thank for the answer.
however many things to point out, let begun with what i am agree with
2. Universal bridge officer stations for the Galaxy-R. Lieutenant and/or ensign universals would offer flexibility that the vessel currently lacks. A lieutenant commander universal slot would be overkill in my opinion.
agree with that, and even an universal ensign would be a great improvement already, and no need to do it on the cstore version, do it on the fleet version, just like the negvar, same treatement.
i am not against a lt or lt commander universal, however most would use it as tactical and that is not the best option, indeed even with a lt + ltcommander tactical you are still a 6base turn 25 inertia ship with 2 tactical console, so not very efficient and yes even with the saucer sep.
and doing that would remove a big chunck of your survivability.
the proposal of drunk is very good but if it is to bring those BO into science let do it right from the beguining, because using universal one is the best way for everyone to use tactical and then be disapointed. it is also something that was supposed to be the signatures of the odyssey.
so yes, i bieliev 1 ensign universal is sufficient.
3. Ditch the saucer separation console on the Galaxy-R for something useful. The ability should be innate for the standard Galaxy offerings, anyway. Like transwarp is on the Excelsior retrofit. And I don't believe the Galaxy-X needs saucer separation at all, by the way. It just doesn't fit in with the "flavor" of the ship, from my POV. They need to focus on the problems with the phaser lance instead (like inherent accuracy problems).
well, yes and no, i like the idea to ditch the saucer ( as i never really like that ability and we would gain a console slot ), however it would not be fair for the odyssey user who would still have to use it.
one would tell me that the odyssey is already a fleet level ect ect, but still, this is one example why we just can't do what we want just because.
i also absolutely not bielieve that the galaxy x need a saucer sep, it is indeed, also in my opinion that it is not with the flavor of the ship.
unfortunately it seem that it is something that gecko want to see happening no matter what, that and a hangar bay.
i don't care about the saucer sep, it will be a console so i could alway ditch it, what bother me is that he mention some kind of power set link to these console ( with antimatter spread and cloack i think ), so it will force me to use that console to use the set, and i won't even talk about the hangar.
now for the things were i disagree.
4. Shared cool downs need to be addressed or adjusted. One example is the shared cool downs for Tactical Team, Science Team, and Engineering Team, which I find to be ridiculous from a game play standpoint. And completely unnecessary.
that is a typical pve standpoint.
tactical team clear all tactical debuff and some other things like boarding party.
engineering team clear all subsystem debuff and various other thing like viral matrix and the graviton pulse generator
science team clear all science debuff like the nasty subnucleonic beam, sensor scan, jam sensor ect
if cooldown were to be remove from them, it would mean that any ship at any given time would have the possibility to clear everything since everyone have ensign spot for these power.
like it or not, this game have been made also with pvp in mind ( even if now it daesn't seem to be ).
we can't ruin the last pieces of balanced because some think it is unneccesary for pve.
1. Address the problems with engineering abilities in space venues. Engineering is awesome on ground maps, but typically sucks in space. There's really only two or three engineering abilities that are exceptionally useful in space-based combat. Making engineering suck less in space venues would go a long way toward helping sort out the issues with the Galaxy class.
not in the least, this is what i call a smoke screen.
i can only see 2 different way to "enhanced" the engineering abilitie
the first is to boost them to make them more effective
the second is to make them as tactical oriented as tactical power are.
the first option do not enhanced the galaxy in regard to other cruiser, having just 1 more engi ensign slot than a star cruiser will not reduced the gap especially with auxtobat build.
the second way is even better, said goodbye to balance and welcome the power creep with basically 2 tact proffession in the game, but yes, here the galaxy might have a chance to reduce the gap.
even dealing with ensign engie cooldown will not solve the galaxy problem either, just like the cruiser command don't.
it will be better, yes, but still the last in everything.
the difference in engie slot between a galaxy and a star cruiser is 1 ensign slot, even if cooldown problem were solve it will still be behind this one for tanking ( +1 turn, better inertia, + 1ensign science ).
and i just want to remind people that the star cruiser is available in the exchange for just 200000 ec with the assault cruiser skin.
even if some of your proposal are good, it is base on the assumption that the ship is fine but just suffering of the missconception of engie power.
so like the cruiser command,it will only result in the ship being a bit better while still be the least efficient at everything.
not the jack of all trade, but the trade of all jacks.
whamhammer1 idea to fusion the galaxy and star cruiser is good, because right now they are in competion for the same role, however i don't see cryptic doing that.
About the galaxy i still think it needs the engineering ensign or lieutenant moved to universal.
Just don't compare the ship to the excelsior which is a lockbox level ship (8 turn 40 inertia superb boff layout and no drawback).
galaxy is a tank/ healer and the exelsior is more tacticaly oriented, in term of gameplay we never compared them, but usually point the obvious as that a more than 120 years designed outgunned a galaxy.
beside the exelsior in cstore version is not at lockbox level ( lockbox level are fleet ship level with 10 console slot ).
8 turn and 40 inertia are not a requirement to be a lockbox ship, and "superb bo layout with no drawback is a bit subjectiv and mostly dependant on player playstyle.
and omega proc is not the only way to stay at 125, stacking marion france dulmur also do that ( yes, this doff can stack )
galaxy is a tank/ healer and the exelsior is more tacticaly oriented, in term of gameplay we never compared them, but usually point the obvious as that a more than 120 years designed outgunned a galaxy.
beside the exelsior in cstore version is not at lockbox level ( lockbox level are fleet ship level with 10 console slot ).
8 turn and 40 inertia are not a requirement to be a lockbox ship, and "superb bo layout with no drawback is a bit subjectiv and mostly dependant on player playstyle.
and omega proc is not the only way to stay at 125, stacking marion france dulmur also do that ( yes, this doff can stack )
I was in fact saying the excelsior makes no sense. Just look at kdf cruisers, they pay a lot of hull for each +1 turn rate. The fleet k'tinga for exemple only has 150 more hull than a bug ship. For some reason the excelsior has the best of both worlds, top tier hull, 8 turn and 40 inertia (and inertia is a very underrated stat). Same goes for the avenger. And yes the boff seatings are some of the best for aux2batt dem faw pvp builds, imo that ship is on par with the galor.
The galaxy got the short end of the stick compared to that small ship and it makes 0 sense to me, even if you claim the galaxy is suited to be more tanky, the excel can use APO for more defense, more resists and immunity to slows. The only difference between the 2 ships (outside of stats) is lt comm eng vs lt comm tact power.
And yes you can use marion but it only lasts for 8s every 45s if i'm not mistaken.
(...)
not in the least, this is what i call a smoke screen.
i can only see 2 different way to "enhanced" the engineering abilitie
(...)
Nobody says that the egnineering branch should become a second tactical branch. But there are some eng boff skills that could be toned down to begin at ensign and end at ltc in order to improve the variety one has at low lvl engineering powers. Engineers are really the only branch that gets a fixed selection of skills at that level and that's the main problem. Some additional changes are just flavour changes, for example it makes no sense that boarding party is a eng skill and beam overload is a tac skill. But changes like these have to go a longer way.
whamhammer1 idea to fusion the galaxy and star cruiser is good, because right now they are in competion for the same role, however i don't see cryptic doing that.
