Firepower per-volume (I think you are talking displacement[weight] there, not actual area) is multiple torp launches (and different type of torps) and lengths of phaser beam arryas (and thier glows) are interesting metrics, but still say little for the purposes of each ship. I personally wouldn't want my array long or glowing before it shoots because it has is energy waste-loss before the shot and I don't see why emitter size couldn't have been reduced in ten years to allow smaller length array to be more efficient and effective. But we have run this circle track far too many times.
Sov' was more tactical focued and Galaxy is an explorer (less tactical focus). Even with a smaller displacement, the Sovy' should be as capable, if not more, than bringing pain to its enemies in comparison the the Galaxy, otherwise its presence is useless. The Galaxy should be able to hull tank and wear an enemy down better than a Sovy', hands down.
The Galaxy is a great ship for what it did, but the Sovereign is a more dedicated tactical ship than its larger (most being labs and quarters and such) sibling. In addition, while the Sovereign might not have been a technological "quantum leap", it was one heck of a six sigma project in increasing efficiency over the Galaxy by only giving it only the size it needed to carry the tactical roles that a tactically focused ship in the size range of Galaxy and Sovereign would need. It is leaner because it likely cut out the number of labs, cargo holds and crew support areas that a Galaxy Class Explorer would need to do its exploration duties.
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
By all means it should be classified as an exlporer, that is its role, but as far as size and prominence is Star Trek ships, it is also a capital ship. Most cruisers qualify as a capital 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.
Bigger guns don't mean more effective guns either.
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.
Or
3. The Sovereign was so new that production hadn't been able to put out but a few ships yet.
When DS9/Dominion war was going on, the Sovereign was also the "hero" ship for the movies. If I remember right, we didn't really see many Intrepid classes in combat during DS9 either (another parallel show). We saw the Bellephron in one episode and thats the most of that class.
We also see four Peregrines doing as much damage as a Galaxy is doing too.
(...)
We also see four Peregrines doing as much damage as a Galaxy is doing too.
Though I still call that more sound and smoke than actual damage, because if a shuttle actually had the same firepower as a capital ship the whole realm of Star Trek would collapse in a black hole of implausibility
^ 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
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)
i figure that before they mass produced such a large, powerful, and expensive ship, they wanted just a few of them out there for the first few years to work out any bugs. im sure the loss of the yamato would have cased an extensive redesign if the cause hadn't been tracked down to an iconian virus. after the borg invaded, they were proboly producing 10 or 20 galaxy class a year, 1 galaxy class ended up making all the difference and saving earth and the federation. the fleets you see in DS9 are only a fraction of the total starfleet, for there to be that many galaxy in just those fleets shows that a ton were being made
Though I still call that more sound and smoke than actual damage, because if a shuttle actually had the same firepower as a capital ship the whole realm of Star Trek would collapse in a black hole of implausibility
there was a mention of a ninth fighter wave at that same time. it looks like they finally damaged one after that many waves hit it.
that merchant ship comparison for the galaxy is a good one. just swap merchant with explorer and you have the reason for the increased size. combat might not be the galaxys primary role, but it still has the heaviest weapons. given its size its got no excuse not to, even if it was built for long term deep space exploration primarily. they were smart enough not to limit it to exploration capability though, by making it so modular. after a fairly extensive refit all those labs and luxury apartments could be removed and it could be used as an actual battleship. its not underguned for that role.
a leaner ship like the sovereign fills the role of a battlecruiser well, but its simply not large enough to mount weapons of a similar scale to the great big galaxy. why didnt they make the sovereign bigger if its supposed to be the best tactical ship? a very modern galaxy class that can fill that battleship role if starfleet needs already exists, and by then the class is well broken in and full of improvements since launch.
unless starfleet is involved in a full scale war, and it was with the dominion, starfleet has no use for galaxy's sitting around in battleship spec, so they were proboly reconfigured back to explorers after the war. and unlike the enterrpise D, actually left federation space to do some real exploring. instead of posturing on the romulan or cardasian boarder for 7 years.
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.
reopened?
as if the production has ever been stop from a ship just aproximatly 5 years old at that time.
actually the construction of the galaxy was halted after the original 6 do to the cost of construction
this is from the TNG tech manual i use it for the good things so i will also use it for the negatives. the DS9 tech manual says the galaxy class construction resumed with the 6 empty hulls after the loss of the odyssey but with more then 70% of there internal volume emptied
actually the construction of the galaxy was halted after the original 6 do to the cost of construction
this is from the TNG tech manual i use it for the good things so i will also use it for the negatives. the DS9 tech manual says the galaxy class construction resumed with the 6 empty hulls after the loss of the odyssey but with more then 70% of there internal volume emptied
hmmm, ok, wasn't aware that they halted the production in the beguining.
test period maybe?
Why wasn't the Sovereign larger than the Galaxy? Resources and Space. Space is so immensely large that in order to cover your own territory as well as explore a great number of ships is needed to accomplish this. As we've seen in each series any number of crisis can occur so having capable ships within range is key.
Now if you were an Admiral in Starfleet tasked with the protection of thousands of Federation world's and allies wouldn't you prefer a ship that can do 90% of the scientific and diplomatic missions of the Galaxy but have newer better tactical abilities and weapons while taking less resources to build? Less crew to put in harms way? Able to have more ships to send to different areas so Starfleets reach is more widespread?
The Dominion War Galaxy's were practically half empty but deemed ready for combat. Why spend on twice the metal and manpower to construct and precious time when the space frame could be completed and outfitted on a Sovereign. A ship designed to be the next flagship of the fleet. If you were an Admiral who just learned of the borg threat and then turned to the Sovereign under development and some engineer told you her phasers wouldn't come close to the Galaxy's phasers(which proved useless against the borg) wouldn't you throw a fit and demand more? The biggest guns you have just failed why would you want something newer and weaker?
But we also need new ships, leaner ships so as to require less crew but still capable. Our present day military develops ships under this philosophy. What would you rather have, 2 Galaxies or 3 Sovereigns? 4 Galaxies or 12 Akira? 1 Galaxy or 20 Defiants?
Yes this doesn't mean you ignore the current Galaxies or Nebulas and don't upgrade them with newer and better weapons after all. They're all on the same team.
i think during those AOL Q&As they mentioned the starfleet was 20k ships large. a sovereign has 90% the scientific and diplomatic capability? i doubt that. the galaxy was not crew dense at all, its got just over 1000 people, including civilians wile the sovereign had 750 officers and enlisted. the sovereign proboly doesn't have quite as large of quarters, at least for the non senior officers, but on a galaxy class like the enterrpise D a large amount of that space was used for science labs. the sovereign class proboly has a large science department, but a galaxy has an entire department for every single field of study.
but of course, thats an enterprise D like setup, there is no standard configuration necessarily. but they can fit that much sci on a galaxy. when set up like the enterprise D, it can operate away from support for years with minimal to no crew fatigue, and be equipped to study and research anything. thats 1 use of all a galaxy's space.
the sovereign on the other hand is a general purpose battle cruiser, very capable at everything, but far from the potential explorer a galaxy could be. or on the opposite end, potential battleship.
if a galaxy class wasn't a monster firepower platform, instead of completing bare minimum for combat galaxy's they would have just built completed akira class instead. it was that important, that as many galaxy class main arrays were in play as possible. they already proved incredibly durable to dominion weapons, and once they got the whole infective shields and weapons problem solved, they were seen steamrollering everything before them. even began flanking the dominion fleet during operation return.
there couldn't be more canon evidence supporting how powerful the galaxy class is. how opted it was over other alternatives.
actually the construction of the galaxy was halted after the original 6 do to the cost of construction
this is from the TNG tech manual i use it for the good things so i will also use it for the negatives. the DS9 tech manual says the galaxy class construction resumed with the 6 empty hulls after the loss of the odyssey but with more then 70% of there internal volume emptied
thats a misscharacterization of what they did. they built the first 6 and partially completed 6 more, that was the plan. presumably they wanted to see how they would do for a few years before building hundreds. the borg and dominion threat obviously prompted them to start building hundreds.
