All that would have done is created hundreds of "That's IT?!?!?!?!" posts where people claim that the ship didn't get what it deserved.
Just that move would have made the ship a lot more usable. I'm still baffled that they changed the ensign station on the Dreadnought and not on the Galaxy-R.
How many people do you think use that universal station for something other then tac?:rolleyes:
If only the ensign engineer of the galaxy was made universal like the dreadnought (logic, no?). That would have made a lot!
Adding on this, it will be nice if the Lt tactical boff become Lt-commander tactical after saucer separation (a bit like the Solonae with the tactical mode). It will add something special over the Ops odyssey with chevron separation. At least this will make the Galaxy competitive with the other DPS cruisers, but not too much.
My 2 cents
Why every federation cruiser has to be a near-DPS machine? People who want the gal-r to have more tac slots not realising it's a pure tank. You have a potential +2 enhance to turn rate from a set and still complaining capable of outmaneuvering even a fleet sovereign which has fallen behind the Avenger imho but still it's a great ship to enjoy. You can't live without APO1? Deal with it. I want to have the set 2 bonus of the scimitar without loading the set on the ship and believe me, it's heck slow without it. And you have an hangar to do all sort of fun stuff with! Am I missing something? :rolleyes:
You want a LtComm tactical boff seating? Just go get an Avenger/Sovereign/Excelsior and be happy with it.
Does it really matter? No matter what anyone says the fans of the ship are going to overlook it. People cannot turn off fanboyism. It is like your favorite color being blue and then defending blue to everyone who likes every other possible color more. There is no answer that is going to convince a fanboy to change their mind - not Galaxy fanboys, not Connie fanboys wanting a T5, etc.
For myself, I see the Galaxy as being 45 years old and having been replaced by "better" ships three times in this timeline: Galaxy X upgrade, Sovereign, and Odyssey - and that does not even include the Avenger or Vesta. From a practical standpoint they cannot all be equally powerful. If they were then what is the point of upgrades and other ships being built?
So you are left with every fanboy wanting their ship to be the best, be it Galaxy, Sovereign, Ambassador, Excelsior, Connie, whatever. There is no way to win that, as it is all subjective to the individual.
Well, there is one way to look at it:
In-canon, the Galaxy Class is the biggest starship Starfleet ever build. It's the heaviest vessel, an explorer, unmatched in versatility. This is "fact" if you care a bit about the IP at hand. Now, transition to a game has to make changes, nobody denies that. And I personally think nobody would have had a problem if the engineering tank setup they chose for the Galaxy would be somewhat viable in this game, for instance have missions where your team would be glad to see a Galaxy amongst them because it could do SOMETHING that other ships couldn't do.
And then the game does further add insult do injury, so to speak. You say that the Galaxy is too old and blah, an argument people often (OFTEN) repeat in these forums alone. You mention 45 years yourself - yet, in-canon it is not even half it's intented service age. Star Trek ships aren't "old" after a few decades, they get retrofitted and recieve major refits once in a while. Nobody would think about throwing those huge ships out because they are forty years old. For many people, this doesn't seem to be a problem at all when they see the Excelsior class in-game or the Ambassador. Both ships are much older than the Galaxy, but perfectly in shape due to re- and retrofits. That's just illogical. Why is it perfectly acceptable that the Excelsior refit is a "powerhouse" so to speak, because it's refitted, but it's completely out of the question that the Galaxy Class could recieve a similiar refit in the first place, not to mention that the Excelsior refit should bring the ship en par with the base Galaxy version, not trump it a few times.
Regarding the replacement of the Galaxy, the Dreadnaught Cruiser is hardly an replacement. It's the same ship, basically, a refit. The Sovereign is another class of ship entirely with a different mission profile than the Galaxy - the only ships that could count as a replacement are the Oddyssey, which is indeed it's direct successor, and maybe the Star Cruiser - that weird thing that Cryptic stopped to care about. But ALL of those are inferior to much older designs that are just superior due to personal bias in the development team (Geko said the Excelsior is just "cooler" than anything, that's why it's there).
I don't think the majority of participants want a mary-sue ship (there are already a few in the game ) but some more reasoning behind the choice of ships. For instance, why isn't there an option to play the "Venture Type" refit at endgame? It's the T4 refit of the Galaxy, giving it a science flavour. Why can't we at least choose to play a true Venture instead of the Retrofit? A semi-universal LTC slot, switchable between science and engineering so you can play both, the regular and refit T4 version at endgame and let the "X" be the tactical variant of it, I don't care about that.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Y'know, a long time ago, I used to love this ship. I mean, I really enjoyed flying around in my Fleet Gal-R, being a tank in the Voth Breach missions...
...then I got the Fleet Gal-X and I've now come to realize that I essentially got the same ship, except that one had more Tac power and the other doesn't.
