test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Support› C-Store, ZEN, and Promotions

DELETE the Galaxy - X

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited May 2010 in C-Store, ZEN, and Promotions
Please :p
It's one of those ships that never should have been... it doesn't work by Gene's laws and it just looked ugly, however epic it may be in a fight.
Discuss :)
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Brex2 wrote: »
    Please :p
    It's one of those ships that never should have been... it doesn't work by Gene's laws and it just looked ugly, however epic it may be in a fight.
    Discuss :)

    Exactly how epic do you think a T5 cruiser is in a fight?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I agree that its pretty ugly looking. But strangely people seem very passionate about the model based on all the threads raging about it.

    So what do I know? If people want to fly it, that's their business. No one's forcing me to. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    If I remember correctly...
    Galaxy X came into existence due to Adm. Riker overhauling the D in an alternate time-line.
    Well, in this timeline, the D 's saucer took a dirt nap on some planet's surface, after the engineering section blew up into a trillion pieces. Kinda hard to overhaul that. ;)

    And did Riker become a bitter old Admiral that got nostalgic for the D in this timeline enough to find a Galaxy class and rename it Enterprise in this time-line either?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    How is it ugly?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I don't understand the reason for all the fuss. First there is too much of the word 'canon' being thrown around.
    On-Screen does not mean 'canon' and it's widely accepted that future timelines and alternative timelines are a case of what may or may not be.
    A ship from a future that may ( and likely would not ) happen that appeared in one episode is hardly definitive.

    The Galaxy was superseded in the future. Why would they outfit an old ship in an era of a replacement for that ship. They would simple stick their nose gun and extra engine on a sovereign. As Gene was wont to do, if it's old and the new stuff supersedes and contradicts it then the old stuff is no longer canon.


    The only problem we have here is the entitlement. All these people realising that it's something they have no chance of obtaining s would rather see it removed than anyone else have it. Either that or make it so accessible that it's just another thing that bulkers can buy and there will be literally 10's of them in the game ( as by the time we see them that will be the playerbase )

    let it go. It's just a model.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    *cues Depeche Mode'a "People Are People"*

    There's a ship for everybody - which is why Cryptic is so good at nailing visual customization. No other developer (aside from, maybe, old Verant's SWG) pulls off as much customization options on a visual level. I don't need to buy species from the c-store: I can create them using a myriad of species parts in the alien creator. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Here's hoping that the public outcry will die down in a week or two and the community can get back to yelling at cryptic about more important things, like Bugs the big three science abilities, and of course PvP balance.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Brex2 wrote: »
    Please :p
    It's one of those ships that never should have been... it doesn't work by Gene's laws and it just looked ugly, however epic it may be in a fight.
    Discuss :)

    "genes laws"

    I LOL'd :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    the_illustrious_q wrote:
    Here's hoping that the public outcry will die down in a week or two and the community can get back to yelling at cryptic about more important things, like Bugs the big three science abilities, and of course PvP balance.

    Well said sir.

    Lets see polls and posts about stuff like that instead of complaining about one ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    ZootCadillac wrote:
    The Galaxy was superseded in the future. Why would they outfit an old ship in an era of a replacement for that ship. They would simple stick their nose gun and extra engine on a sovereign. As Gene was wont to do, if it's old and the new stuff supersedes and contradicts it then the old stuff is no longer canon.
    Because we've pleanty examples of starship frames being in service for decades, and it presumably makes "economic" sense to add a third nacelle and a cannon to a Galaxy class than build an entirely new Sovereign?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    the_illustrious_q wrote:
    Here's hoping that the public outcry will die down in a week or two and the community can get back to yelling at cryptic about more important things, like Bugs the big three science abilities, and of course PvP balance.

    you mean like;

    no klingon pve
    open beta crashes
    c-store
    salegate
    the advisory council
    the skillcap
    the talk of a dp
    the inclusion of dp

    as long as there is a weekly topic to rant about the community is happy. i can hardly wait for next week :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Intrepidox wrote: »
    "genes laws"

    I LOL'd :rolleyes:


    I think he might be referring to a quote directly attributed to gene where he stated "Warp nacelles MUST be in pairs" and "The Franz Joseph Designs single-nacelle ships are not official canon..
    Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull.
    Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front.
    The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull."
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Walshicus wrote:
    Because we've pleanty examples of starship frames being in service for decades, and it presumably makes "economic" sense to add a third nacelle and a cannon to a Galaxy class than build an entirely new Sovereign?

    Why were the sovereigns built if it made sense to refit a galaxy? Why was any ship replaced?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    ZootCadillac wrote:
    It's just a model.

    [cue the Camelot dance number from Holy Grail]


    :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Umm no..iam keeping it and using it...delete the galaxy x...watcha been drinken...give me some :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    ZootCadillac wrote:
    Why were the sovereigns built if it made sense to refit a galaxy? Why was any ship replaced?

    A better question would be why is the United States building new Air Craft Carriers when they still have ships that in perfect serviceable condition?

