Isn't plasma still one of the weakest procs in game?
I don't use Plasma for the DoT proc, though it is a nice bonus. It has the highest base damage potential out of every energy type when you factor in Embassy consoles. Since it's the only energy type that doesn't completely rely on Tactical consoles to buff its damage, it's the only energy type the Galaxy can really maximize within its lacking console layout.
I don't use Plasma for the DoT proc, though it is a nice bonus. It has the highest base damage potential out of every energy type when you factor in Embassy consoles. Since it's the only energy type that doesn't completely rely on Tactical consoles to buff its damage, it's the only energy type the Galaxy can really maximize within its lacking console layout.
indeed, the plasma is not that crappy weapon that he use to be.
people use to laught at me when i begun pvp and use it, but i just love the color, and the sound.
not like these antiproton beam, are there still so noisy?
indeed, the plasma is not that crappy weapon that he use to be.
people use to laught at me when i begun pvp and use it, but i just love the color, and the sound.
not like these antiproton beam, are there still so noisy?
Plasma has never been a crappy weapon type - just not used in PVP because every endgame set has a high plasma resist. So Gearing your ship up with plasma - you were guaranteeing that everyone was resistant to your weapons.
Not quite the same anymore with ResA and ResB modifiers, not to mention the Dyson Set which isn't so much anti-plasma (only 10 percent) as it is anti-polaron.
Only problem with that was that the Akira was designed to replace the Excelsior.
i am not going into that kind of details, that is not the point of my point:)
all these roles that we give them are pure speculation, even if the logic that is used to make some of these conclusions is very good and could indeed be the true, it is still speculation for the most.
i was pointing out the " fact " that the galaxy is the succesor of the ambassador to show him that they were no more reason to transform it into a freighter than there is to do the same with an exelsior.
Plasma has never been a crappy weapon type - just not used in PVP because every endgame set has a high plasma resist. So Gearing your ship up with plasma - you were guaranteeing that everyone was resistant to your weapons.
Not quite the same anymore with ResA and ResB modifiers, not to mention the Dyson Set which isn't so much anti-plasma (only 10 percent) as it is anti-polaron.
there was a time in pvp where you didn't have acces to these set yet, and mk10 high end gear wasn't specifically tune for plasma either, the proc was easily clear by hazard emitter, but you didn't really have to bother with it anyway because normal hull regen used to.
my shield of that time got an antiproton resist, because yes antiproton use to be THE weapons type that everyone must have in these old days.
in comparaison to all other proc, the plasma proc was the most laughable in that time.
in the beginning, plasma was pretty subpar, its proc did a whole lot of nothing really, the damage was super tiny. then the stf gear got released, and everyone had shields that had built in 20% resistance to its damage. that murdered plasma weapons. since then, elite shields have become the stranded, so every energy type sucks as much as plasma used to now, its all more or less even.
before that though, the embassy came out with plasma damage enhancing sci consoles, to try to make up for stf shields. now that thats no longer an issue, plasma weapons are actually the highest raw damage weapon type there is. it should be the default choice on any ship that needs buffing in particle gens, flow cap or graviton gens to make their build work. on ships that dont need any of that sci skill buffing, it can be hard to justify using console space for those.
i am not going into that kind of details, that is not the point of my point:)
all these roles that we give them are pure speculation, even if the logic that is used to make some of these conclusions is very good and could indeed be the true, it is still speculation for the most.
i was pointing out the " fact " that the galaxy is the succesor of the ambassador to show him that they were no more reason to transform it into a freighter than there is to do the same with an exelsior.
Well..... it does have more room than the Excelsior.....:P
The Galaxy class is both an "explorer" and a "capital ship". Captial ships encompass the different kind of larger ships in a fleet, typically heavy cruisers and up. Battleships, aircraft carriers and others are also capital ships, but each have different roles.
