Translation: "The Galaxy Class should STRICTLY adhere to any 'canon' material that shows it easily blasting away any other ship it meets. The 'canon' where the writers showed it as beatable (strictly for story purposes, ignoring how its 'real' designers would have constructed the ship as it IS the pinnacle of Star Trek 'hero ships'..."
Yep. You have a completely unbiased view of the Galaxy Class cruiser.
Yep, you got it. ANYTHING that is shown to be contrary to their mystical belief that the GCS is the best ship in the universe will be instantly rejected and blamed on those "pesky writers".
And they are surprised that no dev has visited this thread? Why would they? Some of you guys on this thread have displayed some really off the wall traits when anyone would dare challenge you, so why would a dev waste his/her time with dealing with that, or being bored to tears with yet ANOTHER mind numbing iteration of "phaser array lengths".
Not only do you guys want to stick you head in the sand when it comes to info that doesn't portray your GCS in a favorable light, you appear to also want to hide from the fact that the GCS was NEVER the best ship in ANY Star Trek game. I'm not sure if it's hubris, or some form of self delusion for some of you guy to think that they are going to change almost 20 years of policy and practice because it's "YOU".
Wanting more firepower is a legitimate gripe. But telling people that you want your GCS to be first and foremost and you don't care what the other fans think, and then hypocritically make a 350 + thread whining and complaining how it's not right that people don't care what YOU think, de-legitimizes your "cause" and casts some of you as hypocritical characters that are reminiscent of any "Saturday Night Live" sketch involving on the edge Star Trek Fans.
This is a great idea yaisuke15, albeit one for a different game. STO is fully centered around buying new ships that get better with each release (power creep). Another (good) game would probably be centered around experiencing adventures in your ship, getting to know and love your vessel and crew instead of just buying new ships and swap them on demand.
The whole game feels like it was something completely different in it's design phase. You "buy" new ships (as a Starfleet Captain) and swap them like a renegade starfighter pilot, you have miniguns and fancy bodyarmour - nobody can tell me that THIS was the best thing they came up with when they designed "Star Trek Online" I bet it was some space-opera like setting as in Wing Commander and you were supposed to be a freelance pilot, buying different fighters and corvettes and doing mercenary work or something like that.
I have to reluctantly agree that unfortunately you are spot on with this conclusion. There is not really much to add here, it's the sad truth of the matter.
Other than the sadness of that, since we're in the Galaxy thread, I'm just going to put this here in a blunt manner without the: canon, tech manual, size/ship comparison finesses or anything similar, but from a pure gameplay perspective of STO - the game:
Tier 5 is the highest tier of ships currently availible and are considered a tool that is used in space end-game instances. This includes PvE as well as PvP (yes, even though I'm the first one to tell you that the state of PvP is broken). So following that, every ship that falls in the Tier 5 group should be equally usable at end-game. Ways of using them may vary a lot and I don't exclude some ships' roles to overlap in certain areas, but nonetheless, every single T5 ship should be in someway usefull at end-game.
The issue with the Galaxy is that - it ain't. It's not usefull in any regard at end game other than the personal satisfaction the Galaxy fan has of flying his/hers favourite ship. This issue is not exclusive to the Galaxy, many of the cruisers are facing this issue. The reason is a borked gameplay mechanic that the Galaxy just had the misfortune of being a prime representative of.
Personally, I don't necessarily need the Galaxy to be more powerfull or tactical slanted or more science oriented. I'd be completely fine as it is, with the current setup if it has a role at end-game, as any T5 ship should have. You know, to feel usefull and as an asset. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, fixing the engineering skills and shared cooldowns and re-instating the tanking role or any role specific to cruisers in game would benefit STO as a whole, not just the Galaxy class.
As it is, currently her role is slowing down teams and pissing off so called "elitists". I'm not sure, but I'd say that it wasn't designed with this role in mind.
But yeah, I agree than in current STO where one T5 ship is bound to be 'the worst' in game, picking one of the most iconic ones in the IP - the Galaxy class to fill that infamous spot is nothing short of outrageous.
actually you are currently the king of missing the point. i use nearly all the other cruisers, i care about them, but i would not feel bad if my favorite ship from the IP gave them more competition.
in spite of that feeling, that station setup all but does NOT step on any toes. im not sure how a 6 turn galaxy with 2 or 3 tac consoles that can have a LTC tac if you really want it to will out do beam boat excelsior, regent, galor, adapted, jem carrier, or monbosh tactically. please dont try to tell me that it being able to have a LTC and LT tac would make it to good of a tac cruisers, i'll injure myself laughing at you.
The reason why the Exploration Cruiser sucks is the same reasons why every other cruiser sucks. Fix the problems that afflict all cruisers first, and then talk about fixing the Exlporer. Honestly, the Exploration cruiser wouldn't need a high turn rate to use beam arrays effectively, only when using DBB's (or DC/DHC on the X) does it become a problem. RCS's and several other, off-the shelf solutions help keep a 5 engie console cruiser in its firing arcs (as you have said yourself in the past). BTW, I think the generic weapon type (beam/cannon/torp/mine) consoles should be engineer consoles.
this setup is for people like you who seem to want it to remain a sucky ship. well fine, i'll make a station setup that is extreamly flexible, but wont let it be the best or even top 5 tac cruiser, but will allow it to have unmatchable sci potential, because thats what no one seems to value in this discussion. as an added bonus, the station setup range of flexibility fits with canon extreamly well, and even makes it look weaker then the sovereign tactically. i couldn't be more gracious about this, coming up with a setup id like, and the galaxy haters shouldn't mind. its not what stations are universal, its whats the end result of what you can build out of those universal stations that maters.
If engineerng boff skills were as helpful as sci and tac, you wouldn't be asking for any uni's
if they were to buff all cruisers, guess what would still be at the bottom. any concealable change to eng skills would still help other cruisers more, becase those changes would be magnified through more tac consoles and more tac powers. having to much eng is only part of the problem, not having enough tac or sci is just as big a problem, which is why it needs its station setup overhauled.
Would it? If engineering skills had the ability to improve the capabilities of the users ship on a level that tac/sci abilities that help the users ship were, the Exploration Cruiser would be very powerful, and not just in a buff bot way.
you should take another reading on the state of cruisers, i cant even tell where your coming from anymore. they are the dps kings, they annihilate stfs the fastest, a team of 5 tac cruisers will FAW everything to death, even in pvp. thanks to the AtB builds i turned everyone on to, and FAW having correct accuracy, the cruiser options with high end tac stations are basically fine, and the cruisers that are sci heavy make for awesome healers and tanks. the galaxy remains the good for nothing anomaly that needs correcting.
I don't hear too many PvP matches where an all cruiser group mops up. And I see much faster results with escorts, even with an all AFB-FAWing cruiser pack. Honselty, STF's (except the Hive) aren't a good judge, if the team of players know the STF's well enough, any ship can finish it quickly without paying too much attention to it. I've used my Gal-X , one handed, while the other is feeding my daughter her bottle. (Yes, want coooookie). THe real challenge is in PvP when randomness takes place. Thats where the cruisers fail.
maneuverability has a rather large effect on beam array performance. its why a galor is so dangerous, it can fly circles around someone at break neck speed and keep all 8 guns on them at all times. slow moving and slow turning ships have much less 8 gun uptime if an enemy decides to pay attention to them. ive done cruiser duals between my non turn buffed, non APO, non EPtE excelsior against a EPtE, APO galor, and the damage dealing difference by the end of the duel was enormous, even though i was far more consentrated on pure damage. regardless of station setup and tac consoles, even for beam arrays movement is a large part of generating DPS. unless your in an stf i guess, everything just sits there for you.
tac cruisers are operating on quite a bit higher level then the rhetoric in this thread would suggest currently. there is much less of a need to fundamentally change all balance by buffing low end eng and eng in general. your inevitably going to benifit the already powerful escorts and destroyers that can have a lot of eng most, because they can combine their escort abilities with them. the reality is its pretty much just the galaxy that has glaring usability issues. the other cruisers serve a useful purpous at the level they are at. this should not just be a 1 or the other thing ether, low level eng especially needs option, and so does the galaxy. fixing 1 is never going to complexly solve the problem of the other, the existing abilities in the non eng professions are FAR to needed no mater what ship your on. no new or shifted eng abilities could ever replace them.
aside from that stuff, the general feeling of worthlessness is often felt even from escorts, that cant put a dent in things. sure, this happens less often, and when there isn't even the slightest amount of cross healing, buts its a reality as well in the age of so many proc heals, rep and elite shields. more then half of the durability comes not from heals anymore, but passives and procs.
