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
i will not comment on the bo layout ( to be honest i didn't get a good look at it ) but i found the console and set bonus very good, it give him more dps, wich is what is needed in this game without making it more powerfull than a regent.
it also give it more potential diversity in tactical power, very clever.
I understand your point. I was throwing out a hypothetical senario. But what would you say about the Galaxy-X? If anything it should have 5 tac consoles being that it's a Galaxy that's fully refitted for combat.
since this ship is comming from a timeline where it was not replaced by a sovereign ( just that ship of course ) and was upgraded to be on part with ship of that time, in a war time with klingons, it should indeed been more tactically oriented than the version we have in game.
however i think 5 tact console is not needed for 2 reasons:
the first is that the general accepted idea is that a sovereign is more powerfull than a galaxy, and even if this one is a tactical oriented galaxy, it is still trying to catch up with the sovy, so it should only have at least, the same, but not more tactical console. ( i am sorry drunk, i don't bielieve it too but that how many people see it so...)
the second reason is that to a point, i think it will not help the ship as one could think it will.
a ship build and layout must be balanced, 4 tact console is the perfect spot for these type of ship, but that is just my opinion ( and here it is really just an opinion, not a fact )
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.
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.
The EPS system should be well over-engineered for capacity if it is designed for a service life (modular)) for over 50 years. I'm not sure what you meant about "drive" But with an over-engineeres power distribution system throughout the ship, all the power doesn't need to be from warp cores, but aux-reactors and such that are closer to the system that they are supporting while the core deals with propulsion and other systems.
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?
If the Galaxy was modular, wouldn't it make sense to have an easy in-out for the core? The most likely way to do that is the the same routing the warp core would be ejected. We know the Galaxy was capable of it (the Enterprise crew obviously had a defective system), work through it.
BTW a new core would most likely be transported by the tender delivering the new saucer 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.
That is normal quality assurance. There really isnt a reason that a ship the size and crew compliment of a Galaxy couldn't do that work in house and transmit findings to the Corps of Engineers or whatever group that was tracking that data.
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
I think some people have universal slots in the head. Whenever I see an call for universal boffs for the Galaxy, I can pretty much replace the term "universal" with "tactical" , especially when the same people complain that the ship doesn't dish out damage like other ships do or when the suggest a layout that has no tactical boff in it. The same with special layouts.
I believe you and everyone got the kist of what I was saying. My whole point is that the main complaint behind the Exploration cruisers deficiencies is because it appears as the Galaxy class, and many of the loyalists will not have any other ship supplant the "best of the best of the best" (in their minds). If it didn't have the appearance of the Galaxy tied to it, many of these same people would not be up in arms over it. Thats why there is such a call to up its tactical side through obvious calls and less obvious calls (universal LTCMDR boffs).
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.
Only if the Constituation gets a three peice set which includes an inflatable decoy and a carbomite defense system.
The EPS system should be well over-engineered for capacity if it is designed for a service life (modular)) for over 50 years. I'm not sure what you meant about "drive" But with an over-engineeres power distribution system throughout the ship, all the power doesn't need to be from warp cores, but aux-reactors and such that are closer to the system that they are supporting while the core deals with propulsion and other systems.
If the Galaxy was modular, wouldn't it make sense to have an easy in-out for the core? The most likely way to do that is the the same routing the warp core would be ejected. We know the Galaxy was capable of it (the Enterprise crew obviously had a defective system), work through it.
BTW a new core would most likely be transported by the tender delivering the new saucer section.
Okay, I stand corrected on that. Still, the computer core in the saucer should be upgraded every time a saucer switch would happen.
That is normal quality assurance. There really isnt a reason that a ship the size and crew compliment of a Galaxy couldn't do that work in house and transmit findings to the Corps of Engineers or whatever group that was tracking that data.
I was referring to the push of warp core power into the new systems as they usually seem to forget they have those auxilary reactors.
I agree, with a saucer swap the core in the saucer is automatic.
Ahh, I thought when you said fly out to meet the ship you meant the saucer flew under it's own power by itself for the meet up. Not used a tender ship. Actually that is the odd thing I do not think we ever saw. No underway service craft. They would always go to this or that starbase for any and all maintenance.
And on op and in answer to some of your other posts. While I am something of a loyalist. I do not want the old girl to be the best ship. Fix the first ship so she is better than the Excelsior class the tier before her. Let that base correction go to her later refits, and she should be competitive on her own merits. As it was she felt like a loss of performance when I made captain.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
[Q] Are there any plans to upgrade older ships (Nebula, Galaxy, even the Odyssey and Bortasqu) to be on par with the power/synergy level of the newer ships you have released. And if so, how high of a priority is that?
[CaptainGeko] We are strongly considering giving older ships a second look to see if any of them need some love. We have a couple in mind, but I don't want to share which ones yet in case the list changes. But, to be clear, I'm talking about older ships, not the Odyssey or Bortasqu. We are happy with those, although we may consider new set bonuses for them.
I believe you and everyone got the kist of what I was saying. My whole point is that the main complaint behind the Exploration cruisers deficiencies is because it appears as the Galaxy class, and many of the loyalists will not have any other ship supplant the "best of the best of the best" (in their minds). If it didn't have the appearance of the Galaxy tied to it, many of these same people would not be up in arms over it. Thats why there is such a call to up its tactical side through obvious calls and less obvious calls (universal LTCMDR boffs).
Of course this is all about the Galaxy Class, if a ship like the Oberth would have such a passive BOFF/console layout it wouldn't be a problem.
The thing is, most of this ships fans have a radical different concept of how a Galaxy Class is supposed to be. (as seen on TV/other games/any other media or even books)
This has nothing to do with being a loyalist, this has something to do with understanding that Starfleet ships aren't just big flying target practices, the Galaxy Class is just the most extreme ship in STO.
If cryptic would have made up some other ship as a "Exploration Cruiser" with the same BOFF/Console Layout this threat would be about that ship. Maybe this thread wouldn't be as long living but it would be just as justifiyable as this one.
I think you have to differ two things:
1. posts that are about to improve the Exploration Cruiser in STO and...
2. posts that are about the "real" capabilities of the Galaxy Class. (these posta are supposed to show that even though we don't want to get a "i win - ship" the GCS could be easily be made as one)
"...'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
My take as Lead Designer is that the problem is not significant. Stop off at any social hub or sector space and there are plenty of cruisers, carriers and science vessels that players fly. Now, that all being said, I don't deny the effectiveness of Escorts, and I'm not saying we are not interested in offering new options. As mentioned above, we are currently looking into a possible new mechanic for Cruisers and Science Vessels, as well as new Bridge Officer power options for all professions.
