I'm getting my self the Galaxy Class Retrofit when I've saved up enough zen to buy it... and get more ship slots and tell you what I think of it.
While I'm on the point of the Galaxy Class and it's variants, I have to say I love my Galaxy-X. Sure people say it sucks, but that means it's not meant for their play style and/or what they play with it.
Am I saying you should play it; no. Whatever you want to play is what you should play as. If you're worried about what the DPSers will say about your Galaxy, then you obviously don't have the loyalty you truly put into it like you've boasted. It's only a game.
But if you've dropped in a lot of money for this game, by all means take it seriously.
If you're like me, who can't pay, and has only a few EC credits to their name and works hard to get the ship they love without listening to what others say or what the forum posters say, then you will enjoy your ship. Don't listen to DPSers or Elite PvEers who used money to get where they are while you've grinded for more than three months to get you ship; they are them and you are you.
I am one of those people and am proud of my Galaxy-X, the U.S.S. Susano'o.
Now to await the flames of the critics and 'experts'.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "Look at me I'm a target!" "Fire the Lance on my mark... MARK! "How many times have we gone into the breach again R'shee?" My proposal for a Galaxy bundle
rits entirely possible to balance them, you just need to sort out the mechanics, since this game would still be an unbalanced mess of clunk even if it wasnt trying to wear a startrek badge.
Surely you can artificially balance trek ships, but that's not the point. Some are stronger/more powerful by nature, but that's not escorts and other small ships.
i seem to remember people complaining about a dev saying that.
same applies here. you want to play favourites you are being just as fallacious.
you are reducing your own position to one that is equally as broken as the prevailing one and ignoring all the people who want to use raiders rather than capitals.
So it's ok to have small and nimble ships dominating the Star Trek universe and let the big ships the "victim role"?
If i have the choice then i would choose something else.
... and now you directly contradict yourself...:rolleyes:
Because i want to introduce pure PvE ships rather than changing already existing BOFF powers?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
you are sitting in an abrams.
to your left is a guy with a railgun that can hit you with a 10 kilo slug going mach 30+
to your right is a guy with a tommy gun & 20k rounds of 9mm
who would you rather shot at you, the rail gun or the tommy gun?
You miss the whole point of what I said. An emitter "emits" (shoots) a capacitor stores/feeds energy. Having so many emitters (as said in the Galaxys Tech) suggest that they can all shoot ( bunch of weaker shots), but feeding one emitter with a large amount of power from a capacitor would produce one powerful shot. I was saying the tech doesn't make sense.
In regards to your question, more emitters could be useful when fighting smaller craft, such as fighters. It depends on the enemy.
the point of this is not to reach the dps consistency and reliability of an escort, that is not possible in a normal cruiser in fed camp, so that is not the goal.
the point is to not be just a punchbag.
and bielieve me, when anyone will found himself in front of your DBB buff with tactical fleet, tactical team, FOMM, attack pattern alpha and omega/delta, he better be prepare to it, especially if his hull and shield have already suffer damage.
on top of that if you have the double tap BO build with the romulan beam array, you will have a combo that can be pretty much lethal to anyone.
anyone is free to play as he like, however you have to known that using the exelsior with an engineer is a misuse of it tactical potential wich will make all the difference between him and a simple assault cruiser.
right now you have the tanking abilitie that are very close to an assault cruiser or galaxy but you paid the price by beeing almost as toothless as they are, wich in the end give you the role of the punchbag in a team.
I am aware that engineers are not dps monsters. My tac drives an escort. I play all three classes , not to be the min-max , but for enjoyment.
You miss the whole point of what I said. An emitter "emits" (shoots) a capacitor stores/feeds energy. Having so many emitters (as said in the Galaxys Tech) suggest that they can all shoot ( bunch of weaker shots), but feeding one emitter with a large amount of power from a capacitor would produce one powerful shot. I was saying the tech doesn't make sense.
In regards to your question, more emitters could be useful when fighting smaller craft, such as fighters. It depends on the enemy.
the tech makes sense, your just missing an important detail. each emitter is its own capacitor. the emiters are fed energy individually and directly, and holds thier own energy to ether fire them selves or transfer down the array. the moving glow effect is the energy from emitter being routed to the chosen firing point. the longer the array, the larger the capacitor is basically.
Actually it isn't very complicated.
Each phaser strip consists of a big amount of little single emitters. They are connected in series, the more are connnected in the stronger the blast.
So that means the the longer the phaser strip the stronger the whole array.
The length of the strip doesn't denote "strength" as much as a wider arc of fire and overall weapon system survivability. The problem I see with your point is in TNG, the ship fires its beam from one, smaller point instead of all emitters (the whole thing lighting up and firing a "horseshoe shaped beam"). If the whole array blasted as one peice, that would make more sense, but it didn't.
The problem with your description is parasitic loss of energy by laws of physics. Movement of power is not a 100% efficient action, there is always energy bleed. Each emitter must be fed by the power grid (presumable a capacitor), which will experience some power loss (waste heat, power loss in connectors, etc). When an emitter fires or transfers energy to other emitters, it also generates power bleed that doesn't translate into damage energy. Having a bunch of emitters, being fed by the power distribution network/ capacitors independently, and then transferring that energy to another emitter into one blast would channel less energy to that beams damage than directly feeding one emitter with the capacitor.
Every single phaser emitters can be replaced with a newer more up to date model very easily. So the argument the Sov had stronger phasers cannot be true, because the GCS still has the longer arrays, and more space for power generation (bigger M/A Reactor, which can also be replaced with newer models).
The biggest advantage of the GCS is it's modularity. It has enough space to carry much bigger equipment than any other (canon) Starfleet ship, it is also optimized to easily replace every part of equipment that is installed.
I never talked about any other ships arrays, just the Galaxys design concept that has been mentioned here.
Modularity is only so effective, it has the space and tonnage, unlike changing staterooms to to large troop holding areas and cargo bays into smaller assault shuttle bays, its not as simple as bolting in reactors in place of staterooms and being done. A massive increase in power output requires each reactor point to be tapped into the power grid and then having the overall power grid to be beefed up (all over the ship) to deal with a massive dose of increased power distribution. While it would be easier than doing it to an Excelsior, it would still take a great deal of time and effort. It would be even simpler to replace saucer sections for major configuration requirement changes.
the tech makes sense, your just missing an important detail. each emitter is its own capacitor. the emiters are fed energy individually and directly, and holds thier own energy to ether fire them selves or transfer down the array. the moving glow effect is the energy from emitter being routed to the chosen firing point. the longer the array, the larger the capacitor is basically.
Except you are ignoring parasitic loss of power transfer from one emitter to another, power transfer is not 100% efficient. That glow you mention, by laws of physics, is the release of waste energy being moved down the grid that has escaped in the form of light (not mentioning the not seen waste heat, transfer inefficiency etc). Feeding power from the power grid, to each capacitor, to each emitter, from that emitter down the array through other emitters to the actual firing emitter would generate power loss (no matter what any technical book might suggest). There are too many stages of power transfer, even before taking into account energy degradation of the beam as it travels to its target, for it to be efficient. For a heavy, high powered blast, feeding one emitter directly from a larger capacitor is the most efficient transfer of energy due to less travel/energy loss points.
The larger beam array makes far more sense for keeping a number of arrays rotating fire for smaller, more frequent firing, as well as the ability for most of the system staying online when some of it takes damage, as well as shooting at multiple, smaller targets at once and a wider arc of fire, which are all important as well.
Odd that memory alpha states the Phaser Strip is designed to make targeting easier but not increase the power output by allowing the energy to leave at thd best point for accuracy......
So what canon source states its also to increase power?
While I'm on the point of the Galaxy Class and it's variants, I have to say I love my Galaxy-X. Sure people say it sucks, but that means it's not meant for their play style and/or what they play with it.
no, the ship is just bad, anyone with a little anderstanding of the game mechanisms will be able to see that, you have a long way to go, but there is nothing wrong with it, we all have been beginner at some point.
Am I saying you should play it; no. Whatever you want to play is what you should play as. If you're worried about what the DPSers will say about your Galaxy, then you obviously don't have the loyalty you truly put into it like you've boasted. It's only a game.
well i am sorry but i will ( even if i known i should not) take this comment personally.
man... i am here since the game have launch, that mean 3 years, i didn't pop here when it become free to play, i fly the galaxy x exclusively for 2 years straight, and i have been insulted in kerrat for flying this ship.
if i have to listen to other people to fly this ship i wouldn't have stay 2 years with it.
because yes, even tho what the new wave of f2p players think, the galaxy x wasn't "ok" when the game went free to play and then become rubbish by whatever miracle.
no, it was rubbish right from the start.
even gecko admit it and performed a enhancement before season 4 ( in april ) by boosting the lance dmg and giving it a 4th weapon slot in the back.
when you've spent two years straight with this ship without changing, then come back to me and we will talk again about that "loyalty" i "boasted".
But if you've dropped in a lot of money for this game, by all means take it seriously.
