Nope can't say it. The church during the dark ages on Earth would have had the demonic devices burned. Also does anyone know that they recreated all of the technology or just what they felt like could hurt people with? Also how long were the Hur'q in control of Qo'nos? (Sorry at work, I can't watch the clip) During that time how much did they teach the reluctant klingon people? How far have they gotten since then growing the technology on thier own?
Well, honestly I don't know precisely how long the Hur'q invasion lasted, but it's a lore thing and I'm quite lazy atm to search for the references about this.
However, I'm pretty certain that the Hur'q were described more like a swarm of locusts - basically invading, killing everything on their path, pillaging the resources and riches and then going on their way to the next planet leaving a destert behind. From what I know (and I'm no expert), I don't think that the Hur'q would be the kind that is willing to teach the Klingons anything.
My favourite section of the Way of the Warrior was the klingon assault on the station. 80+ ships attacking. Over a dozen destroyed and boarders got in. The station gets it's legs back and challenges the armada. The klingons have twenty(?) ships coming as reinforcements. DS9 had five. That number of federation starships was enough to give pause to that armada for diplomacy to convince them the attack was a waste given a common enemy.
(Looking at the scenario, either klingon ships are very weak compared to federation ships. Or they should have reversed the reinforcements number. As is, it makes the klingons look way inferior.)
A few points. First of all, at that time the General Martok that was sitting next to Gowron was an infiltrated Founder. There is the possibilty of him sabotaging the entire operation to weaken the Klingons that were bound on invading Cardassia due to the possibilty of there being shapeshifters in the Cardassian government. So that may have been all the Founder's plot to weaken the Klingons, Cardassians and the Federation all in one blow. Something similar to what we have here in STO with the Undine/Iconians.
Secondly, DS9 was a battle ready space station. That's kinda' big thing to have on your side. DS9 managed to hold of a much much larger armada untill the evacuation is completed when the Dominion and Cardassians launched their attack.
So I think having a space station is a big strategic asset in such situations. I would completely expect the same outcome if the was the same ratio of Fed vs. KDF ships, but only this time the Federation attacking Ganalda Space Station.
Third and probably biggest point if you ask me. Hero crew and plot armor. DS9 had our hero crew onboard and the writers plot demanded for the attack to fail. We have seen many of those throughout Trek, a ship falling to Klingons only to spank the Borg later.
I'd say that neither Klingon nor Federation ships are inferior.
If Klingon ships were inferior, the Empire wouldn't be such an interstellar power and the Federation would have dealt with them easily during the previous times of conflict between them. The fact that they have been considered a potential threat during the entire Trek history(when they weren't in fact allies with the Federation) speaks the exact opposite.
On the other hand, many people are underestimating the power of Federation ships due to them being designated as 'Exploration' or 'Science Vessels' and due to the actions of their crews, which following the Federation ideals were allways looking for an opportunity to handle things in a peacefull manner and via diplomacy. Many people take this as weakness in Starfleet ships, but it couldn't be any further. Any of these ships is completely battle ready and nothing to be disregarded, especially not while having the support of a space station. Like I said, I expect the exact same outcome from the "Way of the warrior" if it was a Federation attack on a Klingon space station. Those are not that easy to defeat, especially if you want to keep the station afterwards and not blow it up.
Well, honestly I don't know precisely how long the Hur'q invasion lasted, but it's a lore thing and I'm quite lazy atm to search for the references about this.
However, I'm pretty certain that the Hur'q were described more like a swarm of locusts - basically invading, killing everything on their path, pillaging the resources and riches and then going on their way to the next planet leaving a destert behind. From what I know (and I'm no expert), I don't think that the Hur'q would be the kind that is willing to teach the Klingons anything.
A few points. First of all, at that time the General Martok that was sitting next to Gowron was an infiltrated Founder. There is the possibilty of him sabotaging the entire operation to weaken the Klingons that were bound on invading Cardassia due to the possibilty of there being shapeshifters in the Cardassian government. So that may have been all the Founder's plot to weaken the Klingons, Cardassians and the Federation all in one blow. Something similar to what we have here in STO with the Undine/Iconians.
Secondly, DS9 was a battle ready space station. That's kinda' big thing to have on your side. DS9 managed to hold of a much much larger armada untill the evacuation is completed when the Dominion and Cardassians launched their attack.
So I think having a space station is a big strategic asset in such situations. I would completely expect the same outcome if the was the same ratio of Fed vs. KDF ships, but only this time the Federation attacking Ganalda Space Station.
Third and probably biggest point if you ask me. Hero crew and plot armor. DS9 had our hero crew onboard and the writers plot demanded for the attack to fail. We have seen many of those throughout Trek, a ship falling to Klingons only to spank the Borg later.
I'd say that neither Klingon nor Federation ships are inferior.
If Klingon ships were inferior, the Empire wouldn't be such an interstellar power and the Federation would have dealt with them easily during the previous times of conflict between them. The fact that they have been considered a potential threat during the entire Trek history(when they weren't in fact allies with the Federation) speaks the exact opposite.
On the other hand, many people are underestimating the power of Federation ships due to them being designated as 'Exploration' or 'Science Vessels' and due to the actions of their crews, which following the Federation ideals were allways looking for an opportunity to handle things in a peacefull manner and via diplomacy. Many people take this as weakness in Starfleet ships, but it couldn't be any further. Any of these ships is completely battle ready and nothing to be disregarded, especially not while having the support of a space station. Like I said, I expect the exact same outcome from the "Way of the warrior" if it was a Federation attack on a Klingon space station. Those are not that easy to defeat, especially if you want to keep the station afterwards and not blow it up.
Can I just say how awesome it is to have Johnny Depp join the campaign for a better Galaxy... Loved Sweeny Todd.. (Sorry, I saw his Avatar and had to say it...)
I formally demand Cryptic rechristen a new Galaxy variant "Black Pearl Class"
Can I just say how awesome it is to have Johnny Depp join the campaign for a better Galaxy... Loved Sweeny Todd.. (Sorry, I saw his Avatar and had to say it...)
I formally demand Cryptic rechristen a new Galaxy variant "Black Pearl Class"
I think it would be a mirror ship.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
a slave driven space refinery, built be a race the federation beat up for giggles, that got retrofitted as a trade station.
a very nice example of "hero stats" from a show that gave everything the power of plot so there could be more explosions than jabrams flares without needing to replace the cast.
We come to plot armour again. And this seems to be the universal handwave of anything someone wants to ignore in canon discussions.
If we go by plot armour and spectacle as written so things can be ignored then there is no available discussion of how the Galaxy or anything in Star Trek should be.
Because for every time we see the Enterprise do well, we can reference how a brush to her nacelle sends her in a flat spin and blows her up.
Cardassian ships are tough and they fought wars with the federation and the Klingons. But one nebula with her shields turned off takes out three of them in a few minutes.
And Klingons are the biggest and baddest warriors out there, till they invade a ridiculous space station, then they lose knife fights to small unarmed women and blindly charge around corners to be cut down by two cardassians with phaser pistols.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
sophistry. you can whine about canon until the cows come home, especially in star trek where the stats flip-flop more than they do in dragonball z.
its pretty easy to represent the ships in game. take the game environment(eg, tech stats being irrelivent due to all end game ships having mk12 systems), then throw in some soft physics to make it sensible. rather than throwing the defiant or excelcior in a red cape & speedo's depending on what you want as flavour of the month.
and thats why you dont use it in gaming. because you get a **** storm due to senselessness.
the only real thing you can say against kdf ships is they tend to be smaller, and that would explain high numerical losses.
a 110meter b'rel is going to be squishy compaared to the bulkier defiant,
a 350 meter k'vort will make a defiant class do a magic trick in 2 shots.
both those ships are bop's.
Are you claiming any canon discussion is irrelevant or that my comment that we cannot pick and choose simply because a given plot made it so is irrelevant?
Personally I think what is wrong here is when looking at the trinity system they also did not restrict weapon and equipment properly. In fantasy games a rogue is a light fast fighter that can put out a high dps for a short time. But they have the smallest weapons and lightest armour to do so. Fighters carry the biggest weapons and the heaviest armour, so they hit hard and against multiple opponents for a long time. Mages have terrible weapons and virtually no armour, but use long range spells to break up groups and kill things with flashy pyrotechnics.
