Maybe it's just me, but i think that doesn't sound like Roddenberry would have opposed them. Quite the contrary IMO.
If anything the TNG Manual should be considered as semi canon. As long as nothing contradics it they are valid.
This means in this discussion we have the opinion of one group arguing against the GCS, based on pure speculation and dislike against the Galaxy Class and there is another group favouring the GCS by arguing based on speculation PLUS the semi canon TNG book...
On the other hand we have Cryptic that doesn't care about anything except their own opinion which is Capt. Geckos.
The problem with this is that we are comparing the GCS to the next ship that the guide doesn't cover.
It would be like if TOS manual said the Constitution class Enterprise was the most powerful star ship in Starfleet.
Then the B comes along and while evidence points to the B being stronger and faster than the Connie...because the technical manual says the Connie is the most powerful then no other ship would be more powerful.
So no one is hating on the GCS (at least I am not). If you feel the need to have it fixed more power to you and I hope you get what you want. Everything I have seen and read leads me to believe the GCS should be the third best cruiser behind the Oddy and the Sovy.
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.
I merely am trying to impress the fact upon you all that your love for the Galaxy can and has at times gone beyond balance due to that same affection for it clouding the line of where balance may exist and fan driven impression of its capabilities exist.
yes, that is true, just like every thread in this forum can be when people are passionate.
however, the singularity of this thread is that the one supporting the galaxy enhancement have the dontdrunkimshoot 3 pack proposal in mind, wich is not out of balanced.
The problem with this is that we are comparing the GCS to the next ship that the guide doesn't cover.
It would be like if TOS manual said the Constitution class Enterprise was the most powerful star ship in Starfleet.
Then the B comes along and while evidence points to the B being stronger and faster than the Connie...because the technical manual says the Connie is the most powerful then no other ship would be more powerful.
So no one is hating on the GCS (at least I am not). If you feel the need to have it fixed more power to you and I hope you get what you want. Everything I have seen and read leads me to believe the GCS should be the third best cruiser behind the Oddy and the Sovy.
Not really, we know the Soverigns size and shape. We can see the length of the Sovereigns Phaser strips and we know that the Sovereign doesn't have even nearly as much space to house a Warp Core as a GCS.
So alone from looking at the outer shape of the Sovereign one can deduce its relative power compared to a Galaxy Class by using the same "rules" that apply to the GCS.
Another example, the Odyssey Class. It has much more room for its Warp core than a GCS but its Phaser strips aren't as long as a GCSs. (If they where connected it actually had a longer array.) So in my opinion, the Odyssey should be the "tankier" ship and the GCS should have a stronger Phaser attack,but the Odyssey has more power reserves.
More power for SIF, Shields and weapon power to keep enough "juice" to power its weapons in combat situation. But the GCS having a higher Phaser burst because of it's long emitter array.
So by using the TNG manual it is actualy pretty simple to deduce a ships capabilites just by looking at it.
So the GCS wouldn't be the stronger ship in it's own rulebook compared to the Odyssey, since the Odyssey is even more massive. And that's how Trek ships in general work, the more massive the stronger.
With the best will in the world i just can't imagine a Sovereign having more firepower and general energy output than a GCS if both ships are on the same technical level.
But all this doesn't matter in STO, and to be honest i don't care if the Sovereign has more FP than my GCS since there are so many fans of that ship. I more than ok with letting it pass.
But every other ship is capable to outgun it, a (in every case inferior) Excelsior, Galor even the Ambassador, heck even a fleet Nova Class!
I don't know if i already said it here, but initially i wasn't a big Galaxy Class fan. But to see how undeserving bad (intentionally?) this ship has been made Cryptic, did encourage my interst in that beautiful ship again
Just because of one Dev who doesn't like it, a lot of GCS fans have to fly a totally underpowered and (to be frankly) the worst ship in the game.
When playing it, is just embarrassing to see that this (actually great) ship being outgunned and outperformed by every other ship in the game, no matter how inferior it may be.
I think you know that we don't want a OP Galaxy Class, like most other new released ship are, we just want a ship that does perform as it should.
"...'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
t
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.
If you need to insult people (saying someone is in denial is suggesting that they are have a problem deal with reality, kinda funny being we are talking about fiction), that's your prerogative. It is not a very credulous way to argue your point. I will still communicate with you without hurling insults at you.
I don't hate the Galaxy, I'm just not in love with it. I own all of its variants in the game. I have a character that is using the Gal-X right now, if I hated it so much, I would use (or have bought) any. I just don't by into the explanations for the weapon systems. The only denial I am in is that I deny what you are trying to say because I don't believe it.
They combined the arrays (source of the glow) because it looked like a neat special effect for the show. The argument of using a bunch of arrays has been made that it is done because one bank cant handle firing a large powerful shot. Beyond the parasitic loss, a smaller emitter (among a thousand emitters) should also not be able to handle a large shot (being smaller than a bank) and fry out before a higher singular bank would. The emitter should by all concepts burn out and fail. If the emitters were designed to handle that much output why would they need one thousand of them? They could have just worked the network to transfer down the line with the same power output from the power-grid and have even less power transfer loss. The ship simply would never need so many emitters to have full coverage of the arrays arc. The whole concept just doesn't make sense, just as much of the techno-babble that was used during TNG that necessitated them to write manuals instead of better story sequences to begin with.
