There is one thing i don't quite understand about the fleet ships in STO.
The KDF counterpart to the Odyssey is the Bortas, right?
Shouldn't the KDF counterpart to the (fleet) Sovereign be the Negh'Va?
(althrough the Negh'Va only has got a improved GCS BOFF layout)
But more strangely, the KDF counterpart to the (fleet) Galaxy, the Fleet Tor'Kaht Battle Cruiser Retrofit, has a completely different BOFF layout than any cruiser-like ship i can remember. (the ultimate Battlecruiser BOFF/console layout IMO)
Is there any pattern behind this i cannot see or has Cryptcs just slapped some BOFF layouts together, because they found it "cool" then?
Why do you think that the Negh'Var is the Sovereign's mirror and the Tor'Kaht is the GCS mirror?
The Negh'Var is the Galaxies counterpart, it has the exact same BOFF layout but got Battlecruiser boni (and mali) instad of Cruiser ones. The Vor'Cha is the Sovereigns mirror, again featuring the exact same BOFF layout (In-canon that is the same, at least the way I see it). The Tor'Kaht is a new kind of ship, probably somewhere along the lines of the Avenger thing. Though it's also pretty much similiar to the Regent? So it it still the same "family".
Though the Negh'Var got a universal ENS in it's fleet version, the GCS not - there is no reason for that and it should be changed. That's the least change they could and frankly should make.
Is it that they relate to "Nu-Trek" (presumable JJ Abrams) or other Trek that isn't just TNG? Not everyones "Holy Grail" of Star Trek is TNG. As a child of the early 70's, I'm a TOS/TOS movie guy. I accepted TNG, but not at the level as some people do here. I also wasn't a fan of the "diner-in-space" that was the first several seasons of DS9. Aside from the time-wars nonsense, I actually like Enterprise better than TNG. I don't hate TNG, I just like other stuff better.
You missed my point, I wasn't complaining that other people like other Treks more, I am no hardliner. I probably like TNG best but it's pretty much in-line with DS9 and TOS which I like equal for different reasons, I even like TAS. I don't like ENT and VOY for much of the changes they made (especially Braga stating that VOY was supposed to not feature a persistent story or too much resemblence to former series to not confuse people, leading to a inconsistent mess with shining performances of Robert Picardo and Jeri Ryan and ENT for the fact that they didn't explore the possibilities the scenario had but instead just rebooting TNG and discarding any originality) I just got the TOS complete journey DVD box set a few days ago. I just presumed that STOs new target audience is made up of more "gamers" than "trekkies" that are more hooked up on the "general sci-fi" theme than a specific Star Trek theme, let alone that of TNG or TOS for that matter but rather the current incarnations. That's why Cryptic is better off with a design like the Avenger as opposed to remaking the classic designs.
For the record, if Cryptic would have had the balls to set STO in one specific timeframe instead of making a free-for-all theme park I would have been crazily excited if we had a persistent TOS online game to play
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Why do you think that the Negh'Var is the Sovereign's mirror and the Tor'Kaht is the GCS mirror?
The Negh'Var is the Galaxies counterpart, it has the exact same BOFF layout but got Battlecruiser boni (and mali) instad of Cruiser ones. The Vor'Cha is the Sovereigns mirror, again featuring the exact same BOFF layout (In-canon that is the same, at least the way I see it). The Tor'Kaht is a new kind of ship, probably somewhere along the lines of the Avenger thing. Though it's also pretty much similiar to the Regent? So it it still the same "family".
Though the Negh'Var got a universal ENS in it's fleet version, the GCS not - there is no reason for that and it should be changed. That's the least change they could and frankly should make.
Sorry i was thinking in "real" Star Trek terms, not STO. lol.
But you are right, the Negh'va got the uni Ensign, while the GCS doesn't. Only Cryptics devs know why...
Personally if both ships stats where an option for the GCS skin, i wouldn't hesitate to use the Negh'Va one, no matter if it has got slightly less hull. All the other advantages do compensate this by far IMHO.
I just wanted to point out one thing, every new ship (no matter how slow it is) gets the ability to use DHCs. I don't say it would make sense to use them on a Obelisk Carrier, but i think to restrict Starfleet Cruisers from the use of DHC is just a disadvantage Cryptics devs didn't have come up with a good compensation.
In my opinion, Starfleet cruisers should get some weapons that support their supposed fighting style (broadsiding). I mean the main argument to give KDF and ROM Cruisers DHCs is to give them the ability to rip apart Starfleet Ships, while decloaking. Shouldn't Starfleet ships get some advantage in the case they survive that?
As i said, i don't like PvP, but even in PvE Starfleet Cruisers are the most passive ships in the game and not very fun to fly compared to the other faction or lockbox ships. Especially since the new comm array powers aren't that great at all IMO, but Cryptic doesn't even grant them that little advantage, KDF cuisers and Lockbox ships got the comm array too...
EDIT:
Maybe we should place a similar thread to the PvP forum to finally get noticed by the devs....
"...'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
Sorry i was thinking in "real" Star Trek terms, not STO. lol.
We don't know that, but I personally think it was meant to be a Galaxy competition. It has nearly the same meassuremets and I think the Klingons couldn't stand that their ships were dwarfed by the federation's flagship. The Vor'Cha attack cruiser is a bit smaller and more nimble. While being much older, Klingon designs were made to last much longer and I think in function those mirror Starfleets heavy cruisers.
My personal classification looks like this (and how I think STO could do better):
Frigate: New Orleans, Defiant, Sabre // Raider: B'Rel Light Cruiser: Miranda, Norway, Prometheus, Intrepid, Constitution, Excelsior // Raptor: --- Heavy cruiser: Constellation, Cheyenne, Akira, Ambassador, Sovereign // Battlecruiser: K'Tinga, K'Vort, Vor'Cha Explorer: Galaxy, Nebula // Heavy Battlecruiser/Command Vessel: Negh'Var
Cryptics original designs can be fit into that quite easily.
I just wanted to point out one thing, every new ship (no matter how slow it is) gets the ability to use DHCs. I don't say it would make sense to use them on a Obelisk Carrier, but i think to restrict Starfleet Cruisers from the use of DHC is just a disadvantage Cryptics devs didn't have come up with a good compensation.
In my opinion, Starfleet cruisers should get some weapons that support their supposed fighting style (broadsiding). I mean the main argument to give KDF and ROM Cruisers DHCs is to give them the ability to rip apart Starfleet Ships, while decloaking. Shouldn't Starfleet ships get some advantage in the case they survive that?
As i said, i don't like PvP, but even in PvE Starfleet Cruisers are the most passive ships in the game and not very fun to fly compared to the other faction or lockbox ships. Especially since the new comm array powers aren't that great at all IMO, but Cryptic doesn't even grant them that little advantage, KDF cuisers and Lockbox ships got the comm array too...
I do agree. If Starfleet would get heavy beams to compensate for DHCs it would have been a sensible thing. But I think it's not only Cryptic to blame here. Players are outraged when "their" faction doesn't get the same treatment as the other faction, unable to comprehend that diversity could improve the game. Instead, everyone wants to have exactly the same instead of just trying another faction. That's why STO and many other games get so mushed down and boring...
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
However if they come out with T6 Sovy and Excel, but not Galaxy, would you agree it is?
