thats completely unpractical. it wouldn't function without basic infrastructure. its also the area of the ship that has room to mount such large arrays, engines, shuttle bays, and main computer cores. in these modular spaces, whole sections can probably be swapped out with shipyard industrial transporters. a saucer swap could be part of a 'refit' anyway, still.
Why would you design a "modular" ship without having a strong basic infrastructure built in it to begin with? Did Utopia Planetia engineers skip their six sigma/ quality control classes? The EPS and other basic systems should start over-engineered in regards to capability and capacity with upgrades in mind, to not do so would require even longer down times to upgrade those, probably even more than the upgrades themselves.
By this point of Star Trek tech' , we already know that warp cores and impulse engines can be ejected (except the Galaxy seems to have a harder time doing it than other ships, per TNG) , so those and similar level systems should have been modular on ships anyways.
you can criticize techno babble all you want, it doesn't change how consistent things, like phaser arrays, work for example.
We really dont know how later construction ships really would be because the Star Trek franchise put little interest in working on their manuals . I have seen them, they are lacking in thought and effort to describe the ships.
Much less DPS capable with only 1 Tactical Bridge officer of Lieutenant level totaling 2 less tactical powers and 1 less tactical console.
If they made the ensign slot universal it would help the Galaxy. Use it as tactical can have Tactical Team , Fire at Will 1 and Attack Pattern Beta 1 among tactical officers.
ie. give the Exploration Cruisers an Ensign tactical,without looking like that is what it really is because it "could" be an engineer (but that was what it was before it was universal) or it "could" be a science (then its effectively a Star Cruiser).
Right now the Galaxy is less DPS capable and has equal Science abilities if the Sovereign uses its universal as a Sci which it should.
Can't feel for you on the DPS comparison with the Assault Cruiser, in game it fills a more tactical role. Science abilities are the same between the two, the problem is with the engineer boffs, if engineer boffs were more effective, the Exploration Cruiser would fill its role better.
Why would you design a "modular" ship without having a strong basic infrastructure built in it to begin with? Did Utopia Planetia engineers skip their six sigma/ quality control classes? The EPS and other basic systems should start over-engineered in regards to capability and capacity with upgrades in mind, to not do so would require even longer down times to upgrade those, probably even more than the upgrades themselves.
By this point of Star Trek tech' , we already know that warp cores and impulse engines can be ejected (except the Galaxy seems to have a harder time doing it than other ships, per TNG) , so those and similar level systems should have been modular on ships anyways.
im baffled by your disconnect here. 70% of the ship interior can be configured however. the other 30% is the infrastructure, everything that is set in stone so to speak. being electable is not the same thing as being modular ether. :rolleyes:
We really dont know how later construction ships really would be because the Star Trek franchise put little interest in working on their manuals . I have seen them, they are lacking in thought and effort to describe the ships.
says you. star trek was only ever inconsistent on its storyline canon, not its basic tech fundamentals.
It would be far more efficient , from an engineers standpoint, to have the "modular" areas in the saucer, why make it harder for yourself when one can simply rework an upgrade through re-manning or building new corresponding saucers to needs, while keeping the ship in service a majority of that time. That makes little sense. That was part of the reason behind the original concept of the Nebula. warp out a saucer and do a quick swap.
Swapping the saucer is the relatively easy thing to do for a minor upgrade. Build a new saucer, have it meet the ship. Then take a few days to move the crew and families from saucer A to saucer B. Connect saucer B and your ship has a modest improvement.
Now at a shipyard. Warp core can be pulled out the bottom. The nacelles can be pulled off completely. With the saucer detached and presumably transferring crew and families elsewhere, you can swap the entire computer core. Slide the new Saucer into place and you get new car scent from your refurbished Galaxy class. Sorry that is just what I am seeing from the arrangement of the ship, read the manual and built the model three times. (The store version of the model. I am in no way claiming to have been working on the show.)
So I think the Galaxy is reasonably modular for gross changes when the time comes. And when they have all those old parts off? Run your tests for how they wore down. Then recycle them for a new ship.
Now I need to go back an re-read all of the posts since this morning to figure out how we went from adjusting the ship in game to be appropriately level to discussing how the mechanics could work in universe.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
im baffled by your disconnect here. 70% of the ship interior can be configured however. the other 30% is the infrastructure, everything that is set in stone so to speak. being electable is not the same thing as being modular ether.
I am starting believe that your definition of infrastructure and mine are different, what exactly are you defining as infrastructure?
Modular is putting on and taking off with relative ease. What is easier than swapping saucers?
says you. star trek was only ever inconsistent on its storyline canon, not its basic tech fundamentals.
You are right, I did say. Your opinion may vary, but everything I have seen on pre and post TNG tech is half-baked in regards to comparing tech between each other. The level of documentation and quality (time/effort) just isn't there.
says you. star trek was only ever inconsistent on its storyline canon, not its basic tech fundamentals.
Says you. I say even the stuff they pretended they were going to be 'consistent' about only lasted as long as it took for a writer to decide it stood in the way of the story he/she wanted to tell, for better or for worse.
Hell, we know for a FACT that the writers, directors, producers, and artists for the TNG movies intended for the Sovereign to be seen as a more powerful, sexier, sportier, better ship than the Galaxy. They have explicitly said so. They were not being consistent with the tech manual AT ALL. The only consistency you are finding is that which you are creating by deliberately ignoring the statements made by the movie production teams and the rationalizations you use to reconcile all the inconsistencies.
Certainly it is within your right to play pretend spaceships however you want, but consistent in you mind, based on only the evidence you choose to accept, is not the same thing as consistent in actual fact.
I am starting believe that your definition of infrastructure and mine are different, what exactly are you defining as infrastructure?
Modular is putting on and taking off with relative ease. What is easier than swapping saucer
think of an office with a big cube farm in the center. 70% of the office is the cubes arranged however, the other 30% is the electrical, pluming, hvac, break room, bathrooms, self contained office, stuff like that. its the same thing on the ship. main engineering, the computer cores, the shuttle bays, those are all built into the structure of the ship. but all the crew quarters, science labs, all that is all plug and play. thats the 70%.