    Answer, because they can.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Jnoh wrote:
    [cue the Camelot dance number from Holy Grail]


    :D

    as you wish :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLF3nSEQIlU
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Captain_Revo wrote:
    you mean like;

    no klingon pve
    open beta crashes
    c-store
    salegate
    the advisory council
    the skillcap
    the talk of a dp
    the inclusion of dp

    as long as there is a weekly topic to rant about the community is happy. i can hardly wait for next week :D

    Yes those would be the issues. I can't wait for next week either. Popcorn?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    the_illustrious_q wrote:
    Yes those would be the issues. I can't wait for next week either. Popcorn?

    popkorn got banned again i think, he hasn't been around for almost 2 weeks.... -tear- i miss my popkornn, he went good with butter
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    ZootCadillac wrote:
    I think he might be referring to a quote directly attributed to gene where he stated "Warp nacelles MUST be in pairs" and "The Franz Joseph Designs single-nacelle ships are not official canon..
    Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull.
    Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front.
    The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull."

    I don't remember where, perhaps Ex Astris Scientia, but on some Star Trek technobabble website I saw a theory that goes a long way to explain this.

    The theory states that, as the nacelles technology evolved, somewhere between the TOS Movie era and the TNG era, each Nacelle began having 2 warp coils inside them instead of 1 which explains why they suddenly became so much dramatically wider.

    Also, keeping in mind some ships have been shown verifiably as having multiple nacelles, such as the Constellation Class/the Stargazer (which I will point out used the old TOS Movie era style nacelles, still playing into this theory) the more important thing is for the Nacelles to be in pairs, than for there to simply be A pair.

    In which case, comparing it to the original TOS designs, it's more like this ship adds both a 5th and 6th nacelle, not a 3rd.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    homsikpanda wrote: »
    popkorn got banned again i think, he hasn't been around for almost 2 weeks.... -tear- i miss my popkornn, he went good with butter

    He posted two days ago. He's not banned, I just checked.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    syberghost wrote: »
    He posted two days ago. He's not banned, I just checked.

    Popkorn cancelled. There was an I Quit Thread to commemmorate the event and everthing. With a somewhat tear-jerking final post by Rekhan as the thread was closed.

    It's all still a pretty emotional thing for me right now and hard to type about.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    ZootCadillac wrote:
    Why were the sovereigns built if it made sense to refit a galaxy? Why was any ship replaced?
    Why isn't every ship a Sovereign?

    It's sometimes cost effective to refit rather than scuttle; especially in wartime.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    We have canon 3 nacelled ships, such as the Niagara-class, seen in the Wolf 359 graveyard.

    I've also seen the theory of 2 coils per nacelle, which would make a 3 nacelled ship essentially have 6 coils, keeping the numbers even.

    On that note, I'd rather have one of the ships people have actually been asking for. Nebula, Excelsior, Steamrunner, and not the Galaxy-X.

    I'd also like to see more free ships, instead of content with strings attached.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Phoxe wrote:
    I don't remember where, perhaps Ex Astris Scientia, but on some Star Trek technobabble website I saw a theory that goes a long way to explain this.

    The theory states that, as the nacelles technology evolved, somewhere between the TOS Movie era and the TNG era, each Nacelle began having 2 warp coils inside them instead of 1 which explains why they suddenly became so much dramatically wider.

    Also, keeping in mind some ships have been shown verifiably as having multiple nacelles, such as the Constellation Class/the Stargazer (which I will point out used the old TOS Movie era style nacelles, still playing into this theory) the more important thing is for the Nacelles to be in pairs, than for there to simply be A pair.

    In which case, comparing it to the original TOS designs, it's more like this ship adds both a 5th and 6th nacelle, not a 3rd.


    You are quite correct. The Galaxy X was explained away as having "2 warp coils per nacelle, making 3 pairs of 2". It was of course a cack-handed explanation to get around Gene's stipulation.
    I just thought I'd might get away with not mentioning it so as not to cloud the issue. ( but you can always count on another geek knowing what you know eh? ;))

    I don't have a problem with the ship. I just follow the logic that as our 'timeline' progresses, the likelihood of it ever being made would be slim. ( if you look at it logically )
    But I have no objection to it or any other odd nacelled design being in game and I certainly don't mind them being exclusive to certain players. You know me, devil will always need an advocate :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    Popkorn cancelled. There was an I Quit Thread to commemmorate the event and everthing. With a somewhat tear-jerking final post by Rekhan as the thread was closed.

    It's all still a pretty emotional thing for me right now and hard to type about.

    He's lucky he didn't get another infraction point for that post; he's got 19, or so he says.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    syberghost wrote: »
    He's lucky he didn't get another infraction point for that post; he's got 19, or so he says.

    I agree. But I think Rekhan took mercy on him. They do want customers to return at some point after all. And returning business is a pretty common thing in MMOs.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Jnoh wrote:
    [cue the Camelot dance number from Holy Grail]


    :D

    I LOL'ed.

    /10chars
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I just wanted to point out a few instances of "un-even" nacelle counts.

    The USS Kelvin in JJ Trek

    The instance in Twilight when Enterprise was able to go to warp on 1 nacelle.

    The instance in Year of Hell when Voyager was able to do the same.

    I want to believe in Roddenberry's laws, but the canon seems to be drifting away from them.

    And then there's the instance of the Prometheus's saucer nacelles having 0 line of site.

    And the Melbourne having 2 completely different sized nacelles..tho I'm not sure if that matters.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    ZootCadillac wrote:
    I don't have a problem with the ship. I just follow the logic that as our 'timeline' progresses, the likelihood of it ever being made would be slim. ( if you look at it logically )
    The Galaxy-Class ships were mothballed as being out of date. The Enterprise was refit based on Admiral Riker wanting to make it his personal command ship and to keep it for nostalgia sake, as stated in the episode. There's not a whole fleet of AGT Enterprises running around in that time line. His is the only one.
Sign In or Register to comment.