...I hate to say it, but I'm halfway tempted to release my Fleet Gal-R and redistribute its gear to other, better ships.
well congratulations, im pretty sure thats the exact reaction they were looking for it, and if your happy reacting that way, well thats good, for you.
im trying really hard to figure out what their line of reasoning could possibly be for what they did, or didn't do. im starting to think that officially to them its a joke ship in the same tier as the aquarius. oh its technically in game, technically you can buy it, technically you can use it, we even technically made a fleet version. they are there for the deranged, just like how we made the cat races for the furry fetishists.
its supposed to be a ship you steal the console from and dismiss, its not a real ship. EVERYONE knows that the galaxy is the combination of worst ship to bring to a fight, and fish tank, barber shops, schools and children. its like a parity of a REAL starship, like what you find in real man's shows, like DS9, voyager, and the movies 8 and on.
the only time the galaxy didn't lose a fight was in AGT! and it only blew away some negvars, even a defiant could do that without breaking a sweet! tell ya what galaxy fans, i'll meet you half way! i'll make the X an ok ship, and we will call it even, deal? i even got a convenient excuse too, all the other ships we call dreadnoughts are better, and have hangers! my hand is sort of being forced here, but not tooo forced haha. nothing else with the namesake, that we have the NERVE to included in the scampack, will get swept up in the actual reboot.
in the vacuum of silence, were there is no explanation, no reasoning, not even blaming cbs or anything else, i can only conclude that this is the way the persons responsible for the ships in this game think. i of course could easily tear apart everyone of these common points against it i just made, pulled directly from episodes canon. i have literally done it a dozen times in this thread alone. this is low tier trek fanboy thinking, and in a vacuum thats fine, what they think doesn't hurt me, or all the evidence i gathered about the way things end up being. only when they have control of the only source of trek new content, then its this bottom of the barrel canon incite thats ruins everything. that causes this thread. that gets things so diametrically apposed, dead wrong that we just cant abide it. and they are so sick at this point, that they couldn't even do less then the least they could do for the R, just flip its ENS station universal. apparently they want this thread to go on forever! they finally react to the threadnought, but in a manner you cant describe any way other then vindictive, they do nothing to the ship the thread is about.
Why every federation cruiser has to be a near-DPS machine?
People who want the gal-r to have more tac slots not realising it's a pure tank.
Where did I say I wanted it to be a dps machine? I said the ensign engineering on the Galaxy-R should have been made universal and that it would have made the ship more useful. As for the pure tank - this ship might have been intended as such, but other ships out-tank it easily. The Ambassador and Odyssey are two fedside cruisers that can "tank" better then the Galaxy and out dps it. So what is the Galaxy's role? Third string to every other fedcruiser?:rolleyes:
You have a potential +2 enhance to turn rate from a set and still complaining capable of outmaneuvering even a fleet sovereign which has fallen behind the Avenger imho but still it's a great ship to enjoy.
Maneuverability tied to a console bonus is mediocre at best. Antimatter spread is garbage - if you equip saucer separation you don't need the set bonus anyway. It's actually pretty stupid when you think about it.
You can't live without APO1? Deal with it. I want to have the set 2 bonus of the scimitar without loading the set on the ship and believe me, it's heck slow without it. And you have an hangar to do all sort of fun stuff with! Am I missing something? :rolleyes:
Again you're making some wild assumptions. I never mentioned Attack Pattern Omega. Invoking the scimitar here is really stupid. That ship is damn amazing without it's garbage consoles - which any good scimitar captain will tell you don't ever get used.
You want a LtComm tactical boff seating? Just go get an Avenger/Sovereign/Excelsior and be happy with it.
Duh again I never even mentioned that. Maybe you should read peoples post before you respond.
Where did I say I wanted it to be a dps machine? I said the ensign engineering on the Galaxy-R should have been made universal and that it would have made the ship more useful. As for the pure tank - this ship might have been intended as such, but other ships out-tank it easily. The Ambassador and Odyssey are two fedside cruisers that can "tank" better then the Galaxy and out dps it. So what is the Galaxy's role? Third string to every other fedcruiser?:rolleyes:
Maneuverability tied to a console bonus is mediocre at best. Antimatter spread is garbage - if you equip saucer separation you don't need the set bonus anyway. It's actually pretty stupid when you think about it.
Again you're making some wild assumptions. I never mentioned Attack Pattern Omega. Invoking the scimitar here is really stupid. That ship is damn amazing without it's garbage consoles - which any good scimitar captain will tell you don't ever get used.
Duh again I never even mentioned that. Maybe you should read peoples post before you respond.
AAAARGH, :eek: I quoted the wrong one! God my bad sorry, didn't realise it while on the phone
Just that move would have made the ship a lot more usable. I'm still baffled that they changed the ensign station on the Dreadnought and not on the Galaxy-R.
How many people do you think use that universal station for something other then tac?:rolleyes:
See,that's the thing. Initially, way back when, it was suggested that just something small, like giving the Fleet Galaxy X an extra tactical console would make people happy.
It didn't.
In fact, the Fleet Galaxy X was improved tactically and set up to do more things and more damage than the non-fleet version of the ship. But there were still hundreds of complaints about it.
So nope, I'm not buying that a universal ensign would have prompted anything other than more complaints. Posts about how that's not enough. How it doesn't address the "real" issues of the ship. Doesn't improve anything. And so on and so forth.
See,that's the thing. Initially, way back when, it was suggested that just something small, like giving the Fleet Galaxy X an extra tactical console would make people happy.
It didn't.
In fact, the Fleet Galaxy X was improved tactically and set up to do more things and more damage than the non-fleet version of the ship. But there were still hundreds of complaints about it.
So nope, I'm not buying that a universal ensign would have prompted anything other than more complaints. Posts about how that's not enough. How it doesn't address the "real" issues of the ship. Doesn't improve anything. And so on and so forth.
