Cryptic tacitly admits that you have to have at least 3 Tac consoles to be effective.

fulleatherjacket

And that they don't want the Exploration cruiser line to be effective. Because of Ambassador.

I'd like Cryptic to comment on this decision; that the Galaxy class is now weaker combat-wise to not one, but both of the ships preceding it.

I don't think Cryptic hates the Galaxy class, but I do think they love to troll everyone who loves that ship.

skyranger1414

fulleatherjacket wrote: »

I don't think Cryptic hates the Galaxy class, but I do think they love to troll everyone who loves that ship.

Lol! There may be something to that! Can't say I blame them though, I never cared for the Galaxy class at all.. Except the Galaxy-X, that ship is a thing of beauty!

trellabor

skyranger1414 wrote: »

Lol! There may be something to that! Can't say I blame them though, I never cared for the Galaxy class at all.. Except the Galaxy-X, that ship is a thing of beauty!

Unfortunately, the Gal-X is just as bad it's sister ship, if not worse. Talk about all looks and no substance....

neoakiraii

I blame Picard.

Whenever Worf wanted to show off the Enterprise D firepower, Picard always denied him.

But, the Enterprise D was known for taking hits, so it was a tank in TNG.:D

sparhawk

trellabor wrote: »

Unfortunately, the Gal-X is just as bad it's sister ship, if not worse. Talk about all looks and no substance....

Indeed, sad but true.

souli76

I think this just shows the need to really do some buffing to a lot of the older c-store ships to keep them in line but still competitive, instead of the current trend of it's there, that's all.

dalnar83

It got three tac consoles, else noone would bother with it. And that would be bad for press...if noone would bother with the anniversary reward :P Oh well. Poor 2 tac consoles ships.

timelord79

I think Cryptic should finally admit, that the galaxy isn't up to par and the engineering heaviness is extremely limiting.

What they should do is give the ship it's flagship status back by changing it's stats to being as versatile as the Odyssey without eclipsing it.

In fact, all 3 TNG era hero refit ships should get this treatment.

Make them something special again. As they should be.

stardestroyer001

timelord79 wrote: »

I think Cryptic should finally admit, that the galaxy isn't up to par and the engineering heaviness is extremely limiting.

What they should do is give the ship it's flagship status back by changing it's stats to being as versatile as the Odyssey without eclipsing it.

In fact, all 3 TNG era hero refit ships should get this treatment.

Make them something special again. As they should be.

I agree wholeheartedly.


Also, what's wrong with the Galaxy-X? It's a great, effective tanker if piloted in skilled hands, and it can do a fair bit of damage, again if piloted by skilled hands.

drudgy

I fly a Galaxy-X, and honestly it's better than the R, although there is little difference between the two. Really the only difference is the consoles, and the Ens Boff slot. (On the Gal-R its an ENG, on the Gal-X its a Tac)

One thing I have found really interesting after looking at the Ambassador, is the Ambassador and Excelsior are RA level ships. The Galaxy-X and Galaxy-R are both VA level ships, but aside from the Galaxy's having 1000 crew compared to 700 and 750, they are virtually the same. The Galaxy X/R, and the Assault Cruiser Refit need a boost to put them more in line with the Oddy Command Cruiser, and less closely related to the RA level ships.

frontline2042

fulleatherjacket wrote: »

And that they don't want the Exploration cruiser line to be effective. Because of Ambassador.

I'd like Cryptic to comment on this decision; that the Galaxy class is now weaker combat-wise to not one, but both of the ships preceding it.

I don't think Cryptic hates the Galaxy class, but I do think they love to troll everyone who loves that ship.

Source?
And the Galaxy X looks terrible. That 3rd nacelle is an eyesore

timelord79

frontline2042 wrote: »

Source?
And the Galaxy X looks terrible. That 3rd nacelle is an eyesore

The design of the Galaxy-X is not to be blamed on Cryptic. it's what was on screen. Deal with it.

skyranger1414

trellabor wrote: »

Unfortunately, the Gal-X is just as bad it's sister ship, if not worse. Talk about all looks and no substance....

