Nope battleship, her, Sovereign, and Ambassador were Battleships in the war.
Well the biggest and most powerful Starfleet ship participating in the Battle can be called a Battleship IMO.
@admiralq1732
Are you serious calling the Ambassador a Battleship but the Galaxy Class not?
Regarding the Sovereign:
First, we didn't saw a Sovereign participiating in one of DS9 Battles.
Second, we've been talking about this i think a hundred pages back, that if both ships are equipped up to date, the GCS is the much heavier vessel than a Sovereign if refitted for Wartime. (If families and most science facilities have been removes and replaced with additional fusion reactors and stuff like that. Just ask dontdrunkimshoot about this, he can explain this much better than i.)
"...'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
As an in game Tank the Galaxy is formidable. As a tank it doesn't NEED overwhelming offensive ability because it has the durability to hang in a firefight as long as it takes to whittle 'em down.
I find it a little discouraging that people continue to propagate this notion that the Galaxy is some kind of fantastic super tank. The most offensive of the Federation cruiser in STO, the Fleet Assault Cruiser Retrofit, is just as capable of absorbing damage as the Galaxy. The all-important difference is that the FACR, while absorbing said damage, can also retaliate with its potent firepower. The Galaxy is, by a comfortable margin, the worst cruiser in the game. It has almost no offensive ability because of its dismal console and bridge officer layout and is no better a tank then any of the other Federation cruisers available.
"...'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
Maybe you people should figure out that applying conventional wet-navy classifications like "Battleship" and "Heavy Cruiser" to Starfleet ships (which have an already shaky lore foundation) is simply futile. We are in an MMO, and ships must conform to traditional MMO archtypes and roles.
Maybe you people should figure out that applying conventional wet-navy classifications like "Battleship" and "Heavy Cruiser" to Starfleet ships (which have an already shaky lore foundation) is simply futile. We are in an MMO, and ships must conform to traditional MMO archtypes and roles.
Not to be confrontational but, says who?
A traditional MMO archtype cannot be applied here.
Even if that was what the game was built as, it no longer is.
Terms like Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser or even Battleship can apply. They do apply.
Unless you have some awesome space jargon/lingo you can toss my way(please do if you do)
Then there is nothing wrong with applying them.
As for the trinity which is the usual archtype, TRIBBLE it.
It is long dead. And not just here. Players are getting fed up with eating nothing but porridge for breakfast. The only reason we continue to see it and to see nothing but, is fear.
Developers everywhere are afraid that a new idea will not pan out.
After the success of WoW, no-one is willing to try any other model. For better or worse, they say there isn't any other model out there that works.
There are other options. Several others infact. Some might even work better. But it is deemed to much of a financial "risk" to pursue or develop. They figure. Why reinvent the wheel? It's almost round, so it ought to work forever right?
Same thing when HALO came out. FPS games flooded the market and no-one thought to try and add anything new for years. And even now they continue to hang onto any shred of coattail they can grasp at.
As an in game Tank the Galaxy is formidable. As a tank it doesn't NEED overwhelming offensive ability because it has the durability to hang in a firefight as long as it takes to whittle 'em down.
this is the phantasy that people that don't fly cruiser or people that begun to fly cruiser bielieve ( me included when i started playing this game 3 years ago ).
but the reality is that even back in season 3 you would have not kill a good escort pilot with a beam cruiser tank.
you don't have the firepower even in the long run to break trought it regen abilities.
but even if it happened with a inexperience player, there is nothing that prevent him to evasive you away, and you will not catch him.
and the better your ship is at tanking, the better your skillpoint, bo power, gear are to tank, the more difficult it will be for you to kill anyone rapidly.
attrition fight generally daesn't work in sto ( exept for pve ).
and what happen when you become an invincible tank?
people ignore you, and come back to kill you 5vs 1.
to be effective you need a balance between your offense and your defense, this is bordeless impossible with the galaxy.
but to finish i will quote nikephorus who already responded to this kind of idea in this thread, and as my pesponse was the pvp point of view, his, is for pve.
