Fact is there is no way in any reality that a ship a fraction the size of a cruiser could win against a cruiser unless of course it kama kaze's a cruiser with its shields down. I love STO but do admit that the role the cruiser has been denoted is truly silly, for lack of a better word. The Galaxy as well as the Assault Cruiser should be two of the meanest, toughest ships in the game. A Jem Bug should only be able to annoy it at most, but never take out an entire ship by itself. Unless of course you had three or four attacking you.
But, I keep reminding myself, this is just a game. It doesn't stop me from flying cruisers and rising to the challenge of building them well enough to give even bug ships a thing or two to think about every now and then.
"The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward." - Rocky Balboa (2006)
Well, according to dontdrunkimshoot, only things,events, stories that Gene was involved is condidered to be "canon". So now, by dontdrunkimshoot's "logic", we have the following: Seasons 4-7 of TNG are not "canon" since due to Gene's declining health and eventual death, he was no longer involved in TNG; all TNG movies, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and NuTrek are not "canon" according to dontdrunkimshoot, since Gene wasn't involved in those projects either.
So I guess this is how dontdrunkimshoot is making the assessment that the Galaxy is more powerful than the Sovereign. Once you play dontdrunkimshoot's version of "Let's Do The (1990/1991) Timewarp Again" and just confine analysis of Star Trek ships to the 1990/1991 time period, then I guess that FINALLY, the Galaxy would be the most powerfulship around since the Sovereign, Defiant, and Promethus doesn't exist since according to to HIM, they are "not canon" since Gene wasn't involved. Hoo-boy!
BTW, I challenge anyone to name ONE single Star Trek video game in the last 17 years (since the introduction of the Sovereign) where the Galaxy was stronger than a Sovereign, or where the player even had an OPTION of making their Galaxy stronger than a Sovereign. You won't find it. Go back to Birth of The Federation, Armada I & II, Bridge Commander, Legacy, Dominon War, Encounters, Conquest, and you will find that with every single one, the Sovereign is more powerful that the Galaxy, and in a majority of those games, the Defiant is ALSO stronger than a Galaxy.
So for all of the talk about how the "Modularity" of a Galaxy would make it more powerful than a Sovereign, clearly NO ONE believes that faulty premiss out of the dozens of Star Trek video game programmers and developers, as well as Paramount/Viacom/CBS, and video game producers, in ALL of the Star Trek games produced in the last 17 years.
So again, there is basis for dontdrunkimshoo's faulty logic and weak justifications.
ive never had the misfortune to argue with someone quite this insane. ive never mentioned gene once, and pointed out several times there next to nothing in canon that we can draw concrete information from for comparison. seriously, your insane dude. your arguing against some straw man version of me saying complexity different things.
99% of star trek fans have never read the tng tech manual and put no real thought in the tech behind things, and arent aware of the sheer size difference between a lot of ships. they are caught up in the newer it is the better it is bandwagon. for most things that would be the obvious train of though, and if all the tng series took place over the course of several decades, it might be the case. but the sovereign is less then 10 years newer then the galaxy, the defiant was built half way through tng, and the intrepid class right before the end of TNG. none of these ships will have any sort of tech advantage for long, but they will for ever have MASSIVE size disadvantages always. by 2409 for example, the time difference of their introduction would be meaningless. they would have all been given more then 1 major overhaul by then, and what ship is more then twice the size ans the next biggest i mentioned there? hmmm
guess what? none of the star trek game designers put as much thought into this, or even had gameplay that was at all similar to what you see the ships acting like in the show. i think its funny, when they made the E they proboly didn't intend it to be tactically inferior to the D, but they ended up making it so. based the the basic established tech they had published, and that they built a ship half the size, were they kidding themselves that this was going to be a more powerful ship? they fooled you, and everyone else it seems.
I don't favour the Galaxy over the Sovereign, (I like them equally) though so far as the ships we saw in the TV series/movies go, I found myself asking this question:
How would the Enterprise-D have coped in the situations that the Enterprise-E found itself in?
generations- if they fired more then a single phaser blast, something more like what they fired at the Husnock battleship here https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=H_XbWq49vUM , there would have been no battle other then the first 2 shots the bop fired. but they decided the D had to die, and they had a recording of an exploding bop model, from the last movie they did. put that together and the epic fail is explained, out of universe at least. would it have killed them to have the D face down a vorcha? the series of events would have been at least believable.
first contact- no real change, except talking about separating the saucer and destroying the star drive sections. but the borg would stop and the deflector deck and they wouldn't have too.
insurrection- no real change again, though the D, in dominion war spec, could have proboly fought off those 2 ships without needing any riker maneuver gas attack.
nemisis- the scimitar is a super weapon cradle with a ton of medium guns. nothing on it is as powerful as the main gun on a d'deridex, but the scim seems to be a much better tank, especially a shield tank. again, its a super weapon cradle. it would have ended in a stale mate again, with the enterprise unable to continue firing, and the scim powering up the thaloron weapon, without the D needing to ram it at all. the conventional weapons would have left it in a similar condition. remember, the best shot from the phaser arrays is going to hit twice as hard as the best shot from a soverign's array, because its more then twice as long, with the same rate of fire. and it can fire 10 photons in about a second, or all at once. we never have seen the upper limit of what its 2 huge torp launchers could do.
the TNG movies would have been awesome with the D.
