this gets brought up all the time in galaxy threads, the sovereign being more dangerous, but its not. its handily out gunned based on phaser array science and the observed torpedo launching capability of each. the sov never out does this, if the enterprise actually attacked like this every time it 'lost', it would not have lost https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=H_XbWq49vUM
its not much of a stretch to say the nebula has nearly the same capability as a galaxy, just for some reason is configured differently. theres really no reason for both classes to exist really. theres nothing indicating the nebula's configuration would make it more maneuverable. the nebula class in its first episode went to town on the cardiasians, even when they dropped its shields they couldn't even touch it. any galaxy is at least that powerful.
... and i already said the enterprise was setup this way intentionally, and that 70% of its interior space is modular. the galaxy chassis can be the biggest and best tool of exploration and science, or be striped of all none essentials like that and serve as a battleship, like they presumably were during the dominion war, configured more like the defiant and enterprise E seemed to be.
i would rate a 4 second burst of the defiant's pulse phasers as being as powerful as a full array discharge from a galaxy class. the jem hadar attack ships that attacked the odyssey, the very first battle with them ever, took no damage, wile the odessy's shields offered no protection from jem hadar weapons. this is all thanks to the spying already going on, that whole chain of events was to place yet another spy, this time in plain sight, on at least DS9. later when the defiant first ventured forth, but still lost badly, they were actually able to tune their phasers to have more then 0 effect, thanks to the sensor logs from the previous battle. its all just plot railroading more then anything, but thats the logic behind the flow of events. the valiant was also harmless when it fought that battleship it went after, its clearly not all that. if you think the defiant outguns a galaxy, then 'by that logic' so does an excelsior. come now, thats a bit silly.
You guys just keep whining about what was "plot driven". EVERYTHING is "plot driven". Picard being rescued from the Borg was "plot driven". The highly adaptable Borg NEVER sending more that one ship to assimilate Earth is also "plot driven". So what?
What you REALLY mean is that it's "plot driven" in a way that YOU don't like. I notice that you NEVER address the Nomad and Orion Scout ship examples of how size is not always determinative of destructive power. You run to a Tech Manual that contradicts the shows themselves AND which Ron D. Moore himself said was "not canon", all to justify your own feeble wish as to how YOU think the Galaxy should be. What's your endgame? To complain about it for another year? Five years? Ten years?
It's funny how on both ends, you try to use the "exception" as the rule. I never said that Defiant classes were perfect, but their battle record against similar ships is a LOT better than the Ent-D (BOP's, Bug ships) It's there ON SCREEN. You can whine about this result and make excuses for it until the cows come home, but that will NEVER change whats already been shown. And you will NEVER get CBS/Cryptic to act as if the Galaxy is MORE powerful than the Sovereign. So, go luck with the next three years of whining! :cool:
It's funny how on both ends, you try to use the "exception" as the rule. I never said that Defiant classes were perfect, but their battle record against similar ships is a LOT better than the Ent-D (BOP's, Bug ships) It's there ON SCREEN.
It's also on screen that the Defiant is nearly shredded to pieces by the Borg cube while Enterprise-D is able to survive several engagements only to be scratched a bit.
It's also on screen that the Defiant is nearly shredded to pieces by the Borg cube while Enterprise-D is able to survive several engagements only to be scratched a bit.
There is so much on screen that doesn't translate into this game. The most blatant for me is the Cardassian Galor Class Cruiser. In STO this ship is freaking amazing. Very high shield modifier, very good maneuverability, access to spiral disruptors. Yet in the series the Galor was shown to be basically a garbage ship. The Phoenix was able to destroy one even tho the Cardassians had it's prefix codes and were able to lower the Phoenix's shields (The Phoenix being a nebula class, which is also lol TRIBBLE in this game as well fyi). During this same episode, "The Wounded" I believe, the Enterprise encountered a Cardassian Galor Class Cruiser which refused to answer hails and opened fire. hitting the Enterprise several times causing no real damage. The Enterprise finally retaliated firing one blast from their forward phaser array which basically disabled the Cardassian ship and forcing them to answer the hail.
I know there are a few people seem to think that these "Fix the Galaxy" threads are just a bunch of whining, but if you play the game and understand the mechanics (even just a little). You can see that the ship is really terrible, and also doesn't really go along with how it was shown in the tv series.
Being the huge cruiser fan I am I have a lot of the fleet cruisers. One that is noticeably absent from my ship list is the Fleet Galaxy. Why? Because it's just so terrible. I look at the console and bridge layout and think about it's maneuverability, or lack there of, and just cringe. There is really not much you can do with that layout. I'm not really sure why there is hostile pushback with changing the bridge officer seating on the Galaxy. The Galaxy, and cruisers in general, are still slow and forced to use beam arrays (outside a handful of ships) which are weaker then cannons (so escort superiority will not be challenged). It would just add some tactical flexibility and honestly all round fun to the ships. In the Galaxy's case it would make the ship usable.
What surprises me is that cryptic basicly knows the galaxy layout is terrible and yet wont change it. The neg'var was given diff console layout, its fleet version given a universal ens. The romulan D'D has already had its boff slots changed and they made a change to RCS consoles to benifit slower cruisers like the D'D and Galaxy. Ironicly i think that change was done because of the outcry over the D'D turnrate and galaxy just happened to get lucky and ride that train with rest of cruisers.
I get that they want to keep the big 3 TNG ships diff and unique, in both boff layout and console layout. But the 5 eng consoles 3 eng ens just doesnt work well at all. In a game based around dmg a defanged ship is worthless. In a game with hardly any agro management a tank is useless. And a big slow healboat that takes more dmg because its big and slow so it has to uses those heals on itself not allys is worthless.
The galaxy isnt just bad cause of any one thing, its a factor of lots of issues from diff aspects of the game that happen to all end up on 1 ship. Bad boffs, eng global overlap on skills due to lack of eng skills, bad turnrates, low speeds, bad intertia, bad console layout.
Cryptic could fix the galaxy with a few tweaks. Up the turnrate by 2 for all ships, change the Gal LTC eng to a uni, fix RCS consoles *already done*, Change the 5 eng consoles to 4/3/3. Give the D'd 3/4/3 as it was more sci/military give it a sci based LTC with LT uni. Up the speed of all cruisers a tad, not a lot but bout 10%. Add in some new eng and tac skills specificly eng resistance debuff and ens tac cannon abilities, and single target beam rapid fire. Fix the inertia on some of the cruisers, shouldnt powerslide for 5mins coming out of FI. Fix deminishing returns on all items space and ground, its stupid to get DR on a single item. Remove timer from optional on ESTFs thus making the optional about the objective and NOT about a DPS race. Add a Agro gen ability for tac/eng like focus fire self. Make the STF/FA rewards team performance based, not individuals. Team does well they all get a purple, team does terrible you get jack etc. Add disable ship instead of explode so we can "rez" team mates in space, make injuries occure on RESPAWN not death/rez.
These changes would go a long way to fixing a lot of problems in the overall game, and mindset of the players.