Not really, we know the Soverigns size and shape. We can see the length of the Sovereigns Phaser strips and we know that the Sovereign doesn't have even nearly as much space to house a Warp Core as a GCS.
So alone from looking at the outer shape of the Sovereign one can deduce its relative power compared to a Galaxy Class by using the same "rules" that apply to the GCS.
Another example, the Odyssey Class. It has much more room for its Warp core than a GCS but its Phaser strips aren't as long as a GCSs. (If they where connected it actually had a longer array.) So in my opinion, the Odyssey should be the "tankier" ship and the GCS should have a stronger Phaser attack,but the Odyssey has more power reserves.
More power for SIF, Shields and weapon power to keep enough "juice" to power its weapons in combat situation. But the GCS having a higher Phaser burst because of it's long emitter array.
So by using the TNG manual it is actualy pretty simple to deduce a ships capabilites just by looking at it.
So the GCS wouldn't be the stronger ship in it's own rulebook compared to the Odyssey, since the Odyssey is even more massive. And that's how Trek ships in general work, the more massive the stronger.
With the best will in the world i just can't imagine a Sovereign having more firepower and general energy output than a GCS if both ships are on the same technical level.
But all this doesn't matter in STO, and to be honest i don't care if the Sovereign has more FP than my GCS since there are so many fans of that ship. I more than ok with letting it pass.
But every other ship is capable to outgun it, a (in every case inferior) Excelsior, Galor even the Ambassador, heck even a fleet Nova Class!
I don't know if i already said it here, but initially i wasn't a big Galaxy Class fan. But to see how undeserving bad (intentionally?) this ship has been made Cryptic, did encourage my interst in that beautiful ship again
Just because of one Dev who doesn't like it, a lot of GCS fans have to fly a totally underpowered and (to be frankly) the worst ship in the game.
When playing it, is just embarrassing to see that this (actually great) ship being outgunned and outperformed by every other ship in the game, no matter how inferior it may be.
I think you know that we don't want a OP Galaxy Class, like most other new released ship are, we just want a ship that does perform as it should.
and this is why I say it doesn't take into account technology developed after it.
Is it not possible that the Sov's warp core might be more advanced than the one in the GCS? Could it not be smaller but able to produce the same or more power than the GCS's?
same thing with phaser strips. Is it not possible for Star fleet to come up with a technology that makes long strips like the GCS's obsolete?
There has to be a reason its refered to as the most advanced.
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.
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.
I would argue that all cruisers should be looked over again, not just one class of cruisers. The defect of one cruiser hits all cruisers, weak Engineer Boff skills and horrible energy drain on the primary weapons systems designed to be used on these ships, beam weapons.
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.
It sounds to me like the two are on in the same, no matter the way it is argued. It would make more sense to argue ALL cruisers need to be made stronger.
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.
It would be easier for them to slap a new saucer section on at space-dock that was made for it so it would be an almost instant refit.
In the end all this speculation about what's canon and what's not is unimportant. What I think everyone can agree on is that the Galaxy Class as it currently is in this game is weak when compared with other federation cruisers. The ship needs its bridge officer seating and console layout looked at... or engineering abilities need a complete revamp. I don't really support the latter because i don't have that much confidence in cryptic ability to deliver on something that complicated without breaking the game.
and this is why I say it doesn't take into account technology developed after it.
Is it not possible that the Sov's warp core might be more advanced than the one in the GCS? Could it not be smaller but able to produce the same or more power than the GCS's?
You shouldn't forget that such a Warp Core could be installed into a Galaxy Class just as well. Even better, a Galaxy Class has space for a Warp Core almost twice the size. So no matter how powerful the Sovereigns Warp Core is, the GCS can house a more powerful.
same thing with phaser strips. Is it not possible for Star fleet to come up with a technology that makes long strips like the GCS's obsolete?
Possible, but not very likely, since the Sovereign has Phaser strips too.
As you know, a phaser strip consist of several emitters, and they can be replaced with newer ones.
Even if they had developed a new kind of Phaser technology don't you think that a GCS couldn't use it?
There has to be a reason its refered to as the most advanced.
Advanced could mean that its warp field is more efficient just as well. It testifies not that the whole ship is as powerful as another ship which has 2 times the mass. I don't think that after 8-9 years Starfleet tech has made such a leap.
Most advanced could mean that it is very efficient for its size, maybe even more power efficient than a GCS, but the total power output is still less than a GCS.
I can understand that many Sove fans like their fav ship because it was stated to be the most advanced (and it made everyone think "WOW advanced = most powerful ever").
If i where you, i would think of it like that: it is a very sturdy and strong starship anyway and it has different advantages then a GCS. It is certainly faster than a, more maneuverable and not such a big target than a GCS and hard to kill anyway.
Btw:
If the Sovereign would have been made as wrong as the GCS in STO i would certainly fight for it 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
You shouldn't forget that such a Warp Core could be installed into a Galaxy Class just as well. Even better, a Galaxy Class has space for a Warp Core almost twice the size. So no matter how powerful the Sovereigns Warp Core is, the GCS can house a more powerful.
