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.
You talk as if cryptics Star Trek approach would only slightly differ from anything that was previously Star Trek.
I'm not going to list even the most blatant things that come to my mind, but STO really isn't a typical Star Trek game.
You are right all Starfleet Cruisers need help.
but as i have said numerous times the Galaxy Class is the worst of them and especially nedds some attention because it is completely different to how it is supposed to be.
5 posts above i said:
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's the thing whats especially wrong with the GCS in STO.
It's not just that they made all starfleet cruisers the most passive and boring ships (from which the GCS is the most boring one) in their game.
They especially put the Galaxy into a position that is completely inappropriate for that ship. They made it the tankiest tank, while it should be (as explained numerous times alone in this thread) a "jack of all trades".
That "jack of all Trades" is a simplification to put that ship into a pattern like STO, since it would be completely nonsense to make it a Battleship/Science/Cruiser with the biggest guns of all ships*. That would make all other ships obsolete.
No one here wants that, so a more versatile BOFF layout would be a good way to keep the spirit of the "original" ship from TV, without making it overpowered in STO.
*It's ok to make other ships OP but not the GCS. :rolleyes:
"...'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
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 from 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.)
I never saw the Galaxy do a barrel roll (towards the end of Insurrection)
The Galaxy did a lot of three point turns before it went to warp
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.)
From what I have seen proposed, I don't buy that statement.
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 think reworking the way all cruisers work has the best chance
"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.
There are plenty of ways to use current engineering abilities to make the ship turn well enough to stay with other cruisers, especially with an engineering captain and 5 engineering consoles (Fleet Level). The 5/3 set-up IS overboard because of engineers ability to overcome inertia and turn rate. The setup will tactically supplant the Assault cruisers, even with a two point base turn rate advantage.
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.
So just making the ship their tactical equal is worth using a band-aid instead of fixing the whole approach. Even if you get your desire, you will still find the ship lacking as its floating throughout space as debris from being escort target practice. But that is you opinion and right to say.
Just because you accept Cryptics dilettantish approach on a Star Trek game, you can't expect other to do the same.
Then you obviously haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying the whole time. I want to strengthen ALL cruisers to make them competitive, not just to be a lobbyist for Cryptics system or any one ship skins capabilities. I accept what Cryptic has done to cruisers about as much as I do making the Galaxy a tactical equivalent to the tactical cruisers in the game. there would be little differentiation between the different products that way.
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.
Improve engineer skills and basic cruiser effectiveness, improve the Galaxy with a higher proportion to the other ships due to its layout.
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.
Remember, your statement is "in your eyes" , as is who and how you think people care about things. There are plenty of people who want a holistic approach to fixing all cruisers, and you (and others) want to fix just the one you care about. You (and others) see people having a vendetta against the Galaxy when they don't agree with your point of view. The GCS IS the tip of the iceberg for cruisers, which means its only a symptom of the real problem and slapping LTCMDR uni's, 9' base turn rates and 5/3 weapons aren't going to fix the problem until the actual problem is fixed.
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.
Honestly, I have driven Klingon Cruisers/Battlecruisers as well. The extra 1' base turn and ability to mount DC/DHC's doesn't do much for their effectiveness either. I tend to use the Garumba or the Vet' ship most of the time. Try them, you wont do much better in a KDF battlecruiser than you will in a Fed' one.
The Exploration Cruiser is a disappointment, it's engineer boff layout has plenty of potential if the engineer boff skills weren't such an impediment.
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?
You and I have been over this before. I have stated that I would want to improve the magnitude, effect of current skills and a few new ones as well.
Skills like RSP, DEM, and Aceton Beam, especially the higher ranked ones really don't create that much value, so they do need upping the ante' on. Engineering team should have a hull resistance bonus to it (and sci should have a shield resistance to it as well), maybe with a LTCMDR or CMDR level with a small, short term, power cap bonus.
New skills could be effective too, a LTCMDR/CMDR skill between beam overload and fire at will that would be a Sustained Beam Blast, the shot is on one target, but has a has a larger duration with an increased chance to bypass shields for hull damage and crits (on the tail end), almost like a sabot round that is used in today's tank ammunition. It doesn't need to be "lance" quality, nor should it be. Its more of a piercing blow than BO's all at once shot. It would drain both Weapons and Aux energy to use.
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 obviously had them to be as flying bullseyes in mind for KDF players and Starfleet escorts zipping around them.
Cruisers in general are bullseyes, I agree with you.
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.
I am not good enough at knowing how the game engines operate, so I can't say for sure if that is an issue with constraints in the engine or the dev's. Maybe someone more qualified in that area than I am can speak to that.
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?
Is it opposition to reworking the GCS or is it trying to take another approach to solving the problems of a whole demographic? You yourself said that the problems with the GCS is the tip of the iceberg. I''ve studied and been trained in quality control/process/project/product management and my job in real life is to troubleshoot problems and fix them by new techniques, processes, strategies and tactics. You don't fix the iceberg by taking off the tip, you take a look at the whole problem and develop a holistic solution that works across the board.
Just fixing the GCS solves one symptom to a problem, if I was suffering from a disease, I would surely want more than the symptoms to be healed, but disease as a whole. You (and others) are looking for an opportunity in this thread to fix the GCS, I look at it as an opportunity to work with all stakeholders in the game and the cruiser type ships to work together and define and propose a way to help make cruisers viable. GCS fans are part of a larger community and they have the opportunity to take the issues that they have and work with the cruiser community to benefit the community as a whole. The cruiser community needs all of its divisions to work together, not singularly for a real solution.The sooner that everyone sees that and works together for the benefit of all is when it has a better chance of being heard, appreciated, and acted on.
I've got a crazy idea. Move general damage buff consoles like Prefire Chambers, Directed Energy Manifolds, Variable Geometry Detonators, and Warhead Yield Chambers over from Tactical to Engineering. Cryptic already set a precedent for this when they moved Field Generators from Engineering to Science. This would allow Engineering-heavy Cruisers like the Operations Odyssey and Fleet Galaxy to churn out better damage. Yes, this would also enable Escorts to do more damage, but it would be a massive hit to their durability and give them less room to slot things like the Plasmonic Leech.
Assuming there are no objections to my idea of swapping general damage buff consoles from Tactical to Engineering, then we just have one obstacle in the way to making the Galaxy a competitive ship:
Ensign-level Engineering powers.
I've already proposed one possible fix, like creating new, rank one versions of Auxiliary Power to the Emergency Battery and Auxiliary Power to the Inertial Dampeners and bumping the existing versions of the powers to ranks two and three. People have also proposed the idea of giving every Team power the ability to re-distribute shields like Tactical Team. I think this idea has merit on the basis of making Tactical Team less of a "must-have" power for successful builds, but if we simply slap this on without adjusting the skills as they are, then Science Team is just going to take Tactical Team's place. Here's how I think we should approach this:
Give Tactical Team a temporary, crew-scaling skill buff to Starship Targeting Systems to help offset its otherwise lackluster performance. This would improve the damage of alpha strikes in PvP, and have the added benefit of reducing the effectiveness of Escorts' "speed tanking" by virtue of Cruisers having a larger crew pool to buff their accuracy.
Give Engineering Team a temporary, crew-scaling skill buff to Starship Hull Repair, Starship Warp Core Efficiency, and Starship Electro-Plasma systems. This would help Cruisers stay in the game longer by giving full attack power settings more auxiliary for healing, improve base hull repair numbers, and reduce energy recovery time from Bridge Officer abilities like Beam Array: Overload and Beam Array: Fire at Will.
Give Science Team a temporary, crew-scaling skill buff to Starship Flow Capacitors, Starship Graviton Generators, and Starship Particle Generators. This improves the offensive potential of Science skills without adding any defensive components that would make this a compulsory component of ship building.
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.
The problem is that some of you guys on this board are "selective" to the point of being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. This tendency of using that tired "it's the writers' fault" mantra ONLY when something is brought up about the GCS that some of you don't want to hear, is the equivalent of a person sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "La-la-la..." so that they can attempt to drown out what they don't want to hear.
If this "it's the writer fault" mantra was TRULY valid, then EVERYBODY should be free to use that, and not just the GCS fans. So when many of you guys have pointed to "faults" in the Sovereign class, then it would be perfectly valid the Sovereign fans to ALSO say "it's the writers' fault". The same would be applicable to fans of different ships as well (Defiant, Prometheus, Intrepid, etc.)
