Keep in mind that they released a MU Cheyenne which is the exact same as the Ambassador, only better since it comes with a 3/3/3 layout. That argument is invalid, having a PAYSHIP with that layout is perfectly viable. LTC for the Gal-R would be appropriate.
only beter? HA. its an RA level ship and half the escorts have more hull hitpoints. its 3/3/3 console layout is inferior to the ambassador's 4/3/3, and the fleet ambassadors got a universal LT. the Cheyenne has a a 1 better turn rate, thats all. its one thing to release an inferior ship with just about the same station setup, its another to release a galaxy thats at the exact same level as the ambassador, only it can sep and get a LTC tac. that totally invalidates the ambassador
No it's not. It's class is "Dreadnaught Cruiser" which is a unique class - no ship except the Galaxy AGT Refit is part of that class. The others are "Dreadnaughts".
that voth bulwark i think it was is also called is also a dread cruiser. the other 2 are dread carrier or dread warbirds.
1) Performance in Star Trek is rarely a "fact" due to inconsistencies in script writing. One episode the ship is able to do "X", next episode the ship is incapable of doing "X". The script writing has just been that bad that "fact" in Star Trek is pretty much incredulous.
i was speaking about the ship performance IN GAME, as i always do from the beguining.
and this have always been a fact.
2) Bias has an emotional basis in a persons psyche, like/dislike of something is the most common cause of bias. Because people allege that Gal-R/X are poor performers due to bias, there has to be something behind it. Dislike is the most logical explanation at that point. So saying that they aren't connected is attempting to thread a narrow needle
yes, bias often has emotional basis, but not always, and to concluded that this MUST be link to a like or dislike here, clearly show YOUR bias on the question.
it is not because something is the most common cause of something, that it is ALWAYS the cause of that thing.
you are jumping the guns here, just to make me look like somekind of fool that see conspiracy everywhere and whatnot.
the bias concerning the galaxy is not emotional but come from a point of view.
and in it nature, it is not a bias, but just that, a point of view.
it become a bias in the moment it is introduced to the game and violated the implie rules of the game.
an bias base on a dislike would be like this:
gecko:" i will make this galaxys ships some bad ships because they are just plain ugly and i prefer the ambassador"
that a bias link to a dislike.
and there is this:
gecko: " i will be carrefull to make the galaxy less efficient in comparison to the assault cruiser, because the galaxy is inferior to the sovereign in cannon and therefore it must not to be feel like it equal in this game"
this is a bias link to a point of view.
and i believe the second option is the good one.
the things is, like i already explain, that it would not be a problem per se, if it was kept in the game rule concerning ship.
meaning if the galaxy was still available at tier 4 only and the sovereign at tier 5.
but at the moment where the galaxy is bring to tiers5 status, this kinds of consideration should not apply anymore. at tier 5 , they supposed to be equal.
As far as the turn rate/inertia, I really don't see that as a driver for the problem.
and like i already told you a thousand time now, the turnrate alone is not a "driver", it is part of a whole.
stop isolating every bad stats of the ship and judging them separatly.
it is not the lt tact alone, the 2 tact console slot alone,the 5th engi console slot alone, the turnrate/inertia/speed alone, the lt science alone, the third engi ensign alone.
IT IS ALL THAT COMBINE!! how many time do i have to repeat it for you to anderstand?
how many time i will have to explain it to you so you stop isolating one bad stats to analyse it out of it context.
the bad performance of the ship is greater than the sum of all its shortcomings.
It actually makes sense for a larger, exploration vessel to have less maneuverability than the assualt cruiser
it would if everything follow the same logic, but it is not as many thing concerning the galaxy in this game.
the star cruiser is bigger than the galaxy and is also an explorer BUT.... it turn better.
is that make sense?
the jeam dreadnought is twice the size of the galaxy yet have the same turnrate.
is that make sense?
the scimitar is 5 time the size of the galaxy yet TURN BETTER.
IS THAT MAKE SENSE??!!
and it is not because some of these ship got out later.
the star cruiser is 6month older than the galaxy.
I don't think its disrespect to this (or any) ship as much as a disrespect for the franchise in that they did not manage to plan the impact of layouts that may/are released in ships that weren't available during game launch.
like i said, it would have been a disrespect if it would have happened like you suggested.
but i bielieve it didn't happened like that. so it is not.
the galaxy is not the result of a bad timming, bad planning or whatnot like you seem to suggest.
sorry the state of these ship was and are still INTENDED.
if one ever doubt about it, the " reboot" just close the debat.
if it was a mistake or anything else they would have corrected it with the reboot, the galaxy retrofit got NO CHANGES on it stats appart from the ridiculous 2 pieces set bonus.
INTENDED.
bias is emotionally based. The Nebula not only has the same development base as the Galaxy, but premiered and was frequently shown on TNG. Its as close to kin as the ship can get. It would evoke similar biases, no matter the role.
nebula share the same saucer and technological development but his field of action is not as large as the galaxy.
wich make it a more cost effective solution for a reduce field of action.
they are not playing in the same categorie and cryptic simulated it by making the nebula a science ship.
so no, it not because they look alike that they would evoke similar biases.
and the nebula, while being "correct" is not " such a good" ship.
there is a reason why it was given for free during cstore promotion.
Actually, DDIS said it no less than two pages ago, along the lines of the Galaxy (that he proposed) would not be OP because it was not more powerful than the Scimitar or the Avenger, but promptly leaving out the name Sovereign.There are those that want it do be better than even the Sovy'.
LOL My objections are illogical?!? Have you even watched the show?
yes, i have watched every episode of the original series, the animated series, Next Generation, Deep space nine, Voyager, half of enterprise, and all the movies. Further, i have read and used to own the TNG technical manual and still own The Art of Star Trek. I use the galaxy class blueprints as my desktop background. i am looking at them as i type this.
i also have read this entire insanely long thread; I've been a lurker here since page 270ish.
and in all of that, i see no reason why a galaxy class ship can't use its giant dedicated hangar space as giant dedicated hangar space for whatever her captain desires it to be used for. (shuttles, fighters, Runabouts, worker bees, whatever the mission calls for)
and to concluded that this MUST be link to a like or dislike here, clearly show YOUR bias on the question.
So because I insist that bias is emotionally driven, makes me biased to your suggestion that the Dev's are biased about the Galaxy? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. If I have a bias, it is that I am not as emoionally connected to the Galaxy as you are, which really wouldn't be a bias at all.
it is not because something is the most common cause of something, that it is ALWAYS the cause of that thing.
Thats funny, it seems any time people don't get things the way that they think it should be, the first thing that is said these days is some sort of bias is to blame. The person on the other side is obviously (biased) because of:
Racial
Gender
National
Political
Orientation
Income class
and now Star Trek show era?