While I agree it's probably difficult to fus thse two together (seperation and all). Though the universal ensign fleet version would be exactly that, basically.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I was in fact saying the excelsior makes no sense. Just look at kdf cruisers, they pay a lot of hull for each +1 turn rate. The fleet k'tinga for exemple only has 150 more hull than a bug ship.
having more hull don't automatically made you survive longer, look at escort.
the klingons ship got more turn because it is neccesary for the use of cannon, and here the little bit of hull they loose is nothing in comparaison to the firepower that they gain.
this is now less true with the new dem faw boat out there, but for how long, until cryptic realize it and found a way to nerfed them?
anyway i will gladly loose 1k base hull on my dread if it mean +1 turn and 30 inertia, anyday.
the turn rate and inertia are indeed very underatted stats.
The galaxy got the short end of the stick compared to that small ship and it makes 0 sense to me, even if you claim the galaxy is suited to be more tanky, the excel can use APO for more defense, more resists and immunity to slows. The only difference between the 2 ships (outside of stats) is lt comm eng vs lt comm tact power.
the devs have made this ship to be a tank, and indeed, even if it is not by a big margin, when perfectly build he will outank an exelsior.
yes, the tanking "ticket" is cheaper on an exelsior, less experienced player will tank better with it because of the inertia and turn provide a bigger marg for error.
so even if the difference is far from being abysmal it is still here.
but yes, this ship is NOT the best tank in the game, if fact there is nothing in wich this ship is best, hence the purpose of this thread, and my signature.
many time here we have to fight against the rumor that this ship is the best tank, that is the kind of idea that grow in people who don't use the ship very much.
so it is not me that you have to convinced that this ship got the short end of the stick compared to ANY cruiser in the game.
And yes you can use marion but it only lasts for 8s every 45s if i'm not mistaken.
8 s is more or less the duration of an alpha strike, and the fact that is is something that you can triger when you want to, make a big difference than an unpredictable proc in an attack strategry.
but usually these kind of build use both anyway.
Nobody says that the egnineering branch should become a second tactical branch. But there are some eng boff skills that could be toned down to begin at ensign and end at ltc in order to improve the variety one has at low lvl engineering powers. Engineers are really the only branch that gets a fixed selection of skills at that level and that's the main problem. Some additional changes are just flavour changes, for example it makes no sense that boarding party is a eng skill and beam overload is a tac skill. But changes like these have to go a longer way.
and i never said someone said it, i was just showing you the 2 path that could be follow to make engenering skills more efficient, and explain why in both case it a no go.
the idea to tone down some engi skill daesn't fall in that categorie, and even if that would be a welcome change concerning ensign share cooldown it wil STILL not bring the galaxy on part with other cruiser.
this IS the smoke screen.
just like the command cruiser do, it will make the galaxy better at tanking, but not as good or better as a star cruiser in the result, just like it is now, so no change in his place of worth ship in everything.
stop fooling yourself with the idea that the share cooldown ensign engi is THE problem of the galaxy and that by fixing it the galaxy will suddenly become viable again.
no.
no.
no.
the cruiser command made the galaxy more tanky, with better firepower ect ect...
daes this change his position in regard with other cruiser? NO.
because every other cruiser get the same treatement.
the galaxy is NOT the only engi heavie ship in this game, fixing the ensign share cooldown will not result in having the galaxy closing the gap with other heavie engie ship
But that's about the only thing that will happen. Cryptic will probably never change a boff layout for a ship that is four years old and people paid for. Thus giving more low eng skills will improve the ship's variety since the command cruiser option was screwed up by Cryptic so badly.
That's the most one can ask for, really. Maybe the universal ensign on the fleet version could be realized at one point because it will not TRIBBLE up what people paid for - nevertheless engineering powers are less versatile than all the other powers. That is something that remains "broken" and needs to be fixed. Everything else would be just a welcome bonus.
I don't care if the Galaxy is the worst of all anymore, I don't play a ship because of it's stats. Sure there are hundred layouts that would fit the ship better canonically, though this is STO and has nothing in common with "canon" except for a few sounds and skins, everything else is screwed up fanon by Cryptic If someone does select ships for stats there is no reason to demand changes to a existing ship because any other ship will do just fine.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
lol, exactly. trolloron beam went a little overboard there, proboly the best example to date showing he is nothing but a troll that is more mad then everyone who would like the galaxy class improved combined. to react like that to the very obvious being pointed out about who is actually in the position to change anything was almost as funny as it was sad.
look, i dont want to get in some pvp vs pve fight here, but you really cant understand how bad the galaxy class is in practice until you try to be competitive with it in pvp. there is a serious disconnect here of opinions of people who only pve, and of course have no trouble completing any pve with it easily, and me and well maybe no one else in this thread that do nearly nothing but pvp that really see how bad it is there.
i could do all the story pve content in a small craft. maybe not a type 8, but one of the better small craft. it wouldn't be fun, but it would be possible. using the reasoning that you can complete the pve in the galaxy R is no benchmark of anything.
lets just say you cant complete ANY pvp content with a shuttle, you would die in a second. the sides of the discussion are not equal, and no one is capable of accepting that just maybe their opinion of the ship might be partly based in ignorance.
I've been know to accidentally complete CSE without an impulse engine (after switching ships). My fleeties would laugh at me, but we still completed the mission in good fashion.
I have tried to use just about every ship I have owned in PvP. Just as all cruisers go, the Exploration Cruiser/Dreadnaught Cruiser have some real problems in PvP. I actually cut my teeth on Exploration/DN cruisers there. Thats actually how I learned to drive a cruiser against escorts in PvP.
They taught me to be very erratic in maneuvering and to have a balanced mix of EPTX so I have options available. I especially like popping all sorts of turning buffs (EPTE, AUXID, EMIII) to do three-point-turns and roll the ship erratically to have an escort over-shoot so I can have a good shield looking at him.
I will say that before the Armitage came out, if I wanted a "high" turn rate ship in PvP, I would use a Gal-R and ditch the saucer. ( I can't drive escorts at speed, especially the 45' arcs.) With the saucer off, the Explorer is more "tossable" than a typically equipped Excel' when it turns. I love the ship with DBB's and turrets, I don't even do that setup with my Excel.
If skills like Aceton Beam and DEMIII and the like didn't just more or less bounce off the enemies, the Explorer and DN would be excellent platforms, even in PvP.
i suppose this wouldn't be to bad. bigger ships do need all the help they can get vs ships that have much better turn rates. but ship crews are not created equal, a galaxy has like 1000, wile the negvar has more then twice that. some ships have absolutely huge crews too. unless crew numbers were more balanced across big ships, there would be disproportionately better teams skills across big ships.
You are forgetting the comparison of a crew of 1,000 to a crew to 50-200. I do think that crew size on some of the ships need to be reigned in, not by canon, but to purpose of ship. Negvar, Explorer, and D'Deridex should be similar in crew size (+/- 5-10%).
beter RSP? dude no, hell no. you can practically have RSP3 on at all times thanks to doffs and AtB, the duration is already way to long on that. this is the problem with boosting eng skills, EVERY ship has access to them, you end up boosting the good ships more by buffing eng powers. what happened when all cruisers got commands? there was no change in the cruiser hierarchy. cruisers just got slightly better vs sci ships and escorts. the same thing will happen, or worse, when you just focus on improving eng skills.