So the Galaxy is foremost a tank? I agree. .. and therein lays the ships failure. The Galaxy, I Believe, was intended for the purpose of engineering tank as you say. Just as the Defiant , intended to be a damage dealer and the intrepid a cc/sci healer. Thus we have the Holy trinity of the standard mmo. The problem is that sto has evolved away from this normal mmo trinity. For better or worse we find ourselves in a dps race where even the damage dealers can tank without the aid of a sci healer or the need for a tank to hold aggro and migrate incoming damage. The Galaxy is the unfortunate casulty of this and is doomed to failure in this dps race while its Tanking role is for all intents and purposes worthless. All the cruisers I mentioned in earlier posts can tank just as well as the Galaxy, but can also offer their captains more tactical options and better overall damage output.
and what happen when you become an invincible tank?
people ignore you, and come back to kill you 5vs 1.
But that's the fun part! When you are still there laughing, and they require a 5v1 to beat you.
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 don't want to exclude PvP'ers, i have tried PvP and i am awful at it. That said if someone took the time in any matches to see if people know whats up and a from b i think a lot would improve.
Now in i do realize in PvP being hard to kill is a good thing, and dragging 5 of the enemy team in to battle you is a GOOD thing for you team as you can pounce when they are focused elsewhere, hence TANKING! In any given situation in games where the trinity is important(and at times in this game) a tank is vital. Say you are running an ISE, and that tac cube keeps targeting the hardhitting glass cannons, a tank can pull that big boy off them so they can take out the gate and then focus fire on the cube.
THis is the role of the tank, also that role usually is used to keep heat off the healer(science in this case) so they can do their job. But with PvP in this game takes away from the PvE (do not naysay just yet) If this game had a real seperation between PvP and Pve i think a lot could improve for everyone. Powers get nerfed all the time due to them being OP in PvP but integral and important at their former strengths in PvE.
If they had some way to, i don't know sperate how things work in one or the other i think it would really help. I don't like the fact that we will say half(pretend its a 50/50 split) the player base says Underpowered and the other half shouts Overpowered. do you see the issues? noone is ever going to see balance between the two types of playabe content.
Giving a real honest seperation to the two would give a a long head start on making more balance in their respective places as opposed to making you require specific builds to do what you need to in PvE.
Thanks for reading!
Viva La Galaxy Class!
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I don't want to exclude PvP'ers, i have tried PvP and i am awful at it. That said if someone took the time in any matches to see if people know whats up and a from b i think a lot would improve.
Now in i do realize in PvP being hard to kill is a good thing, and dragging 5 of the enemy team in to battle you is a GOOD thing for you team as you can pounce when they are focused elsewhere, hence TANKING! In any given situation in games where the trinity is important(and at times in this game) a tank is vital. Say you are running an ISE, and that tac cube keeps targeting the hardhitting glass cannons, a tank can pull that big boy off them so they can take out the gate and then focus fire on the cube.
THis is the role of the tank, also that role usually is used to keep heat off the healer(science in this case) so they can do their job. But with PvP in this game takes away from the PvE (do not naysay just yet) If this game had a real seperation between PvP and Pve i think a lot could improve for everyone. Powers get nerfed all the time due to them being OP in PvP but integral and important at their former strengths in PvE.
If they had some way to, i don't know sperate how things work in one or the other i think it would really help. I don't like the fact that we will say half(pretend its a 50/50 split) the player base says Underpowered and the other half shouts Overpowered. do you see the issues? noone is ever going to see balance between the two types of playabe content.
Giving a real honest seperation to the two would give a a long head start on making more balance in their respective places as opposed to making you require specific builds to do what you need to in PvE.
Thanks for reading!
Viva La Galaxy Class!
If PvP and PvE were split like that PvP would become even more confusing as you'd take your favourite skills in there and find them useless because they are completely different in each scenario. Now if you're meaning the idea of PvP consoles and PvE consoles for example, so PvP consoles are useless or unusable in PvE I also don't like that idea, I played another MMORPG before this that had PvP armour and weapons and PvE armour and weapons, it just confuses things massively and becomes even more of a grind, in my opinion....
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
Granted with any changes initial confusion would be present. a i was just throwing something out there as an alternative. This game and alot of the things within it are very broken, like the galaxy class
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Now in i do realize in PvP being hard to kill is a good thing, and dragging 5 of the enemy team in to battle you is a GOOD thing for you team as you can pounce when they are focused elsewhere, hence TANKING! In any given situation in games where the trinity is important(and at times in this game) a tank is vital. Say you are running an ISE, and that tac cube keeps targeting the hardhitting glass cannons, a tank can pull that big boy off them so they can take out the gate and then focus fire on the cube.