If you believe that the "it's the writers' fault" mantra is ONLY valid for situations involving the GCS, then at least have the courage to just come out and say that instead of hiding behind hypocritical nonsense.
I had a couple of ideas that involved working around the existing layout that I'm going to transplant from the other thread:
These are great ideas indeed. To move the general purpose dmg consoles to ENG is an ingenious move to improve ships with lots of ENG slots. This and the proposed changes to the BOFF powers would greatly benefit all cruisers, not just the GCS in particular.
Once again: The GCS shouldn't be the most ENG heavy cruiser. The Ambassador and Galaxy actually should just swap, that would be more appropriate but that kind of "canon" has no rule in STO and so we just have to accept it the way it is. Just look at the game in general, it was obviously designed to be another game entirely and they somehow gt lucky to slap Star Trek skins on it at one point
Because if we would honestly rant about canon misconception we would need a thread dedicated to the Nova class which was made a tactical heavy ship in it's fleet version, yet in canon it's basically a non-combatant survey vessel. But you won't see anyone actually wanting to *decrease* a ships tactical capabilities because, while not being "canon", it greatly benefits the ship. Like whamhammer (I believe) stated, when people suggest LTC unis for the galaxy they basically want them to be tactical slots - and that's cheap game in my opinion.
Starboardnacelles proposal is a great way to fix all cruisers and the Galaxy would profit greatly from that as well Sure, her layout wouldn't be quite adequate for her actual design but that ship sailed long ago, I'm afraid.
^ 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
...
Once again: The GCS shouldn't be the most ENG heavy cruiser. The Ambassador and Galaxy actually should just swap, that would be more appropriate but that kind of "canon" has no rule in STO and so we just have to accept it the way it is. Just look at the game in general, it was obviously designed to be another game entirely and they somehow gt lucky to slap Star Trek skins on it at one point
Because if we would honestly rant about canon misconception we would need a thread dedicated to the Nova class which was made a tactical heavy ship in it's fleet version, yet in canon it's basically a non-combatant survey vessel. But you won't see anyone actually wanting to *decrease* a ships tactical capabilities because, while not being "canon", it greatly benefits the ship. Like whamhammer (I believe) stated, when people suggest LTC unis for the galaxy they basically want them to be tactical slots - and that's cheap game in my opinion.
That's true, but i think ppl can't be blamed for that.
Cryptic released ships like the Excelsior or Galor with much higher tactical BOFF stations than a GCS.
Cryptic made Tactical the most important carrer path and Boff powers in the game, Escorts are essentially the best ships in STO, it's no wonder that many want their fav ship to be at least equal.
What the devs should do is to decrease the pressure to be always on the tactical side. I'm not talking about nerfing tactical power, but to make other powers more equal, without makin them stronger than Tactical (that's important IMO).
As i have said before, i could very well live with the GCS being a more science focussed ship. Maybe they could make the Star Crusier a "full" science Cruiser, while the GCS would be in between the Assault Crusier -R and a potential Star Cruiser -R.
Starboardnacelles proposal is a great way to fix all cruisers and the Galaxy would profit greatly from that as well Sure, her layout wouldn't be quite adequate for her actual design but that ship sailed long ago, I'm afraid.
I am all for it, making at least all "Generic" Weapons consoles (like Variable Geometry Detonators, Warhead Yield Chamber, Directed Energy Distribution Manifold and Prefire Chamber) into Engineering consoles would be awesome.
About giving TTs "Shield distributing ability" to Science Team and Engineering Team, there is a thread about exactly this issue. HERE
My sollution would be to keep most of the Team powers as they are (because changing too much always makes ppl mad), and give Tactical Teams "Shield distributing ability" to the other two Team powers.
Meanwhile Tactical Team should get a [CrtH] or better a [CrtD] bonus for some seconds.
By doing it this way, TT would be a good counter to the increased useage of Engineering/Science Team.
So non tactical focussed ships would get the benefit of a "Shield distributing ability" without being "forced" to use Tactical Team and "waste" a precious Tactical BOFF Slot.
This would allow much more diverse Builds and the constraint to be always tactical focussed would be much less .
(sry, bad english)
This COULD be one of those new game mechanics the devs are looking for.
Additionally it wouldn't mean a lot of work IMHO, i think it could be made within a few patches if the devs where serious about introducing a new mechanic to make ships more equal worth.
"...'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
100% agree.
That's true, but i think ppl can't be blamed for that.
I think they can when confronted about it and they say the real purpose of their desire to add all of these uni's (especially a LTCMDR) isn't primarily to have high level tac's. At least be honest about it, the rest sets off the Bravo Sierra alarms.
Cryptic released ships like the Excelsior or Galor with much higher tactical BOFF stations than a GCS.
Cryptic made Tactical the most important carrer path and Boff powers in the game, Escorts are essentially the best ships in STO, it's no wonder that many want their fav ship to be at least equal.
But to make them equal by being essentially the same as the other ships isn't the best way to overcome being overwhelmed by "Tactical power creep". (Band-aids anyone?) Unifying all cruiser players to improve all cruisers benefits the GCS proponents than most seem to be able to admit.
What the devs should do is to decrease the pressure to be always on the tactical side. I'm not talking about nerfing tactical power, but to make other powers more equal, without making them stronger than Tactical (that's important IMO).
This is what I, and others having been pushing for, but has found little interest in the "fix GCS" crowd. Instead they want uni-tacs and other special things to push the GCS up, at the expense of other cruisers. I can imagine the GCS being an awesome ship with much larger player-ship when engineer boff skills are brought to par.
As i have said before, i could very well live with the GCS being a more science focussed ship. Maybe they could make the Star Crusier a "full" science Cruiser, while the GCS would be in between the Assault Crusier -R and a potential Star Cruiser -R.
It has plenty of potential as is with engineering focus, should Cryptic balance the effectiveness of Engie-boff skills. It would have the ability to not only endure enemy attacks, but also apply proper pressure on them until they break.
I am all for it, making at least all "Generic" Weapons consoles (like Variable Geometry Detonators, Warhead Yield Chamber, Directed Energy Distribution Manifold and Prefire Chamber) into Engineering consoles would be awesome.
The problem is that some of you guys on this board are "selective" to the point of being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. This tendency of using that tired "it's the writers' fault" mantra ONLY when something is brought up about the GCS that some of you don't want to hear, is the equivalent of a person sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "La-la-la..." so that they can attempt to drown out what they don't want to hear.
If this "it's the writer fault" mantra was TRULY valid, then EVERYBODY should be free to use that, and not just the GCS fans. So when many of you guys have pointed to "faults" in the Sovereign class, then it would be perfectly valid the Sovereign fans to ALSO say "it's the writers' fault". The same would be applicable to fans of different ships as well (Defiant, Prometheus, Intrepid, etc.)
If you believe that the "it's the writers' fault" mantra is ONLY valid for situations involving the GCS, then at least have the courage to just come out and say that instead of hiding behind hypocritical nonsense.
hehehe, sorry, i have to make that one...
you give me an idea for space set power on the galaxy with the separation console, antimatter spread and an other one left to determine.
2 pieces set: it's the writer fault mantra1
when criticaly hit: 95% chance to apply
60% intant hull repair with 50% hull resistance
rsp 3 unsubnuking version for 20 second
to player; voice of picard saying: make it so!
to target: audio recording of a child saying: "na nana nana naaaaa!"
3pieces set : it's the writer fault mantra 2
3 powerfull blast from any beam array in front of 50k each
3minute recharge ( +10% against borg cube )
Starboardnacelles proposal is a great way to fix all cruisers and the Galaxy would profit greatly from that as well Sure, her layout wouldn't be quite adequate for her actual design but that ship sailed long ago, I'm afraid.
sorry, i don't find this proposal to be good. if you think that having 4 tactical console slot will " fix" cruiser you are greatly mistaken.
tactical console are good to add firepower to a ship at no BO cost, but not as much as you seem to bielieve.
when the galaxy dreadnought use to have only 2 tactical console i was dreaming of the day he will get a third ( somehow i knew this would happen sometime).
when it came i was overjoyed, but quicly realize it was not the "big deal" i expected it to be.
as of today with the new build i have with my dread and rcs console i have sacrifice these console and are now only running with 1.
even if it took me a great effort to convinced me to do it because i was afraid of the loss firepower this would bring, it is in fact bearly noticeable.
so do not think that this will be the beguining of a change to improve cruiser.
cruiser are not less powerfull than escort because they got less tactical console slot, it is because they got less turnrate and less hight level tactical bo and generally can't equip DHC ( of course tactical console are also part of it but it is the less important factor ).
you want to simulate what a galaxy would be with 4 or 5 tactical console slot?
go with a bortasq with beam and set it up like a galaxy by keeping only a lt tactical bo.
you will see, it will not make a big difference.
the only things that a change like this would bring it enlarging the gap between galaxy and other tactical cruiser. the lt commander and commander tactical cruiser ( scimi ) will be able to "pump" more power from these console than what just a lt tac ship will be able too.
you still think it is a good idea?
