The best argument I can give for the Galaxy needing more fire power is - it's the only ship since it's release to be released with as little tactical variety as it has. Even an Ensign tac or Uni would at least give it flexibility. If you look at the released ships - Romulan, Mirror, and Zen Store - only three Romulan ships have a lt tac ensign tac build - everything else has the option to support at least a ltcom tac. The same with the Zen ships. The same with the Lockbox ships.
So the game definitely shows in recent releases that you do need more tactical ability then the Galaxy currently has. She can be used, but you're slowing down your team and gimping yourself to use her. This wouldn't be the case if Borg tactical cubes actually needed to be 'tanked'. This wouldn't be the case if there were scripted events in the maps where a powerful ship with high health and insane healing ability had to soak up a devastating assault for her allies.
As for 'every game making the Galaxy a tier 2 or 3 ship and worthless', in Bridge Commander it's your command ship for most of the game - and still far more powerful then the Vor'cha or D'Deridex class ally ships in the endgame missions. Armada and Armada 2? On par with the Sovereign for pure fire power and tier. Starship Creator? Just as capable as the Sovereign - just more expensive - and she can support a far wider mission profile with the more expansive module room the Galaxy gets. Starfleet Command? Second in power to the Sovereign in the tier, and listed as 'the most versatile ship ever designed by Starfleet - her use only discouraged by her sheer expense and size'.
So your argument doesn't hold water - in every Star Trek game I've ever played, the Galaxy is pretty damned well the top dog, with the Sovereign beating her in pure firepower. If you want to use games as your argument, it's the Defiant that's usually 'small, cheap, and expendable'.
I also seem to recall the outrage over the earlier D'Deridex and Fleet D'Deridex, and the outrage over the Romulans getting a ship as worthless as the 'Failaxy' and the forum outrage until it was changed. So if that layout isn't good enough for the D'Deridex, then why should it be good enough for a Galaxy class who can stand up to one toe to toe?
And don't take this the wrong way - the only thing people who don't like the Galaxy accomplish by coming into the thread and arguing how 'worthless she was on the show' are accomplishing is helping keep the thread alive. It isn't what's said in the forum that will eventually get a change made - it's the post count and when a dev finally gets sick of seeing this on the front page.
The best argument I can give for the Galaxy needing more fire power is - it's the only ship since it's release to be released with as little tactical variety as it has. Even an Ensign tac or Uni would at least give it flexibility. If you look at the released ships - Romulan, Mirror, and Zen Store - only three Romulan ships have a lt tac ensign tac build - everything else has the option to support at least a ltcom tac. The same with the Zen ships. The same with the Lockbox ships.
So the game definitely shows in recent releases that you do need more tactical ability then the Galaxy currently has. She can be used, but you're slowing down your team and gimping yourself to use her. This wouldn't be the case if Borg tactical cubes actually needed to be 'tanked'. This wouldn't be the case if there were scripted events in the maps where a powerful ship with high health and insane healing ability had to soak up a devastating assault for her allies.
As for 'every game making the Galaxy a tier 2 or 3 ship and worthless', in Bridge Commander it's your command ship for most of the game - and still far more powerful then the Vor'cha or D'Deridex class ally ships in the endgame missions. Armada and Armada 2? On par with the Sovereign for pure fire power and tier. Starship Creator? Just as capable as the Sovereign - just more expensive - and she can support a far wider mission profile with the more expansive module room the Galaxy gets. Starfleet Command? Second in power to the Sovereign in the tier, and listed as 'the most versatile ship ever designed by Starfleet - her use only discouraged by her sheer expense and size'.
So your argument doesn't hold water - in every Star Trek game I've ever played, the Galaxy is pretty damned well the top dog, with the Sovereign beating her in pure firepower. If you want to use games as your argument, it's the Defiant that's usually 'small, cheap, and expendable'.
I also seem to recall the outrage over the earlier D'Deridex and Fleet D'Deridex, and the outrage over the Romulans getting a ship as worthless as the 'Failaxy' and the forum outrage until it was changed. So if that layout isn't good enough for the D'Deridex, then why should it be good enough for a Galaxy class who can stand up to one toe to toe?
And don't take this the wrong way - the only thing people who don't like the Galaxy accomplish by coming into the thread and arguing how 'worthless she was on the show' are accomplishing is helping keep the thread alive. It isn't what's said in the forum that will eventually get a change made - it's the post count and when a dev finally gets sick of seeing this on the front page.
I just dont understand why they ever changed the design away from the refit version. Why go from refit with 2 sci slots to the retrofit having its 3 eng slots. its garbage.
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It isn't the three engineer station's that's necessarily useless. It's that so many of the low level engineering powers share cooldown lockouts with more useful powers. Why use Engineering team when it shuts down tac team and sci team - both more useful skills. Sure - Engineering team will fix an offline system, but so will a battery or emergency to x skill, or warp/singularity core capacitor. It's the third ensign engineer that makes it such a difficult problem. There's no use for a third engineer power that doesn't lock out something more valuable and/or sit completely unused on cooldown.
The best fix that doesn't change the galaxy that I can think of is putting DEM 1 at Ensign and leaving 2 and 3 as ltcom and comm? Maybe something new that compliments the cruiser comm array? Ensign, lt, ltcom - Enhanced Communication Protocols. 30 second uptime, 1.5 minute cooldown. Rank 1: Extend Cruiser auras to 7 km and effect by 1 percent, Rank 2: Extend Cruiser Auras to 8.5 km and effect by 2 percent, and Rank 3: Extend Cruiser Auras to 10 km and effect by 3 percent.
Something that every cruiser would have use for - but would fit perfectly in a big, bulky, engineering heavy monster? It's just something that needs done, we're playing a game. I and other players love and want to enjoy the galaxy, and in my - and I'm sure several other people's opinion - the current build isn't fun or particularly useful.
I just dont understand why they ever changed the design away from the refit version. Why go from refit with 2 sci slots to the retrofit having its 3 eng slots. its garbage.
The refit (T4 Venture variant) was introduced long after the G -Retrofit.
I think Cryptic will (if ever) rework the GCS-R BOFF layout, they will make it a science heavy ship.
"...'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
So your argument doesn't hold water - in every Star Trek game I've ever played, the Galaxy is pretty damned well the top dog, with the Sovereign beating her in pure firepower. If you want to use games as your argument, it's the Defiant that's usually 'small, cheap, and expendable'.