I would like to bring your attention to your second quote. You confirm that you are horrible at PvP then proceed to explain how a the Galaxy Class is going to be useful in a PvP team setting. If you don't see the irony in that ... well never mind.
Gather round children because here's what really happens when people see a Galaxy in a PvP match. Everyone immediately fly's over and attempts to kill it because it's most likely some idiot noob and an easy kill. If it turns out the person is semi competent (tho still and idiot for bringing a galaxy in a PvP match) and has turned his ship into a brick he will then be ignored while everyone other member of his team is dispatched. This is not PvE. This idiot in a Galaxy has no threat control to draw fire and he can and will be ignored since his damage is pathetically laughable. Once the rest of his team is dead he will then be gang banged into respawnland.
Even in PvE having a block ship like the Galaxy to draw fire isn't that useful. As for "Glass Cannons", well there aren't many of them. Most Escorts, if built correctly, can tank a borg Tactical Cube fairly easily. So even in PvE you've got a low dps ship that is slowing the teams progress. You mention borg stfs specifically. These missions must be completed in a timely manner and having a low dps ship is detrimental to the team.
I would like to bring your attention to your second quote. You confirm that you are horrible at PvP then proceed to explain how a the Galaxy Class is going to be useful in a PvP team setting. If you don't see the irony in that ... well never mind.
Gather round children because here's what really happens when people see a Galaxy in a PvP match. Everyone immediately fly's over and attempts to kill it because it's most likely some idiot noob and an easy kill. If it turns out the person is semi competent (tho still and idiot for bringing a galaxy in a PvP match) and has turned his ship into a brick he will then be ignored while everyone other member of his team is dispatched. This is not PvE. This idiot in a Galaxy has no threat control to draw fire and he can and will be ignored since his damage is pathetically laughable. Once the rest of his team is dead he will then be gang banged into respawnland.
Even in PvE having a block ship like the Galaxy to draw fire isn't that useful. As for "Glass Cannons", well there aren't many of them. Most Escorts, if built correctly, can tank a borg Tactical Cube fairly easily. So even in PvE you've got a low dps ship that is slowing the teams progress. You mention borg stfs specifically. These missions must be completed in a timely manner and having a low dps ship is detrimental to the team.
I think that's the essence of the Galaxy -R problem in this game.
EDIT: And let's not forget that it is just embarrassing to fly a GCS and having less firepower than a even Luna Class (RSV) or Fleet Nova, not to speak of having less firepower than a Galor or Excelsior. :mad:
I support a seperation between PvP and PvE.
In PvE ships could work much more like the "real" Trek ships and PvP could become perfectly balanced, without the balast of having to be semi canon or whatever you may call that state STO is now.
I think the already released ship should be left as they are, that would only cause major disconcertment.
Maybe Cryptic could introduce two new lines of ships, PvP focussed ones and PvE focussed ones.
While the current ships are still allowed to do both the new ones would be much more specialized and only restricted to to either PvP or PvE.
The reputation system could be a good way to get such ships.
Just for example:
M.A.C.O. could have PvE ships, most having universal BOFF stations or much higher firepower (crusiers) or defense (escorts) than the standard ships.
O.M.E.G.A. could be the PvP counterpart. Those ships would be optimized for PvP having everything that makes them perfectly balanced (very extreme in either tanking or gunning).
But i think it is crucial for a Star Trek game NOT to follow the (un)holy trinity (at least one seperate part of it), because all ships are just made completely wrong and, like the GCS isn't even recognizeable anymore.
"...'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
But that's the fun part! When you are still there laughing, and they require a 5v1 to beat you.
i am used to that kind of scenario in kerrat, but that is fun only if you do it on test purpose.
crosshealing in fed camp is almost inexistant in kerrat so you have to learn to survived alone.
at that time i also wanted to see the limits of tanking abilities that my ship have, so i volunterely go alone in a 5vs1 to see how much i can last and try to push the limit further everytime.
but even if that help you improving your tanking build and reflexes, no one, i bielieve, want to be a punchbag forever without being able to do 1 kill.
so it will be fun for 6 month, then you will move on.
