When are people going to realize that if they have not done anything by now, it will never happen.......
I'm still holding out hope that they will release a mirror Galaxy with a decent layout. I'd use it even though it's a nine console ship. I wish they would implement a system where if you owned two cruisers you could swap the layout onto the other cruiser. You've already paid for both so who cares.
I don't think its a bias as much as it was an acknowledgement that the Gal-X was a ship that had been upgraded a bit off of an exploration ship to have a bit more teeth. The ship boff stations wouldn't be as much to complain about if the Lance was worth its (theoretical) weight in salt.
that is exactly the reason why IT IS a bias!
" a ship that had been upgraded a bit off of an exploration ship to have a bit more theeth "
so the state of theses ships in the game is base on perceive cannon.
and note that i said perceive, because like we already mentioned i don't bielieve that with the same technological level a sovy would outgun a galaxy.
but for the sake of the argument i will accept that general bielief as true.
so that woudn't be a problem in the absolute ( especially when you claim to do a game with the star trek license ).
but is a problem in this game for 2 reasons.
the first is more of an ethical one, even if this word is a bit strong for the situation but to resume, in an MMO you can't intentionally make a ship ( in the same tier ) inferior to an other just because "insert any perceive cannon reasons here".
ships should have ( to the best of the possibility ) an equal repartition of stats wich would result in the same overaul efficiency.
what is a galaxy x? response: a less efficient assault cruiser.
yes, you said it yourself, they got the same bo layout, same console distribution, so if you forget about the lance ( wich is not very hard considering what an ultimate weapons it is:rolleyes:) and the cloack that took a console slot and can only be use in the beguining of a combat.
you basically found yourself with the same ship in less good, less turnrate, less inertia, less speed.
and that shoudn't be, there should be something in the stats to compensate in an equal usufulness for the lost of the stats i mentioned.
one would said that the lance and the cloack are, but even if it work on paper, people who use the ship known that they are not equal in usefulness ( and far from it ).
and that is true today, but was even more obvious in the beguining when the lance have a total maximal damage capacity of 12000k, the tact console number was 2 and the ship rear weapons slot was 3 and not 4.
so you got a ship that is right of the bat inferior to an other tier 5 ship ( note also that we are comparing a cstore ship with a "free" lv40 token ship ) with just the perceive cannon as justification.
second, and that the most " are you pulling my leg" moment in this game:
if you use perceive cannon to justify a reduction in efficiency in a ship compared to an other, you should apply it to EVERY ship in the game.
what do i mean? well i wasn't aware that is was an acknowledgement that the exelsior got a better firepower than a sovereign for example.
and this is not an exeption, it is not an acknowledgement that an ambassador can tank better than a galaxy and also have more firepower.
that a nova outgun a galaxy, that a bop, a tliss, a jem hadar bug.... a risian corvette "made in risa", do.
the federation didn't need an alliance with the klingons and the romulan to defeat the dominion, they could have just use the ship of the risian people!
that is the bias i am talking about, this obssesion to stick to that perceive cannon is only present with these 2 ships, and these 2 ships ALONE!
every other cannon ship are free from it.
wich in the end make STO the game that is the most "uncannon" of every star trek game, where the smaller and older ship are more powerfull than the big cruiser and career recently built!
only the DDeridex nearly suffered the same fate and was save "in extremis" by the forum pvper.
the day this bias would end, these 2 ship would have a role.
Almost 600 pages later, its pretty obvious just how important this is to quite a few people.
Yep and all 10 of you keep postiing the same stuff over and over ad nauseum.:D
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..."
Just because something doesn't perform to a standard doesn't prove bias, it does more to prove a lack of fore/after thought on overall ship design. We could go as far to say that there is a bias on some peoples expectations of the ships performance to begin with, but I wouldn't go that far. If someone is looking for a conspiracy/scandal/etc., they will find it, no matter how real it actually is.
I will go as far as to say that there is poor ship/gaming design for the cruisers across the range, but it is a bit extreme, and honestly irresponsible, to say that there is bias in the Gal-R/Gal-X ship design. The fact is that when the Gal-R/X came out, they really were only tinkering with variations of the ensign slot on the cruisers. The Gal-R fit the empty slot between the Star and Assault Cruiser with an ensign Engi' and the Gal-X was intended to be more aggressive so it got an ensign Tac', the lance and a cloak.
The equipping DC/DHC function was a bad idea for 90% of the ships' combat time. It was good for a surprise alpha, like we saw it do on the Series finale and in certain situations where this is permitted, it is actually more damaging than a standard T5 assault cruiser, but the ship isn't going to do as well in a knife fight as the assault cruiser does, but the assault cruiser isn't as much of a knife fighter either, to be honest. Only when the Excelsior came out, did the Feds' get a ship that was close to being a knife fighter that could give the Klinks' battle-cruisers a run for their money. This only proves that they didn't do a good job, over the whole cruiser line for the first few cruisers, not a geniuine bias against Gal-R/Gal-X.
Just because something doesn't perform to a standard doesn't prove bias, it does more to prove a lack of fore/after thought on overall ship design. We could go as far to say that there is a bias on some peoples expectations of the ships performance to begin with, but I wouldn't go that far. If someone is looking for a conspiracy/scandal/etc., they will find it, no matter how real it actually is.
like i said, i don't bielieve it is a conspiracy, so i don't "look" for one.
you are intelligently trying to make me look like a freak that see conspiracy everywhere, but it is not going to work.
i said it is a bias. and it is.
what is the definition of a bias?
inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair:
and in the subject we are talking about i also love that one
a systematic distortion of a statistical result due to a factor not allowed for in its derivation.
and althought it coud look like a conspiracy in the result it is not in the "manner", so to speak.
definition of a conspiracy:
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:
a conspiracy to destroy the government
this is not a conspiracy, the devs do not secretely hate the galaxy and want it to be bad just because they don't like it!
it is a bias, the galaxy can not be as good because " insert any perceive cannon reasons here"
a bias is not a crime in itself, everyone had a bias at a time of his life on any subjetc, it is one of the most current human behavior.
and the only "extreme" or irresponsible" behavior here would be to hide it and make it look like an accident and not try to correct it.
The Gal-R fit the empty slot between the Star and Assault Cruiser with an ensign Engi' and the Gal-X was intended to be more aggressive so it got an ensign Tac', the lance and a cloak.
you see?
perfect example.
why should the galaxy retrofit should fit the "spot" BETWEEN the assault cruiser and the star cruiser?
why can't he go beyond the star cruiser?
why?
because a galaxy is an old ship and can not be as good as the newly release star cruiser in sto timeline?
why the exelsior didn't fit the "spot" between the assault cruiser and the star cruiser?
why was it allowed to go beyond an assault cruiser?
you see the difference in treatement here? you see the bias?
Ironically, when I said that I got quite a bit of "flak" (all in good fun ) for it. But you are right: The Galaxy Refit (X) is just that, it's the basic Galaxy with a third navelle (which really doesn't do anything aside from maybe stabilizing the flight or something?) and some additional arrays on the nacelles
no, it is not just that.
this is your opinion, it is not a fact.
their is no real cannon evidence that the galaxy x is "just that".
no one known what they have done to the internal "layout" of the ship in this time, you also seem to forget that it got 20 years of technological advancement compared to the normal galaxy.
i bielieve that they greatly optimized it for combat, this is my opinion, it is also, not a fact.
but an opinion that derive from a logical deduction considering the visual evidence and context of the episode.
construct an integrated lance of this size is not a minor tweaking mind you.
i don't see riker in the bar of the shypyard responding to a relative: " ho don't worry, we are just intalling a phaser lance, a third nacelle and a cloack, shoudn't take that long, a bit of wiring connection and paint brush and i be ready in 2 hours!"
one can question the validity of the weapon in regard to the array, but not the logical tactical modifications that it would surely impose.
this is just an inelegant visual ( thirs nacelle and lance ) way to show that the ship have become more of a warship than an explorer.
The thing is, even if people don't want to see this, the Galaxy is already a top-of-the-line ship with lots of firepower and blah
you are kidding me right?
top of the line ship with lot of firepower? 6turn/25 inertia with 3tact console and lt tact bo!
i don't considere that top of the line with a LOT of firepowed.
we are talking about the galaxy x here, not the avenger, scimitar, mogh, exelsior, breen, galor, regent, dderidex, negvar or monbosh.
in fact, is there a tactical cruiser in the game that got less than that?
no that i recall, not even the simple asault cruiser.
it seem more bottom of the line than top of the line to me.
But it actually makes sense for the Dradnaught Cruiser not to be all that different from the Explorer.
asking a lt commander tact is not a drastic change compared to a lt tact.
you could have said that if one would have ask 2 lt commander tact, or a lt commander + a lt tact.
the lt tact bo combined with the turn/inertia/speed make this ship a joke of a tactical ship, the simple assault cruiser got a better potential, and it getting even better since this ship got 4 cruiser command, not 2.
funny isn't it?
fear the day when someone introduced " dreadnought" in the name of your ship, on it own it is able to remove you 2 cruiser command... for nothing.
going from a lt tact bo to a lt commander is not going from a already powerfull ship to the ultimate weapon of doom!
it is going to a healbot to an actual tactical ship ( but still, definitivelt not the best... still ).
a tactical ship, that some people like it or not, it is what the galaxy dreadnought is suppose to be in this game.
you are kidding me right?
top of the line ship with lot of firepower? 6turn/25 inertia with 3tact console and lt tact bo!
i don't considere that top of the line with a LOT of firepowed.
we are talking about the galaxy x here, not the avenger, scimitar, mogh, exelsior, breen, galor, regent, dderidex, negvar or monbosh.
in fact, is there a tactical cruiser in the game that got less than that?
no that i recall, not even the simple asault cruiser.
it seem more bottom of the line than top of the line to me.
(...)
