While there should be more mission (not STF, Fleet Action, or PvP) content that allows for disabling of ships, keep in mind that the setting is a during a war. When one has a ship from the other side attacking them, unless the objective is to capture them for some reason (intel, supplies, new "secret" equipment), the objective should be to send that ship home in as many small pieces as possible, not to just cripple a ship and create more work for a crew that is already being taxed by the stressors of combat and the possibility of their imminent demise. It might sound "noble" to disable the enemy ship, but if left to their own devices, they are assuredly coming back to kill another Fed' crew, it might not be yours, but a friends or a brothers/sisters instead.
As far as "murdering", with very few exceptions, your being shot at. Now where I come from that's a pretty hostile action and shooting back (presumably killing them) is self defense, not murder.
Your logic is why wars on earth and if we ever make it to the stars will keep being fought. Cause survival isn't enough. We have to kill the other guys to make sure they don't kill others down the road. But by killing those guys to insure they don't come back you give all those ppl family on that ship a reason to come in another ship and try to kill some Federation. It's why we have wars today we kill to make sure the other guy don't have another day to kill us but in this we make more enemiies of his family, friends, and fellow soldiers.
Sorry but TNG and the Federation wouldn't do so they believe in showing their humanity to their enemy so that there is a chance at peace down the road. Maybe not with the borg (as there just can't be a peace with them) or the Klinks (as leaving survivors would dishonor them) but with most races and in most fights the Federation would try to kill as little as possible. One of the things I liked about the Next Gen and Picard was even when he could destroy the enemy for a good reason he chose to use it as a Olive branch for a more peaceful future.
Your logic is why wars on earth and if we ever make it to the stars will keep being fought. Cause survival isn't enough. We have to kill the other guys to make sure they don't kill others down the road. But by killing those guys to insure they don't come back you give all those ppl family on that ship a reason to come in another ship and try to kill some Federation. It's why we have wars today we kill to make sure the other guy don't have another day to kill us but in this we make more enemiies of his family, friends, and fellow soldiers.
What a wonderful, feel-good philosophy. I don't know what reality you live in, but since the time of Vietnam on, we've let the feel good politicians put so many restrictions on the soldiers, that what you describe can't happen. We've done more to put our own soldiers in a position to be bullet traps than soldiers. We've had the current administration try to push for a medal for NOT opening fire on the enemy for God's sake. We have court martialed soldiers for defending themselves and have gone out of our way to avoid collateral damage to the point where the enemy has safe harbor to attack us from because we cant engage targets near or in a religious establishment or other civilian buildings. Our pilots have to make a second pass to make sure that there are no chance of civilians being around before they are allowed to provide air support for our soldiers.
Our officers corps cannot maintain itself because they get sick and tired of having to write letters to families of casualties that we caused because soldiers COULDN'T engage known enemy emplacements because of soft rules of engagement, tired of trying to motivate soldiers that know they aren't allowed to adequately defend themselves, sometimes to the point of not being allowed to carry loaded weapons on patrol.
We aren't allowed to even defend what we win, we take a location, and then leave it only having to fight for it the next day, instead of shoring up defenses and making the enemy pay for recapturing the area.
As far as killing the enemy encouraging friends and family of the lost to join in arms, even more so does knowing that your enemy is so constrained in its actions that there is almost a degree of safety not afforded to one in a traditional combat experience, with realistic rules of engagement. Fighting with one arm tied behind ones back tends to embolden the enemy, as it has in the last 30-40 years.
Sorry but TNG and the Federation wouldn't do so they believe in showing their humanity to their enemy so that there is a chance at peace down the road. Maybe not with the borg (as there just can't be a peace with them) or the Klinks (as leaving survivors would dishonor them) but with most races and in most fights the Federation would try to kill as little as possible. One of the things I liked about the Next Gen and Picard was even when he could destroy the enemy for a good reason he chose to use it as a Olive branch for a more peaceful future.
STO is during a war, not during relative peace-time exploration. Picard never had actions in a war on TNG because it was not wartime. One can afford to offer "olive branches" in a diplomatic situation, but not during a declared war. Most of the time where he disabled an enemy ship, they were a minor race that was barely capable of fighting a Federation (or one of the other major powers) ships.
What a wonderful, feel-good philosophy. I don't know what reality you live in, but since the time of Vietnam on, we've let the feel good politicians put so many restrictions on the soldiers, that what you describe can't happen. We've done more to put our own soldiers in a position to be bullet traps than soldiers. We've had the current administration try to push for a medal for NOT opening fire on the enemy for God's sake. We have court martialed soldiers for defending themselves and have gone out of our way to avoid collateral damage to the point where the enemy has safe harbor to attack us from because we cant engage targets near or in a religious establishment or other civilian buildings. Our pilots have to make a second pass to make sure that there are no chance of civilians being around before they are allowed to provide air support for our soldiers.
Our officers corps cannot maintain itself because they get sick and tired of having to write letters to families of casualties that we caused because soldiers COULDN'T engage known enemy emplacements because of soft rules of engagement, tired of trying to motivate soldiers that know they aren't allowed to adequately defend themselves, sometimes to the point of not being allowed to carry loaded weapons on patrol.
We aren't allowed to even defend what we win, we take a location, and then leave it only having to fight for it the next day, instead of shoring up defenses and making the enemy pay for recapturing the area.