As I understand it, it's not the galaxy itself that's the problem - 5 eng consoles to the Defiant's 5 tac consoles is fair. The problem is the functionality of the eng consoles. Eng consoles should bring the same amount of weight to a ship as tac consoles. Not the same functions mind you, but be just as important, thus yield the same amount of 'viability' to a ship than the same amount of tac consoles. This goes for science consoles as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong though. I've only been playing for 3-4 months.
It's also on screen that the Defiant is nearly shredded to pieces by the Borg cube while Enterprise-D is able to survive several engagements only to be scratched a bit.
And how does THAT help the Galaxy's overall PATHETIC record?
There is so much on screen that doesn't translate into this game. The most blatant for me is the Cardassian Galor Class Cruiser. In STO this ship is freaking amazing. Very high shield modifier, very good maneuverability, access to spiral disruptors. Yet in the series the Galor was shown to be basically a garbage ship. The Phoenix was able to destroy one even tho the Cardassians had it's prefix codes and were able to lower the Phoenix's shields (The Phoenix being a nebula class, which is also lol TRIBBLE in this game as well fyi). During this same episode, "The Wounded" I believe, the Enterprise encountered a Cardassian Galor Class Cruiser which refused to answer hails and opened fire. hitting the Enterprise several times causing no real damage. The Enterprise finally retaliated firing one blast from their forward phaser array which basically disabled the Cardassian ship and forcing them to answer the hail.
I know there are a few people seem to think that these "Fix the Galaxy" threads are just a bunch of whining, but if you play the game and understand the mechanics (even just a little). You can see that the ship is really terrible, and also doesn't really go along with how it was shown in the tv series.
Being the huge cruiser fan I am I have a lot of the fleet cruisers. One that is noticeably absent from my ship list is the Fleet Galaxy. Why? Because it's just so terrible. I look at the console and bridge layout and think about it's maneuverability, or lack there of, and just cringe. There is really not much you can do with that layout. I'm not really sure why there is hostile pushback with changing the bridge officer seating on the Galaxy. The Galaxy, and cruisers in general, are still slow and forced to use beam arrays (outside a handful of ships) which are weaker then cannons (so escort superiority will not be challenged). It would just add some tactical flexibility and honestly all round fun to the ships. In the Galaxy's case it would make the ship usable.
Your argument seems to be more reasonable, so in your case I definitely won't call it "whining". I admit that I wouldn't have any objections to them modifying the Galaxy-X since it WAS in fact shown in canon as a powerfully armed ship with that phaser lance. But do you think, as some others have expressed, that a Galaxy or Galaxy-R should be more powerful than a Sovereign?
It appears that a BIG part of the problem is also the limitations of the STF's themselves. It's HEAVILY biased toward pure combat/damage points, and there aren't any available engineering consoles or powers that can adequately exploit the added Engg abilities of a Galaxy. As such, warships will be heavily favored, while less tactically designed ships (Ent-D), will suffer.
Maybe they could come up with engineering consoles that reflect what was seen in the show, but could greatly improve its odds in STF's. Nanite Disruptor console? Phased Cloak console? Alternate Reality Doppelganger Ship Assist? Metaphasic Shielding?
But do you think, as some others have expressed, that a Galaxy or Galaxy-R should be more powerful than a Sovereign?
I'm not advocating it be made more powerful then the Regent or Fleet Assault Cruiser. Personally, I'd be happy if the Engineering Ensign was made into a Universal station, and the consoles were changed to 4/3/3. Just those two minor changes would make the ship usable. It would still not be great, but you could actually do something with it. I just find it really sad that this iconic ship, at lest iconic to me since I grew up with it watching TNG, is such a joke.
I admit that I wouldn't have any objections to them modifying the Galaxy-X since it WAS in fact shown in canon as a powerfully armed ship with that phaser lance.
This ship is terrible as well and doesn't even make sense as it is right now. It's the only federation cruiser that can mount dual heavy cannons, yet doesn't have the bridge officer stations, nor the turn rate to use them effectively making the ability almost completely pointless. In my opinion it should have been more like the Klingon Tor'Kaht Battle Cruiser.
Also, clearly the Defiant's pulse phasers were more powerful than the Ent-D phaser array since it was able to destroy comparable ships that the ENT-D couldn't ("The Search", "The Die is Cast", "The Way of The Warrior", "Shattered Mirror"). However, that same honor goes to the Sov and Prometheus as well. You keep referring to the Tech Manual and that ONE Borg incident because the OTHER incidents that have been pointed do not paint a favorable picture of the Ent-D "Tin Man", "Generations", "Darmok", "Rascals", "The Jem'Haddar", "Descent", "The Arsenal of Freedom", "Best of Both Worlds"
The Defaint's pulse phasers were more powerfull because the Defaint was an NX class when the Galaxy class were already decades old. The enterprise-D launched 7 years before the defaint class even was planned.
In addition, the Galaxy class was designed in a very peacefull period, while the defaint was the direct answer to an large thread: the borg.
But, as you can read in the description: the Galaxy class in STO, it's a RETROFIT and not the original Galaxy class build in the middle of the 24 century.
So, according to the story of cryptic, the Federation in the beginning of the 25 century not only face the borg, but ... the entire KDF, Romulans, Tholian, Iconians, Undine ... and all at the same time ... that must be ... very terrifiying.
So, if I would be Starfleet command and in charge for retrofiting ships, I would say: Hell! We take this old Galaxy class and put as many weapons on it as possible to punch the TRIBBLE out of all these alien threads. Exploration?? Who the hell needs exploration when our colonies are burning and Federation faces extinction!
So, now look at the Galaxy class and it's sheer mass and compare it with the nimble defaint. An retrofit with latest energy and weapon technology to a ship of this size would let the defaint look like a hand gun compared to a cruise missle.
But, apperently, in cryptic's Dork Trek universe, the federation decide to make a big whale freighter out of the galaxy class upon any Klingon can just facepalm.
PS: Since 99,999999999999% of the mission available in STO are focused on killing thing, it would also be logical that the Starfleet command send their war ships to this mission. There might be some Galaxy class which are retrofitted for exploration and science and so on. But, this is not the part of missions the player ususally takes place in. The fighting missions are. Therefore it is only logical that player ships all are retrofitted to be warships.
"Admiral, we have lost contact to our Starbase 82. Our scout force detected an large borg fleet. Your
orders?" "I see. There is only one solution. redraw our warhsips and send in our whale freighters!"
No wonder, Klingons resign the alliance with such incompetent starfleet command :P
The Defaint's pulse phasers were more powerfull because the Defaint was an NX class when the Galaxy class were already decades old. The enterprise-D launched 7 years before the defaint class was even was planned.
In addition, the Galaxy class was designed in a very peacefull period, while the defaint was the direct answer to an large thread: the borg.
But, as you can read in the description if the Galaxy class in STO, it's a RETROFIT and not the original Galaxy class as build in the middle of the 24 century.
So, according to the story of cryptic, the Federation in the beginning of the 25 century not only face the borg, but ... the entire KDF, Romulans, Tholian, Iconians, Undine ... and all at the same time ... that must be ... very exhausting.