I would like to bring your attention to your second quote. You confirm that you are horrible at PvP then proceed to explain how a the Galaxy Class is going to be useful in a PvP team setting. If you don't see the irony in that ... well never mind.
Gather round children because here's what really happens when people see a Galaxy in a PvP match. Everyone immediately fly's over and attempts to kill it because it's most likely some idiot noob and an easy kill. If it turns out the person is semi competent (tho still and idiot for bringing a galaxy in a PvP match) and has turned his ship into a brick he will then be ignored while everyone other member of his team is dispatched. This is not PvE. This idiot in a Galaxy has no threat control to draw fire and he can and will be ignored since his damage is pathetically laughable. Once the rest of his team is dead he will then be gang banged into respawnland.
Even in PvE having a block ship like the Galaxy to draw fire isn't that useful. As for "Glass Cannons", well there aren't many of them. Most Escorts, if built correctly, can tank a borg Tactical Cube fairly easily. So even in PvE you've got a low dps ship that is slowing the teams progress. You mention borg stfs specifically. These missions must be completed in a timely manner and having a low dps ship is detrimental to the team.
can you please stop making this kind of exellent, well written and to the point post, or i will found myself quoting you again and again Ad Vitam Aeternam:D:D
Well the biggest and most powerful Starfleet ship participating in the Battle can be called a Battleship IMO.
@admiralq1732
Are you serious calling the Ambassador a Battleship but the Galaxy Class not?
Regarding the Sovereign:
First, we didn't saw a Sovereign participiating in one of DS9 Battles.
Second, we've been talking about this i think a hundred pages back, that if both ships are equipped up to date, the GCS is the much heavier vessel than a Sovereign if refitted for Wartime. (If families and most science facilities have been removes and replaced with additional fusion reactors and stuff like that. Just ask dontdrunkimshoot about this, he can explain this much better than i.)
Well, you are allowed to your opinion, of course. Everything I saw from .DS9 was how a heavy cruiser SHOULD be used
i am used to that kind of scenario in kerrat, but that is fun only if you do it on test purpose.
crosshealing in fed camp is almost inexistant in kerrat so you have to learn to survived alone.
at that time i also wanted to see the limits of tanking abilities that my ship have, so i volunterely go alone in a 5vs1 to see how much i can last and try to push the limit further everytime.
but even if that help you improving your tanking build and reflexes, no one, i bielieve, want to be a punchbag forever without being able to do 1 kill.
so it will be fun for 6 month, then you will move on.
Yeah, but but as you described, that's pretty much all cruisers, even Excelsior.
Well the biggest and most powerful Starfleet ship participating in the Battle can be called a Battleship IMO.
@admiralq1732
Are you serious calling the Ambassador a Battleship but the Galaxy Class not?
Regarding the Sovereign:
First, we didn't saw a Sovereign participiating in one of DS9 Battles.
Second, we've been talking about this i think a hundred pages back, that if both ships are equipped up to date, the GCS is the much heavier vessel than a Sovereign if refitted for Wartime. (If families and most science facilities have been removes and replaced with additional fusion reactors and stuff like that. Just ask dontdrunkimshoot about this, he can explain this much better than i.)
I was mentioning Galaxy, she Sovereign, and Ambassador would be battleships. All would serve in the core of fleets. DS9 showed us how Starfleet organizes their fleets in war. the Fleet to take DS9 was a combine 2 fleet group. we saw 4 Galaxys so 2 Galaxys per fleet and assume at the time 10 galaxys operational at the time and most of them only battle ready (able to be used in combat but none of her extensive science abilities and due for time none of them had the Venture strips) for fleets not with Galaxys they had sovereign or Ambassadors at the core. And Sov and Galaxy are roughly the same size. Sov longer, Gal taller. And Sov design for more combat than galaxy was.
the sovereign has less then half the volume of a galaxy class, and its longest array is less then half as long as the shortest galaxy main array. the sovereign has an order of magnitude less firepower and combat ability.
the ambassador is about the same volume as a soverign though, only pretty outdated, with extreamly short arrays given its size. if anything the sovereign is a direct ambassador class replacement
Yeah, but but as you described, that's pretty much all cruisers, even Excelsior.