As far as killing the enemy encouraging friends and family of the lost to join in arms, even more so does knowing that your enemy is so constrained in its actions that there is almost a degree of safety not afforded to one in a traditional combat experience, with realistic rules of engagement. Fighting with one arm tied behind ones back tends to embolden the enemy, as it has in the last 30-40 years.
STO is during a war, not during relative peace-time exploration. Picard never had actions in a war on TNG because it was not wartime. One can afford to offer "olive branches" in a diplomatic situation, but not during a declared war. Most of the time where he disabled an enemy ship, they were a minor race that was barely capable of fighting a Federation (or one of the other major powers) ships.
Ain't gonna turn this into a real life discussion about politics and wars of our era.
But sorry Star Trek is about a positive future where there is hope for humanity and for peace. So I can fully enjoy kicking the butt of all the Federations enemies without thrashing them and blowing them into space dust. The whole point of Star Trek was a future where war and killing was a last resort. It's not favored whether the other guy wants it or not and the Federation holds to certain value like life and everyone of ever species getting to have a full life without the death of getting pulverized into space debris. War time or not I think the Federation would be taking prisoners of war not blowing everyone up for spite. The Enterprise and Picard were all about showing mercy and making new ties even if they had to take risks to accomplish it. Yeah there where times when he did it cause the Galaxy class was so much tougher then the other guys ship but not every time did he have that luxury.
So sorry whether I have a outlook that doesn't match yours or a view of a show that doesn't but think in a Star Trek game while playing a Federation Character you should kill less and disable/stun more whether we are at war with the other guys or not.
Ain't gonna turn this into a real life discussion about politics and wars of our era.
Talking politics was the farthest from my intentions. As far as the real life discussion about wars of our, you can credit your last post for referencing that.
But sorry Star Trek is about a positive future where there is hope for humanity and for peace. So I can fully enjoy kicking the butt of all the Federations enemies without thrashing them and blowing them into space dust. The whole point of Star Trek was a future where war and killing was a last resort. It's not favored whether the other guy wants it or not and the Federation holds to certain value like life and everyone of ever species getting to have a full life without the death of getting pulverized into space debris. War time or not I think the Federation would be taking prisoners of war not blowing everyone up for spite. The Enterprise and Picard were all about showing mercy and making new ties even if they had to take risks to accomplish it. Yeah there where times when he did it cause the Galaxy class was so much tougher then the other guys ship but not every time did he have that luxury.
Not all of Star Trek was peace, love and unicorns. Picard showed mercy (during peacetime), but DS9, during war was all about killing people and breaking things when it came to war. Enterprise didn't hold back when everything was on the line either, and while TOS was about exploration, Kirk wasn't afraid of making people shooting at him past-tense either.
So sorry whether I have a outlook that doesn't match yours or a view of a show that doesn't but think in a Star Trek game while playing a Federation Character you should kill less and disable/stun more whether we are at war with the other guys or not.
Nothing is wrong with wanting peace, or being peaceful, but when the chips are down and the other guy wants you dead, one needs to take it serious and fight like you want to live. The Romans had a saying:
"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." (If you want peace, prepare for war.)
Talking politics was the farthest from my intentions. As far as the real life discussion about wars of our, you can credit your last post for referencing that.
Not all of Star Trek was peace, love and unicorns. Picard showed mercy (during peacetime), but DS9, during war was all about killing people and breaking things when it came to war. Enterprise didn't hold back when everything was on the line either, and while TOS was about exploration, Kirk wasn't afraid of making people shooting at him past-tense either.
Nothing is wrong with wanting peace, or being peaceful, but when the chips are down and the other guy wants you dead, one needs to take it serious and fight like you want to live. The Romans had a saying:
"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." (If you want peace, prepare for war.)
I can't help getting in on this one.
Federation ship weapons were only shown to have a stun setting once. TOS Piece of the Action. Kirk stunned a square full of mobsters shooting at one another as a peaceful show of force.
Every other time a weapon has been fired it is destructive. Federation Captains including Sisko have preferred to target weapons and engines to make an enemy back down. (Way of the Warrior) Let a warrior start shooting and BoP started dying.
There is merit in both lines of reasoning. There is a general rule about taking prisoners of war. And we had rules of conduct as far back as the second world war to my knowledge. (If it goes back further please feel free to correct me.) But one of those rules is to not take prisoners if you cannot inter them properly.
Would it be nice if stun actually worked in STO? Sure. Heck the only time I see stun being stun is in Everything old is New. Then even your kill setting is stun. I would enjoy an accolade for capturing klingon warriors. Tier three should be something like Hunted by the Great Houses.
But weapons on the scale of a starship leave little room for disabled before vapourized.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
While there should be more mission (not STF, Fleet Action, or PvP) content that allows for disabling of ships, keep in mind that the setting is a during a war. When one has a ship from the other side attacking them, unless the objective is to capture them for some reason (intel, supplies, new "secret" equipment), the objective should be to send that ship home in as many small pieces as possible, not to just cripple a ship and create more work for a crew that is already being taxed by the stressors of combat and the possibility of their imminent demise. It might sound "noble" to disable the enemy ship, but if left to their own devices, they are assuredly coming back to kill another Fed' crew, it might not be yours, but a friends or a brothers/sisters instead.
