The Excelsior, in the STO 'verse, is over 100 years old. Yet why is the Galaxy-class inferior to an almost century-old design?
Could be due to the fact that the Excelsior was designed from the beginning to be a testbed for new technologies, and thus easily upgraded, whereas the Galaxy was not.
Could be due to the fact that the Excelsior was designed from the beginning to be a testbed for new technologies, and thus easily upgraded, whereas the Galaxy was not.
You can't really create anything that's a successful testbed for technology 100 years into the future...
First, I'm a carrier captain. Second, I never once complained about the turn rate of cruisers. Third, yes, an "unreal" taunt is exactly what is needed. The reverse of jam sensors and scramble sensors, where you trick their sensors into targeting you for 5 seconds or so. Just enough to take the heat off of a teammate and give some time for heals to land. I don't want it for me, I want it for the health of the game, and to give tanking an actual place in the game.
So much venom, so much assumtion, and so much short-sightedness... Wow you must be fun at parties...
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
So cruiser captains complain about the real physics of Jem Hadar Dreadnought turn rate compared to cruisers yet want an unreal taunt? That just doesn't jive. If you want a taunt so enemies attack the heavily fortified combatant rather than the most threatening combatant for no real reason then play a high fantasy game not Star Trek.
I certainly don't. There seem to be a few people who want old school hard trinity mechanics though.
No, I'm all set with hard trinity mechanics myself as well, but the problem is in PvE we have big ships designed to soak damage, but the system fails because threat mechaincs are not well thought out.
I'm not saying make it so only X can do Y, I'm saying give whomever is chosing to be a tanky type the tools to achive that end.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
The issue of stacking counsles is a debate able I for one dont support the stacking of counsles its one of the reasons PVP dosn't work a Eng. will stack 4 ablative hull plates on his ship so he immune to all but anti proton dmg.
your not suppose to have 4 generators on your ship so you create a super tractor beam.
So cruiser captains complain about the real physics of Jem Hadar Dreadnought turn rate compared to cruisers yet want an unreal taunt? That just doesn't jive. If you want a taunt so enemies attack the heavily fortified combatant rather than the most threatening combatant for no real reason then play a high fantasy game not Star Trek.
If your ship class is designed to be the sci-fi version of the high-fantasy "steady damage long survival tank", then you need all the tools of the job, which includes the traditional "unreal" taunt skill...
Or, just give everyone 5 tac consoles, DHC mounts, and a 25 turn rate...
I'm still trying to come up with the wording of my "17 skills vs. 3 skills + ludicrous HP" concept...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
No, the Galaxy and the Sovereign are REAL flagships, the Oddy is Cryptic's way of trying to get a famous ship of their own to bear the name Enterprise but it fails dismally. Cryptic have always been disrespectful of the Galaxy Class and even the Sovereign to an extent because they know nothing about Star Trek or how to recreate it in a game format. They only do what they think is cool and not what the fans want.
The Oddy is an always will be a bad joke at Cryptic's expense, a ship like that will never bear the name Enterprise.
I don't understand the hate for the Oddyssey class. Sure, it maneuvers about as well as a sleepy Hutt however I rather like the sleek design and the attempt to show the design lineage from the Sovereign.
Typhon Pact timeline is much better then this sorry attempt of a game.
At least Cryptic knew well enough to leave the Breen alone (that is to say, leaving them as a mysterious, enigmatic race). It's a good thing books aren't canon, otherwise the Breen would have been completely ruined.
How the Devs see Star Trek, apparently:
Star Trek: The Original Grind
Star Trek: The Next Grind
Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
The Ody is a fine ship. People hate on her because she is popular, was given away free, has a C-Store version that was considered OP at release due to the uni boffs and having 10 consoles, and is flown by a lot of people who don't know how to fly.
People always like to hate on popularity. It makes it a bit easier to hate when for months you were subjected to every newb and their brother taking skittle-shooting Odys into ESTF and blowing nodes on the wrong side...
A good pilot in an Ody is a wonderful thing. The problem is you always get to see 100s of poorly performing Kirk wannabes instead of that once ace pilot that knows how to make her sing.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
You can't really create anything that's a successful testbed for technology 100 years into the future...
The B-52, man. First built in 1952, the thing is still flying and they intend to keep flying it all the way until the 2040s...and that's pretty much a tentative date: They don't actually have any concrete plan to replace it. It would not come as any surprise if by 2101, they're still using it.
