I think the 3rd nacelle looks alright and kinda like the 4 nacelle design also. Tbh though I love options and it'd be nice to be able to chose between the two or just have the option to remove the 3rd nacelle all together. I'm the kinda guy that just likes options even if I don't always use them its nice to be able to if I want to do so. Whats that old saying "Variety is the spice of life".
I think the 3rd nacelle looks alright and kinda like the 4 nacelle design also. Tbh though I love options and it'd be nice to be able to chose between the two or just have the option to remove the 3rd nacelle all together. I'm the kinda guy that just likes options even if I don't always use them its nice to be able to if I want to do so. Whats that old saying "Variety is the spice of life".
at the beguining, when the galaxy x was out, you have the option to remove the third nacelle, since i was not a fan of it in the beguining i used to have it remove.
it was also a way to confuse my opponent in pvp that thaught they were fighting a regular galaxy;)
but i was also suffering a graphical problem so cryptic remove that option in season 2.
i can anderstand yeodred about the third nacelle, i also find it to be a childish upgrade look and that it ruin the original shape design of the galaxy.
my problem is that i found that the 3d model cryptic use in this game don't give justice to the galaxy, with the venture skin i prefer the look of the third nacelle over the galaxy design made by cryptic, it also made it look bigger, wich i love:)
that being said even if i don't think i will change to your quad nacelle look you have link, i still find it rather interesting, don't you have other picture of it?
i would love to see galaxy x flying around with it.
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.
I guess your right giving new stuff to Aceton Beam III and Directed Energy Modulation III that lower versions don't have would not be the right thing to do but something to improve their version III needs to be done.
Maybe increase the strength of version III compared to version I and II? That way none of the abilities would be too OP on Escorts but be much better for Cruiser then currently is.
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%
This is the crux of what I am saying, the higher level engineering abilities need some real love to them in order to be more effective, lower abilities should see some boost but the magnitude of effectiveness should be exponential according to level.
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.
Beauty is a personal opinion, there are plenty of people who have no love for the look of the Galaxy in any form (I usually flip a coin and can take it/leave it depending on mood). Even more so, I am sure that someone out there think that the Garumba is the most beautiful ship ever conceived (they probably are visually impaired, but hey, theres goota be someone out there who loves the look other than its mother.:D)
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.
I'm sure each ship could support the weapon.The Sovy' would be more burrowed in, using up central aligned crew quarters to stuff it in. Most lower ranking enlisted personnel would be back to bunk beds and more ship processes would need to be automated.
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 )
I'm not sold on that design either, maybe if the nacelles were up/down per side. But that look doesn't grab me (my opinion).
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.
Honestly, I don't see why one warp coil wouldn't work, and I don't see the benefit of having more than two (other than having redundant systems and less wear and tear).
Honestly, I don't see why one warp coil wouldn't work, and I don't see the benefit of having more than two (other than having redundant systems and less wear and tear).
Four nacelles, AND a rear spoiler makes you go faster! VROOOM!
Four nacelles, AND a rear spoiler makes you go faster! VROOOM!
Yeah, but three nacelles like the G -X has, do what?
If the ship should be able to go faster, it should get some fire and flames paintjob on the hull. lol
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Yeah, but three nacelles like the G -X has, do what?
If the ship should be able to go faster, it should get some fire and flames paintjob on the hull. lol
Just paint it red! Red ones go fastah! :cool:
^ 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
Because people dont want to see the forest, they want to see a specific tree.
In short, problem is engineering abilities period and not just the Rank III ones ... for example as things are right now EptX might as well be made a toggle.
Because people are exceptionally short sighted.....
Edit: One more thing, and this really grinds my gears.
I as im sure many of you have bought the Refit, Retrofit and Fleet versions of this ship. You would think at a total of $40 it would have been a hell of a ship at Fleet level. Now at the simplest even if only 100 of us bought them all thats 4k for them and they dilly dally on making it better????
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Perhaps therein lies the problem. continued sales may be leading them t believe that the ship is less flawed, that people are happy with it the way it is.
It's hard to know about dissent when you can't see or hear it, and if you have are raw numbers in sales that suggest there isn't a problem...
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Perhaps therein lies the problem. continued sales may be leading them t believe that the ship is less flawed, that people are happy with it the way it is.
