What are you talking about? Sacrifice of Angels? Where do they ever say that the Galaxy wing has made it through the lines? And if they did, why on Earth would they turn around?. The scenario you are positing is so ridiculous that it's much easier to simply dismiss it as a writing mistake than it is to try and ret-con in a reason why some of Starfleet's best captains would spontaneously ignore not only their explicit orders, but the entire strategic purpose of the battle they were in.
because that is what ciptain kork would DO!!:D:D
that how he alway win, ignore explicit order and go again the entire strategic purpose of the federation, hehe.
and since the galaxy class starship is the ultimate bestmorepowerfullstrong warship of the universe they can only be commanded by such captain, it goes without saying!
....its an absurd notion that only a total sov fanboy would cling to in the face of overwhelming canon evidence to the contrary, you even have to ignore common sense.
Okay, let's talk common sense. Common sense is you don't design a ship to look like the Enterprise D, ever, for any reason, ever. There's no practical benefit and a ton of drawbacks. You have to invent nonsense like structural integrity fields and inertial dampers just to explain how a ship of that mass, with that shape, can function without tearing itself apart. It's an exceptionally inefficient use of space, and the "safety" function of the separate saucer could be achieved with a much more balanced and reasonable design. Basically the Galaxy, while nice looking, is a TERRIBLE structural design.
Here's another fun one you keep glossing over - why on Earth, ever, would I run the weapon charge through a series of capacitors and emitters, when I could just link all the capacitors together and fire the same energy (more, actually, since I don't lose out any energy in the extra unnecessary transfers)? This is a great example of something that sort of sounds cool, but actually makes no sense, and you keep ignoring that fact. I did read the TNG tech manual, and even as a teenager I considered it to be silly.
More to the point, even if it did make sense, you would expect that same understanding, then, to color the design of other ships, but it doesn't. No other ships are built with the same design rules as the Galaxy, when there is every reason to suspect they would be. There are all sorts of design decisions in the later ships (like not curving phasers to get extra power, or cutting long strips into two pieces for no reason) that are basically criminally stupid if things work the way you say they do. You choose to believe that because one writer that you like wrote one thing, all the other writers have to follow those rules, but that's never how the show actually worked.
The fact is, the producers, writers and artists of the later TNG movies all intended for the Sovereign to be perceived as a more powerful and advanced ship than the familiar D. You may not like that decision, but since Star Trek reality is whatever the people making it say it is, you're stuck with it. No amount of appealing to "canon" will change that. You don't get to countermand the implicit and explicit intentions of those writers simply because you don't like it, because even though you're a fan of the show, you have no control over it, you aren't entitled to any control, and the writers owe you nothing more than simple entertainment. The kicker is, even if they cared about the tech manual, all they would have to do is technobabble up a reason why newer phaser strips worked better and were incompatible with the Galaxy's power systems, and Presto! The tech manual is irrelevant again.
yes yoda, size does maters. starfleet appears to arm their ships with weapons relative to their size. thats why the galaxy's guns are at least twice as large as the sovereign's. after 80 pages, we are still mouth breathing that the galaxy was designed for peace and kindergarten? thats instantly proven false as soon as you crack open the tng tech manual, a text that has almost nothing contradicting anything it said in any later canon or texts.
Or, alternately, I could watch the show, see what it was used for, and ask what the combat training value of "Captain Picard Day" was. I've seen every episode of TNG, and every single time the idea of the Enterprise as a warship was brought up, it was flatly shot-down. The TNG writers never treated it like it was a warship, they wrote stories for it as if it was an explorer. Look at the difference between how the two ships are presented in their respective shows - whatever the Tech Manual says, that's not what was shown to the viewing public.
then during literal war time, they were launched as mostly empty shells, they could run with that 70% of their interior unused and the fleet gets 1 more set of huge arrays and torpedo launchers that can fire 10 torps in a second. potentually even more then that before having to reload the huge launchers. the best the sovereign and intrepid launchers were seen doing was bursts of 3 or 4 before having to reload.
There's a lot of silliness I'm snipping here (not sure how an internal firing range is improving the ship to ship combat abilities of the Galaxy?), but this last part takes the cake - you're basically saying that the combat "improvements" to the Galaxy consist primarily of making it an empty shell, because all that mattered was the array. If that was the case, why not simply make a sleeker, more focused variant of the Galaxy that doesn't have all that wasted space, and instead has a more compact (narrower) saucer for better structural integrity?
i cant comprehend the state of mind you would need to even ask such an TRIBBLE backward question. why are their different ship classes, that come in all different sizes, and have different purposes? is that what your asking?
No, I'm asking why would you design a ship specifically to fight the Borg, but design it in such a way that it was couldn't possibly do that job better than a ship you already had - especially when the older ship could do so many other things as well, and most especially when the technology you have largely obsoletes the idea of "saving resources".
your in denial. no mater how much parasitic loss you insist takes place, the cumulative energy from some or all the emitters does create more powerful shots. other wise there would be no reason for their to ever be that visible moving glow effect on the array, were the emitters combine their power. they would just fire 1 emitter shots, if the power loss was SO BAD that it wouldn't be worth combining some or all the emitters power.
whats on screen and written in canon tech manuals>parasitic loss that is so bad that it fits your opinion.
The part in bold is the key part. You are exactly right, there is no reason for that glow whatsoever, beyond the fact that the FX people thought it looked cool (and they're right). That's the thing you're not getting - you're treating things that were off the cuff comments or ill considered ideas as if they were immutable physical laws, when in fact there is no reason for them to be that way except insofar as it serves the plot. The Tech Manual is simply a pile of technobabble rationalizations for the design decisions that were made for the sake of style or plot. As soon as writers and artists started making different designs and telling different stories, those rationalizations were no longer needed, and were discarded by everyone except die-hard fans who don't understand that the Trek writers DON'T CARE what someone wrote in a book two decades before the movie they were working on, especially if it stands in the way of the story they are telling.
saying most advanced in that shot always sounded like they were playing it safe there. they didnt say most powerful, they didn't say its the flag ship, they said its most advanced. its got the most advanced holographic doctor, most advanced computer core, most advanced weapon systems, etc... they didn't flat out say the sum of those most advanced things means its the most powerful. or they would have said its the most powerful. that feels like a carefully choosen word to me.
there is such thing as canon, and that seems to be the difference bewteen us and the galaxy haters. we dont exclude any valid source of information, wile you hand wave 90% of it.
Hmm, to me, it sounded like what the writers explicitly stated it was supposed to be - an announcement that the new ship was, in fact, an upgrade over the old - specifically that it was a meaner, more streamlined and sexier ship. I'm pretty sure you're putting way more thought and rationalization into this than the writers did - I think they would be genuinely surprised to find that someone thought they had deliberately chosen that word so as not to invalidate a bit of canon that they didn't know or care about.
Basically, the sad, harsh truth is that Star Trek fans have always cared much, much more about "canon" than the writers ever did. The fans who are always trying to fit things into the "canon", or getting upset when things don't fit, seem to me to be much like young children who start to try to figure out how Santa really works, and get increasingly desperate as they realize it doesn't make much sense. Of course, those kids, much like those fans, miss the point entirely - it's MAGIC, silly! Hell, if I was John Eaves or the like, and someone came at me with this Tech Manual, asking how the Sovereign could possibly be more powerful than the Galaxy, I would look him square in the eyes and say "Q did it".
HAHAHAHAHA. no, its more like the warpcore out of a saber class or something, a ship twice the defiant's volume. its a big core for a ship its size, but its only 4 decks tall. useing the warp core as a litmus test i dismiss at this point though. traveling at warp 9 would use infinitely more power then any thing the ship could be doing at sublight. including combat. the sovereign's impulse reactors were what it used in the nemisis fight, and it was running without performance loss till the ship literally burned through all its deuterium.
Bleh? What? You dismiss my point because either ship has so much spare power given the demands of warp travel that any other demands are irrelevant? That can't be what you actually meant, because that just makes you wronger than before (if such a thing was possible). Honestly, it seems like what you just said was "yeah, warp takes so much power that anything else is basically irrelevant". That actually makes a TON of sense, it just means that there's no reason to assume "power generation" was ever a limiting factor in ship firepower, since by your own admission, those power demands would be miniscule next to the demands of moving even a small ship through warp.
array length in nearly ever ship example it pretty proportional to the ships size. it proboly has a lot to do with how powerful an array the ship could suport at a certain rate of fire without the warp core supplying plentiful power. these are just my observations, there might be no zigzaps because power would have more trouble flowing through kinks then a slight curve.
Bolded the important points here. You don't know why? But I thought the Tech Manual covered ship design? It's exact! It's canon!
Hyperbole aside - come ON! The power has a hard time "flowing through kinks"?! Really? That seems like a reasonable answer to you? Hold on, wait, I couldn't hear your response, my ethernet cable got kinked, and I'm afraid the internet might have gotten stuck in there. I guess I didn't realize phaser technology had so much in common with my garden hose.
lol no. if the ventral arrays weren't split, they might be almost as long as the shorter ventral galaxy array. the sovereigns whole saucer circumference is only about the same cercumfrance as a galaxy class's dorsal array. the wraparound dorsal sovereign array is longer then ether of the 2 split ventral.
Hey, I have a question for you - if this is true, then why split that array in the first place? What possible reason is there to do that, aside from an aesthetic decision from the ship artist? In fact, why not just put the array right along the edge of the saucer, that seems like it would be the optimal placement for it - so, why not do that? Right, no reason at all, except it wouldn't look as cool. And since that's what the designers cared about, that's what they did. I assure you, nobody cared about what the TNG tech manual said about it at all.
the sovereign being a borg murdering battleship is a fantasy. its a general propose explorer meant to replace all the old mid size general purpose cruisers like the ambassador, niagara, new orleans, cheyenne and excelsior. with firepower proportional to its size, +. the akira though is a fricking gun boat that out guns it, but a sovereign would still proboly beat one in a fight with its superior size given damage soak potential.
Well,you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... I hope someday you'll join us (that would be me and John Eaves, the guy who designed the Ent E and explicitly said it was a Borg killing battleship), and the world will be as one...