As far as "murdering", with very few exceptions, your being shot at. Now where I come from that's a pretty hostile action and shooting back (presumably killing them) is self defense, not murder.
you are making a very valid point here, indeed the federation is at war with the klingons and in a scenario like this they usually kill eatch other.
so you are right, for 80% of the game, kill is justify.
however they are some parts of the storyline where kill could have been avoided in my opinion, when we kill the gorn ship in the beguining of the story ( he claim that the planet was his ancester planet ), to finally discovered that he may be right finally, is just something that i have hard time to digest, even tho the gorn used bad mean to prevent the federation to save their hostage.
i bielieve that the federation would have act differently ( even tho i anderstand it a game and all ) it seem to me that in some case there is just "free kill".
the mission where you got that undine disguised in the form of an admiral is an other example, we attack some romulan researcher because the admiral said so, fine, but when we finally discovered that it was an imposter and the romulan was doing nothing wrong, we just continue to kill them!!
i bielieve that the well known " set your phaser to stunt" sentence would have been apropriate and more starfleet like in this situation.
these are little details that really make me wonder if i am in starfleet or in the mirror universe.
and all this happened without any consequence for the federation or the avatar you are playing and his crew, nothing wrong, we just kill one hundred romulan scientist base on an impostur but hey, **** happened!
and we move on!
it seem to me that the federation will alway try the diplomatic solution first, and in this game it "feel" like it is the contrary ( wether it is justify or not ).
nothing of a really big importance anyway, but it kill the imersion for me sometime.
i also fear that people who don't known what star trek is about will associate it with all generic scifi because of that when they play sto.
someone told me this one day: " well? what the difference with star wars? you got starship and you kill some bad guy?"
the guy didn't mean to upset me, he really didn't known what star trek is ( he never saw the tv serie and all ) and his opinion was just base on the few hours of sto playtime.
You know, why not upgrade the console with the dyson destroyer tech?
Go to battle section, Lt. Tac suddenly becomes Cmdr. Tac
Easy peasy, instant cheesy.
i was thinking this too. and it doesn't have to be the COM station, but a LTC/LT station would be fine even. saucer sep and this new tech are a perfect match, when you sep the LTC eng and LT tac swap, so a separated galaxy would essentially have the excelsior layout. only its down 2 tac consoles. maybe it can trade 2 eng consoles for 2 tac consoles too. you would have 12 total consoles you can place items in, but you can only be effected by 10 at a time, depending on sep status.
sep being tac heavy naturally makes more sense, before anyone says it should be more sci heavy somewhere in that process. that would require changing the base layout though. but, if you think about it, separating the saucer disconnects the ships main guns from the warp core, the ship's firepower is at least cut in half without the saucer. its no wonder it was never used in battle really. as far as the game goes though, with the way beams work in game, best not to over think things like that.
ok how bout this
unseparated
COM eng LTC sci LT eng LT tac ENS eng
4/4/2
separated
COM eng LTC tac LT eng LT sci ENS eng
4/2/4
there is not yet a true 'sci exclecior yet, the ambasidor is close but its got a tac ENS. if the LTC isnt eng, 3 ENS eng is not a total deal breaker. hell, the fleet version could have an ENS uni
would look kinda funny in the ship screen, it would look to have a 4/4/4 console layout. only 10 of those would functino at a time though
If it did this I definitely feel it should be a tac com station for the separation.
My other gripe would be that the lance would no longer be the lance we love/hate, I believe their idea for the separation would be a kind of shotgun effect. I would prefer my Galaxy not to separate, just give it a Lt Cmd Tac station and another Tac console, a bit more turn rate, a bit more hull and a bit more shield.
I do think your layout above would be great for the Galaxy-R though.
there is not yet a true 'sci exclecior yet, the ambasidor is close but its got a tac ENS. if the LTC isnt eng, 3 ENS eng is not a total deal breaker. hell, the fleet version could have an ENS uni
would look kinda funny in the ship screen, it would look to have a 4/4/4 console layout. only 10 of those would functino at a time though
That's great, actually. I'd love that, plus the uni ens for the fleet version. I'd call it a deal
^ 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 wouldn't assign any evil motives behind the state or design of the Galaxy class in this game. I think it's simply this - when they introduced the Galaxy Retrofit, there was a Science and a Tactical Cruiser. So the only thing "left" was the Engineering cruiser.
But in truth, that was not such a great role because you don't really need that 3rd ensign engineering power, where a non-tactical or non-science ship can always use an extra science or tactical slot (and I think every science ship can use another science ensign slot, because damn it, those powers have a lot of utility and there is no real stinker among them). Engineering has powers that conflict with their system cooldowns, and also still have several subpar powers.
Lore-wise, the Galaxy - like pretty much all Starfleet cruisers, should have a strong science focus, since the cruisers are used for exploration duties mostly.
As a gimmick I might propose something like the new Dyson Science Destroyer has. Give it a Lt.Cmr Science slot and a Lt.Cmdr Tactical slot, with the Lt.Cmdr power of science only active when the saucer is docked to the engineering hull, and the Lt.Cmdr Tactical power only active when the ship is separated.