It still would have been a huge step in the right direction. At least then, the Galaxy could use Fire at Will with Attack Pattern Beta.
See,that's the thing. Initially, way back when, it was suggested that just something small, like giving the Fleet Galaxy X an extra tactical console would make people happy.
It didn't.
In fact, the Fleet Galaxy X was improved tactically and set up to do more things and more damage than the non-fleet version of the ship. But there were still hundreds of complaints about it.
So nope, I'm not buying that a universal ensign would have prompted anything other than more complaints. Posts about how that's not enough. How it doesn't address the "real" issues of the ship. Doesn't improve anything. And so on and so forth.
The thing is.....the main point of this thread is the Galaxy-R. The X was twice the ship the R was even before the so called "reboot".
Why are people complaining about the X?
IDK, partially it's the mentality of forum posters here that when they hear the word 'dread' start drooling and expect it to have 10 tactical consoles, 7 tactical boff abilities, 2 hangar bays, turn rate of 10 and a pony.
Partially it's also Crpyitc's fault or in this case Geko's since he signed the article that stated "We wanted to bring the Galaxy-X up to pair with the other dreadnoughts in game!". And then people start having Scimitar and JHDC images in their head.
Personally, I expected just a fleet variant of the X with +1 tac.console and the 10% bonuses, without Boff seating alterations.
Anyway, the complaints that the X received are not relevant when we talk about the R, because it doesn't have the infamous "dread" in the name and because the majority of TNG/Galaxy fans I've seen support the Galaxy Class here have clearly stated that they'd take anything that would make the Galaxy-R somewhat usable and an asset in team based content rather than liability.
I understand that Cryptic created the trio (Defiant/Galaxy/Intrepid) with the clear intention of each one being heavily slanted in it's intended (in STO) role, and I understand that they've decided to keep these 3 ships just like that - heavily slanted in their department. However, meanwhile they changed their end-game meta and there are issues that rise to the surface because of that.
It would have been nice on their behalf if a single dev. came here and said something like "We don't want to change the heavy leaning towards engineering on the Galaxy Class because we envision the ship as the game's 'engineering cruiser', but we're looking into the issues and plan to develop further end-game content that would bring it's intended role back to be relevant again."
A simple thing like that would make quite a few of us shut up for quite a while, assuming the statement is true.
See,that's the thing. Initially, way back when, it was suggested that just something small, like giving the Fleet Galaxy X an extra tactical console would make people happy.
It didn't.
I have two main issue with the reboot. As I said that ensign universal is completely useless on the Dreadnought. 98% of people will continue using said seat as tac. So why even do that? The second is the hangar... it just seems like they slap hangars on things to "fix" them and call it a day. Reminds me of the Ar'Kif - omg its not selling like we hoped - Add a hangar!
In fact, the Fleet Galaxy X was improved tactically and set up to do more things and more damage than the non-fleet version of the ship. But there were still hundreds of complaints about it.
I personally see the ship as ok now. I don't like the way they fixed it, but It's competitive with the rest of the cruisers.
So nope, I'm not buying that a universal ensign would have prompted anything other than more complaints. Posts about how that's not enough. How it doesn't address the "real" issues of the ship. Doesn't improve anything. And so on and so forth.
I didn't say that alone would completely fix the ship. I said it would have made the ship more "usable" ie it wouldn't suck as bad as it currently does. All it got out of this reboot is some TRIBBLE set bonus that adds to turn and hit points, but as I said in an earlier post if you have the saucer console equipped you don't need that extra turn, the slight bonus to hit points is trivial, and antimatter spreads is just terrible to begin with.
I have a question for you, and anyone else who thinks the Galaxy-R is good as is. If the ship is perfectly fine with its current set up and viable for the game. Then why don't we see it being used more? Why is it such a rare sight in the game (obviously with the reboot we've seen a few more, but that's died out already as people realize the ship still sucks).
You don't see the ship in PvE because everything it does can be done better by any of the other fedcruisers. You don't see it in PvP because it offers nothing, it's bad at dps and bad at support. So the ship is fine in this state? It's basically not good at anything. It's tanking ability is on par with the Excelsior, Galaxy-X, and Cheyenne while it is surpassed by the Oddy, Ambassador, and Star Cruiser. It's damage potential is the lowest of all the cruisers - so what does it have? I wanna know where the ship shines, because as it is right now its just an average damage sponge. But if I want a damage sponge there are other better choices.
On ESD and elsewhere, I often see people arguing against the existence of older hull designs in STO, or at least against the competitive performance of old designs compared to new designs on the basis that new forms must correspond to better function, and the corollary that old forms must correspond to worse function. The following wall of text will make the argument against such claims, that they are illogical because they are derived from a misunderstanding of Star Trek by a misapplication of contemporary design standards to Roddenberry's hypothetical future, a future that follows very different design rules.
First, against the "story logic" argument above, this is an RPG wherein players have a right to expect that any old ship they want can be specially modified in-world to be competitive with newer hulls, hence the STOism that new Excelsior hulls are still built because it is a good design that can easily accommodate new tech. This is not historically/realistically unreasonable in the real world, nor in canon, where some ancient space-faring civilizations build the same basic successful hull designs for centuries, sometimes millennia. Thus, it is not from a practical standpoint that every canon ship, irrespective of origin, cannot be equally powerful to newer designs, but from an unnecessary and arbitrary limitation on imagination that has no positive effect on immersion. Besides the old RPG stereotype of the "upgraded underdog", there is also a very good canon reason justifying new tech in old hulls.
