test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What is your beef with the Galaxy Cryptic?

1121122124126127232

Comments

  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    ehgato wrote: »
    1st sry for mi english.

    Maybe we should try the next topic : Crytic, in WHAT LANGUAJE WE MOST TALK TO YUO?????

    so far we has no evidence yuo listen to us......

    yep im still frustrated...



    **almost forgot we most be united in game : all intrested check http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=875951 there is a channel for all galaxy fans, it will be nice see a large fleet of galaxy's in orbit to ESD to show crytic we still alive
    You don't need to excuse your english :)


    I don't want to rant (again) about Crypitc, but for me it seems they did the exact opposite what we where asking for all the years.
    Did they make the GCS more useful compared to other ships?
    Did they rework the Galaxy Class so it's no longer the Federation cruiser with the least firepower or in general the least offensive Starfleet ship in the Game?
    Did they implement a mechanic that makes Starfleet Cruisers more equal to other faction Cruisers?


    What they did was to implement a mechanic that actually keeps cruisers relative strength as they are.

    They also release(d) a ship that it roughly what many ppl are wanting the Galaxy C-X to be, but instead Cryptics devs delayed that ship because they want to give it a saucer seperation mechanic no one cares about.


    Now that we got the Avenger, how big will the chances be for the release of another Starfleet Cruiser? (even if it is an old one)
    Not only that, Cryptic gave that new ship a radical different look than any 24th century design, knowing that GCS fans are going to draw the short straw AGAIN.
    (AND stealing another ships name just because that new ship is more important than the old one...)


    If they don't want my (or our) money, why don't they just say so?
    Well basicly they did in renaming the Avenger Star Cruiser into Sentinel, and by releasing the new ship. But still they don't see any need to post one single helpful comment here in this thread?
    Is there any reason not to be frustrated about this?
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    DDIS all I want to know is:

    with a 9 turn and a Interia of 50 - will you be able to make the Avenger Spin?

    Everything I have seen suggests its an inertia of 40, where is Cryptic actually showing this stat?
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Everything I have seen suggests its an inertia of 40, where is Cryptic actually showing this stat?

    a dev post, and the movement tab in the ui displays 50 plain as day
  • jarfarujarfaru Member Posts: 579 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    To bring this back to its original intention, the Galaxy Class in STO is not the same ship which was the Enterprise-D. Therefore this entire game is not really Star Trek, just a space combat simulation with a Star Trek theme. The Galaxy Class will always be more famous and interesting then ANY ship Cryptic creates because its what makes Star Trek.

    Cryptic are probably jealous of that fact and thought they would TRIBBLE over the ship as quick as they can.

    I salute you my friend. Its almost like cryptic refuses to buff this ship line because if they do they won't sell as many ships from the c store as they have. The Avenger ship is so un necessary. But its the new toy. It seems like with every new ship, the game feels less like Star Trek because of the design of these ships. And each one of these c store ship un balances the game each time but know one seems to care. Its the c store Excelsior all over again.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    its not like a good galaxy class or other iconic ships made good would end all ship demand, even as a galaxy fan whats most important to me are the stats, what a ship can do, regardless of what it looks like or what it is. a good galaxy class will always have its 6 turn rate, it will always be a beam boat, it can never be some god ship, its not possible.

    the defiant they got right, but the galaxy should have this

    COM eng
    LTC uni
    LT uni

    LT sci
    ENS sci


    galaxyX have

    COM ENG
    LTC tac
    LT uni
    LT sci
    ENS uni

    and how bout that intrepid, i think it deserves similar more canon treatment too

    COM sci
    LTC tac
    LT eng
    LT eng

    ENS uni
  • row124row124 Member Posts: 77 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    its not like a good galaxy class or other iconic ships made good would end all ship demand, even as a galaxy fan whats most important to me are the stats, what a ship can do, regardless of what it looks like or what it is. a good galaxy class will always have its 6 turn rate, it will always be a beam boat, it can never be some god ship, its not possible.

    the defiant they got right, but the galaxy should have this

    COM eng
    LTC uni
    LT uni

    LT sci
    ENS sci


    galaxyX have

    COM ENG
    LTC tac
    LT uni
    LT sci
    ENS uni

    and how bout that intrepid, i think it deserves similar more canon treatment too

    COM sci
    LTC tac
    LT eng
    LT eng

    ENS uni


    I complete agree. I think this would make the Galaxy, Galaxy-x and Intrepid more balanced. This way they can do some decent damage, heal very well and tank. This is what I've always wanted in the Galaxy class, but instead I'm just laughed at p.v.p and stf's.