:eek:!!! i rewind that one
we are currently looking into a possible new mechanic for Cruisers and Science Vessels, as well as new Bridge Officer power options for ALL professions.
ho boy!! I would have never believed it if it wasn't said by gecko himself.
i don't hold my breath tho, but i had to admit that i didn't expected cryptic to even considering that possibility, once again ( yes it is not the first time-_- ) you proove me wrong and i am glad you do.
We are strongly considering giving older ships a second look to see if any of them need some love. We have a couple in mind, but I don't want to share which ones yet in case the list changes. But, to be clear, I'm talking about older ships, not the Odyssey or Bortasqu. We are happy with those, although we may consider new set bonuses for them.
bravo!! that is what i call a long term developement vision!
it seem to me that 300 page of this thread, and other thread for other ship than just the galaxy are finally paid off.
seem like what i have said to hakaishin in an other thread found to be correct
we just need to be vocal about it, so that they don't forget, the important thing to me is not that these changes that we suggest come tomorow, but that they come.
it could be in 6 month, in 1 years, i don't care, i am not going anywhere and i am not changing my ship either, even if i have some in the shipyard.
let just continue to drive attention on this little part of the game, that is sufficient in the long run.
We could sell a 3-ship Galaxy pack that would include the T4 Galaxy Refit, the T5 Galaxy Retrofit and the Galaxy Dreadnought, or even possibly the T5 Galaxy Retrofit, the Galaxy Dreadnought and a new variant ? though, there is no plan for either at this moment in time. We have considered bundling retrofits and refits. Perhaps as we introduce set bonuses.
well, the important thing is that this is in the realm of possibility, with time it will come... with sets!
Here's the link...some other interesting things were discussed.
I am happy to hear that they are going to be giving older ships a second look I just hope they do more then just give them a look and actually improve them in some way.
It's funny to see so many people jump at this thread once, bashing everything in sight and leave for several weeks. lol.
I find it really amazing that exactly these people show some real lack of trek knowledge by claiming things about Starships that have been clearified long ago.
(like claiming the sov. would have replaced the GCS and other humbug like that.)
Oh please if anyone has a case of selective Star Trek canon (and BTW the TNG Tech manual ISN'T canon itself - just any parts of it that conformed to what appeared in a Star Trek TV episode or film) knowledge regarding that Galaxy Class starship; it's you and Dontdrunkimshoot. Seriously.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
I was referring to the push of warp core power into the new systems as they usually seem to forget they have those auxilary reactors.
I agree, with a saucer swap the core in the saucer is automatic.
Ahh, I thought when you said fly out to meet the ship you meant the saucer flew under it's own power by itself for the meet up. Not used a tender ship. Actually that is the odd thing I do not think we ever saw. No underway service craft. They would always go to this or that starbase for any and all maintenance.
From what I have heard, the initial concept for the Nebula was to be a saucer tender for Galaxy classes. The saucers aren't warp capable, so if they had to seperate from the star drive in cases of the star drives immobilzation/destruction, the Nebula would have warped to the sector and docked it in.
Of course this is all about the Galaxy Class, if a ship like the Oberth would have such a passive BOFF/console layout it wouldn't be a problem.
If the ship is at an equivalent level, and people are as interested in balance as they say they are, it should. But I guess it really matters because it hits home because the skin is the Galaxy's?
The thing is, most of this ships fans have a radical different concept of how a Galaxy Class is supposed to be. (as seen on TV/other games/any other media or even books)
This has nothing to do with being a loyalist, this has something to do with understanding that Starfleet ships aren't just big flying target practices, the Galaxy Class is just the most extreme ship in STO.
And of those who argue it should be capable of being better than any other cruiser in the game? I especially am confused by those who think that it should equal the Assault Cruiser in maneuverability.
If cryptic would have made up some other ship as a "Exploration Cruiser" with the same BOFF/Console Layout this threat would be about that ship. Maybe this thread wouldn't be as long living but it would be just as justifiyable as this one.
I have serious doubts that any of the Galaxy fans, much less anyone else, would be posting on this thread if the Galaxy skin wasn't used, theyuisers running around either and yet there is no active community for making it decidedly better. They would just be using their other purposed Galaxy's (most likely complaining that it wasn't canon because it still wasn't the most potent ship in thge game). or other ships. I don't see alot of Fleet Star Cruiser threads out there, nor people calling for noticable change out there.
I would surely consider a cruiser that had a LTCMDR Tac', Ensign Tac (no other purpose when there is no tac' boff before changin the uni's) 4 tac consoles a heavy beam array, 3 console power up set,, saucer seperation and a 5/3 weapons set up as close as an "I win" ship as far as cruisers go, especially when it pretty much displaces the Assualt Cruiser and other ships as the most tacticall oriented vessels. Now theres mention of desire for a CMDR tac'? Why bother having any other cruiser than the Exploration cruisers that some are calling for?
The problem is that these overboard and sometimes redundant sort of calls really reduce the credibility of calls to fix all cruisers. I can live with the ship I like the most not matching its expectations. I love the Soveriegn, but I drive an Excelsior because it fits my playstyle better, even with the Regent upgrades. I am not complaining that a ship that is old is better than the Assault Cruiser (a ship that is newer than even the Galaxy Class AND was supposed to be the direct replacement for the Advanced Heavy Cruiser).
I own pretty much every cruiser the Fed's have, except the Ody 3-pack and the Venture skin, I want all to be mroe effective by improving the way all cruisers work, not just by moving up one as a bandaid to quell "canon" based discenters for just one ship. Heck, if they improved cruisers by improving the potency of ENgineering Boff skills, I would argue that the Explorer would actually rock out there.
A old hull is just as good as a new hull A empty hull is nothing without the parts put into it
We can put the same parts in the Galaxy or the Regent
The overpowering Core of this game is the bridge officers which mean nothing as far as the ships go they hold crew of thousands some do
yet these 5 officers decide weather the ship is good or bad in STO and the galaxy has gott a Raw dirty deal from sto in bridge officer layouts
The oddessey could be build at Betazed the regent built on a planet near the wormhole close to Ds9 not being better ships just a differnt hulls made in a differnt place other than earth all using the same internal parts
we should be able to build the ships ourselves and give it the maxium stats for the ship class were working on for a price...................