Possible, but not very likely, since the Sovereign has Phaser strips too.
As you know, a phaser strip consist of several emitters, and they can be replaced with newer ones.
Even if they had developed a new kind of Phaser technology don't you think that a GCS couldn't use it?
Advanced could mean that its warp field is more efficient just as well. It testifies not that the whole ship is as powerful as another ship which has 2 times the mass. I don't think that after 8-9 years Starfleet tech has made such a leap.
Most advanced could mean that it is very efficient for its size, maybe even more power efficient than a GCS, but the total power output is still less than a GCS.
I can understand that many Sove fans like their fav ship because it was stated to be the most advanced (and it made everyone think "WOW advanced = most powerful ever").
If i where you, i would think of it like that: it is a very sturdy and strong starship anyway and it has different advantages then a GCS. It is certainly faster than a, more maneuverable and not such a big target than a GCS and hard to kill anyway.
Btw:
If the Sovereign would have been made as wrong as the GCS in STO i would certainly fight for it too.
I am not against your fight for a better GCS
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.
First the game related opinion: Both a cruiser and a Galaxy adjustment are needed. Cruisers suffer from relying on a set of bridge officers that actually interfere with one another instead of giving greater abilities. So a cruiser re-alignment is not out of the question to make all cruisers better.
The Galaxy being less powerful than a Sovereign would not be bad if she was not also weaker than an Excelsior, a tier lower than her. That being said she needs some in game love.
Couple canon thoughts. It was noted that Geordi performed modifications to the Enterprise boosting her power with items intended for the next class of vessel. That line plus the near offense that Leah Brahms had to him doing it makes it seem they actually did not want to upgrade the Galaxy class. (an odd idea, but there.)
And because I joined this discussion showing real world parallels:
Tube technology gets superseded by transistors. Transistors get made smaller and applied to a micro-circuit chip. Technology moves on and gets smaller.
Constitution = Tube
Galaxy = Transistor
Sovereign = Early micro chip
Oddessy = more modern micro chip.
Could you put later technology in older tech? Sure, but history has shown that few people want to bother.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
First the game related opinion: Both a cruiser and a Galaxy adjustment are needed. Cruisers suffer from relying on a set of bridge officers that actually interfere with one another instead of giving greater abilities. So a cruiser re-alignment is not out of the question to make all cruisers better.
The Galaxy being less powerful than a Sovereign would not be bad if she was not also weaker than an Excelsior, a tier lower than her. That being said she needs some in game love.
True, at least in STO i would be ok if it where like that.
If it where up me to redo Starfleet Cruisers in STO, it would look like this:
Multi mission Explorers: (equal Tactical and Science BOFF/Consoles)
Offensive/Defensive strenght:
Ambassador -> Nebula -> Galaxy
(Battle)Cruisers: (A bit more tac heavy than the above, but much less Science BOFF/Consoles)
Offensive/Defensive strenght:
Excelsior -> Akira - > Sovereign
Couple canon thoughts. It was noted that Geordi performed modifications to the Enterprise boosting her power with items intended for the next class of vessel. That line plus the near offense that Leah Brahms had to him doing it makes it seem they actually did not want to upgrade the Galaxy class. (an odd idea, but there.)
Maybe the technological basics wheren't ready when the ship was in design process.
I could imagine that LaForge just made up something that wasn't ready to go into mass production, since they where in a desperate situation.
And because I joined this discussion showing real world parallels:
Tube technology gets superseded by transistors. Transistors get made smaller and applied to a micro-circuit chip. Technology moves on and gets smaller.
Constitution = Tube
Galaxy = Transistor
Sovereign = Early micro chip
Oddessy = more modern micro chip.
Could you put later technology in older tech? Sure, but history has shown that few people want to bother.
I don't think that the technological differences between the three later ships are that big IMO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Maybe the technological basics wheren't ready when the ship was in design process.
I could imagine that LaForge just made up something that wasn't ready to go into mass production, since they where in a desperate situation.
Reasonable except for the 'planned for next class of starship' & Brahms irritation it was aboard Enterprise at all. With an over one hundred year life span with intentions of upgrading her technology as they went along, it is wrong for them to be excluding technology upgrades from the Galaxy class. Heck when Geordi did that modification it was season 1? So the ship is little past her shakedown period and they are already planning past her? Federation ship builders just like playing with new designs.
I don't think that the technological differences between the three later ships are that big IMO.
I thought they were reasonable. Though the three might have been generations of micro-chip and the transistor being the refitted Enterprise and/or Excelsior. Look how fast the improvements in processors went. I can imagine that they hit a new idea, put it in play. And began refining it with each iteration.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
These should totally be stiched as far as BO slot's go. The Ambassador is OLDER than the Galaxy and still in use during the Dominion war.
The Dev who implemented the galaxy really really didnt like it. Personally i Balme it on Wil Wheaton!
If the galaxy and the ambassador would share the same costume at the ship tailor and saucer sep. would be supported by the ambassador aswell, the problem would solve itself.
take the fleet ambassador, put the galaxy parts on it at the ship tailor and off you go with a pretty good cruiser that looks and feels like a galaxy.
