ANY proff, ANY proof of a Galaxy class launching fighters seen on screen? See, I can do that as well.
And sorry, but I have no blasted idea of what a "Curry" is, except a type of Indian spice - could you please clarify?
I have a fleet Corsair. And not the 200k FC one, but the 4 module one. I'm quite familiar with the ship. Question: Is that the only way to improve a ship now? And what about the Klingon faction, don't they deserve to have something unique in STO?
Why? Really, why? Dontdrunkimshoot's idea is perfectly fine as it is, why do you take it, cut out a console just to slap a hangar? Is the goal to TRIBBLE off TNG fans or something?
This is in the TOP 10 silliest things I've read in the forum. So what you're saying is that Star Trek fans should shut up, suck it up and express no concerns about the direction a game bearng the name "Star Trek" is taking? Wow, just....wow!
You want to fly your ugly Tholian ship? Go right ahead, I won't be in your way. Why don't you want to leave me fly my Galaxy as it's suposed to be and keep insisting on slapping a hangar to it?
See, normal Trek fans are pretty open-minded about the TRIBBLE Cryptic's throwing out. They say it keeps the game alive, so we believe them. Star Trek fans however can't be openminded about taking something that is considered to be a part of the heart of the franchise, ripping it apart and molding it into something that in never was.
That's the line yreodred has been talking about. We usually turn a blind eye to all of the stupidity going on in STO that is not Star Trek because we still get to fly our own Starfleet ships, wear our own uniforms, pick our own crew and decide how to go about things. But now people want to take our beloved Starfleet ships, moreso the one arguably most iconic in all of Trek and turn it into something else? Nope, sorry, you can't expect us to stand still and suck this one up.
Look at it this way - imagine a company makes a F1 game and then makes the Ferrari blue? Don't you think that F1 fans and Ferrari fans will go WTF?!?!
Almost every starfleet ship has the shuttle bay in the back. There are only a few exceptions that confirm the rule, like the Defiant that launched shuttles from below. By this logic, every Starfleet starship is capable of launching fighters.
Also good luck providing cover while you have to lower your aft shields and expose your warp nacelles to an unshielded attack.
But really, it's hillarious that we're now taking references about the Galaxy class from DS9, instead of TNG, you know, that one show where the Galaxy was the main ship for 7 seasons?
It's not you angrytarg, it's that other dumb thread asking to make the Galaxy a carrier.
Honestly, I have no words to explain how ridiculous this whole discussion is. If someone would have told me that I was going to debate wheather the Galaxy class is a carrier or not in a Star Trek game, I would laugh at them. Yet, here we are.
I'm really starting to believe that this is just to TRIBBLE off TNG fans. You really want to alienate such a big portion of your playerbase and Star Trek fans? TNG was by all means the show that revived the franchise after a long period since TOS ended and having only TOS era movies. Do you think that pissing off TNG fans is really a good idea?
It's called using common sense, you should try it sometime. A Peregrine is a small 1 or 2 man ship. It might have a replicate for food, and likely a bathroom but that's it no sleeping quarters. Also the ships while fast at impulse are slow at warp. Thus for major fleet operations they would need starships to carry them. and considering shuttle space the most likely ships are Galaxy, Sovereign, Curry, and maybe Ambassador can hold at least a full squadron. Other ships could hold parts of a squadron and also considering sensors they can see an enemy at range thus have time to deploy them. And for budget reasons they never show them launching and save the money for the important scenes. The writers thought we would use common sense a figure out they were launch from the ships.
Will a hanger solve the Galaxy problem alone? HELL NO but you can not deny it is an option for the revamp.
Perhaps add armor console slots for cruisers and up their weapons. It's bad that my little Prometheus has the same amount of fore weapons as a huge cruiser.
Perhaps add armor console slots for cruisers and up their weapons. It's bad that my little Prometheus has the same amount of fore weapons as a huge cruiser.
Agreed, this carrier discussion is tiresome and leads us nowhere.
I'd say give the GCS and all big Starfleet Cruisers 5/5 weapons and/or a additional tac Console.
"...'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
strap a Galaxy model on the Monbosh lock box ship and i'll twist some keys cryptic
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
It's called using common sense, you should try it sometime. A Peregrine is a small 1 or 2 man ship. It might have a replicate for food, and likely a bathroom but that's it no sleeping quarters. Also the ships while fast at impulse are slow at warp. Thus for major fleet operations they would need starships to carry them. and considering shuttle space the most likely ships are Galaxy, Sovereign, Curry, and maybe Ambassador can hold at least a full squadron. Other ships could hold parts of a squadron and also considering sensors they can see an enemy at range thus have time to deploy them. And for budget reasons they never show them launching and save the money for the important scenes. The writers thought we would use common sense a figure out they were launch from the ships.
Will a hanger solve the Galaxy problem alone? HELL NO but you can not deny it is an option for the revamp.
Oh no man, you do not want to start this discussion we had with people in another thread all over again. Don't try to sell that budget stuff, others have tried it and fell flat on their face.
I'm using common sense - I told you those fighters and runabouts were usually transported to a site by a bigger ship. Now follow me, a ship that is used to transport those is not a carrier. A ship that has space to hold a number of smaller craft does not have to be a carrier. A carrier in theory would be a starship that is capable of launching and docking multiple auxiliary craft at the same time with included in-build repair facilities on board - something no Starfleet ship has shown to have.
Only the Akira in theory was suposed to be a carrier, but it was never portrayed to launch craft on screen. If you're wondering what the hell launched the peregrines in DS9 there's a better chance it was Akira ships rather than Galaxy. Because, in theory and at least on paper the Akira was suposed to be one as oposed to the Galaxy that was not designed to do so.
Now you try using common sense:
- 3 seasons of TOS.
- 7 seasons of TNG.
- 7 seasons of DS9.
- 7 seasons of Voyager.
- 4 seasons of Enterprise.