Sure, but it was never used in Star Trek. Granted, the "Explorer" designation originates from design documents and was only loosely used on screen, yet this is Starfleet's designation for that ship that's why I think we should use it as such. But in the end it doesn't matter, my point was that I just don't get the obsession about calling ships battleships. Like others pointed out, I don't command a Galaxy because I want a battleship but we all diffe, naturally
^ 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
only ships that have broken up arrays are none heavy combat ships or cryptic designes
the akira? large arrays and if going by size has the second largest arrays after the galaxy followed by the sov having the 3rd longest
sov? large arrays
Intrepid? medium arrays it was also classified as a light cruiser
Steamrunner? small arrays and phaser pulse canons
saber? medium arrays classified as a scout
Norway? interestingly there is no visible phaser arrays at all on this ships 3d model used in DS9 or first contact and is only shown firing a phaser beam from it's defector area http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Norway_class
really in terms of fire power the sov and gal are pretty even the sov can take more a hit though with it's armor
and there mk rating has to do with broken up or solid arrays how? which is what i was going off of
the phoenix 9the nebula class that went on a rampage in cardassian space0 was said to have the same armament oas the enterprise so that nebula at least had the same mk x
also the DS9 tech manual lists both the sov and gal refit (the venture with the nacelle phasers) as having mk XI phaser arrays
The Excelsior was also a battle cruiser when it was launched. The only reason it is not a front line cruiser anymore is that the front line role has gone to newer and better ships such as the Ambassador, Galaxy, Nebula and Sovereign.
You're saying that the Akira is more of a front line ship than the Sovereign. I'm saying not so and the Sovereign is in the front line along with the Galaxy, Nebula and Ambassador while Akira is in the second tier along with the Excelsior, Intrepid, Steamrunner. And being that the Excelsior has aged and now relegated to "workhorse" of the fleet a newer ship was needed to replace the Excelsiors lost threw attrition. I'm sure the Excelsiors still see front line action but only when the others previously mentioned are not available. And due to all of the conflicts the Federation gave the Akira more firepower to be able to deal better than the Excelsiors.
DDIS you're always trying to talk down the Sovereign and the basis for all your arguments is sheer size and phaser array lengths but nearly every ship we see that has come out after the Galaxy has its arrays broken up into multiple arrays. Don't you think there's a reason for that other writers were protecting the Galaxy's firepower over other newer ships? Couldn't it be that Starfleet moved part of the arrays internally to better protect the arrays from enemy fire? Or simply the designers felt it was better visually and didn't pay mind to length= power?
Either way you don't have to bash the Sovereign to make your points which is the point of this thread that the Galaxy IS a front line ship and this should be reflected in the game as well. This is something I agree with but not at the expense of the Sovereign.
im not sure why everyone thinks the excelsior was such a battle cruiser in its day, its got a scaled up armament to go with its scaled up size compared to a constitution class. it certainly didn't have 21 torpedoe tubes like the akira does. its a general purpose ship, always has been. the excelsior was a front line cruiser long after it should not have been. its proboly the reason the cardasian war lasted more then a decade, it was mostly excelsior fighting galors. there was clearly limitations to how far the class could be upgraded, considering they didn't deem it worth the cost to rip up the saucer section structure to install stranded as of 2340 phaser arrays, even during the dominion war. its size and general non combat capability kept it just useful enough for starfleet not to try and replace it till it was painfully obvious that they needed too, they were TRIBBLE at actually defending the federation and had huge loses during war time.
the sovereign is exactly like the excelsior when it launched, a very large general purpose cruiser that could do basically anything starfleet could require. unlike the excelsior though, there was a relatively new class twice its size already in service. compared to most classes of its time, the sovereign was a bit more heavily armed then average for its weight class, but not overwhelmingly so. the akira plainly outguns it and is half its size. longer main array, and at least twice the torpedo capability. theres no reason that through normal upgrades the akira and everything else wouldn't also get mk XII emitters as well, they just launched with mk X
im not talking down the sovereign, i just dont talk about it from the position that its the best and most powerful, because its not. when someone talks about the sovereign not being the most powerful, its always seen as bashing it. the workings of phaser arrays is established. you dont even have to read a tech manual to see whats happening before they fire. the tech manual just puts it into words. when you look at all these smaller ships, their per shot firepower based on array length is perfectly scaled to their volume, compared to the galaxy class. the sovereign never shows off close to the firepower we see a galaxy put out too. we see it at its maximum potential when its fighting its hardest in nemisis. we see the fire rate of its many torp launchers, they can only spit out 3 at a time. the galaxy has been seen putting out much more.
im not sure why its so hard to accept that a ship twice its size with arrays twice as long might just outgun the sovereign. the galaxy beats it in durability too, hull tanking 3 bug ships for 10 minutes wile basically just receiving cosmetic damage. all that you need to accept is that the galaxy has at least 51% of the firepower per volume that the sovereign has. with its much bigger guns and the observed burst potential of its torp launchers, thats no stretch to believe.
im not sure why everyone thinks the excelsior was such a battle cruiser in its day
Mostly because folks who love, love, love it on these forums tend to fall in line with Geko's take on it and kind of justify all that by pointing out how it showed up in DS9 episodes.