Really, I've guess that you're never played "Birth of The Federation" where the most two powerful ships were the Sovereign and the Defiant. As a matter of fact, you needed an Advanced Shipyard to even build those ships. You DIDN"T need one for the GCS.
In any event, it appears that with some of you Galaxy people, "facts" are an inconvenient notion when they don't line up with what YOU think. It's ALWAYS someone else's "fault" After 4000+ posts and over 400 pages with this approach, what do you have to show for it regarding any significant changes in the GCS? Absolutely nothing.
Many of you appear to fail to accept ANY responsibility regarding how your approaches are turning off the STO community "at large" as evidenced by your low support (approx. the SAME 50 or so posters). Also, in the most recent STO poll, TNG scored FOURTH, behind Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise as far as determining the new content that would be included in future seasons. The fact that there wasn't enough of you GCS/TNG fans that participated in this poll to beat out "Enterprise", says a LOT about how much support that there really is here for your cause. Were these poll results "the writers' fault" too?
Other than some of you guys, NO ONE cares what was said in the 20+ year old TNG Tech Manual when it come to portraying the GCS, INCLUDING Paramount/Viacom/CBS. So these mind numbing iterations regarding "phaser array lengths" are no more effective now than they were 17 years ago when the Sovereign was introduced, and the EXACT same arguments were put forth regarding "phaser array lengths". I guess that those who don't learn from the mistakes made in the past ARE truly doomed to repeat them over and over again.
Even I have said that I thought that the GCS was a tad underpowered, but I am puzzled as to why you guys just don't contact CBS directly with your complaints and arguments? Many of you want to make the SAME arguments that have failed to get you anywhere. If you are truly devoted to your "cause" why don't you take that extra step to bring it to fruition?
Thank you Jer. Logical post, and to be honest, I thought I was the only one who knew about Starship Creator. I need to look that game up somewhere. I loved it... God you could make a kick-TRIBBLE Galaxy in that game... All of mine had 4 warp nacelles... Hee hee hee hee...
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Even I have said that I thought that the GCS was a tad underpowered, but I am puzzled as to why you guys just don't contact CBS directly with your complaints and arguments? Many of you want to make the SAME arguments that have failed to get you anywhere. If you are truly devoted to your "cause" why don't you take that extra step to bring it to fruition?
CBS isn't the company that makes this game. Did the Devs say that their hands were tied on altering the GCS thanks to CBS somewhere along the line? I'm willing to bet letters sent to CBS about this will -if they're even answered- have a response to the effect of "Go ***** at Cryptic."
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Really, I've guess that you're never played "Birth of The Federation" where the most two powerful ships were the Sovereign and the Defiant. As a matter of fact, you needed an Advanced Shipyard to even build those ships. You DIDN"T need one for the GCS.
So your one game example - granted one I haven't played - makes all of mine mean nothing? I haven't insulted anyone, I've given my opinion, and you're the one coming in here and being insulting.
If they don't want to buff the Galaxy class, they need to update the engineering powers to make a ship with that many slots not feel as tedious.
Engineering Ensign Powers: Eng Team, Emergency to Shields, Emergency to Weapons, Emergency to Engines, Emergency to Aux. (One of which shares a cooldown with every other team, the other four fight for the same cooldown.
Tac Ensign Powers: Tac Team, torpedo high yield one, torpedo spread 1, beam fire at will 1, beam overload 1. (One of which shares a cooldown with other teams, the rest of which can easily be fit into any build using higher powers for attack patterns and/or cannon abilities), Target subsystems engine, aux, weapons, shields 1.
Sci ensign Powers: Sci Team, Polarize Hull, Hazard Emitters, Jam Sensors, Mask Energy Signature, Tachyon Beam, Tractor Beam, and Transfer Shield Strength. (There's a bit of overlap, but not enough to cause problems with any sci heavy build. Sci team interferes with Eng and Tac team as stated before.)
So we have 5 engineering powers: 4 of which interfere with each other and/or higher ranks of themself and the fifth who fights for up time with the more useful tac and sci teams.
*
Fine, lets say the Galaxy's build and layout is fine. The powers she can slot most certainly aren't as useful OR as fun as those sci or tac stations can field. As for the 'as fun' I am playing a video game and would like the powers to be more fun.
Heals are fine if you're a healer (not needed in this game with the rare exception of a pvp healer who spends his/her match healing themself while their team picks away at those trying to kill the said healer) or using them as your own 'potion supply' to keep you running in other, more entertaining ships. Hell, even moving Tractor Beam and Tractor Beam Repulsors to the engineering tree would make a cruiser more fun, though there are a great many science ship captains who would lynch me for the comment.
*
And in closing, you wandering in and telling us our thread is worthless means that the only thing you have worth doing is complaining about us... Not a very appealing prospect on your part. Though those of us who would like a more fun Galaxy or more useful engineering powers do thank you for promoting the thread and increasing our post and view count.
CBS isn't the company that makes this game. Did the Devs say that their hands were tied on altering the GCS thanks to CBS somewhere along the line? I'm willing to bet letters sent to CBS about this will -if they're even answered- have a response to the effect of "Go ***** at Cryptic."
The devs have in fact said in the past that they had to get permission from CBS regarding the ships, since CBS does own the Intellectual Property rights to those ships. CBS is the licensor for Star Trek, and Cryptic is the licensee. Here is the info someone else in another thread with a similar suggestion provided:
CBS
7800 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90036
or try this one:
CBS Headquarters
51 W. 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019-6188
1-212-975-4321
Perhaps if you guys try another tactic, you will finally get somewhere.
even in birth of the feds the 2 top ships before the advanced ship yard is the galaxy command cruiser and the galaxy-x heavy cruiser
the defiant wile has the fire power and is quick (with the fasted warp travel of 9 spaces per turn) is not any where near cost efficient in that game (you could build 6 gal-Xs for the same cost as 1 defiant) and will die almost instantly as it can not take a hit to save it's life
the gal-x and sov in that game are equal in performance the gal-x can take more hits but the sov does more damage
Really, I've guess that you're never played "Birth of The Federation" where the most two powerful ships were the Sovereign and the Defiant. As a matter of fact, you needed an Advanced Shipyard to even build those ships. You DIDN"T need one for the GCS.