Around where I live, its called throwing the "(whatever the bias is alleged to be) card", the biggest one being the "race card" (or race-baiting). Its easier to try to lay blame because the other person (which is obvious to the complainant) is a "hater" than to consider that there is some other possibility. Its the ultimate "straw man" argument, because the expectation is now that the other person has to prove that they aren't a "hater", even if there was no real proof that they were "hating" in the first place. It has been done here, when it someone compared Gecko to a racist because of the Galaxy's performance (not done by you). And frankly, its run its course and something that, unless you can really show some real proof, (which you can't), its time to drop of the cries of developer bias (ship-baiting) and look for a real, and much more mature, root cause.
you are jumping the guns here, just to make me look like somekind of fool that see conspiracy everywhere and whatnot.
Personally, I could care less what you look like. This isn't (and never was or will be) about you. As far as jumping the gun, thats what calling bias when there is no proof.
and in it nature, it is not a bias, but just that, a point of view.
it become a bias in the moment it is introduced to the game and violated the implie rules of the game.
gecko:" i will make this galaxys ships some bad ships because they are just plain ugly and i prefer the ambassador"
that a bias link to a dislike.
and there is this:
gecko: " i will be carrefull to make the galaxy less efficient in comparison to the assault cruiser, because the galaxy is inferior to the sovereign in cannon and therefore it must not to be feel like it equal in this game"
this is a bias link to a point of view.
He has never said such a thing and you have no proof he has acted that way.
the things is, like i already explain, that it would not be a problem per se, if it was kept in the game rule concerning ship.
meaning if the galaxy was still available at tier 4 only and the sovereign at tier 5.
but at the moment where the galaxy is bring to tiers5 status, this kinds of consideration should not apply anymore. at tier 5 , they supposed to be equal.
Again, you have no proof that such a bias exists. As far as equal, each ship has statistics that are better and worse than the other, they have the same number of boffs and consoles. The only reason you think there is a bias is because the ship is more on the engineering side, which ends up being the less comparable of the three to have en masse, which one can argue has much more to do that engineering skills weren't as well thought through as the others.
and like i already told you a thousand time now, the turnrate alone is not a "driver", it is part of a whole.
You obviously don't understand what a driver is. A driver is a cause behind a problem, it doesn't have to be the only cause of a problem, it is A driver, you can have more than one .
stop isolating every bad stats of the ship and judging them separatly.
it is not the lt tact alone, the 2 tact console slot alone,the 5th engi console slot alone, the turnrate/inertia/speed alone, the lt science alone, the third engi ensign alone.
IT IS ALL THAT COMBINE!! how many time do i have to repeat it for you to anderstand?
how many time i will have to explain it to you so you stop isolating one bad stats to analyse it out of it context.
the bad performance of the ship is greater than the sum of all its shortcomings.
Really? I only speak of isolated stats because thats the way you have mentioned them in previous posts and its far easier to answer them one at a time.
it would if everything follow the same logic, but it is not as many thing concerning the galaxy in this game.
the star cruiser is bigger than the galaxy and is also an explorer BUT.... it turn better.
is that make sense?
Actually, the Fleet Galaxy has a hull of 44,000, while the Fleet Star Cruiser has a hull of 42,900. That suggests that the Galaxy is still larger than the Star Cruiser.
the scimitar is 5 time the size of the galaxy yet TURN BETTER.
IS THAT MAKE SENSE??!!
You've probably read my opinion, several times, that the Scimitar is just nuts. But while it has a better turn rate, the Scimitar has a worse inertia rating than the Galaxy.
like i said, it would have been a disrespect if it would have happened like you suggested.
but i bielieve it didn't happened like that. so it is not.
You have your right to an opinion, but do you really believe that all of the stakeholders that have money/time/effort banked on this game put their personal investment at risk to satisfy a dev's "bias". If so, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
the galaxy is not the result of a bad timming, bad planning or whatnot like you seem to suggest.
sorry the state of these ship was and are still INTENDED.
if one ever doubt about it, the " reboot" just close the debat.
if it was a mistake or anything else they would have corrected it with the reboot, the galaxy retrofit got NO CHANGES on it stats appart from the ridiculous 2 pieces set bonus.
INTENDED.
While I agree that the changes were not very good, go ahead and tell yourself whatever you need to help you sleep at night, I'll go ahead and send you a nite-lite to help you out.
nebula share the same saucer and technological development but his field of action is not as large as the galaxy.
wich make it a more cost effective solution for a reduce field of action.
they are not playing in the same categorie and cryptic simulated it by making the nebula a science ship.
so no, it not because they look alike that they would evoke similar biases.
and the nebula, while being "correct" is not " such a good" ship.
there is a reason why it was given for free during cstore promotion.[/QUOTE]
yes, i have watched every episode of the original series, the animated series, Next Generation, Deep space nine, Voyager, half of enterprise, and all the movies. Further, i have read and used to own the TNG technical manual and still own The Art of Star Trek. I use the galaxy class blueprints as my desktop background. i am looking at them as i type this.
i also have read this entire insanely long thread; I've been a lurker here since page 270ish.
and in all of that, i see no reason why a galaxy class ship can't use its giant dedicated hangar space as giant dedicated hangar space for whatever her captain desires it to be used for. (shuttles, fighters, Runabouts, worker bees, whatever the mission calls for)
While I am not a fan of the whole carrier thing in game, I agree with you on this. We have people who have spewed all-day-long and past when the cows came home about how the Galaxy class is so great because its so "modular". If it was to be converted over to a more tactical role (like a DN), why not use more space to support some fighters, much less remove some of the current load of shuttles in favor of some fighters?
Actually, DDIS said it no less than two pages ago, along the lines of the Galaxy (that he proposed) would not be OP because it was not more powerful than the Scimitar or the Avenger, but promptly leaving out the name Sovereign.There are those that want it do be better than even the Sovy'.
the galaxy X, if it had the station fliping on separation, would be more powerful then the avenger, and thus sovereign, because it would have just about the same station setup a scimitar would normally run. but without the 5 fore weapons, 5 tac consoles, or battle cloak. pretty big gap still.
and i said nothing is really op unless it outdoes the scimitar, any ship they add underneath it are by default niche fluff, and not game damaging power creep.
if something is more powerful then the avenger, it goes without saying its more powerful then the soverign, the monbosh beats it too. taking issue with that is more proof of the galaxy has to suck bias that is so strong with everyone. how well do you think picard's soverign would fair if it went up against admiral rikers dreadnought? it would get shot to pieces more easily then those negvar did. if your so concerned about canon portrail you should probably think the galaxy X should be near scimitar tier, like it turns out its sorta near if they did it my way.
what i talked about for the galaxy R would still only make it mid pack wile separated, only about d'deridex tier or dkora tier. still comfortably behind the regent.
