test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Dreadnought inaccuracy

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I just spent 25$ for that fancy new dreadnought ship, only to be a bit dissapointed...

for starters, it is alot more sluggish compared to my Sovereign ship.
and, it only has 3 weapon slots in the back [the term dreadnought literally means the largest and most powerful of its kind... making it have less weapons than another ship that is "supposedly" weaker is kinda contradicting]
Dreadnoughts are used in war also, so, why drop that extra tactical slot??? Seriously! I mean, c'mon... its hard to fight so well when you have loads of weapons, but no consoles to boost them.

to continue on that missing rear weapon slot, It just seams logical to keep it there. 4 fore weapons, 4 aft weapons. simple logic, and what is even more logical is that since a 3rd nacelle is added, shouldnt that make it possible for 4 weapon slots hands down? I mean, cmon. u can stick a phaser array around the rear pylon of the 3rd nacelle easily!

Another thing that might be nice... since in ST: TNG: All Good Things... they had access to warp 13+, why not give the dreadnought at LEAST a small boost in sector warp speed... would make getting around easier

now to move back to that sluggish turning rate. The Dreadnought has 4 noticeable impulse stacks, so I think it should maneuver aLOT better at sub-light speed. And, i kno its kinda late, with season 2 coming out tomorrow, but how about adding a captain skill tree slot specifically for the new dreadnought, and make the star/assault cruiser slots give 25% boost also. that way it could be improved at turning and hull strength.

Ok, that phaser lancer is Awesome. but, there are 2 things I want to point out. 2 minute recharge time? c'mon... thats quite awhile... I mean, in All Good Things Admiral Riker was firing several shots at that klingon ship in a matter of seconds. I kno, it could get unbalanced firing that often, but at LEAST make it possible to decrease the 2min time by skill tree or something...
And, as awesome as it is, I still think it could use some more power... unless a ship's shields are almost completely drained, it hardly scratches them. In All Good Things the lancer sliced right thru the shields and pierced holes in the enemy ships easily.

Cloak, awesome. glad you finally added it cryptic.

Since the term Dreadnought, IMO that is, isnt to be taken lightly, why do I get the feeling this is just a star trek fanatic's dream ship rather than a REAL dreadnought? It is awesome, i will say that, but I think that it could be more... "dreadnought-ish"
Why not give it a 5% damage boost built right in, or maybe increase max power levels from 125 to like, 150 or something?
I just hope that in season 2, or season 2.2 or something they will add some real dreadnought like updates to the ship.

basically to sum it all up, I paid 25$ for the dreadnought, and I want it to be worth it. make the dreadnought TRULY a dreadnought, and not just comparable to the Assault Cruiser [which I find the 2 have equal amounts of pros/cons]
I want to be able to sit down in the dreadnoughts captain's chair and say "this is a significantly more powerful ship than the previous cruiser"

PLZ consider cryptic, I just hope that any future dreadnoughts arent this weak... honestly, I dont find much of a difference between the dreadnought and a sovereign. both are about equally effective in battle.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    You might wanna check on the gaziillion threads about this ship before posting another one. And please consider that the ship is not meant to be better than other t5 ships, just different. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Maybe you're not clear on what it is.

    It's not an admiral-tiered ship. It's a captain-tiered ship with some pretty nifty extra features.

    There are going to be a whole bunch more ships like this introduced when Season 2 drops. The new ships are basically one tier behind the top, but each has special abilities that make up for that. Obviously, these ships will not be the best at everything, but for the right situations, very useful.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Ashur1 wrote:
    You might wanna check on the gaziillion threads about this ship before posting another one. And please consider that the ship is not meant to be better than other t5 ships, just different. :)

    thats another problem. a Dreadnought isnt, or at least shouldnt be comparable to a battleship. It should be Greatly increased in weapons performance and any tactical area.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Benfea wrote: »
    Maybe you're not clear on what it is.

    It's not an admiral-tiered ship. It's a captain-tiered ship with some pretty nifty extra features.

    There are going to be a whole bunch more ships like this introduced when Season 2 drops. The new ships are basically one tier behind the top, but each has special abilities that make up for that. Obviously, these ships will not be the best at everything, but for the right situations, very useful.

    another thing there... captains werent given dreadnoughts. admirals were.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    thats another problem. a Dreadnought isnt, or at least shouldnt be comparable to a battleship. It should be Greatly increased in weapons performance and any tactical area.