Reasonable except for the 'planned for next class of starship' & Brahms irritation it was aboard Enterprise at all. With an over one hundred year life span with intentions of upgrading her technology as they went along, it is wrong for them to be excluding technology upgrades from the Galaxy class. Heck when Geordi did that modification it was season 1? So the ship is little past her shakedown period and they are already planning past her? Federation ship builders just like playing with new designs.
I thought they were reasonable. Though the three might have been generations of micro-chip and the transistor being the refitted Enterprise and/or Excelsior. Look how fast the improvements in processors went. I can imagine that they hit a new idea, put it in play. And began refining it with each iteration.
Maybe the difference betwee the Constitution and the GCS could be interpreted as a technological era (but i wouldn't do that even with those two ships.)
Remember between the GCS and Sov are just 10 years. And by all due respect for the Sovereign fans, that ship isn't THAT far advanced, lol.
The thing you shouldn't forget to consider is that Tube, Transistor, Early micro chip and more modern micro chip mean a multiplication in performance. That's not the case with these Starships (except the Constitution).
Sometimes i like to compare Star Trek ships more like they where tall ships. Have you seen Master and Commander?
It's not like the Sovereign was a steam powered ship, compared to the Galaxy Class as a sailing ship.
It is more like the Sovereign would use a slightly more aquadynamic hull, compared to the GCS. But that doesn't mean that the Sov could carry bigger/longer guns or something like that. (i know that comparison doesn't quite match, but you get the point)
The technological basics are the same with both ships, except that the construction is different.
"...'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
Why is it ok for a new Lockbox ship like Elachi Monbosh Battleship to have much higher stats (2000 crew, DHCs, higher shield modifier, 2 universal LT. BOFFs, turn rate of 10 (!)) than the GCS.
Strangely none of the GCS haters which are so "concerned" about the balance opposes that ship?
If it is ok for a ship to have such a BOFF layout the i would say that the GCS should just get the same.
"...'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
Why is it ok for a new Lockbox ship like Elachi Monbosh Battleship to have much higher stats (2000 crew, DHCs, higher shield modifier, 2 universal LT. BOFFs, turn rate of 10 (!)) than the GCS.
Strangely none of the GCS haters which are so "concerned" about the balance opposes that ship?
If it is ok for a ship to have such a BOFF layout the i would say that the GCS should just get the same.
Probably because the odds of getting one means you paid over a hundred real dollars to get it.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
What happens if someone just has the luck to open the lockbox and get the ship on their first try?
Just a thought.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "Look at me I'm a target!" "Fire the Lance on my mark... MARK! "How many times have we gone into the breach again R'shee?" My proposal for a Galaxy bundle
Probably because the odds of getting one means you paid over a hundred real dollars to get it.
So this makes the ship "balanced" compared to other ships?
EDIT:
If so, then i would propose a GCS lockbox ship.
"...'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
What does Wil Wheaton have to do with Cryptic or the GCS?
I think you nailed it.
Btw. it was TNG 3x06 "Booby Trap".
Maybe the difference betwee the Constitution and the GCS could be interpreted as a technological era (but i wouldn't do that even with those two ships.)
Remember between the GCS and Sov are just 10 years. And by all due respect for the Sovereign fans, that ship isn't THAT far advanced, lol.
The thing you shouldn't forget to consider is that Tube, Transistor, Early micro chip and more modern micro chip mean a multiplication in performance. That's not the case with these Starships (except the Constitution).
Sometimes i like to compare Star Trek ships more like they where tall ships. Have you seen Master and Commander?
It's not like the Sovereign was a steam powered ship, compared to the Galaxy Class as a sailing ship.
It is more like the Sovereign would use a slightly more aquadynamic hull, compared to the GCS. But that doesn't mean that the Sov could carry bigger/longer guns or something like that. (i know that comparison doesn't quite match, but you get the point)
The technological basics are the same with both ships, except that the construction is different.
Okay the tech difference between Gal and Sov. Sov starts with bio neural gelpacks so computer has greater response time, She has quantum torpedoes, two sets of sheilds so she can last longer, better top speed and likely more powerful phaser then the Gal at launch. I can see DW gals having the gelpacks but the gals before that need a massive refit to switch to it. And though powerful the Gal was designed to be a multi mission vessel while the sov has a clear and definate tactical leaning.
Okay the tech difference between Gal and Sov. Sov starts with bio neural gelpacks so computer has greater response time, She has quantum torpedoes, two sets of sheilds so she can last longer, better top speed and likely more powerful phaser then the Gal at launch. I can see DW gals having the gelpacks but the gals before that need a massive refit to switch to it. And though powerful the Gal was designed to be a multi mission vessel while the sov has a clear and definate tactical leaning.
A refitted Galaxy class and a Sovereign class should be roughly on the same level "damage wise" - this is due to the fact that doth vessels would employ different tactics. I'm still convinced that the Galaxy class would pack more firepower but the Sovereign class heavy cruiser is more nimble, faster and manneuvreable. A Galaxy class would defensively soak up the damage thrown at her and only fly limited manneuvres and switching to offense she'd basically try to steamroll the enemy. A Sovereign class would rely more on evasive manneuvres, try to circle and flank the enemy and only for the record, a Defiant class would operate again very different, relying on hit and run strafing manneuvres and so on. This basic tactical difference renders direct comparisions obsolete, they are just different ships which should be roughly equal in overall performance however.
