Because I don't play that faction, but I do fly an Exploration Cruiser.
Of, course.... if, the KDF were properly developed, I might be inclined to play my Klingon more often.
The issue I have is when Yreo' tried to equate the Exploration Cruisers problems to actually being worse than the KDF's neglect. You, as a Fed' have a lot more choices then just the Explorer Cruisers. The Klingons have to drop their faction to get around their issue.
Can you not see the difference in scale there? This is why some people don't take the Explorer class fans so seriously. With all of the micro-analyzing of "canon", this one ship "skin" is the center of their universe and more or less "to Hades with everyone else, until my little world is fixed." This is where they lose me.
And just to clarify, my favorite hull is the Connie' Refit. I don't want a T5 or Fleet Connie' I don't want it to be comparable to any other ship and don't care that it doesn't meet "canon" specs for the ship.
Of course I do, hence the comment about Klingons not being a properly developed faction.
The game is Fedcentric (trademark). Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant. That is how it is.
Are my cruiser concerns greater than your faction concerns? No. Are your faction concerns greater than my cruiser concerns? Maybe. In either case however, we both have the option of playing something else within the game. So in the end... it's a moot point.
I think you all look at this ship as seen in the show and as I said it is simply an exporation ship not really desinged for combat.Klingon ship however are desinged for just that combat which is why they are more heavly armed.
this thread now talk about 2 ship, the galaxy retrofit and the galaxy x, the last one have been clearly redesigned for combat.
and in any case i would not said that the nova was designed for combat, however in this game he outgunned a galaxy.
one of the many point of this thread is not to make the galaxy the most powerfull cruiser, but to not make it the less powerfull.
that is usefull in a game centered around dps.
Honestly, I really think that they need to merge the Exploration Cruiser and the Star Cruiser to the same stats before they do anything else. I don't see the point of having both of them.
that a very good idea indeed.
but i don't think cryptic love the idea to loose 1 ship for potentials sells.
they could even give it also the present star cruiser skin for the one that prefer it.
only to have it said:
i'm just not good with creating up to 14 new voth ships and not one single ship for kdf in a looong time.
but this is not about klink ships. also klink-ships never had been the icons of the ip (may for some, but... u know what i mean ).
My post on Yoedred was a critique that the two could be mirror swapped easily. Though I find the neglect of a whole faction a little more sour than the neglect of a single class of ship.
to sum it up:
- i want klink development as well
- i want them to fix their game as well (just EVERYTHING within that cloudy word "balance")
--> but these points doesn't belong in here
True, though I didn't expect a reply to my post. My OCD drove my need to reply to a unexpected reply. Frankly I have no issues with a little GalXclass lovin. The high levels of fan overubering at times still gives me the heebie-jeebies.
and to close it: a2b is not the prob. it's a lot more in those builds, a2b is just a topping
The Marion DOff, imo, contributes to the issue more than anything else. Though my signature at that time of this reply is more a poke at how when things are not widely used they are ok but once they hit FOTM levels they are a blight.
I mean AtB builds have been around a long time, even with Marion.
Honestly i cant find any clue of what the dev team tink ....
Not even Q knows what the Devs are thinking.
I would have said "not even God knows" but that would be against my faith besides at times dealing with God is like playing poker with a blindfolded dealer, using blank cards, for unknown stakes, in a dark room and He just wont stop smiling.......:D
yeah, the kdf faction is in a poor state, but i think that what yeodred meant is that you will not find a ship as gimp in this faction as the galaxy retrofit is.
he was not ( at least i think ) comparing all the problems of the kdf to a single fed ship, but more that each one individually are not as bad as this one.
now, to be honnest, i don't known if what i just write is true, i am not a fan of kdf, so maybe their is a 6 base heavy engie beam cruiser in kdf faction, in that case let us known.
i known that the bop have been shafted with LOR and romulan ship.
some mention the raptor to also have problem but i don't known much more than that.
now i wouldn't mind to talk about it a little in this thread, we have been talking about the galaxy for about 400 pages, a little break would be good.
and like the people that come in this thread to ask us what are the problem with the galaxy, i also like to known what are the problem with the kdf.
examples and details will greatly help.
nvm... i feel ya . just was in the mood to... give an unquestioned answer. :rolleyes:
indeed i agree with all ur points (and may could add some about that "build").
Of course I do, hence the comment about Klingons not being a properly developed faction.
The game is Fedcentric (trademark). Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant. That is how it is.
Are my cruiser concerns greater than your faction concerns? No. Are your faction concerns greater than my cruiser concerns? Maybe. In either case however, we both have the option of playing something else within the game. So in the end... it's a moot point.
It's not even my faction concern, I barely even have a Klink toon, but what I do I know is the difference in scope of the two issues.
To be clear the comment was pointed more at Yreo' than you. I should have clarified.
yeah, the kdf faction is in a poor state, but i think that what yeodred meant is that you will not find a ship as gimp in this faction as the galaxy retrofit is.
he was not ( at least i think ) comparing all the problems of the kdf to a single fed ship, but more that each one individually are not as bad as this one.
It sure looked to me like he was trivializing the KDF issue as it was not as bad as the Explorers problem, at least the way I've read it. Roach seemed to be pretty much showing that Yreo's cause isn't the only one that Cryptic is ignoring. From what I know about Roach, he is sympathetic to the Exploration Cruisers plight. I read it multiple times before I decided to respond at the level I did. He can always elaborate if he wants.
now, to be honnest, i don't known if what i just write is true, i am not a fan of kdf, so maybe their is a 6 base heavy engie beam cruiser in kdf faction, in that case let us known.
i known that the bop have been shafted with LOR and romulan ship.
some mention the raptor to also have problem but i don't known much more than that.
now i wouldn't mind to talk about it a little in this thread, we have been talking about the galaxy for about 400 pages, a little break would be good.
and like the people that come in this thread to ask us what are the problem with the galaxy, i also like to known what are the problem with the kdf.
examples and details will greatly help.
Add to it that the KDF really doesnt have any good science ships, the best they have is the Varanus Fleet Support Vessel, and it doesn't even have 5 sci console slots, and only a CMDR and LTCMDR sci, no Ensign. From what I have seen most sci guys over there are going with BoP's as their sci-vessels because if they are going to have a weak sci-vessel, at least make it a good one. Maybe Roach can correct me on this.
But the problem just isn't ships, but content in general. At least a Fed' player can jump into a ship that pretty much fits their needs, even if it doesn't have the appearance of the Enterprise-D and still have more content. The Explorers problems in now way out-scope the KDF's, nor should the KDF plight be trivialized like it was.
My post on Yoedred was a critique that the two could be mirror swapped easily. Though I find the neglect of a whole faction a little more sour than the neglect of a single class of ship.
True, though I didn't expect a reply to my post. My OCD drove my need to reply to a unexpected reply. Frankly I have no issues with a little GalXclass lovin. The high levels of fan overubering at times still gives me the heebie-jeebies.
