that can match the volume of torps a GCS has been known to fire from its 2 launchers. smaller ships may have quite a few launchers, but are only capable of much smaller bursts each.
the sovereign is a new and large heavy cruiser. but with only about half the volume of something like a galaxy class. though a decade more advanced, at launch, its weapons for example are also only about half the galaxy's scale, less then half actually. for all their advanced-ness, theres far to wide a scale gap for the sovereign to be in the galaxy's tactical league. it wouldn't be long before both classes through refits shared the same tech level too.
the excelsior was always very general purpose, when the class actually went in production. the transwarp prototype was more purpose built, not less. starfleet ships always seem to be especially modular, but i doubt to the extent the galaxy is, that set the bar highest.
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 popularity 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.
It is possible that market research suggested they do it.Did you ever consider that they might have found that enough people were interested in seeing an new ship in the saga that did look like the Galaxy? After all, when they made TNG, they used a less "orthodox" design than the TOS/Movie Era ships, going with flatter, more (organic) elliptical features and even more "glowie" effects on the ship. I would argue that the style of the ship had run the course of its life-cycle. Paramount wasn't going to cut off its nose to spite it's face for nothing.
70% of its interior was modular, it could be set up in any way they liked. battleship, long term explorer, or an impressive diplomatic flagship, and any combination in between.
70% of its interior? Sound like the entirety of the saucer section. Did you ever consider that maybe the easiest way to make the Galaxy modular was to swap saucer sections? Modular could be looked at in several different ways.
Stock it came with the largest and most powerful phaser arrays of any starfleet ship, no canon ship has guns half as large, and no ship in sto ether. nothing has been observed that can match the volume of torps a GCS has been known to fire from its 2 launchers. smaller ships may have quite a few launchers, but are only capable of much smaller bursts each.
The main reason why it has the "most powerful" anything, especially beyond TNG was due to the fact that the TNG staff had to put a greater deal of effort to explain the ship to get around the use of technobabble that replaced good script writing in many cases to solve the crews problems. If the other series ships had had anywhere near the amount of time and effort, even in relation to screen time, I would argue that later ships would have had better manuals, but they didn't need to avoid the pitfalls of technobabble like TNG did. Maybe the other ships only needed to fire shorter bursts to do thier job in contrast to what the Galaxy had, but because of the lack of effort and reconciliation between the series, we really don't know.
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.
If the franchise put an equivalent level of effort in it's canonical documentation, I would argue you had more of a point. But the Star Trek franchise didn't.
The Galaxy had a major upgrade with the Galaxy X showing that it can be upgraded easily.
The easiest perceived manner of upgrade was replacing the original saucer section with a "re-manned" or even totallt new construction saucer section, which could have been done while the ship was away and operational. The other systems (sic. third nacelle, warp core) would have been the only real hard parts to it.
When Edward Jellico took over command of the ship for a short time he had changes made to make the ship fare better in battle should the need arrive with trouble involving Cardassians.
They at least suggested that they did, but it never was really tested. "Fare better" can constitue a 3-5% total improvement over the sum of the ship.
70% of its interior? Sound like the entirety of the saucer section. Did you ever consider that maybe the easiest way to make the Galaxy modular was to swap saucer sections? Modular could be looked at in several different ways.
its more then just the saucer. the impulse drive and fusion reactors, the enormousness shuttle bay, the computer cores, the entire EPS network, that stuff has to be pretty rigidly built in. i imagine most of the neck, and any section of the secondary hull that had windows were part of the modular sections.
The main reason why it has the "most powerful" anything, especially beyond TNG was due to the fact that the TNG staff had to put a greater deal of effort to explain the ship to get around the use of technobabble that replaced good script writing in many cases to solve the crews problems. If the other series ships had had anywhere near the amount of time and effort, even in relation to screen time, I would argue that later ships would have had better manuals, but they didn't need to avoid the pitfalls of technobabble like TNG did. Maybe the other ships only needed to fire shorter bursts to do thier job in contrast to what the Galaxy had, but because of the lack of effort and reconciliation between the series, we really don't know.
they used techno babble like we use station power in game. the most basic level of tech, like how phasers arrays work, you dont even have to explain, you can just watch them do what they do. the tech in the manual, and the established techno babble, they were all very consistent about that stuff in later shows too. eps grids, tachyons, chronotons, gravitons, warp drive, they all did the same things in all the shows. the tng tech manual was not just for the galaxy, thats the tech behind every ship. everything in it applies to every other modern ship, the only difference is the scale of each ship.
its more then just the saucer. the impulse drive and fusion reactors, the enormousness shuttle bay, the computer cores, the entire EPS network, that stuff has to be pretty rigidly built in. i imagine most of the neck, and any section of the secondary hull that had windows were part of the modular sections.