- 10 Star Trek movies (pre-J.J. Abrams)
Not a single one carrier launch sequence in all of those due to budget restrictions? Yeah, that seems plausible for a franchise that is "suposed" to have carriers all around. :rolleyes:
Agreed, this carrier discussion is tiresome and leads us nowhere.
I'd say give the GCS and all big Starfleet Cruisers 5/5 weapons and/or a additional tac Console.
1st sry for mi englsih
and yes is tiresome discussion; why ppl whant so mach made all ships into carriers :eek: thats not work.
i have to meditate about the 5/5 wep slots not sure for the reason of power drian , maybe will work best a natural boost on beam weapons when sloted into cruciers like +X% when used in cruciers
Thanks, I had no idea what the ship you were refering to was.
Oh no man, you do not want to start this discussion we had with people in another thread all over again. Don't try to sell that budget stuff, others have tried it and fell flat on their face.
I'm using common sense - I told you those fighters and runabouts were usually transported to a site by a bigger ship. Now follow me, a ship that is used to transport those is not a carrier. A ship that has space to hold a number of smaller craft does not have to be a carrier. A carrier in theory would be a starship that is capable of launching and docking multiple auxiliary craft at the same time with included in-build repair facilities on board - something no Starfleet ship has shown to have.
Only the Akira in theory was suposed to be a carrier, but it was never portrayed to launch craft on screen. If you're wondering what the hell launched the peregrines in DS9 there's a better chance it was Akira ships rather than Galaxy. Because, in theory and at least on paper the Akira was suposed to be one as oposed to the Galaxy that was not designed to do so.
Now you try using common sense:
- 3 seasons of TOS.
- 7 seasons of TNG.
- 7 seasons of DS9.
- 7 seasons of Voyager.
- 4 seasons of Enterprise.
- 10 Star Trek movies (pre-J.J. Abrams)
Not a single one carrier launch sequence in all of those due to budget restrictions? Yeah, that seems plausible for a franchise that is "suposed" to have carriers all around. :rolleyes:
point there butthen concepts of use would be different. now yes Akira's can do it, so can Galaxy, Sovereign, Ambassador, and Curry. And Sacrafice of Angels had what 8 squadrons of fighters/ So 4 per fleet. spread out among the ships, doable. Again. Will a hanger solve Galaxy problem, no. But it's addtion to what ever they do is plausible.
what?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That would be ridiculously OP. Two lt comms AND a comm?
Try
Comm Eng
LtComm Tac
Lt Sci
Lt Eng
Ens Uni
Now that makes balanced sense.
ridiculously OP? because of 2 lt comms and a comm?
what about the tholian recluse carrier then? do you find him to be ridiculously OP?
and on this ship it is the commander slot that is universal, mind you.
the galaxy dreadnought is one of the less efficient ship in the game, reducing the science tanking capabilitie of the ship to give him a lt comander tactical do not make it OP but on part with other tactical cruiser out there.
and even so, only the best player will be able to do something good with the layout i propose, this ship is not for everyone indeed.
presuming of it potential just by looking at it BO power position is a common mistake.
that being said, you BO layout proposal is a good one too, and i am sure that gecko will choose this one other mine anyday.
It's called using common sense, you should try it sometime. A Peregrine is a small 1 or 2 man ship. It might have a replicate for food, and likely a bathroom but that's it no sleeping quarters. Also the ships while fast at impulse are slow at warp. Thus for major fleet operations they would need starships to carry them. and considering shuttle space the most likely ships are Galaxy, Sovereign, Curry, and maybe Ambassador can hold at least a full squadron. Other ships could hold parts of a squadron and also considering sensors they can see an enemy at range thus have time to deploy them. And for budget reasons they never show them launching and save the money for the important scenes. The writers thought we would use common sense a figure out they were launch from the ships.
Will a hanger solve the Galaxy problem alone? HELL NO but you can not deny it is an option for the revamp.
Use common sense??
You mean the same thing that indicates that the GCS is a superior vessel to the Sovereign?
:eek:
I think giving every big ship a Hangar plus fighters will just result in having a combat zone full of fighter spam.
STO would soon become almost unplayable, if not only Carriers can deploy squadrons of fighters but also Cruisers and not long after them Science and surely Escorts too.
How long will that carrier and fighter game be interesting anyway?
Even the Carrier feti****s must admit that squadrons of fighters and shuttles attacking each other are rather rare in Star Trek history, i hope we all agree to that.
So why changing Star Trek space combat in the first place?
Just because something looks cool today, doesn't mean that it is still cool tomorrow. What if Carrier/figther based space combat isnt' so great as it seems like?
What if people are annoyed by massive fighter spam after two weeks?
As you and everyone else know, removing some ability or feature from a ship isn't a good idea to start with. So fighters won't go away, that easy anymore.
But STO space combat would be even more alienated from classical Star Trek space combat then ever before.
So i think introducing more and more hangar capable ships doesn't do anything good for STO in a long term, it just makes the game more un-Trek, nothing more.
Some ships problems (like the GCS) can be solved much more easily by adding some console slots or by giving them a additional universal BOFF slot.
This would also make them more Trek-ish in contrast of just slapping a hangar on it.
To be frankly, if someone wants to have fighters, carriers and things like that, he should play BSGO, the old wing commander, X-Wing games, the X universe or any other sci fi game out there.
But please leave Star Trek one of its unique features.
Use common sense??
You mean the same thing that indicates that the GCS is a superior vessel to the Sovereign?
:eek:
If both ships are up to date and one of them is clearly bigger, one can assume that the bigger one can be superior in some cases. At least the bigger ship has enough space to do the smaller ships job AND do other things too.
This could be interpreted as common sense, but i am sure you won't. lol.
- 3 seasons of TOS.
- 7 seasons of TNG.
- 7 seasons of DS9.
- 7 seasons of Voyager.