Swapping the saucer is the relatively easy thing to do for a minor upgrade. Build a new saucer, have it meet the ship. Then take a few days to move the crew and families from saucer A to saucer B. Connect saucer B and your ship has a modest improvement.
I'd say a dramatic improvement.Options for different weapon load-outs, additional aux-power reactors/generators, additional shuttle/fighter hangars (no I am not proposing a Galaxy carrier in game), cargo holds/marine quartering, just about anything. With a little effort it could have its own warp core as well. We already figure that it has its own shields and sensors.
That would probably best be done at space-dock, due to alignment issues with the hull, but it probably wouldn't be as hard as I think it might be. Probably some high tech equivalent to tongue and groove or something.
With the saucer detached and presumably transferring crew and families elsewhere, you can swap the entire computer core.
Last I remember, the computer core is in saucer section. Just have a new core ready in the new saucer and transfer what relevant data through file transfers that isn't already loaded on the new core while transferring crew. The computer cores should be relatively simple anyways, they were still referring to data capacity in terabytes (albeit I think it was thousands of) four centuries in the future, that should be not so complex.
Slide the new Saucer into place and you get new car scent from your refurbished Galaxy class. Sorry that is just what I am seeing from the arrangement of the ship, read the manual and built the model three times. (The store version of the model. I am in no way claiming to have been working on the show.)
So I think the Galaxy is reasonably modular for gross changes when the time comes. And when they have all those old parts off? Run your tests for how they wore down. Then recycle them for a new ship.
With all of the diagnostics they run all the time, they probably evaluate level and cause of wear and tear while the ship is in service. It probably wouldn't be hard to replicate replacement components either.
think of an office with a big cube farm in the center. 70% of the office is the cubes arranged however, the other 30% is the electrical, pluming, hvac, break room, bathrooms, self contained office, stuff like that. its the same thing on the ship. main engineering, the computer cores, the shuttle bays, those are all built into the structure of the ship. but all the crew quarters, science labs, all that is all plug and play. thats the 70%.
Crew quarters, science labs and such really aren't all that much modular as they are open space and some walls to finish them off. All your doing there is shifting the arrangements people habitate, although making room for hangers would be more functional than aesthetic and should be do-able.
Something truly modular would be plug and play computer cores, weapon systems, aux-reactors/generators, shield generators, deflector dish, sensor components, transporters. Actual ship systems. Much in the same way an Omni-Mech weapons and equipment (save engine and gyro) is modular http://www.sarna.net/wiki/OmniMech.
Can someone do a point form list just to update what is wrong with the Galaxy class - and why/what needs updating?
Lets take the fleet version for example.
Engineer Boff skills need to be more effective
Beam weapon drain is more of a penalty to cruisers, who have constraints on maneuverability and weapons selection. Using large numbers of beam arrays is more of a liability than an advantage.
Have you guys ever used a Fire at Will broadside against a single target? The power drain is the only thing keeping beam arrays from making cannons obsolete.
Crew quarters, science labs and such really aren't all that much modular as they are open space and some walls to finish them off. All your doing there is shifting the arrangements people habitate, although making room for hangers would be more functional than aesthetic and should be do-able.
Something truly modular would be plug and play computer cores, weapon systems, aux-reactors/generators, shield generators, deflector dish, sensor components, transporters. Actual ship systems. Much in the same way an Omni-Mech weapons and equipment (save engine and gyro) is modular http://www.sarna.net/wiki/OmniMech.
the space used for quarters and labs can be used for that kind of stuff. we only say the enterprise in detail, thats what it used most of that modular space for, luxurious apartments and expansive science labs. it can be used for anyhting else, or left mostly hollow. to get galaxy's to the front lines faster during the dominion war, they did just that.
I like that setup. Well, I basically came up with the same, just click the picture in my signature
The Nebula and Galaxy classes should be way more similiar in it's layout to resemble their close relation. The Galaxy class should not be a tactically focussed cruiser. That's what the sovereign family (which I btw also consider a evolution of the Excelsior) is for. The Galaxy is a command vessel being very modular and capabe to do most stuff (hence the (proposed) 3/3/3 console setup in it's non-fleet version) but not better than more specialized craft.
It is true that a general overhaul of engineer abilities, power drain, beam weapons etc. would eliminate the "need" to upgrade the Galaxy (which no one wants to be a super ship, it just doesn't make sense that a non-combatant vessel like the Nova outguns it, hence giving it a third tac console to be at least en par with most other ships) entirely, but such a fundamental change in game mechanics will not happen, at least I cannot see that. That's why I think releasing a "Regent" for the Galaxy in form of the "Monarch" class (you see what I did there ) would be the easiest way.
It seems to me that this thread once again runs in circles. I think we had our canonical discussion and while I enjoy those greatly they hold no vanity in this game. We should focus discussing the matter from a pure gameplay persepctive.
EDIT: That said, when we talk about new BOFF layouts, the revamped Galaxy should not have LTC universals. Ever. That's what the Oddy has and that is the superior ship. It is meant to be. If you can have a Oddy you shouldn't need any ship below that - but if you dont want a oddy you should still be worthwhile playing with the other ones. I don't see any good reason why the Galaxy should get a super special treatment of LTC unis or unique weapon layouts or anything like that
^ 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
I'd say a dramatic improvement.Options for different weapon load-outs, additional aux-power reactors/generators, additional shuttle/fighter hangars (no I am not proposing a Galaxy carrier in game), cargo holds/marine quartering, just about anything. With a little effort it could have its own warp core as well. We already figure that it has its own shields and sensors.
I said modest as you still have all the same engineering components in the drive section. New gear might handle more power, but the old drive might not be able to give it.
Should be able to be done the same time as a new saucer is delivered
With the exception of Voyager, I have seen nothing to indicate they have the ability to just pull and place a warp core in deep space. The ship has an eject mechanism, but not as simple an insert. Also if we are only moving a saucer, where is the new core?