I think they can when confronted about it and they say the real purpose of their desire to add all of these uni's (especially a LTCMDR) isn't primarily to have high level tac's. At least be honest about it, the rest sets off the Bravo Sierra alarms.
Personally, i would make it a science but you are right, most ppl would make it a tactical.
The point is that Cryptic made tactial so overwhelming good, other carrer paths (engineering and Science Powers) aren't interesting for most players.
If Crpyitc would buff some Science and Engineering powers to make them more interesting and useful, i am sure more ppl would go for science or engineering.
This is what I, and others having been pushing for, but has found little interest in the "fix GCS" crowd. Instead they want uni-tacs and other special things to push the GCS up, at the expense of other cruisers. I can imagine the GCS being an awesome ship with much larger player-ship when engineer boff skills are brought to par.
Don't get me wrong here, but i think there is a tiny missconception.
This thread is about the Galaxy Class, and most of the time ppl talk about improving that single ship alone. This doesn't mean that your ideas about making cruisers in general better are bad, but they would help all cruisers.
In the minds of it's fans, the GCS is totally underpowered, so improving all cruisers wouldn't help the GCS at all.
Even if engineering powers would suddenly become more potent, the GCS would still be the most passive ship in the game, because of the self healing nature of engineering.
What the GCS needs is a buff towards tactical AND science equaly. The reason why some ppl are focussing on tactical is the clearly offensive nature of all tactical powers, while science is just meh to most players.
In my opinion we should find a way to improve the GCS without diminishing other cruisers, to find a unique place for her.
That's why i want the GCS to become something like a Science/Cruiser hybrid with some extras that resemble the ship from TV (not too powerful but still useable).
So the GCS would become a unique ship without being in competition to the regent or other tactical focused cruisers.
It has plenty of potential as is with engineering focus, should Cryptic balance the effectiveness of Engie-boff skills. It would have the ability to not only endure enemy attacks, but also apply proper pressure on them until they break.
With the current power creep, i cannot imagine how such a engineering buff should look like. All that could be done to improve engineering would only make the passiveness of the GCS more potent (meaning, ti wouldn't change anything for the GCS).
Personally i wouldn't want engineering to become a Science 2.0.
Of course Engineering could need a buff, but the GCS needs to be more than just a flying healing station for other ships. If Cryptic wants a ship for that job they should use the Jupiter Dreadnought or the Typhoon Class or some other of their own creation.
Again, i think the GCS should be in the ship between the Regent Class and a Star Crusier 2.0 (a science focussed regent, so to speak.). Personally i don't see a problem with a BOFF layout like Angrytargs proposal. Sure some would use a 2x Lt. tactical build, but that wouldn't be such a problem for a regent. Both ships still would have different BOFF layouts.
Seriously i don't get what's some ppls problem is with a Galaxy Class with a tactical focussed BOFF layout.
Virtually all new ships are tactical focussed or can be made that way, why should a reworked Galaxy Class not be able to do that? Especailly if her BOFF layout can be used for a science focussed Buid just as well.
Again don't get me wrong, but someone who doesn't want the GCS to get some teeht souldn't be surprised to encounter resistance in this thread.
Great idea, i cannot stress that enough. But i think it shouldn't stop there. Things like making Tactical team less a "must have" power would help too.
In my opinion Starfleet cruisers just lack of enough offensive power compared to other factions crusiers.
I am not saying that Starfleet Crusiers should get access to DHCs, but they should get something unique, something that allowes them to become more offensive, instead of being always the ones being shot at.
(but no matter with what someone comes up ther WILL be some PvP player saying "OP!!!!!", lol.)
Just one more thing:
(i know Capt. Gecko isn't reading this, but just assuming he would )
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.
The reason so many ppl are flying Cruisers is not that these ships are better than escorts or more fun to fly.
Those people prefer flying Crusier and some Science ships because they like the ships* themslves (not just the stats) ALTHROUGH escorts are more fun, have more FP and so on.
My point is that those people are deliberately fly underperforming ships because they want to play a more "classical" Star Trek game and not just a dogfighting jetfighter game that coincidentally is called STAR TREK online.
*Cruisers, the iconic Star Trek ships, instead of those oversized and rediculus overpowered X-Wings called Escorts.
Sorry for being off topic.
"...'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
you want to simulate what a galaxy would be with 4 or 5 tactical console slot?
go with a bortasq with beam and set it up like a galaxy by keeping only a lt tactical bo.
you will see, it will not make a big difference.
Here's what you're not getting:
The Galaxy-class ship, as it's currently implemented, needs that little difference. Its Fleet variant is built to be the ultimate tank, with the highest base hull HP out of all Federation ships and an abundance of Engineering powers, but it doesn't actually generate enough firepower to draw aggro versus an Excelsior or Ambassador. The only damage type it can be competitive with is Plasma because it allows you to buff your damage further with Fleet Embassy consoles. Even then, other ships can still do the same thing. The Galaxy is completely redundant.
Moving general weapon-type damage buff consoles to Engineering and re-tooling all of the Team abilities with shield distribution and crew-scaling skill buffs is the only way to "fix" this ship's shortcomings without actually altering the layout.
To Al Rivera:
If there wasn't a problem with this ship, you wouldn't have caved to the immense pressure to change the D'Deridex before Legacy of Romulus launched, and there wouldn't be 354 pages of complaints.
The problem is that some of you guys on this board are "selective" to the point of being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. This tendency of using that tired "it's the writers' fault" mantra ONLY when something is brought up about the GCS that some of you don't want to hear, is the equivalent of a person sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "La-la-la..." so that they can attempt to drown out what they don't want to hear.
If this "it's the writer fault" mantra was TRULY valid, then EVERYBODY should be free to use that, and not just the GCS fans. So when many of you guys have pointed to "faults" in the Sovereign class, then it would be perfectly valid the Sovereign fans to ALSO say "it's the writers' fault". The same would be applicable to fans of different ships as well (Defiant, Prometheus, Intrepid, etc.)
That is true. There are people who hide behind the excuse of "Oh, but it's all the writers' fault!". Writers also made the ship extremely overpowered (see: blowing crater-sized holes in a Borg Cube). So, in a perfect world, it should all even out. (No pun intended.)
You're right, the same excuse can be used by pro-Sovereign forum posters too, it's not just confined to this one ship.
At this point, I'm just addressing no one in particular. The problem is this. Once people try to apply canon into this game, the whole system gets frakked up. The episodes of Star Trek aren't built around the ships. Rather, ships are built around the facilitation of the message each episode attempts to convey. So if an episode needs to have the Enterprise-D kicked around to show how humble the crew should act, then the Enterprise-D is portrayed as weak. Likewise, if they wanted to showcase the firepower of the Enterprise, they blow abnormally sized crater holes in planets or cube-shaped Ships of Doom.
The TNG Technical Manual has no such restriction. It can talk at length on how strong / weak the ship is, and what it can and can't do, without being bound to an episode. And that's why it's a very strong part of this thread; it is the most in-depth apocryphal resource that can be used, and it is clear of "episode bias".
So, while actual episode proof may vary, the Manual does not.
I've got a crazy idea. Move general damage buff consoles like Prefire Chambers, Directed Energy Manifolds, Variable Geometry Detonators, and Warhead Yield Chambers over from Tactical to Engineering. Cryptic already set a precedent for this when they moved Field Generators from Engineering to Science. This would allow Engineering-heavy Cruisers like the Operations Odyssey and Fleet Galaxy to churn out better damage. Yes, this would also enable Escorts to do more damage, but it would be a massive hit to their durability and give them less room to slot things like the Plasmonic Leech.
Assuming there are no objections to my idea of swapping general damage buff consoles from Tactical to Engineering, then we just have one obstacle in the way to making the Galaxy a competitive ship:
Ensign-level Engineering powers.