That's where I am sitting too, Roach. It seems that some are too focused on this one class of ship as some sort of conspiracy that should be valued above all else in the game. From what I have seen it's either "fix the Galaxy" or everything else that happens (like the Avenger) is a direct result of Cryptic refusing to "fix the Galaxy". To some of them, everything is a mutually exclusive event to their favorite ship getting fixed.
Rightttttt. The whole of the KDF having been ignored is equal to the desires of the fans of a single class of vessel.
Silly me. Thanks for clarifying my improper perspective on things.
Ummmmmmmmm.... Equating the problems of the Exploration Class to the problems the KDF faces is like a champion-level sumo wrestler complaining
...
more important than the ignoring of a whole faction?
YES, we all know the KDF get too little, while the FED side gets too much...
I should have know that mentioning the KDF is like grabbing into a hornets' nest, lol.
(turning every topic in a FED vs KDF war.)
My point was that KDF got some stuff, slowly and much to little, but they did.
I think it was clear from the beginning that KDF faction will be the underdog, just because Klingons aren't that popular.
So Cryptic releasing less stuff for them was forseeable and since the Romulans are here, i think new released KDF stuff will be reduced to a bare minimum.
That's where I am sitting too, Roach. It seems that some are too focused on this one class of ship as some sort of conspiracy that should be valued above all else in the game. From what I have seen it's either "fix the Galaxy" or everything else that happens (like the Avenger) is a direct result of Cryptic refusing to "fix the Galaxy". To some of them, everything is a mutually exclusive event to their favorite ship getting fixed.
The GCS is just a symptom of how Cryptic treats all Star Trek ships in their game, you and i know that. Pulling it down to a GCS fans vs everyone else is just unworthy for all of us, don't you think?
The GCS just shows the biggest flaws of Crpytics game design, fixing it is not just a mental exercise for GCS fans but also a try to help other ships too IMO.
(by showing whats wrong and how to fix it, in a good way)
BTW. i am not the biggest Galaxy Class fan out there. I just hate how unworthy Cryptics treats everything that does not look like War and "cool" militarisation in Star Trek.
"...'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
Need I remind the people complaining about the state of the Klingon faction that your Negh'Var-class shares an identical station and console layout with this ship? Any fix to Engineering consoles and powers that benefit the Galaxy will benefit the Negh'Var as well, so stop trying to turn this into another argument over nepotism.
Ok, first off I do want a new refit of the Galaxy, it is in dire need of an upgrade, no argument there, but I've noticed that with this thread most of you guys tend to gloss over things that don't fit well with your argument.
Fact is with the current galaxy you CAN make it a really tanky ship, but that sacrifices its firepower, you CAN make that lance hit between 20 and 50k but it requires a lot of work and a very niche build. The current Galaxy IS a great ship, not the best in game by any means but she is an old girl now.
Again I fully support a new refit/fleet variant/whatever they want to call it and I hope that it does come like the Fleet Atrox is coming (side note *squee* for that, been a fan of the Atrox since I started playing) which was another ship in dire need of beefing up. Again it's another ship that is a great ship but just falls a bit short against the modern alternatives.
I don't know why I bother to write this anyway as one person will spot it, maybe reply and it'll become lost in the wave of 3800+ posts of discussion over whine, which might be a reason Cryptic have delayed the release of any new Gal' ship, along with KDF stuff, 'look at them moan they don't have it *feed KDF some stuff* look at them moan they only get breadcrumbs, is there any point in doing anything to please them or will they moan no matter what happens?' I'm not directing this at you guys but this is my general view of what goes on on the forums as a whole. No matter what they release in game there's a wave of people saying 'how dare you' 'you did it wrong' or 'that's not fair' and blah blah blah, seems no matter what Cryptic do there's less praise than moans...
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
People seem to repeatedly confuse the "dreadnought cruiser" with the Galaxy Class. Why? Because at least the Gal X can do a little bit of pike damage and is remotely useful. But not many people actually consider the Galaxy Class (Gal R) even a real option and thus automatically assume that this is about the "dreadnought"
If ships with 2 tac consoles would have gained the new commands and the fleet version got a universal ENS ("Better" Star Cruiser, because of C-store ship) or LT station ("Nebula" approach) there wouldn't be much to change = no effort fpr Cryptic, really. The command cruiser would be a viable ship especially for teamplay. But well, lot of us sound like broken records already
^ 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
Ok, first off I do want a new refit of the Galaxy, it is in dire need of an upgrade, no argument there,The current Galaxy IS a great ship
how can you said that this ship is great but in the same time stating that he is in dire need of an upgrade?
that is something that don't fit well with your argument.
Fact is with the current galaxy you CAN make it a really tanky ship
and that shoudn't come as a surprise considering it is a heavie engie cruiser, so you point being? because in that area it is certainly not the best, not even second....or third.
but that sacrifices its firepower
well, there is not much left to sacrifice with just a lt tactical bo you known.
not the best in game by any means but she is an old girl now.
not older than the exelsior and the ambassador so again, your point beeing?
and note that the ambassador is more powerfull AND more tanky than a galaxy retrofit.
you CAN make that lance hit between 20 and 50k but it requires a lot of work and a very niche build.
this daes not required a lot of work, just a specialise build.
and galaxy x player shoudn't be force to use a niche build that use 2 or 3 consoles slot just to make the abilitie shine every 3 minute in kerrat.
the phaser lotus of the chimera and the javelin of the gurumba don't need that kind of compensation to work good on their own.
why should it be the case for the galaxy x? an other example of the special treatement this ship receives.
which might be a reason Cryptic have delayed the release of any new Gal' ship, along with KDF stuff, 'look at them moan they don't have it *feed KDF some stuff* look at them moan they only get breadcrumbs, is there any point in doing anything to please them or will they moan no matter what happens?
yes, you are right, we should certainly not notify cryptic that their is something wrong with it or they might noticed it, or worse, be offended and in 8 years old reaction never upgrade it as a result, that a brilliant strategy.
I'm not directing this at you guys but this is my general view of what goes on on the forums as a whole. No matter what they release in game there's a wave of people saying 'how dare you' 'you did it wrong' or 'that's not fair' and blah blah blah, seems no matter what Cryptic do there's less praise than moans...
well, if this isn't directed at us can you be kind to post it in the apropriate thread?
thank you.
"The Gal-X's can do a little bit of spike damage and is remotely useful" - presumably a reference to the Lance. The lance which, when I parked my Gal-X right next to a unimatrix ship buffed everything and fired said lance.... it STILL managed to miss. It missed the largest ship in the game, stood right next to it.
Nope - sorry, the lance isn't atually a fat lot of good at all.
the galaxy x got a lt tactical + an ensign tactical while the galaxy retrofit only got a lt tactical.
so yes, the galaxy dreadnought have the ability to do more spike damage more consistently.
when you got ships wich such a reduced number of tactical BO, adding just an ensign is a huge bonus, subjectively and objectively.
i had the lance miss wile i was TOUCHING i unimatrix ship with my nose. i was right on it it some how missed
i think there is something that haven't been taking into account when they designed the targetting mechanism of the lance, mine have apromiately 95% chance to miss the gate in KA, and that, no matter the distance at wich i fire it.
exeption of the cube, anything that is bigger got a hight chance of miss for some reason.