They kind of forget how lackluster it was shown to be when it first appeared in the films.
Mostly because folks who love, love, love it on these forums tend to fall in line with Geko's take on it and kind of justify all that by pointing out how it showed up in DS9 episodes.
They kind of forget how lackluster it was shown to be when it first appeared in the films.
thats part of a really warped perception a lot of people have of ships. many think the defient is like 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most powerful starfleet ship, and the fact that a maxed out excelcior could keep up with it some how shows that the excelsior is top tier, more powerful then a galaxy, just behind a sovereign, or some such nonsense. thats why we have it at end game at all. mind boggling.
the defiant is only remarkable for the firepower it has for its size, not its total firepower. its the federations brel. no on thinks a brel outguns a vorcha, or negvar do they? the excelsior and defiant fight was a fight between 3rd stringers, not the 2 most powerful ships in the federation. it shows that a 70 year old design uprated to the maximum can compete with a gun boat 1/16 its size.
the excelsior and defiant fight was a fight between 3rd stringers, not the 2 most powerful ships in the federation. it shows that a 70 year old design uprated to the maximum can compete with a gun boat 1/16 its size.
Some people tend to forget that the Lakota wasn't even using all its weapons either at the time; it stuck to the heavily upgraded phasers that were ripping the Defiant to shreds just as much as the Defiant was wasting the Lakota with its cannons. Admiral Leyton actually authorized Captain Benteen to use quantum torpedoes, which is something she didn't do. The implication was that if the Lakota had really opened up with her torpedoes, the Defiant would have been toast.
The reality is that when it comes to Trek canon, things like quantum/transphasic/tricobalt torpedoes can make any rustbucket ship into an overpowered killing machine. STO doesn't really reflect that at all.
Some people tend to forget that the Lakota wasn't even using all its weapons either at the time; it stuck to the heavily upgraded phasers that were ripping the Defiant to shreds just as much as the Defiant was wasting the Lakota with its cannons. Admiral Leyton actually authorized Captain Benteen to use quantum torpedoes, which is something she didn't do. The implication was that if the Lakota had really opened up with her torpedoes, the Defiant would have been toast.
The reality is that when it comes to Trek canon, things like quantum/transphasic/tricobalt torpedoes can make any rustbucket ship into an overpowered killing machine. STO doesn't really reflect that at all.
the defient also wasn't using quantums. im going to go out on a limb and say that with the 4 forward torpedo launchers the lakota had are able to put more torps into play then the defiant would be capable of launching in return. if they played the quantum game the defiant would no doubt have lost. the defiant did fire a photon or 2 though. the lakota was holding back more in my opinion
Mostly because folks who love, love, love it on these forums tend to fall in line with Geko's take on it and kind of justify all that by pointing out how it showed up in DS9 episodes.
They kind of forget how lackluster it was shown to be when it first appeared in the films.
^^^
Well, to be fair, its first appearance performance was due to sabotage by Mr. Scott. I think the STO version is based on its performance in the DS9 episode "Paradise Lost" where the Refit stood toe to toe with the U.S.S. Defiant and definitely held its own.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
I'm not sure why it's so hard to accept that a ship half it's size with arrays half the length might just outgun the galaxy. It's already been stated that the Sovereign is the most advanced Starship when launched and has many tactical advantages over previous ships.( Memory Alpha)
This is space and "weight" has nothing to do with capabilities. The galaxy is the better explorer while the Sovereign is the better tactical ship.