The B-52, man. First built in 1952, the thing is still flying and they intend to keep flying it all the way until the 2040s...and that's pretty much a tentative date: They don't actually have any concrete plan to replace it. It would not come as any surprise if by 2101, they're still using it.
They aren't testing new engines, computer systems, etc. on B-52's, though, which is the point I was refuting.
Operational lifetime is not the same thing was being a testbed for new technologies.
They aren't testing new engines, computer systems, etc. on B-52's, though, which is the point I was refuting.
Operational lifetime is not the same thing was being a testbed for new technologies.
Incorrect, they often test new sensor / radar gear as well as certain ordinance delivery packages. Not too long ago they also planned new retrofits for jamming, long-area 'loitering', and even new engine packages, but these didn't go through because of funding cuts.
Ok , so from time to time I had "nerdy" visitors and when I show them the game , twice I was asked to let them play w/the Galaxy .
I had to tell them that I don't play with that ship .
Then I had to explain why .
Twice .
If Cryptic is really "trolling" us with the gimped Tac stats of the Galaxy ... -- they are actually trolling themselves in a way , as in "better Galaxy = more players" .
But then again who would buy all those lockbox ships if ppl were happy with what they have ... ?
Oh , and if anyone thinks Cryptic incapable of "trolling" , look up the "king of Tank's" in STO's first 2 years of existence .
It's a 100 year old ship called Excelsior (w/borg set) . :P
Ok , so from time to time I had "nerdy" visitors and when I show them the game , twice I was asked to let them play w/the Galaxy .
I had to tell them that I don't play with that ship .
Then I had to explain why .
Twice .
If Cryptic is really "trolling" us with the gimped Tac stats of the Galaxy ... -- they are actually trolling themselves in a way , as in "better Galaxy = more players" .
But then again who would buy all those lockbox ships if ppl were happy with what they have ... ?
Oh , and if anyone thinks Cryptic incapable of "trolling" , look up the "king of Tank's" in STO's first 2 years of existence .
It's a 100 year old ship called Excelsior (w/borg set) . :P
Don't kid yourself. Full fleet Galaxy-R with Venture skin is 4000 Zen. Maybe not exactly lockbox value. But certainly more than single Oddysey (2500 Zen). Also Venture is 25th design, so there goes the excuse "its old design".
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
The only one to appear on screen was the Galaxy Dreadnought, but several references have been made to them having 3 nacelles. Also a book written in the 80's called Dreadnought! details a 3 nacelled TOS era vessel.
So there a bunch of books where a dreadnought that had 3 nacelles, so a ship with 3 nacelles is a dreadnought...?
That's not logic that's stupid.
The B-52, man. First built in 1952, the thing is still flying and they intend to keep flying it all the way until the 2040s...and that's pretty much a tentative date: They don't actually have any concrete plan to replace it. It would not come as any surprise if by 2101, they're still using it.
The B-52 is a strategic bomber.
The mission profile of a strategic bomber is to enter an area AFTER air superiority is achieved and surface to air defenses have been eliminated.
Whcih means at that point there is nothing there that can harm the B-52.
That means something else is sent in earlier (actually into harm's way) to clear the area of enemy fighters ans SAMS.
Guess what...that is not done by fighters and fighter-bombers that are from the 1950's.
Why? Because it would be suicidal unless you're fighting some guys on donkeys with an RPG.
In Star Trek, the ships are not comparable to the B-52, they are comparable to the fighters that are actually sent into harm's way are actually going to get shot at.
You don't get it, let my try again.
I buy my beer in bottles.
Does that mean every bottle I buy contains beer?
No, I also buy orange juice in bottles.
That's why reverse logic doesn't always work.
If you really want to mix things up, what about the ST:VOY episode called "Dreadnought", that was smaller than than the Intrepid class and more powerful.
Still, this is a game, leave logic at the login screen as it has no place in the game lol
If you really want to mix things up, what about the ST:VOY episode called "Dreadnought", that was smaller than than the Intrepid class and more powerful.
Still, this is a game, leave logic at the login screen as it has no place in the game lol
Even better: it was a suicide missile better armed than any Cardassian warship we've ever seen.
It was even armed with Quantum Torpeodes (always wondered by the Mquis never bothered to just strip it of those weapons and use them for themselves).
But to be fair, "Dreadnought" was just the name it was given by the Maquis, not the supposed class of that thing.
No ship should have 3 Ensign Engineering BOFF slots until something is done about Ensign Engineering BOFF abilities.