While I am not a fan of the whole carrier thing in game, I agree with you on this. We have people who have spewed all-day-long and past when the cows came home about how the Galaxy class is so great because its so "modular". If it was to be converted over to a more tactical role (like a DN), why not use more space to support some fighters, much less remove some of the current load of shuttles in favor of some fighters?
expanding the shuttle bay would proboly run into some structural limitations with the plug and play of quarters/lab/etc modules. its also unnecessary. this is just how large the main bay is. it may be a memory beta link, but those are pictures from the blueprints.
its worth 2 hanger slots frankly, but i still dont think that should be its 'fix' instead of fixing whats wrong with the ship, especially when flight deck cruisers have the WORST selection of cruiser comm array commands
the galaxy X, if it had the station fliping on separation, would be more powerful then the avenger, and thus sovereign, because it would have just about the same station setup a scimitar would normally run. but without the 5 fore weapons, 5 tac consoles, or battle cloak. pretty big gap still.
and i said nothing is really op unless it outdoes the scimitar, any ship they add underneath it are by default niche fluff, and not game damaging power creep.
if something is more powerful then the avenger, it goes without saying its more powerful then the soverign, the monbosh beats it too. taking issue with that is more proof of the galaxy has to suck bias that is so strong with everyone. how well do you think picard's soverign would fair if it went up against admiral rikers dreadnought? it would get shot to pieces more easily then those negvar did. if your so concerned about canon portrail you should probably think the galaxy X should be near scimitar tier, like it turns out its sorta near if they did it my way.
what i talked about for the galaxy R would still only make it mid pack wile separated, only about d'deridex tier or dkora tier. still comfortably behind the regent.
I misread that. I stand corrected, sir. Albeit I disagree with you on the OP of the Scimitar.
id like to take a moment to rank every tac cruiser, and their relation to the various potentual fleet galaxy X and galaxy R proposed by me
*fleet galaxyX with dyson destroyer station swap tech as i outlined- hmm, well actually that would make it the most powerful tac cruiser. boy i guess when they said we were complaining that it wasn't the best you guys were right :rolleyes: but it still pails in comparison to the scimitar. why not make the galaxy X the fed's scimitar cryptic?
fleet avenger/mogh- the most powerful tac cruisers, certainly the battlecruisers with the most forward damage potentual
monbosh- better turn rate and more helpful inertia then the battlecruiser twins, only loses out because of the 4/4 weapon setup
fleet regent- locked as a beam boat version of the avenger, worse turn, 4/4 weapons
fleet excelsior- i actually think the ENS eng it has is more helpful then the ens tac the regent has, but for damage its potentially a bit behind
*fleet galaxyX with 4 tac console and a LTC tac, LT eng- all that with the hanger, it would be pretty close to top of the line. the very poor turnrate can be helped quite a bit by the sep console.
galor- a faster excelsior that hits not quite as hard
dkora- basically a monsosh with 1 less tac console and a bad turn rate
fleet d'deridex- hard to use an AtB build on, only 3 tac consoles, but if you can keep it alive with singularity jump and the battlecloak a very dangerous ship with that high end tac and sci combo. seems more powerful then it is because of superior rom boffs
*fleet galaxyR with 3 tac console and a LTC tac with station swap tech on saucer sepif it were me it would come with a 4/3/3 console setup, and unseped have a LTC eng and an LTC tac on separation. a ENS uni as well like the galaxyX
fleet vorcha- hard to use AtB build on, to much tac for AtB builds to be that useful on anyway, no battlecloak or singularity jump to keep it alive compared to the d'deridex
tac bortas- 5 tac console beam boat, held back quite a bit by the lack of built in LTC tac, and running one ruining an AtB build
fleet kamarag- pretty much a ktinga with high end sci skills, if used offensively can be a different kind of dangerous
fleet ktinga- 11 turn rate makes this a DHC darling, basically an escort with a COM eng. a bit low on dps potentual though
fleet negvar- a fat ktinga basically, universal ENS and turn rate traded for hitpoints, but can out turn a seped galaxy easily.
Hirogen Apex- at least its got an LTC tac. lol @ 6 turn, 3 tac console and 5 eng consoles, what a dud.
fleet hap'pax- superior rom boffs and its own separation mode result in a superior offering to any fleet galaxy X with its mystery 10th console. and its got a battle cloak and sing jump.
Tal Adapted- a really fat and ugly kamarang, mostly false choice COM uni, more at home on a support cruiser list
*fleet galaxyX with 4 tac console- still bellow every other tac cruiser with a LTC tac, and several battlecuisers that dont even have an LTC tac. yellow stones and 4 tac consoles and the lance shotgun that proboly doesn't have to worry about accuracy because its an AOE is nice, and the improved DHC use thanks to the seperation mode turn rate, move it up from bottom of the list to below average.
fleet ambasidor- without the cloak and DHCs it cant use its LTC for offense nearly as well as the kamarang, more of a heal boat
*fleet galaxyX with 5 eng console- you know this is proboly what its gonna get right? im pretty sure i could make an ambassador with a high end sci offense skill more dangerous pretty easily.
fleet heavy- classic sovereign setup with fleet treatment and an 8 turn rate is pretty ok
mirror heavy- same as the ambassador, only weaker stats
tac ody- basically a fat fleet heavy, if you use an AtB build. use the LTC for tac and your ships still inferior to the heavy
old galaxy X- 9 consoles and non fleet stats and that joke of a lance take a ton away from its raw potentual.
fleet galaxy R- its not really a healer, or a decent tank, or even a poor damage dealer, its dead last in damage. its got no category it fits in, but its worth mentioning to remind people how bad it is.
I misread that. I stand corrected, sir. Albeit I disagree with you on the OP of the Scimitar.
how so? a COM tac, LTC eng galaxy X wile separated still loses the numbers game vs the scimitar. down a tac console, down a DHC, down turn rate during ambush, and down a battlecloak it doesn't lose its shields on. if your one of those people that never cloaks their scimitar, its closer, but still below it.
expanding the shuttle bay would proboly run into some structural limitations with the plug and play of quarters/lab/etc modules. its also unnecessary. this is just how large the main bay is. it may be a memory beta link, but those are pictures from the blueprints.
its worth 2 hanger slots frankly, but i still dont think that should be its 'fix' instead of fixing whats wrong with the ship, especially when flight deck cruisers have the WORST selection of cruiser comm array commands
Thus, the last part of my post that suggested to just replace some of the shuttle compliment with fighters.
You are right about it not being the fix, but it is a step in the right direction. As far as the cruiser commands go for flight deck cruisers, any ship that can't carry "frigates" should have a 3 command set-up in my opinion anyways.
I have come to the conclusion that Cryptic are not fans of The Next Generation because at every turn they have basically placated the Galaxy Class, even the Fleet Version is appalling compared to the ludicrous upgrades that the Defiant gets (5 Tactical Console Slots... Really!?)...
I am trying to get to the bottom as to why Cryptic continually hate on the Galaxy Class. It seems as if they only put it in the game to give a "Star Trek Feeling" but have put no effort into the Galaxies design or set up.
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!
The Galaxy Class in the game is COMPLETELY disappointing compared to its on screen counter part. Thats all well and good but you had a chance to change that and what do you do... PUT ANOTHER ENGINEERING CONSOLE ON IT!
It doesn't need that! What it needs is Tactical Power and not to be completely useless next to the Odyssey, a ship which you try to force most cruiser captains to use... I want more love for the Galaxy Class and less biased towards the Odyssey... Make the Galaxy Class a viable ship!
I have come to the conclusion that Cryptic know absolutely nothing about Star Trek and we'd be better off with the actual Star Trek fans producing this game because at least they could get the ships actually right to begin with.