    I don't want to laughed at any more because I fly the Galaxy. Cryptic please wake up.
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    a dev post, and the movement tab in the ui displays 50 plain as day

    Which dev' post? They are are all over the place with what and where they say things.


    Its only plain as day in the movement tab for people who actually HAVE the ship. I haven't bought one yet. They used to show it in the shipyard when you were choosing ships to buy, but it isn't there anymore. They just put it up on STO wiki, it wasn't up yesterday when I made the original response.
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    its not like a good galaxy class or other iconic ships made good would end all ship demand, even as a galaxy fan whats most important to me are the stats, what a ship can do, regardless of what it looks like or what it is. a good galaxy class will always have its 6 turn rate, it will always be a beam boat, it can never be some god ship, its not possible.

    the defiant they got right, but the galaxy should have this

    COM eng
    LTC uni
    LT uni

    LT sci
    ENS sci


    I still question the intent of having no base tactical boff, only one eng. boff (especially for a ship that in TNG showed a great deal of engineering wizardry), and a LTCMDR and LT uni. It sounds to me like you want a high-rung tac cruiser. If you want a LTCMDR tac , ask for it. I am sure that even the dev's, if they were to actually read this thread, could read between the lines on that one.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Which dev' post? They are are all over the place with what and where they say things.


    Its only plain as day in the movement tab for people who actually HAVE the ship. I haven't bought one yet. They used to show it in the shipyard when you were choosing ships to buy, but it isn't there anymore. They just put it up on STO wiki, it wasn't up yesterday when I made the original response.

    in the dev blog that reveled the stat, a few pages in i asked what the inertia was and a dev answered. then i got the ship and saw for my self. when i said it was 50 original, i saw it with my own eyes, i wasn't trying to misslead. it doesn't mention it in the description, but the movement buff aura gives +100 to its inertia score too, thats right, its got 150 inertia with that on, there is no slide at all.
    I still question the intent of having no base tactical boff, only one eng. boff (especially for a ship that in TNG showed a great deal of engineering wizardry), and a LTCMDR and LT uni. It sounds to me like you want a high-rung tac cruiser. If you want a LTCMDR tac , ask for it. I am sure that even the dev's, if they were to actually read this thread, could read between the lines on that one.


    yes, i would like the option of a LTC tac on the ship. theres several builds that would work well with just a LT tac too with an AtB build. got room for TT and a beam or cannons skill. but no mater the level of tac you outfit it with, it will never be a beter tac cruiser then the regent or excelcior or any others, its still just a 6 turn boat, and even though it can saucer sep it can never mount DHCs.

    what i REALLY want, is a cruiser that could actually run NO tac at all, just sci and eng, that would make it truly unique, im not nearly as interested in it being an also ran tac cruiser.
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    its not like a good galaxy class or other iconic ships made good would end all ship demand, even as a galaxy fan whats most important to me are the stats, what a ship can do, regardless of what it looks like or what it is. a good galaxy class will always have its 6 turn rate, it will always be a beam boat, it can never be some god ship, its not possible.

    the defiant they got right, but the galaxy should have this

    COM eng
    LTC uni
    LT uni

    LT sci
    ENS sci


    galaxyX have

    COM ENG
    LTC tac
    LT uni
    LT sci
    ENS uni
    TBH i don't quite get this.
    The GCS would be able to do the same thing as the G-X.
    Why not just give both ships the same (mostly universal) BOFF layout like the first proposed one?