I was played the "Birth of The Federation" for countless times (since was the first game ever had from star trek, and no internet aviable for long time) play that alone on lan games with each faction, in lates times with any mod can find...
stilll have the original box of it on a shelf in top of mi pc (looking at it now) im put every mod ever made but in any case im ALLWAYS keep a GSC on my fleet and refited to top tech and usit as flag ship with top tech and veteran crew that was a hard boy even with a fleet of mirandas (cannon fodder) the GSC win the day and comback home was the harder to kill and top 3 fire power (veary few times made defiants easy to kill and expensibe for they small chance to survive) on the game she melt down outpost and any defense in her path...
man love that game can play this and eat pizza talk by phone and the GSC will win the battle xD
the only thing why i dont install this agian is because is unstable on this windows.
trait stubborn still flyng the galaxy ship in a lost attemp to feel the ship fit in this "Star Trek ESCORTS vs frikin dynos with laser in the heads" xD
So your one game example - granted one I haven't played - makes all of mine mean nothing? I haven't insulted anyone, I've given my opinion, and you're the one coming in here and being insulting.
If they don't want to buff the Galaxy class, they need to update the engineering powers to make a ship with that many slots not feel as tedious.
Engineering Ensign Powers: Eng Team, Emergency to Shields, Emergency to Weapons, Emergency to Engines, Emergency to Aux. (One of which shares a cooldown with every other team, the other four fight for the same cooldown.
Tac Ensign Powers: Tac Team, torpedo high yield one, torpedo spread 1, beam fire at will 1, beam overload 1. (One of which shares a cooldown with other teams, the rest of which can easily be fit into any build using higher powers for attack patterns and/or cannon abilities), Target subsystems engine, aux, weapons, shields 1.
Sci ensign Powers: Sci Team, Polarize Hull, Hazard Emitters, Jam Sensors, Mask Energy Signature, Tachyon Beam, Tractor Beam, and Transfer Shield Strength. (There's a bit of overlap, but not enough to cause problems with any sci heavy build. Sci team interferes with Eng and Tac team as stated before.)
So we have 5 engineering powers: 4 of which interfere with each other and/or higher ranks of themself and the fifth who fights for up time with the more useful tac and sci teams.
*
Fine, lets say the Galaxy's build and layout is fine. The powers she can slot most certainly aren't as useful OR as fun as those sci or tac stations can field. As for the 'as fun' I am playing a video game and would like the powers to be more fun.
Heals are fine if you're a healer (not needed in this game with the rare exception of a pvp healer who spends his/her match healing themself while their team picks away at those trying to kill the said healer) or using them as your own 'potion supply' to keep you running in other, more entertaining ships. Hell, even moving Tractor Beam and Tractor Beam Repulsors to the engineering tree would make a cruiser more fun, though there are a great many science ship captains who would lynch me for the comment.
*
And in closing, you wandering in and telling us our thread is worthless means that the only thing you have worth doing is complaining about us... Not a very appealing prospect on your part. Though those of us who would like a more fun Galaxy or more useful engineering powers do thank you for promoting the thread and increasing our post and view count.
I've provided numerous expales in previous posts. Please go and do your research and find those other game example that I previously cited. Unlike some of you guys here, I don't feel the need to repeat long posts ad nauseum.
Jer, nicely said, you seem to be hitting lots of nails on the head here. Gotta love PB1, keeps our thread entertaining with his useless diatribe.
The Galaxy-X should be done by Christmas I guess from the recent interview with Geko, hopefully a change to Engineer Classes will see the GCS in general more fun.
Keep up the great work guys, good hunting.
You're a funny guy. What's not so funny (at least for you) is that EVERY ship that has been released by Cryptic since this thread was created has had a better tactical layout than the GCS. No matter how many insults you throw out, you or anyone else supporting this thread can't change that fact.
Other than posting on this board, you guys have never had a strategy to tackle your GSC "problem". No letter writing campaign, no economic boycott, nothing. Simply the same "rinse, lather, and repeat" failing strategy that has resulted in absolutely zero results.
I see that NO ONE wanted to address those low poll numbers for the TNG related content in the most recent poll. For those of you who claim that there is a "silent majority" in support of the GCS changes that you want, it sure wasn't reflected in those poll numbers. I guess that they really ARE silent (minority). Get use to the idea that TNG/GCS is not as "iconic" to the STO players as you have imagined.
Really, I've guess that you're never played "Birth of The Federation" where the most two powerful ships were the Sovereign and the Defiant. As a matter of fact, you needed an Advanced Shipyard to even build those ships. You DIDN"T need one for the GCS.
Apples and oranges. Different game alltogehter. Tell me, was the Excelsior also top dog in "Birth of the Federation"?
In any event, it appears that with some of you Galaxy people, "facts" are an inconvenient notion when they don't line up with what YOU think. It's ALWAYS someone else's "fault" After 4000+ posts and over 400 pages with this approach, what do you have to show for it regarding any significant changes in the GCS? Absolutely nothing.
And you keep popping up in this thread every now and then trying to attack everyone that wants improvements on the ship. Granted you raised your level of communication after the last temporary lockdown to wipeout most of your posts that were deemed insulting by the mods, together with some other players' that responded on the same level.
So what do you have to show regarding significant changes to this thread and people's interest in seeing the Galaxy more competitive in STO? Absolutely nothing.
So why don't you try to have a civilized discussion as to why you think that a 2k Zen Tier 5 ship, not to mention one of the most iconic four, deserves to be left behind just because it's based on a game model that no longer exists in STO instead of atatcking the way people in the thread go about achieving any improvements on the Galaxy class?
Many of you appear to fail to accept ANY responsibility regarding how your approaches are turning off the STO community "at large" as evidenced by your low support (approx. the SAME 50 or so posters). Also, in the most recent STO poll, TNG scored FOURTH, behind Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise as far as determining the new content that would be included in future seasons. The fact that there wasn't enough of you GCS/TNG fans that participated in this poll to beat out "Enterprise", says a LOT about how much support that there really is here for your cause. Were these poll results "the writers' fault" too?
I voted for Enterprise. And yet I want a more competitive Galaxy class in STO. Your point?
There really aren't that many Star Trek games. The ones I know of with the Galaxy in them are:
Favorable:
Star Trek TNG: A Final Unity player ship, relatively powerful Star Trek TNG: Generations player ship, powerful and in the players hands survives the film/game Star Trek Bridge Commander player ship, powerful and only outmatched by the quantum and phased quantum torpedoes the Sovereign carries Star Trek: Starfleet Command 1-3 player ship, highest tier under the Sovereign, very powerful and expensive Star Trek: Starship Creator player ship, only outgunned by the Sovereign - but can successfully complete the most mission profiles in the game. Star Trek Armada hero ship in two missions, recruitable in a 3rd - easily matches/outpowers the Sovereign Star Trek Armada 2 player ship, second only to the Sovereign and her Corbomite Reflector Star Trek Legacy player ship, only surpassed by the hero sovereigns Enterprise E and Legacy Star Trek: Dominion Wars Most powerful ship in the game - tied with the Achilles - which as fun as she was - was a mary sue ship to the end of the world.