I was refering to the canon Galaxy Class, not it's in-game incarnation at that point
The in-game Galaxy just suffers from an unlucky draw, really. In what way the canon Galaxy X differed from the Galaxy Class you are right, we don't know that. But they did nothing to convince me they did a lot to make it a super doomship. Yeah, the piercing phaser array. That's a pretty powerful addition, but nothing the Galaxy couldn't handle. Someone (maybe you?) a while back persumed the lance would pierce the enemy defense while a regular full power phaser beam from the main array would smash ist. I get that modification - the additional phaser relays on the nacelles are found on the regular Galaxy refits in DS9 as well and the third nacelle doesn't really do anything "tactical". It has a cloak, that's right but other than that, manneuvreability and defenses etc. seem to me like the regular Galaxy which is already a powerful ship (though it lacks finesse).
That's at least my take on it
^ 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
like i said, i don't bielieve it is a conspiracy, so i don't "look" for one.
you are intelligently trying to make me look like a freak that see conspiracy everywhere, but it is not going to work.
I'm not trying to make you look like a "freak", I am the one saying that you may feel that the way the ship is because of some percieved bias that you believe that Cryptic/PWE is acting upon because the ship doesn't perform the way you (and others) believe it should on a personal level, as if it's some sort of personal slap-in-the-face to you (and others).
You said it was bias, but you really feel that its bias, you don't know for sure it is bias until you literally go into their minds or they say that the reason why the ship has the setup it has is because that they don't like the ship. Which you can't and they haven't, in that order.
and althought it coud look like a conspiracy in the result it is not in the "manner", so to speak.
this is not a conspiracy, the devs do not secretely hate the galaxy and want it to be bad just because they don't like it!
it is a bias, the galaxy can not be as good because " insert any perceive cannon reasons here"
a bias is not a crime in itself, everyone had a bias at a time of his life on any subjetc, it is one of the most current human behavior.
and the only "extreme" or irresponsible" behavior here would be to hide it and make it look like an accident and not try to correct it.
Well, Crytic/PWE hasn't said that they don't like the Galaxy and that's why they are intentionally impeding the ship, so that would be in secret from the players and in effect they would be attempting to "harm" the image of the ship, as it is in game (much as in the case of slander or libel). [/quote]
you see?
perfect example.
why should the galaxy retrofit should fit the "spot" BETWEEN the assault cruiser and the star cruiser?
Because the focus of differences at the time was a single ensign boff slot and there was already the Assault (tac ensign) and Star Cruiser (Science ensign) , there wasn't an engineering ensign used yet and it was easier to do it that way.
Because they weren't obligated to do so. There isn't any natural law saying that canon ship > non canon ship. Heck, they could have just left it at a T4 ship, would that have worked better for you? At the time when it was made, it had the same amount of boff slots, down a console and down a weapon to allow for the saucer separation. It didn't work, and they changed it. Now, (with Fleet stats between them for convenience sake) it has the same amount of consoles, boff slots, and weapons, it has 1,100 more hulll, same shield mod and less turn. If it weren't for engineering skills being sub-par to the other two, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
because a galaxy is an old ship and can not be as good as the newly release star cruiser in sto timeline?
Because when the game came out, the Galaxy was a T4 ship and the Sovereign was a T5 ship, the most current Enterprise was the Sovereign class ship. They were going on a forward timeline, trying to make new ships for the future. There was only one canon escort, and the Prometheus was only a prototype in Voyager, there was no canon sci-ship. So if the Galaxy was supposed to be lesser than another T5, it would have been the Assault Cruiser (looking at the progression of Enterprises).
why the exelsior didn't fit the "spot" between the assault cruiser and the star cruiser?
why was it allowed to go beyond an assault cruiser?
Because the dev's felt comfortable enough to move a cruiser to having a LTCMDR in something other than engineering, and the Gal-R took the slot between the Assault and Star Cruiser previously to the Excelsior's release. In short, its whenthey stuffed it into the game.
Nope, I just see poor product development progression. They should have planned ship offerings in advance, but they were sloppy on it, just like many other things in the game that they have been sloppy on.
its to bad the excelcior wasn't released before the galaxy R, it would make a lot more sense for them to swap station and console setup. the extreamly dated excelsior having a hammy unuseful station setup would be a perfect fit, and the galaxy being the highest firepower cruiser back in those old days would have nicely fit with the canon.
First off, why on Earth does an Excelsior and Fleet Excelsior (4 Tactical Console Slots btw and 1 Lieutenant Commander Console) complete outpower a Galaxy when the Galaxy is a newer and more tactically powerful ship!
Realistically?
Because Cryptic wanted to sell some Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofits, that's why.
Because Cryptic wanted to sell some Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofits, that's why.
Cool huh?
Did anybody think about why the Excelsior should be in any way shape or form "advanced" over the Cheyenne which is around 60-70 years younger?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I'm not trying to make you look like a "freak", I am the one saying that you may feel that the way the ship is because of some percieved bias that you believe that Cryptic/PWE is acting upon because the ship doesn't perform the way you (and others) believe it should on a personal level, as if it's some sort of personal slap-in-the-face to you (and others).
the ship daesn't perform and/or have a repartition of stats that allow him to be more than an inneficient clone of a star cruiser/ odyssey or any other cruiser for that matter.
the ship have no reasons to exist in the current layout of ships, it have no role.
this is not a personal view or bielief, it is a fact.
a fact!
what i said can be prove and reproduced
the only thing that remain on the "point of view" domain is the question:
should there be a cstore tier5 ship that is the least in everything and therefore have no reason to exist exept for it look?
because if i were pushing for stats of the ship according to my personal bielief, even the galaxy retrofit would be the most powerfull ship in the federation faction, not more not less.
my position on the subject, from the beguining, is the opposite way ( in term of cryptic game mechanism, meaning: if you have more firepower, you theoritically loose tankiness )
You said it was bias, but you really feel that its bias, you don't know for sure it is bias until you literally go into their minds or they say that the reason why the ship has the setup it has is because that they don't like the ship. Which you can't and they haven't, in that order.
Because the focus of differences at the time was a single ensign boff slot and there was already the Assault (tac ensign) and Star Cruiser (Science ensign) , there wasn't an engineering ensign used yet and it was easier to do it that way.
hmm, again there seem to be a misanderstanding between you and me due to my poor english writing skills.
it my fault here, i will try to correct it.
so it seem that you think ( again due to how i wrote things ) that i think ( damn it complicated:D ) that some devs or cryptic hate the galaxy.
i don't think that they do.
and what make you bielieve that, is this sentence
this is not a conspiracy, the devs do not secretely hate the galaxy and want it to be bad just because they don't like it!
when i read it again, i anderstand your confusion, this is what i should have wrote ( well at least i will try )
"there is no conspiracy WHERE the dev would secretly hate the galaxy and want it to be bad because they don't like it."
so to resume, i don't bielieve in the idea that some devs don't like the galaxy and made a conspiracy to make it bad.
i don't think i can be more clear than that.
Because the focus of differences at the time was a single ensign boff slot and there was already the Assault (tac ensign) and Star Cruiser (Science ensign) , there wasn't an engineering ensign used yet and it was easier to do it that way.
Because they weren't obligated to do so. There isn't any natural law saying that canon ship > non canon ship. Heck, they could have just left it at a T4 ship, would that have worked better for you? At the time when it was made, it had the same amount of boff slots, down a console and down a weapon to allow for the saucer separation. It didn't work, and they changed it. Now, (with Fleet stats between them for convenience sake) it has the same amount of consoles, boff slots, and weapons, it has 1,100 more hulll, same shield mod and less turn. If it weren't for engineering skills being sub-par to the other two, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Because that's where the dev's were, design-wise when the created the Gal-R.
Because when the game came out, the Galaxy was a T4 ship and the Sovereign was a T5 ship, the most current Enterprise was the Sovereign class ship. They were going on a forward timeline, trying to make new ships for the future. There was only one canon escort, and the Prometheus was only a prototype in Voyager, there was no canon sci-ship. So if the Galaxy was supposed to be lesser than another T5, it would have been the Assault Cruiser (looking at the progression of Enterprises).
Because the dev's felt comfortable enough to move a cruiser to having a LTCMDR in something other than engineering, and the Gal-R took the slot between the Assault and Star Cruiser previously to the Excelsior's release. In short, its whenthey stuffed it into the game.
Nope, I just see poor product development progression. They should have planned ship offerings in advance, but they were sloppy on it, just like many other things in the game that they have been sloppy on.
well that make a bunch of reasons, timing coincidences, design decisions and sloppy product development progression.
you told me that i coudn't really known what the devs think exept if i could read directly to their mind, but it seem to me that you...do.
in any case the galaxy fan seem to be EXTREEEEEEEMELY unluncky here:rolleyes:
There isn't any natural law saying that canon ship > non canon ship, but on the other hand there seem to ba a "natural" law saying that the galaxy should suck.
and for the galaxy left at tier4? well i am still trying to convinced myself that the tier5 galaxy is an evolution ( or progression ) of the tiers 4 venture, but with no conclusive results so far, so why not?
too bad they don't do tier4 fleet version:D
but you woudn't mind that the exelsior be left at tier 3 then? how that would have worked for you?
yeah i known, a tier 5 galaxy is a FAVOR that the devs in their infinite generosity give to the galaxy fan,and every other tier 4 and 3 ship that have been braught to tier5 is just the natural evolution of things.
you are right, there is no bias.
the ship daesn't perform and/or have a repartition of stats that allow him to be more than an inneficient clone of a star cruiser/ odyssey or any other cruiser for that matter.
the ship have no reasons to exist in the current layout of ships, it have no role.
this is not a personal view or bielief, it is a fact.
a fact!
what i said can be prove and reproduced
the only thing that remain on the "point of view" domain is the question:
should there be a cstore tier5 ship that is the least in everything and therefore have no reason to exist exept for it look?
because if i were pushing for stats of the ship according to my personal bielief, even the galaxy retrofit would be the most powerfull ship in the federation faction, not more not less.
my position on the subject, from the beguining, is the opposite way ( in term of cryptic game mechanism, meaning: if you have more firepower, you theoritically loose tankiness )
Just because the ship isn't a high performer, does not mean its poor performance is a case of bias. Your "facts" don't really lead to anything, other than its a poor performer. Until you can bring up something from the dev's stating their dislike of the ship and that the dislike had a role in the process for stating out the ship, you just have an opinion and nothing more.
hmm, again there seem to be a misanderstanding between you and me due to my poor english writing skills.
it my fault here, i will try to correct it.
so it seem that you think ( again due to how i wrote things ) that i think ( damn it complicated:D ) that some devs or cryptic hate the galaxy.
i don't think that they do.
and what make you bielieve that, is this sentence
when i read it again, i anderstand your confusion, this is what i should have wrote ( well at least i will try )
"there is no conspiracy WHERE the dev would secretly hate the galaxy and want it to be bad because they don't like it."
so to resume, i don't bielieve in the idea that some devs don't like the galaxy and made a conspiracy to make it bad.
i don't think i can be more clear than that.