    Althrough i would love to see your proposed Intrepid BOFF layout.

    Regarding the GCS, my personal Favourite would be to make her BOFF layout more like the D'Deridex class, just a bit modified. Both Ensigns (uni and tac) merged into a Lt. engineering. (consoles the same as D'D) So the Galaxy class would be a truely balanced Crusier IMO.

    Another possibility would be to make the GCS a Engineer-ized Nebula class.
    (Science BOFFsnad console slots into engineering and vice versa)
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Personally for Gal X Com tac, LTC eng, rest uni
  • jtoney3448jtoney3448 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Its easy to make the galaxys different. Ill talk about fleet versions atm.

    G-X
    5 for weapons. 3 aft. 1 of the for weapons is a fused slot only fitting the lance. Lances now come in all types of energy so you can use it on any build without major penalty.

    4 tac consoles 4 eng 2 sci. LTC tac, CMD eng, ens sci. rest uni.

    Mounts DHC. Stronger attacks then the GCS.

    GCS

    4/4 weapons like a regular cruiser.

    3 tac 3 sci 4 eng consoles. Give it LTC tac, CMD eng, LTC sci, rest uni.

    Its more flexable then the X.

    Both can use 2 piece console set. Anti-matter spread, and saucer seperation. 2 piece bonus is +2 turnrate +10% resist all - GC ships were known for being tough to kill.

    Roll the G-X, Venture, and the G-R into a 3 pack of ships. Fair and balanced each maintains its own identiy without stepping on everything else.
  • sevmragesevmrage Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    I'd be happy if the X had a Commander Tac, Commander Eng, LtC Eng, and one LT Sci.

    Everything else sounds good.

    Imagine the sound a Tetryon Lance would make. Sound like The Moon hitting the Earth. That, or a Cube exploding.
    Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
    khayuung wrote: »
    Firstly, be proud! You're part of the few, the stubborn, the Federation Dreadnought Captains.
  • khayuungkhayuung Member Posts: 1,876 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    I don't know... I like using Aux2 batt on a Galaxy and still having all the tanking options... ^^;

    A Galaxy with DEMarion, A2B and BFAW clocked in at 9.85k phaser dps in an Infected run when my Gal-X got 10.2k. It overshot me on a second run when using plasma weapons, hitting 11.21k.

    It wasnt a fleet galaxy either.


    "Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.

    Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!

    Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    yreodred wrote: »
    TBH i don't quite get this.
    The GCS would be able to do the same thing as the G-X.
    Why not just give both ships the same (mostly universal) BOFF layout like the first proposed one?

    it is not the same, the galaxy x have a cloack, lance and can mount DHC.
    furthemore the galaxy x would have a fix LTcommander tactical that would clearly show it tactical orientation while the galaxy could have acces to it if the player decided to.

    i love that idea, because it show that the galaxy x and galaxy are basically the same.
    the galaxy x is not an other version of the galaxy that was build to be more tactically focused.
    no, it IS a galaxy that was upgraded to be more tactically focused.
    i known that what i just write sound like it is the same but it is not.
    the same potential of these ship is reflected by having the same "base" bo layout.
    the difference lies in the intended use of the ship, the galaxy "could be" more tactically focused IF the player wanted to but will still not be as good at it than a galaxy x that have on top, a cloack, lance and DHC.
    this difference could be made ​​clearer by giving the galaxy x +1 turn wich will help to use his cannon better.

    this will also be more coherent if you want to use them in pack to sell.
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    in the dev blog that reveled the stat, a few pages in i asked what the inertia was and a dev answered. then i got the ship and saw for my self. when i said it was 50 original, i saw it with my own eyes, i wasn't trying to misslead. it doesn't mention it in the description, but the movement buff aura gives +100 to its inertia score too, thats right, its got 150 inertia with that on, there is no slide at all.

