Excelsiors wouldn't dominate everything in the galaxy. One, the transwarp drive failed in ST:III and all subsequent Excelsior class ships used standard warp drives. The fact that this game's Excelsior has a transwarp drive is just a homage. Two, the ship class is so outdated it was essentially used as cannon fodder in the Dominion War. The Galaxy class would be outdated, but still workable. The Excelsior likely would be retired altogether and left as a tier 2 or 3 ship. Those are the facts if STO was balanced by a ST fan who actually knows how ST ships work.
The problem with the Galaxy-class in this game is that it's unbalanced compared to older cruisers such as the Excelsior, and now the recently released Ambassador classes. Sure, there are refits for the Galaxy-class, like the Fleet Galaxy. But then the Excelsior and Ambassadors get a refit as well - taking us right back to square one.
You conclusions about the Excelsior are assumptions unsupported by the available data on the ships, especially that they were 'so outdated'. Nothing even remotely suggests this was the case, and the fact that a transwarp drive system was perfected in the 25th century is different from the failure to do so in the 23rd century (and in fact, a transwarp drive system was developed in canon in ST: Voyager). Thus, the application of a workable transwarp drive to a hull purpose-built to use such a drive is a logical outcome, as are the consequences of that drive on 'normal' drives and what that would mean for the Excelsior class. I have to believe that, based on the above, you do not understand how ST ships work (especially how the warp drive system impacts everything on the ship).
Regardless, I would never say any ship capable of warp drive would not be workable, and have a place in Starfleet (even a lowly NX-series ship is still capable of star travel and scouting missions). I am merely saying that putting a die-hard fan of Star Trek engineering in charge of ships would likely not lead to the outcome you seem to want.
While I can make the case for the Excelsior outperforming the Galaxy class in a tactical role, and for these ships to be as new as the Galaxy-Retrofit and Galaxy-X classes (almost all of these would have to be new construction hulls), I agree the Ambassador has no place being equal to or surpassing these classes. Ambassadors were earlier ships to the Galaxy-class, and have no important breakthroughs like the Excelsior's transwarp drives to make re-engineering them worthwhile (might as well build a Galaxy class if you are going to build an Ambassador, and get a more capable ship). I just have to rationalize this as Starfleet deciding to experiment with rebuilding the Ambassador as a purpose-built support ship to help fleets fighting the Borg, capable of being built in a few shipyards that are too small (barely) for building Galaxy-class ships. I do that because I know the existance of the T5 and Z-store Ambassador classes are due to the same fan-service that allows the Galaxy-Retro and Galaxy-X to exist in the game.
Not to say I wouldn't like to see the Galaxy-Retro get stronger Engineering abilities, since it is supposed to be the premier Engineering ship in the game, but I'm not sure how well the fans would support a ship with two Commander-level Engineering slots (people would start screaming OP, I'm sure).
Excelsiors wouldn't dominate everything in the galaxy. One, the transwarp drive failed in ST:III and all subsequent Excelsior class ships used standard warp drives. The fact that this game's Excelsior has a transwarp drive is just a homage. Two, the ship class is so outdated it was essentially used as cannon fodder in the Dominion War. The Galaxy class would be outdated, but still workable. The Excelsior likely would be retired altogether and left as a tier 2 or 3 ship. Those are the facts if STO was balanced by a ST fan who actually knows how ST ships work.
The problem with the Galaxy-class in this game is that it's unbalanced compared to older cruisers such as the Excelsior, and now the recently released Ambassador classes. Sure, there are refits for the Galaxy-class, like the Fleet Galaxy. But then the Excelsior and Ambassadors get a refit as well - taking us right back to square one.
Thank you, i just wanted to write something similar.
As far as i remember the Galaxy Class was designed in a very modular way, so new future technologies could be installed much more easily than in other Ship classes before and after. According to the TNG manual it was supposed to get a complete overhaul every 25 years, with a projected lifetime of at least 100 years. No other Starfleet vessel has ever been build that way and i highly doubt that the Ambassador (or the Excelsior) was designed like this. It would also explain the relatively small amount of existing Galaxy Classes in Starfleet, since it is obviously much harder to launch than any other ship. These ships are supposed to last generations, highly adaptable and customizable to fit every kind of scientific and tactical mission type.
I just can't imagine that in the timeline STO takes place the Galaxy Class couldn't have been refittet to meet up the requirements of a long (Federation vs. everyone else) war.
Especially its enormous Phaser beam arrays should have been overhauled to todays standards.
I just refuse to believe that this ship is supposed to have the LEAST firepower in all starfleet now, even be outgunned by a Excelsior, Ambassador or Galor class...
Who ever decided this, obviously has no idea what he is doing IMHO.
In STO terms i think it needs to be much more versatile, with at least 2 Lt and 1 Ensign universal and at least an additional Tactical Station, if not even two.
And since it is possible for the devs to create ships with even more than 4 Weapons fore and aft, i think it would be only fair to give it 5 fore and 4(5) rear weapon slots.
I understand that STO is just a Game and there have to be SOME drawbacks but come on, the Galaxy Class in STO consists almost completely in drawbacks and is a completely different ship than outside STO (something you can't say about the Defiant or Intrepid IMO).
It wouldn't bother me that much if it where just some other ship that only had some short screen time, like the Prometheus (which is also made completely wrong IMO) for example.
But the Galaxy Class is one of the most popular, best documented and iconic ships outside STO. One should expect a Game developer to take a bit more care and sense when converting such a important ship into their game.
What bothers me most is the obvious (intentional (?)) careless of some developers who don't care much for that ship and thus punish everyone who likes it.
I wonder why they only made the Galaxy such a bad ship and not the Defiant or Intrepid for example...
As we saw with the Vesta they CAN do create a popular ship in a good way, why not remake the Galaxy?
Is this a personal thing of one or some devs who hate that ship and punish its fans?
Sorry i don't get it.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
You conclusions about the Excelsior are assumptions unsupported by the available data on the ships, especially that they were 'so outdated'. Nothing even remotely suggests this was the case, and the fact that a transwarp drive system was perfected in the 25th century is different from the failure to do so in the 23rd century (and in fact, a transwarp drive system was developed in canon in ST: Voyager). Thus, the application of a workable transwarp drive to a hull purpose-built to use such a drive is a logical outcome, as are the consequences of that drive on 'normal' drives and what that would mean for the Excelsior class. I have to believe that, based on the above, you do not understand how ST ships work (especially how the warp drive system impacts everything on the ship).
"Assumptions unsupported by available data on the ships". What data?
In regards to the transwarp drive. Yes, it is a possibility that the transwarp drive was perfected. Keep in mind however, that the Excelsior-class design was built on a 23rd century knowledge of transwarp FTL mechanics, which are likely outdated 150-some-odd years later. The structural integrity of the vessel at transwarp velocities is questionable. Starfleet would not risk the lives of the crew in taking this kind of risk (That's what the Vesta and Odysseys are for).
I would have to question whether you have any understanding of Star Trek ships, and application of that knowledge. My knowledge cannot be questioned however; a thesis based on Star Trek's warp drive and structural integrity field/inertial dampening system proves the validity of my knowledge.
Regardless, I would never say any ship capable of warp drive would not be workable, and have a place in Starfleet (even a lowly NX-series ship is still capable of star travel and scouting missions). I am merely saying that putting a die-hard fan of Star Trek engineering in charge of ships would likely not lead to the outcome you seem to want.
While I can make the case for the Excelsior outperforming the Galaxy class in a tactical role, and for these ships to be as new as the Galaxy-Retrofit and Galaxy-X classes (almost all of these would have to be new construction hulls)...
Stop right there. Just because the ship can travel faster between two points compared to another ship does NOT mean in any way that the ship is more capable in a tactical consideration compared to another (aka Speed does not equal Strength).
Although the Galaxy-class was designed for exploration, at the time of its launch it was designed to, 1) replace aging Oberth and Ambassador class ships (quoted from the TNG Tech Manual), which automatically applies to the Excelsior; and 2) be capable of protecting the civilian and family populations aboard the ship. Protection includes stronger hull and shield defensive capabilities over its predecessors, and the ability to disable or destroy enemy vessels to protect itself.
The Excelsior is even seen to be cannon fodder in specific battles of the Dominion War. I believe it was the First Battle of Chin'toka, which had the OWP's fire at the Federation Alliance vessels. The USS Galaxy sustained some pretty bad hull breaches but could still return fire; an unnamed Excelsior class received the same treatment, could not fire back, and was effectively disabled.
The Excelsior-class, as cool-looking and durable as it once was in ST:VI, is no longer a leading ship of the Federation in the 2370's, and by extension, should never be able to outperform a ship that is ~70 years newer, has a significant increase in hull size and potential slotted components, and designed with the accumulated knowledge of at least 200 years of Starfleet shipbuilding experience.