First off, you don't need the "rolls eyes" emoticon, it's snarky and uncalled for. I don't act that way to you, why do it to me?
I was more refering to Q's weird sense of humor, not your comment, sorry for that.
I can't speak for anyone else (i think no one can) but for me the G -X is just one single childish exaggeration of a Galaxy Class. It's so much over the top, it can only be one of Q's jokes IMO.
The "Yesterday's Enterprise" GCS on the other hand is real. althrough in another timeline but still real.
That's a big difference, at least for me.
The Galaxy doesn't need a super cannon and a third nacelle, because its phasers are already the strongest in starfleet (if they care to keep them up to date) and slapping a third nacelle on it just ruins the Galaxys beautyful shapes for no apparent reason then to make it look "cooler".
If anything they should have put some quad Nacelles on it (at least it would have preserved the ships eneral shape):
Like THIS.
Then please join those of us who are making fixing the cruiser line of ships a priority before you push for just a change to the Explorer Cruiser. By fixing the entirety of cruisers, you may find the Explorer to be much more useful than it does now. Beside, if you get "your" changes first and they change cruisers to where "your" changes aren't as beneficial, how much credibility do you think "you" are going to have when you ask for another change?
I'd love to join a "make Starfleet Cruisers better" -thread in no time, but this issue is also important to me.
Maybe we are talking past each other, so i will try to explain.
Even if Crusiers get a Fix, how would that look like?
Would Cryptic just buff some Engineering powers or rework all Starfleet crusiers to make them less passive, by giving them more tactical options?
Let's assume they where improving all Starfleet Cruisers across the board, without this thread they still would belive the Galaxy Class would be rightfully the least offensive Ship in Starfleet history.
It wouldn't change Cryptics opinion about the Galaxys offensive/verastile potential at all.
That's where my problem lies, i want Cryptics devs to understand that their idea about the Galaxy Class is just completely wrong and that they have missunderstood that ship completely. Reworking all Starfleet ships would keep the Galaxy Class the least useable ship of them all.
"...'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
maneuverability has a rather large effect on beam array performance. its why a galor is so dangerous, it can fly circles around someone at break neck speed and keep all 8 guns on them at all times. slow moving and slow turning ships have much less 8 gun uptime if an enemy decides to pay attention to them. ive done cruiser duals between my non turn buffed, non APO, non EPtE excelsior against a EPtE, APO galor, and the damage dealing difference by the end of the duel was enormous, even though i was far more consentrated on pure damage. regardless of station setup and tac consoles, even for beam arrays movement is a large part of generating DPS. unless your in an stf i guess, everything just sits there for you.
hehe, it seem that the 20k channel guy i was talking about earlier in this tread are finally getting to be known by pvp community, that a good thing for pvp:)
maneuverability has a rather large effect on beam array performance. its why a galor is so dangerous, it can fly circles around someone at break neck speed and keep all 8 guns on them at all times. slow moving and slow turning ships have much less 8 gun uptime if an enemy decides to pay attention to them. ive done cruiser duals between my non turn buffed, non APO, non EPtE excelsior against a EPtE, APO galor, and the damage dealing difference by the end of the duel was enormous, even though i was far more consentrated on pure damage. regardless of station setup and tac consoles, even for beam arrays movement is a large part of generating DPS. unless your in an stf i guess, everything just sits there for you.
Very true, Cryptics idea that ships which are restriced to beam weapons don't need a high maneuverability is utterly wrong. Not that such a ship cannot keep attacking a damaged enemy shield facing, it's almost impossible to effectively use torpedoes. So Starfleet cruisers are not only disadvantaged by not being able to use DHCs 8or something equivalent) but their lack of maneuverability makes them even less effective than they are.
...
there is much less of a need to fundamentally change all balance by buffing low end eng and eng in general. your inevitably going to benifit the already powerful escorts and destroyers that can have a lot of eng most, because they can combine their escort abilities with them. the reality is its pretty much just the galaxy that has glaring usability issues. the other cruisers serve a useful purpous at the level they are at. this should not just be a 1 or the other thing ether, low level eng especially needs option, and so does the galaxy. fixing 1 is never going to complexly solve the problem of the other, the existing abilities in the non eng professions are FAR to needed no mater what ship your on. no new or shifted eng abilities could ever replace them.
That's why just changing some engineering powers won't be enough to support/improve Cruisers in STO.
If Cryptic would really want to improve them, they actually had to rework the very basic of Cruiser Gameplay IMO.
The current habit of just releasing some new DOFF to solve such issues are just drops in the ocean.
As long other ships are get the same benefit from a Buff, cruisers will stay as they are.
"...'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 was more refering to Q's weird sense of humor, not your comment, sorry for that.
I can't speak for anyone else (i think no one can) but for me the G -X is just one single childish exaggeration of a Galaxy Class. It's so much over the top, it can only be one of Q's jokes IMO.
The "Yesterday's Enterprise" GCS on the other hand is real. althrough in another timeline but still real.
That's a big difference, at least for me.
The Galaxy doesn't need a super cannon and a third nacelle, because its phasers are already the strongest in starfleet (if they care to keep them up to date) and slapping a third nacelle on it just ruins the Galaxys beautyful shapes for no apparent reason then to make it look "cooler".
If anything they should have put some quad Nacelles on it (at least it would have preserved the ships eneral shape):
Like THIS.
As a person who played Starfleet Battles, I respect the Galaxy-X because is a TNG extension of Franz Joseph's Federation Class Dreadnought http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/wpthomas007/1701/Federation/dn_tech_manual_001.png . Roddenberry signed off on but then rejected it. The main difference between the two is where the third nacelle is mounted. The "BFG-9000", spinal lance, seems to be a showcase of the fact that weapons tech' will evolve to include different types in the future of Star Trek. The problem about saying "The Galaxy doesn't need a super cannon and a third nacelle, because its phasers are already the strongest in starfleet (if they care to keep them up to date)" is that maybe in the future, they do make an advancement that allows for a piercing weapon like the phaser lance. I leave that possibility open.
As far as how it make the Galaxy look, some people like it, some don't, but some people don't like the look of any one given ship anyways.
I'd love to join a "make Starfleet Cruisers better" -thread in no time, but this issue is also important to me.
Maybe we are talking past each other, so i will try to explain.
Even if Crusiers get a Fix, how would that look like?
Would Cryptic just buff some Engineering powers or rework all Starfleet crusiers to make them less passive, by giving them more tactical options?
Just as an example, take an ability like RSP, it isn't very effective in current form, make it be able to either absorb more damage or redirect more back at the target. Right now it's barely a tickle, even at higher levels
Let's assume they where improving all Starfleet Cruisers across the board, without this thread they still would belive the Galaxy Class would be rightfully the least offensive Ship in Starfleet history.
It wouldn't change Cryptics opinion about the Galaxys offensive/verastile potential at all.
That's where my problem lies, i want Cryptics devs to understand that their idea about the Galaxy Class is just completely wrong and that they have missunderstood that ship completely. Reworking all Starfleet ships would keep the Galaxy Class the least useable ship of them all.
Reworking cruisers has to be the first step before focusing on any one ship should happen, doing it any other way is putting the cart in front of the horse. What if they can improve the way a cruiser works that actually creates real value for an engineer boff focused cruiser? It probably wouldnt be the least offensive ship in the game. Versatility is due to perspective, so I won't go into that.The Explorer is already set up to take advantage of it amped engineer boff trees. Have generic weapon type consoles a part of engineer slots and that only serves to help the Fleet Explorer as well.
As far as the ships role in show vs. in game, there are a lot of schools out there on it, some say tactical, some say science, some say its engineering capability is what worked for the ship. Everyone can argue until they are blue, trying to throw around canon to support their point, but the canon can be argued as flawed for across the board comparison, and some people, even if it was improved one way would still argue it isn't given its due. We do know it is considered and explorer and Cryptic has focused it with engineering. Lets try to work within those paramters first, because what is wrong with the explorer is wrong with every other cruiser too. Then fine tune.