yes, even the exelsior, this ship can be quite tanky if you want to but...
i was speaking in an earlier post ( i don't remember if it is this thread ) that what is important, is the balance between offence and defense.
the exelsior have acces to ltcommander tact slot ( cstore version ) wich make all the difference, combine with it better turn rate and inertia.
he is not just a punchbag, he can also punch back more consistently, that is what save him.
if a player specced this ship more in defense than offense he is missusing the ship exactly like a star cruiser specced for damage would be.
every fed cruiser can serve as punchbag but some will be better at it than other.
but on the other hand, not every fed cruiser have the abilitie to "punch back" consistently.
I understand the rationale behind longer array is more powerful but the Galaxy came with Mk X phasers and the Sovereign was built with Mk XII phasers. Couldn't the newer arrays be more efficient and powerful despite being shorter? I believe so.
Also the Sovereign was built with full armor in mind as well as a superior shielding.
As for bigger is better I will say that the Sovereign is leaner than the Galaxy. The DW Galaxies were made fully combat ready with the majority of its interior empty. The Sovereign basically cuts the full crew comforts and capacity out and focuses on the necessities for a more true combat and exploration vessel.
mk XII emitters would have to be twice as good as mk X emitters for them to come close to breaking even. and such a mature technology is not going to double like that every few years. the D's phasers got upgraded in season 7 of tng, those could have very well been the same mkXII.
from everything ive been able to come across on armor, the galaxy's hull is actually thicker. the sovereign might have an ablative layer, but it seems like the galaxy star drive section at least got that eventually as well.
the sovereign is actually more crew dense then the galaxy, having 800 compared to 1000, dispute being half the size. in being leaner, the sovereign just has less potential modular space. in the D, the only galaxy we have seen in detail, the modular 70% of its interior was used mostly for luxury quarters, diplomatic facilities, science labs, and dolphins. being left empty is most likely not the idea tactical load out for a true battleship spec galaxy, but it allowed more of those phaser arrays and massive burst capable torpedo launchers into a battle.
without the heft of the saucer, such large arrays would not have been mountable. that heft allows it to be customized to anything starfleet needs it to be, and in a battle offers quite a bit of damage soak.
I just can't imagine Starfleet designing the next flagship, designed to combat the borg, and saying "hey let's put an inferior main phaser array on it. Great we'll have less damage than its predecessor."
Perhaps the individual emitters are capable of more than twice the capacity of the Mk X. Since the burst comes from the combination of all the emitters transferring the energy to the point where it discharges the explanation seems simple, design emitters capable of storing more energy.
the problem is this is what trek fans assume. that whatever the newest thing is, is the most powerful, best, and is the new flagship. the galaxy and sovereign dont complete in the same category, one is a battleship with big guns, the other is a heavy cruiser with medium guns. for losing a galaxy class starship, picard was not rewarded with a more powerful ship. the next enterprise was a sovereign class because it was such a new, advanced, and impressive ship for what it was, thats more important to starfleet then whats the best at blowing away xeno scum, thats why they saw fit to make the succeeding enterprise a technically lesser ship then the former. it was never said to be the flagship.
the sovereign is not the successor to the galaxy, its a new heavy cruiser meant to replace old cruiser designs like the excelsior and ambassador. its real advanced and all, but nothing is most advanced for long, with how often things are upgraded. anti borg countermeasures did not fundamentally change ship building, its new tactics and technologies meant to fight against their adaptation. the defiant is the only ship actually built to fight the borg. small, cheap, disposable, with as much firepower as they could fit in it. a large general purpose cruiser is an incredibly waistfull thing to build to fight against the borg.
any argument for super powered mkXII emitters gets voided as soon as a galaxy gets upgraded to have them as well.
the problem is this is what trek fans assume. that whatever the newest thing is, is the most powerful, best, and is the new flagship.
We don't have to assume La Forge flast out said the Enterprise-E was the most advanced ship in Starfleet in First Contact.
the galaxy and sovereign dont complete in the same category, one is a battleship with big guns, the other is a heavy cruiser with medium guns.