I've already proposed one possible fix, like creating new, rank one versions of Auxiliary Power to the Emergency Battery and Auxiliary Power to the Inertial Dampeners and bumping the existing versions of the powers to ranks two and three. People have also proposed the idea of giving every Team power the ability to re-distribute shields like Tactical Team. I think this idea has merit on the basis of making Tactical Team less of a "must-have" power for successful builds, but if we simply slap this on without adjusting the skills as they are, then Science Team is just going to take Tactical Team's place. Here's how I think we should approach this:
Give Tactical Team a temporary, crew-scaling skill buff to Starship Targeting Systems to help offset its otherwise lackluster performance. This would improve the damage of alpha strikes in PvP, and have the added benefit of reducing the effectiveness of Escorts' "speed tanking" by virtue of Cruisers having a larger crew pool to buff their accuracy.
Give Engineering Team a temporary, crew-scaling skill buff to Starship Hull Repair, Starship Warp Core Efficiency, and Starship Electro-Plasma systems. This would help Cruisers stay in the game longer by giving full attack power settings more auxiliary for healing, improve base hull repair numbers, and reduce energy recovery time from Bridge Officer abilities like Beam Array: Overload and Beam Array: Fire at Will.
Give Science Team a temporary, crew-scaling skill buff to Starship Flow Capacitors, Starship Graviton Generators, and Starship Particle Generators. This improves the offensive potential of Science skills without adding any defensive components that would make this a compulsory component of ship building.
I like the emphasis on crew scaling skill buffs. My concern is how quickly crew get injured/die during combat. Perhaps if the crew game mechanic were re-examined and adjusted to better suit ships with larger crews, this would be an effective implementation.
As for moving "jack of all trades" consoles like the Prefire Chamber into Engineering, that would be interesting. Perhaps if they also got a passive buff, they could better suit cruisers as well. (Just an example: equipping 5 prefire chambers gives a +15% bonus to beam accuracy. Only the Ops Odyssey and Fleet Galaxy would benefit)
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!
I like the emphasis on crew scaling skill buffs. My concern is how quickly crew get injured/die during combat. Perhaps if the crew game mechanic were re-examined and adjusted to better suit ships with larger crews, this would be an effective implementation.
As for moving "jack of all trades" consoles like the Prefire Chamber into Engineering, that would be interesting. Perhaps if they also got a passive buff, they could better suit cruisers as well. (Just an example: equipping 5 prefire chambers gives a +15% bonus to beam accuracy. Only the Ops Odyssey and Fleet Galaxy would benefit)
Technically, Prefire Chambers boost cannons, not beam weapons. :P
I've heard a few concerns about ships like the Jem'Hadar Attack Ship gaining incredible offensive potential and not losing much defense because of the effectiveness of evasive "speed tanking," hence my insistence on adding a crew-scaling accuracy skill buff component to Tactical Team to even it out.
Basically, if these changes are going to work without completely skewing balance in favor of Escorts with high evasion, the crew mechanic needs to be re-done to punish them for having a low crew pool. Preferably by changing crew damage to flat numbers instead of percentages and upping the effectiveness of Team abilities' scaling on active crew. Otherwise, Cryptic would have to take the speed and evasive boost components out of Attack Pattern Omega to prevent it from getting out of control.
The Galaxy-class ship, as it's currently implemented, needs that little difference.
the galaxy exploration cruiser as it is curently implemented by cryptic do not " need" that because it is not meant to do dps, that is not his role in this game.
you may not be agree with that, but that how it is.
i am personally not agree with cryptic " vision" of the galaxy exploration cruiser, but if you want to give more dps to a galaxy, bumping his number of tactical slot is the less efficient way to do it and will certainly not allow him to steal aggro back, even to a ship like ambassador.
indeed, even the ensign tact of the ambassador allow him to have a power ready every 15 sec, that is more important than having 5 tact console.
but let take it backward,a good way to test it is to use an ambassador, regent or exelsior and just remove 1 tact console ( you can even remove 2 ).
i am sure that ( if the guy doing it right ) your galaxy will not be able to get aggro still.
you said that this solution is to help cruiser? for me it is only to help galaxy and will fail to do so.
the galaxy exploration cruiser as it is curently implemented by cryptic do not " need" that because it is not meant to do dps, that is not his role in this game.
you may not be agree with that, but that how it is.
i am personally not agree with cryptic " vision" of the galaxy exploration cruiser, but if you want to give more dps to a galaxy, bumping his number of tactical slot is the less efficient way to do it and will certainly not allow him to steal aggro back, even to a ship like ambassador.
indeed, even the ensign tact of the ambassador allow him to have a power ready every 15 sec, that is more important than having 5 tact console.
but let take it backward,a good way to test it is to use an ambassador, regent or exelsior and just remove 1 tact console ( you can even remove 2 ).
i am sure that ( if the guy doing it right ) your galaxy will not be able to get aggro still.
you said that this solution is to help cruiser? for me it is only to help galaxy and will fail to do so.
Have you been paying attention to anything I posted? You're not making any sense. The ship needs more damage output because it's fundamentally unable to draw aggro as a tank, which you just admitted in the same post. I'm one of the only people in this entire thread who is actively trying to make the existing console and station layout work for the Galaxy instead of throwing money at the problem and giving Cryptic a free pass on how badly they directly and indirectly botched this ship's design.
My proposal states that weapon type buff consoles like Directed Energy Manifolds and Prefire Chambers should be switched from Tactical consoles to Engineering consoles, allowing the Galaxy and Operations variant of the Odyssey to pump out more damage despite having few Tactical slots. I also suggested creating weaker variants of two Engineering powers that currently lack a third rank to help fill out Ensign-level stations, as well as re-tooling all of the Team abilities to take advantage of the crew mechanic and be equally useful, giving Engineering Team a solid niche.
All you're doing is nay-saying for the sake of being argumentative and contradicting yourself.
Have you been paying attention to anything I posted? You're not making any sense. The ship needs more damage output because it's fundamentally unable to draw aggro as a tank, which you just admitted in the same post. I'm one of the only people in this entire thread who is actively trying to make the existing console and station layout work for the Galaxy instead of throwing money at the problem and giving Cryptic a free pass on how badly they directly and indirectly botched this ship's design.
My proposal states that weapon type buff consoles like Directed Energy Manifolds and Prefire Chambers should be switched from Tactical consoles to Engineering consoles, allowing the Galaxy and Operations variant of the Odyssey to pump out more damage despite having few Tactical slots. I also suggested creating weaker variants of two Engineering powers that currently lack a third rank to help fill out Ensign-level stations, as well as re-tooling all of the Team abilities to take advantage of the crew mechanic and be equally useful, giving Engineering Team a solid niche.
All you're doing is nay-saying for the sake of being argumentative and contradicting yourself.
Full Threat Spec, Embassy +Th consoles. Gets threat pretty easy. All that threat doesnt do you much good in PvE because of all the Bfaw from cubes and the multi targeting done by PvE enemies.
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Full Threat Spec, Embassy +Th consoles. Gets threat pretty easy. All that threat doesnt do you much good in PvE because of all the Bfaw from cubes and the multi targeting done by PvE enemies.
The point is that a ship like the Excelsior and the Ambassador will take aggro away from the ship that's supposedly designed to be the "ultimate tank" if they use the same spec because their layouts are flat-out superior for tanking. This is what I'm trying to fix, as well as the deficiencies present in its station configuration.
The point is that a ship like the Excelsior and the Ambassador will take aggro away from the ship that's supposedly designed to be the "ultimate tank" if they use the same spec because their layouts are flat-out superior for tanking. This is what I'm trying to fix, as well as the deficiencies present in its station configuration.
The reasons why Excelsior's are taking aggro is that most of them are using a single cannon/ turret build. The higher volume of fire means more crits and it seems that PVE targets really count than in towards aggro. I out aggro a friend on mine who is driving a tac-oriented Oddy all the time in STF's. The main difference between us was I was using sc/turrets and he was using BA's and torps'.
That is true. There are people who hide behind the excuse of "Oh, but it's all the writers' fault!". Writers also made the ship extremely overpowered (see: blowing crater-sized holes in a Borg Cube). So, in a perfect world, it should all even out. (No pun intended.)
You're right, the same excuse can be used by pro-Sovereign forum posters too, it's not just confined to this one ship.
At this point, I'm just addressing no one in particular. The problem is this. Once people try to apply canon into this game, the whole system gets frakked up. The episodes of Star Trek aren't built around the ships. Rather, ships are built around the facilitation of the message each episode attempts to convey. So if an episode needs to have the Enterprise-D kicked around to show how humble the crew should act, then the Enterprise-D is portrayed as weak. Likewise, if they wanted to showcase the firepower of the Enterprise, they blow abnormally sized crater holes in planets or cube-shaped Ships of Doom.