Reworking cruisers has to be the first step before focusing on any one ship should happen, doing it any other way is putting the cart in front of the horse. What if they can improve the way a cruiser works that actually creates real value for an engineer boff focused cruiser? It probably wouldnt be the least offensive ship in the game. Versatility is due to perspective, so I won't go into that.The Explorer is already set up to take advantage of it amped engineer boff trees. Have generic weapon type consoles a part of engineer slots and that only serves to help the Fleet Explorer as well.
As far as the ships role in show vs. in game, there are a lot of schools out there on it, some say tactical, some say science, some say its engineering capability is what worked for the ship. Everyone can argue until they are blue, trying to throw around canon to support their point, but the canon can be argued as flawed for across the board comparison, and some people, even if it was improved one way would still argue it isn't given its due. We do know it is considered and explorer and Cryptic has focused it with engineering. Lets try to work within those paramters first, because what is wrong with the explorer is wrong with every other cruiser too. Then fine tune.
I get were you are heading at, but still Engineering is the most passive of all Bridge officer abilities by Cryptics own definition.
So even if they would double all Engineering powers effectiveness, they still would only make Cruisers more tankier and this is not what the GCS or other Starfleet Cruisers are about.
Just look at the other factions "cruisers", they are all much more offensive focussed than starfleet cruisers. So if Cryptic would rework Engineering powers, it would only make Starfleet Cruisers more passive.
I am all for making generic Weapon consoles into Engineerign consoles, but as i said this wouldn't change starfleet cruisers relative strength compared to other factions crusiers.
In my opinion, starfleet cruisers should get something unique, maybe something that works like the Rom. Singularity Cores "Singularity Overcharge". But other than that, the Starfleet equivalent would work more like a weapons power boost, instead of just not draining weapon power for a short period of time.
Of course that's just an raw idea, but i think Starfleet Cruisers should get something typical and most important something unique.
Another possibility would be to give Starfleet Cruisers the ability to exceed the 125 (130) power limitations by 50 or even more. Such a mechanic would make them especially interesting for Engineering Captains.
This would make the KDF the tactical focussed, Rom/Science and the Federation the Engineering specialists.
(It wouldn't be totally correct to canon, but feasable imo. At least better than to make Starfleet Cruisers into the lamest thing the Trinity has to offer.)
"...'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 get were you are heading at, but still Engineering is the most passive of all Bridge officer abilities by Cryptics own definition.
So even if they would double all Engineering powers effectiveness, they still would only make Cruisers more tankier and this is not what the GCS or other Starfleet Cruisers are about.
Increasing RSP, Aceton Beam, and DEM's effectiveness would make them more effective offensively.
Just look at the other factions "cruisers", they are all much more offensive focussed than starfleet cruisers. So if Cryptic would rework Engineering powers, it would only make Starfleet Cruisers more passive.
I wouldn't really suggest that the KDF cruisers are much more offensive focused than the Fed's. The cruisers that actually have good turn rates are marginally maneuverable enough to make much use of DC/DHC than if Fed' ships had them, at best. KDF cruisers more or less still are beam focused than DC/DHC. I have a bunch of KDF battlecruisers, but still use Garumba, BoP and the Destroyer over them.
I am all for making generic Weapon consoles into Engineerign consoles, but as i said this wouldn't change starfleet cruisers relative strength compared to other factions crusiers.
As far as I have seen from most representations,Federation Cruisers should be the tankier cruiser compared to the other factions. The KDF is better at dishing it out through brute force, and Rommies' through sneakier tactics. I will give up a little in the giving out department to be able to stick it out better than the other guys can.
In my opinion, starfleet cruisers should get something unique, maybe something that works like the Rom. Singularity Cores "Singularity Overcharge". But other than that, the Starfleet equivalent would work more like a weapons power boost, instead of just not draining weapon power for a short period of time.
Of course that's just an raw idea, but i think Starfleet Cruisers should get something typical and most important something unique.
I'm not sure about having something parallel to the hokey singularity deal, but I'll gladly take some more hull (1-2.5k) to represent the more labs and rec' areas that will soak damage and a larger power output to distribute through my ship (5-10 points).
Another possibility would be to give Starfleet Cruisers the ability to exceed the 125 (130) power limitations by 50 or even more. Such a mechanic would make them especially interesting for Engineering Captains.
This would make the KDF the tactical focussed, Rom/Science and the Federation the Engineering specialists.
(It wouldn't be totally correct to canon, but feasable imo. At least better than to make Starfleet Cruisers into the lamest thing the Trinity has to offer.)
I think all cruisers should have a higher energy cap than escorts and sci ships (more escorts than sci ships). Maybe each race, or even down to each cruisers designed strength should have a set boost in its caps for at least one stat.
As far as I have seen from most representations,Federation Cruisers should be the tankier cruiser compared to the other factions. The KDF is better at dishing it out through brute force, and Rommies' through sneakier tactics. I will give up a little in the giving out department to be able to stick it out better than the other guys can.
Possible, but Cryptic made the differences too extreme.
Starfleet Cruisers are without doubt the most passive of all Cruisers by (cryptics) design.
In my opinion they should be roughly equal, but using different means.
Just an example, KDF (Battle)cruisers using forward facing weapons, while Starfleet ships could be specialists in broadsiding.
Both types would have certain pros and cons, but none would be all about defence while the other one would get the offensive part all the time.
Just because build by a more peaceful faction, Starfleet Cruisers shouldn't be the ones being ALWAYS in defense and all about being passive.
I'm not sure about having something parallel to the hokey singularity deal, but I'll gladly take some more hull (1-2.5k) to represent the more labs and rec' areas that will soak damage and a larger power output to distribute through my ship (5-10 points).
Please not. Starfleet Cruisers are already too much about tanking.
I think Cryptics idea to put them into the role of target, is too superficial and not realy fun to play.
I think all cruisers should have a higher energy cap than escorts and sci ships (more escorts than sci ships). Maybe each race, or even down to each cruisers designed strength should have a set boost in its caps for at least one stat.
To get a rough overview, i'd say different factions Cruisers should only get a certain amount of how much it can exceed the normal power cap. (sorry for my bad english, but i really don't know how to put it into the right words.)
For example a small Starfleet Cruiser like a Excelsior would be able to set any subsystem power level to 140, while a Odyssesy could reach 165. (only if enough power can be allocated, of course.)
Additionally, depending on their size, Cruisers should get a much bigger power bonus in general.
Maybe such a mechanic wouldn't need a complete revamp of the already existing ships.
Cryptic could release special Cruiser Warp Cores that increase the power cap and power generation, depending on the ships mass, turnrate and faction.
"...'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
As a person who played Starfleet Battles, I respect the Galaxy-X because is a TNG extension of Franz Joseph's Federation Class Dreadnought http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/wpthomas007/1701/Federation/dn_tech_manual_001.png . Roddenberry signed off on but then rejected it. The main difference between the two is where the third nacelle is mounted. The "BFG-9000", spinal lance, seems to be a showcase of the fact that weapons tech' will evolve to include different types in the future of Star Trek. The problem about saying "The Galaxy doesn't need a super cannon and a third nacelle, because its phasers are already the strongest in starfleet (if they care to keep them up to date)" is that maybe in the future, they do make an advancement that allows for a piercing weapon like the phaser lance. I leave that possibility open.
i would also add that in a ship refitted to deal with a war with the klingons, that lance and little canon on the nacelle are here to give him maximal tactical abilities, the lance is more of a opportunitie weapons that can add more punch in the attack if the enemy is in front of the ship, it could also be used to surprised ship in their flank, just like in the episode of tng.
they were not designed to replace phaser array but to support them in a more variety of tactical scenario.