So it's basic configuration would be something like Cmd Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Science, Lt. Engineering, Lt. Tactical, Ensign Engineering. When separated, it changes to Cmdr Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Tactical, Lt. Science, Lt. Science, Ensign Engineering.
Maybe the Fleet version replaces the Ensign Engineering with a Universal Ensign.
Beyond that, it might help if engineering powers would get a new, useful ensign ability that does not work on emergency power subsystem or the team subsystem. (That leaves shields, weapon modification or warp core subsystem based powers).
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
So it's basic configuration would be something like Cmd Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Science, Lt. Engineering, Lt. Tactical, Ensign Engineering. When separated, it changes to Cmdr Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Tactical, Lt. Science, Lt. Science, Ensign Engineering.
Maybe the Fleet version replaces the Ensign Engineering with a Universal Ensign.
Anything that doesn't have two Lieutenant-level Engineering stations is inherently undesirable because it restricts the ship from using Aux2Batt builds effectively. As it stands now, Aux2Batt is one of the few things that lets the Exploration Cruiser line compete in PvE, and you have to build pretty specifically to get the most mileage out of this ship. I only broke the 11,000 DPS barrier because of Fire at Will and Aux2Batt.
I wouldn't assign any evil motives behind the state or design of the Galaxy class in this game. I think it's simply this - when they introduced the Galaxy Retrofit, there was a Science and a Tactical Cruiser. So the only thing "left" was the Engineering cruiser.
But in truth, that was not such a great role because you don't really need that 3rd ensign engineering power, where a non-tactical or non-science ship can always use an extra science or tactical slot (and I think every science ship can use another science ensign slot, because damn it, those powers have a lot of utility and there is no real stinker among them). Engineering has powers that conflict with their system cooldowns, and also still have several subpar powers.
Lore-wise, the Galaxy - like pretty much all Starfleet cruisers, should have a strong science focus, since the cruisers are used for exploration duties mostly.
As a gimmick I might propose something like the new Dyson Science Destroyer has. Give it a Lt.Cmr Science slot and a Lt.Cmdr Tactical slot, with the Lt.Cmdr power of science only active when the saucer is docked to the engineering hull, and the Lt.Cmdr Tactical power only active when the ship is separated.
So it's basic configuration would be something like Cmd Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Science, Lt. Engineering, Lt. Tactical, Ensign Engineering. When separated, it changes to Cmdr Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Tactical, Lt. Science, Lt. Science, Ensign Engineering.
Maybe the Fleet version replaces the Ensign Engineering with a Universal Ensign.
Beyond that, it might help if engineering powers would get a new, useful ensign ability that does not work on emergency power subsystem or the team subsystem. (That leaves shields, weapon modification or warp core subsystem based powers).
That is actually an interesting idea. Full science abilities in exploration mode. But down on the battle bridge you get feistier.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I wouldn't assign any evil motives behind the state or design of the Galaxy class in this game. I think it's simply this - when they introduced the Galaxy Retrofit, there was a Science and a Tactical Cruiser. So the only thing "left" was the Engineering cruiser.
But in truth, that was not such a great role because you don't really need that 3rd ensign engineering power, where a non-tactical or non-science ship can always use an extra science or tactical slot (and I think every science ship can use another science ensign slot, because damn it, those powers have a lot of utility and there is no real stinker among them). Engineering has powers that conflict with their system cooldowns, and also still have several subpar powers.
Lore-wise, the Galaxy - like pretty much all Starfleet cruisers, should have a strong science focus, since the cruisers are used for exploration duties mostly.
As a gimmick I might propose something like the new Dyson Science Destroyer has. Give it a Lt.Cmr Science slot and a Lt.Cmdr Tactical slot, with the Lt.Cmdr power of science only active when the saucer is docked to the engineering hull, and the Lt.Cmdr Tactical power only active when the ship is separated.
So it's basic configuration would be something like Cmd Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Science, Lt. Engineering, Lt. Tactical, Ensign Engineering. When separated, it changes to Cmdr Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Tactical, Lt. Science, Lt. Science, Ensign Engineering.
Maybe the Fleet version replaces the Ensign Engineering with a Universal Ensign.
Beyond that, it might help if engineering powers would get a new, useful ensign ability that does not work on emergency power subsystem or the team subsystem. (That leaves shields, weapon modification or warp core subsystem based powers).
That's actually a pretty neat idea. Though I wonder if something similar would be feasible with the Multi-Vector Advanced Escort too, since each section has a deapartment focus when separated.
That's actually a pretty neat idea. Though I wonder if something similar would be feasible with the Multi-Vector Advanced Escort too, since each section has a deapartment focus when separated.
Oh, great use of the gimmick. *bwahahahhahaha*
Oh, but is it possible? *bwahahahahhahahha*
*bwahahhahahaahahaha*
"Department focus" on a warship. *bwhahahahahhhaa*
No ship needs more than two engineering stations thanks to Cryptic's delightful "engineering power selection".
I don't see the problem, besides the limitation to a fixed set of abilities. But I think the universal ensign would solve that problem as well.
But honestly, if "reworking" of some layouts always just caters to the current flavour of the patch there would be only one single boff layout in this game.
