Originally Posted by supergirl1611 View Post
The Defiant during peacetime is a waste of resources to construct in large numbers....
I must disagree, a large number of Defiant class ships would serve to make those peace times last longer.
The Galaxy was/is a battleship. Not the love boat some people seem to think of her....
No, it was a FAMILY cruise liner, fun for the kids and the adults! Love boat sounds so tawdry....
I'm on the wagon for giving cruisers teeth and making them the ship of the line they have always been in Star Trek
Its been going on for a while, learn to love Aux2Batt.
Haven't you read anything on the last 100 pages?
The Galaxy Class is already a Battleship, the Ent-D was outfitted for Diplomatic/Scientific missions, but on several ocasions it was even then reffered as Battleship.
Not even Picard (in his diplomatic times) wanted to have kids on board, Starfleet Command never intended the Enterprise to get into Combat situations in the first place.
Strongest Weapons, Strongest Shields, most powerful Warp reactor, that's what some would call a Battleship. On the other hand a small nimble ship, outfittet with the heaviest weapons and shields, in short a jetfighter Battleship (defiant) is just a childish concept by the producers of DS9 IMHO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
...
eh, even i would say thats a bit unfair to the defiant. and why i call it a corvette.
corvettes being to frigates/light destroyers what a "pocket battleship" is to a full battleship.
keep the heavier guns/armour/engines of a frigate/light destroyer, and squeeze them into a smaller size vessel, and you have a corvette.
If it only had Frigate/light Destroyer equivalent weapons, but the Defiant in STO has acess to weapons far heavier than a Galaxy Class
It features much heavier weapons than a ship 6 times the size, in my opinion that's just rediculus.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
If we are going to debate Defiant here is my two cents.
First she was a failed prototype of the idea of shoehorning a bigger ship's fire power into a small package.
I think tactically the idea would have been closer to a system defense boat as opposed to a full capital ship.
She had bare minimum bunking, food services, and medical facilities. That means they intended for her to be tied to those services regularly. What was one of the lines often used on Kirk and his enterprise? You are the only ship in range. When ever DS9 needed help. Oh we can have a few ships to you in a few days.
But have one to three Defiant's in key systems and you can cut response time to hours or minutes. It does not handle any role but fast responder. Bolster the fleet and intercept aggressors.
If I was asked who would win a regular Defiant (As in no cloak) versus the Enterprise D, I would say the Enterprise. Not for plot armour, but for staying power. Better shields, larger power core so it can sustain fire. And I did not see many if any clips of Defiant firing in any arc but forward. So it races in, Lays on a barrage and flees no longer shooting. While the cruiser keeps tearing up her shields and then hull with a huge arc of phaser beams.
Based on observed fire and intentions. I would hazard that Enterprise would be hurt after the fight but Defiant would be dead. Three of Defiant and that reverses, in my opinion.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I wonder, why do so few people seem to take offence on Cryptics militarized Trek...
Apparently, for many people Star Trek was just another action SciFi show without appreciating it's true "virtues" like tolerance towards alien cultures, strange and thrilling storys, the human aspect, questions of cooperation between people and so on.
For me Star Trek never was a pure action show, other shows or Sci fi universes did that part much better, Star Trek was more mature IMO.
Apparently most people don't see Trek as i do. Trek became more and more superficial which is apprently easier to comprehend and more popular.
To be honest i don't like that kind of Trek at all.
If you look at the current voting, TNG is 2nd last. I mean alone this speaks for itself.
What such an result will mean for a reworked Galaxy Class and future Star Trek should be clear.
Personally i'm going to draw the consequences from that.
Ummm... how much fun would you actually have doing stellar chartography and diplomacy missions most of the time in a Star Trek game? How about performing that level 5 diagnostic? Perhaps the makers of Puzzle Pirates could make a Star Trek MMO?
The reason why STO is "militaristic" is because people are looking for action and excitement, combat does that, not a game rife with diplomatic negotiations and similar peaceful actions. No matter the original meaning of Star Trek, peaceful exploration does not make for a good game. When they made the Starfleet Battles tabletop game in the '70s, it was about combat as well(go Jindarians!) Should we shun that while we are at it?
This talk of Dominion war ships reminds me of this post, which makes a VERY good point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoggymack22 View Post
Captain Charlie Reynolds, commanding officer of the USS Centaur, a Miranda VARIANT since this game launched, was a key player in the Dominion War, and was able to go toe to toe with a JHAS, the best statted ship in all of STO.
So no, it's not a stretch at all. Deep Space Nine had the Centaur stand tall and kick butt. Against a ship that this game has seen fit to make one of the most powerful in the galaxy.
So a T5 Fleet Variant of the Miranda with a special Centaur Skin paying homage to Captain Reynolds in much the same way this game decided to beef up and pay homage to the Lakota, would not be a stretch. At all.
/end debate
Kind of puts things into perspective, doesn't it.
Charlie Reynolds was a minor player at best.
And he went "toe to toe" with a ship that was currently being commanded by Sisko.
In addition to that, he was only ever mentioned after in the books.
In the books a Galaxy class can use it's saucer to cut through a D'Deridex's neck with minimal to no damage...
Ummm... how much fun would you actually have doing stellar chartography and diplomacy missions most of the time in a Star Trek game? How about performing that level 5 diagnostic? Perhaps the makers of Puzzle Pirates could make a Star Trek MMO?
The reason why STO is "militaristic" is because people are looking for action and excitement, combat does that, not a game rife with diplomatic negotiations and similar peaceful actions. No matter the original meaning of Star Trek, peaceful exploration does not make for a good game. When they made the Starfleet Battles tabletop game in the '70s, it was about combat as well(go Jindarians!) Should we shun that while we are at it?
I'd actually have a lot of fun. Look at Star Trek Bridge Commander's single player campaign. Some of the greatest moments were diplomacy with hostile aliens.
Look at some of the greatest TNG episodes. Some of them had little combat and were focused on characters interacting without fighting. The Drumhead, the episode introducing Barclay, The Inner Light... these episodes had virtually no combat and were puzzle solving and getting-along episodes.
Google "Star Trek Excalibur" and look closely at the description. The game is not all about combat, there's some ship management, diplomacy, away missions, etc.
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!
Ummm... how much fun would you actually have doing stellar chartography and diplomacy missions most of the time in a Star Trek game? How about performing that level 5 diagnostic? Perhaps the makers of Puzzle Pirates could make a Star Trek MMO?
The reason why STO is "militaristic" is because people are looking for action and excitement, combat does that, not a game rife with diplomatic negotiations and similar peaceful actions. No matter the original meaning of Star Trek, peaceful exploration does not make for a good game. When they made the Starfleet Battles tabletop game in the '70s, it was about combat as well(go Jindarians!) Should we shun that while we are at it?
Star trek offer the factions for any type of gamer dev team fail to see that and is lot of ways to get into combat without startit ambush, distrescalls, capture raiders, system patrols etc
And the dev team fail to made this scort class into the game like the dmg dealers KDF maybe fit that idea but not Starfleet. And Starfleet dont see combat only ship like a viable solution always look for a more multi role ship and there is so few real trek ship to fit the scort class the dev team have to put cruciers into this rank tu fillup and they think is ok with that MASIVE ERROR. Can any one tellme why is ok the akira class crucier a torpedo boat with a hangar bay (the real concept) in the scort line ?
And add to that the other error DHC and DC like ultimate weapon that was another BIG ERROR the only advantage from defiant Cannons is the ability to fire each bolt in a diferent frecuence (remenber starfleet design the ship mainly against borg)
Starfleet can fillup the dmg dealer rol with cruciers easily but dev cant see that, the range of scort should do that scort the dmg dealer like a interceptor hit and run like hell after get hit to many times but today any scort hit the traget and keep firing and no need to run out because the target cant fire back enough times to killit :P
just curious has anyone listened to the new priority one pod cast. in it Al Rivera states that both the Gal and the Gal x are on the table to be redone, possibly a three pack for one of them, passably with a hanger. but first there are a few rr ships and Kdf ships ahead of it. so it's coming, they have been listening to you, though if it's what you want that's for you to judge.
Escort classes??? yea I agree with you the devs messed it up. Lets take a look at these ships STO calls escorts compared to ST lore in fact science vessels too:
Defiant - Escort ok they got this right
Multivector escort - Long Range tactical Cruiser
Akira - Cruiser
Saber - Light Cruiser
Intrepid - Cruiser
Nebula - Cruiser
Starting to see a pattern? All these cruisers have been resized and given different labels and characterstics. Why? bc cruisers in general are nerfed bc beams cant come close to the DHC. In canon the Sovereign and Prometheus came with Mk XII phaser banks and these were supposed to be the pinnacle of energy weapon technology for that time even more than the quad cannons.
Sorry but the Intrepid was never an escort nor a cruiser. It was both in Voyager as well as STO classified as a Long Range Science Vessel.
Ummm... how much fun would you actually have doing stellar chartography and diplomacy missions most of the time in a Star Trek game? How about performing that level 5 diagnostic? Perhaps the makers of Puzzle Pirates could make a Star Trek MMO?
The reason why STO is "militaristic" is because people are looking for action and excitement, combat does that, not a game rife with diplomatic negotiations and similar peaceful actions. No matter the original meaning of Star Trek, peaceful exploration does not make for a good game. When they made the Starfleet Battles tabletop game in the '70s, it was about combat as well(go Jindarians!) Should we shun that while we are at it?
Especially the Star Trek universe offers so much more than military or combat missions. It's a shame Cryptic made it a dull space shooter and most people don't seem to have a problem with that fact at all.
Don't missunderstand me, i am not completely against space combat but space combat in STO should be much more strategic and less action oriented and first and foremost much less frequent in general.
What about puzzeling missions (each sollution could be different every time you play it)?
STOs diplomatic missions where a good start but wheren't developed any further.
Random created missions inside the players ship, aliens of the week and so on just look at the Star Trek Wiki and let you inspire from most episodes.
The possibilities are almost endless, if STOs developers where a bit more adventurous.
Making a much more trek like game wouldn't be impossible but creating a action game is much more save for Cryptic. Thats why i said 4 years ago Star Trek and MMOS don't match.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Asking what we'd do in a Star Trek game besides combat is a bit... weird.
Look at games like Bridge Commander, 25th Anniversary, Judgement Rites, A final Unity - The first being a quasi-simulation including lot's of dialogue and combat and the latter three being point and click adventures with a lot of dialogue and puzzles but also pretty solid combat (one arcade version and one more strategical version).
And nobody says Star Trek shouldn't have combat. Space combat in Star Trek is something I very much like, it's exciting and fun but only if the game mechanics do treat it like a combat in Star Trek's "universe" would feel like. Look at Brdige Commander or Starfleet Command as a exammple.
A good start would be treating factions and their used starships more diverse. Now it's all the same and most ships feel more like starfighters like cruisers. Let the design philosophies of all the different people affect the way you use those ships - and Starfleet consists of only multi-mission capable types of ships able to be combat ready but there are no true "warships" while Klingons almost exclusively employ Battlecruisers (they're military after all, Starfleet isn't) and so on.
As A tactical Captain that Only Fly's Cruisers I can say I'm glad that Beam Overload is a tac ability, because in my cruiser I'd be ****ed without it.
What cruiser do you play that doesn't have the capability of sporting BO3 as a ENG ability?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
just curious has anyone listened to the new priority one pod cast. in it Al Rivera states that both the Gal and the Gal x are on the table to be redone, possibly a three pack for one of them, passably with a hanger. but first there are a few rr ships and Kdf ships ahead of it. so it's coming, they have been listening to you, though if it's what you want that's for you to judge.
This is not the first time I've heard of this possibility. Is there anyone here that can talk some common sense into Geko? Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against the guy or his work, but is slapping a hangar to every second ship in STO really the way to go?? And to the Galaxy classes of all ships??
I've been having the feeling that they follow the "When in doubt, slap a hangar!" policy for quite a while now. While I'm ok with some carriers in STO, having so many ships launching fighters is not very Trek and feels strange. Do we really need more of them, especially on canon ships that were never shown to launch fighters in the shows?
A hanger for the galaxy r is just a lame idea. Never in the show do you see them launch anything but shuttles and even then not into combat.
Want to launch shuttles as a Gal, well thats boarding party right there, we need a hanger for? I could kinda see the Fleet Galaxy X get a hanger of the voyager future shuttles as a unique hanger frigate type pet but the Fleet galaxy r just doesnt need it, it just needs a non god awful boff/console layout.
A good start would be treating factions and their used starships more diverse.
This is funny becuase it is the exact opposite of what this thread is trying to do (which is turn the Galaxy into a battlecruiser). Can we please let this one die? The galaxy is an engineering cruiser with no equal. Great. Done.
This is funny becuase it is the exact opposite of what this thread is trying to do (which is turn the Galaxy into a battlecruiser). Can we please let this one die? The galaxy is an engineering cruiser with no equal. Great. Done.
I'm afraid you are mistaken, maybe you should follow the discussion at hand better.
I'm aware that there were some proposals along the line of "MOAR TAC!" but I think the discussion has evolved beyond that point. At least I never said I want to change tac boffs or turn rate and I have participated in this thread and am not willing to let it die
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
If I was asked who would win a regular Defiant (As in no cloak) versus the Enterprise D, I would say the Enterprise. Not for plot armour, but for staying power. Better shields, larger power core so it can sustain fire. And I did not see many if any clips of Defiant firing in any arc but forward. So it races in, Lays on a barrage and flees no longer shooting. While the cruiser keeps tearing up her shields and then hull with a huge arc of phaser beams.
Based on observed fire and intentions. I would hazard that Enterprise would be hurt after the fight but Defiant would be dead. Three of Defiant and that reverses, in my opinion.
the defiant was a match for a tarded up excelsior, a galaxy would be several orders of magnitude more powerful then ether
I'm afraid you are mistaken, maybe you should follow the discussion at hand better.
I'm aware that there were some proposals along the line of "MOAR TAC!" but I think the discussion has evolved beyond that point. At least I never said I want to change tac boffs or turn rate and I have participated in this thread and am not willing to let it die
its kind of hard not to call for more tac when its literally the weakest ship at dealing damage in the entire game, wile in cannon it was the most tactically powerful starfleet vessel.
when i think of the galaxy, i think of a large flagship, that was used for exploration... but, also was brought out when the federation needed to show some muscle (such as on the romulan nutural zone multiple times.)
i personally don't want to see this ship being full on tac cruiser like the sovereign. but more of a ship balanced between all things. cause that was kinda what the galaxy was.
so personally, i would like to see it be more along the lines of a engineering version of the nebula we already have.. cause.. it just fits better into what the galaxy was, and should be or at least make that ensign engineering a universal or something! (and i would pay money to get a galaxy like that!)
though i will agree that BO being a engineering skill would make sense for cruisers (so they could actually get a skill that will let them do more damage). also you could just say that you're chief engineer diverts warp power to the weapon array to do so
just another idea.. if the devs wont change the boffs of the existing galaxy, why not a mirror universe galaxy for the next lock box with changes people would like?? but still make it that you need the C-store one for the console of course
THe Galaxy does have a lager enough hanger, and the pregrines had to come from somewhere
The Galaxy was never a carrier in canon, nor was it portrayed to launch attack craft. Slapping a hangar on this ship due to lack of ideas and creativity is plain & simply wrong.
This is funny becuase it is the exact opposite of what this thread is trying to do (which is turn the Galaxy into a battlecruiser). Can we please let this one die? The galaxy is an engineering cruiser with no equal. Great. Done.
People usually follow at least a great portion of the debate before saying things like "Great. Done.", so when they do, they are sure it's been called upon and valid.
If you followed the discussion in this thread, you'd find out that the majority of the persistent posters in this thread does not want to turn the Galaxy class into a battleship.
Personally, in about 90% of my posts in this thread I'm trying to turn the attention that a fix for the Galaxy is a fix for the engineering/tank role in STO, which would benefit not only the Galaxy class, but the game as a whole. The CE event was a nice example, I could bring on my Galaxy (it's a highly tanking build) with confidence and walk out with 1-st place on more than a few ocassions because the ship was good in her role. Unfortunately, these kind of balanced instances in STO are still rather limited. I sincerely hope that they'll pick the CE example and start adjusting the other portions of the game.
Because as it is for now "The galaxy is an engineering cruiser with no equal." in STO means exactly the same as being the best fisherman in Sahara.
The Galaxy was never a carrier in canon, nor was it portrayed to launch attack craft. Slapping a hangar on this ship due to lack of ideas and creativity is plain & simply wrong.
Because as it is for now "The galaxy is an engineering cruiser with no equal." in STO means exactly the same as being the best fisherman in Sahara.
Well said on both of these points.
I do not think we need to slap hangars on every ship out there. Let the carriers do their thing, regular ships theirs.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
...
just another idea.. if the devs wont change the boffs of the existing galaxy, why not a mirror universe galaxy for the next lock box with changes people would like?? but still make it that you need the C-store one for the console of course
I have thought of something similar myself.
Let's see the dev made the Mirror Assault Cruiser ----> look like the Prime universe Star Cruiser and vice versa. Effectively they just changed the BOFF/Console Layout to fit with the prime univers counterpart and kept the rest of the ship as it was.
So if they would make a Mirror Galaxy Class which BOFF/console Layout should it get?
As far as i can see there are several possibilities:
- Nebula Class BOFF/Console Layout:
Class wise it would make sense but since the T5 Nebula Class is a Science vessel i am not so sure
about it.
- D'Deridex Warbird BOFF/Console Layout:
The classic Counterpart to the Galaxy Class, having it's BOFF/Console Layout would be nice but
since it isn't even a Federation ship, i don't know.
- D'Kora and Galor Class BOFF/Console Layout:
Same as above.
- Ambassador BOFF/Console Layout:
Would be nice too, but just as the D'Kora it doesn't have a universal BOFF slot. If i had to choose
between those two BOFF/Console Layouts i would go with the D'Kora. (just my Personal opinion)
- Regent Class BOFF/Console Layout:
The only Problem i see here is that the Regent is like the Galaxy -R a C-Store ship. Ok it wouldn't have
the 180degrees Quantum Torpedo Launcher, so it would be a yes/no question for Cryptics Bosses.
Personally this would be my Favourite, since the Fleet Regent has even a better Console Layout and
other bonuses, i think it wouldn't be too much of a problem.
My Personal favourites would be the D'kora or Regent Class BOFF/Console Layouts.
Let's not forget that Mirror Galaxy Class wouldn't feature any of the original ships special Consoles. Just the normal Galaxy -R Stats with one of the above ships BOFF/Console Layouts.
I always found it unbearable to see a Ferengi Marauder and first and foremost a Galor Class being tactical far superior to a Galaxy Class in STO. Seriously i feel that as a personaly insult.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Comments
The Galaxy Class is already a Battleship, the Ent-D was outfitted for Diplomatic/Scientific missions, but on several ocasions it was even then reffered as Battleship.
Not even Picard (in his diplomatic times) wanted to have kids on board, Starfleet Command never intended the Enterprise to get into Combat situations in the first place.
Strongest Weapons, Strongest Shields, most powerful Warp reactor, that's what some would call a Battleship. On the other hand a small nimble ship, outfittet with the heaviest weapons and shields, in short a jetfighter Battleship (defiant) is just a childish concept by the producers of DS9 IMHO.
It features much heavier weapons than a ship 6 times the size, in my opinion that's just rediculus.
First she was a failed prototype of the idea of shoehorning a bigger ship's fire power into a small package.
I think tactically the idea would have been closer to a system defense boat as opposed to a full capital ship.
She had bare minimum bunking, food services, and medical facilities. That means they intended for her to be tied to those services regularly. What was one of the lines often used on Kirk and his enterprise? You are the only ship in range. When ever DS9 needed help. Oh we can have a few ships to you in a few days.
But have one to three Defiant's in key systems and you can cut response time to hours or minutes. It does not handle any role but fast responder. Bolster the fleet and intercept aggressors.
If I was asked who would win a regular Defiant (As in no cloak) versus the Enterprise D, I would say the Enterprise. Not for plot armour, but for staying power. Better shields, larger power core so it can sustain fire. And I did not see many if any clips of Defiant firing in any arc but forward. So it races in, Lays on a barrage and flees no longer shooting. While the cruiser keeps tearing up her shields and then hull with a huge arc of phaser beams.
Based on observed fire and intentions. I would hazard that Enterprise would be hurt after the fight but Defiant would be dead. Three of Defiant and that reverses, in my opinion.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Ummm... how much fun would you actually have doing stellar chartography and diplomacy missions most of the time in a Star Trek game? How about performing that level 5 diagnostic? Perhaps the makers of Puzzle Pirates could make a Star Trek MMO?
The reason why STO is "militaristic" is because people are looking for action and excitement, combat does that, not a game rife with diplomatic negotiations and similar peaceful actions. No matter the original meaning of Star Trek, peaceful exploration does not make for a good game. When they made the Starfleet Battles tabletop game in the '70s, it was about combat as well(go Jindarians!) Should we shun that while we are at it?
Charlie Reynolds was a minor player at best.
And he went "toe to toe" with a ship that was currently being commanded by Sisko.
In addition to that, he was only ever mentioned after in the books.
In the books a Galaxy class can use it's saucer to cut through a D'Deridex's neck with minimal to no damage...
I'd actually have a lot of fun. Look at Star Trek Bridge Commander's single player campaign. Some of the greatest moments were diplomacy with hostile aliens.
Look at some of the greatest TNG episodes. Some of them had little combat and were focused on characters interacting without fighting. The Drumhead, the episode introducing Barclay, The Inner Light... these episodes had virtually no combat and were puzzle solving and getting-along episodes.
Google "Star Trek Excalibur" and look closely at the description. The game is not all about combat, there's some ship management, diplomacy, away missions, etc.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Star trek offer the factions for any type of gamer dev team fail to see that and is lot of ways to get into combat without startit ambush, distrescalls, capture raiders, system patrols etc
And the dev team fail to made this scort class into the game like the dmg dealers KDF maybe fit that idea but not Starfleet. And Starfleet dont see combat only ship like a viable solution always look for a more multi role ship and there is so few real trek ship to fit the scort class the dev team have to put cruciers into this rank tu fillup and they think is ok with that MASIVE ERROR. Can any one tellme why is ok the akira class crucier a torpedo boat with a hangar bay (the real concept) in the scort line ?
And add to that the other error DHC and DC like ultimate weapon that was another BIG ERROR the only advantage from defiant Cannons is the ability to fire each bolt in a diferent frecuence (remenber starfleet design the ship mainly against borg)
Starfleet can fillup the dmg dealer rol with cruciers easily but dev cant see that, the range of scort should do that scort the dmg dealer like a interceptor hit and run like hell after get hit to many times but today any scort hit the traget and keep firing and no need to run out because the target cant fire back enough times to killit :P
Thats like asking aren't smart people and R Tards the same.
Fed: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=780321
RR: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=12150781#post12150781
KDF: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=784941
Sorry but the Intrepid was never an escort nor a cruiser. It was both in Voyager as well as STO classified as a Long Range Science Vessel.
Especially the Star Trek universe offers so much more than military or combat missions. It's a shame Cryptic made it a dull space shooter and most people don't seem to have a problem with that fact at all.
Don't missunderstand me, i am not completely against space combat but space combat in STO should be much more strategic and less action oriented and first and foremost much less frequent in general.
What about puzzeling missions (each sollution could be different every time you play it)?
STOs diplomatic missions where a good start but wheren't developed any further.
Random created missions inside the players ship, aliens of the week and so on just look at the Star Trek Wiki and let you inspire from most episodes.
The possibilities are almost endless, if STOs developers where a bit more adventurous.
Making a much more trek like game wouldn't be impossible but creating a action game is much more save for Cryptic. Thats why i said 4 years ago Star Trek and MMOS don't match.
Look at games like Bridge Commander, 25th Anniversary, Judgement Rites, A final Unity - The first being a quasi-simulation including lot's of dialogue and combat and the latter three being point and click adventures with a lot of dialogue and puzzles but also pretty solid combat (one arcade version and one more strategical version).
And nobody says Star Trek shouldn't have combat. Space combat in Star Trek is something I very much like, it's exciting and fun but only if the game mechanics do treat it like a combat in Star Trek's "universe" would feel like. Look at Brdige Commander or Starfleet Command as a exammple.
A good start would be treating factions and their used starships more diverse. Now it's all the same and most ships feel more like starfighters like cruisers. Let the design philosophies of all the different people affect the way you use those ships - and Starfleet consists of only multi-mission capable types of ships able to be combat ready but there are no true "warships" while Klingons almost exclusively employ Battlecruisers (they're military after all, Starfleet isn't) and so on.
What cruiser do you play that doesn't have the capability of sporting BO3 as a ENG ability?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is not the first time I've heard of this possibility. Is there anyone here that can talk some common sense into Geko? Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against the guy or his work, but is slapping a hangar to every second ship in STO really the way to go?? And to the Galaxy classes of all ships??
I've been having the feeling that they follow the "When in doubt, slap a hangar!" policy for quite a while now. While I'm ok with some carriers in STO, having so many ships launching fighters is not very Trek and feels strange. Do we really need more of them, especially on canon ships that were never shown to launch fighters in the shows?
Want to launch shuttles as a Gal, well thats boarding party right there, we need a hanger for? I could kinda see the Fleet Galaxy X get a hanger of the voyager future shuttles as a unique hanger frigate type pet but the Fleet galaxy r just doesnt need it, it just needs a non god awful boff/console layout.
This is funny becuase it is the exact opposite of what this thread is trying to do (which is turn the Galaxy into a battlecruiser). Can we please let this one die? The galaxy is an engineering cruiser with no equal. Great. Done.
I'm afraid you are mistaken, maybe you should follow the discussion at hand better.
I'm aware that there were some proposals along the line of "MOAR TAC!" but I think the discussion has evolved beyond that point. At least I never said I want to change tac boffs or turn rate and I have participated in this thread and am not willing to let it die
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
the defiant was a match for a tarded up excelsior, a galaxy would be several orders of magnitude more powerful then ether
its kind of hard not to call for more tac when its literally the weakest ship at dealing damage in the entire game, wile in cannon it was the most tactically powerful starfleet vessel.
i personally don't want to see this ship being full on tac cruiser like the sovereign. but more of a ship balanced between all things. cause that was kinda what the galaxy was.
so personally, i would like to see it be more along the lines of a engineering version of the nebula we already have.. cause.. it just fits better into what the galaxy was, and should be or at least make that ensign engineering a universal or something! (and i would pay money to get a galaxy like that!)
though i will agree that BO being a engineering skill would make sense for cruisers (so they could actually get a skill that will let them do more damage). also you could just say that you're chief engineer diverts warp power to the weapon array to do so
just another idea.. if the devs wont change the boffs of the existing galaxy, why not a mirror universe galaxy for the next lock box with changes people would like?? but still make it that you need the C-store one for the console of course
The Galaxy was never a carrier in canon, nor was it portrayed to launch attack craft. Slapping a hangar on this ship due to lack of ideas and creativity is plain & simply wrong.
People usually follow at least a great portion of the debate before saying things like "Great. Done.", so when they do, they are sure it's been called upon and valid.
If you followed the discussion in this thread, you'd find out that the majority of the persistent posters in this thread does not want to turn the Galaxy class into a battleship.
Personally, in about 90% of my posts in this thread I'm trying to turn the attention that a fix for the Galaxy is a fix for the engineering/tank role in STO, which would benefit not only the Galaxy class, but the game as a whole. The CE event was a nice example, I could bring on my Galaxy (it's a highly tanking build) with confidence and walk out with 1-st place on more than a few ocassions because the ship was good in her role. Unfortunately, these kind of balanced instances in STO are still rather limited. I sincerely hope that they'll pick the CE example and start adjusting the other portions of the game.
Because as it is for now "The galaxy is an engineering cruiser with no equal." in STO means exactly the same as being the best fisherman in Sahara.
Well said on both of these points.
I do not think we need to slap hangars on every ship out there. Let the carriers do their thing, regular ships theirs.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Let's see the dev made the Mirror Assault Cruiser ----> look like the Prime universe Star Cruiser and vice versa. Effectively they just changed the BOFF/Console Layout to fit with the prime univers counterpart and kept the rest of the ship as it was.
So if they would make a Mirror Galaxy Class which BOFF/console Layout should it get?
As far as i can see there are several possibilities:
- Nebula Class BOFF/Console Layout:
Class wise it would make sense but since the T5 Nebula Class is a Science vessel i am not so sure
about it.
- D'Deridex Warbird BOFF/Console Layout:
The classic Counterpart to the Galaxy Class, having it's BOFF/Console Layout would be nice but
since it isn't even a Federation ship, i don't know.
- D'Kora and Galor Class BOFF/Console Layout:
Same as above.
- Ambassador BOFF/Console Layout:
Would be nice too, but just as the D'Kora it doesn't have a universal BOFF slot. If i had to choose
between those two BOFF/Console Layouts i would go with the D'Kora. (just my Personal opinion)
- Regent Class BOFF/Console Layout:
The only Problem i see here is that the Regent is like the Galaxy -R a C-Store ship. Ok it wouldn't have
the 180degrees Quantum Torpedo Launcher, so it would be a yes/no question for Cryptics Bosses.
Personally this would be my Favourite, since the Fleet Regent has even a better Console Layout and
other bonuses, i think it wouldn't be too much of a problem.
My Personal favourites would be the D'kora or Regent Class BOFF/Console Layouts.
Let's not forget that Mirror Galaxy Class wouldn't feature any of the original ships special Consoles. Just the normal Galaxy -R Stats with one of the above ships BOFF/Console Layouts.
I always found it unbearable to see a Ferengi Marauder and first and foremost a Galor Class being tactical far superior to a Galaxy Class in STO. Seriously i feel that as a personaly insult.