Where I am coming from on "conspiracy" is that it would take far more than one dev' to go along with said "bias" in order for it to have taken place as you have suggested. Like many operations, these guys pay is surely based on the success of their work, it makes no sense for them to tank the game in order to enact some sort of personal vendetta against this ship, especially when their professional integrity and accomplishments are a big part of their resume.
well that make a bunch of reasons, timing coincidences, design decisions and sloppy product development progression.
you told me that i coudn't really known what the devs think exept if i could read directly to their mind, but it seem to me that you...do.
in any case the galaxy fan seem to be EXTREEEEEEEMELY unluncky here:rolleyes:
There isn't any natural law saying that canon ship > non canon ship, but on the other hand there seem to ba a "natural" law saying that the galaxy should suck.
I never said that I knew, I gave my opinion what what I see regarding this issue. I am not sure of what your professional field is, but my experience (and my degree track) is working with projects, namely the maintenance and troubleshooting (Six Sigma) of those projects. The number one reason for many projects to fail/run into complications is because that the projects plan wasn't strong, namely because of poor definition of the project scope.
In Cryptics case, it really does appear to me, that since beta, that they weren't well defined on what / how they were to move forward once the game left beta and went full launch. The KDF faction content, even now, is still limited in comparison to the Fed' side. Bugs are still fixed at a near glacial pace ( how many/ how long are bugs acknowledged in the patch notes , yet seem to stay on the back burner?)
As I have said earlier, at launch they only had one canon ship for the escort and cruiser classes, and no science at all, the rest were "future" ships. It seems (to me), under Atari, that they were trying to move the game forward with future ships to avoid issues of dealing with CBS and Paramount for existing IP (ala the T5 Connie argument). I know that a bunch of people were not pleased with the Cryptic IP ships and wanted canon ships, something it seemed that Atari/Cryptic were not expecting. When they did include the T5 Explorer Refit (C store Item) and the Dreadnought Cruiser, they were primarily dealing with variances of a Boff ensign fro cruisers. The ships , at the time of their release were some of many of the ships that had console or weapons removed as penalties for the special capabilities that that the ships were given, (as we know that was changed because it was a poor concept in action.)
If you also remember, the T5 DN cruiser was a reward for bringing in 5 other subscriptions, not even a widely available ship. By the time the Excelsior was released, it seemed they had learned that the difference of an ensign across the board was going to limit c-store offerings (non-subscription revenue) so they then broke into offering differences in LTCMDR slots.
So yes, in my opinion, the T5 Exploration Cruiser Refit and the Dreadnought Cruiser were "unlucky" because of poor production development. Pressure from the fan base to make a T5 versions of these ships brought them out first, when the game really didn't have a well-laid out plan of where ships would be even 6 months down the road. Further evidence is that the T5+ (c-store ships) were even left behind with each new c-store ship release and then finally, by Fleet ships.
In a business sense, it makes much more sense the than idea that the dev's hampered the ship because they didn't like it/bias. The reason why the game exists is to do business, not to just satisfy the biases of dev's.
and for the galaxy left at tier4? well i am still trying to convinced myself that the tier5 galaxy is an evolution ( or progression ) of the tiers 4 venture, but with no conclusive results so far, so why not?
too bad they don't do tier4 fleet version:D
Well, the T5 has more weapons Boffs, hull, shields and consoles than the T4 does, so I would say that is pretty convincing, but you have a right to your own opinion.
but you woudn't mind that the exelsior be left at tier 3 then? how that would have worked for you?
I would have been fine with the Excelsior to be left at T3 (or not showing at all). I am not tied down to any one "ship" in the game. My favorite ship is the TMP era Constituion, and I am a voice against a T5/Fleet version of it BTW. If the T5 Excelsior never happened, I would still be using my Assault Cruiser and its variants like I did before the Excelsior was offered.
yeah i known, a tier 5 galaxy is a FAVOR that the devs in their infinite generosity give to the galaxy fan,and every other tier 4 and 3 ship that have been braught to tier5 is just the natural evolution of things.
you are right, there is no bias.
Again, your opinion. Mine is that the timing of the launch of them was what hampers the layout, not bias. BTW, if the Galaxy is a victim of bias, why is the Nebula, as ship based off of the Galaxy's design, such a good ship? Surely, bias would have spread to that ship as well, would it not?
its to bad the excelcior wasn't released before the galaxy R, it would make a lot more sense for them to swap station and console setup. the extreamly dated excelsior having a hammy unuseful station setup would be a perfect fit, and the galaxy being the highest firepower cruiser back in those old days would have nicely fit with the canon.
I wouldn't go that far. As much as one can argue that the Galaxy would be tactically superior (Boff/console slots) to its predecessors, it also makes no sense to make the replacement for the Enterprise-D (Enterprise being the historical name of the highest Starfleet pride) to be less formidable than the ship its replacing. No matter what "canon" someone brings up, this is a prevailing concept in Star Trek itself.
I wouldn't go that far. As much as one can argue that the Galaxy would be tactically superior (Boff/console slots) to its predecessors, it also makes no sense to make the replacement for the Enterprise-D (Enterprise being the historical name of the highest Starfleet pride) to be less formidable than the ship its replacing. No matter what "canon" someone brings up, this is a prevailing concept in Star Trek itself.
the E being not as good as the D metric in universe has a lot more to it then which can pew harder. the sovereign is a more advanced design, comes loaded with more advanced tech, and is very heavily armed for its size. just about everything that makes it special out of the box will become part of the refit parts bin pretty quick, but at the time of the E's launch it was unparalleled in pure tech. but, its not the new biggest ship in the fleet, its a replacement for a collection of antiquated or just plan old as dirt mid sized designs that they have milked as long as they could.
when the federation dont need an active duty battleship for a full scale war, the galaxy class is simply to much. to big, to expensive, to tragic when lost, way to big a solution to throw at any non military problem. you dont need to send an Iowa class against somali pirates, or the titanic to transfer personnel to hawaii. starfleet's bread and butter are mid sized cruisers that are just right at everything, so its no surprise the newest perfectly balanced class gets the honor of being the new enterprise.
depending on how soft you like your canon, back in the tos days the enterprise was never star fleets battleship, that was a C and D thing.
the E being not as good as the D metric in universe has a lot more to it then which can pew harder. the sovereign is a more advanced design, comes loaded with more advanced tech, and is very heavily armed for its size. just about everything that makes it special out of the box will become part of the refit parts bin pretty quick, but at the time of the E's launch it was unparalleled in pure tech. but, its not the new biggest ship in the fleet, its a replacement for a collection of antiquated or just plan old as dirt mid sized designs that they have milked as long as they could.
when the federation dont need an active duty battleship for a full scale war, the galaxy class is simply to much. to big, to expensive, to tragic when lost, way to big a solution to throw at any non military problem. you dont need to send an Iowa class against somali pirates, or the titanic to transfer personnel to hawaii. starfleet's bread and butter are mid sized cruisers that are just right at everything, so its no surprise the newest perfectly balanced class gets the honor of being the new enterprise.
depending on how soft you like your canon, back in the tos days the enterprise was never star fleets battleship, that was a C and D thing.
I believe I said:
"As much as one can argue that the Galaxy would be tactically superior (Boff/console slots) to its predecessors, it also makes no sense to make the replacement for the Enterprise-D (Enterprise being the historical name of the highest Starfleet pride) to be less formidable than the ship its replacing. No matter what "canon" someone brings up, this is a prevailing concept in Star Trek itself."
Plainly put it only makes sense that the replacement for a ship that's name (such as the Enterprise) is the pride of the Federation is tactically superior to the ship it is replacing. This isn't the launching of the USS Bill Clinton, but a ship that Starfleets' reputation is banked upon. It's unrealistic to argue that the next ship in the line have less firepower than the ship its replacing, no matter if its smaller , especially considering the advancement the ship has.
As far as being in a time of war and the "D" and "E", the "E" was no less in a time of war than the "D" was, actually the likelyhood of war with an overwhelmingly superior foe was more present with the "E" during its development time, or were the Borg as much of a paper tiger in Star Trek canon as it is in STO? Yet we see them just working to replace smaller-mid size ships , as you say, with the Sovereign, but not increasing the firepower dramatically to be deal with the threat as opposed to a ship thats a generation (10 years) older, and the Sovy isn't that much smaller to where advances in tech would preclude it for being more than a match in destructive capability as the "D" was, and most of that size was taken up with non combat space (apples to apples) . If not, the Federation didn't deserve to survive because it wasn't trying or not even taking threats seriously.