^ 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 wouldn't assign any evil motives behind the state or design of the Galaxy class in this game. I think it's simply this - when they introduced the Galaxy Retrofit, there was a Science and a Tactical Cruiser. So the only thing "left" was the Engineering cruiser.
yeah, it is basically this, but why make it less efficient than a star cruiser? usually, ship that got out later are a bit better.
same with the galaxy x, why make it a less maneuvrable clone of the assault cruiser?
even at that time.
a bias can only be the answer.
note that a bias is not necessarily evil.
yeah, it is basically this, but why make it less efficient than a star cruiser? usually, ship that got out later are a bit better.
same with the galaxy x, why make it a less maneuvrable clone of the assault cruiser?
even at that time.
a bias can only be the answer.
note that a bias is not necessarily evil.
I don't think its a bias as much as it was an acknowledgement that the Gal-X was a ship that had been upgraded a bit off of an exploration ship to have a bit more teeth. The ship boff stations wouldn't be as much to complain about if the Lance was worth its (theoretical) weight in salt.
I don't think its a bias as much as it was an acknowledgement that the Gal-X was a ship that had been upgraded a bit off of an exploration ship to have a bit more teeth. The ship boff stations wouldn't be as much to complain about if the Lance was worth its (theoretical) weight in salt.
Ironically, when I said that I got quite a bit of "flak" (all in good fun ) for it. But you are right: The Galaxy Refit (X) is just that, it's the basic Galaxy with a third navelle (which really doesn't do anything aside from maybe stabilizing the flight or something?) and some additional arrays on the nacelles - the same the Dominion War Galaxies got (see "USS Venture"). Aside from the havy phaset emitter on the saucer it's basically the same ship, with the same tactical capabilities.
The thing is, even if people don't want to see this, the Galaxy is already a top-of-the-line ship with lots of firepower and blah. I mentioned it before, the whole "It's war now, our ships have to get meaner" is nonsense because thre is no need to do that. Starfleet's ships are already capable enough to compete with other people's battlecruisers, by design.
The problem is that Cryptic assigned fixed layouts to those ships. But it actually makes sense for the Dradnaught Cruiser not to be all that different from the Explorer. Both should have an universal ensign and maybe a shift in consoles. If we ever get seperate layouts on seperation for the R, the X would maybe always fixed in "tactical mode" or something.
^ 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
Clearly we can all conclude that there is no great bias in favour of the Galaxy class at Cryptic. From what I have seen over the years they are certainly bigger DS9 fans than TNG fans, they are probably bigger escort fans than cruiser fans.
I don't think it's because they particularly hate the Galaxy, I think it's down to money. They know that the Galaxy is one of the favourite ships in Star Trek, if not the most favourite. If they were to introduce a really good 3 pack with all the bells and whistles, full interior, superb modelling, and perfect BOFF layout, and even if they sold it for 20,000 zen, it would sell like hot cakes and then......that would be it.
Hardly any of those customers would then go on to buy lock box keys to try and win the next alien ship, not many would bother spending anything again on new C Store ships, why would they bother? We are here in our Trek universe in the ship we love which is more than capable and has a host of options to play with including a fully interactive interior, thanks, we're done.
So they fear a loss of sales after a sudden spike, they probably fear a lack of diversity in the game too. For these reasons I fear we will never see the ship we dream of because Cryptic is a business, it's sole purpose is to make money now and in the future, they will never do anything that threatens the long term survival of their business model, and the Galaxy does just that, which is why we got a token ship and that's it, and why there has not been any kind of response from any dev ever about this issue.
I agree with this to a point, Look at how the game is marketed, Cryptic certainly have no problems using the Galaxy's image for marketing and promoting the game as they know the ship is easily identified with Star Trek
some examples
the screen shots of the game i have on the back of my box has a Galaxy pictured
Up until the forum change the Galaxy was pictured
The shipyard when selecting a new ship for feds the Galaxy's icon is used.
The new ship loadout feature added has the Galaxy as the icon in the zen store.
Look at the Omega rep system screens for the space gear the Galaxy is pictured
Fleet ship modules have the Galaxy pictured with the Negh'Var
The Star trek online website when selecting the game tab has the Galaxy pictured
So using the Galaxy to flog the game doesn't appear to be a issue Cryptic has, given us a ship thats competitive with the rest of the cruiser line appears to be an issue.
Can i also add to the people who say the Galaxy was built during peacetime and therefore not a combat ship, Weapons technology doesn't sit still just because you are at peace, only the large scale production of weapons is decreased as they are not called for in quantity. However the Feds had plenty of skirmishes and disputes with its neighbours to justify equipping a new class with bigger and better guns to ensure the peace.
The Galaxy was built with the largest and best type of arrays available to a starship at the time type 10. Only superseded by the Sovereign and Prometheus type 10 vs type 12, Also she had the biggest and best torpedo launchers of the time, best warp core, highest shield grid, best top speed ect.
Starfleet was the military, we don't like to call it the military but it clearly was, who fought the Cardassians, Borg, Dominion, kept the Romulans in check, Starfleet, Every Starfleet ship is a combat vessel.. Its just that they are multi pose and are used to full fill multiple roles.
You don't send a weak TRIBBLE ship to the Neutral Zone when the Romulans have been testing you're defences so its a hostile situation you are heading into, or send a ship to engage the Borg solo to give the rest of the fleet time to mobilise.