Reworking cruisers has to be the first step before focusing on any one ship should happen, doing it any other way is putting the cart in front of the horse.
i fail to see how working on the engi power will fix cruiser problem, if problem there is.
so what are we talking about? i only see 3 possibilities.
first, we want to fix this ensign level engi power that reduce effectivness of cruiser.
removing this share cooldown power will indeed result in better efficiency of the use of bo power.
so, let imagine we transfert tractor beam and polarize hull from science to engie ( i don't said it is the best solution, or that is is what we should absolutly do, i just use it for my example ).
so now i can have tractor beam 1/ polarize hull/ engie team 1 in ensign level in a engie heavy ship, and then move epts in lt commander slot, would give us 2 epst3 power.
it will also free some other tanking power in science ensign, like tss, science team, he, or give the option to use them for control with scramble sensor.
that very good, every ensign slot will be use and we will found ourselves with a more resilient ship.
i took tractor beam and polarize hull as example but we can imagine cryptic inventing new power in the same tanking role as these one.
so, is this solution would solve the heavie engie cruiser problem? no, we will find ourselves with more resilient ship, but we all known that it won't change a thing in the grand scheme of things.
second fix, here we keep the original fix ( it still help ) but we will focus on engie power that help deal damage, namely aceton beam and dem.
the idea here is to make these power more effective to be more of a threat than what they are now.
but how can these power be made more effective without making them op? dem for example work better with canon, cruiser ( in federation at least ) rarely use canon, so if we boost these power to be a real threat with beam, it might begun terribly OP for canon user.
some escort got acces to a ltcommander engie, don't forget that.
in any case i can't see an enhancement of these power that would made them effective without being OP.
third fix or option, would be new engie power dedicated to dps, but here we have a problem, they can only be 1 tactical proffesion in the game.
engie power dedicated to dps would be tact power disguised in engie power, that make no sense and would clearly be game breaking.
so in the end, even if some new engie power need to be added or transfert to deal with the
share cooldown of ensign engie power, nothing serious can be made to engie that will solved the cruiser ( mostly a fed one in my opinion ) problem.
if a cruiser want better tanking abilitie and choice he need more science bo slot.
if a cruiser want better dps he need more tactical bo power, note that this same cruiser could still use some " enhanced" dps engie bo power AT THE SAME TIME.
fixing engie power will only solve the "efficiency " of heavie engie cruiser concerning their engie power.
but we have proven that their is no need for "efficient" heavy engie ship.
second fix, here we keep the original fix ( it still help ) but we will focus on engie power that help deal damage, namely aceton beam and dem.
the idea here is to make these power more effective to be more of a threat than what they are now.
but how can these power be made more effective without making them op? dem for example work better with canon, cruiser ( in federation at least ) rarely use canon, so if we boost these power to be a real threat with beam, it might begun terribly OP for canon user.
some escort got acces to a ltcommander engie, don't forget that.
in any case i can't see an enhancement of these power that would made them effective without being OP.
Escorts can only have the lower versions of Directed Energy Modulation and Aceton Beam. The top version of them comes from Commander Engineering and if those versions are made better it would help Cruisers. The only problem is their are Klingon Bird of Prey that can use them. Would helping Bird of Prey with Commander Engineering powers be good or bad? Their are a lot that think Klingon Bird of Prey need a buff especially after Romulans came out. I think Improving Aceton Beam III would be great. Boost Directed Energy Modulation III as well.
Aceton Beam I and II and III all reduced cooldown.
Aceton Beam III should be improved more by improving the Radiation Damage and having the radiation also kill crew. The Energy Damage Debuff is fine. Add reduces all power levels by 10. Make it so only Hazard Emmiters removes the radiation not the other debuffs only Engineering Team should remove the other Debuffs.
Directed Energy Modulation I and II keep the same.
Directed Energy Modulation III should add more improvements like add 5% chance for a hit to reduce targets shield resistance by 5%
I can't speak for anyone else (i think no one can) but for me the G -X is just one single childish exaggeration of a Galaxy Class. It's so much over the top, it can only be one of Q's jokes IMO.
I posted this in another thread awhile ago, and I think my theory on why it exists kinda fits.
My thoughts on it is along the lines of this being a Dominion War era refit that didn't see fruition until after the war was over. We know there are several examples of this happening in the real world. Several types of ships, fighters, bombers, etc that had development started during World War II, but didn't quite see service in time to see combat.
My theory on the need for such a refit comes from the loss of the USS Valiant, and Starfleet realizing it had no single ship that could stand up to a monster like that Dominion battleship. Since we already see in the tech manuals that development on such a large ship takes years, they decided to upfit an already proven, and large, spaceframe. We even see what could perhaps be some of the early refits towards the Galaxy-X with the USS Venture, since the Venture and the Ent-D refit both have the additional phaser strips on top of the warp engines. Seen here and here.
I would further conjecture that in the alternate timeline, the Enterprise D survived that timeline's Dominion War, but in the process was so badly damaged as to be mothballed instead of repaired, given material and personnel shortages during wartime. She was only saved from the scrap heap by a Riker with enough clout later on to have her repaired, and brought up to 'new' Galaxy class specifications in the process.
Purely speculation to be sure, but it fits to some degree.
I posted this in another thread awhile ago, and I think my theory on why it exists kinda fits.
It does make sense, to retrofit an existing hull rather than spend resources and time creating a new vessel from scratch.
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!
Honestly the G-X being in this time line did kinda bug me at first. But really knowing Captain Picard he would have felt it nessacry to make a report and tell all that happened to him at some point soon after returning back to his time.
Anyways he would have told about all that happened and at some point probably would have mentioned the refitting of the Enterprise into the dreadnaught with the cloaking device and the lance 3rd nacelle and anything else he might have noticed. So maybe someone after reading the report from Picard and hearing about said refitting of a galaxy class decided to try it. Seeing as it did take out a klingon cruiser pretty fast im sure someone would have thought they should try. Given that im sure theire were galaxies around and that the federation is at war with so many im sure they would have some that wanted a ship that can kick out some serious punishment.
Since we are at the topic, my take on the whole Gal-X is this:
In the prime universe it does not exist. I also don't think Picard told anybody about it in a way they were able to copy that technology, I mean he was a old man on the brink of dementia at that point who bearly saw the Gal "X" let alone her specifications. I imagine a debriefing like that: "And, Well, there was another Nacelle on top and, oh, it had a "phaser lance", whatever that is, but it was like a big TRIBBLE gun strapped to the saucer, and..." Yet I don't share the assumption that it doesn't exist at all. Q did fiddle with picard, yet the Anti-Time phenomenon was "real" showing us that there are a myriad of alternate timelines just like the shows did show us numerous times. But even in the timeline the Gal X did see action it was no regular ship design - I think Riker clearly stated that it was his personal desire to "tune" the ship in that way to save her from being scrapped. It is his hobby "Roadster" so to speak, be it through Qs imagination or not, the timeline did exist somewhere (as well as the others, including the one where the Federation was wiped out by the Borg). The whole thing is also indicated by the use of the All Good Things uniforms which were repeatedly used to indicate timelines that were concluded in favour of the "prime" timeline.
If we look at STO it should be pretty clear that STO is NOT set in the prime timeline however, as nothing in it makes any sense or follows what we see in the shows. So I personally treat STO as one of those many "Anti-Time" possibilities (my crew use the alternate timeline badge veteran reward, if I'd own the AGT uniforms I'd use those as well ). With the Gal-X, I still don't accept her "regular" service since the design just makes no sense but maybe we assume that in this weird timeline someone decided to copy Admiral Riker's Roadster. Or something like that.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I like your post, friend! I may have fallen in love with the Galaxy as a child, but I remember one day seeing the Galaxy-X, and thinking how badass it looked. Aaah, having one in STO is a dream come true, despite how weak I am with it still.
and to help retain this being on topic, I think the X needs some TLC as much as the regular GCS does. Riker's hotrod or not. (I did not know the X was his own doing, to be honest. Cool!)
Turn Rate, Lance CD and Acc, One more Tac console, the usual niggling gripes.
As jumbled up as the STO universe is (One guy's sig about being a Lib Borg captain, flying a Jem Hadar ship crewed by enemies of the Fed comes to mind...), It's still great to me that they included what they did. Seeing the Galaxy was great, but the X was an unexpected surprise, and, you can ask my fleet about this, it became my goal from day one, despite all the warnings. (They still say I'm better off with a C-Store Oddy)
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Escorts can only have the lower versions of Directed Energy Modulation and Aceton Beam. The top version of them comes from Commander Engineering and if those versions are made better it would help Cruisers. The only problem is their are Klingon Bird of Prey that can use them. Would helping Bird of Prey with Commander Engineering powers be good or bad? Their are a lot that think Klingon Bird of Prey need a buff especially after Romulans came out. I think Improving Aceton Beam III would be great. Boost Directed Energy Modulation III as well.
Aceton Beam I and II and III all reduced cooldown.