Last I remember, the computer core is in saucer section. Just have a new core ready in the new saucer and transfer what relevant data through file transfers that isn't already loaded on the new core while transferring crew. The computer cores should be relatively simple anyways, they were still referring to data capacity in terabytes (albeit I think it was thousands of) four centuries in the future, that should be not so complex.
Double checked and there are two cores. One in the saucer and one in the drive section.
With all of the diagnostics they run all the time, they probably evaluate level and cause of wear and tear while the ship is in service. It probably wouldn't be hard to replicate replacement components either.
The diagnostics I ran in the service (agreed 20th century) were on the functionality of equipment. When they retired something and wanted to stress analyze something it went to a lab that tore it apart and checked where it was worn, how much, and some of why. To look to see if either operation or new materials would improve performance.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Yes. You are asking for time and resources to be spent on a change that ONLY benefits you, ONLY because of your personal interpretation of what should be (which is an entirely personal and subjective thing, and is in no way superior to my diametrically opposite interpretation).
it is not, no matter how hard you are trying to make us bielieve, a personal interpretation.
that the galaxy exploration cruiser is less good at tanking and support than a free star cruiser is something that can be explain, demonstrate and reproduce.
the fact that the ambassador got more firepower and better tanking and support layout is something that can be explain, demonstrate and reproduce.
a cstore ship should not find himself behind a " free RA token ship"
I am saying there is no conceivable benefit to me (and probably many others), and at least a few potential downsides. You are saying I should ignore that and simply accept the changes anyway, because you really, REALLY want them. This is the definition of selfish, childish, self-centered, ego driven behavior.
this is not just because i really want it ( as a matter of fact, i have no real interest in this ship, i prefer the galaxy x ).
this is a matter of equity.
as i have just said above a cstore ship should not be outperformed by a free t5 ship, this is the only ship in sto to find himself in that position.
this is not fair for the people who paid for it, for the one that are thinking about it, and for the people that will paid for this ship in the futur.
if you refuse that all these people been treated fairly because there is no benefit for you, and that you fear some undefined potential downside, you are the one who better fit the definition of selfish, childish, self-centered, ego driven behavior my friend.
and i am curious about these potential downsides you mention, care to explain?
And this is my proof of the above. There's no conspiracy against Galaxy fans, it's simply that Cryptic disagrees with your interpretation of what matters in the game, and how the Galaxy should be. You have stated your reasons for why it should be otherwise, and evidently those reasons are not compelling. Certainly they aren't convincing to me. Acting like you're being put upon because you didn't get your way, is, again, childish.
this only proove that you are quick to jump to conclusion, you see the "IF" in my sentence?
I do think that it could use some improving, such as additional tac abilities/consoles. But I don't think that it should be more powerful than a Sovereign, or some of the other ships.
hallelujah!! HALLELUJAH MY BROTHERS!!
he said it, he said it!
HE... SAID... IT!!!! CHAMPAGNE!!!!!!!
i am glad that you finally admit that this ship could use some improvement!
i am so happy, i have prepare a galaxy fanboy sticker for you to put on your fronthead:D
on a more serious note now, i also agree that the galaxy exploration cruiser should not be as powerfull as a cstore sovereign in this game.
in fact, even if any ship would benefit from having more tact bo slot in this game i am not convinced it is particulary pertinent considering the role that cryptic give to this ship in the first place ( i am deliberatly ignoring the train of thaught that stated that the galaxy should outgun a sovy, no matter how seducing it is for me and that i secretly bielieve it to be true )
now that the ambassador has been given what i, and many other would think it to be appropriate for the galaxy, i am a little puzzle as to what bo layout should be given to this ship.
however the last idea of drunk on the matter ( not the 3 pack proposal) sound very good to me, i just hope gecko won't take it to give it to an other new cstore ship.
Okay, so the Sovereign currently has the same number of weapons, no ability to saucer-sep, and one more tac console and one additional tac Ensign power. What should we add to the Galaxy so that it is not "more powerful" than the Sovereign, yet is also "better" than what it is now? This system really isn't all that granular, is the problem.
the cstore galaxy exploration cruiser should not, even if i would not have judge the comparison pertinent, be compared with a free t5 ship but with an other cstore one.
here it should be the regent, and this one have much better tactical layout than the free sovy.
not to mention the +1 degree turn and better inertia.
because if we speak about the inconsistency of having the galaxy exploration cruiser maching the potential firepower of a free sovy, i would bring the inconsistency of a free ambassador already matching the firepower of a free sovereign and also having a better tanking and support potential.
i just state for the record that the exploration cruiser is the succesor of the ambassador, no one found it strange that it is outgunned and outtanked by it predecesor but everyone scream at heresy when we speak about giving to the galaxy the same or something that is close to the sovy firepower.
They were in a rust-bucket FPOSBoP, they propably would have said that if it was a Constitution or Constellation class too.
i highly doubt it since the size and firepower of a constitution class, it is perfectly within a bop reach.
Originally Posted by neo1nx View Post
ho, because you and other don't care about the galaxy class, everyone that asking for it to be improve are "childish"?
and if it is not compelling for you to improve the galaxy therefore it should not be done?
and we are the one who are been treating of selfish people here?
Not in a way that supplants the tactical capabilities of the IP that is used as STO's tactical oriented cruisers. There are ways to make the Exploration cruiser (of which the Galaxy skin is used) without makeing the roles of the Assault Cruiser or ther ship roles redundant/inferior.
and what exactly in the post i have made drawn you to the conclusion that i want that the galaxy exploration cruiser beeing made superior or redundant as the other tactical oriented cruiser?
Only reason why the Exploration Cruisers get "outpreformed" is because enginer boff powers are insufficient, otherwise the Exploration Cruiser would be a fine ship.
that is one of the reason, and since cryptic will never change, add or modify the eng bo power this ship will stay gimp forever.