And how many sci ships/escorts have CMDR/LCMDR engie slots? The better ones have one LCMDR at most, where ships like the Explorer have three. The other ships are choosing between the ability to heal or such and a more offensive, high end, power.
and you dont have to be a pvper to know right now how powerful cruisers are currently. nothing is better at blowing through stfs and anything else with the highest DPS levels then cruisers currently. to say nothing of the huge impact they are having in pvp. the last thing the game needs right now is an across the board buff to cruisers.
sure aceton beam sucks, at least at LTC level, if it were at ens level starting it would be sorta useful though. this is something that could actually help the galaxy in particular.
DEM is hugely powerful currently. i can remove a quarter to a half of a cruisers hull in 10 seconds when i have DEM+FAW/CRF on these days. making DEM more powerful would ruin pvp, and make pve even more easy.
The guys I know in "Bizness" are using escorts/JHDN to greater effect in STF's/ No-win than I am seeing premades cruisers/faw. I am usually the only "standard" cruiser there and we are frequently doing CSE with more than 11 minutes left after the cubes go down (and that's with us playing conservatively.) I haven't seen any cruiser/faw group move that fast.
I see some help with DEMIII that I use, but it seems to me that almost all of it gets soaked by DR. The amount of improvement of engie skills by rank to others seems to be at a lower power than others.
haveing ET doing what ST does to is not a good idea. i think ET should also boost the skill points for hull and shield repair though for 10 seconds, so other heals work better. TT boosts weapons training to boost damage a bit, so why not. ST should boost offensive sci skill tree things like particle gens and flow caps
Say that again, it sounds like you are for/against at the same time.
the cruiser commands are passive. you activate it and its just on indefinitely, until you change passives. my power levels currently dont go below 100 on my 8 beam boat anymore, and with season 8 there will be warp cores that reduce power drain even more. 2 part borg console set has a proc that goes off every 0 to 7 seconds that removes power drain, and that DEM doff removes it as well for 8 seconds. not to mention overcaping. power drain is completely negated these days.
Thats weird, the icon for active powers has commands dropping off after about five seconds. Bug maybe?
that would remove all other eng consoles from consideration. the bug ship has 5 tac consoles and 4 eng consoles, whats really going to benefit from that. as someone who railed endlessly against more cruisers having LTC tacs, even though in my proposed galaxy runing no tac at all would be the best way to use that ship, supporting something like this is 10 times worse then having an optional LTC on a galaxy would ever be, if you have a problem with everything being made more tac heavy.
Honestly, I wouldn't run more than one generic weapon console if they were engineering. I like my engineering consoles a lot, and if they make them non-stackable (like every other engineer console) a bug ship will likely appreciate holding onto other engie consoles to kdeep itself less squishy. A ship like the explorer can afford a little bit of non-stackableness to get a little more DPS, if the poaye so chooses the sacrifice.
I am against LTC on the Explorer because it just becomes a "me too" ship. Having LCMDR (and Cryptic improving enginer skills) allows it to differentiate. If it had two LT's, thats another thing altogether.
here's the current status of cruisers in pvp and pve:
they are the best at completing all content. doing things to improve them as a whole would be reckless at this point.
the only anomaly to be found is the galaxy R, being the worst one in practice by a fair amount. there is no worst escort or sci ship, there should be no worst cruiser. and the galaxy in particular shouldn't be the worst, but above average. i would settle for it being simply competitive though.
And the dispute is how to make that happen. You see it one way, others see it in others.
but yes, this ship is NOT the best tank in the game, if fact there is nothing in wich this ship is best, hence the purpose of this thread, and my signature.
many time here we have to fight against the rumor that this ship is the best tank, that is the kind of idea that grow in people who don't use the ship very much.
Honestly, I would love to see them make it the best "tank" (next to a tank purposed Ody.) And make it able to help other ships last longer when they turn their focus on them as well.
Both are C-Store ships.
Both should be on par with other T5 ships and at least equal useable and fun to fly. The GCS is neither.
You know, when I want to use a "beam cruiser", I am usually in an Explorer/DN cruiser. With the saucer off, the "R" is great with a DBB and Turret setup (much better than Excel, even giving up LCMDR tac/Consoles). I just wish that I could keep the bugger off after respawn (the cooldown is silly at that point).
That was actually a joke. You know, the '/grin' I posted with it? Though there is a great deal of truth to it. Star Trek is still mostly the Geek/Nerd fandom. Just like video games are still considered the primary geek/nerd entertainment - though the vast majority of the population plays video games in some form at the moment.
Though I'm still not understanding your roll in this. You don't care about the Galaxy. You take a great deal of pride in running in here every time someone posts to sob. Are you really so threatened by this thread that you want it stopped or are you just enjoying being a petty child? We understood your opinion the first time you meandered in to insult the thread and everyone in it. If you really despise us and the Galaxy so badly, why are you demeaning yourself with the thread and us?
As for CBS - you will find no one at CBS who gives a fiddler's damned about how the Galaxy is portrayed in Star Trek Online as CBS has already received payment for the licensing and use of the franchise and the Galaxy. Let me repeat: Until licensing is up for renewal, CBS doesn't give a damned about the game except that it's running and will give them money.
As to us not getting anything done, Cruiser Comm Relays are a silent admission that cruisers in their entirety needed help. So if we've gotten that far already, there's no reason to stop and backpedal now.
You guys are clearly clueless as to how Intellectual Property works. If you did your BASIC research, you would find that the devs on numerous times have referred to having to get permission from CBS for ships and modifications. The fact that you won't even TRY to do something else shows that you guys are locked into this whining cycle and that you don't even WANT to open your mind to ANY other possibilities.
By the way, if you don't want me or any one else who disagrees with you to post here, then the answer is simple: DON'T HAVE A THREAD ON A PUBLIC FORUM
Surprised you wasted a few minutes of your life even answering such an obvious troll post, best to avoid his posts and keep on track with your good observations.
For the record though I have written to Mr Stahl, I have requested same via pm to Brandon and a few other Devs, I asked the question on the monthly Q&A about the Gal-X and got an answer. I am sure there are plenty that have done far more than I to bring this to the attention of the Devs.
With LoR there was simply not enough ship artist time, only two of them, now they have a third who hopefully is settling in well, the Voth ships are all done, my guess is the current ship artists are working on the next lockbox and that leaves the new guy to get on with some old projects, namely the Gal-X and I would suspect the entire GCS plus a few other fixes here and there. Fleet Dread for Xmas would be welcome for sure!
Hmmm. You mean the same "good observations" such as the mind numbing iterations of "phaser lengths arrays" that have failed to produce any of the changes that you guys want? Interesting.
polaronbeam1, may I ask you to articulate maybe one sentence that outlines what exactly your intentions are, posting in this particular thread?
Because, honsestly, I have no idea what it even is that you want.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Okay, I've really been trying to avoid this thread, but I absolutely HAVE to post a few comments at this point.
I'm noticing a LOT of people here claiming that cruisers are the best in PvP/PvE as of right now. Sorry, but that is not at all true. Cruisers are ONLY as "effective" as they are because many of the games elite have spent endless hours building them to be such. They are ONLY effective when built in a certain way; 90% of effective cruisers are built with an Aux2Batt + DEM + FAW layout. Some don't use the Aux2Batt, some don't use the DEM, but as a general rule, that is the layout you'll find on the majority of the "dominant" cruisers you'll see in the ques. This layout, and only this layout, is what makes cruisers so "effective" when compared to other ship classes. What about happen if you took that layout and swapped 2x FAW for 2x BO? It'd deadpan your DPS and bring your cruisers efficiency down. What happens if you drop the 2xDEM for 2x Aceton Beam? Once again, it'd drop your efficiency way down. How about Aux2Batt? If Cryptic suddenly took Technician DOFFs out of the game, probably half the cruiser builds in STO would be borked.