In STO everyone carries the same weapons, shields, and warpcores. Tiny little escorts often have more of those weapons. That is the broken mechanic. Sadly I do not see a way for them to correct the issue this late other than layer bandaids till the issue heals on it's own.
If we go with ignoring source material and look at it purely from where the ship appears in the game. Is it functional as is or is there an issue?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
there was at least 1 galaxy class on the way to the station. oh but those are toothless and suck, no one should give pause if one of those shows up :rolleyes:
Technical canon aside, these are pretty good indications how Starfleet ships, especially the Explorers, are seen by other people in-universe. There are numerous remarks about that, yet people still ignore that sentiment and I don't understand that. Is it just because of the terminology? Swatting aside all non-technobabble explanations like all those wars the federation prevailed through, all the on-screen lines of text? I agree with you, a rolleyes is adequate
a slave driven space refinery, built be a race the federation beat up for giggles, that got retrofitted as a trade station.
a very nice example of "hero stats" from a show that gave everything the power of plot so there could be more explosions than jabrams flares without needing to replace the cast.
Again, a misconception. Terak Nor was not only a refinery but also the garison of Bajor. That thing surpressed a planet. But even disregarding that, it's a space station. Even if it serves different purposes than waging war, it is an imobile object and as such has to rely on superior defenses especially if built by such a warlike people like the Cardassians.
I won't argue wether plot armour exists or not, it's a fact. Yet, not everything that's not labeled a battlewarfighter of doom is "weak", having superior defenses on a station that was even reinforced and refitted y Starfleet and Bajor afterwards as well as having Explorers sport heavy firepower and defensive systems is just common sense. Nobody says the one thing or the other would rival a specialized counterpart, but assuming those things are unable to fight back is not very wise.
^ 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
its a reference. it gives you an idea.
from that you apply thought to come up with a working game.
something you can NOT do if you throw flavour of the month hero stats around.
Either I am dense or you did not answer if a discussion about canon or my opinions were a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false.
no. the problem is that they used the ****ty antique trinity in a range of game environments it was never designed to deal with.
solo PvE, casual team PvE, lobbied team PvE, sandbox PvE, pvp, casual team pvp and lobbied pvp.
when the only thing the failbait antique trinity was designed to deal with was team pve in 3 to 12 man groups on a table-top, with dice.
Never heard of the trinity on a paper/pencil rpg. I had heard the term used as how the balance of classes was done in mmo fantasy computer games. Also the 'antique' trinity is not actually that far from reality. Everything sacrifices something to improve another ability. In real world they are called trade offs. Want a ship to be fast and really well gunned? It has thin armour. Want good armour and guns? It is slow. And fast with good armour has poorer weaponry. These are the balance elements used in designing naval ships since at least the second world war.
So the trinity balance is not poor in and of itself, but the way it is applied.
which is totally, completly, utterly, unmitigatably and glaringly obviously the wrong kind of system to apply to a game when every **** thing has 10km range.
Again, not wrong system. Misapplied system. Also the first thing wrong is the set range of all weapons. One of the balances of war has been accuracy over range. The well used WW2 battleship comparison comes up and shows the ships had 16+ mile ranges. They could shoot further than they could see. And at those ranges a battle could take hours to a day before anyone hit anything unless they were extremely lucky. Reliable accuracy has been a long road to achieve. And it required eliminating the big naval guns as the primary weapon and going to missile systems so they could be guided as they went.
How that would look with a level of balance here? Give torpedoes more accuracy at range. But you can only carry a finite amount determined by how big a ship you are. The energy weapons have good but not great fire power, diminishing accuracy the further out they go. But unlimited shots. (As long as you have power you can shoot back)
Such a design would require a complete rework of the current, limited, system or a whole new game. STO2 or the like.
see above for brief description of the incompetently myopic antique trinity that cant stretch to the range of environments it wasnt designed for.
its called volume derived stats, and the foundation (att/def/agl) model.
the same one rts games have been using for decades.
decades the mmorpg genra spent wallowed in its own filth! with no innovation and no change, except in scale, which has moved beyond the tollerence of the antiquated trinity model. but still having people trying to create WoW clones, and being afflicted by idiot execs that create sociopathic pay to win, then wonder why their shared entertainment/hobby drives away people that want to play a game.
Hmm, antique trinity. Antique: belonging to an earlier period, style, or fashion. Old and often valuable.
I am going to agree, the system is an antique. But not yet obsolete.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Can I just say how awesome it is to have Johnny Depp join the campaign for a better Galaxy... Loved Sweeny Todd.. (Sorry, I saw his Avatar and had to say it...)
Heh My favourite actor and 'Pirates of the Caribbean' are my favourite movies. Well the trilogy at least, the 4-th one was a bit of a overkill. Man, I laughed so hard at those, even more than any dedicated comedy, besides Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.
Anyway, he's incredible in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow, I haven't seen acting like that in a loong time.
Could you imagine a picture of Johnny Depp holding a whiteboard that says "I'm Johhny Depp and I support a revamped Galaxy class cruiser"!
I think you just came up with next summer's vessel.
Why not eh? We've had more ridiculous things in the game. *cough* Dino-lasers *cough*. Somewhere, a Cryptic dev is rubbing his hands in glee at reading this. This is a perfect attempt to show they are listening to us but STILL not give us the Galaxy we want.
I just tried the new STFs. And I really really hate them, for aesthetical reasons. I like the new rep style and I look forward to some of the rewards, but flying my Galaxy or Nebula through those structures just doesn't feel good. A frigate or shuttle could zip through that, but the new season really kills the classic Star Trek ships IMHO... EDIT: To clarify, I'm not talking about gameplay. I just hate flying my Starships through planetary atmospheres, basically.
EDIT2: I really want to fly the seperated saucer on planetary maps like this. Since it is supposed to have landing capability it should be capable of atmospheric flight. It could be a small craft/starship hybrid like the aquarius featuring 3/2 or 4/1 weapons, 30k-ish hull, 3/3/3 consoles, 13 turn or something like 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
We come to plot armour again. And this seems to be the universal handwave of anything someone wants to ignore in canon discussions.
If we go by plot armour and spectacle as written so things can be ignored then there is no available discussion of how the Galaxy or anything in Star Trek should be.
Because for every time we see the Enterprise do well, we can reference how a brush to her nacelle sends her in a flat spin and blows her up.
The truth is somewhere in between. Throughout the shows, especially the ones set in the 'TNG era' there are numerous references that can give us a clear idea of what is suposed to be what.
However, there's always the plot armor. That's nothing exclusive to ST. Star Trek is a show, therefore ment to entertain and under such circumistances having something established so hard, like for.ex let's say - Galaxy Class being the indestructible ship without any weakness, wouldn't be very entertaining without the plot armor. It will result with the TNG crew flying in, roflstomping everything in their way and saving the day in the same manner in each episode.
That's when the plot armor comes into play. Sometimes it's the Galaxy class' awesomeness that saves the day. Sometimes it's Picard with his delicate diplomacy and thoughtfullness. Sometimes it's Data because he's an android and can excite the audience with some action than no regular humaniod could preform. And so on and on, you get the idea.
One thing that is certain is that the plot armor would not allow for the hero cast to die, cause that would mean the end of the show. Sure, they can get rid of certain members to increase the suspense, like Tasha Yar, Jadzia Dax or Data in Nemessis, but you won't see the DS9 with the entire cast on board getting blown up by Gowron followed by Qapla'!
Now all of that said, there are consistencies throughout the shows on which one can base his/hers impressions of how are things suposed to work in ST.
Like for example the Galaxy class being the Federation's flagship. That point alone tells you that this is the heaviest ship they had built untill then. Because Gene's idea was not based on starships being flagships of fleets, or starships commanded by Admirals to be the flagships, but the Enterprise-D - an embodiment of Federation ideals, beliefs, power and technology was suposed to be 'the one' flagship that would be the face of the Federation.