If you're like me, who can't pay, and has only a few EC credits to their name and works hard to get the ship they love without listening to what others say or what the forum posters say, then you will enjoy your ship. Don't listen to DPSers or Elite PvEers who used money to get where they are while you've grinded for more than three months to get you ship; they are them and you are you.
I am one of those people and am proud of my Galaxy-X, the U.S.S. Susano'o.
i am also proud of my galaxy x, and i have "fun" playing it but that daesn't blind me to the limitation of the ship.
when your getting more experience you will realize that these limitation are going to mitigate your "fun".
Odd that memory alpha states the Phaser Strip is designed to make targeting easier but not increase the power output by allowing the energy to leave at thd best point for accuracy......
So what canon source states its also to increase power?
Both aren't considered canon btw..
But since the tech manual is written by Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, while the Wiki is just as relilable as the people writing it, i'd go for the manual.
"...'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
I'm getting my self the Galaxy Class Retrofit when I've saved up enough zen to buy it... and get more ship slots and tell you what I think of it.
While I'm on the point of the Galaxy Class and it's variants, I have to say I love my Galaxy-X. Sure people say it sucks, but that means it's not meant for their play style and/or what they play with it.
Am I saying you should play it; no. Whatever you want to play is what you should play as. If you're worried about what the DPSers will say about your Galaxy, then you obviously don't have the loyalty you truly put into it like you've boasted. It's only a game.
But if you've dropped in a lot of money for this game, by all means take it seriously.
If you're like me, who can't pay, and has only a few EC credits to their name and works hard to get the ship they love without listening to what others say or what the forum posters say, then you will enjoy your ship. Don't listen to DPSers or Elite PvEers who used money to get where they are while you've grinded for more than three months to get you ship; they are them and you are you.
I am one of those people and am proud of my Galaxy-X, the U.S.S. Susano'o.
Now to await the flames of the critics and 'experts'.
Well, I'm not going to troll you or flame you, because honestly I think you have a very sane approach of dealing with things.
I go about my business in STO in a similar manner. I always choose my ship with the heart, rather than the mind going through numbers. Cause our ships in STO are kinda' our characters/avatars for most of the time and I want to end up looking at sth. I like. And any ship can pull it's weight in end-game PvE. Especially if the person playing it loves the ship and has spent much time and effort to make it as good as possible. At the end of the day, it's all about having fun with your favourite toy.
I grew up with TNG and I like the Galaxy, that's why I've got one. I has been one hell of a grind to outfit it with all the best equipment money can buy, but I loved every minute of it. My Galaxy-R can hold on it's own now and gives some amazing preformances. I don't PvP much, but I've taken her even through that and it's one though nut to crack. It certainly does it's part in PvE, more than expected.
I do support the Galaxy class revamp because I don't believe Cryptic did this ship justice. If you've read my posts in this thread I've said that I'd be completely satisfied with the Galaxy remaining the "uber" tank it is if Cryptic decides to bring back the tanking role in STO. Frankly, I believe this to be the main issue with the Galaxy and cruisers in general.
Anyway, games for me are all about having fun. No statistics can beat having fun in your favourite ship regardless of what everyone says. Heck, my favourite ship in STO is the Bortasqu', I have it since it was released and never stepped out of it. I've been listenting to the majority of the KDF players trash it and tell me how much it sucks for a year and a half now. Newsflash: it doesn't! :eek:
Except you are ignoring parasitic loss of power transfer from one emitter to another, power transfer is not 100% efficient. That glow you mention, by laws of physics, is the release of waste energy being moved down the grid that has escaped in the form of light (not mentioning the not seen waste heat, transfer inefficiency etc). Feeding power from the power grid, to each capacitor, to each emitter, from that emitter down the array through other emitters to the actual firing emitter would generate power loss (no matter what any technical book might suggest). There are too many stages of power transfer, even before taking into account energy degradation of the beam as it travels to its target, for it to be efficient. For a heavy, high powered blast, feeding one emitter directly from a larger capacitor is the most efficient transfer of energy due to less travel/energy loss points.
The larger beam array makes far more sense for keeping a number of arrays rotating fire for smaller, more frequent firing, as well as the ability for most of the system staying online when some of it takes damage, as well as shooting at multiple, smaller targets at once and a wider arc of fire, which are all important as well.
parasitic loss? we arent talking about electricity and copper wires here, we are talking about high energy plasma held in conduits with a magnetic field. the only time there could possibly be parasitic loss is on the viable moveing charge effect, that takes a split second, before the shot is fired. that process, at the very most might bleed off 1/10 of the emitters stored power, more likely 1/100, still making it exceptionally efficient. they would not have made arrays if they dumped more then half their energy in the form of waist heat and light like you seem to be implying. i have a real problem assuming starfleet weapons engineers are TRIBBLE.
1 large capacitor and 1 large emitter has a plethora of drawbacks compared to an array. 1 point of failure for each as apposed to 200. thats why modern ships dont have come with ball turrets anymore. first and foremost would be packaging. the array sits partially submerged in the hull, and not only is it the weapon itself, but also the capacitor. only the plasma conduit pipeing would take up any large amount of space on the ship. an array is scalable as well. just daisy chain more emitters and the arrays gets more powerful. they would presumably be easy to hot swap out for repair, replacement or upgrading. you can make small arrays to cover blind spots, and a large array to actually use for offense. the emitter is designed to fit in all ships, its just a question of how many you can fit in a line. this also gives unlimited fireing arc, with anything the array has line of sight with. there is no gun barrel limiting fireing arc. the most powerful weapon does not have a forward only fireing arc drawback like cannons do. cannons on a modern starfleet ship are a compromise measure for a ship to physically small to mount adequate length arrays. arrays only dont have a packaging advantage on the smallest ships.
its been a wile since i posted it, how arrays work, so instead of just claiming they work a certain way, hers the facts in excruciating detail. here's the text from the TNG tech manual
The lead defensive system maintained by Starfleet Command for sublight use for the last century is the phaser, the common term for a complicated energy release process developed to replace pure EM devices such as the laser, and particle beam accelerators. Phaser is something of a hold-over acronym, PHASed Energy Rectification, referring to the original process by which stored or supplied energy enteringthe phaser system was converted to another form for release toward a target, without the need for an intermediate energy transformation. This remains essentially true in the current phaser effect. Phaser energy is released through the application of the rapid nadion effect (RNE). Rapid nadions are short-lived subatomic particles possessing special properties related to high-speed interactions within atomic nuclei. Among these properties is the ability to liberate and transfer strong nuclearforces within a particular class of superconducting crystals known as fushigi-no-umi.
The crystals were so named when it appeared to researchers at Starfleet's Tokyo R&D facility that the materials being developed represented a virtual "sea of wonder" before them.
i think theres enough fictional science and magic crystals at work to hand wave parasitic loss as a problem here
SHIPBOARD PHASERS
As installed in the Galaxy class, the main ship's phasers are rated as Type X, the largest emitters available for starship use. Individual emitter segments are capable of directing 5.1 megawatts. By comparison, the small personal phasers issued to Starfleet crew members are Type I and II, the latter being limited to 0.01 MW. Certain large dedicated planetary defense emitters are designated as Type X+, as their exact energy output remains classified. The Galaxy class supports twelve phaser arrays in two sizes, located on both dorsal and ventral surfaces, as well as two arrays for lateral coverage. A typical large phaser array aboard the USS Enterprise, such as the upper dorsal array on the Saucer Module, consists of two hundred emitter segments in a dense linear arrangement for optimal control of firing order, thermal effects, field halos, and target impact. Groups of emitters are supplied by redundant sets of energy feeds from the primary trunks of the electro plasma system (EPS), and are similarly interconnected by fire control, thermal management, and sensor lines. The visible hull surface configuration of the phaser is a long shallow raised strip, the bulk of the hardware submerged within the vehicle frame. In cross section, the phaser array takes on a thickened Yshape, capped with a trapezoidal mass of the actual emitter crystal and phaser-transparent hull antierosion coatings. The base of an array segment sits within a structural honeycomb channel of duranium 235 and supplied with supersonic regen-erative LN 2 cooling. The complete channel is thermally isolated by eight hundred link struts to the tritanium vehicle frame.