Honestly, it doesn't really bother me either way. If they have T6 ships with our without either/or/any of the current ships, I will find the ship that works best for me and use it. I am not that tied down to a hull.
when looking at the episode it also feel to me more engineering/science wizard than a combat beast indeed but alway felt underwhelm because i was sure he can do a lot better.
when looking at what the tech manual said, it look like this intuition was correct.
captain jellico show a other face of the ship, so i would said what somes players said to others when they complained about one ship.
" it's the captain, not the ship"
Honestly, I think much of what he did to that hull could have also been done to any other hull config (ship class), diverting power from one system to another isn't a new concept for ST. If I was a captain of a ship in combat and thought that taking life support offline, to get that extra juice, would win the day, everyone would be taking turns breathing.
You missed my point, I wasn't complaining that other people like other Treks more, I am no hardliner. I probably like TNG best but it's pretty much in-line with DS9 and TOS which I like equal for different reasons, I even like TAS. I don't like ENT and VOY for much of the changes they made (especially Braga stating that VOY was supposed to not feature a persistent story or too much resemblence to former series to not confuse people, leading to a inconsistent mess with shining performances of Robert Picardo and Jeri Ryan and ENT for the fact that they didn't explore the possibilities the scenario had but instead just rebooting TNG and discarding any originality) I just got the TOS complete journey DVD box set a few days ago. I just presumed that STOs new target audience is made up of more "gamers" than "trekkies" that are more hooked up on the "general sci-fi" theme than a specific Star Trek theme, let alone that of TNG or TOS for that matter but rather the current incarnations. That's why Cryptic is better off with a design like the Avenger as opposed to remaking the classic designs.
For the record, if Cryptic would have had the balls to set STO in one specific timeframe instead of making a free-for-all theme park I would have been crazily excited if we had a persistent TOS online game to play
I was just trying to make sure where you were coming from. While I am not sure that it is being aimed at "gamers", I just think it's not being aimed at hardcore Trekkie's who live and die by canon.
The problem with setting the game inside one of the shows timelines is that there would be so much whining from fans of other shows "timelines". If you make it TOS, every other show wouldn't exist and feelings would be hurt, same with anything else from a downstream position, they would cry about lost content. Believe it or not I think that they made the best decision with moving it to the "future" and "theme-parking" it.
I myself would have loved a post-Enterprise era during the Fed'-Romulan war or a "Enterpise-C" era game, but I know they wouldn't have had the legs either.
We don't know that, but I personally think it was meant to be a Galaxy competition. It has nearly the same meassuremets and I think the Klingons couldn't stand that their ships were dwarfed by the federation's flagship. The Vor'Cha attack cruiser is a bit smaller and more nimble. While being much older, Klingon designs were made to last much longer and I think in function those mirror Starfleets heavy cruisers.
My personal classification looks like this (and how I think STO could do better):
Frigate: New Orleans, Defiant, Sabre // Raider: B'Rel Light Cruiser: Miranda, Norway, Prometheus, Intrepid, Constitution, Excelsior // Raptor: --- Heavy cruiser: Constellation, Cheyenne, Akira, Ambassador, Sovereign // Battlecruiser: K'Tinga, K'Vort, Vor'Cha Explorer: Galaxy, Nebula // Heavy Battlecruiser/Command Vessel: Negh'Var
Cryptics original designs can be fit into that quite easily.
I do agree. If Starfleet would get heavy beams to compensate for DHCs it would have been a sensible thing. But I think it's not only Cryptic to blame here. Players are outraged when "their" faction doesn't get the same treatment as the other faction, unable to comprehend that diversity could improve the game. Instead, everyone wants to have exactly the same instead of just trying another faction. That's why STO and many other games get so mushed down and boring...
I do really think that the Exploration cruiser should be able to get a Heavy beam array. BTW, most Fed' cruisers would be even more useless if they used DHC's, they don't have the maneuverabilty to use them.
a long time ago in a thread far far away it had been pointed out that Paramount was not interested in having their most iconic ships be 'endgame' items, but from what we know about business, we can assume that it has occured to marketing executives that the revenue potential for having them available and somewhat viable is too much to resist so we have ships like the Galaxy that arent quite awesome but have the intangible 'fantasy/roleplay' value. If you want to fly a ship these ships, enjoy that element because the tradeoff is going to be performance.
We know the intellectual property of paramount is an issue in STO since we can not make our characters named after Star Trek charactors (or actors) without making some deliberatly gauche spelling errors, which I am quite certain a thread full of people lamanting the performance of their Picard Starship knows.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if we could use the galaxy as a super endgame high performance item. Picurd, Pikard, Pycard, JeanLukPikard.... I could spell it out for you a million different ways - I shouldnt have to explain it.
The saving grace of your Enterprizes, your Voyagurs, and your Defyants is that their underperformance is going to add an element of challenge to the game, because lets face it, there is no space content in the game that you cant faceroll in an egregiously overpowered Scimitar. (including pvp) - As a ship that was never intended as an end game item: it really doesent have a place in pvp if you want to be competitive, not that a ridiculous name like 'Cathrin Jainwey' isnt going to make you a priority target on general principle anyway.
Its so obvious, I think we can end this discussion.
We don't know that, but I personally think it was meant to be a Galaxy competition. It has nearly the same meassuremets and I think the Klingons couldn't stand that their ships were dwarfed by the federation's flagship. The Vor'Cha attack cruiser is a bit smaller and more nimble. While being much older, Klingon designs were made to last much longer and I think in function those mirror Starfleets heavy cruisers.
My personal classification looks like this (and how I think STO could do better):
Frigate: New Orleans, Defiant, Sabre // Raider: B'Rel Light Cruiser: Miranda, Norway, Prometheus, Intrepid, Constitution, Excelsior // Raptor: --- Heavy cruiser: Constellation, Cheyenne, Akira, Ambassador, Sovereign // Battlecruiser: K'Tinga, K'Vort, Vor'Cha Explorer: Galaxy, Nebula // Heavy Battlecruiser/Command Vessel: Negh'Var
Cryptics original designs can be fit into that quite easily.
the new orleans has over a million m? volume, wile the defiant has about 61k m?. the saber is in another size league over the defient, with 213k m?
if we were to classify starfleet ships in more classic military terms, instead of escort, cruiser and explorer, it would look like this based on volume size
I was just trying to make sure where you were coming from. While I am not sure that it is being aimed at "gamers", I just think it's not being aimed at hardcore Trekkie's who live and die by canon.
The problem with setting the game inside one of the shows timelines is that there would be so much whining from fans of other shows "timelines". If you make it TOS, every other show wouldn't exist and feelings would be hurt, same with anything else from a downstream position, they would cry about lost content. Believe it or not I think that they made the best decision with moving it to the "future" and "theme-parking" it.
I myself would have loved a post-Enterprise era during the Fed'-Romulan war or a "Enterpise-C" era game, but I know they wouldn't have had the legs either.
True, though I think the whining wouldn't have been significant if they had set a fixed setting to begin with. I mean you don't see people complaining that they can't play "Voyager Elite Force" in the TOS setting, it's just another game.
If STO would've explored the events after Khitomer, like you said, the "Enterprise-C era" I would have been excited. The possiblity to explore an unknown part of Trek history in a semi persistent online game would have had great potential for a 3-faction MMO.
I do really think that the Exploration cruiser should be able to get a Heavy beam array. BTW, most Fed' cruisers would be even more useless if they used DHC's, they don't have the maneuverabilty to use them.