1 galaxy class ended up making all the difference and saving earth and the federation.
Not really. You can give credit to a narcoleptic, ex-French Borg for the honor of saving Earth and the Federation from the Borg, that one Galaxy was little more than an annoyance for that Cube.
that merchant ship comparison for the galaxy is a good one. just swap merchant with explorer and you have the reason for the increased size. combat might not be the galaxys primary role, but it still has the heaviest weapons. given its size its got no excuse not to, even if it was built for long term deep space exploration primarily. they were smart enough not to limit it to exploration capability though, by making it so modular. after a fairly extensive refit all those labs and luxury apartments could be removed and it could be used as an actual battleship. its not underguned for that role.
a leaner ship like the sovereign fills the role of a battlecruiser well, but its simply not large enough to mount weapons of a similar scale to the great big galaxy. why didnt they make the sovereign bigger if its supposed to be the best tactical ship? a very modern galaxy class that can fill that battleship role if starfleet needs already exists, and by then the class is well broken in and full of improvements since launch.
Because the difference in mass of the two ships likely encompasses the extra labs, cargo holds and crew support areas needed for long range exploration missions. I also don't find it hard to believe than in ten years they could reduce the area required for a beam array to be as effective [by your standards] as the ones on the Galaxy.
unless starfleet is involved in a full scale war, and it was with the dominion, starfleet has no use for galaxy's sitting around in battleship spec, so they were proboly reconfigured back to explorers after the war. and unlike the enterrpise D, actually left federation space to do some real exploring. instead of posturing on the romulan or cardasian boarder for 7 years.
Maybe, but I don't think that the Galaxy is the only "modular" ship in Star Trek. If you accept writings of people who worked on the series, the Haynes manual of the Klingon Bird of Prey (written by Rick Sternback) that BoP's bulkheads are "repositionable" to meet the commanders needs and for the mission role the ships provided. If the venerable BoP can do that, I wouldn't be shocked if most if not all ships are able to so do.
Though I still call that more sound and smoke than actual damage, because if a shuttle actually had the same firepower as a capital ship the whole realm of Star Trek would collapse in a black hole of implausibility
Wasn't there an episode about that in the first season?
actually the construction of the galaxy was halted after the original 6 do to the cost of construction
this is from the TNG tech manual i use it for the good things so i will also use it for the negatives. the DS9 tech manual says the galaxy class construction resumed with the 6 empty hulls after the loss of the odyssey but with more then 70% of there internal volume emptied
If I remember right, the construction of the Galaxy class was halted after it was discovered that the battery packs were sourced from the same company that supplied Boeing their batteries for the 787.
biggest issue in this thread.
people convoluting a modern day sea research vessel, with what a spaceship would need to be to survive that job in space, in the startrek universe.
someone made a comparison to renaissance merchant ships being bigger and better armed than warships of the era. it was valid.
That is far from the biggest issue in this thread.
No, the biggest issue is that one side feels the need to change something because they don't like how it is now, but they know (consciously or not) that they need something more objective than their own opinions to defend such a call for change. Thus, they treat one interpretation of a piece of fiction as if it were valid and shout down all others, in an attempt to bully people into what they see as 'the truth'. This has been coupled with all the foibles internet communications are prone to, such that we end up with an echo chamber endlessly reverberating with the same empty ideas. Why don't the devs post in this thread? Because nothing of value gets said, and nothing of value can be heard.
To be fair, there is the issue that the Galaxy is not as mechanically useful as the other cruisers at end game, but nobody can articulate a single reason why that matters outside of a juvenile sense of epeen competition with other players. Moreover, the vast majority of proposals are unworkable and/or would create far more problems then they would solve. The fact is that no practical solution will ever satisfy the people who want the Galaxy to match the ship they imagine it to be, and no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will make an impossible solution suddenly work.
i think during those AOL Q&As they mentioned the starfleet was 20k ships large. a sovereign has 90% the scientific and diplomatic capability? i doubt that. the galaxy was not crew dense at all, its got just over 1000 people, including civilians wile the sovereign had 750 officers and enlisted. the sovereign proboly doesn't have quite as large of quarters, at least for the non senior officers, but on a galaxy class like the enterrpise D a large amount of that space was used for science labs. the sovereign class proboly has a large science department, but a galaxy has an entire department for every single field of study.
Thus, where most of the difference is space/tonnage between the Galaxy and Sovy' is used.
He also might mean 90% capability in the types of scientific and diplomatic tasks that it can do, just not all at one time.
but of course, thats an enterprise D like setup, there is no standard configuration necessarily. but they can fit that much sci on a galaxy. when set up like the enterprise D, it can operate away from support for years with minimal to no crew fatigue, and be equipped to study and research anything. thats 1 use of all a galaxy's space.
the sovereign on the other hand is a general purpose battle cruiser, very capable at everything, but far from the potential explorer a galaxy could be. or on the opposite end, potential battleship.
if a galaxy class wasn't a monster firepower platform, instead of completing bare minimum for combat galaxy's they would have just built completed akira class instead. it was that important, that as many galaxy class main arrays were in play as possible. they already proved incredibly durable to dominion weapons, and once they got the whole infective shields and weapons problem solved, they were seen steamrollering everything before them. even began flanking the dominion fleet during operation return.
there couldn't be more canon evidence supporting how powerful the galaxy class is. how opted it was over other alternatives.
Except that a ship doesn't necessarily need all of that extra space and heft to be tactically superior, for reasons I have mentioned in the past. Just as much as you argue that "advanced" doesn't mean better, bigger/longer doesn't mean better either. New technology gets small, more micronized and more efficient and effective everyday, I can see the same in the future.
thats a misscharacterization of what they did. they built the first 6 and partially completed 6 more, that was the plan. presumably they wanted to see how they would do for a few years before building hundreds. the borg and dominion threat obviously prompted them to start building hundreds.
I don't know about hundreds, but if a manufacturer already has the tooling and the experience curve in building a ship, its smart to take advantage of economies of scale. If a production line is already set to make on model, keep running it. It takes a long time to retool between models/types etc. compared to production cycle times.
Not really. You can give credit to a narcoleptic, ex-French Borg for the honor of saving Earth and the Federation from the Borg, that one Galaxy was little more than an annoyance for that Cube.
borg called it the most powerful in the fleet, and it didn't explode in 1 hit when the borg actually shot at it, unlike just about everything else.
Because the difference in mass of the two ships likely encompasses the extra labs, cargo holds and crew support areas needed for long range exploration missions. I also don't find it hard to believe than in ten years they could reduce the area required for a beam array to be as effective [by your standards] as the ones on the Galaxy.
they cant just make bulk goods smaller, they arent micro chips. whatever they end up making smaller they could just stack more of in the larger cargo bays. smaller labs and quarters? are they shrinking people now too? longer arrays have more emitters. a shorter array has less emitters, so a shorter array will NEVER be as powerful as a longer array. thats the most fundamental and basic concept behind arrays and the emitters they are made from. if they made emitters smaller and more powerful at the same time, then they would just end up putting more emitters into the space allotted for long arrays. how many times do you need to be reminded of this?