The Galaxy was not some uber warship, it was practically a science vessel for pete's sake. All that extra volume you are such a fan of was for civilians and a kindergarden, heck originally they were supposed to ditch the saucer before going into battle so it wouldn't technically have been a bigger ship in combat anyway since half of it was supposed to stay out of a fight aka the reason why Worf said the Enterprise was more formidable in battle after it ditches the dead weight saucer.
Comments
@admiralq1732
Are you serious calling the Ambassador a Battleship but the Galaxy Class not?
Regarding the Sovereign:
First, we didn't saw a Sovereign participiating in one of DS9 Battles.
Second, we've been talking about this i think a hundred pages back, that if both ships are equipped up to date, the GCS is the much heavier vessel than a Sovereign if refitted for Wartime. (If families and most science facilities have been removes and replaced with additional fusion reactors and stuff like that. Just ask dontdrunkimshoot about this, he can explain this much better than i.)
I find it a little discouraging that people continue to propagate this notion that the Galaxy is some kind of fantastic super tank. The most offensive of the Federation cruiser in STO, the Fleet Assault Cruiser Retrofit, is just as capable of absorbing damage as the Galaxy. The all-important difference is that the FACR, while absorbing said damage, can also retaliate with its potent firepower. The Galaxy is, by a comfortable margin, the worst cruiser in the game. It has almost no offensive ability because of its dismal console and bridge officer layout and is no better a tank then any of the other Federation cruisers available.
I think he was calling all of them Battleships.
Oh, i see...
Thanks for the hint.
@admiralq1732
Sorry for that
@nikephorus
Very true.
Not to be confrontational but, says who?
A traditional MMO archtype cannot be applied here.
Even if that was what the game was built as, it no longer is.
Terms like Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser or even Battleship can apply. They do apply.
Unless you have some awesome space jargon/lingo you can toss my way(please do if you do)
Then there is nothing wrong with applying them.
As for the trinity which is the usual archtype, TRIBBLE it.
It is long dead. And not just here. Players are getting fed up with eating nothing but porridge for breakfast. The only reason we continue to see it and to see nothing but, is fear.
Developers everywhere are afraid that a new idea will not pan out.
After the success of WoW, no-one is willing to try any other model. For better or worse, they say there isn't any other model out there that works.
There are other options. Several others infact. Some might even work better. But it is deemed to much of a financial "risk" to pursue or develop. They figure. Why reinvent the wheel? It's almost round, so it ought to work forever right?
Same thing when HALO came out. FPS games flooded the market and no-one thought to try and add anything new for years. And even now they continue to hang onto any shred of coattail they can grasp at.
this is the phantasy that people that don't fly cruiser or people that begun to fly cruiser bielieve ( me included when i started playing this game 3 years ago ).
but the reality is that even back in season 3 you would have not kill a good escort pilot with a beam cruiser tank.
you don't have the firepower even in the long run to break trought it regen abilities.
but even if it happened with a inexperience player, there is nothing that prevent him to evasive you away, and you will not catch him.
and the better your ship is at tanking, the better your skillpoint, bo power, gear are to tank, the more difficult it will be for you to kill anyone rapidly.
attrition fight generally daesn't work in sto ( exept for pve ).
and what happen when you become an invincible tank?
people ignore you, and come back to kill you 5vs 1.
to be effective you need a balance between your offense and your defense, this is bordeless impossible with the galaxy.
but to finish i will quote nikephorus who already responded to this kind of idea in this thread, and as my pesponse was the pvp point of view, his, is for pve.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
But that's the fun part! When you are still there laughing, and they require a 5v1 to beat you.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
your limitations created the circumstances were it became 5v1. because the ship drags whatever team its on down.
I don't want to exclude PvP'ers, i have tried PvP and i am awful at it. That said if someone took the time in any matches to see if people know whats up and a from b i think a lot would improve.
Now in i do realize in PvP being hard to kill is a good thing, and dragging 5 of the enemy team in to battle you is a GOOD thing for you team as you can pounce when they are focused elsewhere, hence TANKING! In any given situation in games where the trinity is important(and at times in this game) a tank is vital. Say you are running an ISE, and that tac cube keeps targeting the hardhitting glass cannons, a tank can pull that big boy off them so they can take out the gate and then focus fire on the cube.