Not to say I wouldn't like to see the Galaxy-Retro get stronger Engineering abilities, since it is supposed to be the premier Engineering ship in the game, but I'm not sure how well the fans would support a ship with two Commander-level Engineering slots (people would start screaming OP, I'm sure).
I did not propose two CM Eng BOFF seats. I supported two LTC Eng Boff seats, with the ENS Eng BOFF seat reclassified as a universal seat.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Is this a personal thing of one or some devs who hate that ship and punish its fans?
Sorry i don't get it.
Well, i think the reason you don't get it is that you are looking at it in the same way alot of people seem to...that the Galaxy is a battleship, and that DPS should be the role of this ship. That isn't the role of a cruiser, and the Galaxy-class in particular is geared to be the top-teir Engineering/healer ship in the game. As long as you look at it from a Tactical officer's viewpoint, you'll never be satisfied with it, and rightly so.
Others have pointed out, and I agree, that the trouble isn't with the Galaxy class stats but the Engineering abilities in the game being seen as secondary roles in end-game content. Escorts and Science ships have too much survivability for Engineering ships to shine as they should, and so ships like the Galaxy seem secondary because players would cry if they needed a cruiser to help them do STFs or the such. In short, it isn't that the Galaxy class should be changed to be suitable to Tactical players, but that the game needs to be changed to make what the Galaxy does (healing/tanking) equally important to the Escorts DPS and the Science ships support abilities.
Lastly, how you can accuse the devs of taking action on personal bais and then justify changing it because of your own personal bais in the same sentence seems odd (making a ship more powerful just because fans of the ship demand it be the most powerful ship in the universe is no more justified than nerfing a ship because someone thinks it shouldn't be in the game).
Well, i think the reason you don't get it is that you are looking at it in the same way alot of people seem to...that the Galaxy is a battleship, and that DPS should be the role of this ship. That isn't the role of a cruiser, and the Galaxy-class in particular is geared to be the top-teir Engineering/healer ship in the game. As long as you look at it from a Tactical officer's viewpoint, you'll never be satisfied with it, and rightly so.
Others have pointed out, and I agree, that the trouble isn't with the Galaxy class stats but the Engineering abilities in the game being seen as secondary roles in end-game content. Escorts and Science ships have too much survivability for Engineering ships to shine as they should, and so ships like the Galaxy seem secondary because players would cry if they needed a cruiser to help them do STFs or the such. In short, it isn't that the Galaxy class should be changed to be suitable to Tactical players, but that the game needs to be changed to make what the Galaxy does (healing/tanking) equally important to the Escorts DPS and the Science ships support abilities.
Lastly, how you can accuse the devs of taking action on personal bais and then justify changing it because of your own personal bais in the same sentence seems odd (making a ship more powerful just because fans of the ship demand it be the most powerful ship in the universe is no more justified than nerfing a ship because someone thinks it shouldn't be in the game).
I reluctantly agree. The issue isn't with the stats of the ship, it's with where the ship fits in, in respect to the other cruisers in this game. The fact that it's outperformed by an older ship such as the Excelsior or the Ambassador is the issue with a lot of Galaxy-class ship owners.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
i, personally don't think that the galaxy refit should potentially be the most powerfull cruiser in the game for 2 reasons.
1) this one is obvious, if the refit is the most powerfull cruiser where do you place the galaxy x, wich is suppose to be a tactical upgrade of the galaxy class.
2) and that more important, the sovereign class is the evolution of the flagship of that time, in my mind it should have a better tactical potential than a galaxy class, and so is the odyssey who is the next level after the sovereign
so even if i bielieve that the galaxy class in it current state daesn't reflect the true potential power of the ship in that game, it daesn't seem right to me to level this ship at the same level of the regent or odyssey for example.
in my mind only the galaxy x could pretend to be at the same level of tactical potential as the regent.
but even the galaxy x could not pretend to be push to the level of a purely tactical odyssey.
if redesign is to be plan, here how i would see the hierarchy from the more powerfull to the less, it included a redesign of galaxy x in tactical, and a redesign of galax refit in tactical too:
that being said, this is just a possibility, and it not the one i personally prefer
when you see the ship in the serie, it is indeed powerfull but it daesn't seem to be the thing on wich he relie on.
the feeling that emerge is that in most situation the enterprise d prevel by the intelligence, versatility and creativity of the crew more than the firepower of the ship.
how can you translate that in the sto game mechanism?
i think you can do it by shifting the ship in science.
unfortunatly this role as being taken by the ambassador now, the bo layout of the ambassador would have been a good base for the redesign of the galax refit
both of the solution will not please everyone anyway.
when i begun to play this game, and that they were no galaxy x, i desperatly hope for a tactical version of the t4 galaxy.
i wasn't a fan of the galaxy x design in the first place, for me it have alway seem to be a quick and inelegant way to make it look like an upgrade.
i begun to like it because it make me feel the ship is more massive and i like that, this combine to the venture skin finish to convinced me.
now i have the reverse effect when i see a galaxy refit in game, i alway feel like it miss something;)
but that also due to the fact that the 3d representation of this ship in the game erase all small detail that make it beautiful in the first place.
just look at the ship in the blue ray realease of tng, it is just magnificient.
all that to said that i can anderstand the desire of some people to have a tactical version of the original design.
so in the end, the only way i can see this dilema to end is to merge the galaxy refit and the galaxy x into 1 single entity that can be modulate to the desire of the owner.
something like the odyssey pack.
i i think we will eventually be force to go with an interface that allow us to choose the way we want the bo layout of a particular ship to be, it will be autobalance by removing or adding hull capacity, turn rate, inertia, power level distribution, ect.
let call it the next tiers6 fleet ship.
that the only way i can see all the thread about ship redesign to be diminish, and more people to be happy with the ship they love.
Well, i think the reason you don't get it is that you are looking at it in the same way alot of people seem to...that the Galaxy is a battleship, and that DPS should be the role of this ship. That isn't the role of a cruiser, and the Galaxy-class in particular is geared to be the top-teir Engineering/healer ship in the game. As long as you look at it from a Tactical officer's viewpoint, you'll never be satisfied with it, and rightly so.
Others have pointed out, and I agree, that the trouble isn't with the Galaxy class stats but the Engineering abilities in the game being seen as secondary roles in end-game content. Escorts and Science ships have too much survivability for Engineering ships to shine as they should, and so ships like the Galaxy seem secondary because players would cry if they needed a cruiser to help them do STFs or the such. In short, it isn't that the Galaxy class should be changed to be suitable to Tactical players, but that the game needs to be changed to make what the Galaxy does (healing/tanking) equally important to the Escorts DPS and the Science ships support abilities.
Lastly, how you can accuse the devs of taking action on personal bais and then justify changing it because of your own personal bais in the same sentence seems odd (making a ship more powerful just because fans of the ship demand it be the most powerful ship in the universe is no more justified than nerfing a ship because someone thinks it shouldn't be in the game).
My problem isn't the fact that is has so little firepower compared to newer ships, its because it has the LEAST firepower of all fed Cruisers.
It's the fact that 100 year older ships or it's precursor are just much better ships in general.
And yes i look at it from a tactical perspective nothing is wrong with that, every ship gets measured by its tactical strenght in this game. It's the whole premise of Star Trek ships being pressed into a Stone/Paper/Scissor mechanic that bothers me. Personally i would be happy if it had the BOFF & console Layout of the Ambassador or Excelsior, which would make it a much more versatile and interesting ship. The Galaxy in STO is just a boring ship compared to it's precursors.
Practically this ship has two problems, first you can just use one Tactical power when using Tactical Team (which is a must, at elite difficulty). So you just have ONE tactical power to spend to either a Energy or Kinetic weapon. thats just too little. At least it would need to have a similar BOFF layout as the Galaxy -X which i don't use because i just can't stand that look.
Second, it console Layout is just a joke plain and simple. I can somehow understand that the devs wanted to make it a radical engineering ship but just two tactical consoles?
I am ok with the Galaxy Class being a Engineering ship, that's not so bad. The worse thing is that Engineering powers are just either way too passive or press the ship a healer role.
Cryptic just made the Galaxy a complete different vessel as it is supposed to be, thats what bothers me.
I wonder what some people would have said if Cryptic would have given the defiant the weakest firepower in the game?
In my eyes Cryptic turned the Galaxy Class into a almost static healership with no offensive capabilities to speak of, because of that Cryptic has lost any credibility in my eyes.
I can understand that Cryptic wanted to have a pure Engineering/Tanking ship in their game, but why haven't they used one of their own designs like the ugly NPC federation Dreadnought (Jupiter Class) we saw everywhere in the beginning of STO?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Not sure you would actually want that. If that were true, the Galaxy would be firmly set in a T4 state as it is an old class without much to make the Starfleet brass want to keep them around beyond their large habitation capabilities and generous numbers in service. At the same time, the Excelsiors would dominate everything in the galaxy, because a workable transwarp drive instantly makes all other types of drive (including slipspace) obsolete, and the power able to be delivered by such a drive would be astronomical (it would be no different than a sublight spaceship compared to a warp-driven starship). Those are the facts if STO were 'balanced' by a ST fan who knows how ST ships work.