Maybe, but I don't think that the Galaxy is the only "modular" ship in Star Trek. If you accept writings of people who worked on the series, the Haynes manual of the Klingon Bird of Prey (written by Rick Sternback) that BoP's bulkheads are "repositionable" to meet the commanders needs and for the mission role the ships provided. If the venerable BoP can do that, I wouldn't be shocked if most if not all ships are able to so do.
i've got that book and read that part. ive never said that was a lone feature of the galaxy, i figure the space that can be modular is of much higher % then average. most of the bird of prey is pretty set in stone.
Thus, where most of the difference is space/tonnage between the Galaxy and Sovy' is used.
He also might mean 90% capability in the types of scientific and diplomatic tasks that it can do, just not all at one time.
since the galaxy has twice the space/tonnage of a sovereign, they could have the weight of an entire sovereign class in science labs and embassys, wile the the other half of the ship has everything the sovereign has. in so many ways its absurd to directly compare these 2 ships.
Except that a ship doesn't necessarily need all of that extra space and heft to be tactically superior, for reasons I have mentioned in the past. Just as much as you argue that "advanced" doesn't mean better, bigger/longer doesn't mean better either. New technology gets small, more micronized and more efficient and effective everyday, I can see the same in the future.
if they could make the galaxy smaller, wile its guns arent also shrank, then that ship is surely a leaner and meaner fighting machine then the galaxy. all that bloated space the galaxy has is what allows it to have arrays as large and torpedo launchers as large as it does.
I don't know about hundreds, but if a manufacturer already has the tooling and the experience curve in building a ship, its smart to take advantage of economies of scale. If a production line is already set to make on model, keep running it. It takes a long time to retool between models/types etc. compared to production cycle times.
in a fleet 20k strong, hundreds seems low ball. a great deal of these ships is proboly created by industrial replicators, however that works. im sure theres a great deal of traditional tooling required too. thats also why i think its absurd to think that the saber, norway, steam runner, akira, and sovereign were all designed, created, and mass produced in the time between the first cube attack and the second. in universe they proboly have been in development since the late 2350.
That is far from the biggest issue in this thread.
No, the biggest issue is that one side feels the need to change something because they don't like how it is now, but they know (consciously or not) that they need something more objective than their own opinions to defend such a call for change. Thus, they treat one interpretation of a piece of fiction as if it were valid and shout down all others, in an attempt to bully people into what they see as 'the truth'. This has been coupled with all the foibles internet communications are prone to, such that we end up with an echo chamber endlessly reverberating with the same empty ideas. Why don't the devs post in this thread? Because nothing of value gets said, and nothing of value can be heard.
To be fair, there is the issue that the Galaxy is not as mechanically useful as the other cruisers at end game, but nobody can articulate a single reason why that matters outside of a juvenile sense of epeen competition with other players. Moreover, the vast majority of proposals are unworkable and/or would create far more problems then they would solve. The fact is that no practical solution will ever satisfy the people who want the Galaxy to match the ship they imagine it to be, and no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will make an impossible solution suddenly work.
the debat over canon starts after the good reasons for the ship to be changed are given, purely from a game play stance. people scoff and say well it sucks in canon, so then it becomes about that. over and over. it tends to be a debate between 1 side of people that actually pull examples and evidence out of canon, and people who have favorite ships and try to hand wave canon, force in contrived reasoning that doesn't pass the smell test or blatantly violates something established in canon, wile trying to diminish canon's legitimacy and ridicule it as much as they can.
here's a reason that the galaxyR sucking maters, its the actual worst cruiser in the game, and the worst ship of any type in the game. its a ship that costs zen, theres no example of a worst ship to be found among escorts or sci ships, they all have a niche they are pretty good or great at, and the the galaxy R does not. the only solutions that would create more problems then they would solve are changes to engineering powers, or anything thats not JUST a change to the galaxyR.
longer arrays have more emitters. a shorter array has less emitters, so a shorter array will NEVER be as powerful as a longer array. thats the most fundamental and basic concept behind arrays and the emitters they are made from. if they made emitters smaller and more powerful at the same time, then they would just end up putting more emitters into the space allotted for long arrays. how many times do you need to be reminded of this?
Nope. This is not canon, nor does it make sense. How many times do you need to be reminded of this?
the debat over canon starts after the good reasons for the ship to be changed are given, purely from a game play stance. people scoff and say well it sucks in canon, so then it becomes about that. over and over. it tends to be a debate between 1 side of people that actually pull examples and evidence out of canon, and people who have favorite ships and try to hand wave canon, force in contrived reasoning that doesn't pass the smell test or blatantly violates something established in canon, wile trying to diminish canon's legitimacy and ridicule it as much as they can.
Actually, it's a debate about people who are right that there's no such thing as one true Trek canon, and people who can't accept that simple, objective truth. You aren't the arbiter of canon, yet you act like your made up rationalizations of why things are the way they are on screen are somehow 'better' than the rationalizations of people who don't view everything through the lens of "The Galaxy is the bestest magical ship ever, so let's figure out how/why everything works to make that so".
Also, I would argue that this discussion would never have arisen in the first place if there weren't people who are fans of the Galaxy and mistakenly believe it was "really" a battleship, or whatever. If it was simply a matter of "that ship sucks, for gameplay reasons", then people would simply not use it, and fly another ship. The issue circles back to people believing that the Galaxy from the shows doesn't match what they got in the game (which is a subjective issue of perception), and then deciding that means that Cryptic got it "wrong". It's always and only a matter of opinion, and yours isn't any better than anyone else's.
here's a reason that the galaxyR sucking maters, its the actual worst cruiser in the game, and the worst ship of any type in the game. its a ship that costs zen, theres no example of a worst ship to be found among escorts or sci ships, they all have a niche they are pretty good or great at, and the the galaxy R does not. the only solutions that would create more problems then they would solve are changes to engineering powers, or anything thats not JUST a change to the galaxyR.
Flat out, none of that matters. So what that it costs money? People can choose to buy it or not, depending on their personal sense of its value. Arguing that it's "not worth the money" is another prime example of mistaking the opinion you have with an opinion that is widely shared, and then mistaking that opinion for some sort of "truth". Hell, even if it is true that it's not worth it, I'm not really sure what injury that causes, aside from self-inflicted butthurt from people who expected some sort of wunder-ship and bought it without question.
Second, why does it matter that it's the worst ship? Something was always going to be the "worst" mechanically - that's just the way it goes. Moreover, please stop pretending that the Galaxy as is doesn't have a viable niche - it clearly has a lock on being the cruiser that looks like the Galaxy. I'm not joking, btw - I firmly believe that the mechanical advantages/disadvantages of the various ships are almost entirely irrelevant to the game, since you can make basically any ship (including the starter ships) "work" at the end game, as long as you're willing to put up with taking longer to complete missions, etc. I realize that many (most?) players don't feel the same way, but I also know that doesn't make them right, or me wrong, it just means we care about different things.
It's true that ppl have or had the choice to buy the Galaxy but what if they bought it back when it was a good ship. Now with systems changing and how the game plays now along with other newer ships coming out that is no longer the case. It was worth the cash back then but now it really isn't and honestly I see very few ever flying a Galaxy at tier 5. That should tell most everyone that this ship isn't worth the price anymore.