Cause its ugly and nobody cares about it. The excelsior is only better in YOUR opinion... they are different ships made for different purposes. Your definition of "viable" is not the same as mine.
basically you come off as a whiny little kid who wants his ship to look AND perform a certain way without even bothering to try and make a viable build using it or another ship.
You wanna use a Galaxy? Fine. But don't expect Cryptic to make it a God-Mode ship just because you say so. It works and that's good enough.
"When people ask stupid questions I feel obligated to give sarcastic answers."
Keltoi Class... fan design. You KNOW you want one In-game!
how so? a COM tac, LTC eng galaxy X wile separated still loses the numbers game vs the scimitar. down a tac console, down a DHC, down turn rate during ambush, and down a battlecloak it doesn't lose its shields on. if your one of those people that never cloaks their scimitar, its closer, but still below it.
Now you misunderstand me. I am saying that the Scimitar is OP. Earlier, you were suggesting that anything that outdid the Scimitar would be OP.
yes, i have watched every episode of the original series, the animated series, Next Generation, Deep space nine, Voyager, half of enterprise, and all the movies. Further, i have read and used to own the TNG technical manual and still own The Art of Star Trek. I use the galaxy class blueprints as my desktop background. i am looking at them as i type this.
i also have read this entire insanely long thread; I've been a lurker here since page 270ish.
and in all of that, i see no reason why a galaxy class ship can't use its giant dedicated hangar space as giant dedicated hangar space for whatever her captain desires it to be used for. (shuttles, fighters, Runabouts, worker bees, whatever the mission calls for)
Then you tell me, out of all that you have watched, is there even a single instance of any Starfleet ship launching fighter craft? Furthermore, out of documented 7 TNG seasons + Generations, is there any instance of the Galaxy Class launching fighter craft?
See my point? Hangar bay =/= shuttle bay. Slapping a hangar on such an iconic ship when it clearly is documented that she never was a carrier on FDC is ridiculous and an insult. It's like telling the Defiant fans that the Defiant can't use cannons and must use beams only or to the B'rel fans that the B'rel won't be able to cloak. They won't like it and I don't like a hangar on a Galaxy.
The carrier thing is a bit of a nonsence in STO if you ask me. I'm willing to go with it on the premise 'it's just a game' as long as it doesn't bother me. But due to Cryptic lazyness in fixing things, the model "When in doubt, slap a hangar!" has become the norm, so now the iconic ships are threatened to have this lazy solution slapped on them even though it's clear as day that they were not doing that in the multiple ST shows and this is something I don't want to see.
I'll just point to a single example why carriers don't work in ST. In order for any small craft that is in the shuttle bay to leave the ship and disengage, the main ship needs to lower it's shield. In Star Trek a ship without shields is a sitting duck and can be one-shooted by almost anything.
I think the whole thing is self-explanatory.
Now you misunderstand me. I am saying that the Scimitar is OP. Earlier, you were suggesting that anything that outdid the Scimitar would be OP.
the scimitar being op is also something that goes without saying! things less powerful then it are ether not op, or at least less op. something introduced more powerful then the scimitar, ever, is a truly scary though.
I'd say that powercreep is all in peoples' heads. This game sets the PVE bar really low. And most people are now citing metrics and claiming powercreep but they're using data collected from age old content.
It's like saying there's been powercreep in Everquest, because people can solo ToV, raid encounters from an expansion that came out about 14 years ago.
It's just weird. There's no actual progression in this game, so powercreep isn't an issue.
Can you beat borg task forces now easily?
Yeah.
But you could beat them easily last year and the year before that and the year before that. The Scimitar didn't change PVE. It's always been beatable. Easily beatable.
Then you tell me, out of all that you have watched, is there even a single instance of any Starfleet ship launching fighter craft? Furthermore, out of documented 7 TNG seasons + Generations, is there any instance of the Galaxy Class launching fighter craft?
See my point? Hangar bay =/= shuttle bay. Slapping a hangar on such an iconic ship when it clearly is documented that she never was a carrier on FDC is ridiculous and an insult. It's like telling the Defiant fans that the Defiant can't use cannons and must use beams only or to the B'rel fans that the B'rel won't be able to cloak. They won't like it and I don't like a hangar on a Galaxy.
The carrier thing is a bit of a nonsence in STO if you ask me. I'm willing to go with it on the premise 'it's just a game' as long as it doesn't bother me. But due to Cryptic lazyness in fixing things, the model "When in doubt, slap a hangar!" has become the norm, so now the iconic ships are threatened to have this lazy solution slapped on them even though it's clear as day that they were not doing that in the multiple ST shows and this is something I don't want to see.
I'll just point to a single example why carriers don't work in ST. In order for any small craft that is in the shuttle bay to leave the ship and disengage, the main ship needs to lower it's shield. In Star Trek a ship without shields is a sitting duck and can be one-shooted by almost anything.
I think the whole thing is self-explanatory.
thats a real nice strawman you have there. i never argued that it was seen using its giant hangar bay to full potential in the shows. what i am arguing is that there is no reason it can't do that now, especially when there is plenty of evidence that the federation does use fighter craft (during the dominion war).
my logic here. the federation has and uses fighters. And the federation has a large, highly modular multi mission ship ship with a giant hangar bay 3 decks deep that could easily support said fighters. why not put A on B?
further, im not saying x ship cant use y ability seen in the show. What i am saying is that there is no reason x ship can't use z ability that was not seen in the show.
You, however, are arguing that nobody can use a galaxy to do anything captain Picard didn't do, because you didn't see him do it. An equivalent argument to your own would be that the Intrepid class cannot use Cannons, because she never did in the show.
Launching a shuttle through a shield is as simple as synchronizing shield frequencies between the two craft. Small craft fly through force fields and shields all the time in star trek, (voyager particularly). (Why didnt they do that in star trek V? shuttles of that era were unshielded.)
lastly, shuttle bay=hangar bay, because servicing small flying craft of the same size, materials, fuel use, and proportions does not magically become impossible just because the small craft are a somewhat different shape and better armed now. further, the only justification for a shuttle bay as wide as the galaxy class' is the simultaneous launch and/or recovery of multiple small craft.
I'd say that powercreep is all in peoples' heads. This game sets the PVE bar really low. And most people are now citing metrics and claiming powercreep but they're using data collected from age old content.
It's like saying there's been powercreep in Everquest, because people can solo ToV, raid encounters from an expansion that came out about 14 years ago.
It's just weird. There's no actual progression in this game, so powercreep isn't an issue.
Can you beat borg task forces now easily?
Yeah.
But you could beat them easily last year and the year before that and the year before that. The Scimitar didn't change PVE. It's always been beatable. Easily beatable.
what a strange perception of things pve'ers have. it must also be why some think they can post DPS parces of a galaxy R and think it means anything. its just math, if they had been in any other cruiser the numbers would have been higher.
if you think the game has no end game and theres no power creep its you who are choseing not to play it, it is pvp. all these new additions, be them consoles, ships, weapons, they all shift the meta game tremendously, and just about any match with a scimitar hinges on how well it does. for every additional scimitar in an stf, you subtract a certain amount of time it takes to complete it, thats all.
thats why the galaxy R isn't fine, thats why your drop in the bucket DPS parse is meaningless. it cant effect adequately the other players around it with effective healing or damage, so its god awful and worthless and a drag on your team, in a game mode were those things actually mater. your galaxy in pvp isn't just adding seconds to the completion time like it would if you took it into an stf.
it must also be why some think they can post DPS parces of a galaxy R and think it means anything.