So, if I would be Starfleet command and in charge for retrofiting ships, I would say: Hell! We take this old Galaxy class and put as many weapons on it as possible to punch the TRIBBLE out of all these alien threads. Exploration?? Who the hell needs exploration when our colonies are burning and Federation faces extinction!
So, now look at the Galaxy class and it's sheer mass and compare it with the nimble defaint. An retrofit with latest energy and weapon technology to a ship of this size would let the defaint look like a hand gun compared to a cruise missle.
But, apperently, in cryptic's Dork Trek universe, the federation decide to make a big whale freighter out of the galaxy class upon any Klingon can just facepalm.
Wrong! It's a warship because it was designed to be one. This is a tired argument. If your assessment of the Galaxy was actually seen on screen, then I would conceed this point. But all the rationale, all the excuses, all of the "imaginary" scenarios, won't revise what was seen ON SCREEN. It was clamed that the Defiant was a WARSHIP, and it's ship kill average is WAY higher than the ENT-D and behaved like a warship.
You guys think that by deriding the Defiant, Sovereign, Prometheus, or other ships will elevate the ENT-D? It won't. Even before they EVER introduced the Defiant, it was apparent that the ENT-D was a TRIBBLE-poor combat ship.
Weaker than the AVERAGE Romulan Warbird ("Tin Man"), and can also have it shielding reduced by 70% in under 5 seconds by an AVERAGE Romulan Warbird that wasn't even trying to destroy them but slow them down, (also in "Tin Man"), I always thought that the Ent-D tactical capabilities were nothing to write home about. The Prometheus sure didn't have a problem with quickly dispacthing a Romulan Warbird ("Message In A Bottle").
So you can sit there and figure out "why" the ENt-D perfomed as badly on screen as it did, but the bottom line is that the other ships that I mentioned did perform better under similar circumstances than the Ent-D.
Hmmm. The smart a@@ comment aside, I notice that you didn't address any of the points that I mentioned. Since you can't refute them, you decide to engage in deflection. Oh well. Maybe that's why you guys can't get any of the changes that you want implemented after three years of whining about it. Keep up the good job!:D
no bud, the only reason i decided to not argue with your point is that it is pointless.
and it is for 2 reasons:
first all these things about plot storie and things are very subjective and anyone could said or find some kind of proof to explain the failure or succes of the ship in the serie, so argue on this will only finish in a stalemate fight, hehe, just like cruiser in sto.
the second reason, and that is in fact the more important,
this thread is not about making the galaxy retrofit a tactical cruiser, even if some want it too, it about making this ship usefull, because even in it support role and tanking role they are far better option than this one at the moment.
hence why i didn't care to respond to your "points" because they are off topic.
but you would have known this if you have read it entirely and not making a comment after reading 2 pages.
and on this i am sure dondrunkhimshoot will be satisfy if this ship have a real good support and tanking bo layout.
i am not personally in favor of making the galaxy a tactical ship, i reserve this for my galaxy x, and here you can said what you want, you will hardly find canon video that depict the galaxy x as a fail;)...unlike what you see in this game....again...on a galaxy class..
if i didn't known better i would said it have been made purposely.
when we listen to you, we fell like the galaxy class is good as it is, and that is is a perfect representation about what we see in the serie.
now tell us, do you think this ship is good as it is, do you ever fly it seriouly?
we didn't whining about it for 3 years! we show evidence that this ship and the galaxy x is gimp for 3 years, both by the pveer community and the pvper comunity:
i give you this that could also be apply to the galaxy retrofit:
Originally Posted by aquitaine985
MK's mating habits
The Dread just doesn't really work. I've never seen one in ANY PVP that made me stop and think "Hmm, I should probably stay away for that dude" It's always the first to be picked on. - They're either WAY too tanky to bother trying to kill, as they won't heal their team and thus won't be missed. Or, are stuffed with C Store/Crossfaction consoles to give the impression they are "hard" to kill, when infact are just tedious.
now, since this have been said over and over again by the best player in the game for 3 years now, ask yourself the right question.
I own a Galaxy. I play nothing but cruisers and pride myself on getting the most out of them. The Galaxy-class is severely lacking and needs to be fixed.
The simple fact of the matter is this: I paid money for it. It needs to perform on the same level as other T5 C-store ships. It does not and it's pretty obvious. Forget all the canon arguments and the fanboy accusations. The T5 freebie Sovereign SHOULD NOT be a better choice than the T5 ship I paid money for. Plain and simple. THAT is why people are upset about it.
And I'll say it again because someone is bound to argue it: Galaxy owners/fans are not asking for it to be the ultimate ship. Most of us are making the reasonable request that it be brought in line with the other T5 C-store ships. Console/BOFF/turn rate adjustment seems to be what is needed. Not an overhaul, just tweaked.
I don't understand why people would argue against the Gal getting a good balance pass. It NEEDS it, I promise you. And if you don't like it, you aren't flying it anyway and it won't hurt you.
Cryptic please take the time to fly all your cruisers and compare the Galaxy against the others available. I think you will find pretty quickly why so many people are upset. We paid our money, you use the ship in most every ad for this game, bring her up to par please. A big flying brick with no teeth is useless.
I own a Galaxy. I play nothing but cruisers and pride myself on getting the most out of them. The Galaxy-class is severely lacking and needs to be fixed.
The simple fact of the matter is this: I paid money for it. It needs to perform on the same level as other T5 C-store ships. It does not and it's pretty obvious. Forget all the canon arguments and the fanboy accusations. The T4 freebie Sovereign SHOULD NOT be a better choice than the T5 ship I paid money for. Plain and simple. THAT is why people are upset about it.
And I'll say it again because someone is bound to argue it: Galaxy owners/fans are not asking for it to be the ultimate ship. Most of us are making the reasonable request that it be brought in line with the other T5 C-store ships. Console/BOFF/turn rate adjustment seems to be what is needed. Not an overhaul, just tweaked.
I don't understand why people would argue against the Gal getting a good balance pass. It NEEDS it, I promise you. And if you don't like it, you aren't flying it anyway and it won't hurt you.
Cryptic please take the time to fly all your cruisers and compare the Galaxy against the others available. I think you will find pretty quickly why so many people are upset. We paid our money, you use the ship in most every ad for this game, bring her up to par please. An big flying brick with no teeth is useless.
agree with you on all point but for the sake of the argument, the free sovie is a T5 ship....sorry.
but don't worry your argument still stand:)
Wrong! It's a warship because it was designed to be one. This is a tired argument. If your assessment of the Galaxy was actually seen on screen, then I would conceed this point.
What seen on screen is irrelevant, as 7 o f9 would have stated. Because what is seen on screen is in the time line of Star Trek Online minimum 30 years outdated.
You guys think that by deriding the Defiant, Sovereign, Prometheus, or other ships will elevate the ENT-D? It won't. Even before they EVER introduced the Defiant, it was apparent that the ENT-D was a TRIBBLE-poor combat ship.
Yes, if you would have read my text, you would have seen that I said that.