THis is the role of the tank, also that role usually is used to keep heat off the healer(science in this case) so they can do their job. But with PvP in this game takes away from the PvE (do not naysay just yet) If this game had a real seperation between PvP and Pve i think a lot could improve for everyone. Powers get nerfed all the time due to them being OP in PvP but integral and important at their former strengths in PvE.
If they had some way to, i don't know sperate how things work in one or the other i think it would really help. I don't like the fact that we will say half(pretend its a 50/50 split) the player base says Underpowered and the other half shouts Overpowered. do you see the issues? noone is ever going to see balance between the two types of playabe content.
Giving a real honest seperation to the two would give a a long head start on making more balance in their respective places as opposed to making you require specific builds to do what you need to in PvE.
Thanks for reading!
Viva La Galaxy Class!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
If PvP and PvE were split like that PvP would become even more confusing as you'd take your favourite skills in there and find them useless because they are completely different in each scenario. Now if you're meaning the idea of PvP consoles and PvE consoles for example, so PvP consoles are useless or unusable in PvE I also don't like that idea, I played another MMORPG before this that had PvP armour and weapons and PvE armour and weapons, it just confuses things massively and becomes even more of a grind, in my opinion....
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I would like to bring your attention to your second quote. You confirm that you are horrible at PvP then proceed to explain how a the Galaxy Class is going to be useful in a PvP team setting. If you don't see the irony in that ... well never mind.
Gather round children because here's what really happens when people see a Galaxy in a PvP match. Everyone immediately fly's over and attempts to kill it because it's most likely some idiot noob and an easy kill. If it turns out the person is semi competent (tho still and idiot for bringing a galaxy in a PvP match) and has turned his ship into a brick he will then be ignored while everyone other member of his team is dispatched. This is not PvE. This idiot in a Galaxy has no threat control to draw fire and he can and will be ignored since his damage is pathetically laughable. Once the rest of his team is dead he will then be gang banged into respawnland.
Even in PvE having a block ship like the Galaxy to draw fire isn't that useful. As for "Glass Cannons", well there aren't many of them. Most Escorts, if built correctly, can tank a borg Tactical Cube fairly easily. So even in PvE you've got a low dps ship that is slowing the teams progress. You mention borg stfs specifically. These missions must be completed in a timely manner and having a low dps ship is detrimental to the team.
I think that's the essence of the Galaxy -R problem in this game.
EDIT: And let's not forget that it is just embarrassing to fly a GCS and having less firepower than a even Luna Class (RSV) or Fleet Nova, not to speak of having less firepower than a Galor or Excelsior. :mad:
I support a seperation between PvP and PvE.
In PvE ships could work much more like the "real" Trek ships and PvP could become perfectly balanced, without the balast of having to be semi canon or whatever you may call that state STO is now.
I think the already released ship should be left as they are, that would only cause major disconcertment.
Maybe Cryptic could introduce two new lines of ships, PvP focussed ones and PvE focussed ones.
While the current ships are still allowed to do both the new ones would be much more specialized and only restricted to to either PvP or PvE.
The reputation system could be a good way to get such ships.
Just for example:
M.A.C.O. could have PvE ships, most having universal BOFF stations or much higher firepower (crusiers) or defense (escorts) than the standard ships.
O.M.E.G.A. could be the PvP counterpart. Those ships would be optimized for PvP having everything that makes them perfectly balanced (very extreme in either tanking or gunning).
But i think it is crucial for a Star Trek game NOT to follow the (un)holy trinity (at least one seperate part of it), because all ships are just made completely wrong and, like the GCS isn't even recognizeable anymore.
i am used to that kind of scenario in kerrat, but that is fun only if you do it on test purpose.
crosshealing in fed camp is almost inexistant in kerrat so you have to learn to survived alone.
at that time i also wanted to see the limits of tanking abilities that my ship have, so i volunterely go alone in a 5vs1 to see how much i can last and try to push the limit further everytime.
but even if that help you improving your tanking build and reflexes, no one, i bielieve, want to be a punchbag forever without being able to do 1 kill.
so it will be fun for 6 month, then you will move on.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
can you please stop making this kind of exellent, well written and to the point post, or i will found myself quoting you again and again Ad Vitam Aeternam:D:D
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Well, you are allowed to your opinion, of course. Everything I saw from .DS9 was how a heavy cruiser SHOULD be used
Yeah, but but as you described, that's pretty much all cruisers, even Excelsior.
