Hey everyone, I'd like your opinion on a experiment I did. First: I want to make clear that I am NOT in favour of making the Galaxy Class a carrier, I think we know each other well enough that I don't have to say that
If you're not in favor of making the Galaxy a carrier - you should not make posts like this, keep quiet, hide the idea under a rug and pretend it never happened. That's what Cryptic has been doing with the Galaxy, seems to work for them.
But, unfortunately, I heard rumours that Gecko once stated that if they remake the Galaxy they think about slapping a hangar on her. We all know that this won't help her and I think we all don't want that.
I'm going to tell you right off the bat - if this happens I'll cancel my sub and quit STO. So will my friends, including the friend who was the first to try out STO and recruited the rest of us here. We're here as big fans of Star Trek and TNG and I can't speak for all my friends (RL friends, from my city) that play STO (although I know their position on this), but I personally couldn't support and promote a game that makes a mockery of TNG and one of the most iconic pieces of all Star Trek - the Galaxy class. It won't be a rage quit, it will be more of a dissapointment quit.
Ah, when I watch the video of Jack Emmert's first promotion of STO on that Conn....almost makes me depressed.
However, if pets are the way to go and what players want I was thinking. Since STO doesn't follow Trek canon and is something on it's own just like any other game and STO in particular suggests auxilliary craft are the pinnacle of technology - what would be a way to give the Gal pets that are unique and make the ship interesting again? So please don't beat me for my idea and my puny photoshop skills XD
My honest opinion - doesn't have to be the truth or a fact by any stretch: The auxiliary craft are the pinnacle of a complete loss of creativity. I don't say this as a carrier hater or anything - I say this as someone watching the pattern of "when in doubt, slap a hangar" policy around ships lately.
And frankly I've seen way better ideas to fix certain ships even on the forum.
What about making the Galaxy "tend" two unique auxilliary craft - the Sentry Pods we saw as part of the Mars Defense Perimeter (http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/4/48/MarsDefensePerimeter.jpg). Those were essentially drone ships meant to be Earth's primary line of defense so I imagine them being essentially small destroyer like vessels. We don't know anything about them except they were kitbashes made of submarine models, namely a typhoon class in the middle and two los angeles classes as "nacelles". I just take rough meassurements and assume they are somethin 100-150 meters long and 30-ish wide. A galaxy's saucer has a diameter of 650-ish meters - so it could "dock" two of those on the saucer's bottom and let them serve as unique auxilliary craft.
When docked they could serve as something like a point defence system utilising single beams on short range OR serving as a fifth forward weapon slot which essentially mimics a dual beam bank (each one firing a single beam) or a "twin photon torpedo" launcher (each one firing a (micro?) photon torpedo. When seperated we'd have to sentry pods fighting alongside the Galaxy.
Again, I don't want this. I'd rather have a BOFF station refit or some of the other ideas we have been talking about. But IF we go all pets and stuff what about a different approach than just slapping a hangar on her?
No.....just......no. Don't get me wrong, I'm not beating your idea or making fun of the photoshop skills, but.....no, just....nope!
I just wanted a more balanced Galaxy class, not a female Galaxy class with earrings. :P
Honestly, if this is what they have in mind for "improving" the Galaxy class, I'll quit my requests for a revamped one and rather keep it as it is. At least I'll be flying a Galaxy class (however lackluster it may be in game) and not some abomination and mockery.
I get you people and I hear you. I love the Galaxy and wouldn't want her to get demoted to a shabby carrier, hell I even fly her the way she is in this game and don't change to another ship for "performance" reasons.
But regarding STO I don't think carriers will go away. They are the way to go since this is what sells atm. The reason why I ever came up with that in the first place is that I tried to think about how you could actually implement something that "carries" another thing which would make halfway decent sense in Star Trek since the whole starfighter stuff is out of question. So the only thing that would make a bit of sense are vessels that can actually harm another ship which leaves us with light frigate/destroyer type of ships and my second thought was that drone ships would somehow fit Starfleet's philosophy a bit more. And to be perfectly honest I kinda liked the sentry pods kitbashes so I was just thinking if there would be a use for them as a unique pet in this game - at least it's canon material instead of inventing something new.
@yreodred: The looks are something difficult indeed. Take note that the typhoon ships I plastered on the blueprint don't look like the pods to begin with but I couldn't do it any better at least not without spending more effort on something that outrageous But if we go all the way of slapping pets on everything I think I'd rather have unique auxilliary craft instead of fighter hangars plus I like the idea that a docked aux craft boosts the mothership's capabilities.
Granted, that I plastered them on the Gal is outrageous I know that. But maybe if they get their typhoon class in the game it's something to consider, I don't know.
@shpoks: I'm with you on that one, like I said I was just thinking about a different approach on the whole pet thing that unfortunately is in everyone's favour. I don't know anything besides the rumours but I think they will manage to do something terribad. I think we can pretty much be sure that they'll make a seperatable Gal-X and maybe that's their idea of revamping the galaxy class, I don't know. But in the essence, Star Trek combat is to me essentially a form of 18th century naval combat in space. No fighters or auxilliary craft and I rather stay true to this idea.
Both of you, don't be afraid I'm beginning to promote carrier-esque designs I just thought about some ways to make it more bearable.
^ 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
...But in the essence, Star Trek combat is to me essentially a form of 18th century naval combat in space. No fighters or auxilliary craft and I rather stay true to this idea.
That's what i would prefer too.
I think johnstewards idea of giving her different fireing arcs should be the way to go. Maybe 3 forward, 2 on each side and 2 aft, should be justifiable for the GCS.
The GCS should become the other end of the carrier heavy STO verse, by making her much more Battleship (ship of the line) like.
She could also get some carronade like Phaser batteries for her side slots
They could be hard hitting phaser beams but with less fireing range, maybe just 6 km or a bit less.
I mean STO is already so far from canon, we can be glad if she doesn't become a carrier, not to speak from making her like the "real" ship.
Both of you, don't be afraid I'm beginning to promote carrier-esque designs I just thought about some ways to make it more bearable.
I understand your motives to keep the GCS up to date and to adapt it to STO gameplay, but having her a destroyer carrier should be only the very last sollution.
As shpoks already said there are numerous other possibilities in this thread alone, so hopefully the devs will consider some of the more reasonable ones.
The GCS is the ship that deserves to be reworked more than any other ship in STO.
I just hope the devs will get down to work on her soon, my frustration level is almost at the bottom.