I guess John Eaves didn't write a tech manual though? So it doesn't count? If he does, and specifically includes a line about how phasers no longer work the way they did back then, because they got better garden hoses to carry the energy, or whatever, then will you concede? Or will you still believe that your devotion to one obscure and absurd bit of "canon" is more important than what the later writers did?
in reality the galaxy has an arsenal and flexibility without pear, the sovereign is a new large cruiser that is part of the trend to make ships more heavily armed for thier size, and the defiant is a match for an 80 year old light cruiser and only ever poped bops and bugships.
In REAL reality, none of these ships exist, and none of the "rules" you're trying to apply are anything more or less than a series of rationalizations for the decisions made in the show. Why you are so wedded to them I'll never know, but I've said my peace, and I wish you luck in your quixotic attempts to make Star Trek writers pay attention to the rules you think matter so much.
Okay, let's talk common sense. Common sense is you don't design a ship to look like the Enterprise D, ever, for any reason, ever. There's no practical benefit and a ton of drawbacks. You have to invent nonsense like structural integrity fields and inertial dampers just to explain how a ship of that mass, with that shape, can function without tearing itself apart. It's an exceptionally inefficient use of space, and the "safety" function of the separate saucer could be achieved with a much more balanced and reasonable design. Basically the Galaxy, while nice looking, is a TERRIBLE structural design.
Here's another fun one you keep glossing over - why on Earth, ever, would I run the weapon charge through a series of capacitors and emitters, when I could just link all the capacitors together and fire the same energy (more, actually, since I don't lose out any energy in the extra unnecessary transfers)? This is a great example of something that sort of sounds cool, but actually makes no sense, and you keep ignoring that fact. I did read the TNG tech manual, and even as a teenager I considered it to be silly.
More to the point, even if it did make sense, you would expect that same understanding, then, to color the design of other ships, but it doesn't. No other ships are built with the same design rules as the Galaxy, when there is every reason to suspect they would be. There are all sorts of design decisions in the later ships (like not curving phasers to get extra power, or cutting long strips into two pieces for no reason) that are basically criminally stupid if things work the way you say they do. You choose to believe that because one writer that you like wrote one thing, all the other writers have to follow those rules, but that's never how the show actually worked.
The fact is, the producers, writers and artists of the later TNG movies all intended for the Sovereign to be perceived as a more powerful and advanced ship than the familiar D. You may not like that decision, but since Star Trek reality is whatever the people making it say it is, you're stuck with it. No amount of appealing to "canon" will change that. You don't get to countermand the implicit and explicit intentions of those writers simply because you don't like it, because even though you're a fan of the show, you have no control over it, you aren't entitled to any control, and the writers owe you nothing more than simple entertainment. The kicker is, even if they cared about the tech manual, all they would have to do is technobabble up a reason why newer phaser strips worked better and were incompatible with the Galaxy's power systems, and Presto! The tech manual is irrelevant again.
Or, alternately, I could watch the show, see what it was used for, and ask what the combat training value of "Captain Picard Day" was. I've seen every episode of TNG, and every single time the idea of the Enterprise as a warship was brought up, it was flatly shot-down. The TNG writers never treated it like it was a warship, they wrote stories for it as if it was an explorer. Look at the difference between how the two ships are presented in their respective shows - whatever the Tech Manual says, that's not what was shown to the viewing public.
There's a lot of silliness I'm snipping here (not sure how an internal firing range is improving the ship to ship combat abilities of the Galaxy?), but this last part takes the cake - you're basically saying that the combat "improvements" to the Galaxy consist primarily of making it an empty shell, because all that mattered was the array. If that was the case, why not simply make a sleeker, more focused variant of the Galaxy that doesn't have all that wasted space, and instead has a more compact (narrower) saucer for better structural integrity?
No, I'm asking why would you design a ship specifically to fight the Borg, but design it in such a way that it was couldn't possibly do that job better than a ship you already had - especially when the older ship could do so many other things as well, and most especially when the technology you have largely obsoletes the idea of "saving resources".
The part in bold is the key part. You are exactly right, there is no reason for that glow whatsoever, beyond the fact that the FX people thought it looked cool (and they're right). That's the thing you're not getting - you're treating things that were off the cuff comments or ill considered ideas as if they were immutable physical laws, when in fact there is no reason for them to be that way except insofar as it serves the plot. The Tech Manual is simply a pile of technobabble rationalizations for the design decisions that were made for the sake of style or plot. As soon as writers and artists started making different designs and telling different stories, those rationalizations were no longer needed, and were discarded by everyone except die-hard fans who don't understand that the Trek writers DON'T CARE what someone wrote in a book two decades before the movie they were working on, especially if it stands in the way of the story they are telling.
Hmm, to me, it sounded like what the writers explicitly stated it was supposed to be - an announcement that the new ship was, in fact, an upgrade over the old - specifically that it was a meaner, more streamlined and sexier ship. I'm pretty sure you're putting way more thought and rationalization into this than the writers did - I think they would be genuinely surprised to find that someone thought they had deliberately chosen that word so as not to invalidate a bit of canon that they didn't know or care about.
Basically, the sad, harsh truth is that Star Trek fans have always cared much, much more about "canon" than the writers ever did. The fans who are always trying to fit things into the "canon", or getting upset when things don't fit, seem to me to be much like young children who start to try to figure out how Santa really works, and get increasingly desperate as they realize it doesn't make much sense. Of course, those kids, much like those fans, miss the point entirely - it's MAGIC, silly! Hell, if I was John Eaves or the like, and someone came at me with this Tech Manual, asking how the Sovereign could possibly be more powerful than the Galaxy, I would look him square in the eyes and say "Q did it".
Bleh? What? You dismiss my point because either ship has so much spare power given the demands of warp travel that any other demands are irrelevant? That can't be what you actually meant, because that just makes you wronger than before (if such a thing was possible). Honestly, it seems like what you just said was "yeah, warp takes so much power that anything else is basically irrelevant". That actually makes a TON of sense, it just means that there's no reason to assume "power generation" was ever a limiting factor in ship firepower, since by your own admission, those power demands would be miniscule next to the demands of moving even a small ship through warp.
So, thanks for that, I guess?
Bolded the important points here. You don't know why? But I thought the Tech Manual covered ship design? It's exact! It's canon!
Hyperbole aside - come ON! The power has a hard time "flowing through kinks"?! Really? That seems like a reasonable answer to you? Hold on, wait, I couldn't hear your response, my ethernet cable got kinked, and I'm afraid the internet might have gotten stuck in there. I guess I didn't realize phaser technology had so much in common with my garden hose.
Hey, I have a question for you - if this is true, then why split that array in the first place? What possible reason is there to do that, aside from an aesthetic decision from the ship artist? In fact, why not just put the array right along the edge of the saucer, that seems like it would be the optimal placement for it - so, why not do that? Right, no reason at all, except it wouldn't look as cool. And since that's what the designers cared about, that's what they did. I assure you, nobody cared about what the TNG tech manual said about it at all.
Well,you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... I hope someday you'll join us (that would be me and John Eaves, the guy who designed the Ent E and explicitly said it was a Borg killing battleship), and the world will be as one...
I guess John Eaves didn't write a tech manual though? So it doesn't count? If he does, and specifically includes a line about how phasers no longer work the way they did back then, because they got better garden hoses to carry the energy, or whatever, then will you concede? Or will you still believe that your devotion to one obscure and absurd bit of "canon" is more important than what the later writers did?
In REAL reality, none of these ships exist, and none of the "rules" you're trying to apply are anything more or less than a series of rationalizations for the decisions made in the show. Why you are so wedded to them I'll never know, but I've said my peace, and I wish you luck in your quixotic attempts to make Star Trek writers pay attention to the rules you think matter so much.
You make a lot of great points here, and as always, those people like you and I and others who have disagreed with the GCS fans on this website are greeted whit sarcastic, smart TRIBBLE comments such as "sov fanboys", "yoda" or some other similar comments. And when this type of response is directed back at those GSC fans, they start crying "fowl" on the very tactics that they employed themselves, which is why this thread was temporally closed a couple of months ago. It appears that some individuals didn't learn from that lesson and are determined to follow the same path toward another shutdown.
If you pro GCS guys on this thread can't discuss this issue without behaving in a manner that you CLEARLY don't want anyone to behave toward you, why even engage with those opinions that differ from yours? Exactly how does that rally more support for your "cause"
Hmmm... So where does the favortism stop? Thanks to the TNG series I like the Galaxy as much as the next guy but its not my favorite vessel in the IP. So what of the favorites of other fans? After the Galaxy gets its redesign and buffing, what of the others? When does it stop (is it based on monetary gain for Cryptic?) and how will balance be maintained over fan rose-colored glasses of expectation?
Frankly, the game needs an unalterable wieght class for vessels tied to purpose and classification or this whole debate just continues to be a spiraling game of popularity over fact.
The trinity be damned. Plot capabilites set aside (because we all know the plot had more to do with a vessels abilities than any Tech manual) how will everyone feel if thier favorite doesnt live up to the hype?
The problem DDIS is that you try to correlate starship size to that of early 20th century battleships. It doesn't work that way.
Then you ignore the possibility that Mk XII phasers, despite being shorter, might actually be powerful than the Galaxy Mk X phasers. Phasers are powered by the warp core so the ship that is capable of transferring more power to the emitter discharging would be more powerful regardless of phaser strip size.
If the Sovereign was only built to replace Excelsiors and Ambassadors then why is starfleet no longer building Galaxy starships? That's because despite being a great and powerful ship Starfleet designed a new flagship to fill it's ranks. No1's decommissioning the Galaxy ships. They do well. But with the greater threats Starfleet needed a ship more suitable, survivable, and powerful.
Who says Starfleet no longer builds Galaxy Classes?
Who says that Galaxy Classes cannot be upgraded with MK XII phasers?
Who says the GCS hasn't been upgraded with the newest shield system?