In gameplay terms it's totally fine for the sovereign (regent) to have more tac boffs and consoles while having less defensive capabilities. Though the Gal should have a third tac console at least and I like the "Nebula's big sister" boff layout with a universl lt. very much. Or the three pack The only thing regarding DDiS' 3-pack is the fear that I have to pay *again* to fly my favourite ship.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
game time that was 40 years ago.
they both get the latest & greatest at the same time.
thats the same fot the sov, gal, intrepid, saber, shikahr, dakota or prometheus.
so arguing 'gel packs' is irrelevant.
True.
After 30-40 years, who cares if one ship was launched 8 years after the other?
Both aren't new anymore, both will get upgrades to be up to date. So i think the technical advantages one ship had 30 years ago, don't really matter anymore.
In my opinion, Cryptic should consider that, instead of just make their preferred ships stronger than ships they don't like.
In gameplay terms it's totally fine for the sovereign (regent) to have more tac boffs and consoles while having less defensive capabilities. Though the Gal should have a third tac console at least and I like the "Nebula's big sister" boff layout with a universl lt. very much. Or the three pack The only thing regarding DDiS' 3-pack is the fear that I have to pay *again* to fly my favourite ship.
I would happily pay for a GCS that is finally fun to fly, that doesn't feel like a punishmend by Cryptic (Capt. Gecko) towards TNG fans.
I can only speak for me, but the GCS is just embarrasing compared any other ship and a pain to fly.
THIS HAS TO CHANGE FINALLY!
Sry, for the caps.:o
"...'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
So this makes the ship "balanced" compared to other ships?
EDIT:
If so, then i would propose a GCS lockbox ship.
Wasn't claiming it balanced one way or another. Just that to incentivize people to fork over the cash to get it they needed to beef it up. C-store ships are more powerful than free ships. Lock-box ships are more powerful than c-store ships.
Though I think they should look back at making c-store ships with consoles usable on any ship. I bought the heavy escort just to put the point defense gun on my cruiser. Sell more ships if you buy them for the gear and not to fly them.
Also wondering if they will do buyable weapon packs like they did with the melee stuff.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Wasn't claiming it balanced one way or another. Just that to incentivize people to fork over the cash to get it they needed to beef it up. C-store ships are more powerful than free ships. Lock-box ships are more powerful than c-store ships.
Though I think they should look back at making c-store ships with consoles usable on any ship. I bought the heavy escort just to put the point defense gun on my cruiser. Sell more ships if you buy them for the gear and not to fly them.
Also wondering if they will do buyable weapon packs like they did with the melee stuff.
True.
I just noticed some funny thing. The Elaci "silent Enemy" -Set contains actually a "heavy" version of a ship weapon, somthing we have been asking for Beam Weapons or the GCS in particular for a long time.
Maybe it's just me, maybe it sounds paranoid, but it really seems they give other ships what the GCS could need, but ignoring the GCS completely at the same time.
Not theat they made the Excelsior the supreior ship, but also the Galor and the D'Kora too. Heck even the Ambassador is a better ship, no one can tell me they made this just by accident.
They clearly want TNG/GCS fans to feel frustrated and annoyed, i can't explain it otherwise.
(TNG uniform looks TRIBBLE, TNG "cobra" phasers only stun and wide beam and so on)
Now they want to give the Galaxy -X a seperation mode?
What is that for? If they wanted to boost the GC -X they should give it a different BOFF layout, instead of giving her some fancy mechanics that doesn't help her in any way.
Not only that, the Galaxy -R needs a overhaul much more than the Galaxy -X. It again just shows that Cryptics devs just decided to igonre the Galaxy -R.
Does anyone seriously doubt that if Capt. Gecko where a GCS fan we still would have such a crappy ship?
"...'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
...
A Galaxy class would defensively soak up the damage thrown at her and only fly limited manneuvres and switching to offense she'd basically try to steamroll the enemy. A Sovereign class would rely more on evasive manneuvres, try to circle and flank the enemy and only for the record, a Defiant class would operate again very different, relying on hit and run strafing manneuvres and so on. This basic tactical difference renders direct comparisions obsolete, they are just different ships which should be roughly equal in overall performance however.
That's how space combat should work in STO in my opinion.
It would be much more interesting than this boring trinity stuff we get presented.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Maybe the difference betwee the Constitution and the GCS could be interpreted as a technological era (but i wouldn't do that even with those two ships.)
Remember between the GCS and Sov are just 10 years. And by all due respect for the Sovereign fans, that ship isn't THAT far advanced, lol.
10 years is a lot.
Within the last ten years we've seen:
smart phone technology...cell phones look and perform differently than phones from 10 years ago. This is about to change again this year as the smart watch comes out.
10 years ago we were still playing games on the Playstation 2, the Game Cube, the original Xbox.
Cars now have Electronic Stability Control, We have hybrid cars now, satellite radio and multimedia device integration...
Cars now have sensors and cameras that monitor for obstructions and apply brakes by themselves.
and this is just a few things...10 years is a long time when developing technology.
Even in Star Trek within that time we've seen the beginning of bio-neural circuitry, quantum torpedoes and phasers that self re-modulate...who knows what else they came up with.
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.
Comments
The problem with this is that we are comparing the GCS to the next ship that the guide doesn't cover.
It would be like if TOS manual said the Constitution class Enterprise was the most powerful star ship in Starfleet.
Then the B comes along and while evidence points to the B being stronger and faster than the Connie...because the technical manual says the Connie is the most powerful then no other ship would be more powerful.
So no one is hating on the GCS (at least I am not). If you feel the need to have it fixed more power to you and I hope you get what you want. Everything I have seen and read leads me to believe the GCS should be the third best cruiser behind the Oddy and the Sovy.
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.
yes, that is true, just like every thread in this forum can be when people are passionate.
however, the singularity of this thread is that the one supporting the galaxy enhancement have the dontdrunkimshoot 3 pack proposal in mind, wich is not out of balanced.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Not really, we know the Soverigns size and shape. We can see the length of the Sovereigns Phaser strips and we know that the Sovereign doesn't have even nearly as much space to house a Warp Core as a GCS.
So alone from looking at the outer shape of the Sovereign one can deduce its relative power compared to a Galaxy Class by using the same "rules" that apply to the GCS.
Another example, the Odyssey Class. It has much more room for its Warp core than a GCS but its Phaser strips aren't as long as a GCSs. (If they where connected it actually had a longer array.) So in my opinion, the Odyssey should be the "tankier" ship and the GCS should have a stronger Phaser attack,but the Odyssey has more power reserves.
More power for SIF, Shields and weapon power to keep enough "juice" to power its weapons in combat situation. But the GCS having a higher Phaser burst because of it's long emitter array.
So by using the TNG manual it is actualy pretty simple to deduce a ships capabilites just by looking at it.
So the GCS wouldn't be the stronger ship in it's own rulebook compared to the Odyssey, since the Odyssey is even more massive. And that's how Trek ships in general work, the more massive the stronger.
With the best will in the world i just can't imagine a Sovereign having more firepower and general energy output than a GCS if both ships are on the same technical level.
But all this doesn't matter in STO, and to be honest i don't care if the Sovereign has more FP than my GCS since there are so many fans of that ship. I more than ok with letting it pass.
But every other ship is capable to outgun it, a (in every case inferior) Excelsior, Galor even the Ambassador, heck even a fleet Nova Class!
I don't know if i already said it here, but initially i wasn't a big Galaxy Class fan. But to see how undeserving bad (intentionally?) this ship has been made Cryptic, did encourage my interst in that beautiful ship again
Just because of one Dev who doesn't like it, a lot of GCS fans have to fly a totally underpowered and (to be frankly) the worst ship in the game.
When playing it, is just embarrassing to see that this (actually great) ship being outgunned and outperformed by every other ship in the game, no matter how inferior it may be.
I think you know that we don't want a OP Galaxy Class, like most other new released ship are, we just want a ship that does perform as it should.
here they are:
Fleet Galaxy Class build
What is your beef with the Galaxy Cryptic?
Federation Dreadnaught Beam Boat
Yesterday's Enterprise galaxy
Dreadnought Cruiser - An Objective Review
Galaxy Class Thread (Cooled Off)
i haven't made this up, really!
DING DONG!! HELLOOOOOOOO! CRYPTIC? is there anybody out there?
do these look like a bunch of foolish nerd or like a big portion of your customer calling for your attention?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
If you need to insult people (saying someone is in denial is suggesting that they are have a problem deal with reality, kinda funny being we are talking about fiction), that's your prerogative. It is not a very credulous way to argue your point. I will still communicate with you without hurling insults at you.
I don't hate the Galaxy, I'm just not in love with it. I own all of its variants in the game. I have a character that is using the Gal-X right now, if I hated it so much, I would use (or have bought) any. I just don't by into the explanations for the weapon systems. The only denial I am in is that I deny what you are trying to say because I don't believe it.
They combined the arrays (source of the glow) because it looked like a neat special effect for the show. The argument of using a bunch of arrays has been made that it is done because one bank cant handle firing a large powerful shot. Beyond the parasitic loss, a smaller emitter (among a thousand emitters) should also not be able to handle a large shot (being smaller than a bank) and fry out before a higher singular bank would. The emitter should by all concepts burn out and fail. If the emitters were designed to handle that much output why would they need one thousand of them? They could have just worked the network to transfer down the line with the same power output from the power-grid and have even less power transfer loss. The ship simply would never need so many emitters to have full coverage of the arrays arc. The whole concept just doesn't make sense, just as much of the techno-babble that was used during TNG that necessitated them to write manuals instead of better story sequences to begin with.
and this is why I say it doesn't take into account technology developed after it.
Is it not possible that the Sov's warp core might be more advanced than the one in the GCS? Could it not be smaller but able to produce the same or more power than the GCS's?
same thing with phaser strips. Is it not possible for Star fleet to come up with a technology that makes long strips like the GCS's obsolete?
There has to be a reason its refered to as the most advanced.
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.
I would argue that all cruisers should be looked over again, not just one class of cruisers. The defect of one cruiser hits all cruisers, weak Engineer Boff skills and horrible energy drain on the primary weapons systems designed to be used on these ships, beam weapons.
It sounds to me like the two are on in the same, no matter the way it is argued. It would make more sense to argue ALL cruisers need to be made stronger.
It would be easier for them to slap a new saucer section on at space-dock that was made for it so it would be an almost instant refit.
Possible, but not very likely, since the Sovereign has Phaser strips too.
As you know, a phaser strip consist of several emitters, and they can be replaced with newer ones.
Even if they had developed a new kind of Phaser technology don't you think that a GCS couldn't use it?
Advanced could mean that its warp field is more efficient just as well. It testifies not that the whole ship is as powerful as another ship which has 2 times the mass. I don't think that after 8-9 years Starfleet tech has made such a leap.
Most advanced could mean that it is very efficient for its size, maybe even more power efficient than a GCS, but the total power output is still less than a GCS.
I can understand that many Sove fans like their fav ship because it was stated to be the most advanced (and it made everyone think "WOW advanced = most powerful ever").
If i where you, i would think of it like that: it is a very sturdy and strong starship anyway and it has different advantages then a GCS. It is certainly faster than a, more maneuverable and not such a big target than a GCS and hard to kill anyway.
Btw:
If the Sovereign would have been made as wrong as the GCS in STO i would certainly fight for it too.
I am not against your fight for a better GCS
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.
The Galaxy being less powerful than a Sovereign would not be bad if she was not also weaker than an Excelsior, a tier lower than her. That being said she needs some in game love.
Couple canon thoughts. It was noted that Geordi performed modifications to the Enterprise boosting her power with items intended for the next class of vessel. That line plus the near offense that Leah Brahms had to him doing it makes it seem they actually did not want to upgrade the Galaxy class. (an odd idea, but there.)
And because I joined this discussion showing real world parallels:
Tube technology gets superseded by transistors. Transistors get made smaller and applied to a micro-circuit chip. Technology moves on and gets smaller.
Constitution = Tube
Galaxy = Transistor
Sovereign = Early micro chip
Oddessy = more modern micro chip.
Could you put later technology in older tech? Sure, but history has shown that few people want to bother.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
If it where up me to redo Starfleet Cruisers in STO, it would look like this:
Multi mission Explorers: (equal Tactical and Science BOFF/Consoles)
Offensive/Defensive strenght:
Ambassador -> Nebula -> Galaxy
(Battle)Cruisers: (A bit more tac heavy than the above, but much less Science BOFF/Consoles)
Offensive/Defensive strenght:
Excelsior -> Akira - > Sovereign
Maybe the technological basics wheren't ready when the ship was in design process.
I could imagine that LaForge just made up something that wasn't ready to go into mass production, since they where in a desperate situation.
I don't think that the technological differences between the three later ships are that big IMO.
Ambassador....
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Fleet_Support_Cruiser_Retrofit
43,450 hull
2 Tac
1 Eng
1 Sci and a Uni
Galaxy...
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Fleet_Exploration_Cruiser_Retrofit
44k hull
1 Tac
3 Eng
1 Sci
These should totally be stiched as far as BO slot's go. The Ambassador is OLDER than the Galaxy and still in use during the Dominion war.
The Dev who implemented the galaxy really really didnt like it. Personally i Balme it on Wil Wheaton!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Reasonable except for the 'planned for next class of starship' & Brahms irritation it was aboard Enterprise at all. With an over one hundred year life span with intentions of upgrading her technology as they went along, it is wrong for them to be excluding technology upgrades from the Galaxy class. Heck when Geordi did that modification it was season 1? So the ship is little past her shakedown period and they are already planning past her? Federation ship builders just like playing with new designs.
I thought they were reasonable. Though the three might have been generations of micro-chip and the transistor being the refitted Enterprise and/or Excelsior. Look how fast the improvements in processors went. I can imagine that they hit a new idea, put it in play. And began refining it with each iteration.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
If the galaxy and the ambassador would share the same costume at the ship tailor and saucer sep. would be supported by the ambassador aswell, the problem would solve itself.
take the fleet ambassador, put the galaxy parts on it at the ship tailor and off you go with a pretty good cruiser that looks and feels like a galaxy.
I think you nailed it.
Btw. it was TNG 3x06 "Booby Trap".
Maybe the difference betwee the Constitution and the GCS could be interpreted as a technological era (but i wouldn't do that even with those two ships.)
Remember between the GCS and Sov are just 10 years. And by all due respect for the Sovereign fans, that ship isn't THAT far advanced, lol.
The thing you shouldn't forget to consider is that Tube, Transistor, Early micro chip and more modern micro chip mean a multiplication in performance. That's not the case with these Starships (except the Constitution).
Sometimes i like to compare Star Trek ships more like they where tall ships. Have you seen Master and Commander?
It's not like the Sovereign was a steam powered ship, compared to the Galaxy Class as a sailing ship.
It is more like the Sovereign would use a slightly more aquadynamic hull, compared to the GCS. But that doesn't mean that the Sov could carry bigger/longer guns or something like that. (i know that comparison doesn't quite match, but you get the point)
The technological basics are the same with both ships, except that the construction is different.