I'm curious to see links to my parses.
if you think the game has no end game and theres no power creep its you who are choseing not to play it,
It has an endgame. It has no end game PROGRESSION. Which means power creep is irrelevant. I'm still fighting the same Borg I was fighting years ago. Kerrat is still Kerrat. Cap and Hold is still Cap and Hold. There's been no progression. Well, I like the Voth stuff. It's new. I think they were on the right track with Tholians. But it's just tiny bits. And people still keep using the Borg as the benchmark for their data collection, so the game's been stuck in a stasis of Borg fights for years.
it is pvp.
Nothing in the game has been done to make PVP as fun as it was when the game began. Instead things have been done to make PVP less rewarding, less fun and less challenging. There's been no real progression in PVP either.
And the only new PVP map since Shantytown was the shuttle map.
Shuttles.
thats why the galaxy R isn't fine
I'm in favor of improvements to the Galaxy.
I just don't think powercreep is relevant to a game that doesn't have a progression system in place for its end-game.
And I don't think the Scimitar is the basis for changes to the Galaxy. That's ridiculous. And by now you and every other person in this thread have to realize Geko is NOT going to do that anyways.
the main hanger wasn't even used in the tv show, because making a set for it would have been impossible, it was too vast. the 2 smaller bays in the neck were more then enough to handle the ocational need for shuttles in the show. its one of those things that the very modular galaxy came with, but wasn't used because it was never needed. it might have literally been a hanger bay, but the D was never in a zone hot enough to be assigned any squadrons. eventually they stuck some runabouts in there though. when it launched what became the fighters didn't even exist yet, they were thinking ahead, building a hanger that size into it. they figured eventually there would be a war and these huge ships would have to be the backbone of the fleet, and that it was reasonable to assume this situation might call for the development for strike craft, and thats exactly what happened.
the tech manual says that a percentage of the interior wasn't being utilized, that might have been as high as 30%, when the big D launched. that shuttle bay, and those empty sections, were left open for future expansion and need. it was built to be useful for 100 years, room for advancements in tech and equipment came standard.
the tech manual says that a percentage of the interior wasn't being utilized, that might have been as high as 30%, when the big D launched. that shuttle bay, and those empty sections, were left open for future expansion and need. it was built to be useful for 100 years, room for advancements in tech and equipment came standard.
And here's exactly how much space was available for shuttlecraft.
Summary:
The Story of the Original Enterprise-D Blueprints - as told by Phil Broad of The Vault.
"It was sometime during the first season of Next Generation's run on on TV that I mentioned in passing to Ed that "someone" should see about doing plans of the new Enterprise, like the old Franz Joseph deck plans of the ship from the original series. Ed replied "that gives me an idea" and the rest is history." -- Phil Broad
Ed contacted Paramount Studios and eventually came in contact with Star Trek Art Department staff member Andrew Probert who listened to his idea. Andrew thought it was good and they agreed that Ed should do the "official" plans for eventual publication. It would be up to Ed to not only create the drawings but to find a publisher as well. This would prove to be no small task, the drawings would take two years of effort to design and draw and the search for publishers was not easy either. In the end the gaming publisher "FASA" was given the contract to publish and distribute the plans under their existing license with Paramount for Star Trek related products.
As Ed got going on the project some of his original pencil layouts would be displayed at the last "Equicon" science fiction convention held in Los Angeles and interest from the fans seemed reasonably high. After two years of effort and uncounted trips to the studio to confer with Andrew Probert, Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda, the plans were finally ready for publishing. Ed had them duly copyrighted and all seemed well.
It was at this point that fate intervened when it was learned that FASA had let their license with Paramount expire and they could no longer publish the plans. Ed began to cast about for a new publishing house and it was during this process that he learned that Rick Sternbach had agreed to the Pocket Book offer to produce plans of the ship. Ed now had to watch as all his work was cast aside so someone else could publish the "official" plans. There proved to be little that Ed could do to stop the other project as by this time his friend Andrew Probert had left the Star Trek Art Department.
The new plans seemed to borrow heavily from Ed's work yet did not incorporate many of the design features that the ship's original designer Andrew Probert had intended. Only Ed's drawings do that.
Most apocryphal drawings I've ever seen.)
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
its funny how they didn't fix the galaxy class at all and only improved the dreadnought galaxy class, gave it new abilities and yea. Why not give the Galaxy a ensign universal boff, take out the 5th engineer console for a tactic and give it a hanger bay like they did with the Dreadnought.
its funny how they didn't fix the galaxy class at all and only improved the dreadnought galaxy class, gave it new abilities and yea. Why not give the Galaxy a ensign universal boff, take out the 5th engineer console for a tactic and give it a hanger bay like they did with the Dreadnought.
Or, like I keep suggesting... Change the 5th engineering console space on the Fleet Galaxy to a brand-new "universal" console slot. Ta-da!
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
only beter? HA. its an RA level ship and half the escorts have more hull hitpoints. its 3/3/3 console layout is inferior to the ambassador's 4/3/3, and the fleet ambassadors got a universal LT. the Cheyenne has a a 1 better turn rate, thats all. its one thing to release an inferior ship with just about the same station setup, its another to release a galaxy thats at the exact same level as the ambassador, only it can sep and get a LTC tac. that totally invalidates the ambassador
Mind you, I'm not talking about the fleet version but only the retrofits. Though I was mistaken, I assumed the Ambassador retrofit had 2 tac consoles. Still, considering the MU cheyenne is obtainable for a few ECs I'd say it still is better overall than the Ambassador retrofit.
But I'm not talking about number pushing and PvP mind you. That's where you guys loose me on the whole "competition" thing because those are games only played by the numbers and those don't interest me, quite frankly.
^ 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
They chose to tweak the iconic ship and not the ship nobody remembers. At least that's how the blog post reads.
You got that backwards the Galaxy X is not an iconic ship, the galaxy is an iconic ship. Hence why this board was created to talk about the Galaxy class, not the huge ugly mess known as the Galaxy X.
Would you mind NOT correcting other people who DON'T hold your opinion? Just because they don't see things your way, doesn't mean they are wrong because of it. It's really annoying and presumptuous of you.
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
You got that backwards the Galaxy X is not an iconic ship, the galaxy is an iconic ship. Hence why this board was created to talk about the Galaxy class, not the huge ugly mess known as the Galaxy X.
u hate it, i love it, u say it's not the same ship, i do say so, whatever... i just hope cryptic is stating something soon on the topic in whole ...
Comments
Going on the data, the excelsior, nebula and wambundu class ships all were workhorses. The wambundu might even have been a bigger workhorse.