Wait a sec. You think the Galaxy-X is the Mirror Universe version of the Galaxy?
Is that your final answer? (I'd recommend using a lifeline right about now).
Well TRIBBLE you are right. I completely mixed up that wierd not-future episode with stuff from this game. But my point still stands, it is a tactically built galaxy, and will be good when the fleet version comes out with saucer sep.
Picking up a Galaxy class in this game and expecting the enterprise is about like picking up a 1982 pontiac trans-am and expecting knight rider. Obviously the galaxy class is a well built ship, but it's not going to be the same as the enterprise-d because it's not the enterprise-d. It doesn't have the same crew or the same modifications made over the years.
Picking up a Galaxy class in this game and expecting the enterprise is about like picking up a 1982 pontiac trans-am and expecting knight rider. Obviously the galaxy class is a well built ship, but it's not going to be the same as the enterprise-d because it's not the enterprise-d. It doesn't have the same crew or the same modifications made over the years.
I would say that after 50 years, It would have much more modifications, especially after dominion war....
"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.”
Oh sure, over 50 years the Enterprise-D would have undergone extensive overhauls had it remained in service. My point is that the Enterprise-D as we saw didn't exist in a vacuum. What we saw was not the ship itself but the way in which it responded to difficulties and a huge part of that within the fantasy world was the human element. Not the bolts and phaser banks but the crew. You had the best captain in the fleet, a first officer who should have been commanding his own vessel and a 2nd officer who was not only super-human but could also very likely out-command the average starship captain of the day. You had the best of the best across the board pretty much. With that kind of crew they could have been stationed to a transport vessel and probably aspired to greatness. So my point is you aren't going to see the Enterprise-D in every Galaxy class vessel in an online star trek game.
so, to resume, there is nothing wrong with an exelsior that have been update to the point of be able to defeat the defiant, but that a galaxy class ship been given the same treatment to compete with an sovereign or a defiant is completely out of the question because we never see it before and that the galaxy class must have have some kind of design flaw that prevent this kind of scenario to happen.
because the galaxy class engineer were just drunk at time of design conception and made a ship that will be viable only 15 years and then be unable to be update ( exactly the definition of the galaxy class) unlike the engineer who build the exelsior that have made a wonderfull work with a design that will last more than 120 years and compete hands down with what gul dukat call " one of the most powerfull ship in the sector"
tell me, do you experienced bad thing with a galaxy class when you where kid or what?
why all that hate for it? you certainly seem to have a full bag of good explanations why every ship in star trek have the right to be as powerfull as eatch other EXEPT the galaxy class!
i am the only one to see that here??!!
I see that no one has accepted the challenge of citing ONE Star Trek game in the last 17 years where the Galaxy was more than just a "so-so" ship. The problem in no large part appears to be from Paramount/Viacom/CBS, ALL whom have at some point or another, have given the "green light" for programmers and developers to require the Galaxy to take a back seat to other ships, mostly the Sovereign and Defiant. They have NEVER signed to the premise that the Galaxy is "modular" as some on this board have insisted.
Oh sure, over 50 years the Enterprise-D would have undergone extensive overhauls had it remained in service. My point is that the Enterprise-D as we saw didn't exist in a vacuum. What we saw was not the ship itself but the way in which it responded to difficulties and a huge part of that within the fantasy world was the human element. Not the bolts and phaser banks but the crew. You had the best captain in the fleet, a first officer who should have been commanding his own vessel and a 2nd officer who was not only super-human but could also very likely out-command the average starship captain of the day. You had the best of the best across the board pretty much. With that kind of crew they could have been stationed to a transport vessel and probably aspired to greatness. So my point is you aren't going to see the Enterprise-D in every Galaxy class vessel in an online star trek game.
Of course and not every Excelsior is Lakota, or Sovereign Enterprise ? SO your point being ?
"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.”
ive never had the misfortune to argue with someone quite this insane. ive never mentioned gene once, and pointed out several times there next to nothing in canon that we can draw concrete information from for comparison. seriously, your insane dude. your arguing against some straw man version of me saying complexity different things.
Blah, blah, blah. Actually, most people who have commented on your other threads, including myself, thought that YOU were quite insane and quite whinny. If nothing else, at least you are consistent.