- 4 seasons of Enterprise.
- 10 Star Trek movies (pre-J.J. Abrams)
Not a single one carrier launch sequence in all of those due to budget restrictions? Yeah, that seems plausible for a franchise that is "suposed" to have carriers all around. :rolleyes:
I think that's the most striking argument against having carrier ships in Star Trek.
= End of discussion
"...'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
then explain the orion boats. the corsair fdc has rolling doors instead of ANY hangar, and the marauder has none. and you want to provide a source on that distinction in the first place?
it makes perfect sense, a hangar is a hole through the armor into the guts on the ship, more of them you have, the more weaknesses you have. also locating the bay doors to the rear in a ship that is built around having the flanks & bow to the enemy means you are providing cover to the rear for launching/retreiving craft for maintenance.
what you are doing is convoluting terrestrial fighter ethos with would be space based requirments.
and if you want to talk about "established behavior" as a reason for anything, then you need to throw out most of the game, since;
not even the defiant could 180 in under a second,
the primary energy weapons are beams in all but a few occasions
and large cruisers where the mainstay of the show not derpy dakka boats pretending to be fighters.
its entirly possible to do both. ie, have fighters, and only make them viable in a few situations, IF the game gets balanced on a mechanical level, but until cryptic have the resources to overhaul the entire structure of the game mechanics, fighters can fill the gap.
A shuttle bay which operates as a uni vs a Hangar?
I'd think that was fairly obvious. A Shuttle bay operates as an exit and entrance for the auxiliary craft that is aboard a ship.
A hangar operates with an entrance and an exit.
Receiving and Sending.
I'm not "convoluting" anything.
It's a logistical issue. Not a Terrestrial one.
Receiving and sending from the same door creates traffic. And a point of vulnerability that has nothing to do with having a "hole" in your armor.
If you have a wreck going either direction you slow or stop traffic going both ways.
Furthermore, the role that is played by fighters is one of protection just as much as attack.
The fighters serve as a screen for the mother ship. Not the other way around.
If the fighters are lost, then so be it. If the mother ship is lost, they are all lost.
You launch fore, and receive aft.
Launching fore adds velocity, surprise and ease of attack.
Launching aft removes all advantages and puts a strain on the fighters to play catch up rather than being able to do immediately what they are supposed to be doing.
If your tactic calls for a dump, that is different.
Receiving aft allows for both the mother ship and other fighters to serve as a screen for the damaged, or returning vessels.
As for your comment on the Defiant.
It fits. The Defiant was shown as being a fast and agile combat craft.
Putting speed, maneuverability and weapon power above most else.
Which is more or less exactly what the ship is portrayed as being in this game.
So it lines up with its image.
-the galaxy class never once tried to solve its combat problems with auxiliary craft
-a hanger slot has near 0 value to a ship that has no burst damage, its just more annoying clutter
-the devs would tac on a hanger and call it fixed, in lue of ACTUALLY fixing whats wrong with it.
you really want the galaxy to have a hanger, instead of better station and console setups?
Very true. Just because it *CAN* house a large number of craft doesn't mean it makes it a platform to launch fighters as part of a routine combat tactic. And I agree with you completely, hangars wouldn't make the ship any more useful at damage output, and it would just add to the growing number of spam on the map. No more spam please.
Revamp, not "slap a hangar on and call it fixed".
EDIT: Something else... What about the logistical issues of launching shuttles from the Saucer section, since that Saucer separates from the 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!
What if Tactical Team wouldn't be the only power that effectively distributes shield power?
Didn't the Galaxy -R really start to suck when tactical team became essential? (not that it was ever a good ship at all)
So what if the devs would make "distribute Shield Power" almost as potent as TT (or at least have more impact than now), so Tactical Team wouldn't be as cruicial for everyone as it is now?
Of course this wouldn't solve the main problem of the GCS, but i think it would be helpful.
"...'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
Hardly.
I am using two words with very different connotations within this discussion.
In this discussion a Shuttlebay is not a Hangar. Saying "Hangar" carries with it the assumed purpose of having Fighters involved.
like i said, confusing naval and space
Wrong.
Its logistics.
It has nothing to do with launching into the wind. It has to do with the function of the craft.
In space, an object still has mass. And mass has inertia. This can also be transferred to another object. By dumping a fighter aft, you take away this transference. By launching it forward the fighter is able to launch at the speed of the craft from which it is launched. Add its own engines and that craft is able to launch at near combat speeds.
No rev time required. This is a huge asset. And it is one that can go horribly wrong if an incoming craft were to get in the way. Any object fore of the ship is a hazard. Receiving from fore is placing unnecessary objects fore of the ship. Creating a danger zone where a fighter has to adjust drastically in order to actually engage and form up with its squad.
That has nothing to do with v
that being derived from the ww2 idea of launching into the wind. not needed or relavent in space, where a hanger door would just be a convenient hole for your enemy to shoot into your ship through.
Concerning your "convenient hole" for an enemy to shoot into your ship.
You miss the point of a Carrier. If your Carrier is being engaged prior to launching its own fighters or having the enemy intercepted by support capital vessels then you screwed up.
That "hole" isn't going to matter. A Carrier is not a front line vessel. It is a launch and support vessel.
thank you for proving my point about people being perfectly happy to bend canon for their own means.
its fine for the defiant to do things beyond its onscreen capability, but not for another ship.
gg on consistency.
Wrong again.
The Defiant is what?
Fast, nimble, agile, packs a punch.
A weapons platform with an engine strapped to the back of it.
It is exactly that within this game.
What would be to break from its image is to give it zero armor.
Very poor turnrate in comparison to other Federation vessels.
Barely adequate weapon performance.
It is a game. The attributes of each ship will be exaggerated or toned down in order to keep a semblance of balance within the game.
I'm not saying that it is or isn't OP.(the defense value would be a game mechanic, not the ships own)
But it hasn't departed the script in such a way as the GCS has.
you want to try semantics, check your dictionary first.