More advanced doesn't mean bigger guns... You can have ships that are more advanced then previous versions but when compared in pure fire power lose everytime. Just cause it newer don't make it better or bigger or more powerful. Sometimes it just means newer. Granted it says its more tactical in design though that could mean in maneuverability, more advanced targeting systems. More dedicated equipment standard for hostile engagements, all kinds of different things that make it have more tactical advantages without actual having more fire power.
Well in the end size does matter. On a ship like the excelsior you can install a bigger warpcore with a higher energy output as well as more fusion reactors. A higher energy production means you can potentially divert more energy to your weapons thus make them much stronger. The Defiant is a very powerful ship for its size because she's overpowered and does not waste energy on anything else but weapons and engines. But her total power output can't possibly be anywhere near the Excelsior one.
More advanced doesn't mean bigger guns... You can have ships that are more advanced then previous versions but when compared in pure fire power lose everytime. Just cause it newer don't make it better or bigger or more powerful. Sometimes it just means newer. Granted it says its more tactical in design though that could mean in maneuverability, more advanced targeting systems. More dedicated equipment standard for hostile engagements, all kinds of different things that make it have more tactical advantages without actual having more fire power.
I think this is the point and I'll refer to my merchantman ship example. The Galaxy Explorer is something akin to a 16-18th century merchantman - you had some kinds of trading ships that would dwarf military vessels in size and pure firepower which makes for excellent defensive capabilities but of course they couldn't rival ships build for war. The Sovereign is smaller but packs roughly equal firepower on a more manneuvreable hull. While the Galaxy Explorer in battle soaks up damage like a sponge and steamrolls resistance with forward firepower the Sovereign would be capable of evaisive manneuvres and be generally more flexible to compete with say Klingon Battlecruisers that are also not as big but also don't operate alone and are more nimble for their size.
The Defiant vs Lakota example also is a difficult one. Of course the Lakota could have vaporized the Defiant if it had been lined up with her forward torps but the Defiant (as someone else mentioned, pretty much the Starfleet equivalent of a B'Rel Raider) is way more flexible and would manage to stay out of their torpedo firing arc or would be able to evade them. A Defiant is not meant to operate on it's own but I o see the possibility that employing smart tactics it could beat up a ship like the Excelsior no matter how upgraded the weapons are.
Well in the end size does matter. On a ship like the excelsior you can install a bigger warpcore with a higher energy output as well as more fusion reactors. A higher energy production means you can potentially divert more energy to your weapons thus make them much stronger. The Defiant is a very powerful ship for its size because she's overpowered and does not waste energy on anything else but weapons and engines. But her total power output can't possibly be anywhere near the Excelsior one.
If all ships would just park in front of each other and hammer away that's true. Though a Defiant wouldn't normalls operate by itself and could outmanneuver a larger vessel and go for weak spots and vital systems. We DO have 3 dimensional movement in space after all. Not in STO, though
In the Maquis TNG episodes you see Maquis raiders basically swarm a Galor and slowly wear it down because the ship is just outmanneuvred. Sure the Maquis take casaulties, but in the end they had worn down the larger ship. A Galaxy without any support would finally be worn down by more manneuvreable ships either though she could probably destroy an enemy with straight forward firepower before that.
^ 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
Something that's always suggested the value of the Galaxy as a battleship compared to the Sovereign to me is the Dominion War sequences in late DS9. We see lots of Galaxy class starships dishing it out (they're one of the few ships that don't get their butts handed to them in a couple of hits), we hear about Galaxy Wings... and we don't see a single Sovereign class.
Now when you consider how rare the Galaxy was during the run of TNG, it seems that Starfleet's reaction to the Dominion War was to really crank up production of Galaxies rather than the newer Sovereigns. To me, that implies two possible outcomes:
1. The Galaxy is a better battleship/capital ship
or
2. The difference in performance between the Galaxy and Sovereign is negligible enough to make Starfleet prefer the established/more useful in a post-war climate design
Now, this is just conjecture, but when you consider that there's only 8 years between the launch of the first Galaxy and first Sovereign... I think the two ships would probably have near identical performance, which fits with theory 2 above. I don't think the difference between the two is enough to justify the massive gulf in performance between them in STO, certainly.
