test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

What is your beef with the Galaxy Cryptic?

1223224226228229232

Comments

  • Options
    oakland4lifeoakland4life Member Posts: 545 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Shame on Cryptic for making a ''Luxury Cruiser'' having more firepower than the Federation Galaxy-R, built by people who never been in any type of combat or any type of war.
  • Options
    lan451lan451 Member Posts: 3,386 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Shame on Cryptic for making a ''Luxury Cruiser'' having more firepower than the Federation Galaxy-R, built by people who never been in any type of combat or any type of war.

    Not happy with that myself. Galaxy class can't have firepower, but some random luxury liner that doesn't belong on a battlefield can. Makes no sense.
    JWZrsUV.jpg
    Mine Trap Supporter
  • Options
    wildweasalwildweasal Member Posts: 1,053 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    holy TRIBBLE you guys were right it is better thanthe galaxy wo EPIC FAIL DEVS sooooooo lame
    3ondby_zpsikszslyx.jpg
  • Options
    yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    neo1nx wrote: »
    http://community.arcgames.com/en/news/star-trek-online/detail/5006513

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

    it even better than the galaxy x!! HAHAHAHA!

    a lt commander tact bo? on a loveboat what it this? the power of love?

    10 degree turn rate! 10 DEGREE TURN RATE:eek:
    with 40 INERTIA wtf!!

    1500 crew, 2 universal bo and of course the 4 cruiser command!

    " yeah, but you anderstand, we can't give your 6 base/25 inertia galaxy x a lt commander, it will be overpowered then, common be serious now!"

    YEAH, SURE!

    i quit starfleet, going to join these guy that live with short 24H/24H 7/7 on risa, with the plan of my galaxy x i am sure they will retrofit it better than what starfleet could do.
    my mother warn me tho, don't go to starfleet, they only got pakled engeener she said.
    Lol.

    100% agreed, nuff said.
    "...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--" - (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • Options
    bunansabunansa Member Posts: 928 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    At this point I have to start wondering what their beef is with all the iconic ships from the shows. But its cool, when the borg cube is slapped in a lock box it will have a turn rate of 14 and a ltc tac slot to spite the galaxy people.
    tumblr_ndmkqm59J31r5ynioo2_r2_500.gif

  • Options
    skyranger1414skyranger1414 Member Posts: 1,785 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    wildweasal wrote: »
    holy TRIBBLE you guys were right it is better thanthe galaxy wo EPIC FAIL DEVS sooooooo lame

    The Space Love Boat can have a lt. comdr tac station... as well as a lt. tac station, for a total of 5 tac powers. It does have to sacrifice a tasty lt. cmdr engi power for aux2batt if it chooses to go that route, but even so...
  • Options
    wanderintxwanderintx Member Posts: 144 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    I had thought for a moment that this thread might slowly die-off. Then, they added more fuel to the fire... in the form of a flying fish.
  • Options
    doffingcomradedoffingcomrade Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    The Space Love Boat can have a lt. comdr tac station... as well as a lt. tac station, for a total of 5 tac powers. It does have to sacrifice a tasty lt. cmdr engi power for aux2batt if it chooses to go that route, but even so...
    If you're going to give a ship 5 tac powers as a base, why would you even NEED to aux2batt it? This seems unnecessary. Aux2batt is not a bandaid to be stuck on everything, you know. It won't actually make your ship better, forfeiting your AMP core and Nuka passive for a CD boost you don't need because you can already afford to dualcopy. Why would you even need the equivalent of 10 tactical powers?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    nikephorusnikephorus Member Posts: 2,744 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    there's no evidence the flagship ever stopped being a galaxy class. they has several opportunities to refer to the E as the flagship, but never did. in first contact they even mentioned the flagship was destroyed. a galaxy class would have been the flagship till the launch of the enterprise F, yet in game they make it the worst ship.


    at least this cruise ship aint all that desirable if you already have a fleet excelsior. for a LT eng turned universal, and +2 turn rate you lose a turn console. it having all 4 cruiser commands means its not a battle cruiser, so 10 turn rate aint a big deal really.

    I was specifically referring to the enterprise, since as far as I know there was no canon reference to what ship replaced the enterprise as flagship.