    Honestly, the though never entered my mind that you were trying to mislead. The problem I have is that they used to be very upfront with stats, but now they have slacked off a bit and don't put inertia right out there, where it should be.



    yes, i would like the option of a LTC tac on the ship. theres several builds that would work well with just a LT tac too with an AtB build. got room for TT and a beam or cannons skill. but no mater the level of tac you outfit it with, it will never be a beter tac cruiser then the regent or excelcior or any others, its still just a 6 turn boat, and even though it can saucer sep it can never mount DHCs.

    what i REALLY want, is a cruiser that could actually run NO tac at all, just sci and eng, that would make it truly unique, im not nearly as interested in it being an also ran tac cruiser.

    I can't see a way on God's, green Earth that a ship (or in space), especially a cruiser, could work without a tac boff station, even if just for TT's.

    As far as the turn goes, I've run both my Galaxy-X and R with single cannon, turret setups and the somewhat lethargic maneuvering doesn't really inhibit the build that much. The main problem I encountered was being able to use the fore, and side shields to soak damage in place of the other sides weakener shielding.
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    it is not the same, the galaxy x have a cloack, lance and can mount DHC.

    At this moment, the cloak is barely an advantage, other than the rare (and sometimes questionable outcome) decloak/alpha strike. The lance might be okay if it ever was able to hit the broad side of a barn. As far as the DHC's go, unless you just mount one for opportunity fire, its a real pain to make effective and efficient use of them.
    neo1nx wrote: »
    furthemore the galaxy x would have a fix LTcommander tactical that would clearly show it tactical orientation while the galaxy could have acces to it if the player decided to.

    i love that idea, because it show that the galaxy x and galaxy are basically the same.
    the galaxy x is not an other version of the galaxy that was build to be more tactically focused.

    Offering two LT tac's and one more tac console (for a loss of a sci console) would do the that as well.
    neo1nx wrote: »
    no, it IS a galaxy that was upgraded to be more tactically focused.
    i known that what i just write sound like it is the same but it is not.
    the same potential of these ship is reflected by having the same "base" bo layout.
    the difference lies in the intended use of the ship, the galaxy "could be" more tactically focused IF the player wanted to but will still not be as good at it than a galaxy x that have on top, a cloack, lance and DHC.
    this difference could be made ​​clearer by giving the galaxy x +1 turn wich will help to use his cannon better.

    You do realize that upping the turn rate by one or even two degrees will still not make the ship able to make good use of a dhc/dc dependent layout, right? If you want a cruiser that uses DC/DHC that you can pigeon hole into working, use the Avenger.
    neo1nx wrote: »
    this will also be more coherent if you want to use them in pack to sell.

    I'm starting to feel like the whole "three-pack" Z-store item is getting played to death, especially with all of the console offerings. I still reminisce about the days where you bought a ship (not a 5k Zen 3-pack) and didn't fill a ship full of uni-consoles, and weapons/systems 3-piece sets.
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    it is not the same, the galaxy x have a cloack, lance and can mount DHC.
    furthemore the galaxy x would have a fix LTcommander tactical that would clearly show it tactical orientation while the galaxy could have acces to it if the player decided to.

    i love that idea, because it show that the galaxy x and galaxy are basically the same.
    the galaxy x is not an other version of the galaxy that was build to be more tactically focused.
    no, it IS a galaxy that was upgraded to be more tactically focused.
    i known that what i just write sound like it is the same but it is not.
    the same potential of these ship is reflected by having the same "base" bo layout.
    the difference lies in the intended use of the ship, the galaxy "could be" more tactically focused IF the player wanted to but will still not be as good at it than a galaxy x that have on top, a cloack, lance and DHC.
    this difference could be made ​​clearer by giving the galaxy x +1 turn wich will help to use his cannon better.

    this will also be more coherent if you want to use them in pack to sell.
    Alright i get that, but if the G -X would be that superior, what point would it be to use the G -R in the first place?