I agree. Like I said, Starfleet shouldn't use cannons at all. The Defiant being the only exception because she has quad cannons. I wrote about that some time ago, I personally would like to see the following weapons in the game:
Beam Emitters - basic beams (like arrays are in-game now), open for all factions Dual Beam Banks - roughly the same, open for all factions Beam Arrays - wide angle beams, highly accurate, Starfleet and Romulans only Heavy Beam Arrays - Starfleet only, low fire rate, high damage and power drain, thus reserved for large ships Beam/Cannon turrets - the same only different visuals (very short beam bursts for beam turrets), open for all factions Single Cannons - same, open for all factions Dual Cannons - KDF and Romulans only Dual Heavy Cannons - KDF and Romulans only, reserved for Battlecruisers (too large for Raiders/Raptors) Heavy Plasma Cannons - Romulans only, super heavy forward mounted cannon, reserved for Warbirds Basic Torpedoes - open for all factions Special/Heavy Torpedoes - KDF only, special and experimental gimmick torpedoes
Plus some unique weapons for special ships this would the basic outline how faction weapons differentiate and how they operate. Instead of everything being the same Starfleet for example would work to employ tactics and skills to overcome cloaks, KDF using Raiders for special manneuvres and boarding parties to take over ships while Romulans rely on single, strong ships lurking in the dark etc. etc.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
the new orleans has over a million m? volume, wile the defiant has about 61k m?. the saber is in another size league over the defient, with 213k m?
if we were to classify starfleet ships in more classic military terms, instead of escort, cruiser and explorer, it would look like this based on volume size
I wasn't going for classic naval terms but in-canon classification. The New Orleans is classified as a frigate on-screen (TNG: Conspiracy) and a frigate respectively is classified in Trek terms as a small to medium sized vessel which's priomary function is to protect other ships, hence my choice for those three classes.
A light cruiser/destroyer is pretty much equivalent. The "cruiser" term just implies a ship's multi-purpose setup while the classification of light and heavy comes with the overall size and tasks. If you refit a light cruiser for battle you get something that is akin to a destroyer, the Miranda is a prime example of that. Although I grant you that the constellation and cheyenne could probably counted as light cruisers as well though being patrol craft I'd suspect them sporting more firepower than a Miranda for example.
And the largest class of ships, being the Galaxy and Nebula, are no battleships. They are dubbed and intented as Explorers. An Explorer can fight as much as any dubbed warship can, though they lack the manneuvreability of smaller ships and are probably good at taking flak and steamrolling resistance, but you won't get a very graceful evaisive action out of them That's why for me personally Klingon Battlecruisers were always something a GCS should be worried about. While formidable armed and defended I think without support it's a matter of time until she finally gets worn down.
I feel that quite a few of the flak this thread and idea is taking is because the ongoing desire to call the GCS a battleship thus implying it is the non-plus-ultra in ship-to-ship combat. But I think that is a wrong approach. Think of 17-19th century navies: You had trading ships that would dwarf many military vessels in terms of dimensions and pure firepower because of their precious cargo, they were able to defend themselves very well, yet were no battleships. That's basically Starfleet and their Explorers that can be refitted and partake in combat but none of those vessels is a war or battleship and will always lack behind a Klingon Battlecruiser for example in terms of combat. Yet, Starfleet and the Federation have prevailed over countless conflicts and are still the strongest force in the Alpha Quadrant. Their Fleet and political influence are truly dangerous tools to use but it is not a fleet of war.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I agree. Like I said, Starfleet shouldn't use cannons at all. The Defiant being the only exception because she has quad cannons. I
Which means Starfleet can't see the effectiveness of such vessels and then retrofit several existing ship classes to use cannons? Same as it can't decide to make further such combat oriented ships which also sport cannons?
Isn't that like saying that the KDF shoud not have carriers or fighters at all since we never see them use or have them? Or what about romulans only using huge relatively slugish ships?
Things change, the game tries to make players happy. How is it people are still bringing up the "they should not have x or Y" arguments?
Which means Starfleet can't see the effectiveness of such vessels and then retrofit several existing ship classes to use cannons? Same as it can't decide to make further such combat oriented ships which also sport cannons?
Isn't that like saying that the KDF shoud not have carriers or fighters at all since we never see them use or have them? Or what about romulans only using huge relatively slugish ships?
Things change, the game tries to make players happy. How is it people are still bringing up the "they should not have x or Y" arguments?
They could, but again staying in-canon, beam arrays are supposed to be vastly superior to cannons anyway But that's not the point.
At least my point is that I don't like games evening out everything until there is literally no distinction between factions except for their team colors. Some people like that, I don't hence why I said it is my personal opinion. And the show that game is based upon would work in that favour, the three large factions aren't equal there as well.
Regarding the carriers, again Starfighters and carriers make absolutely no sense in Star Trek. But if they were used the Klingons would be the people that would use them and I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem that everyone whined and now everyone has them instead of employing counters against such a speciality.
But the bottom line is that of course things can change. But if they change in a way that the product does not resemble it's origin anymore why even bother with the license to begin with? I didn't say everything should be exclusive, of course one faction could mimic another faction's specialties to a degree but they couldn't compete with that faction's specialty, really. For instance, the Defiant would have her cannons, though Romulan and Klingon attack ships are just better at it. Klingon ships would basically be set up for a forward firing arc while Starfleets arrays would provide a strong allround field of fire, Romulans could stick lighter arrays on their Warbirds' muzzles but couldn't rival the pinnacle of starfleets technology etc. etc. - many games with different factions work that way and it is balanced and fun - you don't need to give everyone a red, blue and green club just so nobody whines
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
The whole "planned victimization" narrative drumbeat is almost automted and is wearing pretty thin. Lets say you get your dream and get this ship with all of the bells and whistles you want. Then comes T6 ships and no Galaxy, Sovy, Excel. Are you going to continue with the Cryptic "hates the GCS" mindset?
Maybe i haven't made my point more clear, but i am ok with the GCS not being the biggest Ham in the game.
What i want is a ship that's not just the lamest and most passive ship in the game.
Heck i would be even Ok with a BOFF/console layout of a (fleet) Ambassador. Just something that keeps the GCS from being so passive and teethless.
Maybe Cryptic could make the GCS shipparts availlable to the Odyssey or Ambassador (via a switch at the Ship Tailor, maybe). I would be perfectly ok with that.
I agree. Like I said, Starfleet shouldn't use cannons at all. The Defiant being the only exception because she has quad cannons. I wrote about that some time ago, I personally would like to see the following weapons in the game:
Beam Emitters - basic beams (like arrays are in-game now), open for all factions Dual Beam Banks - roughly the same, open for all factions Beam Arrays - wide angle beams, highly accurate, Starfleet and Romulans only Heavy Beam Arrays - Starfleet only, low fire rate, high damage and power drain, thus reserved for large ships Beam/Cannon turrets - the same only different visuals (very short beam bursts for beam turrets), open for all factions Single Cannons - same, open for all factions Dual Cannons - KDF and Romulans only Dual Heavy Cannons - KDF and Romulans only, reserved for Battlecruisers (too large for Raiders/Raptors) Heavy Plasma Cannons - Romulans only, super heavy forward mounted cannon, reserved for Warbirds Basic Torpedoes - open for all factions Special/Heavy Torpedoes - KDF only, special and experimental gimmick torpedoes
Plus some unique weapons for special ships this would the basic outline how faction weapons differentiate and how they operate. Instead of everything being the same Starfleet for example would work to employ tactics and skills to overcome cloaks, KDF using Raiders for special manneuvres and boarding parties to take over ships while Romulans rely on single, strong ships lurking in the dark etc. etc.