Non-favorable:
Star Trek Online Engineering cooldowns and turn rate keep it at the bottom of the cruiser totem pole for every faction.
Star Trek: Birth of the Federation This one is iffy. You say it's horrible, but other people have commented right after you that she was one of the better endgame ships. So who knows.
Now my question to you is, if the games give it an 9 - 2 favorable/powerful classification - with one of the two against being 'iffy' - what other games am I missing? Elite Force? You don't fly ships and they take place completely on Voyager/Enterprise E. The DS9 for the super nintendo? No starships as far as I remember. DS9: The Fallen? No starship combat as far as I know - but I'll admit I'm wrong if someone argues with me. Star Trek: Away Team? Only Federation ship was an 'experimental Defiant' called the Incursion - and again, no ship combat.
The only ship that has a better game presence the Galaxy is the Sovereign. The only reason the Sovereign has a better game presence is because Activision pushed Trek gaming like an absolute junkie during the TNG movies/DS9 era.
As for the ship in other media, for every example you can give me of the Galaxy being underpowered, I can give you one of her being an absolute beast and just as powerful as anyone else can claim. We've seen three Galaxy class ships destroyed: One survived a fifteen minute fight with Jem'Hadar attack ships with useless shields - and the attack ships had to kamikaze to finish her off. One was lost because Will Riker is a moron who couldn't remember the words 'Rotate Shield Frequencies'. The last was an Iconian virus. You know, the same mysterious, super powerful, 'redacted' aliens we're gearing up to face in season 9 and 10?
I don't want an overpowered Galaxy class - I want something slightly more fitting for the current content in the game. The Galaxy is set up right now to be a 'Tank'. Star Trek Online has no need for a dedicated tank. I've seen Defiant's tank tactical cubes for Pete's sake. I want to be able to fly a Galaxy class without punishing myself or my team members by flying a substandard ship. I want something that fits into the power balance a little better then it does. Something that isn't completely and totally surpassed by ships one hundred years older then she is and ships that it was constantly seen outperforming on screen.
I'll finish with the fact that three Galaxy class starships - granted, the same ship from different points in time - managed to seal an Anti-Time Eruption and save the universe. It doesn't get much more awesome then that.
As to the content poll - lets be fair. TNG seasons 1-5 threats were Romulans (allies now with homeworld destroyed), Borg (you know - when they were scary and awesome), the Ferengi (before they became over ambitious barkeeps), and the 'villian if the week'.
Seasons six and seven were internal conflict, the maquis, and warp speed speedlimits.
Those internal conflicts and Maquis became DS9 issues - all of which were reliably wrapped up during DS9. The only legitimate threat TNG or DS9 left were the 2600 and we already took care of that.
Voyager won because it has seventy THOUSAND light years of new content possible. Kazon, Vidians, Krennin, Psycho Ocampa, Borg controlled space, the Malon... Its ripe territory for missions and unknown baddies. I would much rather fight Voth then Sheliak.
Just because I think Voyager enemies would be more fun, it doesn't mean I wouldn't rather face them in a shiny upgraded Galaxy with some actual firepower.
also you keep saying tactical galaxy every one wants a tactical galaxy
well i want a sci galaxy to be a CC team heal tank. as it is right now the over engineered layout of the current galaxy actually makes it a pretty pore tank.
There really aren't that many Star Trek games. The ones I know of with the Galaxy in them are:
Favorable:
Star Trek TNG: A Final Unity player ship, relatively powerful Star Trek TNG: Generations player ship, powerful and in the players hands survives the film/game Star Trek Bridge Commander player ship, powerful and only outmatched by the quantum and phased quantum torpedoes the Sovereign carries Star Trek: Starfleet Command 1-3 player ship, highest tier under the Sovereign, very powerful and expensive Star Trek: Starship Creator player ship, only outgunned by the Sovereign - but can successfully complete the most mission profiles in the game. Star Trek Armada hero ship in two missions, recruitable in a 3rd - easily matches/outpowers the Sovereign Star Trek Armada 2 player ship, second only to the Sovereign and her Corbomite Reflector Star Trek Legacy player ship, only surpassed by the hero sovereigns Enterprise E and Legacy Star Trek: Dominion Wars Most powerful ship in the game - tied with the Achilles - which as fun as she was - was a mary sue ship to the end of the world.
Non-favorable:
Star Trek Online Engineering cooldowns and turn rate keep it at the bottom of the cruiser totem pole for every faction.
Star Trek: Birth of the Federation This one is iffy. You say it's horrible, but other people have commented right after you that she was one of the better endgame ships. So who knows.
Now my question to you is, if the games give it an 9 - 2 favorable/powerful classification - with one of the two against being 'iffy' - what other games am I missing? Elite Force? You don't fly ships and they take place completely on Voyager/Enterprise E. The DS9 for the super nintendo? No starships as far as I remember. DS9: The Fallen? No starship combat as far as I know - but I'll admit I'm wrong if someone argues with me. Star Trek: Away Team? Only Federation ship was an 'experimental Defiant' called the Incursion - and again, no ship combat.
The only ship that has a better game presence the Galaxy is the Sovereign. The only reason the Sovereign has a better game presence is because Activision pushed Trek gaming like an absolute junkie during the TNG movies/DS9 era.
As for the ship in other media, for every example you can give me of the Galaxy being underpowered, I can give you one of her being an absolute beast and just as powerful as anyone else can claim. We've seen three Galaxy class ships destroyed: One survived a fifteen minute fight with Jem'Hadar attack ships with useless shields - and the attack ships had to kamikaze to finish her off. One was lost because Will Riker is a moron who couldn't remember the words 'Rotate Shield Frequencies'. The last was an Iconian virus. You know, the same mysterious, super powerful, 'redacted' aliens we're gearing up to face in season 9 and 10?