I know !! You'd think they would give it a more tactical layout and more turning... but alas, Cryptic is as Cryptic does.

frontline2042 wrote: »

Source?
And the Galaxy X looks terrible. That 3rd nacelle is an eyesore

Hey! Federation Dreadnoughts have had 3 nacelles since well before TNG!

cptvanor

timelord79 wrote: »

What they should do is give the ship it's flagship status back by changing it's stats to being as versatile as the Odyssey without eclipsing it.

The Galaxy isn't the flagship anymore, the Odyssey is. I mean according to Lore, the Odyssey is what they used for the Enterprise F. So they won't do anything that gives the Galaxy back that status. Buffing it for the sake of how it plays in game is fine. But it will never be considered the flagship again.

warbird001

No, the Galaxy and the Sovereign are REAL flagships, the Oddy is Cryptic's way of trying to get a famous ship of their own to bear the name Enterprise but it fails dismally. Cryptic have always been disrespectful of the Galaxy Class and even the Sovereign to an extent because they know nothing about Star Trek or how to recreate it in a game format. They only do what they think is cool and not what the fans want.

The Oddy is an always will be a bad joke at Cryptic's expense, a ship like that will never bear the name Enterprise. Typhon Pact timeline is much better then this sorry attempt of a game.

drudgy

timelord79 wrote: »

I think Cryptic should finally admit, that the galaxy isn't up to par and the engineering heaviness is extremely limiting.

What they should do is give the ship it's flagship status back by changing it's stats to being as versatile as the Odyssey without eclipsing it.

In fact, all 3 TNG era hero refit ships should get this treatment.

Make them something special again. As they should be.

cptvanor wrote: »

The Galaxy isn't the flagship anymore, the Odyssey is. I mean according to Lore, the Odyssey is what they used for the Enterprise F. So they won't do anything that gives the Galaxy back that status. Buffing it for the sake of how it plays in game is fine. But it will never be considered the flagship again.

True, but the Galaxy's are both VA level ships, not RA, so they should be closer to the Oddy, than the Excelsior/Ambassador.

koppenflak

skyranger1414 wrote: »

Hey! Federation Dreadnoughts have had 3 nacelles since well before TNG!

News to me... Got an on-screen reference for that one? The old RPG book from the 80's notwithstanding, we never saw any evidence of that in onscreen-canon, or in the official tech manuals.

stardestroyer001

koppenflak wrote: »

News to me... Got an on-screen reference for that one? The old RPG book from the 80's notwithstanding, we never saw any evidence of that in onscreen-canon, or in the official tech manuals.

The Franz Joseph Starfleet Tech Manual isn't canon, but it did indeed feature the Federation-class Dreadnought having three warp nacelles.

Also, Ex Astris Scientia (the site) has shown that one of the Starfleet ship hulks seen in the Wolf 359 graveyard is of a three nacelled configuration (saucer is a mini-Galaxy, hull is an Ambassador, three warp engines).

drudgy

koppenflak wrote: »

News to me... Got an on-screen reference for that one? The old RPG book from the 80's notwithstanding, we never saw any evidence of that in onscreen-canon, or in the official tech manuals.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Dreadnought

The only one to appear on screen was the Galaxy Dreadnought, but several references have been made to them having 3 nacelles. Also a book written in the 80's called Dreadnought! details a 3 nacelled TOS era vessel.

neoakiraii

drudgy wrote: »

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Dreadnought

The only one to appear on screen was the Galaxy Dreadnought, but several references have been made to them having 3 nacelles. Also a book written in the 80's called Dreadnought! details a 3 nacelled TOS era vessel.

If it never happened on screen it's not real

squidheadjax

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

The Franz Joseph Starfleet Tech Manual isn't canon, but it did indeed feature the Federation-class Dreadnought having three warp nacelles.

Also, Ex Astris Scientia (the site) has shown that one of the Starfleet ship hulks seen in the Wolf 359 graveyard is of a three nacelled configuration (saucer is a mini-Galaxy, hull is an Ambassador, three warp engines).

That page of the Franz Joseph STM was shown onscreen as part of the random console display graphics in Wrath of Khan (and I think others). That said, I've always felt that trident designs (one nacelle between the other two) look like butt myself.

Three-pointed designs like the BoBW wreck, I have more love for.

drudgy

neoakiraii wrote: »

If it never happened on screen it's not real

You must have missed this sentence from the Alpha article.