So no, cruisers are not "the best" right now, they simple have access to a single layout that works well. The problem with that is that cruisers are not at all versatile. Take an escort, for example; you can load it out with Rapid Fire and Attack Pattern Omega, and race around dishing out massive single target DPS in Ker'rat. Swap the Rapid Fires for a Beam Overload and a Torpedo High Yield, and you can wreck hell in Arena with massive spike. Switch things around again, and you can run insane AoE DPS in STFs with Scatter Volley and Torpedo Spread. Same story with science ships; you can gear them for healing, debuffing, crowd control, power drain, or shutdown.
Yet with cruisers, your only *real* options are either FAW DEM boat, Tank, or Healer; even the latter aren't so great, as Tanking is currently next to pointless in STO and most carriers will outheal cruisers. They have no versatility whatsoever. Its not an absolute; I've seen some awesome Dual Beam Bank Avengers, and I've seen some awesome Single Cannon/Turret Excelsiors. However, as a general rule, almost every cruiser you see in the game runs the typical FAW/DEM. Take away FAW, DEM, or Aux2Batt, and cruisers are back to being the weakest ships in the game, by far. Hell, take away Marions and Technicians and cruisers are pretty well screwed.
As far as the Galaxy-class...I don't understand those of you who keep arguing that the Galaxy is fine the way it is. The majortiy rules here; the Galaxy R is easily the worst endgame ship in the game, bar NONE right now. Even the D'Kyr holds an edge over it (if only because there are more non-shared cooldown science powers that it can use). The Galaxy R suffers from every possible "bad" thing in STO; low turn rate, poor BoFF layout, difficult console layout, and a crapton of shared Ensign/Lieutenant level Engineering cooldowns. Same case to a lesser degree with the Galaxy X Dreadnought; its one of the weakest ships in the game. Why? its essentially a free assault cruiser, with a little extra hull, a currently useless Beam Overload 4 Phaser Lance, a next to useless cloak, and the decorative-but-useless ability to equip cannons. It needs to be buffed, it needs a better BoFF layout. Theres no two ways about it, and I don't understand the "well, the Galaxy is actually a good ship if you know how to use it" attitude. The Galaxy is one of the most iconic ships in Star Trek, period. It shouldn't be getting its tail handed to it by a flipping 200 year old Excelsior class.
Anyway. Those are my two cents; I was trying to address the people who aren't making sense at all in this thread. To everyone who actually knows what they are talking about, this wasn't aimed at you, carry on and keep up the good work. XD
**Edit: Please excuse the Lag tag. I forgot to take it off before I posted; I'm no longer affiliated with Lag Industries and forgot to take off the forum signature.
^^^^
Not when it's the same 15 or so people posting the exact same things over and over ad nauseum. Of late I'd say yreodred and dontdrunkimshoot lead the reposting charge on this particular thread.
You got it. They claim that their numbers are high, but yet NONE of them would even TRY to do anything differently. They appear to be happy in this cycle of just whining and are apparently afraid to even try anything else BUT whine.
I suspect that many of these guys appear to be part "microwave generation" (born in the mid 1980's) that I also see on other threads in this forum. These are the guys that "want what they want WHEN they want it and HOW they want it". For them to attempt any other methods which may help their "cause" are instantly discarded because it is not HOW they want to do it.
They bizarrely go around thinking that insulting the devs and other players will actually increase support for their "cause", and strangely appear to be genuinely surprised and out of touch when their approaches have the quite opposite effect. They have even claimed that the devs were basically "out to get them" as if the devs are attempting to personally harm them.
They have this weird "reality TV" mindset of thinking what they say or do has no consequences and they refuse to take absolutely ANY accountability for their actions.
Posted by polaronbeam
You got it. They claim that their numbers are high, but yet NONE of them would even TRY to do anything differently. They appear to be happy in this cycle of just whining and are apparently afraid to even try anything else BUT whine.
Well forum whining seems to work pretty well for the PvP community as they get things fixed/nerfed/neutered all the time. Guess we picked up a bad habit. Maybe we should move this thread to the PvP one, it might get noticed then.
Okay, I've really been trying to avoid this thread, but I absolutely HAVE to post a few comments at this point.
I'm noticing a LOT of people here claiming that cruisers are the best in PvP/PvE as of right now. Sorry, but that is not at all true. Cruisers are ONLY as "effective" as they are because many of the games elite have spent endless hours building them to be such. They are ONLY effective when built in a certain way; 90% of effective cruisers are built with an Aux2Batt + DEM + FAW layout. Some don't use the Aux2Batt, some don't use the DEM, but as a general rule, that is the layout you'll find on the majority of the "dominant" cruisers you'll see in the ques. This layout, and only this layout, is what makes cruisers so "effective" when compared to other ship classes. What about happen if you took that layout and swapped 2x FAW for 2x BO? It'd deadpan your DPS and bring your cruisers efficiency down. What happens if you drop the 2xDEM for 2x Aceton Beam? Once again, it'd drop your efficiency way down. How about Aux2Batt? If Cryptic suddenly took Technician DOFFs out of the game, probably half the cruiser builds in STO would be borked.
So no, cruisers are not "the best" right now, they simple have access to a single layout that works well. The problem with that is that cruisers are not at all versatile. Take an escort, for example; you can load it out with Rapid Fire and Attack Pattern Omega, and race around dishing out massive single target DPS in Ker'rat. Swap the Rapid Fires for a Beam Overload and a Torpedo High Yield, and you can wreck hell in Arena with massive spike. Switch things around again, and you can run insane AoE DPS in STFs with Scatter Volley and Torpedo Spread. Same story with science ships; you can gear them for healing, debuffing, crowd control, power drain, or shutdown.
Yet with cruisers, your only *real* options are either FAW DEM boat, Tank, or Healer; even the latter aren't so great, as Tanking is currently next to pointless in STO and most carriers will outheal cruisers. They have no versatility whatsoever. Its not an absolute; I've seen some awesome Dual Beam Bank Avengers, and I've seen some awesome Single Cannon/Turret Excelsiors. However, as a general rule, almost every cruiser you see in the game runs the typical FAW/DEM. Take away FAW, DEM, or Aux2Batt, and cruisers are back to being the weakest ships in the game, by far. Hell, take away Marions and Technicians and cruisers are pretty well screwed.
As far as the Galaxy-class...I don't understand those of you who keep arguing that the Galaxy is fine the way it is. The majortiy rules here; the Galaxy R is easily the worst endgame ship in the game, bar NONE right now. Even the D'Kyr holds an edge over it (if only because there are more non-shared cooldown science powers that it can use). The Galaxy R suffers from every possible "bad" thing in STO; low turn rate, poor BoFF layout, difficult console layout, and a crapton of shared Ensign/Lieutenant level Engineering cooldowns. Same case to a lesser degree with the Galaxy X Dreadnought; its one of the weakest ships in the game. Why? its essentially a free assault cruiser, with a little extra hull, a currently useless Beam Overload 4 Phaser Lance, a next to useless cloak, and the decorative-but-useless ability to equip cannons. It needs to be buffed, it needs a better BoFF layout. Theres no two ways about it, and I don't understand the "well, the Galaxy is actually a good ship if you know how to use it" attitude. The Galaxy is one of the most iconic ships in Star Trek, period. It shouldn't be getting its tail handed to it by a flipping 200 year old Excelsior class.