Aceton Beam III should be improved more by improving the Radiation Damage and having the radiation also kill crew. The Energy Damage Debuff is fine. Add reduces all power levels by 10. Make it so only Hazard Emmiters removes the radiation not the other debuffs only Engineering Team should remove the other Debuffs.
Directed Energy Modulation I and II keep the same.
Directed Energy Modulation III should add more improvements like add 5% chance for a hit to reduce targets shield resistance by 5%
you can not do that, or to be exact, that is not how cryptic design power.
the difference between level of a bo power is still constant.
furthemore you also want to add some special abilitie to the third version.
we are then not talking about the same power but a different iteration.
in any case, since i am not aware of a cruiser equiped with 2 commander engineer ( i may be too much focus on my gal x lately and not see it, you tell me ), we are still talking of EITHER dem or aceton beam, but not both at the same time so it daesn't look very efficient to me.
about the BOP tho, i wouldn't mind somekind of specific improvement for them.
indeed since LOR came out, it seem that they have been somehow shaft of their role by the romulan, and the limitation that was applied to their stats are difficult to explain in today environement.
the brel is in the same bag, so for my fellows klingons opponent it would feel like new air in these dark hours of the empire;)
Since we are at the topic, my take on the whole Gal-X is this:
In the prime universe it does not exist. I also don't think Picard told anybody about it in a way they were able to copy that technology, I mean he was a old man on the brink of dementia at that point who bearly saw the Gal "X" let alone her specifications. I imagine a debriefing like that: "And, Well, there was another Nacelle on top and, oh, it had a "phaser lance", whatever that is, but it was like a big TRIBBLE gun strapped to the saucer, and..." Yet I don't share the assumption that it doesn't exist at all. Q did fiddle with picard, yet the Anti-Time phenomenon was "real" showing us that there are a myriad of alternate timelines just like the shows did show us numerous times. But even in the timeline the Gal X did see action it was no regular ship design - I think Riker clearly stated that it was his personal desire to "tune" the ship in that way to save her from being scrapped. It is his hobby "Roadster" so to speak, be it through Qs imagination or not, the timeline did exist somewhere (as well as the others, including the one where the Federation was wiped out by the Borg). The whole thing is also indicated by the use of the All Good Things uniforms which were repeatedly used to indicate timelines that were concluded in favour of the "prime" timeline.
If we look at STO it should be pretty clear that STO is NOT set in the prime timeline however, as nothing in it makes any sense or follows what we see in the shows. So I personally treat STO as one of those many "Anti-Time" possibilities (my crew use the alternate timeline badge veteran reward, if I'd own the AGT uniforms I'd use those as well ). With the Gal-X, I still don't accept her "regular" service since the design just makes no sense but maybe we assume that in this weird timeline someone decided to copy Admiral Riker's Roadster. Or something like that.
well, hehe, on that subject i didn't bother to find a justification or explanation as to why we have galaxy x flying everywhere.
cryptic made it, i am happy. but they are already many inconsitency in this game already to try explaning all of them.
for me the galaxy x should be unique, what i mean by that is that they should only be 1 model, the one this alternate riker fly.
this is his "baby" and wouldn't have come to life if he wasn't a respected admiral, so i think that the other captain and admiral would be flying some kind of uptodate sovereign ( yeah even in that time the sovereign would be a little outdated )
this is his "baby" and wouldn't have come to life if he wasn't a respected admiral, so i think that the other captain and admiral would be flying some kind of uptodate sovereign ( yeah even in that time the sovereign would be a little outdated )
Considering what I saw in "All Good Things...", This thing's capabilities would certainly rival the Sov, at least in firepower. An Oddy might be close, but the Spinal Lance... It would be like Barret making an assault rifle chambered for .50 BMG, just for the man stout enough to wield it. I can see an Oddy withstanding a Lance strike, but the Sov would be in trouble.
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Seeing the Galaxy was great, but the X was an unexpected surprise, and, you can ask my fleet about this, it became my goal from day one, despite all the warnings. (They still say I'm better off with a C-Store Oddy)
the sad truth is that as of today, if you don't plan on doing a DHC build with it, an odyssey have the potential to outguned you in pvp. but a cannon build is very difficult and required top gear to become effective on this ship.
and for pve you will be better of with a bfaw build in an odyssey.
of course, all that is not important enought if, like me, you are in love with the ship, then effectivness become secondary.
Considering what I saw in "All Good Things...", This thing's capabilities would certainly rival the Sov, at least in firepower. An Oddy might be close, but the Spinal Lance... It would be like Barret making an assault rifle chambered for .50 BMG, just for the man stout enough to wield it. I can see an Oddy withstanding a Lance strike, but the Sov would be in trouble.
for me it is far superior to a sovy in term of firepower indeed, not rival.
however since we don't known what kind of improvement they made to any ship in this time of war.
as far as we known they could have mounted a phaser lance in every big cruiser they have included the sovereign!
of course, all that is not important enought if, like me, you are in love with the ship, then effectivness become secondary.
Exactly! I do want to make this ship as good as I possibly can, but at the same time, I feel so bad-TRIBBLE in it diving into the middle of a group of enemies, activating Fire At Will, and lighting off every beam array on it! :cool:
Honestly, I'd love to see what a Sovvie Dreadnought would be like. I do think it would look better with quad nacelles, though. Curious to see how a streamlined Phaser Lance would look like.
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Exactly! I do want to make this ship as good as I possibly can, but at the same time, I feel so bad-TRIBBLE in it diving into the middle of a group of enemies, activating Fire At Will, and lighting off every beam array on it! :cool:
Honestly, I'd love to see what a Sovvie Dreadnought would be like. I do think it would look better with quad nacelles, though. Curious to see how a streamlined Phaser Lance would look like.
Oh please not.
The ship looks terrible enough with its two totally oversized nacelles (which both represend a nice target btw.) but with three nacelles it would be even more ugly. lol.
Seriously, the ("real trek") Sovereign is not that much better than a GCS. especially if you look at it from 30 year distance.
I'm not going to come to the G -X defense, but i think the bigger extra space a GCS hull provides would greatly help to make the Lance and other gimmicks work.
Don't get me wrong i am ok with the Lance, but the Third nacelle just kills it for me.
If the -X had a quad nacelle configuration Like THIS, i would - L O V E - that ship.
(i hope the link works this time )
"...'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
Lol, lets make a game: How many nacelles can you fit on a Galaxy Class? XD Since if I remember correctly a GCS is supposed to feature 2 warpcoiles per nacelle which means the standard issue GCS already has 4 warp coils (or whatever the shiny blue things INSIDE are called, it was explained regarding why the Galaxy "X" could have three nacelles which was technically a violation of the principle starship design because all ships had to have a even number of "warp thingies" ). 4 Nacelles would be 8 coils - where is the benefit of added nacelles anyway?
Btw: I'd like that alternative dreadnought better if the nacelles wouldn't switch their axis, meaning make them stack and not next to each other. I think that would be more in line with other multi-nacelle vessels like the constitution or prometheus.
^ 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
Don't get me wrong i am ok with the Lance, but the Third nacelle just kills it for me.
If the -X had a quad nacelle configuration Like THIS, i would - L O V E - that ship.
(i hope the link works this time )
And yet to me the three nacelles look great and the image you've linked looks terrible, four nacelles in groupings of two, what's that about?! But hey, it's all opinion.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
Lol, lets make a game: How many nacelles can you fit on a Galaxy Class? XD Since if I remember correctly a GCS is supposed to feature 2 warpcoiles per nacelle which means the standard issue GCS already has 4 warp coils (or whatever the shiny blue things INSIDE are called, it was explained regarding why the Galaxy "X" could have three nacelles which was technically a violation of the principle starship design because all ships had to have a even number of "warp thingies" ). 4 Nacelles would be 8 coils - where is the benefit of added nacelles anyway?
For me it's not about the numbers btu about the shape which is completely destroyed by that stupid looking third nacelle.
Technically a different (maybe wider nacelle, having more warp coils) would be enough for the standard GCS to get the same result as just slapping a childish looking third nacelle on a perfect balanced ship design. (it just ruins the whole ships shape.)
My proposal was just a try to house a bigger number of nacelles, while KEEPING the general shape intact.
Btw: I'd like that alternative dreadnought better if the nacelles wouldn't switch their axis, meaning make them stack and not next to each other. I think that would be more in line with other multi-nacelle vessels like the constitution or prometheus.