Yeah - am convinced that the lance is operated by a DOFF with the 'Always Drunk on Duty' ability.
Not only always drunk, but also self loock inside of battle bridge and no one can enter to kick him out of the fire controls
Maybe is time to give the Galaxy-X a extra weapon slot were ONLY can be placed the lance and also give to the fleet weapons store some lance version of all other energy types.
But back to the Galaxy-R that ship need some love but today....
On the Galaxy-X Dreadnought Cruiser, I personally think that making the Lance an equipable weapon, similar in some respect to the Kumari's wing cannons, would help out the ship somewhat. Making it less of an ability and more of an actual usable weapon, e.g. a Heavy Beam Array (Emitter) with a 45' arc. The current Lance super powerful shots could be an innate activatable ability with a 3 min cooldown. Or even a 2 set bonus ability when equipping the Lance and the Cloak.
Not only would this allow for more regular usage of the weapon, but it wouldn't lock players into using Phaser damage type so as to not gimp the Dreadnought's one "unique" ability. The Lance could be removed (again, like the Kumari's cannons) and replaced with any other weapon of choice, of any damage type. (Nanite Disruptor super cannon dakka spam build? Yes.)
I would prefer for an aft weapon slot to be switched for a fifth fore slot, as to make room for the change of the Lance into a weapon, though considering the Dreadnought's turn rate...
Anyway, just some thoughts I had on the matter of how to bring the Galaxy-X the level that our most recent ships are at. Feel free to tear this horrible idea to shreds and all that good stuff.
That, and a Fleet version getting the standard +10% hull and shield as well as an extra Tac console would be nice. Then the 6 base turn rate would make sense, considering the 44k base hull and 1.1 shield mod.
I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why. When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
Maybe is time to give the Galaxy-X a extra weapon slot were ONLY can be placed the lance and also give to the fleet weapons store some lance version of all other energy types.
But back to the Galaxy-R that ship need some love but today....
Honestly, the lance needs a realistic accuracy upgrade.
If they were to make it an equipable item, put the Galaxy-R and Galaxy-X together and give the lance "console-weapon" the appearance package to make it look like the X
Hey there guys! After spending way too much time going through this thread in it's entirety, I must say the number of great ideas for the game in general and improvements to cruisers should definitely catch the eye of some of the devs if you ask me. Whether they reply or not, they would certainly be wise to heed some of the ideas that have been pitched in here. So kudos to all of you, because this has certainly been a very interesting read for me.
I would also like to apologize in advance, as this will likely be a gargantuan post... But I've got a lot to say on the topic as this has definitely captured my interest over the last couple of days. There are an enormous amount of comments, so as a result I'm kind of replying to any and all of them. While there certainly isn't a true consensus for what exactly should be done, I'll just highlight some points that I think pretty much everybody agrees on:
1) The GCS needs at least a little bit more firepower.
2) The GCS needs to be less pigeon-holed by it's boff layout. (i.e. more versatile)
3) The Galaxy-X is also in need of some work, though to a lesser extent than the GCS.
4) While not perfectly relevant to STO, the fact that the Galaxy is so prolific in Federation history does lend at least a small amount of merit to increasing it's overall power... Though by no means should it overshadow what are now newer and better vessels.
Now before I say what I think would be a good approach to "rebuilding" these ships, I would like to mention that I have not purchased either starship. So my literal experience with the ship is nothing. That being said, I have always wanted to have one of my characters fly either the Galaxy or the Galaxy-X and should they make the ship more useful/interesting I will put my dollars down on the spot. So if Cryptic does read this, they should understand that there ARE players that are interested in buying this ship, but will not do so in the state that it is in.
I would also like to mention that I've made over 20 characters in this game, played all sorts of different types of Captains in all sorts of different types of ships. I love building ships and hold no preference as to it's type (i.e. Escort/Cruiser/Science). I'm not a player that slams a ship onto it's Captain, but rather: I take a ship and slam the right Captain into it for whatever type of build I'm looking to make. What I'm trying to say is that I feel like I'm pretty neutral on the subject, since I am neither looking to turn the Galaxy into a DPS monster nor am I expecting the most ultimate tank in the game. I just want the ship to be interesting, and giving it at least a place within the game as the ship really is outperformed by pretty much every other ship in the game.
By extention, the Galaxy Dreadnought also needs some help. Between the Excelsior, Regent, Odyssey and now Avenger class... The Dreadnought is by no means nearly as scary as any of these aforementioned ships. The fact is, I'm not willing to spend $25 on a less maneuverable but somewhat more glorified Assault Cruiser. It's not worth my time or my money to invest in the Dreadnought (and of course by the same token, the Galaxy-R).
So in my mind we're left with these facts: We've got two ships that are just simply outclassed and are more often than not laughed at by the majority of STO players. The fact that these ships are so severely outclassed even precludes them from holding a niche role... Since anything they can do another ship can do better. The fact that one is supposed to be a direct evolution from the other also means that if the Galaxy is to be changed, then the Dreadnought SHOULD be changed along with it.
Now to me, it seems obvious that neither one of these ships should be the "golden standard" for the future of STO in really any particular category. Fact is, these ARE retrofitted ships and not the shiny new top of the line vessels we're seeing today. So if the ships cannot be allowed to simply outperform other starships, then we need to find a way to make them a little different from these other ships without robbing them of usability. It's for this reason that I do not think that the Galaxy-R or the Dreadnought should receive any universal boffs. Giving a universal boff of any kind would allow either ship to be able to directly compete with too many other cruisers that are meant to be superior.
Side note: Hate to break this fact to some of you fanboys, but the Galaxy is no longer the big boy on the block... Bigger and meaner kids have since moved into the neighborhood so deal with it. I don't care what the technical manual says or what it showed in the series. Fact is: the past is the past and we are now in STO. While I do agree these ships aren't being represented accurately... They were not the ultimate power in the universe back in their prime, and they certainly should not be now.
So if I'm going to write off having universal boffs as an option, then we need to redefine the two ships altogether. Right now, the Galaxy-R is basically defined as a straight up tank and the Dreadnought is also a tank with a little more firepower (though compared to it's sister... it's a HELL of a lot more firepower). So before I spill the beans on how I think they should redesign these ships (I know I'm taking a while) I'll explain what I think should be the redefined roles for these starships.
To to begin: The baby we all know and love... The Galaxy Class. Up until now, it has been stuck with the role of "uber tank" by STO. Unfortunately, it is incapable of even truly living up to this name. So if the ship is incapable of being the "Uber tank" (as a result of it's boff layout, for which certain problems with engineering abilities are admittedly part of the issue) then it should be more of what it has been repeatedly shown to have been in the series: A giant hulking swiss army knife. How does this translate into STO terms? The way I figure it, if you want to make something of a "jack of all trades" then you need to have a pretty healthy balance between boff abilities and consoles in order to accomplish this.