    The risan cruiser reminds me of the galor more then the excel.
    Tza0PEl.png
  • Options
    skyranger1414skyranger1414 Member Posts: 1,785 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    If you're going to give a ship 5 tac powers as a base, why would you even NEED to aux2batt it? This seems unnecessary. Aux2batt is not a bandaid to be stuck on everything, you know. It won't actually make your ship better, forfeiting your AMP core and Nuka passive for a CD boost you don't need because you can already afford to dualcopy. Why would you even need the equivalent of 10 tactical powers?

    Aux2Batt is not just about doubling up on boff powers, its also about better power management. Aux2Batt makes it easier to overcap weapon power and raise your average shield and engine power. All at the expense of aux which not very useful in most faw builds. Just because something is used by the masses does not automatically make it a one trick pony, nor a bandaid. That said, I could definitely see the use of 10 powers, how about wanting to have tac boosts to both beams and a torp? And what about doubling up on the other 2 engi and 2 sci powers? Fianlly, I would assume that if you're using aux2batt you would NOT be foolish enough to USE the Nukara passive.

    BTW, I think the DPS benefits of Aux2batt outweight loosing the AMP bonus for your aux power. It depends on your build of course, but one assumes one would build cohesively.
  • Options
    hawke89305092hawke89305092 Member Posts: 237 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    nikephorus wrote: »
    I was specifically referring to the enterprise, since as far as I know there was no canon reference to what ship replaced the enterprise as flagship.

    The risan cruiser reminds me of the galor more then the excel.

    Personally I'm reminded of the Fleet Tor'kaht by the Risian cruiser. A Fleet Tor'kaht without a 4th tac console, cloak, bonus weapon power and the ability to mount cannons. :D

    And yeah, the whole luxury cruise ship getting made into a tactical cruiser (admittedly not a very good one) seemed... odd. How many times in this thread have people called the Galaxy a cruise ship and used that to justify its awful layout? At least that particular argument won't hold weight any more. :rolleyes:
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    the last thing anyone should try to do is reason how flagships work in star trek. my point was that the sovereign class isn't the flagship class, and the enterprise E is not the flagship like the enterprise D was.

    gpgtx wrote: »
    i thought picard was upset they did not allower the federation flagship to particapate. refering to the enterprise-e

    but it;s been a long time sense i saw first contact so i could be mistaken

    personally the galaxy would make a better flagship any way as it has more civilian and diplomatic areas on board the sov just does not have the room which would be a better show to other civilizations then a ship built ONLY for fighting

    the sovereign never struck me as a full on battle ship at all, just a super modern general purpose in medium large size. they were in the middle of a diplomatic mission at the beginning of insurrection. it was pretty much like the intrepid, only that ship is medium small general purpose. having a dedicated quantum launcher is sorta special, but if quantum's ever replace photons it will be a bit of an outdated concept. a quantum should fit any old tube
  • Options
    yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Personally I'm reminded of the Fleet Tor'kaht by the Risian cruiser. A Fleet Tor'kaht without a 4th tac console, cloak, bonus weapon power and the ability to mount cannons. :D

    And yeah, the whole luxury cruise ship getting made into a tactical cruiser (admittedly not a very good one) seemed... odd. How many times in this thread have people called the Galaxy a cruise ship and used that to justify its awful layout? At least that particular argument won't hold weight any more. :rolleyes:

    True, but since the release of the Galaxy 3Pack, cryptic wont get their hands dirty by reworking a Galaxy Class ship.
    (They will say they already "reworked" the GCS, no matter how goofy that may sound to us.)
    "...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--" - (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • Options
    nikephorusnikephorus Member Posts: 2,744 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    the sovereign never struck me as a full on battle ship at all, just a super modern general purpose in medium large size. they were in the middle of a diplomatic mission at the beginning of insurrection. it was pretty much like the intrepid, only that ship is medium small general purpose. having a dedicated quantum launcher is sorta special, but if quantum's ever replace photons it will be a bit of an outdated concept. a quantum should fit any old tube

    Me either. It looks like a modern version of the Excelsior to me...general purpose heavy cruiser.
    Personally I'm reminded of the Fleet Tor'kaht by the Risian cruiser. A Fleet Tor'kaht without a 4th tac console, cloak, bonus weapon power and the ability to mount cannons.