I don't think that would be a good idea since the lower pair would be too far below, since the engineering hull isn't the visual center of the ships mass. The ships visual center of mass is somewhere at the neck. By placing the nacelles too low would make the ship look odd.
The only way to make such a nacelle configuration good would be to remove the ships neck completely and make the Saucer and Engineering hull one single unit. (similar to a star Cruiser). THEN you could put on a 4- nacelle configuration like the Constellation on it, without making the ship look unstable.
Placing them nex to each other like on the picture, would make it look unique, keep the general shape and would make the ship look like a "Hot Rod" without making it look like made by a five year old IMO.
Of course Cryptics devs could make it as a option, not as the standard look of the G -X.
"...'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 don't think that would be a good idea since the lower pair would be too far below, since the engineering hull isn't the visual center of the ships mass. The ships visual center of mass is somewhere at the neck. By placing the nacelles too low would make the ship look odd.
The only way to make such a nacelle configuration good would be to remove the ships neck completely and make the Saucer and Engineering hull one single unit. (similar to a star Cruiser). THEN you could put on a 4- nacelle configuration like the Constellation on it, without making the ship look unstable.
Placing them nex to each other like on the picture, would make it look unique, keep the general shape and would make the ship look like a "Hot Rod" without making it look like made by a five year old IMO.
Ah, that makes sense. I haven't put that much thought into it, thanks for clarification And I actually wrote "Constitution" instead of Constellation . Stupid Targ me *snort*
Of course Cryptics devs could make it as a option, not as the standard look of the G -X.
That would be a neat option indeed, If I could use the four nacelle version or simply remove the third nacelle I would try the Gal-X as well (without the cloak of course ).
^ 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
Ah, that makes sense. I haven't put that much thought into it, thanks for clarification And I actually wrote "Constitution" instead of Constellation . Stupid Targ me *snort*
That would be a neat option indeed, If I could use the four nacelle version or simply remove the third nacelle I would try the Gal-X as well (without the cloak of course ).
That would be even better IMO.
"...'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
Comments
Yep, you got it. ANYTHING that is shown to be contrary to their mystical belief that the GCS is the best ship in the universe will be instantly rejected and blamed on those "pesky writers".
And they are surprised that no dev has visited this thread? Why would they? Some of you guys on this thread have displayed some really off the wall traits when anyone would dare challenge you, so why would a dev waste his/her time with dealing with that, or being bored to tears with yet ANOTHER mind numbing iteration of "phaser array lengths".
Not only do you guys want to stick you head in the sand when it comes to info that doesn't portray your GCS in a favorable light, you appear to also want to hide from the fact that the GCS was NEVER the best ship in ANY Star Trek game. I'm not sure if it's hubris, or some form of self delusion for some of you guy to think that they are going to change almost 20 years of policy and practice because it's "YOU".
Wanting more firepower is a legitimate gripe. But telling people that you want your GCS to be first and foremost and you don't care what the other fans think, and then hypocritically make a 350 + thread whining and complaining how it's not right that people don't care what YOU think, de-legitimizes your "cause" and casts some of you as hypocritical characters that are reminiscent of any "Saturday Night Live" sketch involving on the edge Star Trek Fans.
I have to reluctantly agree that unfortunately you are spot on with this conclusion. There is not really much to add here, it's the sad truth of the matter.
Other than the sadness of that, since we're in the Galaxy thread, I'm just going to put this here in a blunt manner without the: canon, tech manual, size/ship comparison finesses or anything similar, but from a pure gameplay perspective of STO - the game:
Tier 5 is the highest tier of ships currently availible and are considered a tool that is used in space end-game instances. This includes PvE as well as PvP (yes, even though I'm the first one to tell you that the state of PvP is broken). So following that, every ship that falls in the Tier 5 group should be equally usable at end-game. Ways of using them may vary a lot and I don't exclude some ships' roles to overlap in certain areas, but nonetheless, every single T5 ship should be in someway usefull at end-game.
The issue with the Galaxy is that - it ain't. It's not usefull in any regard at end game other than the personal satisfaction the Galaxy fan has of flying his/hers favourite ship. This issue is not exclusive to the Galaxy, many of the cruisers are facing this issue. The reason is a borked gameplay mechanic that the Galaxy just had the misfortune of being a prime representative of.
Personally, I don't necessarily need the Galaxy to be more powerfull or tactical slanted or more science oriented. I'd be completely fine as it is, with the current setup if it has a role at end-game, as any T5 ship should have. You know, to feel usefull and as an asset. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, fixing the engineering skills and shared cooldowns and re-instating the tanking role or any role specific to cruisers in game would benefit STO as a whole, not just the Galaxy class.
As it is, currently her role is slowing down teams and pissing off so called "elitists". I'm not sure, but I'd say that it wasn't designed with this role in mind.
But yeah, I agree than in current STO where one T5 ship is bound to be 'the worst' in game, picking one of the most iconic ones in the IP - the Galaxy class to fill that infamous spot is nothing short of outrageous.
The reason why the Exploration Cruiser sucks is the same reasons why every other cruiser sucks. Fix the problems that afflict all cruisers first, and then talk about fixing the Exlporer. Honestly, the Exploration cruiser wouldn't need a high turn rate to use beam arrays effectively, only when using DBB's (or DC/DHC on the X) does it become a problem. RCS's and several other, off-the shelf solutions help keep a 5 engie console cruiser in its firing arcs (as you have said yourself in the past). BTW, I think the generic weapon type (beam/cannon/torp/mine) consoles should be engineer consoles.
If engineerng boff skills were as helpful as sci and tac, you wouldn't be asking for any uni's
Would it? If engineering skills had the ability to improve the capabilities of the users ship on a level that tac/sci abilities that help the users ship were, the Exploration Cruiser would be very powerful, and not just in a buff bot way.
I don't hear too many PvP matches where an all cruiser group mops up. And I see much faster results with escorts, even with an all AFB-FAWing cruiser pack. Honselty, STF's (except the Hive) aren't a good judge, if the team of players know the STF's well enough, any ship can finish it quickly without paying too much attention to it. I've used my Gal-X , one handed, while the other is feeding my daughter her bottle. (Yes, want coooookie). THe real challenge is in PvP when randomness takes place. Thats where the cruisers fail.
as far as cruiser performance and beam array performance goes, top level pveers are somehow taking some in the pvp section by storm at the moment. http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=861031
tac cruisers are operating on quite a bit higher level then the rhetoric in this thread would suggest currently. there is much less of a need to fundamentally change all balance by buffing low end eng and eng in general. your inevitably going to benifit the already powerful escorts and destroyers that can have a lot of eng most, because they can combine their escort abilities with them. the reality is its pretty much just the galaxy that has glaring usability issues. the other cruisers serve a useful purpous at the level they are at. this should not just be a 1 or the other thing ether, low level eng especially needs option, and so does the galaxy. fixing 1 is never going to complexly solve the problem of the other, the existing abilities in the non eng professions are FAR to needed no mater what ship your on. no new or shifted eng abilities could ever replace them.
aside from that stuff, the general feeling of worthlessness is often felt even from escorts, that cant put a dent in things. sure, this happens less often, and when there isn't even the slightest amount of cross healing, buts its a reality as well in the age of so many proc heals, rep and elite shields. more then half of the durability comes not from heals anymore, but passives and procs.
I can't speak for anyone else (i think no one can) but for me the G -X is just one single childish exaggeration of a Galaxy Class. It's so much over the top, it can only be one of Q's jokes IMO.
The "Yesterday's Enterprise" GCS on the other hand is real. althrough in another timeline but still real.
That's a big difference, at least for me.
The Galaxy doesn't need a super cannon and a third nacelle, because its phasers are already the strongest in starfleet (if they care to keep them up to date) and slapping a third nacelle on it just ruins the Galaxys beautyful shapes for no apparent reason then to make it look "cooler".
If anything they should have put some quad Nacelles on it (at least it would have preserved the ships eneral shape):
Like THIS.
I'd love to join a "make Starfleet Cruisers better" -thread in no time, but this issue is also important to me.
Maybe we are talking past each other, so i will try to explain.
Even if Crusiers get a Fix, how would that look like?
Would Cryptic just buff some Engineering powers or rework all Starfleet crusiers to make them less passive, by giving them more tactical options?