Now you can say that when I bought it was worth the price and I should be glad that it was a good ship back then and like all things in mmo older stuff becomes less useful and I understand that. Had they released tier 6 ships then that would be fine. But when they release ships that are suppose to be on par with this ship and it isn't true that is when the developers need to step up and correct it. Many older ships need a revamp or a little tune up if you will just to get them back into the game. I don't want just the galaxy-r fixed I want all older ships to receive alittle love and get them back out flying. Now they could do as some suggest and change around ships or add to them. Personally it be better if they just let us chose the Console and Boff setup for ships or give us the option to pay zen to redo those so that ANY ship can be made useful for the person that likes and chooses that ship.
Seems the best way is to setup the game so we can play the ships we want the way we want and you see alot more variety flying around instead of clusters of the same ships.
Now you can say that when I bought it was worth the price and I should be glad that it was a good ship back then and like all things in mmo older stuff becomes less useful and I understand that.
You're right, that's exactly what I would say, because that's precisely how it works. Older stuff gets obsolete - it's far too much effort to go back and rebalance everything around the new standard, and it defeats the purpose of power creep anyway (namely giving players a sense of character advancement, as well as encouraging sales). The fact that it's now outclassed by other ships doesn't mean it can't still be viable, however. It is only if you define viability in terms of competition with other players that you start to have a problem. If that's how you define it, okay, but I think it's a bit sad to define your fun primarily in relation to how well other people are doing.
Seems the best way is to setup the game so we can play the ships we want the way we want and you see alot more variety flying around instead of clusters of the same ships.
Simplistic slogans might sound good, but are rarely actually good advice. For example, given that most players simply want MAOR DAMAGE, allowing people to play ships "the way they want" will likely only increase cookie cutter builds, as people stop having to think about how to make the most of the ship they like, and instead just slap on the same FOTM build as everyone else. You might get an increase in hull diversity, but you will likely see a decrease in playstyle diversity.
Moreover, I already see a large variety of ships out there, including the much maligned Galaxy. Again, it seems like this is more about a few individuals who are upset that they have to choose between the ship they like and the play style they like. I'm just not that sympathetic/empathetic to that cause, since that's a choice almost everyone has to make, and the low level of difficulty in this game makes it much, much easier to choose to run a sub-optimal ship that you like.
What makes me laugh is that a lot of players aren't asking for anything game breaking and yet here we are with a massive debate on canon etc. I personally, would be quite happy in the mean time with moving one engineering console slot on the fleet variant to tactical for a little more DPS potential and a universal Lieutenant or Ensign slot.
One thing they can't skip on however is the ship model. It might seem like a really minor thing, but having grown up on TNG I know what a Galaxy should look like. The neck on the ship model in STO is just plain wrong, it's almost vertical and doesn't have the same angle as the studio model (nor my starships collection model on my desk). It needs a pass, as do most canon ships from back near launch (minus the Excelsior, which has a gorgeous model).
One thing I would like to say though is that some abilities that we have in game should be standard on pretty much all vessels. Captain Kirk replied in horror to the Captain of the Enterprise B "You left space dock without a tractor beam?!". It should be a base ability of ALL ships without the need to take up a bridge officer slot. If the Yellowstone Runabout, a shuttle of all things can do this then I'm pretty sure Starfleets "Ships of the Line" can too. However, this is a discussion for another thread :P.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
I swear, I'm starting to really believe that some people's parents scared them with the Galaxy class when they missbehaved as children and now have nightmares about this ship that wake them up.
You're right, that's exactly what I would say, because that's precisely how it works. Older stuff gets obsolete - it's far too much effort to go back and rebalance everything around the new standard, and it defeats the purpose of power creep anyway (namely giving players a sense of character advancement, as well as encouraging sales). The fact that it's now outclassed by other ships doesn't mean it can't still be viable, however. It is only if you define viability in terms of competition with other players that you start to have a problem. If that's how you define it, okay, but I think it's a bit sad to define your fun primarily in relation to how well other people are doing.
So you would encourage a company to sell a substandard product and say sorry if its your favorite but its old and while easily could be updated you just leave it as is. Not great business to sell outdated products or to have products up for sale that noone will buy anymore cause their outdated and not worth the cash anymore. Wouldn't it be smarter to keep your products that are all suppose to be on par with each other at the same level of quality. Fixing these up will make for more sales and make the players able to pilot what they want instead of what serves them best. That increases enjoyment for the player and keeps them playing a game.
Its not about being up to other players level its about having something at the level of other current ships and not having the choice of either play what you love and not be as good or play a ship you don't like to stay on par.. If it is then why shouldnt you want a ship that competitive, this game offers pvp which means you either have a ship that viable or you get destroyed everytime hurting your team mates in the process. If you go into STF with ships that are not current then you hurt their chances at getting the bonuses.
I think its a bit sad that ppl are so against a request to put tier 5 ships all up to par with each other. I think it is sad ppl will argue this much for something that should have been done as soon as there was a power creep started.
Simplistic slogans might sound good, but are rarely actually good advice. For example, given that most players simply want MAOR DAMAGE, allowing people to play ships "the way they want" will likely only increase cookie cutter builds, as people stop having to think about how to make the most of the ship they like, and instead just slap on the same FOTM build as everyone else. You might get an increase in hull diversity, but you will likely see a decrease in playstyle diversity.
Omg you mean players will play like each other. FOTM that is a funny word ppl throw around way to often. Sorry but when companies cause these by releasing or letting certain builds get over powered and the players blame other players for taking advantage of that i find it amusing. Ppl are gonna want to be competitive and that means finding what works best and using it. There are those of us that play like we want and don't really worry so much about having the uber best builds and best setup that money can buy, whether because we don't have the time or rather don't care enough to invest it maybe the causes for that. But ultimately its more about devs letting this happen and then they the community blame players for using it.
Yea my idea would make this easier, but I don't see a huge difference between players using all the same builds and different ships and all players getting the same ships and using the same builds, except we might not have to see a hundred or more of the same ship skins flying around all day long.
Moreover, I already see a large variety of ships out there, including the much maligned Galaxy. Again, it seems like this is more about a few individuals who are upset that they have to choose between the ship they like and the play style they like. I'm just not that sympathetic/empathetic to that cause, since that's a choice almost everyone has to make, and the low level of difficulty in this game makes it much, much easier to choose to run a sub-optimal ship that you like.
So sorry I find that stupid but I do. So what if you cant have what you want cause most ppl can't, great argument you got there. Rather then make a system everyone can enjoy and be competitive lets just keep forcing players to deal with the problem. Its a game its about having fun and getting what you want (to a certain extend anyways) not about choosing between what you want and what you need (or think you need). Its about enjoyment and as such you shouldn't have to pick what you like or what you want for your playstyle. I get that somethings can't happen like universal boff slots on all ships as some think it will be highly over powered and ofcourse in pvp it may just be. I also understand that you can't make everyone happy but that doesn't mean you should just stop trying.
Cant say where you see all these galaxies running about cause as I said I rarely see one and if I do its mostly the Tier 4 not the tier 5 you have to pay for. I don't see a ton of different federation ships, I see alot of different ships split between the Feds, Klingons, Romulans, and lockbox ships. I mostly see the same Federation ships over and over, as in same type of science the Vesta, escorts are usually the Defiant, and cruisers are now the Avenger.
Honestly I don't understand your argument but probably never will. To say ppl should just deal with stuff in a game is to me weird. I just deal with stuff enough in real life and don't need that as a choice in the games I play for fun.
I swear, I'm starting to really believe that some people's parents scared them with the Galaxy class when they missbehaved as children and now have nightmares about this ship that wake them up.
I'm starting to think ppl are scared to see others enjoying games or rather the chance of such occuring. Some seems to believe if its not a second job the Devs didn't do it right.