It's hard to know about dissent when you can't see or hear it, and if you have are raw numbers in sales that suggest there isn't a problem...
I just think it is hilarious that they will weigh in multiple times on humor and nerf threads, but as far as devs are concerned here, well i think i saw a tumbleweed fly through about a month or so ago.....
Seeing and hearing is easy if they look into the LARGEST user made thread on this forum. amiright?
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Perhaps therein lies the problem. continued sales may be leading them t believe that the ship is less flawed, that people are happy with it the way it is.
It's hard to know about dissent when you can't see or hear it, and if you have are raw numbers in sales that suggest there isn't a problem...
I think you got a point here.
The thing is that ppl buy/use Cruiser and especially the Galaxy -R/-X ALTHOUGH they aren't very good. It's because people LIKE those ships and buy then no matter how bad Cryptic made them. One of the few things indicating that Starfleet Cruisers and the GCS are flawed is this thread.
Other than that they only got the sales numbers, but they can lead to false conclusions. I think Cryptic could sell even more ships if they would rework Starfleet Crusiers completely (meaning making them more like in the shows, and also reworking the very structure).
A few pages back we discussed a alternative classification for Starfleet Cruisers.
In my opinion there should only be light/heavy Cruisers and Starships (the heaviest type) as starfleet ships weight class.
Just a example:
Light Cruiser: Intrepid, Excelsior
Heavy Cruiser: Ambassador, Akira, Sovereign
Explorer: Odyssey, Galaxy, Nebula
Light Crusiers would be, fast and maneuverable ships, being more specialized in one field (tac/sci/eng).
Heavy Cruisers would be, slower but heavier armed. Less specialized then light Crusiers.
Explorers, very heavy armed, very slow (compared to the other two) and the most versatile ships.
All those ships should have exchangeable BOFF/console Layouts with other ships in their "weight class".
The point is that maneuverability is too underestimated by cryptics devs. In my opinion the difference between Escort and Cruisers maneuverability is too great. Especially Escorts don't have any problems to get their weapons to face the enemy, while other ships always have to strugge to even align their torpedos.
I'm not saying that Crusiers should become as nimble as escorts (please not!) but to make weapons fireing arcs dependent on a ships maneuverability.
(this could apply to all cruiser types of all factions)
Another thing would be, to make (at least) starfleet cruisers being able to exceed their subsytem power limit and basic power generation, depending on their mass.
Different factions Crusiers would be able to exceed their power limits differnt, just like slower and heavier ships can get a additional bonus as well as more power in general.
With those arrangements Starfleet Cruiser would be much more unique and more much less passive compared to other Cruisers of other factions.
"...'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
Because people are exceptionally short sighted.....
Edit: One more thing, and this really grinds my gears.
I as im sure many of you have bought the Refit, Retrofit and Fleet versions of this ship. You would think at a total of $40 it would have been a hell of a ship at Fleet level. Now at the simplest even if only 100 of us bought them all thats 4k for them and they dilly dally on making it better????
Say what you want, i still believe there must be someone at cryptic absolutely hating TNG (and the GCS especially) and preventing the GCS from being reworked for three yearsand more.
Otherwise i just couldn't explain why they made the GCS the starfleet ship with the least firepower and the most passive ship in the game.
"...'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
Yeah, but three nacelles like the G -X has, do what?
What you missed was the deleted scene where the Gal-X attains warp 13 by the center nacelle turning 90' and becomes a spoiler.
Even though I think the three together would work well together, I think its possible to use just the one middle, or the outer two. Maybe using the center one for low warp cruising for power conservation or something.
However this was stated because Roddenberry stated it had to have 2 nacelles, the Galaxy-X actually had 3 PAIRS and not just 3 nacelles and even the Galaxy class MSD appears to point to 2 pairs, one on each nacelle.
I know what you (and they) are saying, and although most people won't like this, the Kelvin's appearance in Star Trek: 2009 recants the previous statement. While the movie shows the alternate timeline, the Kelvin did exist before the fork between the prime timeline and the JJ-verse timeline occurs.
Sadly, this also canonizes that Thor is James T. Kirks father and that Prince Charming's and Snow White's daughter is his mother as well.
Say what you want, i still believe there must be someone at cryptic absolutely hating TNG (and the GCS especially) and preventing the GCS from being reworked for three yearsand more.