Check the thread content first.
I know what the dictionary says a Hangar is.
I said within this thread a shuttlebay is not a hangar.
If I said slap a shuttlebay on the Nebula. Would you think I was proposing that the Nebula be allowed to operate as a FDC or Carrier?
No.
If anything, you'd likely reply with a sarcastic "It already has one."
As I think many of us would.
which doesnt apply to space combat.
these craft arent going to be a source of constant traffic, galactica & star wars where so wrong its TRIBBLE. they wont be redocking if there are a threat of blowing up in the host ship, especially with transporters to save the crew.
launching aft doesnt mean traveling the opposite direction, just briefly slightly slower than the host ship.
again, the launching forward is irrelivent to space craft, especially those capable of at least low superluminal speed. and who's niche in combat comes from the cube-square power rule.
all of which would still be there for flanking friendly craft of any kind.
not to mention, this is about the galaxy, not a terrestrial carrier.
I am not talking about a terrestrial carrier.
I am talking logistics.
Any flanking friendly craft would be well outside the launch zone.
Returning craft are not. The main shuttlebay of the Galaxy is not wide enough to accommodate both entry and exit of multiple vessels.
And again, speed is key.
It always has been. The faster you go, the harder you are to hit.
The faster you are the more likely you are to hit your target first.
It may not be the main thing, but it is a vital part of the equation.
In space you would have the ability to physically launch those craft from within the ship.
They wouldn't even need to have their own engines engaged.
You could launch the craft faster that way then they could under their own power.
Literally firing fighters into space.
Transporters would not be an option.
again, that only applies to terrestrial carriers, space base carriers are battleships in their own right, and in deep space, not launching would likely be preferable anyway.
Says who?
yet here we are, ingame, with an overplayed defiant, and a galaxy that would stomp said defiant, just a victim. again, you are making my point.
Incorrect.
The Defiant is fine. The GCS is not.
If the Galaxy were one of the premier cruisers, and the Defiant was crushing it. Then there would be a problem. But that isn't the case is it. The GCS is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to end game cruisers. All cruisers struggle with the Defiant and Escorts in general.
So it is the Cruiser that is out of image. Not the Defiant/Escort.
Hence this very thread.
And oddly enough, a Hangar wouldn't fix this issue or even make a dent in it.
the gal is so far off the script its not even worth mentioning it. and simple fact is, if the federation wanted an fdc to support perigrines etc in deep space as counter to kdf fighter support, the galaxy is the obvious choice for that role. since it could even serve as hander to 50meter marquis raider craft.
No it's not.
If it was the case, then it would have been seen on-screen.
It wasn't.
If you want to play the game of my opinion is law, fine.
The Galaxy should be curb stomping every other Federation Cruiser in this game.
Odyssey included.
She is the largest weapons platform ever fielded by Star Fleet.
Capable of standing up to the Negh'Var and D'Deridex.
Would have done more than just scratch the paint job of the Scimitar.
Would swat Defiants, Intrepids, Prometheus vessels out of the sky without batting an eyelash about it.
No other Federation vessel short of a full fledged Starbase could take on a Galaxy Class Battleship/Cruiser.
And if the GCS is so far off script.
Then why are you mentioning it at all?
Outside of Naval implications and this game, I.E. in other fantastical scifi universes, most ships that carry support craft launch from the sides.
Most notable the galactica and a slew of star wars ships, with some star wars ships launching and receiveing from the bottom. Notable exception being SG-1 but those suckers where built by the air force during a time when those tactics still make sense.
Step Three. Don't bring canon to a video game fight, thats like trying to fight fire with gasoline. Beacuse frankly if you canon freaks erally cared, you would have to physically repair your weapons and shields anytime they were taken offline. canon has its place in this game, but only so far as the looks of ships and species. outside of looks canon goes flying away.
Step Four. back to the Galaxy class and improvements for her, Not gimmicks. And frankly Gimicks are what sells so we will just keep getting more of them.
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Be nice to know or have a dev visit this thread and tell us what they are willing/allowed to do in order to help make the galaxy a better ship. Its kinda pointless for us to make up solutions if they are unwilling to atleast give us a hint of their intentions. Personally Id like to see them come in and say just what if any thoughts they have on the galaxy.
As far as the carrier and shuttle and fighters. Id rather not have the galaxy turned into that.
Really they should look into switching science ships and cruisers into more viable dps ships seeing as tanks and CC are pointless as everything seems to center more and more on dps. I see far to many picking up escorts when their favorite ship is science or a cruiser because escorts kill way faster and can take plenty of damage without to much of a problem.
other than waxing off about how leet you are, you could deal with the comparison i made, that being the space tadpole star cruiser vs the fleet cred fdc. one is just a victim, the other is almost useful.
*facepalm* Me, elitist? lol I have to say, never heard that one before. We definitely have the most trolling comunity of all MMO's, there are worse comunities in other games, but when it comes to trolling we beat them hands down.
Let me clear that up for you - I'm not "leet". I don't brag about being "leet" because I don't believe in that myself. I have given up serious PvP in protest to Cryptic's handling of PvP and I only ocassionaly do it now in Ker'rat when I'm bored. I don't own any lockbox or lobi ships. I only own 1 lobi console - the Rule 62. I don't have a full Romulan Boff crew on my Klingon ship because I'd rather not feel weird on my bridge than squeezing more dakka. And so on and so on....
If you think that having a fleet ship that comes out of Tier 3 shipyard in a faction such as the KDF where the last competitive C-Store ship was released more than 1.5 year ago makes me elitist....well you have some funky perception on what elite is then.
But, good job on completely missing my point because you misdirected yourself into focusing about my waxing off that never occured. I mentioned the 4 module one not to brag (as if it was something to brag about), but because that is what I have and it's slightly more powerfull than the 200.000 FC one, but I can still see the difference it's single hangar brings to the table. And IMHO, it's added bonus, but not that much as you're making it sound.