I know you love your mile-long phaser strips and how the Galaxy is so big it can bolt on more and newer stuff, but seriously, if that was the be all and end all, why don't we have cruisers with the majority of their saucer with emitters wrapped all around it in a large spiral?
is this topic SERIOUSLY still running? i've looked at this topic several times, and i find half the posts to be just fanboys wishing their favorite ship was the best in the game.
i will admit, the galaxy class isnt near as good as it should be. if it was up to me, it'd be one of the tankiest ships in the game in both hull cap and Boff layout. should it do damage? no. of all the cruisers we have it's the one least likely to be good at damage. as a exploration ship it's weapons are best described as "defensive". the loads of tactical consoles/Boff slots people want this to have is ridiculous. the galaxy X maybe, but the original galaxy class, as in NCC 1701-D, was definitely a tank. even the galaxy's appearance in DS9, in all it's appearances it's the toughest ship, but not the one dealing crippling blows to anything.
the only thing the galaxy should get is 3-5k more hull, a slightly better shield modifier, and maaaaybe something to make torpedoes more effective on this slow monster.
it should be slow, it should lack tactical prowess, no hanger, and definitely no super l33t console to give it a "end everything" gun.
is this topic SERIOUSLY still running? i've looked at this topic several times, and i find half the posts to be just fanboys wishing their favorite ship was the best in the game.
i will admit, the galaxy class isnt near as good as it should be. if it was up to me, it'd be one of the tankiest ships in the game in both hull cap and Boff layout. should it do damage? no. of all the cruisers we have it's the one least likely to be good at damage. as a exploration ship it's weapons are best described as "defensive". the loads of tactical consoles/Boff slots people want this to have is ridiculous. the galaxy X maybe, but the original galaxy class, as in NCC 1701-D, was definitely a tank. even the galaxy's appearance in DS9, in all it's appearances it's the toughest ship, but not the one dealing crippling blows to anything.
the only thing the galaxy should get is 3-5k more hull, a slightly better shield modifier, and maaaaybe something to make torpedoes more effective on this slow monster.
it should be slow, it should lack tactical prowess, no hanger, and definitely no super l33t console to give it a "end everything" gun.
All of the snark in that post aside, it's not about it doing the most damage, it's all the antiques that are so much better like excelsior and others. It SHOULD hit harder than excelsior and a few other ships. Not all ships. Not have the biggest gun. It should be a big slow tank, but it should be able to land a bigger punch than it does. And the damn separation is not the answer. When they really slugged it out it was in one piece, not separated. And yeah, the posts are still going in this thread because the ship, while it doesn't suck, needs help. As for no tactical prowess that flies in the face of it having the most powerful weapons and tactical systems of its time. I love excelsior and even more I love the ambassador, defiant and intrepid are cool, but they have no business outgunni g the galaxy. That's just silly.......
Cryptic is facing a bit of a dilemma here. They know that an upgraded set of galaxies would sell like hotcakes, that however would also mean that a part of the population would cease to exist as a potential customer. As long as the galaxy remains a worse ship, the players might get frustrated enough to cave in and buy something else.
The galaxy is a big can of cash, and also a death knell for further offerings.
Just because the ship isn't a high performer, does not mean its poor performance is a case of bias. Your "facts" don't really lead to anything, other than its a poor performer. Until you can bring up something from the dev's stating their dislike of the ship and that the dislike had a role in the process for stating out the ship, you just have an opinion and nothing more.
i bielieve that the state of the galaxy in this game is due to a bias, NOT to a dislike like you try so many time to bring to justify a hypothetical bias.
they are strong clue both on the way the ship was implemented and in the ways everyone ( devs, fan ect) speak of it.
the performance of the ship are a fact, but i wouldn't go as far as to said that the bias about it, is.
this is indeed just my opinion, but like i said they are strong indications.
and you don't need to dislike a thing to have a bias on it, these are 2 different things.
look at the scimitar, it is subject of the same bias as the galaxy altrought it is reverse.
gecko state in a podcast that they ( the devs ) have done everything they can to make this ship very good, because in the movie it is displayed as a weapons of doom.
so just like the galaxy, they discarded the tiers implie rules of the game to make a ship outright better ( of worst in the galaxy case ) than other ship in the same tiers.
that is the bias, and you see you don't need a conspiracy or a dislike for it to happened.
just like you said, it is an acknowledgement.
but this "acknowledgement" become a bias at the moment where you discarded the game basis to implement it.
if the scimitar was introduced as a tier6 ship, it would not be a bias then.
if cryptic wanted the galaxy to be outright worst than the sovereign, they should have left it a tier4, here there was no bias.
the performance of the ship being outright worst than the sovi would have been justify by the perceive cannon acknowledgement wich would have bring it in tier4.
at the moment you bring it to the tier5 you have to forget about "cannon evidence" and whatnot and made the ship equal ( as much as possible ) but in a different way.
and i will not accept excuses as " it was bring on due to fan complaign, so you should be happy that you have one".
people at cryptic are adult and mature, they took a descision about it to make it to tier5, they have to assume it to the end.
Where I am coming from on "conspiracy" is that it would take far more than one dev' to go along with said "bias" in order for it to have taken place as you have suggested. Like many operations, these guys pay is surely based on the success of their work, it makes no sense for them to tank the game in order to enact some sort of personal vendetta against this ship, especially when their professional integrity and accomplishments are a big part of their resume.
again, this is not due to a personal vendetta, or dislike, why do you try to bring that up altrought i said it was not countless time.
a bias is independant to a dislike, you can have both, but they also exist separated just like my example of the scimitar show you.
I never said that I knew, I gave my opinion what what I see regarding this issue. I am not sure of what your professional field is, but my experience (and my degree track) is working with projects, namely the maintenance and troubleshooting (Six Sigma) of those projects. The number one reason for many projects to fail/run into complications is because that the projects plan wasn't strong, namely because of poor definition of the project scope.
In Cryptics case, it really does appear to me, that since beta, that they weren't well defined on what / how they were to move forward once the game left beta and went full launch. The KDF faction content, even now, is still limited in comparison to the Fed' side. Bugs are still fixed at a near glacial pace ( how many/ how long are bugs acknowledged in the patch notes , yet seem to stay on the back burner?)
As I have said earlier, at launch they only had one canon ship for the escort and cruiser classes, and no science at all, the rest were "future" ships. It seems (to me), under Atari, that they were trying to move the game forward with future ships to avoid issues of dealing with CBS and Paramount for existing IP (ala the T5 Connie argument). I know that a bunch of people were not pleased with the Cryptic IP ships and wanted canon ships, something it seemed that Atari/Cryptic were not expecting. When they did include the T5 Explorer Refit (C store Item) and the Dreadnought Cruiser, they were primarily dealing with variances of a Boff ensign fro cruisers. The ships , at the time of their release were some of many of the ships that had console or weapons removed as penalties for the special capabilities that that the ships were given, (as we know that was changed because it was a poor concept in action.)
If you also remember, the T5 DN cruiser was a reward for bringing in 5 other subscriptions, not even a widely available ship. By the time the Excelsior was released, it seemed they had learned that the difference of an ensign across the board was going to limit c-store offerings (non-subscription revenue) so they then broke into offering differences in LTCMDR slots.
So yes, in my opinion, the T5 Exploration Cruiser Refit and the Dreadnought Cruiser were "unlucky" because of poor production development. Pressure from the fan base to make a T5 versions of these ships brought them out first, when the game really didn't have a well-laid out plan of where ships would be even 6 months down the road. Further evidence is that the T5+ (c-store ships) were even left behind with each new c-store ship release and then finally, by Fleet ships.
In a business sense, it makes much more sense the than idea that the dev's hampered the ship because they didn't like it/bias. The reason why the game exists is to do business, not to just satisfy the biases of dev's.
if that the case it is even worst than a bias.
it would mean that they don't really plan a role for the ship and just build it on the go with what was available.
just to remind you, the problem is not just the ensign bo layout but also the turn/inertia/speed, and in the case of the galaxy x, you could add the 3nd tact console missing , 3weapons in the back.
they may have a " weak" project about it but not concerning the intention to limits the general stats of both ship
this woudn't be that bad if it was not as an iconic ship of the star trek franchise.
but if that really happened like this, it would show a total disrespect to the ship.
Well, the T5 has more weapons Boffs, hull, shields and consoles than the T4 does, so I would say that is pretty convincing, but you have a right to your own opinion.
in case that wasn't obvious enought, this was an ironical statement to show you that the little difference in stats between the tier4 and 5 of the galaxy ( especially when you look at the tier4 venture ) are not worth the name of a tier5 variant.
hence the little joke about a "tier4 fleet version"
Again, your opinion. Mine is that the timing of the launch of them was what hampers the layout, not bias. BTW, if the Galaxy is a victim of bias, why is the Nebula, as ship based off of the Galaxy's design, such a good ship? Surely, bias would have spread to that ship as well, would it not?
well i wouldn't go as far as to said that the nebula is "such a good" ship but to respond to your question, a bias do not care about logical fact, evidence or context.
so even if i would accept your statement as the nebula is based on the galaxy therefore it should perform in a similar way ( wich i do not, these ship got different role and performances in cannon ),
it is of no consequence to a bias, otherwise it would not be a bias, by definition.
is this topic SERIOUSLY still running? i've looked at this topic several times, and i find half the posts to be just fanboys wishing their favorite ship was the best in the game.
i will admit, the galaxy class isnt near as good as it should be. if it was up to me, it'd be one of the tankiest ships in the game in both hull cap and Boff layout. should it do damage? no. of all the cruisers we have it's the one least likely to be good at damage. as a exploration ship it's weapons are best described as "defensive". the loads of tactical consoles/Boff slots people want this to have is ridiculous. the galaxy X maybe, but the original galaxy class, as in NCC 1701-D, was definitely a tank. even the galaxy's appearance in DS9, in all it's appearances it's the toughest ship, but not the one dealing crippling blows to anything.
the only thing the galaxy should get is 3-5k more hull, a slightly better shield modifier, and maaaaybe something to make torpedoes more effective on this slow monster.
it should be slow, it should lack tactical prowess, no hanger, and definitely no super l33t console to give it a "end everything" gun.
the ironie here, is that in the concept, you are in line with what the core of the thread ask.
meaning not the end of all ship but a better ship, or more precisely, concerning the galaxy retrofit a ship that have a role.
asking for it to be better just to be better will not give him a role, a role is the cure to obsolescence and power creep, not better stats alone.
concerning the galaxy x, just like you we ask it to be a real tactical ship, and not a healbot disguised in tactical.
so appart from stating that a galaxy should not have firepower ( do you find it normal that a nova, ambassador and exelsior outgun it? ) we are mostly ok with the fact that these ships are not where they supposed to be.
so why daes it come to you as a surprised that this thread is still going?
last time i check ( yesterday) these ship still suck.