That is far from the biggest issue in this thread.
No, the biggest issue is that one side feels the need to change something because they don't like how it is now, but they know (consciously or not) that they need something more objective than their own opinions to defend such a call for change.
no, the galaxy retrofit do suck, this is something that can be explained and demonstrate.
and we already have done it, many time in this thread.
subjectivity daesn't come into play here, no matter how hard you try to make everyone else bielieve.
Thus, they treat one interpretation of a piece of fiction as if it were valid and shout down all others, in an attempt to bully people into what they see as 'the truth'. This has been coupled with all the foibles internet communications are prone to, such that we end up with an echo chamber endlessly reverberating with the same empty ideas.
some do want to demonstrate that the galaxy should be better in this game using canon "evidence" right before pointing out it nonsense in cryptic own system already.
but this is not what is happening lately ( last 200 pages ), the echo chamber effect we experienced is only due to new people that come in the thread stating that it is normal that the ship suck because ( in their own opinion ) it suck in the serie.
that is where we use "canon" arguments that have already been enumerated a thousand time, this is a lost cause, the fight of subjectivity.
but that, however, daes not diminish, in any way, the fact that the galaxy retrofit DO suck.
Why don't the devs post in this thread? Because nothing of value gets said, and nothing of value can be heard.
again, nice attempt to try to proove that we are our own undoing.
but the true is that dev NEVER post in these kind of thread.... never.
that it was a galaxy, exelsior, or type8 shuttle thread make no difference, that there is something of value in it or not also make no difference.
the only thread where you will see devs posting are general system pvp thread, when they want feedback from experience player, period.
To be fair, there is the issue that the Galaxy is not as mechanically useful as the other cruisers at end game, but nobody can articulate a single reason why that matters outside of a juvenile sense of epeen competition with other players
so if i anderstand you correctly, only unchallenging pve count and pvp is just the business of some 14 years old minmaxer right?
I DO want to be competitive in this game, and i am not ashame to said it, we usually call that pvp.
but we are not alone mind you, the elite pver also do competition with ACT numbers, and they also need efficient ship to complete no win scenario.
you need efficient ship to complete stf in less than 2 hours, you need efficient ship to get better loot.
and there nothing to feel ashame in that behavior, it is healthy.
we all try to go behond ourselves, it 's one of the most natural things in life.
it's how we learn to think on our feet and take our chances.
it's how we get to known our friends and understand our opponents.
this is fundamental, without it this game would be very lonely, and that is not the definition of an MMO.
so yes, it matter.
and if it is not matter to you, why did you oppose to it in the first place appart from the feeling that a better galaxy would steal something from you?
and if you want a reason why it should be upgrade, here it is, a ship that we paid should not be less efficient than one that we can obtain with a fistfull of EC.
Moreover, the vast majority of proposals are unworkable and/or would create far more problems then they would solve.
proove it, i mean, seriously.... proove it.
The fact is that no practical solution will ever satisfy the people who want the Galaxy to match the ship they imagine it to be, and no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will make an impossible solution suddenly work.
their is no such things as a perfect solution.
and you will alway have people that will never be happy, that is in human nature, that is a fan nature.
but to said that the galaxy should not be enhanced because the solution will not be perfect?
just tell that YOU don't want it to be better, it would sound more true and less hypocritical.
no, the galaxy retrofit do suck, this is something that can be explained and demonstrate.
and we already have done it, many time in this thread.
subjectivity daesn't come into play here, no matter how hard you try to make everyone else bielieve.
You are conflating two issues - the canon debate, which is subjective and also doesn't matter, and the balance debate, which is less subjective but still doesn't matter.
And I can't be more clear about that- your balance concerns are irrelevant, because I don't care in the slightest that you feel like it's "not fair" that other ships have shinier toys, because the only reason you can articulate for why that matters is your notion that you should compete with other players, even in cooperative PvE, and I reject that notion out of hand. I don't care that you disagree, because there is literally not one single thing you can ever say to change my mind, just like there is evidently nothing I will ever be able to say to make you understand that your viewpoint isn't the only valid one, nor the "most common", nor the "default", nor preferable for any number of reasons you might think it is.
The impasse here is always going to be you (collectively referring to Galaxy fans) need to impose your will on others to get what you want, and I reject your right to do so, since you can articulate zero reasons why I should beyond your personal, petty desires.
some do want to demonstrate that the galaxy should be better in this game using canon "evidence" right before pointing out it nonsense in cryptic own system already.
but this is not what is happening lately ( last 200 pages ), the echo chamber effect we experienced is only due to new people that come in the thread stating that it is normal that the ship suck because ( in their own opinion ) it suck in the serie.
that is where we use "canon" arguments that have already been enumerated a thousand time, this is a lost cause, the fight of subjectivity.
but that, however, daes not diminish, in any way, the fact that the galaxy retrofit DO suck.
Did it occur to you that if people keep coming in with the "wrong" notion that the Galaxy should suck, that maybe, just maybe, it's not THEM that's wrong about how the ship is "properly" perceived? Even your attempt to respond here just proves my point - you keep thinking of this as a debate between the Galaxy fans who are "right" about what canon says, and the newcomers who need to be educated by the true believers. Again, it's the Galaxy fans who are seeking to impose a view on others, merely for their own benefit. It's distasteful.
again, nice attempt to try to proove that we are our own undoing.
but the true is that dev NEVER post in these kind of thread.... never.
that it was a galaxy, exelsior, or type8 shuttle thread make no difference, that there is something of value in it or not also make no difference.
the only thread where you will see devs posting are general system pvp thread, when they want feedback from experience player, period.
So, you concede that there is zero chance this thread will ever have the desired effect? I'll grant that it's not a unique phenomenon to this thread, but it certainly seems like you've just admitted that this is nothing more than the idle venting of a small group of die-hard fans (which, in fact, is exactly what I think it is). My only question is, can I quote you the next time someone gets up in arms about there being no Dev response?
so if i anderstand you correctly, only unchallenging pve count and pvp is just the business of some 14 years old minmaxer right?
I DO want to be competitive in this game, and i am not ashame to said it, we usually call that pvp.
but we are not alone mind you, the elite pver also do competition with ACT numbers, and they also need efficient ship to complete no win scenario.
you need efficient ship to complete stf in less than 2 hours, you need efficient ship to get better loot.
and there nothing to feel ashame in that behavior, it is healthy.
we all try to go behond ourselves, it 's one of the most natural things in life.
it's how we learn to think on our feet and take our chances.
it's how we get to known our friends and understand our opponents.
this is fundamental, without it this game would be very lonely, and that is not the definition of an MMO.
No, actually, you don't understand. My point is very simple - what matters is having fun. Further, I assert that if you couch your fun in terms of "doing better than other people", you are setting yourself up for disappointment (since you probably aren't actually better than other players), and you are acting a bit juvenile. PvP, PvE, whatever, it shouldn't matter if you are "winning" or "losing" versus other players, as long as the game itself is fun. If the game is NOT fun, and you can't enjoy it without feeling like a "winner", then go play something else.
Secondly, again, you've proven my point for me - I agree that self-improvement is a worthy goal, but you keep conflating improving over your previous best efforts to improving over someone else's results. In other words, you're not talking about self improvement at all - you're talking about improving your perceived ranking versus other players, and mistaking that for self improvement, which is sad.
so yes, it matter.
and if it is not matter to you, why did you oppose to it in the first place appart from the feeling that a better galaxy would steal something from you?
and if you want a reason why it should be upgrade, here it is, a ship that we paid should not be less efficient than one that we can obtain with a fistfull of EC.