Also I might have dealt with your comparison if I had a clue what a "space tapdole" is. Sorry, but English is not my native language and besides in the post I replied to, you never mentioned the Star Cruiser, you just said "space tapdole".
Sorry for being only Human and not Betazoid so I could read your mind.
dont blame me for the irrational nerd rage that comes from the trek fandom. especially when you are being such a fine example.
Nerd rage!? lol You're funny. So now Star Trek fans asking for as little as the iconic Star Trek ships seen in the shows to remain in their role is nerd rage?
Yes, how dare those Star Trek fans ask for something resembling Star Trek in a Star Trek game!? :rolleyes:
Also nice job trying to insult me. That's just the way to go if you want to win any discussion! :rolleyes:
you must have a comprehension problem, i suggest you re-read the post you are replying to until you figure out im just pointing out that a gal fdc is just more sensible than tholian carriers
Actually, you're the one with the comprehension problem - if you focused your efforts into trying to understand my points instead of choosing to insult me throughout the majority of your reply, you would have seen it.
The point was - both are not sensible. The difference is - one is already in the game, the other is not yet. Another difference is that I'm not interested in flying Tholian ships and while I can turn a blind eye to other players doing so, I don't want my original Star Trek ship that I do fly being turned into something that it never was and something I wouldn't want to fly anymore.
no. dont include me in that "we", and its caused by people turning a blind eye to their own preferences, such as dhc dominance.
Who included you? The Universe does not revolve around you, you know?
If anyone should be bugged about being included in that "we" it should be yreodred, because I actually mentioned him in that part of the post.
So, it's not pure hyperbole saying that Starfleet ships are perfectly designed to launch fighter craft because their shuttle bay enterance is aft even though none of them (with the exception of the Akira and not on screen, but based on design schematics) were designed to launch fighter craft, but it's a pure hyperbole saying that would mean every Starfleet ship is capable of doing so. Nice double standard there.
and jj trek is the franchise to revive the whole of startrek, you must really like him.
I don't neccessarily like him, but I don't hate him either. I apreciate that he at least made his movies in an alternate timeline so the prime universe would remain intact by some different ideas he had in his movies. I certainly apreciate him being more true to Star Trek than Cryptic is at the moment.
You wasted a whole post trying to insult me for some reason, without contributing anything substantial to the discussion. Now that was a waste of time.
Please in future, try not to argue with me or attempt to bellitle or insult me. It's childish and I'm not arguing with you - I'm arguing against making the Galaxy class a fdc or a carrier. It's just difference of opinions. I have no idea why you attempted to make this personal.
thats not what needs explained... infact, thats pretty obvious.
the galaxy as it is ingame is basically the embodiments of "tank" from the rpg trinity. thats it.
and according to the rpg trinity its valid and correctly implemented as a tank.
That's why I suggested giving it a hangar.
If its already such a big, hulking "shoot me" command ship, you could improve and amplify that with fighters.
thats not what needs explained... infact, thats pretty obvious.
the galaxy as it is ingame is basically the embodiments of "tank" from the rpg trinity. thats it.
and according to the rpg trinity its valid and correctly implemented as a tank.
the thing is, the game content isnt built around the trinity system, and cant be.
it would litterally be a bigger job to get this game into the trinity with expedition lobbies, redesigning the levels to force the use of the "tank", "healer", "damage dealer" then it would be to adopt a linear balance model.
since fitting this game into a trinity model, would completly dismiss the ffranchise its based on, as well as any solo content/pug queues/etc so that players where always in a group.
thats where it all went wrong.
The problem i see in the trinity is that the "real" Galaxy Class isn't supposed to be a full tank. It's a multi mission ship, so if anything it should be a jack of all trades, with a emphasis on being a tank.
Cryptic should have made one of their own (ugly) creations the most extreme tank in STO but not the GCS, especially if that means to make the ship witually without any offensive.
Dontdrunk has stated it many times, much better than i ever could that the GCS should have of one of the most devestating phaser beam arrays in the whole game. But Cryptic compeletely ignored this aspect of the GCS just as its science capabilities.
If anything the GCS should be one of the best solo capable/versatile ships in the game, instead of being the most group supporting ships.
So in my opinion, the GCS is totally different to the ship we saw on many ocsasions. (leaving the fact that its BOFF/console layout are just TRIBBLE to be blunt)
Other ships on the other hand are made much more true to the ones we could see on TV, like the Defiant or various Klingon ships.
The thing i dont understand about this, is the fact that there is more than enough material to read/watch about the GCS which makes it one of the best documented ships in Star Trek or in whole Sci Fi.
Other games did a much better job in implementing the GCS, even most game mods do a better job in illustration the GCE, heck even amateurs* like dontdrunkimshoot or other people here in this thread alone have a much better comprehension of the Galaxy Class then Cryptics devs, althrough they are supposed to know things like that much better than we do since they are supposed to make money with knowlede like that. *Not in a deprecative sense, rather the opposite.
"...'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
yea, well, thats why you dont use the rpg trinity outside a myth & magic game.
unfortunatly, somebody forgot to point that out to cryptic before they based different parts of this game around different sections of game sworkshop.
its not even a preference of mine either... i just view it as something that could be used as an option to make the ship viable, within the spectrum of cryptics capability.
Althrough i understand your motives, i think you should see the bigger picture of this.
The devs would just slap a hangar on the GCS and pretend it would be fixed. It wouldn't help anyone, it woul djust make thie ship and the game more un-typical to Star Trek.
(It's not about if carriers are common, it's about preserving the feeling and the spirit of how Star Trek works. It doesn't matter if some ships where actually capable to be used as carriers or not.)