I don't want an overpowered Galaxy class - I want something slightly more fitting for the current content in the game. The Galaxy is set up right now to be a 'Tank'. Star Trek Online has no need for a dedicated tank. I've seen Defiant's tank tactical cubes for Pete's sake. I want to be able to fly a Galaxy class without punishing myself or my team members by flying a substandard ship. I want something that fits into the power balance a little better then it does. Something that isn't completely and totally surpassed by ships one hundred years older then she is and ships that it was constantly seen outperforming on screen.
I'll finish with the fact that three Galaxy class starships - granted, the same ship from different points in time - managed to seal an Anti-Time Eruption and save the universe. It doesn't get much more awesome then that.
And AGAIN, in all of those games that featured the Sovereign, the GCS was inferior to the Sovereign, and hence second rate.
AGAIN, what is you guys plan other than utilizing the same failing strategies? Probably none (as usual).
Apples and oranges. Different game alltogehter. Tell me, was the Excelsior also top dog in "Birth of the Federation"?
And you keep popping up in this thread every now and then trying to attack everyone that wants improvements on the ship. Granted you raised your level of communication after the last temporary lockdown to wipeout most of your posts that were deemed insulting by the mods, together with some other players' that responded on the same level.
So what do you have to show regarding significant changes to this thread and people's interest in seeing the Galaxy more competitive in STO? Absolutely nothing.
I voted for Enterprise. And yet I want a more competitive Galaxy class in STO. Your point?
And yet, I'm happy with my ship and it's FIVE tactical slots. So I HAVE gained. Can you say the same thing with your two console ship? Clearly not.
I'll keep saying it again and again. Give the Galaxy R all universal BO slots and the ships is fix. Canon she is the most versitile ship Starfleet has thus she should support any BO layout you want for your ship. SHe be worht the price and still be a balanced ship for everything else would remain the same and it will be a simple fix.
And yet, I'm happy with my ship and it's FIVE tactical slots. So I HAVE gained. Can you say the same thing with your two console ship? Clearly not.
and what ship do you have? and with 5 that makes it an escort were talking an Ionic cruiser that CANON WISE was versitile ship. STO has failed to do this. Now i can play the Galaxy in here well but it can be done better with other ships. All we want is for her to be useful again. Wether you like the galaxy or not if you are a trek fan you can at least agree that the ship is not represented right and needs a fix.
And AGAIN, in all of those games that featured the Sovereign, the GCS was inferior to the Sovereign, and hence second rate.
AGAIN, what is you guys plan other than utilizing the same failing strategies? Probably none (as usual).
see that is what YOU seem to fail to get. we do not want it to be the best cruiser EEEVVAAAH!!!!
what we do want is for to at least be competitive. what you are failing to get is that in other games it was ONLY beat by the sov in this game it's beat by every thing including the T5 cheyenne the cheyenne let that sink in for a minute
Apples and oranges. Different game alltogehter. Tell me, was the Excelsior also top dog in "Birth of the Federation"?
And you keep popping up in this thread every now and then trying to attack everyone that wants improvements on the ship. Granted you raised your level of communication after the last temporary lockdown to wipeout most of your posts that were deemed insulting by the mods, together with some other players' that responded on the same level.
So what do you have to show regarding significant changes to this thread and people's interest in seeing the Galaxy more competitive in STO? Absolutely nothing
I voted for Enterprise. And yet I want a more competitive Galaxy class in STO. Your point?
Nice bit of revisionist history there. Again, you guys absolutely take no responsibility for your own actions on this thread. Far too many of you GSC fans set the tone for the disrespect, and then whined like babies with skinned knees when you were on the receiving end of what you were dishing out. And NONE of you even bothered to monitor each other to bring the tension down UNTIL the site was temporary closed. Do you remember the nut who laughingly threaten to have me "banned" in the game (good luck), and how you GCS guys refused to say anything to him regarding that?
You ONLY intervene when it's an opposing viewpoint. When it's a person with YOUR viewpoint, you guys RARELY step in, no matter how ill mannered they are behaving. I'm seeing that same pattern emerging with other posters who oppose your viewpoints. Honestly, you guys would have more creditability if you were consistent in both your behaviors AND your arguments ("it's the writers' fault"). But you seem to determined to "feed" the opposing viewpoint filet mignon on a garbage can top, and expect them to say "yum-yum". Sorry, life doesn't work that way.
Fine - so what do you suggest? What strategy would you adopt, oh mighty Oracle?
Really? Do you need that much hand holding? In any event, I suggested that you guys get organized to try to contact CBS directly with the contact info that I graciously gave to you. At least TRY to do something else that may yield results. If that doesn't work, hey that's life. But at least you can say that you TRIED.
I very much doubt that the poster whom you directed that response to will agree.
His replies follow a pattern that seldom ever deviates from the following:
Telling us we're wrong.
Telling us why he thinks we're wrong.
Telling us why we're wrong to disagree with him.
Generally insulting any pro-galaxy revamp supporters for not achieving anything.
And sadly, never really offering any useful advice on how he thinks something could be achieved, since he doesn't seem able to post anything outside of the aforementioned cycle.
I gave you CBS's address and telephone number, which is apparently more than ANY of you bothered to even look up. The rest is up to you. If you have as large of a GCS fanbase as you claim, then perhaps you can organize this so called large GCS group to make a case for your position. I can't make that case for you. That's YOUR job.
Unfortunately, I'm so convinced that you guys only want to continue to whine on this forum, I'll bet that not a SINGLE ONE of you will take the effort to contact CBS directly to coherently express your concerns/requests regarding the GCS.
Nice bit of revisionist history there. Again, you guys absolutely take no responsibility for your own actions on this thread. Far too many of you GSC fans set the tone for the disrespect, and then whined like babies with skinned knees when you were on the receiving end of what you were dishing out. And NONE of you even bothered to monitor each other to bring the tension down UNTIL the site was temporary closed. Do you remember the nut who laughingly threaten to have me "banned" in the game (good luck), and how you GCS guys refused to say anything to him regarding that?
You ONLY intervene when it's an opposing viewpoint. When it's a person with YOUR viewpoint, you guys RARELY step in, no matter how ill mannered they are behaving. I'm seeing that same pattern emerging with other posters who oppose your viewpoints. Honestly, you guys would have more creditability if you were consistent in both your behaviors AND your arguments ("it's the writers' fault"). But you seem to determined to "feed" the opposing viewpoint filet mignon on a garbage can top, and expect them to say "yum-yum". Sorry, life doesn't work that way.
Responsibility for my actions? Sure, I'll take full responsibility for my actions.
Oh, you ment that I need to take responsibilty for everyone's actions here! Sorry, life doesn't work that way. I can speak only for myself, as everyone else on the thread since noone here has been elected to be the representative of anything.