So keep at it, whiny man/boy. Clearly, NO ONE from Cryptic/CBS is paying you any attention. Every ship that they release pushes the Galaxy back into further obscurity. You can whine and cry all day, but absolutely nothing has changed nor is likely to change given the history of the Star Trek Games. I'm happy with MY ship, whiny man/boy. Too bad you can't say the same.
And again, why is your endgame? You clearly lack the will to take a stand and boycott the game, so is your solution to keep sobbing in the corner for another three years waiting for something to happen that most likely won't?
I don't know what planet you're living on, but NOTHING would have survived that Jem Hadar ship doing a suicide run into the engineering hull. Nothing. Fact. Period.
It's like saying the twin towers could have survived the planes if the building was made of something stronger.
It was testament to how great the ship actually was to have lasted as long as it did considering its shields weren't working and was being attacked by what, 3 jem hadar attack ships.
So yeah..
You know, this going back in forth over 20 year old episodes is doing absolutely nothing to resolve YOUR problem. You Galaxy lovers can construct all of the different scanrios that you want, but the bottom line is that as far as the Star Trek games for the last 17 years are concerned, there just isn't that much love for the Galaxy abilities (or lack of). I see that NO ONE has refuted this claim, because you can't.
You know, this going back in forth over 20 year old episodes is doing absolutely nothing to resolve YOUR problem. You Galaxy lovers can construct all of the different scanrios that you want, but the bottom line is that as far as the Star Trek games for the last 17 years are concerned, there just isn't that much love for the Galaxy abilities (or lack of). I see that NO ONE has refuted this claim, because you can't.
Ok then, show me one computer game except STO in past 17 years, where Excelsiors or Cheyenes outperformed Galaxy, hell even an Akira or Steamrunner. Even Intrepid class has more firepower in STO than a Galaxy. Hell, my Nebula is much better tank than Galaxy with better firepower.
You keep using arguments from the side that favours your point. But the truth is, it doesn't work for your the other way.
Yes, Sovereigns and Defiants are the love childs in games, but in none of them Ambassadors / Excelsiors / Cheyennes and other cruisers outperformed Galaxy.
"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.”
All valid points but that is some other ship, not the Galaxy, the Galaxy is effectively a battleship and an old flagship of the Federation, during the Dominion war, they could dish out devastating damage so again Cryptic tries to rewrite Star Trek lore.
The Galaxy is NOT a tank, anymore then the Intrepid is NOT a Science Vessel
LOL... What I love more is that the Bug is made out to be a super ship by Cryptic when the best trick it ever had was to suicide ram its opponents and was otherwise just some weak little frigate that Galaxies ate for a snack.
Even when their weapons could still pierce Federation shields the Bug STILL had to ram the Odyssey in order to put it down. Yet now it is some Uber Ship and the Galaxy is a garbage scow... Does not make sense to me.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734afLFPds Got to love it... Doing all the things you cannot do in STO. Take on 3 Bugs in a Galaxy and survive, rip apart Galors in a Galaxy like it is nothing, flying vertical, killing a Negh'var in a couple blasts of the Phaser Lance, Firing rear Phaser Arrays forward, and lastly really moving fast and smooth in a Galaxy.
My point is simply that I don't think the historical impact of the Enterprise-D should be a major factor in the performance of Galaxy class ships as a whole.
Fact is there is no way in any reality that a ship a fraction the size of a cruiser could win against a cruiser unless of course it kama kaze's a cruiser with its shields down. I love STO but do admit that the role the cruiser has been denoted is truly silly, for lack of a better word. The Galaxy as well as the Assault Cruiser should be two of the meanest, toughest ships in the game. A Jem Bug should only be able to annoy it at most, but never take out an entire ship by itself. Unless of course you had three or four attacking you.
Nomad sure didn't have a problem, and it was a fraction of the size of the Enterprise (and a human). The Orion Scout ship in "Journey To Babel" sure didn't have a problem, and it was a fraction of the size of the Enterprise.
The fact that even in this game, that it only takes five ships to destroy a Tactical Cube that has 10 times the volume and 30 times the crew shouldn't be possible either, but yet it is.
My point is simply that I don't think the historical impact of the Enterprise-D should be a major factor in the performance of Galaxy class ships as a whole.
My point is simply that I don't think the historical impact oft he Lakota should be a major factor in the performance of the Excelsior class ships as whole.
See what I did there ?
"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.”
I don't know what planet you're living on, but NOTHING would have survived that Jem Hadar ship doing a suicide run into the engineering hull. Nothing. Fact. Period.
It's like saying the twin towers could have survived the planes if the building was made of something stronger.
It was testament to how great the ship actually was to have lasted as long as it did considering its shields weren't working and was being attacked by what, 3 jem hadar attack ships.
So yeah..
Weeelll... Nothing is a strong term... Borg Cubes could survive that but then according to the show even when we blow them up in STO they should still technically be functional seems how it only takes a relatively small amount of them being viable to still be functional.