Anyway. Those are my two cents; I was trying to address the people who aren't making sense at all in this thread. To everyone who actually knows what they are talking about, this wasn't aimed at you, carry on and keep up the good work. XD
**Edit: Please excuse the Lag tag. I forgot to take it off before I posted; I'm no longer affiliated with Lag Industries and forgot to take off the forum signature.
True, i couldn't say it better.
"...'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
does anyone want to know why there is a sovereign class thats more tactical then the original created? people on this forum wanted that.
if cbs needed to be consulted at all, crytic did the contacting. merely a formality when they decided they wanted to do something like that.
so what we are doing with this thread? its what already worked in the past.
You shouldn't forget that Cryptics devs are pretty selective about whom to listen and whom not.
The GCS is clearly not one of their favourite ships and i highly doubt that cryptic will start to contact CBS about it.
"...'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
Posted by polaronbeam
You got it. They claim that their numbers are high, but yet NONE of them would even TRY to do anything differently. They appear to be happy in this cycle of just whining and are apparently afraid to even try anything else BUT whine.
Well forum whining seems to work pretty well for the PvP community as they get things fixed/nerfed/neutered all the time. Guess we picked up a bad habit. Maybe we should move this thread to the PvP one, it might get noticed then.
ah yes, good point. i personally have alerted them of quite a few things in the past that were buged or needed reevaluated, goten quite a few dev responses, stuff like that.
all thanks to forum posting, this is how you get results. its been proven over and over again.
Posted by polaronbeam
You got it. They claim that their numbers are high, but yet NONE of them would even TRY to do anything differently. They appear to be happy in this cycle of just whining and are apparently afraid to even try anything else BUT whine.
Well forum whining seems to work pretty well for the PvP community as they get things fixed/nerfed/neutered all the time. Guess we picked up a bad habit. Maybe we should move this thread to the PvP one, it might get noticed then.
Lol, i have been thinking something similar lately.
Cryptic seems to trust the PvP community when it comes to BOFF powers, balance issues and other game changing things, but other (relatively) small groups (like us) get ignored...
The problem i see here is that PvP is only a small aspect of STO, and certain things that (do not) work in PvP have their place in PvE (which much more ppl do).
The often criticized things do have often a huge influence on PvE, but obviously Cryptic doesn't really care.
On the other hand reworking the GCS wouldn't affect nothing outside the GCS at all and still Cryptics devs seem to be reluctant to get their hands on it...
To be honest i don't get 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
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
(...)
On the other hand reworking the GCS wouldn't affect nothing outside the GCS at all and still Cryptics devs seem to be reluctant to get their hands on it...
(...)
This is a major problem, however.
You see, when it comes to discussing what the Galaxy Class is supposed to be "in-canon" you know we are quite equal in our opinions. Hell, we are even quite similiar when it comes how a GCS in-game would be a better representation of that concept.
However, making such big changes to a single ship is pretty much impossible because everyone could demand the same kind of changes. And we all know that this game has no interest in players KEEPING their ships, it's interest is to sell new ones. So the only thing we can adress really is that a borked game mechanic gets fixed and that's the boff layout of the ship that would be fixed with a universal boff because the limited boff abilities is the only thing really "broken". Aside from that, unfortunately, gameplay wise the ship is not broken. It's one of the worst in comparision but that's because it's from a earlier state of the game that's obsolete as of today. If we would want canon appropriate ship representations we had to demand to remove tactical abilities from the Nova Class as well, but nobody would EVER demand tactical abilities to be removed from a ship.
This game will never be a Star Trek simulation. Maybe we'll get a Gal-R that's a c-store "Star Cruiser" at one point, but I guess that's about it.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Okay, I've really been trying to avoid this thread, but I absolutely HAVE to post a few comments at this point.
I'm noticing a LOT of people here claiming that cruisers are the best in PvP/PvE as of right now. Sorry, but that is not at all true. Cruisers are ONLY as "effective" as they are because many of the games elite have spent endless hours building them to be such. They are ONLY effective when built in a certain way; 90% of effective cruisers are built with an Aux2Batt + DEM + FAW layout. Some don't use the Aux2Batt, some don't use the DEM, but as a general rule, that is the layout you'll find on the majority of the "dominant" cruisers you'll see in the ques. This layout, and only this layout, is what makes cruisers so "effective" when compared to other ship classes. What about happen if you took that layout and swapped 2x FAW for 2x BO? It'd deadpan your DPS and bring your cruisers efficiency down. What happens if you drop the 2xDEM for 2x Aceton Beam? Once again, it'd drop your efficiency way down. How about Aux2Batt? If Cryptic suddenly took Technician DOFFs out of the game, probably half the cruiser builds in STO would be borked.
So no, cruisers are not "the best" right now, they simple have access to a single layout that works well. The problem with that is that cruisers are not at all versatile. Take an escort, for example; you can load it out with Rapid Fire and Attack Pattern Omega, and race around dishing out massive single target DPS in Ker'rat. Swap the Rapid Fires for a Beam Overload and a Torpedo High Yield, and you can wreck hell in Arena with massive spike. Switch things around again, and you can run insane AoE DPS in STFs with Scatter Volley and Torpedo Spread. Same story with science ships; you can gear them for healing, debuffing, crowd control, power drain, or shutdown.
Yet with cruisers, your only *real* options are either FAW DEM boat, Tank, or Healer; even the latter aren't so great, as Tanking is currently next to pointless in STO and most carriers will outheal cruisers. They have no versatility whatsoever. Its not an absolute; I've seen some awesome Dual Beam Bank Avengers, and I've seen some awesome Single Cannon/Turret Excelsiors. However, as a general rule, almost every cruiser you see in the game runs the typical FAW/DEM. Take away FAW, DEM, or Aux2Batt, and cruisers are back to being the weakest ships in the game, by far. Hell, take away Marions and Technicians and cruisers are pretty well screwed.
As far as the Galaxy-class...I don't understand those of you who keep arguing that the Galaxy is fine the way it is. The majortiy rules here; the Galaxy R is easily the worst endgame ship in the game, bar NONE right now. Even the D'Kyr holds an edge over it (if only because there are more non-shared cooldown science powers that it can use). The Galaxy R suffers from every possible "bad" thing in STO; low turn rate, poor BoFF layout, difficult console layout, and a crapton of shared Ensign/Lieutenant level Engineering cooldowns. Same case to a lesser degree with the Galaxy X Dreadnought; its one of the weakest ships in the game. Why? its essentially a free assault cruiser, with a little extra hull, a currently useless Beam Overload 4 Phaser Lance, a next to useless cloak, and the decorative-but-useless ability to equip cannons. It needs to be buffed, it needs a better BoFF layout. Theres no two ways about it, and I don't understand the "well, the Galaxy is actually a good ship if you know how to use it" attitude. The Galaxy is one of the most iconic ships in Star Trek, period. It shouldn't be getting its tail handed to it by a flipping 200 year old Excelsior class.