The first stage of the array segment is the EPS submasterflow regulator, the principal mechanism controlling phaserpower levels for firing. The flow regulator leads into the plasma distribution manifold (PDM), which branches into two hundred supply conduits to an equal number of prefire cham-bers. The final stage of the system is the phaser emitter crystal.
each emitter is thus its own complete phaser bank, with all the required components
ACTIVATION SEQUENCE Upon receiving the command to fire, the EPS submaster flow regulator manages the energetic plasma powering the phaser array through a series of physical irises and magnetic switching gates. Iris response is 0.01 seconds and is used for gross adjustments in plasma distribution; magnetic gate re-sponse is 0.0003 seconds and is employed for rapid fine-tuning of plasma routing within small sections of an array. Normal control of all irises and gates is affected through the autonomic side of the phaser function command processor,coordinated with the Threat assessment/tracking/targeting system (TA/T/TS). The regulator is manufactured from combined crystal sonodanite, solenogyn, and rabium tritonide, and lined with a 1.2 cm layer of paranygen animide to providestructural surface protection. Energy is conveyed from each flow regulator to the PDM,a secondary computer-controlled valving device at the head end of each prefire chamber. The manifold is a single crystalboronite solid, and is machined by phaser cutters. The prefire chamber is a sphere of LiCu 518 reinforced with woundhafnium tritonide, which is gamma-welded. It is within the prefire chamber that energy from the plasma undergoes the handoff and initial EM spectrum shift associated with the rapidnadion effect (RNE). The energy is confined for between 0.05 and 1.3 nanoseconds by a collapsible charge barrier before passing to the LiCu 518 emitter for discharge. The action of raising and collapsing the charge barrier forms the required pulse for the RNE. The power level commanded by the system or voluntarily set by the responsible officer determinesthe relative proportion of protonic charge that will be created and pulse frequency in the final emitter stage.
wtf did i just try to read :eek:
BEAM EMISSION
The trifaceted crystal that constitutes the final discharge stage is formed from LiCu 518 and measures 3.25 x 2.45 x1.25 meters for a single segment. The crystal lattice for mulaused in the forced-matrix process is LixCu?:Si::Fe>:>:0.The collimated energy beam exits one or more of the facets, depending on which prefire chambers are being pumped with plasma. The segment firing order, as controlled by the phaser function command processor, together with facet discharge direction, determines the final beam vector. Energy from all discharged segments passes direction-ally over neighboring segments due to force coupling, con-verging on the release point, where the beam will emerge and travel at c to the target. Narrow beams are created by rapid segment order firing; wider fan or cone beams result from slower firing rates. Wide beams are, of course, prone to marked power loss per unit area covered.
and there you have it. the more emitters you have 'force coupling', the more powerful an arrays shot can be. and we have seen full array discharges, there isn't a limit to how many of its segments a galaxy can use for a single shot.
I have a Fleet Patrol Escort at the moment. But I find it hard to play with. Hands have arthritis so they are not as fast as they could be.
I do like a more tactical fight though , So probably a Cruiser with a punch
Well if that is the case, I'd recomend getting the Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit (Excelsior) or the Assault Cruiser Retrofit (Regent/Sovereign) or their fleet versions later.
Both are very good tactical cruisers, they certainly don't maneuver like the escort, but you don't have to worry about that. Equip them with beam arrays and you won't have to react that fast and keep your nose at things at all times due to the wide firing arc of the arrays.
And with a cruiser like those you won't need to depend on fast reflexes because besides being easier for you to keep the beam arrays always on target, they also take a fair amount of punishment so they tolerate if you're not that fast with activating and circling the Boff skills needed to stay alive.
Both aren't considered canon btw..
But since the tech manual is written by Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, while the Wiki is just as relilable as the people writing it, i'd go for the manual.
The rules for what is canon is quite defined but if the manuals are to be taken as canon then the KDF has much that needa to be changed about thier vessels as well.
Still Memory Alpha seems to have many of its info taken directly from the series episodes and movies with examples of what episodes and movies said info is found. Even down to what character gave the info in the episode as per what the fanbase agrees to be canon. Ei: the series episodes and movie.s.
If you look at the MA page on phasers the examples are quite clear and even state that phaser strips cme in different sizes and strengths but that they do not increase the power uootput TRIBBLE.
Need to agree on what source is the valid source before continuing to build up the idea that the Phaser emitter strip is a weapon idea without equal.
Then one must accept that even that source is biased due to fandom influence and plot needs.
No, the ship is just bad. Anyone with a little anderstanding of the game mechanisms will be able to see that. You have a long way to go, but there is nothing wrong with it, we all have been beginner at some point.
I am well aware of that. At times I still pop in my Soveriegn or free Nebula and love those ships, but I'd never regret my choices.
Well i am sorry but i will, ( even if i known i should not) take this comment personally.
Man... I have been here since the game have launch, that means 3 years. I didn't pop here when it become free to play. I fly the Galaxy-X exclusively for 2 years straight, and i have been insulted in kerrat for flying this ship.
If I have to listen to other people to fly this ship, I wouldn't have stayed 2 years with it.
Because yes, even though what the new wave of f2p players think, the Galaxy-X wasn't "ok" when the game went free to play and then become rubbish by whatever miracle.
No, it was rubbish right from the start.
Even gecko admited it and performed a enhancement before season 4 ( in april ) by boosting the lance dmg and giving it a 4th weapon slot in the back.
When you've spent two years straight with this ship without changing, then come back to me and we will talk again about that "loyalty" I "boasted".
I actually had no idea this game even existed until a few months ago, but then again I hardly knew anything that is in this world. And I understand you're point me friend, and it was meant to those people who only pay to get bigger and better things in this game so they can shout 'Winnah!!' and boast about inconsequential victories in a GAME instead of those who are loyal to the Star Trek series and just love flying in the Star Trek Universe... Though I do feel bored at times and just run episodes over again or do foundry missions because I just blasted through the episodes in less than a month.
And what you said with the enhancements, why weren't those already in place when it came out? I'm just wondering. Kinda seems redundant to refit a ship that was supposed to be competable with end tier ships.
I am also proud of my Galaxy-X, and I have "fun" playing it but that doesn't blind me to the limitation of the ship.
When you get more experience, you will realize that these limitations are going to mitigate your "fun".
I'm aware of that, but that doesn't mean I should feel any worse that I wasted it on a Galaxy-X instead of an Odyssey. I just didn't feel like living up to the hype of what others think or believe, then again I've always been known to defy whatever anyone else says or believes, even experts.
And if that fun is mitigated by limitations, then that means I have to allow my very vague definition of fun to be captured and tied down by everyonelses' standard of fun. And I won't let it. Because I have my own views of this world, and no one else, not even the heavens will or can change them.
But if this ship does go through another retrofit, then I'm all for it. If not, then oh well, I'll just have to prove my loyalty and love for this ship to you now won't I?
(P.S. Sorry for the editing of your original post. I have a grammar police problem since I like to write so much... er type.)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "Look at me I'm a target!" "Fire the Lance on my mark... MARK! "How many times have we gone into the breach again R'shee?" My proposal for a Galaxy bundle
The rules for what is canon is quite defined but if the manuals are to be taken as canon then the KDF has much that needa to be changed about thier vessels as well.
Still Memory Alpha seems to have many of its info taken directly from the series episodes and movies with examples of what episodes and movies said info is found. Even down to what character gave the info in the episode as per what the fanbase agrees to be canon. Ei: the series episodes and movie.s.
If you look at the MA page on phasers the examples are quite clear and even state that phaser strips cme in different sizes and strengths but that they do not increase the power uootput TRIBBLE.
Need to agree on what source is the valid source before continuing to build up the idea that the Phaser emitter strip is a weapon idea without equal.
Then one must accept that even that source is biased due to fandom influence and plot needs.
A special case is made for "non-fiction" reference books such as The Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Chronology, TNG Technical Manual and DS9 Technical Manual. Unlike the novels and novelizations, these reference manuals have never been explicitly named as non-canon, and the fact that they were officially sanctioned by Paramount and given to episode writers as guides serves to give them an aura of credibility. Roddenberry himself considered it part of the "background" of Star Trek.[19] Meanwhile, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, two art and technical consultants since Star Trek: The Next Generation and the authors of several of these reference books, considered their work "pretty official".[20] However, they stop short of naming the books canon, leaving the debate open.
Star Trek writer and co-producer Ronald D. Moore dismisses such official material as "speculation", and says that the writing staff did not consider it canon.[21][22] However, Viacom, the parent company of Paramount, seems to believe differently. In a series of posts to the official Star Trek website's forums, Viacom Senior Director Harry Lang left no doubt that he considers the reference books as canon.[16][23]
they made the show, they made these books. as far as im concerned anything in the tech manuals or those 2 'haynes' guides are canon unless something in them is directly contradicted be something in the show. theres no source of information on phasers at a high tier of canon then what i posted last page.
A special case is made for "non-fiction" reference books such as The Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Chronology, TNG Technical Manual and DS9 Technical Manual. Unlike the novels and novelizations, these reference manuals have never been explicitly named as non-canon, and the fact that they were officially sanctioned by Paramount and given to episode writers as guides serves to give them an aura of credibility. Roddenberry himself considered it part of the "background" of Star Trek.[19] Meanwhile, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, two art and technical consultants since Star Trek: The Next Generation and the authors of several of these reference books, considered their work "pretty official".[20] However, they stop short of naming the books canon, leaving the debate open.
Star Trek writer and co-producer Ronald D. Moore dismisses such official material as "speculation", and says that the writing staff did not consider it canon.[21][22] However, Viacom, the parent company of Paramount, seems to believe differently. In a series of posts to the official Star Trek website's forums, Viacom Senior Director Harry Lang left no doubt that he considers the reference books as canon.[16][23]
they made the show, they made these books. as far as im concerned anything in the tech manuals or those 2 'haynes' guides are canon unless something in them is directly contradicted be something in the show. theres no source of information on phasers at a high tier of canon then what i posted last page.