You see, there is no "you guys" here, I'm sure it's a shocking concept for you, but there's just bunch of people that think a ship needs to be improved in some way. And that's about it. We all have our own ideas how to go about it and on some we agree on some we don't. There's no organized "Fans of TNG/Galaxy class" conspiracy here.
And please don't make me laugh, why didn't I monitor some other dude/girl on the thread? Do I look like a Moderator to you? Is my avatar title in purple?
Let me make this perfectly clear - I only step in when I feel that I'm personally adressed. I'm not a forum Moderator nor the Forum Police. So you're knocking on the wrong door there.
Did I intervene on you? Sorry, I thought that was called a discussion. I only pointed out that the latest poll for content has nothing to do with the Galaxy class and I asked you why don't you try explaining in a rational manner why you think that the hero ship of one of the 5 Star Trek shows deserves to be the suckiest ship in game insetad of just repeating that "it should suck at that's it".
If you call that intervening, then so be it.
Comments
So the game definitely shows in recent releases that you do need more tactical ability then the Galaxy currently has. She can be used, but you're slowing down your team and gimping yourself to use her. This wouldn't be the case if Borg tactical cubes actually needed to be 'tanked'. This wouldn't be the case if there were scripted events in the maps where a powerful ship with high health and insane healing ability had to soak up a devastating assault for her allies.
As for 'every game making the Galaxy a tier 2 or 3 ship and worthless', in Bridge Commander it's your command ship for most of the game - and still far more powerful then the Vor'cha or D'Deridex class ally ships in the endgame missions. Armada and Armada 2? On par with the Sovereign for pure fire power and tier. Starship Creator? Just as capable as the Sovereign - just more expensive - and she can support a far wider mission profile with the more expansive module room the Galaxy gets. Starfleet Command? Second in power to the Sovereign in the tier, and listed as 'the most versatile ship ever designed by Starfleet - her use only discouraged by her sheer expense and size'.
So your argument doesn't hold water - in every Star Trek game I've ever played, the Galaxy is pretty damned well the top dog, with the Sovereign beating her in pure firepower. If you want to use games as your argument, it's the Defiant that's usually 'small, cheap, and expendable'.
I also seem to recall the outrage over the earlier D'Deridex and Fleet D'Deridex, and the outrage over the Romulans getting a ship as worthless as the 'Failaxy' and the forum outrage until it was changed. So if that layout isn't good enough for the D'Deridex, then why should it be good enough for a Galaxy class who can stand up to one toe to toe?
And don't take this the wrong way - the only thing people who don't like the Galaxy accomplish by coming into the thread and arguing how 'worthless she was on the show' are accomplishing is helping keep the thread alive. It isn't what's said in the forum that will eventually get a change made - it's the post count and when a dev finally gets sick of seeing this on the front page.
Well said...
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The best fix that doesn't change the galaxy that I can think of is putting DEM 1 at Ensign and leaving 2 and 3 as ltcom and comm? Maybe something new that compliments the cruiser comm array? Ensign, lt, ltcom - Enhanced Communication Protocols. 30 second uptime, 1.5 minute cooldown. Rank 1: Extend Cruiser auras to 7 km and effect by 1 percent, Rank 2: Extend Cruiser Auras to 8.5 km and effect by 2 percent, and Rank 3: Extend Cruiser Auras to 10 km and effect by 3 percent.
Something that every cruiser would have use for - but would fit perfectly in a big, bulky, engineering heavy monster? It's just something that needs done, we're playing a game. I and other players love and want to enjoy the galaxy, and in my - and I'm sure several other people's opinion - the current build isn't fun or particularly useful.
I think Cryptic will (if ever) rework the GCS-R BOFF layout, they will make it a science heavy ship.
Really, I've guess that you're never played "Birth of The Federation" where the most two powerful ships were the Sovereign and the Defiant. As a matter of fact, you needed an Advanced Shipyard to even build those ships. You DIDN"T need one for the GCS.
In any event, it appears that with some of you Galaxy people, "facts" are an inconvenient notion when they don't line up with what YOU think. It's ALWAYS someone else's "fault" After 4000+ posts and over 400 pages with this approach, what do you have to show for it regarding any significant changes in the GCS? Absolutely nothing.
Many of you appear to fail to accept ANY responsibility regarding how your approaches are turning off the STO community "at large" as evidenced by your low support (approx. the SAME 50 or so posters). Also, in the most recent STO poll, TNG scored FOURTH, behind Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise as far as determining the new content that would be included in future seasons. The fact that there wasn't enough of you GCS/TNG fans that participated in this poll to beat out "Enterprise", says a LOT about how much support that there really is here for your cause. Were these poll results "the writers' fault" too?
Other than some of you guys, NO ONE cares what was said in the 20+ year old TNG Tech Manual when it come to portraying the GCS, INCLUDING Paramount/Viacom/CBS. So these mind numbing iterations regarding "phaser array lengths" are no more effective now than they were 17 years ago when the Sovereign was introduced, and the EXACT same arguments were put forth regarding "phaser array lengths". I guess that those who don't learn from the mistakes made in the past ARE truly doomed to repeat them over and over again.
Even I have said that I thought that the GCS was a tad underpowered, but I am puzzled as to why you guys just don't contact CBS directly with your complaints and arguments? Many of you want to make the SAME arguments that have failed to get you anywhere. If you are truly devoted to your "cause" why don't you take that extra step to bring it to fruition?
Thank you Jer. Logical post, and to be honest, I thought I was the only one who knew about Starship Creator. I need to look that game up somewhere. I loved it... God you could make a kick-TRIBBLE Galaxy in that game... All of mine had 4 warp nacelles... Hee hee hee hee...
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
CBS isn't the company that makes this game. Did the Devs say that their hands were tied on altering the GCS thanks to CBS somewhere along the line? I'm willing to bet letters sent to CBS about this will -if they're even answered- have a response to the effect of "Go ***** at Cryptic."
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
So your one game example - granted one I haven't played - makes all of mine mean nothing? I haven't insulted anyone, I've given my opinion, and you're the one coming in here and being insulting.
If they don't want to buff the Galaxy class, they need to update the engineering powers to make a ship with that many slots not feel as tedious.
Engineering Ensign Powers: Eng Team, Emergency to Shields, Emergency to Weapons, Emergency to Engines, Emergency to Aux. (One of which shares a cooldown with every other team, the other four fight for the same cooldown.