As it is now, STO is set up in such a way that every ship has a place, and those who love the Galaxy class don't have to accept that their favorite ship's time has long past. Instead, there are refits available to bring older ships up to par with the newest ships in the fleet, allowing people to play a ship to their liking.
There's a few flaws with your theory.
1. The Galaxy was upgraded sometime during the Dominion War to be the most powerful battleship the Federation had. It made other ships like the Excelsior and Akira look like flotsam in comparison to its power. Watch some of the season 7 battles, and you'll see the Galaxy ripping through other ships with its main arrays.
2. The Excelsior's transwarp drive never worked canonically. There's no real advantage there. And even if it were, that technology would have been ported to every major ship, so there's still no advantage.
3. The Excelsior is around 100 years older than the Galaxy, and its latest update (the Lakota-subtype) barely put it on par with the Defiant in terms of firepower. Shot for shot, even the latest and greatest updates still put the Galaxy ahead.
Rather than pushing for "refits" and "retrofits", Cryptic should be investing in a system of upgrades. Instead of buying a whole new ship, why not have an upgrade pack that increases the console slots, or weapon slots, etc. With exception to the T0 ships (NX, Constitution, Miranda), every ship in the game already has a "Tier 5" equivalent, so there's no real excuse other than the fact that they've already done the refits and retrofits.
Really, what annoys me about the system, is that if I want to fly a certain ship, I'm stuck with a specific bridge officer layout (unless that ship happens to have completely universal consoles). I'm also stuck with a static weapon placement and console placement. Where's the "full customization"?
The only real excuse is "balance", and that went out the window the moment they added lockbox ships and fleet ships (which are ridiculously overpowered for what they were in the shows). There's no logical reason why a Jem'hadar attack ship should be out-turning and out-gunning a Klingon Bird of Prey or a Defiant. No logical reason why a Galor should be outgunning a Galaxy. And no logical reason why we should have Wells-class starships flying around in the 25th century.
1. The Galaxy was upgraded sometime during the Dominion War to be the most powerful battleship the Federation had. It made other ships like the Excelsior and Akira look like flotsam in comparison to its power. Watch some of the season 7 battles, and you'll see the Galaxy ripping through other ships with its main arrays.
2. The Excelsior's transwarp drive never worked canonically. There's no real advantage there. And even if it were, that technology would have been ported to every major ship, so there's still no advantage.
3. The Excelsior is around 100 years older than the Galaxy, and its latest update (the Lakota-subtype) barely put it on par with the Defiant in terms of firepower. Shot for shot, even the latest and greatest updates still put the Galaxy ahead.
Rather than pushing for "refits" and "retrofits", Cryptic should be investing in a system of upgrades. Instead of buying a whole new ship, why not have an upgrade pack that increases the console slots, or weapon slots, etc. With exception to the T0 ships (NX, Constitution, Miranda), every ship in the game already has a "Tier 5" equivalent, so there's no real excuse other than the fact that they've already done the refits and retrofits.
Really, what annoys me about the system, is that if I want to fly a certain ship, I'm stuck with a specific bridge officer layout (unless that ship happens to have completely universal consoles). I'm also stuck with a static weapon placement and console placement. Where's the "full customization"?
The only real excuse is "balance", and that went out the window the moment they added lockbox ships and fleet ships (which are ridiculously overpowered for what they were in the shows). There's no logical reason why a Jem'hadar attack ship should be out-turning and out-gunning a Klingon Bird of Prey or a Defiant. No logical reason why a Galor should be outgunning a Galaxy. And no logical reason why we should have Wells-class starships flying around in the 25th century.
And yes i look at it from a tactical perspective nothing is wrong with that, every ship gets measured by its tactical strenght in this game.
Fair enough, but once it's been deemed insufficient in terms of DPS (which seems to me like the vast majority of vessels at this point), I'm sure it gets measured in terms of its tankiness and support.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
1. The Galaxy was upgraded sometime during the Dominion War to be the most powerful battleship the Federation had. It made other ships like the Excelsior and Akira look like flotsam in comparison to its power. Watch some of the season 7 battles, and you'll see the Galaxy ripping through other ships with its main arrays.
2. The Excelsior's transwarp drive never worked canonically. There's no real advantage there. And even if it were, that technology would have been ported to every major ship, so there's still no advantage.
3. The Excelsior is around 100 years older than the Galaxy, and its latest update (the Lakota-subtype) barely put it on par with the Defiant in terms of firepower. Shot for shot, even the latest and greatest updates still put the Galaxy ahead.
Rather than pushing for "refits" and "retrofits", Cryptic should be investing in a system of upgrades. Instead of buying a whole new ship, why not have an upgrade pack that increases the console slots, or weapon slots, etc. With exception to the T0 ships (NX, Constitution, Miranda), every ship in the game already has a "Tier 5" equivalent, so there's no real excuse other than the fact that they've already done the refits and retrofits.
Really, what annoys me about the system, is that if I want to fly a certain ship, I'm stuck with a specific bridge officer layout (unless that ship happens to have completely universal consoles). I'm also stuck with a static weapon placement and console placement. Where's the "full customization"?
The only real excuse is "balance", and that went out the window the moment they added lockbox ships and fleet ships (which are ridiculously overpowered for what they were in the shows). There's no logical reason why a Jem'hadar attack ship should be out-turning and out-gunning a Klingon Bird of Prey or a Defiant. No logical reason why a Galor should be outgunning a Galaxy. And no logical reason why we should have Wells-class starships flying around in the 25th century.
claiming the excelsior actually is a better combat ship then the galaxy is as bad as a sonic the hedgehog/hairy potter crossover fan fiction, truly the most absurd ship related claim ive ever heard.
the excelsior predates structural integrity fields and phaser arrays, the 2 most important things in relation to firepower and durability. as far as its transwarp goes, it was eater a failure or became the warp drive the TNG warp scale is based on.
at the very least the excelsior throughout cannon lacked arrays completely, how the ship became the go to fed DPS cruiser is a mystery to me. the galaxy and excelsior should trade station and console setups, that would make tremendously more sense. even if they daisy chained a whole bunch of phaser array capacitors together to power the banks the excelsior had, theres still no way it could match the firepower of an array any longer then something the intrepid had. and for each bank, there would have to be this huge daisy chained network of capacitors. that cant be less work then building actual arrays into them, the space all those capacitors would take up in the ship would be prohibitive as well.
the ship is a tactical dinosaur, and not even built with technology now 100 years old in mind, making how far it could ever be upgraded limited. even if they applied structural integrity field tech to it, it couldn't be as good as one that was part of the original design. and if they did a massive redesign of the ship at some point to include new tech, and built most of them we see to that spec, they did it without changing a single exterior detail. if they did that redesign, why didn't they just design a new class? surely the excelcior shape would only become less ideal over time as tech advances, we saw clearly the design direction ships went to throughout the 24th century.
also, the sovereign does not outgun the galaxy, it matches if for torpedo firepower most likely, but it doesn't even half half the phaser firepower. its a battle cruiser thats less then half the size of a galaxy, its more like a direct ambassador class replacement, a federation vorcha class. no one ever said the E was the flag ship, or replaced the galaxy. its just a new and advanced ship, very powerful pound for pound. more powerful pound for pound then the galaxy, but a galaxy has more then twice as many pounds.
Rather than pushing for "refits" and "retrofits", Cryptic should be investing in a system of upgrades. Instead of buying a whole new ship, why not have an upgrade pack that increases the console slots, or weapon slots, etc. With exception to the T0 ships (NX, Constitution, Miranda), every ship in the game already has a "Tier 5" equivalent, so there's no real excuse other than the fact that they've already done the refits and retrofits.
Really, what annoys me about the system, is that if I want to fly a certain ship, I'm stuck with a specific bridge officer layout (unless that ship happens to have completely universal consoles). I'm also stuck with a static weapon placement and console placement. Where's the "full customization"?
The only real excuse is "balance", and that went out the window the moment they added lockbox ships and fleet ships (which are ridiculously overpowered for what they were in the shows). There's no logical reason why a Jem'hadar attack ship should be out-turning and out-gunning a Klingon Bird of Prey or a Defiant. No logical reason why a Galor should be outgunning a Galaxy. And no logical reason why we should have Wells-class starships flying around in the 25th century.
I would agree. There is no canonically-based balance in this game, and there is no such thing as "full customization" in this game either. Kinda makes me want to go back to modding Star Trek Bridge Commander (or playing Excalibur, I'm eagerly awaiting that!)
