test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
So a T-6 Galaxy Dreadnought is coming. Can Cryptic please listen to Andrew Probert's opinion?
fulleatherjacket
Member Posts: 980 Arc User
Because it's pretty clear.
Can we have the visual option to remove all the fins, cannon mounts, extra torpedo launchers and 3rd nacelle? Can we please strip the damn thing down to just having the lance attached? The extra bits are worthless and fugly.
Can we have the visual option to remove all the fins, cannon mounts, extra torpedo launchers and 3rd nacelle? Can we please strip the damn thing down to just having the lance attached? The extra bits are worthless and fugly.
0
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
Canon Ship. You want it all stripped off? Go talk to CBS. They own the Design, they make the rules.
Defending The Galaxy By Breaking One Starfleet Regulation After The Next.
Not trying to flame, as I know a lot of people like it, heck I even fly one on one of my toons, and I would never want to take anything away from someone. It's just not what I grew up with.
As for the TNG episode itself, I always did like that one.
It'd be nice if they allow for removal of the 3rd nacelle+pylon, or at least allow subbing of a mission pod from the Nebula in its place (would look less silly than the 3rd nacelle, IMO).
While there is a Cryptic-original design in the T6 Excelsior, all of its parts fit into the existing customization categories.
As for the Galaxy-X third nacelle, not only is it a defining characteristic of the ship but adding a null option would run into problems for any VFX hard points that are tied to the space it occupies (this has even accidentally happened with some ships, the Constellation for example seems to have torpedo hard points floating behind it where all of the other Stargazer/Dakota/Cheyenne models have rear launchers) (neat idea about having a "mission pod" in its place, though, from an above reply). I also think the nacelle model is separate from the pylon, meaning that customization would allow the ship to have some weird fin; or if either can be null, a floating nacelle. Thus cleaning up the customization options for that would require more dev time.
Instead, the Galaxy-X already exists. They adapted the Andromeda model parts to fit into the existing categories, and added dressing to match the theme of the existing models. And bam! it's done.
More customization would be nice. It would always be nice. As players we see countless opportunities for more customization. But I doubt there's enough of a demand for a doubling of the number of saucers on the Gal-X (with/without bridge wings variants) and certainly not enough demand for sans-third-nacelle, to justify going back to do more work on it.
Edit: Well, it looks like they did add a Galaxy Beta saucer (and struts) to the Dreadnaught. No idea if there's a Monarch, Venture, or Andromeda Beta that's sans bridge fins, though. So that's something!
So far, the Galaxy-Xes in STO build on Galaxy variants and appear to continue to do with with T6.
It would be really interesting if they reversed that for a future variant, designed G-X variant FIRST and then adapted it to a two nacelle design.
So basically just want it to look like a Galaxy class? So this topic again...
My character Tsin'xing
I gotta agree...I'm sorry but I think it's silly that people just want it to basically look like a Galaxy class and the only thing they're willing to even keep you can't even see from behind your ship.
Andrew Probert's opinion on warp physics was invalidated the moment Tholian ships turned up in "The Tholian Web".
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Has it been confirmed that the T6 G-X will be here?
As far as I know, I've not found a single dev response stating that they'll be releasing it...
Now, don't take what I just said as... saying that it wont happen, I don't know. But I just wonder why players take sample images are confirmation of updates... Something that has always made me ponder.
My character Tsin'xing
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'm forced to agree with both yourself and Markhawkman in this thread. If you want to fly a ship that looks for all intents and purpose like a regular Galaxy class, then the simple option would be to go fly a regular Galaxy class. And before anyone mentions the spinal lance, especially from the T5/U version, well it was never that good in the first place even if you spec'd into phasers to buff the hell out of it. The logical argument here would have been to have the position of the firing chamber adjusted so it, doesn't sit off center like it currently does. Or more to the point if you dont like the design, then simply don't purchase it.
Nobody knows what the paint markers attached to the hull are but they look like a triple lance to me and the proportions of the ship make it look higher turnrate.
It's probably the kitbash ship with the biggest fan support to include in game.
Just make it a Tactical Galaxy variant that goes the other direction with Tac-orientation than the G-X.
New Orleans Class Exploration Destroyer. Saucer sep and alternate Venture/Monarch-derived skins.
Maybe along with a new Nebula T6.
My character Tsin'xing
Who the heck is Andrew Probert? Opinions are like b##s...everyone's got one. I could care less for any divergent opinions and like the ship as is...just another insignificant opinion
Guys, you are missing the point of the Gal-X.
It was intentionally designed to be a big, obtuse-looking monster. Just the cheesiest, most counter-intuitive additions to an elegant and subdued starship. You're supposed to have a kind of "What The" reaction when you see it.
You guys want to fly a Gal-X without actually having to digest the look of the thing, and that's silly. You need to make peace with what it is and just kinda revel in that.
To fly a Galaxy-X, and not complain about its looks, is to admit that you have just the slightest sense of humor about you.
Just my 2 EC...
But I also think that it was deliberately presented as an obsolete ship MacGyvered into continued service and that continued use of some of those elements in DS9 really suggested that the Galaxy was being adapted to purposes it wasn't suited to.
That's why I think the design works.
A Galaxy that has been adapted into a warship and looks beautiful would be an even bigger contradiction than a Galaxy adapted into a warship that looks ill-suited to the task. I think it should look a bit clunky.
Incidentally, I watched more videos and I liked Drexler's thoughts on the Enterprise-J. Very entertaining. He's definitely a proponent of a less grounded, more alien and absurdist Star Trek and I can dig that.
Did you actually listen to him? The first thing he said was that it's got a "cannon," clearly, if you're going by the gospel of Probert, you would have to lose the lance as well.
So. . . you want a T-6 Galaxy (-X) . . . which we already have . . . ? So. . . . ???
Andrew Probert (A.K.A. Designer of the Galaxy Class)