Then it has the same turn as the Support and Star Cruisers
no, both the support and star cruiser got 7 base turn rate.
any galaxy ship variant got just 6.
it is very simple to remember it, these ship are the only one in that size to be given such a low turnrate ( exept for the DDeridex but this is compensate by the INTEGRADTED battle cloack wich boost his turnrate to 20 )
i even known much bigger ship who have better turnrate, for that matter ( yes scimi, i looking at you ).
Dear Lord, were there every plenty of proposed changes for a Sovereign class revamp that were definitely too strong, like a second set of shields , a 9th weapon slot that contained a 360' arc quantum torpedo and more that I can't even conjure at this second.
Its not a hatred for the Galaxy that creates resistance towards proposals here. Most of the arguments for changing the Sovereign was that the "Assault Cruiser" class (much in the first 3 "seasons") was that the "class" supposed to be the most tactically potent cruiser, but it had very little teeth to it in contrast. While there were people making arguments based on canon, most arguments were based on the role the assault cruiser itself, in terms of STO, was supposed to fill.
Most people arguing not on the skin, but the role the type of role that the Exploration cruiser fills in the game. Proponents of the are Galaxy class arguing about the Exploration Cruiser/Galaxy class not because of its ability to perform its described STO function, but because they don't like what it does versus its perceived value from TNG and "tech' manuals". Effectively judging, not by the content of the Exploration Classes character, but by its "skin".
Yes, the Exploration Class doesn't have as good dps as the Assault Cruiser (and just about everything else). To want to supplant the Assault Cruiser with the Exploration Cruiser( and that is what the "3-pack" and other proposals aim to do) just because of the "skin" shows lack of forethought. If Galaxy skin fans want more DPS, they can use the Gal-X, which honestly, has more of a case for its inability to perform its role than the Exploration Cruisers do. The more logical pursuit would be to push for correction of the defects of all cruisers, which would strengthen the Exploration cruiser ability to function in game.
I would be perfectly ok with the GCS having a bit less Firepower than a Assault Crusier.
The problem is that the Assault Cruser isn't very "assaulty" to begin with, which makes the GCS into the most teehtless ship in the game. It doesn't even have enough/high enough Science BOFF stations to use some science tricks.
The main problem is that Cryptic made Starfleet Cruisers (assault/Explorer/Star Cruiser) way too passive and gave them to little tactical capabilities, so a ship on the low end of that spectrum is ultimately pointless to equip with weapons.
Now that we have a upgraded Sovereign (regent and fleet regent) the two other ships Star Cruiser and GCS are left behind, so to say. Some could argue the Odyssey replaced the Star Cruiser but that makes even less sense than the Sov. replacing the GCS, not to speak of the Star Cruiser ship models (which are unusually good looking for a Cryptic shipdesign IMHO) cannot be used to a Odyssey.
So i think the Star Cruiser AND the GCS should be upgraded in a similar manner as the Assault Cruiser to be competetive or at least be useful again.
Let's take a minute to take a look at how Cryptic changed the Assault Cruiser BOFF layout into the Regent.
1. They increased the Lt. Tactical station to a Lt. Cmdr.
2. They lowered the Lt. Cmdr Engineernig to a Lt.
3. Science Lt. became a universal.
4. added a tactical console (fleet version)
What would that mean for the Star Cruiser and the Galaxy?
The Star Cruiser is easy to make, since it is just the science version of the Assault Cruiser.
Things look different since the GCS is supposed to be in the middle of both extremes. So would it help to just give her some universal BOFF slots?
This would make the GCS become more "sciency", similar to the Vesta and its variants in STO.
By doing that the GCS would finally be useable, but still less tactical focussed than a Regent for example.
The only special thing i would want her to get are some [aux] phaser beam arrays similar to the Vestas DHCs. So the GCS would fall through the cracks, by making her a great Science Cruiser while getting some noticeable Firepower without sacrificing its science abilities. So the GCS would truely be a unique ship on it's own.
Additionally, if the devs are in a good mood, they could add a special Console to the Galaxy Class Starship. Not really essential but nice to have.
(Shamelessly stolen from Dontdrunkimshoot )
[Console - Universal - Photon Torpedo salvo]
This console gives the ship the ability to fire a photon torpedo barrage at several targets at the same time.
(like a Torpedo high yield I to max 4 targets)
The [Console - Universal - Saucer Separation], [Console - Universal - Photon Torpedo salvo] and at least one equipped [aux] phaser beam array are the Galaxy Class Starship console set.
2 Set bonus
7.6% Phaser Damage
3 power to all sub systems
3 Set Bonus:
+1 turn
Phaser Emitter Array discharge:
2 min recharge
Enables a special firing mode on [aux] phaser beam arrays
Deals increased direct damage, like Beam Overload III
"...'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
Well for arguments sake even if the fleet Galaxy got LtCmdr tactical station and 4 tac consoles it still wouldn't match the fleet Sovereign just in the aspect of turn rate and it's more difficult to bring a full broadside to bare.
Now People might say separate the saucer but then you would hull points and shield mod making it less tanky so still not on par with the Sovereign.
It simply shouldn't be en par with the fleet sovereign since they are two different ships with two different purposes. The Sovereign family should always be tactically more potent than the Galaxy family, the Galaxy should be more versatile however able to fill any role at least adequately.
The Galaxy class is no "Battleship" and was never intended to be one. It had formidable armament to a point that other people classified her as a battleship but she just isn't. The Sovereign heavy cruiser is more streamlined for tactical engagements while still being a multi-purpose ship but of course it is more agile while lacking a bit of defensive and supportive capabilities.
To keep it plain and simple: If you select your ship solely because of it's stats even with a revamp you don't need a Galaxy. Just pick a Regent/Odyssey, those can fill every role. In fact, this game is set up in a way that you have "the best" ship in the store, just buy it and don't think about other ships. But if people want to play a Galaxy making her similiar to the support cruiser (with a ensign ENG, more hull, less agility) gives her a purpose again. Right now it is just highly specialized to be something this game doesn't need, making the free ships at RA *better* than this 2000 c-points ship.
This would make the GCS become more "sciency", similar to the Vesta and its variants in STO.