It would be far more efficient , from an engineers standpoint, to have the "modular" areas in the saucer, why make it harder for yourself when one can simply rework an upgrade through re-manning or building new corresponding saucers to needs, while keeping the ship in service a majority of that time. That makes little sense. That was part of the reason behind the original concept of the Nebula. warp out a saucer and do a quick swap.
they used techno babble like we use station power in game. the most basic level of tech, like how phasers arrays work, you dont even have to explain, you can just watch them do what they do. the tech in the manual, and the established techno babble, they were all very consistent about that stuff in later shows too. eps grids, tachyons, chronotons, gravitons, warp drive, they all did the same things in all the shows. the tng tech manual was not just for the galaxy, thats the tech behind every ship. everything in it applies to every other modern ship, the only difference is the scale of each ship.
The level of "tecnobabble" used in TNG was exponentially higher, per screen-time than in the other series. What you argue as "consistency" I would suggest was adopting a best practice of minimization due to lessons learned from over-use in TNG.
It would be far more efficient , from an engineers standpoint, to have the "modular" areas in the saucer, why make it harder for yourself when one can simply rework an upgrade through re-manning or building new corresponding saucers to needs, while keeping the ship in service a majority of that time. That makes little sense. That was part of the reason behind the original concept of the Nebula. warp out a saucer and do a quick swap.
thats completely unpractical. it wouldn't function without basic infrastructure. its also the area of the ship that has room to mount such large arrays, engines, shuttle bays, and main computer cores. in these modular spaces, whole sections can probably be swapped out with shipyard industrial transporters. a saucer swap could be part of a 'refit' anyway, still.
The level of "tecnobabble" used in TNG was exponentially higher, per screen-time than in the other series. What you argue as "consistency" I would suggest was adopting a best practice of minimization due to lessons learned from over-use in TNG.
you can criticize techno babble all you want, it doesn't change how consistent things, like phaser arrays, work for example.
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?
Not in a way that supplants the tactical capabilities of the IP that is used as STO's tactical oriented cruisers. There are ways to make the Exploration cruiser (of which the Galaxy skin is used) without makeing the roles of the Assault Cruiser or ther ship roles redundant/inferior.
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.
Only reason why the Exploration Cruisers get "outpreformed" is because enginer boff powers are insufficient, otherwise the Exploration Cruiser would be a fine ship.
Comments
Again, I get your point about the Galaxy being underpowered. Although in my personal opinion, it was shown as a mediocre ship, I do think that it having only two tactical console slots is underpowered. Where you guys seem to be oblivious or indifferent about is that you in your attempts to further you goals, you alienate fans of other ships, and seem surprised when they don't automatically accept YOUR version of ships and episode.
For every "it's the writers' fault" that you guys come up with when the ship doesn't perform well, that same mantra can be used against you and the GCS too when it does perform ok. The "cherry picking" of what canon you want to accept and what canon you don't want to accept ("its' the writers' fault") opens you guys up to criticism and ridicule, and destroys your creditability with other players (which you deem as "Galaxy Haters"), and I'm sure that your constant insults of the devs haven't won you any fans there either.
BTW, no you don't have to "accept" what Cryptic gives you. As it is a voluntary game, you can simply stop playing if you don't like what it represents. Or alternatively, you could try to actually contact CBS directly and complain to them. If your "silent majority" numbers are as high as you claim, then it should be sufficient enough to get their attention, although I question whether your "silent majority" is as large as you think.
2 tac console ship not underpowered? This game is about DPS and Galaxy sucks at it makes it underpowered. The ship is game is weaker then a lot of ships it should not be.
So people wanting a improved Galaxy = alienating fans of other ships = fail. No one is trying to alienate anyone except the people who are against the Galaxy getting any kind of improvement. The makers of the game are alienating a lot of fans by making actual STAR TREK ships obsolete compared to lock box ship and other ship that are not from a STAR TREK episode or movie.
I did say that I thought that it was underpowered.
But not enough that it should get some sort of upgrade or am I getting the wrong vibe from you about it being improved in some way?