Interestngly enough in debates past those same manuals have been dismissed as relevant when concerns on KDF vessels and thier performances have been questioned as being subpar in function... Just saying that if no one source of info can be trusted as concrete than how can any be said to be the true canon source. Special case or otherwise.
Interestngly enough in debates past those same manuals have been dismissed as relevant when concerns on KDF vessels and thier performances have been questioned as being subpar in function... Just saying that if no one source of info can be trusted as concrete than how can any be said to be the true canon source. Special case or otherwise.
they were mistaken to dismiss these texts, though theres not a whole lot of tech manuals talking about kdf ships, except haynes brel owners manual
Interestngly enough in debates past those same manuals have been dismissed as relevant when concerns on KDF vessels and thier performances have been questioned as being subpar in function... Just saying that if no one source of info can be trusted as concrete than how can any be said to be the true canon source. Special case or otherwise.
I have heard from a lot of people that the DS9 manual quality isn't very good. Ships being given vastly different stats than stated on screen and so on. TBH i have no idea why this book has such blatant errors. Maybe because Herman Zimmerman, Doug Drexler & Rick Sternbach made it, but i don't know.
But i haven't seen anything contradicting the TNG manual, so i think it is trustable.
Since Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach made it, i think it is more trustable than the Wiki. but that's just my personal opinion.
I think Dontdrunks Phaser Strip explaination sounds right, and it doesn't contradict with anything shown on TV. But someone can pick anything to pieces if he/she wants to.
Just look at Cryptics "interpretation" of the GCS in STO. They literary took any instance where the GCS performed bad (if it was the ships fault or its Crew) they could find to justify the worst ship in the game.
Someone else could have made it easily the strongest ship in the game using the same approach just inverted.
But that's not the point of this thread, what we (at least what i) want is a GCS that isn't the worst ship in the game. A rework that resembles the "real" ship to a certain degree too.
Take a look at the Vesta and its variants. It's hardly the strongest ship in the game but Cryptic made it a fine ship for its fans, that's exactly what we want for the GCS too.
"...'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 not the point of this thread, what we (at least what i) want is a GCS that isn't the worst ship in the game. A rework that resembles the "real" ship to a certain degree too.
Take a look at the Vesta and its variants. It's hardly the strongest ship in the game but Cryptic made it a fine ship for its fans, that's exactly what we want for the GCS too.
I'm not debating if the Galaxy class needs love. It may well need some.
What keeps its capabilities from going too far in that pursuit of that love?
What is to say it deserves more or less love than the Defiant class? The Negh'vhar? The SteamRunner? Or any vessel loved by a portion of the fanbase above all others?
The thread has waxed and waned many times in and out of exhibiting reasoning driven purely by the love for the vessel that is sometimes beyond what may be true. The recent Phaser emitter strip debate has some of those ins and outs.
So while the GCS may need some love don't let that love for it make it become a plot vessel.
We all want our favorite vessel to be the paragon but we can not let that love blind us that there is always something bigger and tougher than our favorite, and given the inconsistencies of Star Trek its easier to fall down that slipper slope.
I'm not debating if the Galaxy class needs love. It may well need some.
What keeps its capabilities from going too far in that pursuit of that love?
What is to say it deserves more or less love than the Defiant class? The Negh'vhar? The SteamRunner? Or any vessel loved by a portion of the fanbase above all others?
The thread has waxed and waned many times in and out of exhibiting reasoning driven purely by the love for the vessel that is sometimes beyond what may be true. The recent Phaser emitter strip debate has some of those ins and outs.
So while the GCS may need some love don't let that love for it make it become a plot vessel.
We all want our favorite vessel to be the paragon but we can not let that love blind us that there is always something bigger and tougher than our favorite, and given the inconsistencies of Star Trek its easier to fall down that slipper slope.
That's all I'm saying.
Totally agree.
And as many of us continue to mention. We don't want her to be the Uber ship.
While our own reasoning, beliefs etc may place the GCS above the Sovereign in Cannon and even the Odyssey in some areas. We also understand that we aren't the majority and that this is a game.
The Sovereign is largely perceived as being the superior ship(somehow more advanced and newer means end all be all too).
We also understand how a game works.
Ideally we would like it to look like Odyssey, Sovereign, Galaxy, Ambassador, Excelsior.
Though in reality it would more likely be Excelsior, Sovereign, Odyssey, Galaxy, Ambassador. Fed side. "Special" cases like the lock box ships not included.
As for the Phasers.
A lot of real math has gone into showing that the Tech manuals are correct.
The numbers for the power per emitter doesn't match what is seen on screen for the destructive potential of a phaser array, but functionally, everything else does. (5.1MW per emitter is to small a number to create the kind of destruction that we have seen from the Ent D on-screen.)
Sov visually is the sucessor to the Excelsior however in role I don't beleive so. That went to Akira with visually succeeds Miranda and Nebula. Though Nebula still as a role.
Starfleet has multiple flagships for their numbers of admirals and fleets. They as far as we know never had a fleet wide flagship till E-D
I'm just telling you what Rick Sternbach said about the ship.
If you would like, I can go into my own beliefs about why the Akira is not the primary successor of the Excelsior and why it would be the Sovereign. But those are my opinions on the matter. And really cannot be called anything other than such or intelligent speculation.
And as many of us continue to mention. We don't want her to be the Uber ship.
While our own reasoning, beliefs etc may place the GCS above the Sovereign in Cannon and even the Odyssey in some areas. We also understand that we aren't the majority and that this is a game.
That's true.
And i again want to underline that we don't want to have a uber Galaxy Class in this game.
Maybe some ideas may sound like it, then the idea is too exaggerated but not the intention behind it.
I hope we are all agree that the Galaxy -R in STO shouldn't be the ship having the LEAST firepower and the most unuseable BOFF layout of all cruisers in this game. No canon ship deserves that, even less a ship as popular and iconic like the GCS.
There have been many suggestions about what the most appappropriate BOFF/Console layout may be, some are good some rather not. But almost all of them would be a improvement to the current one.
Cryptics Developers are (hopefully) experienced enough by now to create a working ship on the basis of the availlable documentation. They did a great job with the Vesta, heck they made the Ambassador a much better ship than the Galaxy -R.
So creating a reworked Galaxy Class that is fun to fly and doesn't feel like a punishement for TNG fans, shouldn't be a problem if they wanted to.
"...'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
I'm not debating if the Galaxy class needs love. It may well need some.
What keeps its capabilities from going too far in that pursuit of that love?
What is to say it deserves more or less love than the Defiant class? The Negh'vhar? The SteamRunner? Or any vessel loved by a portion of the fanbase above all others?
The thread has waxed and waned many times in and out of exhibiting reasoning driven purely by the love for the vessel that is sometimes beyond what may be true. The recent Phaser emitter strip debate has some of those ins and outs.
So while the GCS may need some love don't let that love for it make it become a plot vessel.
We all want our favorite vessel to be the paragon but we can not let that love blind us that there is always something bigger and tougher than our favorite, and given the inconsistencies of Star Trek its easier to fall down that slipper slope.
That's all I'm saying.
the size, the observed burst capability of the 2 torpedo launchers, and the science behind phaser arrays proves that the galaxy is without pear in a strait up fight. for a year here and there, there are ships launched with beter tech, but thats not enough to out muscle a galaxy. and before long the galaxy will be updated with the same tech.
this has nothing to do with any amount of affection i have for 1 ship or the other, its just a mathematical certainty. not insisting it have the best fed cruiser stats is showing plenty of restraint. a slight altering of consoles, a universal ENS at least, a station setup like the d'deridex, or my 3 pack any sort of change like these is all we want.
The biggest problem with the Galaxy class is - she's a tank in a game that doesn't need tanks with other benefits. Every other ship in the game can be modified or shoehorned to fit into group/elite content better.
Want to fly an Intrepid into an Elite STF? No one says a word. Your firepower might be a bit low, but you balance that out with science powers and trickery. Gravity Wells, Photonic Shockwaves, subsystem targeting on target, photonic fleet (If you're a sci captain). Your straight on dps might be lower then the other players, but the ship itself is powerful and useful. Crowd Control, Debuffing, etc.
Want to fly a Defiant? She's an absolute powerhouse and with the new armors and the right build, she can soak pve damage as well as the before mentioned Galaxy class. The only thing in an elite stf that will kill a Defiant is a lucky Borg high yield plasma torp.
Want your Excelsior/Negh'var/Vor'Cha/Tor'kaht/Odyssey/Ambassador? They all have fairly decent maneverability or the flexibility to be what you want them to be. The KDF cruisers pack dual heavy cannons and superior maneuverability. A properly built non-fleet Negh'Var can match an Excelsior's firepower pretty easily. All these ships can be built in different ways and are all absolutely useful in PVE/PVP.
The problem with the Galaxy class isn't her mass, it isn't her weapons, it isn't even how powerful she should be in canon - the problem is with the powers in the game as is - she can't be efficient. Want to dps with her for fun? Tac team is pretty much required in all content now - so your choice is tac team and one attack power. The attack power is neutered by only having two enhancer consoles. Not only that, but keeping tac team running means Engineering team is completely useless to you.