I oppose it because I find the arguments in favor of changing the Galaxy to be non-persuasive, and I post because I find the arguments used distasteful enough to warrant a response.
Also, the reason you gave... isn't one. There's no rule that says that everyone has to agree that the cost of an item matches it's perceived value. So, no. Not persuasive.
Here's a thought - since the burden of proof is entirely on the side arguing for change, how about YOU prove that they are workable. Presumption is that the status quo is innocent until proven guilty. I don't think the suggestions put forward are workable, for any number of reasons, but ultimately, it doesn't even matter, since it's up to YOU to prove they are.
their is no such things as a perfect solution.
and you will alway have people that will never be happy, that is in human nature, that is a fan nature.
but to said that the galaxy should not be enhanced because the solution will not be perfect?
just tell that YOU don't want it to be better, it would sound more true and less hypocritical.
Yeah, I didn't say the solutions would not be perfect, I said I suspect they would either not work at all, or make the game worse. It's not a matter of making perfect the enemy of good, it's that your solutions have a long, long way to go before they become good in the first place.
And again, it's YOUR burden to prove that I'm wrong, since you're the one advocating change.
Comments
Firepower per-volume (I think you are talking displacement[weight] there, not actual area) is multiple torp launches (and different type of torps) and lengths of phaser beam arryas (and thier glows) are interesting metrics, but still say little for the purposes of each ship. I personally wouldn't want my array long or glowing before it shoots because it has is energy waste-loss before the shot and I don't see why emitter size couldn't have been reduced in ten years to allow smaller length array to be more efficient and effective. But we have run this circle track far too many times.
Sov' was more tactical focued and Galaxy is an explorer (less tactical focus). Even with a smaller displacement, the Sovy' should be as capable, if not more, than bringing pain to its enemies in comparison the the Galaxy, otherwise its presence is useless. The Galaxy should be able to hull tank and wear an enemy down better than a Sovy', hands down.
The Galaxy is a great ship for what it did, but the Sovereign is a more dedicated tactical ship than its larger (most being labs and quarters and such) sibling. In addition, while the Sovereign might not have been a technological "quantum leap", it was one heck of a six sigma project in increasing efficiency over the Galaxy by only giving it only the size it needed to carry the tactical roles that a tactically focused ship in the size range of Galaxy and Sovereign would need. It is leaner because it likely cut out the number of labs, cargo holds and crew support areas that a Galaxy Class Explorer would need to do its exploration duties.
By all means it should be classified as an exlporer, that is its role, but as far as size and prominence is Star Trek ships, it is also a capital ship. Most cruisers qualify as a capital ship.
Bigger guns don't mean more effective guns either.
Or
3. The Sovereign was so new that production hadn't been able to put out but a few ships yet.
When DS9/Dominion war was going on, the Sovereign was also the "hero" ship for the movies. If I remember right, we didn't really see many Intrepid classes in combat during DS9 either (another parallel show). We saw the Bellephron in one episode and thats the most of that class.
We also see four Peregrines doing as much damage as a Galaxy is doing too.
Though I still call that more sound and smoke than actual damage, because if a shuttle actually had the same firepower as a capital ship the whole realm of Star Trek would collapse in a black hole of implausibility
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
i figure that before they mass produced such a large, powerful, and expensive ship, they wanted just a few of them out there for the first few years to work out any bugs. im sure the loss of the yamato would have cased an extensive redesign if the cause hadn't been tracked down to an iconian virus. after the borg invaded, they were proboly producing 10 or 20 galaxy class a year, 1 galaxy class ended up making all the difference and saving earth and the federation. the fleets you see in DS9 are only a fraction of the total starfleet, for there to be that many galaxy in just those fleets shows that a ton were being made
there was a mention of a ninth fighter wave at that same time. it looks like they finally damaged one after that many waves hit it.
that merchant ship comparison for the galaxy is a good one. just swap merchant with explorer and you have the reason for the increased size. combat might not be the galaxys primary role, but it still has the heaviest weapons. given its size its got no excuse not to, even if it was built for long term deep space exploration primarily. they were smart enough not to limit it to exploration capability though, by making it so modular. after a fairly extensive refit all those labs and luxury apartments could be removed and it could be used as an actual battleship. its not underguned for that role.
a leaner ship like the sovereign fills the role of a battlecruiser well, but its simply not large enough to mount weapons of a similar scale to the great big galaxy. why didnt they make the sovereign bigger if its supposed to be the best tactical ship? a very modern galaxy class that can fill that battleship role if starfleet needs already exists, and by then the class is well broken in and full of improvements since launch.
unless starfleet is involved in a full scale war, and it was with the dominion, starfleet has no use for galaxy's sitting around in battleship spec, so they were proboly reconfigured back to explorers after the war. and unlike the enterrpise D, actually left federation space to do some real exploring. instead of posturing on the romulan or cardasian boarder for 7 years.
reopened?
as if the production has ever been stop from a ship just aproximatly 5 years old at that time.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
this is from the TNG tech manual i use it for the good things so i will also use it for the negatives. the DS9 tech manual says the galaxy class construction resumed with the 6 empty hulls after the loss of the odyssey but with more then 70% of there internal volume emptied
hmmm, ok, wasn't aware that they halted the production in the beguining.
test period maybe?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
i think during those AOL Q&As they mentioned the starfleet was 20k ships large. a sovereign has 90% the scientific and diplomatic capability? i doubt that. the galaxy was not crew dense at all, its got just over 1000 people, including civilians wile the sovereign had 750 officers and enlisted. the sovereign proboly doesn't have quite as large of quarters, at least for the non senior officers, but on a galaxy class like the enterrpise D a large amount of that space was used for science labs. the sovereign class proboly has a large science department, but a galaxy has an entire department for every single field of study.
but of course, thats an enterprise D like setup, there is no standard configuration necessarily. but they can fit that much sci on a galaxy. when set up like the enterprise D, it can operate away from support for years with minimal to no crew fatigue, and be equipped to study and research anything. thats 1 use of all a galaxy's space.
the sovereign on the other hand is a general purpose battle cruiser, very capable at everything, but far from the potential explorer a galaxy could be. or on the opposite end, potential battleship.
if a galaxy class wasn't a monster firepower platform, instead of completing bare minimum for combat galaxy's they would have just built completed akira class instead. it was that important, that as many galaxy class main arrays were in play as possible. they already proved incredibly durable to dominion weapons, and once they got the whole infective shields and weapons problem solved, they were seen steamrollering everything before them. even began flanking the dominion fleet during operation return.
there couldn't be more canon evidence supporting how powerful the galaxy class is. how opted it was over other alternatives.
thats a misscharacterization of what they did. they built the first 6 and partially completed 6 more, that was the plan. presumably they wanted to see how they would do for a few years before building hundreds. the borg and dominion threat obviously prompted them to start building hundreds.
Not really. You can give credit to a narcoleptic, ex-French Borg for the honor of saving Earth and the Federation from the Borg, that one Galaxy was little more than an annoyance for that Cube.
I find it highly unlikely that they would send nine concurrent fighter waves to target one ship.
Because the difference in mass of the two ships likely encompasses the extra labs, cargo holds and crew support areas needed for long range exploration missions. I also don't find it hard to believe than in ten years they could reduce the area required for a beam array to be as effective [by your standards] as the ones on the Galaxy.
Maybe, but I don't think that the Galaxy is the only "modular" ship in Star Trek. If you accept writings of people who worked on the series, the Haynes manual of the Klingon Bird of Prey (written by Rick Sternback) that BoP's bulkheads are "repositionable" to meet the commanders needs and for the mission role the ships provided. If the venerable BoP can do that, I wouldn't be shocked if most if not all ships are able to so do.