Let's assume they where improving all Starfleet Cruisers across the board, without this thread they still would belive the Galaxy Class would be rightfully the least offensive Ship in Starfleet history.
It wouldn't change Cryptics opinion about the Galaxys offensive/verastile potential at all.
That's where my problem lies, i want Cryptics devs to understand that their idea about the Galaxy Class is just completely wrong and that they have missunderstood that ship completely. Reworking all Starfleet ships would keep the Galaxy Class the least useable ship of them all.
hehe, it seem that the 20k channel guy i was talking about earlier in this tread are finally getting to be known by pvp community, that a good thing for pvp:)
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
That's why just changing some engineering powers won't be enough to support/improve Cruisers in STO.
If Cryptic would really want to improve them, they actually had to rework the very basic of Cruiser Gameplay IMO.
The current habit of just releasing some new DOFF to solve such issues are just drops in the ocean.
As long other ships are get the same benefit from a Buff, cruisers will stay as they are.
As a person who played Starfleet Battles, I respect the Galaxy-X because is a TNG extension of Franz Joseph's Federation Class Dreadnought http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/wpthomas007/1701/Federation/dn_tech_manual_001.png . Roddenberry signed off on but then rejected it. The main difference between the two is where the third nacelle is mounted. The "BFG-9000", spinal lance, seems to be a showcase of the fact that weapons tech' will evolve to include different types in the future of Star Trek. The problem about saying "The Galaxy doesn't need a super cannon and a third nacelle, because its phasers are already the strongest in starfleet (if they care to keep them up to date)" is that maybe in the future, they do make an advancement that allows for a piercing weapon like the phaser lance. I leave that possibility open.
As far as how it make the Galaxy look, some people like it, some don't, but some people don't like the look of any one given ship anyways.
Just as an example, take an ability like RSP, it isn't very effective in current form, make it be able to either absorb more damage or redirect more back at the target. Right now it's barely a tickle, even at higher levels
Reworking cruisers has to be the first step before focusing on any one ship should happen, doing it any other way is putting the cart in front of the horse. What if they can improve the way a cruiser works that actually creates real value for an engineer boff focused cruiser? It probably wouldnt be the least offensive ship in the game. Versatility is due to perspective, so I won't go into that.The Explorer is already set up to take advantage of it amped engineer boff trees. Have generic weapon type consoles a part of engineer slots and that only serves to help the Fleet Explorer as well.
As far as the ships role in show vs. in game, there are a lot of schools out there on it, some say tactical, some say science, some say its engineering capability is what worked for the ship. Everyone can argue until they are blue, trying to throw around canon to support their point, but the canon can be argued as flawed for across the board comparison, and some people, even if it was improved one way would still argue it isn't given its due. We do know it is considered and explorer and Cryptic has focused it with engineering. Lets try to work within those paramters first, because what is wrong with the explorer is wrong with every other cruiser too. Then fine tune.
So even if they would double all Engineering powers effectiveness, they still would only make Cruisers more tankier and this is not what the GCS or other Starfleet Cruisers are about.
Just look at the other factions "cruisers", they are all much more offensive focussed than starfleet cruisers. So if Cryptic would rework Engineering powers, it would only make Starfleet Cruisers more passive.
I am all for making generic Weapon consoles into Engineerign consoles, but as i said this wouldn't change starfleet cruisers relative strength compared to other factions crusiers.
In my opinion, starfleet cruisers should get something unique, maybe something that works like the Rom. Singularity Cores "Singularity Overcharge". But other than that, the Starfleet equivalent would work more like a weapons power boost, instead of just not draining weapon power for a short period of time.
Of course that's just an raw idea, but i think Starfleet Cruisers should get something typical and most important something unique.
Another possibility would be to give Starfleet Cruisers the ability to exceed the 125 (130) power limitations by 50 or even more. Such a mechanic would make them especially interesting for Engineering Captains.
This would make the KDF the tactical focussed, Rom/Science and the Federation the Engineering specialists.
(It wouldn't be totally correct to canon, but feasable imo. At least better than to make Starfleet Cruisers into the lamest thing the Trinity has to offer.)
Increasing RSP, Aceton Beam, and DEM's effectiveness would make them more effective offensively.
I wouldn't really suggest that the KDF cruisers are much more offensive focused than the Fed's. The cruisers that actually have good turn rates are marginally maneuverable enough to make much use of DC/DHC than if Fed' ships had them, at best. KDF cruisers more or less still are beam focused than DC/DHC. I have a bunch of KDF battlecruisers, but still use Garumba, BoP and the Destroyer over them.
Romulans, thats a different story.
As far as I have seen from most representations,Federation Cruisers should be the tankier cruiser compared to the other factions. The KDF is better at dishing it out through brute force, and Rommies' through sneakier tactics. I will give up a little in the giving out department to be able to stick it out better than the other guys can.
I'm not sure about having something parallel to the hokey singularity deal, but I'll gladly take some more hull (1-2.5k) to represent the more labs and rec' areas that will soak damage and a larger power output to distribute through my ship (5-10 points).
I think all cruisers should have a higher energy cap than escorts and sci ships (more escorts than sci ships). Maybe each race, or even down to each cruisers designed strength should have a set boost in its caps for at least one stat.
Possible, but Cryptic made the differences too extreme.
Starfleet Cruisers are without doubt the most passive of all Cruisers by (cryptics) design.
In my opinion they should be roughly equal, but using different means.
Just an example, KDF (Battle)cruisers using forward facing weapons, while Starfleet ships could be specialists in broadsiding.
Both types would have certain pros and cons, but none would be all about defence while the other one would get the offensive part all the time.
Just because build by a more peaceful faction, Starfleet Cruisers shouldn't be the ones being ALWAYS in defense and all about being passive.
Please not. Starfleet Cruisers are already too much about tanking.
I think Cryptics idea to put them into the role of target, is too superficial and not realy fun to play.
To get a rough overview, i'd say different factions Cruisers should only get a certain amount of how much it can exceed the normal power cap. (sorry for my bad english, but i really don't know how to put it into the right words.)
KDF Battlecruisers: Smallest:+10 / Biggest: +30
Romulan Cruisers: Smallest:+5 / Biggest: +25
Starfleet Cruisers: Smallest:+15 / Biggest: +40
For example a small Starfleet Cruiser like a Excelsior would be able to set any subsystem power level to 140, while a Odyssesy could reach 165. (only if enough power can be allocated, of course.)
Additionally, depending on their size, Cruisers should get a much bigger power bonus in general.
Maybe such a mechanic wouldn't need a complete revamp of the already existing ships.
Cryptic could release special Cruiser Warp Cores that increase the power cap and power generation, depending on the ships mass, turnrate and faction.
i would also add that in a ship refitted to deal with a war with the klingons, that lance and little canon on the nacelle are here to give him maximal tactical abilities, the lance is more of a opportunitie weapons that can add more punch in the attack if the enemy is in front of the ship, it could also be used to surprised ship in their flank, just like in the episode of tng.
they were not designed to replace phaser array but to support them in a more variety of tactical scenario.
i fail to see how working on the engi power will fix cruiser problem, if problem there is.
so what are we talking about? i only see 3 possibilities.
first, we want to fix this ensign level engi power that reduce effectivness of cruiser.
removing this share cooldown power will indeed result in better efficiency of the use of bo power.
so, let imagine we transfert tractor beam and polarize hull from science to engie ( i don't said it is the best solution, or that is is what we should absolutly do, i just use it for my example ).
so now i can have tractor beam 1/ polarize hull/ engie team 1 in ensign level in a engie heavy ship, and then move epts in lt commander slot, would give us 2 epst3 power.
it will also free some other tanking power in science ensign, like tss, science team, he, or give the option to use them for control with scramble sensor.
that very good, every ensign slot will be use and we will found ourselves with a more resilient ship.
i took tractor beam and polarize hull as example but we can imagine cryptic inventing new power in the same tanking role as these one.
so, is this solution would solve the heavie engie cruiser problem? no, we will find ourselves with more resilient ship, but we all known that it won't change a thing in the grand scheme of things.
second fix, here we keep the original fix ( it still help ) but we will focus on engie power that help deal damage, namely aceton beam and dem.
the idea here is to make these power more effective to be more of a threat than what they are now.