The outline of a three nacelled Federation-class ship is briefly glimpsed in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock computer screens on the USS Enterprise.

although I guess the argument could be made that it didn't actually say it was a Dreadnought.

stardestroyer001

drudgy wrote:

The only one to appear on screen was the Galaxy Dreadnought, but several references have been made to them having 3 nacelles. Also a book written in the 80's called Dreadnought! details a 3 nacelled TOS era vessel.

neoakiraii wrote: »

If it never happened on screen it's not real

drudgy wrote:

The only one to appear on screen was the Galaxy Dreadnought...

Need I say more?

kimmym

Meh, I'm doing pretty damned well in my 2-tac-slot Atrox...

I don't see myself flying the Ambasador anyway. She isn't that good. I was never a fan of her onscreen, either.

The Galaxy argument is a dead horse. She is a tank. That is what she will remain.

Gal-X isn't nearly as bad as people make her out to be. There are better (I'm looking at you, Bortasqu'...) but she is fine for what she is. Those of us who actually know how to fly her know better, and we don't care what the rest of you think. I could sure use a Fleet version and some saucer sep, tho...

I think people simply do not realize how little difference a console here or a point of turn there really make. The differences are much smaller then people make them out to be. The way some people tell it the differences between a DHC and a dual cannon are so wide you can't even compare them... lol... When you run the numbers there is much less difference between ships then people think.

I love out DPSing tac/escorts in my sci/atrox... Pilot skill is worth so much more then ship stats... People need to learn how to fly before they start acting like they know the game well enough to demand changes.

skyranger1414

neoakiraii wrote: »

If it never happened on screen it's not real

How I wish this was actually accepted! lol. Personally I've always loved the 3 nacelle design from way back in StarFleet Battles. I even have a miniature of a 3 nacelle Fed D-Nought. As it was SFB was kinda clunky for my taste, Full Thrust being more my style. So now I have a TOS era 3 nacelle Fed Dreadnought painted in steel grey and sporting the UNSC flag....I need to play Full Thrust again, heck of a tabletop miniatures game.

sjokruhlica

In the STO 'verse, the Galaxy is a 40 year old, outdated design. It's as outclassed as a Constitution-class would have been in TNG. Whining about it isn't going to change this.

drudgy

neoakiraii wrote: »

If it never happened on screen it's not real

What is real? Simply being on-screen? Because technically the Galaxy-X isn't really "real". It was a possible variant of the Galaxy, based on an alternate reality. So even it's not true prime universe canon. I'm sure it was created as speculation and references based on the Dreadnought! book.

stardestroyer001

sjokruhlica wrote: »

In the STO 'verse, the Galaxy is a 40 year old, outdated design. It's as outclassed as a Constitution-class would have been in TNG. Whining about it isn't going to change this.

The Excelsior, in the STO 'verse, is over 100 years old. Yet why is the Galaxy-class inferior to an almost century-old design?

neoakiraii

Because it's a Video game, and the Galaxy class drew up the tank card.

kimmym

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

The Excelsior, in the STO 'verse, is over 100 years old. Yet why is the Galaxy-class inferior to an almost century-old design?

In a world of Vestas, Odys, Chimerons, and what have you why would we even be flying Galaxy class ships, let alone Excelsiors?

But, age doesn't have much to do with designs. Yes, we tend to think of design as a linear progression, but some times you get it right the first time and spend many iterations learning that you did not improve on the original design.

Galaxy could use a bit of a buff, but I disagree that she is a poor design. The poor design comes from not giving tanks the tools to do their jobs correctly. No taunt, no way of judging threat, and 1-shot effects going off everywhere. Give cruisers an ability that forces targets to attack them for some number of seconds, a decent means of metering threat, and do someting about all the bloody death touches and ships like the Galaxy would come into their own with no change in their basic design.

bloctoad

So cruiser captains complain about the real physics of Jem Hadar Dreadnought turn rate compared to cruisers yet want an unreal taunt? That just doesn't jive. If you want a taunt so enemies attack the heavily fortified combatant rather than the most threatening combatant for no real reason then play a high fantasy game not Star Trek.