But the Galaxy in game is NOT the Galaxy on screen. It is an updated version as the excelsior class that almost defeated the defaint.
Only because the case of my computer is the same since 10 years, it do not mean my hardware is 10 years old ...
defient fan boys back with a vengeance i see. its simple mathematics, the galaxy has the biggest guns, the galaxy is 70% modular on the inside, and the galaxy is nearly 100 times larger then the defiant, and more then twice the size of the sovereign. the defiant uses low arc cannons because theres no room on it for large arrays, but mobility isn't a problem for a small ship. as far as bursts of firepower goes they seem pretty even to me, though the galaxy's guns have a fireing arc of everything the array has line of sight with, and if BOBW is any example, an extreamly high rate of fire. theres no comparable benchmark in DS9, showing what the defiant could do to a target, vs the array shots of a galaxy. the battle with the odyssey was before federation weapons were even capable of damaging dominion ships. the runabouts couldn't do anything against them ether, but later odo killed a bug ship with a runabout, effectiveness levels changed dramatically since the odyssey battle.
we saw 1 galaxy class in detail during a brief time of peace, it was set up to be a manifestation of the federation's ideals in ship form, it was supposed to be the most impressive thing any alien had ever seen that they made contact with them. that was 1 galaxy, setup 1 way. we saw the same ship setup to be vastly different in a war time stance during yesterdays enterprise, we have also seen the sovereign that came a few years later, set up to be more of a battle cruiser then an explorer. its all in the federation's parts bin.
the federation was at war the entire development of the galaxy class. several tzenkethy wars, decades of on and off warfare with the cardasians, tholians destroying starbases, and a few others that were mentioned off hand. every time there is first contact there is just as much a chance it turns into a shooting match, explores need to be armed to the teeth, the surveyors that come later can be lightly armed.
even the D set up like it was, very unoptimized for combat, outguned any known ship. until they first encountered a D'deridex, that could go ether way 1v1. the galaxy became a more dangerous place, with the borg and then dominion. military science advanced quickly, small heavily armed warships were launched, new generations of heavy cruisers, destroyers and frigates as well, proboly long over due to replace all the mirandas and excelciors that had been relied on too long. and then theres the galaxy class, less then a decade old, twice as big as the next biggest ship, armed with the largest array and the largest and most burst capable torp launchers, and an interior designed to be 70% modular. its the perfect clean slate for the perfect peace time explorer, or a second to none battleship during a time of war. they were built to be blank slates and serve for 100 years, with a major overhaul every 20 years and constant small upgrades in between.
we see war time galaxy in yesterdays enterprise and the dominion war, confirmed that they were striped of any non essential equipment and assembled as mostly empty shells by the musings of show producers in the old AOL chats. at the very least they didnt have science labs hogging any shield or weapon power for jeleco to complain about. anything they say, or write in tech manuals is canon btw, unless something on screen directly contradicts something in them. the show, and the book, created by the same people after all. theres very little concrete information provided by canon, its mostly just a flash of action, with plot dictating outcomes over established benchmarks. at least the tech manual sets some basic tech rules. and all the ships fit into them, thats the correct way to go about 'stating' them.
in game, to properly represent a galaxy class, everything but the commander engineering should proboly be universal, with console slots determined by how eng, tac, or sci you set your station setups to be. that would be really cool, but a bit of a wonder ship. something more reasonable, and lucrative, i have detailed in a link in my sig.
If only the Galaxy was as competitive as other ships.. sad that such an icon of the entire franchise is relegated to the worst sort of support role in this game, especially when support and healing in teamwork (outside of pvp) is so redundant it'd make even a tribble cry.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
What about this layout ? In effort to appease all those who say Galaxy is peace loving ship, a heavy modular ship, that it does not threathen any other layouts.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
defient fan boys back with a vengeance i see. its simple mathematics, the galaxy has the biggest guns, the galaxy is 70% modular on the inside, and the galaxy is nearly 100 times larger then the defiant, and more then twice the size of the sovereign. the defiant uses low arc cannons because theres no room on it for large arrays, but mobility isn't a problem for a small ship. as far as bursts of firepower goes they seem pretty even to me, though the galaxy's guns have a fireing arc of everything the array has line of sight with, and if BOBW is any example, an extreamly high rate of fire. theres no comparable benchmark in DS9, showing what the defiant could do to a target, vs the array shots of a galaxy. the battle with the odyssey was before federation weapons were even capable of damaging dominion ships. the runabouts couldn't do anything against them ether, but later odo killed a bug ship with a runabout, effectiveness levels changed dramatically since the odyssey battle.
we saw 1 galaxy class in detail during a brief time of peace, it was set up to be a manifestation of the federation's ideals in ship form, it was supposed to be the most impressive thing any alien had ever seen that they made contact with them. that was 1 galaxy, setup 1 way. we saw the same ship setup to be vastly different in a war time stance during yesterdays enterprise, we have also seen the sovereign that came a few years later, set up to be more of a battle cruiser then an explorer. its all in the federation's parts bin.
the federation was at war the entire development of the galaxy class. several tzenkethy wars, decades of on and off warfare with the cardasians, tholians destroying starbases, and a few others that were mentioned off hand. every time there is first contact there is just as much a chance it turns into a shooting match, explores need to be armed to the teeth, the surveyors that come later can be lightly armed.
even the D set up like it was, very unoptimized for combat, outguned any known ship. until they first encountered a D'deridex, that could go ether way 1v1. the galaxy became a more dangerous place, with the borg and then dominion. military science advanced quickly, small heavily armed warships were launched, new generations of heavy cruisers, destroyers and frigates as well, proboly long over due to replace all the mirandas and excelciors that had been relied on too long. and then theres the galaxy class, less then a decade old, twice as big as the next biggest ship, armed with the largest array and the largest and most burst capable torp launchers, and an interior designed to be 70% modular. its the perfect clean slate for the perfect peace time explorer, or a second to none battleship during a time of war. they were built to be blank slates and serve for 100 years, with a major overhaul every 20 years and constant small upgrades in between.
we see war time galaxy in yesterdays enterprise and the dominion war, confirmed that they were striped of any non essential equipment and assembled as mostly empty shells by the musings of show producers in the old AOL chats. at the very least they didnt have science labs hogging any shield or weapon power for jeleco to complain about. anything they say, or write in tech manuals is canon btw, unless something on screen directly contradicts something in them. the show, and the book, created by the same people after all. theres very little concrete information provided by canon, its mostly just a flash of action, with plot dictating outcomes over established benchmarks. at least the tech manual sets some basic tech rules. and all the ships fit into them, thats the correct way to go about 'stating' them.
in game, to properly represent a galaxy class, everything but the commander engineering should proboly be universal, with console slots determined by how eng, tac, or sci you set your station setups to be. that would be really cool, but a bit of a wonder ship. something more reasonable, and lucrative, i have detailed in a link in my sig.