    Lol - It's just like a Tor'kaht... just crappier...in every single way. derp~
    Tza0PEl.png
  • Options
    bostonianbostonian Member Posts: 62 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    the last thing anyone should try to do is reason how flagships work in star trek. my point was that the sovereign class isn't the flagship class, and the enterprise E is not the flagship like the enterprise D was.




    the sovereign never struck me as a full on battle ship at all, just a super modern general purpose in medium large size. they were in the middle of a diplomatic mission at the beginning of insurrection. it was pretty much like the intrepid, only that ship is medium small general purpose. having a dedicated quantum launcher is sorta special, but if quantum's ever replace photons it will be a bit of an outdated concept. a quantum should fit any old tube

    Sovereign class is 100ft longer than the Galaxy class, and only 13 decks shorter, which can easily be accounted for in the Sovereign's lack of a "neck". The Sovereign also had an embarrassing wealth of phaser arrays compared to the Galaxy, 18 to 12 (both picked up additional arrays on refit). The Sovereign had 5 torpedo launchers at launch, and an additional 5 during refit, to the Galaxy's single fore- and aft launchers.
  • Options
    angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    bostonian wrote: »
    Sovereign class is 100ft longer than the Galaxy class, and only 13 decks shorter, which can easily be accounted for in the Sovereign's lack of a "neck". The Sovereign also had an embarrassing wealth of phaser arrays compared to the Galaxy, 18 to 12 (both picked up additional arrays on refit). The Sovereign had 5 torpedo launchers at launch, and an additional 5 during refit, to the Galaxy's single fore- and aft launchers.

    The number of phaser arrays isn't relevant in this case, though. I won't go in the tactical capabilities again (I said it before, to me both ships are en par. Sovereign more manoeuvreable, Galaxy more firepower), but the Galaxy doesn't need 18 arrays since the main saucer arrays are worth a bunch of arrays of other classes like the intrepid and sovereign. The design of these chevrons aucers makes it impossible to maintain a single large phaser array and even makes it impossible to fire two main arrays on the same target, something the Gal's saucer design is capable of. Many phaser arrays just mean that there are a lot of blind spots to cover.

    Again, doesn't say one is better than the other, but numbers alone don't make a difference.

    And @ the risian cruiser: I am just baffled...
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ 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
  • Options
    bostonianbostonian Member Posts: 62 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    angrytarg wrote: »
    The number of phaser arrays isn't relevant in this case, though. I won't go in the tactical capabilities again (I said it before, to me both ships are en par. Sovereign more manoeuvreable, Galaxy more firepower), but the Galaxy doesn't need 18 arrays since the main saucer arrays are worth a bunch of arrays of other classes like the intrepid and sovereign. The design of these chevrons aucers makes it impossible to maintain a single large phaser array and even makes it impossible to fire two main arrays on the same target, something the Gal's saucer design is capable of. Many phaser arrays just mean that there are a lot of blind spots to cover.

    Again, doesn't say one is better than the other, but numbers alone don't make a difference.

    And @ the risian cruiser: I am just baffled...

    Which I'll grant you on the Ventral, since it's 4 arrays breaking the saucer on the Sov into quarters, but one of the Dorsal saucer arrays DOES wrap around. The Sov's saucer isn't a "chevron" shape like many of the newer ships. It's a similar oval to the Galaxy's, just with the wider portion running lengthwise to the ship, instead of 90* to the ship.
  • Options
    bostonianbostonian Member Posts: 62 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Regardless, I only brought it up in response to dontdrunkimshoot's comments about the Sov's lack of capability as either a flag or battleship. In both respects, it's as capable as the Galaxy. Just newer, and with less civilian amenities.
  • Options
    shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    bunansa wrote: »
    At this point I have to start wondering what their beef is with all the iconic ships from the shows. But its cool, when the borg cube is slapped in a lock box it will have a turn rate of 14 and a ltc tac slot to spite the galaxy people.

    At this point I have become split by two possibilities: either they have beef with the entire TNG because they despise it for some weird bias reasons or there is a sigle person on the team that experiences pathological terror from the Galaxy Class because his parents frightened him with the Galaxy Class instead of the boogeyman as a child.
    There's just no other way to explain all the boneheaded moves that are being made.