The Regent........Good in looks but has no fan history but good looks
The Oddy.............poor looks no real canon history little fan interest
The enterprise C is better yet older than the galaxy
The Excelcior even older and much better than the galaxy
The Galaxy has a huge Fan base and lots of canon history and deserves to be at the top of the food chain ...not the bottom
I own every Fed cruiser as well
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
If the ship is at an equivalent level, and people are as interested in balance as they say they are, it should. But I guess it really matters because it hits home because the skin is the Galaxy's?
No the fact that it's the Galaxy is just making the problem more prominent.
And of those who argue it should be capable of being better than any other cruiser in the game? I especially am confused by those who think that it should equal the Assault Cruiser in maneuverability.
Of course these are merely deduction, observations and the manuals (which are to be considered canon until they are contradicted).
Surely it has been established among the fans that the Sovereign is more maneuverable, but rom an impartial point of view the GCS never has been significantly slower moving than a Sovereign.
(of course if you know some examples that prove the opposite, i'm ready to listen.)
Btw, even you should know by now that NO ONE want's the Galaxy Class to become the best Crusier in STO, we are merely pointing out that the GCS should be capable to be one of the top Cruisers in STO. Even though it is almost 50 years old. (i thought we had this thought a hundred times now.)
I have serious doubts that any of the Galaxy fans, much less anyone else, would be posting on this thread if the Galaxy skin wasn't used, theyuisers running around either and yet there is no active community for making it decidedly better. They would just be using their other purposed Galaxy's (most likely complaining that it wasn't canon because it still wasn't the most potent ship in thge game). or other ships. I don't see alot of Fleet Star Cruiser threads out there, nor people calling for noticable change out there.
You are right, the Galaxy class isn't the only usless ship in Starfleet in STO.
But im imagine how big are the chances for a reworked Star Cruiser if a much more popular ship like the Galaxy Class gets so much opposition?
Especially since there are so many hints that the Galaxy class should be different to Cryptics ship, do you really think anyone would support a reworked Star Cruiser, a ship that is almost unknown even to STO players?
(i mean a ship that is called "space whale" clearly istn't a fan favourite.)
What ship do you think has the better chances to get a rework?
I would surely consider a cruiser that had a LTCMDR Tac', Ensign Tac (no other purpose when there is no tac' boff before changin the uni's) 4 tac consoles a heavy beam array, 3 console power up set,, saucer seperation and a 5/3 weapons set up as close as an "I win" ship as far as cruisers go, especially when it pretty much displaces the Assualt Cruiser and other ships as the most tacticall oriented vessels. Now theres mention of desire for a CMDR tac'? Why bother having any other cruiser than the Exploration cruisers that some are calling for?
"i win ship" lol.
Sorry for that emotional breakout.
Of course all that may look OP at the first glance but if you look a bit closer it appears in another light.
As you surely have noticed, all the other stats of the GCS wouldn't change. This would mean that it is still a unmaneuverable brick. But this brick would then have a lot of Firepower and other capabilities.
Where have you been in the last months?
Ships get more and more tactical oriented, one Lt. Cmdr tactical and at least 3 tac consoles are pretty much standard.
A 5/3 Weapons layout would be a problem on a ship that can move but the GCS can't.
Seriously i can't see anything OP on this at all.
I agree with you a Cmdr tactical would be too much, but for other reasons you may think, but thats another topic IMO.
The problem is that these overboard and sometimes redundant sort of calls really reduce the credibility of calls to fix all cruisers. I can live with the ship I like the most not matching its expectations. I love the Soveriegn, but I drive an Excelsior because it fits my playstyle better, even with the Regent upgrades. I am not complaining that a ship that is old is better than the Assault Cruiser (a ship that is newer than even the Galaxy Class AND was supposed to be the direct replacement for the Advanced Heavy Cruiser).
As i have already said, for me the ship comes first.
I would never fly a ship just because it has better stats. It would drive me crazy to see that ugly Excelsior or those huge nacelles of the Sovereign/regent all the time.
Just because you accept Cryptics dilettantish approach on a Star Trek game, you can't expect other to do the same.
It's already a strech to see escorts outgunning every other ship, no matter how big it is or alien ship outperforming Starfleet ships, but to have the GCS the least performing ship in STO is just too much IMO.
This is not about complaining, it is about improving some ships (the GCS and eventually other Starfleet cruisers) and thus STO.
In my eyes all the ships that interest me in STO are either totally underpowered or just made completely wrong. For me this topic is just the tip of the iceberg, but i just don't have the time and energy to get engaged in even more stuff like this.
And even if i had, i doubt that there are so many ppl caring about other ships than the GCS.
I own pretty much every cruiser the Fed's have, except the Ody 3-pack and the Venture skin, I want all to be mroe effective by improving the way all cruisers work, not just by moving up one as a bandaid to quell "canon" based discenters for just one ship. Heck, if they improved cruisers by improving the potency of ENgineering Boff skills, I would argue that the Explorer would actually rock out there.
It's not only about improving Cruiser in general.
It's Starfleet Cruisers that suck and the Exploration Cruiser is the biggest dissappointment of all of them.
How would you change Engineergin powers to make them better?
Would you improve their magnitute, or would you add other/new powers ?
Wouldn't Engineering become something like Science 2.0 if we would add more offensive powers?
Don't et me wrong i a all for making Engineering better, but we shouldn't forget that Starfleet Cruisers (in STO) are especially made to be the most passive ships. Cryptic oviously had them to be as flying bullseyes in mind for KDF players and Starfleet escoprts zipping around them.
You see my problem is much more fundamental, Cryptics basic idea is just wrong and totally un-typical for Star Trek, maybe it would be much better for a Star Wars like game but Star Trek is different.
Back to what you said:
Of course improving engineering would help Starfleet Cruiser to be better, but all other ships would benefit too.
(like KDF crusiers/warbirds and lockbox ships)
What we need is a special rework for all Starfleet Crusiers, to give them a more active role COMPARED to other ships in STO.
Isn't it funny that the KDF has got the best Cruisers and Starfleet got the best Escorts? (for those who don't get the irony: it should be the other way round.)
As i already said, the Galaxy class is just the tip of that iceberg of TRIBBLE cryptic has made.