It is very simple actually:
The GCS is the sucessor of the Ambassador. (More multi mission capable, bigger and heavier, complex to maintain, but easier to upgrade)
The Sovereign is the sucessor of the Excelsior. (mass produceable and uncomplicated to maintain)
Both ship types have different pro and cons, i don't know what's the problem some people have with it.
Is it because the Enterprise -E wouldn't be the biggest, baddest and strongest ship of them all anymore?
The Sovereign has different advantages, it's faster (at warp, and in combat) and represents a smaller target than a GCS. It has a lot of (comparable simple) torpedo launcers distributed all over the hull which makes them less volunerable to battle damage. I think that's a good compensation to the GCS huge phaser array.
Its a fine ship (if you like it's appearance) but have no idea why some people want it to be the strongest ship earth has ever build.
So we can now weigh up the GCS against the Sovereigns battle strength:
As i see it the GCS has a lot of good pros that are backed by the Technical manual and on screen proof.
The Sovereign on the other hand has LaForges statement of the Enterprise -E being the "most advanced ship in Starfleet" (what about the USS Sovereign?) and some medicore space battles but not much else.
I'm not saying it was performing bad, but a GCS could have done the same things without performing any worse.
And on the other hand we have some people claiming the Sovereign is better than the GCS, and other people claiming the opposite.
So what is a neutral game developer supposed to do?
Well they could remove both ships from their game....
....or they could make both ships equal. Every ship could have some pros and cons. The Sovereign being a more torpedo heavy ship while the GCS a more energy weapon heavy ship.
So each faction could fly the ship they want. (Especially in a game that has flushed trek canon down the toilet long ago and introduced Galor and D'Kora classes that can outgun almost any other fed Crusier.)
But wait, the Sovereign faction doesn't want the GCS faction to get their favorite ship...
(for whatever reason)
Hmmm... So where does the favortism stop? Thanks to the TNG series I like the Galaxy as much as the next guy but its not my favorite vessel in the IP. So what of the favorites of other fans? After the Galaxy gets its redesign and buffing, what of the others? When does it stop (is it based on monetary gain for Cryptic?) and how will balance be maintained over fan rose-colored glasses of expectation?
Frankly, the game needs an unalterable wieght class for vessels tied to purpose and classification or this whole debate just continues to be a spiraling game of popularity over fact.
The trinity be damned. Plot capabilites set aside (because we all know the plot had more to do with a vessels abilities than any Tech manual) how will everyone feel if thier favorite doesnt live up to the hype?
It's not about buffing the GCS just because we want it to be stronger. The GCS as it is in STO is a mistake that should be corrected, that's all.
"...'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
Hmmm... So where does the favortism stop? Thanks to the TNG series I like the Galaxy as much as the next guy but its not my favorite vessel in the IP. So what of the favorites of other fans? After the Galaxy gets its redesign and buffing, what of the others? When does it stop (is it based on monetary gain for Cryptic?) and how will balance be maintained over fan rose-colored glasses of expectation?
Frankly, the game needs an unalterable wieght class for vessels tied to purpose and classification or this whole debate just continues to be a spiraling game of popularity over fact.
The trinity be damned. Plot capabilites set aside (because we all know the plot had more to do with a vessels abilities than any Tech manual) how will everyone feel if thier favorite doesnt live up to the hype?
I think this is a fair question.
And it's one I couldn't answer. I can only speculate on it.
Do I think that a ship like the GCS should be looked over and revamped? Yes.
Why?
Mostly because the current game design has evolved beyond what that ship design was created for. Anything that ends up being left behind due to changes made by the developers should be looked at and a decision made. Do we keep it around and change it? Or let it fall off completely and add something new in its place?
As for living up to the hype or expectations?
So long as we are the players and not the Developers ourselves. It's nothing we can change. We can ask, but it is ultimately out of our hands.
Nothing new. And we get by anyways.
I hate the "trinity" as well to begin with.
But at this point we either have the option to try and persuade Cryptic to bring back anything resembling a balance within their own designed trinity or leave the game mechanic completely borked and broken, while witnessing every single following ship being installed with Cmdr. or Lt.Cmdr Tact, Dual Heavy Cannons and simply put more dakka on top od the dakka. Because that's what's going on lately.
Because, let's face it - Cryptic will never change their position on the "trinity" and their game design. They wont endeavor in erasing the trinity model from STO, no matter how borked it is atm, they're just not that type of a studio.
So, we can either keep mumbling for them to fix their own design so it works as intended or we can "talk to the hand" and keep saying how utterly wrong we feel it is, with noone listening. What would mean leaving the cruisers in no man's land and leaving science vessels with completely confusing roles.
Look at it from any angle you want - we're not getting rid of the trinity. Cryptic will not get rid of the trinity. If that's the game we want to play, we'll have to wait for another Star Trek game. Take it from the man himself - read dStahl's interwiev with Mog Nation and and you'll realize a lot of things.
No one is saying they want the Galaxy 'more powerful' then the Sovereign - even if my belief is with a competent captain she would be more then a fair match - all anyone is asking is an iconic and loved ship be more useful and fun in a video game. No one wants my to fly my Galaxy class as a tank. No one needs me to be a tank - therefore, if I don't have extra firepower or science cc/debuffs - my ship isn't wanted.
However - there are a great deal of things a Galaxy could do better then a Sovereign in a time of war. Troop transport the primary among them. According to the manual - a Galaxy class could carry 15,000 people without straining her systems. Dumping the schools, holodecks, libraries, and arboretums for barracks and weapons/supplies.
The Galaxy is a bigger ship and could easily be retrofit with the Sovereign's 'advanced' shields and armor. The Enterprise was refit three times during the television show - so a refit isn't exactly difficult for a modular ship. All right, so maybe the Sovereign's shorter phaser strips use a higher tech then the Galaxy class strips. I don't see anything preventing integration of that tech to the Galaxy - and making her main phasers that much more awesome.
The Sovereign has quantum torpedoes? How hard would it be to outfit all Galaxy class ships with quantums? Why hasn't it happened in the shows? Quantums were very new and very expensive, and couldn't be made simply by dumping the ship's antimatter into replicated casings.
The Sovereign wasn't built to replace the Galaxy. The Sovereign was built to be a fast response attack ship. If any ship in any Trek series is a 'replacement' for the Galaxy, it's the Odyssey class. Very big, very flexible, and designed for 'presence'.
Again - no one is saying they want the Galaxy to 'roflstomp' the Sovereign. All anyone who wants a better Galaxy class wants - is a ship where we aren't punished for flying it.
Besides - if we want to throw the Memory Alpha and 'if it didn't happen on screen it didn't happen' card around - your super advanced and ultra powerful Sovereign has only been seen traveling at Warp 8. Sure, a developer has stated in a third party interview she's as fast as the Galaxy, but hey - if it didn't happen during the movies, it didn't happen.
damn straight. and is why my point is to have a coherently implemented model where every ship ingame has its function decided by its form. rather than hero stats that make no sense, and only serve to undermine the competitive environment that must exist in a multiplayer game in order for it to be fun fair and diverse, and free from an obsolete tabletop system that doesnt work outside of its intended environment.
trinity doesnt work for space ships
trinity doesnt work for a gun game
trinity doesnt work for sci-fi
trinity doesnt work for solo content
trinity doesnt work for random pug teams
trinity doesnt work for open exploration zones
in short, trinity doesnt work outside of scenarios where premade parties are required for everything, and set in a table-top myth & magic games or simulation of.
I fully agree with you.
I think it is a unfortunate coincidence that it is just the Galaxy Class which is the most trinity-dependent ship in STO. Science and Tactical heavy ships don't suffer that much because those BOFF powers are much more versatile and much less passive.
If another ship where made this extreme engineering heavy, we maybe would have the same discussion, maybe not that emotional but the problem would be the same.
The core problem are engineering BOFF powers but Cryptic won't change them. I think chances are better to see a reworked GCS, than a complete rework of all Engineering BOFF powers.
To complicate the whole problem, for many people the GCS is just a very iconic ship. Many have grown up with it and/or have become trek fans with it.
To see that iconic ship being the last useable ship in STO which has the least firepower is just frustrating for someone like that.
I think we all agree that we don't want that ship to be overpowered like most lockbox ships are nowadays, but at least it shouldn't be the most passive ship in the game having the least firepower of all cruisers. (this just seems like a malicious joke by some game developers hating the GCS and wanting to punish its fans )
I can only speak for myself but if the Galaxy -R in STO wouldn't be so disadvantaged and passive (through its heavy emphasis on Engineering ) i wouldn't participate in this discussion at all.
But as a C-Store ship it should be reworked a bit. The devs should just turn the Ensign engineering and the Lt Sci into universals, add a tac console and the ship would be OK.
Since it can't equip DHCs and it would still be one of the slowest turning ships i think such a change wouln't be so terrible. Everyone could fly the ship as before if desired, but it would be much more versatile, which would reflect the spirit of the "original" ship from the show.
"...'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
unless i dont know how the game works or have completly misunderstood the stats im reading, why would a buy an oddessy, when i can get a mirror assault of the exchange, which is a better ship?
why would i buy fsm's for a fleet dssv when a 15k ec mirror recon is a better ship? the only thing i got from buying the mirror dssv when i first started playing this game was buyers regret & what work out as some cosmetics for the hull section of the mirror recon its now applied to. http://gateway.startrekonline.com/shot/ship/38636225.png
You're basically right in many regards, but then again I have seen many people raging how much 9 console ships suck and how worthless they are because they badly miss that one console.
Then there are people that would buy a stinky pile'o'poo like yreodred ocassionaly jokes, if that pile'o'poo has a good Boff layout.
On the other hand there are people that couldn't care less about Boff or console layouts and go for the ship because of looks. If this type of player likes how the Odyssey looks, he'll buy that over your mirror assault and wouldn't care about the vast difference in price.
even if it looks the part, the mirror dssv is a complete lemon of a ship, much like the star cruiser which is eclipsed by its cheap mirror lookalike, and given the tac ability of the fleet star cruiser, its obviously a lemon product too.
Honestly, if you ask me - there wouldn't be any mirror ships in the first place.