Knowing all of this, regardless of some weird ideas people seem to have in these STO forums, you can be very certain that the Galaxy was build to be the heaviest, most advanced, hardest hitting and most armored ship in her time. The UFP wouldn't launch a flagship that could be pew-pewed by anyone because they are peacefull, because they are well aware that having their flagship destroyed like it's nothing would show weakness in a dangerous universe, especially with species like the Klingons on the border who don't respect weakness and would jump in on the opportunity to exploit it.
How does this translate in the game? It's simple - it doesn't. Canon has gone to the sharks in this game. And besides, the games are a different beast. They need a separate set of rules that would draw ideas from established canon, but apply them in the game in a manner that the gameplay of said game is suposed to work.
And that's the issue with STO. Cryptic messed things up. They decided that most of the ships could be T5, but being availible to have the same range/weapons/shields/etc. limits the variation in roles, especially within a certain class be it escort, cruiser or sci.vessels. Then they made the end-game content be resolved in the easiest possible way - you shoot more - you kill more - you loot more. That's what made things really wonky (in relation to canon) and enabled having an Excelsior that was superseded by an Ambassador, that was then superseded by the Galaxy, to be in fact more useful and powerfull in STO than the Galaxy. Because the Galaxy has a different role, a role that the end-game content is not tailored to.
But it doesn't stop there. Now because of their wonky ranking system, we're having ships trip all over each other. Just take a look at the Regent and then the Avenger.
This is just part of the reason why, unfortunatelly to me, the canon is not aplicable in STO any more. What we're doing here, or at least what I'm doing here is pushing an idea and voicing a concern that regardless of how far away from canon this game is - a ship that beared the name "Enterprise", a ship that has more time on air than any other and a hero ship in the entire TNG - the show that brought back Trek simply shouldn't be the most useless ship in the game. Especially when the first Galaxy created still has good 50 years to go behind her name in the timeframe STO is set in.
Cardassian ships are tough and they fought wars with the federation and the Klingons. But one nebula with her shields turned off takes out three of them in a few minutes.
And Klingons are the biggest and baddest warriors out there, till they invade a ridiculous space station, then they lose knife fights to small unarmed women and blindly charge around corners to be cut down by two cardassians with phaser pistols.
Starfleet ships have been portrayed to be vastly superior to Cardassian ships. And this is comming from a Cardassian fan and someone that has been begging and waiting for a Cardie faction in STO for years.
The only reason the Federation didn't roflstomp the Cardassians is because the Feds. are not like that. They'd rather try to peacefully show the Cardassians the wrong in their ways and slowly convince them to join the UFP than go on all out conquest. It's not the Federation's thing.
The Klingons went to invade Cardassia with only a fraction of their forces. And they would have succeeded if Sisko didn't warn Dukat about the impending invasion. Cardassian ships are by no means weaksauce, but the fact is that the Cardassians didn't have much experience in waging superwars against advesaries with empires similar in size to their own before the conflict with the Federation, which they lost.
As to the other - I'm gonna refer to plot armor again. For ex. the Klingons are established as the fiercest warriors in the Quadrant, but they lose a knife fight against a woman only to show how great said woman is. "Look, she beat up Klingons!!!".
If we go with ignoring source material and look at it purely from where the ship appears in the game. Is it functional as is or is there an issue?
Yes, it functional. But then again, in STO at end game any tier of ships has proven to be functional. Heck, I can do the new Voth content by headdesking on my keyboard hitting 'space' with my forehead. But that's another issue the game is having.
So in terms of gameplay and end-game content, if the question is wheather it's functional? The answer would be - yes it is. I can do any content in my Galaxy-R.
Compared to other player ships of the same tier - it's very lackluster. There's where the issues come from. I literally spent a ton of Zen and EC, spent an ungodly amount of time and grinded the entire grind just to make my Galaxy usefull in a group. Note the word 'usefull'. Not better, not the best, but merely usefull. The issue is when I hop on my Excelsior, a ship that has the same Zen price and I can do everything I do with the Galaxy, but with weaker equipment, regular Boffs and random Doffs not tailored for years to fit the ship.
I get it. There has to be one ship that will somehow end as 'the weakest' in Cryptic's model. But we're talking about the frickin' Galaxy here, this shouldn't be 'that ship' by any stretch.
I just tried the new STFs. And I really really hate them, for aesthetical reasons. I like the new rep style and I look forward to some of the rewards, but flying my Galaxy or Nebula through those structures just doesn't feel good. A frigate or shuttle could zip through that, but the new season really kills the classic Star Trek ships IMHO... EDIT: To clarify, I'm not talking about gameplay. I just hate flying my Starships through planetary atmospheres, basically.
Heh I'm like you on that one, flying starships through atmospheres just feels weird to me and not something I was looking forward to. I prefer the darkness of space. :cool:
I think you just came up with next summer's vessel.
I certainly hope so. That particular ship caught my attention ever since the first time I saw it in DS9. The concept of the Bajorans exploring space so far back in their history as well as the concept of using the solar power and solar winds as means of propulsion always seemed interesting and exciting to me.
TBH, i don't care if one ship has the same BOFF/Console layout as another ship in gameWhen i fly a ship i like, couldn't care less if the next ship has the same BOFF layout.
My whole point was about the silliness they have about non-factional ships the number of non-factional ships is starting to near the amount of KDF vessels, there is something really wrong with that. BOffs and Consoles are only one aspect of that. As far as not caring if ships having same consoles and layouts, why not just buy the ship that has the setup you like and buying holograms to make them look like another ship?
No, just Cryptics sense of "coolness".
Each of those 3 bridges are so much out of scale, you could put 4 "real" sized Galaxy Bridges in one of them, lol.
Every interior is out of scale, the Defiant looks spacious as well as the other ships too. I think the only properly scaled interior is the Constitution.
EDIT:
In-universe the Defiant was (just like the venegance) a try to militarize Starfleet. But this is not Starfleets way. They are Explorers defending the federation is only one of MANY other dutys they do perform.
Have you ever though why Starfleet ships have such a big volumina compared to Klingon or Romulan ships (canon, not Cryptics weird creations)?
I would argue that the Borg and Dominion changed the perspective that the Federation has taken to Starfleet. Much of the militarization is due to necessity for a more hostile universe.
There was no negotiation with the Borg, and the Federation was not in a position of strength of firepower when dealing with the Dominion. There Federation was somewhat complacent with its environment and had to make a serious change to survive. Honestly, the Federation should have a military/defense fleet in addition to the exploration ships that we saw.
Yes, it functional. But then again, in STO at end game any tier of ships has proven to be functional. Heck, I can do the new Voth content by headdesking on my keyboard hitting 'space' with my forehead. But that's another issue the game is having.
I agree with all you said, save for this. My issue is that cruisers from T1-T3 had a steady climb in ability and power. At each step I bought dilithium and got the weapons and mods off the dilithium store to make the ship that much more at each tier. At tier 4 I left my T3 Excelsior for my beautiful Galaxy and even with Mk VIII weapons and gear was getting my head handed to me on a platter. Same build as my Excelsior, just a higher tier. Used my Excelsior as a test and sure enough it was doing better on the same mission I was losing in my Galaxy. T5 hits and I got the next ship up that looks an aweful lot like the SW Phantom something ship. And it was better than the Excel. So the Galaxy took a dive in progression. That is why I support this thread.
Canon can tell us pretty things.
But game progression is where it misses the mark.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
the problem is not that some galaxy fan want that everyone be in line with the idea that the galaxy should be the best ship ever.
the problem is not that the non galaxy fan want that everyone be in line with the idea that the galaxy should be an inneficient brick.
in the end that is irrelevant.
what is relevant in the end, is that a compagny that design MMO do not use these bias point of view to intentionally make a ship bad in everyway just because they don't want it to be as good than an other ( here the sovereign ).
this is acceptable in a solo game where the player have acces to these ship in the progression of the game.
this is not acceptable in an MMO where ships should be as efficient as others but in different way, and not outright bad in everything... just because.
The ship was usable at launch, even counting the Assault Cruisers abilities at the time. The problem was that they upped the ante' on tac and science without considering engineering
forget about canon, forget that we are talking about a galaxy or sovereign, call them robert and peter if you want.
even without canon the problem is still here, there is no reason why robert should be les efficient than peter, but also less efficient than marie, lucie, gerard,ngyuen and brian.