Tac Ensign Powers: Tac Team, torpedo high yield one, torpedo spread 1, beam fire at will 1, beam overload 1. (One of which shares a cooldown with other teams, the rest of which can easily be fit into any build using higher powers for attack patterns and/or cannon abilities), Target subsystems engine, aux, weapons, shields 1.
Sci ensign Powers: Sci Team, Polarize Hull, Hazard Emitters, Jam Sensors, Mask Energy Signature, Tachyon Beam, Tractor Beam, and Transfer Shield Strength. (There's a bit of overlap, but not enough to cause problems with any sci heavy build. Sci team interferes with Eng and Tac team as stated before.)
So we have 5 engineering powers: 4 of which interfere with each other and/or higher ranks of themself and the fifth who fights for up time with the more useful tac and sci teams.
*
Fine, lets say the Galaxy's build and layout is fine. The powers she can slot most certainly aren't as useful OR as fun as those sci or tac stations can field. As for the 'as fun' I am playing a video game and would like the powers to be more fun.
Heals are fine if you're a healer (not needed in this game with the rare exception of a pvp healer who spends his/her match healing themself while their team picks away at those trying to kill the said healer) or using them as your own 'potion supply' to keep you running in other, more entertaining ships. Hell, even moving Tractor Beam and Tractor Beam Repulsors to the engineering tree would make a cruiser more fun, though there are a great many science ship captains who would lynch me for the comment.
*
And in closing, you wandering in and telling us our thread is worthless means that the only thing you have worth doing is complaining about us... Not a very appealing prospect on your part. Though those of us who would like a more fun Galaxy or more useful engineering powers do thank you for promoting the thread and increasing our post and view count.
The devs have in fact said in the past that they had to get permission from CBS regarding the ships, since CBS does own the Intellectual Property rights to those ships. CBS is the licensor for Star Trek, and Cryptic is the licensee. Here is the info someone else in another thread with a similar suggestion provided:
CBS
7800 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90036
or try this one:
CBS Headquarters
51 W. 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019-6188
1-212-975-4321
Perhaps if you guys try another tactic, you will finally get somewhere.
the defiant wile has the fire power and is quick (with the fasted warp travel of 9 spaces per turn) is not any where near cost efficient in that game (you could build 6 gal-Xs for the same cost as 1 defiant) and will die almost instantly as it can not take a hit to save it's life
the gal-x and sov in that game are equal in performance the gal-x can take more hits but the sov does more damage
I was played the "Birth of The Federation" for countless times (since was the first game ever had from star trek, and no internet aviable for long time) play that alone on lan games with each faction, in lates times with any mod can find...
stilll have the original box of it on a shelf in top of mi pc (looking at it now) im put every mod ever made but in any case im ALLWAYS keep a GSC on my fleet and refited to top tech and usit as flag ship with top tech and veteran crew that was a hard boy even with a fleet of mirandas (cannon fodder) the GSC win the day and comback home was the harder to kill and top 3 fire power (veary few times made defiants easy to kill and expensibe for they small chance to survive) on the game she melt down outpost and any defense in her path...
man love that game can play this and eat pizza talk by phone and the GSC will win the battle xD
the only thing why i dont install this agian is because is unstable on this windows.
trait stubborn still flyng the galaxy ship in a lost attemp to feel the ship fit in this "Star Trek ESCORTS vs frikin dynos with laser in the heads" xD
I've provided numerous expales in previous posts. Please go and do your research and find those other game example that I previously cited. Unlike some of you guys here, I don't feel the need to repeat long posts ad nauseum.
You're a funny guy. What's not so funny (at least for you) is that EVERY ship that has been released by Cryptic since this thread was created has had a better tactical layout than the GCS. No matter how many insults you throw out, you or anyone else supporting this thread can't change that fact.
Other than posting on this board, you guys have never had a strategy to tackle your GSC "problem". No letter writing campaign, no economic boycott, nothing. Simply the same "rinse, lather, and repeat" failing strategy that has resulted in absolutely zero results.
I see that NO ONE wanted to address those low poll numbers for the TNG related content in the most recent poll. For those of you who claim that there is a "silent majority" in support of the GCS changes that you want, it sure wasn't reflected in those poll numbers. I guess that they really ARE silent (minority). Get use to the idea that TNG/GCS is not as "iconic" to the STO players as you have imagined.
Apples and oranges. Different game alltogehter. Tell me, was the Excelsior also top dog in "Birth of the Federation"?
And you keep popping up in this thread every now and then trying to attack everyone that wants improvements on the ship. Granted you raised your level of communication after the last temporary lockdown to wipeout most of your posts that were deemed insulting by the mods, together with some other players' that responded on the same level.
So what do you have to show regarding significant changes to this thread and people's interest in seeing the Galaxy more competitive in STO? Absolutely nothing.
So why don't you try to have a civilized discussion as to why you think that a 2k Zen Tier 5 ship, not to mention one of the most iconic four, deserves to be left behind just because it's based on a game model that no longer exists in STO instead of atatcking the way people in the thread go about achieving any improvements on the Galaxy class?
I voted for Enterprise. And yet I want a more competitive Galaxy class in STO. Your point?
Favorable:
Star Trek TNG: A Final Unity player ship, relatively powerful
Star Trek TNG: Generations player ship, powerful and in the players hands survives the film/game
Star Trek Bridge Commander player ship, powerful and only outmatched by the quantum and phased quantum torpedoes the Sovereign carries
Star Trek: Starfleet Command 1-3 player ship, highest tier under the Sovereign, very powerful and expensive
Star Trek: Starship Creator player ship, only outgunned by the Sovereign - but can successfully complete the most mission profiles in the game.
Star Trek Armada hero ship in two missions, recruitable in a 3rd - easily matches/outpowers the Sovereign
Star Trek Armada 2 player ship, second only to the Sovereign and her Corbomite Reflector
Star Trek Legacy player ship, only surpassed by the hero sovereigns Enterprise E and Legacy
Star Trek: Dominion Wars Most powerful ship in the game - tied with the Achilles - which as fun as she was - was a mary sue ship to the end of the world.
Non-favorable:
Star Trek Online Engineering cooldowns and turn rate keep it at the bottom of the cruiser totem pole for every faction.
Star Trek: Birth of the Federation This one is iffy. You say it's horrible, but other people have commented right after you that she was one of the better endgame ships. So who knows.