By doing that the GCS would finally be useable, but still less tactical focussed than a Regent for example.
(...)
A great idea I fully support this ^^
I would even support a three-console bonus, but the Gal already has her share: Seperation and Antimatter spread. Add a heavy beam array OR aux beam array to the mix and you have your set.
^ 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
Have you guys ever used a Fire at Will broadside against a single target? The power drain is the only thing keeping beam arrays from making cannons obsolete.
only in the pve world, and even then i would hardly said that a BFAW broadside can kill as quick as a well buff CSV.
but BFAW got the advantage of beam wich are that they can be fire with more distance without loosing too much dps in comparison of cannon and less restriction with firing arc.
there is a channel in the game that rassemble people that can do 20k dps.
in there you found escort beam that are capable to do 27k in pve.
so yes, but only in build that are made to fight brainless automaton npc.
in pvp, your 6 base turn ship will not keep escort in their broadside for ever, then you 8 or 6 beam transform in a 4 rear beam fire at will, that is without taking in consideration the fact that a well build escort will have a hight defense score wich will be enhanced by romulan bo even further.
if the target is not paying you attention that mean that it is not a 1vs 1, then in that case you firepower will be divided between taget and possible spam.
don't get me wrong, bfaw is a very good power, even in pvp, especially after they fix the bugs that were affecting it ( draining too much power and accucacy ).
but it is not sufficient on it own to correct the beam problem.
Since this is my first post in this thread, let me say that I also agree, the Galaxy needs an update, and personally, I thing the Galaxy Dreadnought could use an update as well. I always loved the original, but the Gal-X... That's my baby too.
i couldn't agree more because, THAT MY BABY TOO:D
but..... no saucer separation......sorry.
but you are free to use it if you want:D ( i don't want someone make me said something i didn't )
Can someone do a point form list just to update what is wrong with the Galaxy class - and why/what needs updating?
Lets take the fleet version for example.
just a lt tactical slot combined with only 2 tactical console and a base turn rate of 6 with 25 inertia, wich give him the least potential firepower of all cruiser in the game ( not counting the saucer sep, this as also some downside )
the turnrate made more difficult the use of dual beam bank, and also reduce the tot ( time on target ) when you are broadsiding with or without bfaw.
the lt tact slot greatly reduce the pressure in firepower since tactical team is a must have nowaday if you are talking about a serious build.
this work if we are speaking about an auxtobat build or not, basically you either do BO or BFAW.
5 engi console slot, wich could be seen as a good things with the LOR changes on turnrate and mine turnrate console, but is still bordeless redundant since a 3 tactical console would have help better, or a 4th science console slot to enhanced the shield capacity.
3 ensin bo power, the biggest downside of the ship ( indeed all what i have mention before is nothing in comparison )
basicaly no matter what build you do with it there is at least1 ensign station that will never be use.
well, there is one, but it greatly reduced the tanking potential of the ship, you use 2 epts1 and 1 engi team... here, no waste in ensign slot, you however sacrifice a good deal of your survivability by not using the ltcommander slot for tanking ( epts3 ).
and replacing this power with dem is not worth, especially with beam on a no tact oriented cruiser.
and if you want to use an auxtobat build, here you will have an unused ensign bo slot for sure.
well i think that all, but i might forget some, if some find it more, let me known.
hallelujah!! HALLELUJAH MY BROTHERS!!
he said it, he said it!
HE... SAID... IT!!!! CHAMPAGNE!!!!!!!
i am glad that you finally admit that this ship could use some improvement!
i am so happy, i have prepare a galaxy fanboy sticker for you to put on your fronthead:D
on a more serious note now, i also agree that the galaxy exploration cruiser should not be as powerfull as a cstore sovereign in this game.
in fact, even if any ship would benefit from having more tact bo slot in this game i am not convinced it is particulary pertinent considering the role that cryptic give to this ship in the first place ( i am deliberatly ignoring the train of thaught that stated that the galaxy should outgun a sovy, no matter how seducing it is for me and that i secretly bielieve it to be true )
now that the ambassador has been given what i, and many other would think it to be appropriate for the galaxy, i am a little puzzle as to what bo layout should be given to this ship.
however the last idea of drunk on the matter ( not the 3 pack proposal) sound very good to me, i just hope gecko won't take it to give it to an other new cstore ship.
I never said that the ship couldn't use improvement. I just disagreed with the level of improvement that many of you wanted and the method that many of you guys choose to express your frustration/disappointment, such as the "cherry picking" of what many of you wanted to consider to be "canon", and what things descended into a silly "it's the writers' fault" mantra when things were shown in canon that some of you didn't like, or when some of you have been totally insulting to those who would dare to disagree with you, and then be inexplicably surprised when they would respond in kind or fail to have any sympathy for your "cause".
Comments
Why would you design a "modular" ship without having a strong basic infrastructure built in it to begin with? Did Utopia Planetia engineers skip their six sigma/ quality control classes? The EPS and other basic systems should start over-engineered in regards to capability and capacity with upgrades in mind, to not do so would require even longer down times to upgrade those, probably even more than the upgrades themselves.
By this point of Star Trek tech' , we already know that warp cores and impulse engines can be ejected (except the Galaxy seems to have a harder time doing it than other ships, per TNG) , so those and similar level systems should have been modular on ships anyways.
We really dont know how later construction ships really would be because the Star Trek franchise put little interest in working on their manuals . I have seen them, they are lacking in thought and effort to describe the ships.
Then it has the same turn as the Support and Star Cruisers
ie. give the Exploration Cruisers an Ensign tactical,without looking like that is what it really is because it "could" be an engineer (but that was what it was before it was universal) or it "could" be a science (then its effectively a Star Cruiser).
Can't feel for you on the DPS comparison with the Assault Cruiser, in game it fills a more tactical role. Science abilities are the same between the two, the problem is with the engineer boffs, if engineer boffs were more effective, the Exploration Cruiser would fill its role better.
im baffled by your disconnect here. 70% of the ship interior can be configured however. the other 30% is the infrastructure, everything that is set in stone so to speak. being electable is not the same thing as being modular ether. :rolleyes:
says you. star trek was only ever inconsistent on its storyline canon, not its basic tech fundamentals.