That would make much more sense IMO.
I never really got why Cryptic allowes small ship like the B'rel Bird-of-Prey Retrofit (or any other given small escort) to mount the same heavy weapons like a Negh'Va for example. It just doesn't make sense. Those ships should get other advantages, but in my opinion it's just rediculus that they can equip the same big weapons like a ship 20x the size.
I feel that quite a few of the flak this thread and idea is taking is because the ongoing desire to call the GCS a battleship thus implying it is the non-plus-ultra in ship-to-ship combat. But I think that is a wrong approach. Think of 17-19th century navies: You had trading ships that would dwarf many military vessels in terms of dimensions and pure firepower because of their precious cargo, they were able to defend themselves very well, yet were no battleships. That's basically Starfleet and their Explorers that can be refitted and partake in combat but none of those vessels is a war or battleship and will always lack behind a Klingon Battlecruiser for example in terms of combat.
Yet, Starfleet and the Federation have prevailed over countless conflicts and are still the strongest force in the Alpha Quadrant. Their Fleet and political influence are truly dangerous tools to use but it is not a fleet of war.
Still some ppl creating Star Trek games and series (like DS9) thought it was much "cooler" to give Starfleet small nimbele vessels with big cannons. :mad:
I think Andrew Probert (yes the same man who created the GCS) has put it in the right words.
"Gene Roddenberry was initially in charge of Star Trek: The Next Generation, as he well should be, and something happened politically to change that. You know, I had no idea what caused that change. But while Gene was in charge, he and I got along very well. We understood each other. And I liked him because of his creation of Star Trek, and he fully understood exactly where he wanted his show to go. Yet he was fully open to any ideas that we threw at him, and he would talk about that, and he talked about it intelligently.
"When Rick Berman took over the show, half way through the first season, every time we showed him a design concept, his constant response was, "no, we can't do that, because it reminds me of something that I've seen somewhere", or "it looks like a shaver", or "it looks like something I've seen in a furniture store". The only thing of note that Rick Berman did before Star Trek was a show called "The Big Blue Marble", a kid's show. For some reason, Paramount led him into this. I don't know. I've heard conflicted stories that Gene thought he was a great producer and wanted to bring him in. Whatever it is, Rick Berman did not, in that time, and, as far as I can see from what is being produced, does not understand science fiction. I've seen a lot of great concepts, by Doug Drexler and a few of the other illustrators that they have been working on, passed over in favor of much more controlled concepts. My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he's doing, he does not understand science fiction.(...)
"I think Star Trek died when Gene died. Well, as I said, Gene understood exactly what he wanted for his show, and his main focus was maintaining consistency in the show. And everybody who cared about Star Trek eventually left the show. Bill Theiss, the costumer, left, I left, Bob Justman left. So... I don't know what to say, it was very frustrating working on that.(...)I think he [Berman] cares about it for the money. I think he cares about it because he is confident that, no matter what they produce, if it has the name "Star Trek" on it, people will go watch it. They'll complain about it, but they will still make money from the viewers. But, you know, this is just my opinion."
I think the same he said about Rick Berman could be said about Cryptic and some of its devs 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
That's why I suggested a PvP team of Galaxies, and can be of various builds. We do all this to point out to cryptic the problems we're having. Putting out a ton of data on five different Galaxies getting stomped out should make a pretty good point, don't you think?
that will proove nothing.
what did you want it to proove anyway?
that a tier 4 ship is not able to compete with tier 5 ship?
that a tiers 5 galaxy can't do as much dps as a, let said, a tier5 exelsior or avenger?
they will told you that this is fonctioning as intended. and in fact it is.
and you known what could happened? we could win the matches, against an average unorganized pug ( yes! that is well within the reach of possibles ).
then all what you think you were prooving will fall appart.
People oppose a lot of things before they change their mind and do it. I won't rule anything out, especially if level caps increase.
i won't rules anything out either in the principle.
however i rule out that a changes of mind like this happened in a short spaceframe as 1 or 2 years.
Honestly, I think much of what he did to that hull could have also been done to any other hull config (ship class), diverting power from one system to another isn't a new concept for ST. If I was a captain of a ship in combat and thought that taking life support offline, to get that extra juice, would win the day, everyone would be taking turns breathing.
this is indeed something that could be done in everyship, however since the much larger volume of a galaxy compared to any other federation vessel of that time, the efficiency of that procedure would be much better on that ship.
but the real point that i wanted to make is that the feeling of this ship beeing "weak" is mostly due to the way the officer managed the ship.
it was, indeed, not build as a warship, and the people that use it, don't do it in a war spirit and prefer avoid conflict and save the crew rather than fighting, everytime that was possible.
just like in sto some player can build the same ship to be tanky at expense of firepower or go to opposite direction, captain jellico show the opposite direction.
a long time ago in a thread far far away it had been pointed out that Paramount was not interested in having their most iconic ships be 'endgame' items, but from what we know about business, we can assume that it has occured to marketing executives that the revenue potential for having them available and somewhat viable is too much to resist so we have ships like the Galaxy that arent quite awesome but have the intangible 'fantasy/roleplay' value. If you want to fly a ship these ships, enjoy that element because the tradeoff is going to be performance.
even if that statement would be true ( wich i sincerely doubt, especially with just your word about it ), being not interested in the presence of their most iconic ship in endgame is not sufficient for cryptic to not put them at endgame, they must be a clear opposition from cbs like there is one for the constitution class.
if not, cryptic is free to do what they want in the way they want.
and if that were true i would ask cryptic to correct their cstore description of the galaxy to insert this: beware, players, this ship have been deliberatly made unefficient and unworthy of tier 5 status due to cbs concern, if you still want to paid for it, click on the 2500 zen button bellow"
We know the intellectual property of paramount is an issue in STO since we can not make our characters named after Star Trek charactors (or actors) without making some deliberatly gauche spelling errors, which I am quite certain a thread full of people lamanting the performance of their Picard Starship knows.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if we could use the galaxy as a super endgame high performance item. Picurd, Pikard, Pycard, JeanLukPikard.... I could spell it out for you a million different ways - I shouldnt have to explain it.
so you are afraid that having an efficient galaxy in game would result in every fan trying to rename their toon with theses name?
yeah how horrible and game breaking that would be,really, this should be stop at any cost for the health and future of sto, it MUST:rolleyes:
it is not like if these people waited for cryptic to make an efficient galaxy to rename their toon like this you known.
since the launch of the game i see some U.S.S enterprize, entrepris, enter prise, lokutus, jean look picard, john luc picard, jenculepicard ( only the one who known in what languague the last one is can apreciate the joke ) flying around.
so if the intention was to prevent that by releasing a crappy galaxy.... epic fail!
As a ship that was never intended as an end game item:
so again, you are saying that cryptic make people paid 2500, 2000 zen for a tier 5 ship that in fact isn't really?
in my country we call that false advertising.
in any case i never found the defiant to be an inneficient tier 5 ship.
not that a ridiculous name like 'Cathrin Jainwey' isnt going to make you a priority target on general principle anyway.
and that kind of bias view must give these people somekind of tactical advantages, do not judge a book under it cover.