A system of upgrades, with the right discussion of how this would apply and the limitations to prevent unbalancing the game, could potentially work. I'd like to hear more about this.
claiming the excelsior actually is a better combat ship then the galaxy is as bad as a sonic the hedgehog/hairy potter crossover fan fiction, truly the most absurd ship related claim ive ever heard.
the excelsior predates structural integrity fields and phaser arrays, the 2 most important things in relation to firepower and durability. as far as its transwarp goes, it was eater a failure or became the warp drive the TNG warp scale is based on.
at the very least the excelsior throughout cannon lacked arrays completely, how the ship became the go to fed DPS cruiser is a mystery to me. the galaxy and excelsior should trade station and console setups, that would make tremendously more sense. even if they daisy chained a whole bunch of phaser array capacitors together to power the banks the excelsior had, theres still no way it could match the firepower of an array any longer then something the intrepid had. and for each bank, there would have to be this huge daisy chained network of capacitors. that cant be less work then building actual arrays into them, the space all those capacitors would take up in the ship would be prohibitive as well.
the ship is a tactical dinosaur, and not even built with technology now 100 years old in mind, making how far it could ever be upgraded limited. even if they applied structural integrity field tech to it, it couldn't be as good as one that was part of the original design. and if they did a massive redesign of the ship at some point to include new tech, and built most of them we see to that spec, they did it without changing a single exterior detail. if they did that redesign, why didn't they just design a new class? surely the excelcior shape would only become less ideal over time as tech advances, we saw clearly the design direction ships went to throughout the 24th century.
also, the sovereign does not outgun the galaxy, it matches if for torpedo firepower most likely, but it doesn't even half half the phaser firepower. its a battle cruiser thats less then half the size of a galaxy, its more like a direct ambassador class replacement, a federation vorcha class. no one ever said the E was the flag ship, or replaced the galaxy. its just a new and advanced ship, very powerful pound for pound. more powerful pound for pound then the galaxy, but a galaxy has more then twice as many pounds.
Couple problems with your facts.
The Excelsior does not predate structural integrity fields. The SIF field is required for any warp-traveling vessel to retain its shape and not tear itself to pieces. Same as the IDF field, which absorbs the shock of sudden movement and prevents creating meat pancakes of the crew (or fish pancakes, if you're counting those fish creatures in an episode of TNG). The Excelsior, although it didn't have phaser strips, did have phaser ball turrets which does the job. And the Excelsior's transwarp drive failed completely.
But I agree with you in the fact that the roles of the Galaxy and Excelsior classes should be switched. There is no way that an older ship should be outperforming a much larger, newer ship.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
The game is however not what you describe since older ships surpass newer ships in performance instead of being on par with them.
Right now - ONE older ship surpasses every Cruiser in the game - GThe Fleet Excelsior. The Ambassador doesn't outclass the newer Cruisers; although it outclasses in many respects the (in universe 50 year old Galaxy Class) even though it's a 20 year old precursor; but again, the Ambassador was built in a more volatile time period. If the Galaxy Class is SO leaded for bear, why would they give Command of it to a Captain who usually waits until his shields have dropped, and he's suffered damage/casualties to return fire; and who lost his previous command because while an ememy was shooting at the U.S.S. Stargazer, was only begging on his comms for them not to shoot again; INSTEAD of returning fire? (which they were able to do finally in the end, see the TNG episode "The Battle" .)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Al Rivera played favorites. It's just that simple. I believe he even admitted it's his favorite ship in an interview.
Sure, we all call a favourite in anything. It's letting that influence your judgement as a game designer for a highly technically consistent genre that is the problem.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
1. The Galaxy was upgraded sometime during the Dominion War to be the most powerful battleship the Federation had. It made other ships like the Excelsior and Akira look like flotsam in comparison to its power. Watch some of the season 7 battles, and you'll see the Galaxy ripping through other ships with its main arrays.
I don't think I ever read that Starfleet had upgraded the Galaxy class exploration cruiser to the Galaxy class battleship, so I'll have to do some research to see where Starfleet converted it to a full warship. As to it ripping through other ships with its main arrays, I will note the Excelsiors and Akiras also did their share of ripping, and in fact stood alongside the Galaxy class in battle (and, in fact, were protecting the Galaxy class ships more often than not by screening them from enemy units).
2. The Excelsior's transwarp drive never worked canonically. There's no real advantage there. And even if it were, that technology would have been ported to every major ship, so there's still no advantage.
Assumption unfounded by principle. There is no indication that a Constitution-class ship could use Galaxy-class warp systems, and that is the level of change you are saying would be ported to every major ship. Especially ones never designed to handle Transwarp. In addition, the fact is that the drive -was- perfected and worked in STO, so that is what you have to work from, not a view that isn't even supported by canon (a working transwarp engine was, in fact, developed in ST: Voyager).
3. The Excelsior is around 100 years older than the Galaxy, and its latest update (the Lakota-subtype) barely put it on par with the Defiant in terms of firepower. Shot for shot, even the latest and greatest updates still put the Galaxy ahead.
Actually, it was rather bluntly stated that the Lakota would have destroyed the Defiant had it decided to do so, and rather quickly. And I think we can agree the Defiant class warship could output firepower on par with a Galaxy-class exploration ship. That aside, an observation that the Transwarp-driven Excelsiors seen in STO are not the standard-drive Excelsiors seen in TNG always seems to elude people. Even if they were the same hulls (not likely, but possible), installing the Transwarp drives into these ships would, by definition, mean these ships have received very modern rebuilding that would make them, in effect, new ships.
Really, what annoys me about the system, is that if I want to fly a certain ship, I'm stuck with a specific bridge officer layout (unless that ship happens to have completely universal consoles). I'm also stuck with a static weapon placement and console placement. Where's the "full customization"?
I don't recall ever reading every ship in the game could become any other ship in the game, and wouldn't want that to happen. A class of ship has certain capabilities that set it apart from other classes of ship, and if you choose to fly that ship, then you accept those capabilities (or you would fly another class of ship). A Galaxy class is not a Prometheus Class, which isn't a Defiant class, which isn't a Wells class, so why would I expect them all to be the same?
Considering it is the BOFF layout and Console outlays that largely determine what a ship can do in the game, I don't understand why you are annoyed these would be set to distinquish each class from the other. You know what you are getting when you select to captain a ship, and there are enough classes out there that if you don't like one configurations, you most likely can find another class more to your liking.
But I agree with you in the fact that the roles of the Galaxy and Excelsior classes should be switched. There is no way that an older ship should be outperforming a much larger, newer ship.
I'm not sure I would want to see the Galaxy made into the Excelsior, since that would make the Galaxy a more manueverable ship than the Excelsior. Should instead have it's own set of stats, and not those meant to make it an attack ship.
Of course, the above statement would also ensure that the Galaxy-class would have no place as a T5 ship, as it is among the oldest classes of ship in the STO timeframe. Not saying that would be bad, as long as it was applied across all ship classes. One of the biggest problems with STO is that the devs try to have an end-game version of every ship for everyone, rather than having an established lifetime scale for ships in their game. I don't think many fans would accept that for their favorite ship, though.
I don't think I ever read that Starfleet had upgraded the Galaxy class exploration cruiser to the Galaxy class battleship, so I'll have to do some research to see where Starfleet converted it to a full warship. As to it ripping through other ships with its main arrays, I will note the Excelsiors and Akiras also did their share of ripping, and in fact stood alongside the Galaxy class in battle (and, in fact, were protecting the Galaxy class ships more often than not by screening them from enemy units).
You are correct, it was never written anywhere that the Galaxy class was upgraded. It was seen. Remember the U.S.S. Venture? Those extra phaser strips?
Yes, Akira class and Excelsior class ships did their fair share of "ripping", although on at least one occasion, one Akira had its nacelle sawed off and an Excelsior-class ship disabled in the Battle of Chin'toka.
Like I said earlier, if you bothered to read it. It talks more about the Galaxy class withstanding damage, while the Excelsior got knocked out of the fight.
Assumption unfounded by principle. There is no indication that a Constitution-class ship could use Galaxy-class warp systems, and that is the level of change you are saying would be ported to every major ship. Especially ones never designed to handle Transwarp. In addition, the fact is that the drive -was- perfected and worked in STO, so that is what you have to work from, not a view that isn't even supported by canon (a working transwarp engine was, in fact, developed in ST: Voyager).
You missed the whole point. He was stating that the Transwarp drive in ST:III failed, and offered a "what-if" just for the heck of it. Please focus on the main topic, and not the extraneous information.
I should also point out the fact that you consistently fall back to the point that the Excelsior-class has a working transwarp drive, which offers an advantage in some way unfathomable to us. First, speed does not equal firepower, unless you're ramming the ship - which would be a huge waste of resources for Starfleet to keep building these ships. Second, if you do want to keep going with this, might I add that all Federation and Klingon vessels can use transwarp in the current year of 2413, even from level 1 (or 20, KDF). Third, the transwarp abilities for the Excelsior ingame do not allow transwarp to a specific map, battle, PVP/PVE scenario, but only to sector blocks. So really, there is no advantage other than convenience. As I said in the linked post, the transwarp function is merely a homage to the original U.S.S. Excelsior from ST:III.