Yes. You are asking for time and resources to be spent on a change that ONLY benefits you, ONLY because of your personal interpretation of what should be (which is an entirely personal and subjective thing, and is in no way superior to my diametrically opposite interpretation). I am saying there is no conceivable benefit to me (and probably many others), and at least a few potential downsides. You are saying I should ignore that and simply accept the changes anyway, because you really, REALLY want them. This is the definition of selfish, childish, self-centered, ego driven behavior.
And this is my proof of the above. There's no conspiracy against Galaxy fans, it's simply that Cryptic disagrees with your interpretation of what matters in the game, and how the Galaxy should be. You have stated your reasons for why it should be otherwise, and evidently those reasons are not compelling. Certainly they aren't convincing to me. Acting like you're being put upon because you didn't get your way, is, again, childish.
1. The Galaxy was designed as a long duration exploration vessel with sufficient engineering resources to solve any problem that might come up, coupled with state of the art science facilities with room for personnel unused to long duration space flight to bring family along. Her weaponry, while formidable, was designed from a defensive perspective, quick response, but no staying power. It's basically a mobile starbase if you think about it. It wasn't portrayed as such in the show because that would be boring(ish).
2. The Excelsior was designed, originally in the 23rd century, as an experimental test bed. This suggest the interior would be completely modular outside of structural supports thus allowing ever newer and more advanced technology to be installed easily and across the entire complement. This would give the Excelsior superior marks in all categories except crew complement, as she's, by modern standards, a small ship. I doubt the Galaxy was constructed with such modularity in mind and thus can not be upgraded as easily or completely.
3. The Sovereign was designed to be much more offensive in nature, the center of an Anti-Borg task force made up of multiple Sovereigns with Defiants along side. She has more and better placed phaser arrays and photon launchers on multiple axises. However her primary weapon is the Quantum Torpedo Launcher. While this was "nerfed" in later appearances and in STO, the original conception was that it fired quantum instabilities or something like that directly without a need for torpedo casings. This almost counts as a Wave Motion Gun.
So if i had my druthers the following would be the layout:
The base Galaxy would have a LT tactical, an LTC engineer, an LT engineer, an LTC Science and an Ens. Science
The base Excelsior would have an LT Tactical, a Commander Engineer, an LT engineer and an Ens. Engineer and a LT Science
The base Sovereign would have and LTC tactical, 2 LTC engineers, an LT engineer and an LT science
All of this would be up in the air with the fleet and refit versions, but IMO Fleet versions should have higher base HP, a better base accuracy and maybe a faster base warp speed.
Look how fast they made a change to improve the newest Romulan ship when it was not selling well for not having much difference from other ships. Why can't they do a small change for Galaxy Class? Their are lots of new people coming to the game make Galaxy class better you would get more sales from them.
The only thing I can take away is they just don't care about the Galaxy Class. If they improved it their would be a lot of happy people not just those who post in forum but also those that don't visit forums or am I to believe their are not many TNG fans playing the game. How can anyone not be happy about them improving actual STAR TREK stuff from the game I just don't understand it.
The Galaxy had a major upgrade with the Galaxy X showing that it can be upgraded easily.
When Edward Jellico took over command of the ship for a short time he had changes made to make the ship fare better in battle should the need arrive with trouble involving Cardassians.
I do think that it could use some improving, such as additional tac abilities/consoles. But I don't think that it should be more powerful than a Sovereign, or some of the other ships.
Yes I agree no better then the Sovereign just better then it currently is all I would like.
Okay, so the Sovereign currently has the same number of weapons, no ability to saucer-sep, and one more tac console and one additional tac Ensign power. What should we add to the Galaxy so that it is not "more powerful" than the Sovereign, yet is also "better" than what it is now? This system really isn't all that granular, is the problem.
As for the Romulan ship thing, we have no idea why the change was made - given that it came with an art change, there's at least some reason to think this was a change in the works from before the ship was actually released. I highly doubt they looked at the ship and after less than a week said "Not selling well enough, give it a hanger, update the art, push it live". In any case, the issues here are slightly different. The problem people had with the Tactical Warbird was that it didn't seem to have a clear role in the Romulan fleet. The Galaxy, on the other hand, DOES have a clear role (Eng-heavy support), but people don't like that role for one reason or another.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Assault_Cruiser_Refit vs. http://sto.gamepedia.com/Exploration_Cruiser_Retrofit
Galaxy -1 Turn without being Saucer Separated
Much less DPS capable with only 1 Tactical Bridge officer of Lieutenant level totaling 2 less tactical powers and 1 less tactical console.