That's fine, I have been trying to keep things pragmatic and not totally tied to a perspective view of canon I just wish other people would be more pragmatic, the fact is that it will never happen.
The ships should be equally efficient, but distinctive, making everything a tactical/science boat is the "me too" solution. I see bigger and better options if Cryptic would get cracking at it.
the engeneer class do need a revamp indeed, but this has nothing to do with the galaxy problem.
the galaxy is not useless because he suffer engeneer ineficiency.
the galaxy is useless because their is nothing he can do differently then other cruiser that are also engie heavy.
an enhanced engie galaxy would still be useless against an enhanced engie star cruiser.
in a role point of view there is nothing that you can do with a galaxy that you can not do with a star cruiser.
an ambassador can do things that a star cruiser can't because of it ltcommander sci.
why is this so difficult to anderstand?
better engie power may help your exelsior indeed, but will not give the galaxy a role, that for sure.
I disagree, The Galaxy does suffer from engineer inefficiency, the skills are inefficient in comparison to other classes and it has the most engineer skills and consoles. Make the skills and consoles more useful, with the Explorers holding the engineers cards, and it will be useful.
the bo layout in conjonction with turn and inertia determines the role of a ship, not the efficiency of it specific career power.
engineer-heavy cruiser is not a role it a class of ship, if it were, every cruiser would have the same role then.
stating that the role of the galaxy should be engie heavy cruiser daesn't mean anything.
this is not a fight to make cruiser closing the gap in term of firepower with escort, this is to make the galaxy a real choice in end game cruiser.
this guy said it better than me.
and i would concluded by... other than beeing a bad star cruiser clone.... with a galaxy skin.
Actually all of those aspects form the ships capabilities and thus determines the ships role. A ship that has effective engineering wizardry in a system that has parity with the other aspects is able to plow its way through and improve its offensive capabilities through engineering to help cut down its foes.
The ship was usable at launch, even counting the Assault Cruisers abilities at the time. The problem was that they upped the ante' on tac and science without considering engineering
the ship wasn't available at launch, only a tier 4 galaxy was along with the star cruiser.
the galaxy retrofit was introduced to the game when season 2: ancient enemy appear, along with the defiant retrofit and the intrepid, all 3 available with a token granted to you by leveling to the new level 50 ( or more exactly level 51 at that time ) or by direct purchase to the cstore.
that being said, to be usable, is not sufficient to be on part with other ship or worthy of a tier5 status.
tier 4 and 3 ships are also "usable"... like we already said a thousand time.
even at that time it was already a bad star cruiser clone.
The ships should be equally efficient, but distinctive, making everything a tactical/science boat is the "me too" solution. I see bigger and better options if Cryptic would get cracking at it.
but this is just pure conjecture, and so much on an concept level idea since no one have been able to clearly articulate what a "better and bigger" engi power would look like appart from just down some power to ensign level.
and it is also something that cryptic haven't got in mind since they rebuild the DDeridex bo layout for that reason, began the introduction of hybrid ship, and that the last 6 base turn ship introduced to the game are no engie heavy anymore.
would they do a complete refit to engie power, so drasticly, that it would at the same time changing the original role of all the ships that use them heavily? i don't think so.
so whatare the other choices left then?
I disagree, The Galaxy does suffer from engineer inefficiency, the skills are inefficient in comparison to other classes and it has the most engineer skills and consoles. Make the skills and consoles more useful, with the Explorers holding the engineers cards, and it will be useful.
of course the galaxy suffer engineer ineficiency, that is what we are talking about in this thread since 400 pages!!!
my point was that this is irrelevant to the role problem of the galaxy.
the galaxy is not "roleless " because he suffer ensign engie cooldown and poor efficiency engi power.
so is the star cruiser and the exelsior btw, and these one are not roleless.
it is "roleless" because he is too much carrier specific wich condamne him to not be able to do things differently than what a star cruiser can.
what the galaxy can do, the star cruiser can do also, but on the other hand, what the star cruiser can do, the galaxy CAN'T!!
being too much carrier specific is not good for any ship, the defiant is a good example of that with it 3 tactical ensign slot, and no one is calling for a revamp of tactical abilities to change that.
Actually all of those aspects form the ships capabilities and thus determines the ships role. A ship that has effective engineering wizardry in a system that has parity with the other aspects is able to plow its way through and improve its offensive capabilities through engineering to help cut down its foes.
no, effective engineering wizardry will improve.... efficiency.
just that.
in no way it will determine or change the ship role in comparison to what it was before.
turn rate and bo layout will do that.
give the galaxy +10 turn, a ltcommander tact and 2 lt commander sci for example and his role would be completely different.
give him more efficient engi power, and his role would not change for a bit.
yes, we are talking about role here, not efficiency.
and i have trouble to anderstand in what way more efficient engi power will improve its offensive abilitie other than making those abilitie more tactically oriented.
to me it look like an "me too" solution you were talking about.
before there were doffs, the galaxy was actually even more bad then it is now comparatively. its usefulness compared to the simple assault or star cruiser is much closer then it was when it launched. but at the same time theres been so many newer cruisers added that the space between best and worst is absolutely massive now.
false dichotomy.
canon when applied to a game, is a general guide, not a set blueprint.
I can accept that. It is when the guide is apparently ignored that people are the most upset.
you having heard of D&D?
regardless, rpg board games are the sourse of the attacker/defender/healer trinity, in computer games the dice rolls are simulated, this system was much more tolerant of latency and limited data rates that the systems used in shooters. hence its early success.
Played since AD&D, even tried to do a classic original game. Disliked that. Still had not heard of the 'trinity' of classes prior to EQ.
no. its just antiquated.
Making me quote princess bride here. "I don't think that word means what you think it means." As in a more accurate for your arguement would be obsolete.
it cant deal with the scale of modern computer games.
how do you challenge the 'defender' class without npc's ohking the attacker?
how do you challenge the 'attacker' without dps walling the defender?
how do you challenge the 'healer' without going so far as making it iether useless or immortal?
thats just one place the mechanical antiquation of the antique trinity shows.
it forces middling npc design that none of the classes find challenging, because it cant adapt to all at once due to how dynamic modern games are.
The same RPS system in NPC's as you use for PC's. In a modern game we should worry about a cloaked BoP decloaking and firing a more deadly surprise attack while we are slugging it out with a cruiser. The science ship should alert us that we need to be ready for when he uses his holds, environmental damage, and confuses on us. Challenge the tactics not the hitpoints directly.
not to mention... thats not how warships where designed. its just a side effect of the square-cube law.
Yes and no. I have had more than a few discussions with a naval ship designer and yes it is a consideration. I shall ask him if they referenced square-cube as well and get back to you on that.
barely accurate.
you are right, it is misapplied, its being applied to an environment it can not deal with because it was only designed for half a dozen friends sitting around a table rolling dice to kill monsters.
aka, 3 to 12 man pre-set team PvE.
which is only a small part of sto.
in this game everything (bar a few abilities) have a 10 km range.
as much as i would very much like to see otherwise thanks to the application of the volume based stats you are talking about.
I believe we disagree here on how it is applied, and I do think a few modern computer games do things well. I adored how the sniper weapons worked in ME as well as most of the other weapons. I think making each weapon and piece of gear have it's own stats and abilities can improve dynamic and can be done within a trinity frame work. It just takes more effort on both the designers as well as the players.
irrelevant to this game.
startrek weapons are tachyonic particle weapons, mounted on spaceships. not chemically propelled shells.
A parallel of accuracy versus damage does not need to be identical. Also as an accuracy statement, both for the guide that canon provides and challenge for compelling game play accuracy is a factor. If you can never miss then it is never about tactics it is who has thicker armour and who shot first.
you are conflating antique items with mechanical antiquation.
the trinity system doent work in sto for the same reason a wright flyer wont be a transatlantic passenger jet.
its too outmoded and wast designed to work that way.
Since the wright flyer was not a multi passenger vehicle for long distance travel, no I would not make that comparison. But as a system, the trinity is not the obsolete to be put in a museum, item as you see it. But a concept that needs to be better thought out before applying to any system.