"...'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
Comments
It's called using common sense, you should try it sometime. A Peregrine is a small 1 or 2 man ship. It might have a replicate for food, and likely a bathroom but that's it no sleeping quarters. Also the ships while fast at impulse are slow at warp. Thus for major fleet operations they would need starships to carry them. and considering shuttle space the most likely ships are Galaxy, Sovereign, Curry, and maybe Ambassador can hold at least a full squadron. Other ships could hold parts of a squadron and also considering sensors they can see an enemy at range thus have time to deploy them. And for budget reasons they never show them launching and save the money for the important scenes. The writers thought we would use common sense a figure out they were launch from the ships.
Will a hanger solve the Galaxy problem alone? HELL NO but you can not deny it is an option for the revamp.
Agreed, this carrier discussion is tiresome and leads us nowhere.
I'd say give the GCS and all big Starfleet Cruisers 5/5 weapons and/or a additional tac Console.
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Thanks, I had no idea what the ship you were refering to was.
Oh no man, you do not want to start this discussion we had with people in another thread all over again. Don't try to sell that budget stuff, others have tried it and fell flat on their face.
I'm using common sense - I told you those fighters and runabouts were usually transported to a site by a bigger ship. Now follow me, a ship that is used to transport those is not a carrier. A ship that has space to hold a number of smaller craft does not have to be a carrier. A carrier in theory would be a starship that is capable of launching and docking multiple auxiliary craft at the same time with included in-build repair facilities on board - something no Starfleet ship has shown to have.
Only the Akira in theory was suposed to be a carrier, but it was never portrayed to launch craft on screen. If you're wondering what the hell launched the peregrines in DS9 there's a better chance it was Akira ships rather than Galaxy. Because, in theory and at least on paper the Akira was suposed to be one as oposed to the Galaxy that was not designed to do so.
Now you try using common sense:
- 3 seasons of TOS.
- 7 seasons of TNG.
- 7 seasons of DS9.
- 7 seasons of Voyager.
- 4 seasons of Enterprise.
- 10 Star Trek movies (pre-J.J. Abrams)
Not a single one carrier launch sequence in all of those due to budget restrictions? Yeah, that seems plausible for a franchise that is "suposed" to have carriers all around. :rolleyes:
1st sry for mi englsih
and yes is tiresome discussion; why ppl whant so mach made all ships into carriers :eek: thats not work.
i have to meditate about the 5/5 wep slots not sure for the reason of power drian , maybe will work best a natural boost on beam weapons when sloted into cruciers like +X% when used in cruciers
point there butthen concepts of use would be different. now yes Akira's can do it, so can Galaxy, Sovereign, Ambassador, and Curry. And Sacrafice of Angels had what 8 squadrons of fighters/ So 4 per fleet. spread out among the ships, doable. Again. Will a hanger solve Galaxy problem, no. But it's addtion to what ever they do is plausible.
ridiculously OP? because of 2 lt comms and a comm?
what about the tholian recluse carrier then? do you find him to be ridiculously OP?
and on this ship it is the commander slot that is universal, mind you.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Tholian_Recluse_Carrier
the galaxy dreadnought is one of the less efficient ship in the game, reducing the science tanking capabilitie of the ship to give him a lt comander tactical do not make it OP but on part with other tactical cruiser out there.
and even so, only the best player will be able to do something good with the layout i propose, this ship is not for everyone indeed.
presuming of it potential just by looking at it BO power position is a common mistake.
that being said, you BO layout proposal is a good one too, and i am sure that gecko will choose this one other mine anyday.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Use common sense??
You mean the same thing that indicates that the GCS is a superior vessel to the Sovereign?
:eek:
STO would soon become almost unplayable, if not only Carriers can deploy squadrons of fighters but also Cruisers and not long after them Science and surely Escorts too.
How long will that carrier and fighter game be interesting anyway?
Even the Carrier feti****s must admit that squadrons of fighters and shuttles attacking each other are rather rare in Star Trek history, i hope we all agree to that.
So why changing Star Trek space combat in the first place?
Just because something looks cool today, doesn't mean that it is still cool tomorrow. What if Carrier/figther based space combat isnt' so great as it seems like?
What if people are annoyed by massive fighter spam after two weeks?
As you and everyone else know, removing some ability or feature from a ship isn't a good idea to start with. So fighters won't go away, that easy anymore.
But STO space combat would be even more alienated from classical Star Trek space combat then ever before.
So i think introducing more and more hangar capable ships doesn't do anything good for STO in a long term, it just makes the game more un-Trek, nothing more.
Some ships problems (like the GCS) can be solved much more easily by adding some console slots or by giving them a additional universal BOFF slot.
This would also make them more Trek-ish in contrast of just slapping a hangar on it.
To be frankly, if someone wants to have fighters, carriers and things like that, he should play BSGO, the old wing commander, X-Wing games, the X universe or any other sci fi game out there.
But please leave Star Trek one of its unique features.
If both ships are up to date and one of them is clearly bigger, one can assume that the bigger one can be superior in some cases. At least the bigger ship has enough space to do the smaller ships job AND do other things too.
This could be interpreted as common sense, but i am sure you won't. lol.
I think that's the most striking argument against having carrier ships in Star Trek.
= End of discussion
A shuttle bay which operates as a uni vs a Hangar?
I'd think that was fairly obvious. A Shuttle bay operates as an exit and entrance for the auxiliary craft that is aboard a ship.
A hangar operates with an entrance and an exit.
Receiving and Sending.
I'm not "convoluting" anything.
It's a logistical issue. Not a Terrestrial one.
Receiving and sending from the same door creates traffic. And a point of vulnerability that has nothing to do with having a "hole" in your armor.
If you have a wreck going either direction you slow or stop traffic going both ways.
Furthermore, the role that is played by fighters is one of protection just as much as attack.
The fighters serve as a screen for the mother ship. Not the other way around.
If the fighters are lost, then so be it. If the mother ship is lost, they are all lost.