The TNG Technical Manual has no such restriction. It can talk at length on how strong / weak the ship is, and what it can and can't do, without being bound to an episode. And that's why it's a very strong part of this thread; it is the most in-depth apocryphal resource that can be used, and it is clear of "episode bias".
So, while actual episode proof may vary, the Manual does not.
EDIT: I have no clue where I was going with this
I hear what you're saying. The problem is that even that Tech Manual disavows using the approach of elevating it over the writers' decisions and any episodes as a result of those writers. As stated by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda in the "Authors' Introduction":
"....[W]e'd like to make it clear that it is not our intention for this document to serve as a straitjacket, limiting the options of future writers. ...To would-be Star Trek writers, we'd like to emphasize that this is NOT required reading. If you're writing a Star Trek story, you would probably be doing yourself and your audience a disservice if you use more than a tiny amount of this material. "Remember, Star Trek is about people;".
So how can ANYTHING be "the writers' fault" in regards to episodes that are "inconsistent" with the Tech Manual when the very same Tech Manual emphasizes the writers' independence from having to be constrained from that very information contained in said document? Clearly, the manual itself has set up the mandate that "the writers' rule", so these mind-numbing, redundant iterations of "phaser array lengths" are a waste of time.
For example, if the writers' have determined that "phaser array length" is NOT always determinative of total destructive force of phaser power (as in the shorter phaser array/strip/bars as seen on DS9 in "The Way of The Warrior and "A Call To Arms"), then the writers' decision to take that approach is fully supported by the Tech Manual itself.
Again, this tendency by some on this thread of holding the Tech Manual up as inviolable document is an approach that is disavowed by that document itself. Hence, is probably why the Sovereign is ALWAYS a more powerful ship than the GCS in EVERY Star Trek game .
[Q] Lately it has been my perception that the vast majority of ships being released scream DPS and Tactical. You have mentioned in previous interviews that you and your team have been considering adding exclusive elements to the ship classes like armor slots for cruisers and double deflectors for science vessels. When can the other classes expect some of that same love for their classes of ships? Also is that idea I mentioned or a similar one still being considered and if so, how far has it gone until now?
[CaptainGeko] I don't know if I would agree that the vast majority of ships that are released "scream DPS and Tactical", though it should be no surprise they are popular. We are currently working on a new mechanic for Cruisers (and related Battlecruisers and Flight Deck Cruisers), as well as Science Vessels. I can't give you any details at this time, but you may see something soon.
Oh my, he's not sure about the vast supremacy of tactical?
So why releast one tactical heavy ship after another?
Hey, guys YOU are the ppl making the ships here, not we.
Aside from some ideas already posted here in this thread, i am scared about the "new mechanic" Cryptic will come up with.
(I'll bet it won't be something only Cruisers and science ships will benefit from, but also Escorts as always.)
"...'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 my, he's not sure about the vast supremacy of tactical?
So why releast one tactical heavy ship after another?
Hey, guys YOU are the ppl making the ships here, not we.
Aside from some ideas already posted here in this thread, i am scared about the "new mechanic" Cryptic will come up with.
(I'll bet it won't be something only Cruisers and science ships will benefit from, but also Escorts as always.)
Thought I would pop in with a few things.
First I skimmed this thread. http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=846611
what makes it impressive is that a controlled experiment was done. It showed an issue. And a Dev immediately commented and got people working on it.
Just a thought that it may be in interests to let this thread go and launch one with said experiments to show the issue.
Second, I do not know how many hundreds of pages ago I mentioned skimming an older thread. It was about a year ago. They were crying that the game was cruiser centric and was asking when they would bring in escorts for tactical captains.
Is it me or are they already doing a flavor of the week then?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Oh, and I am not sure I like the idea of armour slots for cruisers from a canon perspective. The only ship I know of to mention armour was the Defiant. And we know that was an escort. I think a second warpcore would be better to show the extra power a cruiser can bring to bear in a fight as opposed to the smaller ships. That way it keeps more shield regeneration and weapon power up in combat.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Thought I would pop in with a few things.
First I skimmed this thread. http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=846611
what makes it impressive is that a controlled experiment was done. It showed an issue. And a Dev immediately commented and got people working on it.
Just a thought that it may be in interests to let this thread go and launch one with said experiments to show the issue.
...
Fascinating how fast they can react if they actually care about the according issue.
So what we need is some dev that likes TNG or the GCS, or one that does not hate it at least. lol.
"...'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
I'm one of the only people in this entire thread who is actively trying to make the existing console and station layout work for the Galaxy instead of throwing money at the problem and giving Cryptic a free pass on how badly they directly and indirectly botched this ship's design.
that dasn't make your proposal more valid than any others, just more pleasant to hear for the customers that we are.
All you're doing is nay-saying for the sake of being argumentative and contradicting yourself.
No, I just express my disagreement with your proposal by developing constructive criticism with example to demonstrate the nonsense of this one. it up to you now to proove me wrong, but not dismissing me by calling me a nay-sayer.
by doing that you just confirm what polaronbeam think of most of us:
or when some of you have been totally insulting to those who would dare to disagree with you
The ship needs more damage output because it's fundamentally unable to draw aggro as a tank
if you want to draw aggro there are ambassi console for that, already.
if you want to draw aggro by pure firepower your proposal will fail to do so, because if i get your porposal correctly it is not supposed to be limited to the galaxy only but to all cruiser, in fact to all ship in game.
so, just for cruiser what it give us?
to steal aggro by pure firepower you need more firepower than the ship you want to steal it from.
as you can see, even with that proposal the other cruiser will still be more powerfull,only the ambassador seem to find himself in the same league while in fact it is not ( better turn and 1 more ensign tact )
and this is even not taking into account the fact that the " universal" beam and torpedo console are less powerfull than dedicated one at the same level, so having more dedicated one will still help to wider the gap.
and since the firepower of a tactical cruiser is in it tactical bo, even if the galaxy would find itself with the exact same numbers of tactical console it will still be outgunned.
and that is just with cruiser, what about hybrid ship like the breen or 1000 days ship?
you would give them a good boost without having to bear the cruiser shortcomming.
what about escort? because i know many pvper that don't use hull plating console, so for them it would be " open bar" for more power.
Jem'Hadar Attack Ship
4 engi slot
5 engi slot total:9 yahoooooooooooooo! make it so!
and since escort are the ship who can pull more dps from tact console you are making them a good favor.
now you are proposing somekind of mechanism based on crew to compensate, i found it to be far fetched and obscure, especially when crew can be eliminated so easily ( and sometime within 5 second with the right console:) )
so, i repeat, do you still think your proposal is good?
so, i repeat, do you still think your proposal is good?
Uh, yeah. In case you didn't notice, I proposed changing crew damage to work by flat numbers instead of being based on percentages to make Cruisers' crew more survivable and punish Escorts for having small crew pools. It's the only way crew-scaling buffs would be worth a damn.
I also acknowledged that ships with high damage potential would benefit immensely from this change. The point wasn't to make the Galaxy better than the Ambassador or the Excelsior, just to give it a chance at being competitive with them. You're also leaving out Science consoles, which can buff Plasma weapons with [Pla] modifiers. With that in mind, the gap becomes less massive.
Comments
You talk as if cryptics Star Trek approach would only slightly differ from anything that was previously Star Trek.
I'm not going to list even the most blatant things that come to my mind, but STO really isn't a typical Star Trek game.
You are right all Starfleet Cruisers need help.
but as i have said numerous times the Galaxy Class is the worst of them and especially nedds some attention because it is completely different to how it is supposed to be.
5 posts above i said:
That's the thing whats especially wrong with the GCS in STO.
It's not just that they made all starfleet cruisers the most passive and boring ships (from which the GCS is the most boring one) in their game.
They especially put the Galaxy into a position that is completely inappropriate for that ship. They made it the tankiest tank, while it should be (as explained numerous times alone in this thread) a "jack of all trades".
That "jack of all Trades" is a simplification to put that ship into a pattern like STO, since it would be completely nonsense to make it a Battleship/Science/Cruiser with the biggest guns of all ships*. That would make all other ships obsolete.
No one here wants that, so a more versatile BOFF layout would be a good way to keep the spirit of the "original" ship from TV, without making it overpowered in STO.