So, if the Galaxy is suddenly no longer the "uber tank" and now a jack of all trades... The Dreadnought by extension should emulate this to a certain degree... Although obviously it will retain more emphasis on firepower (especially thanks to it's Phaser Lance which is admittedly quite awesome in it's own right). The fact that the Dreadnought does possess this powerful weapon as well as Cloak means that it's firepower can't really be pushed too much further than it already is at to ensure that it doesn't become an easy "I win" button (Because let's face it, it already does that in it's current form with the right build... I've witnessed it do crazy things in the past).
So if the Dreadnought can't really be pushed too hard in terms of DPS, then obviously it will need to be a little bit more helpful and useful to the team at large and have the ability to tank a wee bit better (though not hugely so, since it already tanks pretty effectively).
So, with what I've said now in mind... Here's what I propose to be the revamping of the Galaxy-R and the Galaxy-X:
Console Layout:
Engineering: 4 (+1 on Fleet Version when they finally make it)
Science: 2
Tactical: 3
Personally, I find these to layouts to be a nice solution for a lot of the problems behind both ships (namely of course the Galaxy-R). I think the turn rate should remain the same for these ships as well as the hull strength. Part of what appeals to me behind these layouts is that it's very reminiscent of the layout for the Nebula (In particular regards to the Galaxy-R) which makes a lot of "canonical sense".
What I particularly like about these layouts is that each ship doesn't really step on any toes. While the Galaxy-R does have two Lieutenant Tactical officers, keeping it's tactical console a step behind that of it's more offensively minded cruiser cousins helps keep it's damage potential in check when compared to those variants. So without going into fleet quality ships, the Galaxy-R is in no shape to try and do as much damage as Tactical Odyssey or even a regular Sovereign. The Lt. Commander Science also allows it to diversify it's role and become that "jack of all trades" that it should be... But with no universal bridge officer slot, it won't be the absolute best tank/healer either since a large portion of it's abilities are tactical boff slots.
If you look at the split: 5/12 of it's abilities are engineering, 4/12 are tactical and 3/12 are science. Overall, you get a pretty nice balance (especially once you factor in the power edge of a Lt. Commander Science) between all three with the emphasis still being on it's engineering abilities. This gives the ship a lot of versatility and options when it comes to loadouts and potential roles without infringing heavily on other available starships.
What I also like about this particular layout is that it really does feel like it's following the footsteps of the Ambassador class. While being fairly similar to it's older sibling, it still leaves the Ambassador some breathing room to shine... As the Fleet Ambassador would have a few more options available to it due to it's Lieutenant Universal that allow it to tilt into a more pronounced direction than the Galaxy could.
The Dreadnought is obviously very similar, but with a more aggressive focus in mind. With it's layout, it's obviously less capable when it comes to it's scientific abilities but not massively so. The Lt. Commander Tactical allows it to use higher level tactical abilities without giving it such abundance that it would be a DPS monster. To me it looks like something of a blend between the Excelsior and a Star Cruiser which is what the Dreadnought should be. A ship that is capable of dishing out good damage while offering good protection and help to it's team. Both of the aforementioned ships do exceed the Dreadnought in terms of their defined roles (The Fleet Excelsior will out DPS the Dreadnought, and the Fleet Star Cruiser would be more adept as a supporting craft as opposed to the Dreadnought).
The fact that the Dreadnought would be able to equip dual cannons, along with it's spinal lance and cloaking device give it some tactical edges as opposed to some of it's counterparts, but mitigated by the fact that it has a slower turn rate and slightly lower in terms of tactical consoles (compared to these same competitors).
It's my opinion that neither ship should exceed 3 Tactical consoles. By making the Galaxy retain 2 (+1 for fleet version) and the Dreadnought at 3 permanently, it guarantees that neither one of these ships can outshine their newer more aggressive counterparts in terms of damage performance. I think it's the Dreadnought that should receive a 5th Engineering slot for a fleet variation as that would not drastically increase it's overall power while giving players the option of going RCS Accelerator crazy to actually allow it to potentially use dual cannons.
I feel like both of these ships would be good and powerful in their own right, but as said: Not overshadowing some of the shinier new toys that we've been seeing. The fact that the Galaxy and Dreadnought are both slow turning boats inherently balances itself by a fair margin, even though they would both possess massive hull strength.
So I think I'll leave it at that. I'd love to hear what people think about these layouts as I think it would be a very elegant solution to a lot of the problems we've been having with both ships. I tried my absolute best to take into consideration all of the cruisers we already have at our disposal, and this is the healthiest middle ground I was able to find that would give both ships a place within the Federation fleet. The fact that these iconic and legendary vessels (obviously more in regards to the Galaxy itself) are hardly ever used really does sadden me... As I would love to see both these ships out in the field and actually accomplishing something.
If you've read this start to finish, thanks for your patience. Again, I'd love to hear what thoughts you have on my proposal. Hopefully one day I'll be able to fly both these ships the way I have envisioned them. =D
YES, we all know the KDF get too little, while the FED side gets too much...
I should have know that mentioning the KDF is like grabbing into a hornets' nest, lol.
(turning every topic in a FED vs KDF war.)
My point was that KDF got some stuff, slowly and much to little, but they did.
I think it was clear from the beginning that KDF faction will be the underdog, just because Klingons aren't that popular.
So Cryptic releasing less stuff for them was forseeable and since the Romulans are here, i think new released KDF stuff will be reduced to a bare minimum.
There underdog status and then there is the KDF. The worst part is when Cryptic rationalizes not releasing things for KDF because of the low number of KDF players, because Cryptic didn't put any real effort to make them a full faction. Very much a self-fulfilling proficy.
The GCS is just a symptom of how Cryptic treats all Star Trek ships in their game, you and i know that. Pulling it down to a GCS fans vs everyone else is just unworthy for all of us, don't you think?
-When the "GCS fans" acts as if the release of every new ship, such as the Avenger, is a slight against the TNG/GCS gods, they make it GCS vs everybody
-When "GSC fans" ask to be given the same layouts as other ships, thus taking away the otehr ships uniqueness, especially mentioning that they "don't care on who's toes they step on", they make it GCS vs everybody
-When "GSC fans" trivialize a whole faction that has bigger content problems vs. the "GCS fans" one ship, such as the Fed's "GCS", they make it GCS vs everybody
-When "GSC fans" suggest that their is a Cryptic, hate-filled, conspiracy against the "GCS", they make it GCS vs everybody
-When "GSC fans" acknowledge that there is a problem with all cruisers, but they want their fixes first before putting any real effort to fix the real cruiser problems, they make it GCS vs everybody.
There is a great deal of divisiveness coming from the "GCS community" on its own to make it happen.
The GCS just shows the biggest flaws of Crpytics game design, fixing it is not just a mental exercise for GCS fans but also a try to help other ships too IMO.