    Higher turnrate, more tactical consoles and the lance, i think the G -R should get something in exchange.
    (you know MMOs need balance)

    I think the mentioned G -R should be made a Science Cruiser. Maybe some inherent science ability instead of the -X spinal lance and cloak.
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    At this moment, the cloak is barely an advantage, other than the rare (and sometimes questionable outcome) decloak/alpha strike. The lance might be okay if it ever was able to hit the broad side of a barn. As far as the DHC's go, unless you just mount one for opportunity fire, its a real pain to make effective and efficient use of them.

    the cloack and the lance are indeed, as of today, something that can be seen as vastly inefective however it is still something that add dps and offer different combat strategy that the normal galaxy can't do, no matter how hard he would try.
    so that why that even with the exact same bo layout they will be different, both in term of playstyle and dps.
    as for the DHC, they are also less easy to use as with a klingon battlecruiser for example, but with LOR change on turnrate and fleet rcs console, i would not said that it is a real pain to make them effective.
    Offering two LT tac's and one more tac console (for a loss of a sci console) would do the that as well.

    would do what exactly? i haven't propose anything here, i was merely pointing out the coherence to have the same "basic" bo layout on both galaxy ship that would show their affiliated nature.
    You do realize that upping the turn rate by one or even two degrees will still not make the ship able to make good use of a dhc/dc dependent layout, right? If you want a cruiser that uses DC/DHC that you can pigeon hole into working, use the Avenger.

    speak for yourself.
    i got 20 turn with my gal x and i am perfectly capable to make use of DHC with it. i don't pretend to be as effective as a bug, but i don't need to, that where tractor beam and warp plasma come to help.
    and my proposal is not 1 or maybe 2 degree,it is EXACTLY 1 degree, not more, not less.
    i did not pop that number from nowhere.
    right now to reach 20 turn, i must use 3 fleet rcs, being boost by 1 degree would allow me to use only 2.
    i already look at it with my assault cruiser, i fact with 2 console i will be at 21.
    this game is not black or white, the avenger will not fit my playstyle and like yeodred i am someone that prefer to fly the ship i like, more than a pure stats ship, if choice is presented to me.
    so please, spare me the " if you want to do damage go fly an escort" type responses.
    I'm starting to feel like the whole "three-pack" Z-store item is getting played to death, especially with all of the console offerings. I still reminisce about the days where you bought a ship (not a 5k Zen 3-pack) and didn't fill a ship full of uni-consoles, and weapons/systems 3-piece sets.

    yes, but that is the way cryptic go since free to play, so you better get use to it.
    and since we are porposing a new bo layout it is better if this one is more "3 pack" compatible IF cryptic ever considered to make a 3 pack ship with the galaxy.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    I can't see a way on God's, green Earth that a ship (or in space), especially a cruiser, could work without a tac boff station, even if just for TT's.

    As far as the turn goes, I've run both my Galaxy-X and R with single cannon, turret setups and the somewhat lethargic maneuvering doesn't really inhibit the build that much. The main problem I encountered was being able to use the fore, and side shields to soak damage in place of the other sides weakener shielding.

    maxed aux and shields, 2 sci team, 2 TSS, RSP, elite shields, it would be easy. i dont even need TT that often on tac ships as it is. if the ship was part of any sort of team at all, it would be getting all the TT it needs. most wells heal builds go without tac already
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    would do what exactly? i haven't propose anything here, i was merely pointing out the coherence to have the same "basic" bo layout on both galaxy ship that would show their affiliated nature.

    Its affiliated nature already is a given. Granted, there may be a few people who are visually impaired, but we can only do so much.


    neo1nx wrote: »
    speak for yourself. i got 20 turn with my gal x and i am perfectly capable to make use of DHC with it. i don't pretend to be as effective as a bug, but i don't need to, that where tractor beam and warp plasma come to help.
    and my proposal is not 1 or maybe 2 degree,it is EXACTLY 1 degree, not more, not less.
    i did not pop that number from nowhere.

    Never said you asked for two degrees. I put that in as a point to how poorly the ship handles compared to other DHC ships.

    neo1nx wrote: »
    right now to reach 20 turn, i must use 3 fleet rcs, being boost by 1 degree would allow me to use only 2.
    i already look at it with my assault cruiser, i fact with 2 console i will be at 21.