All of the snark in that post aside, it's not about it doing the most damage, it's all the antiques that are so much better like excelsior and others. It SHOULD hit harder than excelsior and a few other ships. Not all ships. Not have the biggest gun. It should be a big slow tank, but it should be able to land a bigger punch than it does. And the damn separation is not the answer. When they really slugged it out it was in one piece, not separated. And yeah, the posts are still going in this thread because the ship, while it doesn't suck, needs help. As for no tactical prowess that flies in the face of it having the most powerful weapons and tactical systems of its time. I love excelsior and even more I love the ambassador, defiant and intrepid are cool, but they have no business outgunni g the galaxy. That's just silly.......
what's silly about a defiant out gunning a galaxy?
defiant: built for war against the borg. designed by captain sisko as literally guns strapped to a engine. everything about the ship screams war. it was the first ship that starfleet unofficially labeled a warship (while officially calling it an escort).
galaxy: built for exploration, but given the firepower to defend itself. one of many in a long series of frontline cruisers, it is meant to last. it's weapons are not notable in any way, and in all the time it's been in service, it's never gotten a substantial weapons refit (in the show at least.)
i will admit, between a galaxy and a excelsior, the newer, and more powerful galaxy should have an advantage tactically. but this is a game, and a balance must be maintained between ships. if i had to choose between making the galaxy exceptionally tanky, or decent damage wise, i'd call it an exceptional tank. in all its service, this ship has been well known for taking a beating and that singular point of interest should be the main focus of the ship.
there's no good reason why an extremely old ship as the excelsior should be better in damage, but at least in the cruiser's primary role (tank) the galaxy is proven the superior.
PS. if an intrepid is doing better then your galaxy you truely have a problem as there's no excuse for a T5 intrepid to be doing better then even a captain rank galaxy (with endgame gear of course).
Ok first thing don't mix STO with Star Trek canon. There's no comparison.
Two. In this game if your Galaxy out dpses the Intrepid then you're doing something wrong with the Intrepid.
Three. In canon there's no way a Defiant out guns a Galaxy. It's a simple matter of which can generate more power. Defiant can't get anywhere near the Galaxy. The Defiant was built to be a low cost warship Starfleet could produce on mass with minimal crew. So unless the Defiant uses sneak attack or there's multiple defiant class ships verse a single Galaxy there's no way it out guns it.
Four. There's no need for a dedicated tank in STO. Either you're a healer or you can do enough dps yourself to get the job done regardless of what ship you pick.
defiant isnt very well armored, but when we talk about guns, there's no way a galaxy can compete. and if you try and talk about the power, remember that the galaxy is huuuge, and has alot of power requirements for being huge. its warp core is limited, and there's only so much power you can shove into a phaser bank before your just overloading a flashlight.
defiant was built for war. it has 4 rapid fire pulse cannons, a beam bank (with alot more powerful emitters then the galaxy has) and is equiped with QUANTUM torpedoes. a huge increase from photons which is all the galaxy was designed to pack.
in suvivability, the galaxy would win, yes. but there's no way a galaxy would out damage a defiant.
you are right, there's no need for a dedicated tank in STO. but that doesnt mean turning the galaxy into something its not, it means we need more missions that require a tank, or at least benefit more from having one.
what's silly about a defiant out gunning a galaxy?
What's silly? lol A Galaxy class will ROFLSTOMP a Defiant every single time.
You see, when Starfleet defined the Defiant as a warship (escort) what they intended was it to do is packing a significant punch for it's size, while being cheaper to produce and more disposable. (in terms of casualties) It's not more powerfull than a Galaxy.
The Defiant was meant to be a ship that could be a tolerable loss (even though Starfleet allways tries to protect as many lives anyway) that would attack the Borg in swarms, thus dealing significant amount of damage while at the same time enabling the lowest amount of losses in terms of production resources as well as crew. (only 50)
A Galaxy class would be much much more expensive and time consuming to produce, furthermore with 1000 crew the crew losses would be unnaceptable.
Basically, what Starfleet intended the Defiant to be is an anwer to an enemy who has shown to be overwhealmingly powerfull and deals easily with anything you throw at them. So the strategy was to produce a huge amount of smaller, yet powerfull for their size warships that would swarm the Borg when they show up in Federation territory, hopefully taking them down due to sheer numbers while trying to keep casualties at minimum.
1 on 1 with a Galaxy however? The Defiant has no chance.
the question wasnt which would last longer, its obvious the defiant would loose in a sustained battle. the question was which dished out more damage in a few seconds. the galaxy has 12 beam banks with 50k terawatt output. the defiant has 4 rapid fire pulse cannons. from the show we know they fire 4-6 shots per volley easily (each cannon). we'll estimate 20 shots per volley, and each pulse blast being a concentrated phaser burst, each being about half as powerful as a phaser bank (defiant uses a type X phaser beam bank with 70k terawatt power, so we'll guess pulse cannons at 40k per shot).
40k x 20 = 800k
galaxy has 12 beam arrays, (we'll assume somehow all 12 fire at once, which would be a miracle but what ever)
50k x 12 = 600k.
puting the galaxy's total firepower against just the defiants cannons, we can guess the defiant has ALOT more burst. there's alot of theories as to why the defiant has enough power for this, but we'll assume for the sake of argument that the warp core is an unlimited battery (as it seems to be used as such in the show half the time even if this isnt right.)
add to the fact the defiant has a rapid fire quantum torpedo tube, not a standard photon tube, the defiant has alot more punch in both cannons, and torpedoes.
i'm willing to bet if two identical targets were setup, the defiant would destroy it faster then the galaxy.
would the defiant win 1vs1? no. but just because it cant win, doesnt mean it's not more powerful (in weapons.)
furthermore, we know the defiant has alot of firepower as it went head to head with the Lakota at one point. even with the refitted Lakota being specifically battle prepared to fight the defiant, the defiant could have one the fight if they were actually prepared to destroy another federation ship. (that said the defiant did sustain significant damage.)
a galaxy is alot stronger then a excelsior, we know that. but the excelsior is still a well built ship that's been refit several times to keep with the times. while the defiant wouldnt win against a galaxy, the battle with the excelsior proves the defiant isnt just cannon fodder.
this answers the argument, that no. the galaxy shouldnt do more damage then a defiant.
the question wasnt which would last longer, its obvious the defiant would loose in a sustained battle. the question was which dished out more damage in a few seconds. the galaxy has 12 beam banks with 50k terawatt output. the defiant has 4 rapid fire pulse cannons. from the show we know they fire 4-6 shots per volley easily (each cannon). we'll estimate 20 shots per volley, and each pulse blast being a concentrated phaser burst, each being about half as powerful as a phaser bank (defiant uses a type X phaser beam bank with 70k terawatt power, so we'll guess pulse cannons at 40k per shot).
40k x 20 = 800k
galaxy has 12 beam arrays, (we'll assume somehow all 12 fire at once, which would be a miracle but what ever)
50k x 12 = 600k.
puting the galaxy's total firepower against just the defiants cannons, we can guess the defiant has ALOT more burst. there's alot of theories as to why the defiant has enough power for this, but we'll assume for the sake of argument that the warp core is an unlimited battery (as it seems to be used as such in the show half the time even if this isnt right.)
Ok, first of all I don't know where do you get this info from, but I'm not a numbers man and I hate mathematics with passion lol , so I'll leave this part for the likes of dontdrunkimshoot to explain, or if you want to you can dig for his posts through the thread - he has explained all of this previously in a quite ellaborative manner.
add to the fact the defiant has a rapid fire quantum torpedo tube, not a standard photon tube, the defiant has alot more punch in both cannons, and torpedoes.
The Galaxy was retrofitted to use quantums later in the show. The Galaxy is also the ship that on screen was shown to host the largest rapid fire torpedo tubes of any Starfleet ship. She can also carry a much bigger complement of torpedoes on board.
Also, I feel you overestimate the Defiant's cannons a bit. The primary reason it had the cannons installed was that each set of shots from the phaser cannon had different firing frequencies (or something like that, don't hold me literally to the word) which was intended to cause the Borg problems with adaptation to the weapon fire. It was more of a trick to which the Borg couldn't easily adapt than sheer raw firepower.
would the defiant win 1vs1? no. but just because it cant win, doesnt mean it's not more powerful (in weapons.)
The point I'm trying to convey is that the Galaxy is more powerfull (in terms of weapons). Not saying that it should be like that in STO, because the balance here between the classes is another thing, just canon-wise.
furthermore, we know the defiant has alot of firepower as it went head to head with the Lakota at one point. even with the refitted Lakota being specifically battle prepared to fight the defiant, the defiant could have one the fight if they were actually prepared to destroy another federation ship. (that said the defiant did sustain significant damage.)
a galaxy is alot stronger then a excelsior, we know that. but the excelsior is still a well built ship that's been refit several times to keep with the times. while the defiant wouldnt win against a galaxy, the battle with the excelsior proves the defiant isnt just cannon fodder.
The U.S.S. Lakota was a retrofit of a ship that's some 120+ years older than the Defiant.
Also you got it the other way around - they were pretty clear in DS9 that the Lakota would have blown up the Defiant if she used her full spread of quantum torpedoes.
The Galaxy is a ship designed to operate on it's own for 7 year intervals, with a basic lifespan of 100 years and a major rehaul every 20 years due to the extremely modular design and size.
If both are equiped with latest techology, the Galaxy will roflstomp the Defiant.
Comments
I'm still holding out hope that they will release a mirror Galaxy with a decent layout. I'd use it even though it's a nine console ship. I wish they would implement a system where if you owned two cruisers you could swap the layout onto the other cruiser. You've already paid for both so who cares.
that is exactly the reason why IT IS a bias!