(by showing whats wrong and how to fix it, in a good way)
Asking to get more tac/uni-boffs and more tactical consoles isn't a mental exercise, its asking to get the same stuff as other ships that already have them.
BTW. i am not the biggest Galaxy Class fan out there. I just hate how unworthy Cryptics treats everything that does not look like War and "cool" militarisation in Star Trek.
I'd go as far as to say you are one of the biggest fans in the thread. From your posts, the other ship offerings are either "ugly" or at least less attractive and couldn't/shouldn't match or be better than the ship, even with newer ships like the Ody'. You've referred to canon as evidence for your claims, but when someone else offers canon that refutes the point, its the fault of the writers. Not to mention that you wrote off the KDF factions problems as trivial in comparison to your poor, old Exploration Cruiser's woes, when there are other options out there.
Also, a lot of the ships in the game don't "look like war" or militarization. Or at least your opinion of war/militarization and mine differ dramatically.
People seem to repeatedly confuse the "dreadnought cruiser" with the Galaxy Class. Why? Because at least the Gal X can do a little bit of pike damage and is remotely useful. But not many people actually consider the Galaxy Class (Gal R) even a real option and thus automatically assume that this is about the "dreadnought"
While I agree with the Gal R being overlooked, correct me if I'm wrong but the Gal X is the upgrade is it not? Because if it's not then we need a Sau Paulo retrofit! I know the Gal X was only seen (to the best of my knowledge) in All Good Things but if we're talking STO storyline then "The Galaxy class was refitted at the turn of the 25th century, after the collapse of the Khitomer Accords in 2399. In response to increased hostility with the Klingons, the newly redesigned ship carries a cloaking device and a devastating spinal lance weapon." [STO Wiki], In an alternate future, refitted Galaxy-class ships (β) remained in service long after 2370, although some attempts had been made to decommission them. (TNG: "All Good Things...") [Memory Alpha].
how can you said that this ship is great but in the same time stating that he is in dire need of an upgrade?
that is something that don't fit well with your argument.
It is a great ship, doesn't mean it can't be better.
and that shoudn't come as a surprise considering it is a heavie engie cruiser, so you point being? because in that area it is certainly not the best, not even second....or third.
well, there is not much left to sacrifice with just a lt tactical bo you known.
This was a response to a prior post saying it's not tanky (and doesn't have niche build but you didn't cross that bridge yet), again it is tanky, I never said it was the best hence its need of an upgrade to bring it in line with modern ships.
not older than the exelsior and the ambassador so again, your point beeing?
and note that the ambassador is more powerfull AND more tanky than a galaxy retrofit.
Again supporting the point that it needs an upgrade, I didn't make the Ambassador or Excelsior did I? I don't agree that they should be better than the Gal, they should be worse as they are older ships.
this daes not required a lot of work, just a specialise build.
and galaxy x player shoudn't be force to use a niche build that use 2 or 3 consoles slot just to make the abilitie shine every 3 minute in kerrat.
the phaser lotus of the chimera and the javelin of the gurumba don't need that kind of compensation to work good on their own.
why should it be the case for the galaxy x? an other example of the special treatement this ship receives.
It doesn't require a specialised built, it just benefits from one as any ship does. The lance on my tanky build is negligible, my other build, built around the lance of course is different. I don't know about the Chim' as I don't have one but the Guramba Javelin also benefits from a specalised build, it will do far more damage if you build around it, but that's common knowledge, at least I thought it was. If you have a ship with a disruptor beam bank and a chroniton torpedo, putting points into torpedos in your skills and having chroniton consoles isn't going to improve the beam but will improve the torpedo, this is the same for all weapons, you don't have to specialise into it, but you can, it's your choice, just because you don't make your build around the lance doesn't make the ship any worse.
yes, you are right, we should certainly not notify cryptic that their is something wrong with it or they might noticed it, or worse, be offended and in 8 years old reaction never upgrade it as a result, that a brilliant strategy.
You seem to have missed my point that some of this community, no matter what is given to them they will not be happy with it and will just continue to moan
Again I expected it to be glossed over, instead I got a rather poorly thought out response, I think I'd have preferred the gloss over.
My overall point was that SOME people in this thread claim these ships are useless which is not true, they are a great ship, but as I said could really do with an upgrade to be brought in line with the new releases, Cryptic should also keep in mind when releasing old ships they should be worse than modern ships (although then why would anyone want to fly them?)
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
Comments
The issue I have is when Yreo' tried to equate the Exploration Cruisers problems to actually being worse than the KDF's neglect. You, as a Fed' have a lot more choices then just the Explorer Cruisers. The Klingons have to drop their faction to get around their issue.
Can you not see the difference in scale there? This is why some people don't take the Explorer class fans so seriously. With all of the micro-analyzing of "canon", this one ship "skin" is the center of their universe and more or less "to Hades with everyone else, until my little world is fixed." This is where they lose me.
And just to clarify, my favorite hull is the Connie' Refit. I don't want a T5 or Fleet Connie' I don't want it to be comparable to any other ship and don't care that it doesn't meet "canon" specs for the ship.
Of course I do, hence the comment about Klingons not being a properly developed faction.
The game is Fedcentric (trademark). Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant. That is how it is.
Are my cruiser concerns greater than your faction concerns? No. Are your faction concerns greater than my cruiser concerns? Maybe. In either case however, we both have the option of playing something else within the game. So in the end... it's a moot point.
this thread now talk about 2 ship, the galaxy retrofit and the galaxy x, the last one have been clearly redesigned for combat.
and in any case i would not said that the nova was designed for combat, however in this game he outgunned a galaxy.
one of the many point of this thread is not to make the galaxy the most powerfull cruiser, but to not make it the less powerfull.
that is usefull in a game centered around dps.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!
what an amator!
look.... and learn!
Your Phaser Spinal Lance gives 3723 (4329) to Sphere's Shields.Your Phaser Spinal Lance deals 618 (4947) Phaser Damage to Sphere.
Your Phaser Spinal Lance gives 3829 (4453) to Sphere's Shields.Your Phaser Spinal Lance deals 495 (4947) Phaser Damage to Sphere.
but don't worry, it took a good bunch of experienced to achieve numbers like this:D
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
that a very good idea indeed.
but i don't think cryptic love the idea to loose 1 ship for potentials sells.
they could even give it also the present star cruiser skin for the one that prefer it.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
R.I.P
R.I.P
he was not ( at least i think ) comparing all the problems of the kdf to a single fed ship, but more that each one individually are not as bad as this one.
now, to be honnest, i don't known if what i just write is true, i am not a fan of kdf, so maybe their is a 6 base heavy engie beam cruiser in kdf faction, in that case let us known.
i known that the bop have been shafted with LOR and romulan ship.
some mention the raptor to also have problem but i don't known much more than that.
now i wouldn't mind to talk about it a little in this thread, we have been talking about the galaxy for about 400 pages, a little break would be good.
and like the people that come in this thread to ask us what are the problem with the galaxy, i also like to known what are the problem with the kdf.
examples and details will greatly help.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
nvm... i feel ya
indeed i agree with all ur points (and may could add some about that "build").
