test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Suggestion: Make the AGT Galaxy Class an Escort

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
It has cannons. It has a cloaking device. It probably has better speed/maneuverability with that third nacelle.

So my advice would be to release the Tier 5.5 Defiant being planned with identical features to avoid charges that you're selling a unique game mechanic.

And all it would take is to classify the "Galaxy X"/All Good Things Enterprise as an Escort.

Beyond that, anybody can get some benefit out of an escort and the biggest reason people seem to avoid them is because they want a more traditional looking ship. Whereas a cruiser would be of a lot less benefit to some of us (I don't get what people see in them), an Escort makes total sense with the speed, cannons and cloak. And, again, if it's just a cosmetic reskin of the upcoming Tier 5.5 Defiant and they have all the same functions and features, you have less potential to offend.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Cruiser, please. Escorts don't interest me at all. Galaxy X having cannons doesn't mean it has to be an Escort. All Federation ships can equip single Cannons.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    It's supposed to use an escort-style cannon, be fast and have a cloaking device. In terms of how fragile it is, you'd account for that because it is an older ship refitted as opposed to a new Galaxy class ship. If it's NOT an escort, it's a unique game mechanic for endgame and will generate a lot more issues with players.

    The one downside is that you'd have the angry fans yelling about Cryptic's "Escort Service Pyramid Scheme".
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    It's already doing that... and it isn't even out yet.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Make it a skin that can you can use on any ship. Even Klingon ships. If you can get five people to subscribe then you deserve to be able to use it as you want.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    The Galaxy class is a cruiser, even if you made it super fast and agile, with tonnes of firepower, it would still be a cruiser.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    So a fragile, fast ship with cannons and a cloaking device is a cruiser...? It can't be reclassified after an extensive refit?

    Heck, you can call it a cruiser if you want but what I'm saying is, make it functionally identical (damage, abilities, resilience) to an earnable Tier 5.5 Defiant and you eliminate the perception of selling a game mechanic.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Why would it be fragile? Why would a refit improve everything except hull strength etc..?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I would be all for the ability to add the Galaxy X class as an optional build for and RA 5 ship. It would just be another option for the cruisers so it would break up the repetiveness of seeing Soverns everywhere.


    It could maybe fall into the category of an assault cruiser like the soverign, just alittle less manuver able but have extra power to its over all energy out put. And yes they could make it so that the Galaxy X has that extra canon slot in the front for cannon sake.


    I think it would add a little bit more varity to the game.


    But i would rather see the Romulans added first. lol guess that is probly a year off or so.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    mscupcakes wrote: »
    Why would it be fragile? Why would a refit improve everything except hull strength etc..?

    Because if they could refit every Galaxy class ship like this, why don't the 5.5 Galaxy class ships get the same rewards? There's a tradeoff. Keep in mind that even if the events of All Good Things happened in this timeline, anything from that "future" era would be 30 years in our past now anyway.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    It has cannons. It has a cloaking device. It probably has better speed/maneuverability with that third nacelle.

    So my advice would be to release the Tier 5.5 Defiant being planned with identical features to avoid charges that you're selling a unique game mechanic.

    And all it would take is to classify the "Galaxy X"/All Good Things Enterprise as an Escort.

    Beyond that, anybody can get some benefit out of an escort and the biggest reason people seem to avoid them is because they want a more traditional looking ship. Whereas a cruiser would be of a lot less benefit to some of us (I don't get what people see in them), an Escort makes total sense with the speed, cannons and cloak. And, again, if it's just a cosmetic reskin of the upcoming Tier 5.5 Defiant and they have all the same functions and features, you have less potential to offend.

    Firstly - as pointed out all ships can have cannons. The Galaxy-Xs specific cannon has very few details released on it yet, but it is unlikely (one would hope) that it will imbalancingly overpowered (damage is not known, effects are not know and cooldown is not known).

    Also, the nacelles on a ship do not really have any bearing on a ships impulse speed or manueverability in battle (thats the impulse engines and thrusters) therefore the 3rd nacelle on its own is not likely to make it turn like an escort. In fact - if anything - it adds more mass to the ship.

    I'm seeing NOTHING to suggest this ship should or could be classified as an Escort. Sorry bud.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Okay then, even if that's the case, the Constitution class is pretty fragile compared to the Sovreign, does that mean the Constitution class is an escort? Of course not.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    So you're saying it gets added with the cloaking device then, which makes it a unique game mechanic?

    You're honestly saying you want to see a unique endgame game mechanic essentially "for sale"?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    So you're saying it gets added with the cloaking device then, which makes it a unique game mechanic?

    You're honestly saying you want to see a unique endgame game mechanic essentially "for sale"?

    Its not that unique. Its effectively a passive version of Mask Energy Signature. A non-battle cloak.

    Its a gimmick and not exactly a "first" in STO. It might have its own animation. Thats about it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    he one downside is that you'd have the angry fans yelling about Cryptic's "Escort Service Pyramid Scheme".

    That alone would be worth it.
    Its not that unique. Its effectively a passive version of Mask Energy Signature. A non-battle cloak.

    Its a gimmick and not exactly a "first" in STO. It might have its own animation. Thats about it.

    And if it's the only Fed ship getting that innate without tying up a BO slot? (As opposed to all the Klingon ships but the Vo'Quv, but they're designed accordingly)

    Mechanically overpowering is irrelevant. Mechanically unique is the issue.

    All the blandisments about not turning this into a cash shop MMO and we get this ****. "But it's not in the C Store!" What the **** is the difference?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    That alone would be worth it.