Swapping the saucer is the relatively easy thing to do for a minor upgrade. Build a new saucer, have it meet the ship. Then take a few days to move the crew and families from saucer A to saucer B. Connect saucer B and your ship has a modest improvement.
Now at a shipyard. Warp core can be pulled out the bottom. The nacelles can be pulled off completely. With the saucer detached and presumably transferring crew and families elsewhere, you can swap the entire computer core. Slide the new Saucer into place and you get new car scent from your refurbished Galaxy class. Sorry that is just what I am seeing from the arrangement of the ship, read the manual and built the model three times. (The store version of the model. I am in no way claiming to have been working on the show.)
So I think the Galaxy is reasonably modular for gross changes when the time comes. And when they have all those old parts off? Run your tests for how they wore down. Then recycle them for a new ship.
Now I need to go back an re-read all of the posts since this morning to figure out how we went from adjusting the ship in game to be appropriately level to discussing how the mechanics could work in universe.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Lets take the fleet version for example.
I am starting believe that your definition of infrastructure and mine are different, what exactly are you defining as infrastructure?
Modular is putting on and taking off with relative ease. What is easier than swapping saucers?
Really? No need to be snarky at me because about a fictional topic. What's next "yo' mama" insults?
You are right, I did say. Your opinion may vary, but everything I have seen on pre and post TNG tech is half-baked in regards to comparing tech between each other. The level of documentation and quality (time/effort) just isn't there.
Says you. I say even the stuff they pretended they were going to be 'consistent' about only lasted as long as it took for a writer to decide it stood in the way of the story he/she wanted to tell, for better or for worse.
Hell, we know for a FACT that the writers, directors, producers, and artists for the TNG movies intended for the Sovereign to be seen as a more powerful, sexier, sportier, better ship than the Galaxy. They have explicitly said so. They were not being consistent with the tech manual AT ALL. The only consistency you are finding is that which you are creating by deliberately ignoring the statements made by the movie production teams and the rationalizations you use to reconcile all the inconsistencies.
Certainly it is within your right to play pretend spaceships however you want, but consistent in you mind, based on only the evidence you choose to accept, is not the same thing as consistent in actual fact.
think of an office with a big cube farm in the center. 70% of the office is the cubes arranged however, the other 30% is the electrical, pluming, hvac, break room, bathrooms, self contained office, stuff like that. its the same thing on the ship. main engineering, the computer cores, the shuttle bays, those are all built into the structure of the ship. but all the crew quarters, science labs, all that is all plug and play. thats the 70%.
I'd say a dramatic improvement.Options for different weapon load-outs, additional aux-power reactors/generators, additional shuttle/fighter hangars (no I am not proposing a Galaxy carrier in game), cargo holds/marine quartering, just about anything. With a little effort it could have its own warp core as well. We already figure that it has its own shields and sensors.
Should be able to be done the same time as a new saucer is delivered
That would probably best be done at space-dock, due to alignment issues with the hull, but it probably wouldn't be as hard as I think it might be. Probably some high tech equivalent to tongue and groove or something.
Last I remember, the computer core is in saucer section. Just have a new core ready in the new saucer and transfer what relevant data through file transfers that isn't already loaded on the new core while transferring crew. The computer cores should be relatively simple anyways, they were still referring to data capacity in terabytes (albeit I think it was thousands of) four centuries in the future, that should be not so complex.
With all of the diagnostics they run all the time, they probably evaluate level and cause of wear and tear while the ship is in service. It probably wouldn't be hard to replicate replacement components either.
Crew quarters, science labs and such really aren't all that much modular as they are open space and some walls to finish them off. All your doing there is shifting the arrangements people habitate, although making room for hangers would be more functional than aesthetic and should be do-able.
Something truly modular would be plug and play computer cores, weapon systems, aux-reactors/generators, shield generators, deflector dish, sensor components, transporters. Actual ship systems. Much in the same way an Omni-Mech weapons and equipment (save engine and gyro) is modular http://www.sarna.net/wiki/OmniMech.
Engineer Boff skills need to be more effective
Beam weapon drain is more of a penalty to cruisers, who have constraints on maneuverability and weapons selection. Using large numbers of beam arrays is more of a liability than an advantage.
the space used for quarters and labs can be used for that kind of stuff. we only say the enterprise in detail, thats what it used most of that modular space for, luxurious apartments and expansive science labs. it can be used for anyhting else, or left mostly hollow. to get galaxy's to the front lines faster during the dominion war, they did just that.
I like that setup. Well, I basically came up with the same, just click the picture in my signature
The Nebula and Galaxy classes should be way more similiar in it's layout to resemble their close relation. The Galaxy class should not be a tactically focussed cruiser. That's what the sovereign family (which I btw also consider a evolution of the Excelsior) is for. The Galaxy is a command vessel being very modular and capabe to do most stuff (hence the (proposed) 3/3/3 console setup in it's non-fleet version) but not better than more specialized craft.
It is true that a general overhaul of engineer abilities, power drain, beam weapons etc. would eliminate the "need" to upgrade the Galaxy (which no one wants to be a super ship, it just doesn't make sense that a non-combatant vessel like the Nova outguns it, hence giving it a third tac console to be at least en par with most other ships) entirely, but such a fundamental change in game mechanics will not happen, at least I cannot see that. That's why I think releasing a "Regent" for the Galaxy in form of the "Monarch" class (you see what I did there
It seems to me that this thread once again runs in circles. I think we had our canonical discussion and while I enjoy those greatly they hold no vanity in this game. We should focus discussing the matter from a pure gameplay persepctive.