"Please remain calm. Saying the game is not balanced and screams tactical is a pure hyperbole. Everything is alright in STO."
*throws the most bada$$ DPS tactical cruiser into the game.*
It's not even my faction concern, I barely even have a Klink toon, but what I do I know is the difference in scope of the two issues.
To be clear the comment was pointed more at Yreo' than you. I should have clarified.
Ah, the Garibaldi technique. A bold approach, as I thought only he could make it work.
R.I.P
It sure looked to me like he was trivializing the KDF issue as it was not as bad as the Explorers problem, at least the way I've read it. Roach seemed to be pretty much showing that Yreo's cause isn't the only one that Cryptic is ignoring. From what I know about Roach, he is sympathetic to the Exploration Cruisers plight. I read it multiple times before I decided to respond at the level I did. He can always elaborate if he wants.
Add to it that the KDF really doesnt have any good science ships, the best they have is the Varanus Fleet Support Vessel, and it doesn't even have 5 sci console slots, and only a CMDR and LTCMDR sci, no Ensign. From what I have seen most sci guys over there are going with BoP's as their sci-vessels because if they are going to have a weak sci-vessel, at least make it a good one. Maybe Roach can correct me on this.
But the problem just isn't ships, but content in general. At least a Fed' player can jump into a ship that pretty much fits their needs, even if it doesn't have the appearance of the Enterprise-D and still have more content. The Explorers problems in now way out-scope the KDF's, nor should the KDF plight be trivialized like it was.
That's where I am sitting too, Roach. It seems that some are too focused on this one class of ship as some sort of conspiracy that should be valued above all else in the game. From what I have seen it's either "fix the Galaxy" or everything else that happens (like the Avenger) is a direct result of Cryptic refusing to "fix the Galaxy". To some of them, everything is a mutually exclusive event to their favorite ship getting fixed.
[Combat (Other)] Negh'Var Warship deals 36488 Kinetic Damage to Negh'Var Warship with Warp Core Breach.
KDF does have a couple decent weapons. That's beating the hell out of my Lance right now.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
I should have know that mentioning the KDF is like grabbing into a hornets' nest, lol.
(turning every topic in a FED vs KDF war.)
My point was that KDF got some stuff, slowly and much to little, but they did.
I think it was clear from the beginning that KDF faction will be the underdog, just because Klingons aren't that popular.
So Cryptic releasing less stuff for them was forseeable and since the Romulans are here, i think new released KDF stuff will be reduced to a bare minimum.
The GCS is just a symptom of how Cryptic treats all Star Trek ships in their game, you and i know that. Pulling it down to a GCS fans vs everyone else is just unworthy for all of us, don't you think?
The GCS just shows the biggest flaws of Crpytics game design, fixing it is not just a mental exercise for GCS fans but also a try to help other ships too IMO.
(by showing whats wrong and how to fix it, in a good way)
BTW. i am not the biggest Galaxy Class fan out there. I just hate how unworthy Cryptics treats everything that does not look like War and "cool" militarisation in Star Trek.
Fact is with the current galaxy you CAN make it a really tanky ship, but that sacrifices its firepower, you CAN make that lance hit between 20 and 50k but it requires a lot of work and a very niche build. The current Galaxy IS a great ship, not the best in game by any means but she is an old girl now.
Again I fully support a new refit/fleet variant/whatever they want to call it and I hope that it does come like the Fleet Atrox is coming (side note *squee* for that, been a fan of the Atrox since I started playing) which was another ship in dire need of beefing up. Again it's another ship that is a great ship but just falls a bit short against the modern alternatives.
I don't know why I bother to write this anyway as one person will spot it, maybe reply and it'll become lost in the wave of 3800+ posts of discussion over whine, which might be a reason Cryptic have delayed the release of any new Gal' ship, along with KDF stuff, 'look at them moan they don't have it *feed KDF some stuff* look at them moan they only get breadcrumbs, is there any point in doing anything to please them or will they moan no matter what happens?' I'm not directing this at you guys but this is my general view of what goes on on the forums as a whole. No matter what they release in game there's a wave of people saying 'how dare you' 'you did it wrong' or 'that's not fair' and blah blah blah, seems no matter what Cryptic do there's less praise than moans...
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
If ships with 2 tac consoles would have gained the new commands and the fleet version got a universal ENS ("Better" Star Cruiser, because of C-store ship) or LT station ("Nebula" approach) there wouldn't be much to change = no effort fpr Cryptic, really. The command cruiser would be a viable ship especially for teamplay. But well, lot of us sound like broken records already
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
how can you said that this ship is great but in the same time stating that he is in dire need of an upgrade?
that is something that don't fit well with your argument.
and that shoudn't come as a surprise considering it is a heavie engie cruiser, so you point being? because in that area it is certainly not the best, not even second....or third.
well, there is not much left to sacrifice with just a lt tactical bo you known.
not older than the exelsior and the ambassador so again, your point beeing?
and note that the ambassador is more powerfull AND more tanky than a galaxy retrofit.
this daes not required a lot of work, just a specialise build.
and galaxy x player shoudn't be force to use a niche build that use 2 or 3 consoles slot just to make the abilitie shine every 3 minute in kerrat.
the phaser lotus of the chimera and the javelin of the gurumba don't need that kind of compensation to work good on their own.
why should it be the case for the galaxy x? an other example of the special treatement this ship receives.
yes, you are right, we should certainly not notify cryptic that their is something wrong with it or they might noticed it, or worse, be offended and in 8 years old reaction never upgrade it as a result, that a brilliant strategy.
well, if this isn't directed at us can you be kind to post it in the apropriate thread?
thank you.
at this point, that thaught have cross my mind.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
the galaxy x got a lt tactical + an ensign tactical while the galaxy retrofit only got a lt tactical.
so yes, the galaxy dreadnought have the ability to do more spike damage more consistently.
when you got ships wich such a reduced number of tactical BO, adding just an ensign is a huge bonus, subjectively and objectively.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
i think there is something that haven't been taking into account when they designed the targetting mechanism of the lance, mine have apromiately 95% chance to miss the gate in KA, and that, no matter the distance at wich i fire it.
exeption of the cube, anything that is bigger got a hight chance of miss for some reason.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Yea i know well what yuo feel bro...
Not only always drunk, but also self loock inside of battle bridge and no one can enter to kick him out of the fire controls
Maybe is time to give the Galaxy-X a extra weapon slot were ONLY can be placed the lance and also give to the fleet weapons store some lance version of all other energy types.
But back to the Galaxy-R that ship need some love but today....
Not only would this allow for more regular usage of the weapon, but it wouldn't lock players into using Phaser damage type so as to not gimp the Dreadnought's one "unique" ability. The Lance could be removed (again, like the Kumari's cannons) and replaced with any other weapon of choice, of any damage type. (Nanite Disruptor super cannon dakka spam build? Yes.)