The Galaxy was the powerhouse of Starfleet between when it was launched and the up until the Sovereign classes numbers swelled. But was still even then a top of the line ship which few could match
Just because nothing yet has happened doesn't mean we give up hope of change, If we can turn one voice into many and many in hundreds and hundreds into thousands we may be heard.
Also this thread will stay alive for as long as there's people that have a love, interest, option of the Galaxy class starship and feel that it is poorly represented in this game.
Just because nothing yet has happened doesn't mean we give up hope of change, If we can turn one voice into many and many in hundreds and hundreds into thousands we may be heard.
Also this thread will stay alive for as long as there's people that have a love, interest, option of the Galaxy class starship and feel that it is poorly represented in this game.
Long live La Resistance
Almost 600 pages later, its pretty obvious just how important this is to quite a few people.
Ironically, when I said that I got quite a bit of "flak" (all in good fun ) for it. But you are right: The Galaxy Refit (X) is just that, it's the basic Galaxy with a third navelle (which really doesn't do anything aside from maybe stabilizing the flight or something?)
The Gal-X is pretty much a homage to Franz Josephs design of the Federation Class Dreadnought that was design in TOS era.
Comments
Your logic is why wars on earth and if we ever make it to the stars will keep being fought. Cause survival isn't enough. We have to kill the other guys to make sure they don't kill others down the road. But by killing those guys to insure they don't come back you give all those ppl family on that ship a reason to come in another ship and try to kill some Federation. It's why we have wars today we kill to make sure the other guy don't have another day to kill us but in this we make more enemiies of his family, friends, and fellow soldiers.
Sorry but TNG and the Federation wouldn't do so they believe in showing their humanity to their enemy so that there is a chance at peace down the road. Maybe not with the borg (as there just can't be a peace with them) or the Klinks (as leaving survivors would dishonor them) but with most races and in most fights the Federation would try to kill as little as possible. One of the things I liked about the Next Gen and Picard was even when he could destroy the enemy for a good reason he chose to use it as a Olive branch for a more peaceful future.
What a wonderful, feel-good philosophy. I don't know what reality you live in, but since the time of Vietnam on, we've let the feel good politicians put so many restrictions on the soldiers, that what you describe can't happen. We've done more to put our own soldiers in a position to be bullet traps than soldiers. We've had the current administration try to push for a medal for NOT opening fire on the enemy for God's sake. We have court martialed soldiers for defending themselves and have gone out of our way to avoid collateral damage to the point where the enemy has safe harbor to attack us from because we cant engage targets near or in a religious establishment or other civilian buildings. Our pilots have to make a second pass to make sure that there are no chance of civilians being around before they are allowed to provide air support for our soldiers.
Our officers corps cannot maintain itself because they get sick and tired of having to write letters to families of casualties that we caused because soldiers COULDN'T engage known enemy emplacements because of soft rules of engagement, tired of trying to motivate soldiers that know they aren't allowed to adequately defend themselves, sometimes to the point of not being allowed to carry loaded weapons on patrol.
We aren't allowed to even defend what we win, we take a location, and then leave it only having to fight for it the next day, instead of shoring up defenses and making the enemy pay for recapturing the area.
As far as killing the enemy encouraging friends and family of the lost to join in arms, even more so does knowing that your enemy is so constrained in its actions that there is almost a degree of safety not afforded to one in a traditional combat experience, with realistic rules of engagement. Fighting with one arm tied behind ones back tends to embolden the enemy, as it has in the last 30-40 years.
STO is during a war, not during relative peace-time exploration. Picard never had actions in a war on TNG because it was not wartime. One can afford to offer "olive branches" in a diplomatic situation, but not during a declared war. Most of the time where he disabled an enemy ship, they were a minor race that was barely capable of fighting a Federation (or one of the other major powers) ships.
Ain't gonna turn this into a real life discussion about politics and wars of our era.
But sorry Star Trek is about a positive future where there is hope for humanity and for peace. So I can fully enjoy kicking the butt of all the Federations enemies without thrashing them and blowing them into space dust. The whole point of Star Trek was a future where war and killing was a last resort. It's not favored whether the other guy wants it or not and the Federation holds to certain value like life and everyone of ever species getting to have a full life without the death of getting pulverized into space debris. War time or not I think the Federation would be taking prisoners of war not blowing everyone up for spite. The Enterprise and Picard were all about showing mercy and making new ties even if they had to take risks to accomplish it. Yeah there where times when he did it cause the Galaxy class was so much tougher then the other guys ship but not every time did he have that luxury.
So sorry whether I have a outlook that doesn't match yours or a view of a show that doesn't but think in a Star Trek game while playing a Federation Character you should kill less and disable/stun more whether we are at war with the other guys or not.
Talking politics was the farthest from my intentions. As far as the real life discussion about wars of our, you can credit your last post for referencing that.
Not all of Star Trek was peace, love and unicorns. Picard showed mercy (during peacetime), but DS9, during war was all about killing people and breaking things when it came to war. Enterprise didn't hold back when everything was on the line either, and while TOS was about exploration, Kirk wasn't afraid of making people shooting at him past-tense either.
Nothing is wrong with wanting peace, or being peaceful, but when the chips are down and the other guy wants you dead, one needs to take it serious and fight like you want to live. The Romans had a saying:
"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." (If you want peace, prepare for war.)