In Star Trek canon, the Galaxy-class is a colossal, mostly empty hull, designed to be modular and upgradeable for a 100 year lifespan of changing tech. It is called the 'Galaxy-class' precisely because it was designed for long-term Galactic exploration, a moving city containing whole communities of people for extremely long voyages into unexplored space. The Sovereign is not an upgrade; it fulfills an entirely different role as light explorer, diplomatic transport, and warship. Only the Odyssey, which is unique to STO, fulfills the same role as the Galaxy, but the Galaxy-class is nonetheless still the second largest Federation hull in existence by a wide margin, and hardly obsolete according to its original 100 year mission. As far as Roddenberry was concerned, he was clear that by the late 24th century, all Federation starships would become lasting utopian conveyances, the rationale being that future tech shrinks. A hull the size and quality of the Galaxy, even a 45 year old Galaxy (although there is no reason to suppose a good hull design cannot be reproduced), would not be scrapped after several decades. A quantum slipstream drive, for example, is small enough in canon to install in any odd room in a Galaxy hull, the hulls of the 24th century having less to do with technical necessity, and more to do with being a comfortable movable environment for utopian explorers. It was intended that the hull was primarily designed for habitable use, its form not entirely reliant on its other functions (paraphrasing: because in the future, the tech required for interstellar travel is commonplace, small, and easily upgradable, and all that remains for engineers is the art of creating a habitat for long-term voyages). Therefore, one must not hold Roddenberry's futuristic vision to present design standards that bind form entirely to function. The only technical exceptions from Roddenberry and Probert's rules of warp drive were the notion that warp engines must exist in pairs with 50% line-of-site between them, and the nacelle collectors to be visible from the front. Ironically, this is the design element violated most, yet there is silence from the peanut gallery (but near riots when a T5 Constitution is suggested). Regardless, new tech like the quantum slipstream drive has been introduced and implemented. As for the other famous rule of starship design, that the bridge should be at the top-center of the primary hull, is an example of a Federation aesthetic and ethical decision having more to do with form than perhaps the practical function of protection. Federation values would dictate that it is cowardly and dishonorable to use crew and passengers all around the command center as human shields, and what's more, it's a moot point, as shields only are what protect a ship from near-immediate destruction from conventional 24th century weapons.
For these reasons, the Galaxy should not be treated as if it were inferior in function simply because the form is 45 years old, and the powers that be should sell a T5 Constitution hull, perhaps Cryptic's lovely Exeter design, just as STO has established that ostensibly new Excelsior hulls with new tech are still produced with great success in-world. After all, the Galaxy's predecessor, the Ambassador, is widely considered to be one of the best cruisers in the game, outperforming the Galaxy in every player study. It is this in-game illogic that bothers people most, and emphatically not that older ships are playable at endgame, since they should be. They already have an Exeter-class in one of the Fed Klingon episodes, and it is implied to be a viable cruiser. Really, from an RP standpoint consistent with Roddenberry's intention, skins should not exist in tiers, but only console upgrades and boff slot options per class. After all, in a world of replicators and holodecks, the real world becomes like an MMO, with appearances becoming increasingly whimsical. Another real-world analogy would be electronic motors replacing mechanical clockwork. One can make a replica of an antique clock that looks convincingly mechanical on the outside for artistic reasons, but is mostly hollow on the inside, the mechanical motion being an artistic illusion, with just a small chip and battery running the thing. New tech in an old starship hull would be an analogous artistic design. For a utopia far beyond scarcity, it becomes less unrealistic for a Starfleet to approach hull design whimsically. Form eventually becomes pure art, and no form is necessary for function but as habitats for the explorers.
(...)New tech in an old starship hull would be an analogous artistic design. For a utopia far beyond scarcity, it becomes less unrealistic for a Starfleet to approach hull design whimsically. Form eventually becomes pure art, and no form is necessary for function but as habitats for the explorers.
The End.
I agree with a lot of points, but Star Trek's society is not far beyond scarcity. It's made clear throughout every incarnation of the show that maybe Earth is, but not the whole galaxy or the societies of the Federation. Resources still play a major role and more efficient designs are still an aim to fulfill. In-universe, the old hulls will face the end of their service life due to technical limitations sooner or later. And at least all the hulls we know from pre-TNG times have passed that point. Mirandas, Excelsiors and the like are not top performers anymore and it would make no sense to replicate the looks of those just for their "artistic value". The Excelsior class recieved one last major refit during the Dominion conflict which supposedly made the class useful for light duties beyond transportation - still, every hull developed during the 24th century already reached that point and has all the major refits still going for it.
The Galaxy in particular is well within her service life - additionally though, the game already introduced the major refit of that class in form of the Venture Type. Like gpgtx pointed out, this allone should end the whole age discussion concerning the Galaxy immediatly. A T5 constitution would however, in-universe, not make much sense. A T5 Exeter however would, it is a current design - it just would not be en-par with the larger cruisers, it would have a completely different mission profile. Realistically, you also would need to modernize your "low end" of the fleet, you can't use old designs forever. Now it's basic gameplay that dictates that lower "tiers" are superflous at endgame, although a fleet is not made up of ships that are all equal - but now we're talking about a completely different game anyways.