Why is it ok for a new Lockbox ship like Elachi Monbosh Battleship to have much higher stats (2000 crew, DHCs, higher shield modifier, 2 universal LT. BOFFs, turn rate of 10 (!) ) than the GCS.
Strangely none of the GCS haters which are so "concerned" about the balance opposes that ship?
If it is ok for a ship to have such a BOFF layout the i would say that the GCS should just get the same.
Probably because the odds of getting one means you paid over a hundred real dollars to get it.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Just a thought.
"Look at me I'm a target!"
"Fire the Lance on my mark... MARK!
"How many times have we gone into the breach again R'shee?"
My proposal for a Galaxy bundle
So this makes the ship "balanced" compared to other ships?
EDIT:
If so, then i would propose a GCS lockbox ship.
Okay the tech difference between Gal and Sov. Sov starts with bio neural gelpacks so computer has greater response time, She has quantum torpedoes, two sets of sheilds so she can last longer, better top speed and likely more powerful phaser then the Gal at launch. I can see DW gals having the gelpacks but the gals before that need a massive refit to switch to it. And though powerful the Gal was designed to be a multi mission vessel while the sov has a clear and definate tactical leaning.
A refitted Galaxy class and a Sovereign class should be roughly on the same level "damage wise" - this is due to the fact that doth vessels would employ different tactics. I'm still convinced that the Galaxy class would pack more firepower but the Sovereign class heavy cruiser is more nimble, faster and manneuvreable. A Galaxy class would defensively soak up the damage thrown at her and only fly limited manneuvres and switching to offense she'd basically try to steamroll the enemy. A Sovereign class would rely more on evasive manneuvres, try to circle and flank the enemy and only for the record, a Defiant class would operate again very different, relying on hit and run strafing manneuvres and so on. This basic tactical difference renders direct comparisions obsolete, they are just different ships which should be roughly equal in overall performance however.
In gameplay terms it's totally fine for the sovereign (regent) to have more tac boffs and consoles while having less defensive capabilities. Though the Gal should have a third tac console at least and I like the "Nebula's big sister" boff layout with a universl lt. very much. Or the three pack
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
After 30-40 years, who cares if one ship was launched 8 years after the other?
Both aren't new anymore, both will get upgrades to be up to date. So i think the technical advantages one ship had 30 years ago, don't really matter anymore.
In my opinion, Cryptic should consider that, instead of just make their preferred ships stronger than ships they don't like.
EDIT:
I would happily pay for a GCS that is finally fun to fly, that doesn't feel like a punishmend by Cryptic (Capt. Gecko) towards TNG fans.
I can only speak for me, but the GCS is just embarrasing compared any other ship and a pain to fly.
THIS HAS TO CHANGE FINALLY!
Sry, for the caps.:o
Wasn't claiming it balanced one way or another. Just that to incentivize people to fork over the cash to get it they needed to beef it up. C-store ships are more powerful than free ships. Lock-box ships are more powerful than c-store ships.
Though I think they should look back at making c-store ships with consoles usable on any ship. I bought the heavy escort just to put the point defense gun on my cruiser. Sell more ships if you buy them for the gear and not to fly them.
Also wondering if they will do buyable weapon packs like they did with the melee stuff.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I just noticed some funny thing. The Elaci "silent Enemy" -Set contains actually a "heavy" version of a ship weapon, somthing we have been asking for Beam Weapons or the GCS in particular for a long time.
Maybe it's just me, maybe it sounds paranoid, but it really seems they give other ships what the GCS could need, but ignoring the GCS completely at the same time.
Not theat they made the Excelsior the supreior ship, but also the Galor and the D'Kora too. Heck even the Ambassador is a better ship, no one can tell me they made this just by accident.
They clearly want TNG/GCS fans to feel frustrated and annoyed, i can't explain it otherwise.
(TNG uniform looks TRIBBLE, TNG "cobra" phasers only stun and wide beam and so on)
Now they want to give the Galaxy -X a seperation mode?
What is that for? If they wanted to boost the GC -X they should give it a different BOFF layout, instead of giving her some fancy mechanics that doesn't help her in any way.
Not only that, the Galaxy -R needs a overhaul much more than the Galaxy -X. It again just shows that Cryptics devs just decided to igonre the Galaxy -R.
Does anyone seriously doubt that if Capt. Gecko where a GCS fan we still would have such a crappy ship?
It would be much more interesting than this boring trinity stuff we get presented.
10 years is a lot.
Within the last ten years we've seen:
smart phone technology...cell phones look and perform differently than phones from 10 years ago. This is about to change again this year as the smart watch comes out.
10 years ago we were still playing games on the Playstation 2, the Game Cube, the original Xbox.
Cars now have Electronic Stability Control, We have hybrid cars now, satellite radio and multimedia device integration...
Cars now have sensors and cameras that monitor for obstructions and apply brakes by themselves.
and this is just a few things...10 years is a long time when developing technology.
Even in Star Trek within that time we've seen the beginning of bio-neural circuitry, quantum torpedoes and phasers that self re-modulate...who knows what else they came up with.
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.