    Maybe it should, but it isn´t. Detailed information about this ship and it´s (supposed) less than satisfactory performance was and is available on the forum. Unfortunately many players were under the impression that the Galaxy X would be the "flying Death Star of Doom". :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Ashur1 wrote:
    Maybe it should, but it isn´t. Detailed information about this ship and it´s (supposed) less than satisfactory performance was and is available on the forum. Unfortunately many players were under the impression that the Galaxy X would be the "flying Death Star of Doom". :)

    u might say i was fooled by that also... but cmon, this is a MMO, it is prone to updates. thats the whole reason i made this thread, so that cryptic would listen, and hopefully consider.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    another thing there... captains werent given dreadnoughts. admirals were.

    Stop fixating on the word "dreadnought".

    Did you even watch the episode the Galaxy-X comes from? By that time, the Enterprise-D was old and slated to be decommissioned. Admiral Riker pulled strings to keep it from the mothball fleet and had a bunch of alterations made to it (cloaking device, huge cannon, etc.). It was still an ancient outdated design by then, but it was an ancient outdated design with some nifty features added on, and that's exactly what you get in the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Dreadnought inaccuracy

    So what's the inaccuracy? I read your entire post and just found you citing examples of the ship's loadout and stats.

    All of it is pretty accurate. It's a galaxy class starship that can cloak and fire off a super phaser once every two minutes.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Also, 'Galaxy-X Dreadnought' is a fan name. It's not a canon name. Why do Trek fans call it a dreadnought? Because it has three warp nacelles. That is the criteria for calling something a dreadnought in Star Trek.

    See, back in 1975, a Trek fan wrote the Star Fleet Technical Manual (yes, 'Star Fleet', not 'Starfleet'). Roddenberry, Trek's creator, liked the guy's work and supported him. It had a bunch of new ship designs.

    Now, one of the ships the guy came up was the Federation-class dreadnought. Yeah, it was supposed to be more powerful than the canon Constitution-class ship...but the distinctive thing about it was it had three warp nacelles, not two.

    Yeah, the thinking is that an extra engine nacelle means it's more awesome. But really, it's called 'dreadnought' because Trek fans have been calling any three-nacelled ship a dreadnought since 1975.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Also, I'd like to point out to you that the term "Dreadnought" refers to a type of Battleship, the design lineage of which goes back to the first of that type of Battleship ever to be built...HMS Dreadnought. Hence the term "Dreadnought Battleship" for every Battleship that came after HMS Dreadnought, and "Pre-Dreadnought Battleship" for every Battleship that came before her.

    So your assertion that a Dreadnought isn't a Battleship is just factually incorrect. A Dreadnought, by definition, is a Battleship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    navyjames wrote: »
    Also, I'd like to point out to you that the term "Dreadnought" refers to a type of Battleship, the design lineage of which goes back to the first of that type of Battleship ever to be built...HMS Dreadnought. Hence the term "Dreadnought Battleship" for every Battleship that came after HMS Dreadnought, and "Pre-Dreadnought Battleship" for every Battleship that came before her.

    So your assertion that a Dreadnought isn't a Battleship is just factually incorrect. A Dreadnought, by definition, is a Battleship.

    I can just see it ... the next STO mini-game!

    Commander Kor: D-7
    Captain Kirk: You Warp Core Breached my Dreadnought!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I think the OP needs to learn a bit about Dreadnoughts so.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought

    Personaly I think Cryptic got it very right for the AGT ship. The OP also fails to take into account that the ship is designed to be part of the T5 ship collection and should not be to overpowered especialy as there is no counter balance available for the Klingons yet.

    I do agree that it should be able to gain from the skill tree in the same way all other ship classes do but that is the only area where I think he got it right. Taking away one of the rear weapons slots but adding the Lance is a small price to pay for such a powerfull weapon.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    I can just see it ... the next STO mini-game!

    Commander Kor: D-7
    Captain Kirk: You Warp Core Breached my Dreadnought!

    Commander Kor: No, you did...along with my boarding party.

    ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    well the definition of a dreadnought is this "A battleship armed with six or more guns having calibers of 12 inches or more" so 4 on the front 3 on the back thats 7 therefore more than 6. also as many of my leaned colleagues have pointed out yet the dreadnought is a type of battle ship. it fact during the first world war the dreadnought was the run of the mill battleship and therefore was not the best. also there is another class called the super dreadnought which i think you may find is bigger and better.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    And, as awesome as it is, I still think it could use some more power... unless a ship's shields are almost completely drained, it hardly scratches them. In All Good Things the lancer sliced right thru the shields and pierced holes in the enemy ships easily.
    it's a high grade beam overload with terrible aim. it has good damage.

    if you want to get Riker-levels of pwn you need to be a tactical captain and stack damage skills on it xD
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    DeadlyShoe wrote:
    it's a high grade beam overload with terrible aim. it has good damage.

    if you want to get Riker-levels of pwn you need to be a tactical captain and stack damage skills on it xD

    Thats the same Riker who whenever left in control of the normal enterprise got it blown up/damaged... yeah he realy pwn'd his opponents

    /sarcasm off
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    kalic89 wrote:
    well the definition of a dreadnought is this "A battleship armed with six or more guns having calibers of 12 inches or more" so 4 on the front 3 on the back thats 7 therefore more than 6. also as many of my leaned colleagues have pointed out yet the dreadnought is a type of battle ship. it fact during the first world war the dreadnought was the run of the mill battleship and therefore was not the best. also there is another class called the super dreadnought which i think you may find is bigger and better.

    And the Super Dreadnoughts were phased out when the Aircraft Carrier became the strongest ship, so yeah I don't think the Galaxy-X needs any changes.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    ELITE-Kaos wrote: »
    Thats the same Riker who whenever left in control of the normal enterprise got it blown up/damaged... yeah he realy pwn'd his opponents

    /sarcasm off

    BoBW he pretty much saved the entire Federation while in command of the E-D.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I do quite fine in my Dreadnaught in pvp. The Alpha strike it can do is quite devastating, and if you'r speced to tank it's still a very good ship, I rarely ever die.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    If they were super pwns in a can every fed cap would be flying around in one :rolleyes:
    We can only hope cryptic leaves it well enough alone
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Reading is fundimental.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Thats the same Riker who whenever left in control of the normal enterprise got it blown up/damaged...
    tac captains, what can you expect.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    DeadlyShoe wrote:
    tac captains, what can you expect.

    Since when was Riker a 'tac captain'? I thought that in canon Star Trek, all Captains were just 'Captains', and belonged to the 'Command' division - no 'Tactical/Engineering/Science' about it.

    It's bad enough that STO has to reduce everything to 'DPS/Tank/Healer' in this fashion, but it really irks me when STO players see someone like Tom Paris in a red uniform and assume he's a 'Tactical Officer', when he's actually a helmsman/flight controller, and thus has nothing to do with Security or similar.

    It's not the players' fault, of course - it's just an annoying reminder that things work one way in Star Trek, and then in a fundamentally different way in Star Trek Online. :(
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    After reading this i would refer to my "LMAO at the GalaxyX thread", but that was closed...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Wah wah.. My ship isn't as awesome as i wanted it to be! It should be the pwnzor but in reality it's essentially worse than any other fed ship...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Since when was Riker a 'tac captain'? I thought that in canon Star Trek, all Captains were just 'Captains', and belonged to the 'Command' division - no 'Tactical/Engineering/Science' about it.

    It's bad enough that STO has to reduce everything to 'DPS/Tank/Healer' in this fashion, but it really irks me when STO players see someone like Tom Paris in a red uniform and assume he's a 'Tactical Officer', when he's actually a helmsman/flight controller, and thus has nothing to do with Security or similar.

    It's not the players' fault, of course - it's just an annoying reminder that things work one way in Star Trek, and then in a fundamentally different way in Star Trek Online. :(

    I don't know about Riker being a tac captain or not, but wouldn't someone being a tac/eng/sci captain really have to do with their course of study on their way to being a captain? So while they don't label them as such, for instance Janeway would be a Sci Captain as she had a scientific background on her way to being a captain, or Geordi in future versions (Like VOY: Timeless) would be an Eng Captain?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Captains come from different areas of expertise, Piccard was a science captain (if you take him at face value as well as the episode where Q showed him what his life would be like if he hadn't of gotten stabbed) Janeway is complicated tbh, she knew tons about engineering she was always down there but she was also very good at science as well. Riker was most certainly a Tactical captain. They are all captains but they all come from different expertises on their route to becoming a captain.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Sorry, but no, for two reasons:

    1. Using the alt. future versions as examples, when an officer becomes a Captain in Starfleet, whatever their previous career, they switch to the Command division (red uniforms in TNG), with all the duties and responsibilites therein. It's not called the 'Command' division for nothing! ;) Hence why both LaForge and Crusher both wore red uniforms in 'Timeless' and 'All Good Things', respectively. As 'Captains', they would have been operating in exactly the same way as Picard, Kirk, Sisko or any other Captain, because that's their duty - NOT going off and doing whatever it was they did before becoming Captain. That's what people like 'Chief Engineers' and 'Chief Medical Officers' are for... :rolleyes:

    So yeah, regardless of what expertise a Captain might have from their years of service, in practical terms, a Captain is a Captain is a Captain. Once you sit in the big chair, all other concerns are secondary to being in charge.


    2. More crucially, 'Tactical captains' are an invention of STO, and never existed in canon Star Trek! Again, let me repeat - the canon divisions are Command, Sciences and Operations. Arguing that Riker was a 'Tac Captain' or Janeway was a 'Sci Captain' is a case of the proverbial "tail wagging the dog" - sure, you can guess as to which STO class they'd fit into best, but don't start arguing that they were actually in those classes, since, as I said they don't canonically exist.

    To use a similar example, many Star Wars RPGs use the 'Consular/Sentinel/Guardian' class system for Jedi, including those seen on-screen. However, while you can say that 'in SWG, Luke Skywalker is a Jedi Guardian' and that'd be ok, to argue that he was one in the movies themselves is just completely wrong, since the classes were invented AFTER the movies, and thus weren't a factor when the films were originally mades. See what I mean?


    (Oh, and let's not use 'Tapestry' as an example of why Picard would be a 'science captain' - in the main timeline where he got stabbed, he wasn't in the 'Science' division. Instead, he served as Flight Controller on the Stargazer - a post in the 'Command' division. Look it up - Memory-Alpha.org is your friend! :D )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    the canon divisions are Command, Sciences and Operations.

    You left out security. Which is listed as its own division in the Star Trek Encyclopedia (both editions that I have). And even has its own, dark green, color scheme in the Wrath of Khan to Undiscovered Country era of uniforms.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Sorry, but no, for two reasons:

    1. Using the alt. future versions as examples, when an officer becomes a Captain in Starfleet, whatever their previous career, they switch to the Command division (red uniforms in TNG), with all the duties and responsibilites therein. It's not called the 'Command' division for nothing! ;) Hence why both LaForge and Crusher both wore red uniforms in 'Timeless' and 'All Good Things', respectively. As 'Captains', they would have been operating in exactly the same way as Picard, Kirk, Sisko or any other Captain, because that's their duty - NOT going off and doing whatever it was they did before becoming Captain. That's what people like 'Chief Engineers' and 'Chief Medical Officers' are for... :rolleyes:

    So yeah, regardless of what expertise a Captain might have from their years of service, in practical terms, a Captain is a Captain is a Captain. Once you sit in the big chair, all other concerns are secondary to being in charge.


    2. More crucially, 'Tactical captains' are an invention STO, and never existed in canon Star Trek! Again, let me repeat - the canon divisions are Command, Sciences and Operations. Arguing that Riker was a 'Tac Captain' or Janeway was a 'Sci Captain' is a case of the proverbial "tail wagging the dog" - sure, you can guess as to which STO class they'd fit into best, but don't start arguing that they were actually in those classes, since, as I said they don't canonically exist.

    To use a similar example, many Star Wars RPGs use the 'Consular/Sentinel/Guardian' class system for Jedi, including those seen on-screen. However, while you can say that 'in SWG, Luke Skywalker is a Jedi Guardian' and that'd be ok, to argue that he was one in the movies themselves is just completely wrong, since the classes were invented AFTER the movies, and thus weren't a factor when the films were originally mades. See what I mean?


    (Oh, and let's not use 'Tapestry' as an example of why Picard would be a 'science captain' - in the main timeline where he got stabbed, he wasn't in the 'Science' division. Instead, he served as Flight Controller on the Stargazer - a post in the 'Command' division. Look it up - Memory-Alpha.org is your friend! :D )

    You're taking things a little to literal. We never said they were actual classes, only how you could describe each captain.
Sign In or Register to comment.