We're talking about Dreadnoughts and Tac consoles, not Engineering Boffs. Wrong thread
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
We're talking about Dreadnoughts and Tac consoles, not Engineering Boffs. Wrong thread
In regard to the Ambassador vs. Galaxy... you're looking at 3 Ensign Engineering BOFFs on the Galaxy (as well as the reduced Tac console). So it's not just the Tac consoles that is reducing the effective firepower of the Galaxy vs. the Ambassador - it's also those Engineering Ensign BOFF abilities.
Were there additional abilities - were you able to slot something else higher because of that - you might be able to balance around the additional Tac console the Ambassador has over the Galaxy. Since that's not the case, it makes the additional Tac console issue that much worse.
So I wouldn't say it was the wrong thread...rather a case of the Tac console not being the only limiting factor involved. A 2 Tac console Sci Vessel with 3 Ensign Sci BOFFs is going to have more balancing options than a 2 Tac console Cruiser with 3 Ensign Eng BOFFs...
...having one less Tac console might not be as bad, if there was simply more you could do with the Eng BOFFs on the boat than you currently can.
Whenever Worf wanted to show off the Enterprise D firepower, Picard always denied him.
But, the Enterprise D was known for taking hits, so it was a tank in TNG.:D
That was until Star Trek Generations. Starfleet figured The Galaxy was way too OP and desdided to Nerf it to the point where a few Proton Torps from a Old as dirt Bird of Prey was able to disrupt the Anti mater containment field to destroy the ship.
That was until Star Trek Generations. Starfleet figured The Galaxy was way too OP and desdided to Nerf it to the point where a few Proton Torps from a Old as dirt Bird of Prey was able to disrupt the Anti mater containment field to destroy the ship.
Well, multiple disruptor and pohton torpedo strikes to your Star Drive section (where your Warp Core and the fuel storages are housed) will do that to your ship... especially when said BoP can IGNORE your shield.
This entire thread is total nonsense but this comment tops the whole lot.
I think neo meant if its not on TV it is not canon, but who knows what is going on in this guys head. Either way its nonsense.
Just because the TV series does not show Janeway coming out of her mothers you know what, it does not mean that the character was not born in the world of Star Trek. You not learn any logic from Spok?
The rest of you guys struggling to build a good cruiser then? lol
And that they don't want the Exploration cruiser line to be effective. Because of Ambassador.
I'd like Cryptic to comment on this decision; that the Galaxy class is now weaker combat-wise to not one, but both of the ships preceding it.
I don't think Cryptic hates the Galaxy class, but I do think they love to troll everyone who loves that ship.
I was just wondering... Would you please tell me where Cryptic stated that they don't want the Exploration Cruiser to be "effective"?? And what did they say it wasn't supposed to be effective doing?
The T5 Ambassador class has three tactical consoles over the Galaxy's two, yet the Ambassador is classified as a "support cruiser" with a Lt. Cmdr science boff.
Tacit admission.
I really think you're grasping at straws for this. "They changed the layout therefore they admit the old layout was TRIBBLE". If there was a quote somewhere of a dev saying "we wanted the ambassador to be effective for dps so we gave it 3 tac consoles" or something to that effect i could see your point of 3 consoles being needed to be effective. But this argument seems like something from glenn becks chalkboard
Ignorance is an obstacle not an excuse
Let the stupid suffer
Hrmmm, so I wouldn't say that Cryptic has tacitly said that you need 3 Tac consoles to be effective. I'd say they've blatantly said that the Exploration Cruiser is a Star Cruiser variant (an Eng variant to elaborate)...which should have been obvious - but maybe this will help point that out. You'll note that there's even a 3 Tac console version of the Odyssey - a Tactical variant. You go from the Odyssey Star Cruiser to the Odyssey Tactical Cruiser. Kind of like going from an Exploration Cruiser to a Dreadnought Cruiser, eh? Course, they could probably add a Fleet Dreadnought Cruiser...