Let me try a pen and paper example of poor trinity work.
Rogue, fighter, cleric. Standard trinity examples. But the rogue has been given a greatsword he can use at the same speed and abilites as he does a dagger. And he may wear chainmail with no penalty. The fighter we decided will use only shortswords because we know he is tough and has alot of hit points. So he does not need to hit back much. And those hit points look pretty good so yeah restrict him to chain as well. Cleric, we know this guy does the healing and we gave him all the level one abilities. along with a shortsword and chain.
In the example I just gave (yes I was breaking things) the rogue is much more powerful than the trinity says fast and hitting harder than any other version. And tougher too.
The fighter/tank is squishier and putting out less damage than regular versions do. But we will still call him the tank.
The cleric has a smattering of his job. Seems he is mostly using his heals to hope the fighter gets lucky enough to out last the rogue in a fight. He also has as much attack and defense as the fighter which takes away the unique effect the fighter is supposed to bring.
Is it a failure of the system? Or a failure to use the system to define a role and how they should be used?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
pleasing trekkies with even with trek is like trying to herd rabid zombie cats.
:(:eek: hmm. Nope sorry I have nothing to argue with this statement.
interesting... the entire basis for the term comes from the primary 'class' archytypes.
Doesn't change that I only ever first heard the term much later. I will have to hang that one up with a different regions thought.
you mean RTS system?
yea, rts system gives the same stats to player entities as it does ai entities. but thats not what we have here by a long shot unfortunatly.
No I meant RPS. As in Rock Paper Scissors. Different things to defeat different opponents.
... no.
they way you win is by killing the target. not by getting killed.
thats another example of why the antique trinity is beyond its usefulness.
a dead target has had 100% of its possible dps mitigated.
making the attacker types better at damage mitigation than so called "tanks".
I shall assume this argument comes from misunderstanding my point. In current pve, a bop is just a minor target. Larger 'tanky' ships are ore a challenge as they need more time to take down. There is nothing inherently different in the npcs. How they should be is how they are made/used in pvp. This way a pve build is neary if not as effective in pvp as it is in pve. Also it makes people use different tactics to win in combat as opposed to mash B button ad nausea.
ME wasnt trinity based.
every class was attacker type with self healing abilities.
only thing that changed was HOW the classes did damage to targets.
there where no dedicated healers in ME, now where there any dedicated defenders.
Again off my point. I was speaking to liking the balance effect of they didn't balance everything to one set of parameters. IE the sniper rifle was not a slightly longer range weapon. It was a significantly longer range weapon, with great damage. The drawback built into them was speed of fire. You could not maintain fire for long at all. Moving and shooting accurately? Also unlikely. So the tactic is to let a sniper fire then charge the position dodging and weaving or have a sniper to counter sniper. Tactics to overcome a ability as opposed to a flat nerf or make all weapons essentially the same.
In this case I am arguing that a system can use many ranges and abilities and not be tied to narrow scopes.
and the trinity was never designed to simultaniously deal with solo pve(most of sto content) pug pve(random queue stf stuff) lobbied pve(premade stf stuff) sandbox pve (defera & sphere) pug pvp (random pvp queue) lobbied pvp (premade pvp) sandbox pvp (kerrat zone)
this game has ALL those environments, and the thing the antiquated trinity was designed of was just one of those, that being lobbied/premade PvE.
I agree the game has all those environments. I disagree that the balance system is what is broken in making these things work.
In a fantasy game the rogue does not have the big weapons and armour, nor does the mage. They are not the 'only' path to dps or success. EACH class has it's own method of achieving success and they can work solo or in teams. A well set up counter system means you can have one pve/pvp build and function.
Rogues move through and use stealth to maximize a first hit. Afterward their damage drops to painfully low levels and their next set of skills are getting away from attackers again.
Tanks don't have the raw single hit of a rogue but finish enemies by beating them down faster than they themselves are beaten down.
Mage types use control and ranged effects to bring down foes. If they are hitting people with their staff then something has gone wrong.
healer's meanwhile have a different approach to outlasting an opponent. They repair their own damage. meaning a big hit that a fighter could take will drop a healer. But lot's of small hits are easier for the healer to overcome.
That is all solo pve/p.
In a group, the rogue can do two things. Get initial attention a 'pull' a mob to a group. Or circle an active fight and look for openings to drop single targets.
The fighter works to keep attention on himself beating on the primary target.
The mage controls the surrounding mobs keeping them from ganging up on our fighter.
the healer watches everyone and keeps them alive. The healer role is the most straight translation between the two.
How I see to make things balanced, again, is to make the npc's operate the same way a pc would. Not just bludgeon with weapon till slain. Rogues avoid fire then hit with hard shots. Tanks duel it out with other tanks and the mage makes people swear at their monitors. It was mentioned by others that the current pve is too easy. That is another sign of the system not being used properly or evenly.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
the ship wasn't available at launch, only a tier 4 galaxy was along with the star cruiser.
the galaxy retrofit was introduced to the game when season 2: ancient enemy appear, along with the defiant retrofit and the intrepid, all 3 available with a token granted to you by leveling to the new level 50 ( or more exactly level 51 at that time ) or by direct purchase to the cstore.
that being said, to be usable, is not sufficient to be on part with other ship or worthy of a tier5 status.
tier 4 and 3 ships are also "usable"... like we already said a thousand time.
even at that time it was already a bad star cruiser clone.
I used the wrong word there. I meant when the Galaxy-R was launched and I did state that it was usable. One could put DBB's on it and have some fun when the saucer was seperated.
but this is just pure conjecture, and so much on an concept level idea since no one have been able to clearly articulate what a "better and bigger" engi power would look like appart from just down some power to ensign level.
and it is also something that cryptic haven't got in mind since they rebuild the DDeridex bo layout for that reason, began the introduction of hybrid ship, and that the last 6 base turn ship introduced to the game are no engie heavy anymore.
would they do a complete refit to engie power, so drasticly, that it would at the same time changing the original role of all the ships that use them heavily? i don't think so.
so whatare the other choices left then?
i am pretty sure you have seen what I have put forth in the past on my suggested improvements. As far as conjecture, everything is conjecture until it happens.
of course the galaxy suffer engineer ineficiency, that is what we are talking about in this thread since 400 pages!!!
my point was that this is irrelevant to the role problem of the galaxy.
the galaxy is not "roleless " because he suffer ensign engie cooldown and poor efficiency engi power.
so is the star cruiser and the exelsior btw, and these one are not roleless.
it is "roleless" because he is too much carrier specific wich condamne him to not be able to do things differently than what a star cruiser can.
what the galaxy can do, the star cruiser can do also, but on the other hand, what the star cruiser can do, the galaxy CAN'T!!
being too much carrier specific is not good for any ship, the defiant is a good example of that with it 3 tactical ensign slot, and no one is calling for a revamp of tactical abilities to change that.
Because tactical abilities aren't as much of a liability as engie abilities are right now. In regards to "role-less" because of career (engineer) specific skills, thats exactly what I was saying. Now, Cryptic could try to address it by making it another "me too" ship or make an engie heavy cruiser more effective by working on those skills and console choices. Otherwise the fixes that people want make it a Regent or Ambassador wanabee, and that would be a bigger disservice to the ship.
no, effective engineering wizardry will improve.... efficiency.
just that.
in no way it will determine or change the ship role in comparison to what it was before.
turn rate and bo layout will do that.
give the galaxy +10 turn, a ltcommander tact and 2 lt commander sci for example and his role would be completely different.
give him more efficient engi power, and his role would not change for a bit.
yes, we are talking about role here, not efficiency.
and i have trouble to anderstand in what way more efficient engi power will improve its offensive abilitie other than making those abilitie more tactically oriented.
to me it look like an "me too" solution you were talking about.
If they were to make higher end (CMDR,LTCMDR) engie skills (EPTX) to up the energy caps, namely to weapons (EPTW) and a cruiser could hit at, say, 150 power for a time, that would most certainly improve its offensive capability. Make Aceton beam someothing other than a joke and that improves its offensive capability. And (even though DDIS disagrees with me) up high ranking DEM output and that increases the ships offensive capability. ANd thats just for starters.