Now my question to you is, if the games give it an 9 - 2 favorable/powerful classification - with one of the two against being 'iffy' - what other games am I missing? Elite Force? You don't fly ships and they take place completely on Voyager/Enterprise E. The DS9 for the super nintendo? No starships as far as I remember. DS9: The Fallen? No starship combat as far as I know - but I'll admit I'm wrong if someone argues with me. Star Trek: Away Team? Only Federation ship was an 'experimental Defiant' called the Incursion - and again, no ship combat.
The only ship that has a better game presence the Galaxy is the Sovereign. The only reason the Sovereign has a better game presence is because Activision pushed Trek gaming like an absolute junkie during the TNG movies/DS9 era.
As for the ship in other media, for every example you can give me of the Galaxy being underpowered, I can give you one of her being an absolute beast and just as powerful as anyone else can claim. We've seen three Galaxy class ships destroyed: One survived a fifteen minute fight with Jem'Hadar attack ships with useless shields - and the attack ships had to kamikaze to finish her off. One was lost because Will Riker is a moron who couldn't remember the words 'Rotate Shield Frequencies'. The last was an Iconian virus. You know, the same mysterious, super powerful, 'redacted' aliens we're gearing up to face in season 9 and 10?
I don't want an overpowered Galaxy class - I want something slightly more fitting for the current content in the game. The Galaxy is set up right now to be a 'Tank'. Star Trek Online has no need for a dedicated tank. I've seen Defiant's tank tactical cubes for Pete's sake. I want to be able to fly a Galaxy class without punishing myself or my team members by flying a substandard ship. I want something that fits into the power balance a little better then it does. Something that isn't completely and totally surpassed by ships one hundred years older then she is and ships that it was constantly seen outperforming on screen.
I'll finish with the fact that three Galaxy class starships - granted, the same ship from different points in time - managed to seal an Anti-Time Eruption and save the universe. It doesn't get much more awesome then that.
Seasons six and seven were internal conflict, the maquis, and warp speed speedlimits.
Those internal conflicts and Maquis became DS9 issues - all of which were reliably wrapped up during DS9. The only legitimate threat TNG or DS9 left were the 2600 and we already took care of that.
Voyager won because it has seventy THOUSAND light years of new content possible. Kazon, Vidians, Krennin, Psycho Ocampa, Borg controlled space, the Malon... Its ripe territory for missions and unknown baddies. I would much rather fight Voth then Sheliak.
Just because I think Voyager enemies would be more fun, it doesn't mean I wouldn't rather face them in a shiny upgraded Galaxy with some actual firepower.
well i want a sci galaxy to be a CC team heal tank. as it is right now the over engineered layout of the current galaxy actually makes it a pretty pore tank.
And AGAIN, in all of those games that featured the Sovereign, the GCS was inferior to the Sovereign, and hence second rate.
AGAIN, what is you guys plan other than utilizing the same failing strategies? Probably none (as usual).
And yet, I'm happy with my ship and it's FIVE tactical slots. So I HAVE gained. Can you say the same thing with your two console ship? Clearly not.
and what ship do you have? and with 5 that makes it an escort were talking an Ionic cruiser that CANON WISE was versitile ship. STO has failed to do this. Now i can play the Galaxy in here well but it can be done better with other ships. All we want is for her to be useful again. Wether you like the galaxy or not if you are a trek fan you can at least agree that the ship is not represented right and needs a fix.
see that is what YOU seem to fail to get. we do not want it to be the best cruiser EEEVVAAAH!!!!
what we do want is for to at least be competitive. what you are failing to get is that in other games it was ONLY beat by the sov in this game it's beat by every thing including the T5 cheyenne the cheyenne let that sink in for a minute
Nice bit of revisionist history there. Again, you guys absolutely take no responsibility for your own actions on this thread. Far too many of you GSC fans set the tone for the disrespect, and then whined like babies with skinned knees when you were on the receiving end of what you were dishing out. And NONE of you even bothered to monitor each other to bring the tension down UNTIL the site was temporary closed. Do you remember the nut who laughingly threaten to have me "banned" in the game (good luck), and how you GCS guys refused to say anything to him regarding that?
You ONLY intervene when it's an opposing viewpoint. When it's a person with YOUR viewpoint, you guys RARELY step in, no matter how ill mannered they are behaving. I'm seeing that same pattern emerging with other posters who oppose your viewpoints. Honestly, you guys would have more creditability if you were consistent in both your behaviors AND your arguments ("it's the writers' fault"). But you seem to determined to "feed" the opposing viewpoint filet mignon on a garbage can top, and expect them to say "yum-yum". Sorry, life doesn't work that way.
Really? Do you need that much hand holding? In any event, I suggested that you guys get organized to try to contact CBS directly with the contact info that I graciously gave to you. At least TRY to do something else that may yield results. If that doesn't work, hey that's life. But at least you can say that you TRIED.
I gave you CBS's address and telephone number, which is apparently more than ANY of you bothered to even look up. The rest is up to you. If you have as large of a GCS fanbase as you claim, then perhaps you can organize this so called large GCS group to make a case for your position. I can't make that case for you. That's YOUR job.
Unfortunately, I'm so convinced that you guys only want to continue to whine on this forum, I'll bet that not a SINGLE ONE of you will take the effort to contact CBS directly to coherently express your concerns/requests regarding the GCS.
Responsibility for my actions? Sure, I'll take full responsibility for my actions.
Oh, you ment that I need to take responsibilty for everyone's actions here! Sorry, life doesn't work that way. I can speak only for myself, as everyone else on the thread since noone here has been elected to be the representative of anything.
You see, there is no "you guys" here, I'm sure it's a shocking concept for you, but there's just bunch of people that think a ship needs to be improved in some way. And that's about it. We all have our own ideas how to go about it and on some we agree on some we don't. There's no organized "Fans of TNG/Galaxy class" conspiracy here.
And please don't make me laugh, why didn't I monitor some other dude/girl on the thread? Do I look like a Moderator to you? Is my avatar title in purple?
Let me make this perfectly clear - I only step in when I feel that I'm personally adressed. I'm not a forum Moderator nor the Forum Police. So you're knocking on the wrong door there.
Did I intervene on you? Sorry, I thought that was called a discussion. I only pointed out that the latest poll for content has nothing to do with the Galaxy class and I asked you why don't you try explaining in a rational manner why you think that the hero ship of one of the 5 Star Trek shows deserves to be the suckiest ship in game insetad of just repeating that "it should suck at that's it".
If you call that intervening, then so be it.