EDIT: To clarify, I still would prefer to see Mirandas and Connies at T% as opposed to the non-canon designs because, well, it's a Star Trek game and I'd like to see Star Trek ships, not designs loosely inspired by looks of Star Trek. The Refit line-up is the only thing I am okay with, because it also looks good. The Starfleet ship line-up should be made up of canon designs entirely, a retrofit for each and every ship AND a refit with 25th century looks and end-game viability ("skins" being interchangeable, of course). All of Cryptic's designs should be reserved for special occasions, really.
^ 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
EDIT: To clarify, I still would prefer to see Mirandas and Connies at T% as opposed to the non-canon designs because, well, it's a Star Trek game and I'd like to see Star Trek ships, not designs loosely inspired by looks of Star Trek. The Refit line-up is the only thing I am okay with, because it also looks good. The Starfleet ship line-up should be made up of canon designs entirely, a retrofit for each and every ship AND a refit with 25th century looks and end-game viability ("skins" being interchangeable, of course). All of Cryptic's designs should be reserved for special occasions, really.
I agree with this statement. Cryptic seems more interested in their own designs then giving us more canon ships. While I know it's a matter personal preference I can tell you I'm not a fan of the cryptic designs. I thought the Regent and Avenger were both ugly ships. I'd prefer if you own two ships you can use the skin of the preferred ship on the console/boff layout of the other. That would put all this TRIBBLE to rest once and for all.
On Enterprise was saw a Promethious class ship in that battle, I can't remember what the name was, in the 26th century. Meaning that successful designs were built continually for hundreds of years. This is canon.
As reused CGI in the background. The Steamrunner was in Stormfront 2 and Twilight as a 22nd century ship, it doesn't make it canon.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
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!
God said: there will be tact in avenger, science in exelsior, engie in regent, there will be slow ship and there will be fast ship,there will be powerfull ship and there will be tanky ship,and all will be equal, but it will not be easy ... And then he added, and there will be some who will be engie in a galaxy retrofit and for them, it will be very hard!;)
In 1 of the DS9 books Bajoran shipyard was contracted to build Ambassador class ships. These would actually be newer ships than the Enterprise-E. And depending on the tech built in could be even more powerful than the Sovereign class when launched.
I have that book. It's set during the first season of DS9. So the Sovereign class comes later.
I'm still not clear on the ages of ships -- the lore for STO says that they use all-new materials and technology to build every ship we have, and that shipbuilding has advanced to the point that we can shape the ships however we want (to a reasonable point). Hence, classic and legendary hull designs still being used.
So ... are the Galaxy/Venture ships in the game ancient dinosaurs? Or are they brand new ships with the newest technologies that have the appearance of ancient dinosaurs?
The skin?*For the T4 refit? It harkens to the USS Venture.
That's what the skin is based on. That ship. From 2372 and multiple episodes of DS9.
It's newer than the Galaxy. But it's not all that new.
What are you talking about?
This looks completely different than this. You're talking about the former, which was comissioned in the Dominion war, we're talking about the latter - a new design launched in 2409.
So ... are the Galaxy/Venture ships in the game ancient dinosaurs? Or are they brand new ships with the newest technologies that have the appearance of ancient dinosaurs?
The thing is - we're not even close to discussing ancient dinosaurs. The first Galaxy Class ships built in the 2360-es are at about half of their designed average service age. They were built for an average 100 years of service. Every Galaxy Class hull built after that is only younger and newer - thus can last well into the 26-th century.
There's no way any Galaxy Class ship to fall into the "ancient dinosaurs" category yet.
Comments
Just that move would have made the ship a lot more usable. I'm still baffled that they changed the ensign station on the Dreadnought and not on the Galaxy-R.
How many people do you think use that universal station for something other then tac?:rolleyes:
Why every federation cruiser has to be a near-DPS machine? People who want the gal-r to have more tac slots not realising it's a pure tank. You have a potential +2 enhance to turn rate from a set and still complaining capable of outmaneuvering even a fleet sovereign which has fallen behind the Avenger imho but still it's a great ship to enjoy. You can't live without APO1? Deal with it. I want to have the set 2 bonus of the scimitar without loading the set on the ship and believe me, it's heck slow without it. And you have an hangar to do all sort of fun stuff with! Am I missing something? :rolleyes:
You want a LtComm tactical boff seating? Just go get an Avenger/Sovereign/Excelsior and be happy with it.
Well, there is one way to look at it:
In-canon, the Galaxy Class is the biggest starship Starfleet ever build. It's the heaviest vessel, an explorer, unmatched in versatility. This is "fact" if you care a bit about the IP at hand. Now, transition to a game has to make changes, nobody denies that. And I personally think nobody would have had a problem if the engineering tank setup they chose for the Galaxy would be somewhat viable in this game, for instance have missions where your team would be glad to see a Galaxy amongst them because it could do SOMETHING that other ships couldn't do.