    I have a feeling that right now your are using 3 Fleet RCS and a healthy level of power distribution in the engines to get that far just concerning bolt-ons and sliders. That is a lot of opportunity cost to give up to try to make DHC's work. Even at 21', front 45' is going to be hard to keep vs. PvP'ers. If you want to STF, it will do fine.
    neo1nx wrote: »
    this game is not black or white, the avenger will not fit my playstyle and like yeodred i am someone that prefer to fly the ship i like, more than a pure stats ship, if choice is presented to me. so please, spare me the " if you want to do damage go fly an escort" type responses.

    What play-style is it that you have that tries to turn 21', uses DC/DHC and is in a cruiser hull that doesn't sound like its screaming Avenger? If its a looks issue, that has nothing to do with play-style, but visual appearances.


    Never said anything on a "if you want to do damage... drive an escort" lecture. I am saying there is a better way to do it in a Dreadnought Cruiser running a face full of DHC/DC's. There are guys making good use of DN's that do consistent damage all the time because of not using 45' arce guns.


    neo1nx wrote: »
    yes, but that is the way cryptic go since free to play, so you better get use to it.
    and since we are porposing a new bo layout it is better if this one is more "3 pack" compatible IF cryptic ever considered to make a 3 pack ship with the galaxy.

    And how are you qualifying that a 3-pack is merited?
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    maxed aux and shields, 2 sci team, 2 TSS, RSP, elite shields, it would be easy. i dont even need TT that often on tac ships as it is. if the ship was part of any sort of team at all, it would be getting all the TT it needs. most wells heal builds go without tac already

    Thats not what I was saying. I said the problem I had was the ability to switch facings to give a ship a fresh shield facing.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Thats not what I was saying. I said the problem I had was the ability to switch facings to give a ship a fresh shield facing.
    I can't see a way on God's, green Earth that a ship (or in space), especially a cruiser, could work without a tac boff station, even if just for TT's.

    you were saying this, and it was addressed. typical res levels, high aux TSS, and RSP will always be more then enough.

    if its an issue of keeping facing fresh wile your attacking, well a galaxy with no tac isn't attacking, its putting no effort into damaging. other then loading plasma torps and mines and breen torps just so it has something in its weapon slots wile its only doing supporting healing
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    yreodred wrote: »
    Alright i get that, but if the G -X would be that superior, what point would it be to use the G -R in the first place?

    Higher turnrate, more tactical consoles and the lance, i think the G -R should get something in exchange.
    (you know MMOs need balance)

    I think the mentioned G -R should be made a Science Cruiser. Maybe some inherent science ability instead of the -X spinal lance and cloak.

    but the galaxy x is already " that superior" as of today.
    indeed, today even if galaxy player would love to match the galaxy x bo layout, this is not possible. that would be different if the ship have a universal ensign, but it is not.

    so the situation is worst than in the proposal that dontdrunkimshoot made, because there, the player would have the choice to match it almost ( yes they will still be a possible tac ensign in more, but since both ship would have lt commander an lt tact, the difference would not proove that significant, if ever considering share cooldown )
    so in his proposal your galaxy would be more powerfull, more versatile and will reduce the gap between the 2 ship in term of firepower.
    the slower turn would not be as important as with a ship equiped with cannon.
    as the galaxy is not able to use DHC, it is less important for him, as of today, to have a higher base turn rate, especially with the fleet rcs console that he can use widely with it potential 5 engi console slot.
    so the point is not to have something that match the firepower of the gal x, it never been that, but it will still be more powerfull than what it is now, and nothing can prevent player to go full sci if they want to.

    i am however not against your idea to give him somekind of special science power, indeed this ship should not stay as passive as it is right now
  • mustafatennickmustafatennick Member Posts: 868 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    After 377 pages endless posts conversations arguments for and against can we please put this to bed

    Nobody really cares that much the devs certainly don't care they'll keep selling the ship to Kirk noobs and they'll already have made a fortune

    It's never going to get better both it and the gal x are a joke they will remain that way