Let's not get into the towers... Seriously... The more you know the more you do not want to even begin to bring those up.
Yes, it is a testament both to how durable the Galaxy is that it was able to hull tank those Bugs so long but also a testament to just how pathetic and ineffective the Bug was that THREE of them could not take it down without resorting to ramming it. Pretty sure the Defiant would have been able to do the job if it could fire right through the shields... :rolleyes:
Ok then, show me one computer game except STO in past 17 years, where Excelsiors or Cheyenes outperformed Galaxy, hell even an Akira or Steamrunner. Even Intrepid class has more firepower in STO than a Galaxy. Hell, my Nebula is much better tank than Galaxy with better firepower.
You keep using arguments from the side that favours your point. But the truth is, it doesn't work for your the other way.
Yes, Sovereigns and Defiants are the love childs in games, but in none of them Ambassadors / Excelsiors / Cheyennes and other cruisers outperformed Galaxy.
I never said that I disagreed with that point. I offered a possibility that the Excelsior Class that we see in the game is maybe supposed to be really a "Lakota class". Otherwise I'm just as confused as you are as to why they went in that direction. And you are correct, there is no precendent in those past Star Trek games where an Excelsior was more powerful than a Galaxy.
LOL... What I love more is that the Bug is made out to be a super ship by Cryptic when the best trick it ever had was to suicide ram its opponents and was otherwise just some weak little frigate that Galaxies ate for a snack.
Even when their weapons could still pierce Federation shields the Bug STILL had to ram the Odyssey in order to put it down. Yet now it is some Uber Ship and the Galaxy is a garbage scow... Does not make sense to me.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734afLFPds Got to love it... Doing all the things you cannot do in STO. Take on 3 Bugs in a Galaxy and survive, rip apart Galors in a Galaxy like it is nothing, flying vertical, killing a Negh'var in a couple blasts of the Phaser Lance, Firing rear Phaser Arrays forward, and lastly really moving fast and smooth in a Galaxy.
and taking out 20% of a borg cubes total mass with only 3 shots of the main array. if picard would have continued they could have actually completely destroyed the cube in there first meeting of the borg if the enterprise let it have it with every thing that had
The Galaxy epitomizes what is wrong with the ship combat experience in this game. Since the developer's "more rabid fans" seem to claim that the "developer's are over-taxed and have limited resources", we can start to resolve the issue of ships sucking using what is on hand.
This begins by giving all ships +5 degree/sec turn rate boosts, except carriers - nerf carriers by giving them more weapon slots (smirk) or not, keep reading.
Go another step, make ship-class types even more divergent by having more boff powers on ships as they get "bigger" class wise. All ships currently have 12 powers divided between the three class-types in a 7/3/2 configuration - use that for escorts as a baseline and give every other class +3 powers per "size" up the class-type chart.
with 6 boff stations each (2 of each class or 3/2/1 of each class to be a real "heckler").
The basic premise of the boff changes is to break up the monotony that currently exists and give some substance to what come across as relatively arbitrary class-archetypes for ships without throwing the system out in favor of "sensible."
Ok then, show me one computer game except STO in past 17 years, where Excelsiors or Cheyenes outperformed Galaxy, hell even an Akira or Steamrunner.
Akira in Bridge Commander, Excelsior refit in Legacy (and a ton of game mods), Steamrunner under certain circumstances in Armada 2 (killing structures clustered together from long range).
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Vornek@oberlerchner123 - Join Date: July 2008
Akira in Bridge Commander, Excelsior refit in Legacy (and a ton of game mods), Steamrunner under certain circumstances in Armada 2 (killing structures clustered together from long range).
Mods don't count as they're not official IP contents.
So far as Bridge Commander and Legacy are concerned - fairly certain the Galaxy had superior stats to the Akira and Excelsior refit respectively in BOTH cases. And since those games are basically little more than spreadsheets with 3d graphics, stats are king.
And as for Armada 2 - I have this "recollection" that the Steamrunner had a power called "Tricobalt Warhead", which I believe it also had in Armada 1.
Whatever the case is, the Galaxy is kind of a big deal.
Akira in Bridge Commander, Excelsior refit in Legacy (and a ton of game mods), Steamrunner under certain circumstances in Armada 2 (killing structures clustered together from long range).
And yet, the Galaxy lovers seem to refuse to accept that throughout the history of Star Trek games, the Galaxy has typically been a lackluster ship. Paramount/Viacom/CBS doesn't care how many passages the Galaxy lovers can quote out of the "TNG Technical Manual". Paramount/Viacom/CBS has had a 17 year policy of what the top battleships should be (Sovereign, Defiant), and it hasn't been the Galaxy. In most cases, the Galaxy hasn't even been close.