Okay, let's talk common sense. Common sense is you don't design a ship to look like the Enterprise D, ever, for any reason, ever. There's no practical benefit and a ton of drawbacks. You have to invent nonsense like structural integrity fields and inertial dampers just to explain how a ship of that mass, with that shape, can function without tearing itself apart. It's an exceptionally inefficient use of space, and the "safety" function of the separate saucer could be achieved with a much more balanced and reasonable design. Basically the Galaxy, while nice looking, is a TERRIBLE structural design.
given the trek tech in question, theres nothing wrong with the design. a vast majority of the ships volume is the saucer, in a supremely space efficient shape. in a warp bubble, and in space, its not encountering the same kind of stress it would in an atmosphere. if the galaxy was an airplane, ya, its a TERRIBLE airplane design.
Here's another fun one you keep glossing over - why on Earth, ever, would I run the weapon charge through a series of capacitors and emitters, when I could just link all the capacitors together and fire the same energy (more, actually, since I don't lose out any energy in the extra unnecessary transfers)? This is a great example of something that sort of sounds cool, but actually makes no sense, and you keep ignoring that fact. I did read the TNG tech manual, and even as a teenager I considered it to be silly.
as far as i can understand, the plamsa in each emitter's capacitor is converted to rapid nadions and fired down the actual exposed discharge plates of neighboring emitters to the point on the plate the computer releases the beam in any directing it has line of sight with. 1 would assume that along that plate there is the least amount of different stages the energy has to pass through, bleeding it off, or the phaser array would never made it out of R&D. but it did, banks and ball turrets are no more. its silly to try to argue that it doesn't make sense. they exist, they are wide spread, it obviously works well, no mater what 21st century physics you try to apply to it.
More to the point, even if it did make sense, you would expect that same understanding, then, to color the design of other ships, but it doesn't. No other ships are built with the same design rules as the Galaxy, when there is every reason to suspect they would be. There are all sorts of design decisions in the later ships (like not curving phasers to get extra power, or cutting long strips into two pieces for no reason) that are basically criminally stupid if things work the way you say they do. You choose to believe that because one writer that you like wrote one thing, all the other writers have to follow those rules, but that's never how the show actually worked.
Hey, I have a question for you - if this is true, then why split that array in the first place? What possible reason is there to do that, aside from an aesthetic decision from the ship artist? In fact, why not just put the array right along the edge of the saucer, that seems like it would be the optimal placement for it - so, why not do that? Right, no reason at all, except it wouldn't look as cool. And since that's what the designers cared about, that's what they did. I assure you, nobody cared about what the TNG tech manual said about it at all.
what? it has the same basic design language as everything before or after it. some parts are more exaggerated or less exaggerated, thats all.
well lets see, theory craft time, this is the fun part. they 'arbitrarily' split arrays because priority #1 on starfleet ships is not to get every possible ounce of firepower out of it, at the expense of everything else. many times voyager fired back to back shots with both 'split' arrays hitting 1 target at near the same time, with just a bit of stagger. thats pretty close to being as good as 1 more powerful shot. good enough, and it was more worth having that huge sensor array in a location on the saucer where it would best function instead. there could be any number of engineering reason why its better to split them sometimes. im sure firing a full array discharge, and then recharging all the emitters after, sucks a huge amount of plasma out of the EPS network, and a smaller ship with less pipe volume, simply would not have the plasma on hand to recharge the emitters and keep the lights from dimming, wile maintaining the minimal design objective rate of fire they want the arrays to have.
this is sort of fun for me, coming up with explanations for every thing that seems like an anomaly. i dont dismiss anything, but incorporate it all, with a reason that is objectionably above board.
The fact is, the producers, writers and artists of the later TNG movies all intended for the Sovereign to be perceived as a more powerful and advanced ship than the familiar D. You may not like that decision, but since Star Trek reality is whatever the people making it say it is, you're stuck with it. No amount of appealing to "canon" will change that. You don't get to countermand the implicit and explicit intentions of those writers simply because you don't like it, because even though you're a fan of the show, you have no control over it, you aren't entitled to any control, and the writers owe you nothing more than simple entertainment. The kicker is, even if they cared about the tech manual, all they would have to do is technobabble up a reason why newer phaser strips worked better and were incompatible with the Galaxy's power systems, and Presto! The tech manual is irrelevant again.
the tech manual is not just the galaxy class tech manual. its the every federation ship tech manual. its the basis of all the tech that every class uses. so, the difference at that point is simply scale, with a little bit of wiggle room for tech advancing and becoming better slowly.
i find it fascinating that there is so much evidence to the contrary of what they intended. the fact that based on that evidence everything is backward, i just get a kick out of it. i'll continue to rate everything purely on the canon evidence though, instead of getting swept up in the manufactured hype. its the most honest way to rate the ships, and what a game with these ships in them should have thier stats based off of, imo. but not STO, everything has to be on the same level or only about 5 ships would be worth useing.
Or, alternately, I could watch the show, see what it was used for, and ask what the combat training value of "Captain Picard Day" was. I've seen every episode of TNG, and every single time the idea of the Enterprise as a warship was brought up, it was flatly shot-down. The TNG writers never treated it like it was a warship, they wrote stories for it as if it was an explorer. Look at the difference between how the two ships are presented in their respective shows - whatever the Tech Manual says, that's not what was shown to the viewing public.
less shot down, more shushed. its firepower was considered provocative, often times when they made contact with a new species. the D had a show about its day to day life, the E had moveis about major crisis. af tng continued for 7 more years with the E, it would have basicly been the same show with a different ship.
i think you misconstrue what the tech manual says. its not full of gushing about how much of a god ship it is, i have to gleam and read between the lines to find the key points that imply superiority and compare that information to what we see in the show, to come to the conclusions ive come to.
There's a lot of silliness I'm snipping here (not sure how an internal firing range is improving the ship to ship combat abilities of the Galaxy?), but this last part takes the cake - you're basically saying that the combat "improvements" to the Galaxy consist primarily of making it an empty shell, because all that mattered was the array. If that was the case, why not simply make a sleeker, more focused variant of the Galaxy that doesn't have all that wasted space, and instead has a more compact (narrower) saucer for better structural integrity?
the ideal tactical galaxy is not an empty shell, thats a compromise. thats just getting 1 more set of big guns on the field. the battleship arrangement of the enterprise D in yesterdays enterprise is an actual battleship galaxy class.
No, I'm asking why would you design a ship specifically to fight the Borg, but design it in such a way that it was couldn't possibly do that job better than a ship you already had - especially when the older ship could do so many other things as well, and most especially when the technology you have largely obsoletes the idea of "saving resources".
'fight the borg', what an overused term. 'fight the borg' is a set of tactics and weapon and shield based countermeasures to adaptions. basically, a refit. an actual ship to fight the borg? the defiant is the only believable example. tiny, basically just a warp core, engines, armor, and as much firepower they could fit in the room thats left. the most firepower to cost efficient ship they could make. the plan was likely to throw 100 of them at a cube and hope they overwhelm it. you cant replicate people, even if resurces arent an issue. another big fat cruiser, that has no fundamental difference between it and the galaxy, other then its smaller, is not a new direction to fight the borg. general purpose ship designers have in the back of their mind that this ship might have to fight the borg at some point, but does that count as the ship being designed to fight the borg? lets say it does, then we are both right.
The part in bold is the key part. You are exactly right, there is no reason for that glow whatsoever, beyond the fact that the FX people thought it looked cool (and they're right). That's the thing you're not getting - you're treating things that were off the cuff comments or ill considered ideas as if they were immutable physical laws, when in fact there is no reason for them to be that way except insofar as it serves the plot. The Tech Manual is simply a pile of technobabble rationalizations for the design decisions that were made for the sake of style or plot. As soon as writers and artists started making different designs and telling different stories, those rationalizations were no longer needed, and were discarded by everyone except die-hard fans who don't understand that the Trek writers DON'T CARE what someone wrote in a book two decades before the movie they were working on, especially if it stands in the way of the story they are telling.
they weren't as inconsistent with those details as you think. and the phaser array vfx in almost all cases was extreamly consistent. there really is nothing in the tech manual that was blatantly overridden on the show. they still had writers bibles, with the basics, and thats all they needed to be consistent enough. most inconsistency were character or lore based, not tech.
Hmm, to me, it sounded like what the writers explicitly stated it was supposed to be - an announcement that the new ship was, in fact, an upgrade over the old - specifically that it was a meaner, more streamlined and sexier ship. I'm pretty sure you're putting way more thought and rationalization into this than the writers did - I think they would be genuinely surprised to find that someone thought they had deliberately chosen that word so as not to invalidate a bit of canon that they didn't know or care about.
they could have easily said it was the most powerful, but they didn't. if laforge said that the E was the most powerful, id be using my deductive skills to try to prove thats the case, in spite of evidence to the contrary. it was stated most powerful on screen, that cant be overruled. but they did not say that, thats what makes this debate possible.
Basically, the sad, harsh truth is that Star Trek fans have always cared much, much more about "canon" than the writers ever did. The fans who are always trying to fit things into the "canon", or getting upset when things don't fit, seem to me to be much like young children who start to try to figure out how Santa really works, and get increasingly desperate as they realize it doesn't make much sense. Of course, those kids, much like those fans, miss the point entirely - it's MAGIC, silly! Hell, if I was John Eaves or the like, and someone came at me with this Tech Manual, asking how the Sovereign could possibly be more powerful than the Galaxy, I would look him square in the eyes and say "Q did it".
again, character and lore canon was fast and loose, tech canon not really. the designers wouldn't have an informed opinion really, they were doing a job, we are the ones picking everything apart and quantifying things. i wouldn't ambush one of those poor guys with a wall of text saying ZOMG galaxy OWNNS!
Bleh? What? You dismiss my point because either ship has so much spare power given the demands of warp travel that any other demands are irrelevant? That can't be what you actually meant, because that just makes you wronger than before (if such a thing was possible). Honestly, it seems like what you just said was "yeah, warp takes so much power that anything else is basically irrelevant". That actually makes a TON of sense, it just means that there's no reason to assume "power generation" was ever a limiting factor in ship firepower, since by your own admission, those power demands would be miniscule next to the demands of moving even a small ship through warp.