" a ship that had been upgraded a bit off of an exploration ship to have a bit more theeth "
so the state of theses ships in the game is base on perceive cannon.
and note that i said perceive, because like we already mentioned i don't bielieve that with the same technological level a sovy would outgun a galaxy.
but for the sake of the argument i will accept that general bielief as true.
so that woudn't be a problem in the absolute ( especially when you claim to do a game with the star trek license ).
but is a problem in this game for 2 reasons.
the first is more of an ethical one, even if this word is a bit strong for the situation but to resume, in an MMO you can't intentionally make a ship ( in the same tier ) inferior to an other just because "insert any perceive cannon reasons here".
ships should have ( to the best of the possibility ) an equal repartition of stats wich would result in the same overaul efficiency.
what is a galaxy x? response: a less efficient assault cruiser.
yes, you said it yourself, they got the same bo layout, same console distribution, so if you forget about the lance ( wich is not very hard considering what an ultimate weapons it is:rolleyes:) and the cloack that took a console slot and can only be use in the beguining of a combat.
you basically found yourself with the same ship in less good, less turnrate, less inertia, less speed.
and that shoudn't be, there should be something in the stats to compensate in an equal usufulness for the lost of the stats i mentioned.
one would said that the lance and the cloack are, but even if it work on paper, people who use the ship known that they are not equal in usefulness ( and far from it ).
and that is true today, but was even more obvious in the beguining when the lance have a total maximal damage capacity of 12000k, the tact console number was 2 and the ship rear weapons slot was 3 and not 4.
so you got a ship that is right of the bat inferior to an other tier 5 ship ( note also that we are comparing a cstore ship with a "free" lv40 token ship ) with just the perceive cannon as justification.
second, and that the most " are you pulling my leg" moment in this game:
if you use perceive cannon to justify a reduction in efficiency in a ship compared to an other, you should apply it to EVERY ship in the game.
what do i mean? well i wasn't aware that is was an acknowledgement that the exelsior got a better firepower than a sovereign for example.
and this is not an exeption, it is not an acknowledgement that an ambassador can tank better than a galaxy and also have more firepower.
that a nova outgun a galaxy, that a bop, a tliss, a jem hadar bug.... a risian corvette "made in risa", do.
the federation didn't need an alliance with the klingons and the romulan to defeat the dominion, they could have just use the ship of the risian people!
that is the bias i am talking about, this obssesion to stick to that perceive cannon is only present with these 2 ships, and these 2 ships ALONE!
every other cannon ship are free from it.
wich in the end make STO the game that is the most "uncannon" of every star trek game, where the smaller and older ship are more powerfull than the big cruiser and career recently built!
only the DDeridex nearly suffered the same fate and was save "in extremis" by the forum pvper.
the day this bias would end, these 2 ship would have a role.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Yep and all 10 of you keep postiing the same stuff over and over ad nauseum.:D
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..."
Just because something doesn't perform to a standard doesn't prove bias, it does more to prove a lack of fore/after thought on overall ship design. We could go as far to say that there is a bias on some peoples expectations of the ships performance to begin with, but I wouldn't go that far. If someone is looking for a conspiracy/scandal/etc., they will find it, no matter how real it actually is.
I will go as far as to say that there is poor ship/gaming design for the cruisers across the range, but it is a bit extreme, and honestly irresponsible, to say that there is bias in the Gal-R/Gal-X ship design. The fact is that when the Gal-R/X came out, they really were only tinkering with variations of the ensign slot on the cruisers. The Gal-R fit the empty slot between the Star and Assault Cruiser with an ensign Engi' and the Gal-X was intended to be more aggressive so it got an ensign Tac', the lance and a cloak.
The equipping DC/DHC function was a bad idea for 90% of the ships' combat time. It was good for a surprise alpha, like we saw it do on the Series finale and in certain situations where this is permitted, it is actually more damaging than a standard T5 assault cruiser, but the ship isn't going to do as well in a knife fight as the assault cruiser does, but the assault cruiser isn't as much of a knife fighter either, to be honest. Only when the Excelsior came out, did the Feds' get a ship that was close to being a knife fighter that could give the Klinks' battle-cruisers a run for their money. This only proves that they didn't do a good job, over the whole cruiser line for the first few cruisers, not a geniuine bias against Gal-R/Gal-X.
like i said, i don't bielieve it is a conspiracy, so i don't "look" for one.
you are intelligently trying to make me look like a freak that see conspiracy everywhere, but it is not going to work.
i said it is a bias. and it is.
what is the definition of a bias?
and in the subject we are talking about i also love that one
and althought it coud look like a conspiracy in the result it is not in the "manner", so to speak.
definition of a conspiracy:
this is not a conspiracy, the devs do not secretely hate the galaxy and want it to be bad just because they don't like it!
it is a bias, the galaxy can not be as good because " insert any perceive cannon reasons here"
a bias is not a crime in itself, everyone had a bias at a time of his life on any subjetc, it is one of the most current human behavior.
and the only "extreme" or irresponsible" behavior here would be to hide it and make it look like an accident and not try to correct it.
you see?
perfect example.
why should the galaxy retrofit should fit the "spot" BETWEEN the assault cruiser and the star cruiser?
why can't he go beyond the star cruiser?
why?
because a galaxy is an old ship and can not be as good as the newly release star cruiser in sto timeline?
why the exelsior didn't fit the "spot" between the assault cruiser and the star cruiser?
why was it allowed to go beyond an assault cruiser?
you see the difference in treatement here? you see the bias?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
no, it is not just that.
this is your opinion, it is not a fact.
their is no real cannon evidence that the galaxy x is "just that".
no one known what they have done to the internal "layout" of the ship in this time, you also seem to forget that it got 20 years of technological advancement compared to the normal galaxy.
i bielieve that they greatly optimized it for combat, this is my opinion, it is also, not a fact.
but an opinion that derive from a logical deduction considering the visual evidence and context of the episode.
construct an integrated lance of this size is not a minor tweaking mind you.
i don't see riker in the bar of the shypyard responding to a relative: " ho don't worry, we are just intalling a phaser lance, a third nacelle and a cloack, shoudn't take that long, a bit of wiring connection and paint brush and i be ready in 2 hours!"
one can question the validity of the weapon in regard to the array, but not the logical tactical modifications that it would surely impose.
this is just an inelegant visual ( thirs nacelle and lance ) way to show that the ship have become more of a warship than an explorer.
you are kidding me right?
top of the line ship with lot of firepower? 6turn/25 inertia with 3tact console and lt tact bo!
i don't considere that top of the line with a LOT of firepowed.
we are talking about the galaxy x here, not the avenger, scimitar, mogh, exelsior, breen, galor, regent, dderidex, negvar or monbosh.
in fact, is there a tactical cruiser in the game that got less than that?
no that i recall, not even the simple asault cruiser.
it seem more bottom of the line than top of the line to me.
asking a lt commander tact is not a drastic change compared to a lt tact.
you could have said that if one would have ask 2 lt commander tact, or a lt commander + a lt tact.
the lt tact bo combined with the turn/inertia/speed make this ship a joke of a tactical ship, the simple assault cruiser got a better potential, and it getting even better since this ship got 4 cruiser command, not 2.
funny isn't it?
fear the day when someone introduced " dreadnought" in the name of your ship, on it own it is able to remove you 2 cruiser command... for nothing.
going from a lt tact bo to a lt commander is not going from a already powerfull ship to the ultimate weapon of doom!
it is going to a healbot to an actual tactical ship ( but still, definitivelt not the best... still ).
a tactical ship, that some people like it or not, it is what the galaxy dreadnought is suppose to be in this game.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I was refering to the canon Galaxy Class, not it's in-game incarnation at that point
The in-game Galaxy just suffers from an unlucky draw, really. In what way the canon Galaxy X differed from the Galaxy Class you are right, we don't know that. But they did nothing to convince me they did a lot to make it a super doomship. Yeah, the piercing phaser array. That's a pretty powerful addition, but nothing the Galaxy couldn't handle. Someone (maybe you?) a while back persumed the lance would pierce the enemy defense while a regular full power phaser beam from the main array would smash ist. I get that modification - the additional phaser relays on the nacelles are found on the regular Galaxy refits in DS9 as well and the third nacelle doesn't really do anything "tactical". It has a cloak, that's right but other than that, manneuvreability and defenses etc. seem to me like the regular Galaxy which is already a powerful ship (though it lacks finesse).
That's at least my take on it
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'm not trying to make you look like a "freak", I am the one saying that you may feel that the way the ship is because of some percieved bias that you believe that Cryptic/PWE is acting upon because the ship doesn't perform the way you (and others) believe it should on a personal level, as if it's some sort of personal slap-in-the-face to you (and others).
You said it was bias, but you really feel that its bias, you don't know for sure it is bias until you literally go into their minds or they say that the reason why the ship has the setup it has is because that they don't like the ship. Which you can't and they haven't, in that order.
Well, Crytic/PWE hasn't said that they don't like the Galaxy and that's why they are intentionally impeding the ship, so that would be in secret from the players and in effect they would be attempting to "harm" the image of the ship, as it is in game (much as in the case of slander or libel). [/quote]
Because the focus of differences at the time was a single ensign boff slot and there was already the Assault (tac ensign) and Star Cruiser (Science ensign) , there wasn't an engineering ensign used yet and it was easier to do it that way.
Because they weren't obligated to do so. There isn't any natural law saying that canon ship > non canon ship. Heck, they could have just left it at a T4 ship, would that have worked better for you? At the time when it was made, it had the same amount of boff slots, down a console and down a weapon to allow for the saucer separation. It didn't work, and they changed it. Now, (with Fleet stats between them for convenience sake) it has the same amount of consoles, boff slots, and weapons, it has 1,100 more hulll, same shield mod and less turn. If it weren't for engineering skills being sub-par to the other two, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Because that's where the dev's were, design-wise when the created the Gal-R.
Because when the game came out, the Galaxy was a T4 ship and the Sovereign was a T5 ship, the most current Enterprise was the Sovereign class ship. They were going on a forward timeline, trying to make new ships for the future. There was only one canon escort, and the Prometheus was only a prototype in Voyager, there was no canon sci-ship. So if the Galaxy was supposed to be lesser than another T5, it would have been the Assault Cruiser (looking at the progression of Enterprises).