I can't help getting in on this one.
Federation ship weapons were only shown to have a stun setting once. TOS Piece of the Action. Kirk stunned a square full of mobsters shooting at one another as a peaceful show of force.
Every other time a weapon has been fired it is destructive. Federation Captains including Sisko have preferred to target weapons and engines to make an enemy back down. (Way of the Warrior) Let a warrior start shooting and BoP started dying.
There is merit in both lines of reasoning. There is a general rule about taking prisoners of war. And we had rules of conduct as far back as the second world war to my knowledge. (If it goes back further please feel free to correct me.) But one of those rules is to not take prisoners if you cannot inter them properly.
Would it be nice if stun actually worked in STO? Sure. Heck the only time I see stun being stun is in Everything old is New. Then even your kill setting is stun. I would enjoy an accolade for capturing klingon warriors. Tier three should be something like Hunted by the Great Houses.
But weapons on the scale of a starship leave little room for disabled before vapourized.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
you are making a very valid point here, indeed the federation is at war with the klingons and in a scenario like this they usually kill eatch other.
so you are right, for 80% of the game, kill is justify.
however they are some parts of the storyline where kill could have been avoided in my opinion, when we kill the gorn ship in the beguining of the story ( he claim that the planet was his ancester planet ), to finally discovered that he may be right finally, is just something that i have hard time to digest, even tho the gorn used bad mean to prevent the federation to save their hostage.
i bielieve that the federation would have act differently ( even tho i anderstand it a game and all ) it seem to me that in some case there is just "free kill".
the mission where you got that undine disguised in the form of an admiral is an other example, we attack some romulan researcher because the admiral said so, fine, but when we finally discovered that it was an imposter and the romulan was doing nothing wrong, we just continue to kill them!!
i bielieve that the well known " set your phaser to stunt" sentence would have been apropriate and more starfleet like in this situation.
these are little details that really make me wonder if i am in starfleet or in the mirror universe.
and all this happened without any consequence for the federation or the avatar you are playing and his crew, nothing wrong, we just kill one hundred romulan scientist base on an impostur but hey, **** happened!
and we move on!
it seem to me that the federation will alway try the diplomatic solution first, and in this game it "feel" like it is the contrary ( wether it is justify or not ).
nothing of a really big importance anyway, but it kill the imersion for me sometime.
i also fear that people who don't known what star trek is about will associate it with all generic scifi because of that when they play sto.
someone told me this one day: " well? what the difference with star wars? you got starship and you kill some bad guy?"
the guy didn't mean to upset me, he really didn't known what star trek is ( he never saw the tv serie and all ) and his opinion was just base on the few hours of sto playtime.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Go to battle section, Lt. Tac suddenly becomes Cmdr. Tac
Easy peasy, instant cheesy.
i was thinking this too. and it doesn't have to be the COM station, but a LTC/LT station would be fine even. saucer sep and this new tech are a perfect match, when you sep the LTC eng and LT tac swap, so a separated galaxy would essentially have the excelsior layout. only its down 2 tac consoles. maybe it can trade 2 eng consoles for 2 tac consoles too. you would have 12 total consoles you can place items in, but you can only be effected by 10 at a time, depending on sep status.
sep being tac heavy naturally makes more sense, before anyone says it should be more sci heavy somewhere in that process. that would require changing the base layout though. but, if you think about it, separating the saucer disconnects the ships main guns from the warp core, the ship's firepower is at least cut in half without the saucer. its no wonder it was never used in battle really. as far as the game goes though, with the way beams work in game, best not to over think things like that.
ok how bout this
unseparated
COM eng
LTC sci
LT eng
LT tac
ENS eng
4/4/2
separated
COM eng
LTC tac
LT eng
LT sci
ENS eng
4/2/4
there is not yet a true 'sci exclecior yet, the ambasidor is close but its got a tac ENS. if the LTC isnt eng, 3 ENS eng is not a total deal breaker. hell, the fleet version could have an ENS uni
would look kinda funny in the ship screen, it would look to have a 4/4/4 console layout. only 10 of those would functino at a time though
the R is what i was talking about
That's great, actually. I'd love that, plus the uni ens for the fleet version. I'd call it a deal
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But in truth, that was not such a great role because you don't really need that 3rd ensign engineering power, where a non-tactical or non-science ship can always use an extra science or tactical slot (and I think every science ship can use another science ensign slot, because damn it, those powers have a lot of utility and there is no real stinker among them). Engineering has powers that conflict with their system cooldowns, and also still have several subpar powers.
Lore-wise, the Galaxy - like pretty much all Starfleet cruisers, should have a strong science focus, since the cruisers are used for exploration duties mostly.
As a gimmick I might propose something like the new Dyson Science Destroyer has. Give it a Lt.Cmr Science slot and a Lt.Cmdr Tactical slot, with the Lt.Cmdr power of science only active when the saucer is docked to the engineering hull, and the Lt.Cmdr Tactical power only active when the ship is separated.
So it's basic configuration would be something like Cmd Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Science, Lt. Engineering, Lt. Tactical, Ensign Engineering. When separated, it changes to Cmdr Engineering, Lt.Cmdr Tactical, Lt. Science, Lt. Science, Ensign Engineering.