Its so obvious, I think we can end this discussion.
there is something obvious here, but it is not what you think.
True, though I think the whining wouldn't have been significant if they had set a fixed setting to begin with. I mean you don't see people complaining that they can't play "Voyager Elite Force" in the TOS setting, it's just another game.
If STO would've explored the events after Khitomer, like you said, the "Enterprise-C era" I would have been excited. The possiblity to explore an unknown part of Trek history in a semi persistent online game would have had great potential for a 3-faction MMO.
Voyager Elite Force wasn't an MMO, which is a lot longer of an investment in time and effort than a traditional game like Elite Force was.
I agree. Like I said, Starfleet shouldn't use cannons at all. The Defiant being the only exception because she has quad cannons. I wrote about that some time ago, I personally would like to see the following weapons in the game:
Beam Emitters - basic beams (like arrays are in-game now), open for all factions Dual Beam Banks - roughly the same, open for all factions Beam Arrays - wide angle beams, highly accurate, Starfleet and Romulans only Heavy Beam Arrays - Starfleet only, low fire rate, high damage and power drain, thus reserved for large ships Beam/Cannon turrets - the same only different visuals (very short beam bursts for beam turrets), open for all factions Single Cannons - same, open for all factions Dual Cannons - KDF and Romulans only Dual Heavy Cannons - KDF and Romulans only, reserved for Battlecruisers (too large for Raiders/Raptors) Heavy Plasma Cannons - Romulans only, super heavy forward mounted cannon, reserved for Warbirds Basic Torpedoes - open for all factions Special/Heavy Torpedoes - KDF only, special and experimental gimmick torpedoes
Plus some unique weapons for special ships this would the basic outline how faction weapons differentiate and how they operate. Instead of everything being the same Starfleet for example would work to employ tactics and skills to overcome cloaks, KDF using Raiders for special manneuvres and boarding parties to take over ships while Romulans rely on single, strong ships lurking in the dark etc. etc.
The who ships having cannons issue doesn't really bother me much, just the implementation of weapons for balance.
the new orleans has over a million m? volume, wile the defiant has about 61k m?. the saber is in another size league over the defient, with 213k m?
if we were to classify starfleet ships in more classic military terms, instead of escort, cruiser and explorer, it would look like this based on volume size
I feel that quite a few of the flak this thread and idea is taking is because the ongoing desire to call the GCS a battleship thus implying it is the non-plus-ultra in ship-to-ship combat. But I think that is a wrong approach. Think of 17-19th century navies: You had trading ships that would dwarf many military vessels in terms of dimensions and pure firepower because of their precious cargo, they were able to defend themselves very well, yet were no battleships. That's basically Starfleet and their Explorers that can be refitted and partake in combat but none of those vessels is a war or battleship and will always lack behind a Klingon Battlecruiser for example in terms of combat. Yet, Starfleet and the Federation have prevailed over countless conflicts and are still the strongest force in the Alpha Quadrant. Their Fleet and political influence are truly dangerous tools to use but it is not a fleet of war.
Maybe i haven't made my point more clear, but i am ok with the GCS not being the biggest Ham in the game.
What i want is a ship that's not just the lamest and most passive ship in the game.
Heck i would be even Ok with a BOFF/console layout of a (fleet) Ambassador. Just something that keeps the GCS from being so passive and teethless.
Maybe Cryptic could make the GCS shipparts availlable to the Odyssey or Ambassador (via a switch at the Ship Tailor, maybe). I would be perfectly ok with that.
Not to be personal, the victimization issue has far more to do with your statements about Cryptic going out of their way to keep this ship down than actual performance issues. You literally make statements that sound like the whole thing is a "tin-foil-hat" conspiracy. Refraining from making those comments every other day might do something to not sound like whining so much. Complaining about people wanting "cooler" ships than the one you want to change doesn't up the ante too much either.
Also complaining about what other ships/people/things have that you ship/person/thing doesn't and asking to get those things is also appearing like whining. There are a lot more ways to bring the ship up to speed without being a cookie cutter of another ship. The ship has plenty of potential with what it has if Cryptic would act on it. Theres no reason why any T5 ship shouldn't be able to use its setup to fight another T5 ship and have a fairly balanced chance of success.
I never really got why Cryptic allowes small ship like the B'rel Bird-of-Prey Retrofit (or any other given small escort) to mount the same heavy weapons like a Negh'Va for example. It just doesn't make sense. Those ships should get other advantages, but in my opinion it's just rediculus that they can equip the same big weapons like a ship 20x the size.
That sums it up quite well.
Still some ppl creating Star Trek games and series (like DS9) thought it was much "cooler" to give Starfleet small nimbele vessels with big cannons. :mad:
I think Andrew Probert (yes the same man who created the GCS) has put it in the right words.
I think the same he said about Rick Berman could be said about Cryptic and some of its devs IMO.
Is there any one else you want to point as a culprit in the Great Galaxy Conspiracy? I don't think we've blaimed any politicians or cigarette companies yet.
i won't rules anything out either in the principle.
however i rule out that a changes of mind like this happened in a short spaceframe as 1 or 2 years.
You do understand that 1-2 years for an MMO is an eternity, even a large one, right?
this is indeed something that could be done in everyship, however since the much larger volume of a galaxy compared to any other federation vessel of that time, the efficiency of that procedure would be much better on that ship.
but the real point that i wanted to make is that the feeling of this ship beeing "weak" is mostly due to the way the officer managed the ship.
it was, indeed, not build as a warship, and the people that use it, don't do it in a war spirit and prefer avoid conflict and save the crew rather than fighting, everytime that was possible.
just like in sto some player can build the same ship to be tanky at expense of firepower or go to opposite direction, captain jellico show the opposite direction.
But it certainly doesn't make it an "uber-ship" by any stretch of the imagination either.
Not to be personal, the victimization issue has far more to do with your statements about Cryptic going out of their way to keep this ship down than actual performance issues. You literally make statements that sound like the whole thing is a "tin-foil-hat" conspiracy. Refraining from making those comments every other day might do something to not sound like whining so much. Complaining about people wanting "cooler" ships than the one you want to change doesn't up the ante too much either.
Also complaining about what other ships/people/things have that you ship/person/thing doesn't and asking to get those things is also appearing like whining. There are a lot more ways to bring the ship up to speed without being a cookie cutter of another ship. The ship has plenty of potential with what it has if Cryptic would act on it. Theres no reason why any T5 ship shouldn't be able to use its setup to fight another T5 ship and have a fairly balanced chance of success.
Is there any one else you want to point as a culprit in the Great Galaxy Conspiracy? I don't think we've blaimed any politicians or cigarette companies yet.
We both have obviously different opinions about several things...
the point is that the GCS has the least potential of all (endgame) ships in STO. Of course we can talk abot changing BOFF powers and stff like that, bt the thing is it won't make the GCS more offensive or versatile than other ships.
Just look at the Comm arrays, Cryptics idea of buffing (starfleet) Cruisers is to give ALL cruisers the same (rather disappointing) AOE buffs. They certainly won't change anything big about crusiers gameplay anymore IMO.
You want Heavy beam Arrays for the GCS?
Good luck with that, if anything Cryptic will release such weapons for all ships, which will keep the GCS still the most passive ship. Unless there is a direct chang of its BOFF and Console layout, the GCS will still be the most boring and un-fun ship in STO.