How big will the communitys support be on reworking other ships, if such a iconic ship as the GCS get so much opposition?
"...'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
Oh please if anyone has a case of selective Star Trek canon (and BTW the TNG Tech manual ISN'T canon itself - just any parts of it that conformed to what appeared in a Star Trek TV episode or film) knowledge regarding that Galaxy Class starship; it's you and Dontdrunkimshoot. Seriously.
At least we have a idea about canon, other than some ppl who are ready to accept every rubbish that comes from Cryptic devs minds.
"...'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, according to the latest DEV statement which was posted here, they actually think about revamping BOFF abilities I would have NEVER expected that. IF this happens I'm one of those people saying the Galaxy is fine as she is. Don't get me wrong, as a Star Trek fan I see that the Gal is greatly misrepresented in STO (although once again, I don't see her nor want her to be a "battleship") BUT we also have to agree that "canon" has no meaning in STO and thus, we should only consider the games' mechanics. Sure, a third tactical console just to bring it en par with it's own predecessors or all other cruisers should be mandatory just from a logical standpoint, but we need no new layout if those ENG abilities work. Like I said multiple times before, as much as I'd like a new Galaxy BOFF layout to make it resemble the Nebula Class philosophy more I do fly a Galaxy on my main atm. And I'm not ashamed, I just do it because I like the ship, I do all the grind others do as well.
Imagine if we get ENG BOFF abilities that actually are worth something other than tanking the Gal-R would have the best of those abilities.
^ 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
Well, according to the latest DEV statement which was posted here, they actually think about revamping BOFF abilities I would have NEVER expected that.
IF this happens I'm one of those people saying the Galaxy is fine as she is. Don't get me wrong, as a Star Trek fan I see that the Gal is greatly misrepresented in STO (although once again, I don't see her nor want her to be a "battleship") BUT we also have to agree that "canon" has no meaning in STO and thus, we should only consider the games' mechanics. Sure, a third tactical console just to bring it en par with it's own predecessors or all other cruisers should be mandatory just from a logical standpoint, but we need no new layout if those ENG abilities work. Like I said multiple times before, as much as I'd like a new Galaxy BOFF layout to make it resemble the Nebula Class philosophy more I do fly a Galaxy on my main atm. And I'm not ashamed, I just do it because I like the ship, I do all the grind others do as well.
Imagine if we get ENG BOFF abilities that actually are worth something other than tanking the Gal-R would have the best of those abilities.
Well that's disappointing...
You really like the Galaxy Class as it is now?
Even if the devs would change Engineering powers in some way, the GCS would still be the most engineering dependent ship in the game.
Assuming engineering won't become a Science 2.0, the Galaxy Class will still be the most passive ship in STO.
IDK about you, but that's not what i want TBH.
If the devs would consider reworking it, i seriously hope they consider a more variable BOFF layout and IN NO WAY keep the ship as it is.
This has nothing to do with canon, but with how lame this ship perfomes in STO.
Least Firepower, Engineering BOFF stations making it totally passive.
Other than most ppl must think about me, i am not a canon fanatic at all. I just hate this ship being so totally lacking any offensive and being just the most boring ship in STO. (the same applies to most Starfleet Cruisers in STO btw.)
Don't get me wrong i would be equally satisfied if they would make her a more Science oriented ship, but at least one more tac consoles is a must IMO.
Just look at how they made the Vesta, if they would have put half the efford into the Galaxy Class, we would have a great ship.
"...'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 that's disappointing...
You really like the Galaxy Class as it is now?
Well, as I wrote no I don't "like" her the way she is in this game but I understand why she's the way she is. In principle, the Galaxy is a Command vessel just as the Odyssey is. In principle the Gal should be a "little Oddyssey" but when the game launched there was no "command ship" in this game - we had "Star cruisers" and "Assault cruisers" - the "Support Cruiser" came much much later. The "Star Cruiser" was the ENG cruiser, the "Assault Cruiser" the TAC cruiser. The Galaxy was the "pay" version of the Star Cruiser which isn't all that wrong since she is not a tactical oriented design but a "allround" design which was introduced with the "Support Cruiser" much later - THIS is the setup I'd like to see with the Galaxy (slightly changed, it's still in my signature). But this would mean they had to publish another refit to be bought. IF they do that I'm still happy with it.
But now they take a look (or "want" to take a look) at BOFFs and Cruisers in particular. If the Gal-R gets a third tac console, and I'm with you here, that is mandatory, AND the BOFF skills get reworked in a way that it would make sense to have three ENG BOFFs I actually wouldn't complain. Would I want a "Advanced Support Cruiser" to be the Gal? Sure, that would be more appropriate. But the ship was introduced when the game worked differently and that's kinda set in stone. They won't change a three year old ship.
So, the way I see it there are two options:
Option #1 is basic gameplay gets reworked in a way that benefits all cruisers and the Gal-R in particular. I've never thought that this was even a realistic possiblity, yet Gecko said that they want to do that - not tommorow, but they acknowledged it. If that happens I prefer that option over changing the Gal layout. The needs of the many...
Option #2 is everything stays the way it is and we can speculate on getting a new ship. A "Regent" for the Gal-R so to speak. If that happens my preferred layout for such a ship is in my signature, it's the same you came up wit. That would be great. I would be happy with this. But is this likely, esecially after they actually stated to take a look at the game mechanics itself?
Just look at how they made the Vesta, if they would have put half the efford into the Galaxy Class, we would have a great ship.
Actually I dislike the Vesta very much. It is just a scary power creep ship that negates ALL the other ships simply because it has tac abilities and DHCs. That's nothing I'd like for the Galaxy, to be honest...
^ 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
TBH, the only ting he said is that there COULD be a new mechanic (whatever this means) for Cruisers and Science ships.
So is this concerning only Starfleet ships or KDF and Rom ships too?
If thats so, then nothing would be won, because the relative un-balance between all those ships would stay the same. Starfleet Cruisers would still be the same boring/passive ships as always. So i don't see any reason to become enthusiastic about this.