Maybe the Fleet version replaces the Ensign Engineering with a Universal Ensign.
Beyond that, it might help if engineering powers would get a new, useful ensign ability that does not work on emergency power subsystem or the team subsystem. (That leaves shields, weapon modification or warp core subsystem based powers).
Anything that doesn't have two Lieutenant-level Engineering stations is inherently undesirable because it restricts the ship from using Aux2Batt builds effectively. As it stands now, Aux2Batt is one of the few things that lets the Exploration Cruiser line compete in PvE, and you have to build pretty specifically to get the most mileage out of this ship. I only broke the 11,000 DPS barrier because of Fire at Will and Aux2Batt.
That is actually an interesting idea. Full science abilities in exploration mode. But down on the battle bridge you get feistier.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
No ship needs more than two engineering stations thanks to Cryptic's delightful "engineering power selection".
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
That's actually a pretty neat idea. Though I wonder if something similar would be feasible with the Multi-Vector Advanced Escort too, since each section has a deapartment focus when separated.
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
Oh, great use of the gimmick. *bwahahahhahaha*
Oh, but is it possible? *bwahahahahhahahha*
*bwahahhahahaahahaha*
"Department focus" on a warship. *bwhahahahahhhaa*
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I don't see the problem, besides the limitation to a fixed set of abilities. But I think the universal ensign would solve that problem as well.
But honestly, if "reworking" of some layouts always just caters to the current flavour of the patch there would be only one single boff layout in this game.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
yeah, it is basically this, but why make it less efficient than a star cruiser? usually, ship that got out later are a bit better.
same with the galaxy x, why make it a less maneuvrable clone of the assault cruiser?
even at that time.
a bias can only be the answer.
note that a bias is not necessarily evil.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I don't think its a bias as much as it was an acknowledgement that the Gal-X was a ship that had been upgraded a bit off of an exploration ship to have a bit more teeth. The ship boff stations wouldn't be as much to complain about if the Lance was worth its (theoretical) weight in salt.
Ironically, when I said that I got quite a bit of "flak" (all in good fun
The thing is, even if people don't want to see this, the Galaxy is already a top-of-the-line ship with lots of firepower and blah. I mentioned it before, the whole "It's war now, our ships have to get meaner" is nonsense because thre is no need to do that. Starfleet's ships are already capable enough to compete with other people's battlecruisers, by design.
The problem is that Cryptic assigned fixed layouts to those ships. But it actually makes sense for the Dradnaught Cruiser not to be all that different from the Explorer. Both should have an universal ensign and maybe a shift in consoles. If we ever get seperate layouts on seperation for the R, the X would maybe always fixed in "tactical mode" or something.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I agree with this to a point, Look at how the game is marketed, Cryptic certainly have no problems using the Galaxy's image for marketing and promoting the game as they know the ship is easily identified with Star Trek
some examples
the screen shots of the game i have on the back of my box has a Galaxy pictured
Up until the forum change the Galaxy was pictured
The shipyard when selecting a new ship for feds the Galaxy's icon is used.
The new ship loadout feature added has the Galaxy as the icon in the zen store.
Look at the Omega rep system screens for the space gear the Galaxy is pictured
Fleet ship modules have the Galaxy pictured with the Negh'Var
The Star trek online website when selecting the game tab has the Galaxy pictured
So using the Galaxy to flog the game doesn't appear to be a issue Cryptic has, given us a ship thats competitive with the rest of the cruiser line appears to be an issue.
Can i also add to the people who say the Galaxy was built during peacetime and therefore not a combat ship, Weapons technology doesn't sit still just because you are at peace, only the large scale production of weapons is decreased as they are not called for in quantity. However the Feds had plenty of skirmishes and disputes with its neighbours to justify equipping a new class with bigger and better guns to ensure the peace.
The Galaxy was built with the largest and best type of arrays available to a starship at the time type 10. Only superseded by the Sovereign and Prometheus type 10 vs type 12, Also she had the biggest and best torpedo launchers of the time, best warp core, highest shield grid, best top speed ect.
Starfleet was the military, we don't like to call it the military but it clearly was, who fought the Cardassians, Borg, Dominion, kept the Romulans in check, Starfleet, Every Starfleet ship is a combat vessel.. Its just that they are multi pose and are used to full fill multiple roles.
You don't send a weak TRIBBLE ship to the Neutral Zone when the Romulans have been testing you're defences so its a hostile situation you are heading into, or send a ship to engage the Borg solo to give the rest of the fleet time to mobilise.
The Galaxy was the powerhouse of Starfleet between when it was launched and the up until the Sovereign classes numbers swelled. But was still even then a top of the line ship which few could match
When are people going to realize that if they have not done anything by now, it will never happen.......
Also this thread will stay alive for as long as there's people that have a love, interest, option of the Galaxy class starship and feel that it is poorly represented in this game.
Long live La Resistance
We shall never retreat, never surrender!
Almost 600 pages later, its pretty obvious just how important this is to quite a few people.
And at almost 600 pages with no response from a dev at all, it is fairly obvious what PWE/Cryptic thinks.
The Gal-X is pretty much a homage to Franz Josephs design of the Federation Class Dreadnought that was design in TOS era.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Federation_class
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/starship-design-sheet-8.jpg
#OccupyFederationShipyards