Otherwise i just couldn't explain why they made the GCS the starfleet ship with the least firepower and the most passive ship in the game.
I won't go as far as to say "hate" but has different ideas on what the Exploration Cruiser is and how the Galaxy did its magic on screen (Engineering excellence perhaps).
I just think it is hilarious that they will weigh in multiple times on humor and nerf threads, but as far as devs are concerned here, well i think i saw a tumbleweed fly through about a month or so ago.....
Seeing and hearing is easy if they look into the LARGEST user made thread on this forum. amiright?
I agree wholeheartedly. Some voice from Cryptic/PWE in this thread is merited.
Why the sudden focus on upper-level Engineering abilities? The low-level stations have always been the Galaxy's main problem.
If the higher order engie skills are bumped, the redundant and secondary skills can be assigned to lower order ranks, I do this all the time so I have some sort of skill availabilty the majority of the time. I also have ensign EPTS and EPTE so I can use them to fit the situation at any given moment.
I won't go as far as to say "hate" but has different ideas on what the Exploration Cruiser is and how the Galaxy did its magic on screen (Engineering excellence perhaps).
While making Engineering so passive (by design) they had to know what that ship will be like in the end.
As much as i can make out from several statements made by Cryptics devs, they rather like more BSG or Star Wars -ish space battles, having smaller spaceships zipping around big (static) ones. Don't get me wrong, i like Star Wars (sometimes) but Star Trek is and should be different IMO.
While i dont belive they deliberately made their game like that, it's obvious there is a tendency towards a more SW/BSG like game mechanic.
Why else should the typical Star Trek ships(cruiser) be so static and passive while a type of ship that's nothing more as a exception (escorts) completely dominate the game, or at least within Starfleet.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I'm all for fixing cruisers in general, changing beam arrays to where they are more effective and changing and updating engineer skills but think they should be discussed in another thread and this one should stay with updating the GCS.
I'm all for fixing cruisers in general, changing beam arrays to where they are more effective and changing and updating engineer skills but think they should be discussed in another thread and this one should stay with updating the GCS.
No offense just my opinion.
And you have your right to your opinion. There are others that hold the opinion that fixing cruisers in general will help more than just doing more or less a Boff swap would.
And you have your right to your opinion. There are others that hold the opinion that fixing cruisers in general will help more than just doing more or less a Boff swap would.
There needs to be both, a rework of the Galaxy -R and -X to give them the right place among all other cruisers in STO AND a complete rework of all Starfleet cruisers.
Despite of its iconic status, the GCS is the most useless of all ship in this game, not just because engineering is much less effective than tactical or science.
It is because the GCS is not supposed to be a ship focussed purely on defense. That's what Cryptic made so wrong about it, and that's what they have to fix for three years.
"...'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
The Galaxy class infact all ships need to be reconfigured in weapon placement. Look at the Galaxy class ship picture from movies or TNG count the number of phaser banks. torpedo tube and placement of those weapons.
That said there must also be an equal balance of power drain to use those weapons. the Warp core and impulse engines furnishes their power so the stronger the weapon in place the better energy production is needed.
There needs to be both, a rework of the Galaxy -R and -X to give them the right place among all other cruisers in STO AND a complete rework of all Starfleet cruisers.
Despite of its iconic status, the GCS is the most useless of all ship in this game, not just because engineering is much less effective than tactical or science.
It is because the GCS is not supposed to be a ship focussed purely on defense. That's what Cryptic made so wrong about it, and that's what they have to fix for three years.
Much of what I saw in TNG that made the Enterprise potent was its engineering wizardry. Engineering capabilities should be able to be offensive and defensive. Engineering skills can and have been made to have a offensive slant to them, and to an extent are being used in that capability. RSP has an offensive slant to is, EWC, Aceton Beam and DEM they are offensive slanted but just too weak to really be effective. EPTW surely isn't defensive by any stretch of imagination.
While a correction of engineering offensive skills might not have the direct offensive damage as a BO or CRF, as those are tied directly with their weapons, they should be potent in their own right, especially of generic weapon type consoles are changed to engineering. The ship would be able to hold its own against other cruisers.