I think it's because the Galaxy and the Sovereign do not share the same purpose which makes the comparisions a bit tiring and that they just didn't have as much Sovereigns as thes had Galaxies during the Dominion War. They probably only had one or two Sovereigns while most of the Galaxies cranked out were basically empty hulls that were scrambled due to the immediate need of ships. Plus they had plenty of other heavy cruisers to use (Akiras and the like). The Sovereign was just launched one year prior to the Dominion War and probably not in mass production while we know that besides the six Galaxies that existed during TNG there were also six "spare hulls" hanging around in shipyards, those were the ones quickly scrambled to partake in fleet actions I suppose.
^ 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 think this is the point and I'll refer to my merchantman ship example. The Galaxy Explorer is something akin to a 16-18th century merchantman - you had some kinds of trading ships that would dwarf military vessels in size and pure firepower which makes for excellent defensive capabilities but of course they couldn't rival ships build for war. The Sovereign is smaller but packs roughly equal firepower on a more manneuvreable hull. While the Galaxy Explorer in battle soaks up damage like a sponge and steamrolls resistance with forward firepower the Sovereign would be capable of evaisive manneuvres and be generally more flexible to compete with say Klingon Battlecruisers that are also not as big but also don't operate alone and are more nimble for their size.
The Defiant vs Lakota example also is a difficult one. Of course the Lakota could have vaporized the Defiant if it had been lined up with her forward torps but the Defiant (as someone else mentioned, pretty much the Starfleet equivalent of a B'Rel Raider) is way more flexible and would manage to stay out of their torpedo firing arc or would be able to evade them. A Defiant is not meant to operate on it's own but I o see the possibility that employing smart tactics it could beat up a ship like the Excelsior no matter how upgraded the weapons are.
If all ships would just park in front of each other and hammer away that's true. Though a Defiant wouldn't normalls operate by itself and could outmanneuver a larger vessel and go for weak spots and vital systems. We DO have 3 dimensional movement in space after all. Not in STO, though
In the Maquis TNG episodes you see Maquis raiders basically swarm a Galor and slowly wear it down because the ship is just outmanneuvred. Sure the Maquis take casaulties, but in the end they had worn down the larger ship. A Galaxy without any support would finally be worn down by more manneuvreable ships either though she could probably destroy an enemy with straight forward firepower before that.
Sure the Fight with the Lakota and the Defiant would have been over quicker if either used quantums and didnt care about taking survivors or atleast didn't care about blowing up the other ship or not. It's hard to say which would have won if both went full out and didn't care about the others destruction. Think in most cases as said above escorts ran in packs for reasons. They were meant to hit and run while cruisers where meant to slowly take a pounding and outlast their attacker.
Its's all alittle hard to know as Star trek and memory alpha only tell so much. The shows often did as they needed for plot but think most would agree a tier 5 ship should be on par with all other tier 5's regardless of any info on whatever website. Once they added that as an option for that ship to be placed as a tier 5 they made it their duty to keep all ships even more so the Iconic ones and those we recognize from show up to par with all other of the same tier.
I think it's because the Galaxy and the Sovereign do not share the same purpose which makes the comparisions a bit tiring and that they just didn't have as much Sovereigns as thes had Galaxies during the Dominion War. They probably only had one or two Sovereigns while most of the Galaxies cranked out were basically empty hulls that were scrambled due to the immediate need of ships. Plus they had plenty of other heavy cruisers to use (Akiras and the like). The Sovereign was just launched one year prior to the Dominion War and probably not in mass production while we know that besides the six Galaxies that existed during TNG there were also six "spare hulls" hanging around in shipyards, those were the ones quickly scrambled to partake in fleet actions I suppose.
Exactly true, This I believe is one of the problems as they are really different designs for different missions. All Starfleet ships are explorers but I'm sure they made some to do more so fighting as there is a need for that even in the Federation. Sovereign I felt was a cheaper more effective ship to combat the borg with as sure it was a quicker easier construction then the larger Galaxy.