Tanking with her? You aren't needed, and your tanking only slows down event. If you aren't with fleet members or friends, bringing a 'Failaxy' as I've been informed she is - will only get you mocked and anger team mates for adding two minutes to their fast game.
The Galaxy class is one of the most iconic Trek ships, and there are many people who love her and want to fly one without being punished for it. I'd love some of the proposed three packs, but I would also completely accept the only change the Galaxy gets is her console layout changed to 4 eng, 2 sci, 3 tac for standard, and 4 eng, 3 sci, 3 tac for fleet - with her boff layout being Eng Commander and Ensign, Lt Tac, Lt Sci, Ltcom Uni.
With that simple change - if you want the Galaxy to stay the way it is? Slot your engineer. If you want some teeth, drop a tac in her. You want to heal/CC? Your new ltcom sci has Grav well or TSS 3.
I think all anyone in this thread honestly wants is to be able to fly their favorite ship without being punished for it.
the size, the observed burst capability of the 2 torpedo launchers, and the science behind phaser arrays proves that the galaxy is without pear in a strait up fight. for a year here and there, there are ships launched with beter tech, but thats not enough to out muscle a galaxy. and before long the galaxy will be updated with the same tech.
this has nothing to do with any amount of affection i have for 1 ship or the other, its just a mathematical certainty. not insisting it have the best fed cruiser stats is showing plenty of restraint. a slight altering of consoles, a universal ENS at least, a station setup like the d'deridex, or my 3 pack any sort of change like these is all we want.
No, this is just... no.
The Galaxy is not now, nor has it ever been a successful warship. For crying out loud, this was a ship that was built with a freaking PRESCHOOL inside. It's a luxury liner for long range exploration, and the only reason anyone thinks it's any good at combat is because of made-up tripe in a tech manual. There is no 'math' behind it at all, and if you choose to believe this nonsense that's fine, but realize that it means that all classes after the Galaxy (even the ships that were designed for a combat role) are inferior to a ship that is in some cases decades younger. Instead of believing that the Federation made it's best warship in a time of peace, and then proceeded to make a series of essentially useless designs, I choose to believe that ships like the Sovereign, Defiant, and Prometheus were designed because of a perceived need for ships that could actually meet the threats posed by other races, which, for all it's virtues, could not be said of the Galaxy design.
I mean, honestly, what ships is the Galaxy actually shown to be superior to? Certainly not the D'Deridex, nor the Vorcha. The show pretty much never had the Enterprise winning a straight up fight, the crew either talked their way out of trouble, or used the techno-babble trick of the week to win. If anything, the Galaxy could have a more science bent, but no, it just isn't a fighter.
And yes, this is ENTIRELY about how much affection people have for a certain ship, as well as the sources those people choose to accept and reject to support their claim.
Considering the Galor is one of the most powerful cruisers in STO - and the Enterprise pretty much ignored one of them shooting at her - and during Chains of Command - a tactically oriented Captain in very short order modified the Enterprise to fight several Cardassian ships at once.
Considering that for all of a D'Deridex's 'superiority', they never pushed the Enterprise - always backing down in a one on one confrontation. Considering that the Enterprise fought the Borg more then any other Federation ship with the exception of Voyager.
The Enterprise was constantly written into episodes as the underdog because standard enemies couldn't stand up to her. Yes, she had civilians, yes she had science labs - but she was also a very powerful ship designed and constructed during the Cardassian and Tzenkethi wars. The Enterprise was a flagship, she was a parade float for the Federation and her ideals - and still faced every serious threat to the Federation for 7 years before 'bad plot disease' killed her for a shinier ship that 'looked better on the big screen'.
Hell - Gowron himself backed down on the assault from DS9 when he found out a Federation task force led by a Galaxy class starship was about to show up. The Venture task force was six ships - two of which were Excelsiors and a third of which was a Miranda. So A Galaxy class was a big enough threat when added to DS9's firepower, that the Klingon chancellor and his entire battlegroup blinked and backed down.
The Galaxy is not now, nor has it ever been a successful warship. For crying out loud, this was a ship that was built with a freaking PRESCHOOL inside. It's a luxury liner for long range exploration, and the only reason anyone thinks it's any good at combat is because of made-up tripe in a tech manual. There is no 'math' behind it at all, and if you choose to believe this nonsense that's fine, but realize that it means that all classes after the Galaxy (even the ships that were designed for a combat role) are inferior to a ship that is in some cases decades younger. Instead of believing that the Federation made it's best warship in a time of peace, and then proceeded to make a series of essentially useless designs, I choose to believe that ships like the Sovereign, Defiant, and Prometheus were designed because of a perceived need for ships that could actually meet the threats posed by other races, which, for all it's virtues, could not be said of the Galaxy design.
I mean, honestly, what ships is the Galaxy actually shown to be superior to? Certainly not the D'Deridex, nor the Vorcha. The show pretty much never had the Enterprise winning a straight up fight, the crew either talked their way out of trouble, or used the techno-babble trick of the week to win. If anything, the Galaxy could have a more science bent, but no, it just isn't a fighter.
And yes, this is ENTIRELY about how much affection people have for a certain ship, as well as the sources those people choose to accept and reject to support their claim.
Go watch Q Who.
Then watch First Contact.
That hole in the side of the Borg Cube that the Fleet put there AFTER Picard showed up and told them where to fire.
That hole is Smaller than any of the three holes that the Galaxy punched into a Borg Cube solo.
The GCS has fired more torpedoes in a single shot than any other ship seen on screen.
The GCS has also fired faster than any other ship seen on screen.
In Yesterday's Enterprise we see the GCS flat out destroy a K'Vort class KDF vessel.
The Phasers were the same ones equipped as in the Prime universe.
While you are entitled to your own opinion. So are we.
Ours just happens to be a better informed one as far as a sci-fi can be.
The tech manual is backed up by on-screen dialog and visual effects.
In the Dominion War there was not a single Galaxy lost to enemy forces.
The Odyssey was not lost during the war. That was before the war started.
And that was after the ship had been engaged against the "mighty" bug ships without shields and minimally effective weapons for over 10 minutes.
Best part about that fight that GCS critics ignore? The ship was capable of leaving the battle under her own power and at her own discretion.
Furthermore in the Dominion War we see the GCS owning Cardassian and Dominion ships left and right. Despite having orders to fly straight on to DS9 should any ship get through the lines, the Galaxy Captains turned around and attacked the enemy fleet from the rear. That means that they went right through the enemy fleet like a hot knife through butter. Even beating the Defiant and her escorts through the enemy line.
As for the GCS being built during peace and as a lux cruiser??
Hardly. As has been repeatedly mentioned, the Galaxy was designed during some of the most tumultuous times for the Federation prior to the Dominion War.
She was fighting on several fronts. The Tzenkethi wars, the Tholians, the Cardassians(longest Fed Conflict to date). And when the GCS and its sister ship the Nebula launched, those conflicts suddenly evaporated.
There are two combat vessels in Star Fleet. The Defiant and the Prometheus.
One is a weapons platform strapped to an engine. The other is a one trick pony.
As for having families and children onboard.
I'm curious what you would be equipping on your vessels if you were placing a family on it?
Knowing full well that it could encounter anything from a space flea, to a god in unexplored space?
Yeah, I'd totally be negligent and give it a pea shooter.
Comments
While I'm on the point of the Galaxy Class and it's variants, I have to say I love my Galaxy-X. Sure people say it sucks, but that means it's not meant for their play style and/or what they play with it.
Am I saying you should play it; no. Whatever you want to play is what you should play as. If you're worried about what the DPSers will say about your Galaxy, then you obviously don't have the loyalty you truly put into it like you've boasted. It's only a game.
But if you've dropped in a lot of money for this game, by all means take it seriously.
If you're like me, who can't pay, and has only a few EC credits to their name and works hard to get the ship they love without listening to what others say or what the forum posters say, then you will enjoy your ship. Don't listen to DPSers or Elite PvEers who used money to get where they are while you've grinded for more than three months to get you ship; they are them and you are you.
I am one of those people and am proud of my Galaxy-X, the U.S.S. Susano'o.
Now to await the flames of the critics and 'experts'.
"Look at me I'm a target!"
"Fire the Lance on my mark... MARK!
"How many times have we gone into the breach again R'shee?"
My proposal for a Galaxy bundle
Surely you can artificially balance trek ships, but that's not the point. Some are stronger/more powerful by nature, but that's not escorts and other small ships.
So it's ok to have small and nimble ships dominating the Star Trek universe and let the big ships the "victim role"?
If i have the choice then i would choose something else.
Because i want to introduce pure PvE ships rather than changing already existing BOFF powers?
You miss the whole point of what I said. An emitter "emits" (shoots) a capacitor stores/feeds energy. Having so many emitters (as said in the Galaxys Tech) suggest that they can all shoot ( bunch of weaker shots), but feeding one emitter with a large amount of power from a capacitor would produce one powerful shot. I was saying the tech doesn't make sense.