You launch fore, and receive aft.
Launching fore adds velocity, surprise and ease of attack.
Launching aft removes all advantages and puts a strain on the fighters to play catch up rather than being able to do immediately what they are supposed to be doing.
If your tactic calls for a dump, that is different.
Receiving aft allows for both the mother ship and other fighters to serve as a screen for the damaged, or returning vessels.
As for your comment on the Defiant.
It fits. The Defiant was shown as being a fast and agile combat craft.
Putting speed, maneuverability and weapon power above most else.
Which is more or less exactly what the ship is portrayed as being in this game.
So it lines up with its image.
-the galaxy class never once tried to solve its combat problems with auxiliary craft
-a hanger slot has near 0 value to a ship that has no burst damage, its just more annoying clutter
-the devs would tac on a hanger and call it fixed, in lue of ACTUALLY fixing whats wrong with it.
you really want the galaxy to have a hanger, instead of better station and console setups?
Very true. Just because it *CAN* house a large number of craft doesn't mean it makes it a platform to launch fighters as part of a routine combat tactic. And I agree with you completely, hangars wouldn't make the ship any more useful at damage output, and it would just add to the growing number of spam on the map. No more spam please.
Revamp, not "slap a hangar on and call it fixed".
EDIT: Something else... What about the logistical issues of launching shuttles from the Saucer section, since that Saucer separates from the ship?
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Didn't the Galaxy -R really start to suck when tactical team became essential?
(not that it was ever a good ship at all)
So what if the devs would make "distribute Shield Power" almost as potent as TT (or at least have more impact than now), so Tactical Team wouldn't be as cruicial for everyone as it is now?
Of course this wouldn't solve the main problem of the GCS, but i think it would be helpful.
Hardly.
I am using two words with very different connotations within this discussion.
In this discussion a Shuttlebay is not a Hangar. Saying "Hangar" carries with it the assumed purpose of having Fighters involved.
Wrong.
Its logistics.
It has nothing to do with launching into the wind. It has to do with the function of the craft.
In space, an object still has mass. And mass has inertia. This can also be transferred to another object. By dumping a fighter aft, you take away this transference. By launching it forward the fighter is able to launch at the speed of the craft from which it is launched. Add its own engines and that craft is able to launch at near combat speeds.
No rev time required. This is a huge asset. And it is one that can go horribly wrong if an incoming craft were to get in the way. Any object fore of the ship is a hazard. Receiving from fore is placing unnecessary objects fore of the ship. Creating a danger zone where a fighter has to adjust drastically in order to actually engage and form up with its squad.
That has nothing to do with v
Concerning your "convenient hole" for an enemy to shoot into your ship.
You miss the point of a Carrier. If your Carrier is being engaged prior to launching its own fighters or having the enemy intercepted by support capital vessels then you screwed up.
That "hole" isn't going to matter. A Carrier is not a front line vessel. It is a launch and support vessel.
Wrong again.
The Defiant is what?
Fast, nimble, agile, packs a punch.
A weapons platform with an engine strapped to the back of it.
It is exactly that within this game.
What would be to break from its image is to give it zero armor.
Very poor turnrate in comparison to other Federation vessels.
Barely adequate weapon performance.
It is a game. The attributes of each ship will be exaggerated or toned down in order to keep a semblance of balance within the game.
I'm not saying that it is or isn't OP.(the defense value would be a game mechanic, not the ships own)
But it hasn't departed the script in such a way as the GCS has.
Check the thread content first.
I know what the dictionary says a Hangar is.
I said within this thread a shuttlebay is not a hangar.
If I said slap a shuttlebay on the Nebula. Would you think I was proposing that the Nebula be allowed to operate as a FDC or Carrier?
No.
If anything, you'd likely reply with a sarcastic "It already has one."
As I think many of us would.
I am not talking about a terrestrial carrier.
I am talking logistics.
Any flanking friendly craft would be well outside the launch zone.
Returning craft are not. The main shuttlebay of the Galaxy is not wide enough to accommodate both entry and exit of multiple vessels.
And again, speed is key.
It always has been. The faster you go, the harder you are to hit.
The faster you are the more likely you are to hit your target first.
It may not be the main thing, but it is a vital part of the equation.
In space you would have the ability to physically launch those craft from within the ship.
They wouldn't even need to have their own engines engaged.
You could launch the craft faster that way then they could under their own power.
Literally firing fighters into space.
Transporters would not be an option.
Says who?
Incorrect.
The Defiant is fine. The GCS is not.
If the Galaxy were one of the premier cruisers, and the Defiant was crushing it. Then there would be a problem. But that isn't the case is it. The GCS is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to end game cruisers. All cruisers struggle with the Defiant and Escorts in general.
So it is the Cruiser that is out of image. Not the Defiant/Escort.
Hence this very thread.
And oddly enough, a Hangar wouldn't fix this issue or even make a dent in it.
No it's not.
If it was the case, then it would have been seen on-screen.
It wasn't.
If you want to play the game of my opinion is law, fine.
The Galaxy should be curb stomping every other Federation Cruiser in this game.
Odyssey included.
She is the largest weapons platform ever fielded by Star Fleet.
Capable of standing up to the Negh'Var and D'Deridex.
Would have done more than just scratch the paint job of the Scimitar.
Would swat Defiants, Intrepids, Prometheus vessels out of the sky without batting an eyelash about it.
No other Federation vessel short of a full fledged Starbase could take on a Galaxy Class Battleship/Cruiser.
And if the GCS is so far off script.
Then why are you mentioning it at all?
Stop Derailing this thread with carrier fights.
Step two.
Outside of Naval implications and this game, I.E. in other fantastical scifi universes, most ships that carry support craft launch from the sides.
Most notable the galactica and a slew of star wars ships, with some star wars ships launching and receiveing from the bottom. Notable exception being SG-1 but those suckers where built by the air force during a time when those tactics still make sense.