I would prefer for an aft weapon slot to be switched for a fifth fore slot, as to make room for the change of the Lance into a weapon, though considering the Dreadnought's turn rate...
Anyway, just some thoughts I had on the matter of how to bring the Galaxy-X the level that our most recent ships are at. Feel free to tear this horrible idea to shreds and all that good stuff.
That, and a Fleet version getting the standard +10% hull and shield as well as an extra Tac console would be nice. Then the 6 base turn rate would make sense, considering the 44k base hull and 1.1 shield mod.
It's actually the cross eyed gunner from Space Balls the Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNcDI_uBGUo
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
I've caught my Gal-X weaps officer watching Top Cat and downloading controversial videos from the internet when he should have been aiming the lance.
Honestly, the lance needs a realistic accuracy upgrade.
If they were to make it an equipable item, put the Galaxy-R and Galaxy-X together and give the lance "console-weapon" the appearance package to make it look like the X
I would also like to apologize in advance, as this will likely be a gargantuan post... But I've got a lot to say on the topic as this has definitely captured my interest over the last couple of days. There are an enormous amount of comments, so as a result I'm kind of replying to any and all of them. While there certainly isn't a true consensus for what exactly should be done, I'll just highlight some points that I think pretty much everybody agrees on:
1) The GCS needs at least a little bit more firepower.
2) The GCS needs to be less pigeon-holed by it's boff layout. (i.e. more versatile)
3) The Galaxy-X is also in need of some work, though to a lesser extent than the GCS.
4) While not perfectly relevant to STO, the fact that the Galaxy is so prolific in Federation history does lend at least a small amount of merit to increasing it's overall power... Though by no means should it overshadow what are now newer and better vessels.
Now before I say what I think would be a good approach to "rebuilding" these ships, I would like to mention that I have not purchased either starship. So my literal experience with the ship is nothing. That being said, I have always wanted to have one of my characters fly either the Galaxy or the Galaxy-X and should they make the ship more useful/interesting I will put my dollars down on the spot. So if Cryptic does read this, they should understand that there ARE players that are interested in buying this ship, but will not do so in the state that it is in.
I would also like to mention that I've made over 20 characters in this game, played all sorts of different types of Captains in all sorts of different types of ships. I love building ships and hold no preference as to it's type (i.e. Escort/Cruiser/Science). I'm not a player that slams a ship onto it's Captain, but rather: I take a ship and slam the right Captain into it for whatever type of build I'm looking to make. What I'm trying to say is that I feel like I'm pretty neutral on the subject, since I am neither looking to turn the Galaxy into a DPS monster nor am I expecting the most ultimate tank in the game. I just want the ship to be interesting, and giving it at least a place within the game as the ship really is outperformed by pretty much every other ship in the game.
By extention, the Galaxy Dreadnought also needs some help. Between the Excelsior, Regent, Odyssey and now Avenger class... The Dreadnought is by no means nearly as scary as any of these aforementioned ships. The fact is, I'm not willing to spend $25 on a less maneuverable but somewhat more glorified Assault Cruiser. It's not worth my time or my money to invest in the Dreadnought (and of course by the same token, the Galaxy-R).
So in my mind we're left with these facts: We've got two ships that are just simply outclassed and are more often than not laughed at by the majority of STO players. The fact that these ships are so severely outclassed even precludes them from holding a niche role... Since anything they can do another ship can do better. The fact that one is supposed to be a direct evolution from the other also means that if the Galaxy is to be changed, then the Dreadnought SHOULD be changed along with it.
Now to me, it seems obvious that neither one of these ships should be the "golden standard" for the future of STO in really any particular category. Fact is, these ARE retrofitted ships and not the shiny new top of the line vessels we're seeing today. So if the ships cannot be allowed to simply outperform other starships, then we need to find a way to make them a little different from these other ships without robbing them of usability. It's for this reason that I do not think that the Galaxy-R or the Dreadnought should receive any universal boffs. Giving a universal boff of any kind would allow either ship to be able to directly compete with too many other cruisers that are meant to be superior.
Side note: Hate to break this fact to some of you fanboys, but the Galaxy is no longer the big boy on the block... Bigger and meaner kids have since moved into the neighborhood so deal with it. I don't care what the technical manual says or what it showed in the series. Fact is: the past is the past and we are now in STO. While I do agree these ships aren't being represented accurately... They were not the ultimate power in the universe back in their prime, and they certainly should not be now.
So if I'm going to write off having universal boffs as an option, then we need to redefine the two ships altogether. Right now, the Galaxy-R is basically defined as a straight up tank and the Dreadnought is also a tank with a little more firepower (though compared to it's sister... it's a HELL of a lot more firepower). So before I spill the beans on how I think they should redesign these ships (I know I'm taking a while) I'll explain what I think should be the redefined roles for these starships.
To to begin: The baby we all know and love... The Galaxy Class. Up until now, it has been stuck with the role of "uber tank" by STO. Unfortunately, it is incapable of even truly living up to this name. So if the ship is incapable of being the "Uber tank" (as a result of it's boff layout, for which certain problems with engineering abilities are admittedly part of the issue) then it should be more of what it has been repeatedly shown to have been in the series: A giant hulking swiss army knife. How does this translate into STO terms? The way I figure it, if you want to make something of a "jack of all trades" then you need to have a pretty healthy balance between boff abilities and consoles in order to accomplish this.
So, if the Galaxy is suddenly no longer the "uber tank" and now a jack of all trades... The Dreadnought by extension should emulate this to a certain degree... Although obviously it will retain more emphasis on firepower (especially thanks to it's Phaser Lance which is admittedly quite awesome in it's own right). The fact that the Dreadnought does possess this powerful weapon as well as Cloak means that it's firepower can't really be pushed too much further than it already is at to ensure that it doesn't become an easy "I win" button (Because let's face it, it already does that in it's current form with the right build... I've witnessed it do crazy things in the past).
So if the Dreadnought can't really be pushed too hard in terms of DPS, then obviously it will need to be a little bit more helpful and useful to the team at large and have the ability to tank a wee bit better (though not hugely so, since it already tanks pretty effectively).
So, with what I've said now in mind... Here's what I propose to be the revamping of the Galaxy-R and the Galaxy-X:
Galaxy Class Retrofit -
Bridge Officer Layout:
Commander Engineer
Ensign Engineer
Lt. Commander Science
Lieutenant Tactical
Lieutenant Tactical
Console Layout:
Engineering: 4
Science: 3
Tactical: 2 (+1 on Fleet Version)
Galaxy-X Dreadnought -
Bridge Officer Layout
Commander Engineer
Lieutenant Engineer
Lt. Commander Tactical
Lieutenant Science
Ensign Science
Console Layout:
Engineering: 4 (+1 on Fleet Version when they finally make it)
Science: 2
Tactical: 3
Personally, I find these to layouts to be a nice solution for a lot of the problems behind both ships (namely of course the Galaxy-R). I think the turn rate should remain the same for these ships as well as the hull strength. Part of what appeals to me behind these layouts is that it's very reminiscent of the layout for the Nebula (In particular regards to the Galaxy-R) which makes a lot of "canonical sense".