So clearly, 17 years of citing the "Tech Manual" has been an absolute bust. For whatever reason (maybe they watched "Tin Man" or "Rascals"), the decision was made by Paramount/Viacom/CBS to portray the Galaxy as a ship that you had to "pay your dues" to endure through until you received the REAL ships (Sovereign, Defiant).
Whatever the case is, the Galaxy is kind of a big deal.
But I'm curious. If the Galaxy is a "big deal" as you put it, why has that rarely been reflected in ANY of the Star Trek games? It can't just be coincidence that the ONLY programmers, developers, designers, artist, etc., that work on Star Trek games are just Sovereign/Defiant fans (unless for some unknown reason, TNG fans can't/won't perfom those functions). The decision must be coming from Paramount/Viacom/CBS.
So the question is this: What is it in their corporate policy for the last 17 years that has ALWAYS mandated this direction regarding the Galaxy? Have they discovered that the combined numbers/spending power of the DS9/Voy/TNG Movies/Enterprise fans who wanted to see their ships (Sovereign/Defiant/Promethus/etc) were greater than the number of TNG fans that wanted to see their ship (Galaxy), thus making the Galaxy not so much "a big deal"? Did they watch the shows ("Tin Man", "Rascals", etc.) and made the determination that overall, the Galaxy sucked? However they came to it, this has clearly been their strategy for the last 17 years.
But I'm curious. If the Galaxy is a "big deal" as you put it, why has that rarely been reflected in ANY of the Star Trek games? It can't just be coincidence that the ONLY programmers, developers, designers, artist, etc., that work on Star Trek games are just Sovereign/Defiant fans (unless for some unknown reason, TNG fans can't/won't perfom those functions). The decision must be coming from Paramount/Viacom/CBS.
So the question is this: What is it in their corporate policy for the last 17 years that has ALWAYS mandated this direction regarding the Galaxy? Have they discovered that the combined numbers/spending power of the DS9/Voy/TNG Movies/Enterprise fans who wanted to see their ships (Sovereign/Defiant/Promethus/etc) were greater than the number of TNG fans that wanted to see their ship (Galaxy), thus making the Galaxy not so much "a big deal"? Did they watch the shows ("Tin Man", "Rascals", etc.) and made the determination that overall, the Galaxy sucked? However they came to it, this has clearly been their strategy for the last 17 years.
Maybe because the generation that grew up on TNG is not the generation that makes the majority of gamers ?
"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.”
So, even if you are right, you think that (what you consider to be) the minority should be ignored?
Nope, I was just trying to find out rational explanation for his question.
"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.”
and taking out 20% of a borg cubes total mass with only 3 shots of the main array. if picard would have continued they could have actually completely destroyed the cube in there first meeting of the borg if the enterprise let it have it with every thing that had
Maybe, but I believe it was assumed that they would adapt their shields and regenerate their cube fast enough to prevent that.
the decision was made by Paramount/Viacom/CBS to portray the Galaxy as a ship that you had to "pay your dues" to endure through until you received the REAL ships (Sovereign, Defiant).
Which for the Sovereign, being even newer, makes sense but the Defiant is not a "Battleship" but any stretch. It is a gunboat. It is a fast little ship that is only barely a notch above a fighter. It has a strong hull and powerful Quad Cannons and Quantum Torps mounted onto a Runabout with some solid maneuverability. It is by no means in the same tonnage class as a Sovereign. If you think it should compare well I implore you to go watch First Contact again.
But I'm curious. If the Galaxy is a "big deal" as you put it, why has that rarely been reflected in ANY of the Star Trek games? It can't just be coincidence that the ONLY programmers, developers, designers, artist, etc., that work on Star Trek games are just Sovereign/Defiant fans (unless for some unknown reason, TNG fans can't/won't perfom those functions). The decision must be coming from Paramount/Viacom/CBS.
So the question is this: What is it in their corporate policy for the last 17 years that has ALWAYS mandated this direction regarding the Galaxy? Have they discovered that the combined numbers/spending power of the DS9/Voy/TNG Movies/Enterprise fans who wanted to see their ships (Sovereign/Defiant/Promethus/etc) were greater than the number of TNG fans that wanted to see their ship (Galaxy), thus making the Galaxy not so much "a big deal"? Did they watch the shows ("Tin Man", "Rascals", etc.) and made the determination that overall, the Galaxy sucked? However they came to it, this has clearly been their strategy for the last 17 years.
If it's not a big deal then why does this thread have nearly 900 posts and 25 thousand views? Not to mention this is one of many threads asking for the galaxy to be fixed. I don't see any threads asking for the excelsior or the prometheus to get "fixed". It doesn't matter what your personal feelings are about the ship, if you have even the smallest grasp of how this game works you can look at the bridge officer layout and console layout and know that it's TRIBBLE. You don't care because it's not your favorite ship, but I think everyone should get to fly their favorite ship and it would be nice if it was at least somewhat effective.