Step Three. Don't bring canon to a video game fight, thats like trying to fight fire with gasoline. Beacuse frankly if you canon freaks erally cared, you would have to physically repair your weapons and shields anytime they were taken offline. canon has its place in this game, but only so far as the looks of ships and species. outside of looks canon goes flying away.
Step Four. back to the Galaxy class and improvements for her, Not gimmicks. And frankly Gimicks are what sells so we will just keep getting more of them.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
As far as the carrier and shuttle and fighters. Id rather not have the galaxy turned into that.
Really they should look into switching science ships and cruisers into more viable dps ships seeing as tanks and CC are pointless as everything seems to center more and more on dps. I see far to many picking up escorts when their favorite ship is science or a cruiser because escorts kill way faster and can take plenty of damage without to much of a problem.
*facepalm* Me, elitist? lol
Let me clear that up for you - I'm not "leet". I don't brag about being "leet" because I don't believe in that myself. I have given up serious PvP in protest to Cryptic's handling of PvP and I only ocassionaly do it now in Ker'rat when I'm bored. I don't own any lockbox or lobi ships. I only own 1 lobi console - the Rule 62. I don't have a full Romulan Boff crew on my Klingon ship because I'd rather not feel weird on my bridge than squeezing more dakka. And so on and so on....
If you think that having a fleet ship that comes out of Tier 3 shipyard in a faction such as the KDF where the last competitive C-Store ship was released more than 1.5 year ago makes me elitist....well you have some funky perception on what elite is then.
But, good job on completely missing my point because you misdirected yourself into focusing about my waxing off that never occured. I mentioned the 4 module one not to brag (as if it was something to brag about), but because that is what I have and it's slightly more powerfull than the 200.000 FC one, but I can still see the difference it's single hangar brings to the table. And IMHO, it's added bonus, but not that much as you're making it sound.
Also I might have dealt with your comparison if I had a clue what a "space tapdole" is. Sorry, but English is not my native language and besides in the post I replied to, you never mentioned the Star Cruiser, you just said "space tapdole".
Sorry for being only Human and not Betazoid so I could read your mind.
Nerd rage!? lol
Yes, how dare those Star Trek fans ask for something resembling Star Trek in a Star Trek game!? :rolleyes:
Also nice job trying to insult me. That's just the way to go if you want to win any discussion! :rolleyes:
Actually, you're the one with the comprehension problem - if you focused your efforts into trying to understand my points instead of choosing to insult me throughout the majority of your reply, you would have seen it.
The point was - both are not sensible. The difference is - one is already in the game, the other is not yet. Another difference is that I'm not interested in flying Tholian ships and while I can turn a blind eye to other players doing so, I don't want my original Star Trek ship that I do fly being turned into something that it never was and something I wouldn't want to fly anymore.
Who included you? The Universe does not revolve around you, you know?
If anyone should be bugged about being included in that "we" it should be yreodred, because I actually mentioned him in that part of the post.
So, it's not pure hyperbole saying that Starfleet ships are perfectly designed to launch fighter craft because their shuttle bay enterance is aft even though none of them (with the exception of the Akira and not on screen, but based on design schematics) were designed to launch fighter craft, but it's a pure hyperbole saying that would mean every Starfleet ship is capable of doing so. Nice double standard there.
I don't neccessarily like him, but I don't hate him either. I apreciate that he at least made his movies in an alternate timeline so the prime universe would remain intact by some different ideas he had in his movies. I certainly apreciate him being more true to Star Trek than Cryptic is at the moment.
You wasted a whole post trying to insult me for some reason, without contributing anything substantial to the discussion. Now that was a waste of time.
Please in future, try not to argue with me or attempt to bellitle or insult me. It's childish and I'm not arguing with you - I'm arguing against making the Galaxy class a fdc or a carrier. It's just difference of opinions. I have no idea why you attempted to make this personal.
One more time ddis hits the nail to the head. I can't see what more could be said about this.
That's why I suggested giving it a hangar.
If its already such a big, hulking "shoot me" command ship, you could improve and amplify that with fighters.
The problem i see in the trinity is that the "real" Galaxy Class isn't supposed to be a full tank. It's a multi mission ship, so if anything it should be a jack of all trades, with a emphasis on being a tank.
Cryptic should have made one of their own (ugly) creations the most extreme tank in STO but not the GCS, especially if that means to make the ship witually without any offensive.
Dontdrunk has stated it many times, much better than i ever could that the GCS should have of one of the most devestating phaser beam arrays in the whole game. But Cryptic compeletely ignored this aspect of the GCS just as its science capabilities.
If anything the GCS should be one of the best solo capable/versatile ships in the game, instead of being the most group supporting ships.
So in my opinion, the GCS is totally different to the ship we saw on many ocsasions.
(leaving the fact that its BOFF/console layout are just TRIBBLE to be blunt)
Other ships on the other hand are made much more true to the ones we could see on TV, like the Defiant or various Klingon ships.
The thing i dont understand about this, is the fact that there is more than enough material to read/watch about the GCS which makes it one of the best documented ships in Star Trek or in whole Sci Fi.
Other games did a much better job in implementing the GCS, even most game mods do a better job in illustration the GCE, heck even amateurs* like dontdrunkimshoot or other people here in this thread alone have a much better comprehension of the Galaxy Class then Cryptics devs, althrough they are supposed to know things like that much better than we do since they are supposed to make money with knowlede like that.
*Not in a deprecative sense, rather the opposite.
Althrough i understand your motives, i think you should see the bigger picture of this.
The devs would just slap a hangar on the GCS and pretend it would be fixed. It wouldn't help anyone, it woul djust make thie ship and the game more un-typical to Star Trek.
(It's not about if carriers are common, it's about preserving the feeling and the spirit of how Star Trek works. It doesn't matter if some ships where actually capable to be used as carriers or not.)