In regards to your question, more emitters could be useful when fighting smaller craft, such as fighters. It depends on the enemy.
I am aware that engineers are not dps monsters. My tac drives an escort. I play all three classes , not to be the min-max , but for enjoyment.
the tech makes sense, your just missing an important detail. each emitter is its own capacitor. the emiters are fed energy individually and directly, and holds thier own energy to ether fire them selves or transfer down the array. the moving glow effect is the energy from emitter being routed to the chosen firing point. the longer the array, the larger the capacitor is basically.
The length of the strip doesn't denote "strength" as much as a wider arc of fire and overall weapon system survivability. The problem I see with your point is in TNG, the ship fires its beam from one, smaller point instead of all emitters (the whole thing lighting up and firing a "horseshoe shaped beam"). If the whole array blasted as one peice, that would make more sense, but it didn't.
The problem with your description is parasitic loss of energy by laws of physics. Movement of power is not a 100% efficient action, there is always energy bleed. Each emitter must be fed by the power grid (presumable a capacitor), which will experience some power loss (waste heat, power loss in connectors, etc). When an emitter fires or transfers energy to other emitters, it also generates power bleed that doesn't translate into damage energy. Having a bunch of emitters, being fed by the power distribution network/ capacitors independently, and then transferring that energy to another emitter into one blast would channel less energy to that beams damage than directly feeding one emitter with the capacitor.
I never talked about any other ships arrays, just the Galaxys design concept that has been mentioned here.
Modularity is only so effective, it has the space and tonnage, unlike changing staterooms to to large troop holding areas and cargo bays into smaller assault shuttle bays, its not as simple as bolting in reactors in place of staterooms and being done. A massive increase in power output requires each reactor point to be tapped into the power grid and then having the overall power grid to be beefed up (all over the ship) to deal with a massive dose of increased power distribution. While it would be easier than doing it to an Excelsior, it would still take a great deal of time and effort. It would be even simpler to replace saucer sections for major configuration requirement changes.
Except you are ignoring parasitic loss of power transfer from one emitter to another, power transfer is not 100% efficient. That glow you mention, by laws of physics, is the release of waste energy being moved down the grid that has escaped in the form of light (not mentioning the not seen waste heat, transfer inefficiency etc). Feeding power from the power grid, to each capacitor, to each emitter, from that emitter down the array through other emitters to the actual firing emitter would generate power loss (no matter what any technical book might suggest). There are too many stages of power transfer, even before taking into account energy degradation of the beam as it travels to its target, for it to be efficient. For a heavy, high powered blast, feeding one emitter directly from a larger capacitor is the most efficient transfer of energy due to less travel/energy loss points.
The larger beam array makes far more sense for keeping a number of arrays rotating fire for smaller, more frequent firing, as well as the ability for most of the system staying online when some of it takes damage, as well as shooting at multiple, smaller targets at once and a wider arc of fire, which are all important as well.
So what canon source states its also to increase power?
R.I.P
no, the ship is just bad, anyone with a little anderstanding of the game mechanisms will be able to see that, you have a long way to go, but there is nothing wrong with it, we all have been beginner at some point.
well i am sorry but i will ( even if i known i should not) take this comment personally.
man... i am here since the game have launch, that mean 3 years, i didn't pop here when it become free to play, i fly the galaxy x exclusively for 2 years straight, and i have been insulted in kerrat for flying this ship.
if i have to listen to other people to fly this ship i wouldn't have stay 2 years with it.
because yes, even tho what the new wave of f2p players think, the galaxy x wasn't "ok" when the game went free to play and then become rubbish by whatever miracle.
no, it was rubbish right from the start.
even gecko admit it and performed a enhancement before season 4 ( in april ) by boosting the lance dmg and giving it a 4th weapon slot in the back.
when you've spent two years straight with this ship without changing, then come back to me and we will talk again about that "loyalty" i "boasted".
i am also proud of my galaxy x, and i have "fun" playing it but that daesn't blind me to the limitation of the ship.
when your getting more experience you will realize that these limitation are going to mitigate your "fun".
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Both aren't considered canon btw..
But since the tech manual is written by Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, while the Wiki is just as relilable as the people writing it, i'd go for the manual.
Well, I'm not going to troll you or flame you, because honestly I think you have a very sane approach of dealing with things.
I go about my business in STO in a similar manner. I always choose my ship with the heart, rather than the mind going through numbers. Cause our ships in STO are kinda' our characters/avatars for most of the time and I want to end up looking at sth. I like.
I grew up with TNG and I like the Galaxy, that's why I've got one. I has been one hell of a grind to outfit it with all the best equipment money can buy, but I loved every minute of it.
I do support the Galaxy class revamp because I don't believe Cryptic did this ship justice. If you've read my posts in this thread I've said that I'd be completely satisfied with the Galaxy remaining the "uber" tank it is if Cryptic decides to bring back the tanking role in STO. Frankly, I believe this to be the main issue with the Galaxy and cruisers in general.
Anyway, games for me are all about having fun. No statistics can beat having fun in your favourite ship regardless of what everyone says. Heck, my favourite ship in STO is the Bortasqu', I have it since it was released and never stepped out of it. I've been listenting to the majority of the KDF players trash it and tell me how much it sucks for a year and a half now. Newsflash: it doesn't! :eek:
Have fun & keep cruisin' the stars.
parasitic loss? we arent talking about electricity and copper wires here, we are talking about high energy plasma held in conduits with a magnetic field. the only time there could possibly be parasitic loss is on the viable moveing charge effect, that takes a split second, before the shot is fired. that process, at the very most might bleed off 1/10 of the emitters stored power, more likely 1/100, still making it exceptionally efficient. they would not have made arrays if they dumped more then half their energy in the form of waist heat and light like you seem to be implying. i have a real problem assuming starfleet weapons engineers are TRIBBLE.
1 large capacitor and 1 large emitter has a plethora of drawbacks compared to an array. 1 point of failure for each as apposed to 200. thats why modern ships dont have come with ball turrets anymore. first and foremost would be packaging. the array sits partially submerged in the hull, and not only is it the weapon itself, but also the capacitor. only the plasma conduit pipeing would take up any large amount of space on the ship. an array is scalable as well. just daisy chain more emitters and the arrays gets more powerful. they would presumably be easy to hot swap out for repair, replacement or upgrading. you can make small arrays to cover blind spots, and a large array to actually use for offense. the emitter is designed to fit in all ships, its just a question of how many you can fit in a line. this also gives unlimited fireing arc, with anything the array has line of sight with. there is no gun barrel limiting fireing arc. the most powerful weapon does not have a forward only fireing arc drawback like cannons do. cannons on a modern starfleet ship are a compromise measure for a ship to physically small to mount adequate length arrays. arrays only dont have a packaging advantage on the smallest ships.
its been a wile since i posted it, how arrays work, so instead of just claiming they work a certain way, hers the facts in excruciating detail. here's the text from the TNG tech manual
The lead defensive system maintained by Starfleet Command for sublight use for the last century is the phaser, the common term for a complicated energy release process developed to replace pure EM devices such as the laser, and particle beam accelerators. Phaser is something of a hold-over acronym, PHASed Energy Rectification, referring to the original process by which stored or supplied energy enteringthe phaser system was converted to another form for release toward a target, without the need for an intermediate energy transformation. This remains essentially true in the current phaser effect. Phaser energy is released through the application of the rapid nadion effect (RNE). Rapid nadions are short-lived subatomic particles possessing special properties related to high-speed interactions within atomic nuclei. Among these properties is the ability to liberate and transfer strong nuclearforces within a particular class of superconducting crystals known as fushigi-no-umi.
The crystals were so named when it appeared to researchers at Starfleet's Tokyo R&D facility that the materials being developed represented a virtual "sea of wonder" before them.
i think theres enough fictional science and magic crystals at work to hand wave parasitic loss as a problem here
SHIPBOARD PHASERS
As installed in the Galaxy class, the main ship's phasers are rated as Type X, the largest emitters available for starship use. Individual emitter segments are capable of directing 5.1 megawatts. By comparison, the small personal phasers issued to Starfleet crew members are Type I and II, the latter being limited to 0.01 MW. Certain large dedicated planetary defense emitters are designated as Type X+, as their exact energy output remains classified. The Galaxy class supports twelve phaser arrays in two sizes, located on both dorsal and ventral surfaces, as well as two arrays for lateral coverage. A typical large phaser array aboard the USS Enterprise, such as the upper dorsal array on the Saucer Module, consists of two hundred emitter segments in a dense linear arrangement for optimal control of firing order, thermal effects, field halos, and target impact. Groups of emitters are supplied by redundant sets of energy feeds from the primary trunks of the electro plasma system (EPS), and are similarly interconnected by fire control, thermal management, and sensor lines. The visible hull surface configuration of the phaser is a long shallow raised strip, the bulk of the hardware submerged within the vehicle frame. In cross section, the phaser array takes on a thickened Yshape, capped with a trapezoidal mass of the actual emitter crystal and phaser-transparent hull antierosion coatings. The base of an array segment sits within a structural honeycomb channel of duranium 235 and supplied with supersonic regen-erative LN 2 cooling. The complete channel is thermally isolated by eight hundred link struts to the tritanium vehicle frame.