In any case had they either stuck with the need for tank healer dps in this game or atleast made it so most endgame wasn't a race against timers making the kill faster syndrome something ppl worry about the bigger tanking cruisers wouldn't feel so outdated and there wouldn't be the need or atleast want to make all ships more tactical.
there where more galaxies shown in DS9 then what could have been the remaining original 6 and the 6 spares (9 in total after taking into account the losses of the yamato, the enterprise, and the odyssey)
in one scene there where 13 different galaxies on screen so starfleet had to of built more form scratch as there where more on screen then there was spare hulls and points out starfleet rather of built brand new form the ground up galaxy class ships then sovs for what ever reason (actually they could not get permission to use the sov do to the movies being out)
there where more galaxies shown in DS9 then what could have been the remaining original 6 and the 6 spares (9 in total after taking into account the losses of the yamato, the enterprise, and the odyssey)
It's a common fan theory that, once the Borg threat manifested itself, Starfleet reopened production of the Galaxy class as well as stepping up work on new classes.
Comments
I don't use Plasma for the DoT proc, though it is a nice bonus. It has the highest base damage potential out of every energy type when you factor in Embassy consoles. Since it's the only energy type that doesn't completely rely on Tactical consoles to buff its damage, it's the only energy type the Galaxy can really maximize within its lacking console layout.
indeed, the plasma is not that crappy weapon that he use to be.
people use to laught at me when i begun pvp and use it, but i just love the color, and the sound.
not like these antiproton beam, are there still so noisy?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Plasma has never been a crappy weapon type - just not used in PVP because every endgame set has a high plasma resist. So Gearing your ship up with plasma - you were guaranteeing that everyone was resistant to your weapons.
Not quite the same anymore with ResA and ResB modifiers, not to mention the Dyson Set which isn't so much anti-plasma (only 10 percent) as it is anti-polaron.
i am not going into that kind of details, that is not the point of my point:)
all these roles that we give them are pure speculation, even if the logic that is used to make some of these conclusions is very good and could indeed be the true, it is still speculation for the most.
i was pointing out the " fact " that the galaxy is the succesor of the ambassador to show him that they were no more reason to transform it into a freighter than there is to do the same with an exelsior.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
there was a time in pvp where you didn't have acces to these set yet, and mk10 high end gear wasn't specifically tune for plasma either, the proc was easily clear by hazard emitter, but you didn't really have to bother with it anyway because normal hull regen used to.
my shield of that time got an antiproton resist, because yes antiproton use to be THE weapons type that everyone must have in these old days.
in comparaison to all other proc, the plasma proc was the most laughable in that time.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
before that though, the embassy came out with plasma damage enhancing sci consoles, to try to make up for stf shields. now that thats no longer an issue, plasma weapons are actually the highest raw damage weapon type there is. it should be the default choice on any ship that needs buffing in particle gens, flow cap or graviton gens to make their build work. on ships that dont need any of that sci skill buffing, it can be hard to justify using console space for those.
Well..... it does have more room than the Excelsior.....:P
Sure, but it was never used in Star Trek. Granted, the "Explorer" designation originates from design documents and was only loosely used on screen, yet this is Starfleet's designation for that ship that's why I think we should use it as such. But in the end it doesn't matter, my point was that I just don't get the obsession about calling ships battleships. Like others pointed out, I don't command a Galaxy because I want a battleship but we all diffe, naturally
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
and almost the same inneficient bo layout as a tuffli, so indeed, good point.
i will ask gecko to rename the galaxy x the dreadnought tuffli and the galaxy retrofit the tuffli retrofit:D
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
the akira? large arrays and if going by size has the second largest arrays after the galaxy followed by the sov having the 3rd longest
sov? large arrays
Intrepid? medium arrays it was also classified as a light cruiser
Steamrunner? small arrays and phaser pulse canons
saber? medium arrays classified as a scout
Norway? interestingly there is no visible phaser arrays at all on this ships 3d model used in DS9 or first contact and is only shown firing a phaser beam from it's defector area
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Norway_class
really in terms of fire power the sov and gal are pretty even the sov can take more a hit though with it's armor
the phoenix 9the nebula class that went on a rampage in cardassian space0 was said to have the same armament oas the enterprise so that nebula at least had the same mk x
also the DS9 tech manual lists both the sov and gal refit (the venture with the nacelle phasers) as having mk XI phaser arrays
im not sure why everyone thinks the excelsior was such a battle cruiser in its day, its got a scaled up armament to go with its scaled up size compared to a constitution class. it certainly didn't have 21 torpedoe tubes like the akira does. its a general purpose ship, always has been. the excelsior was a front line cruiser long after it should not have been. its proboly the reason the cardasian war lasted more then a decade, it was mostly excelsior fighting galors. there was clearly limitations to how far the class could be upgraded, considering they didn't deem it worth the cost to rip up the saucer section structure to install stranded as of 2340 phaser arrays, even during the dominion war. its size and general non combat capability kept it just useful enough for starfleet not to try and replace it till it was painfully obvious that they needed too, they were TRIBBLE at actually defending the federation and had huge loses during war time.