Sorry, but weak shaming tactics like "Defiant fan boy" does absolutely noting to improve your own situation and immediate problem with the Galaxy. Unfortunately for YOU, CBS/Cryptic are also apparently "defiant fan boys", as well as "Ambassador fan boys", "Prometheus fan boys", "Sovereign fan boys", etc. And you can sight ALL of the non canon sources that you want, but it still doesn't change what was seen on screen
BTW, the Tech MAnual is NOT canon as confirmed by Ron D. Moore, the Exec Producer and one of the Head writers. Go look it up. So between your incesstant rambling or HIS expertise, I'll choose his opinion EVERY time. So you can cite all of the non canon sources that you like, but clearly CBS/Cryptic completely disagrees with you. You blather on about a war where very little specifics were given on the show, to justify why the ship that YOU like, should be better than it is. What's shown on screen, however, does NOT match your MYOPIC view.
The Sovereign has done better battle, the Promethus has done better at battle, and the Defiant has done better at battle. You can whine about "it's the writers' fault" all you want to, but CBS/Cryptic recognizes that EVERYTHING in Star Trek is utimately "the writers' fault", and this weak argument has CLEARLY fallen on deaf ears for three years now.While there IS an argument to be made about modifying the engineering consoles/powers, there is nothing on screen that would justify making the Galaxy class more powerful than a Sovereign class just because YOU want that. So good luck whining about it for another three years.
BTW, the Tech MAnual is NOT canon as confirmed by Ron D. Moore, the Exec Producer and one of the Head writers. Go look it up. So between your incesstant rambling or HIS expertise, I'll choose his opinion EVERY time.
While Moore's the executive producer, I'll stick to what Gene Roddenberry himself said in the introduction to the book:
Documents such as this Technical Manual help give some background to the vision we work so hard to create on Star Trek. Rick and Mike have obviously had a lot of fun filling in the gaps and trying to find technical "explanations" for some of our mistakes.
I underlined what I think is the most important.
While there IS an argument to be made about modifying the engineering consoles/powers, there is nothing on screen that would justify making the Galaxy class more powerful than a Sovereign class just because YOU want that. So good luck whining about it for another three years.
I personally don't want the Galaxy to be an uber-ship. I want it to be decent. Cryptic has to find a way to make those 5 engineering consoles and 3 ensign stations useful. That's all I want - modularity, customisation, diversity. Make those consoles and stations an asset.
Pretty much all my Star Trek gaming history has been ship to ship battles: Star Fleet command 1-3, Star Trek: Armada, Xbox360: Legacy, etc. From a sand point of naval combat, Enterprise-D is a battle ship, and when I go back and watch the TNG:T.V. show, it does not live up to a battleship.
As far as plot goes, a Klingon light cruiser can knock the shields down to 40% in a single shot, but it's the crew that gets them out of trouble, not the Battleship rated shields/hull/weapons. A single Romulan D'etrix can knock the shields offline in 1-2 shots in the TV show, but in any game, that fight would take minutes of outright slugging it out. However, rarely does a Galaxy get caught in yellow alert by a Romulan battleship decloaking from the back in any game.
Story and plot arc's greatly fluctuate what the Galaxy can do. This being a game set well in the future of TNG, you're not going to see a stock Galaxy perform to the level of the Odyssey or Sovereign. I'd like to see a Galaxy Refit that replaces the phaser lance with a rotating torpedo launcher from DS9(at least 270' arc) or some star base level phasers. That big saucer can be emptied of civilians and filled with bigger guns or honest flight deck. Wouldn't mind seeing a detachable saucer act like a escort carrier, launching fighter/shuttles and using beams fire at will, while the main drive acts like a battlecruiser.
Sorry, but weak shaming tactics like "Defiant fan boy" does absolutely noting to improve your own situation and immediate problem with the Galaxy. Unfortunately for YOU, CBS/Cryptic are also apparently "defiant fan boys", as well as "Ambassador fan boys", "Prometheus fan boys", "Sovereign fan boys", etc. And you can sight ALL of the non canon sources that you want, but it still doesn't change what was seen on screen
BTW, the Tech MAnual is NOT canon as confirmed by Ron D. Moore, the Exec Producer and one of the Head writers. Go look it up. So between your incesstant rambling or HIS expertise, I'll choose his opinion EVERY time. So you can cite all of the non canon sources that you like, but clearly CBS/Cryptic completely disagrees with you. You blather on about a war where very little specifics were given on the show, to justify why the ship that YOU like, should be better than it is. What's shown on screen, however, does NOT match your MYOPIC view.
The Sovereign has done better battle, the Promethus has done better at battle, and the Defiant has done better at battle. You can whine about "it's the writers' fault" all you want to, but CBS/Cryptic recognizes that EVERYTHING in Star Trek is utimately "the writers' fault", and this weak argument has CLEARLY fallen on deaf ears for three years now.While there IS an argument to be made about modifying the engineering consoles/powers, there is nothing on screen that would justify making the Galaxy class more powerful than a Sovereign class just because YOU want that. So good luck whining about it for another three years.
the sovereign has never done anything more impressive then what ee have seen a galaxy do. all it had was better visual effects. a Prometheus blew up a warbird that 2 defiants and an akira already shot up. no ship has been seen in actual battle more then the defiant, but theres no point of reference to draw from to accuratly rate the ship because no other ship got any sort of battle spotlight during DS9. so you can bluster and keep shamming your self as a blatant fan boy if you really want to, your still never going to be able to point to any canon evidence that will prove me, and what the tech manuals say wrong.
Sorry, but weak shaming tactics like "Defiant fan boy" does absolutely noting to improve your own situation and immediate problem with the Galaxy. Unfortunately for YOU, CBS/Cryptic are also apparently "defiant fan boys", as well as "Ambassador fan boys", "Prometheus fan boys", "Sovereign fan boys", etc. And you can sight ALL of the non canon sources that you want, but it still doesn't change what was seen on screen
BTW, the Tech MAnual is NOT canon as confirmed by Ron D. Moore, the Exec Producer and one of the Head writers. Go look it up. So between your incesstant rambling or HIS expertise, I'll choose his opinion EVERY time. So you can cite all of the non canon sources that you like, but clearly CBS/Cryptic completely disagrees with you. You blather on about a war where very little specifics were given on the show, to justify why the ship that YOU like, should be better than it is. What's shown on screen, however, does NOT match your MYOPIC view.
The Sovereign has done better battle, the Promethus has done better at battle, and the Defiant has done better at battle. You can whine about "it's the writers' fault" all you want to, but CBS/Cryptic recognizes that EVERYTHING in Star Trek is utimately "the writers' fault", and this weak argument has CLEARLY fallen on deaf ears for three years now.While there IS an argument to be made about modifying the engineering consoles/powers, there is nothing on screen that would justify making the Galaxy class more powerful than a Sovereign class just because YOU want that. So good luck whining about it for another three years.
You are quite the hateful one there sir.
This game only loosely uses 'canon' and is no means tied to it. Yes the Sovereign outperforms the Galaxy, but so does the Excelsior. That makes no kind of sense.
Point is, if they charge money for it, it should perform at least as well as other cruisers they charge for. It does not, by quite a margin.