    So just give up already drop the signatures, drop this thread into the archives and that's it all done dusted and finished end of
    ----=====This is my opinion you don't have to listen and no one else has to read them these "OPINIONS" are based on my exploits and my learning other people will have their opinions and that's fine just don't knock my way of doing things thanks=====---- :cool:
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    you were saying this, and it was addressed. typical res levels, high aux TSS, and RSP will always be more then enough.

    if its an issue of keeping facing fresh wile your attacking, well a galaxy with no tac isn't attacking, its putting no effort into damaging. other then loading plasma torps and mines and breen torps just so it has something in its weapon slots wile its only doing supporting healing

    What actually occurred was that you quoted two points of mine. I thought you were talking about the lower when you were actually talking about the upper.

    I still say that it makes no sense to not have any tac boff slots.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    What actually occurred was that you quoted two points of mine. I thought you were talking about the lower when you were actually talking about the upper.

    I still say that it makes no sense to not have any tac boff slots.

    if you ever got a chance to be a part of a true premade pvp team, you would have a moment of clarity
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    After 377 pages endless posts conversations arguments for and against can we please put this to bed

    Nobody really cares that much the devs certainly don't care they'll keep selling the ship to Kirk noobs and they'll already have made a fortune

    It's never going to get better both it and the gal x are a joke they will remain that way

    So just give up already drop the signatures, drop this thread into the archives and that's it all done dusted and finished end of
    The Devs never really cared about our issue, why should we stop now?
    They never even bothered to write one single line in this thread.

    By making the Galaxy Class the most passive ship, Cryptic deliberatley condemned every TNG fan to fly the most boring ship in the game. Just because one dev just doesn't find it "cool" enough.
    They are doing this game for US not themselves.

    neo1nx wrote: »
    but the galaxy x is already " that superior" as of today.
    indeed, today even if galaxy player would love to match the galaxy x bo layout, this is not possible. that would be different if the ship have a universal ensign, but it is not.

    so the situation is worst than in the proposal that dontdrunkimshoot made, because there, the player would have the choice to match it almost ( yes they will still be a possible tac ensign in more, but since both ship would have lt commander an lt tact, the difference would not proove that significant, if ever considering share cooldown )
    so in his proposal your galaxy would be more powerfull, more versatile and will reduce the gap between the 2 ship in term of firepower.
    the slower turn would not be as important as with a ship equiped with cannon.
    as the galaxy is not able to use DHC, it is less important for him, as of today, to have a higher base turn rate, especially with the fleet rcs console that he can use widely with it potential 5 engi console slot.
    so the point is not to have something that match the firepower of the gal x, it never been that, but it will still be more powerfull than what it is now, and nothing can prevent player to go full sci if they want to.
    You are right it would reduce the gap, but why only go half way if it would be reworked anyway?

    neo1nx wrote: »
    i am however not against your idea to give him somekind of special science power, indeed this ship should not stay as passive as it is right now
    So, how about giving it some kind of raised Comm array srtengths?

    I think for the sake of "balance" everyone seems to be so anxious about when it comes to Escorts vs. Cruisers, i think the GCS -R should get something in exchange for the lack of the Spinal lance, DHCs and cloak, and a potential higher turn rate. (not to speak of that the G -X is still behind every other Cruiser in the game)

    I know tactical beats everything, but just by giving the tactical version (Galaxy -X) everything and keep the G -R even more behind cannot be the right way IMO. The G -R should get something on its own, besides a more universal BOFF layout.
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • age03age03 Member Posts: 1,664 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    What is your biggest problem with this ship as i don't seem to have that much with it?please no long winded posts.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Age StarTrek-Gamers Administrator
    USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
    Star Trek Gamers
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,579 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    it's a tank in a game that has no purpose for a tank.

    wile it can do all the content in the game it is still out classed and out gunned by ships that are chronologically older then it is (ambassador, excelsior, galor, pretty much all the klingon raiders and the majority of klingon battle cruisers, and to top it off the T'varo form the romulan war before TOS

    that is my main isse the galaxy can be slapped and kicked around by ships centuries older then it's self
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
This discussion has been closed.