Anyway. Those are my two cents; I was trying to address the people who aren't making sense at all in this thread. To everyone who actually knows what they are talking about, this wasn't aimed at you, carry on and keep up the good work. XD
**Edit: Please excuse the Lag tag. I forgot to take it off before I posted; I'm no longer affiliated with Lag Industries and forgot to take off the forum signature.
you have no idea what we are enduring here, it is HELL XD.
some pve guy told us that the ship is good as is and that we, basically, don't use it the way it should, with some intervention from time to time of my beloved friend polaronbeam that make us the grace to insult us.
yes i love you polaronbeam:)
anyway, stardestroyer daesn't seem to be on lately, i think he take a break from the game
you have no idea what we are enduring here, it is HELL XD.
some pve guy told us that the ship is good as is and that we, basically, don't use it the way it should, with some intervention from time to time of my beloved friend polaronbeam that make us the grace to insult us.
yes i love you polaronbeam:)
anyway, stardestroyer daesn't seem to be on lately, i think he take a break from the game
I am generally a pve person. I do not think the galaxy is fine right now. I said before and will repeat here. When I made captain I was excited to get to command a Galaxy. I started getting my butt blown off immediately by npc romulans on normal difficulty. I literally was dying through missions. Gal was carrying blue gear all around. To test I jumped back into my Excelsior with one tier lower gear and replayed those missions and did better.
That is why I support a reworked Galaxy class. It should not be a step down in basic tier.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
You see, when it comes to discussing what the Galaxy Class is supposed to be "in-canon" you know we are quite equal in our opinions. Hell, we are even quite similiar when it comes how a GCS in-game would be a better representation of that concept.
However, making such big changes to a single ship is pretty much impossible because everyone could demand the same kind of changes. And we all know that this game has no interest in players KEEPING their ships, it's interest is to sell new ones. So the only thing we can adress really is that a borked game mechanic gets fixed and that's the boff layout of the ship that would be fixed with a universal boff because the limited boff abilities is the only thing really "broken". Aside from that, unfortunately, gameplay wise the ship is not broken. It's one of the worst in comparision but that's because it's from a earlier state of the game that's obsolete as of today. If we would want canon appropriate ship representations we had to demand to remove tactical abilities from the Nova Class as well, but nobody would EVER demand tactical abilities to be removed from a ship.
This game will never be a Star Trek simulation. Maybe we'll get a Gal-R that's a c-store "Star Cruiser" at one point, but I guess that's about it.
that is also a strange reasoning i think.
do you bielieve that sto is going to be shut down in 1 year or 2?
because if not, why remove some potential ship sales by not " restoring" some older ship?
i bielieve news player came to that game every month.
the galaxy retrofit is the pinacle of bad design in this game but it is not the only one to be left behind, i bielieve they are many other.
if these ships are not bring up to a reasonable level they will loose potential sell.
how is it happening in the other game? daes anyone known?
is it why some games finally die? because player are tired of the race for the next shiny?
how do other game have deal with power creep?
Comments
thank for the answer.
however many things to point out, let begun with what i am agree with
agree with that, and even an universal ensign would be a great improvement already, and no need to do it on the cstore version, do it on the fleet version, just like the negvar, same treatement.
i am not against a lt or lt commander universal, however most would use it as tactical and that is not the best option, indeed even with a lt + ltcommander tactical you are still a 6base turn 25 inertia ship with 2 tactical console, so not very efficient and yes even with the saucer sep.
and doing that would remove a big chunck of your survivability.
the proposal of drunk is very good but if it is to bring those BO into science let do it right from the beguining, because using universal one is the best way for everyone to use tactical and then be disapointed. it is also something that was supposed to be the signatures of the odyssey.
so yes, i bieliev 1 ensign universal is sufficient.
well, yes and no, i like the idea to ditch the saucer ( as i never really like that ability and we would gain a console slot ), however it would not be fair for the odyssey user who would still have to use it.
one would tell me that the odyssey is already a fleet level ect ect, but still, this is one example why we just can't do what we want just because.
i also absolutely not bielieve that the galaxy x need a saucer sep, it is indeed, also in my opinion that it is not with the flavor of the ship.
unfortunately it seem that it is something that gecko want to see happening no matter what, that and a hangar bay.
i don't care about the saucer sep, it will be a console so i could alway ditch it, what bother me is that he mention some kind of power set link to these console ( with antimatter spread and cloack i think ), so it will force me to use that console to use the set, and i won't even talk about the hangar.
now for the things were i disagree.
that is a typical pve standpoint.
tactical team clear all tactical debuff and some other things like boarding party.
engineering team clear all subsystem debuff and various other thing like viral matrix and the graviton pulse generator
science team clear all science debuff like the nasty subnucleonic beam, sensor scan, jam sensor ect
if cooldown were to be remove from them, it would mean that any ship at any given time would have the possibility to clear everything since everyone have ensign spot for these power.
like it or not, this game have been made also with pvp in mind ( even if now it daesn't seem to be ).
we can't ruin the last pieces of balanced because some think it is unneccesary for pve.
not in the least, this is what i call a smoke screen.
i can only see 2 different way to "enhanced" the engineering abilitie
the first is to boost them to make them more effective
the second is to make them as tactical oriented as tactical power are.
the first option do not enhanced the galaxy in regard to other cruiser, having just 1 more engi ensign slot than a star cruiser will not reduced the gap especially with auxtobat build.
the second way is even better, said goodbye to balance and welcome the power creep with basically 2 tact proffession in the game, but yes, here the galaxy might have a chance to reduce the gap.
even dealing with ensign engie cooldown will not solve the galaxy problem either, just like the cruiser command don't.
it will be better, yes, but still the last in everything.
the difference in engie slot between a galaxy and a star cruiser is 1 ensign slot, even if cooldown problem were solve it will still be behind this one for tanking ( +1 turn, better inertia, + 1ensign science ).
and i just want to remind people that the star cruiser is available in the exchange for just 200000 ec with the assault cruiser skin.
even if some of your proposal are good, it is base on the assumption that the ship is fine but just suffering of the missconception of engie power.
so like the cruiser command,it will only result in the ship being a bit better while still be the least efficient at everything.
not the jack of all trade, but the trade of all jacks.
whamhammer1 idea to fusion the galaxy and star cruiser is good, because right now they are in competion for the same role, however i don't see cryptic doing that.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
galaxy is a tank/ healer and the exelsior is more tacticaly oriented, in term of gameplay we never compared them, but usually point the obvious as that a more than 120 years designed outgunned a galaxy.
beside the exelsior in cstore version is not at lockbox level ( lockbox level are fleet ship level with 10 console slot ).
8 turn and 40 inertia are not a requirement to be a lockbox ship, and "superb bo layout with no drawback is a bit subjectiv and mostly dependant on player playstyle.
and omega proc is not the only way to stay at 125, stacking marion france dulmur also do that ( yes, this doff can stack )
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I was in fact saying the excelsior makes no sense. Just look at kdf cruisers, they pay a lot of hull for each +1 turn rate. The fleet k'tinga for exemple only has 150 more hull than a bug ship. For some reason the excelsior has the best of both worlds, top tier hull, 8 turn and 40 inertia (and inertia is a very underrated stat). Same goes for the avenger. And yes the boff seatings are some of the best for aux2batt dem faw pvp builds, imo that ship is on par with the galor.
The galaxy got the short end of the stick compared to that small ship and it makes 0 sense to me, even if you claim the galaxy is suited to be more tanky, the excel can use APO for more defense, more resists and immunity to slows. The only difference between the 2 ships (outside of stats) is lt comm eng vs lt comm tact power.