Oh and mirandas and oberths too.
only beter? HA. its an RA level ship and half the escorts have more hull hitpoints. its 3/3/3 console layout is inferior to the ambassador's 4/3/3, and the fleet ambassadors got a universal LT. the Cheyenne has a a 1 better turn rate, thats all. its one thing to release an inferior ship with just about the same station setup, its another to release a galaxy thats at the exact same level as the ambassador, only it can sep and get a LTC tac. that totally invalidates the ambassador
that voth bulwark i think it was is also called is also a dread cruiser. the other 2 are dread carrier or dread warbirds.
i was speaking about the ship performance IN GAME, as i always do from the beguining.
and this have always been a fact.
yes, bias often has emotional basis, but not always, and to concluded that this MUST be link to a like or dislike here, clearly show YOUR bias on the question.
it is not because something is the most common cause of something, that it is ALWAYS the cause of that thing.
you are jumping the guns here, just to make me look like somekind of fool that see conspiracy everywhere and whatnot.
the bias concerning the galaxy is not emotional but come from a point of view.
and in it nature, it is not a bias, but just that, a point of view.
it become a bias in the moment it is introduced to the game and violated the implie rules of the game.
an bias base on a dislike would be like this:
gecko:" i will make this galaxys ships some bad ships because they are just plain ugly and i prefer the ambassador"
that a bias link to a dislike.
and there is this:
gecko: " i will be carrefull to make the galaxy less efficient in comparison to the assault cruiser, because the galaxy is inferior to the sovereign in cannon and therefore it must not to be feel like it equal in this game"
this is a bias link to a point of view.
and i believe the second option is the good one.
the things is, like i already explain, that it would not be a problem per se, if it was kept in the game rule concerning ship.
meaning if the galaxy was still available at tier 4 only and the sovereign at tier 5.
but at the moment where the galaxy is bring to tiers5 status, this kinds of consideration should not apply anymore. at tier 5 , they supposed to be equal.
and like i already told you a thousand time now, the turnrate alone is not a "driver", it is part of a whole.
stop isolating every bad stats of the ship and judging them separatly.
it is not the lt tact alone, the 2 tact console slot alone,the 5th engi console slot alone, the turnrate/inertia/speed alone, the lt science alone, the third engi ensign alone.
IT IS ALL THAT COMBINE!! how many time do i have to repeat it for you to anderstand?
how many time i will have to explain it to you so you stop isolating one bad stats to analyse it out of it context.
the bad performance of the ship is greater than the sum of all its shortcomings.
it would if everything follow the same logic, but it is not as many thing concerning the galaxy in this game.
the star cruiser is bigger than the galaxy and is also an explorer BUT.... it turn better.
is that make sense?
the jeam dreadnought is twice the size of the galaxy yet have the same turnrate.
is that make sense?
the scimitar is 5 time the size of the galaxy yet TURN BETTER.
IS THAT MAKE SENSE??!!
and it is not because some of these ship got out later.
the star cruiser is 6month older than the galaxy.
like i said, it would have been a disrespect if it would have happened like you suggested.
but i bielieve it didn't happened like that. so it is not.
the galaxy is not the result of a bad timming, bad planning or whatnot like you seem to suggest.
sorry the state of these ship was and are still INTENDED.
if one ever doubt about it, the " reboot" just close the debat.
if it was a mistake or anything else they would have corrected it with the reboot, the galaxy retrofit got NO CHANGES on it stats appart from the ridiculous 2 pieces set bonus.
INTENDED.
nebula share the same saucer and technological development but his field of action is not as large as the galaxy.
wich make it a more cost effective solution for a reduce field of action.
they are not playing in the same categorie and cryptic simulated it by making the nebula a science ship.
so no, it not because they look alike that they would evoke similar biases.
and the nebula, while being "correct" is not " such a good" ship.
there is a reason why it was given for free during cstore promotion.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Actually, DDIS said it no less than two pages ago, along the lines of the Galaxy (that he proposed) would not be OP because it was not more powerful than the Scimitar or the Avenger, but promptly leaving out the name Sovereign.There are those that want it do be better than even the Sovy'.
yes, i have watched every episode of the original series, the animated series, Next Generation, Deep space nine, Voyager, half of enterprise, and all the movies. Further, i have read and used to own the TNG technical manual and still own The Art of Star Trek. I use the galaxy class blueprints as my desktop background. i am looking at them as i type this.
i also have read this entire insanely long thread; I've been a lurker here since page 270ish.
and in all of that, i see no reason why a galaxy class ship can't use its giant dedicated hangar space as giant dedicated hangar space for whatever her captain desires it to be used for. (shuttles, fighters, Runabouts, worker bees, whatever the mission calls for)
Then I suggest that you do mention it that way and not to expect inference, because it didn't sound that way.
Show me a time where bias wasn't emotionally based.
So because I insist that bias is emotionally driven, makes me biased to your suggestion that the Dev's are biased about the Galaxy? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. If I have a bias, it is that I am not as emoionally connected to the Galaxy as you are, which really wouldn't be a bias at all.
Thats funny, it seems any time people don't get things the way that they think it should be, the first thing that is said these days is some sort of bias is to blame. The person on the other side is obviously (biased) because of:
Racial
Gender
National
Political
Orientation
Income class
and now Star Trek show era?
Around where I live, its called throwing the "(whatever the bias is alleged to be) card", the biggest one being the "race card" (or race-baiting). Its easier to try to lay blame because the other person (which is obvious to the complainant) is a "hater" than to consider that there is some other possibility. Its the ultimate "straw man" argument, because the expectation is now that the other person has to prove that they aren't a "hater", even if there was no real proof that they were "hating" in the first place. It has been done here, when it someone compared Gecko to a racist because of the Galaxy's performance (not done by you). And frankly, its run its course and something that, unless you can really show some real proof, (which you can't), its time to drop of the cries of developer bias (ship-baiting) and look for a real, and much more mature, root cause.
Personally, I could care less what you look like. This isn't (and never was or will be) about you. As far as jumping the gun, thats what calling bias when there is no proof.
And where does most points of view come from? Possibly evocations of emotion?
And what implied rule might that be?
He has never said such a thing and you have no proof he has acted that way.
Because you believe in something does not make it fact. I am sure that my 8 month old daughter believes in things that are not fact.
Again, you have no proof that such a bias exists. As far as equal, each ship has statistics that are better and worse than the other, they have the same number of boffs and consoles. The only reason you think there is a bias is because the ship is more on the engineering side, which ends up being the less comparable of the three to have en masse, which one can argue has much more to do that engineering skills weren't as well thought through as the others.
You obviously don't understand what a driver is. A driver is a cause behind a problem, it doesn't have to be the only cause of a problem, it is A driver, you can have more than one .
Really? I only speak of isolated stats because thats the way you have mentioned them in previous posts and its far easier to answer them one at a time.
Actually, the Fleet Galaxy has a hull of 44,000, while the Fleet Star Cruiser has a hull of 42,900. That suggests that the Galaxy is still larger than the Star Cruiser.
Very few of the lock box ships make sense, Ive said that for quite some time.
You've probably read my opinion, several times, that the Scimitar is just nuts. But while it has a better turn rate, the Scimitar has a worse inertia rating than the Galaxy.