EDIT: That said, when we talk about new BOFF layouts, the revamped Galaxy should not have LTC universals. Ever. That's what the Oddy has and that is the superior ship. It is meant to be. If you can have a Oddy you shouldn't need any ship below that - but if you dont want a oddy you should still be worthwhile playing with the other ones. I don't see any good reason why the Galaxy should get a super special treatment of LTC unis or unique weapon layouts or anything like that
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I said modest as you still have all the same engineering components in the drive section. New gear might handle more power, but the old drive might not be able to give it.
With the exception of Voyager, I have seen nothing to indicate they have the ability to just pull and place a warp core in deep space. The ship has an eject mechanism, but not as simple an insert. Also if we are only moving a saucer, where is the new core?
Double checked and there are two cores. One in the saucer and one in the drive section.
The diagnostics I ran in the service (agreed 20th century) were on the functionality of equipment. When they retired something and wanted to stress analyze something it went to a lab that tore it apart and checked where it was worn, how much, and some of why. To look to see if either operation or new materials would improve performance.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
actualy there are 3 2 in saucer 1 in drive section
it is not, no matter how hard you are trying to make us bielieve, a personal interpretation.
that the galaxy exploration cruiser is less good at tanking and support than a free star cruiser is something that can be explain, demonstrate and reproduce.
the fact that the ambassador got more firepower and better tanking and support layout is something that can be explain, demonstrate and reproduce.
a cstore ship should not find himself behind a " free RA token ship"
this is not just because i really want it ( as a matter of fact, i have no real interest in this ship, i prefer the galaxy x ).
this is a matter of equity.
as i have just said above a cstore ship should not be outperformed by a free t5 ship, this is the only ship in sto to find himself in that position.
this is not fair for the people who paid for it, for the one that are thinking about it, and for the people that will paid for this ship in the futur.
if you refuse that all these people been treated fairly because there is no benefit for you, and that you fear some undefined potential downside, you are the one who better fit the definition of selfish, childish, self-centered, ego driven behavior my friend.
and i am curious about these potential downsides you mention, care to explain?
this only proove that you are quick to jump to conclusion, you see the "IF" in my sentence?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
hallelujah!! HALLELUJAH MY BROTHERS!!
he said it, he said it!
HE... SAID... IT!!!! CHAMPAGNE!!!!!!!
i am glad that you finally admit that this ship could use some improvement!
i am so happy, i have prepare a galaxy fanboy sticker for you to put on your fronthead:D
on a more serious note now, i also agree that the galaxy exploration cruiser should not be as powerfull as a cstore sovereign in this game.
in fact, even if any ship would benefit from having more tact bo slot in this game i am not convinced it is particulary pertinent considering the role that cryptic give to this ship in the first place ( i am deliberatly ignoring the train of thaught that stated that the galaxy should outgun a sovy, no matter how seducing it is for me and that i secretly bielieve it to be true )
now that the ambassador has been given what i, and many other would think it to be appropriate for the galaxy, i am a little puzzle as to what bo layout should be given to this ship.
however the last idea of drunk on the matter ( not the 3 pack proposal) sound very good to me, i just hope gecko won't take it to give it to an other new cstore ship.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
the cstore galaxy exploration cruiser should not, even if i would not have judge the comparison pertinent, be compared with a free t5 ship but with an other cstore one.
here it should be the regent, and this one have much better tactical layout than the free sovy.
not to mention the +1 degree turn and better inertia.
because if we speak about the inconsistency of having the galaxy exploration cruiser maching the potential firepower of a free sovy, i would bring the inconsistency of a free ambassador already matching the firepower of a free sovereign and also having a better tanking and support potential.
i just state for the record that the exploration cruiser is the succesor of the ambassador, no one found it strange that it is outgunned and outtanked by it predecesor but everyone scream at heresy when we speak about giving to the galaxy the same or something that is close to the sovy firepower.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
i highly doubt it since the size and firepower of a constitution class, it is perfectly within a bop reach.
and what exactly in the post i have made drawn you to the conclusion that i want that the galaxy exploration cruiser beeing made superior or redundant as the other tactical oriented cruiser?
that is one of the reason, and since cryptic will never change, add or modify the eng bo power this ship will stay gimp forever.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
no, both the support and star cruiser got 7 base turn rate.
any galaxy ship variant got just 6.
it is very simple to remember it, these ship are the only one in that size to be given such a low turnrate ( exept for the DDeridex but this is compensate by the INTEGRADTED battle cloack wich boost his turnrate to 20 )
i even known much bigger ship who have better turnrate, for that matter ( yes scimi, i looking at you ).
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Hull material = skin
Sorry for being snippy.:o
I would be perfectly ok with the GCS having a bit less Firepower than a Assault Crusier.
The problem is that the Assault Cruser isn't very "assaulty" to begin with, which makes the GCS into the most teehtless ship in the game. It doesn't even have enough/high enough Science BOFF stations to use some science tricks.
The main problem is that Cryptic made Starfleet Cruisers (assault/Explorer/Star Cruiser) way too passive and gave them to little tactical capabilities, so a ship on the low end of that spectrum is ultimately pointless to equip with weapons.
Now that we have a upgraded Sovereign (regent and fleet regent) the two other ships Star Cruiser and GCS are left behind, so to say. Some could argue the Odyssey replaced the Star Cruiser but that makes even less sense than the Sov. replacing the GCS, not to speak of the Star Cruiser ship models (which are unusually good looking for a Cryptic shipdesign IMHO) cannot be used to a Odyssey.
So i think the Star Cruiser AND the GCS should be upgraded in a similar manner as the Assault Cruiser to be competetive or at least be useful again.
Let's take a minute to take a look at how Cryptic changed the Assault Cruiser BOFF layout into the Regent.
1. They increased the Lt. Tactical station to a Lt. Cmdr.
2. They lowered the Lt. Cmdr Engineernig to a Lt.
3. Science Lt. became a universal.
4. added a tactical console (fleet version)
What would that mean for the Star Cruiser and the Galaxy?
Star Cruiser:
Tactical: - - -
Engineering: Cmdr., Lt.
Science: Lt.Cmdr., Ensign
Universal: Lt.
Consoles: 4, 4, 2
The Star Cruiser is easy to make, since it is just the science version of the Assault Cruiser.