Btw. i like that you have had the courage to try a new approach, i think we need more ideas like that. Even if they are not so good, but they open up possibilites we wouldn't have had condsidered yet.:)
"...'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
But regarding STO I don't think carriers will go away. They are the way to go since this is what sells atm. The reason why I ever came up with that in the first place is that I tried to think about how you could actually implement something that "carries" another thing which would make halfway decent sense in Star Trek since the whole starfighter stuff is out of question. So the only thing that would make a bit of sense are vessels that can actually harm another ship which leaves us with light frigate/destroyer type of ships and my second thought was that drone ships would somehow fit Starfleet's philosophy a bit more. And to be perfectly honest I kinda liked the sentry pods kitbashes so I was just thinking if there would be a use for them as a unique pet in this game - at least it's canon material instead of inventing something new.
I don't expect carriers to go away, that much is obvious in this game. And even as I really am not a fan of those, I wouldn't take them away from people that like them and use them. But, just as I wouldn't take carriers away from the people who enjoy them, I don't want to be limited from the choice of selecting a ship with no hangar bays. You know, the good 'ol Star Trek ship. At this rate every other ship in game will have at least 1 hangar.
I don't care wheather Cryptic desings some ships of their own and makes them carriers - but the Galaxy....I grew up with TNG. I re-watched the show more times than someone could imagine. 7 seasons of TNG and I never heard Picard say "Number One, order the fighters to launch and engage the hostile ship and see what happens!" or "Mr.Worf launch the drones at the D'Deridex at my command!".
Some things should remain sacred, if you're holding to an IP with milions of fans throughout the globe and more than 50 years of presence. The Galaxy was not a carrier, was not a flight-deck cruiser - it was just a cruiser. A Federation starship. Why does being a just a cruiser suck all of a sudden?
Some of the explanations I read on the forum are ridiculous and I would laugh if I didn't know Geko's ideas. It had a large shuttle bay. Well whoopy-de-doo, by that logic so did the Nebula - let's make that one a carrier. The Sovereign was pretty large as well, why not slap it wit a hangar. And what happened with "the ship must lower the shields in order for the shuttle to dock"?
Really, at this point I don't care how many more carriers Cryptic will release even if they make this game have a less Trek feel by the day.
But the Galaxy class in STO is weaker than two of her predecessors which is a bad joke by itself. Turning it into a carrier would be a complete mockery of TNG for me and as I already mentioned - TNG was the show that made me love Trek, so I couldn't in good reason support a game that treats a part of the franchise like that.
To be honest, if they'd make every ship into a "flight-deck" ship it would be more in-line with canon than anything because every cruiser is able to launch shuttles. Not that it would make SENSE to launch random shuttles into combat scenarios as they wouldn't survive that, but technically they can and on rare ocassions have been. It's just this whole starfighter nonsense that makes no sense since a shuttle already outperforms a traditional starfighter in every way and still is not a viable option for combat.
But if you take a look at games like starfleet Command however it found some ways to include the launch of single shuttles into the game. For example a shuttle could create a sensory image of your main vessel and act as a decoy or provide minimal fire support against mines/projectiles or in an grim emergency against the enemy ship as well. But Shuttles had to be consumables for this to work - maybe replenishable consumables when it manages to return to the bay after it's mission, otherwise you'd have to buy them again. This way people had to think wether it would make sense to employ shuttlecraft in combat. Outside of combat I see very different functions this mechanic could be used for as well.
All in all, yes we never saw the Enterprise launch some kind of auxilliary craft for combat, yet again STO is not and was never meant to be true to what we saw on screen. STO isn't even a game that's trying to be very complex, it's a pretty simple lunch-break shooter game I'd like the Galaxy to be more en-par with other cruisers (and actually suprass it's predecessors in terms of gameplay ) and not due to the use of auxilliary craft. But I had actually no problem with the addition of those craft to everyone, given it's not some alien wing commander spacefighter we get XD
^ 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
All in all, yes we never saw the Enterprise launch some kind of auxilliary craft for combat, yet again STO is not and was never meant to be true to what we saw on screen. STO isn't even a game that's trying to be very complex, it's a pretty simple lunch-break shooter game I'd like the Galaxy to be more en-par with other cruisers (and actually suprass it's predecessors in terms of gameplay ) and not due to the use of auxilliary craft. But I had actually no problem with the addition of those craft to everyone, given it's not some alien wing commander spacefighter we get XD
Honestly, I think that dontdrunkimshoot's idea is the best solution to improve the Galaxy class. That's why I linked his proposal to the picture in my sig. If the devs. can't see this, well pardon me, but they're blind.
What ddis has made as a proposal is the most solid solution for a Galaxy revamp I've ever come across. It's good from both sides - Cryptic can sell a Galaxy class 3 pack to every TNG fan for 5k Zen and the TNG fans get a usefull Galaxy class cruiser, but if you want it to shine, you gotta' get the bundle. Best of all - it doesn't turn the Galaxy into something it never was, the special consoles and abilities ddis suggested are right on the spot - we've all seen the Enterprise-D crew use those on numerous occasions.
It has a win-win written all over it, if only the devs. would spare us the time to come here and check the thread so they could see how good of a idea is it.
Some things should remain sacred, if you're holding to an IP with milions of fans throughout the globe and more than 50 years of presence. The Galaxy was not a carrier, was not a flight-deck cruiser - it was just a cruiser. A Federation starship. Why does being a just a cruiser suck all of a sudden?
Some of the explanations I read on the forum are ridiculous and I would laugh if I didn't know Geko's ideas. It had a large shuttle bay. Well whoopy-de-doo, by that logic so did the Nebula - let's make that one a carrier. The Sovereign was pretty large as well, why not slap it wit a hangar. And what happened with "the ship must lower the shields in order for the shuttle to dock"?
I don't get that too and so far, no one's been able to explain it to me so i can understand...
Ok, i get that other ppl want to play carriers (for whatever reason...) but why turn the iconic Star Trek ships into Battlestars instead of just releasing new ships?
It's just alienating everyone except the Carrier fetishists (who aren't that much into Trek, as i have noticed). :mad:
STO is already so far from being cannon even without carriers, i think we should be glad if we don't end up with Star Trek being completely twisted into Cryptics little Battlestar fantasy.
I think Starfleet Cruisers need something unique on their own, since they got nothing special at all.
As i said before, they should become more like 18/19th century Frigates or Ships of the Line (Master & Commander in space :cool: ) having more different weapon arcs and a wider array of according BOFF powers.
THAT would make them unique and differ them from other faction cruisers.
This would be a unique and a much more appropriate job for them instead of making them into healers or Carriers.
The GCS could be one of the most versatile and best of those new types of ships, IF Cryptic devs would care about Starfleet ships and the GCS in particular.
But obviously Lockboxes and other faction ships are much more exciting and more profitable for them.