the sovereign is exactly like the excelsior when it launched, a very large general purpose cruiser that could do basically anything starfleet could require. unlike the excelsior though, there was a relatively new class twice its size already in service. compared to most classes of its time, the sovereign was a bit more heavily armed then average for its weight class, but not overwhelmingly so. the akira plainly outguns it and is half its size. longer main array, and at least twice the torpedo capability. theres no reason that through normal upgrades the akira and everything else wouldn't also get mk XII emitters as well, they just launched with mk X
im not talking down the sovereign, i just dont talk about it from the position that its the best and most powerful, because its not. when someone talks about the sovereign not being the most powerful, its always seen as bashing it. the workings of phaser arrays is established. you dont even have to read a tech manual to see whats happening before they fire. the tech manual just puts it into words. when you look at all these smaller ships, their per shot firepower based on array length is perfectly scaled to their volume, compared to the galaxy class. the sovereign never shows off close to the firepower we see a galaxy put out too. we see it at its maximum potential when its fighting its hardest in nemisis. we see the fire rate of its many torp launchers, they can only spit out 3 at a time. the galaxy has been seen putting out much more.
im not sure why its so hard to accept that a ship twice its size with arrays twice as long might just outgun the sovereign. the galaxy beats it in durability too, hull tanking 3 bug ships for 10 minutes wile basically just receiving cosmetic damage. all that you need to accept is that the galaxy has at least 51% of the firepower per volume that the sovereign has. with its much bigger guns and the observed burst potential of its torp launchers, thats no stretch to believe.
Mostly because folks who love, love, love it on these forums tend to fall in line with Geko's take on it and kind of justify all that by pointing out how it showed up in DS9 episodes.
They kind of forget how lackluster it was shown to be when it first appeared in the films.
thats part of a really warped perception a lot of people have of ships. many think the defient is like 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most powerful starfleet ship, and the fact that a maxed out excelcior could keep up with it some how shows that the excelsior is top tier, more powerful then a galaxy, just behind a sovereign, or some such nonsense. thats why we have it at end game at all. mind boggling.
the defiant is only remarkable for the firepower it has for its size, not its total firepower. its the federations brel. no on thinks a brel outguns a vorcha, or negvar do they? the excelsior and defiant fight was a fight between 3rd stringers, not the 2 most powerful ships in the federation. it shows that a 70 year old design uprated to the maximum can compete with a gun boat 1/16 its size.
Some people tend to forget that the Lakota wasn't even using all its weapons either at the time; it stuck to the heavily upgraded phasers that were ripping the Defiant to shreds just as much as the Defiant was wasting the Lakota with its cannons. Admiral Leyton actually authorized Captain Benteen to use quantum torpedoes, which is something she didn't do. The implication was that if the Lakota had really opened up with her torpedoes, the Defiant would have been toast.
The reality is that when it comes to Trek canon, things like quantum/transphasic/tricobalt torpedoes can make any rustbucket ship into an overpowered killing machine. STO doesn't really reflect that at all.
the defient also wasn't using quantums. im going to go out on a limb and say that with the 4 forward torpedo launchers the lakota had are able to put more torps into play then the defiant would be capable of launching in return. if they played the quantum game the defiant would no doubt have lost. the defiant did fire a photon or 2 though. the lakota was holding back more in my opinion
Well, to be fair, its first appearance performance was due to sabotage by Mr. Scott. I think the STO version is based on its performance in the DS9 episode "Paradise Lost" where the Refit stood toe to toe with the U.S.S. Defiant and definitely held its own.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
More advanced doesn't mean bigger guns... You can have ships that are more advanced then previous versions but when compared in pure fire power lose everytime. Just cause it newer don't make it better or bigger or more powerful. Sometimes it just means newer. Granted it says its more tactical in design though that could mean in maneuverability, more advanced targeting systems. More dedicated equipment standard for hostile engagements, all kinds of different things that make it have more tactical advantages without actual having more fire power.