I was mentioning Galaxy, she Sovereign, and Ambassador would be battleships. All would serve in the core of fleets. DS9 showed us how Starfleet organizes their fleets in war. the Fleet to take DS9 was a combine 2 fleet group. we saw 4 Galaxys so 2 Galaxys per fleet and assume at the time 10 galaxys operational at the time and most of them only battle ready (able to be used in combat but none of her extensive science abilities and due for time none of them had the Venture strips) for fleets not with Galaxys they had sovereign or Ambassadors at the core. And Sov and Galaxy are roughly the same size. Sov longer, Gal taller. And Sov design for more combat than galaxy was.
the ambassador is about the same volume as a soverign though, only pretty outdated, with extreamly short arrays given its size. if anything the sovereign is a direct ambassador class replacement
yes, even the exelsior, this ship can be quite tanky if you want to but...
i was speaking in an earlier post ( i don't remember if it is this thread ) that what is important, is the balance between offence and defense.
the exelsior have acces to ltcommander tact slot ( cstore version ) wich make all the difference, combine with it better turn rate and inertia.
he is not just a punchbag, he can also punch back more consistently, that is what save him.
if a player specced this ship more in defense than offense he is missusing the ship exactly like a star cruiser specced for damage would be.
every fed cruiser can serve as punchbag but some will be better at it than other.
but on the other hand, not every fed cruiser have the abilitie to "punch back" consistently.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
mk XII emitters would have to be twice as good as mk X emitters for them to come close to breaking even. and such a mature technology is not going to double like that every few years. the D's phasers got upgraded in season 7 of tng, those could have very well been the same mkXII.
from everything ive been able to come across on armor, the galaxy's hull is actually thicker. the sovereign might have an ablative layer, but it seems like the galaxy star drive section at least got that eventually as well.
the sovereign is actually more crew dense then the galaxy, having 800 compared to 1000, dispute being half the size. in being leaner, the sovereign just has less potential modular space. in the D, the only galaxy we have seen in detail, the modular 70% of its interior was used mostly for luxury quarters, diplomatic facilities, science labs, and dolphins. being left empty is most likely not the idea tactical load out for a true battleship spec galaxy, but it allowed more of those phaser arrays and massive burst capable torpedo launchers into a battle.
without the heft of the saucer, such large arrays would not have been mountable. that heft allows it to be customized to anything starfleet needs it to be, and in a battle offers quite a bit of damage soak.
the problem is this is what trek fans assume. that whatever the newest thing is, is the most powerful, best, and is the new flagship. the galaxy and sovereign dont complete in the same category, one is a battleship with big guns, the other is a heavy cruiser with medium guns. for losing a galaxy class starship, picard was not rewarded with a more powerful ship. the next enterprise was a sovereign class because it was such a new, advanced, and impressive ship for what it was, thats more important to starfleet then whats the best at blowing away xeno scum, thats why they saw fit to make the succeeding enterprise a technically lesser ship then the former. it was never said to be the flagship.
the sovereign is not the successor to the galaxy, its a new heavy cruiser meant to replace old cruiser designs like the excelsior and ambassador. its real advanced and all, but nothing is most advanced for long, with how often things are upgraded. anti borg countermeasures did not fundamentally change ship building, its new tactics and technologies meant to fight against their adaptation. the defiant is the only ship actually built to fight the borg. small, cheap, disposable, with as much firepower as they could fit in it. a large general purpose cruiser is an incredibly waistfull thing to build to fight against the borg.
any argument for super powered mkXII emitters gets voided as soon as a galaxy gets upgraded to have them as well.
We don't have to assume La Forge flast out said the Enterprise-E was the most advanced ship in Starfleet in First Contact.
The Galaxy was not some uber warship, it was practically a science vessel for pete's sake. All that extra volume you are such a fan of was for civilians and a kindergarden, heck originally they were supposed to ditch the saucer before going into battle so it wouldn't technically have been a bigger ship in combat anyway since half of it was supposed to stay out of a fight aka the reason why Worf said the Enterprise was more formidable in battle after it ditches the dead weight saucer.