So, thanks for that, I guess?
my opinion of warp cores fits nicely into all the conclusions ive drawn, they dont make me wrong, or more wrong. i haven't seen an argument using canon and tech manuals that can prove me wrong so far, all i get are existential and out of universe reasons im wrong. those arguments are invalid.
Bolded the important points here. You don't know why? But I thought the Tech Manual covered ship design? It's exact! It's canon!
Hyperbole aside - come ON! The power has a hard time "flowing through kinks"?! Really? That seems like a reasonable answer to you? Hold on, wait, I couldn't hear your response, my ethernet cable got kinked, and I'm afraid the internet might have gotten stuck in there. I guess I didn't realize phaser technology had so much in common with my garden hose.
im guessing you dont realize that with your ethernet example how much an issue kinks can be in them. as in the stop working, or work poorly. thats pretty universal with all cables actually, you dont want sharp bends in them, ever. and a plasma conduit has a lot more in common with a water hose then a power cable.
Well,you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... I hope someday you'll join us (that would be me and John Eaves, the guy who designed the Ent E and explicitly said it was a Borg killing battleship), and the world will be as one...
I guess John Eaves didn't write a tech manual though? So it doesn't count? If he does, and specifically includes a line about how phasers no longer work the way they did back then, because they got better garden hoses to carry the energy, or whatever, then will you concede? Or will you still believe that your devotion to one obscure and absurd bit of "canon" is more important than what the later writers did?
the ship designer saying it was built to fight the borg, does not make it so anymore then the akira class designer saying the ship was a through carrier, wile its design made that physically impossible. i rank remarks like that below officially licensed by paramount texts, writen by people like Okuda that worked on more of the tech side of things. nothing has gone into the detail the tng manual has about arrays, and if a licensed text or on screen canon brings about new or contradicting information about them, i'll revise my view. but nothing ever will, that hypothetical is silly.
In REAL reality, none of these ships exist, and none of the "rules" you're trying to apply are anything more or less than a series of rationalizations for the decisions made in the show. Why you are so wedded to them I'll never know, but I've said my peace, and I wish you luck in your quixotic attempts to make Star Trek writers pay attention to the rules you think matter so much.
im applying rules that fit with every piece of evidence there is. they cant be disproven, just an attempt made to shout them down. at least, no ones been able to disprove them with canon evidence yet.
The problem DDIS is that you try to correlate starship size to that of early 20th century battleships. It doesn't work that way.
Then you ignore the possibility that Mk XII phasers, despite being shorter, might actually be powerful than the Galaxy Mk X phasers. Phasers are powered by the warp core so the ship that is capable of transferring more power to the emitter discharging would be more powerful regardless of phaser strip size.
If the Sovereign was only built to replace Excelsiors and Ambassadors then why is starfleet no longer building Galaxy starships? That's because despite being a great and powerful ship Starfleet designed a new flagship to fill it's ranks. No1's decommissioning the Galaxy ships. They do well. But with the greater threats Starfleet needed a ship more suitable, survivable, and powerful.
yes, correlating starship size to that of early 20th century battleships does not work that way, but in the opposite direction you think it does. the weaknesses inherent in blue water battleships, the reasons they no longer exist, do not apply to spaceships. there are deflector shields, arrays with near perfect accuracy that can strike down any strike craft. theres no fighters ether, in the same sense that they operate in a different medium then the ships do, they are all in space. theres no subs ether, aside from cloaked ships, but they have to 'surface' to fight. its backward compared to a wet navy carriers are bad and battleships are good.
emitters are upgradable and replaceable, for the hundred time. the enterprise got a phaser upgrade in season 7, that was proboly to mkXII arrays.
and seriously, what the hell is this notion that starfleet stopped building galaxy class? of all the things to assume, there is nothing with less evidence. there's evidence to the contrary actually, in several DS9 fleet shots, you can see more then 10 galaxy class, and thats 1 fleet, star fleet is between 10000 and 20000 ships strong. when voyager returned home, there was more then 6 galaxy class in the fleet that intercepted the sphere. there are hundreds of galaxy class by the time the dominion war ended.
the galaxy class is intended to be serve for 100 years. the class would need to be about 50 years old before something like the odysseys should be designed and built to 'replace' it.
as I posted earlier the designer designed the ship with 'fighting the borg' in mind
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
as I posted earlier the designer designed the ship with 'fighting the borg' in mind
Are you just trying to troll or didn't you read anything on the last 100 pages?:rolleyes:
"...'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
How am I trolling?
I was responding to drunk's comments
and Eaves design being based on a ship meant for fighting borg comes from the script for First Contact.
In fact let's look at the script for First Contact:
The Enterprise is Starfleet's newest and most powerful
vessel. An elegant and majestic ship. But unlike the
last Enterprise, Starfleet has opted for a more
muscular vessel and the hull is studded with weapons
and other defensive armory. We get the feeling this
Enterprise is ready for anything.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
How am I trolling?
I was responding to drunk's comments
and Eaves design being based on a ship meant for fighting borg comes from the script for First Contact
Sorry, my comment was supposed to be in another thread.
Anyway, there wasn't any on screen mention about the Sovereign being designed to fight the borg.
But nevertheless, since the Borg threat was well know to Starfleet, they surely have included some new technologies to opotimize the Sov against the Borg. So i think it seems plausible for the Sov and all newer ships.
Older ships certainly have got those enhancements too if possible.
Like random Phaser frequency changes and so on.
"...'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
Sorry, my comment was supposed to be in another thread.
it's ok I forgive you
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
If the GcS, as it is in STO, is a mistake - why do some players enjoy it as it is?
Could we expect similiar corrections to favorite ships? I could name a few KDF ships that seem subpar and a mistake to fans.
My doubts hinge on any favorite ship being made both fun and balanced. So far, with exception of possibly DDIS's idea, most of the thread goes into the realm of fan driven plot performance and skips by balanced in a blur.
Though I have no doubts a plot protected vessel of any faction would be fun. At least for the player using it. Everybody else not flying one may not feel so though....
In fact let's look at the script for First Contact:
The Enterprise is Starfleet's newest and most powerful
vessel. An elegant and majestic ship. But unlike the
last Enterprise, Starfleet has opted for a more
muscular vessel and the hull is studded with weapons
and other defensive armory. We get the feeling this
Enterprise is ready for anything.
This reads like "let's get something "cooler" for our next movie", lol.
:D:D
I'm sorry but this doesn't sound like a Starfleet ship to me, more like a Cryptic "let's make some Star Trek:BSG ship - thing.
I can't help it but the most people in charge of some Star Trek productions if it's a Movie/Series/Game seem to have no idea about the basics of Star Trek. It's sad, really.
I should change to Star Wars, at least George Luc... oh, wait...
...?$%& Disney... :mad:
"...'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 know the Galaxy doesn't have the offensive power of the ship form TNG but in this game it is a Tank and a damn fine one at that. That said, Tanks are all but useless in PVP and I do wish that the Galaxy had a bit more Offensive might.
its silly to try to argue that it doesn't make sense. they exist, they are wide spread, it obviously works well, no mater what 21st century physics you try to apply to it.
See, this is what I've been saying all along - the ships are the way they are, so it must work properly, even if we don't understand why. I just take that a step further - ships that were obviously and explicitly intended by everyone involved in the production of the show to be more powerful warships than the Galaxy don't have the same kind of large, long phaser arrays, and yet, they must do their job, right? They were supposed to be stronger, and so they are, even if you can't understand why they should be so based on what you think is true from the tech manual.
The only response I have seen to that is "I refuse to accept any source that's not a licensed product", which I have to say is weak-sauce. So, you'll accept that going past warp 10 turns people into lizards, but the idea that maybe the Galaxy wasn't the bestestest of ships somehow sticks in your craw? Moreover, you think someone at Paramount/CBS cares enough about the fake technology to actually exert editorial control over those products?
Oh, and given that Cryptic eventually DID make the Akira class a carrier, I guess even if you don't care about those sources, Cryptic does, so, you know, maybe that's why they don't agree with you on the Galaxy.
this is sort of fun for me, coming up with explanations for every thing that seems like an anomaly. i dont dismiss anything, but incorporate it all, with a reason that is objectionably above board.
the ship designer saying it was built to fight the borg, does not make it so anymore then the akira class designer saying the ship was a through carrier, wile its design made that physically impossible. i rank remarks like that below officially licensed by paramount texts, writen by people like Okuda that worked on more of the tech side of things. nothing has gone into the detail the tng manual has about arrays, and if a licensed text or on screen canon brings about new or contradicting information about them, i'll revise my view. but nothing ever will, that hypothetical is silly.
im applying rules that fit with every piece of evidence there is. they cant be disproven, just an attempt made to shout them down. at least, no ones been able to disprove them with canon evidence yet.
No, you're not applying rules to fit with available evidence, look at what you actually wrote, and how circular it is. You are dismissing any evidence that doesn't jive with your understanding because your understanding is superior because it's based on facts that hang together because every time an "anomaly" is raised you make up an explanation which explains it away, which means your understanding is correct which means you can dismiss anything else which means your explanation is better which means you can dismiss other explanations because they don't jive with yours, and you know yours are right because... and on and on. Do you honestly not see yourself doing this?
If the GcS, as it is in STO, is a mistake - why do some players enjoy it as it is?
I know of none.
Changing some of the GCSs BOFF into universals wouldn't change anything for them. (this could be a sollution to the GCS problem, i think most could live with IMO)
Could we expect similiar corrections to favorite ships? I could name a few KDF ships that seem subpar and a mistake to fans.
You know any other Engineering heavy and totally undergunned ships in STO that should be completely different in the first place?
If yes, i am totally with you.
My doubts hinge on any favorite ship being made both fun and balanced. So far, with exception of possibly DDIS's idea, most of the thread goes into the realm of fan driven plot performance and skips by balanced in a blur.