I think this is the point and I'll refer to my merchantman ship example. The Galaxy Explorer is something akin to a 16-18th century merchantman - you had some kinds of trading ships that would dwarf military vessels in size and pure firepower which makes for excellent defensive capabilities but of course they couldn't rival ships build for war. The Sovereign is smaller but packs roughly equal firepower on a more manneuvreable hull. While the Galaxy Explorer in battle soaks up damage like a sponge and steamrolls resistance with forward firepower the Sovereign would be capable of evaisive manneuvres and be generally more flexible to compete with say Klingon Battlecruisers that are also not as big but also don't operate alone and are more nimble for their size.
The Defiant vs Lakota example also is a difficult one. Of course the Lakota could have vaporized the Defiant if it had been lined up with her forward torps but the Defiant (as someone else mentioned, pretty much the Starfleet equivalent of a B'Rel Raider) is way more flexible and would manage to stay out of their torpedo firing arc or would be able to evade them. A Defiant is not meant to operate on it's own but I o see the possibility that employing smart tactics it could beat up a ship like the Excelsior no matter how upgraded the weapons are.
If all ships would just park in front of each other and hammer away that's true. Though a Defiant wouldn't normalls operate by itself and could outmanneuver a larger vessel and go for weak spots and vital systems. We DO have 3 dimensional movement in space after all. Not in STO, though
In the Maquis TNG episodes you see Maquis raiders basically swarm a Galor and slowly wear it down because the ship is just outmanneuvred. Sure the Maquis take casaulties, but in the end they had worn down the larger ship. A Galaxy without any support would finally be worn down by more manneuvreable ships either though she could probably destroy an enemy with straight forward firepower before that.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Now when you consider how rare the Galaxy was during the run of TNG, it seems that Starfleet's reaction to the Dominion War was to really crank up production of Galaxies rather than the newer Sovereigns. To me, that implies two possible outcomes:
1. The Galaxy is a better battleship/capital ship
or
2. The difference in performance between the Galaxy and Sovereign is negligible enough to make Starfleet prefer the established/more useful in a post-war climate design
Now, this is just conjecture, but when you consider that there's only 8 years between the launch of the first Galaxy and first Sovereign... I think the two ships would probably have near identical performance, which fits with theory 2 above. I don't think the difference between the two is enough to justify the massive gulf in performance between them in STO, certainly.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Sure the Fight with the Lakota and the Defiant would have been over quicker if either used quantums and didnt care about taking survivors or atleast didn't care about blowing up the other ship or not. It's hard to say which would have won if both went full out and didn't care about the others destruction. Think in most cases as said above escorts ran in packs for reasons. They were meant to hit and run while cruisers where meant to slowly take a pounding and outlast their attacker.
Its's all alittle hard to know as Star trek and memory alpha only tell so much. The shows often did as they needed for plot but think most would agree a tier 5 ship should be on par with all other tier 5's regardless of any info on whatever website. Once they added that as an option for that ship to be placed as a tier 5 they made it their duty to keep all ships even more so the Iconic ones and those we recognize from show up to par with all other of the same tier.
Exactly true, This I believe is one of the problems as they are really different designs for different missions. All Starfleet ships are explorers but I'm sure they made some to do more so fighting as there is a need for that even in the Federation. Sovereign I felt was a cheaper more effective ship to combat the borg with as sure it was a quicker easier construction then the larger Galaxy.
In any case had they either stuck with the need for tank healer dps in this game or atleast made it so most endgame wasn't a race against timers making the kill faster syndrome something ppl worry about the bigger tanking cruisers wouldn't feel so outdated and there wouldn't be the need or atleast want to make all ships more tactical.
in one scene there where 13 different galaxies on screen so starfleet had to of built more form scratch as there where more on screen then there was spare hulls and points out starfleet rather of built brand new form the ground up galaxy class ships then sovs for what ever reason (actually they could not get permission to use the sov do to the movies being out)
It's a common fan theory that, once the Borg threat manifested itself, Starfleet reopened production of the Galaxy class as well as stepping up work on new classes.