Well, as I wrote no I don't "like" her the way she is in this game but I understand why she's the way she is. In principle, the Galaxy is a Command vessel just as the Odyssey is. In principle the Gal should be a "little Oddyssey" but when the game launched there was no "command ship" in this game - we had "Star cruisers" and "Assault cruisers" - the "Support Cruiser" came much much later. The "Star Cruiser" was the ENG cruiser, the "Assault Cruiser" the TAC cruiser. The Galaxy was the "pay" version of the Star Cruiser which isn't all that wrong since she is not a tactical oriented design but a "allround" design which was introduced with the "Support Cruiser" much later - THIS is the setup I'd like to see with the Galaxy (slightly changed, it's still in my signature). But this would mean they had to publish another refit to be bought. IF they do that I'm still happy with it.
Hmm. i thought it was more like this:
Assault Crusier = tactical focussed (well more loosely based on tactical to be more precise)
Exploration Cruiser = Engineering based
Star Crusier = Science based.
Only the Assault Cruiser got a serious update, Exploration Cruiser and Star Cruiser have been ignored.
I think the main problem with this is that Cryptic thinks most ppl are just looking at the ships stats and are happy with one Starfleet tactical Cruiser. (Cryptic: tactical = only thing that matters)
In my opinion a good made Science Cruiser would be equaly interesting.
The other problem is engineering.
Althrough a engineering focussed Crusier would be nice to have, engineering powers alone make a ship totally passive and ultimately not useful.
Btw: the Galaxy Class is just the wrong ship for that position.
A ship like the Typhoon or Jupiter Class would have been much more appropriate to fit in Cryptics pattern (of a unmoveable TANK), leaving the Gaalxy Class as a jack of all trades having more universal BOFF stations.
But now they take a look (or "want" to take a look) at BOFFs and Cruisers in particular. If the Gal-R gets a third tac console, and I'm with you here, that is mandatory, AND the BOFF skills get reworked in a way that it would make sense to have three ENG BOFFs I actually wouldn't complain. Would I want a "Advanced Support Cruiser" to be the Gal? Sure, that would be more appropriate. But the ship was introduced when the game worked differently and that's kinda set in stone. They won't change a three year old ship.
That would assume some confidence in Cryptics ability to seriously wanting to improve Cruiser gameplay, which i seriously doubt. Cryptic clearly favourites Escorts and everything that can mount DHCs, an nothing showed me any sign this would change. So the only thing they will do is to give Cruisers a little bit, while Escorts will get a big chunk, as always.
Surely i agree they won't change a ship release three years ago, but at least they could release a different version, similar to your proposal or dontdrunks idea. They did the same for the Assault Cruiser, why not with the Galaxy (and Star Cruiser btw.)?
Option #1 is basic gameplay gets reworked in a way that benefits all cruisers and the Gal-R in particular. I've never thought that this was even a realistic possiblity, yet Gecko said that they want to do that - not tommorow, but they acknowledged it. If that happens I prefer that option over changing the Gal layout. The needs of the many...
I first belive it when i see it.
Cryptic has the strange habit to disappoint me, no matter how low i set my expectations.
Option #2 is everything stays the way it is and we can speculate on getting a new ship. A "Regent" for the Gal-R so to speak. If that happens my preferred layout for such a ship is in my signature, it's the same you came up wit. That would be great. I would be happy with this. But is this likely, esecially after they actually stated to take a look at the game mechanics itself?
Personally i would say this is the way they should go. Changing too much in a already runnig game can backfire very easily, just look at SW: Galaxies.
MANY escort jockey will be pi$$ed off if they wheren't the kings anymore, no matter if that would make STO more trek or not.
So i would say, they should make some little tweaks, create one or two more Engineering powers, and release a more advanced GCS (and Star Cruiser ).
Actually I dislike the Vesta very much. It is just a scary power creep ship that negates ALL the other ships simply because it has tac abilities and DHCs. That's nothing I'd like for the Galaxy, to be honest...
True, my point was that they obviously made much efford in realizing the ship from the books as accurate as possible.
I'm not saying they should give the GCS some DHCs and stuff like that, but to make her (or release a more advanced version) more in the spirit of the "original".
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
... If the Gal-R gets a third tac console, and I'm with you here, that is mandatory, AND the BOFF skills get reworked in a way that it would make sense to have three ENG BOFFs I actually wouldn't complain.
...
Sorry i forgot:
I would change one thing at your proposed 3 Pack.
I would make all the ensign boff stations universal, too.
This would make these ships more versatile and it would underline the "jack of all trades" and Explorer nature of them.
EDIT:
If you consider that they don't have a Hangar slot (as most other new released ships have), i think it wouldn't make them OP.
"...'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
Oh please if anyone has a case of selective Star Trek canon (and BTW the TNG Tech manual ISN'T canon itself - just any parts of it that conformed to what appeared in a Star Trek TV episode or film) knowledge regarding that Galaxy Class starship; it's you and Dontdrunkimshoot. Seriously.
Incorrect. The TNG Tech Manual is considered apocryphal, and not "canon" or "not-canon". In other words, since it is the foundation on which post-publishing Star Trek technology was based on, it is largely considered to be an in-depth examination into the workings of the Enterprise-D, without dedicating a whole episode to Treknobabble.
And everyone is selective. It's up to someone else to counter with equally selective arguments*.
EDIT: Insightful arguments too, not just "Galaxy fanboy", et al.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
At least we have a idea about canon, other than some ppl who are ready to accept every rubbish that comes from Cryptic devs minds.
Not much has been coming from the Dev's minds for us to accept. You see what you see in canon alot differently than what others see in canon. Its a point of view. Others also don't see trying to prop up one ship (a band aid approach) being better than fixing the whole cruiser type.
Incorrect. The TNG Tech Manual is considered apocryphal, and not "canon" or "not-canon". In other words, since it is the foundation on which post-publishing Star Trek technology was based on, it is largely considered to be an in-depth examination into the workings of the Enterprise-D, without dedicating a whole episode to Treknobabble.
And everyone is selective. It's up to someone else to counter with equally selective arguments*.
The biggest problem with the Tech Manual is that there was little effort put into the other ships (especially post TNG) in updated technology and capabilities of those ships. Those books are "snap-tite" models compared to a detailed model that person has to craft into being the finished product. Most of it was because TNG had to explain its way past technobabble on a level that others didn't. Its also because of the amount of screen-time the other series/ships had to work with.