Actually, it was rather bluntly stated that the Lakota would have destroyed the Defiant had it decided to do so, and rather quickly. And I think we can agree the Defiant class warship could output firepower on par with a Galaxy-class exploration ship. That aside, an observation that the Transwarp-driven Excelsiors seen in STO are not the standard-drive Excelsiors seen in TNG always seems to elude people. Even if they were the same hulls (not likely, but possible), installing the Transwarp drives into these ships would, by definition, mean these ships have received very modern rebuilding that would make them, in effect, new ships.
They are not new ships. They are refitted Dominion War vessels with the ability to use a really fast warp drive. That doesn't give them much of an advantage other than traveling between sector blocks much easier.
And as I said earlier, the transwarp function is merely a homage to the original U.S.S. Excelsior from ST:III.
I don't recall ever reading every ship in the game could become any other ship in the game, and wouldn't want that to happen. A class of ship has certain capabilities that set it apart from other classes of ship, and if you choose to fly that ship, then you accept those capabilities (or you would fly another class of ship). A Galaxy class is not a Prometheus Class, which isn't a Defiant class, which isn't a Wells class, so why would I expect them all to be the same?
Considering it is the BOFF layout and Console outlays that largely determine what a ship can do in the game, I don't understand why you are annoyed these would be set to distinquish each class from the other. You know what you are getting when you select to captain a ship, and there are enough classes out there that if you don't like one configurations, you most likely can find another class more to your liking.
You misread what cuatela was trying to get at. The ability to upgrade the ship does not make it any other type of ship. It just improves on the cruiser/escort/science vessel that you originally started with - it doesn't mean you can stack a whole bunch of upgrades and make a super-tanker or a cruiser with the firepower of an escort.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I'm not sure I would want to see the Galaxy made into the Excelsior, since that would make the Galaxy a more manueverable ship than the Excelsior. Should instead have it's own set of stats, and not those meant to make it an attack ship.
Of course, the above statement would also ensure that the Galaxy-class would have no place as a T5 ship, as it is among the oldest classes of ship in the STO timeframe. Not saying that would be bad, as long as it was applied across all ship classes. I don't think many fans would accept that for their favorite ship, though.
Yes, I meant to add the fact that the turn rates should remain where they are. Less mass in the Excelsior should translate into a better turn rate, compared to the larger Galaxy-class.
And what? The Galaxy-class is one of the oldest classes? How about the Excelsior?
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
He was stating that the Transwarp drive in ST:III failed, and offered a "what-if" just for the heck of it. Please focus on the main topic, and not the extraneous information.
The Excelsior's Transwarp drive didn't fail, it was sabotaged by Scotty in ST:III to enable the Enterprise's escape. Big difference.
The third Enterprise, NCC-1701-B, was an Excelsior-class ship built at Starfleet's Antares Ship Yards. Although the decision to model this ship on the failed original experimental Excelsior...
Excelsior-class starship. Dubbed "the Great Experiment", the first Excelsior-class vessel was launched in 2285 as a testbed for the unsuccessful transwarp drive development project....
Need I say more?
Also, just like danqueller, please focus on the main point, and not the extraneous information - especially if your point is incorrect.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Yes, I meant to add the fact that the turn rates should remain where they are. Less mass in the Excelsior should translate into a better turn rate, compared to the larger Galaxy-class.
And what? The Galaxy-class is one of the oldest classes? How about the Excelsior?
Of the T4-T5 ships of the Cruisers (for example the older Vulcan D'kyr is a Science vessel), the oldest is the Excelsior, followed by the Ambassador, followed by the Galaxy.
With regard to the Excelsior, we have this from Star Trek canon (in the DS9 episode "Paradise Lost"):
Which pretty much shows a refit Excelsior going toe to toe with the Defiant (and could have won had the Captain followed orders) I don't think a Galaxy would have faired as well in such a contest (in STO or not.)
The Devs often get hammered with claims of them 'ignoring canon'; but in this case, they seem to be adhering to it.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Yes, I meant to add the fact that the turn rates should remain where they are. Less mass in the Excelsior should translate into a better turn rate, compared to the larger Galaxy-class.
And what? The Galaxy-class is one of the oldest classes? How about the Excelsior?
What goes for one, goes for the other. Maybe the best thing would be to eliminate the T5 versions of both the Excelsior and Galaxy-R, returning each class to where they 'should be'...Excelsiors would be T3 ships, while Galaxy class would be T4, clearly outstripping the T3 Excelsiors.
My point is that if ships are going to be balanced based on the assumed age of the hull -design- and not the actual date of construction, then the Galaxy is too powerful as well, and would need to be reduced below that of a Star Cruiser / Assault Cruiser, as these are newer classes, and those below that of the Odyssey class, which is the newest and most advanced cruiser class. In every way.
Is that what those who keep pushing for the 'older ships should be inferior to newer ships' would be willing to accept in their game?
Of the T4-T5 ships of the Cruisers (for example the older Vulcan D'kyr is a Science vessel), the oldest is the Excelsior, followed by the Ambassador, followed by the Galaxy.
With regard to the Excelsior, we have this from Star Trek canon (in the DS9 episode "Paradise Lost"):
Which pretty much shows a refit Excelsior going toe to toe with the Defiant (and could have won had the Captain followed orders) I don't think a Galaxy would have faired as well in such a contest (in STO or not.)
The Devs often get hammered with claims of them 'ignoring canon'; but in this case, they seem to be adhering to it.
Do keep in mind that the Lakota was perhaps the only one, or a few, Excelsior-class vessels to receive this upgrade - judging by the fact that no other refitted Excelsior-class vessels have been seen, other than the Lakota and the Enterprise-B.
The Galaxy-class has consistently been seen in the Dominion War to be able to hold its own for quite some time, compared to Excelsior-class ships (which routinely get holes punched in them; poor ships). Although the Lakota has been said to have received upgrades to its offensive capabilities, the rest of its systems may still be susceptible.
Finally, keep in mind that Benjamin Sisko was not captaining the Defiant as usual. Just like in STO, the captain is one of the most important pieces of the overall performance of a vessel.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Also, just like danqueller, please focus on the main point, and not the extraneous information - especially if your point is incorrect.
Just to be clear here, I support making the Galaxy-class ship better at what it is supposed to be in the game. I just don't want it changed into what Tactical players (attack cruiser) or Science players (support cruiser) think it should be, or based on fan ideas that it is supposed to be the most powerful ship in space (based on its status when it left the shipyards many decades ago). Two wrongs don't make a right, and Cruisers shouldn't be twisted into Escort roles.
This is about tweeking the Galaxy to fit its role better (that of the top Engineering ship), not changing it to suit personal preferences.
Just to be clear here, I support making the Galaxy-class ship better at what it is supposed to be in the game. I just don't want it changed into what Tactical players (attack cruiser) or Science players (support cruiser) think it should be, or based on fan ideas that it is supposed to be the most powerful ship in space (based on its status when it left the shipyards many decades ago). Two wrongs don't make a right, and Cruisers shouldn't be twisted into Escort roles.
This is about tweeking the Galaxy to fit its role better (that of the top Engineering ship), not changing it to suit personal preferences.
It also seems as if you support the Excelsior-class where it currently stands, as a superior ship to the Galaxy-class. Which, if this game were to follow the path forged by DS9, should be balanced in the opposite manner - the Galaxy-class as a superior cruiser to the Excelsior.
My proposal was not to suit personal preferences. My proposal was to offer the flexibility seen in TNG and occasionally DS9, as a large ship designed for exploration, but capable of a great many other roles as well.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
After watching that DS9 footage, all I can say is that ships in the dominion war blow up so much faster than in any other Star Trek battle scene I can recall (I think you could exempt Wolf 359).
And I saw no evidence of extra phaser beam arrays on any of the Galaxy class ships, or any sign that the Excelsior could match the Defiant (assuming the Defiant actually lands its attacks; seriously, they must have no points in starship targeting systems).
The Mirandas (or whatever they're actually are) were just fodder protecting the Defiant (that seemed to be a recurring theme).
I think the biggest thing I came away with, though, is how the heck did they reach the FTER from the heap of junk the Defiant actually was. It seemed like such an awesome ship back on the series, but between playing STO and watching that footage (I missed most of the dominion war when it aired), I'm totally confused, though its comforting to see that quad cannons suck in any Star Trek universe.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
They had the chance to improve it and make it a viable ship when Fleet Ships went live. They could have added a tactical console and a Lieutenant Commander Tactical Slot and that should have been fine. But because the Galaxy is an actual starship that they did not design, they constantly bash it and try to make people buy the Odyssey instead.