It seems to me like at least a good number of the complaints are centered around a belief that because the galaxy was a pivotal class of ships in the show universe that it should be some end all be all of ships and any weaknesses it had would be taken as an insult. In a game like this you have to have downsides otherwise we might as well all play the same ship.
If you think it should compare well I implore you to go watch First Contact again.
I have, and I implore YOU to watch it more CAFEFULLY. In the battle dialog that Picard is listening to, it clearly states that the Defiant started engaging the Borg in the Typhon Sector, which is clearly NOT in the Sol system ("Cause and "Effect"). In any event, the Defiant sure lasted in battle a lot longer than the Ent-D did in "Best Of Both Worlds" before it ran into it way too conveient "plot nebula".
Again, how does this help YOUR issue with the Galaxy.
If it's not a big deal then why does this thread have nearly 900 posts and 25 thousand views? Not to mention this is one of many threads asking for the galaxy to be fixed. I don't see any threads asking for the excelsior or the prometheus to get "fixed". It doesn't matter what your personal feelings are about the ship, if you have even the smallest grasp of how this game works you can look at the bridge officer layout and console layout and know that it's TRIBBLE. You don't care because it's not your favorite ship, but I think everyone should get to fly their favorite ship and it would be nice if it was at least somewhat effective.
I said that it didn't appear to be a "big deal" to Paramount/Viacom/CBS. And clearly it's NOT since this has been the way that the Galaxy class has been represented in games for 17 years. It always been portray as a mediocre battleship. Whether you like that result or not doesn't alter the way that it has been portrayed.
Comments
But, I keep reminding myself, this is just a game. It doesn't stop me from flying cruisers and rising to the challenge of building them well enough to give even bug ships a thing or two to think about every now and then.
ive never had the misfortune to argue with someone quite this insane. ive never mentioned gene once, and pointed out several times there next to nothing in canon that we can draw concrete information from for comparison. seriously, your insane dude. your arguing against some straw man version of me saying complexity different things.
99% of star trek fans have never read the tng tech manual and put no real thought in the tech behind things, and arent aware of the sheer size difference between a lot of ships. they are caught up in the newer it is the better it is bandwagon. for most things that would be the obvious train of though, and if all the tng series took place over the course of several decades, it might be the case. but the sovereign is less then 10 years newer then the galaxy, the defiant was built half way through tng, and the intrepid class right before the end of TNG. none of these ships will have any sort of tech advantage for long, but they will for ever have MASSIVE size disadvantages always. by 2409 for example, the time difference of their introduction would be meaningless. they would have all been given more then 1 major overhaul by then, and what ship is more then twice the size ans the next biggest i mentioned there? hmmm
guess what? none of the star trek game designers put as much thought into this, or even had gameplay that was at all similar to what you see the ships acting like in the show. i think its funny, when they made the E they proboly didn't intend it to be tactically inferior to the D, but they ended up making it so. based the the basic established tech they had published, and that they built a ship half the size, were they kidding themselves that this was going to be a more powerful ship? they fooled you, and everyone else it seems.
generations- if they fired more then a single phaser blast, something more like what they fired at the Husnock battleship here https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=H_XbWq49vUM , there would have been no battle other then the first 2 shots the bop fired. but they decided the D had to die, and they had a recording of an exploding bop model, from the last movie they did. put that together and the epic fail is explained, out of universe at least. would it have killed them to have the D face down a vorcha? the series of events would have been at least believable.
first contact- no real change, except talking about separating the saucer and destroying the star drive sections. but the borg would stop and the deflector deck and they wouldn't have too.
insurrection- no real change again, though the D, in dominion war spec, could have proboly fought off those 2 ships without needing any riker maneuver gas attack.
nemisis- the scimitar is a super weapon cradle with a ton of medium guns. nothing on it is as powerful as the main gun on a d'deridex, but the scim seems to be a much better tank, especially a shield tank. again, its a super weapon cradle. it would have ended in a stale mate again, with the enterprise unable to continue firing, and the scim powering up the thaloron weapon, without the D needing to ram it at all. the conventional weapons would have left it in a similar condition. remember, the best shot from the phaser arrays is going to hit twice as hard as the best shot from a soverign's array, because its more then twice as long, with the same rate of fire. and it can fire 10 photons in about a second, or all at once. we never have seen the upper limit of what its 2 huge torp launchers could do.
the TNG movies would have been awesome with the D.
Well TRIBBLE you are right. I completely mixed up that wierd not-future episode with stuff from this game. But my point still stands, it is a tactically built galaxy, and will be good when the fleet version comes out with saucer sep.
I feel ashamed though...
I would say that after 50 years, It would have much more modifications, especially after dominion war....