Comments
i will not comment on the bo layout ( to be honest i didn't get a good look at it ) but i found the console and set bonus very good, it give him more dps, wich is what is needed in this game without making it more powerfull than a regent.
it also give it more potential diversity in tactical power, very clever.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
since this ship is comming from a timeline where it was not replaced by a sovereign ( just that ship of course ) and was upgraded to be on part with ship of that time, in a war time with klingons, it should indeed been more tactically oriented than the version we have in game.
however i think 5 tact console is not needed for 2 reasons:
the first is that the general accepted idea is that a sovereign is more powerfull than a galaxy, and even if this one is a tactical oriented galaxy, it is still trying to catch up with the sovy, so it should only have at least, the same, but not more tactical console. ( i am sorry drunk, i don't bielieve it too but that how many people see it so...)
the second reason is that to a point, i think it will not help the ship as one could think it will.
a ship build and layout must be balanced, 4 tact console is the perfect spot for these type of ship, but that is just my opinion ( and here it is really just an opinion, not a fact )
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
What type of cannons are you referring to?
The EPS system should be well over-engineered for capacity if it is designed for a service life (modular)) for over 50 years. I'm not sure what you meant about "drive" But with an over-engineeres power distribution system throughout the ship, all the power doesn't need to be from warp cores, but aux-reactors and such that are closer to the system that they are supporting while the core deals with propulsion and other systems.
If the Galaxy was modular, wouldn't it make sense to have an easy in-out for the core? The most likely way to do that is the the same routing the warp core would be ejected. We know the Galaxy was capable of it (the Enterprise crew obviously had a defective system), work through it.
BTW a new core would most likely be transported by the tender delivering the new saucer section.
Okay, I stand corrected on that. Still, the computer core in the saucer should be upgraded every time a saucer switch would happen.
That is normal quality assurance. There really isnt a reason that a ship the size and crew compliment of a Galaxy couldn't do that work in house and transmit findings to the Corps of Engineers or whatever group that was tracking that data.
I think some people have universal slots in the head. Whenever I see an call for universal boffs for the Galaxy, I can pretty much replace the term "universal" with "tactical" , especially when the same people complain that the ship doesn't dish out damage like other ships do or when the suggest a layout that has no tactical boff in it. The same with special layouts.
I believe you and everyone got the kist of what I was saying. My whole point is that the main complaint behind the Exploration cruisers deficiencies is because it appears as the Galaxy class, and many of the loyalists will not have any other ship supplant the "best of the best of the best" (in their minds). If it didn't have the appearance of the Galaxy tied to it, many of these same people would not be up in arms over it. Thats why there is such a call to up its tactical side through obvious calls and less obvious calls (universal LTCMDR boffs).
Only if the Constituation gets a three peice set which includes an inflatable decoy and a carbomite defense system.
I was referring to the push of warp core power into the new systems as they usually seem to forget they have those auxilary reactors.
I agree, with a saucer swap the core in the saucer is automatic.
Ahh, I thought when you said fly out to meet the ship you meant the saucer flew under it's own power by itself for the meet up. Not used a tender ship. Actually that is the odd thing I do not think we ever saw. No underway service craft. They would always go to this or that starbase for any and all maintenance.
And on op and in answer to some of your other posts. While I am something of a loyalist. I do not want the old girl to be the best ship. Fix the first ship so she is better than the Excelsior class the tier before her. Let that base correction go to her later refits, and she should be competitive on her own merits. As it was she felt like a loss of performance when I made captain.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
So there may be a glimmer of hope...
The thing is, most of this ships fans have a radical different concept of how a Galaxy Class is supposed to be. (as seen on TV/other games/any other media or even books)
This has nothing to do with being a loyalist, this has something to do with understanding that Starfleet ships aren't just big flying target practices, the Galaxy Class is just the most extreme ship in STO.
If cryptic would have made up some other ship as a "Exploration Cruiser" with the same BOFF/Console Layout this threat would be about that ship. Maybe this thread wouldn't be as long living but it would be just as justifiyable as this one.
I think you have to differ two things:
1. posts that are about to improve the Exploration Cruiser in STO and...
2. posts that are about the "real" capabilities of the Galaxy Class.
(these posta are supposed to show that even though we don't want to get a "i win - ship" the GCS could be easily be made as one)
How old is that interview?
It was posted today.
http://sto.perfectworld.com/news/?p=985761
Here's the link...some other interesting things were discussed.
:eek:!!! i rewind that one
ho boy!! I would have never believed it if it wasn't said by gecko himself.
i don't hold my breath tho, but i had to admit that i didn't expected cryptic to even considering that possibility, once again ( yes it is not the first time-_- ) you proove me wrong and i am glad you do.
bravo!! that is what i call a long term developement vision!
it seem to me that 300 page of this thread, and other thread for other ship than just the galaxy are finally paid off.
seem like what i have said to hakaishin in an other thread found to be correct
well, the important thing is that this is in the realm of possibility, with time it will come... with sets!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I am happy to hear that they are going to be giving older ships a second look I just hope they do more then just give them a look and actually improve them in some way.
Oh please if anyone has a case of selective Star Trek canon (and BTW the TNG Tech manual ISN'T canon itself - just any parts of it that conformed to what appeared in a Star Trek TV episode or film) knowledge regarding that Galaxy Class starship; it's you and Dontdrunkimshoot. Seriously.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
No, that could only be used by a Galaxy class against Packled raiders. Against everyone else, its automatic fail.
From what I have heard, the initial concept for the Nebula was to be a saucer tender for Galaxy classes. The saucers aren't warp capable, so if they had to seperate from the star drive in cases of the star drives immobilzation/destruction, the Nebula would have warped to the sector and docked it in.
If the ship is at an equivalent level, and people are as interested in balance as they say they are, it should. But I guess it really matters because it hits home because the skin is the Galaxy's?
And of those who argue it should be capable of being better than any other cruiser in the game? I especially am confused by those who think that it should equal the Assault Cruiser in maneuverability.
I have serious doubts that any of the Galaxy fans, much less anyone else, would be posting on this thread if the Galaxy skin wasn't used, theyuisers running around either and yet there is no active community for making it decidedly better. They would just be using their other purposed Galaxy's (most likely complaining that it wasn't canon because it still wasn't the most potent ship in thge game). or other ships. I don't see alot of Fleet Star Cruiser threads out there, nor people calling for noticable change out there.
I would surely consider a cruiser that had a LTCMDR Tac', Ensign Tac (no other purpose when there is no tac' boff before changin the uni's) 4 tac consoles a heavy beam array, 3 console power up set,, saucer seperation and a 5/3 weapons set up as close as an "I win" ship as far as cruisers go, especially when it pretty much displaces the Assualt Cruiser and other ships as the most tacticall oriented vessels. Now theres mention of desire for a CMDR tac'? Why bother having any other cruiser than the Exploration cruisers that some are calling for?