    Also, a quote taken from the dev.blog regarding the Risian ship:

    "Despite its agility, it sacrifices little durability"

    Can someone show me where it sacrifices durability, because I seriously don't see it. :rolleyes:
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • Options
    yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    edalgo wrote: »
    Agreed that number of arrays doesn't mean much BUT length of array doesn't mean anything either besides wider arc. And why can't the Sovereign fire multiple arrays at once if the target is in and overlapping arc. The Sovereign could probably fire her 4 main arrays if the target was dead ahead.

    And Torpedoes we see that the Sovereign can fire 9 photons at once but then also has the Quantum launcher as well which we've seen fire 4 at once.

    Arrays are composed of small segments which add more power the more are connected in a line. So the longer the array the more power it can store for a burst. Just ask Dontdrunk about it, he has explained this numerous times.

    The Galaxys Torpedo Launcher fired 10 Photon torps (which surely have been upgraded to Quantums over the years) in a row. As much as i understand it's torpedo Launcher works basicly like a pump-action shotgun.

    @angrytarg
    I have a similar theory about the devs. Someone surely is strictly anti GCS for some reason, only Q knows why....
    As a GCS, TNG fan or just someone who doesn't like it if Trek gets distorted like this (like me), it just hurts to see such a great ship get treated like this.


    To be honest i just don't see where the problem lies on cryptics side. I mean if they don't like it, they do not have to fly it. But to kill all fun for its fans is just ... well not nice...
    The devs claim do watch Trek episodes related to new content, to make everything as faithful as possible.
    Someone who likes the GCS can only laugh at that statement.
    "...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--" - (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • Options
    martakurillmartakurill Member Posts: 456 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    shpoks wrote: »
    At this point I have become split by two possibilities: either they have beef with the entire TNG because they despise it for some weird bias reasons or there is a sigle person on the team that experiences pathological terror from the Galaxy Class because his parents frightened him with the Galaxy Class instead of the boogeyman as a child.


    That single person was then probably saved by from said terror by the gift of a toy Excelsior class to protect him from the big bad Galaxy Class boogeyman. That really would explain a lot...:D

    But just...OMG, the Galaxy is outclassed by a cruise ship. I don't even know what to say.
  • Options
    angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    bostonian wrote: »
    Which I'll grant you on the Ventral, since it's 4 arrays breaking the saucer on the Sov into quarters, but one of the Dorsal saucer arrays DOES wrap around. The Sov's saucer isn't a "chevron" shape like many of the newer ships. It's a similar oval to the Galaxy's, just with the wider portion running lengthwise to the ship, instead of 90* to the ship.


    edalgo wrote: »
    Agreed that number of arrays doesn't mean much BUT length of array doesn't mean anything either besides wider arc. And why can't the Sovereign fire multiple arrays at once if the target is in and overlapping arc. The Sovereign could probably fire her 4 main arrays if the target was dead ahead.

    And Torpedoes we see that the Sovereign can fire 9 photons at once but then also has the Quantum launcher as well which we've seen fire 4 at once.

    I can't really say since I don't have something to refer to right now, but I thought that the angle makes it impossible to keep the ventral and dorsal arrays on the target, but I might be mistaken.

    I think torpedo wise, the Galaxy would have recieved a quantum launcher as well during her refits, especially the Venture-type refit in STO. And like yreodred said, we saw the Galaxy on-screen firing a barrage most other ships that are said to have X-launchers weren't capable of.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ 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
  • Options
    jessica312012jessica312012 Member Posts: 5 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Please tell me that this is just a late april joke, a luxury liner is better than the galaxy class seriously ?
    Sure next time we see a freighter with more firepower as galaxy.
  • Options
    supergirl1611supergirl1611 Member Posts: 809 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    So after getting RKO'd and STFU'd, in comes The Undertaker to deliver the Tombstone Pile driver to finish off the poor Galaxy Class.

    CRYPTIC WHAT IS YOUR BEEF WITH THE GALAXY CLASS. A luxury liner built by a pleasure planet and intergalactic resort, out turns, out dps's, out performs one of Starfleet Fleets heavyweights.

    Why is the Galaxy Class soo poorly represented in this game ?.

    A luxury liner yes a luxury liner is better than one of Starfleets finest and most flexible, modular ship designs

    Shame on you shame i say.
This discussion has been closed.