Because the dev's felt comfortable enough to move a cruiser to having a LTCMDR in something other than engineering, and the Gal-R took the slot between the Assault and Star Cruiser previously to the Excelsior's release. In short, its whenthey stuffed it into the game.
Nope, I just see poor product development progression. They should have planned ship offerings in advance, but they were sloppy on it, just like many other things in the game that they have been sloppy on.
Nope, but I see that you have taken it personally and the you feel that there is a bias.
Realistically?
Because Cryptic wanted to sell some Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofits, that's why.
Cool huh?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Did anybody think about why the Excelsior should be in any way shape or form "advanced" over the Cheyenne which is around 60-70 years younger?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
the ship daesn't perform and/or have a repartition of stats that allow him to be more than an inneficient clone of a star cruiser/ odyssey or any other cruiser for that matter.
the ship have no reasons to exist in the current layout of ships, it have no role.
this is not a personal view or bielief, it is a fact.
a fact!
what i said can be prove and reproduced
the only thing that remain on the "point of view" domain is the question:
should there be a cstore tier5 ship that is the least in everything and therefore have no reason to exist exept for it look?
because if i were pushing for stats of the ship according to my personal bielief, even the galaxy retrofit would be the most powerfull ship in the federation faction, not more not less.
my position on the subject, from the beguining, is the opposite way ( in term of cryptic game mechanism, meaning: if you have more firepower, you theoritically loose tankiness )
hmm, again there seem to be a misanderstanding between you and me due to my poor english writing skills.
it my fault here, i will try to correct it.
so it seem that you think ( again due to how i wrote things ) that i think ( damn it complicated:D ) that some devs or cryptic hate the galaxy.
i don't think that they do.
and what make you bielieve that, is this sentence
when i read it again, i anderstand your confusion, this is what i should have wrote ( well at least i will try )
"there is no conspiracy WHERE the dev would secretly hate the galaxy and want it to be bad because they don't like it."
so to resume, i don't bielieve in the idea that some devs don't like the galaxy and made a conspiracy to make it bad.
i don't think i can be more clear than that.
well that make a bunch of reasons, timing coincidences, design decisions and sloppy product development progression.
you told me that i coudn't really known what the devs think exept if i could read directly to their mind, but it seem to me that you...do.
in any case the galaxy fan seem to be EXTREEEEEEEMELY unluncky here:rolleyes:
There isn't any natural law saying that canon ship > non canon ship, but on the other hand there seem to ba a "natural" law saying that the galaxy should suck.
and for the galaxy left at tier4? well i am still trying to convinced myself that the tier5 galaxy is an evolution ( or progression ) of the tiers 4 venture, but with no conclusive results so far, so why not?
too bad they don't do tier4 fleet version:D
but you woudn't mind that the exelsior be left at tier 3 then? how that would have worked for you?
yeah i known, a tier 5 galaxy is a FAVOR that the devs in their infinite generosity give to the galaxy fan,and every other tier 4 and 3 ship that have been braught to tier5 is just the natural evolution of things.
you are right, there is no bias.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
you! you are looking for troubles:D
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Just because the ship isn't a high performer, does not mean its poor performance is a case of bias. Your "facts" don't really lead to anything, other than its a poor performer. Until you can bring up something from the dev's stating their dislike of the ship and that the dislike had a role in the process for stating out the ship, you just have an opinion and nothing more.
Where I am coming from on "conspiracy" is that it would take far more than one dev' to go along with said "bias" in order for it to have taken place as you have suggested. Like many operations, these guys pay is surely based on the success of their work, it makes no sense for them to tank the game in order to enact some sort of personal vendetta against this ship, especially when their professional integrity and accomplishments are a big part of their resume.
I never said that I knew, I gave my opinion what what I see regarding this issue. I am not sure of what your professional field is, but my experience (and my degree track) is working with projects, namely the maintenance and troubleshooting (Six Sigma) of those projects. The number one reason for many projects to fail/run into complications is because that the projects plan wasn't strong, namely because of poor definition of the project scope.
In Cryptics case, it really does appear to me, that since beta, that they weren't well defined on what / how they were to move forward once the game left beta and went full launch. The KDF faction content, even now, is still limited in comparison to the Fed' side. Bugs are still fixed at a near glacial pace ( how many/ how long are bugs acknowledged in the patch notes , yet seem to stay on the back burner?)
As I have said earlier, at launch they only had one canon ship for the escort and cruiser classes, and no science at all, the rest were "future" ships. It seems (to me), under Atari, that they were trying to move the game forward with future ships to avoid issues of dealing with CBS and Paramount for existing IP (ala the T5 Connie argument). I know that a bunch of people were not pleased with the Cryptic IP ships and wanted canon ships, something it seemed that Atari/Cryptic were not expecting. When they did include the T5 Explorer Refit (C store Item) and the Dreadnought Cruiser, they were primarily dealing with variances of a Boff ensign fro cruisers. The ships , at the time of their release were some of many of the ships that had console or weapons removed as penalties for the special capabilities that that the ships were given, (as we know that was changed because it was a poor concept in action.)
If you also remember, the T5 DN cruiser was a reward for bringing in 5 other subscriptions, not even a widely available ship. By the time the Excelsior was released, it seemed they had learned that the difference of an ensign across the board was going to limit c-store offerings (non-subscription revenue) so they then broke into offering differences in LTCMDR slots.
So yes, in my opinion, the T5 Exploration Cruiser Refit and the Dreadnought Cruiser were "unlucky" because of poor production development. Pressure from the fan base to make a T5 versions of these ships brought them out first, when the game really didn't have a well-laid out plan of where ships would be even 6 months down the road. Further evidence is that the T5+ (c-store ships) were even left behind with each new c-store ship release and then finally, by Fleet ships.
In a business sense, it makes much more sense the than idea that the dev's hampered the ship because they didn't like it/bias. The reason why the game exists is to do business, not to just satisfy the biases of dev's.
Well, the T5 has more weapons Boffs, hull, shields and consoles than the T4 does, so I would say that is pretty convincing, but you have a right to your own opinion.
I would have been fine with the Excelsior to be left at T3 (or not showing at all). I am not tied down to any one "ship" in the game. My favorite ship is the TMP era Constituion, and I am a voice against a T5/Fleet version of it BTW. If the T5 Excelsior never happened, I would still be using my Assault Cruiser and its variants like I did before the Excelsior was offered.
Again, your opinion. Mine is that the timing of the launch of them was what hampers the layout, not bias. BTW, if the Galaxy is a victim of bias, why is the Nebula, as ship based off of the Galaxy's design, such a good ship? Surely, bias would have spread to that ship as well, would it not?
I wouldn't go that far. As much as one can argue that the Galaxy would be tactically superior (Boff/console slots) to its predecessors, it also makes no sense to make the replacement for the Enterprise-D (Enterprise being the historical name of the highest Starfleet pride) to be less formidable than the ship its replacing. No matter what "canon" someone brings up, this is a prevailing concept in Star Trek itself.
the E being not as good as the D metric in universe has a lot more to it then which can pew harder. the sovereign is a more advanced design, comes loaded with more advanced tech, and is very heavily armed for its size. just about everything that makes it special out of the box will become part of the refit parts bin pretty quick, but at the time of the E's launch it was unparalleled in pure tech. but, its not the new biggest ship in the fleet, its a replacement for a collection of antiquated or just plan old as dirt mid sized designs that they have milked as long as they could.
when the federation dont need an active duty battleship for a full scale war, the galaxy class is simply to much. to big, to expensive, to tragic when lost, way to big a solution to throw at any non military problem. you dont need to send an Iowa class against somali pirates, or the titanic to transfer personnel to hawaii. starfleet's bread and butter are mid sized cruisers that are just right at everything, so its no surprise the newest perfectly balanced class gets the honor of being the new enterprise.
depending on how soft you like your canon, back in the tos days the enterprise was never star fleets battleship, that was a C and D thing.
I believe I said:
"As much as one can argue that the Galaxy would be tactically superior (Boff/console slots) to its predecessors, it also makes no sense to make the replacement for the Enterprise-D (Enterprise being the historical name of the highest Starfleet pride) to be less formidable than the ship its replacing. No matter what "canon" someone brings up, this is a prevailing concept in Star Trek itself."
Plainly put it only makes sense that the replacement for a ship that's name (such as the Enterprise) is the pride of the Federation is tactically superior to the ship it is replacing. This isn't the launching of the USS Bill Clinton, but a ship that Starfleets' reputation is banked upon. It's unrealistic to argue that the next ship in the line have less firepower than the ship its replacing, no matter if its smaller , especially considering the advancement the ship has.
As far as being in a time of war and the "D" and "E", the "E" was no less in a time of war than the "D" was, actually the likelyhood of war with an overwhelmingly superior foe was more present with the "E" during its development time, or were the Borg as much of a paper tiger in Star Trek canon as it is in STO? Yet we see them just working to replace smaller-mid size ships , as you say, with the Sovereign, but not increasing the firepower dramatically to be deal with the threat as opposed to a ship thats a generation (10 years) older, and the Sovy isn't that much smaller to where advances in tech would preclude it for being more than a match in destructive capability as the "D" was, and most of that size was taken up with non combat space (apples to apples) . If not, the Federation didn't deserve to survive because it wasn't trying or not even taking threats seriously.
I know you love your mile-long phaser strips and how the Galaxy is so big it can bolt on more and newer stuff, but seriously, if that was the be all and end all, why don't we have cruisers with the majority of their saucer with emitters wrapped all around it in a large spiral?
i will admit, the galaxy class isnt near as good as it should be. if it was up to me, it'd be one of the tankiest ships in the game in both hull cap and Boff layout. should it do damage? no. of all the cruisers we have it's the one least likely to be good at damage. as a exploration ship it's weapons are best described as "defensive". the loads of tactical consoles/Boff slots people want this to have is ridiculous. the galaxy X maybe, but the original galaxy class, as in NCC 1701-D, was definitely a tank. even the galaxy's appearance in DS9, in all it's appearances it's the toughest ship, but not the one dealing crippling blows to anything.
the only thing the galaxy should get is 3-5k more hull, a slightly better shield modifier, and maaaaybe something to make torpedoes more effective on this slow monster.
it should be slow, it should lack tactical prowess, no hanger, and definitely no super l33t console to give it a "end everything" gun.