If they made the ensign slot universal it would help the Galaxy. Use it as tactical can have Tactical Team , Fire at Will 1 and Attack Pattern Beta 1 among tactical officers.
Right now the Galaxy is less DPS capable and has equal Science abilities if the Sovereign uses its universal as a Sci which it should.
The following is another thing I think they can do with the Galaxy and comparing it to a Nebula and Ambassador
Galaxy Class should have / Nebula Class has / Fleet Ambassador has / Regent
Commander Engineer / Commander Science / Commander Engineer / Commander Engineer
Lt. Commander Science / Lt. Commander Engineer / Lt. Commander Science / Lt. Commander Tactical
Lieutenant Tactical / Lieutenant Tactical / Lieutenant Tactical / Lieutenant Engineer
Lieutenant Universal / Lieutenant Universal / Lieutenant Universal / Lieutenant Universal
Ensign Engineer / Ensign Science / Ensign Tactical / Ensign Tactical
where yuo see the glaxy class working like mobile mecanic suport ship ????
TNG? DS9? starfleet command 3? startrek bridge commander? etc .....
this idea of "Eng-heavy support" dont fit in any place and for sure not in STO were whe are pushed to do more dps each new release
I'm getting the feeling they only did that because the Aftermath of Romulus thing is still their big number. Feds aren't as exotic or as exciting as Rommie stuff right now.
Since this is my first post in this thread, let me say that I also agree, the Galaxy needs an update, and personally, I thing the Galaxy Dreadnought could use an update as well. I always loved the original, but the Gal-X... That's my baby too. (Devs, if you ever see this, which I doubt, hurry up with the Dread's saucer separation coding bugs! It'll give me a reason to buy the Gal Refit thingy!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
I honestly cannot say that. I think both have an enough of a following, especially people who like both, that it comes down to the overall stats of the ships in question coming into alignment with play-style.
Dear Lord, were there every plenty of proposed changes for a Sovereign class revamp that were definitely too strong, like a second set of shields , a 9th weapon slot that contained a 360' arc quantum torpedo and more that I can't even conjure at this second.
Its not a hatred for the Galaxy that creates resistance towards proposals here. Most of the arguments for changing the Sovereign was that the "Assault Cruiser" class (much in the first 3 "seasons") was that the "class" supposed to be the most tactically potent cruiser, but it had very little teeth to it in contrast. While there were people making arguments based on canon, most arguments were based on the role the assault cruiser itself, in terms of STO, was supposed to fill.
Most people arguing not on the skin, but the role the type of role that the Exploration cruiser fills in the game. Proponents of the are Galaxy class arguing about the Exploration Cruiser/Galaxy class not because of its ability to perform its described STO function, but because they don't like what it does versus its perceived value from TNG and "tech' manuals". Effectively judging, not by the content of the Exploration Classes character, but by its "skin".
Yes, the Exploration Class doesn't have as good dps as the Assault Cruiser (and just about everything else). To want to supplant the Assault Cruiser with the Exploration Cruiser( and that is what the "3-pack" and other proposals aim to do) just because of the "skin" shows lack of forethought. If Galaxy skin fans want more DPS, they can use the Gal-X, which honestly, has more of a case for its inability to perform its role than the Exploration Cruisers do. The more logical pursuit would be to push for correction of the defects of all cruisers, which would strengthen the Exploration cruiser ability to function in game.
There is no need to make ANY ship weaker. Fixing the cruiser class through adding value to engineer boff skills (especially CMDR and LTCMDR offensive ones) and fixing drain on cruisers use of beam weapons, the cruisers will have a leg to stand on, and the Exporation Cruisers/Galaxy would be in the best position to take advantage of the changes and have a more successful role in the game.
the galaxy was not pigeonholed to be this toothless frumpy science ship, it was starfleet's new largest and most powerful general purpose ship. 70% of its interior was modular, it could be set up in any way they liked. battleship, long term explorer, or an impressive diplomatic flagship, and any combination in between. stock it came with the largest and most powerful phaser arrays of any starfleet ship, no canon ship has guns half as large, and no ship in sto ether. nothing has been observed that can match the volume of torps a GCS has been known to fire from its 2 launchers. smaller ships may have quite a few launchers, but are only capable of much smaller bursts each.
the sovereign is a new and large heavy cruiser. but with only about half the volume of something like a galaxy class. though a decade more advanced, at launch, its weapons for example are also only about half the galaxy's scale, less then half actually. for all their advanced-ness, theres far to wide a scale gap for the sovereign to be in the galaxy's tactical league. it wouldn't be long before both classes through refits shared the same tech level too.
the excelsior was always very general purpose, when the class actually went in production. the transwarp prototype was more purpose built, not less. starfleet ships always seem to be especially modular, but i doubt to the extent the galaxy is, that set the bar highest.