Comments
at the beguining, when the galaxy x was out, you have the option to remove the third nacelle, since i was not a fan of it in the beguining i used to have it remove.
it was also a way to confuse my opponent in pvp that thaught they were fighting a regular galaxy;)
but i was also suffering a graphical problem so cryptic remove that option in season 2.
i can anderstand yeodred about the third nacelle, i also find it to be a childish upgrade look and that it ruin the original shape design of the galaxy.
my problem is that i found that the 3d model cryptic use in this game don't give justice to the galaxy, with the venture skin i prefer the look of the third nacelle over the galaxy design made by cryptic, it also made it look bigger, wich i love:)
that being said even if i don't think i will change to your quad nacelle look you have link, i still find it rather interesting, don't you have other picture of it?
i would love to see galaxy x flying around with it.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I guess your right giving new stuff to Aceton Beam III and Directed Energy Modulation III that lower versions don't have would not be the right thing to do but something to improve their version III needs to be done.
Maybe increase the strength of version III compared to version I and II? That way none of the abilities would be too OP on Escorts but be much better for Cruiser then currently is.
All Aceton Beam do need a cooldown reduction.
This is the crux of what I am saying, the higher level engineering abilities need some real love to them in order to be more effective, lower abilities should see some boost but the magnitude of effectiveness should be exponential according to level.
Beauty is a personal opinion, there are plenty of people who have no love for the look of the Galaxy in any form (I usually flip a coin and can take it/leave it depending on mood). Even more so, I am sure that someone out there think that the Garumba is the most beautiful ship ever conceived (they probably are visually impaired, but hey, theres goota be someone out there who loves the look other than its mother.:D)
I'm sure each ship could support the weapon.The Sovy' would be more burrowed in, using up central aligned crew quarters to stuff it in. Most lower ranking enlisted personnel would be back to bunk beds and more ship processes would need to be automated.
I'm not sold on that design either, maybe if the nacelles were up/down per side. But that look doesn't grab me (my opinion).
Honestly, I don't see why one warp coil wouldn't work, and I don't see the benefit of having more than two (other than having redundant systems and less wear and tear).
Four nacelles, AND a rear spoiler makes you go faster! VROOOM!
Yeah, but three nacelles like the G -X has, do what?
If the ship should be able to go faster, it should get some fire and flames paintjob on the hull. lol
Just paint it red! Red ones go fastah! :cool:
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
EXTREMELY true.
Kinda wish i could make the Venture have a Hot Rod red, with a nice flame job. She looks like a sleek old hot rod....
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Because people are exceptionally short sighted.....
Edit: One more thing, and this really grinds my gears.
I as im sure many of you have bought the Refit, Retrofit and Fleet versions of this ship. You would think at a total of $40 it would have been a hell of a ship at Fleet level. Now at the simplest even if only 100 of us bought them all thats 4k for them and they dilly dally on making it better????
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It's hard to know about dissent when you can't see or hear it, and if you have are raw numbers in sales that suggest there isn't a problem...
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
I just think it is hilarious that they will weigh in multiple times on humor and nerf threads, but as far as devs are concerned here, well i think i saw a tumbleweed fly through about a month or so ago.....
Seeing and hearing is easy if they look into the LARGEST user made thread on this forum. amiright?
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The thing is that ppl buy/use Cruiser and especially the Galaxy -R/-X ALTHOUGH they aren't very good. It's because people LIKE those ships and buy then no matter how bad Cryptic made them. One of the few things indicating that Starfleet Cruisers and the GCS are flawed is this thread.
Other than that they only got the sales numbers, but they can lead to false conclusions. I think Cryptic could sell even more ships if they would rework Starfleet Crusiers completely (meaning making them more like in the shows, and also reworking the very structure).
A few pages back we discussed a alternative classification for Starfleet Cruisers.
In my opinion there should only be light/heavy Cruisers and Starships (the heaviest type) as starfleet ships weight class.
Just a example:
Light Cruiser: Intrepid, Excelsior
Heavy Cruiser: Ambassador, Akira, Sovereign
Explorer: Odyssey, Galaxy, Nebula
Light Crusiers would be, fast and maneuverable ships, being more specialized in one field (tac/sci/eng).
Heavy Cruisers would be, slower but heavier armed. Less specialized then light Crusiers.
Explorers, very heavy armed, very slow (compared to the other two) and the most versatile ships.
