The Enterprise-D variant is represented by the T4 ship. That is the "bad" peace loving Galaxy class. The Galaxy-R retrofit is response to Borg/Dominion war and thus should be much better prepared for battle.
Anyway, it's a little funny that people claim its a "peace ship" when It had a secondary "battle bridge"...and I doubt it was meant to host chess battles.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
The Enterprise-D variant is represented by the T4 ship. That is the "bad" peace loving Galaxy class. The Galaxy-R retrofit is response to Borg/Dominion war and thus should be much better prepared for battle.
Anyway, it's a little funny that people claim its a "peace ship" when It had a secondary "battle bridge"...and I doubt it was meant to host chess battles.
The Enterprise-D variant is represented by the T4 ship. That is the "bad" peace loving Galaxy class. The Galaxy-R retrofit is response to Borg/Dominion war and thus should be much better prepared for battle.
In canon the Galaxy R was nothing more then Riker using his Admiral's privilege to refit an outdated ship - he loved the Enterprise and didn't want to see it sitting in a scrapyard.
Anyway, it's a little funny that people claim its a "peace ship" when It had a secondary "battle bridge"...and I doubt it was meant to host chess battles.
That was the name of the bridge once it separated. The could have called it Secondary Bridge but Battle Bridge sounds cooler - and it was the bridge to be used when the Galaxy had no choice but to fight.
Having the capability to defend oneself is not the same as being a warrior. I can defend my house with my 12-gauge shotgun. That doesn't mean the solder with the combat armor and assault rifle won't kick my butt.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
In canon the Galaxy R was nothing more then Riker using his Admiral's privilege to refit an outdated ship - he loved the Enterprise and didn't want to see it sitting in a scrapyard.
You are cofusing G-X with G-R here.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
The Enterprise-D variant is represented by the T4 ship. That is the "bad" peace loving Galaxy class. The Galaxy-R retrofit is response to Borg/Dominion war and thus should be much better prepared for battle.
Anyway, it's a little funny that people claim its a "peace ship" when It had a secondary "battle bridge"...and I doubt it was meant to host chess battles.
Nope. It was there because the ship -was- designed as a peaceful explorer and carried civilians aboard. The only reason you would use what had been called the "auxilliary control room" on previous ships was when the ship absolutely had to fight and seperate the civilians from the Starfleet personnel.
Thus, because the only time you would use the facility was when you seperated the ship, and the only time you would seperate the ship but keep crew on the Engineering hull was in the case the ship had to fight for it's life, the term 'Battle Bridge' does make sense (as opposed to 'Auxilliary Control', which was appropriate when the entire ship was expected to be part of any fighting).
I now see the pattern. If the Galaxy was underperforming in the shows, it's how it should be. But when there are signs that it might have extensive battle capabilities - should it need them- it is just a "cool name" but in fact was not worth mentioning. :rolleyes:
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Well the only Galaxys we see die on screen was the first generation of Galaxys. We never saw the Venture in action and the DW Galaxys did show some power. The Galaxy has potential and the STO galaxy could have easily be refited to be more tacical
the STO galaxy could have easily be refited to be more tacical
According to mattjohnsonva STO already has a tactical Galaxy, the Dreadnought. So end of thread apparently since the X is tactically superior to the Galaxy R. Mission accomplished.
Well the only Galaxys we see die on screen was the first generation of Galaxys. We never saw the Venture in action and the DW Galaxys did show some power. The Galaxy has potential and the STO galaxy could have easily be refited to be more tacical
I guess those weak galaxy beams, did no dmg to the galors...
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Personally I don't think it matters either way whether it was a lion or a lamb when it came to fire power in the movies and the shows. Think since its such a large ship and it says that it can be refitted for multiply purposes it should be redone to show that. Still think the layout should be more universal in its role.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Where's the clip where the Tamarian ship defeated it? Where's the clip where the Ferengi in the ancient B'rel captured it?
Again, it's all just Writer's Fiat. When the writers need the Galaxy to win in the story, it wins - though quite often with Boff abilities rather then sheer firepower; and when the writers need the Galaxy to lose in the story it loses.
Games are run via numbers, not Writer's Fiats.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Do you want me to start thread about nerfing the tankyness of Excelsior ? because it can tank TRIBBLE as well compared to the galaxy few seconds later ?
The Odyssey was destroyed just because of plot. To show that the BEST ship starfleet can offer is easily destroyed by Dominion. Not because the ship is bad, but because of a plot to show off the Dominion.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Do you want me to start thread about nerfing the tankyness of Excelsior ? because it can tank TRIBBLE as well compared to the galaxy few seconds later ?
The Odyssey was destroyed just because of plot. To show that the BEST ship starfleet can offer is easily destroyed by Dominion. Not because the ship is bad, but because of a plot to show off the Dominion.
My point is this:
If you're going to use canon examples to back up a claim on a ship's 'power' you need to look at the ENTIRETY of that ship's performance across all hard canon sources (TV and film.) A good number of the 'Galaxy Class' fans love to cheery pick across canon - and play up all the 'look at THIS firepowwer' -- while excusing away the other areas that show the Galaxy Class wasn't the 'super ship' they want as 'bad writing'; 'need for plot', etc.
If your going by and want to use Star Trek canon, you can't just cherry pick what you want and discard the canon you don't like.
I'm someone who DOES (but knows due to a CBS decision) we'll never get a real T5 version of the Constitution. Hell, if they had something T4 or T5 in a Connie version, I'd happily fly it, as honestly, even on elite (or in STFs) ANY of the T5 versions or ANY ship (Escort, Cruiser, or Science) are good enough to do the 'job' and get the optionals (yes, five T5 Galaxy Class ships with competent builds and player Captains) could beat any Elite STF and get the optional.
So, what is it Galaxy Fans want? A PvP version where they feel they can beat any other T5 ship because in PvE it doesn't matter.
I guess that's what gets me is it's always the 'canon fact' that Star Fleet wouldn't have a 150 years old design as a frontline cruiser; yet, when you have examples of a Galaxy not being the 'super ship' <--- that canon needs to be discard or explained away as 'poor writing'.
In all honestly though - I think the Devs have done a pretty good job trying to get all the ships across various Star trek eras to have some role in the game - and about the only real 'outliner' in that regard is the Excelsior Class -- unless you assume they took every Excelsior and gave her a 'U.S.S. Lakota' type upgrade. Of course players milage may vary.
in the end though, iof you guys have enough people wanting an upgrade; I hope they listen and you gvet it for teh Galaxy, I really/honestly do. That said, just come out and say that - and stop trying to cite canon examples; as (bad writing or not) - IMO actual Star Trek canon DOESN'T show the Galaxy (even in her heyday) as the 'super cruiser' Galaxy fans want her to be in STO.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
....
In all honestly though - I think the Devs have done a pretty good job trying to get all the ships across various Star trek eras to have some role in the game - and about the only real 'outliner' in that regard is the Excelsior Class -- unless you assume they took every Excelsior and gave her a 'U.S.S. Lakota' type upgrade. Of course players milage may vary.
I'm sorry but this statement alone disqualifies you completely.
Either you can't or don't wan't to see that Star Trek ships are not even nearly as Cryptic made them.
Star Trek ships, especially Starfleet Cruisers where all round ships, but NOT supporters for tiny overly armed escorts. Not that healing over distance is even possible in "real" trek.
in the end though, iof you guys have enough people wanting an upgrade; I hope they listen and you gvet it for teh Galaxy, I really/honestly do. That said, just come out and say that - and stop trying to cite canon examples; as (bad writing or not) - IMO actual Star Trek canon DOESN'T show the Galaxy (even in her heyday) as the 'super cruiser' Galaxy fans want her to be in STO.
I think there is a big missunderstanding here.
As i see it, no one want the Galaxy Class to be a super cruiser.
Personally i just don't want it to be just a big huge static target practice for enemy escorts and completely without any offensive capabilities.
Everyone who has a bit more understanding about that ship, know that it was supposed to be VERY versatile and the Enterprisse -D was just a Diplomatic Cruiser, more or less.
The Galaxy was designed to become the main cruiser of Starfleet, capable of filling out various mission types. It is supposed to be easily being refited for Tactical, science or any other mission type.
This means, it is supposed to be highly versatile, or at least having several basic Variations, in STO terms. (which would be EXACTLY how dontdrunkimshootenhanced exploration cruiser retrofit 3 pack would be, BTW.)
This doesn't mean it is supposed to be a "Super Cruiser", just as the Vesta isn't a "Super Science" ship, or the Andorian Escort a "Super Escort".
All we want is a change of that ship, which Cryptic obviously has made completely different as it is supposed to be.
As a fan of Cryptics work, what would you say if the Defiant would have had just 2 Lt. tactical, or no acess to DHCs?
Sorry for any spelling errors but i'm in a hurry.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Where's the clip where the Tamarian ship defeated it? Where's the clip where the Ferengi in the ancient B'rel captured it?
Again, it's all just Writer's Fiat. When the writers need the Galaxy to win in the story, it wins - though quite often with Boff abilities rather then sheer firepower; and when the writers need the Galaxy to lose in the story it loses.
Games are run via numbers, not Writer's Fiats.
Sigh. Here we go again with "it's the writers fault". Isn't everything "the writer's fault" in Star Trek? Isn't it the "writer's fault" that the Borg always sends only one ship to attack Earth ("Best of Both Worlds" and "First Contact") when they clearly should be sending dozens,hundreds or thousands of ships to do the job? Aren't all of the last minute saves that the main characters receive "the writers' fault" as well? So when the Ent-D wins, it's not "the writers' fault" but when they lose, it is?
<<The Odyssey was destroyed just because of plot.>>
But wasn't the Ent-D usually spared the vast majority of the time because of plot? Again, isn't everything driven by "plot"? You seem to be implying that "plot" invalidates actions/events seen on screen.
So by your own logic, what really happened in "First Contact" instead of what we saw on screen was the Borg sending numerous ships to sucessfully decimate Earth because any other result would be "plot" driven and thus be invalidated, again by your own logic.
Regarding the Odyssey's performance, even after they had transfered their shield power to weapons AND with the assistance of two runabouts, it still wasn't able to destroy even one Dominion ship. It just couldn't get the job done, "plot driven" or not.
Again, many of you are free to believe what you want, but please at least have the courage to be intellectually honest about it. If canon doesn't matter to many of you, that's fine. But, if you are going to selectively embrace canon when it suits you and disregard it when it doesn't, at the very least, be honest about your methology.
Does anyone else think this is Yreodred's first-ever MMO?
It's sad when people don't understand the difference between required tropes to make MMOers happy and fictional television, where the writers were not required to follow any consistent rules between episodes or series....
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Sigh. Here we go again with "it's the writers fault". Isn't everything "the writer's fault" in Star Trek? Isn't it the "writer's fault" that the Borg always sends only one ship to attack Earth ("Best of Both Worlds" and "First Contact") when they clearly should be sending dozens,hundreds or thousands of ships to do the job? Aren't all of the last minute saves that the main characters receive "the writers' fault" as well? So when the Ent-D wins, it's not "the writers' fault" but when they lose, it is?
<<The Odyssey was destroyed just because of plot.>>
But wasn't the Ent-D usually spared the vast majority of the time because of plot? Again, isn't everything driven by "plot"? You seem to be implying that "plot" invalidates actions/events seen on screen.
So by your own logic, what really happened in "First Contact" instead of what we saw on screen was the Borg sending numerous ships to sucessfully decimate Earth because any other result would be "plot" driven and thus be invalidated, again by your own logic.
Regarding the Odyssey's performance, even after they had transfered their shield power to weapons AND with the assistance of two runabouts, it still wasn't able to destroy even one Dominion ship. It just couldn't get the job done, "plot driven" or not.
Again, many of you are free to believe what you want, but please at least have the courage to be intellectually honest about it. If canon doesn't matter to many of you, that's fine. But, if you are going to selectively embrace canon when it suits you and disregard it when it doesn't, at the very least, be honest about your methology.
I never used the word "fault." I used Fiat. I simply stated that writers alter the stories to achieve their desired goal. If you asked most of the TNG writers they could not tell you how many Phaser Banks or Torpedoes launchers the Ent D carried. As far as they were concerned it had however many as it needed for the story. When they needed the ship to shoot a blue ray from its Deflectors, they made it up. When they needed aliens to invade from another dimension, they made it up.
There was no hard science in Trek. There were no defined Galaxy Class statistics. It was whatever the writers needed for a particular story. The Shields could be easily pounded down when the story demanded just as they could easily withstand the assault when the story demanded it.
There is no concise logic to Star Trek.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
This thread is getting silly.
What possible reason would anyone have for arguing or giving push back against the Galaxy getting fixed? How would that harm your game experience? And it does need fixed, it is not just fine the way it is. I say again, Cryptic is asking people to pay money for this ship. Any of my T5 freebie ships will outperform this pay ship. There is the problem in a nutshell.
Forget that it's an iconic ship (I agree with this, I loved TNG) and throw this canon stuff out the window, because one look at an Excelsior will tell you Cryptic has. What I paid real money to acquire will not compare to what I am able to do with the ships the game has given me free of charge. And this is not a complaint against my free ships, I love them and give Cryptic their due credit in this regard.
And all of those who would argue against the Galaxy getting the attention it needs to at least be on par with other T5 ships (even the free ones for crying out loud) I ask again why do you care? You obviously don't fly the ship and don't care for it. That's OK, but why argue against it getting fixed? You don't like it to the point you do not even want to see or hear of it becoming a decent ship? That's just petty to the point of silliness. No one is asking to make it 'God o' the Cruisers' just have it up to snuff.
Regarding the Odyssey's performance, even after they had transfered their shield power to weapons AND with the assistance of two runabouts, it still wasn't able to destroy even one Dominion ship. It just couldn't get the job done, "plot driven" or not.
...
I think just like the Ent -D many weak moments, most of the ships fault is due to the crews incompetence.
IF the Odyssey would have use even once its Tractor Beam to "nail" one of the Bugs, and effecively destroy it, the Battle would have ended totally different. (the same aplies to ST: 7, btw. )
I think most of the Plot driven weaknesses of the ship is its crew fault.
.... blah blah blah (a lot of canon references from me here) blah blah blah ...
@thecosmic1
As i said it already a hundred times, making the Galaxy Class a super ship isn't the point of what i am talking about. I just want a Galaxy Class that is more than just a stationary healing station for Escorts, with no offensive powers to speak of.
Look at the BOFF & console layout of the Ambassador and you'll see what i have in mind for the Galaxy.
If you think that the Ambassador is OP, then... well that's your problem.
Or do you think that dontdrunkimshootenhanced exploration cruiser retrofit 3 pack would make the Galaxy OP?
Surely it would be much better than now, but why would anyone who doesn't like/fly that ship even care?
Escorts still would outgun it, the odyssey still woud be better. I don't see a problem.
As we saw it with the defiant, Intrepid, Excelsior, Ambassador or Vesta, Cryptic obviously IS capable to make good adaptions of popular ships in their game,
These ships, even though some aren't up to date anymore, are still fun to fly and have at least some use.
But the Galaxy (which is the most popular ship IMO) is nothing like that, it is just a passive useless target practice with no means of offensive.
I don't mean it to become better than the Odyssey Class, but it should be at least not inferior to the Excelsior or Ambassador.
Giving it 2 tac consoles and just one tactical BOFF hasn't anyting to do with balance or your beloved MMO trinity. ALL other cruisers are superior to the Galaxy, no matter how you turn or twist it.
If i look at how popular it is outside of STO, i just cannot understand what Cryptics motivations where in making it inferior like that. It just alienates people who like that ship, nothing else.
I'm sorry if we have differnt opinions about certain things, but i can live with it.
Btw. i find your one sided interest in my activities on this forum a bit disturbing to say at least...
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Yeah, it pretty much is. But hey, relax and have fun with it? I don't know.
What possible reason would anyone have for arguing or giving push back against the Galaxy getting fixed?
There are a couple of reasons I can think of but they're kind of big picture reasons.
1- The cost. Like if they do a bundle or three new galaxies? That'll cost money. I'm not keen on that too much, just because it's even more stuff a person has to buy.
2- The power creep. I'm a fan of the Sovereign. And so making the Galaxy on par with the Sovereign, kind of annoys since the Sovereign is supposed to be tactically superior to the Galaxy, hence why Picard's crew was in one in the first place? Or something. I don't know.
3- The Odyssey. It's supposed to be the "new" flagship. So creeping up on the Ody kind of defeats the purpose of the ship even existing.
A lot of the ideas I support revolve around attacking Engineering BOFF powers (I actually think all Ensign level BOFF powers need an overhaul, as there's far too much cooldown sharing to justify the amount of ensign BOFF overlap), or expanding the ship's science powers or something like that. The most popular suggestions though are just to give it more tactical power, turning it into a cruiser that already exists (be it the tactical Ody or the Assault Cruiser). That's the idea I would push back on, if, you know Cruisers were a bit more relevant in the STO end-game.
As it is? Meh, they could turn the Galaxy into a slow turning Fleet Excelsior, and really it wouldn't help much since this game hinges on DPS and even the best DPS cruisers are meh damage dealers.
At this point, I don't even know anymore.
Though I get it. I get the spirit of this thread. It's the Galaxy. It's Picard's ship. It's TNG. I totally understand the appeal of it being an iconic ship.
I just think that "fixing" it would either cost more money (and thus it becomes a bit of a money pit) would really make the whole end-game cruiser situation make even less sense than it already does (Ambassadors and Excelsiors being so awesome in comparison? Ugh it makes my head hurt). And at the end of the day, all that work will still simply generate yet another cruiser in "Escorts Online."
1- The cost. Like if they do a bundle or three new galaxies? That'll cost money. I'm not keen on that too much, just because it's even more stuff a person has to buy.
2- The power creep. I'm a fan of the Sovereign. And so making the Galaxy on par with the Sovereign, kind of annoys since the Sovereign is supposed to be tactically superior to the Galaxy, hence why Picard's crew was in one in the first place? Or something. I don't know.
3- The Odyssey. It's supposed to be the "new" flagship. So creeping up on the Ody kind of defeats the purpose of the ship even existing.
1. Don't wanna pay? Don't get it. Or grind dilithium.
2. The sovereign (basic version) isn't that great already, but is playable. The regent on the other hand is one of the best cruisers available fedside. No one is suggesting making the galaxy more powerful then the regent, most people just want it usable in end game content. Right now the ship sucks. 2 tac consoles and a garbage bridge officer layout. Most ships give something to get something. The galaxy gives up damage and maneuverability in exchange for what exactly? Being a space brick? This game ignores the normal mmo trinity of tank, dps, healer so there is no need for a space brick. I rarely ever see a Galaxy in elite stfs. You know why? Cause the ship sucks. It is...by far...the worst cruiser in the game. Which is ironic because it's probably one of the most popular to the trek fan base.
3. The Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit, the Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit, and the Fleet Assault Cruiser are already on par with the Ody. Adding another ship to that list doesn't really make a difference.
1. Don't wanna pay? Don't get it. Or grind dilithium.
How is throwing more and more money at a problem a fix? When the next new ship comes out, and the next and the next, the Galaxy that was "fixed" goes right back to being inferior.
2. The sovereign (basic version) isn't that great already, but is playable. The regent on the other hand is one of the best cruisers available fedside. No one is suggesting making the galaxy more powerful then the regent, most people just want it usable in end game content.
There's been quite a few suggestions, some in this very thread, to make the Galaxy have the same tactical BOFF setup and console setup as the Reagent. And some suggestions to give it even more tactical BOFF powers than even that.
Those aren't ideas I'm a fan of.
3. The Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit, the Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit, and the Fleet Assault Cruiser are already on par with the Ody. Adding another ship to that list doesn't really make a difference.
It does make a difference. The "new" flagship is even less of a flagship with yet another ship doing what it does.
The end-game situations for cruisers is messed up. But a lot of these ideas only make it more crowded and more confusing.
Besides, at the end of the day, we already know Geko prefers you ALL fly an Excelsior if you bother to choose cruiser.
What possible reason would anyone have for arguing or giving push back against the Galaxy getting fixed? How would that harm your game experience? And it does need fixed, it is not just fine the way it is. I say again, Cryptic is asking people to pay money for this ship. Any of my T5 freebie ships will outperform this pay ship. There is the problem in a nutshell.
No. The problem in a nutshell is this: everyone wants their favorite ship to be the best. If you really, really like the Galaxy you want it to be the best. If you really, really like the Sovereign you want it to be the best. If you really, really like the Odyssey you want it to be the best.
They can't all be the best.
If you make the Galaxy better then the Sovereign then the Sovy lovers will be on the forum screaming about how the ship which replaced the Galaxy in canon shouldn't be better. No one can win in this situation because some ship is always going to need to be less effective, and so some group of fans are always going to be disappointed.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Yeah, it pretty much is. But hey, relax and have fun with it? I don't know.
There are a couple of reasons I can think of but they're kind of big picture reasons.
1- The cost. Like if they do a bundle or three new galaxies? That'll cost money. I'm not keen on that too much, just because it's even more stuff a person has to buy.
2- The power creep. I'm a fan of the Sovereign. And so making the Galaxy on par with the Sovereign, kind of annoys since the Sovereign is supposed to be tactically superior to the Galaxy, hence why Picard's crew was in one in the first place? Or something. I don't know.
3- The Odyssey. It's supposed to be the "new" flagship. So creeping up on the Ody kind of defeats the purpose of the ship even existing.
A lot of the ideas I support revolve around attacking Engineering BOFF powers (I actually think all Ensign level BOFF powers need an overhaul, as there's far too much cooldown sharing to justify the amount of ensign BOFF overlap), or expanding the ship's science powers or something like that. The most popular suggestions though are just to give it more tactical power, turning it into a cruiser that already exists (be it the tactical Ody or the Assault Cruiser). That's the idea I would push back on, if, you know Cruisers were a bit more relevant in the STO end-game.
As it is? Meh, they could turn the Galaxy into a slow turning Fleet Excelsior, and really it wouldn't help much since this game hinges on DPS and even the best DPS cruisers are meh damage dealers.
At this point, I don't even know anymore.
Though I get it. I get the spirit of this thread. It's the Galaxy. It's Picard's ship. It's TNG. I totally understand the appeal of it being an iconic ship.
I just think that "fixing" it would either cost more money (and thus it becomes a bit of a money pit) would really make the whole end-game cruiser situation make even less sense than it already does (Ambassadors and Excelsiors being so awesome in comparison? Ugh it makes my head hurt). And at the end of the day, all that work will still simply generate yet another cruiser in "Escorts Online."
There is not much to do against the "escorts Online" issue IMO.
I don't know myself how a good sollution would look like, something everyone can live with. But i also know that the ship as it is, is not acepptable IMO.
I wouldn't say anyting if it had the BOFF & Console layout of the Ambassador or even the Excelsior. But having it INFERIOR to those ships just hurts TBH.
I understand that you are a fan of the more tactically focused Sovereign (more firepower and stuff), but i think the Galaxy class should be almost on par with it, just a bit slower but more versatile.
Belive it or not, before STO i didn't even was so much into the Galaxy Class. But seeing this impressive ship being completely ripped out of it's role and put in as a hospital for disgusting Escorts makes me sick.
From a "in-universe" point of view, both ships aren't new anymore.
By the time of STO, both ships have been updated at least 2 or 3 times already, and still be awesome.
I think the best sollution would have been to make the Galaxy Class similar to the Sovereign, just a bit slower and more focussed on energy weapons, while the Sovereign could have been more focussed on using torpedoes.
Somehow Cryptic should have given each ship a bonus in using it's speciality. Especially since both ships are so iconic it just completely alienates me to see the Galaxy being treated like it is.
I'm not a fan of the Sovereign to be honest, but making it inferior to every other ship in the game wouldn't come to my mind.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Comments
If that's the case, can you show me where I can obtain the science version of the Galaxy? Or the Galaxy 3-pack with all three versions?
Anyway, it's a little funny that people claim its a "peace ship" when It had a secondary "battle bridge"...and I doubt it was meant to host chess battles.
it was a precaution.
That was the name of the bridge once it separated. The could have called it Secondary Bridge but Battle Bridge sounds cooler - and it was the bridge to be used when the Galaxy had no choice but to fight.
Having the capability to defend oneself is not the same as being a warrior. I can defend my house with my 12-gauge shotgun. That doesn't mean the solder with the combat armor and assault rifle won't kick my butt.
You are cofusing G-X with G-R here.
Nope. It was there because the ship -was- designed as a peaceful explorer and carried civilians aboard. The only reason you would use what had been called the "auxilliary control room" on previous ships was when the ship absolutely had to fight and seperate the civilians from the Starfleet personnel.
Thus, because the only time you would use the facility was when you seperated the ship, and the only time you would seperate the ship but keep crew on the Engineering hull was in the case the ship had to fight for it's life, the term 'Battle Bridge' does make sense (as opposed to 'Auxilliary Control', which was appropriate when the entire ship was expected to be part of any fighting).
According to mattjohnsonva STO already has a tactical Galaxy, the Dreadnought. So end of thread apparently since the X is tactically superior to the Galaxy R. Mission accomplished.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKnvRPIrl0
6:13
I guess those weak galaxy beams, did no dmg to the galors...
Com eng
Lt com science
Lt com Tac
Lt eng
consoles
3 eng
3 Sci
3 Tac
Fleet version gets another Engineer console.
I posted it before, but one youtube clip deserves another - guess this Galaxy Class was having a bad day, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Dyttwwrbdyk#t=122s'
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Again, it's all just Writer's Fiat. When the writers need the Galaxy to win in the story, it wins - though quite often with Boff abilities rather then sheer firepower; and when the writers need the Galaxy to lose in the story it loses.
Games are run via numbers, not Writer's Fiats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg_6eeJ5eVc
1:50
Do you want me to start thread about nerfing the tankyness of Excelsior ? because it can tank TRIBBLE as well compared to the galaxy few seconds later ?
The Odyssey was destroyed just because of plot. To show that the BEST ship starfleet can offer is easily destroyed by Dominion. Not because the ship is bad, but because of a plot to show off the Dominion.
My point is this:
If you're going to use canon examples to back up a claim on a ship's 'power' you need to look at the ENTIRETY of that ship's performance across all hard canon sources (TV and film.) A good number of the 'Galaxy Class' fans love to cheery pick across canon - and play up all the 'look at THIS firepowwer' -- while excusing away the other areas that show the Galaxy Class wasn't the 'super ship' they want as 'bad writing'; 'need for plot', etc.
If your going by and want to use Star Trek canon, you can't just cherry pick what you want and discard the canon you don't like.
I'm someone who DOES (but knows due to a CBS decision) we'll never get a real T5 version of the Constitution. Hell, if they had something T4 or T5 in a Connie version, I'd happily fly it, as honestly, even on elite (or in STFs) ANY of the T5 versions or ANY ship (Escort, Cruiser, or Science) are good enough to do the 'job' and get the optionals (yes, five T5 Galaxy Class ships with competent builds and player Captains) could beat any Elite STF and get the optional.
So, what is it Galaxy Fans want? A PvP version where they feel they can beat any other T5 ship because in PvE it doesn't matter.
I guess that's what gets me is it's always the 'canon fact' that Star Fleet wouldn't have a 150 years old design as a frontline cruiser; yet, when you have examples of a Galaxy not being the 'super ship' <--- that canon needs to be discard or explained away as 'poor writing'.
In all honestly though - I think the Devs have done a pretty good job trying to get all the ships across various Star trek eras to have some role in the game - and about the only real 'outliner' in that regard is the Excelsior Class -- unless you assume they took every Excelsior and gave her a 'U.S.S. Lakota' type upgrade. Of course players milage may vary.
in the end though, iof you guys have enough people wanting an upgrade; I hope they listen and you gvet it for teh Galaxy, I really/honestly do. That said, just come out and say that - and stop trying to cite canon examples; as (bad writing or not) - IMO actual Star Trek canon DOESN'T show the Galaxy (even in her heyday) as the 'super cruiser' Galaxy fans want her to be in STO.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Either you can't or don't wan't to see that Star Trek ships are not even nearly as Cryptic made them.
Star Trek ships, especially Starfleet Cruisers where all round ships, but NOT supporters for tiny overly armed escorts. Not that healing over distance is even possible in "real" trek.
I think there is a big missunderstanding here.
As i see it, no one want the Galaxy Class to be a super cruiser.
Personally i just don't want it to be just a big huge static target practice for enemy escorts and completely without any offensive capabilities.
Everyone who has a bit more understanding about that ship, know that it was supposed to be VERY versatile and the Enterprisse -D was just a Diplomatic Cruiser, more or less.
The Galaxy was designed to become the main cruiser of Starfleet, capable of filling out various mission types. It is supposed to be easily being refited for Tactical, science or any other mission type.
This means, it is supposed to be highly versatile, or at least having several basic Variations, in STO terms. (which would be EXACTLY how dontdrunkimshoot enhanced exploration cruiser retrofit 3 pack would be, BTW.)
This doesn't mean it is supposed to be a "Super Cruiser", just as the Vesta isn't a "Super Science" ship, or the Andorian Escort a "Super Escort".
All we want is a change of that ship, which Cryptic obviously has made completely different as it is supposed to be.
As a fan of Cryptics work, what would you say if the Defiant would have had just 2 Lt. tactical, or no acess to DHCs?
Sorry for any spelling errors but i'm in a hurry.
Sigh. Here we go again with "it's the writers fault". Isn't everything "the writer's fault" in Star Trek? Isn't it the "writer's fault" that the Borg always sends only one ship to attack Earth ("Best of Both Worlds" and "First Contact") when they clearly should be sending dozens,hundreds or thousands of ships to do the job? Aren't all of the last minute saves that the main characters receive "the writers' fault" as well? So when the Ent-D wins, it's not "the writers' fault" but when they lose, it is?
<<The Odyssey was destroyed just because of plot.>>
But wasn't the Ent-D usually spared the vast majority of the time because of plot? Again, isn't everything driven by "plot"? You seem to be implying that "plot" invalidates actions/events seen on screen.
So by your own logic, what really happened in "First Contact" instead of what we saw on screen was the Borg sending numerous ships to sucessfully decimate Earth because any other result would be "plot" driven and thus be invalidated, again by your own logic.
Regarding the Odyssey's performance, even after they had transfered their shield power to weapons AND with the assistance of two runabouts, it still wasn't able to destroy even one Dominion ship. It just couldn't get the job done, "plot driven" or not.
Again, many of you are free to believe what you want, but please at least have the courage to be intellectually honest about it. If canon doesn't matter to many of you, that's fine. But, if you are going to selectively embrace canon when it suits you and disregard it when it doesn't, at the very least, be honest about your methology.
It's sad when people don't understand the difference between required tropes to make MMOers happy and fictional television, where the writers were not required to follow any consistent rules between episodes or series....
There was no hard science in Trek. There were no defined Galaxy Class statistics. It was whatever the writers needed for a particular story. The Shields could be easily pounded down when the story demanded just as they could easily withstand the assault when the story demanded it.
There is no concise logic to Star Trek.
What possible reason would anyone have for arguing or giving push back against the Galaxy getting fixed? How would that harm your game experience? And it does need fixed, it is not just fine the way it is. I say again, Cryptic is asking people to pay money for this ship. Any of my T5 freebie ships will outperform this pay ship. There is the problem in a nutshell.
Forget that it's an iconic ship (I agree with this, I loved TNG) and throw this canon stuff out the window, because one look at an Excelsior will tell you Cryptic has. What I paid real money to acquire will not compare to what I am able to do with the ships the game has given me free of charge. And this is not a complaint against my free ships, I love them and give Cryptic their due credit in this regard.
And all of those who would argue against the Galaxy getting the attention it needs to at least be on par with other T5 ships (even the free ones for crying out loud) I ask again why do you care? You obviously don't fly the ship and don't care for it. That's OK, but why argue against it getting fixed? You don't like it to the point you do not even want to see or hear of it becoming a decent ship? That's just petty to the point of silliness. No one is asking to make it 'God o' the Cruisers' just have it up to snuff.
IF the Odyssey would have use even once its Tractor Beam to "nail" one of the Bugs, and effecively destroy it, the Battle would have ended totally different. (the same aplies to ST: 7, btw.
I think most of the Plot driven weaknesses of the ship is its crew fault.
.... blah blah blah (a lot of canon references from me here) blah blah blah ...
@thecosmic1
As i said it already a hundred times, making the Galaxy Class a super ship isn't the point of what i am talking about. I just want a Galaxy Class that is more than just a stationary healing station for Escorts, with no offensive powers to speak of.
Look at the BOFF & console layout of the Ambassador and you'll see what i have in mind for the Galaxy.
If you think that the Ambassador is OP, then... well that's your problem.
Or do you think that dontdrunkimshoot enhanced exploration cruiser retrofit 3 pack would make the Galaxy OP?
Surely it would be much better than now, but why would anyone who doesn't like/fly that ship even care?
Escorts still would outgun it, the odyssey still woud be better. I don't see a problem.
As we saw it with the defiant, Intrepid, Excelsior, Ambassador or Vesta, Cryptic obviously IS capable to make good adaptions of popular ships in their game,
These ships, even though some aren't up to date anymore, are still fun to fly and have at least some use.
But the Galaxy (which is the most popular ship IMO) is nothing like that, it is just a passive useless target practice with no means of offensive.
I don't mean it to become better than the Odyssey Class, but it should be at least not inferior to the Excelsior or Ambassador.
Giving it 2 tac consoles and just one tactical BOFF hasn't anyting to do with balance or your beloved MMO trinity. ALL other cruisers are superior to the Galaxy, no matter how you turn or twist it.
If i look at how popular it is outside of STO, i just cannot understand what Cryptics motivations where in making it inferior like that. It just alienates people who like that ship, nothing else.
I'm sorry if we have differnt opinions about certain things, but i can live with it.