And then the game does further add insult do injury, so to speak. You say that the Galaxy is too old and blah, an argument people often (OFTEN) repeat in these forums alone. You mention 45 years yourself - yet, in-canon it is not even half it's intented service age. Star Trek ships aren't "old" after a few decades, they get retrofitted and recieve major refits once in a while. Nobody would think about throwing those huge ships out because they are forty years old. For many people, this doesn't seem to be a problem at all when they see the Excelsior class in-game or the Ambassador. Both ships are much older than the Galaxy, but perfectly in shape due to re- and retrofits. That's just illogical. Why is it perfectly acceptable that the Excelsior refit is a "powerhouse" so to speak, because it's refitted, but it's completely out of the question that the Galaxy Class could recieve a similiar refit in the first place, not to mention that the Excelsior refit should bring the ship en par with the base Galaxy version, not trump it a few times.
Regarding the replacement of the Galaxy, the Dreadnaught Cruiser is hardly an replacement. It's the same ship, basically, a refit. The Sovereign is another class of ship entirely with a different mission profile than the Galaxy - the only ships that could count as a replacement are the Oddyssey, which is indeed it's direct successor, and maybe the Star Cruiser - that weird thing that Cryptic stopped to care about. But ALL of those are inferior to much older designs that are just superior due to personal bias in the development team (Geko said the Excelsior is just "cooler" than anything, that's why it's there).
I don't think the majority of participants want a mary-sue ship (there are already a few in the game
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
well congratulations, im pretty sure thats the exact reaction they were looking for it, and if your happy reacting that way, well thats good, for you.
im trying really hard to figure out what their line of reasoning could possibly be for what they did, or didn't do. im starting to think that officially to them its a joke ship in the same tier as the aquarius. oh its technically in game, technically you can buy it, technically you can use it, we even technically made a fleet version. they are there for the deranged, just like how we made the cat races for the furry fetishists.
its supposed to be a ship you steal the console from and dismiss, its not a real ship. EVERYONE knows that the galaxy is the combination of worst ship to bring to a fight, and fish tank, barber shops, schools and children. its like a parity of a REAL starship, like what you find in real man's shows, like DS9, voyager, and the movies 8 and on.
the only time the galaxy didn't lose a fight was in AGT! and it only blew away some negvars, even a defiant could do that without breaking a sweet! tell ya what galaxy fans, i'll meet you half way! i'll make the X an ok ship, and we will call it even, deal? i even got a convenient excuse too, all the other ships we call dreadnoughts are better, and have hangers! my hand is sort of being forced here, but not tooo forced haha. nothing else with the namesake, that we have the NERVE to included in the scampack, will get swept up in the actual reboot.
in the vacuum of silence, were there is no explanation, no reasoning, not even blaming cbs or anything else, i can only conclude that this is the way the persons responsible for the ships in this game think. i of course could easily tear apart everyone of these common points against it i just made, pulled directly from episodes canon. i have literally done it a dozen times in this thread alone. this is low tier trek fanboy thinking, and in a vacuum thats fine, what they think doesn't hurt me, or all the evidence i gathered about the way things end up being. only when they have control of the only source of trek new content, then its this bottom of the barrel canon incite thats ruins everything. that causes this thread. that gets things so diametrically apposed, dead wrong that we just cant abide it. and they are so sick at this point, that they couldn't even do less then the least they could do for the R, just flip its ENS station universal. apparently they want this thread to go on forever! they finally react to the threadnought, but in a manner you cant describe any way other then vindictive, they do nothing to the ship the thread is about.
Where did I say I wanted it to be a dps machine? I said the ensign engineering on the Galaxy-R should have been made universal and that it would have made the ship more useful. As for the pure tank - this ship might have been intended as such, but other ships out-tank it easily. The Ambassador and Odyssey are two fedside cruisers that can "tank" better then the Galaxy and out dps it. So what is the Galaxy's role? Third string to every other fedcruiser?:rolleyes:
Maneuverability tied to a console bonus is mediocre at best. Antimatter spread is garbage - if you equip saucer separation you don't need the set bonus anyway. It's actually pretty stupid when you think about it.
Again you're making some wild assumptions. I never mentioned Attack Pattern Omega. Invoking the scimitar here is really stupid. That ship is damn amazing without it's garbage consoles - which any good scimitar captain will tell you don't ever get used.
Duh again I never even mentioned that. Maybe you should read peoples post before you respond.
See,that's the thing. Initially, way back when, it was suggested that just something small, like giving the Fleet Galaxy X an extra tactical console would make people happy.
It didn't.
In fact, the Fleet Galaxy X was improved tactically and set up to do more things and more damage than the non-fleet version of the ship. But there were still hundreds of complaints about it.
So nope, I'm not buying that a universal ensign would have prompted anything other than more complaints. Posts about how that's not enough. How it doesn't address the "real" issues of the ship. Doesn't improve anything. And so on and so forth.
It still would have been a huge step in the right direction. At least then, the Galaxy could use Fire at Will with Attack Pattern Beta.
The thing is.....the main point of this thread is the Galaxy-R. The X was twice the ship the R was even before the so called "reboot".
Why are people complaining about the X?
IDK, partially it's the mentality of forum posters here that when they hear the word 'dread' start drooling and expect it to have 10 tactical consoles, 7 tactical boff abilities, 2 hangar bays, turn rate of 10 and a pony.
Partially it's also Crpyitc's fault or in this case Geko's since he signed the article that stated "We wanted to bring the Galaxy-X up to pair with the other dreadnoughts in game!". And then people start having Scimitar and JHDC images in their head.
Personally, I expected just a fleet variant of the X with +1 tac.console and the 10% bonuses, without Boff seating alterations.