The first stage of the array segment is the EPS submasterflow regulator, the principal mechanism controlling phaserpower levels for firing. The flow regulator leads into the plasma distribution manifold (PDM), which branches into two hundred supply conduits to an equal number of prefire cham-bers. The final stage of the system is the phaser emitter crystal.
each emitter is thus its own complete phaser bank, with all the required components
ACTIVATION SEQUENCE
Upon receiving the command to fire, the EPS submaster flow regulator manages the energetic plasma powering the phaser array through a series of physical irises and magnetic switching gates. Iris response is 0.01 seconds and is used for gross adjustments in plasma distribution; magnetic gate re-sponse is 0.0003 seconds and is employed for rapid fine-tuning of plasma routing within small sections of an array. Normal control of all irises and gates is affected through the autonomic side of the phaser function command processor,coordinated with the Threat assessment/tracking/targeting system (TA/T/TS). The regulator is manufactured from combined crystal sonodanite, solenogyn, and rabium tritonide, and lined with a 1.2 cm layer of paranygen animide to providestructural surface protection. Energy is conveyed from each flow regulator to the PDM,a secondary computer-controlled valving device at the head end of each prefire chamber. The manifold is a single crystalboronite solid, and is machined by phaser cutters. The prefire chamber is a sphere of LiCu 518 reinforced with woundhafnium tritonide, which is gamma-welded. It is within the prefire chamber that energy from the plasma undergoes the handoff and initial EM spectrum shift associated with the rapidnadion effect (RNE). The energy is confined for between 0.05 and 1.3 nanoseconds by a collapsible charge barrier before passing to the LiCu 518 emitter for discharge. The action of raising and collapsing the charge barrier forms the required pulse for the RNE. The power level commanded by the system or voluntarily set by the responsible officer determinesthe relative proportion of protonic charge that will be created and pulse frequency in the final emitter stage.
wtf did i just try to read :eek:
BEAM EMISSION
The trifaceted crystal that constitutes the final discharge stage is formed from LiCu 518 and measures 3.25 x 2.45 x1.25 meters for a single segment. The crystal lattice for mulaused in the forced-matrix process is LixCu?:Si::Fe>:>:0.The collimated energy beam exits one or more of the facets, depending on which prefire chambers are being pumped with plasma. The segment firing order, as controlled by the phaser function command processor, together with facet discharge direction, determines the final beam vector. Energy from all discharged segments passes direction-ally over neighboring segments due to force coupling, con-verging on the release point, where the beam will emerge and travel at c to the target. Narrow beams are created by rapid segment order firing; wider fan or cone beams result from slower firing rates. Wide beams are, of course, prone to marked power loss per unit area covered.
and there you have it. the more emitters you have 'force coupling', the more powerful an arrays shot can be. and we have seen full array discharges, there isn't a limit to how many of its segments a galaxy can use for a single shot.
Well if that is the case, I'd recomend getting the Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit (Excelsior) or the Assault Cruiser Retrofit (Regent/Sovereign) or their fleet versions later.
Both are very good tactical cruisers, they certainly don't maneuver like the escort, but you don't have to worry about that. Equip them with beam arrays and you won't have to react that fast and keep your nose at things at all times due to the wide firing arc of the arrays.
And with a cruiser like those you won't need to depend on fast reflexes because besides being easier for you to keep the beam arrays always on target, they also take a fair amount of punishment so they tolerate if you're not that fast with activating and circling the Boff skills needed to stay alive.
The rules for what is canon is quite defined but if the manuals are to be taken as canon then the KDF has much that needa to be changed about thier vessels as well.
Still Memory Alpha seems to have many of its info taken directly from the series episodes and movies with examples of what episodes and movies said info is found. Even down to what character gave the info in the episode as per what the fanbase agrees to be canon. Ei: the series episodes and movie.s.
If you look at the MA page on phasers the examples are quite clear and even state that phaser strips cme in different sizes and strengths but that they do not increase the power uootput TRIBBLE.
Need to agree on what source is the valid source before continuing to build up the idea that the Phaser emitter strip is a weapon idea without equal.
Then one must accept that even that source is biased due to fandom influence and plot needs.
R.I.P
I am well aware of that. At times I still pop in my Soveriegn or free Nebula and love those ships, but I'd never regret my choices.
I actually had no idea this game even existed until a few months ago, but then again I hardly knew anything that is in this world. And I understand you're point me friend, and it was meant to those people who only pay to get bigger and better things in this game so they can shout 'Winnah!!' and boast about inconsequential victories in a GAME instead of those who are loyal to the Star Trek series and just love flying in the Star Trek Universe... Though I do feel bored at times and just run episodes over again or do foundry missions because I just blasted through the episodes in less than a month.
And what you said with the enhancements, why weren't those already in place when it came out? I'm just wondering. Kinda seems redundant to refit a ship that was supposed to be competable with end tier ships.
I'm aware of that, but that doesn't mean I should feel any worse that I wasted it on a Galaxy-X instead of an Odyssey. I just didn't feel like living up to the hype of what others think or believe, then again I've always been known to defy whatever anyone else says or believes, even experts.
And if that fun is mitigated by limitations, then that means I have to allow my very vague definition of fun to be captured and tied down by everyonelses' standard of fun. And I won't let it. Because I have my own views of this world, and no one else, not even the heavens will or can change them.
But if this ship does go through another retrofit, then I'm all for it. If not, then oh well, I'll just have to prove my loyalty and love for this ship to you now won't I?
(P.S. Sorry for the editing of your original post. I have a grammar police problem since I like to write so much... er type.)
"Look at me I'm a target!"
"Fire the Lance on my mark... MARK!
"How many times have we gone into the breach again R'shee?"
My proposal for a Galaxy bundle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon
A special case is made for "non-fiction" reference books such as The Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Chronology, TNG Technical Manual and DS9 Technical Manual. Unlike the novels and novelizations, these reference manuals have never been explicitly named as non-canon, and the fact that they were officially sanctioned by Paramount and given to episode writers as guides serves to give them an aura of credibility. Roddenberry himself considered it part of the "background" of Star Trek.[19] Meanwhile, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, two art and technical consultants since Star Trek: The Next Generation and the authors of several of these reference books, considered their work "pretty official".[20] However, they stop short of naming the books canon, leaving the debate open.
Star Trek writer and co-producer Ronald D. Moore dismisses such official material as "speculation", and says that the writing staff did not consider it canon.[21][22] However, Viacom, the parent company of Paramount, seems to believe differently. In a series of posts to the official Star Trek website's forums, Viacom Senior Director Harry Lang left no doubt that he considers the reference books as canon.[16][23]
they made the show, they made these books. as far as im concerned anything in the tech manuals or those 2 'haynes' guides are canon unless something in them is directly contradicted be something in the show. theres no source of information on phasers at a high tier of canon then what i posted last page.
R.I.P
they were mistaken to dismiss these texts, though theres not a whole lot of tech manuals talking about kdf ships, except haynes brel owners manual
But i haven't seen anything contradicting the TNG manual, so i think it is trustable.
Since Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach made it, i think it is more trustable than the Wiki. but that's just my personal opinion.
I think Dontdrunks Phaser Strip explaination sounds right, and it doesn't contradict with anything shown on TV. But someone can pick anything to pieces if he/she wants to.
Just look at Cryptics "interpretation" of the GCS in STO. They literary took any instance where the GCS performed bad (if it was the ships fault or its Crew) they could find to justify the worst ship in the game.
Someone else could have made it easily the strongest ship in the game using the same approach just inverted.
But that's not the point of this thread, what we (at least what i) want is a GCS that isn't the worst ship in the game. A rework that resembles the "real" ship to a certain degree too.
Take a look at the Vesta and its variants. It's hardly the strongest ship in the game but Cryptic made it a fine ship for its fans, that's exactly what we want for the GCS too.
I'm not debating if the Galaxy class needs love. It may well need some.
What keeps its capabilities from going too far in that pursuit of that love?
What is to say it deserves more or less love than the Defiant class? The Negh'vhar? The SteamRunner? Or any vessel loved by a portion of the fanbase above all others?
The thread has waxed and waned many times in and out of exhibiting reasoning driven purely by the love for the vessel that is sometimes beyond what may be true. The recent Phaser emitter strip debate has some of those ins and outs.
So while the GCS may need some love don't let that love for it make it become a plot vessel.
We all want our favorite vessel to be the paragon but we can not let that love blind us that there is always something bigger and tougher than our favorite, and given the inconsistencies of Star Trek its easier to fall down that slipper slope.
That's all I'm saying.
R.I.P
Totally agree.
And as many of us continue to mention. We don't want her to be the Uber ship.
While our own reasoning, beliefs etc may place the GCS above the Sovereign in Cannon and even the Odyssey in some areas. We also understand that we aren't the majority and that this is a game.