As I already said about the Star cruiser, it has less hull, which likely means that it is smaller.
You have your right to an opinion, but do you really believe that all of the stakeholders that have money/time/effort banked on this game put their personal investment at risk to satisfy a dev's "bias". If so, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
While I agree that the changes were not very good, go ahead and tell yourself whatever you need to help you sleep at night, I'll go ahead and send you a nite-lite to help you out.
nebula share the same saucer and technological development but his field of action is not as large as the galaxy.
wich make it a more cost effective solution for a reduce field of action.
they are not playing in the same categorie and cryptic simulated it by making the nebula a science ship.
so no, it not because they look alike that they would evoke similar biases.
and the nebula, while being "correct" is not " such a good" ship.
there is a reason why it was given for free during cstore promotion.[/QUOTE]
While I am not a fan of the whole carrier thing in game, I agree with you on this. We have people who have spewed all-day-long and past when the cows came home about how the Galaxy class is so great because its so "modular". If it was to be converted over to a more tactical role (like a DN), why not use more space to support some fighters, much less remove some of the current load of shuttles in favor of some fighters?
the galaxy X, if it had the station fliping on separation, would be more powerful then the avenger, and thus sovereign, because it would have just about the same station setup a scimitar would normally run. but without the 5 fore weapons, 5 tac consoles, or battle cloak. pretty big gap still.
and i said nothing is really op unless it outdoes the scimitar, any ship they add underneath it are by default niche fluff, and not game damaging power creep.
if something is more powerful then the avenger, it goes without saying its more powerful then the soverign, the monbosh beats it too. taking issue with that is more proof of the galaxy has to suck bias that is so strong with everyone. how well do you think picard's soverign would fair if it went up against admiral rikers dreadnought? it would get shot to pieces more easily then those negvar did. if your so concerned about canon portrail you should probably think the galaxy X should be near scimitar tier, like it turns out its sorta near if they did it my way.
what i talked about for the galaxy R would still only make it mid pack wile separated, only about d'deridex tier or dkora tier. still comfortably behind the regent.
expanding the shuttle bay would proboly run into some structural limitations with the plug and play of quarters/lab/etc modules. its also unnecessary. this is just how large the main bay is. it may be a memory beta link, but those are pictures from the blueprints.
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Main_shuttlebay
its worth 2 hanger slots frankly, but i still dont think that should be its 'fix' instead of fixing whats wrong with the ship, especially when flight deck cruisers have the WORST selection of cruiser comm array commands
I misread that. I stand corrected, sir. Albeit I disagree with you on the OP of the Scimitar.
*fleet galaxyX with dyson destroyer station swap tech as i outlined- hmm, well actually that would make it the most powerful tac cruiser. boy i guess when they said we were complaining that it wasn't the best you guys were right :rolleyes: but it still pails in comparison to the scimitar. why not make the galaxy X the fed's scimitar cryptic?
fleet avenger/mogh- the most powerful tac cruisers, certainly the battlecruisers with the most forward damage potentual
monbosh- better turn rate and more helpful inertia then the battlecruiser twins, only loses out because of the 4/4 weapon setup
fleet regent- locked as a beam boat version of the avenger, worse turn, 4/4 weapons
fleet excelsior- i actually think the ENS eng it has is more helpful then the ens tac the regent has, but for damage its potentially a bit behind
*fleet galaxyX with 4 tac console and a LTC tac, LT eng- all that with the hanger, it would be pretty close to top of the line. the very poor turnrate can be helped quite a bit by the sep console.
galor- a faster excelsior that hits not quite as hard
dkora- basically a monsosh with 1 less tac console and a bad turn rate
fleet d'deridex- hard to use an AtB build on, only 3 tac consoles, but if you can keep it alive with singularity jump and the battlecloak a very dangerous ship with that high end tac and sci combo. seems more powerful then it is because of superior rom boffs
*fleet galaxyR with 3 tac console and a LTC tac with station swap tech on saucer sepif it were me it would come with a 4/3/3 console setup, and unseped have a LTC eng and an LTC tac on separation. a ENS uni as well like the galaxyX
fleet vorcha- hard to use AtB build on, to much tac for AtB builds to be that useful on anyway, no battlecloak or singularity jump to keep it alive compared to the d'deridex
tac bortas- 5 tac console beam boat, held back quite a bit by the lack of built in LTC tac, and running one ruining an AtB build
fleet kamarag- pretty much a ktinga with high end sci skills, if used offensively can be a different kind of dangerous
fleet ktinga- 11 turn rate makes this a DHC darling, basically an escort with a COM eng. a bit low on dps potentual though
fleet negvar- a fat ktinga basically, universal ENS and turn rate traded for hitpoints, but can out turn a seped galaxy easily.
Hirogen Apex- at least its got an LTC tac. lol @ 6 turn, 3 tac console and 5 eng consoles, what a dud.
fleet hap'pax- superior rom boffs and its own separation mode result in a superior offering to any fleet galaxy X with its mystery 10th console. and its got a battle cloak and sing jump.
Tal Adapted- a really fat and ugly kamarang, mostly false choice COM uni, more at home on a support cruiser list
*fleet galaxyX with 4 tac console- still bellow every other tac cruiser with a LTC tac, and several battlecuisers that dont even have an LTC tac. yellow stones and 4 tac consoles and the lance shotgun that proboly doesn't have to worry about accuracy because its an AOE is nice, and the improved DHC use thanks to the seperation mode turn rate, move it up from bottom of the list to below average.
fleet ambasidor- without the cloak and DHCs it cant use its LTC for offense nearly as well as the kamarang, more of a heal boat
*fleet galaxyX with 5 eng console- you know this is proboly what its gonna get right? im pretty sure i could make an ambassador with a high end sci offense skill more dangerous pretty easily.
fleet heavy- classic sovereign setup with fleet treatment and an 8 turn rate is pretty ok
mirror heavy- same as the ambassador, only weaker stats
tac ody- basically a fat fleet heavy, if you use an AtB build. use the LTC for tac and your ships still inferior to the heavy
old galaxy X- 9 consoles and non fleet stats and that joke of a lance take a ton away from its raw potentual.
fleet galaxy R- its not really a healer, or a decent tank, or even a poor damage dealer, its dead last in damage. its got no category it fits in, but its worth mentioning to remind people how bad it is.
how so? a COM tac, LTC eng galaxy X wile separated still loses the numbers game vs the scimitar. down a tac console, down a DHC, down turn rate during ambush, and down a battlecloak it doesn't lose its shields on. if your one of those people that never cloaks their scimitar, its closer, but still below it.
Thus, the last part of my post that suggested to just replace some of the shuttle compliment with fighters.
You are right about it not being the fix, but it is a step in the right direction. As far as the cruiser commands go for flight deck cruisers, any ship that can't carry "frigates" should have a 3 command set-up in my opinion anyways.
Cause its ugly and nobody cares about it. The excelsior is only better in YOUR opinion... they are different ships made for different purposes. Your definition of "viable" is not the same as mine.
basically you come off as a whiny little kid who wants his ship to look AND perform a certain way without even bothering to try and make a viable build using it or another ship.