Anyway, the complaints that the X received are not relevant when we talk about the R, because it doesn't have the infamous "dread" in the name and because the majority of TNG/Galaxy fans I've seen support the Galaxy Class here have clearly stated that they'd take anything that would make the Galaxy-R somewhat usable and an asset in team based content rather than liability.
I understand that Cryptic created the trio (Defiant/Galaxy/Intrepid) with the clear intention of each one being heavily slanted in it's intended (in STO) role, and I understand that they've decided to keep these 3 ships just like that - heavily slanted in their department. However, meanwhile they changed their end-game meta and there are issues that rise to the surface because of that.
It would have been nice on their behalf if a single dev. came here and said something like "We don't want to change the heavy leaning towards engineering on the Galaxy Class because we envision the ship as the game's 'engineering cruiser', but we're looking into the issues and plan to develop further end-game content that would bring it's intended role back to be relevant again."
A simple thing like that would make quite a few of us shut up for quite a while, assuming the statement is true.
I have two main issue with the reboot. As I said that ensign universal is completely useless on the Dreadnought. 98% of people will continue using said seat as tac. So why even do that? The second is the hangar... it just seems like they slap hangars on things to "fix" them and call it a day. Reminds me of the Ar'Kif - omg its not selling like we hoped - Add a hangar!
I personally see the ship as ok now. I don't like the way they fixed it, but It's competitive with the rest of the cruisers.
I didn't say that alone would completely fix the ship. I said it would have made the ship more "usable" ie it wouldn't suck as bad as it currently does. All it got out of this reboot is some TRIBBLE set bonus that adds to turn and hit points, but as I said in an earlier post if you have the saucer console equipped you don't need that extra turn, the slight bonus to hit points is trivial, and antimatter spreads is just terrible to begin with.
I have a question for you, and anyone else who thinks the Galaxy-R is good as is. If the ship is perfectly fine with its current set up and viable for the game. Then why don't we see it being used more? Why is it such a rare sight in the game (obviously with the reboot we've seen a few more, but that's died out already as people realize the ship still sucks).
You don't see the ship in PvE because everything it does can be done better by any of the other fedcruisers. You don't see it in PvP because it offers nothing, it's bad at dps and bad at support. So the ship is fine in this state? It's basically not good at anything. It's tanking ability is on par with the Excelsior, Galaxy-X, and Cheyenne while it is surpassed by the Oddy, Ambassador, and Star Cruiser. It's damage potential is the lowest of all the cruisers - so what does it have? I wanna know where the ship shines, because as it is right now its just an average damage sponge. But if I want a damage sponge there are other better choices.
First, against the "story logic" argument above, this is an RPG wherein players have a right to expect that any old ship they want can be specially modified in-world to be competitive with newer hulls, hence the STOism that new Excelsior hulls are still built because it is a good design that can easily accommodate new tech. This is not historically/realistically unreasonable in the real world, nor in canon, where some ancient space-faring civilizations build the same basic successful hull designs for centuries, sometimes millennia. Thus, it is not from a practical standpoint that every canon ship, irrespective of origin, cannot be equally powerful to newer designs, but from an unnecessary and arbitrary limitation on imagination that has no positive effect on immersion. Besides the old RPG stereotype of the "upgraded underdog", there is also a very good canon reason justifying new tech in old hulls.
In Star Trek canon, the Galaxy-class is a colossal, mostly empty hull, designed to be modular and upgradeable for a 100 year lifespan of changing tech. It is called the 'Galaxy-class' precisely because it was designed for long-term Galactic exploration, a moving city containing whole communities of people for extremely long voyages into unexplored space. The Sovereign is not an upgrade; it fulfills an entirely different role as light explorer, diplomatic transport, and warship. Only the Odyssey, which is unique to STO, fulfills the same role as the Galaxy, but the Galaxy-class is nonetheless still the second largest Federation hull in existence by a wide margin, and hardly obsolete according to its original 100 year mission. As far as Roddenberry was concerned, he was clear that by the late 24th century, all Federation starships would become lasting utopian conveyances, the rationale being that future tech shrinks. A hull the size and quality of the Galaxy, even a 45 year old Galaxy (although there is no reason to suppose a good hull design cannot be reproduced), would not be scrapped after several decades. A quantum slipstream drive, for example, is small enough in canon to install in any odd room in a Galaxy hull, the hulls of the 24th century having less to do with technical necessity, and more to do with being a comfortable movable environment for utopian explorers. It was intended that the hull was primarily designed for habitable use, its form not entirely reliant on its other functions (paraphrasing: because in the future, the tech required for interstellar travel is commonplace, small, and easily upgradable, and all that remains for engineers is the art of creating a habitat for long-term voyages). Therefore, one must not hold Roddenberry's futuristic vision to present design standards that bind form entirely to function. The only technical exceptions from Roddenberry and Probert's rules of warp drive were the notion that warp engines must exist in pairs with 50% line-of-site between them, and the nacelle collectors to be visible from the front. Ironically, this is the design element violated most, yet there is silence from the peanut gallery (but near riots when a T5 Constitution is suggested). Regardless, new tech like the quantum slipstream drive has been introduced and implemented. As for the other famous rule of starship design, that the bridge should be at the top-center of the primary hull, is an example of a Federation aesthetic and ethical decision having more to do with form than perhaps the practical function of protection. Federation values would dictate that it is cowardly and dishonorable to use crew and passengers all around the command center as human shields, and what's more, it's a moot point, as shields only are what protect a ship from near-immediate destruction from conventional 24th century weapons.