*It's ok to make other ships OP but not the GCS. :rolleyes:
For those who value the Galaxy class above all else.
I never saw the Galaxy do a barrel roll (towards the end of Insurrection)
The Galaxy did a lot of three point turns before it went to warp
From what I have seen proposed, I don't buy that statement.
I think reworking the way all cruisers work has the best chance
There are plenty of ways to use current engineering abilities to make the ship turn well enough to stay with other cruisers, especially with an engineering captain and 5 engineering consoles (Fleet Level). The 5/3 set-up IS overboard because of engineers ability to overcome inertia and turn rate. The setup will tactically supplant the Assault cruisers, even with a two point base turn rate advantage.
So just making the ship their tactical equal is worth using a band-aid instead of fixing the whole approach. Even if you get your desire, you will still find the ship lacking as its floating throughout space as debris from being escort target practice. But that is you opinion and right to say.
Then you obviously haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying the whole time. I want to strengthen ALL cruisers to make them competitive, not just to be a lobbyist for Cryptics system or any one ship skins capabilities. I accept what Cryptic has done to cruisers about as much as I do making the Galaxy a tactical equivalent to the tactical cruisers in the game. there would be little differentiation between the different products that way.
Improve engineer skills and basic cruiser effectiveness, improve the Galaxy with a higher proportion to the other ships due to its layout.
Remember, your statement is "in your eyes" , as is who and how you think people care about things. There are plenty of people who want a holistic approach to fixing all cruisers, and you (and others) want to fix just the one you care about. You (and others) see people having a vendetta against the Galaxy when they don't agree with your point of view. The GCS IS the tip of the iceberg for cruisers, which means its only a symptom of the real problem and slapping LTCMDR uni's, 9' base turn rates and 5/3 weapons aren't going to fix the problem until the actual problem is fixed.
Honestly, I have driven Klingon Cruisers/Battlecruisers as well. The extra 1' base turn and ability to mount DC/DHC's doesn't do much for their effectiveness either. I tend to use the Garumba or the Vet' ship most of the time. Try them, you wont do much better in a KDF battlecruiser than you will in a Fed' one.
The Exploration Cruiser is a disappointment, it's engineer boff layout has plenty of potential if the engineer boff skills weren't such an impediment.
You and I have been over this before. I have stated that I would want to improve the magnitude, effect of current skills and a few new ones as well.
Skills like RSP, DEM, and Aceton Beam, especially the higher ranked ones really don't create that much value, so they do need upping the ante' on. Engineering team should have a hull resistance bonus to it (and sci should have a shield resistance to it as well), maybe with a LTCMDR or CMDR level with a small, short term, power cap bonus.
New skills could be effective too, a LTCMDR/CMDR skill between beam overload and fire at will that would be a Sustained Beam Blast, the shot is on one target, but has a has a larger duration with an increased chance to bypass shields for hull damage and crits (on the tail end), almost like a sabot round that is used in today's tank ammunition. It doesn't need to be "lance" quality, nor should it be. Its more of a piercing blow than BO's all at once shot. It would drain both Weapons and Aux energy to use.
Cruisers in general are bullseyes, I agree with you.
I am not good enough at knowing how the game engines operate, so I can't say for sure if that is an issue with constraints in the engine or the dev's. Maybe someone more qualified in that area than I am can speak to that.
Is it opposition to reworking the GCS or is it trying to take another approach to solving the problems of a whole demographic? You yourself said that the problems with the GCS is the tip of the iceberg. I''ve studied and been trained in quality control/process/project/product management and my job in real life is to troubleshoot problems and fix them by new techniques, processes, strategies and tactics. You don't fix the iceberg by taking off the tip, you take a look at the whole problem and develop a holistic solution that works across the board.
Just fixing the GCS solves one symptom to a problem, if I was suffering from a disease, I would surely want more than the symptoms to be healed, but disease as a whole. You (and others) are looking for an opportunity in this thread to fix the GCS, I look at it as an opportunity to work with all stakeholders in the game and the cruiser type ships to work together and define and propose a way to help make cruisers viable. GCS fans are part of a larger community and they have the opportunity to take the issues that they have and work with the cruiser community to benefit the community as a whole. The cruiser community needs all of its divisions to work together, not singularly for a real solution.The sooner that everyone sees that and works together for the benefit of all is when it has a better chance of being heard, appreciated, and acted on.
I like the idea about the general weapon type buff consoles being moved to engie' slots, I never understood their existence past season 4.
Crew scaling should be a differentiating factor in game, but sadly isn't. Any way to work crew in to play more would be welcome.
All-in-all good ideas.
The problem is that some of you guys on this board are "selective" to the point of being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. This tendency of using that tired "it's the writers' fault" mantra ONLY when something is brought up about the GCS that some of you don't want to hear, is the equivalent of a person sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "La-la-la..." so that they can attempt to drown out what they don't want to hear.
If this "it's the writer fault" mantra was TRULY valid, then EVERYBODY should be free to use that, and not just the GCS fans. So when many of you guys have pointed to "faults" in the Sovereign class, then it would be perfectly valid the Sovereign fans to ALSO say "it's the writers' fault". The same would be applicable to fans of different ships as well (Defiant, Prometheus, Intrepid, etc.)
If you believe that the "it's the writers' fault" mantra is ONLY valid for situations involving the GCS, then at least have the courage to just come out and say that instead of hiding behind hypocritical nonsense.
These are great ideas indeed. To move the general purpose dmg consoles to ENG is an ingenious move to improve ships with lots of ENG slots. This and the proposed changes to the BOFF powers would greatly benefit all cruisers, not just the GCS in particular.
Once again: The GCS shouldn't be the most ENG heavy cruiser. The Ambassador and Galaxy actually should just swap, that would be more appropriate but that kind of "canon" has no rule in STO and so we just have to accept it the way it is. Just look at the game in general, it was obviously designed to be another game entirely and they somehow gt lucky to slap Star Trek skins on it at one point
Because if we would honestly rant about canon misconception we would need a thread dedicated to the Nova class which was made a tactical heavy ship in it's fleet version, yet in canon it's basically a non-combatant survey vessel. But you won't see anyone actually wanting to *decrease* a ships tactical capabilities because, while not being "canon", it greatly benefits the ship. Like whamhammer (I believe) stated, when people suggest LTC unis for the galaxy they basically want them to be tactical slots - and that's cheap game in my opinion.
Starboardnacelles proposal is a great way to fix all cruisers and the Galaxy would profit greatly from that as well
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That's true, but i think ppl can't be blamed for that.
Cryptic released ships like the Excelsior or Galor with much higher tactical BOFF stations than a GCS.
Cryptic made Tactical the most important carrer path and Boff powers in the game, Escorts are essentially the best ships in STO, it's no wonder that many want their fav ship to be at least equal.
What the devs should do is to decrease the pressure to be always on the tactical side. I'm not talking about nerfing tactical power, but to make other powers more equal, without makin them stronger than Tactical (that's important IMO).
As i have said before, i could very well live with the GCS being a more science focussed ship. Maybe they could make the Star Crusier a "full" science Cruiser, while the GCS would be in between the Assault Crusier -R and a potential Star Cruiser -R.
I am all for it, making at least all "Generic" Weapons consoles (like Variable Geometry Detonators, Warhead Yield Chamber, Directed Energy Distribution Manifold and Prefire Chamber) into Engineering consoles would be awesome.
About giving TTs "Shield distributing ability" to Science Team and Engineering Team, there is a thread about exactly this issue. HERE
My sollution would be to keep most of the Team powers as they are (because changing too much always makes ppl mad), and give Tactical Teams "Shield distributing ability" to the other two Team powers.
Meanwhile Tactical Team should get a [CrtH] or better a [CrtD] bonus for some seconds.
By doing it this way, TT would be a good counter to the increased useage of Engineering/Science Team.
So non tactical focussed ships would get the benefit of a "Shield distributing ability" without being "forced" to use Tactical Team and "waste" a precious Tactical BOFF Slot.
This would allow much more diverse Builds and the constraint to be always tactical focussed would be much less .
(sry, bad english)
This COULD be one of those new game mechanics the devs are looking for.
Additionally it wouldn't mean a lot of work IMHO, i think it could be made within a few patches if the devs where serious about introducing a new mechanic to make ships more equal worth.
I think they can when confronted about it and they say the real purpose of their desire to add all of these uni's (especially a LTCMDR) isn't primarily to have high level tac's. At least be honest about it, the rest sets off the Bravo Sierra alarms.