All those ships should have exchangeable BOFF/console Layouts with other ships in their "weight class".
The point is that maneuverability is too underestimated by cryptics devs. In my opinion the difference between Escort and Cruisers maneuverability is too great. Especially Escorts don't have any problems to get their weapons to face the enemy, while other ships always have to strugge to even align their torpedos.
I'm not saying that Crusiers should become as nimble as escorts (please not!) but to make weapons fireing arcs dependent on a ships maneuverability.
(this could apply to all cruiser types of all factions)
Another thing would be, to make (at least) starfleet cruisers being able to exceed their subsytem power limit and basic power generation, depending on their mass.
Different factions Crusiers would be able to exceed their power limits differnt, just like slower and heavier ships can get a additional bonus as well as more power in general.
With those arrangements Starfleet Cruiser would be much more unique and more much less passive compared to other Cruisers of other factions.
Otherwise i just couldn't explain why they made the GCS the starfleet ship with the least firepower and the most passive ship in the game.
The rear spoiler isn't what makes you go faster, it's the combination of the spoiler and racing stickers https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151160574756492&set=a.10150568571851492.383390.166831906491&type=1&theater
What you missed was the deleted scene where the Gal-X attains warp 13 by the center nacelle turning 90' and becomes a spoiler.
Even though I think the three together would work well together, I think its possible to use just the one middle, or the outer two. Maybe using the center one for low warp cruising for power conservation or something.
Nobody does flames anymore, they put stickers for brands of racing products that they Didn't use in their car/ship/potato gun.
I know what you (and they) are saying, and although most people won't like this, the Kelvin's appearance in Star Trek: 2009 recants the previous statement. While the movie shows the alternate timeline, the Kelvin did exist before the fork between the prime timeline and the JJ-verse timeline occurs.
Sadly, this also canonizes that Thor is James T. Kirks father and that Prince Charming's and Snow White's daughter is his mother as well.
I won't go as far as to say "hate" but has different ideas on what the Exploration Cruiser is and how the Galaxy did its magic on screen (Engineering excellence perhaps).
I agree wholeheartedly. Some voice from Cryptic/PWE in this thread is merited.
If the higher order engie skills are bumped, the redundant and secondary skills can be assigned to lower order ranks, I do this all the time so I have some sort of skill availabilty the majority of the time. I also have ensign EPTS and EPTE so I can use them to fit the situation at any given moment.
As much as i can make out from several statements made by Cryptics devs, they rather like more BSG or Star Wars -ish space battles, having smaller spaceships zipping around big (static) ones. Don't get me wrong, i like Star Wars (sometimes) but Star Trek is and should be different IMO.
While i dont belive they deliberately made their game like that, it's obvious there is a tendency towards a more SW/BSG like game mechanic.
Why else should the typical Star Trek ships(cruiser) be so static and passive while a type of ship that's nothing more as a exception (escorts) completely dominate the game, or at least within Starfleet.
No offense just my opinion.
And you have your right to your opinion. There are others that hold the opinion that fixing cruisers in general will help more than just doing more or less a Boff swap would.
There needs to be both, a rework of the Galaxy -R and -X to give them the right place among all other cruisers in STO AND a complete rework of all Starfleet cruisers.
Despite of its iconic status, the GCS is the most useless of all ship in this game, not just because engineering is much less effective than tactical or science.
It is because the GCS is not supposed to be a ship focussed purely on defense. That's what Cryptic made so wrong about it, and that's what they have to fix for three years.
That said there must also be an equal balance of power drain to use those weapons. the Warp core and impulse engines furnishes their power so the stronger the weapon in place the better energy production is needed.
Just one person's opinion
Much of what I saw in TNG that made the Enterprise potent was its engineering wizardry. Engineering capabilities should be able to be offensive and defensive. Engineering skills can and have been made to have a offensive slant to them, and to an extent are being used in that capability. RSP has an offensive slant to is, EWC, Aceton Beam and DEM they are offensive slanted but just too weak to really be effective. EPTW surely isn't defensive by any stretch of imagination.
While a correction of engineering offensive skills might not have the direct offensive damage as a BO or CRF, as those are tied directly with their weapons, they should be potent in their own right, especially of generic weapon type consoles are changed to engineering. The ship would be able to hold its own against other cruisers.