Btw, to claim someone to whine isn't the nicest thing to do on a forum.
I expect you to change your tone in this dicussion, or we can stop dicussing right now.
Theres a difference if we talk about the non present Devs (in this thread) who actually designed the game as it is and how we treat and talk to each other.
"...'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
I feel that quite a few of the flak this thread and idea is taking is because the ongoing desire to call the GCS a battleship thus implying it is the non-plus-ultra in ship-to-ship combat. But I think that is a wrong approach. Think of 17-19th century navies: You had trading ships that would dwarf many military vessels in terms of dimensions and pure firepower because of their precious cargo, they were able to defend themselves very well, yet were no battleships. That's basically Starfleet and their Explorers that can be refitted and partake in combat but none of those vessels is a war or battleship and will always lack behind a Klingon Battlecruiser for example in terms of combat. Yet, Starfleet and the Federation have prevailed over countless conflicts and are still the strongest force in the Alpha Quadrant. Their Fleet and political influence are truly dangerous tools to use but it is not a fleet of war.
So now you want not only the Galaxy to be a battleship, but the Nebula too... Really DD'.
no one can see past the 2 words "battle" and "ship". battleship is simply the largest class in a navy, they think it implys much more then that. navy terms arent a perfect fit to these ships though, because on top of their military element they are built to serve any non combat function you could imagine.
We both have obviously different opinions about several things...
the point is that the GCS has the least potential of all (endgame) ships in STO. Of course we can talk abot changing BOFF powers and stff like that, bt the thing is it won't make the GCS more offensive or versatile than other ships.
Just look at the Comm arrays, Cryptics idea of buffing (starfleet) Cruisers is to give ALL cruisers the same (rather disappointing) AOE buffs. They certainly won't change anything big about crusiers gameplay anymore IMO.
You want Heavy beam Arrays for the GCS?
Good luck with that, if anything Cryptic will release such weapons for all ships, which will keep the GCS still the most passive ship. Unless there is a direct chang of its BOFF and Console layout, the GCS will still be the most boring and un-fun ship in STO.
Btw, to claim someone to whine isn't the nicest thing to do on a forum.
I expect you to change your tone in this dicussion, or we can stop dicussing right now.
Theres a difference if we talk about the non present Devs (in this thread) who actually designed the game as it is and how we treat and talk to each other.
Actually, there should be no difference how we talk about dev's (here or not) and the we talk to each other. Just because they have/had a job at Cryptic doesn't mean that its open season on saying nasty things about them. I am not necessarily for or against them, but the whole "victimization" slant, especially the when it comes to suggest an active effort of suppression of your fave' ship is far more an insult than suggesting "whiner-ship."
I said what I said to bring the attention to your tone. As-is, you aren't doing much to win people over to your cause by saying what you have about the devs' (if I remember right equating them to racists at one point), and now so much as to saying that Paramount employees tried to sabotage the show, resulting in the ship as is in game. You have also claimed that people that don't agree with your point of view are "GCS haters" (those would be also part of the "each other" category).
I understand that you want the Explorer to be better, as do I, and we see them in different ways, but your tone, with this blasting of of dev's, writers, everyone else that isn't in agreement with you, and God knows who else is adding vitriol to the topic. If you expect me to change my tone, I furthermore expect you to change yours.
Comments
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Why do you think that the Negh'Var is the Sovereign's mirror and the Tor'Kaht is the GCS mirror?
The Negh'Var is the Galaxies counterpart, it has the exact same BOFF layout but got Battlecruiser boni (and mali) instad of Cruiser ones. The Vor'Cha is the Sovereigns mirror, again featuring the exact same BOFF layout (In-canon that is the same, at least the way I see it). The Tor'Kaht is a new kind of ship, probably somewhere along the lines of the Avenger thing. Though it's also pretty much similiar to the Regent? So it it still the same "family".
Though the Negh'Var got a universal ENS in it's fleet version, the GCS not - there is no reason for that and it should be changed. That's the least change they could and frankly should make.
You missed my point, I wasn't complaining that other people like other Treks more, I am no hardliner. I probably like TNG best but it's pretty much in-line with DS9 and TOS which I like equal for different reasons, I even like TAS. I don't like ENT and VOY for much of the changes they made (especially Braga stating that VOY was supposed to not feature a persistent story or too much resemblence to former series to not confuse people, leading to a inconsistent mess with shining performances of Robert Picardo and Jeri Ryan
For the record, if Cryptic would have had the balls to set STO in one specific timeframe instead of making a free-for-all theme park I would have been crazily excited if we had a persistent TOS online game to play
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But you are right, the Negh'va got the uni Ensign, while the GCS doesn't. Only Cryptics devs know why...
Personally if both ships stats where an option for the GCS skin, i wouldn't hesitate to use the Negh'Va one, no matter if it has got slightly less hull. All the other advantages do compensate this by far IMHO.
I just wanted to point out one thing, every new ship (no matter how slow it is) gets the ability to use DHCs. I don't say it would make sense to use them on a Obelisk Carrier, but i think to restrict Starfleet Cruisers from the use of DHC is just a disadvantage Cryptics devs didn't have come up with a good compensation.
In my opinion, Starfleet cruisers should get some weapons that support their supposed fighting style (broadsiding). I mean the main argument to give KDF and ROM Cruisers DHCs is to give them the ability to rip apart Starfleet Ships, while decloaking. Shouldn't Starfleet ships get some advantage in the case they survive that?
As i said, i don't like PvP, but even in PvE Starfleet Cruisers are the most passive ships in the game and not very fun to fly compared to the other faction or lockbox ships. Especially since the new comm array powers aren't that great at all IMO, but Cryptic doesn't even grant them that little advantage, KDF cuisers and Lockbox ships got the comm array too...
EDIT:
Maybe we should place a similar thread to the PvP forum to finally get noticed by the devs....
We don't know that, but I personally think it was meant to be a Galaxy competition. It has nearly the same meassuremets and I think the Klingons couldn't stand that their ships were dwarfed by the federation's flagship. The Vor'Cha attack cruiser is a bit smaller and more nimble. While being much older, Klingon designs were made to last much longer and I think in function those mirror Starfleets heavy cruisers.
My personal classification looks like this (and how I think STO could do better):
Frigate: New Orleans, Defiant, Sabre // Raider: B'Rel
Light Cruiser: Miranda, Norway, Prometheus, Intrepid, Constitution, Excelsior // Raptor: ---
Heavy cruiser: Constellation, Cheyenne, Akira, Ambassador, Sovereign // Battlecruiser: K'Tinga, K'Vort, Vor'Cha
Explorer: Galaxy, Nebula // Heavy Battlecruiser/Command Vessel: Negh'Var
Cryptics original designs can be fit into that quite easily.
I do agree. If Starfleet would get heavy beams to compensate for DHCs it would have been a sensible thing. But I think it's not only Cryptic to blame here. Players are outraged when "their" faction doesn't get the same treatment as the other faction, unable to comprehend that diversity could improve the game. Instead, everyone wants to have exactly the same instead of just trying another faction. That's why STO and many other games get so mushed down and boring...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Honestly, it doesn't really bother me either way. If they have T6 ships with our without either/or/any of the current ships, I will find the ship that works best for me and use it. I am not that tied down to a hull.
People oppose a lot of things before they change their mind and do it. I won't rule anything out, especially if level caps increase.
Honestly, I think much of what he did to that hull could have also been done to any other hull config (ship class), diverting power from one system to another isn't a new concept for ST. If I was a captain of a ship in combat and thought that taking life support offline, to get that extra juice, would win the day, everyone would be taking turns breathing.
I was just trying to make sure where you were coming from. While I am not sure that it is being aimed at "gamers", I just think it's not being aimed at hardcore Trekkie's who live and die by canon.
The problem with setting the game inside one of the shows timelines is that there would be so much whining from fans of other shows "timelines". If you make it TOS, every other show wouldn't exist and feelings would be hurt, same with anything else from a downstream position, they would cry about lost content. Believe it or not I think that they made the best decision with moving it to the "future" and "theme-parking" it.
I myself would have loved a post-Enterprise era during the Fed'-Romulan war or a "Enterpise-C" era game, but I know they wouldn't have had the legs either.
I do really think that the Exploration cruiser should be able to get a Heavy beam array. BTW, most Fed' cruisers would be even more useless if they used DHC's, they don't have the maneuverabilty to use them.
We know the intellectual property of paramount is an issue in STO since we can not make our characters named after Star Trek charactors (or actors) without making some deliberatly gauche spelling errors, which I am quite certain a thread full of people lamanting the performance of their Picard Starship knows.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if we could use the galaxy as a super endgame high performance item. Picurd, Pikard, Pycard, JeanLukPikard.... I could spell it out for you a million different ways - I shouldnt have to explain it.
The saving grace of your Enterprizes, your Voyagurs, and your Defyants is that their underperformance is going to add an element of challenge to the game, because lets face it, there is no space content in the game that you cant faceroll in an egregiously overpowered Scimitar. (including pvp) - As a ship that was never intended as an end game item: it really doesent have a place in pvp if you want to be competitive, not that a ridiculous name like 'Cathrin Jainwey' isnt going to make you a priority target on general principle anyway.
Its so obvious, I think we can end this discussion.
/thread
the new orleans has over a million m? volume, wile the defiant has about 61k m?. the saber is in another size league over the defient, with 213k m?
if we were to classify starfleet ships in more classic military terms, instead of escort, cruiser and explorer, it would look like this based on volume size
corvette- defiant, nova
frigate- miranda, saber, centaur
destroyer- Norway, steam runner, intrepid, prometheus
light cruiser- Excelsior, New Orleans, Cheyenne
heavy cruiser- ambassador, akira, sovereign
battleship- galaxy, nebula
True, though I think the whining wouldn't have been significant if they had set a fixed setting to begin with. I mean you don't see people complaining that they can't play "Voyager Elite Force" in the TOS setting, it's just another game.
If STO would've explored the events after Khitomer, like you said, the "Enterprise-C era" I would have been excited. The possiblity to explore an unknown part of Trek history in a semi persistent online game would have had great potential for a 3-faction MMO.
I agree. Like I said, Starfleet shouldn't use cannons at all. The Defiant being the only exception because she has quad cannons. I wrote about that some time ago, I personally would like to see the following weapons in the game:
Beam Emitters - basic beams (like arrays are in-game now), open for all factions
Dual Beam Banks - roughly the same, open for all factions
Beam Arrays - wide angle beams, highly accurate, Starfleet and Romulans only
Heavy Beam Arrays - Starfleet only, low fire rate, high damage and power drain, thus reserved for large ships
Beam/Cannon turrets - the same only different visuals (very short beam bursts for beam turrets), open for all factions
Single Cannons - same, open for all factions
Dual Cannons - KDF and Romulans only
Dual Heavy Cannons - KDF and Romulans only, reserved for Battlecruisers (too large for Raiders/Raptors)
Heavy Plasma Cannons - Romulans only, super heavy forward mounted cannon, reserved for Warbirds
Basic Torpedoes - open for all factions
Special/Heavy Torpedoes - KDF only, special and experimental gimmick torpedoes
Plus some unique weapons for special ships this would the basic outline how faction weapons differentiate and how they operate. Instead of everything being the same Starfleet for example would work to employ tactics and skills to overcome cloaks, KDF using Raiders for special manneuvres and boarding parties to take over ships while Romulans rely on single, strong ships lurking in the dark etc. etc.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I wasn't going for classic naval terms but in-canon classification. The New Orleans is classified as a frigate on-screen (TNG: Conspiracy) and a frigate respectively is classified in Trek terms as a small to medium sized vessel which's priomary function is to protect other ships, hence my choice for those three classes.
A light cruiser/destroyer is pretty much equivalent. The "cruiser" term just implies a ship's multi-purpose setup while the classification of light and heavy comes with the overall size and tasks. If you refit a light cruiser for battle you get something that is akin to a destroyer, the Miranda is a prime example of that. Although I grant you that the constellation and cheyenne could probably counted as light cruisers as well though being patrol craft I'd suspect them sporting more firepower than a Miranda for example.
And the largest class of ships, being the Galaxy and Nebula, are no battleships. They are dubbed and intented as Explorers. An Explorer can fight as much as any dubbed warship can, though they lack the manneuvreability of smaller ships and are probably good at taking flak and steamrolling resistance, but you won't get a very graceful evaisive action out of them
I feel that quite a few of the flak this thread and idea is taking is because the ongoing desire to call the GCS a battleship thus implying it is the non-plus-ultra in ship-to-ship combat. But I think that is a wrong approach. Think of 17-19th century navies: You had trading ships that would dwarf many military vessels in terms of dimensions and pure firepower because of their precious cargo, they were able to defend themselves very well, yet were no battleships. That's basically Starfleet and their Explorers that can be refitted and partake in combat but none of those vessels is a war or battleship and will always lack behind a Klingon Battlecruiser for example in terms of combat. Yet, Starfleet and the Federation have prevailed over countless conflicts and are still the strongest force in the Alpha Quadrant. Their Fleet and political influence are truly dangerous tools to use but it is not a fleet of war.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Which means Starfleet can't see the effectiveness of such vessels and then retrofit several existing ship classes to use cannons? Same as it can't decide to make further such combat oriented ships which also sport cannons?
Isn't that like saying that the KDF shoud not have carriers or fighters at all since we never see them use or have them? Or what about romulans only using huge relatively slugish ships?
Things change, the game tries to make players happy. How is it people are still bringing up the "they should not have x or Y" arguments?
They could, but again staying in-canon, beam arrays are supposed to be vastly superior to cannons anyway
At least my point is that I don't like games evening out everything until there is literally no distinction between factions except for their team colors. Some people like that, I don't hence why I said it is my personal opinion. And the show that game is based upon would work in that favour, the three large factions aren't equal there as well.
Regarding the carriers, again Starfighters and carriers make absolutely no sense in Star Trek. But if they were used the Klingons would be the people that would use them and I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem that everyone whined and now everyone has them instead of employing counters against such a speciality.
But the bottom line is that of course things can change. But if they change in a way that the product does not resemble it's origin anymore why even bother with the license to begin with? I didn't say everything should be exclusive, of course one faction could mimic another faction's specialties to a degree but they couldn't compete with that faction's specialty, really. For instance, the Defiant would have her cannons, though Romulan and Klingon attack ships are just better at it. Klingon ships would basically be set up for a forward firing arc while Starfleets arrays would provide a strong allround field of fire, Romulans could stick lighter arrays on their Warbirds' muzzles but couldn't rival the pinnacle of starfleets technology etc. etc. - many games with different factions work that way and it is balanced and fun - you don't need to give everyone a red, blue and green club just so nobody whines
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Maybe i haven't made my point more clear, but i am ok with the GCS not being the biggest Ham in the game.