Btw. i find your one sided interest in my activities on this forum a bit disturbing to say at least...
Yeah, it pretty much is. But hey, relax and have fun with it? I don't know.
There are a couple of reasons I can think of but they're kind of big picture reasons.
1- The cost. Like if they do a bundle or three new galaxies? That'll cost money. I'm not keen on that too much, just because it's even more stuff a person has to buy.
2- The power creep. I'm a fan of the Sovereign. And so making the Galaxy on par with the Sovereign, kind of annoys since the Sovereign is supposed to be tactically superior to the Galaxy, hence why Picard's crew was in one in the first place? Or something. I don't know.
3- The Odyssey. It's supposed to be the "new" flagship. So creeping up on the Ody kind of defeats the purpose of the ship even existing.
A lot of the ideas I support revolve around attacking Engineering BOFF powers (I actually think all Ensign level BOFF powers need an overhaul, as there's far too much cooldown sharing to justify the amount of ensign BOFF overlap), or expanding the ship's science powers or something like that. The most popular suggestions though are just to give it more tactical power, turning it into a cruiser that already exists (be it the tactical Ody or the Assault Cruiser). That's the idea I would push back on, if, you know Cruisers were a bit more relevant in the STO end-game.
As it is? Meh, they could turn the Galaxy into a slow turning Fleet Excelsior, and really it wouldn't help much since this game hinges on DPS and even the best DPS cruisers are meh damage dealers.
At this point, I don't even know anymore.
Though I get it. I get the spirit of this thread. It's the Galaxy. It's Picard's ship. It's TNG. I totally understand the appeal of it being an iconic ship.
I just think that "fixing" it would either cost more money (and thus it becomes a bit of a money pit) would really make the whole end-game cruiser situation make even less sense than it already does (Ambassadors and Excelsiors being so awesome in comparison? Ugh it makes my head hurt). And at the end of the day, all that work will still simply generate yet another cruiser in "Escorts Online."
1. Don't wanna pay? Don't get it. Or grind dilithium.
2. The sovereign (basic version) isn't that great already, but is playable. The regent on the other hand is one of the best cruisers available fedside. No one is suggesting making the galaxy more powerful then the regent, most people just want it usable in end game content. Right now the ship sucks. 2 tac consoles and a garbage bridge officer layout. Most ships give something to get something. The galaxy gives up damage and maneuverability in exchange for what exactly? Being a space brick? This game ignores the normal mmo trinity of tank, dps, healer so there is no need for a space brick. I rarely ever see a Galaxy in elite stfs. You know why? Cause the ship sucks. It is...by far...the worst cruiser in the game. Which is ironic because it's probably one of the most popular to the trek fan base.
3. The Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit, the Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit, and the Fleet Assault Cruiser are already on par with the Ody. Adding another ship to that list doesn't really make a difference.
How is throwing more and more money at a problem a fix? When the next new ship comes out, and the next and the next, the Galaxy that was "fixed" goes right back to being inferior.
There's been quite a few suggestions, some in this very thread, to make the Galaxy have the same tactical BOFF setup and console setup as the Reagent. And some suggestions to give it even more tactical BOFF powers than even that.
Those aren't ideas I'm a fan of.
It does make a difference. The "new" flagship is even less of a flagship with yet another ship doing what it does.
The end-game situations for cruisers is messed up. But a lot of these ideas only make it more crowded and more confusing.
Besides, at the end of the day, we already know Geko prefers you ALL fly an Excelsior if you bother to choose cruiser.
They can't all be the best.
If you make the Galaxy better then the Sovereign then the Sovy lovers will be on the forum screaming about how the ship which replaced the Galaxy in canon shouldn't be better. No one can win in this situation because some ship is always going to need to be less effective, and so some group of fans are always going to be disappointed.
I don't know myself how a good sollution would look like, something everyone can live with. But i also know that the ship as it is, is not acepptable IMO.
I wouldn't say anyting if it had the BOFF & Console layout of the Ambassador or even the Excelsior. But having it INFERIOR to those ships just hurts TBH.
I understand that you are a fan of the more tactically focused Sovereign (more firepower and stuff), but i think the Galaxy class should be almost on par with it, just a bit slower but more versatile.
Belive it or not, before STO i didn't even was so much into the Galaxy Class. But seeing this impressive ship being completely ripped out of it's role and put in as a hospital for disgusting Escorts makes me sick.
From a "in-universe" point of view, both ships aren't new anymore.
By the time of STO, both ships have been updated at least 2 or 3 times already, and still be awesome.
I think the best sollution would have been to make the Galaxy Class similar to the Sovereign, just a bit slower and more focussed on energy weapons, while the Sovereign could have been more focussed on using torpedoes.
Somehow Cryptic should have given each ship a bonus in using it's speciality. Especially since both ships are so iconic it just completely alienates me to see the Galaxy being treated like it is.
I'm not a fan of the Sovereign to be honest, but making it inferior to every other ship in the game wouldn't come to my mind.