    And if it's the only Fed ship getting that innate without tying up a BO slot? (As opposed to all the Klingon ships but the Vo'Quv, but they're designed accordingly)

    Mechanically overpowering is irrelevant. Mechanically unique is the issue.

    I agree that the Galaxy X cannon may be a unique mechanic. But your problem with it just comes down to the fact that you hate some of these gimmicks being used for game "exclusives" (pre-orders, RAF etc) , whereby I don't really have any particular issue with it.

    I understand that you personally hate, with all your heart, the fact that pre-orders and exclusives get these neat little "gimmicks" given to them - but that is common for many MMOs (not just cryptic/STO) and the fact these items are exclusive, rare and "neat" in some way is what makes them attractive to potential customers in the first place.

    But the the "cloak" isn't unique at all. Non battle cloaking exists on the fed side today (MES) - as do ship-passives (science - target subsystems). Yes, these mechanics have never been packaged up in this specific way on a fed vessel before, but neither of these mechanics themselves are actually new.

    Back on topic, though - however the Galaxy-X finally makes it into the game, there is no way it would be an Escort type vessel.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    There's no where suggesting the Galaxy X is fragile. It is, at its core, a Galaxy class-- and those are hardly fragile. It is simply not built like an Escort. It's built like a Cruiser! The large warpcore (likely improved with an extra nacell), the large storage capacity, and the large crew. How is that possibly an Escort?

    That's just what we need. An Escort with a crew of 1000, the hull strength of a Cruiser, while being as nimble as a Defiant... with a special cannon and a cloak (I don't if those two things are getting implemented or in what capacity, but they were listed as suggestions in the original post). Uhm, OP much?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Feels like this falls under the "escorts should have cloak" category.

    AGT Galaxy had 1 cannon. 1 as in singular. A really big one. Just 1.
    And that makes it an escort?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I agree that the Galaxy X cannon may be a unique mechanic. But your problem with it just comes down to the fact that you hate some of these gimmicks being used for game "exclusives" (pre-orders, RAF etc) , whereby I don't really have any particular issue with it.

    I understand that you personally hate, with all your heart, the fact that pre-orders and exclusives get these neat little "gimmicks" given to them - but that is common for many MMOs (not just cryptic/STO) and the fact these items are exclusive, rare and "neat" in some way is what makes them attractive to potential customers in the first place.

    But the the "cloak" isn't unique at all. Non battle cloaking exists on the fed side today (MES) - as do ship-passives (science - target subsystems). Yes, these mechanics have never been packaged up in this specific way on a fed vessel before, but neither of these mechanics themselves are actually new.

    Back on topic, though - however the Galaxy-X finally makes it into the game, there is no way it would be an Escort type vessel.

    Basically, Cryptic's entire defense of their specific MT model boils down to 'we're not going to make THAT kind of MMO'. But they've been marching in that direction ever since release and I feel a fool for vocally supporting them.

    A unique combination of strongly relevant mechanics at endgame - even if balanced with other combinations - is farther than they've pushed exclusives or C-store purchases so far. What's next?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Blenda wrote:
    Make it a skin that can you can use on any ship. Even Klingon ships. If you can get five people to subscribe then you deserve to be able to use it as you want.

    There's a reason why this can't work.

    I'll give you three guesses.

    And one hint: (Try to imagine this skin going over a Bird of Prey or a Miranda).

    Skins don't work the way you think they work.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    It has cannons. It has a cloaking device. It probably has better speed/maneuverability with that third nacelle.

    It has A cannon, and it's a special one. It MIGHT have a cloak, they haven't decided. You pulled the speed/maneuver thing out of your shuttle bay; there are Cruiser skins in this game with four nacelles that do nothing to speed or maneuverability.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    syberghost wrote: »
    It has A cannon, and it's a special one. It MIGHT have a cloak, they haven't decided. You pulled the speed/maneuver thing out of your shuttle bay; there are Cruiser skins in this game with four nacelles that do nothing to speed or maneuverability.

    The Galaxy X can go Warp 14. Hence, speed. The whole rationale behind the extra nacelle (regardless of whatever reverse engineered tech explanations were produced) was to have an over-the-top impression of a ship that has more engines and goes faster.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    The Galaxy X can go Warp 14. Hence, speed.

    Yeah, see ... the stuff I've read about the ship points to the warp 14 thing being an indication that the anti-time future was just a fancy of Q's that isn't reality.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    The Galaxy X can go Warp 14. Hence, speed.

    The Star Trek Online I've been playing doesn't use warp speed in combat, ever. Did you see more impulse ports on that model?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    syberghost wrote: »
    The Star Trek Online I've been playing doesn't use warp speed in combat, ever. Did you see more impulse ports on that model?

    You're thinking about this from a technical perspective.

    Of all things in Trek, the AGT Enterprise didn't start with a technical approach. It was designed to defy technical approaches and make lots of common sense (ie. more engines make it go faster) while purposefully flying in the face of technical sense to indicate that the science of that future had made modern Trek science obsolete.

    Technical information in Star Trek and particularly in AGT serves as a backdoor explanation reverse engineered to the plot and broad concepts; it doesn't dictate the plot.

    The AGT Enterprise goes faster because it has more engines. Anything else is not only non-canon (like many of the various blueprints and schematics) but exists to reinforce the broad concepts.

    If it goes faster, it goes faster. Warp theory and impulse engine mechanics is not a plot consideration but is a prop for a plot device.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    None of which explains why you think this GAME is necessarily making a ship faster in Impulse than other ships of its tier, based solely on a canon reference of one more warp nacelle, when the game has already established a precedent that TWO more warp nacelles doesn't make things faster in either impulse OR warp.

    Your argument comes down to "Cryptic must be doing that because I think they should".
Sign In or Register to comment.