Rear Admiral
Advanced Heavy Retrofit X, X, X X, X, X, X
X, X
X X, X 3 - 4 - 2
Assault Cruiser X, X
X X, X, X, X
X, X, X X, X 3 - 4 - 2
Star Cruiser X, X X, X, X, X
X, X, X X, X
X 2 - 4 - 3
Support Cruiser Retrofit X, X
X X, X, X, X
X, X X, X, X 3 - 4 - 2
Vice Admiral
Assault Cruiser Refit X, X, X
X X, X, X, X
X, X X, X 3 - 4 - 2
Dreadnought Cruiser X, X
X X, X, X, X
X, X, X X, X 3 - 4 - 2
Exploration Cruiser Retrofit X, X X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X X, X 2 - 4 - 3
Odyssey Operations Cruiser X, X X, X, X, X X, X X, X, X
X 2 - 5 - 3
Odyssey Science Cruiser X, X X, X, X, X X, X X, X, X
X 2 - 4 - 4
Odyssey Tactical Cruiser X, X X, X, X, X X, X X, X, X
X 3 - 4 - 3
Fleet
Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit X, X, X X, X, X, X
X, X
X X, X 4 - 4 - 2
Fleet Assault Cruiser X, X, X
X X, X, X, X
X, X X, X 4 - 4 - 2
Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit X, X X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X X, X 2 - 5 - 3
Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit X, X
X X, X, X, X
X, X, X X, X 3 - 4 - 3
Fleet Star Cruiser X, X X, X, X, X
X, X, X X, X
X 2 - 4 - 4
Heavy Cruiser Retrofit X, X
X X, X, X, X
X, X, X X, X 2 - 4 - 3
Odyssey Star Cruiser X, X X, X, X, X X, X
X X, X, X 2 - 4 - 3
Comments
Could be due to the fact that the Excelsior was designed from the beginning to be a testbed for new technologies, and thus easily upgraded, whereas the Galaxy was not.
You can't really create anything that's a successful testbed for technology 100 years into the future...
So much venom, so much assumtion, and so much short-sightedness... Wow you must be fun at parties...
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
I certainly don't. There seem to be a few people who want old school hard trinity mechanics though.
I'm not saying make it so only X can do Y, I'm saying give whomever is chosing to be a tanky type the tools to achive that end.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
your not suppose to have 4 generators on your ship so you create a super tractor beam.
If your ship class is designed to be the sci-fi version of the high-fantasy "steady damage long survival tank", then you need all the tools of the job, which includes the traditional "unreal" taunt skill...
Or, just give everyone 5 tac consoles, DHC mounts, and a 25 turn rate...
I'm still trying to come up with the wording of my "17 skills vs. 3 skills + ludicrous HP" concept...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
I don't understand the hate for the Oddyssey class. Sure, it maneuvers about as well as a sleepy Hutt however I rather like the sleek design and the attempt to show the design lineage from the Sovereign.
To each his own, I guess.
At least Cryptic knew well enough to leave the Breen alone (that is to say, leaving them as a mysterious, enigmatic race). It's a good thing books aren't canon, otherwise the Breen would have been completely ruined.
Star Trek: The Original Grind
Star Trek: The Next Grind
Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
People always like to hate on popularity. It makes it a bit easier to hate when for months you were subjected to every newb and their brother taking skittle-shooting Odys into ESTF and blowing nodes on the wrong side...
A good pilot in an Ody is a wonderful thing. The problem is you always get to see 100s of poorly performing Kirk wannabes instead of that once ace pilot that knows how to make her sing.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
They aren't testing new engines, computer systems, etc. on B-52's, though, which is the point I was refuting.
Operational lifetime is not the same thing was being a testbed for new technologies.
Incorrect, they often test new sensor / radar gear as well as certain ordinance delivery packages. Not too long ago they also planned new retrofits for jamming, long-area 'loitering', and even new engine packages, but these didn't go through because of funding cuts.
I had to tell them that I don't play with that ship .
Then I had to explain why .
Twice .
If Cryptic is really "trolling" us with the gimped Tac stats of the Galaxy ... -- they are actually trolling themselves in a way , as in "better Galaxy = more players" .
But then again who would buy all those lockbox ships if ppl were happy with what they have ... ?
Oh , and if anyone thinks Cryptic incapable of "trolling" , look up the "king of Tank's" in STO's first 2 years of existence .
It's a 100 year old ship called Excelsior (w/borg set) . :P
Don't kid yourself. Full fleet Galaxy-R with Venture skin is 4000 Zen. Maybe not exactly lockbox value. But certainly more than single Oddysey (2500 Zen). Also Venture is 25th design, so there goes the excuse "its old design".
So there a bunch of books where a dreadnought that had 3 nacelles, so a ship with 3 nacelles is a dreadnought...?
That's not logic that's stupid.
It was on TV, not just in books. Check out the last episode of TNG
You don't get it, let my try again.
I buy my beer in bottles.
Does that mean every bottle I buy contains beer?
No, I also buy orange juice in bottles.
That's why reverse logic doesn't always work.
The B-52 is a strategic bomber.
The mission profile of a strategic bomber is to enter an area AFTER air superiority is achieved and surface to air defenses have been eliminated.