The Sovereign is largely perceived as being the superior ship(somehow more advanced and newer means end all be all too).
We also understand how a game works.
Ideally we would like it to look like Odyssey, Sovereign, Galaxy, Ambassador, Excelsior.
Though in reality it would more likely be Excelsior, Sovereign, Odyssey, Galaxy, Ambassador. Fed side. "Special" cases like the lock box ships not included.
As for the Phasers.
A lot of real math has gone into showing that the Tech manuals are correct.
The numbers for the power per emitter doesn't match what is seen on screen for the destructive potential of a phaser array, but functionally, everything else does. (5.1MW per emitter is to small a number to create the kind of destruction that we have seen from the Ent D on-screen.)
I'm just telling you what Rick Sternbach said about the ship.
If you would like, I can go into my own beliefs about why the Akira is not the primary successor of the Excelsior and why it would be the Sovereign. But those are my opinions on the matter. And really cannot be called anything other than such or intelligent speculation.
That's true.
And i again want to underline that we don't want to have a uber Galaxy Class in this game.
Maybe some ideas may sound like it, then the idea is too exaggerated but not the intention behind it.
I hope we are all agree that the Galaxy -R in STO shouldn't be the ship having the LEAST firepower and the most unuseable BOFF layout of all cruisers in this game. No canon ship deserves that, even less a ship as popular and iconic like the GCS.
There have been many suggestions about what the most appappropriate BOFF/Console layout may be, some are good some rather not. But almost all of them would be a improvement to the current one.
Cryptics Developers are (hopefully) experienced enough by now to create a working ship on the basis of the availlable documentation. They did a great job with the Vesta, heck they made the Ambassador a much better ship than the Galaxy -R.
So creating a reworked Galaxy Class that is fun to fly and doesn't feel like a punishement for TNG fans, shouldn't be a problem if they wanted to.
the size, the observed burst capability of the 2 torpedo launchers, and the science behind phaser arrays proves that the galaxy is without pear in a strait up fight. for a year here and there, there are ships launched with beter tech, but thats not enough to out muscle a galaxy. and before long the galaxy will be updated with the same tech.
this has nothing to do with any amount of affection i have for 1 ship or the other, its just a mathematical certainty. not insisting it have the best fed cruiser stats is showing plenty of restraint. a slight altering of consoles, a universal ENS at least, a station setup like the d'deridex, or my 3 pack any sort of change like these is all we want.
Want to fly an Intrepid into an Elite STF? No one says a word. Your firepower might be a bit low, but you balance that out with science powers and trickery. Gravity Wells, Photonic Shockwaves, subsystem targeting on target, photonic fleet (If you're a sci captain). Your straight on dps might be lower then the other players, but the ship itself is powerful and useful. Crowd Control, Debuffing, etc.
Want to fly a Defiant? She's an absolute powerhouse and with the new armors and the right build, she can soak pve damage as well as the before mentioned Galaxy class. The only thing in an elite stf that will kill a Defiant is a lucky Borg high yield plasma torp.
Want your Excelsior/Negh'var/Vor'Cha/Tor'kaht/Odyssey/Ambassador? They all have fairly decent maneverability or the flexibility to be what you want them to be. The KDF cruisers pack dual heavy cannons and superior maneuverability. A properly built non-fleet Negh'Var can match an Excelsior's firepower pretty easily. All these ships can be built in different ways and are all absolutely useful in PVE/PVP.
The problem with the Galaxy class isn't her mass, it isn't her weapons, it isn't even how powerful she should be in canon - the problem is with the powers in the game as is - she can't be efficient. Want to dps with her for fun? Tac team is pretty much required in all content now - so your choice is tac team and one attack power. The attack power is neutered by only having two enhancer consoles. Not only that, but keeping tac team running means Engineering team is completely useless to you.
Tanking with her? You aren't needed, and your tanking only slows down event. If you aren't with fleet members or friends, bringing a 'Failaxy' as I've been informed she is - will only get you mocked and anger team mates for adding two minutes to their fast game.
The Galaxy class is one of the most iconic Trek ships, and there are many people who love her and want to fly one without being punished for it. I'd love some of the proposed three packs, but I would also completely accept the only change the Galaxy gets is her console layout changed to 4 eng, 2 sci, 3 tac for standard, and 4 eng, 3 sci, 3 tac for fleet - with her boff layout being Eng Commander and Ensign, Lt Tac, Lt Sci, Ltcom Uni.
With that simple change - if you want the Galaxy to stay the way it is? Slot your engineer. If you want some teeth, drop a tac in her. You want to heal/CC? Your new ltcom sci has Grav well or TSS 3.
I think all anyone in this thread honestly wants is to be able to fly their favorite ship without being punished for it.
No, this is just... no.
The Galaxy is not now, nor has it ever been a successful warship. For crying out loud, this was a ship that was built with a freaking PRESCHOOL inside. It's a luxury liner for long range exploration, and the only reason anyone thinks it's any good at combat is because of made-up tripe in a tech manual. There is no 'math' behind it at all, and if you choose to believe this nonsense that's fine, but realize that it means that all classes after the Galaxy (even the ships that were designed for a combat role) are inferior to a ship that is in some cases decades younger. Instead of believing that the Federation made it's best warship in a time of peace, and then proceeded to make a series of essentially useless designs, I choose to believe that ships like the Sovereign, Defiant, and Prometheus were designed because of a perceived need for ships that could actually meet the threats posed by other races, which, for all it's virtues, could not be said of the Galaxy design.
I mean, honestly, what ships is the Galaxy actually shown to be superior to? Certainly not the D'Deridex, nor the Vorcha. The show pretty much never had the Enterprise winning a straight up fight, the crew either talked their way out of trouble, or used the techno-babble trick of the week to win. If anything, the Galaxy could have a more science bent, but no, it just isn't a fighter.
And yes, this is ENTIRELY about how much affection people have for a certain ship, as well as the sources those people choose to accept and reject to support their claim.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Considering that for all of a D'Deridex's 'superiority', they never pushed the Enterprise - always backing down in a one on one confrontation. Considering that the Enterprise fought the Borg more then any other Federation ship with the exception of Voyager.
The Enterprise was constantly written into episodes as the underdog because standard enemies couldn't stand up to her. Yes, she had civilians, yes she had science labs - but she was also a very powerful ship designed and constructed during the Cardassian and Tzenkethi wars. The Enterprise was a flagship, she was a parade float for the Federation and her ideals - and still faced every serious threat to the Federation for 7 years before 'bad plot disease' killed her for a shinier ship that 'looked better on the big screen'.
Hell - Gowron himself backed down on the assault from DS9 when he found out a Federation task force led by a Galaxy class starship was about to show up. The Venture task force was six ships - two of which were Excelsiors and a third of which was a Miranda. So A Galaxy class was a big enough threat when added to DS9's firepower, that the Klingon chancellor and his entire battlegroup blinked and backed down.
Go watch Q Who.
Then watch First Contact.
That hole in the side of the Borg Cube that the Fleet put there AFTER Picard showed up and told them where to fire.
That hole is Smaller than any of the three holes that the Galaxy punched into a Borg Cube solo.
The GCS has fired more torpedoes in a single shot than any other ship seen on screen.
The GCS has also fired faster than any other ship seen on screen.
In Yesterday's Enterprise we see the GCS flat out destroy a K'Vort class KDF vessel.
The Phasers were the same ones equipped as in the Prime universe.
While you are entitled to your own opinion. So are we.
Ours just happens to be a better informed one as far as a sci-fi can be.
The tech manual is backed up by on-screen dialog and visual effects.
In the Dominion War there was not a single Galaxy lost to enemy forces.
The Odyssey was not lost during the war. That was before the war started.
And that was after the ship had been engaged against the "mighty" bug ships without shields and minimally effective weapons for over 10 minutes.
Best part about that fight that GCS critics ignore? The ship was capable of leaving the battle under her own power and at her own discretion.
Furthermore in the Dominion War we see the GCS owning Cardassian and Dominion ships left and right. Despite having orders to fly straight on to DS9 should any ship get through the lines, the Galaxy Captains turned around and attacked the enemy fleet from the rear. That means that they went right through the enemy fleet like a hot knife through butter. Even beating the Defiant and her escorts through the enemy line.
As for the GCS being built during peace and as a lux cruiser??
Hardly. As has been repeatedly mentioned, the Galaxy was designed during some of the most tumultuous times for the Federation prior to the Dominion War.
She was fighting on several fronts. The Tzenkethi wars, the Tholians, the Cardassians(longest Fed Conflict to date). And when the GCS and its sister ship the Nebula launched, those conflicts suddenly evaporated.
There are two combat vessels in Star Fleet. The Defiant and the Prometheus.
One is a weapons platform strapped to an engine. The other is a one trick pony.
As for having families and children onboard.
I'm curious what you would be equipping on your vessels if you were placing a family on it?
Knowing full well that it could encounter anything from a space flea, to a god in unexplored space?
Yeah, I'd totally be negligent and give it a pea shooter.