You wanna use a Galaxy? Fine. But don't expect Cryptic to make it a God-Mode ship just because you say so. It works and that's good enough.
Keltoi Class... fan design. You KNOW you want one In-game!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Now you misunderstand me. I am saying that the Scimitar is OP. Earlier, you were suggesting that anything that outdid the Scimitar would be OP.
Then you tell me, out of all that you have watched, is there even a single instance of any Starfleet ship launching fighter craft? Furthermore, out of documented 7 TNG seasons + Generations, is there any instance of the Galaxy Class launching fighter craft?
See my point? Hangar bay =/= shuttle bay. Slapping a hangar on such an iconic ship when it clearly is documented that she never was a carrier on FDC is ridiculous and an insult. It's like telling the Defiant fans that the Defiant can't use cannons and must use beams only or to the B'rel fans that the B'rel won't be able to cloak. They won't like it and I don't like a hangar on a Galaxy.
The carrier thing is a bit of a nonsence in STO if you ask me. I'm willing to go with it on the premise 'it's just a game' as long as it doesn't bother me. But due to Cryptic lazyness in fixing things, the model "When in doubt, slap a hangar!" has become the norm, so now the iconic ships are threatened to have this lazy solution slapped on them even though it's clear as day that they were not doing that in the multiple ST shows and this is something I don't want to see.
I'll just point to a single example why carriers don't work in ST. In order for any small craft that is in the shuttle bay to leave the ship and disengage, the main ship needs to lower it's shield. In Star Trek a ship without shields is a sitting duck and can be one-shooted by almost anything.
I think the whole thing is self-explanatory.
the scimitar being op is also something that goes without saying! things less powerful then it are ether not op, or at least less op. something introduced more powerful then the scimitar, ever, is a truly scary though.
I'd say that powercreep is all in peoples' heads. This game sets the PVE bar really low. And most people are now citing metrics and claiming powercreep but they're using data collected from age old content.
It's like saying there's been powercreep in Everquest, because people can solo ToV, raid encounters from an expansion that came out about 14 years ago.
It's just weird. There's no actual progression in this game, so powercreep isn't an issue.
Can you beat borg task forces now easily?
Yeah.
But you could beat them easily last year and the year before that and the year before that. The Scimitar didn't change PVE. It's always been beatable. Easily beatable.
thats a real nice strawman you have there. i never argued that it was seen using its giant hangar bay to full potential in the shows. what i am arguing is that there is no reason it can't do that now, especially when there is plenty of evidence that the federation does use fighter craft (during the dominion war).
my logic here. the federation has and uses fighters. And the federation has a large, highly modular multi mission ship ship with a giant hangar bay 3 decks deep that could easily support said fighters. why not put A on B?
further, im not saying x ship cant use y ability seen in the show. What i am saying is that there is no reason x ship can't use z ability that was not seen in the show.
You, however, are arguing that nobody can use a galaxy to do anything captain Picard didn't do, because you didn't see him do it. An equivalent argument to your own would be that the Intrepid class cannot use Cannons, because she never did in the show.
Launching a shuttle through a shield is as simple as synchronizing shield frequencies between the two craft. Small craft fly through force fields and shields all the time in star trek, (voyager particularly). (Why didnt they do that in star trek V? shuttles of that era were unshielded.)
lastly, shuttle bay=hangar bay, because servicing small flying craft of the same size, materials, fuel use, and proportions does not magically become impossible just because the small craft are a somewhat different shape and better armed now. further, the only justification for a shuttle bay as wide as the galaxy class' is the simultaneous launch and/or recovery of multiple small craft.
what a strange perception of things pve'ers have. it must also be why some think they can post DPS parces of a galaxy R and think it means anything. its just math, if they had been in any other cruiser the numbers would have been higher.
if you think the game has no end game and theres no power creep its you who are choseing not to play it, it is pvp. all these new additions, be them consoles, ships, weapons, they all shift the meta game tremendously, and just about any match with a scimitar hinges on how well it does. for every additional scimitar in an stf, you subtract a certain amount of time it takes to complete it, thats all.
thats why the galaxy R isn't fine, thats why your drop in the bucket DPS parse is meaningless. it cant effect adequately the other players around it with effective healing or damage, so its god awful and worthless and a drag on your team, in a game mode were those things actually mater. your galaxy in pvp isn't just adding seconds to the completion time like it would if you took it into an stf.
I'm curious to see links to my parses.
It has an endgame. It has no end game PROGRESSION. Which means power creep is irrelevant. I'm still fighting the same Borg I was fighting years ago. Kerrat is still Kerrat. Cap and Hold is still Cap and Hold. There's been no progression. Well, I like the Voth stuff. It's new. I think they were on the right track with Tholians. But it's just tiny bits. And people still keep using the Borg as the benchmark for their data collection, so the game's been stuck in a stasis of Borg fights for years.
Nothing in the game has been done to make PVP as fun as it was when the game began. Instead things have been done to make PVP less rewarding, less fun and less challenging. There's been no real progression in PVP either.
And the only new PVP map since Shantytown was the shuttle map.
Shuttles.
I'm in favor of improvements to the Galaxy.
I just don't think powercreep is relevant to a game that doesn't have a progression system in place for its end-game.
And I don't think the Scimitar is the basis for changes to the Galaxy. That's ridiculous. And by now you and every other person in this thread have to realize Geko is NOT going to do that anyways.
Changes to the Galaxy? I support that.
Pushing to make it a Scimitar with a Galaxy skin?
I'm not on that bus.
the tech manual says that a percentage of the interior wasn't being utilized, that might have been as high as 30%, when the big D launched. that shuttle bay, and those empty sections, were left open for future expansion and need. it was built to be useful for 100 years, room for advancements in tech and equipment came standard.
And here's exactly how much space was available for shuttlecraft.
Ed Whitefire Blueprints - Galaxy Decks 3 4 5
As you can see, the amount of space for shuttlecraft of the Type 9 size is MASSIVE. A couple aircraft carriers' worth of space right there.
(And don't any of you go spouting things like "that ain't canon".
Most apocryphal drawings I've ever seen.)
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Or, like I keep suggesting... Change the 5th engineering console space on the Fleet Galaxy to a brand-new "universal" console slot. Ta-da!
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Mind you, I'm not talking about the fleet version but only the retrofits. Though I was mistaken, I assumed the Ambassador retrofit had 2 tac consoles. Still, considering the MU cheyenne is obtainable for a few ECs I'd say it still is better overall than the Ambassador retrofit.
But I'm not talking about number pushing and PvP mind you. That's where you guys loose me on the whole "competition" thing because those are games only played by the numbers and those don't interest me, quite frankly.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
They chose to tweak the iconic ship and not the ship nobody remembers. At least that's how the blog post reads.
You got that backwards the Galaxy X is not an iconic ship, the galaxy is an iconic ship. Hence why this board was created to talk about the Galaxy class, not the huge ugly mess known as the Galaxy X.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
u hate it, i love it, u say it's not the same ship, i do say so, whatever... i just hope cryptic is stating something soon on the topic in whole