Whcih means at that point there is nothing there that can harm the B-52.
That means something else is sent in earlier (actually into harm's way) to clear the area of enemy fighters ans SAMS.
Guess what...that is not done by fighters and fighter-bombers that are from the 1950's.
Why? Because it would be suicidal unless you're fighting some guys on donkeys with an RPG.
In Star Trek, the ships are not comparable to the B-52, they are comparable to the fighters that are actually sent into harm's way are actually going to get shot at.
If you really want to mix things up, what about the ST:VOY episode called "Dreadnought", that was smaller than than the Intrepid class and more powerful.
Still, this is a game, leave logic at the login screen as it has no place in the game lol
Even better: it was a suicide missile better armed than any Cardassian warship we've ever seen.
It was even armed with Quantum Torpeodes (always wondered by the Mquis never bothered to just strip it of those weapons and use them for themselves).
But to be fair, "Dreadnought" was just the name it was given by the Maquis, not the supposed class of that thing.
We're talking about Dreadnoughts and Tac consoles, not Engineering Boffs. Wrong thread
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
In regard to the Ambassador vs. Galaxy... you're looking at 3 Ensign Engineering BOFFs on the Galaxy (as well as the reduced Tac console). So it's not just the Tac consoles that is reducing the effective firepower of the Galaxy vs. the Ambassador - it's also those Engineering Ensign BOFF abilities.
Were there additional abilities - were you able to slot something else higher because of that - you might be able to balance around the additional Tac console the Ambassador has over the Galaxy. Since that's not the case, it makes the additional Tac console issue that much worse.
So I wouldn't say it was the wrong thread...rather a case of the Tac console not being the only limiting factor involved. A 2 Tac console Sci Vessel with 3 Ensign Sci BOFFs is going to have more balancing options than a 2 Tac console Cruiser with 3 Ensign Eng BOFFs...
...having one less Tac console might not be as bad, if there was simply more you could do with the Eng BOFFs on the boat than you currently can.
Simple as that...
That was until Star Trek Generations. Starfleet figured The Galaxy was way too OP and desdided to Nerf it to the point where a few Proton Torps from a Old as dirt Bird of Prey was able to disrupt the Anti mater containment field to destroy the ship.
This entire thread is total nonsense but this comment tops the whole lot.
I think neo meant if its not on TV it is not canon, but who knows what is going on in this guys head. Either way its nonsense.
Just because the TV series does not show Janeway coming out of her mothers you know what, it does not mean that the character was not born in the world of Star Trek. You not learn any logic from Spok?
The rest of you guys struggling to build a good cruiser then? lol
I was just wondering... Would you please tell me where Cryptic stated that they don't want the Exploration Cruiser to be "effective"?? And what did they say it wasn't supposed to be effective doing?
[/SIGPIC]
I would still like the source for this admission.
Let the stupid suffer
I really think you're grasping at straws for this. "They changed the layout therefore they admit the old layout was TRIBBLE". If there was a quote somewhere of a dev saying "we wanted the ambassador to be effective for dps so we gave it 3 tac consoles" or something to that effect i could see your point of 3 consoles being needed to be effective. But this argument seems like something from glenn becks chalkboard
Let the stupid suffer
Rear Admiral
Advanced Heavy Retrofit
X, X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X
X, X
3 - 4 - 2
Assault Cruiser
X, X
X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
3 - 4 - 2
Star Cruiser
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
X
2 - 4 - 3
Support Cruiser Retrofit
X, X
X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X, X
3 - 4 - 2
Vice Admiral
Assault Cruiser Refit
X, X, X
X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X
3 - 4 - 2
Dreadnought Cruiser
X, X
X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
3 - 4 - 2
Exploration Cruiser Retrofit
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X
X, X
2 - 4 - 3
Odyssey Operations Cruiser
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X, X
X
2 - 5 - 3
Odyssey Science Cruiser
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X, X
X
2 - 4 - 4
Odyssey Tactical Cruiser
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X, X
X
3 - 4 - 3
Fleet
Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit
X, X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X
X, X
4 - 4 - 2
Fleet Assault Cruiser
X, X, X
X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X
4 - 4 - 2
Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X
X, X
2 - 5 - 3
Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit
X, X
X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
3 - 4 - 3
Fleet Star Cruiser
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
X
2 - 4 - 4
Heavy Cruiser Retrofit
X, X
X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
2 - 4 - 3
Odyssey Star Cruiser
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X
X, X, X
2 - 4 - 3