Really, at this point I don't care how many more carriers Cryptic will release even if they make this game have a less Trek feel by the day.
But the Galaxy class in STO is weaker than two of her predecessors which is a bad joke by itself. Turning it into a carrier would be a complete mockery of TNG for me and as I already mentioned - TNG was the show that made me love Trek, so I couldn't in good reason support a game that treats a part of the franchise like that.
I fully agree with you.
TNG made me a trekkie too, and it just makes me sick to see how bad it is represented in this game.
Everything related to TNG is either underpowered, boring or just bad made IMO. (the GCS is a joke compared to the "original", TNG uniform looks crappy, Cobra Phasers have no compression variant and so on.)
It's like Cryptics devs wanted people to get away from TNG and what it stands for in favour of a more "exciting" Star Trek: Battlestar like universe. (choke)
In my opinion Cryptics devs completely lack to understand how to create a certain Star Trek feeling in STO, it feels more like a generic Sci Fi MMO with a StarTrek sign slapped on it.
For me STO is one big disappointment, and almost every new feature they release adds more to that disappointment. To be honest, i haven't seen anything that would make me be excited about that game for a loooong time.
"...'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
Whdere did the fighter in the Dominion war launch from? Likely the ship with the best hanger space and what class is that. GALAXY. Galaxy has big Hanger space, THAT IS CANON. Now picard was during peace time and shuttles wouldn't do much in combat. However Wartime could be different, especially for the DW Galaxy. Instead of a fleet of shuttles they could have been equipped with THe Pergrine fighters. In sto they are in a state of war again so same senario.
Now how about this. Retro gets the universal BO slots and they make a refit with hanger slot and more flexible bo layout.
Wrong. The Galaxy had a big shuttle bay. Shuttle bay =/= hangar.
You want to talk about what is canon? How about lowering the shields on the ship when shuttles launch/dock, just like they needed to lower the shields when they beam people?
Whdere did the fighter in the Dominion war launch from? Likely the ship with the best hanger space and what class is that. GALAXY. Galaxy has big Hanger space, THAT IS CANON. Now picard was during peace time and shuttles wouldn't do much in combat. However Wartime could be different, especially for the DW Galaxy. Instead of a fleet of shuttles they could have been equipped with THe Pergrine fighters. In sto they are in a state of war again so same senario.
Now how about this. Retro gets the universal BO slots and they make a refit with hanger slot and more flexible bo layout.
I have no idea where this carrier fixation/fascination comes from.
It's fascinating and freightening at the same time...
"...'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
Honestly, I think that dontdrunkimshoot's idea is the best solution to improve the Galaxy class. That's why I linked his proposal to the picture in my sig. If the devs. can't see this, well pardon me, but they're blind.
What ddis has made as a proposal is the most solid solution for a Galaxy revamp I've ever come across. It's good from both sides - Cryptic can sell a Galaxy class 3 pack to every TNG fan for 5k Zen and the TNG fans get a usefull Galaxy class cruiser, but if you want it to shine, you gotta' get the bundle. Best of all - it doesn't turn the Galaxy into something it never was, the special consoles and abilities ddis suggested are right on the spot - we've all seen the Enterprise-D crew use those on numerous occasions.
It has a win-win written all over it, if only the devs. would spare us the time to come here and check the thread so they could see how good of a idea is it.
my opinion on this is that i am all open for a hagar bay on galaxy class, however...
i don't want it to be the "solution" cryptic give us to fix the galaxy class.
there is 3 "solution" scenario that could be propose:
one) gecko said: " you f.....ing galaxy fan boy seriously get on my nerve with your obssesion, i will not change that turtle ship, you will have to live with it until the end of sto, GNIARK GNIARK GNIARK GNIARK!!!
however, i can, in a pure act of kindness give you one little hangar bay."
response: thank sir, i'll take it
so no change to the galaxy, the peoples that was ok for a hangar will be happy, the one that don't, just don't have to fill the hangar, so no change for them too.
two) gecko said: ho yes, my poor customer, i... i didn't known you were flying suck a miserable ship!! if i only knewn!!
well to forgive us will will give you the 3 pack that dontdrunkimshoot have propose, and in addition, to repay you to what you have endure for 3 years we also give you 1 free hangar:)"
response: wonderfull, i'll take everything
here it the same everyone happy because of an efficient bo layout, and the one that don't want hangar just don't have to use it.
tree) gecko said: "well i want give him a hangar, but nothing else, however since we also have to take balance in consideration we will have to remove either one weapon slot, or one console slot, what did you choose?"
response: NOW GO FOKK YOURSELF YOU MAZERFOKA!!:D:D
ther is just no way i will accept the " carrier" playstyle for this ship as a fix.
launching little ship must remain secondary.
i like the idea to have runabout flying and helping this ship just like the odyssey when he fight the 3 jemhadar ship, i however want to kill the target by myself, if i may say so.
i am ok for this ship to have a hangar with limited abilities, but i don't want it to transform the playstyle of the ship.
Wrong. The Galaxy had a big shuttle bay. Shuttle bay =/= hangar.
You want to talk about what is canon? How about lowering the shields on the ship when shuttles launch/dock, just like they needed to lower the shields when they beam people?
By that logic the maquis must have had a couple of Galaxy class starships they launched the peregrines from. :rolleyes:
Shuttlebay, hanger NO DIFFERENCE it can hold BOTH. THE Galaxy has roughly a squadron worth of shuttles, maybe more. Now that shows the Galaxy has room for a squadron of fighters.
As for Marquis, they had a small range in which they operated so the time spent in a Fighter or a raider isn't long. In Star Trek the big ships are needed for long deployment or fast action. any fed fighter can go to warp but it doesn't have the range or speed of a capital ship. Rolls eyes, Common sense dude common sense
Shuttlebay, hanger NO DIFFERENCE it can hold BOTH. THE Galaxy has roughly a squadron worth of shuttles, maybe more. Now that shows the Galaxy has room for a squadron of fighters.
So what, the diplomatic version (the -D) had space for 250 photon Torpedoes.
So should they replace them with nuclear bombs, because some may find them "cooler" then Photon Topredoes?
As for Marquis, they had a small range in which they operated so the time spent in a Fighter or a raider isn't long. In Star Trek the big ships are needed for long deployment or fast action. any fed fighter can go to warp but it doesn't have the range or speed of a capital ship. Rolls eyes, Common sense dude common sense
... and those small ships pop just like soap bubbles when hit by a phaser discharge of a GCS or comparable ship, common sense my friend. :P
"...'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
Shuttlebay, hanger NO DIFFERENCE it can hold BOTH. THE Galaxy has roughly a squadron worth of shuttles, maybe more. Now that shows the Galaxy has room for a squadron of fighters.