For these reasons, the Galaxy should not be treated as if it were inferior in function simply because the form is 45 years old, and the powers that be should sell a T5 Constitution hull, perhaps Cryptic's lovely Exeter design, just as STO has established that ostensibly new Excelsior hulls with new tech are still produced with great success in-world. After all, the Galaxy's predecessor, the Ambassador, is widely considered to be one of the best cruisers in the game, outperforming the Galaxy in every player study. It is this in-game illogic that bothers people most, and emphatically not that older ships are playable at endgame, since they should be. They already have an Exeter-class in one of the Fed Klingon episodes, and it is implied to be a viable cruiser. Really, from an RP standpoint consistent with Roddenberry's intention, skins should not exist in tiers, but only console upgrades and boff slot options per class. After all, in a world of replicators and holodecks, the real world becomes like an MMO, with appearances becoming increasingly whimsical. Another real-world analogy would be electronic motors replacing mechanical clockwork. One can make a replica of an antique clock that looks convincingly mechanical on the outside for artistic reasons, but is mostly hollow on the inside, the mechanical motion being an artistic illusion, with just a small chip and battery running the thing. New tech in an old starship hull would be an analogous artistic design. For a utopia far beyond scarcity, it becomes less unrealistic for a Starfleet to approach hull design whimsically. Form eventually becomes pure art, and no form is necessary for function but as habitats for the explorers.
The End.
the venture-class
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/3771/screenshot2011090218380.jpg
I agree with a lot of points, but Star Trek's society is not far beyond scarcity. It's made clear throughout every incarnation of the show that maybe Earth is, but not the whole galaxy or the societies of the Federation. Resources still play a major role and more efficient designs are still an aim to fulfill. In-universe, the old hulls will face the end of their service life due to technical limitations sooner or later. And at least all the hulls we know from pre-TNG times have passed that point. Mirandas, Excelsiors and the like are not top performers anymore and it would make no sense to replicate the looks of those just for their "artistic value". The Excelsior class recieved one last major refit during the Dominion conflict which supposedly made the class useful for light duties beyond transportation - still, every hull developed during the 24th century already reached that point and has all the major refits still going for it.
The Galaxy in particular is well within her service life - additionally though, the game already introduced the major refit of that class in form of the Venture Type. Like gpgtx pointed out, this allone should end the whole age discussion concerning the Galaxy immediatly. A T5 constitution would however, in-universe, not make much sense. A T5 Exeter however would, it is a current design - it just would not be en-par with the larger cruisers, it would have a completely different mission profile. Realistically, you also would need to modernize your "low end" of the fleet, you can't use old designs forever. Now it's basic gameplay that dictates that lower "tiers" are superflous at endgame, although a fleet is not made up of ships that are all equal - but now we're talking about a completely different game anyways.
EDIT: To clarify, I still would prefer to see Mirandas and Connies at T% as opposed to the non-canon designs because, well, it's a Star Trek game and I'd like to see Star Trek ships, not designs loosely inspired by looks of Star Trek. The Refit line-up is the only thing I am okay with, because it also looks good. The Starfleet ship line-up should be made up of canon designs entirely, a retrofit for each and every ship AND a refit with 25th century looks and end-game viability ("skins" being interchangeable, of course). All of Cryptic's designs should be reserved for special occasions, really.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I agree with this statement. Cryptic seems more interested in their own designs then giving us more canon ships. While I know it's a matter personal preference I can tell you I'm not a fan of the cryptic designs. I thought the Regent and Avenger were both ugly ships. I'd prefer if you own two ships you can use the skin of the preferred ship on the console/boff layout of the other. That would put all this TRIBBLE to rest once and for all.
As reused CGI in the background. The Steamrunner was in Stormfront 2 and Twilight as a 22nd century ship, it doesn't make it canon.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Agreed, but I am old school
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
God said there will be tact in assault cruiser, science in star cruiser and engie in ALL cruisers.
The rest are manmade problems.
I have that book. It's set during the first season of DS9. So the Sovereign class comes later.
The Venture class is from the 2370s. This is still 2409.
I think they're refering to Cryptic's Venture Class. That one is brand new.
The skin?*For the T4 refit? It harkens to the USS Venture.
That's what the skin is based on. That ship. From 2372 and multiple episodes of DS9.
It's newer than the Galaxy. But it's not all that new.
or, you know, the venture A launched in 2409 :rolleyes:
the original sure as hell didn't look like that in ds9
So ... are the Galaxy/Venture ships in the game ancient dinosaurs? Or are they brand new ships with the newest technologies that have the appearance of ancient dinosaurs?
What are you talking about?
This looks completely different than this. You're talking about the former, which was comissioned in the Dominion war, we're talking about the latter - a new design launched in 2409.
The thing is - we're not even close to discussing ancient dinosaurs. The first Galaxy Class ships built in the 2360-es are at about half of their designed average service age. They were built for an average 100 years of service. Every Galaxy Class hull built after that is only younger and newer - thus can last well into the 26-th century.
There's no way any Galaxy Class ship to fall into the "ancient dinosaurs" category yet.