But to make them equal by being essentially the same as the other ships isn't the best way to overcome being overwhelmed by "Tactical power creep". (Band-aids anyone?) Unifying all cruiser players to improve all cruisers benefits the GCS proponents than most seem to be able to admit.
This is what I, and others having been pushing for, but has found little interest in the "fix GCS" crowd. Instead they want uni-tacs and other special things to push the GCS up, at the expense of other cruisers. I can imagine the GCS being an awesome ship with much larger player-ship when engineer boff skills are brought to par.
It has plenty of potential as is with engineering focus, should Cryptic balance the effectiveness of Engie-boff skills. It would have the ability to not only endure enemy attacks, but also apply proper pressure on them until they break.
Thats one of the best ideas I have heard so far.
hehehe, sorry, i have to make that one...
you give me an idea for space set power on the galaxy with the separation console, antimatter spread and an other one left to determine.
2 pieces set: it's the writer fault mantra1
when criticaly hit: 95% chance to apply
60% intant hull repair with 50% hull resistance
rsp 3 unsubnuking version for 20 second
to player; voice of picard saying: make it so!
to target: audio recording of a child saying: "na nana nana naaaaa!"
3pieces set : it's the writer fault mantra 2
3 powerfull blast from any beam array in front of 50k each
3minute recharge ( +10% against borg cube )
what do you think?:D
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
sorry, i don't find this proposal to be good. if you think that having 4 tactical console slot will " fix" cruiser you are greatly mistaken.
tactical console are good to add firepower to a ship at no BO cost, but not as much as you seem to bielieve.
when the galaxy dreadnought use to have only 2 tactical console i was dreaming of the day he will get a third ( somehow i knew this would happen sometime).
when it came i was overjoyed, but quicly realize it was not the "big deal" i expected it to be.
as of today with the new build i have with my dread and rcs console i have sacrifice these console and are now only running with 1.
even if it took me a great effort to convinced me to do it because i was afraid of the loss firepower this would bring, it is in fact bearly noticeable.
so do not think that this will be the beguining of a change to improve cruiser.
cruiser are not less powerfull than escort because they got less tactical console slot, it is because they got less turnrate and less hight level tactical bo and generally can't equip DHC ( of course tactical console are also part of it but it is the less important factor ).
you want to simulate what a galaxy would be with 4 or 5 tactical console slot?
go with a bortasq with beam and set it up like a galaxy by keeping only a lt tactical bo.
you will see, it will not make a big difference.
the only things that a change like this would bring it enlarging the gap between galaxy and other tactical cruiser. the lt commander and commander tactical cruiser ( scimi ) will be able to "pump" more power from these console than what just a lt tac ship will be able too.
you still think it is a good idea?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
The point is that Cryptic made tactial so overwhelming good, other carrer paths (engineering and Science Powers) aren't interesting for most players.
If Crpyitc would buff some Science and Engineering powers to make them more interesting and useful, i am sure more ppl would go for science or engineering.
Don't get me wrong here, but i think there is a tiny missconception.
This thread is about the Galaxy Class, and most of the time ppl talk about improving that single ship alone. This doesn't mean that your ideas about making cruisers in general better are bad, but they would help all cruisers.
In the minds of it's fans, the GCS is totally underpowered, so improving all cruisers wouldn't help the GCS at all.
Even if engineering powers would suddenly become more potent, the GCS would still be the most passive ship in the game, because of the self healing nature of engineering.
What the GCS needs is a buff towards tactical AND science equaly. The reason why some ppl are focussing on tactical is the clearly offensive nature of all tactical powers, while science is just meh to most players.
In my opinion we should find a way to improve the GCS without diminishing other cruisers, to find a unique place for her.
That's why i want the GCS to become something like a Science/Cruiser hybrid with some extras that resemble the ship from TV (not too powerful but still useable).
So the GCS would become a unique ship without being in competition to the regent or other tactical focused cruisers.
With the current power creep, i cannot imagine how such a engineering buff should look like. All that could be done to improve engineering would only make the passiveness of the GCS more potent (meaning, ti wouldn't change anything for the GCS).
Personally i wouldn't want engineering to become a Science 2.0.
Of course Engineering could need a buff, but the GCS needs to be more than just a flying healing station for other ships. If Cryptic wants a ship for that job they should use the Jupiter Dreadnought or the Typhoon Class or some other of their own creation.
Again, i think the GCS should be in the ship between the Regent Class and a Star Crusier 2.0 (a science focussed regent, so to speak.). Personally i don't see a problem with a BOFF layout like Angrytargs proposal. Sure some would use a 2x Lt. tactical build, but that wouldn't be such a problem for a regent. Both ships still would have different BOFF layouts.
Seriously i don't get what's some ppls problem is with a Galaxy Class with a tactical focussed BOFF layout.
Virtually all new ships are tactical focussed or can be made that way, why should a reworked Galaxy Class not be able to do that? Especailly if her BOFF layout can be used for a science focussed Buid just as well.
Again don't get me wrong, but someone who doesn't want the GCS to get some teeht souldn't be surprised to encounter resistance in this thread.
Great idea, i cannot stress that enough. But i think it shouldn't stop there. Things like making Tactical team less a "must have" power would help too.
In my opinion Starfleet cruisers just lack of enough offensive power compared to other factions crusiers.
I am not saying that Starfleet Crusiers should get access to DHCs, but they should get something unique, something that allowes them to become more offensive, instead of being always the ones being shot at.
(but no matter with what someone comes up ther WILL be some PvP player saying "OP!!!!!", lol.)
Just one more thing:
(i know Capt. Gecko isn't reading this, but just assuming he would
Those people prefer flying Crusier and some Science ships because they like the ships* themslves (not just the stats) ALTHROUGH escorts are more fun, have more FP and so on.
My point is that those people are deliberately fly underperforming ships because they want to play a more "classical" Star Trek game and not just a dogfighting jetfighter game that coincidentally is called STAR TREK online.
*Cruisers, the iconic Star Trek ships, instead of those oversized and rediculus overpowered X-Wings called Escorts.
Sorry for being off topic.
Here's what you're not getting:
The Galaxy-class ship, as it's currently implemented, needs that little difference. Its Fleet variant is built to be the ultimate tank, with the highest base hull HP out of all Federation ships and an abundance of Engineering powers, but it doesn't actually generate enough firepower to draw aggro versus an Excelsior or Ambassador. The only damage type it can be competitive with is Plasma because it allows you to buff your damage further with Fleet Embassy consoles. Even then, other ships can still do the same thing. The Galaxy is completely redundant.
Moving general weapon-type damage buff consoles to Engineering and re-tooling all of the Team abilities with shield distribution and crew-scaling skill buffs is the only way to "fix" this ship's shortcomings without actually altering the layout.
To Al Rivera:
If there wasn't a problem with this ship, you wouldn't have caved to the immense pressure to change the D'Deridex before Legacy of Romulus launched, and there wouldn't be 354 pages of complaints.
That is true. There are people who hide behind the excuse of "Oh, but it's all the writers' fault!". Writers also made the ship extremely overpowered (see: blowing crater-sized holes in a Borg Cube). So, in a perfect world, it should all even out. (No pun intended.)
You're right, the same excuse can be used by pro-Sovereign forum posters too, it's not just confined to this one ship.
At this point, I'm just addressing no one in particular. The problem is this. Once people try to apply canon into this game, the whole system gets frakked up. The episodes of Star Trek aren't built around the ships. Rather, ships are built around the facilitation of the message each episode attempts to convey. So if an episode needs to have the Enterprise-D kicked around to show how humble the crew should act, then the Enterprise-D is portrayed as weak. Likewise, if they wanted to showcase the firepower of the Enterprise, they blow abnormally sized crater holes in planets or cube-shaped Ships of Doom.
The TNG Technical Manual has no such restriction. It can talk at length on how strong / weak the ship is, and what it can and can't do, without being bound to an episode. And that's why it's a very strong part of this thread; it is the most in-depth apocryphal resource that can be used, and it is clear of "episode bias".
So, while actual episode proof may vary, the Manual does not.
EDIT: I have no clue where I was going with this
I like the emphasis on crew scaling skill buffs. My concern is how quickly crew get injured/die during combat. Perhaps if the crew game mechanic were re-examined and adjusted to better suit ships with larger crews, this would be an effective implementation.