No, BIG difference. Shuttlebay just keeps shuttles docked. In order to launch fighers you have to have a dock design that will allow you to launch multiple auxiliary craft in a very short period of time - something that the Galaxy was not portrayed to have because she was not suposed to launch auxiliary craft.
Also, again, what happened with having to lower shields to launch or dock a shuttle? Every single Star Trek ship had to do that, just like when beaming up/down crew.
As for Marquis, they had a small range in which they operated so the time spent in a Fighter or a raider isn't long. In Star Trek the big ships are needed for long deployment or fast action. any fed fighter can go to warp but it doesn't have the range or speed of a capital ship. Rolls eyes, Common sense dude common sense
Oh, I know that the small craft in DS9 were brought by other ships. The problem is those ships didn't launch the craft. They bring them to a destination(starbase) and leave them there. From there, they're on their own. Probably because a ship needs to lower the shields in order to deploy small craft, which would leave the ship vulnerable to any attack. So they were not used for deployment, but for faster transport.
As for the common sense - it has left this discussion long time ago. Watch this video at 0:15, you'll see the common sense about the fighters.
ANY proof, ANY proof they weren't launch from the ships. NO. Again time was factor in the DS9 and again a fighter at warp can't go as fast as a Starship. And again Galaxy HAS the space to hold a squadron as well as Sovereign. And both are canon ships that can do it. and Curry was rumored to be a carrier.
This is getting rediculus, if this carrierisation continues this game will lose any connection to Star Trek any attraction for me at all.
So go on and put a hangar on everything that has nacelles, if that makes you happy.
Was there some weird alien invasion, where they have infested everyones brain with the absurd idea of carrier ships?
Has the whole world gone crazy by now?
I just hope the next game developer won't listen to so called Star Trek "fans" that want trek to become like BSG.
"...'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
So what, the diplomatic version (the -D) had space for 250 photon Torpedoes.
So should they replace them with nuclear bombs, because some may find them "cooler" then Photon Topredoes?
HECK YES!! Nuclear planetary bombardment.... from the space luxury liner Galaxy.... that's a fantastic image, very appropriate indeed.
Shuttlebay, hanger NO DIFFERENCE it can hold BOTH. THE Galaxy has roughly a squadron worth of shuttles, maybe more. Now that shows the Galaxy has room for a squadron of fighters.
As for Marquis, they had a small range in which they operated so the time spent in a Fighter or a raider isn't long. In Star Trek the big ships are needed for long deployment or fast action. any fed fighter can go to warp but it doesn't have the range or speed of a capital ship. Rolls eyes, Common sense dude common sense
Exit and Entrance.
A shuttle bay has a uni.
A Hangar has both.
It makes zero tactical sense to have the same opening service both outgoing and incoming fighter craft of any kind.
Raising and lowering the shields is another important point.
The Peregrines in DS9 did not need to be launched from anywhere.
They could have hitched a ride via a larger vessels warp field.
Bottom line.
The Galaxy was never shown to be a Carrier of any kind.
It goes against her established behavior. To suddenly alter her established behavior would be to alienate a significant portion of your IP base and to lose money.
Hence the existence of this thread and many more like it.
Exit and Entrance.
A shuttle bay has a uni.
A Hangar has both.
It makes zero tactical sense to have the same opening service both outgoing and incoming fighter craft of any kind.
Raising and lowering the shields is another important point.
The Peregrines in DS9 did not need to be launched from anywhere.
They could have hitched a ride via a larger vessels warp field.
Bottom line.
The Galaxy was never shown to be a Carrier of any kind.
It goes against her established behavior. To suddenly alter her established behavior would be to alienate a significant portion of your IP base and to lose money.
Hence the existence of this thread and many more like it.
We have seen them only raise one section of sheilds. so while the ship faces the enemy it can launch the fighters. Also in that senario it is unlikely they would launch fighters. They have sensors to warn them in plenty of time to launch before enganement. ANd again Pergrines cannot match warp speed with starships. thus on either speed or long range mission hitching a ride on a starship helps. Not there may have been 10 squads max at DS9 fleet episode. 4 can come from the Galaxys alone, the rest either by Curry or spread out among the rest of the fleet.
I'm going to lay this out. We have both on screen and of screen evidence of fighters being used in ST. We know they are warp capable, but likely not capable of warp nine. This also them to guard certain area as a quick response and maybe by time for starships to arrive. We have seen them used as an extra lay of defense for larger ships. Runabouts protecting Odyessy (Note though they failed that was mainly do to kamikaze attack) During and after DW we saw more types of fighter or other small craft showing that maybe they are more useful then originally thought and by STO they have come out with a few desings. However some cannon designs could do the job. Considering how many shuttles the E-D had and the size of the bay doors shows that at the very least the Galaxy could hold a full squadron of fighters. Sovereign could also do this for it's roughly the same size and has fair sizable bays to. And Curry is rumored to have the ability as well. that's 3 canon ships that have the room. Interpid could hold half a squadron so in war time likely alot of the shuttles are replaced with fighters and when war is done they replace the shuttles back in.
Bothy the Runabout and the Delta Flyer have shown that they have teeth so against the right target can do well. In TNG they showed about a squad of fighters harass a Galor successfully till the E-D arrived. Sisko used them to make a hole in the Dominion lines. Are fighters as important as they are in Star Wars? No but they do have a role.
No will a hanger fix the Galaxy problem alone? No but it and others game make the ship good. I am neutral in this part of the debate. The Galaxy needs a revamp. If the revamp has the hanger, cool, if not maybe cool if the other changes are good. But I AM saying that it is canonly feasible for CERTAIN ships to have a hanger. Galaxy is one of them.
I'm so sorry if my scattershot idea about the drone tender spawned THAT discussion again. We had it again and again - the only way fighters are viable in Star Trek are by "magic" that makes them sport the exact same offensive and defensive systems as a large cruiser. We saq that roughly on screen so it is brandon&bragga canon but it is just absurd because it would make the realm of plausibility collapse.
But I want to specifically ask admiralq1732 a question: I know you stated to be neutral in the debate and I don't want to be offensive or anything, but you mentioned even the Intrepid class would be a viable makeshift carrier. This argument gets repeated by numerous people and unfortunately shows how out-of-touch the carrier fans seem to be. The Intrepid? Really?
THIS is the Intrepids main and only shuttlebay. THIS IS IT. I think that's enough said, isn't it?