As far as a 10+ turn on a Galaxy class, really? Do you really think that should happen? Thats better than the Assault, Advanced Heavy and the Battlecruiser have.
Comments
Well, honestly I don't know precisely how long the Hur'q invasion lasted, but it's a lore thing and I'm quite lazy atm to search for the references about this.
However, I'm pretty certain that the Hur'q were described more like a swarm of locusts - basically invading, killing everything on their path, pillaging the resources and riches and then going on their way to the next planet leaving a destert behind. From what I know (and I'm no expert), I don't think that the Hur'q would be the kind that is willing to teach the Klingons anything.
A few points. First of all, at that time the General Martok that was sitting next to Gowron was an infiltrated Founder. There is the possibilty of him sabotaging the entire operation to weaken the Klingons that were bound on invading Cardassia due to the possibilty of there being shapeshifters in the Cardassian government. So that may have been all the Founder's plot to weaken the Klingons, Cardassians and the Federation all in one blow. Something similar to what we have here in STO with the Undine/Iconians.
Secondly, DS9 was a battle ready space station. That's kinda' big thing to have on your side. DS9 managed to hold of a much much larger armada untill the evacuation is completed when the Dominion and Cardassians launched their attack.
So I think having a space station is a big strategic asset in such situations. I would completely expect the same outcome if the was the same ratio of Fed vs. KDF ships, but only this time the Federation attacking Ganalda Space Station.
Third and probably biggest point if you ask me. Hero crew and plot armor. DS9 had our hero crew onboard and the writers plot demanded for the attack to fail. We have seen many of those throughout Trek, a ship falling to Klingons only to spank the Borg later.
I'd say that neither Klingon nor Federation ships are inferior.
If Klingon ships were inferior, the Empire wouldn't be such an interstellar power and the Federation would have dealt with them easily during the previous times of conflict between them. The fact that they have been considered a potential threat during the entire Trek history(when they weren't in fact allies with the Federation) speaks the exact opposite.
On the other hand, many people are underestimating the power of Federation ships due to them being designated as 'Exploration' or 'Science Vessels' and due to the actions of their crews, which following the Federation ideals were allways looking for an opportunity to handle things in a peacefull manner and via diplomacy. Many people take this as weakness in Starfleet ships, but it couldn't be any further. Any of these ships is completely battle ready and nothing to be disregarded, especially not while having the support of a space station. Like I said, I expect the exact same outcome from the "Way of the warrior" if it was a Federation attack on a Klingon space station. Those are not that easy to defeat, especially if you want to keep the station afterwards and not blow it up.
Can I just say how awesome it is to have Johnny Depp join the campaign for a better Galaxy... Loved Sweeny Todd..
I formally demand Cryptic rechristen a new Galaxy variant "Black Pearl Class"
I think it would be a mirror ship.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
We come to plot armour again. And this seems to be the universal handwave of anything someone wants to ignore in canon discussions.
If we go by plot armour and spectacle as written so things can be ignored then there is no available discussion of how the Galaxy or anything in Star Trek should be.
Because for every time we see the Enterprise do well, we can reference how a brush to her nacelle sends her in a flat spin and blows her up.
Cardassian ships are tough and they fought wars with the federation and the Klingons. But one nebula with her shields turned off takes out three of them in a few minutes.
And Klingons are the biggest and baddest warriors out there, till they invade a ridiculous space station, then they lose knife fights to small unarmed women and blindly charge around corners to be cut down by two cardassians with phaser pistols.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Mirror Galaxy... MAKE IT HAPPEN XD
Are you claiming any canon discussion is irrelevant or that my comment that we cannot pick and choose simply because a given plot made it so is irrelevant?
Personally I think what is wrong here is when looking at the trinity system they also did not restrict weapon and equipment properly. In fantasy games a rogue is a light fast fighter that can put out a high dps for a short time. But they have the smallest weapons and lightest armour to do so. Fighters carry the biggest weapons and the heaviest armour, so they hit hard and against multiple opponents for a long time. Mages have terrible weapons and virtually no armour, but use long range spells to break up groups and kill things with flashy pyrotechnics.
In STO everyone carries the same weapons, shields, and warpcores. Tiny little escorts often have more of those weapons. That is the broken mechanic. Sadly I do not see a way for them to correct the issue this late other than layer bandaids till the issue heals on it's own.
If we go with ignoring source material and look at it purely from where the ship appears in the game. Is it functional as is or is there an issue?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Technical canon aside, these are pretty good indications how Starfleet ships, especially the Explorers, are seen by other people in-universe. There are numerous remarks about that, yet people still ignore that sentiment and I don't understand that. Is it just because of the terminology? Swatting aside all non-technobabble explanations like all those wars the federation prevailed through, all the on-screen lines of text? I agree with you, a rolleyes is adequate
Again, a misconception. Terak Nor was not only a refinery but also the garison of Bajor. That thing surpressed a planet. But even disregarding that, it's a space station. Even if it serves different purposes than waging war, it is an imobile object and as such has to rely on superior defenses especially if built by such a warlike people like the Cardassians.
I won't argue wether plot armour exists or not, it's a fact. Yet, not everything that's not labeled a battlewarfighter of doom is "weak", having superior defenses on a station that was even reinforced and refitted y Starfleet and Bajor afterwards as well as having Explorers sport heavy firepower and defensive systems is just common sense. Nobody says the one thing or the other would rival a specialized counterpart, but assuming those things are unable to fight back is not very wise.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Either I am dense or you did not answer if a discussion about canon or my opinions were a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false.
Never heard of the trinity on a paper/pencil rpg. I had heard the term used as how the balance of classes was done in mmo fantasy computer games. Also the 'antique' trinity is not actually that far from reality. Everything sacrifices something to improve another ability. In real world they are called trade offs. Want a ship to be fast and really well gunned? It has thin armour. Want good armour and guns? It is slow. And fast with good armour has poorer weaponry. These are the balance elements used in designing naval ships since at least the second world war.
So the trinity balance is not poor in and of itself, but the way it is applied.
Again, not wrong system. Misapplied system. Also the first thing wrong is the set range of all weapons. One of the balances of war has been accuracy over range. The well used WW2 battleship comparison comes up and shows the ships had 16+ mile ranges. They could shoot further than they could see. And at those ranges a battle could take hours to a day before anyone hit anything unless they were extremely lucky. Reliable accuracy has been a long road to achieve. And it required eliminating the big naval guns as the primary weapon and going to missile systems so they could be guided as they went.
How that would look with a level of balance here? Give torpedoes more accuracy at range. But you can only carry a finite amount determined by how big a ship you are. The energy weapons have good but not great fire power, diminishing accuracy the further out they go. But unlimited shots. (As long as you have power you can shoot back)
Such a design would require a complete rework of the current, limited, system or a whole new game. STO2 or the like.
Hmm, antique trinity. Antique: belonging to an earlier period, style, or fashion. Old and often valuable.
I am going to agree, the system is an antique. But not yet obsolete.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Heh
Anyway, he's incredible in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow, I haven't seen acting like that in a loong time.
Could you imagine a picture of Johnny Depp holding a whiteboard that says "I'm Johhny Depp and I support a revamped Galaxy class cruiser"!
No, that would be a Bajoran Solar-sail ship. A true pirate has to have his sails!
I think you just came up with next summer's vessel.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Why not eh? We've had more ridiculous things in the game. *cough* Dino-lasers *cough*. Somewhere, a Cryptic dev is rubbing his hands in glee at reading this. This is a perfect attempt to show they are listening to us but STILL not give us the Galaxy we want.
EDIT2: I really want to fly the seperated saucer on planetary maps like this. Since it is supposed to have landing capability it should be capable of atmospheric flight. It could be a small craft/starship hybrid like the aquarius featuring 3/2 or 4/1 weapons, 30k-ish hull, 3/3/3 consoles, 13 turn or something like that.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The truth is somewhere in between. Throughout the shows, especially the ones set in the 'TNG era' there are numerous references that can give us a clear idea of what is suposed to be what.