As much as i like DDIS's Galaxy 3Pack, i doubt that Cryptic will make it for us.
I think one of the things we should do is to find a common denominator of what BOFF/Console Layout is justfied and which isn't.
Though I have no doubts a plot protected vessel of any faction would be fun. At least for the player using it. Everybody else not flying one may not feel so though....
I agree, the changes shouldn't make the ship OP or too powerful.
I always liked the idea of the GCS being the big brother of the Nebula. So i think a Engineering-ized version of the Nebula BOFF layout would be perfect for the GCS in STO.
This is exactly the same BOFF layout as the T5 Nebula only Engineering and Sciecen swapped.
Just a crazy idea i had some days ago:
What if Cryptic would sell alternative Bridge modules (BOFF/Console Layouts) for older ships via the C-Store?
These bridge modules would could work like a Trait respec so more "modern" or at least different BOFF and Console layouts could be installed on older ships if the player wants to.
This could work for older ships like Assault and Star Cruisers, the GCS, Escorts, science ships and older KDF ships that where released in the first year of STO.
Those BOFF layouts shouldn't be OP but they could feature some basic BOFF/Console layouts + universal stations, or they could have some modern ships BOFF/console layouts or other factions ships BOFF layout for example.
So not only the GCS would benefit from that but also any other older ship in STO and Cryptic could make some money every time someone buys a new Bridge module and for every single installation 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
I'm sorry but this doesn't sound like a Starfleet ship to me, more like a Cryptic "let's make some Star Trek:BSG ship - thing.
I can't help it but the most people in charge of some Star Trek productions if it's a Movie/Series/Game seem to have no idea about the basics of Star Trek. It's sad, really.
So, yeah, this here is a perfect example of exactly the kind of fan entitlement I've been saying is silly. Trek isn't one thing, it changes over time, with different writers and producers telling different stories to different audiences living in different social and political contexts. If the people making Trek and the people watching Trek now have a different understanding of what it means than you do, that doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means YOU don't know what Trek means, because your understanding was either too limited to begin with, or became outdated as times changed.
So, yeah, this here is a perfect example of exactly the kind of fan entitlement I've been saying is silly. Trek isn't one thing, it changes over time, with different writers and producers telling different stories to different audiences living in different social and political contexts. If the people making Trek and the people watching Trek now have a different understanding of what it means than you do, that doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means YOU don't know what Trek means, because your understanding was either too limited to begin with, or became outdated as times changed.
Surely Trek changes, as it did with the production of TNG for example.
But a producer wanting a ship which "hull is studded with weapons
and other defensive armory" hasn't really captured the spirit of trek to say it mildly.
I was talking about exactly that understanding that has changed Trek into a complete wrong direction. The difference between us is that i don't accept that.
The producers decide in which direction Star Trek goes. Star Trek isn't a living being that changes by itself. The writers and the Producers set the course depending on what they want to do with Star Trek.
Sadly most of the time this ends in just blowing up stuff and not about exploring the universe. Just look at STO.
Of course that's just my faulty opinion. :P
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Comments
because that is what ciptain kork would DO!!:D:D
that how he alway win, ignore explicit order and go again the entire strategic purpose of the federation, hehe.
and since the galaxy class starship is the ultimate bestmorepowerfullstrong warship of the universe they can only be commanded by such captain, it goes without saying!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Okay, let's talk common sense. Common sense is you don't design a ship to look like the Enterprise D, ever, for any reason, ever. There's no practical benefit and a ton of drawbacks. You have to invent nonsense like structural integrity fields and inertial dampers just to explain how a ship of that mass, with that shape, can function without tearing itself apart. It's an exceptionally inefficient use of space, and the "safety" function of the separate saucer could be achieved with a much more balanced and reasonable design. Basically the Galaxy, while nice looking, is a TERRIBLE structural design.
Here's another fun one you keep glossing over - why on Earth, ever, would I run the weapon charge through a series of capacitors and emitters, when I could just link all the capacitors together and fire the same energy (more, actually, since I don't lose out any energy in the extra unnecessary transfers)? This is a great example of something that sort of sounds cool, but actually makes no sense, and you keep ignoring that fact. I did read the TNG tech manual, and even as a teenager I considered it to be silly.
More to the point, even if it did make sense, you would expect that same understanding, then, to color the design of other ships, but it doesn't. No other ships are built with the same design rules as the Galaxy, when there is every reason to suspect they would be. There are all sorts of design decisions in the later ships (like not curving phasers to get extra power, or cutting long strips into two pieces for no reason) that are basically criminally stupid if things work the way you say they do. You choose to believe that because one writer that you like wrote one thing, all the other writers have to follow those rules, but that's never how the show actually worked.
The fact is, the producers, writers and artists of the later TNG movies all intended for the Sovereign to be perceived as a more powerful and advanced ship than the familiar D. You may not like that decision, but since Star Trek reality is whatever the people making it say it is, you're stuck with it. No amount of appealing to "canon" will change that. You don't get to countermand the implicit and explicit intentions of those writers simply because you don't like it, because even though you're a fan of the show, you have no control over it, you aren't entitled to any control, and the writers owe you nothing more than simple entertainment. The kicker is, even if they cared about the tech manual, all they would have to do is technobabble up a reason why newer phaser strips worked better and were incompatible with the Galaxy's power systems, and Presto! The tech manual is irrelevant again.
Or, alternately, I could watch the show, see what it was used for, and ask what the combat training value of "Captain Picard Day" was. I've seen every episode of TNG, and every single time the idea of the Enterprise as a warship was brought up, it was flatly shot-down. The TNG writers never treated it like it was a warship, they wrote stories for it as if it was an explorer. Look at the difference between how the two ships are presented in their respective shows - whatever the Tech Manual says, that's not what was shown to the viewing public.
There's a lot of silliness I'm snipping here (not sure how an internal firing range is improving the ship to ship combat abilities of the Galaxy?), but this last part takes the cake - you're basically saying that the combat "improvements" to the Galaxy consist primarily of making it an empty shell, because all that mattered was the array. If that was the case, why not simply make a sleeker, more focused variant of the Galaxy that doesn't have all that wasted space, and instead has a more compact (narrower) saucer for better structural integrity?
No, I'm asking why would you design a ship specifically to fight the Borg, but design it in such a way that it was couldn't possibly do that job better than a ship you already had - especially when the older ship could do so many other things as well, and most especially when the technology you have largely obsoletes the idea of "saving resources".
The part in bold is the key part. You are exactly right, there is no reason for that glow whatsoever, beyond the fact that the FX people thought it looked cool (and they're right). That's the thing you're not getting - you're treating things that were off the cuff comments or ill considered ideas as if they were immutable physical laws, when in fact there is no reason for them to be that way except insofar as it serves the plot. The Tech Manual is simply a pile of technobabble rationalizations for the design decisions that were made for the sake of style or plot. As soon as writers and artists started making different designs and telling different stories, those rationalizations were no longer needed, and were discarded by everyone except die-hard fans who don't understand that the Trek writers DON'T CARE what someone wrote in a book two decades before the movie they were working on, especially if it stands in the way of the story they are telling.
Hmm, to me, it sounded like what the writers explicitly stated it was supposed to be - an announcement that the new ship was, in fact, an upgrade over the old - specifically that it was a meaner, more streamlined and sexier ship. I'm pretty sure you're putting way more thought and rationalization into this than the writers did - I think they would be genuinely surprised to find that someone thought they had deliberately chosen that word so as not to invalidate a bit of canon that they didn't know or care about.
Basically, the sad, harsh truth is that Star Trek fans have always cared much, much more about "canon" than the writers ever did. The fans who are always trying to fit things into the "canon", or getting upset when things don't fit, seem to me to be much like young children who start to try to figure out how Santa really works, and get increasingly desperate as they realize it doesn't make much sense. Of course, those kids, much like those fans, miss the point entirely - it's MAGIC, silly! Hell, if I was John Eaves or the like, and someone came at me with this Tech Manual, asking how the Sovereign could possibly be more powerful than the Galaxy, I would look him square in the eyes and say "Q did it".
Bleh? What? You dismiss my point because either ship has so much spare power given the demands of warp travel that any other demands are irrelevant? That can't be what you actually meant, because that just makes you wronger than before (if such a thing was possible). Honestly, it seems like what you just said was "yeah, warp takes so much power that anything else is basically irrelevant". That actually makes a TON of sense, it just means that there's no reason to assume "power generation" was ever a limiting factor in ship firepower, since by your own admission, those power demands would be miniscule next to the demands of moving even a small ship through warp.
So, thanks for that, I guess?
Bolded the important points here. You don't know why? But I thought the Tech Manual covered ship design? It's exact! It's canon!
Hyperbole aside - come ON! The power has a hard time "flowing through kinks"?! Really? That seems like a reasonable answer to you? Hold on, wait, I couldn't hear your response, my ethernet cable got kinked, and I'm afraid the internet might have gotten stuck in there. I guess I didn't realize phaser technology had so much in common with my garden hose.
Hey, I have a question for you - if this is true, then why split that array in the first place? What possible reason is there to do that, aside from an aesthetic decision from the ship artist? In fact, why not just put the array right along the edge of the saucer, that seems like it would be the optimal placement for it - so, why not do that? Right, no reason at all, except it wouldn't look as cool. And since that's what the designers cared about, that's what they did. I assure you, nobody cared about what the TNG tech manual said about it at all.
Well,you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... I hope someday you'll join us (that would be me and John Eaves, the guy who designed the Ent E and explicitly said it was a Borg killing battleship), and the world will be as one...
I guess John Eaves didn't write a tech manual though? So it doesn't count? If he does, and specifically includes a line about how phasers no longer work the way they did back then, because they got better garden hoses to carry the energy, or whatever, then will you concede? Or will you still believe that your devotion to one obscure and absurd bit of "canon" is more important than what the later writers did?
In REAL reality, none of these ships exist, and none of the "rules" you're trying to apply are anything more or less than a series of rationalizations for the decisions made in the show. Why you are so wedded to them I'll never know, but I've said my peace, and I wish you luck in your quixotic attempts to make Star Trek writers pay attention to the rules you think matter so much.