As for moving "jack of all trades" consoles like the Prefire Chamber into Engineering, that would be interesting. Perhaps if they also got a passive buff, they could better suit cruisers as well. (Just an example: equipping 5 prefire chambers gives a +15% bonus to beam accuracy. Only the Ops Odyssey and Fleet Galaxy would benefit)
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Technically, Prefire Chambers boost cannons, not beam weapons. :P
I've heard a few concerns about ships like the Jem'Hadar Attack Ship gaining incredible offensive potential and not losing much defense because of the effectiveness of evasive "speed tanking," hence my insistence on adding a crew-scaling accuracy skill buff component to Tactical Team to even it out.
Basically, if these changes are going to work without completely skewing balance in favor of Escorts with high evasion, the crew mechanic needs to be re-done to punish them for having a low crew pool. Preferably by changing crew damage to flat numbers instead of percentages and upping the effectiveness of Team abilities' scaling on active crew. Otherwise, Cryptic would have to take the speed and evasive boost components out of Attack Pattern Omega to prevent it from getting out of control.
the galaxy exploration cruiser as it is curently implemented by cryptic do not " need" that because it is not meant to do dps, that is not his role in this game.
you may not be agree with that, but that how it is.
i am personally not agree with cryptic " vision" of the galaxy exploration cruiser, but if you want to give more dps to a galaxy, bumping his number of tactical slot is the less efficient way to do it and will certainly not allow him to steal aggro back, even to a ship like ambassador.
indeed, even the ensign tact of the ambassador allow him to have a power ready every 15 sec, that is more important than having 5 tact console.
but let take it backward,a good way to test it is to use an ambassador, regent or exelsior and just remove 1 tact console ( you can even remove 2 ).
i am sure that ( if the guy doing it right ) your galaxy will not be able to get aggro still.
you said that this solution is to help cruiser? for me it is only to help galaxy and will fail to do so.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Have you been paying attention to anything I posted? You're not making any sense. The ship needs more damage output because it's fundamentally unable to draw aggro as a tank, which you just admitted in the same post. I'm one of the only people in this entire thread who is actively trying to make the existing console and station layout work for the Galaxy instead of throwing money at the problem and giving Cryptic a free pass on how badly they directly and indirectly botched this ship's design.
My proposal states that weapon type buff consoles like Directed Energy Manifolds and Prefire Chambers should be switched from Tactical consoles to Engineering consoles, allowing the Galaxy and Operations variant of the Odyssey to pump out more damage despite having few Tactical slots. I also suggested creating weaker variants of two Engineering powers that currently lack a third rank to help fill out Ensign-level stations, as well as re-tooling all of the Team abilities to take advantage of the crew mechanic and be equally useful, giving Engineering Team a solid niche.
All you're doing is nay-saying for the sake of being argumentative and contradicting yourself.
Full Threat Spec, Embassy +Th consoles. Gets threat pretty easy. All that threat doesnt do you much good in PvE because of all the Bfaw from cubes and the multi targeting done by PvE enemies.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The point is that a ship like the Excelsior and the Ambassador will take aggro away from the ship that's supposedly designed to be the "ultimate tank" if they use the same spec because their layouts are flat-out superior for tanking. This is what I'm trying to fix, as well as the deficiencies present in its station configuration.
The reasons why Excelsior's are taking aggro is that most of them are using a single cannon/ turret build. The higher volume of fire means more crits and it seems that PVE targets really count than in towards aggro. I out aggro a friend on mine who is driving a tac-oriented Oddy all the time in STF's. The main difference between us was I was using sc/turrets and he was using BA's and torps'.
I hear what you're saying. The problem is that even that Tech Manual disavows using the approach of elevating it over the writers' decisions and any episodes as a result of those writers. As stated by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda in the "Authors' Introduction":
"....[W]e'd like to make it clear that it is not our intention for this document to serve as a straitjacket, limiting the options of future writers. ...To would-be Star Trek writers, we'd like to emphasize that this is NOT required reading. If you're writing a Star Trek story, you would probably be doing yourself and your audience a disservice if you use more than a tiny amount of this material. "Remember, Star Trek is about people;".
So how can ANYTHING be "the writers' fault" in regards to episodes that are "inconsistent" with the Tech Manual when the very same Tech Manual emphasizes the writers' independence from having to be constrained from that very information contained in said document? Clearly, the manual itself has set up the mandate that "the writers' rule", so these mind-numbing, redundant iterations of "phaser array lengths" are a waste of time.
For example, if the writers' have determined that "phaser array length" is NOT always determinative of total destructive force of phaser power (as in the shorter phaser array/strip/bars as seen on DS9 in "The Way of The Warrior and "A Call To Arms"), then the writers' decision to take that approach is fully supported by the Tech Manual itself.
Again, this tendency by some on this thread of holding the Tech Manual up as inviolable document is an approach that is disavowed by that document itself. Hence, is probably why the Sovereign is ALWAYS a more powerful ship than the GCS in EVERY Star Trek game .
theres a bit in the latest interview with cpt geko about updates coming to cruisers.
Kobayashi Crew.
Dave@dangerousdave1701
So why releast one tactical heavy ship after another?
Hey, guys YOU are the ppl making the ships here, not we.
Aside from some ideas already posted here in this thread, i am scared about the "new mechanic" Cryptic will come up with.
(I'll bet it won't be something only Cruisers and science ships will benefit from, but also Escorts as always.)
Thought I would pop in with a few things.
First I skimmed this thread.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=846611
what makes it impressive is that a controlled experiment was done. It showed an issue. And a Dev immediately commented and got people working on it.
Just a thought that it may be in interests to let this thread go and launch one with said experiments to show the issue.
Second, I do not know how many hundreds of pages ago I mentioned skimming an older thread. It was about a year ago. They were crying that the game was cruiser centric and was asking when they would bring in escorts for tactical captains.
Is it me or are they already doing a flavor of the week then?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Fascinating how fast they can react if they actually care about the according issue.
So what we need is some dev that likes TNG or the GCS, or one that does not hate it at least. lol.
that dasn't make your proposal more valid than any others, just more pleasant to hear for the customers that we are.
No, I just express my disagreement with your proposal by developing constructive criticism with example to demonstrate the nonsense of this one. it up to you now to proove me wrong, but not dismissing me by calling me a nay-sayer.
by doing that you just confirm what polaronbeam think of most of us:
if you want to draw aggro there are ambassi console for that, already.
if you want to draw aggro by pure firepower your proposal will fail to do so, because if i get your porposal correctly it is not supposed to be limited to the galaxy only but to all cruiser, in fact to all ship in game.
so, just for cruiser what it give us?
fleet exploration cruiser retrofit
5 engi slot
2 tact slot total:7
fleet exelsior
4 engi slot
4 tact slot total:8
fleet assault cruiser
4engi slot
4 tact slot total:8
fleet ambassador
4 engi slot
3 tact slot total:7
to steal aggro by pure firepower you need more firepower than the ship you want to steal it from.
as you can see, even with that proposal the other cruiser will still be more powerfull,only the ambassador seem to find himself in the same league while in fact it is not ( better turn and 1 more ensign tact )
and this is even not taking into account the fact that the " universal" beam and torpedo console are less powerfull than dedicated one at the same level, so having more dedicated one will still help to wider the gap.
and since the firepower of a tactical cruiser is in it tactical bo, even if the galaxy would find itself with the exact same numbers of tactical console it will still be outgunned.
and that is just with cruiser, what about hybrid ship like the breen or 1000 days ship?
you would give them a good boost without having to bear the cruiser shortcomming.
what about escort? because i know many pvper that don't use hull plating console, so for them it would be " open bar" for more power.
Jem'Hadar Attack Ship
4 engi slot
5 engi slot total:9 yahoooooooooooooo! make it so!
and since escort are the ship who can pull more dps from tact console you are making them a good favor.
now you are proposing somekind of mechanism based on crew to compensate, i found it to be far fetched and obscure, especially when crew can be eliminated so easily ( and sometime within 5 second with the right console:) )
so, i repeat, do you still think your proposal is good?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Uh, yeah. In case you didn't notice, I proposed changing crew damage to work by flat numbers instead of being based on percentages to make Cruisers' crew more survivable and punish Escorts for having small crew pools. It's the only way crew-scaling buffs would be worth a damn.
I also acknowledged that ships with high damage potential would benefit immensely from this change. The point wasn't to make the Galaxy better than the Ambassador or the Excelsior, just to give it a chance at being competitive with them. You're also leaving out Science consoles, which can buff Plasma weapons with [Pla] modifiers. With that in mind, the gap becomes less massive.