And I think the very same applies to the Galaxy class. She had three shuttlebays, number one being a rather large one. But I think the shuttle traffic works in a similiar way. They are no fighter catapult ranges or anything. That's how small craft are deployed. And yes, I do blieve small craft can be deployed in combat emergencies like having the Danube example with the Odyssey and I also believe Starbases would have small craft even Peregrines to intercept enemy forces. But fighter carriers in deep space encounters make no sense whatsoever, no matter how much you bend it. It just doesn't work. EXCEPT if you make them magically work against all reasonable arguments and what the show portrayed prior to DS9 and even IN DS9 we had three episodes featuring and one scene showing them vaguely effective.
^ 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
but until cryptic want to apply a balance model to the game that actually has the flexability to deal with the games content, fighters are just the easy way to give big ships the trade-off for their size.
Why not increase their firepower as a tradeoff?
Big trek ships always tend to have more firepower than smaller ones (outside STO), so why the detur of adding hangar bays and fighters instead of just giving them lets say 5/5 weapons slots or additional Tac Consoles or some beam strength modificator?
At least it would keep them their characteristic instead of turning them into battlestars.
"...'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
ANY proof, ANY proof they weren't launch from the ships. NO. Again time was factor in the DS9 and again a fighter at warp can't go as fast as a Starship. And again Galaxy HAS the space to hold a squadron as well as Sovereign. And both are canon ships that can do it. and Curry was rumored to be a carrier.
ANY proff, ANY proof of a Galaxy class launching fighters seen on screen? See, I can do that as well.
And sorry, but I have no blasted idea of what a "Curry" is, except a type of Indian spice - could you please clarify?
you want to know the difference between the space tadpole and a vaguely useful ship? a single hangar of fighters.
how do i know this? the 200000 fc corsair fdc. those 6 fighters give teh ship just enough of a boost to make it useful where the space tadpole isnt.
I have a fleet Corsair. And not the 200k FC one, but the 4 module one. I'm quite familiar with the ship. Question: Is that the only way to improve a ship now? And what about the Klingon faction, don't they deserve to have something unique in STO?
and with drunks galaxy pack could be done easily by making an option for a console layout 3/3/3 and one hanger.
Why? Really, why? Dontdrunkimshoot's idea is perfectly fine as it is, why do you take it, cut out a console just to slap a hangar? Is the goal to TRIBBLE off TNG fans or something?
you dont want the galaxy to be a carrier? thats fine
you dont want the option to be there when its far more sensible than tholian widows over esd? not fine.
This is in the TOP 10 silliest things I've read in the forum. So what you're saying is that Star Trek fans should shut up, suck it up and express no concerns about the direction a game bearng the name "Star Trek" is taking? Wow, just....wow!
You want to fly your ugly Tholian ship? Go right ahead, I won't be in your way. Why don't you want to leave me fly my Galaxy as it's suposed to be and keep insisting on slapping a hangar to it?
See, normal Trek fans are pretty open-minded about the TRIBBLE Cryptic's throwing out. They say it keeps the game alive, so we believe them. Star Trek fans however can't be openminded about taking something that is considered to be a part of the heart of the franchise, ripping it apart and molding it into something that in never was.
That's the line yreodred has been talking about. We usually turn a blind eye to all of the stupidity going on in STO that is not Star Trek because we still get to fly our own Starfleet ships, wear our own uniforms, pick our own crew and decide how to go about things. But now people want to take our beloved Starfleet ships, moreso the one arguably most iconic in all of Trek and turn it into something else? Nope, sorry, you can't expect us to stand still and suck this one up.
Look at it this way - imagine a company makes a F1 game and then makes the Ferrari blue? Don't you think that F1 fans and Ferrari fans will go WTF?!?!
it makes perfect sense, a hangar is a hole through the armor into the guts on the ship, more of them you have, the more weaknesses you have. also locating the bay doors to the rear in a ship that is built around having the flanks & bow to the enemy means you are providing cover to the rear for launching/retreiving craft for maintenance.
what you are doing is convoluting terrestrial fighter ethos with would be space based requirments.
Almost every starfleet ship has the shuttle bay in the back. There are only a few exceptions that confirm the rule, like the Defiant that launched shuttles from below. By this logic, every Starfleet starship is capable of launching fighters.
Also good luck providing cover while you have to lower your aft shields and expose your warp nacelles to an unshielded attack.
But really, it's hillarious that we're now taking references about the Galaxy class from DS9, instead of TNG, you know, that one show where the Galaxy was the main ship for 7 seasons?
I'm so sorry if my scattershot idea about the drone tender spawned THAT discussion again.
It's not you angrytarg, it's that other dumb thread asking to make the Galaxy a carrier.
Honestly, I have no words to explain how ridiculous this whole discussion is. If someone would have told me that I was going to debate wheather the Galaxy class is a carrier or not in a Star Trek game, I would laugh at them. Yet, here we are.
I'm really starting to believe that this is just to TRIBBLE off TNG fans. You really want to alienate such a big portion of your playerbase and Star Trek fans? TNG was by all means the show that revived the franchise after a long period since TOS ended and having only TOS era movies. Do you think that pissing off TNG fans is really a good idea?
I'm so sorry if my scattershot idea about the drone tender spawned THAT discussion again. We had it again and again - the only way fighters are viable in Star Trek are by "magic" that makes them sport the exact same offensive and defensive systems as a large cruiser. We saq that roughly on screen so it is brandon&bragga canon but it is just absurd because it would make the realm of plausibility collapse.
But I want to specifically ask admiralq1732 a question: I know you stated to be neutral in the debate and I don't want to be offensive or anything, but you mentioned even the Intrepid class would be a viable makeshift carrier. This argument gets repeated by numerous people and unfortunately shows how out-of-touch the carrier fans seem to be. The Intrepid? Really?
THIS is the Intrepids main and only shuttlebay. THIS IS IT. I think that's enough said, isn't it?
And I think the very same applies to the Galaxy class. She had three shuttlebays, number one being a rather large one. But I think the shuttle traffic works in a similiar way. They are no fighter catapult ranges or anything. That's how small craft are deployed. And yes, I do blieve small craft can be deployed in combat emergencies like having the Danube example with the Odyssey and I also believe Starbases would have small craft even Peregrines to intercept enemy forces. But fighter carriers in deep space encounters make no sense whatsoever, no matter how much you bend it. It just doesn't work. EXCEPT if you make them magically work against all reasonable arguments and what the show portrayed prior to DS9 and even IN DS9 we had three episodes featuring and one scene showing them vaguely effective.
I said 2 could, in otehr shots We have seen Neelix's ship leave and saw other shuttles there. So 6 fighters per intrepid. Also that might have been the prevailing idea that fighters were not nessecary during TNG But Battle for DS9 shows they have a role and afterwards they may have decided to research it more, thus to STo era carriers have come in. Now will we see Star Wars level of fighters, no but they are in there and figure they act similar to Star Wars fighters, having some range but unlike SW do not have speed of larger ships.