This is Star Trek, I do not want to fly a ship that some child made up in his basement, I want to fly a Galaxy Class and have it be as powerful as it should be, just under the Sovereign in attack power and versatility.
Well it sorta goes by the pattern they put for the main ships from the 3 tng era series.
The Galaxy, Defiant, and Intrepid...Each has a cmdr, lt cmdr, and ens of Eng, Tac, and Sci respectfully and the two lt's fill up the other types.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
Comments
You conclusions about the Excelsior are assumptions unsupported by the available data on the ships, especially that they were 'so outdated'. Nothing even remotely suggests this was the case, and the fact that a transwarp drive system was perfected in the 25th century is different from the failure to do so in the 23rd century (and in fact, a transwarp drive system was developed in canon in ST: Voyager). Thus, the application of a workable transwarp drive to a hull purpose-built to use such a drive is a logical outcome, as are the consequences of that drive on 'normal' drives and what that would mean for the Excelsior class. I have to believe that, based on the above, you do not understand how ST ships work (especially how the warp drive system impacts everything on the ship).
Regardless, I would never say any ship capable of warp drive would not be workable, and have a place in Starfleet (even a lowly NX-series ship is still capable of star travel and scouting missions). I am merely saying that putting a die-hard fan of Star Trek engineering in charge of ships would likely not lead to the outcome you seem to want.
While I can make the case for the Excelsior outperforming the Galaxy class in a tactical role, and for these ships to be as new as the Galaxy-Retrofit and Galaxy-X classes (almost all of these would have to be new construction hulls), I agree the Ambassador has no place being equal to or surpassing these classes. Ambassadors were earlier ships to the Galaxy-class, and have no important breakthroughs like the Excelsior's transwarp drives to make re-engineering them worthwhile (might as well build a Galaxy class if you are going to build an Ambassador, and get a more capable ship). I just have to rationalize this as Starfleet deciding to experiment with rebuilding the Ambassador as a purpose-built support ship to help fleets fighting the Borg, capable of being built in a few shipyards that are too small (barely) for building Galaxy-class ships. I do that because I know the existance of the T5 and Z-store Ambassador classes are due to the same fan-service that allows the Galaxy-Retro and Galaxy-X to exist in the game.
Not to say I wouldn't like to see the Galaxy-Retro get stronger Engineering abilities, since it is supposed to be the premier Engineering ship in the game, but I'm not sure how well the fans would support a ship with two Commander-level Engineering slots (people would start screaming OP, I'm sure).
As far as i remember the Galaxy Class was designed in a very modular way, so new future technologies could be installed much more easily than in other Ship classes before and after. According to the TNG manual it was supposed to get a complete overhaul every 25 years, with a projected lifetime of at least 100 years. No other Starfleet vessel has ever been build that way and i highly doubt that the Ambassador (or the Excelsior) was designed like this. It would also explain the relatively small amount of existing Galaxy Classes in Starfleet, since it is obviously much harder to launch than any other ship. These ships are supposed to last generations, highly adaptable and customizable to fit every kind of scientific and tactical mission type.
I just can't imagine that in the timeline STO takes place the Galaxy Class couldn't have been refittet to meet up the requirements of a long (Federation vs. everyone else) war.
Especially its enormous Phaser beam arrays should have been overhauled to todays standards.
I just refuse to believe that this ship is supposed to have the LEAST firepower in all starfleet now, even be outgunned by a Excelsior, Ambassador or Galor class...
Who ever decided this, obviously has no idea what he is doing IMHO.
In STO terms i think it needs to be much more versatile, with at least 2 Lt and 1 Ensign universal and at least an additional Tactical Station, if not even two.
And since it is possible for the devs to create ships with even more than 4 Weapons fore and aft, i think it would be only fair to give it 5 fore and 4(5) rear weapon slots.
I understand that STO is just a Game and there have to be SOME drawbacks but come on, the Galaxy Class in STO consists almost completely in drawbacks and is a completely different ship than outside STO (something you can't say about the Defiant or Intrepid IMO).
It wouldn't bother me that much if it where just some other ship that only had some short screen time, like the Prometheus (which is also made completely wrong IMO) for example.
But the Galaxy Class is one of the most popular, best documented and iconic ships outside STO. One should expect a Game developer to take a bit more care and sense when converting such a important ship into their game.
What bothers me most is the obvious (intentional (?)) careless of some developers who don't care much for that ship and thus punish everyone who likes it.
I wonder why they only made the Galaxy such a bad ship and not the Defiant or Intrepid for example...
As we saw with the Vesta they CAN do create a popular ship in a good way, why not remake the Galaxy?
Is this a personal thing of one or some devs who hate that ship and punish its fans?
Sorry i don't get it.
"Assumptions unsupported by available data on the ships". What data?
In regards to the transwarp drive. Yes, it is a possibility that the transwarp drive was perfected. Keep in mind however, that the Excelsior-class design was built on a 23rd century knowledge of transwarp FTL mechanics, which are likely outdated 150-some-odd years later. The structural integrity of the vessel at transwarp velocities is questionable. Starfleet would not risk the lives of the crew in taking this kind of risk (That's what the Vesta and Odysseys are for).
I would have to question whether you have any understanding of Star Trek ships, and application of that knowledge. My knowledge cannot be questioned however; a thesis based on Star Trek's warp drive and structural integrity field/inertial dampening system proves the validity of my knowledge.
And what outcome do you assume I want?
Stop right there. Just because the ship can travel faster between two points compared to another ship does NOT mean in any way that the ship is more capable in a tactical consideration compared to another (aka Speed does not equal Strength).
Although the Galaxy-class was designed for exploration, at the time of its launch it was designed to, 1) replace aging Oberth and Ambassador class ships (quoted from the TNG Tech Manual), which automatically applies to the Excelsior; and 2) be capable of protecting the civilian and family populations aboard the ship. Protection includes stronger hull and shield defensive capabilities over its predecessors, and the ability to disable or destroy enemy vessels to protect itself.
The Excelsior is even seen to be cannon fodder in specific battles of the Dominion War. I believe it was the First Battle of Chin'toka, which had the OWP's fire at the Federation Alliance vessels. The USS Galaxy sustained some pretty bad hull breaches but could still return fire; an unnamed Excelsior class received the same treatment, could not fire back, and was effectively disabled.
The Excelsior-class, as cool-looking and durable as it once was in ST:VI, is no longer a leading ship of the Federation in the 2370's, and by extension, should never be able to outperform a ship that is ~70 years newer, has a significant increase in hull size and potential slotted components, and designed with the accumulated knowledge of at least 200 years of Starfleet shipbuilding experience.
I did not propose two CM Eng BOFF seats. I supported two LTC Eng Boff seats, with the ENS Eng BOFF seat reclassified as a universal seat.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=556181#6
Please read before you post assumptions.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Well, i think the reason you don't get it is that you are looking at it in the same way alot of people seem to...that the Galaxy is a battleship, and that DPS should be the role of this ship. That isn't the role of a cruiser, and the Galaxy-class in particular is geared to be the top-teir Engineering/healer ship in the game. As long as you look at it from a Tactical officer's viewpoint, you'll never be satisfied with it, and rightly so.
Others have pointed out, and I agree, that the trouble isn't with the Galaxy class stats but the Engineering abilities in the game being seen as secondary roles in end-game content. Escorts and Science ships have too much survivability for Engineering ships to shine as they should, and so ships like the Galaxy seem secondary because players would cry if they needed a cruiser to help them do STFs or the such. In short, it isn't that the Galaxy class should be changed to be suitable to Tactical players, but that the game needs to be changed to make what the Galaxy does (healing/tanking) equally important to the Escorts DPS and the Science ships support abilities.
Lastly, how you can accuse the devs of taking action on personal bais and then justify changing it because of your own personal bais in the same sentence seems odd (making a ship more powerful just because fans of the ship demand it be the most powerful ship in the universe is no more justified than nerfing a ship because someone thinks it shouldn't be in the game).
I reluctantly agree. The issue isn't with the stats of the ship, it's with where the ship fits in, in respect to the other cruisers in this game. The fact that it's outperformed by an older ship such as the Excelsior or the Ambassador is the issue with a lot of Galaxy-class ship owners.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
i, personally don't think that the galaxy refit should potentially be the most powerfull cruiser in the game for 2 reasons.
1) this one is obvious, if the refit is the most powerfull cruiser where do you place the galaxy x, wich is suppose to be a tactical upgrade of the galaxy class.