but how can these power be made more effective without making them op? dem for example work better with canon, cruiser ( in federation at least ) rarely use canon, so if we boost these power to be a real threat with beam, it might begun terribly OP for canon user.
some escort got acces to a ltcommander engie, don't forget that.
in any case i can't see an enhancement of these power that would made them effective without being OP.
third fix or option, would be new engie power dedicated to dps, but here we have a problem, they can only be 1 tactical proffesion in the game.
engie power dedicated to dps would be tact power disguised in engie power, that make no sense and would clearly be game breaking.
so in the end, even if some new engie power need to be added or transfert to deal with the
share cooldown of ensign engie power, nothing serious can be made to engie that will solved the cruiser ( mostly a fed one in my opinion ) problem.
if a cruiser want better tanking abilitie and choice he need more science bo slot.
if a cruiser want better dps he need more tactical bo power, note that this same cruiser could still use some " enhanced" dps engie bo power AT THE SAME TIME.
fixing engie power will only solve the "efficiency " of heavie engie cruiser concerning their engie power.
but we have proven that their is no need for "efficient" heavy engie ship.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Escorts can only have the lower versions of Directed Energy Modulation and Aceton Beam. The top version of them comes from Commander Engineering and if those versions are made better it would help Cruisers. The only problem is their are Klingon Bird of Prey that can use them. Would helping Bird of Prey with Commander Engineering powers be good or bad? Their are a lot that think Klingon Bird of Prey need a buff especially after Romulans came out. I think Improving Aceton Beam III would be great. Boost Directed Energy Modulation III as well.
Aceton Beam I and II and III all reduced cooldown.
Aceton Beam III should be improved more by improving the Radiation Damage and having the radiation also kill crew. The Energy Damage Debuff is fine. Add reduces all power levels by 10. Make it so only Hazard Emmiters removes the radiation not the other debuffs only Engineering Team should remove the other Debuffs.
Directed Energy Modulation I and II keep the same.
Directed Energy Modulation III should add more improvements like add 5% chance for a hit to reduce targets shield resistance by 5%
I posted this in another thread awhile ago, and I think my theory on why it exists kinda fits.
It does make sense, to retrofit an existing hull rather than spend resources and time creating a new vessel from scratch.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Anyways he would have told about all that happened and at some point probably would have mentioned the refitting of the Enterprise into the dreadnaught with the cloaking device and the lance 3rd nacelle and anything else he might have noticed. So maybe someone after reading the report from Picard and hearing about said refitting of a galaxy class decided to try it. Seeing as it did take out a klingon cruiser pretty fast im sure someone would have thought they should try. Given that im sure theire were galaxies around and that the federation is at war with so many im sure they would have some that wanted a ship that can kick out some serious punishment.
Atleast thats why i think the G-X makes sense.
In the prime universe it does not exist. I also don't think Picard told anybody about it in a way they were able to copy that technology, I mean he was a old man on the brink of dementia at that point who bearly saw the Gal "X" let alone her specifications. I imagine a debriefing like that: "And, Well, there was another Nacelle on top and, oh, it had a "phaser lance", whatever that is, but it was like a big TRIBBLE gun strapped to the saucer, and..."
If we look at STO it should be pretty clear that STO is NOT set in the prime timeline however, as nothing in it makes any sense or follows what we see in the shows. So I personally treat STO as one of those many "Anti-Time" possibilities (my crew use the alternate timeline badge veteran reward, if I'd own the AGT uniforms I'd use those as well
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
and to help retain this being on topic, I think the X needs some TLC as much as the regular GCS does. Riker's hotrod or not. (I did not know the X was his own doing, to be honest. Cool!)
Turn Rate, Lance CD and Acc, One more Tac console, the usual niggling gripes.
As jumbled up as the STO universe is (One guy's sig about being a Lib Borg captain, flying a Jem Hadar ship crewed by enemies of the Fed comes to mind...), It's still great to me that they included what they did. Seeing the Galaxy was great, but the X was an unexpected surprise, and, you can ask my fleet about this, it became my goal from day one, despite all the warnings. (They still say I'm better off with a C-Store Oddy)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
you can not do that, or to be exact, that is not how cryptic design power.
the difference between level of a bo power is still constant.
furthemore you also want to add some special abilitie to the third version.
we are then not talking about the same power but a different iteration.
in any case, since i am not aware of a cruiser equiped with 2 commander engineer ( i may be too much focus on my gal x lately and not see it, you tell me ), we are still talking of EITHER dem or aceton beam, but not both at the same time so it daesn't look very efficient to me.
about the BOP tho, i wouldn't mind somekind of specific improvement for them.
indeed since LOR came out, it seem that they have been somehow shaft of their role by the romulan, and the limitation that was applied to their stats are difficult to explain in today environement.
the brel is in the same bag, so for my fellows klingons opponent it would feel like new air in these dark hours of the empire;)
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
well, hehe, on that subject i didn't bother to find a justification or explanation as to why we have galaxy x flying everywhere.
cryptic made it, i am happy. but they are already many inconsitency in this game already to try explaning all of them.
for me the galaxy x should be unique, what i mean by that is that they should only be 1 model, the one this alternate riker fly.
this is his "baby" and wouldn't have come to life if he wasn't a respected admiral, so i think that the other captain and admiral would be flying some kind of uptodate sovereign ( yeah even in that time the sovereign would be a little outdated )
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
the sad truth is that as of today, if you don't plan on doing a DHC build with it, an odyssey have the potential to outguned you in pvp. but a cannon build is very difficult and required top gear to become effective on this ship.
and for pve you will be better of with a bfaw build in an odyssey.
of course, all that is not important enought if, like me, you are in love with the ship, then effectivness become secondary.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
for me it is far superior to a sovy in term of firepower indeed, not rival.
however since we don't known what kind of improvement they made to any ship in this time of war.
as far as we known they could have mounted a phaser lance in every big cruiser they have included the sovereign!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Exactly! I do want to make this ship as good as I possibly can, but at the same time, I feel so bad-TRIBBLE in it diving into the middle of a group of enemies, activating Fire At Will, and lighting off every beam array on it! :cool:
Honestly, I'd love to see what a Sovvie Dreadnought would be like. I do think it would look better with quad nacelles, though. Curious to see how a streamlined Phaser Lance would look like.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Oh please not.
The ship looks terrible enough with its two totally oversized nacelles (which both represend a nice target btw.) but with three nacelles it would be even more ugly. lol.
Seriously, the ("real trek") Sovereign is not that much better than a GCS. especially if you look at it from 30 year distance.
I'm not going to come to the G -X defense, but i think the bigger extra space a GCS hull provides would greatly help to make the Lance and other gimmicks work.
Don't get me wrong i am ok with the Lance, but the Third nacelle just kills it for me.
If the -X had a quad nacelle configuration Like THIS, i would - L O V E - that ship.
(i hope the link works this time
Btw: I'd like that alternative dreadnought better if the nacelles wouldn't switch their axis, meaning make them stack and not next to each other. I think that would be more in line with other multi-nacelle vessels like the constitution or prometheus.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And yet to me the three nacelles look great and the image you've linked looks terrible, four nacelles in groupings of two, what's that about?! But hey, it's all opinion.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
Technically a different (maybe wider nacelle, having more warp coils) would be enough for the standard GCS to get the same result as just slapping a childish looking third nacelle on a perfect balanced ship design. (it just ruins the whole ships shape.)
My proposal was just a try to house a bigger number of nacelles, while KEEPING the general shape intact.
I don't think that would be a good idea since the lower pair would be too far below, since the engineering hull isn't the visual center of the ships mass. The ships visual center of mass is somewhere at the neck. By placing the nacelles too low would make the ship look odd.
The only way to make such a nacelle configuration good would be to remove the ships neck completely and make the Saucer and Engineering hull one single unit. (similar to a star Cruiser). THEN you could put on a 4- nacelle configuration like the Constellation on it, without making the ship look unstable.
Placing them nex to each other like on the picture, would make it look unique, keep the general shape and would make the ship look like a "Hot Rod" without making it look like made by a five year old IMO.
Of course Cryptics devs could make it as a option, not as the standard look of the G -X.
Ah, that makes sense. I haven't put that much thought into it, thanks for clarification
That would be a neat option indeed, If I could use the four nacelle version or simply remove the third nacelle I would try the Gal-X as well (without the cloak of course
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That would be even better IMO.