Comments
If you're not in favor of making the Galaxy a carrier - you should not make posts like this, keep quiet, hide the idea under a rug and pretend it never happened. That's what Cryptic has been doing with the Galaxy, seems to work for them.
I'm going to tell you right off the bat - if this happens I'll cancel my sub and quit STO. So will my friends, including the friend who was the first to try out STO and recruited the rest of us here. We're here as big fans of Star Trek and TNG and I can't speak for all my friends (RL friends, from my city) that play STO (although I know their position on this), but I personally couldn't support and promote a game that makes a mockery of TNG and one of the most iconic pieces of all Star Trek - the Galaxy class. It won't be a rage quit, it will be more of a dissapointment quit.
Ah, when I watch the video of Jack Emmert's first promotion of STO on that Conn....almost makes me depressed.
My honest opinion - doesn't have to be the truth or a fact by any stretch: The auxiliary craft are the pinnacle of a complete loss of creativity. I don't say this as a carrier hater or anything - I say this as someone watching the pattern of "when in doubt, slap a hangar" policy around ships lately.
And frankly I've seen way better ideas to fix certain ships even on the forum.
No.....just......no. Don't get me wrong, I'm not beating your idea or making fun of the photoshop skills, but.....no, just....nope!
I just wanted a more balanced Galaxy class, not a female Galaxy class with earrings. :P
Honestly, if this is what they have in mind for "improving" the Galaxy class, I'll quit my requests for a revamped one and rather keep it as it is. At least I'll be flying a Galaxy class (however lackluster it may be in game) and not some abomination and mockery.
But regarding STO I don't think carriers will go away. They are the way to go since this is what sells atm. The reason why I ever came up with that in the first place is that I tried to think about how you could actually implement something that "carries" another thing which would make halfway decent sense in Star Trek since the whole starfighter stuff is out of question. So the only thing that would make a bit of sense are vessels that can actually harm another ship which leaves us with light frigate/destroyer type of ships and my second thought was that drone ships would somehow fit Starfleet's philosophy a bit more. And to be perfectly honest I kinda liked the sentry pods kitbashes so I was just thinking if there would be a use for them as a unique pet in this game - at least it's canon material instead of inventing something new.
@yreodred: The looks are something difficult indeed. Take note that the typhoon ships I plastered on the blueprint don't look like the pods to begin with but I couldn't do it any better at least not without spending more effort on something that outrageous
Granted, that I plastered them on the Gal is outrageous I know that. But maybe if they get their typhoon class in the game it's something to consider, I don't know.
@shpoks: I'm with you on that one, like I said I was just thinking about a different approach on the whole pet thing that unfortunately is in everyone's favour. I don't know anything besides the rumours but I think they will manage to do something terribad. I think we can pretty much be sure that they'll make a seperatable Gal-X and maybe that's their idea of revamping the galaxy class, I don't know. But in the essence, Star Trek combat is to me essentially a form of 18th century naval combat in space. No fighters or auxilliary craft and I rather stay true to this idea.
Both of you, don't be afraid I'm beginning to promote carrier-esque designs
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I think johnstewards idea of giving her different fireing arcs should be the way to go. Maybe 3 forward, 2 on each side and 2 aft, should be justifiable for the GCS.
The GCS should become the other end of the carrier heavy STO verse, by making her much more Battleship (ship of the line) like.
She could also get some carronade like Phaser batteries for her side slots
They could be hard hitting phaser beams but with less fireing range, maybe just 6 km or a bit less.
I mean STO is already so far from canon, we can be glad if she doesn't become a carrier, not to speak from making her like the "real" ship.
I understand your motives to keep the GCS up to date and to adapt it to STO gameplay, but having her a destroyer carrier should be only the very last sollution.
As shpoks already said there are numerous other possibilities in this thread alone, so hopefully the devs will consider some of the more reasonable ones.
The GCS is the ship that deserves to be reworked more than any other ship in STO.
I just hope the devs will get down to work on her soon, my frustration level is almost at the bottom.
Btw. i like that you have had the courage to try a new approach, i think we need more ideas like that. Even if they are not so good, but they open up possibilites we wouldn't have had condsidered yet.:)
what?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That would be ridiculously OP. Two lt comms AND a comm?
Try
Comm Eng
LtComm Tac
Lt Sci
Lt Eng
Ens Uni
Now that makes balanced sense.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
I don't expect carriers to go away, that much is obvious in this game. And even as I really am not a fan of those, I wouldn't take them away from people that like them and use them. But, just as I wouldn't take carriers away from the people who enjoy them, I don't want to be limited from the choice of selecting a ship with no hangar bays. You know, the good 'ol Star Trek ship. At this rate every other ship in game will have at least 1 hangar.
I don't care wheather Cryptic desings some ships of their own and makes them carriers - but the Galaxy....I grew up with TNG. I re-watched the show more times than someone could imagine. 7 seasons of TNG and I never heard Picard say "Number One, order the fighters to launch and engage the hostile ship and see what happens!" or "Mr.Worf launch the drones at the D'Deridex at my command!".
Some things should remain sacred, if you're holding to an IP with milions of fans throughout the globe and more than 50 years of presence. The Galaxy was not a carrier, was not a flight-deck cruiser - it was just a cruiser. A Federation starship. Why does being a just a cruiser suck all of a sudden?
Some of the explanations I read on the forum are ridiculous and I would laugh if I didn't know Geko's ideas. It had a large shuttle bay. Well whoopy-de-doo, by that logic so did the Nebula - let's make that one a carrier. The Sovereign was pretty large as well, why not slap it wit a hangar. And what happened with "the ship must lower the shields in order for the shuttle to dock"?
Really, at this point I don't care how many more carriers Cryptic will release even if they make this game have a less Trek feel by the day.
But the Galaxy class in STO is weaker than two of her predecessors which is a bad joke by itself. Turning it into a carrier would be a complete mockery of TNG for me and as I already mentioned - TNG was the show that made me love Trek, so I couldn't in good reason support a game that treats a part of the franchise like that.
But if you take a look at games like starfleet Command however it found some ways to include the launch of single shuttles into the game. For example a shuttle could create a sensory image of your main vessel and act as a decoy or provide minimal fire support against mines/projectiles or in an grim emergency against the enemy ship as well. But Shuttles had to be consumables for this to work - maybe replenishable consumables when it manages to return to the bay after it's mission, otherwise you'd have to buy them again. This way people had to think wether it would make sense to employ shuttlecraft in combat. Outside of combat I see very different functions this mechanic could be used for as well.
All in all, yes we never saw the Enterprise launch some kind of auxilliary craft for combat, yet again STO is not and was never meant to be true to what we saw on screen. STO isn't even a game that's trying to be very complex, it's a pretty simple lunch-break shooter game
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Honestly, I think that dontdrunkimshoot's idea is the best solution to improve the Galaxy class. That's why I linked his proposal to the picture in my sig. If the devs. can't see this, well pardon me, but they're blind.
What ddis has made as a proposal is the most solid solution for a Galaxy revamp I've ever come across. It's good from both sides - Cryptic can sell a Galaxy class 3 pack to every TNG fan for 5k Zen and the TNG fans get a usefull Galaxy class cruiser, but if you want it to shine, you gotta' get the bundle. Best of all - it doesn't turn the Galaxy into something it never was, the special consoles and abilities ddis suggested are right on the spot - we've all seen the Enterprise-D crew use those on numerous occasions.
It has a win-win written all over it, if only the devs. would spare us the time to come here and check the thread so they could see how good of a idea is it.
Ok, i get that other ppl want to play carriers (for whatever reason...) but why turn the iconic Star Trek ships into Battlestars instead of just releasing new ships?
It's just alienating everyone except the Carrier fetishists (who aren't that much into Trek, as i have noticed). :mad:
STO is already so far from being cannon even without carriers, i think we should be glad if we don't end up with Star Trek being completely twisted into Cryptics little Battlestar fantasy.
I think Starfleet Cruisers need something unique on their own, since they got nothing special at all.
As i said before, they should become more like 18/19th century Frigates or Ships of the Line (Master & Commander in space :cool: ) having more different weapon arcs and a wider array of according BOFF powers.
THAT would make them unique and differ them from other faction cruisers.
This would be a unique and a much more appropriate job for them instead of making them into healers or Carriers.
The GCS could be one of the most versatile and best of those new types of ships, IF Cryptic devs would care about Starfleet ships and the GCS in particular.
But obviously Lockboxes and other faction ships are much more exciting and more profitable for them.
I fully agree with you.
TNG made me a trekkie too, and it just makes me sick to see how bad it is represented in this game.
Everything related to TNG is either underpowered, boring or just bad made IMO.
(the GCS is a joke compared to the "original", TNG uniform looks crappy, Cobra Phasers have no compression variant and so on.)
It's like Cryptics devs wanted people to get away from TNG and what it stands for in favour of a more "exciting" Star Trek: Battlestar like universe. (choke)
In my opinion Cryptics devs completely lack to understand how to create a certain Star Trek feeling in STO, it feels more like a generic Sci Fi MMO with a StarTrek sign slapped on it.
For me STO is one big disappointment, and almost every new feature they release adds more to that disappointment. To be honest, i haven't seen anything that would make me be excited about that game for a loooong time.
Now how about this. Retro gets the universal BO slots and they make a refit with hanger slot and more flexible bo layout.
Wrong. The Galaxy had a big shuttle bay. Shuttle bay =/= hangar.
You want to talk about what is canon? How about lowering the shields on the ship when shuttles launch/dock, just like they needed to lower the shields when they beam people?
By that logic the maquis must have had a couple of Galaxy class starships they launched the peregrines from. :rolleyes:
Uhm.....how about - no?!
It's fascinating and freightening at the same time...
i cant help but agree!
i don't want it to be the "solution" cryptic give us to fix the galaxy class.
there is 3 "solution" scenario that could be propose:
one) gecko said: " you f.....ing galaxy fan boy seriously get on my nerve with your obssesion, i will not change that turtle ship, you will have to live with it until the end of sto, GNIARK GNIARK GNIARK GNIARK!!!
however, i can, in a pure act of kindness give you one little hangar bay."
response: thank sir, i'll take it
so no change to the galaxy, the peoples that was ok for a hangar will be happy, the one that don't, just don't have to fill the hangar, so no change for them too.
two) gecko said: ho yes, my poor customer, i... i didn't known you were flying suck a miserable ship!! if i only knewn!!
well to forgive us will will give you the 3 pack that dontdrunkimshoot have propose, and in addition, to repay you to what you have endure for 3 years we also give you 1 free hangar:)"
response: wonderfull, i'll take everything
here it the same everyone happy because of an efficient bo layout, and the one that don't want hangar just don't have to use it.
tree) gecko said: "well i want give him a hangar, but nothing else, however since we also have to take balance in consideration we will have to remove either one weapon slot, or one console slot, what did you choose?"
response: NOW GO FOKK YOURSELF YOU MAZERFOKA!!:D:D
ther is just no way i will accept the " carrier" playstyle for this ship as a fix.
launching little ship must remain secondary.
i like the idea to have runabout flying and helping this ship just like the odyssey when he fight the 3 jemhadar ship, i however want to kill the target by myself, if i may say so.
i am ok for this ship to have a hangar with limited abilities, but i don't want it to transform the playstyle of the ship.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Shuttlebay, hanger NO DIFFERENCE it can hold BOTH. THE Galaxy has roughly a squadron worth of shuttles, maybe more. Now that shows the Galaxy has room for a squadron of fighters.
As for Marquis, they had a small range in which they operated so the time spent in a Fighter or a raider isn't long. In Star Trek the big ships are needed for long deployment or fast action. any fed fighter can go to warp but it doesn't have the range or speed of a capital ship. Rolls eyes, Common sense dude common sense
So should they replace them with nuclear bombs, because some may find them "cooler" then Photon Topredoes?
... and those small ships pop just like soap bubbles when hit by a phaser discharge of a GCS or comparable ship, common sense my friend. :P
No, BIG difference. Shuttlebay just keeps shuttles docked. In order to launch fighers you have to have a dock design that will allow you to launch multiple auxiliary craft in a very short period of time - something that the Galaxy was not portrayed to have because she was not suposed to launch auxiliary craft.
Also, again, what happened with having to lower shields to launch or dock a shuttle? Every single Star Trek ship had to do that, just like when beaming up/down crew.
Oh, I know that the small craft in DS9 were brought by other ships. The problem is those ships didn't launch the craft. They bring them to a destination(starbase) and leave them there. From there, they're on their own. Probably because a ship needs to lower the shields in order to deploy small craft, which would leave the ship vulnerable to any attack. So they were not used for deployment, but for faster transport.
As for the common sense - it has left this discussion long time ago. Watch this video at 0:15, you'll see the common sense about the fighters.
So go on and put a hangar on everything that has nacelles, if that makes you happy.
Was there some weird alien invasion, where they have infested everyones brain with the absurd idea of carrier ships?
Has the whole world gone crazy by now?
I just hope the next game developer won't listen to so called Star Trek "fans" that want trek to become like BSG.