The canon arguments are silly and should have no bearing on the situation, as strict adherence to canon was tossed out long ago in this game.
The Galaxy issue being addressed will have no bearing on you personally and will ONLY serve to satisfy paying customers. Which is a good thing.
Don't argue just to be doing it, it speaks volumes.
And yet, I'm the one who's happy with MY ship. I haven't been whining for THREE years about something that STILL hasn't happened. Sounds like to me that YOU are really the clueless one.
This game only loosely uses 'canon' and is no means tied to it. Yes the Sovereign outperforms the Galaxy, but so does the Excelsior. That makes no kind of sense.
Point is, if they charge money for it, it should perform at least as well as other cruisers they charge for. It does not, by quite a margin.
The canon arguments are silly and should have no bearing on the situation, as strict adherence to canon was tossed out long ago in this game.
The Galaxy issue being addressed will have no bearing on you personally and will ONLY serve to satisfy paying customers. Which is a good thing.
Don't argue just to be doing it, it speaks volumes.
You do not have the right to get an uber ship just because you paid some money. We ALL have paid money in this game, except OUR choices in ships have apparently been better than YOURS. Look up the princple of "Cavaet Emptor". You bought a ship that has a spotty record on screen, then you WILLFULLY broght a ship that had a spotty setup according to you. And your version for "canon" or what should or shouldn't be is clearly different from those of others playing the game, as well as apparently CBS/Cryptic.
So tell me this: After THREE years of whining and complaining, what exactly have you accomplished? NOTHING has changed, and you apparently lack the desire or determination to protest your displasure by boycotting the game. So where does that leave you? What is your endgame or "plan B". To simply keep complaining for ANOTHER three years? As Kirk told Charlie X "There are a million things in this this universe that you can have, and there are a million things that you can't". Perhaps this is one of the "millions of things" that you won't be able to have, at least not in the way that YOU want it.
Comments
i try not to think about that
You guys just keep whining about what was "plot driven". EVERYTHING is "plot driven". Picard being rescued from the Borg was "plot driven". The highly adaptable Borg NEVER sending more that one ship to assimilate Earth is also "plot driven". So what?
What you REALLY mean is that it's "plot driven" in a way that YOU don't like. I notice that you NEVER address the Nomad and Orion Scout ship examples of how size is not always determinative of destructive power. You run to a Tech Manual that contradicts the shows themselves AND which Ron D. Moore himself said was "not canon", all to justify your own feeble wish as to how YOU think the Galaxy should be. What's your endgame? To complain about it for another year? Five years? Ten years?
It's funny how on both ends, you try to use the "exception" as the rule. I never said that Defiant classes were perfect, but their battle record against similar ships is a LOT better than the Ent-D (BOP's, Bug ships) It's there ON SCREEN. You can whine about this result and make excuses for it until the cows come home, but that will NEVER change whats already been shown. And you will NEVER get CBS/Cryptic to act as if the Galaxy is MORE powerful than the Sovereign. So, go luck with the next three years of whining! :cool:
There is so much on screen that doesn't translate into this game. The most blatant for me is the Cardassian Galor Class Cruiser. In STO this ship is freaking amazing. Very high shield modifier, very good maneuverability, access to spiral disruptors. Yet in the series the Galor was shown to be basically a garbage ship. The Phoenix was able to destroy one even tho the Cardassians had it's prefix codes and were able to lower the Phoenix's shields (The Phoenix being a nebula class, which is also lol TRIBBLE in this game as well fyi). During this same episode, "The Wounded" I believe, the Enterprise encountered a Cardassian Galor Class Cruiser which refused to answer hails and opened fire. hitting the Enterprise several times causing no real damage. The Enterprise finally retaliated firing one blast from their forward phaser array which basically disabled the Cardassian ship and forcing them to answer the hail.
I know there are a few people seem to think that these "Fix the Galaxy" threads are just a bunch of whining, but if you play the game and understand the mechanics (even just a little). You can see that the ship is really terrible, and also doesn't really go along with how it was shown in the tv series.
Being the huge cruiser fan I am I have a lot of the fleet cruisers. One that is noticeably absent from my ship list is the Fleet Galaxy. Why? Because it's just so terrible. I look at the console and bridge layout and think about it's maneuverability, or lack there of, and just cringe. There is really not much you can do with that layout. I'm not really sure why there is hostile pushback with changing the bridge officer seating on the Galaxy. The Galaxy, and cruisers in general, are still slow and forced to use beam arrays (outside a handful of ships) which are weaker then cannons (so escort superiority will not be challenged). It would just add some tactical flexibility and honestly all round fun to the ships. In the Galaxy's case it would make the ship usable.
I get that they want to keep the big 3 TNG ships diff and unique, in both boff layout and console layout. But the 5 eng consoles 3 eng ens just doesnt work well at all. In a game based around dmg a defanged ship is worthless. In a game with hardly any agro management a tank is useless. And a big slow healboat that takes more dmg because its big and slow so it has to uses those heals on itself not allys is worthless.
The galaxy isnt just bad cause of any one thing, its a factor of lots of issues from diff aspects of the game that happen to all end up on 1 ship. Bad boffs, eng global overlap on skills due to lack of eng skills, bad turnrates, low speeds, bad intertia, bad console layout.
Cryptic could fix the galaxy with a few tweaks. Up the turnrate by 2 for all ships, change the Gal LTC eng to a uni, fix RCS consoles *already done*, Change the 5 eng consoles to 4/3/3. Give the D'd 3/4/3 as it was more sci/military give it a sci based LTC with LT uni. Up the speed of all cruisers a tad, not a lot but bout 10%. Add in some new eng and tac skills specificly eng resistance debuff and ens tac cannon abilities, and single target beam rapid fire. Fix the inertia on some of the cruisers, shouldnt powerslide for 5mins coming out of FI. Fix deminishing returns on all items space and ground, its stupid to get DR on a single item. Remove timer from optional on ESTFs thus making the optional about the objective and NOT about a DPS race. Add a Agro gen ability for tac/eng like focus fire self. Make the STF/FA rewards team performance based, not individuals. Team does well they all get a purple, team does terrible you get jack etc. Add disable ship instead of explode so we can "rez" team mates in space, make injuries occure on RESPAWN not death/rez.
These changes would go a long way to fixing a lot of problems in the overall game, and mindset of the players.
Correct me if I'm wrong though. I've only been playing for 3-4 months.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
And how does THAT help the Galaxy's overall PATHETIC record?
Your argument seems to be more reasonable, so in your case I definitely won't call it "whining". I admit that I wouldn't have any objections to them modifying the Galaxy-X since it WAS in fact shown in canon as a powerfully armed ship with that phaser lance. But do you think, as some others have expressed, that a Galaxy or Galaxy-R should be more powerful than a Sovereign?
Maybe they could come up with engineering consoles that reflect what was seen in the show, but could greatly improve its odds in STF's. Nanite Disruptor console? Phased Cloak console? Alternate Reality Doppelganger Ship Assist? Metaphasic Shielding?