You make a lot of great points here, and as always, those people like you and I and others who have disagreed with the GCS fans on this website are greeted whit sarcastic, smart TRIBBLE comments such as "sov fanboys", "yoda" or some other similar comments. And when this type of response is directed back at those GSC fans, they start crying "fowl" on the very tactics that they employed themselves, which is why this thread was temporally closed a couple of months ago. It appears that some individuals didn't learn from that lesson and are determined to follow the same path toward another shutdown.
If you pro GCS guys on this thread can't discuss this issue without behaving in a manner that you CLEARLY don't want anyone to behave toward you, why even engage with those opinions that differ from yours? Exactly how does that rally more support for your "cause"
Frankly, the game needs an unalterable wieght class for vessels tied to purpose and classification or this whole debate just continues to be a spiraling game of popularity over fact.
The trinity be damned. Plot capabilites set aside (because we all know the plot had more to do with a vessels abilities than any Tech manual) how will everyone feel if thier favorite doesnt live up to the hype?
R.I.P
Who says Starfleet no longer builds Galaxy Classes?
Who says that Galaxy Classes cannot be upgraded with MK XII phasers?
Who says the GCS hasn't been upgraded with the newest shield system?
It is very simple actually:
The GCS is the sucessor of the Ambassador. (More multi mission capable, bigger and heavier, complex to maintain, but easier to upgrade)
The Sovereign is the sucessor of the Excelsior. (mass produceable and uncomplicated to maintain)
Both ship types have different pro and cons, i don't know what's the problem some people have with it.
Is it because the Enterprise -E wouldn't be the biggest, baddest and strongest ship of them all anymore?
The Sovereign has different advantages, it's faster (at warp, and in combat) and represents a smaller target than a GCS. It has a lot of (comparable simple) torpedo launcers distributed all over the hull which makes them less volunerable to battle damage. I think that's a good compensation to the GCS huge phaser array.
Its a fine ship (if you like it's appearance) but have no idea why some people want it to be the strongest ship earth has ever build.
So we can now weigh up the GCS against the Sovereigns battle strength:
As i see it the GCS has a lot of good pros that are backed by the Technical manual and on screen proof.
The Sovereign on the other hand has LaForges statement of the Enterprise -E being the "most advanced ship in Starfleet" (what about the USS Sovereign?) and some medicore space battles but not much else.
I'm not saying it was performing bad, but a GCS could have done the same things without performing any worse.
And on the other hand we have some people claiming the Sovereign is better than the GCS, and other people claiming the opposite.
So what is a neutral game developer supposed to do?
Well they could remove both ships from their game....
....or they could make both ships equal. Every ship could have some pros and cons. The Sovereign being a more torpedo heavy ship while the GCS a more energy weapon heavy ship.
So each faction could fly the ship they want. (Especially in a game that has flushed trek canon down the toilet long ago and introduced Galor and D'Kora classes that can outgun almost any other fed Crusier.)
But wait, the Sovereign faction doesn't want the GCS faction to get their favorite ship...
(for whatever reason)
To be honest this is getting tiresome people.
It's not about buffing the GCS just because we want it to be stronger. The GCS as it is in STO is a mistake that should be corrected, that's all.
I think this is a fair question.
And it's one I couldn't answer. I can only speculate on it.
Do I think that a ship like the GCS should be looked over and revamped? Yes.
Why?
Mostly because the current game design has evolved beyond what that ship design was created for. Anything that ends up being left behind due to changes made by the developers should be looked at and a decision made. Do we keep it around and change it? Or let it fall off completely and add something new in its place?
As for living up to the hype or expectations?
So long as we are the players and not the Developers ourselves. It's nothing we can change. We can ask, but it is ultimately out of our hands.
Nothing new. And we get by anyways.
Again. Fair question.
I guess you missed this part. :rolleyes:
However - there are a great deal of things a Galaxy could do better then a Sovereign in a time of war. Troop transport the primary among them. According to the manual - a Galaxy class could carry 15,000 people without straining her systems. Dumping the schools, holodecks, libraries, and arboretums for barracks and weapons/supplies.
The Galaxy is a bigger ship and could easily be retrofit with the Sovereign's 'advanced' shields and armor. The Enterprise was refit three times during the television show - so a refit isn't exactly difficult for a modular ship. All right, so maybe the Sovereign's shorter phaser strips use a higher tech then the Galaxy class strips. I don't see anything preventing integration of that tech to the Galaxy - and making her main phasers that much more awesome.
The Sovereign has quantum torpedoes? How hard would it be to outfit all Galaxy class ships with quantums? Why hasn't it happened in the shows? Quantums were very new and very expensive, and couldn't be made simply by dumping the ship's antimatter into replicated casings.
The Sovereign wasn't built to replace the Galaxy. The Sovereign was built to be a fast response attack ship. If any ship in any Trek series is a 'replacement' for the Galaxy, it's the Odyssey class. Very big, very flexible, and designed for 'presence'.
Again - no one is saying they want the Galaxy to 'roflstomp' the Sovereign. All anyone who wants a better Galaxy class wants - is a ship where we aren't punished for flying it.
Besides - if we want to throw the Memory Alpha and 'if it didn't happen on screen it didn't happen' card around - your super advanced and ultra powerful Sovereign has only been seen traveling at Warp 8. Sure, a developer has stated in a third party interview she's as fast as the Galaxy, but hey - if it didn't happen during the movies, it didn't happen.
I think it is a unfortunate coincidence that it is just the Galaxy Class which is the most trinity-dependent ship in STO. Science and Tactical heavy ships don't suffer that much because those BOFF powers are much more versatile and much less passive.
If another ship where made this extreme engineering heavy, we maybe would have the same discussion, maybe not that emotional but the problem would be the same.
The core problem are engineering BOFF powers but Cryptic won't change them. I think chances are better to see a reworked GCS, than a complete rework of all Engineering BOFF powers.
To complicate the whole problem, for many people the GCS is just a very iconic ship. Many have grown up with it and/or have become trek fans with it.
To see that iconic ship being the last useable ship in STO which has the least firepower is just frustrating for someone like that.
I think we all agree that we don't want that ship to be overpowered like most lockbox ships are nowadays, but at least it shouldn't be the most passive ship in the game having the least firepower of all cruisers.
(this just seems like a malicious joke by some game developers hating the GCS and wanting to punish its fans
I can only speak for myself but if the Galaxy -R in STO wouldn't be so disadvantaged and passive (through its heavy emphasis on Engineering ) i wouldn't participate in this discussion at all.
But as a C-Store ship it should be reworked a bit. The devs should just turn the Ensign engineering and the Lt Sci into universals, add a tac console and the ship would be OK.
Since it can't equip DHCs and it would still be one of the slowest turning ships i think such a change wouln't be so terrible. Everyone could fly the ship as before if desired, but it would be much more versatile, which would reflect the spirit of the "original" ship from the show.
It's not that much wheather they have the choice as it is wheather they have the will to do it. And I'm seriously doubtfull about the latter.
You're basically right in many regards, but then again I have seen many people raging how much 9 console ships suck and how worthless they are because they badly miss that one console.
Then there are people that would buy a stinky pile'o'poo like yreodred ocassionaly jokes, if that pile'o'poo has a good Boff layout.
On the other hand there are people that couldn't care less about Boff or console layouts and go for the ship because of looks. If this type of player likes how the Odyssey looks, he'll buy that over your mirror assault and wouldn't care about the vast difference in price.
Honestly, if you ask me - there wouldn't be any mirror ships in the first place.
given the trek tech in question, theres nothing wrong with the design. a vast majority of the ships volume is the saucer, in a supremely space efficient shape. in a warp bubble, and in space, its not encountering the same kind of stress it would in an atmosphere. if the galaxy was an airplane, ya, its a TERRIBLE airplane design.
as far as i can understand, the plamsa in each emitter's capacitor is converted to rapid nadions and fired down the actual exposed discharge plates of neighboring emitters to the point on the plate the computer releases the beam in any directing it has line of sight with. 1 would assume that along that plate there is the least amount of different stages the energy has to pass through, bleeding it off, or the phaser array would never made it out of R&D. but it did, banks and ball turrets are no more. its silly to try to argue that it doesn't make sense. they exist, they are wide spread, it obviously works well, no mater what 21st century physics you try to apply to it.
what? it has the same basic design language as everything before or after it. some parts are more exaggerated or less exaggerated, thats all.
well lets see, theory craft time, this is the fun part. they 'arbitrarily' split arrays because priority #1 on starfleet ships is not to get every possible ounce of firepower out of it, at the expense of everything else. many times voyager fired back to back shots with both 'split' arrays hitting 1 target at near the same time, with just a bit of stagger. thats pretty close to being as good as 1 more powerful shot. good enough, and it was more worth having that huge sensor array in a location on the saucer where it would best function instead. there could be any number of engineering reason why its better to split them sometimes. im sure firing a full array discharge, and then recharging all the emitters after, sucks a huge amount of plasma out of the EPS network, and a smaller ship with less pipe volume, simply would not have the plasma on hand to recharge the emitters and keep the lights from dimming, wile maintaining the minimal design objective rate of fire they want the arrays to have.
this is sort of fun for me, coming up with explanations for every thing that seems like an anomaly. i dont dismiss anything, but incorporate it all, with a reason that is objectionably above board.
the tech manual is not just the galaxy class tech manual. its the every federation ship tech manual. its the basis of all the tech that every class uses. so, the difference at that point is simply scale, with a little bit of wiggle room for tech advancing and becoming better slowly.
i find it fascinating that there is so much evidence to the contrary of what they intended. the fact that based on that evidence everything is backward, i just get a kick out of it. i'll continue to rate everything purely on the canon evidence though, instead of getting swept up in the manufactured hype. its the most honest way to rate the ships, and what a game with these ships in them should have thier stats based off of, imo. but not STO, everything has to be on the same level or only about 5 ships would be worth useing.
less shot down, more shushed. its firepower was considered provocative, often times when they made contact with a new species. the D had a show about its day to day life, the E had moveis about major crisis. af tng continued for 7 more years with the E, it would have basicly been the same show with a different ship.
i think you misconstrue what the tech manual says. its not full of gushing about how much of a god ship it is, i have to gleam and read between the lines to find the key points that imply superiority and compare that information to what we see in the show, to come to the conclusions ive come to.
the ideal tactical galaxy is not an empty shell, thats a compromise. thats just getting 1 more set of big guns on the field. the battleship arrangement of the enterprise D in yesterdays enterprise is an actual battleship galaxy class.