However, there's always the plot armor. That's nothing exclusive to ST. Star Trek is a show, therefore ment to entertain and under such circumistances having something established so hard, like for.ex let's say - Galaxy Class being the indestructible ship without any weakness, wouldn't be very entertaining without the plot armor. It will result with the TNG crew flying in, roflstomping everything in their way and saving the day in the same manner in each episode.
That's when the plot armor comes into play. Sometimes it's the Galaxy class' awesomeness that saves the day. Sometimes it's Picard with his delicate diplomacy and thoughtfullness. Sometimes it's Data because he's an android and can excite the audience with some action than no regular humaniod could preform. And so on and on, you get the idea.
One thing that is certain is that the plot armor would not allow for the hero cast to die, cause that would mean the end of the show. Sure, they can get rid of certain members to increase the suspense, like Tasha Yar, Jadzia Dax or Data in Nemessis, but you won't see the DS9 with the entire cast on board getting blown up by Gowron followed by Qapla'!
Now all of that said, there are consistencies throughout the shows on which one can base his/hers impressions of how are things suposed to work in ST.
Like for example the Galaxy class being the Federation's flagship. That point alone tells you that this is the heaviest ship they had built untill then. Because Gene's idea was not based on starships being flagships of fleets, or starships commanded by Admirals to be the flagships, but the Enterprise-D - an embodiment of Federation ideals, beliefs, power and technology was suposed to be 'the one' flagship that would be the face of the Federation.
Knowing all of this, regardless of some weird ideas people seem to have in these STO forums, you can be very certain that the Galaxy was build to be the heaviest, most advanced, hardest hitting and most armored ship in her time. The UFP wouldn't launch a flagship that could be pew-pewed by anyone because they are peacefull, because they are well aware that having their flagship destroyed like it's nothing would show weakness in a dangerous universe, especially with species like the Klingons on the border who don't respect weakness and would jump in on the opportunity to exploit it.
How does this translate in the game? It's simple - it doesn't. Canon has gone to the sharks in this game. And besides, the games are a different beast. They need a separate set of rules that would draw ideas from established canon, but apply them in the game in a manner that the gameplay of said game is suposed to work.
And that's the issue with STO. Cryptic messed things up. They decided that most of the ships could be T5, but being availible to have the same range/weapons/shields/etc. limits the variation in roles, especially within a certain class be it escort, cruiser or sci.vessels. Then they made the end-game content be resolved in the easiest possible way - you shoot more - you kill more - you loot more. That's what made things really wonky (in relation to canon) and enabled having an Excelsior that was superseded by an Ambassador, that was then superseded by the Galaxy, to be in fact more useful and powerfull in STO than the Galaxy. Because the Galaxy has a different role, a role that the end-game content is not tailored to.
But it doesn't stop there. Now because of their wonky ranking system, we're having ships trip all over each other. Just take a look at the Regent and then the Avenger.
This is just part of the reason why, unfortunatelly to me, the canon is not aplicable in STO any more. What we're doing here, or at least what I'm doing here is pushing an idea and voicing a concern that regardless of how far away from canon this game is - a ship that beared the name "Enterprise", a ship that has more time on air than any other and a hero ship in the entire TNG - the show that brought back Trek simply shouldn't be the most useless ship in the game. Especially when the first Galaxy created still has good 50 years to go behind her name in the timeframe STO is set in.
Starfleet ships have been portrayed to be vastly superior to Cardassian ships. And this is comming from a Cardassian fan and someone that has been begging and waiting for a Cardie faction in STO for years.
The only reason the Federation didn't roflstomp the Cardassians is because the Feds. are not like that. They'd rather try to peacefully show the Cardassians the wrong in their ways and slowly convince them to join the UFP than go on all out conquest. It's not the Federation's thing.
The Klingons went to invade Cardassia with only a fraction of their forces. And they would have succeeded if Sisko didn't warn Dukat about the impending invasion. Cardassian ships are by no means weaksauce, but the fact is that the Cardassians didn't have much experience in waging superwars against advesaries with empires similar in size to their own before the conflict with the Federation, which they lost.
As to the other - I'm gonna refer to plot armor again. For ex. the Klingons are established as the fiercest warriors in the Quadrant, but they lose a knife fight against a woman only to show how great said woman is. "Look, she beat up Klingons!!!".
Yes, it functional. But then again, in STO at end game any tier of ships has proven to be functional. Heck, I can do the new Voth content by headdesking on my keyboard hitting 'space' with my forehead. But that's another issue the game is having.
So in terms of gameplay and end-game content, if the question is wheather it's functional? The answer would be - yes it is. I can do any content in my Galaxy-R.
Compared to other player ships of the same tier - it's very lackluster. There's where the issues come from. I literally spent a ton of Zen and EC, spent an ungodly amount of time and grinded the entire grind just to make my Galaxy usefull in a group. Note the word 'usefull'. Not better, not the best, but merely usefull. The issue is when I hop on my Excelsior, a ship that has the same Zen price and I can do everything I do with the Galaxy, but with weaker equipment, regular Boffs and random Doffs not tailored for years to fit the ship.
I get it. There has to be one ship that will somehow end as 'the weakest' in Cryptic's model. But we're talking about the frickin' Galaxy here, this shouldn't be 'that ship' by any stretch.
Heh
I certainly hope so.
My whole point was about the silliness they have about non-factional ships the number of non-factional ships is starting to near the amount of KDF vessels, there is something really wrong with that. BOffs and Consoles are only one aspect of that. As far as not caring if ships having same consoles and layouts, why not just buy the ship that has the setup you like and buying holograms to make them look like another ship?
Every interior is out of scale, the Defiant looks spacious as well as the other ships too. I think the only properly scaled interior is the Constitution.
I would argue that the Borg and Dominion changed the perspective that the Federation has taken to Starfleet. Much of the militarization is due to necessity for a more hostile universe.
There was no negotiation with the Borg, and the Federation was not in a position of strength of firepower when dealing with the Dominion. There Federation was somewhat complacent with its environment and had to make a serious change to survive. Honestly, the Federation should have a military/defense fleet in addition to the exploration ships that we saw.
Okay, that explains it. I always thought the Galaxy had a "handicap accessible" look about it, the changed it in Generations then.
I agree with all you said, save for this. My issue is that cruisers from T1-T3 had a steady climb in ability and power. At each step I bought dilithium and got the weapons and mods off the dilithium store to make the ship that much more at each tier. At tier 4 I left my T3 Excelsior for my beautiful Galaxy and even with Mk VIII weapons and gear was getting my head handed to me on a platter. Same build as my Excelsior, just a higher tier. Used my Excelsior as a test and sure enough it was doing better on the same mission I was losing in my Galaxy. T5 hits and I got the next ship up that looks an aweful lot like the SW Phantom something ship. And it was better than the Excel. So the Galaxy took a dive in progression. That is why I support this thread.
Canon can tell us pretty things.
But game progression is where it misses the mark.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
The ship was usable at launch, even counting the Assault Cruisers abilities at the time. The problem was that they upped the ante' on tac and science without considering engineering
That's fine, I have been trying to keep things pragmatic and not totally tied to a perspective view of canon I just wish other people would be more pragmatic, the fact is that it will never happen.
The ships should be equally efficient, but distinctive, making everything a tactical/science boat is the "me too" solution. I see bigger and better options if Cryptic would get cracking at it.
I disagree, The Galaxy does suffer from engineer inefficiency, the skills are inefficient in comparison to other classes and it has the most engineer skills and consoles. Make the skills and consoles more useful, with the Explorers holding the engineers cards, and it will be useful.