And yes you can use marion but it only lasts for 8s every 45s if i'm not mistaken.
Nobody says that the egnineering branch should become a second tactical branch. But there are some eng boff skills that could be toned down to begin at ensign and end at ltc in order to improve the variety one has at low lvl engineering powers. Engineers are really the only branch that gets a fixed selection of skills at that level and that's the main problem. Some additional changes are just flavour changes, for example it makes no sense that boarding party is a eng skill and beam overload is a tac skill. But changes like these have to go a longer way.
While I agree it's probably difficult to fus thse two together (seperation and all). Though the universal ensign fleet version would be exactly that, basically.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
having more hull don't automatically made you survive longer, look at escort.
the klingons ship got more turn because it is neccesary for the use of cannon, and here the little bit of hull they loose is nothing in comparaison to the firepower that they gain.
this is now less true with the new dem faw boat out there, but for how long, until cryptic realize it and found a way to nerfed them?
anyway i will gladly loose 1k base hull on my dread if it mean +1 turn and 30 inertia, anyday.
the turn rate and inertia are indeed very underatted stats.
the devs have made this ship to be a tank, and indeed, even if it is not by a big margin, when perfectly build he will outank an exelsior.
yes, the tanking "ticket" is cheaper on an exelsior, less experienced player will tank better with it because of the inertia and turn provide a bigger marg for error.
so even if the difference is far from being abysmal it is still here.
but yes, this ship is NOT the best tank in the game, if fact there is nothing in wich this ship is best, hence the purpose of this thread, and my signature.
many time here we have to fight against the rumor that this ship is the best tank, that is the kind of idea that grow in people who don't use the ship very much.
so it is not me that you have to convinced that this ship got the short end of the stick compared to ANY cruiser in the game.
8 s is more or less the duration of an alpha strike, and the fact that is is something that you can triger when you want to, make a big difference than an unpredictable proc in an attack strategry.
but usually these kind of build use both anyway.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
and i never said someone said it, i was just showing you the 2 path that could be follow to make engenering skills more efficient, and explain why in both case it a no go.
the idea to tone down some engi skill daesn't fall in that categorie, and even if that would be a welcome change concerning ensign share cooldown it wil STILL not bring the galaxy on part with other cruiser.
this IS the smoke screen.
just like the command cruiser do, it will make the galaxy better at tanking, but not as good or better as a star cruiser in the result, just like it is now, so no change in his place of worth ship in everything.
stop fooling yourself with the idea that the share cooldown ensign engi is THE problem of the galaxy and that by fixing it the galaxy will suddenly become viable again.
no.
no.
no.
the cruiser command made the galaxy more tanky, with better firepower ect ect...
daes this change his position in regard with other cruiser? NO.
because every other cruiser get the same treatement.
the galaxy is NOT the only engi heavie ship in this game, fixing the ensign share cooldown will not result in having the galaxy closing the gap with other heavie engie ship
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
That's the most one can ask for, really. Maybe the universal ensign on the fleet version could be realized at one point because it will not TRIBBLE up what people paid for - nevertheless engineering powers are less versatile than all the other powers. That is something that remains "broken" and needs to be fixed. Everything else would be just a welcome bonus.
I don't care if the Galaxy is the worst of all anymore, I don't play a ship because of it's stats. Sure there are hundred layouts that would fit the ship better canonically, though this is STO and has nothing in common with "canon" except for a few sounds and skins, everything else is screwed up fanon by Cryptic
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Granted.
I've been know to accidentally complete CSE without an impulse engine (after switching ships). My fleeties would laugh at me, but we still completed the mission in good fashion.
I have tried to use just about every ship I have owned in PvP. Just as all cruisers go, the Exploration Cruiser/Dreadnaught Cruiser have some real problems in PvP. I actually cut my teeth on Exploration/DN cruisers there. Thats actually how I learned to drive a cruiser against escorts in PvP.
They taught me to be very erratic in maneuvering and to have a balanced mix of EPTX so I have options available. I especially like popping all sorts of turning buffs (EPTE, AUXID, EMIII) to do three-point-turns and roll the ship erratically to have an escort over-shoot so I can have a good shield looking at him.
I will say that before the Armitage came out, if I wanted a "high" turn rate ship in PvP, I would use a Gal-R and ditch the saucer. ( I can't drive escorts at speed, especially the 45' arcs.) With the saucer off, the Explorer is more "tossable" than a typically equipped Excel' when it turns. I love the ship with DBB's and turrets, I don't even do that setup with my Excel.
If skills like Aceton Beam and DEMIII and the like didn't just more or less bounce off the enemies, the Explorer and DN would be excellent platforms, even in PvP.
You are forgetting the comparison of a crew of 1,000 to a crew to 50-200. I do think that crew size on some of the ships need to be reigned in, not by canon, but to purpose of ship. Negvar, Explorer, and D'Deridex should be similar in crew size (+/- 5-10%).
And how many sci ships/escorts have CMDR/LCMDR engie slots? The better ones have one LCMDR at most, where ships like the Explorer have three. The other ships are choosing between the ability to heal or such and a more offensive, high end, power.
sure aceton beam sucks, at least at LTC level, if it were at ens level starting it would be sorta useful though. this is something that could actually help the galaxy in particular.
DEM is hugely powerful currently. i can remove a quarter to a half of a cruisers hull in 10 seconds when i have DEM+FAW/CRF on these days. making DEM more powerful would ruin pvp, and make pve even more easy.
And the dispute is how to make that happen. You see it one way, others see it in others.
Honestly, I would love to see them make it the best "tank" (next to a tank purposed Ody.) And make it able to help other ships last longer when they turn their focus on them as well.
You know, when I want to use a "beam cruiser", I am usually in an Explorer/DN cruiser. With the saucer off, the "R" is great with a DBB and Turret setup (much better than Excel, even giving up LCMDR tac/Consoles). I just wish that I could keep the bugger off after respawn (the cooldown is silly at that point).
You guys are clearly clueless as to how Intellectual Property works. If you did your BASIC research, you would find that the devs on numerous times have referred to having to get permission from CBS for ships and modifications. The fact that you won't even TRY to do something else shows that you guys are locked into this whining cycle and that you don't even WANT to open your mind to ANY other possibilities.
By the way, if you don't want me or any one else who disagrees with you to post here, then the answer is simple: DON'T HAVE A THREAD ON A PUBLIC FORUM
But you see how that was swept under the rug, and in their typical "eternal victim" mode, they never took ANY accountability for there own actions?
Hmmm. You mean the same "good observations" such as the mind numbing iterations of "phaser lengths arrays" that have failed to produce any of the changes that you guys want? Interesting.
Because, honsestly, I have no idea what it even is that you want.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'm noticing a LOT of people here claiming that cruisers are the best in PvP/PvE as of right now. Sorry, but that is not at all true. Cruisers are ONLY as "effective" as they are because many of the games elite have spent endless hours building them to be such. They are ONLY effective when built in a certain way; 90% of effective cruisers are built with an Aux2Batt + DEM + FAW layout. Some don't use the Aux2Batt, some don't use the DEM, but as a general rule, that is the layout you'll find on the majority of the "dominant" cruisers you'll see in the ques. This layout, and only this layout, is what makes cruisers so "effective" when compared to other ship classes. What about happen if you took that layout and swapped 2x FAW for 2x BO? It'd deadpan your DPS and bring your cruisers efficiency down. What happens if you drop the 2xDEM for 2x Aceton Beam? Once again, it'd drop your efficiency way down. How about Aux2Batt? If Cryptic suddenly took Technician DOFFs out of the game, probably half the cruiser builds in STO would be borked.
