OK, I'm thankful for the turn rate increase in the most recent patch. Furthermore, I can appreciate the reason for having higher turn radii on what are essentially capital ships.
But if I'm going to pilot a ship that turns like a cow, I want it to LOOK like a cow, which is to say bigger. When you see one of those Klingon carriers turning slow in battle, you instantly understand why: those things are freakin' huge!
Can't we have a similar visual cue on federation cruisers? They don't have to be as big as a carrier, but if you bumped up their size a bit proportional to each ship's tier, I think it would help.
I cant say I agree with you, when I went from T3-T4 and got me an Envoy Class. I was frightened by its sheer size. I understand the Klingon Carrier is massive compared to the Envoy and Galaxy. But by all means, those things are big enough. I cant imagine what you would do with a bigger ship other then be the big fat bullseye in PvP. After they silence the Escorts. Youd be next.
Cryptic needs to adjust the player ship scale dramatically. A Defiant isn't supposed to be as big as an Intrepid. I say, instead of making Cruisers "bigger," they should use the Galaxy class model as a reference point, and adjust all of the other ships around it.
Cryptic needs to adjust the player ship scale dramatically. A Defiant isn't supposed to be as big as an Intrepid. I say, instead of making Cruisers "bigger," they should use the Galaxy class model as a reference point, and adjust all of the other ships around it.
Cryptic needs to adjust the player ship scale dramatically. A Defiant isn't supposed to be as big as an Intrepid. I say, instead of making Cruisers "bigger," they should use the Galaxy class model as a reference point, and adjust all of the other ships around it.
Actually, I think the Galaxy needs to be bigger. It doesn't have that look to it. What I mean is it just doesn't look big enough for a Galaxy cruiser.
I say make the Galaxy bigger, then use it as a reference for the other ships.
Actually, I think the Galaxy needs to be bigger. It doesn't have that look to it. What I mean is it just doesn't look big enough for a Galaxy cruiser.
I say make the Galaxy bigger, then use it as a reference for the other ships.
I guess that's just our respective POV, because I think the Galaxy looks just fine, sizewise.. Either way, we agree that it should be the reference point and they should adjust other ships around it. If they make it bigger or not, as long as they do that, I'd be happy.
I cant say I agree with you, when I went from T3-T4 and got me an Envoy Class. I was frightened by its sheer size. I understand the Klingon Carrier is massive compared to the Envoy and Galaxy. But by all means, those things are big enough. I cant imagine what you would do with a bigger ship other then be the big fat bullseye in PvP. After they silence the Escorts. Youd be next.
I'm still at tier 3, so I can't really comment on tier 4, but at tier 3 I routinely run into ESCORTS that are bigger and more maneuverable, which is simply nonsensical.
I guess that's just our respective POV, because I think the Galaxy looks just fine, sizewise.. Either way, we agree that it should be the reference point and they should adjust other ships around it. If they make it bigger or not, as long as they do that, I'd be happy.
Yeah but if we use the current Galaxy as a reference, won't they need to shrink some tier 4 and tier 5 non-cruiser federation ships?
I'm fairly certain that the ships are scaled correctly and that they only look bigger/smaller to us because we lack the perspective that the TV/movie shots have. To the least, they're roughly the same as the model scale differences in Starfleet Command 3 from what I remember.
We already have people not liking the bigger bridges because they're not up to scale, I can imagine the tasty barbecue that'll happen if Cryptic starts fudging around with ship sizes
ok. maybe i'm waaay off here, but Picard did say that the Enterprise E was almost 700 meters long.
And the cruiser ingame at T5 are only about 400 meters long, is this correct.
I guess that's just our respective POV, because I think the Galaxy looks just fine, sizewise.. Either way, we agree that it should be the reference point and they should adjust other ships around it. If they make it bigger or not, as long as they do that, I'd be happy.
The reference point should be the original Constitution class from The Real Star Trek.
ok. maybe i'm waaay off here, but Picard did say that the Enterprise E was almost 700 meters long.
And the cruiser ingame at T5 are only about 400 meters long, is this correct.
My Galaxy class feels pretty accurately sized when I sit it next to a Sovereign or Intrepid or Constitution. Sure it's not enormous, but guess what? The Galaxy class is actually on the small side when compared to many Star Trek ships. A 642 meter long ship like the Galaxy is much smaller than you might think.
I'm fairly certain that the ships are scaled correctly and that they only look bigger/smaller to us because we lack the perspective that the TV/movie shots have. To the least, they're roughly the same as the model scale differences in Starfleet Command 3 from what I remember.
We already have people not liking the bigger bridges because they're not up to scale, I can imagine the tasty barbecue that'll happen if Cryptic starts fudging around with ship sizes
No, the scaling is fairly arbitrary in this game. Pay close attention to the sizes of windows (particularly the distance from on deck to the next) and the sizes of escape pods.
No, the scaling is fairly arbitrary in this game. Pay close attention to the sizes of windows (particularly the distance from on deck to the next) and the sizes of escape pods.
The scaling was fairly arbitrary in the Star Trek tv series too. Many episodes had incorrectly sized ships like the giant bird of prey in TNG that the producers admitted they scaled up because they didn't have the money to build a proper TNG style Klingon ship until season 4.
No, the scaling is fairly arbitrary in this game. Pay close attention to the sizes of windows (particularly the distance from on deck to the next) and the sizes of escape pods.
The topic's about ship scaling between ships. You just went off-topic in your own topic
The scaling was fairly arbitrary in the Star Trek tv series too. Many episodes had incorrectly sized ships like the giant bird of prey in TNG that the producers admitted they scaled up because they didn't have the money to build a proper TNG style Klingon ship until season 4.
Yes, scaling was an issue before they switched to CGI models. But midway through DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, scaling was properly done.
With STO, pretty much the Federation Ships are failrly scaled against one another. I scaled up Consitutions against the Galaxy and Sovereign and it appears it does take 2 Consitutions to equal their lengths. The Cheyenne, well there was no official lengths, but it was done by guess work.
Now with the Klingons, the only ships the B'Rel and the K'T'inga aren't properly scaled. I find the K'T'inga being 400m long, and the B'Rel being the size of the Miranda (200m long). Same with the runabouts and shuttles, so I assume there was a limit of how small models could be for sake of gameplay.
Comments
/agreed..............
ether way would work I think
Actually, I think the Galaxy needs to be bigger. It doesn't have that look to it. What I mean is it just doesn't look big enough for a Galaxy cruiser.
I say make the Galaxy bigger, then use it as a reference for the other ships.
I guess that's just our respective POV, because I think the Galaxy looks just fine, sizewise.. Either way, we agree that it should be the reference point and they should adjust other ships around it. If they make it bigger or not, as long as they do that, I'd be happy.
I'm still at tier 3, so I can't really comment on tier 4, but at tier 3 I routinely run into ESCORTS that are bigger and more maneuverable, which is simply nonsensical.
Yeah but if we use the current Galaxy as a reference, won't they need to shrink some tier 4 and tier 5 non-cruiser federation ships?
We already have people not liking the bigger bridges because they're not up to scale, I can imagine the tasty barbecue that'll happen if Cryptic starts fudging around with ship sizes
Yes, and that's my point. Even ships within the same tier across classes are the wrong size when compared to the others.
And the cruiser ingame at T5 are only about 400 meters long, is this correct.
The reference point should be the original Constitution class from The Real Star Trek.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Sovereign_class
So yeah, roughly 700m long.
I'm not sure where you're getting the 400m though.
For example, check out the size difference compared with the D'deridex.
No, the scaling is fairly arbitrary in this game. Pay close attention to the sizes of windows (particularly the distance from on deck to the next) and the sizes of escape pods.
The scaling was fairly arbitrary in the Star Trek tv series too. Many episodes had incorrectly sized ships like the giant bird of prey in TNG that the producers admitted they scaled up because they didn't have the money to build a proper TNG style Klingon ship until season 4.
The topic's about ship scaling between ships. You just went off-topic in your own topic
Yes, scaling was an issue before they switched to CGI models. But midway through DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, scaling was properly done.
With STO, pretty much the Federation Ships are failrly scaled against one another. I scaled up Consitutions against the Galaxy and Sovereign and it appears it does take 2 Consitutions to equal their lengths. The Cheyenne, well there was no official lengths, but it was done by guess work.
Now with the Klingons, the only ships the B'Rel and the K'T'inga aren't properly scaled. I find the K'T'inga being 400m long, and the B'Rel being the size of the Miranda (200m long). Same with the runabouts and shuttles, so I assume there was a limit of how small models could be for sake of gameplay.