2) and that more important, the sovereign class is the evolution of the flagship of that time, in my mind it should have a better tactical potential than a galaxy class, and so is the odyssey who is the next level after the sovereign
so even if i bielieve that the galaxy class in it current state daesn't reflect the true potential power of the ship in that game, it daesn't seem right to me to level this ship at the same level of the regent or odyssey for example.
in my mind only the galaxy x could pretend to be at the same level of tactical potential as the regent.
but even the galaxy x could not pretend to be push to the level of a purely tactical odyssey.
if redesign is to be plan, here how i would see the hierarchy from the more powerfull to the less, it included a redesign of galaxy x in tactical, and a redesign of galax refit in tactical too:
odyssey tactical
regent/ galaxy x ( tact redesign)
exelsior/ galaxy refit ( tact redesign )
assault cruiser
that being said, this is just a possibility, and it not the one i personally prefer
when you see the ship in the serie, it is indeed powerfull but it daesn't seem to be the thing on wich he relie on.
the feeling that emerge is that in most situation the enterprise d prevel by the intelligence, versatility and creativity of the crew more than the firepower of the ship.
how can you translate that in the sto game mechanism?
i think you can do it by shifting the ship in science.
unfortunatly this role as being taken by the ambassador now, the bo layout of the ambassador would have been a good base for the redesign of the galax refit
both of the solution will not please everyone anyway.
when i begun to play this game, and that they were no galaxy x, i desperatly hope for a tactical version of the t4 galaxy.
i wasn't a fan of the galaxy x design in the first place, for me it have alway seem to be a quick and inelegant way to make it look like an upgrade.
i begun to like it because it make me feel the ship is more massive and i like that, this combine to the venture skin finish to convinced me.
now i have the reverse effect when i see a galaxy refit in game, i alway feel like it miss something;)
but that also due to the fact that the 3d representation of this ship in the game erase all small detail that make it beautiful in the first place.
just look at the ship in the blue ray realease of tng, it is just magnificient.
all that to said that i can anderstand the desire of some people to have a tactical version of the original design.
so in the end, the only way i can see this dilema to end is to merge the galaxy refit and the galaxy x into 1 single entity that can be modulate to the desire of the owner.
something like the odyssey pack.
i i think we will eventually be force to go with an interface that allow us to choose the way we want the bo layout of a particular ship to be, it will be autobalance by removing or adding hull capacity, turn rate, inertia, power level distribution, ect.
let call it the next tiers6 fleet ship.
that the only way i can see all the thread about ship redesign to be diminish, and more people to be happy with the ship they love.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
It's the fact that 100 year older ships or it's precursor are just much better ships in general.
And yes i look at it from a tactical perspective nothing is wrong with that, every ship gets measured by its tactical strenght in this game. It's the whole premise of Star Trek ships being pressed into a Stone/Paper/Scissor mechanic that bothers me. Personally i would be happy if it had the BOFF & console Layout of the Ambassador or Excelsior, which would make it a much more versatile and interesting ship. The Galaxy in STO is just a boring ship compared to it's precursors.
Practically this ship has two problems, first you can just use one Tactical power when using Tactical Team (which is a must, at elite difficulty). So you just have ONE tactical power to spend to either a Energy or Kinetic weapon. thats just too little. At least it would need to have a similar BOFF layout as the Galaxy -X which i don't use because i just can't stand that look.
Second, it console Layout is just a joke plain and simple. I can somehow understand that the devs wanted to make it a radical engineering ship but just two tactical consoles?
I am ok with the Galaxy Class being a Engineering ship, that's not so bad. The worse thing is that Engineering powers are just either way too passive or press the ship a healer role.
Cryptic just made the Galaxy a complete different vessel as it is supposed to be, thats what bothers me.
I wonder what some people would have said if Cryptic would have given the defiant the weakest firepower in the game?
In my eyes Cryptic turned the Galaxy Class into a almost static healership with no offensive capabilities to speak of, because of that Cryptic has lost any credibility in my eyes.
I can understand that Cryptic wanted to have a pure Engineering/Tanking ship in their game, but why haven't they used one of their own designs like the ugly NPC federation Dreadnought (Jupiter Class) we saw everywhere in the beginning of STO?
There's a few flaws with your theory.
1. The Galaxy was upgraded sometime during the Dominion War to be the most powerful battleship the Federation had. It made other ships like the Excelsior and Akira look like flotsam in comparison to its power. Watch some of the season 7 battles, and you'll see the Galaxy ripping through other ships with its main arrays.
2. The Excelsior's transwarp drive never worked canonically. There's no real advantage there. And even if it were, that technology would have been ported to every major ship, so there's still no advantage.
3. The Excelsior is around 100 years older than the Galaxy, and its latest update (the Lakota-subtype) barely put it on par with the Defiant in terms of firepower. Shot for shot, even the latest and greatest updates still put the Galaxy ahead.
Rather than pushing for "refits" and "retrofits", Cryptic should be investing in a system of upgrades. Instead of buying a whole new ship, why not have an upgrade pack that increases the console slots, or weapon slots, etc. With exception to the T0 ships (NX, Constitution, Miranda), every ship in the game already has a "Tier 5" equivalent, so there's no real excuse other than the fact that they've already done the refits and retrofits.
Really, what annoys me about the system, is that if I want to fly a certain ship, I'm stuck with a specific bridge officer layout (unless that ship happens to have completely universal consoles). I'm also stuck with a static weapon placement and console placement. Where's the "full customization"?
The only real excuse is "balance", and that went out the window the moment they added lockbox ships and fleet ships (which are ridiculously overpowered for what they were in the shows). There's no logical reason why a Jem'hadar attack ship should be out-turning and out-gunning a Klingon Bird of Prey or a Defiant. No logical reason why a Galor should be outgunning a Galaxy. And no logical reason why we should have Wells-class starships flying around in the 25th century.
this so much this
Well said.
the excelsior predates structural integrity fields and phaser arrays, the 2 most important things in relation to firepower and durability. as far as its transwarp goes, it was eater a failure or became the warp drive the TNG warp scale is based on.
at the very least the excelsior throughout cannon lacked arrays completely, how the ship became the go to fed DPS cruiser is a mystery to me. the galaxy and excelsior should trade station and console setups, that would make tremendously more sense. even if they daisy chained a whole bunch of phaser array capacitors together to power the banks the excelsior had, theres still no way it could match the firepower of an array any longer then something the intrepid had. and for each bank, there would have to be this huge daisy chained network of capacitors. that cant be less work then building actual arrays into them, the space all those capacitors would take up in the ship would be prohibitive as well.
the ship is a tactical dinosaur, and not even built with technology now 100 years old in mind, making how far it could ever be upgraded limited. even if they applied structural integrity field tech to it, it couldn't be as good as one that was part of the original design. and if they did a massive redesign of the ship at some point to include new tech, and built most of them we see to that spec, they did it without changing a single exterior detail. if they did that redesign, why didn't they just design a new class? surely the excelcior shape would only become less ideal over time as tech advances, we saw clearly the design direction ships went to throughout the 24th century.
also, the sovereign does not outgun the galaxy, it matches if for torpedo firepower most likely, but it doesn't even half half the phaser firepower. its a battle cruiser thats less then half the size of a galaxy, its more like a direct ambassador class replacement, a federation vorcha class. no one ever said the E was the flag ship, or replaced the galaxy. its just a new and advanced ship, very powerful pound for pound. more powerful pound for pound then the galaxy, but a galaxy has more then twice as many pounds.
I would agree. There is no canonically-based balance in this game, and there is no such thing as "full customization" in this game either. Kinda makes me want to go back to modding Star Trek Bridge Commander (or playing Excalibur, I'm eagerly awaiting that!)
A system of upgrades, with the right discussion of how this would apply and the limitations to prevent unbalancing the game, could potentially work. I'd like to hear more about this.
Couple problems with your facts.
The Excelsior does not predate structural integrity fields. The SIF field is required for any warp-traveling vessel to retain its shape and not tear itself to pieces. Same as the IDF field, which absorbs the shock of sudden movement and prevents creating meat pancakes of the crew (or fish pancakes, if you're counting those fish creatures in an episode of TNG). The Excelsior, although it didn't have phaser strips, did have phaser ball turrets which does the job. And the Excelsior's transwarp drive failed completely.
But I agree with you in the fact that the roles of the Galaxy and Excelsior classes should be switched. There is no way that an older ship should be outperforming a much larger, newer ship.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Al Rivera played favorites. It's just that simple. I believe he even admitted it's his favorite ship in an interview.
Right now - ONE older ship surpasses every Cruiser in the game - GThe Fleet Excelsior. The Ambassador doesn't outclass the newer Cruisers; although it outclasses in many respects the (in universe 50 year old Galaxy Class) even though it's a 20 year old precursor; but again, the Ambassador was built in a more volatile time period. If the Galaxy Class is SO leaded for bear, why would they give Command of it to a Captain who usually waits until his shields have dropped, and he's suffered damage/casualties to return fire; and who lost his previous command because while an ememy was shooting at the U.S.S. Stargazer, was only begging on his comms for them not to shoot again; INSTEAD of returning fire? (which they were able to do finally in the end, see the TNG episode "The Battle"
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Sure, we all call a favourite in anything. It's letting that influence your judgement as a game designer for a highly technically consistent genre that is the problem.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I don't think I ever read that Starfleet had upgraded the Galaxy class exploration cruiser to the Galaxy class battleship, so I'll have to do some research to see where Starfleet converted it to a full warship. As to it ripping through other ships with its main arrays, I will note the Excelsiors and Akiras also did their share of ripping, and in fact stood alongside the Galaxy class in battle (and, in fact, were protecting the Galaxy class ships more often than not by screening them from enemy units).