The problem is that these overboard and sometimes redundant sort of calls really reduce the credibility of calls to fix all cruisers. I can live with the ship I like the most not matching its expectations. I love the Soveriegn, but I drive an Excelsior because it fits my playstyle better, even with the Regent upgrades. I am not complaining that a ship that is old is better than the Assault Cruiser (a ship that is newer than even the Galaxy Class AND was supposed to be the direct replacement for the Advanced Heavy Cruiser).
I own pretty much every cruiser the Fed's have, except the Ody 3-pack and the Venture skin, I want all to be mroe effective by improving the way all cruisers work, not just by moving up one as a bandaid to quell "canon" based discenters for just one ship. Heck, if they improved cruisers by improving the potency of ENgineering Boff skills, I would argue that the Explorer would actually rock out there.
weapons
engines
crew
A old hull is just as good as a new hull A empty hull is nothing without the parts put into it
We can put the same parts in the Galaxy or the Regent
The overpowering Core of this game is the bridge officers which mean nothing as far as the ships go they hold crew of thousands some do
yet these 5 officers decide weather the ship is good or bad in STO and the galaxy has gott a Raw dirty deal from sto in bridge officer layouts
The oddessey could be build at Betazed the regent built on a planet near the wormhole close to Ds9 not being better ships just a differnt hulls made in a differnt place other than earth all using the same internal parts
we should be able to build the ships ourselves and give it the maxium stats for the ship class were working on for a price...................
The Regent........Good in looks but has no fan history but good looks
The Oddy.............poor looks no real canon history little fan interest
The enterprise C is better yet older than the galaxy
The Excelcior even older and much better than the galaxy
The Galaxy has a huge Fan base and lots of canon history and deserves to be at the top of the food chain ...not the bottom
I own every Fed cruiser as well
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Of course these are merely deduction, observations and the manuals (which are to be considered canon until they are contradicted).
Surely it has been established among the fans that the Sovereign is more maneuverable, but rom an impartial point of view the GCS never has been significantly slower moving than a Sovereign.
(of course if you know some examples that prove the opposite, i'm ready to listen.)
Btw, even you should know by now that NO ONE want's the Galaxy Class to become the best Crusier in STO, we are merely pointing out that the GCS should be capable to be one of the top Cruisers in STO. Even though it is almost 50 years old. (i thought we had this thought a hundred times now.)
You are right, the Galaxy class isn't the only usless ship in Starfleet in STO.
But im imagine how big are the chances for a reworked Star Cruiser if a much more popular ship like the Galaxy Class gets so much opposition?
Especially since there are so many hints that the Galaxy class should be different to Cryptics ship, do you really think anyone would support a reworked Star Cruiser, a ship that is almost unknown even to STO players?
(i mean a ship that is called "space whale" clearly istn't a fan favourite.)
What ship do you think has the better chances to get a rework?
"i win ship" lol.
Sorry for that emotional breakout.
Of course all that may look OP at the first glance but if you look a bit closer it appears in another light.
As you surely have noticed, all the other stats of the GCS wouldn't change. This would mean that it is still a unmaneuverable brick. But this brick would then have a lot of Firepower and other capabilities.
Where have you been in the last months?
Ships get more and more tactical oriented, one Lt. Cmdr tactical and at least 3 tac consoles are pretty much standard.
A 5/3 Weapons layout would be a problem on a ship that can move but the GCS can't.
Seriously i can't see anything OP on this at all.
I agree with you a Cmdr tactical would be too much, but for other reasons you may think, but thats another topic IMO.
As i have already said, for me the ship comes first.
I would never fly a ship just because it has better stats. It would drive me crazy to see that ugly Excelsior or those huge nacelles of the Sovereign/regent all the time.
Just because you accept Cryptics dilettantish approach on a Star Trek game, you can't expect other to do the same.
It's already a strech to see escorts outgunning every other ship, no matter how big it is or alien ship outperforming Starfleet ships, but to have the GCS the least performing ship in STO is just too much IMO.
This is not about complaining, it is about improving some ships (the GCS and eventually other Starfleet cruisers) and thus STO.
In my eyes all the ships that interest me in STO are either totally underpowered or just made completely wrong. For me this topic is just the tip of the iceberg, but i just don't have the time and energy to get engaged in even more stuff like this.
And even if i had, i doubt that there are so many ppl caring about other ships than the GCS.
It's not only about improving Cruiser in general.
It's Starfleet Cruisers that suck and the Exploration Cruiser is the biggest dissappointment of all of them.
How would you change Engineergin powers to make them better?
Would you improve their magnitute, or would you add other/new powers ?
Wouldn't Engineering become something like Science 2.0 if we would add more offensive powers?
Don't et me wrong i a all for making Engineering better, but we shouldn't forget that Starfleet Cruisers (in STO) are especially made to be the most passive ships. Cryptic oviously had them to be as flying bullseyes in mind for KDF players and Starfleet escoprts zipping around them.
You see my problem is much more fundamental, Cryptics basic idea is just wrong and totally un-typical for Star Trek, maybe it would be much better for a Star Wars like game but Star Trek is different.
Back to what you said:
Of course improving engineering would help Starfleet Cruiser to be better, but all other ships would benefit too.
(like KDF crusiers/warbirds and lockbox ships)
What we need is a special rework for all Starfleet Crusiers, to give them a more active role COMPARED to other ships in STO.
Isn't it funny that the KDF has got the best Cruisers and Starfleet got the best Escorts?
(for those who don't get the irony: it should be the other way round.)
As i already said, the Galaxy class is just the tip of that iceberg of TRIBBLE cryptic has made.
How big will the communitys support be on reworking other ships, if such a iconic ship as the GCS get so much opposition?
Imagine if we get ENG BOFF abilities that actually are worth something other than tanking the Gal-R would have the best of those abilities.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You really like the Galaxy Class as it is now?
Even if the devs would change Engineering powers in some way, the GCS would still be the most engineering dependent ship in the game.
Assuming engineering won't become a Science 2.0, the Galaxy Class will still be the most passive ship in STO.
IDK about you, but that's not what i want TBH.
If the devs would consider reworking it, i seriously hope they consider a more variable BOFF layout and IN NO WAY keep the ship as it is.