'fight the borg', what an overused term. 'fight the borg' is a set of tactics and weapon and shield based countermeasures to adaptions. basically, a refit. an actual ship to fight the borg? the defiant is the only believable example. tiny, basically just a warp core, engines, armor, and as much firepower they could fit in the room thats left. the most firepower to cost efficient ship they could make. the plan was likely to throw 100 of them at a cube and hope they overwhelm it. you cant replicate people, even if resurces arent an issue. another big fat cruiser, that has no fundamental difference between it and the galaxy, other then its smaller, is not a new direction to fight the borg. general purpose ship designers have in the back of their mind that this ship might have to fight the borg at some point, but does that count as the ship being designed to fight the borg? lets say it does, then we are both right.
they weren't as inconsistent with those details as you think. and the phaser array vfx in almost all cases was extreamly consistent. there really is nothing in the tech manual that was blatantly overridden on the show. they still had writers bibles, with the basics, and thats all they needed to be consistent enough. most inconsistency were character or lore based, not tech.
they could have easily said it was the most powerful, but they didn't. if laforge said that the E was the most powerful, id be using my deductive skills to try to prove thats the case, in spite of evidence to the contrary. it was stated most powerful on screen, that cant be overruled. but they did not say that, thats what makes this debate possible.
again, character and lore canon was fast and loose, tech canon not really. the designers wouldn't have an informed opinion really, they were doing a job, we are the ones picking everything apart and quantifying things. i wouldn't ambush one of those poor guys with a wall of text saying ZOMG galaxy OWNNS!
my opinion of warp cores fits nicely into all the conclusions ive drawn, they dont make me wrong, or more wrong. i haven't seen an argument using canon and tech manuals that can prove me wrong so far, all i get are existential and out of universe reasons im wrong. those arguments are invalid.
im guessing you dont realize that with your ethernet example how much an issue kinks can be in them. as in the stop working, or work poorly. thats pretty universal with all cables actually, you dont want sharp bends in them, ever. and a plasma conduit has a lot more in common with a water hose then a power cable.
the ship designer saying it was built to fight the borg, does not make it so anymore then the akira class designer saying the ship was a through carrier, wile its design made that physically impossible. i rank remarks like that below officially licensed by paramount texts, writen by people like Okuda that worked on more of the tech side of things. nothing has gone into the detail the tng manual has about arrays, and if a licensed text or on screen canon brings about new or contradicting information about them, i'll revise my view. but nothing ever will, that hypothetical is silly.
im applying rules that fit with every piece of evidence there is. they cant be disproven, just an attempt made to shout them down. at least, no ones been able to disprove them with canon evidence yet.
yes, correlating starship size to that of early 20th century battleships does not work that way, but in the opposite direction you think it does. the weaknesses inherent in blue water battleships, the reasons they no longer exist, do not apply to spaceships. there are deflector shields, arrays with near perfect accuracy that can strike down any strike craft. theres no fighters ether, in the same sense that they operate in a different medium then the ships do, they are all in space. theres no subs ether, aside from cloaked ships, but they have to 'surface' to fight. its backward compared to a wet navy carriers are bad and battleships are good.
emitters are upgradable and replaceable, for the hundred time. the enterprise got a phaser upgrade in season 7, that was proboly to mkXII arrays.
and seriously, what the hell is this notion that starfleet stopped building galaxy class? of all the things to assume, there is nothing with less evidence. there's evidence to the contrary actually, in several DS9 fleet shots, you can see more then 10 galaxy class, and thats 1 fleet, star fleet is between 10000 and 20000 ships strong. when voyager returned home, there was more then 6 galaxy class in the fleet that intercepted the sphere. there are hundreds of galaxy class by the time the dominion war ended.
the galaxy class is intended to be serve for 100 years. the class would need to be about 50 years old before something like the odysseys should be designed and built to 'replace' it.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Are you just trying to troll or didn't you read anything on the last 100 pages?:rolleyes:
I was responding to drunk's comments
and Eaves design being based on a ship meant for fighting borg comes from the script for First Contact.
In fact let's look at the script for First Contact:
The Enterprise is Starfleet's newest and most powerful
vessel. An elegant and majestic ship. But unlike the
last Enterprise, Starfleet has opted for a more
muscular vessel and the hull is studded with weapons
and other defensive armory. We get the feeling this
Enterprise is ready for anything.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Anyway, there wasn't any on screen mention about the Sovereign being designed to fight the borg.
But nevertheless, since the Borg threat was well know to Starfleet, they surely have included some new technologies to opotimize the Sov against the Borg. So i think it seems plausible for the Sov and all newer ships.
Older ships certainly have got those enhancements too if possible.
Like random Phaser frequency changes and so on.
it's ok I forgive you
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Could we expect similiar corrections to favorite ships? I could name a few KDF ships that seem subpar and a mistake to fans.
My doubts hinge on any favorite ship being made both fun and balanced. So far, with exception of possibly DDIS's idea, most of the thread goes into the realm of fan driven plot performance and skips by balanced in a blur.
Though I have no doubts a plot protected vessel of any faction would be fun. At least for the player using it. Everybody else not flying one may not feel so though....
R.I.P
This reads like "let's get something "cooler" for our next movie", lol.
I'm sorry but this doesn't sound like a Starfleet ship to me, more like a Cryptic "let's make some Star Trek:BSG ship - thing.
I can't help it but the most people in charge of some Star Trek productions if it's a Movie/Series/Game seem to have no idea about the basics of Star Trek. It's sad, really.
I should change to Star Wars, at least George Luc... oh, wait...
...?$%& Disney... :mad:
Why do you say that??? Just wondering.
[/SIGPIC]
See, this is what I've been saying all along - the ships are the way they are, so it must work properly, even if we don't understand why. I just take that a step further - ships that were obviously and explicitly intended by everyone involved in the production of the show to be more powerful warships than the Galaxy don't have the same kind of large, long phaser arrays, and yet, they must do their job, right? They were supposed to be stronger, and so they are, even if you can't understand why they should be so based on what you think is true from the tech manual.
The only response I have seen to that is "I refuse to accept any source that's not a licensed product", which I have to say is weak-sauce. So, you'll accept that going past warp 10 turns people into lizards, but the idea that maybe the Galaxy wasn't the bestestest of ships somehow sticks in your craw? Moreover, you think someone at Paramount/CBS cares enough about the fake technology to actually exert editorial control over those products?
Oh, and given that Cryptic eventually DID make the Akira class a carrier, I guess even if you don't care about those sources, Cryptic does, so, you know, maybe that's why they don't agree with you on the Galaxy.
No, you're not applying rules to fit with available evidence, look at what you actually wrote, and how circular it is. You are dismissing any evidence that doesn't jive with your understanding because your understanding is superior because it's based on facts that hang together because every time an "anomaly" is raised you make up an explanation which explains it away, which means your understanding is correct which means you can dismiss anything else which means your explanation is better which means you can dismiss other explanations because they don't jive with yours, and you know yours are right because... and on and on. Do you honestly not see yourself doing this?
Changing some of the GCSs BOFF into universals wouldn't change anything for them.
(this could be a sollution to the GCS problem, i think most could live with IMO)
You know any other Engineering heavy and totally undergunned ships in STO that should be completely different in the first place?
If yes, i am totally with you.
As much as i like DDIS's Galaxy 3Pack, i doubt that Cryptic will make it for us.
I think one of the things we should do is to find a common denominator of what BOFF/Console Layout is justfied and which isn't.
I agree, the changes shouldn't make the ship OP or too powerful.
I always liked the idea of the GCS being the big brother of the Nebula. So i think a Engineering-ized version of the Nebula BOFF layout would be perfect for the GCS in STO.
Maybe something like this:
Lt. Tac
Cmdr Engineering
Ensign Engineering
Lt. Cmdr Science.
Lt. Universal
This is exactly the same BOFF layout as the T5 Nebula only Engineering and Sciecen swapped.
Just a crazy idea i had some days ago:
What if Cryptic would sell alternative Bridge modules (BOFF/Console Layouts) for older ships via the C-Store?
These bridge modules would could work like a Trait respec so more "modern" or at least different BOFF and Console layouts could be installed on older ships if the player wants to.
This could work for older ships like Assault and Star Cruisers, the GCS, Escorts, science ships and older KDF ships that where released in the first year of STO.
Those BOFF layouts shouldn't be OP but they could feature some basic BOFF/Console layouts + universal stations, or they could have some modern ships BOFF/console layouts or other factions ships BOFF layout for example.
So not only the GCS would benefit from that but also any other older ship in STO and Cryptic could make some money every time someone buys a new Bridge module and for every single installation too.
So, yeah, this here is a perfect example of exactly the kind of fan entitlement I've been saying is silly. Trek isn't one thing, it changes over time, with different writers and producers telling different stories to different audiences living in different social and political contexts. If the people making Trek and the people watching Trek now have a different understanding of what it means than you do, that doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means YOU don't know what Trek means, because your understanding was either too limited to begin with, or became outdated as times changed.
But a producer wanting a ship which "hull is studded with weapons
and other defensive armory" hasn't really captured the spirit of trek to say it mildly.
I was talking about exactly that understanding that has changed Trek into a complete wrong direction. The difference between us is that i don't accept that.
The producers decide in which direction Star Trek goes. Star Trek isn't a living being that changes by itself. The writers and the Producers set the course depending on what they want to do with Star Trek.
Sadly most of the time this ends in just blowing up stuff and not about exploring the universe. Just look at STO.
Of course that's just my faulty opinion. :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734afLFPds
DELTA PRICE RISING