Wasn't there an episode about that in the first season?
If I remember right, the construction of the Galaxy class was halted after it was discovered that the battery packs were sourced from the same company that supplied Boeing their batteries for the 787.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1WtRpPG8C0
That is far from the biggest issue in this thread.
No, the biggest issue is that one side feels the need to change something because they don't like how it is now, but they know (consciously or not) that they need something more objective than their own opinions to defend such a call for change. Thus, they treat one interpretation of a piece of fiction as if it were valid and shout down all others, in an attempt to bully people into what they see as 'the truth'. This has been coupled with all the foibles internet communications are prone to, such that we end up with an echo chamber endlessly reverberating with the same empty ideas. Why don't the devs post in this thread? Because nothing of value gets said, and nothing of value can be heard.
To be fair, there is the issue that the Galaxy is not as mechanically useful as the other cruisers at end game, but nobody can articulate a single reason why that matters outside of a juvenile sense of epeen competition with other players. Moreover, the vast majority of proposals are unworkable and/or would create far more problems then they would solve. The fact is that no practical solution will ever satisfy the people who want the Galaxy to match the ship they imagine it to be, and no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will make an impossible solution suddenly work.
Thus, where most of the difference is space/tonnage between the Galaxy and Sovy' is used.
He also might mean 90% capability in the types of scientific and diplomatic tasks that it can do, just not all at one time.
Except that a ship doesn't necessarily need all of that extra space and heft to be tactically superior, for reasons I have mentioned in the past. Just as much as you argue that "advanced" doesn't mean better, bigger/longer doesn't mean better either. New technology gets small, more micronized and more efficient and effective everyday, I can see the same in the future.
I don't know about hundreds, but if a manufacturer already has the tooling and the experience curve in building a ship, its smart to take advantage of economies of scale. If a production line is already set to make on model, keep running it. It takes a long time to retool between models/types etc. compared to production cycle times.
borg called it the most powerful in the fleet, and it didn't explode in 1 hit when the borg actually shot at it, unlike just about everything else.
you weren't paying attention to what they were doing then. hitting a few cardasian ships over and over to get them to break rank.
they cant just make bulk goods smaller, they arent micro chips. whatever they end up making smaller they could just stack more of in the larger cargo bays. smaller labs and quarters? are they shrinking people now too? longer arrays have more emitters. a shorter array has less emitters, so a shorter array will NEVER be as powerful as a longer array. thats the most fundamental and basic concept behind arrays and the emitters they are made from. if they made emitters smaller and more powerful at the same time, then they would just end up putting more emitters into the space allotted for long arrays. how many times do you need to be reminded of this?
i've got that book and read that part. ive never said that was a lone feature of the galaxy, i figure the space that can be modular is of much higher % then average. most of the bird of prey is pretty set in stone.
since the galaxy has twice the space/tonnage of a sovereign, they could have the weight of an entire sovereign class in science labs and embassys, wile the the other half of the ship has everything the sovereign has. in so many ways its absurd to directly compare these 2 ships.
if they could make the galaxy smaller, wile its guns arent also shrank, then that ship is surely a leaner and meaner fighting machine then the galaxy. all that bloated space the galaxy has is what allows it to have arrays as large and torpedo launchers as large as it does.
in a fleet 20k strong, hundreds seems low ball. a great deal of these ships is proboly created by industrial replicators, however that works. im sure theres a great deal of traditional tooling required too. thats also why i think its absurd to think that the saber, norway, steam runner, akira, and sovereign were all designed, created, and mass produced in the time between the first cube attack and the second. in universe they proboly have been in development since the late 2350.
the debat over canon starts after the good reasons for the ship to be changed are given, purely from a game play stance. people scoff and say well it sucks in canon, so then it becomes about that. over and over. it tends to be a debate between 1 side of people that actually pull examples and evidence out of canon, and people who have favorite ships and try to hand wave canon, force in contrived reasoning that doesn't pass the smell test or blatantly violates something established in canon, wile trying to diminish canon's legitimacy and ridicule it as much as they can.
here's a reason that the galaxyR sucking maters, its the actual worst cruiser in the game, and the worst ship of any type in the game. its a ship that costs zen, theres no example of a worst ship to be found among escorts or sci ships, they all have a niche they are pretty good or great at, and the the galaxy R does not. the only solutions that would create more problems then they would solve are changes to engineering powers, or anything thats not JUST a change to the galaxyR.
Nope. This is not canon, nor does it make sense. How many times do you need to be reminded of this?
Also, I would argue that this discussion would never have arisen in the first place if there weren't people who are fans of the Galaxy and mistakenly believe it was "really" a battleship, or whatever. If it was simply a matter of "that ship sucks, for gameplay reasons", then people would simply not use it, and fly another ship. The issue circles back to people believing that the Galaxy from the shows doesn't match what they got in the game (which is a subjective issue of perception), and then deciding that means that Cryptic got it "wrong". It's always and only a matter of opinion, and yours isn't any better than anyone else's.
Flat out, none of that matters. So what that it costs money? People can choose to buy it or not, depending on their personal sense of its value. Arguing that it's "not worth the money" is another prime example of mistaking the opinion you have with an opinion that is widely shared, and then mistaking that opinion for some sort of "truth". Hell, even if it is true that it's not worth it, I'm not really sure what injury that causes, aside from self-inflicted butthurt from people who expected some sort of wunder-ship and bought it without question.
Second, why does it matter that it's the worst ship? Something was always going to be the "worst" mechanically - that's just the way it goes. Moreover, please stop pretending that the Galaxy as is doesn't have a viable niche - it clearly has a lock on being the cruiser that looks like the Galaxy. I'm not joking, btw - I firmly believe that the mechanical advantages/disadvantages of the various ships are almost entirely irrelevant to the game, since you can make basically any ship (including the starter ships) "work" at the end game, as long as you're willing to put up with taking longer to complete missions, etc. I realize that many (most?) players don't feel the same way, but I also know that doesn't make them right, or me wrong, it just means we care about different things.
Now you can say that when I bought it was worth the price and I should be glad that it was a good ship back then and like all things in mmo older stuff becomes less useful and I understand that. Had they released tier 6 ships then that would be fine. But when they release ships that are suppose to be on par with this ship and it isn't true that is when the developers need to step up and correct it. Many older ships need a revamp or a little tune up if you will just to get them back into the game. I don't want just the galaxy-r fixed I want all older ships to receive alittle love and get them back out flying. Now they could do as some suggest and change around ships or add to them. Personally it be better if they just let us chose the Console and Boff setup for ships or give us the option to pay zen to redo those so that ANY ship can be made useful for the person that likes and chooses that ship.
Seems the best way is to setup the game so we can play the ships we want the way we want and you see alot more variety flying around instead of clusters of the same ships.
You're right, that's exactly what I would say, because that's precisely how it works. Older stuff gets obsolete - it's far too much effort to go back and rebalance everything around the new standard, and it defeats the purpose of power creep anyway (namely giving players a sense of character advancement, as well as encouraging sales). The fact that it's now outclassed by other ships doesn't mean it can't still be viable, however. It is only if you define viability in terms of competition with other players that you start to have a problem. If that's how you define it, okay, but I think it's a bit sad to define your fun primarily in relation to how well other people are doing.