I see that no one has accepted the challenge of citing ONE Star Trek game in the last 17 years where the Galaxy was more than just a "so-so" ship. The problem in no large part appears to be from Paramount/Viacom/CBS, ALL whom have at some point or another, have given the "green light" for programmers and developers to require the Galaxy to take a back seat to other ships, mostly the Sovereign and Defiant. They have NEVER signed to the premise that the Galaxy is "modular" as some on this board have insisted.
Of course and not every Excelsior is Lakota, or Sovereign Enterprise ? SO your point being ?
Blah, blah, blah. Actually, most people who have commented on your other threads, including myself, thought that YOU were quite insane and quite whinny. If nothing else, at least you are consistent.
So keep at it, whiny man/boy. Clearly, NO ONE from Cryptic/CBS is paying you any attention. Every ship that they release pushes the Galaxy back into further obscurity. You can whine and cry all day, but absolutely nothing has changed nor is likely to change given the history of the Star Trek Games. I'm happy with MY ship, whiny man/boy. Too bad you can't say the same.
And again, why is your endgame? You clearly lack the will to take a stand and boycott the game, so is your solution to keep sobbing in the corner for another three years waiting for something to happen that most likely won't?
You know, this going back in forth over 20 year old episodes is doing absolutely nothing to resolve YOUR problem. You Galaxy lovers can construct all of the different scanrios that you want, but the bottom line is that as far as the Star Trek games for the last 17 years are concerned, there just isn't that much love for the Galaxy abilities (or lack of). I see that NO ONE has refuted this claim, because you can't.
Ok then, show me one computer game except STO in past 17 years, where Excelsiors or Cheyenes outperformed Galaxy, hell even an Akira or Steamrunner. Even Intrepid class has more firepower in STO than a Galaxy. Hell, my Nebula is much better tank than Galaxy with better firepower.
You keep using arguments from the side that favours your point. But the truth is, it doesn't work for your the other way.
Yes, Sovereigns and Defiants are the love childs in games, but in none of them Ambassadors / Excelsiors / Cheyennes and other cruisers outperformed Galaxy.
LOL... What I love more is that the Bug is made out to be a super ship by Cryptic when the best trick it ever had was to suicide ram its opponents and was otherwise just some weak little frigate that Galaxies ate for a snack.
Even when their weapons could still pierce Federation shields the Bug STILL had to ram the Odyssey in order to put it down. Yet now it is some Uber Ship and the Galaxy is a garbage scow... Does not make sense to me.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734afLFPds Got to love it... Doing all the things you cannot do in STO. Take on 3 Bugs in a Galaxy and survive, rip apart Galors in a Galaxy like it is nothing, flying vertical, killing a Negh'var in a couple blasts of the Phaser Lance, Firing rear Phaser Arrays forward, and lastly really moving fast and smooth in a Galaxy.
Nomad sure didn't have a problem, and it was a fraction of the size of the Enterprise (and a human). The Orion Scout ship in "Journey To Babel" sure didn't have a problem, and it was a fraction of the size of the Enterprise.
The fact that even in this game, that it only takes five ships to destroy a Tactical Cube that has 10 times the volume and 30 times the crew shouldn't be possible either, but yet it is.
My point is simply that I don't think the historical impact oft he Lakota should be a major factor in the performance of the Excelsior class ships as whole.
See what I did there ?
Weeelll... Nothing is a strong term... Borg Cubes could survive that but then according to the show even when we blow them up in STO they should still technically be functional seems how it only takes a relatively small amount of them being viable to still be functional.
Let's not get into the towers... Seriously... The more you know the more you do not want to even begin to bring those up.
Yes, it is a testament both to how durable the Galaxy is that it was able to hull tank those Bugs so long but also a testament to just how pathetic and ineffective the Bug was that THREE of them could not take it down without resorting to ramming it. Pretty sure the Defiant would have been able to do the job if it could fire right through the shields... :rolleyes:
I never said that I disagreed with that point. I offered a possibility that the Excelsior Class that we see in the game is maybe supposed to be really a "Lakota class". Otherwise I'm just as confused as you are as to why they went in that direction. And you are correct, there is no precendent in those past Star Trek games where an Excelsior was more powerful than a Galaxy.
and taking out 20% of a borg cubes total mass with only 3 shots of the main array. if picard would have continued they could have actually completely destroyed the cube in there first meeting of the borg if the enterprise let it have it with every thing that had
This begins by giving all ships +5 degree/sec turn rate boosts, except carriers - nerf carriers by giving them more weapon slots (smirk) or not, keep reading.
Go another step, make ship-class types even more divergent by having more boff powers on ships as they get "bigger" class wise. All ships currently have 12 powers divided between the three class-types in a 7/3/2 configuration - use that for escorts as a baseline and give every other class +3 powers per "size" up the class-type chart.
For example:
Escorts - 7/3/2
Science ships - 7/5/3
Cruisers - 7/6/5
Carriers - 7/7/7
It isn't perfect, but it is funny and it would definitely be a start.