HECK YES!! Nuclear planetary bombardment.... from the space luxury liner Galaxy.... that's a fantastic image, very appropriate indeed.
Sadly, yes. We have been invaded by the lockbox and neutral ship aliens, they know people are weak to carriers!
Exit and Entrance.
A shuttle bay has a uni.
A Hangar has both.
It makes zero tactical sense to have the same opening service both outgoing and incoming fighter craft of any kind.
Raising and lowering the shields is another important point.
The Peregrines in DS9 did not need to be launched from anywhere.
They could have hitched a ride via a larger vessels warp field.
Bottom line.
The Galaxy was never shown to be a Carrier of any kind.
It goes against her established behavior. To suddenly alter her established behavior would be to alienate a significant portion of your IP base and to lose money.
Hence the existence of this thread and many more like it.
We have seen them only raise one section of sheilds. so while the ship faces the enemy it can launch the fighters. Also in that senario it is unlikely they would launch fighters. They have sensors to warn them in plenty of time to launch before enganement. ANd again Pergrines cannot match warp speed with starships. thus on either speed or long range mission hitching a ride on a starship helps. Not there may have been 10 squads max at DS9 fleet episode. 4 can come from the Galaxys alone, the rest either by Curry or spread out among the rest of the fleet.
Bothy the Runabout and the Delta Flyer have shown that they have teeth so against the right target can do well. In TNG they showed about a squad of fighters harass a Galor successfully till the E-D arrived. Sisko used them to make a hole in the Dominion lines. Are fighters as important as they are in Star Wars? No but they do have a role.
No will a hanger fix the Galaxy problem alone? No but it and others game make the ship good. I am neutral in this part of the debate. The Galaxy needs a revamp. If the revamp has the hanger, cool, if not maybe cool if the other changes are good. But I AM saying that it is canonly feasible for CERTAIN ships to have a hanger. Galaxy is one of them.
But I want to specifically ask admiralq1732 a question: I know you stated to be neutral in the debate and I don't want to be offensive or anything, but you mentioned even the Intrepid class would be a viable makeshift carrier. This argument gets repeated by numerous people and unfortunately shows how out-of-touch the carrier fans seem to be. The Intrepid? Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMsqkfNxNNc <--- Skip to the 8:40-ish mark.
THIS is the Intrepids main and only shuttlebay. THIS IS IT. I think that's enough said, isn't it?
And I think the very same applies to the Galaxy class. She had three shuttlebays, number one being a rather large one. But I think the shuttle traffic works in a similiar way. They are no fighter catapult ranges or anything. That's how small craft are deployed. And yes, I do blieve small craft can be deployed in combat emergencies like having the Danube example with the Odyssey and I also believe Starbases would have small craft even Peregrines to intercept enemy forces. But fighter carriers in deep space encounters make no sense whatsoever, no matter how much you bend it. It just doesn't work. EXCEPT if you make them magically work against all reasonable arguments and what the show portrayed prior to DS9 and even IN DS9 we had three episodes featuring and one scene showing them vaguely effective.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Why not increase their firepower as a tradeoff?
Big trek ships always tend to have more firepower than smaller ones (outside STO), so why the detur of adding hangar bays and fighters instead of just giving them lets say 5/5 weapons slots or additional Tac Consoles or some beam strength modificator?
At least it would keep them their characteristic instead of turning them into battlestars.
ANY proff, ANY proof of a Galaxy class launching fighters seen on screen? See, I can do that as well.
And sorry, but I have no blasted idea of what a "Curry" is, except a type of Indian spice - could you please clarify?
I have a fleet Corsair. And not the 200k FC one, but the 4 module one. I'm quite familiar with the ship.
Question: Is that the only way to improve a ship now? And what about the Klingon faction, don't they deserve to have something unique in STO?
Why? Really, why? Dontdrunkimshoot's idea is perfectly fine as it is, why do you take it, cut out a console just to slap a hangar? Is the goal to TRIBBLE off TNG fans or something?
This is in the TOP 10 silliest things I've read in the forum. So what you're saying is that Star Trek fans should shut up, suck it up and express no concerns about the direction a game bearng the name "Star Trek" is taking? Wow, just....wow!
You want to fly your ugly Tholian ship? Go right ahead, I won't be in your way. Why don't you want to leave me fly my Galaxy as it's suposed to be and keep insisting on slapping a hangar to it?
See, normal Trek fans are pretty open-minded about the TRIBBLE Cryptic's throwing out. They say it keeps the game alive, so we believe them. Star Trek fans however can't be openminded about taking something that is considered to be a part of the heart of the franchise, ripping it apart and molding it into something that in never was.
That's the line yreodred has been talking about. We usually turn a blind eye to all of the stupidity going on in STO that is not Star Trek because we still get to fly our own Starfleet ships, wear our own uniforms, pick our own crew and decide how to go about things. But now people want to take our beloved Starfleet ships, moreso the one arguably most iconic in all of Trek and turn it into something else? Nope, sorry, you can't expect us to stand still and suck this one up.
Look at it this way - imagine a company makes a F1 game and then makes the Ferrari blue? Don't you think that F1 fans and Ferrari fans will go WTF?!?!
Almost every starfleet ship has the shuttle bay in the back. There are only a few exceptions that confirm the rule, like the Defiant that launched shuttles from below. By this logic, every Starfleet starship is capable of launching fighters.
Also good luck providing cover while you have to lower your aft shields and expose your warp nacelles to an unshielded attack.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!
But really, it's hillarious that we're now taking references about the Galaxy class from DS9, instead of TNG, you know, that one show where the Galaxy was the main ship for 7 seasons?
It's not you angrytarg, it's that other dumb thread asking to make the Galaxy a carrier.
Honestly, I have no words to explain how ridiculous this whole discussion is. If someone would have told me that I was going to debate wheather the Galaxy class is a carrier or not in a Star Trek game, I would laugh at them. Yet, here we are.
I'm really starting to believe that this is just to TRIBBLE off TNG fans. You really want to alienate such a big portion of your playerbase and Star Trek fans? TNG was by all means the show that revived the franchise after a long period since TOS ended and having only TOS era movies. Do you think that pissing off TNG fans is really a good idea?
I said 2 could, in otehr shots We have seen Neelix's ship leave and saw other shuttles there. So 6 fighters per intrepid. Also that might have been the prevailing idea that fighters were not nessecary during TNG But Battle for DS9 shows they have a role and afterwards they may have decided to research it more, thus to STo era carriers have come in. Now will we see Star Wars level of fighters, no but they are in there and figure they act similar to Star Wars fighters, having some range but unlike SW do not have speed of larger ships.
Curry http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/starfleet_ships1.htm