Actually all of those aspects form the ships capabilities and thus determines the ships role. A ship that has effective engineering wizardry in a system that has parity with the other aspects is able to plow its way through and improve its offensive capabilities through engineering to help cut down its foes.
the ship wasn't available at launch, only a tier 4 galaxy was along with the star cruiser.
the galaxy retrofit was introduced to the game when season 2: ancient enemy appear, along with the defiant retrofit and the intrepid, all 3 available with a token granted to you by leveling to the new level 50 ( or more exactly level 51 at that time ) or by direct purchase to the cstore.
that being said, to be usable, is not sufficient to be on part with other ship or worthy of a tier5 status.
tier 4 and 3 ships are also "usable"... like we already said a thousand time.
even at that time it was already a bad star cruiser clone.
but this is just pure conjecture, and so much on an concept level idea since no one have been able to clearly articulate what a "better and bigger" engi power would look like appart from just down some power to ensign level.
and it is also something that cryptic haven't got in mind since they rebuild the DDeridex bo layout for that reason, began the introduction of hybrid ship, and that the last 6 base turn ship introduced to the game are no engie heavy anymore.
would they do a complete refit to engie power, so drasticly, that it would at the same time changing the original role of all the ships that use them heavily? i don't think so.
so whatare the other choices left then?
of course the galaxy suffer engineer ineficiency, that is what we are talking about in this thread since 400 pages!!!
my point was that this is irrelevant to the role problem of the galaxy.
the galaxy is not "roleless " because he suffer ensign engie cooldown and poor efficiency engi power.
so is the star cruiser and the exelsior btw, and these one are not roleless.
it is "roleless" because he is too much carrier specific wich condamne him to not be able to do things differently than what a star cruiser can.
what the galaxy can do, the star cruiser can do also, but on the other hand, what the star cruiser can do, the galaxy CAN'T!!
being too much carrier specific is not good for any ship, the defiant is a good example of that with it 3 tactical ensign slot, and no one is calling for a revamp of tactical abilities to change that.
no, effective engineering wizardry will improve.... efficiency.
just that.
in no way it will determine or change the ship role in comparison to what it was before.
turn rate and bo layout will do that.
give the galaxy +10 turn, a ltcommander tact and 2 lt commander sci for example and his role would be completely different.
give him more efficient engi power, and his role would not change for a bit.
yes, we are talking about role here, not efficiency.
and i have trouble to anderstand in what way more efficient engi power will improve its offensive abilitie other than making those abilitie more tactically oriented.
to me it look like an "me too" solution you were talking about.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I can accept that. It is when the guide is apparently ignored that people are the most upset.
Played since AD&D, even tried to do a classic original game. Disliked that. Still had not heard of the 'trinity' of classes prior to EQ.
Making me quote princess bride here. "I don't think that word means what you think it means." As in a more accurate for your arguement would be obsolete.
The same RPS system in NPC's as you use for PC's. In a modern game we should worry about a cloaked BoP decloaking and firing a more deadly surprise attack while we are slugging it out with a cruiser. The science ship should alert us that we need to be ready for when he uses his holds, environmental damage, and confuses on us. Challenge the tactics not the hitpoints directly.
Yes and no. I have had more than a few discussions with a naval ship designer and yes it is a consideration. I shall ask him if they referenced square-cube as well and get back to you on that.
I believe we disagree here on how it is applied, and I do think a few modern computer games do things well. I adored how the sniper weapons worked in ME as well as most of the other weapons. I think making each weapon and piece of gear have it's own stats and abilities can improve dynamic and can be done within a trinity frame work. It just takes more effort on both the designers as well as the players.
A parallel of accuracy versus damage does not need to be identical. Also as an accuracy statement, both for the guide that canon provides and challenge for compelling game play accuracy is a factor. If you can never miss then it is never about tactics it is who has thicker armour and who shot first.
Since the wright flyer was not a multi passenger vehicle for long distance travel, no I would not make that comparison. But as a system, the trinity is not the obsolete to be put in a museum, item as you see it. But a concept that needs to be better thought out before applying to any system.
Let me try a pen and paper example of poor trinity work.
Rogue, fighter, cleric. Standard trinity examples. But the rogue has been given a greatsword he can use at the same speed and abilites as he does a dagger. And he may wear chainmail with no penalty. The fighter we decided will use only shortswords because we know he is tough and has alot of hit points. So he does not need to hit back much. And those hit points look pretty good so yeah restrict him to chain as well. Cleric, we know this guy does the healing and we gave him all the level one abilities. along with a shortsword and chain.
In the example I just gave (yes I was breaking things) the rogue is much more powerful than the trinity says fast and hitting harder than any other version. And tougher too.
The fighter/tank is squishier and putting out less damage than regular versions do. But we will still call him the tank.
The cleric has a smattering of his job. Seems he is mostly using his heals to hope the fighter gets lucky enough to out last the rogue in a fight. He also has as much attack and defense as the fighter which takes away the unique effect the fighter is supposed to bring.
Is it a failure of the system? Or a failure to use the system to define a role and how they should be used?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Doesn't change that I only ever first heard the term much later. I will have to hang that one up with a different regions thought.
No I meant RPS. As in Rock Paper Scissors. Different things to defeat different opponents.
I shall assume this argument comes from misunderstanding my point. In current pve, a bop is just a minor target. Larger 'tanky' ships are ore a challenge as they need more time to take down. There is nothing inherently different in the npcs. How they should be is how they are made/used in pvp. This way a pve build is neary if not as effective in pvp as it is in pve. Also it makes people use different tactics to win in combat as opposed to mash B button ad nausea.
Again off my point. I was speaking to liking the balance effect of they didn't balance everything to one set of parameters. IE the sniper rifle was not a slightly longer range weapon. It was a significantly longer range weapon, with great damage. The drawback built into them was speed of fire. You could not maintain fire for long at all. Moving and shooting accurately? Also unlikely. So the tactic is to let a sniper fire then charge the position dodging and weaving or have a sniper to counter sniper. Tactics to overcome a ability as opposed to a flat nerf or make all weapons essentially the same.
In this case I am arguing that a system can use many ranges and abilities and not be tied to narrow scopes.
I agree the game has all those environments. I disagree that the balance system is what is broken in making these things work.
In a fantasy game the rogue does not have the big weapons and armour, nor does the mage. They are not the 'only' path to dps or success. EACH class has it's own method of achieving success and they can work solo or in teams. A well set up counter system means you can have one pve/pvp build and function.
Rogues move through and use stealth to maximize a first hit. Afterward their damage drops to painfully low levels and their next set of skills are getting away from attackers again.
Tanks don't have the raw single hit of a rogue but finish enemies by beating them down faster than they themselves are beaten down.
Mage types use control and ranged effects to bring down foes. If they are hitting people with their staff then something has gone wrong.
healer's meanwhile have a different approach to outlasting an opponent. They repair their own damage. meaning a big hit that a fighter could take will drop a healer. But lot's of small hits are easier for the healer to overcome.
That is all solo pve/p.
In a group, the rogue can do two things. Get initial attention a 'pull' a mob to a group. Or circle an active fight and look for openings to drop single targets.
The fighter works to keep attention on himself beating on the primary target.
The mage controls the surrounding mobs keeping them from ganging up on our fighter.
the healer watches everyone and keeps them alive. The healer role is the most straight translation between the two.
How I see to make things balanced, again, is to make the npc's operate the same way a pc would. Not just bludgeon with weapon till slain. Rogues avoid fire then hit with hard shots. Tanks duel it out with other tanks and the mage makes people swear at their monitors. It was mentioned by others that the current pve is too easy. That is another sign of the system not being used properly or evenly.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I used the wrong word there. I meant when the Galaxy-R was launched and I did state that it was usable. One could put DBB's on it and have some fun when the saucer was seperated.
i am pretty sure you have seen what I have put forth in the past on my suggested improvements. As far as conjecture, everything is conjecture until it happens.
Because tactical abilities aren't as much of a liability as engie abilities are right now. In regards to "role-less" because of career (engineer) specific skills, thats exactly what I was saying. Now, Cryptic could try to address it by making it another "me too" ship or make an engie heavy cruiser more effective by working on those skills and console choices. Otherwise the fixes that people want make it a Regent or Ambassador wanabee, and that would be a bigger disservice to the ship.
If they were to make higher end (CMDR,LTCMDR) engie skills (EPTX) to up the energy caps, namely to weapons (EPTW) and a cruiser could hit at, say, 150 power for a time, that would most certainly improve its offensive capability. Make Aceton beam someothing other than a joke and that improves its offensive capability. And (even though DDIS disagrees with me) up high ranking DEM output and that increases the ships offensive capability. ANd thats just for starters.
As far as a 10+ turn on a Galaxy class, really? Do you really think that should happen? Thats better than the Assault, Advanced Heavy and the Battlecruiser have.