Simplistic slogans might sound good, but are rarely actually good advice. For example, given that most players simply want MAOR DAMAGE, allowing people to play ships "the way they want" will likely only increase cookie cutter builds, as people stop having to think about how to make the most of the ship they like, and instead just slap on the same FOTM build as everyone else. You might get an increase in hull diversity, but you will likely see a decrease in playstyle diversity.
Moreover, I already see a large variety of ships out there, including the much maligned Galaxy. Again, it seems like this is more about a few individuals who are upset that they have to choose between the ship they like and the play style they like. I'm just not that sympathetic/empathetic to that cause, since that's a choice almost everyone has to make, and the low level of difficulty in this game makes it much, much easier to choose to run a sub-optimal ship that you like.
One thing they can't skip on however is the ship model. It might seem like a really minor thing, but having grown up on TNG I know what a Galaxy should look like. The neck on the ship model in STO is just plain wrong, it's almost vertical and doesn't have the same angle as the studio model (nor my starships collection model on my desk). It needs a pass, as do most canon ships from back near launch (minus the Excelsior, which has a gorgeous model).
One thing I would like to say though is that some abilities that we have in game should be standard on pretty much all vessels. Captain Kirk replied in horror to the Captain of the Enterprise B "You left space dock without a tractor beam?!". It should be a base ability of ALL ships without the need to take up a bridge officer slot. If the Yellowstone Runabout, a shuttle of all things can do this then I'm pretty sure Starfleets "Ships of the Line" can too. However, this is a discussion for another thread :P.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
Cant say where you see all these galaxies running about cause as I said I rarely see one and if I do its mostly the Tier 4 not the tier 5 you have to pay for. I don't see a ton of different federation ships, I see alot of different ships split between the Feds, Klingons, Romulans, and lockbox ships. I mostly see the same Federation ships over and over, as in same type of science the Vesta, escorts are usually the Defiant, and cruisers are now the Avenger.
Honestly I don't understand your argument but probably never will. To say ppl should just deal with stuff in a game is to me weird. I just deal with stuff enough in real life and don't need that as a choice in the games I play for fun.
I'm starting to think ppl are scared to see others enjoying games or rather the chance of such occuring. Some seems to believe if its not a second job the Devs didn't do it right.
no, the galaxy retrofit do suck, this is something that can be explained and demonstrate.
and we already have done it, many time in this thread.
subjectivity daesn't come into play here, no matter how hard you try to make everyone else bielieve.
some do want to demonstrate that the galaxy should be better in this game using canon "evidence" right before pointing out it nonsense in cryptic own system already.
but this is not what is happening lately ( last 200 pages ), the echo chamber effect we experienced is only due to new people that come in the thread stating that it is normal that the ship suck because ( in their own opinion ) it suck in the serie.
that is where we use "canon" arguments that have already been enumerated a thousand time, this is a lost cause, the fight of subjectivity.
but that, however, daes not diminish, in any way, the fact that the galaxy retrofit DO suck.
again, nice attempt to try to proove that we are our own undoing.
but the true is that dev NEVER post in these kind of thread.... never.
that it was a galaxy, exelsior, or type8 shuttle thread make no difference, that there is something of value in it or not also make no difference.
the only thread where you will see devs posting are general system pvp thread, when they want feedback from experience player, period.
so if i anderstand you correctly, only unchallenging pve count and pvp is just the business of some 14 years old minmaxer right?
I DO want to be competitive in this game, and i am not ashame to said it, we usually call that pvp.
but we are not alone mind you, the elite pver also do competition with ACT numbers, and they also need efficient ship to complete no win scenario.
you need efficient ship to complete stf in less than 2 hours, you need efficient ship to get better loot.
and there nothing to feel ashame in that behavior, it is healthy.
we all try to go behond ourselves, it 's one of the most natural things in life.
it's how we learn to think on our feet and take our chances.
it's how we get to known our friends and understand our opponents.
this is fundamental, without it this game would be very lonely, and that is not the definition of an MMO.
so yes, it matter.
and if it is not matter to you, why did you oppose to it in the first place appart from the feeling that a better galaxy would steal something from you?
and if you want a reason why it should be upgrade, here it is, a ship that we paid should not be less efficient than one that we can obtain with a fistfull of EC.
proove it, i mean, seriously.... proove it.
their is no such things as a perfect solution.
and you will alway have people that will never be happy, that is in human nature, that is a fan nature.
but to said that the galaxy should not be enhanced because the solution will not be perfect?
just tell that YOU don't want it to be better, it would sound more true and less hypocritical.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
You are conflating two issues - the canon debate, which is subjective and also doesn't matter, and the balance debate, which is less subjective but still doesn't matter.
And I can't be more clear about that- your balance concerns are irrelevant, because I don't care in the slightest that you feel like it's "not fair" that other ships have shinier toys, because the only reason you can articulate for why that matters is your notion that you should compete with other players, even in cooperative PvE, and I reject that notion out of hand. I don't care that you disagree, because there is literally not one single thing you can ever say to change my mind, just like there is evidently nothing I will ever be able to say to make you understand that your viewpoint isn't the only valid one, nor the "most common", nor the "default", nor preferable for any number of reasons you might think it is.
The impasse here is always going to be you (collectively referring to Galaxy fans) need to impose your will on others to get what you want, and I reject your right to do so, since you can articulate zero reasons why I should beyond your personal, petty desires.
Did it occur to you that if people keep coming in with the "wrong" notion that the Galaxy should suck, that maybe, just maybe, it's not THEM that's wrong about how the ship is "properly" perceived? Even your attempt to respond here just proves my point - you keep thinking of this as a debate between the Galaxy fans who are "right" about what canon says, and the newcomers who need to be educated by the true believers. Again, it's the Galaxy fans who are seeking to impose a view on others, merely for their own benefit. It's distasteful.
So, you concede that there is zero chance this thread will ever have the desired effect? I'll grant that it's not a unique phenomenon to this thread, but it certainly seems like you've just admitted that this is nothing more than the idle venting of a small group of die-hard fans (which, in fact, is exactly what I think it is). My only question is, can I quote you the next time someone gets up in arms about there being no Dev response?
No, actually, you don't understand. My point is very simple - what matters is having fun. Further, I assert that if you couch your fun in terms of "doing better than other people", you are setting yourself up for disappointment (since you probably aren't actually better than other players), and you are acting a bit juvenile. PvP, PvE, whatever, it shouldn't matter if you are "winning" or "losing" versus other players, as long as the game itself is fun. If the game is NOT fun, and you can't enjoy it without feeling like a "winner", then go play something else.
Secondly, again, you've proven my point for me - I agree that self-improvement is a worthy goal, but you keep conflating improving over your previous best efforts to improving over someone else's results. In other words, you're not talking about self improvement at all - you're talking about improving your perceived ranking versus other players, and mistaking that for self improvement, which is sad.
I oppose it because I find the arguments in favor of changing the Galaxy to be non-persuasive, and I post because I find the arguments used distasteful enough to warrant a response.
Also, the reason you gave... isn't one. There's no rule that says that everyone has to agree that the cost of an item matches it's perceived value. So, no. Not persuasive.
Here's a thought - since the burden of proof is entirely on the side arguing for change, how about YOU prove that they are workable. Presumption is that the status quo is innocent until proven guilty. I don't think the suggestions put forward are workable, for any number of reasons, but ultimately, it doesn't even matter, since it's up to YOU to prove they are.
Yeah, I didn't say the solutions would not be perfect, I said I suspect they would either not work at all, or make the game worse. It's not a matter of making perfect the enemy of good, it's that your solutions have a long, long way to go before they become good in the first place.
And again, it's YOUR burden to prove that I'm wrong, since you're the one advocating change.