This has nothing to do with canon, but with how lame this ship perfomes in STO.
Least Firepower, Engineering BOFF stations making it totally passive.
Other than most ppl must think about me, i am not a canon fanatic at all. I just hate this ship being so totally lacking any offensive and being just the most boring ship in STO.
(the same applies to most Starfleet Cruisers in STO btw.)
Don't get me wrong i would be equally satisfied if they would make her a more Science oriented ship, but at least one more tac consoles is a must IMO.
Just look at how they made the Vesta, if they would have put half the efford into the Galaxy Class, we would have a great ship.
See Neo1nx's post here http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12492651&postcount=3420
Well, as I wrote no I don't "like" her the way she is in this game but I understand why she's the way she is. In principle, the Galaxy is a Command vessel just as the Odyssey is. In principle the Gal should be a "little Oddyssey" but when the game launched there was no "command ship" in this game - we had "Star cruisers" and "Assault cruisers" - the "Support Cruiser" came much much later. The "Star Cruiser" was the ENG cruiser, the "Assault Cruiser" the TAC cruiser. The Galaxy was the "pay" version of the Star Cruiser which isn't all that wrong since she is not a tactical oriented design but a "allround" design which was introduced with the "Support Cruiser" much later - THIS is the setup I'd like to see with the Galaxy (slightly changed, it's still in my signature). But this would mean they had to publish another refit to be bought. IF they do that I'm still happy with it.
But now they take a look (or "want" to take a look) at BOFFs and Cruisers in particular. If the Gal-R gets a third tac console, and I'm with you here, that is mandatory, AND the BOFF skills get reworked in a way that it would make sense to have three ENG BOFFs I actually wouldn't complain. Would I want a "Advanced Support Cruiser" to be the Gal? Sure, that would be more appropriate. But the ship was introduced when the game worked differently and that's kinda set in stone. They won't change a three year old ship.
So, the way I see it there are two options:
Option #1 is basic gameplay gets reworked in a way that benefits all cruisers and the Gal-R in particular. I've never thought that this was even a realistic possiblity, yet Gecko said that they want to do that - not tommorow, but they acknowledged it. If that happens I prefer that option over changing the Gal layout. The needs of the many...
Option #2 is everything stays the way it is and we can speculate on getting a new ship. A "Regent" for the Gal-R so to speak. If that happens my preferred layout for such a ship is in my signature, it's the same you came up wit. That would be great. I would be happy with this. But is this likely, esecially after they actually stated to take a look at the game mechanics itself?
Actually I dislike the Vesta very much. It is just a scary power creep ship that negates ALL the other ships simply because it has tac abilities and DHCs. That's nothing I'd like for the Galaxy, to be honest...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
So is this concerning only Starfleet ships or KDF and Rom ships too?
If thats so, then nothing would be won, because the relative un-balance between all those ships would stay the same. Starfleet Cruisers would still be the same boring/passive ships as always. So i don't see any reason to become enthusiastic about this.
Hmm. i thought it was more like this:
Assault Crusier = tactical focussed (well more loosely based on tactical to be more precise)
Exploration Cruiser = Engineering based
Star Crusier = Science based.
Only the Assault Cruiser got a serious update, Exploration Cruiser and Star Cruiser have been ignored.
I think the main problem with this is that Cryptic thinks most ppl are just looking at the ships stats and are happy with one Starfleet tactical Cruiser. (Cryptic: tactical = only thing that matters)
In my opinion a good made Science Cruiser would be equaly interesting.
The other problem is engineering.
Althrough a engineering focussed Crusier would be nice to have, engineering powers alone make a ship totally passive and ultimately not useful.
Btw: the Galaxy Class is just the wrong ship for that position.
A ship like the Typhoon or Jupiter Class would have been much more appropriate to fit in Cryptics pattern (of a unmoveable TANK), leaving the Gaalxy Class as a jack of all trades having more universal BOFF stations.
That would assume some confidence in Cryptics ability to seriously wanting to improve Cruiser gameplay, which i seriously doubt. Cryptic clearly favourites Escorts and everything that can mount DHCs, an nothing showed me any sign this would change. So the only thing they will do is to give Cruisers a little bit, while Escorts will get a big chunk, as always.
Surely i agree they won't change a ship release three years ago, but at least they could release a different version, similar to your proposal or dontdrunks idea. They did the same for the Assault Cruiser, why not with the Galaxy (and Star Cruiser btw.)?
I first belive it when i see it.
Cryptic has the strange habit to disappoint me, no matter how low i set my expectations.
Personally i would say this is the way they should go. Changing too much in a already runnig game can backfire very easily, just look at SW: Galaxies.
MANY escort jockey will be pi$$ed off if they wheren't the kings anymore, no matter if that would make STO more trek or not.
So i would say, they should make some little tweaks, create one or two more Engineering powers, and release a more advanced GCS (and Star Cruiser
True, my point was that they obviously made much efford in realizing the ship from the books as accurate as possible.
I'm not saying they should give the GCS some DHCs and stuff like that, but to make her (or release a more advanced version) more in the spirit of the "original".
Sorry i forgot:
I would change one thing at your proposed 3 Pack.
I would make all the ensign boff stations universal, too.
This would make these ships more versatile and it would underline the "jack of all trades" and Explorer nature of them.
EDIT:
If you consider that they don't have a Hangar slot (as most other new released ships have), i think it wouldn't make them OP.
Incorrect. The TNG Tech Manual is considered apocryphal, and not "canon" or "not-canon". In other words, since it is the foundation on which post-publishing Star Trek technology was based on, it is largely considered to be an in-depth examination into the workings of the Enterprise-D, without dedicating a whole episode to Treknobabble.
And everyone is selective. It's up to someone else to counter with equally selective arguments*.
EDIT: Insightful arguments too, not just "Galaxy fanboy", et al.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Not much has been coming from the Dev's minds for us to accept. You see what you see in canon alot differently than what others see in canon. Its a point of view. Others also don't see trying to prop up one ship (a band aid approach) being better than fixing the whole cruiser type.
The biggest problem with the Tech Manual is that there was little effort put into the other ships (especially post TNG) in updated technology and capabilities of those ships. Those books are "snap-tite" models compared to a detailed model that person has to craft into being the finished product. Most of it was because TNG had to explain its way past technobabble on a level that others didn't. Its also because of the amount of screen-time the other series/ships had to work with.