So no, cruisers are not "the best" right now, they simple have access to a single layout that works well. The problem with that is that cruisers are not at all versatile. Take an escort, for example; you can load it out with Rapid Fire and Attack Pattern Omega, and race around dishing out massive single target DPS in Ker'rat. Swap the Rapid Fires for a Beam Overload and a Torpedo High Yield, and you can wreck hell in Arena with massive spike. Switch things around again, and you can run insane AoE DPS in STFs with Scatter Volley and Torpedo Spread. Same story with science ships; you can gear them for healing, debuffing, crowd control, power drain, or shutdown.
Yet with cruisers, your only *real* options are either FAW DEM boat, Tank, or Healer; even the latter aren't so great, as Tanking is currently next to pointless in STO and most carriers will outheal cruisers. They have no versatility whatsoever. Its not an absolute; I've seen some awesome Dual Beam Bank Avengers, and I've seen some awesome Single Cannon/Turret Excelsiors. However, as a general rule, almost every cruiser you see in the game runs the typical FAW/DEM. Take away FAW, DEM, or Aux2Batt, and cruisers are back to being the weakest ships in the game, by far. Hell, take away Marions and Technicians and cruisers are pretty well screwed.
As far as the Galaxy-class...I don't understand those of you who keep arguing that the Galaxy is fine the way it is. The majortiy rules here; the Galaxy R is easily the worst endgame ship in the game, bar NONE right now. Even the D'Kyr holds an edge over it (if only because there are more non-shared cooldown science powers that it can use). The Galaxy R suffers from every possible "bad" thing in STO; low turn rate, poor BoFF layout, difficult console layout, and a crapton of shared Ensign/Lieutenant level Engineering cooldowns. Same case to a lesser degree with the Galaxy X Dreadnought; its one of the weakest ships in the game. Why? its essentially a free assault cruiser, with a little extra hull, a currently useless Beam Overload 4 Phaser Lance, a next to useless cloak, and the decorative-but-useless ability to equip cannons. It needs to be buffed, it needs a better BoFF layout. Theres no two ways about it, and I don't understand the "well, the Galaxy is actually a good ship if you know how to use it" attitude. The Galaxy is one of the most iconic ships in Star Trek, period. It shouldn't be getting its tail handed to it by a flipping 200 year old Excelsior class.
Anyway. Those are my two cents; I was trying to address the people who aren't making sense at all in this thread. To everyone who actually knows what they are talking about, this wasn't aimed at you, carry on and keep up the good work. XD
**Edit: Please excuse the Lag tag. I forgot to take it off before I posted; I'm no longer affiliated with Lag Industries and forgot to take off the forum signature.
You got it. They claim that their numbers are high, but yet NONE of them would even TRY to do anything differently. They appear to be happy in this cycle of just whining and are apparently afraid to even try anything else BUT whine.
I suspect that many of these guys appear to be part "microwave generation" (born in the mid 1980's) that I also see on other threads in this forum. These are the guys that "want what they want WHEN they want it and HOW they want it". For them to attempt any other methods which may help their "cause" are instantly discarded because it is not HOW they want to do it.
They bizarrely go around thinking that insulting the devs and other players will actually increase support for their "cause", and strangely appear to be genuinely surprised and out of touch when their approaches have the quite opposite effect. They have even claimed that the devs were basically "out to get them" as if the devs are attempting to personally harm them.
They have this weird "reality TV" mindset of thinking what they say or do has no consequences and they refuse to take absolutely ANY accountability for their actions.
if cbs needed to be consulted at all, crytic did the contacting. merely a formality when they decided they wanted to do something like that.
so what we are doing with this thread? its what already worked in the past.
You got it. They claim that their numbers are high, but yet NONE of them would even TRY to do anything differently. They appear to be happy in this cycle of just whining and are apparently afraid to even try anything else BUT whine.
Well forum whining seems to work pretty well for the PvP community as they get things fixed/nerfed/neutered all the time. Guess we picked up a bad habit. Maybe we should move this thread to the PvP one, it might get noticed then.
The GCS is clearly not one of their favourite ships and i highly doubt that cryptic will start to contact CBS about it.
ah yes, good point. i personally have alerted them of quite a few things in the past that were buged or needed reevaluated, goten quite a few dev responses, stuff like that.
all thanks to forum posting, this is how you get results. its been proven over and over again.
Cryptic seems to trust the PvP community when it comes to BOFF powers, balance issues and other game changing things, but other (relatively) small groups (like us) get ignored...
The problem i see here is that PvP is only a small aspect of STO, and certain things that (do not) work in PvP have their place in PvE (which much more ppl do).
The often criticized things do have often a huge influence on PvE, but obviously Cryptic doesn't really care.
On the other hand reworking the GCS wouldn't affect nothing outside the GCS at all and still Cryptics devs seem to be reluctant to get their hands on it...
To be honest i don't get this...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is a major problem, however.
You see, when it comes to discussing what the Galaxy Class is supposed to be "in-canon" you know we are quite equal in our opinions. Hell, we are even quite similiar when it comes how a GCS in-game would be a better representation of that concept.
However, making such big changes to a single ship is pretty much impossible because everyone could demand the same kind of changes. And we all know that this game has no interest in players KEEPING their ships, it's interest is to sell new ones. So the only thing we can adress really is that a borked game mechanic gets fixed and that's the boff layout of the ship that would be fixed with a universal boff because the limited boff abilities is the only thing really "broken". Aside from that, unfortunately, gameplay wise the ship is not broken. It's one of the worst in comparision but that's because it's from a earlier state of the game that's obsolete as of today. If we would want canon appropriate ship representations we had to demand to remove tactical abilities from the Nova Class as well, but nobody would EVER demand tactical abilities to be removed from a ship.
This game will never be a Star Trek simulation. Maybe we'll get a Gal-R that's a c-store "Star Cruiser" at one point, but I guess that's about it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
you have no idea what we are enduring here, it is HELL XD.
some pve guy told us that the ship is good as is and that we, basically, don't use it the way it should, with some intervention from time to time of my beloved friend polaronbeam that make us the grace to insult us.
yes i love you polaronbeam:)
anyway, stardestroyer daesn't seem to be on lately, i think he take a break from the game
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I am generally a pve person. I do not think the galaxy is fine right now. I said before and will repeat here. When I made captain I was excited to get to command a Galaxy. I started getting my butt blown off immediately by npc romulans on normal difficulty. I literally was dying through missions. Gal was carrying blue gear all around. To test I jumped back into my Excelsior with one tier lower gear and replayed those missions and did better.
That is why I support a reworked Galaxy class. It should not be a step down in basic tier.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
that is also a strange reasoning i think.
do you bielieve that sto is going to be shut down in 1 year or 2?
because if not, why remove some potential ship sales by not " restoring" some older ship?
i bielieve news player came to that game every month.
the galaxy retrofit is the pinacle of bad design in this game but it is not the only one to be left behind, i bielieve they are many other.
if these ships are not bring up to a reasonable level they will loose potential sell.
how is it happening in the other game? daes anyone known?
is it why some games finally die? because player are tired of the race for the next shiny?
how do other game have deal with power creep?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271