Assumption unfounded by principle. There is no indication that a Constitution-class ship could use Galaxy-class warp systems, and that is the level of change you are saying would be ported to every major ship. Especially ones never designed to handle Transwarp. In addition, the fact is that the drive -was- perfected and worked in STO, so that is what you have to work from, not a view that isn't even supported by canon (a working transwarp engine was, in fact, developed in ST: Voyager).
Actually, it was rather bluntly stated that the Lakota would have destroyed the Defiant had it decided to do so, and rather quickly. And I think we can agree the Defiant class warship could output firepower on par with a Galaxy-class exploration ship. That aside, an observation that the Transwarp-driven Excelsiors seen in STO are not the standard-drive Excelsiors seen in TNG always seems to elude people. Even if they were the same hulls (not likely, but possible), installing the Transwarp drives into these ships would, by definition, mean these ships have received very modern rebuilding that would make them, in effect, new ships.
I don't recall ever reading every ship in the game could become any other ship in the game, and wouldn't want that to happen. A class of ship has certain capabilities that set it apart from other classes of ship, and if you choose to fly that ship, then you accept those capabilities (or you would fly another class of ship). A Galaxy class is not a Prometheus Class, which isn't a Defiant class, which isn't a Wells class, so why would I expect them all to be the same?
Considering it is the BOFF layout and Console outlays that largely determine what a ship can do in the game, I don't understand why you are annoyed these would be set to distinquish each class from the other. You know what you are getting when you select to captain a ship, and there are enough classes out there that if you don't like one configurations, you most likely can find another class more to your liking.
I'm not sure I would want to see the Galaxy made into the Excelsior, since that would make the Galaxy a more manueverable ship than the Excelsior. Should instead have it's own set of stats, and not those meant to make it an attack ship.
Of course, the above statement would also ensure that the Galaxy-class would have no place as a T5 ship, as it is among the oldest classes of ship in the STO timeframe. Not saying that would be bad, as long as it was applied across all ship classes. One of the biggest problems with STO is that the devs try to have an end-game version of every ship for everyone, rather than having an established lifetime scale for ships in their game. I don't think many fans would accept that for their favorite ship, though.
You are correct, it was never written anywhere that the Galaxy class was upgraded. It was seen. Remember the U.S.S. Venture? Those extra phaser strips?
Yes, Akira class and Excelsior class ships did their fair share of "ripping", although on at least one occasion, one Akira had its nacelle sawed off and an Excelsior-class ship disabled in the Battle of Chin'toka.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=22#217
Like I said earlier, if you bothered to read it. It talks more about the Galaxy class withstanding damage, while the Excelsior got knocked out of the fight.
You missed the whole point. He was stating that the Transwarp drive in ST:III failed, and offered a "what-if" just for the heck of it. Please focus on the main topic, and not the extraneous information.
I should also point out the fact that you consistently fall back to the point that the Excelsior-class has a working transwarp drive, which offers an advantage in some way unfathomable to us. First, speed does not equal firepower, unless you're ramming the ship - which would be a huge waste of resources for Starfleet to keep building these ships. Second, if you do want to keep going with this, might I add that all Federation and Klingon vessels can use transwarp in the current year of 2413, even from level 1 (or 20, KDF). Third, the transwarp abilities for the Excelsior ingame do not allow transwarp to a specific map, battle, PVP/PVE scenario, but only to sector blocks. So really, there is no advantage other than convenience. As I said in the linked post, the transwarp function is merely a homage to the original U.S.S. Excelsior from ST:III.
They are not new ships. They are refitted Dominion War vessels with the ability to use a really fast warp drive. That doesn't give them much of an advantage other than traveling between sector blocks much easier.
And as I said earlier, the transwarp function is merely a homage to the original U.S.S. Excelsior from ST:III.
You misread what cuatela was trying to get at. The ability to upgrade the ship does not make it any other type of ship. It just improves on the cruiser/escort/science vessel that you originally started with - it doesn't mean you can stack a whole bunch of upgrades and make a super-tanker or a cruiser with the firepower of an escort.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Yes, I meant to add the fact that the turn rates should remain where they are. Less mass in the Excelsior should translate into a better turn rate, compared to the larger Galaxy-class.
And what? The Galaxy-class is one of the oldest classes? How about the Excelsior?
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
The Excelsior's Transwarp drive didn't fail, it was sabotaged by Scotty in ST:III to enable the Enterprise's escape. Big difference.
Need I say more?
Also, just like danqueller, please focus on the main point, and not the extraneous information - especially if your point is incorrect.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Of the T4-T5 ships of the Cruisers (for example the older Vulcan D'kyr is a Science vessel), the oldest is the Excelsior, followed by the Ambassador, followed by the Galaxy.
With regard to the Excelsior, we have this from Star Trek canon (in the DS9 episode "Paradise Lost"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rW4eqZ9xdnc#t=489s
Which pretty much shows a refit Excelsior going toe to toe with the Defiant (and could have won had the Captain followed orders) I don't think a Galaxy would have faired as well in such a contest (in STO or not.)
You also have this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Dyttwwrbdyk#t=122s
The Devs often get hammered with claims of them 'ignoring canon'; but in this case, they seem to be adhering to it.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
What goes for one, goes for the other. Maybe the best thing would be to eliminate the T5 versions of both the Excelsior and Galaxy-R, returning each class to where they 'should be'...Excelsiors would be T3 ships, while Galaxy class would be T4, clearly outstripping the T3 Excelsiors.
My point is that if ships are going to be balanced based on the assumed age of the hull -design- and not the actual date of construction, then the Galaxy is too powerful as well, and would need to be reduced below that of a Star Cruiser / Assault Cruiser, as these are newer classes, and those below that of the Odyssey class, which is the newest and most advanced cruiser class. In every way.
Is that what those who keep pushing for the 'older ships should be inferior to newer ships' would be willing to accept in their game?
Do keep in mind that the Lakota was perhaps the only one, or a few, Excelsior-class vessels to receive this upgrade - judging by the fact that no other refitted Excelsior-class vessels have been seen, other than the Lakota and the Enterprise-B.
The Galaxy-class has consistently been seen in the Dominion War to be able to hold its own for quite some time, compared to Excelsior-class ships (which routinely get holes punched in them; poor ships). Although the Lakota has been said to have received upgrades to its offensive capabilities, the rest of its systems may still be susceptible.
Finally, keep in mind that Benjamin Sisko was not captaining the Defiant as usual. Just like in STO, the captain is one of the most important pieces of the overall performance of a vessel.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Just to be clear here, I support making the Galaxy-class ship better at what it is supposed to be in the game. I just don't want it changed into what Tactical players (attack cruiser) or Science players (support cruiser) think it should be, or based on fan ideas that it is supposed to be the most powerful ship in space (based on its status when it left the shipyards many decades ago). Two wrongs don't make a right, and Cruisers shouldn't be twisted into Escort roles.
This is about tweeking the Galaxy to fit its role better (that of the top Engineering ship), not changing it to suit personal preferences.
It also seems as if you support the Excelsior-class where it currently stands, as a superior ship to the Galaxy-class. Which, if this game were to follow the path forged by DS9, should be balanced in the opposite manner - the Galaxy-class as a superior cruiser to the Excelsior.
My proposal was not to suit personal preferences. My proposal was to offer the flexibility seen in TNG and occasionally DS9, as a large ship designed for exploration, but capable of a great many other roles as well.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
And I saw no evidence of extra phaser beam arrays on any of the Galaxy class ships, or any sign that the Excelsior could match the Defiant (assuming the Defiant actually lands its attacks; seriously, they must have no points in starship targeting systems).
The Mirandas (or whatever they're actually are) were just fodder protecting the Defiant (that seemed to be a recurring theme).
I think the biggest thing I came away with, though, is how the heck did they reach the FTER from the heap of junk the Defiant actually was. It seemed like such an awesome ship back on the series, but between playing STO and watching that footage (I missed most of the dominion war when it aired), I'm totally confused, though its comforting to see that quad cannons suck in any Star Trek universe.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060705233805/memoryalpha/en/images/3/3a/USS_Venture_and_Excelsiors.jpg
Well it sorta goes by the pattern they put for the main ships from the 3 tng era series.
The Galaxy, Defiant, and Intrepid...Each has a cmdr, lt cmdr, and ens of Eng, Tac, and Sci respectfully and the two lt's fill up the other types.