Another idea would be to pull a
Escorts 8/4/2
Science 8/5/3
Cruiser 8/6/4
Carrier 8/7/5
with 6 boff stations each (2 of each class or 3/2/1 of each class to be a real "heckler").
The basic premise of the boff changes is to break up the monotony that currently exists and give some substance to what come across as relatively arbitrary class-archetypes for ships without throwing the system out in favor of "sensible."
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Akira in Bridge Commander, Excelsior refit in Legacy (and a ton of game mods), Steamrunner under certain circumstances in Armada 2 (killing structures clustered together from long range).
Vornek@oberlerchner123 - Join Date: July 2008
Mods don't count as they're not official IP contents.
So far as Bridge Commander and Legacy are concerned - fairly certain the Galaxy had superior stats to the Akira and Excelsior refit respectively in BOTH cases. And since those games are basically little more than spreadsheets with 3d graphics, stats are king.
And as for Armada 2 - I have this "recollection" that the Steamrunner had a power called "Tricobalt Warhead", which I believe it also had in Armada 1.
Whatever the case is, the Galaxy is kind of a big deal.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
And yet, the Galaxy lovers seem to refuse to accept that throughout the history of Star Trek games, the Galaxy has typically been a lackluster ship. Paramount/Viacom/CBS doesn't care how many passages the Galaxy lovers can quote out of the "TNG Technical Manual". Paramount/Viacom/CBS has had a 17 year policy of what the top battleships should be (Sovereign, Defiant), and it hasn't been the Galaxy. In most cases, the Galaxy hasn't even been close.
So clearly, 17 years of citing the "Tech Manual" has been an absolute bust. For whatever reason (maybe they watched "Tin Man" or "Rascals"), the decision was made by Paramount/Viacom/CBS to portray the Galaxy as a ship that you had to "pay your dues" to endure through until you received the REAL ships (Sovereign, Defiant).
But I'm curious. If the Galaxy is a "big deal" as you put it, why has that rarely been reflected in ANY of the Star Trek games? It can't just be coincidence that the ONLY programmers, developers, designers, artist, etc., that work on Star Trek games are just Sovereign/Defiant fans (unless for some unknown reason, TNG fans can't/won't perfom those functions). The decision must be coming from Paramount/Viacom/CBS.
So the question is this: What is it in their corporate policy for the last 17 years that has ALWAYS mandated this direction regarding the Galaxy? Have they discovered that the combined numbers/spending power of the DS9/Voy/TNG Movies/Enterprise fans who wanted to see their ships (Sovereign/Defiant/Promethus/etc) were greater than the number of TNG fans that wanted to see their ship (Galaxy), thus making the Galaxy not so much "a big deal"? Did they watch the shows ("Tin Man", "Rascals", etc.) and made the determination that overall, the Galaxy sucked? However they came to it, this has clearly been their strategy for the last 17 years.
Maybe because the generation that grew up on TNG is not the generation that makes the majority of gamers ?
Nope, I was just trying to find out rational explanation for his question.
Maybe, but I believe it was assumed that they would adapt their shields and regenerate their cube fast enough to prevent that.
Which for the Sovereign, being even newer, makes sense but the Defiant is not a "Battleship" but any stretch. It is a gunboat. It is a fast little ship that is only barely a notch above a fighter. It has a strong hull and powerful Quad Cannons and Quantum Torps mounted onto a Runabout with some solid maneuverability. It is by no means in the same tonnage class as a Sovereign. If you think it should compare well I implore you to go watch First Contact again.
If it's not a big deal then why does this thread have nearly 900 posts and 25 thousand views? Not to mention this is one of many threads asking for the galaxy to be fixed. I don't see any threads asking for the excelsior or the prometheus to get "fixed". It doesn't matter what your personal feelings are about the ship, if you have even the smallest grasp of how this game works you can look at the bridge officer layout and console layout and know that it's TRIBBLE. You don't care because it's not your favorite ship, but I think everyone should get to fly their favorite ship and it would be nice if it was at least somewhat effective.
I have, and I implore YOU to watch it more CAFEFULLY. In the battle dialog that Picard is listening to, it clearly states that the Defiant started engaging the Borg in the Typhon Sector, which is clearly NOT in the Sol system ("Cause and "Effect"). In any event, the Defiant sure lasted in battle a lot longer than the Ent-D did in "Best Of Both Worlds" before it ran into it way too conveient "plot nebula".
Again, how does this help YOUR issue with the Galaxy.
I said that it didn't appear to be a "big deal" to Paramount/Viacom/CBS. And clearly it's NOT since this has been the way that the Galaxy class has been represented in games for 17 years. It always been portray as a mediocre battleship. Whether you like that result or not doesn't alter the way that it has been portrayed.