I'm not advocating it be made more powerful then the Regent or Fleet Assault Cruiser. Personally, I'd be happy if the Engineering Ensign was made into a Universal station, and the consoles were changed to 4/3/3. Just those two minor changes would make the ship usable. It would still not be great, but you could actually do something with it. I just find it really sad that this iconic ship, at lest iconic to me since I grew up with it watching TNG, is such a joke.
This ship is terrible as well and doesn't even make sense as it is right now. It's the only federation cruiser that can mount dual heavy cannons, yet doesn't have the bridge officer stations, nor the turn rate to use them effectively making the ability almost completely pointless. In my opinion it should have been more like the Klingon Tor'Kaht Battle Cruiser.
The Defaint's pulse phasers were more powerfull because the Defaint was an NX class when the Galaxy class were already decades old. The enterprise-D launched 7 years before the defaint class even was planned.
In addition, the Galaxy class was designed in a very peacefull period, while the defaint was the direct answer to an large thread: the borg.
But, as you can read in the description: the Galaxy class in STO, it's a RETROFIT and not the original Galaxy class build in the middle of the 24 century.
So, according to the story of cryptic, the Federation in the beginning of the 25 century not only face the borg, but ... the entire KDF, Romulans, Tholian, Iconians, Undine ... and all at the same time ... that must be ... very terrifiying.
So, if I would be Starfleet command and in charge for retrofiting ships, I would say: Hell! We take this old Galaxy class and put as many weapons on it as possible to punch the TRIBBLE out of all these alien threads. Exploration?? Who the hell needs exploration when our colonies are burning and Federation faces extinction!
So, now look at the Galaxy class and it's sheer mass and compare it with the nimble defaint. An retrofit with latest energy and weapon technology to a ship of this size would let the defaint look like a hand gun compared to a cruise missle.
But, apperently, in cryptic's Dork Trek universe, the federation decide to make a big whale freighter out of the galaxy class upon any Klingon can just facepalm.
PS: Since 99,999999999999% of the mission available in STO are focused on killing thing, it would also be logical that the Starfleet command send their war ships to this mission. There might be some Galaxy class which are retrofitted for exploration and science and so on. But, this is not the part of missions the player ususally takes place in. The fighting missions are. Therefore it is only logical that player ships all are retrofitted to be warships.
"Admiral, we have lost contact to our Starbase 82. Our scout force detected an large borg fleet. Your
orders?"
"I see. There is only one solution. redraw our warhsips and send in our whale freighters!"
No wonder, Klingons resign the alliance with such incompetent starfleet command :P
Wrong! It's a warship because it was designed to be one. This is a tired argument. If your assessment of the Galaxy was actually seen on screen, then I would conceed this point. But all the rationale, all the excuses, all of the "imaginary" scenarios, won't revise what was seen ON SCREEN. It was clamed that the Defiant was a WARSHIP, and it's ship kill average is WAY higher than the ENT-D and behaved like a warship.
You guys think that by deriding the Defiant, Sovereign, Prometheus, or other ships will elevate the ENT-D? It won't. Even before they EVER introduced the Defiant, it was apparent that the ENT-D was a TRIBBLE-poor combat ship.
Weaker than the AVERAGE Romulan Warbird ("Tin Man"), and can also have it shielding reduced by 70% in under 5 seconds by an AVERAGE Romulan Warbird that wasn't even trying to destroy them but slow them down, (also in "Tin Man"), I always thought that the Ent-D tactical capabilities were nothing to write home about. The Prometheus sure didn't have a problem with quickly dispacthing a Romulan Warbird ("Message In A Bottle").
So you can sit there and figure out "why" the ENt-D perfomed as badly on screen as it did, but the bottom line is that the other ships that I mentioned did perform better under similar circumstances than the Ent-D.
no bud, the only reason i decided to not argue with your point is that it is pointless.
and it is for 2 reasons:
first all these things about plot storie and things are very subjective and anyone could said or find some kind of proof to explain the failure or succes of the ship in the serie, so argue on this will only finish in a stalemate fight, hehe, just like cruiser in sto.
the second reason, and that is in fact the more important,
this thread is not about making the galaxy retrofit a tactical cruiser, even if some want it too, it about making this ship usefull, because even in it support role and tanking role they are far better option than this one at the moment.
hence why i didn't care to respond to your "points" because they are off topic.
but you would have known this if you have read it entirely and not making a comment after reading 2 pages.
and on this i am sure dondrunkhimshoot will be satisfy if this ship have a real good support and tanking bo layout.
i am not personally in favor of making the galaxy a tactical ship, i reserve this for my galaxy x, and here you can said what you want, you will hardly find canon video that depict the galaxy x as a fail;)...unlike what you see in this game....again...on a galaxy class..
if i didn't known better i would said it have been made purposely.
when we listen to you, we fell like the galaxy class is good as it is, and that is is a perfect representation about what we see in the serie.
now tell us, do you think this ship is good as it is, do you ever fly it seriouly?
we didn't whining about it for 3 years! we show evidence that this ship and the galaxy x is gimp for 3 years, both by the pveer community and the pvper comunity:
i give you this that could also be apply to the galaxy retrofit:
now, since this have been said over and over again by the best player in the game for 3 years now, ask yourself the right question.
why can't we get any changes of these ship?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
The simple fact of the matter is this: I paid money for it. It needs to perform on the same level as other T5 C-store ships. It does not and it's pretty obvious. Forget all the canon arguments and the fanboy accusations. The T5 freebie Sovereign SHOULD NOT be a better choice than the T5 ship I paid money for. Plain and simple. THAT is why people are upset about it.
And I'll say it again because someone is bound to argue it: Galaxy owners/fans are not asking for it to be the ultimate ship. Most of us are making the reasonable request that it be brought in line with the other T5 C-store ships. Console/BOFF/turn rate adjustment seems to be what is needed. Not an overhaul, just tweaked.
I don't understand why people would argue against the Gal getting a good balance pass. It NEEDS it, I promise you. And if you don't like it, you aren't flying it anyway and it won't hurt you.
Cryptic please take the time to fly all your cruisers and compare the Galaxy against the others available. I think you will find pretty quickly why so many people are upset. We paid our money, you use the ship in most every ad for this game, bring her up to par please. A big flying brick with no teeth is useless.
agree with you on all point but for the sake of the argument, the free sovie is a T5 ship....sorry.
but don't worry your argument still stand:)
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
What seen on screen is irrelevant, as 7 o f9 would have stated. Because what is seen on screen is in the time line of Star Trek Online minimum 30 years outdated.
Yes, if you would have read my text, you would have seen that I said that.
But the Galaxy in game is NOT the Galaxy on screen. It is an updated version as the excelsior class that almost defeated the defaint.