It is possible that market research suggested they do it.Did you ever consider that they might have found that enough people were interested in seeing an new ship in the saga that did look like the Galaxy? After all, when they made TNG, they used a less "orthodox" design than the TOS/Movie Era ships, going with flatter, more (organic) elliptical features and even more "glowie" effects on the ship. I would argue that the style of the ship had run the course of its life-cycle. Paramount wasn't going to cut off its nose to spite it's face for nothing.
70% of its interior? Sound like the entirety of the saucer section. Did you ever consider that maybe the easiest way to make the Galaxy modular was to swap saucer sections? Modular could be looked at in several different ways.
The main reason why it has the "most powerful" anything, especially beyond TNG was due to the fact that the TNG staff had to put a greater deal of effort to explain the ship to get around the use of technobabble that replaced good script writing in many cases to solve the crews problems. If the other series ships had had anywhere near the amount of time and effort, even in relation to screen time, I would argue that later ships would have had better manuals, but they didn't need to avoid the pitfalls of technobabble like TNG did. Maybe the other ships only needed to fire shorter bursts to do thier job in contrast to what the Galaxy had, but because of the lack of effort and reconciliation between the series, we really don't know.
If the franchise put an equivalent level of effort in it's canonical documentation, I would argue you had more of a point. But the Star Trek franchise didn't.
The easiest perceived manner of upgrade was replacing the original saucer section with a "re-manned" or even totallt new construction saucer section, which could have been done while the ship was away and operational. The other systems (sic. third nacelle, warp core) would have been the only real hard parts to it.
They at least suggested that they did, but it never was really tested. "Fare better" can constitue a 3-5% total improvement over the sum of the ship.
its more then just the saucer. the impulse drive and fusion reactors, the enormousness shuttle bay, the computer cores, the entire EPS network, that stuff has to be pretty rigidly built in. i imagine most of the neck, and any section of the secondary hull that had windows were part of the modular sections.
they used techno babble like we use station power in game. the most basic level of tech, like how phasers arrays work, you dont even have to explain, you can just watch them do what they do. the tech in the manual, and the established techno babble, they were all very consistent about that stuff in later shows too. eps grids, tachyons, chronotons, gravitons, warp drive, they all did the same things in all the shows. the tng tech manual was not just for the galaxy, thats the tech behind every ship. everything in it applies to every other modern ship, the only difference is the scale of each ship.
It would be far more efficient , from an engineers standpoint, to have the "modular" areas in the saucer, why make it harder for yourself when one can simply rework an upgrade through re-manning or building new corresponding saucers to needs, while keeping the ship in service a majority of that time. That makes little sense. That was part of the reason behind the original concept of the Nebula. warp out a saucer and do a quick swap.
The level of "tecnobabble" used in TNG was exponentially higher, per screen-time than in the other series. What you argue as "consistency" I would suggest was adopting a best practice of minimization due to lessons learned from over-use in TNG.
thats completely unpractical. it wouldn't function without basic infrastructure. its also the area of the ship that has room to mount such large arrays, engines, shuttle bays, and main computer cores. in these modular spaces, whole sections can probably be swapped out with shipyard industrial transporters. a saucer swap could be part of a 'refit' anyway, still.
you can criticize techno babble all you want, it doesn't change how consistent things, like phaser arrays, work for example.
They were in a rust-bucket FPOSBoP, they propably would have said that if it was a Constitution or Constellation class too.
Not in a way that supplants the tactical capabilities of the IP that is used as STO's tactical oriented cruisers. There are ways to make the Exploration cruiser (of which the Galaxy skin is used) without makeing the roles of the Assault Cruiser or ther ship roles redundant/inferior.
Only reason why the Exploration Cruisers get "outpreformed" is because enginer boff powers are insufficient, otherwise the Exploration Cruiser would be a fine ship.
I wouldn't rule out over sensitivity on the part of some GCS fans as well. Call it a group effort all around.