Things look different since the GCS is supposed to be in the middle of both extremes. So would it help to just give her some universal BOFF slots?
Galaxy Class:
Tactical: Lt.
Engineering: Cmdr.
Science: Lt.
Universal: Lt. Cmdr, ensign
Consoles: 4, 3, 3
Since this is the same BOFF Layout as the Odyssey (i start to hate that bucket) some ppl will be againts it.
So why not completely dismiss the "in the middle" position of the Exploration Cruiser and make her a Cruiser equivalent to the Nebula?
Galaxy Class:
Tactical: Lt.
Engineering: Cmdr., Ensign.
Science: Lt. Cmdr.
Universal: Lt.
Consoles: 4, 3, 3
This would make the GCS become more "sciency", similar to the Vesta and its variants in STO.
By doing that the GCS would finally be useable, but still less tactical focussed than a Regent for example.
The only special thing i would want her to get are some [aux] phaser beam arrays similar to the Vestas DHCs. So the GCS would fall through the cracks, by making her a great Science Cruiser while getting some noticeable Firepower without sacrificing its science abilities. So the GCS would truely be a unique ship on it's own.
Additionally, if the devs are in a good mood, they could add a special Console to the Galaxy Class Starship. Not really essential but nice to have.
(Shamelessly stolen from Dontdrunkimshoot
[Console - Universal - Photon Torpedo salvo]
This console gives the ship the ability to fire a photon torpedo barrage at several targets at the same time.
(like a Torpedo high yield I to max 4 targets)
The [Console - Universal - Saucer Separation], [Console - Universal - Photon Torpedo salvo] and at least one equipped [aux] phaser beam array are the Galaxy Class Starship console set.
2 Set bonus
3 Set Bonus:
Enables a special firing mode on [aux] phaser beam arrays
Deals increased direct damage, like Beam Overload III
It simply shouldn't be en par with the fleet sovereign since they are two different ships with two different purposes. The Sovereign family should always be tactically more potent than the Galaxy family, the Galaxy should be more versatile however able to fill any role at least adequately.
The Galaxy class is no "Battleship" and was never intended to be one. It had formidable armament to a point that other people classified her as a battleship but she just isn't. The Sovereign heavy cruiser is more streamlined for tactical engagements while still being a multi-purpose ship but of course it is more agile while lacking a bit of defensive and supportive capabilities.
To keep it plain and simple: If you select your ship solely because of it's stats even with a revamp you don't need a Galaxy. Just pick a Regent/Odyssey, those can fill every role. In fact, this game is set up in a way that you have "the best" ship in the store, just buy it and don't think about other ships. But if people want to play a Galaxy making her similiar to the support cruiser (with a ensign ENG, more hull, less agility) gives her a purpose again. Right now it is just highly specialized to be something this game doesn't need, making the free ships at RA *better* than this 2000 c-points ship.
EDIT:
A great idea
I would even support a three-console bonus, but the Gal already has her share: Seperation and Antimatter spread. Add a heavy beam array OR aux beam array to the mix and you have your set.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
only in the pve world, and even then i would hardly said that a BFAW broadside can kill as quick as a well buff CSV.
but BFAW got the advantage of beam wich are that they can be fire with more distance without loosing too much dps in comparison of cannon and less restriction with firing arc.
there is a channel in the game that rassemble people that can do 20k dps.
in there you found escort beam that are capable to do 27k in pve.
so yes, but only in build that are made to fight brainless automaton npc.
in pvp, your 6 base turn ship will not keep escort in their broadside for ever, then you 8 or 6 beam transform in a 4 rear beam fire at will, that is without taking in consideration the fact that a well build escort will have a hight defense score wich will be enhanced by romulan bo even further.
if the target is not paying you attention that mean that it is not a 1vs 1, then in that case you firepower will be divided between taget and possible spam.
don't get me wrong, bfaw is a very good power, even in pvp, especially after they fix the bugs that were affecting it ( draining too much power and accucacy ).
but it is not sufficient on it own to correct the beam problem.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
i couldn't agree more because, THAT MY BABY TOO:D
but..... no saucer separation......sorry.
but you are free to use it if you want:D ( i don't want someone make me said something i didn't )
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
just a lt tactical slot combined with only 2 tactical console and a base turn rate of 6 with 25 inertia, wich give him the least potential firepower of all cruiser in the game ( not counting the saucer sep, this as also some downside )
the turnrate made more difficult the use of dual beam bank, and also reduce the tot ( time on target ) when you are broadsiding with or without bfaw.
the lt tact slot greatly reduce the pressure in firepower since tactical team is a must have nowaday if you are talking about a serious build.
this work if we are speaking about an auxtobat build or not, basically you either do BO or BFAW.
5 engi console slot, wich could be seen as a good things with the LOR changes on turnrate and mine turnrate console, but is still bordeless redundant since a 3 tactical console would have help better, or a 4th science console slot to enhanced the shield capacity.
3 ensin bo power, the biggest downside of the ship ( indeed all what i have mention before is nothing in comparison )
basicaly no matter what build you do with it there is at least1 ensign station that will never be use.
well, there is one, but it greatly reduced the tanking potential of the ship, you use 2 epts1 and 1 engi team... here, no waste in ensign slot, you however sacrifice a good deal of your survivability by not using the ltcommander slot for tanking ( epts3 ).
and replacing this power with dem is not worth, especially with beam on a no tact oriented cruiser.
and if you want to use an auxtobat build, here you will have an unused ensign bo slot for sure.
well i think that all, but i might forget some, if some find it more, let me known.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I never said that the ship couldn't use improvement. I just disagreed with the level of improvement that many of you wanted and the method that many of you guys choose to express your frustration/disappointment, such as the "cherry picking" of what many of you wanted to consider to be "canon", and what things descended into a silly "it's the writers' fault" mantra when things were shown in canon that some of you didn't like, or when some of you have been totally insulting to those who would dare to disagree with you, and then be inexplicably surprised when they would respond in kind or fail to have any sympathy for your "cause".