Only because the case of my computer is the same since 10 years, it do not mean my hardware is 10 years old ...
we saw 1 galaxy class in detail during a brief time of peace, it was set up to be a manifestation of the federation's ideals in ship form, it was supposed to be the most impressive thing any alien had ever seen that they made contact with them. that was 1 galaxy, setup 1 way. we saw the same ship setup to be vastly different in a war time stance during yesterdays enterprise, we have also seen the sovereign that came a few years later, set up to be more of a battle cruiser then an explorer. its all in the federation's parts bin.
the federation was at war the entire development of the galaxy class. several tzenkethy wars, decades of on and off warfare with the cardasians, tholians destroying starbases, and a few others that were mentioned off hand. every time there is first contact there is just as much a chance it turns into a shooting match, explores need to be armed to the teeth, the surveyors that come later can be lightly armed.
even the D set up like it was, very unoptimized for combat, outguned any known ship. until they first encountered a D'deridex, that could go ether way 1v1. the galaxy became a more dangerous place, with the borg and then dominion. military science advanced quickly, small heavily armed warships were launched, new generations of heavy cruisers, destroyers and frigates as well, proboly long over due to replace all the mirandas and excelciors that had been relied on too long. and then theres the galaxy class, less then a decade old, twice as big as the next biggest ship, armed with the largest array and the largest and most burst capable torp launchers, and an interior designed to be 70% modular. its the perfect clean slate for the perfect peace time explorer, or a second to none battleship during a time of war. they were built to be blank slates and serve for 100 years, with a major overhaul every 20 years and constant small upgrades in between.
we see war time galaxy in yesterdays enterprise and the dominion war, confirmed that they were striped of any non essential equipment and assembled as mostly empty shells by the musings of show producers in the old AOL chats. at the very least they didnt have science labs hogging any shield or weapon power for jeleco to complain about. anything they say, or write in tech manuals is canon btw, unless something on screen directly contradicts something in them. the show, and the book, created by the same people after all. theres very little concrete information provided by canon, its mostly just a flash of action, with plot dictating outcomes over established benchmarks. at least the tech manual sets some basic tech rules. and all the ships fit into them, thats the correct way to go about 'stating' them.
in game, to properly represent a galaxy class, everything but the commander engineering should proboly be universal, with console slots determined by how eng, tac, or sci you set your station setups to be. that would be really cool, but a bit of a wonder ship. something more reasonable, and lucrative, i have detailed in a link in my sig.
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
En. tac
Lt. universal
Lt. universal
Cmd. eng.
Lt.cmd eng.
Sorry, but weak shaming tactics like "Defiant fan boy" does absolutely noting to improve your own situation and immediate problem with the Galaxy. Unfortunately for YOU, CBS/Cryptic are also apparently "defiant fan boys", as well as "Ambassador fan boys", "Prometheus fan boys", "Sovereign fan boys", etc. And you can sight ALL of the non canon sources that you want, but it still doesn't change what was seen on screen
BTW, the Tech MAnual is NOT canon as confirmed by Ron D. Moore, the Exec Producer and one of the Head writers. Go look it up. So between your incesstant rambling or HIS expertise, I'll choose his opinion EVERY time. So you can cite all of the non canon sources that you like, but clearly CBS/Cryptic completely disagrees with you. You blather on about a war where very little specifics were given on the show, to justify why the ship that YOU like, should be better than it is. What's shown on screen, however, does NOT match your MYOPIC view.
The Sovereign has done better battle, the Promethus has done better at battle, and the Defiant has done better at battle. You can whine about "it's the writers' fault" all you want to, but CBS/Cryptic recognizes that EVERYTHING in Star Trek is utimately "the writers' fault", and this weak argument has CLEARLY fallen on deaf ears for three years now.While there IS an argument to be made about modifying the engineering consoles/powers, there is nothing on screen that would justify making the Galaxy class more powerful than a Sovereign class just because YOU want that. So good luck whining about it for another three years.
I personally don't want the Galaxy to be an uber-ship. I want it to be decent. Cryptic has to find a way to make those 5 engineering consoles and 3 ensign stations useful. That's all I want - modularity, customisation, diversity. Make those consoles and stations an asset.
As far as plot goes, a Klingon light cruiser can knock the shields down to 40% in a single shot, but it's the crew that gets them out of trouble, not the Battleship rated shields/hull/weapons. A single Romulan D'etrix can knock the shields offline in 1-2 shots in the TV show, but in any game, that fight would take minutes of outright slugging it out. However, rarely does a Galaxy get caught in yellow alert by a Romulan battleship decloaking from the back in any game.
Story and plot arc's greatly fluctuate what the Galaxy can do. This being a game set well in the future of TNG, you're not going to see a stock Galaxy perform to the level of the Odyssey or Sovereign. I'd like to see a Galaxy Refit that replaces the phaser lance with a rotating torpedo launcher from DS9(at least 270' arc) or some star base level phasers. That big saucer can be emptied of civilians and filled with bigger guns or honest flight deck. Wouldn't mind seeing a detachable saucer act like a escort carrier, launching fighter/shuttles and using beams fire at will, while the main drive acts like a battlecruiser.
Galaxy Refit doesn't have a phaser lance.
I was thinking that the Galaxy- "Dreadnaught" is a Refit. I don't think saucer separation is "refit" as the Enterprise-D had it standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon do a little reading about reference books why dont you, befor you make you self look even more clueless.
the sovereign has never done anything more impressive then what ee have seen a galaxy do. all it had was better visual effects. a Prometheus blew up a warbird that 2 defiants and an akira already shot up. no ship has been seen in actual battle more then the defiant, but theres no point of reference to draw from to accuratly rate the ship because no other ship got any sort of battle spotlight during DS9. so you can bluster and keep shamming your self as a blatant fan boy if you really want to, your still never going to be able to point to any canon evidence that will prove me, and what the tech manuals say wrong.
You are quite the hateful one there sir.
This game only loosely uses 'canon' and is no means tied to it. Yes the Sovereign outperforms the Galaxy, but so does the Excelsior. That makes no kind of sense.
Point is, if they charge money for it, it should perform at least as well as other cruisers they charge for. It does not, by quite a margin.
The canon arguments are silly and should have no bearing on the situation, as strict adherence to canon was tossed out long ago in this game.
The Galaxy issue being addressed will have no bearing on you personally and will ONLY serve to satisfy paying customers. Which is a good thing.
Don't argue just to be doing it, it speaks volumes.
And yet, I'm the one who's happy with MY ship. I haven't been whining for THREE years about something that STILL hasn't happened. Sounds like to me that YOU are really the clueless one.
You do not have the right to get an uber ship just because you paid some money. We ALL have paid money in this game, except OUR choices in ships have apparently been better than YOURS. Look up the princple of "Cavaet Emptor". You bought a ship that has a spotty record on screen, then you WILLFULLY broght a ship that had a spotty setup according to you. And your version for "canon" or what should or shouldn't be is clearly different from those of others playing the game, as well as apparently CBS/Cryptic.
So tell me this: After THREE years of whining and complaining, what exactly have you accomplished? NOTHING has changed, and you apparently lack the desire or determination to protest your displasure by boycotting the game. So where does that leave you? What is your endgame or "plan B". To simply keep complaining for ANOTHER three years? As Kirk told Charlie X "There are a million things in this this universe that you can have, and there are a million things that you can't". Perhaps this is one of the "millions of things" that you won't be able to have, at least not in the way that YOU want it.