What i want is a ship that's not just the lamest and most passive ship in the game.
Heck i would be even Ok with a BOFF/console layout of a (fleet) Ambassador. Just something that keeps the GCS from being so passive and teethless.
Maybe Cryptic could make the GCS shipparts availlable to the Odyssey or Ambassador (via a switch at the Ship Tailor, maybe). I would be perfectly ok with that.
That would make much more sense IMO.
I never really got why Cryptic allowes small ship like the B'rel Bird-of-Prey Retrofit (or any other given small escort) to mount the same heavy weapons like a Negh'Va for example. It just doesn't make sense. Those ships should get other advantages, but in my opinion it's just rediculus that they can equip the same big weapons like a ship 20x the size.
That sums it up quite well.
Still some ppl creating Star Trek games and series (like DS9) thought it was much "cooler" to give Starfleet small nimbele vessels with big cannons. :mad:
I think Andrew Probert (yes the same man who created the GCS) has put it in the right words. I think the same he said about Rick Berman could be said about Cryptic and some of its devs IMO.
that will proove nothing.
what did you want it to proove anyway?
that a tier 4 ship is not able to compete with tier 5 ship?
that a tiers 5 galaxy can't do as much dps as a, let said, a tier5 exelsior or avenger?
they will told you that this is fonctioning as intended. and in fact it is.
and you known what could happened? we could win the matches, against an average unorganized pug ( yes! that is well within the reach of possibles ).
then all what you think you were prooving will fall appart.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
i won't rules anything out either in the principle.
however i rule out that a changes of mind like this happened in a short spaceframe as 1 or 2 years.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
this is indeed something that could be done in everyship, however since the much larger volume of a galaxy compared to any other federation vessel of that time, the efficiency of that procedure would be much better on that ship.
but the real point that i wanted to make is that the feeling of this ship beeing "weak" is mostly due to the way the officer managed the ship.
it was, indeed, not build as a warship, and the people that use it, don't do it in a war spirit and prefer avoid conflict and save the crew rather than fighting, everytime that was possible.
just like in sto some player can build the same ship to be tanky at expense of firepower or go to opposite direction, captain jellico show the opposite direction.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
even if that statement would be true ( wich i sincerely doubt, especially with just your word about it ), being not interested in the presence of their most iconic ship in endgame is not sufficient for cryptic to not put them at endgame, they must be a clear opposition from cbs like there is one for the constitution class.
if not, cryptic is free to do what they want in the way they want.
and if that were true i would ask cryptic to correct their cstore description of the galaxy to insert this: beware, players, this ship have been deliberatly made unefficient and unworthy of tier 5 status due to cbs concern, if you still want to paid for it, click on the 2500 zen button bellow"
so you are afraid that having an efficient galaxy in game would result in every fan trying to rename their toon with theses name?
yeah how horrible and game breaking that would be,really, this should be stop at any cost for the health and future of sto, it MUST:rolleyes:
it is not like if these people waited for cryptic to make an efficient galaxy to rename their toon like this you known.
since the launch of the game i see some U.S.S enterprize, entrepris, enter prise, lokutus, jean look picard, john luc picard, jenculepicard ( only the one who known in what languague the last one is can apreciate the joke ) flying around.
so if the intention was to prevent that by releasing a crappy galaxy.... epic fail!
so again, you are saying that cryptic make people paid 2500, 2000 zen for a tier 5 ship that in fact isn't really?
in my country we call that false advertising.
in any case i never found the defiant to be an inneficient tier 5 ship.
and that kind of bias view must give these people somekind of tactical advantages, do not judge a book under it cover.
there is something obvious here, but it is not what you think.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Voyager Elite Force wasn't an MMO, which is a lot longer of an investment in time and effort than a traditional game like Elite Force was.
The who ships having cannons issue doesn't really bother me much, just the implementation of weapons for balance.
So now you want not only the Galaxy to be a battleship, but the Nebula too... Really DD'.
This is where I am sitting on the matter.
Not to be personal, the victimization issue has far more to do with your statements about Cryptic going out of their way to keep this ship down than actual performance issues. You literally make statements that sound like the whole thing is a "tin-foil-hat" conspiracy. Refraining from making those comments every other day might do something to not sound like whining so much. Complaining about people wanting "cooler" ships than the one you want to change doesn't up the ante too much either.
Also complaining about what other ships/people/things have that you ship/person/thing doesn't and asking to get those things is also appearing like whining. There are a lot more ways to bring the ship up to speed without being a cookie cutter of another ship. The ship has plenty of potential with what it has if Cryptic would act on it. Theres no reason why any T5 ship shouldn't be able to use its setup to fight another T5 ship and have a fairly balanced chance of success.
Is there any one else you want to point as a culprit in the Great Galaxy Conspiracy? I don't think we've blaimed any politicians or cigarette companies yet.
You do understand that 1-2 years for an MMO is an eternity, even a large one, right?
But it certainly doesn't make it an "uber-ship" by any stretch of the imagination either.
the point is that the GCS has the least potential of all (endgame) ships in STO. Of course we can talk abot changing BOFF powers and stff like that, bt the thing is it won't make the GCS more offensive or versatile than other ships.
Just look at the Comm arrays, Cryptics idea of buffing (starfleet) Cruisers is to give ALL cruisers the same (rather disappointing) AOE buffs. They certainly won't change anything big about crusiers gameplay anymore IMO.
You want Heavy beam Arrays for the GCS?
Good luck with that, if anything Cryptic will release such weapons for all ships, which will keep the GCS still the most passive ship. Unless there is a direct chang of its BOFF and Console layout, the GCS will still be the most boring and un-fun ship in STO.
Btw, to claim someone to whine isn't the nicest thing to do on a forum.
I expect you to change your tone in this dicussion, or we can stop dicussing right now.
Theres a difference if we talk about the non present Devs (in this thread) who actually designed the game as it is and how we treat and talk to each other.
no one can see past the 2 words "battle" and "ship". battleship is simply the largest class in a navy, they think it implys much more then that. navy terms arent a perfect fit to these ships though, because on top of their military element they are built to serve any non combat function you could imagine.
Actually, there should be no difference how we talk about dev's (here or not) and the we talk to each other. Just because they have/had a job at Cryptic doesn't mean that its open season on saying nasty things about them. I am not necessarily for or against them, but the whole "victimization" slant, especially the when it comes to suggest an active effort of suppression of your fave' ship is far more an insult than suggesting "whiner-ship."
I said what I said to bring the attention to your tone. As-is, you aren't doing much to win people over to your cause by saying what you have about the devs' (if I remember right equating them to racists at one point), and now so much as to saying that Paramount employees tried to sabotage the show, resulting in the ship as is in game. You have also claimed that people that don't agree with your point of view are "GCS haters" (those would be also part of the "each other" category).
I understand that you want the Explorer to be better, as do I, and we see them in different ways, but your tone, with this blasting of of dev's, writers, everyone else that isn't in agreement with you, and God knows who else is adding vitriol to the topic. If you expect me to change my tone, I furthermore expect you to change yours.