The galaxy is a big can of cash, and also a death knell for further offerings.
i bielieve that the state of the galaxy in this game is due to a bias, NOT to a dislike like you try so many time to bring to justify a hypothetical bias.
they are strong clue both on the way the ship was implemented and in the ways everyone ( devs, fan ect) speak of it.
the performance of the ship are a fact, but i wouldn't go as far as to said that the bias about it, is.
this is indeed just my opinion, but like i said they are strong indications.
and you don't need to dislike a thing to have a bias on it, these are 2 different things.
look at the scimitar, it is subject of the same bias as the galaxy altrought it is reverse.
gecko state in a podcast that they ( the devs ) have done everything they can to make this ship very good, because in the movie it is displayed as a weapons of doom.
so just like the galaxy, they discarded the tiers implie rules of the game to make a ship outright better ( of worst in the galaxy case ) than other ship in the same tiers.
that is the bias, and you see you don't need a conspiracy or a dislike for it to happened.
just like you said, it is an acknowledgement.
but this "acknowledgement" become a bias at the moment where you discarded the game basis to implement it.
if the scimitar was introduced as a tier6 ship, it would not be a bias then.
if cryptic wanted the galaxy to be outright worst than the sovereign, they should have left it a tier4, here there was no bias.
the performance of the ship being outright worst than the sovi would have been justify by the perceive cannon acknowledgement wich would have bring it in tier4.
at the moment you bring it to the tier5 you have to forget about "cannon evidence" and whatnot and made the ship equal ( as much as possible ) but in a different way.
and i will not accept excuses as " it was bring on due to fan complaign, so you should be happy that you have one".
people at cryptic are adult and mature, they took a descision about it to make it to tier5, they have to assume it to the end.
again, this is not due to a personal vendetta, or dislike, why do you try to bring that up altrought i said it was not countless time.
a bias is independant to a dislike, you can have both, but they also exist separated just like my example of the scimitar show you.
if that the case it is even worst than a bias.
it would mean that they don't really plan a role for the ship and just build it on the go with what was available.
just to remind you, the problem is not just the ensign bo layout but also the turn/inertia/speed, and in the case of the galaxy x, you could add the 3nd tact console missing , 3weapons in the back.
they may have a " weak" project about it but not concerning the intention to limits the general stats of both ship
this woudn't be that bad if it was not as an iconic ship of the star trek franchise.
but if that really happened like this, it would show a total disrespect to the ship.
in case that wasn't obvious enought, this was an ironical statement to show you that the little difference in stats between the tier4 and 5 of the galaxy ( especially when you look at the tier4 venture ) are not worth the name of a tier5 variant.
hence the little joke about a "tier4 fleet version"
well i wouldn't go as far as to said that the nebula is "such a good" ship but to respond to your question, a bias do not care about logical fact, evidence or context.
so even if i would accept your statement as the nebula is based on the galaxy therefore it should perform in a similar way ( wich i do not, these ship got different role and performances in cannon ),
it is of no consequence to a bias, otherwise it would not be a bias, by definition.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
the ironie here, is that in the concept, you are in line with what the core of the thread ask.
meaning not the end of all ship but a better ship, or more precisely, concerning the galaxy retrofit a ship that have a role.
asking for it to be better just to be better will not give him a role, a role is the cure to obsolescence and power creep, not better stats alone.
concerning the galaxy x, just like you we ask it to be a real tactical ship, and not a healbot disguised in tactical.
so appart from stating that a galaxy should not have firepower ( do you find it normal that a nova, ambassador and exelsior outgun it? ) we are mostly ok with the fact that these ships are not where they supposed to be.
so why daes it come to you as a surprised that this thread is still going?
last time i check ( yesterday) these ship still suck.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
what's silly about a defiant out gunning a galaxy?
defiant: built for war against the borg. designed by captain sisko as literally guns strapped to a engine. everything about the ship screams war. it was the first ship that starfleet unofficially labeled a warship (while officially calling it an escort).
galaxy: built for exploration, but given the firepower to defend itself. one of many in a long series of frontline cruisers, it is meant to last. it's weapons are not notable in any way, and in all the time it's been in service, it's never gotten a substantial weapons refit (in the show at least.)
i will admit, between a galaxy and a excelsior, the newer, and more powerful galaxy should have an advantage tactically. but this is a game, and a balance must be maintained between ships. if i had to choose between making the galaxy exceptionally tanky, or decent damage wise, i'd call it an exceptional tank. in all its service, this ship has been well known for taking a beating and that singular point of interest should be the main focus of the ship.
there's no good reason why an extremely old ship as the excelsior should be better in damage, but at least in the cruiser's primary role (tank) the galaxy is proven the superior.
PS. if an intrepid is doing better then your galaxy you truely have a problem as there's no excuse for a T5 intrepid to be doing better then even a captain rank galaxy (with endgame gear of course).
defiant isnt very well armored, but when we talk about guns, there's no way a galaxy can compete. and if you try and talk about the power, remember that the galaxy is huuuge, and has alot of power requirements for being huge. its warp core is limited, and there's only so much power you can shove into a phaser bank before your just overloading a flashlight.
defiant was built for war. it has 4 rapid fire pulse cannons, a beam bank (with alot more powerful emitters then the galaxy has) and is equiped with QUANTUM torpedoes. a huge increase from photons which is all the galaxy was designed to pack.
in suvivability, the galaxy would win, yes. but there's no way a galaxy would out damage a defiant.
the most accurate ship specifications website i've found is the daystrom institute technical library website, which has full specifications on all starfleet vessels along with history, notes, and statistics, with sources of where that information comes from. you can compare the defiant and galaxy for yourself here
defiant: http://www.ditl.org/ship-page.php?ClassID=feddefiant&ListID=Ships&ListOption=fed
galaxy: http://www.ditl.org/ship-page.php?ClassID=fedgalaxy&ListID=Ships&ListOption=fed
you are right, there's no need for a dedicated tank in STO. but that doesnt mean turning the galaxy into something its not, it means we need more missions that require a tank, or at least benefit more from having one.
What's silly? lol
You see, when Starfleet defined the Defiant as a warship (escort) what they intended was it to do is packing a significant punch for it's size, while being cheaper to produce and more disposable. (in terms of casualties) It's not more powerfull than a Galaxy.
The Defiant was meant to be a ship that could be a tolerable loss (even though Starfleet allways tries to protect as many lives anyway) that would attack the Borg in swarms, thus dealing significant amount of damage while at the same time enabling the lowest amount of losses in terms of production resources as well as crew. (only 50)
A Galaxy class would be much much more expensive and time consuming to produce, furthermore with 1000 crew the crew losses would be unnaceptable.
Basically, what Starfleet intended the Defiant to be is an anwer to an enemy who has shown to be overwhealmingly powerfull and deals easily with anything you throw at them. So the strategy was to produce a huge amount of smaller, yet powerfull for their size warships that would swarm the Borg when they show up in Federation territory, hopefully taking them down due to sheer numbers while trying to keep casualties at minimum.
1 on 1 with a Galaxy however? The Defiant has no chance.
40k x 20 = 800k
galaxy has 12 beam arrays, (we'll assume somehow all 12 fire at once, which would be a miracle but what ever)
50k x 12 = 600k.
puting the galaxy's total firepower against just the defiants cannons, we can guess the defiant has ALOT more burst. there's alot of theories as to why the defiant has enough power for this, but we'll assume for the sake of argument that the warp core is an unlimited battery (as it seems to be used as such in the show half the time even if this isnt right.)
add to the fact the defiant has a rapid fire quantum torpedo tube, not a standard photon tube, the defiant has alot more punch in both cannons, and torpedoes.
i'm willing to bet if two identical targets were setup, the defiant would destroy it faster then the galaxy.
would the defiant win 1vs1? no. but just because it cant win, doesnt mean it's not more powerful (in weapons.)
furthermore, we know the defiant has alot of firepower as it went head to head with the Lakota at one point. even with the refitted Lakota being specifically battle prepared to fight the defiant, the defiant could have one the fight if they were actually prepared to destroy another federation ship. (that said the defiant did sustain significant damage.)
a galaxy is alot stronger then a excelsior, we know that. but the excelsior is still a well built ship that's been refit several times to keep with the times. while the defiant wouldnt win against a galaxy, the battle with the excelsior proves the defiant isnt just cannon fodder.
this answers the argument, that no. the galaxy shouldnt do more damage then a defiant.
Ok, first of all I don't know where do you get this info from, but I'm not a numbers man and I hate mathematics with passion lol
The Galaxy was retrofitted to use quantums later in the show. The Galaxy is also the ship that on screen was shown to host the largest rapid fire torpedo tubes of any Starfleet ship. She can also carry a much bigger complement of torpedoes on board.
Also, I feel you overestimate the Defiant's cannons a bit. The primary reason it had the cannons installed was that each set of shots from the phaser cannon had different firing frequencies (or something like that, don't hold me literally to the word) which was intended to cause the Borg problems with adaptation to the weapon fire. It was more of a trick to which the Borg couldn't easily adapt than sheer raw firepower.
My bet would still be on the Galaxy.
The point I'm trying to convey is that the Galaxy is more powerfull (in terms of weapons). Not saying that it should be like that in STO, because the balance here between the classes is another thing, just canon-wise.
The U.S.S. Lakota was a retrofit of a ship that's some 120+ years older than the Defiant.
Also you got it the other way around - they were pretty clear in DS9 that the Lakota would have blown up the Defiant if she used her full spread of quantum torpedoes.
The Galaxy is a ship designed to operate on it's own for 7 year intervals, with a basic lifespan of 100 years and a major rehaul every 20 years due to the extremely modular design and size.
If both are equiped with latest techology, the Galaxy will roflstomp the Defiant.
If you're talking about STO, I agree. The ships have different roles and the Galaxy is a tank.
If we're talking about Star Trek canon - it's not a question of should. The Galaxy does more damage than a Defiant.