What I particularly like about these layouts is that each ship doesn't really step on any toes. While the Galaxy-R does have two Lieutenant Tactical officers, keeping it's tactical console a step behind that of it's more offensively minded cruiser cousins helps keep it's damage potential in check when compared to those variants. So without going into fleet quality ships, the Galaxy-R is in no shape to try and do as much damage as Tactical Odyssey or even a regular Sovereign. The Lt. Commander Science also allows it to diversify it's role and become that "jack of all trades" that it should be... But with no universal bridge officer slot, it won't be the absolute best tank/healer either since a large portion of it's abilities are tactical boff slots.
If you look at the split: 5/12 of it's abilities are engineering, 4/12 are tactical and 3/12 are science. Overall, you get a pretty nice balance (especially once you factor in the power edge of a Lt. Commander Science) between all three with the emphasis still being on it's engineering abilities. This gives the ship a lot of versatility and options when it comes to loadouts and potential roles without infringing heavily on other available starships.
What I also like about this particular layout is that it really does feel like it's following the footsteps of the Ambassador class. While being fairly similar to it's older sibling, it still leaves the Ambassador some breathing room to shine... As the Fleet Ambassador would have a few more options available to it due to it's Lieutenant Universal that allow it to tilt into a more pronounced direction than the Galaxy could.
The Dreadnought is obviously very similar, but with a more aggressive focus in mind. With it's layout, it's obviously less capable when it comes to it's scientific abilities but not massively so. The Lt. Commander Tactical allows it to use higher level tactical abilities without giving it such abundance that it would be a DPS monster. To me it looks like something of a blend between the Excelsior and a Star Cruiser which is what the Dreadnought should be. A ship that is capable of dishing out good damage while offering good protection and help to it's team. Both of the aforementioned ships do exceed the Dreadnought in terms of their defined roles (The Fleet Excelsior will out DPS the Dreadnought, and the Fleet Star Cruiser would be more adept as a supporting craft as opposed to the Dreadnought).
The fact that the Dreadnought would be able to equip dual cannons, along with it's spinal lance and cloaking device give it some tactical edges as opposed to some of it's counterparts, but mitigated by the fact that it has a slower turn rate and slightly lower in terms of tactical consoles (compared to these same competitors).
It's my opinion that neither ship should exceed 3 Tactical consoles. By making the Galaxy retain 2 (+1 for fleet version) and the Dreadnought at 3 permanently, it guarantees that neither one of these ships can outshine their newer more aggressive counterparts in terms of damage performance. I think it's the Dreadnought that should receive a 5th Engineering slot for a fleet variation as that would not drastically increase it's overall power while giving players the option of going RCS Accelerator crazy to actually allow it to potentially use dual cannons.
I feel like both of these ships would be good and powerful in their own right, but as said: Not overshadowing some of the shinier new toys that we've been seeing. The fact that the Galaxy and Dreadnought are both slow turning boats inherently balances itself by a fair margin, even though they would both possess massive hull strength.
So I think I'll leave it at that. I'd love to hear what people think about these layouts as I think it would be a very elegant solution to a lot of the problems we've been having with both ships. I tried my absolute best to take into consideration all of the cruisers we already have at our disposal, and this is the healthiest middle ground I was able to find that would give both ships a place within the Federation fleet. The fact that these iconic and legendary vessels (obviously more in regards to the Galaxy itself) are hardly ever used really does sadden me... As I would love to see both these ships out in the field and actually accomplishing something.
If you've read this start to finish, thanks for your patience.
- CrAzEd MiKe
There underdog status and then there is the KDF. The worst part is when Cryptic rationalizes not releasing things for KDF because of the low number of KDF players, because Cryptic didn't put any real effort to make them a full faction. Very much a self-fulfilling proficy.
-When the "GCS fans" acts as if the release of every new ship, such as the Avenger, is a slight against the TNG/GCS gods, they make it GCS vs everybody
-When "GSC fans" ask to be given the same layouts as other ships, thus taking away the otehr ships uniqueness, especially mentioning that they "don't care on who's toes they step on", they make it GCS vs everybody
-When "GSC fans" trivialize a whole faction that has bigger content problems vs. the "GCS fans" one ship, such as the Fed's "GCS", they make it GCS vs everybody
-When "GSC fans" suggest that their is a Cryptic, hate-filled, conspiracy against the "GCS", they make it GCS vs everybody
-When "GSC fans" acknowledge that there is a problem with all cruisers, but they want their fixes first before putting any real effort to fix the real cruiser problems, they make it GCS vs everybody.
There is a great deal of divisiveness coming from the "GCS community" on its own to make it happen.
Asking to get more tac/uni-boffs and more tactical consoles isn't a mental exercise, its asking to get the same stuff as other ships that already have them.
I'd go as far as to say you are one of the biggest fans in the thread. From your posts, the other ship offerings are either "ugly" or at least less attractive and couldn't/shouldn't match or be better than the ship, even with newer ships like the Ody'. You've referred to canon as evidence for your claims, but when someone else offers canon that refutes the point, its the fault of the writers. Not to mention that you wrote off the KDF factions problems as trivial in comparison to your poor, old Exploration Cruiser's woes, when there are other options out there.
Also, a lot of the ships in the game don't "look like war" or militarization. Or at least your opinion of war/militarization and mine differ dramatically.
It is a great ship, doesn't mean it can't be better.
This was a response to a prior post saying it's not tanky (and doesn't have niche build but you didn't cross that bridge yet), again it is tanky, I never said it was the best hence its need of an upgrade to bring it in line with modern ships.
Again supporting the point that it needs an upgrade, I didn't make the Ambassador or Excelsior did I? I don't agree that they should be better than the Gal, they should be worse as they are older ships.
It doesn't require a specialised built, it just benefits from one as any ship does. The lance on my tanky build is negligible, my other build, built around the lance of course is different. I don't know about the Chim' as I don't have one but the Guramba Javelin also benefits from a specalised build, it will do far more damage if you build around it, but that's common knowledge, at least I thought it was. If you have a ship with a disruptor beam bank and a chroniton torpedo, putting points into torpedos in your skills and having chroniton consoles isn't going to improve the beam but will improve the torpedo, this is the same for all weapons, you don't have to specialise into it, but you can, it's your choice, just because you don't make your build around the lance doesn't make the ship any worse.
You seem to have missed my point that some of this community, no matter what is given to them they will not be happy with it and will just continue to moan
This fits in with the last point which is why I mentioned it.
Again I expected it to be glossed over, instead I got a rather poorly thought out response, I think I'd have preferred the gloss over.
My overall point was that SOME people in this thread claim these ships are useless which is not true, they are a great ship, but as I said could really do with an upgrade to be brought in line with the new releases, Cryptic should also keep in mind when releasing old ships they should be worse than modern ships (although then why would anyone want to fly them?)
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan