Thanks for the wall of lol. I mean... are we really supposed to be concerned with the welfare of unemployed BOFFs?
Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Even if you assumed that I meant the bit about the problem being one of the RP feelings of BOFFs, and not a reference to the potential coding difficulties of making a change to ships that currently exist, you know it's only one tiny part of the argument. It's true, that would be a terrible reason for you to care. The other reasons, which you have ignored, are still not terrible.
Note that I have three defenses against this attack - first, It's obviously spurious, since the context makes it clear that I was referring to a coding problem on the back end, not some RP fantasy. Second, even if my language was unclear there, my clarification should make it obvious what I mean, and the clarification is not vulnerable to the accusation you are making (that this is a ridiculous thing to think about on face). Third, even if I'm somehow wrong about both those things, I've still built in other components to the overall argument that you are still ignoring, and those other pieces are sufficient to make my case with or without this specific element.
Regardless, if you really wanted to take me to task for being a hypocrite on the issue of assuming unproven/unprovable judgements are "facts", you should've gone after the line "You know the first post after the dev blog...", which I will now officially amend to "It seems highly likely, given the way people have reacted to dev blogs in the past, that one of the first responses to the announcement of a balance pass to the MVAE would be..." (the rest is the quote, which is unchanged).
The problem here is with your definitions of "competitive" "opinion " and mathematical facts.
No, it isn't. The problem here is that you keep assuming that your definitions of the key terms are the only possible ones, instead of merely being the ones that you prefer.
I agree that the Galaxy does less damage than other cruisers. I agree that the Galaxy doesn't do anything in particular better than any other ship. You have conceded that the Galaxy can do anything in the game, even if it can't do it as easily as other ships. I look at this situation and say "Okay, so, no problem". You look at it and say "Yes, huge problem". Those are both OPINIONS. Yours is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in your terms. Mine is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in my terms. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I'm saying you are confusing the degree to which you like your argument and dislike mine with the degree to which you are "right" and I am "wrong".
It doesn't even matter anymore, though, because you've granted everything I was after:
Is it preferred for those in the community who would like to fly it WHILE being competitive? Absolutely
This is my point. Change isn't necessary, it's just something a small segment of the community wants. That small segment needs to do more to demonstrate that it's a good idea than they have done in this thread. It's not about "do some people desire change", or even "is it reasonable to desire change", it's about "Does the desire of this small segment justify making the change, on balance?" It seems like you've just conceded that the answer to that question is "Not necessarily".
Your confusion around what has been mathematically proven and what is opinion, what is competitive and what people in STO want is highly comical at this point.
2+2 = 4. That is a fact.
4 is more than 3. Also fact.
4 is better than 3, because bigger numbers are better. Opinion.
4 is so much better than 3 that 3 is a useless number, because all that matters in this game is addition and multiplication, and in any of those operations where I use could use a 3, a 4 would result in a bigger number, which is better. Value judgement, based on a opinions which are subjective interpretations of facts.
Again, I'm not telling you that you should not feel slighted. That's a pointless argument. I'm telling you something you've already agreed to: That your feelings aren't a sufficient justification to make a change necessary.
No, it isn't. The problem here is that you keep assuming that your definitions of the key terms are the only possible ones, instead of merely being the ones that you prefer.
....
Again, I'm not telling you that you should not feel slighted. That's a pointless argument. I'm telling you something you've already agreed to: That your feelings aren't a sufficient justification to make a change necessary.
Call it irony or hypocrisy, but it's plainly evinced in the above quotation.
You're right, confusion on this point is comical.
Actually, it's gone past comical and become kinda sad.
Majority of the previous arguments in this thread are based off of canon which is highly subjective. STO mechanics are not.
The mechanics may not be subjective, but the interpretation of which parts are important, and why, certainly is.
Again, you've already conceded my point. Change isn't necessary. It's just something you and some unknown segment of the population desire. You've done no work to demonstrate that said portion of the population is actually significant enough to make the work worthwhile, except assume that it's a majority because you assume that only your way of viewing the world is rational, which is why your argument fails.
Call it irony or hypocrisy, but it's plainly evinced in the above quotation.
Oh noes, I'm going to respond to you again! I'm falling for it AGAIN.
It is not hypocritical at all. I'm not saying that your definitions are unacceptable or unreasonable. I'm not saying they are "wrong". I'm saying they are not the only ones that are reasonable. I'm saying that people can disagree on those definitions. I'm not saying you have to accept my definitions personally and change your own opinions. I'm saying you should stop assuming that if I don't change my views to match yours, I'm being unreasonable. Basically I'm saying you don't have to agree with me, but you have to accept that I hold the opinions that I do, and that it's not possible or necessary for you to "prove" that my opinions are "wrong". I'm also saying that your argument is unpersuasive precisely because it depends on assuming as fact that every reasonable person will think the same way you do, when that is demonstrably not true. I think your argument would be more persuasive (though, perhaps still not enough to change my mind) if instead you based it around a reasonable projected cost/benefit analysis, instead of around your spurious claim to a universal truth.
Oh noes, I'm going to respond to you again! I'm falling for it AGAIN.
It is not hypocritical at all. I'm not saying that your definitions are unacceptable or unreasonable. I'm not saying they are "wrong". I'm saying they are not the only ones that are reasonable. I'm saying that people can disagree on those definitions.
Communication via language is predicated on a common definition of terms. So no, you cannot adopt your own set of definitions and reasonably expect others to accept that as your prerogative.
I'm not saying you have to accept my definitions personally and change your own opinions. I'm saying you should stop assuming that if I don't change my views to match yours, I'm being unreasonable.
Have you considered the possibility that you are being unreasonable? Or are you not capable of being so?
Basically I'm saying you don't have to agree with me, but you have to accept that I hold the opinions that I do, and that it's not possible or necessary for you to "prove" that my opinions are "wrong". I'm also saying that your argument is unpersuasive precisely because it depends on assuming as fact that every reasonable person will think the same way you do, when that is demonstrably not true. I think your argument would be more persuasive (though, perhaps still not enough to change my mind) if instead you based it around a reasonable projected cost/benefit analysis, instead of around your spurious claim to a universal truth.
The irony! It burns us!
Right back at you.
Yep. I knew this would be a futile endeavor when I engaged. Yet I was compelled to do so. I are sad.
Excuse me, but could you two or three people please use an instant messenger or email to fight each other? You have reached a level that might let the idea of locking this thread down look almost reasonable.
^ 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
Actually, angrytarg is right, this is beyond pointless. We've reached an impasse. In the context of this thread, here's my position:
Given the fact that there are likely people who disagree that this is an important enough issue to spend resources on, and given that it is likely that there are many people who will not buy either a revised Galaxy nor spend money on an entirely new ship using the Galaxy skin, it seems unlikely that any change will improve the game enough to make attempting it worthwhile.
Thanks everyone who has responded with "LOL he's a delusional troll who wants to force his opinion on us like a giant hypocrite" for again proving that people are doing exactly what I am critiquing. If my only goal here is to prevent you from getting any changes to the Galaxy, then I suppose I should be grateful for your inability to grow your argument beyond this stage, as you have become your own worst enemies in terms of reasonable persuasive argument is concerned. Nevertheless, here's my attempt, again, to make people see that maybe, just maybe, I have a point:
I don't care if you feel like the Galaxy sucks. I'm not saying that you are wrong to think that. I'm saying you are wrong to assume that OPINION, no matter how well supported you think it to be, is a universal fact. Further, I'm saying you are wrong to assume that having said opinion, reasonable as it is, provides sufficient justification to change the Galaxy. This is, to me, manifestly obvious. Here's another one of those dreaded analogies to drive the point home:
you have opinions, facts, objective, and subjective completely backward. we can prove it does not perform well in practice, it has yet to be proven otherwise. we would welcome you to try, to point out were we are wrong, that would be a healthy debate. but your insisting that its impossible to prove ether way, freeing you of the responsibility to actually back your opinion up.
every end game ship is usable in any content, but all ships are not created equal, it tends to be the luck of the draw, what a ship ends up with, and how well it performs in practice. this is determined mostly by station setup, determining what skills they have access to. and turn rate, and impulse modifier. shield and hull hitpoints are the least important actually, but its always nice to have more then less.
here is an example of the logic behind why the galaxy class is bad. a ship that can use EWP, if it can also use APO is better at applying the cloud in an effective manner then a ship that does not have APO. this isn't an opinion, you need lots of speed and mobility to get the plasma on an elusive target. its this same kind of logic that allows us to determine definitively a galaxy classes combat value in game. what does it have access to? what combination of skills does it have? how well does it move? stuff like that paints an effectiveness picture.
I like the Prometheus line of escorts, especially the Cerberus skin. However, the Cerberus skin has clipping errors when separated, as well as some minor texture issues. In addition, I don't like coming to a stop to separate the ship (which is decidedly not canon in any case) and I hate that the wrong parts fly back together. This means I don't like using the MVAM console, which is a shame. Objectively, this is a "problem", in that I can prove it is worse than the MVAM mode on the Ha' Kona or the Chevron Separation on the Odyssey, for no reason at all except that Cryptic hasn't gotten around to fixing it.
Further, the Fleet version mirrors the MVAE station seating, which I feel is somewhat irritating, as the presence of the third Tac ensign means it's not really possible to run the ship with an all cannon/turret build. The sci Lt Commander is nice, but the tradeoff in terms of losing the Tac Lt Commander is probably not worth it. Overall I think the seating was once acceptable, but in the modern environment I think it is at a disadvantage in that it can't really take advantage of some of the best DOFF/power combos in the game. In my estimation, there is nothing that the MVAE does that couldn't be done better in another ship, except for the gimmick of Multi-Vector mode, which, again, I don't like to use.
In short, I feel like the MVAE could use some love. The key here is that I recognize that most of what I just said doesn't matter to other people. I further recognize that some people will look at the facts I listed about the ship and decide that they disagree that there is a sweeping problem with the MVAE that needs some attention. Because I recognize these things, instead of posting about "Why do you hate the MVAE?! I have the sad feels and you must fix it!!", I stopped and thought about it - why didn't Cryptic change the MVAM console when they made the new one for the Ha' Kona?
the galaxy R has the same second rate sep tech that the MVAM has, why do you think the galaxy R is so great as is when its got all the esthetic issues you dont like about the MVAM?
i think the fleet patrol got the universal ENS so you could use the advanced escort station setup on it as well, wile they gave the fleet MVAM the MVAM station setup. thats interesting, you taking a position on the ship, and its station setup. these are the specifics i'd wish you would get into on the galaxy class discussion, we could all make some progress if we had a look at your line of thinking like this.
the only down side the MVAM has in my opinion, is that its not one of the escorts you can run 4 DHCs on without being waistfull. its one of the escorts you need a torp or BO on as well, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. its got room to run 2 copies of BO/THY, 2 copies of CRF, but only really room for 1 copy of APO. 3 AP doffs can fix that, but that is a costly investment.
the MVAM has a few potentially unideal quality, some issues with the model and a station setup that cant run what some might want it to effectively. the galaxy class has these same problems too, its neck is to strait up and down, and the station setup has limitations and drawbacks to the extreme. whats different though, between the MVAM and galaxy, is that the MVAM is still an incredible escort, wile the galaxy is a terrible cruiser. the MVAM, wile separated, has mobility not unlike the bug, its just not quite as durable. its firepower is top tier as well, with 5 tactical consoles. some of the best mobility and some of the best damage potential does a lot to make up for maybe a useless ENS station on some builds. not to mention the offensive potentual of a sci LTC console, at least in PVP thats NOT to be discounted.
though, you could run 4 AP DHC, get the obelisk core and 360 deg beam, and use FAW in that 3rd ENS slot. its boosting your AP damage by 10%, and you have a handy point defense attack. or you could use it to target the shield subsystem and weaken your opponents shields wile you attack, without using a forward weapons slot to do it. its nice when you can find a way to get around a ships inherent issues, but not everything can be bypassed like that, some ships lose in to many categories to be saved. if the galaxy R had the turn rate and impulse modifier of the galor, it would be a great cruiser in spite of its station setup actually, just like in the case of the MVAM here. it would have no trouble keeping all its beams on target, to make up for the lack of tac consoles, and with all that eng it could run the basics all the other COM and LTC eng cruisers can run, plus be really good at applying EWP to targets.
im not saying the galaxy should become a mobility king among cruisers, but that would be one way to fix it. a fix that would be more fitting to that ship, when you take into consideration its size and the turn rates of ships larger and smaller then it, a change station power and console based is a more fitting solution.
Turns out there's an answer - fixing it requires resources from both the art team and the systems team, and those resources are better spent elsewhere. I further recognize that while the MVAE doesn't have the "perfect" seating, and can be outperformed by other ships, it's not "broken" in the sense that I can do anything in the game, and my personal level of skill can make up for much of that difference. Thus, it seems clear to me that no "fix" will be coming soon, nor do I expect one, because in the larger context of the game, no matter how much it matters to me, it's just not that important.
getting second gen sep to work on the galaxy is taking serious development resources, or should if they actually got after it and stopped shelving it. a change to station and console setups would only require a few changes to an excel spreadsheet. any new released ships would also be using old assets, no new ones would be needed. if thats all they did, it would just be as hard as making a fleet ship.
In fact, regardless of how easy and obvious the changes I want are, the fact is that actually implementing those changes is fraught with difficulties. If the seating changes, what happens to BOFFs that are slotted in a seat that no longer exists? Could easily become a problem. Okay, so now Cryptic has to code a solution for that problem, which needs to be bug-tested etc. all of which increases the development cost, both in actual cost (wages etc) and opportunity cost (not working on new ships/content that would make more money/affect more people).
this is seemingly the biggest problem with changing the ship. what form is it to take, a change to the original? a rerelease with a differnt setup? a 3 pack? they are clever though, i think they can figure something out. like, announce they will stop selling the galaxy R, and then when that date passes, release a new version. something like that. then nobody that likes what they have now can get it taken away. this part is really only a formality.
Further, how are they paying for these changes? They can't re-sell the MVAE without enraging the people who already bought it (some of them twice - fleet and MVAE c-store), but the changes They're making aren't likely to cause very many people to go back and buy it, so this is basically a money loser for Cryptic. It still might be worth doing if it would garner the goodwill of the player base, but you know that the first post after the Dev blog announcing the balance pass to the MVAE would be something like "So, you spent time and energy on this, instead of on <ship or issue poster feels is more important>? Ridiculous. Way to go Craptic.". It seems like such a change would really only be worth doing, then, in the context of a larger rebalancing of many of the older ships. Maybe that would be a good idea, but again, it's not necessarily a money maker, and the more effort Cryptic puts into doing things that don't make them money, the harder it becomes for them to justify doing them.
i dont see how anything re-released that basically reuses old assets can possibly lose them money. i think ships that have enough canon clout as the MVAM and galaxy will draw attention that a re release of some cryptic design would not.
Does that make it more clear? I am not saying that people are wrong to want a change to the Galaxy. I'm not trying to "force" my opinion that everything is fine on you. I'm saying that in the face of the fact that at least some people don't share your opinion that this is a huge problem, your argument to support making a change can't merely be based on your righteous indignation about the situation. My evaluation of the likely outcome of such a change is as follows:
the problem we have with you is that most of what you insist is an opinion is anything but. seeing as we can prove most of the things you call an opinion. we can debate on how possible a change to an already released ship is, thats a different topic. your opinion that it isn't worth updating, because its not actually a bad ship and its not possible to prove it is, is flat wrong though.
A number of Galaxy fans are happy. Another segment of Galaxy fans are unhappy, either because Cryptic "forced" them to buy another new version of the Galaxy, or because the changes didn't go far enough, and thus are only a 'good start'. In the case of "buy a new version of the Galaxy", sales are modest at best, because there just isn't that much demand for the ship, but the backlash from players who feel like its a ripoff and a waste of dev resources is pretty intense. In the case of simply changing the current ship, there is a smaller (but still significant) backlash from other players who feel like their concerns are being unfairly ignored in favor of a small cabal of noisy players, while the vast, vast majority of the player base simply shrugs and moves on, not caring one way or another. Sales of the Galaxy ships don't spike up, because most people who want to fly a Galaxy already bought one, or were going to buy one anyway. Thus, in any case, Cryptic likely doesn't make money and likely doesn't substantially improve the gameplay experience for the majority of the player base, nor have they substantially reduced the number of complaints people have about the game, just shifted who is complaining about what. The benefit, then, if any, is likely not worth the effort expended to make the change.
And that, as they say, is what Cryptic's "beef" with the Galaxy likely is.
i think theres enough people willing to buy a galaxy that would compete with any other ship released in 2013, many are tired of the only top tier choices being non faction lock box ships, and would like to fly good faction ships too. if they dont do any work to remaster the model, which would be nice, theres no new art needed, just some values changed in a spread sheet.
i think theres a way to keep everyone happy. the stop sell and re release would take nothing from people. they stopped selling some ship costumes and made them an exclusive when you bought fleet ship. they stopped selling EV suits and made them a vet reward. i think that would be par for the course. people that bought the original galaxy R just need a way to keep claiming the old version, whenever they want.
No, it isn't. The problem here is that you keep assuming that your definitions of the key terms are the only possible ones, instead of merely being the ones that you prefer.
I agree that the Galaxy does less damage than other cruisers. I agree that the Galaxy doesn't do anything in particular better than any other ship. You have conceded that the Galaxy can do anything in the game, even if it can't do it as easily as other ships. I look at this situation and say "Okay, so, no problem". You look at it and say "Yes, huge problem". Those are both OPINIONS. Yours is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in your terms. Mine is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in my terms. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I'm saying you are confusing the degree to which you like your argument and dislike mine with the degree to which you are "right" and I am "wrong".
eh, well now it looks like you have finally conceded that ya, the ship sucks compared to others. we think theres enough justification to do something about that, that is our opinion. thats the only part thats an opinion, the ship sucking is fact. at least we are past that.
but if we follow your logic to its conclusion, then they could justify never releasing another ship. the players have every ship they need to do all the content, nothing new is needed.
the only way to know for sure what kind of acceptance a modified galaxy could have, is to count the number of people that post in the blog threads about the proposed change. its a bit too unknowable to say how many would like it, but if cryptic can sell ships of their won designs, with desirable stats, then i dont see how they would have a hard time selling something iconic with good stats. and if they reuse assets, it would be pure profit regardless of sales.
Its not about the Galaxy class being better than the Sovereign. Which I disagree with but that's not the point. It's about the Galaxy not being competitive at all. I would be happy if they gave the Fleet Galaxy the same stats as the Sovereign except for turn rate and Inertia. At least then it could pump out some dps. The drawback being turn < Sovereign.
it is not about that, indeed... for us.
but it was about that when cryptic introduce the ship into the game.
more precisely it was about that the galaxy must be inferior to the sovereign.
wich i can agree with if they really want to, the only problem is that the sovereign is also far from being an uber ship in the first place.
to succeed to make a ship clearly inferior to the free assault cruiser, it must be really crappy, in fact the only way you can do it is by making a ship that is as efficient as a tier4 one.
hence why this ship is not competitive.
also just make it a clone of the regent with less turn rate might sound like a good idea but you will only transform it into an odyssey.
and we all known how lackluster this ship is, more science power would be my choice, there is something to be done in that area that can also bring dps if you really want that for this ship.
tractor beam repulsor with the new season 8 doff and warp plasma, just 1 possibility.
it is not about that, indeed... for us.
but it was about that when cryptic introduce the ship into the game.
more precisely it was about that the galaxy must be inferior to the sovereign.
wich i can agree with if they really want to, the only problem is that the sovereign is also far from being an uber ship in the first place.
to succeed to make a ship clearly inferior to the free assault cruiser, it must be really crappy, in fact the only way you can do it is by making a ship that is as efficient as a tier4 one.
hence why this ship is not competitive.
also just make it a clone of the regent with less turn rate might sound like a good idea but you will only transform it into an odyssey.
and we all known how lackluster this ship is, more science power would be my choice, there is something to be done in that area that can also bring dps if you really want that for this ship.
tractor beam repulsor with the new season 8 doff and warp plasma, just 1 possibility.
dont forget it also has to be worse then the galaxy X. the galaxy and sovereign debate is always frustrating, im trying to stay away from canon as much as possible in this thread lately. nothing closes the mind like an opposing view of canon, something presented that shakes the foundation of 'the doctrine'. the sov fans are very much like the voth in that regard, gecko says you make excellent villains because of that fevor, and your reaction to 'heresy' :P
thats why i like my universal LTC and LT proposal. the galaxy can finally be the best at something, science cruiser. or you could make it more regent like, and it would still be subpar compared to better tac cruisers. but at least everyone could fly it at an average competitive level tacticly, which many would like. the shear volume of sci you could wield with that setup would be much more amazing though.
dont forget it also has to be worse then the galaxy X. the galaxy and sovereign debate is always frustrating, im trying to stay away from canon as much as possible in this thread lately. nothing closes the mind like an opposing view of canon, something presented that shakes the foundation of 'the doctrine'. the sov fans are very much like the voth in that regard, gecko says you make excellent villains because of that fevor, and your reaction to 'heresy' :P
thats why i like my universal LTC and LT proposal. the galaxy can finally be the best at something, science cruiser. or you could make it more regent like, and it would still be subpar compared to better tac cruisers. but at least everyone could fly it at an average competitive level tacticly, which many would like. the shear volume of sci you could wield with that setup would be much more amazing though.
yeah, i have alway avoided these canon discussion as much as i can, and did a good job about it, but one can not completely ignore it.
it is the canon that explain the fate of the galaxy, if they were no canon, we will not have a galaxy, but just a star cruiser.
the galaxy have been introduced to tier 5 "thank" to canon but wasn't meant to be there in the first place in cryptic opinion.
just like the defiant and intrepid.
i love your proposal but i don't see cryptic agree with it, for many reason
first you stole the "uniqueness" of the odyssey with all these universal bo, that never a good idea to limit the potential sale of one of the most expensive ship out there.
second make it all science is a little like transform it into a science ship, without the drawback that these ship have, not sure if cryptic agree on it too, and maybe i see it in the wrong way, i never think about it much more than that.
you tell me.
third, it also leave the possibility to make it all tac, and even if you and i known that this would be the less efficient way to use them, many would see it as a MOAR dps solution and so is cryptic.
i love your proposal but i don't see cryptic agree with it, for many reason
first you stole the "uniqueness" of the odyssey with all these universal bo, that never a good idea to limit the potential sale of one of the most expensive ship out there.
its best not to focus on whats universal, but what you can build out of the universals. that galaxy would not be redundant in any way to the odyssey, they would be making totally different station combinations. the ody station setup, even with the vaunted uni LTC and ENS, was never great to begin with, due to what you were forced to have when you used the LTC for something other then eng. making it sci at least made a great healer, but making it tac was total overkill at the expense of survivability, and AtB use. the ambassador and excelsior i find far more useful and balanced.
whats in the latest lock box? a sci ship that has a universal LTC and LT, just like that proposed galaxy of mine. on top of that, its got a built in COM sci and LTC eng. this is a brave new world of universals, they have been stranded issue on ever new ship for like 2 years now. what was the last ship they launched without 1?
second make it all science is a little like transform it into a science ship, without the drawback that these ship have, not sure if cryptic agree on it too, and maybe i see it in the wrong way, i never think about it much more than that.
you tell me.
doesn't have a commander sci, and it doesn't have mobility still. or a 1.3+ shield mod, or SA, or built in subsytem targeting. it would use sci mainly for healing, wile an actual sci ship would be better suited for CC.
third, it also leave the possibility to make it all tac, and even if you and i known that this would be the less efficient way to use them, many would see it as a MOAR dps solution and so is cryptic.
tac sells. theres no reason to resist trying to sell more of it. the only time MOAR tac from cryptic is bad, is when the max damage goal posts get moved by something like the scimitar. tac is raw damage, eng and sci are not raw damage. they should not be as good as tac at dealing damage. they have thier own roles, are they an essential part of allowing your ship to be in a position to deal damage, with tac skills. look at the kumari, with its COM, LTC and LT tac, is that ship any good? not if it gets shot at, it cant keep itself alive. yes, everything works together, theres no reason to scoff at or intentionally limit one of the 3 types of skills on some kind of misbegotten principle. anything within the goal posts, like this would be, is not a big deal.
becides, tac is not the true power in game anyway, its sci. a little bit of force multiplier + tac will get you twice as far as just tac + tac.
I think the turn rate is probably manageable with new armor consoles + RCS. Also one can argue that you don't need much turn rate for a FAW and aux2bat spam bot.
But the boff layout (so poor in tac) and pitiful 2 tac consoles gimp this ship hard. Galaxy could be a nice alternative if they tweaked it modestly 2 address those issues.
And don't give me that TRIBBLE about diverse builds and taking away from Sovy role. In this game it is DPS or go bust. If a ship fails completely at DPS then it won't be used. Ain't no trinity here that needs a dedicated tank.
I am a huge fan of TNG and the love the look of the Galaxy! Make it so Cryptic or ... shut up and take our money.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
It hit me today. The most sublime solution to our galaxy woes. Perhaps not a perfect solution, but elegant, I think, and one that would benefit cruisers as a whole... maybe even the other classes two.
First, a change specific to the galaxy. I'd really like a third tactical console on there, but give me a single hangar and all is forgiven. One or the other, though I'm partial to the hangar option myself.
I was once in favor of increasing the turning, but the addition of a third tacsole or a single hangar would easily make up for that. The Oddy gets by just fine with the same turning because it comes with similar features. Consoles and a boost to firepower can compensate for the terribad turning.
As for the grand, sweeping change that would be sure to cause no small amount of upset and jubilation: Beam abilities should be engineering abilities. I know that sort of proposition is technically outside the realm of "Fix the Galaxy," since it does not address the Galaxy class directly, but give it a moment's thought before returning to the subject at hand.
Maybe it's a silly idea after all, but I think it would change things for the better. It would open up space in the often very limited tactical abilities cruisers are given and really, which ships have the most tactical seating? Escorts. Who uses beams almost never? Escorts. Give beam powers to the ships that actually mount beams.
My thoughts on the flight deck Galaxy: *ahem* ... AAAAAaaaarrrRRNNNaaaaaaGGGhhhUUUUUNNNnnnAAAAAaaaRRRggh o_O
Or in other words: No. Not only can't I accept that from that loose, wonky "canon" point of view we agreed to neglect for now, but also does this in no way shape or form help that ship at all. Though it is a comfortable way for Cryptic to claim that they fixed something.
Regarding the beam arrays, that came up a few times already. In fact, an ability like Beam Overload makes no sense being a tactical ability while something like boarding party makes no sense being an engineering ability. I personally would like to see them swapped or changed in some way, though the outrage would be of epic proportions. Because change is bad. Generally speking.
Regarding DDIS LTC and LT uni idea, I still don't understand what is so special about the Galaxy to deserve a completely unique station setup in the first place? In-game lore (on-screen canon doesn't count, but let's try to be consistent in Cryptics own lore. Someone has to do it ) the Galaxy is outclassed by at least one ship, the Oddysey being it's direct successor and one could argue that the wonky Star Cruiser is also supposed to be "better".
The thing with the Star Cruiser is, it's a free ship wheres the Explo-R is a store ship. Basically, a store ship should not be worse than an free ship and with the "Refit", Cryptic already introduced the Explo-R being the store version of the Star Cruiser. So it actually would make sense to fuse the two together since they basically fulfill the same purpose, so the R should get the Ventures T5 equivalent BOFF seating and the Star Cruiser skins available. But they obviously took another route, namely using canon ships to represent the T5 trinity.
The thing with the Odyssey, while arguably not having the best available BOFF seating, it is the new Galaxy. Cryptic stated that and they are not willing to change the Odyssey as well so there is no way they would make the Galaxy superior by giving her, out od nowhere, a LTC and LT uni seating. It would simply outperform the Oddy set-up and there is no way to justify that in my opinion.
I'll say again, I think our best, most realistic and fact approved bet would be to suggest that the fleet Explo-R mirrors the fleet Negh'Var like it's supposed to in the first place, meaning the uni ensign would allow for a Star Cruiser or a free Assault Cruiser or Explo-R seating while keeping it's "cruiser benefits". The third tac console is something I'd welcome; I would however accept a damage-boosting engineering console as well (because damage IS needed to even stay in the tank role Cryptic forces upon the ship). Or, again, better cruiser commands to introduce a whole new subfaction of cruisers.
All the other radical changes, at least in my opinion, come out of nowhere, like a LTC tac, 3 or 4 tac console T2 fleet cruiser or something lke that. I just don't see how that works. Then again, Cryptic made the excelsior and even the planetary research vessel Nova top tactical vessels. I don't know.
^ 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
flight deck galaxy ONLY as part of a 3 pack, not alone, not the only galaxy. that actually makes it quite a bit worse then it already is, loseing 2 of the most important cruiser auras.
Regarding DDIS LTC and LT uni idea, I still don't understand what is so special about the Galaxy to deserve a completely unique station setup in the first place? In-game lore (on-screen canon doesn't count, but let's try to be consistent in Cryptics own lore. Someone has to do it ) the Galaxy is outclassed by at least one ship, the Oddysey being it's direct successor and one could argue that the wonky Star Cruiser is also supposed to be "better".
The thing with the Odyssey, while arguably not having the best available BOFF seating, it is the new Galaxy. Cryptic stated that and they are not willing to change the Odyssey as well so there is no way they would make the Galaxy superior by giving her, out od nowhere, a LTC and LT uni seating. It would simply outperform the Oddy set-up and there is no way to justify that in my opinion.
whats so special about the excelsior? or ambassador? or monbosh? or galor? all station setups as good or beter then the ody. ody still has a higher shield mod and hull i believe, and the 2 ships will end up having different station setups. again, its not about what exactly is universal, its what you can do with it. theres no canon lore about the ody, theres plenty about the galaxy. the ody hasnt been held as a limit or benchmark for years, most every cruiser thats come after is beter. ONLY the galaxy, of ALL ships, seems to be the victim of well, it has to be worse then ______ syndrome. total bs, its a powerhouse, always was. it deserves a place of usefulness and flexibility. i already mentioned that voth sci ship, this galaxy is tamer then that. its par for the course on new releases.
I can't argue against the Excelsior and Ambassador. I think the Excelsior is just there because one developer liked that ship and the Ambassador, being introduced as a anniversary gimmick, is a riddle to me. Though you could argue that both of them were "powerhouses" in their respective time, just like the Galaxy in hers. She is just stuck with one role in this game and it's probably wiser to improve that role instead of further creating artificial power creep by setting her one step ahead of the other ships. With the lockbox ships, I think they personally don't "exist" in the games line up. They are lottery/vanity gimmick ships that are the best because you pay a lot of money to get them so I think it's best to ignore them in this debate.
What was on the show has just no meaning at all for STO. The same goes for every other Star Trek game, btw. Games are not canon and make up their own rules.
^ 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
Remove the weapon restriction from all cruisers. Let the players decide if, they want to sacrifice firing arc for the damage of dual or dual heavy cannons.
being utterly rubbish will limit the oddies saleability more than an updated galaxy.
what you just did, is the same as many other people, used the mediocrity of somthing else as an excuse not to update the gal and other ships.
you want them to be unique give teh oddy varients a better impulse speed mod and give the galaxy a better turning rate.(compared to each-other.)
it is not quite that, i was just talking about something that is unique to the federation cruiser ( as far as i known but i may have forgotten a new one lately, you tell me ), to have 2 universal BO.
the fact that the odyssey is also TRIBBLE didn't enter in the balance here.
i must also take this into comparison, if i want to speak about something that don't stole the role of an other ship, and that also how cryptic could see it.
that we like it or not.
its best not to focus on whats universal, but what you can build out of the universals.
can cryptic do that? i hope.
the ody station setup, even with the vaunted uni LTC and ENS, was never great to begin with, due to what you were forced to have when you used the LTC for something other then eng. making it sci at least made a great healer, but making it tac was total overkill at the expense of survivability, and AtB use. the ambassador and excelsior i find far more useful and balanced.
yeah i known, the oddy suck too.
what was the last ship they launched without 1?
i don't known, but they still can launch a new galaxy... without one;) hehehe!
doesn't have a commander sci, and it doesn't have mobility still. or a 1.3+ shield mod, or SA, or built in subsytem targeting. it would use sci mainly for healing, wile an actual sci ship would be better suited for CC.
true, i knew i was missing something, somehow XD
tac sells. theres no reason to resist trying to sell more of it. the only time MOAR tac from cryptic is bad, is when the max damage goal posts get moved by something like the scimitar. tac is raw damage, eng and sci are not raw damage. they should not be as good as tac at dealing damage. they have thier own roles, are they an essential part of allowing your ship to be in a position to deal damage, with tac skills. look at the kumari, with its COM, LTC and LT tac, is that ship any good? not if it gets shot at, it cant keep itself alive. yes, everything works together, theres no reason to scoff at or intentionally limit one of the 3 types of skills on some kind of misbegotten principle. anything within the goal posts, like this would be, is not a big deal.
becides, tac is not the true power in game anyway, its sci. a little bit of force multiplier + tac will get you twice as far as just tac + tac.
true, there is nothing more unpleasant for me to deal with than a sci in an escort ( if the player do it well, that goes without saying )
It hit me today. The most sublime solution to our galaxy woes. Perhaps not a perfect solution, but elegant, I think, and one that would benefit cruisers as a whole... maybe even the other classes two.
First, a change specific to the galaxy. I'd really like a third tactical console on there, but give me a single hangar and all is forgiven. One or the other, though I'm partial to the hangar option myself.
we have already covered that, a hangar, we have all agree that it was not a good idea, for many reason.
i was not opposed to it in the beguining personally, but then quickly realized that first and more important for me, it would mean more spam to the game, i think we have enought of them.
second, this indeed, could also be a " flash cryptic fix" that will not really fix the ship.
yes it will have more firepower or more crow control, but we bielieve that this is not in the spirit of what this ship should be, just like the galaxy x btw.
since it would not solve it core problem and would just add firepower or other things.
just like a 3nd tact console.
many people bielieve that adding just a third tact console will do it.
you won't even notice it.
there is a other thread where a guy argue that he want this 3nd tact console for the galaxy because it is what keep him to compete with the exelsior and assault cruiser.
what this guy fail to realize is that these 2 ship are not more powerfull just because of the 3nd tact console, but it is the addition of this console + the turn rate and the ensign or lt commander tact slot.
the galaxy dreadnought use to have 2 tact console only, i remember dreaming of that day when we will got a third, bielieving that it will , at last, make the ship more efficient.
guess what?
yes it was a little better, but i am sure that if one would have made a blind test here, i woudn't have notice the difference.
it is better to have it for sure, but that would certainly not be enought.
that is, if the solution would be: give me my 3tact console and we got a deal.
this console would serve you nothing if you don't have the turn and tactical slot that must go with it.
As for the grand, sweeping change that would be sure to cause no small amount of upset and jubilation: Beam abilities should be engineering abilities. I know that sort of proposition is technically outside the realm of "Fix the Galaxy," since it does not address the Galaxy class directly, but give it a moment's thought before returning to the subject at hand
there was already a proposal for that idea in this thread, i personally don't think it is a good one, and so dontdrunk i think.
but hey, maybe i was wrong, the thing is to see if this would turn out like you want it to be, you must look at all possibilities.
the question are, what are the goals of this changes.
and daes this changes would meet the goals in every possible ship and configuration?
will this proposal would make things really better than what they are now?
yea... no.
too many things using cannons as is. even the roach boat is supposed to be a beam boat.
Why do you hate freedom? Let each player decide for themselves, what their ship is supposed to be. Let that choice be dictated by the ship/captain's ability (turn rate) and not by an arbitrary restriction.
I can't argue against the Excelsior and Ambassador. I think the Excelsior is just there because one developer liked that ship and the Ambassador, being introduced as a anniversary gimmick, is a riddle to me. Though you could argue that both of them were "powerhouses" in their respective time, just like the Galaxy in hers. She is just stuck with one role in this game and it's probably wiser to improve that role instead of further creating artificial power creep by setting her one step ahead of the other ships. With the lockbox ships, I think they personally don't "exist" in the games line up. They are lottery/vanity gimmick ships that are the best because you pay a lot of money to get them so I think it's best to ignore them in this debate.
What was on the show has just no meaning at all for STO. The same goes for every other Star Trek game, btw. Games are not canon and make up their own rules.
one should not ignore lockbox ship because they are seemingly more difficult to obtain than normal ship.
they are part of the game, and are a reality choice for everyplayer.
one should not ignore lockbox ship because they are seemingly more difficult to obtain than normal ship.
they are part of the game, and are a reality choice for everyplayer.
Exactly. Although not everyone can own a lockbox ship, anyone still can. Next to the 3-pack Scimitar and the Avenger(you'll never need a dedicated cruiser or escort ever again!), they're blatant power creep that's obsoleting just about everything else in this game.
The Bastion is a Fleet Ambassador with a fighter bay, for christ's sake.
I just took a level 30 Exploration Cruiser into ISE with my Avenger Captain and did almost 6000 DPS with it, was the aggro tank the whole fight, did not die, and had a mix of really good and really awful gear on it.
Comments
Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Even if you assumed that I meant the bit about the problem being one of the RP feelings of BOFFs, and not a reference to the potential coding difficulties of making a change to ships that currently exist, you know it's only one tiny part of the argument. It's true, that would be a terrible reason for you to care. The other reasons, which you have ignored, are still not terrible.
Note that I have three defenses against this attack - first, It's obviously spurious, since the context makes it clear that I was referring to a coding problem on the back end, not some RP fantasy. Second, even if my language was unclear there, my clarification should make it obvious what I mean, and the clarification is not vulnerable to the accusation you are making (that this is a ridiculous thing to think about on face). Third, even if I'm somehow wrong about both those things, I've still built in other components to the overall argument that you are still ignoring, and those other pieces are sufficient to make my case with or without this specific element.
Regardless, if you really wanted to take me to task for being a hypocrite on the issue of assuming unproven/unprovable judgements are "facts", you should've gone after the line "You know the first post after the dev blog...", which I will now officially amend to "It seems highly likely, given the way people have reacted to dev blogs in the past, that one of the first responses to the announcement of a balance pass to the MVAE would be..." (the rest is the quote, which is unchanged).
Calm down. Breathe. Normal controlled even breaths. This paranoia will pass.
No, it isn't. The problem here is that you keep assuming that your definitions of the key terms are the only possible ones, instead of merely being the ones that you prefer.
I agree that the Galaxy does less damage than other cruisers. I agree that the Galaxy doesn't do anything in particular better than any other ship. You have conceded that the Galaxy can do anything in the game, even if it can't do it as easily as other ships. I look at this situation and say "Okay, so, no problem". You look at it and say "Yes, huge problem". Those are both OPINIONS. Yours is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in your terms. Mine is the conclusion you come to if you define the game in my terms. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I'm saying you are confusing the degree to which you like your argument and dislike mine with the degree to which you are "right" and I am "wrong".
It doesn't even matter anymore, though, because you've granted everything I was after:
This is my point. Change isn't necessary, it's just something a small segment of the community wants. That small segment needs to do more to demonstrate that it's a good idea than they have done in this thread. It's not about "do some people desire change", or even "is it reasonable to desire change", it's about "Does the desire of this small segment justify making the change, on balance?" It seems like you've just conceded that the answer to that question is "Not necessarily".
2+2 = 4. That is a fact.
4 is more than 3. Also fact.
4 is better than 3, because bigger numbers are better. Opinion.
4 is so much better than 3 that 3 is a useless number, because all that matters in this game is addition and multiplication, and in any of those operations where I use could use a 3, a 4 would result in a bigger number, which is better. Value judgement, based on a opinions which are subjective interpretations of facts.
Again, I'm not telling you that you should not feel slighted. That's a pointless argument. I'm telling you something you've already agreed to: That your feelings aren't a sufficient justification to make a change necessary.
You're right, confusion on this point is comical.
Aww shucks, you got me again. I responded to you as if you were actually worth talking to.
Call it irony or hypocrisy, but it's plainly evinced in the above quotation.
Actually, it's gone past comical and become kinda sad.
Same dictionary, different interpretation.
There is not a single shred of evidence to support this claim.
The mechanics may not be subjective, but the interpretation of which parts are important, and why, certainly is.
Again, you've already conceded my point. Change isn't necessary. It's just something you and some unknown segment of the population desire. You've done no work to demonstrate that said portion of the population is actually significant enough to make the work worthwhile, except assume that it's a majority because you assume that only your way of viewing the world is rational, which is why your argument fails.
Oh noes, I'm going to respond to you again! I'm falling for it AGAIN.
It is not hypocritical at all. I'm not saying that your definitions are unacceptable or unreasonable. I'm not saying they are "wrong". I'm saying they are not the only ones that are reasonable. I'm saying that people can disagree on those definitions. I'm not saying you have to accept my definitions personally and change your own opinions. I'm saying you should stop assuming that if I don't change my views to match yours, I'm being unreasonable. Basically I'm saying you don't have to agree with me, but you have to accept that I hold the opinions that I do, and that it's not possible or necessary for you to "prove" that my opinions are "wrong". I'm also saying that your argument is unpersuasive precisely because it depends on assuming as fact that every reasonable person will think the same way you do, when that is demonstrably not true. I think your argument would be more persuasive (though, perhaps still not enough to change my mind) if instead you based it around a reasonable projected cost/benefit analysis, instead of around your spurious claim to a universal truth.
Right back at you.
Communication via language is predicated on a common definition of terms. So no, you cannot adopt your own set of definitions and reasonably expect others to accept that as your prerogative.
Have you considered the possibility that you are being unreasonable? Or are you not capable of being so?
The irony! It burns us!
Yep. I knew this would be a futile endeavor when I engaged. Yet I was compelled to do so. I are sad.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Given the fact that there are likely people who disagree that this is an important enough issue to spend resources on, and given that it is likely that there are many people who will not buy either a revised Galaxy nor spend money on an entirely new ship using the Galaxy skin, it seems unlikely that any change will improve the game enough to make attempting it worthwhile.
Prove otherwise.
you have opinions, facts, objective, and subjective completely backward. we can prove it does not perform well in practice, it has yet to be proven otherwise. we would welcome you to try, to point out were we are wrong, that would be a healthy debate. but your insisting that its impossible to prove ether way, freeing you of the responsibility to actually back your opinion up.
every end game ship is usable in any content, but all ships are not created equal, it tends to be the luck of the draw, what a ship ends up with, and how well it performs in practice. this is determined mostly by station setup, determining what skills they have access to. and turn rate, and impulse modifier. shield and hull hitpoints are the least important actually, but its always nice to have more then less.
here is an example of the logic behind why the galaxy class is bad. a ship that can use EWP, if it can also use APO is better at applying the cloud in an effective manner then a ship that does not have APO. this isn't an opinion, you need lots of speed and mobility to get the plasma on an elusive target. its this same kind of logic that allows us to determine definitively a galaxy classes combat value in game. what does it have access to? what combination of skills does it have? how well does it move? stuff like that paints an effectiveness picture.
the galaxy R has the same second rate sep tech that the MVAM has, why do you think the galaxy R is so great as is when its got all the esthetic issues you dont like about the MVAM?
i think the fleet patrol got the universal ENS so you could use the advanced escort station setup on it as well, wile they gave the fleet MVAM the MVAM station setup. thats interesting, you taking a position on the ship, and its station setup. these are the specifics i'd wish you would get into on the galaxy class discussion, we could all make some progress if we had a look at your line of thinking like this.
the only down side the MVAM has in my opinion, is that its not one of the escorts you can run 4 DHCs on without being waistfull. its one of the escorts you need a torp or BO on as well, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. its got room to run 2 copies of BO/THY, 2 copies of CRF, but only really room for 1 copy of APO. 3 AP doffs can fix that, but that is a costly investment.
the MVAM has a few potentially unideal quality, some issues with the model and a station setup that cant run what some might want it to effectively. the galaxy class has these same problems too, its neck is to strait up and down, and the station setup has limitations and drawbacks to the extreme. whats different though, between the MVAM and galaxy, is that the MVAM is still an incredible escort, wile the galaxy is a terrible cruiser. the MVAM, wile separated, has mobility not unlike the bug, its just not quite as durable. its firepower is top tier as well, with 5 tactical consoles. some of the best mobility and some of the best damage potential does a lot to make up for maybe a useless ENS station on some builds. not to mention the offensive potentual of a sci LTC console, at least in PVP thats NOT to be discounted.
though, you could run 4 AP DHC, get the obelisk core and 360 deg beam, and use FAW in that 3rd ENS slot. its boosting your AP damage by 10%, and you have a handy point defense attack. or you could use it to target the shield subsystem and weaken your opponents shields wile you attack, without using a forward weapons slot to do it. its nice when you can find a way to get around a ships inherent issues, but not everything can be bypassed like that, some ships lose in to many categories to be saved. if the galaxy R had the turn rate and impulse modifier of the galor, it would be a great cruiser in spite of its station setup actually, just like in the case of the MVAM here. it would have no trouble keeping all its beams on target, to make up for the lack of tac consoles, and with all that eng it could run the basics all the other COM and LTC eng cruisers can run, plus be really good at applying EWP to targets.
im not saying the galaxy should become a mobility king among cruisers, but that would be one way to fix it. a fix that would be more fitting to that ship, when you take into consideration its size and the turn rates of ships larger and smaller then it, a change station power and console based is a more fitting solution.
getting second gen sep to work on the galaxy is taking serious development resources, or should if they actually got after it and stopped shelving it. a change to station and console setups would only require a few changes to an excel spreadsheet. any new released ships would also be using old assets, no new ones would be needed. if thats all they did, it would just be as hard as making a fleet ship.
this is seemingly the biggest problem with changing the ship. what form is it to take, a change to the original? a rerelease with a differnt setup? a 3 pack? they are clever though, i think they can figure something out. like, announce they will stop selling the galaxy R, and then when that date passes, release a new version. something like that. then nobody that likes what they have now can get it taken away. this part is really only a formality.
i dont see how anything re-released that basically reuses old assets can possibly lose them money. i think ships that have enough canon clout as the MVAM and galaxy will draw attention that a re release of some cryptic design would not.
the problem we have with you is that most of what you insist is an opinion is anything but. seeing as we can prove most of the things you call an opinion. we can debate on how possible a change to an already released ship is, thats a different topic. your opinion that it isn't worth updating, because its not actually a bad ship and its not possible to prove it is, is flat wrong though.
i think theres enough people willing to buy a galaxy that would compete with any other ship released in 2013, many are tired of the only top tier choices being non faction lock box ships, and would like to fly good faction ships too. if they dont do any work to remaster the model, which would be nice, theres no new art needed, just some values changed in a spread sheet.
i think theres a way to keep everyone happy. the stop sell and re release would take nothing from people. they stopped selling some ship costumes and made them an exclusive when you bought fleet ship. they stopped selling EV suits and made them a vet reward. i think that would be par for the course. people that bought the original galaxy R just need a way to keep claiming the old version, whenever they want.
eh, well now it looks like you have finally conceded that ya, the ship sucks compared to others. we think theres enough justification to do something about that, that is our opinion. thats the only part thats an opinion, the ship sucking is fact. at least we are past that.
but if we follow your logic to its conclusion, then they could justify never releasing another ship. the players have every ship they need to do all the content, nothing new is needed.
the only way to know for sure what kind of acceptance a modified galaxy could have, is to count the number of people that post in the blog threads about the proposed change. its a bit too unknowable to say how many would like it, but if cryptic can sell ships of their won designs, with desirable stats, then i dont see how they would have a hard time selling something iconic with good stats. and if they reuse assets, it would be pure profit regardless of sales.
it is not about that, indeed... for us.
but it was about that when cryptic introduce the ship into the game.
more precisely it was about that the galaxy must be inferior to the sovereign.
wich i can agree with if they really want to, the only problem is that the sovereign is also far from being an uber ship in the first place.
to succeed to make a ship clearly inferior to the free assault cruiser, it must be really crappy, in fact the only way you can do it is by making a ship that is as efficient as a tier4 one.
hence why this ship is not competitive.
also just make it a clone of the regent with less turn rate might sound like a good idea but you will only transform it into an odyssey.
and we all known how lackluster this ship is, more science power would be my choice, there is something to be done in that area that can also bring dps if you really want that for this ship.
tractor beam repulsor with the new season 8 doff and warp plasma, just 1 possibility.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
dont forget it also has to be worse then the galaxy X. the galaxy and sovereign debate is always frustrating, im trying to stay away from canon as much as possible in this thread lately. nothing closes the mind like an opposing view of canon, something presented that shakes the foundation of 'the doctrine'. the sov fans are very much like the voth in that regard, gecko says you make excellent villains because of that fevor, and your reaction to 'heresy' :P
thats why i like my universal LTC and LT proposal. the galaxy can finally be the best at something, science cruiser. or you could make it more regent like, and it would still be subpar compared to better tac cruisers. but at least everyone could fly it at an average competitive level tacticly, which many would like. the shear volume of sci you could wield with that setup would be much more amazing though.
yeah, i have alway avoided these canon discussion as much as i can, and did a good job about it, but one can not completely ignore it.
it is the canon that explain the fate of the galaxy, if they were no canon, we will not have a galaxy, but just a star cruiser.
the galaxy have been introduced to tier 5 "thank" to canon but wasn't meant to be there in the first place in cryptic opinion.
just like the defiant and intrepid.
i love your proposal but i don't see cryptic agree with it, for many reason
first you stole the "uniqueness" of the odyssey with all these universal bo, that never a good idea to limit the potential sale of one of the most expensive ship out there.
second make it all science is a little like transform it into a science ship, without the drawback that these ship have, not sure if cryptic agree on it too, and maybe i see it in the wrong way, i never think about it much more than that.
you tell me.
third, it also leave the possibility to make it all tac, and even if you and i known that this would be the less efficient way to use them, many would see it as a MOAR dps solution and so is cryptic.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
its best not to focus on whats universal, but what you can build out of the universals. that galaxy would not be redundant in any way to the odyssey, they would be making totally different station combinations. the ody station setup, even with the vaunted uni LTC and ENS, was never great to begin with, due to what you were forced to have when you used the LTC for something other then eng. making it sci at least made a great healer, but making it tac was total overkill at the expense of survivability, and AtB use. the ambassador and excelsior i find far more useful and balanced.
whats in the latest lock box? a sci ship that has a universal LTC and LT, just like that proposed galaxy of mine. on top of that, its got a built in COM sci and LTC eng. this is a brave new world of universals, they have been stranded issue on ever new ship for like 2 years now. what was the last ship they launched without 1?
doesn't have a commander sci, and it doesn't have mobility still. or a 1.3+ shield mod, or SA, or built in subsytem targeting. it would use sci mainly for healing, wile an actual sci ship would be better suited for CC.
tac sells. theres no reason to resist trying to sell more of it. the only time MOAR tac from cryptic is bad, is when the max damage goal posts get moved by something like the scimitar. tac is raw damage, eng and sci are not raw damage. they should not be as good as tac at dealing damage. they have thier own roles, are they an essential part of allowing your ship to be in a position to deal damage, with tac skills. look at the kumari, with its COM, LTC and LT tac, is that ship any good? not if it gets shot at, it cant keep itself alive. yes, everything works together, theres no reason to scoff at or intentionally limit one of the 3 types of skills on some kind of misbegotten principle. anything within the goal posts, like this would be, is not a big deal.
becides, tac is not the true power in game anyway, its sci. a little bit of force multiplier + tac will get you twice as far as just tac + tac.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
But the boff layout (so poor in tac) and pitiful 2 tac consoles gimp this ship hard. Galaxy could be a nice alternative if they tweaked it modestly 2 address those issues.
And don't give me that TRIBBLE about diverse builds and taking away from Sovy role. In this game it is DPS or go bust. If a ship fails completely at DPS then it won't be used. Ain't no trinity here that needs a dedicated tank.
I am a huge fan of TNG and the love the look of the Galaxy! Make it so Cryptic or ... shut up and take our money.
- Judge Aaron Satie
First, a change specific to the galaxy. I'd really like a third tactical console on there, but give me a single hangar and all is forgiven. One or the other, though I'm partial to the hangar option myself.
I was once in favor of increasing the turning, but the addition of a third tacsole or a single hangar would easily make up for that. The Oddy gets by just fine with the same turning because it comes with similar features. Consoles and a boost to firepower can compensate for the terribad turning.
As for the grand, sweeping change that would be sure to cause no small amount of upset and jubilation: Beam abilities should be engineering abilities. I know that sort of proposition is technically outside the realm of "Fix the Galaxy," since it does not address the Galaxy class directly, but give it a moment's thought before returning to the subject at hand.
Maybe it's a silly idea after all, but I think it would change things for the better. It would open up space in the often very limited tactical abilities cruisers are given and really, which ships have the most tactical seating? Escorts. Who uses beams almost never? Escorts. Give beam powers to the ships that actually mount beams.
Thoughts, anyone?
Or in other words: No. Not only can't I accept that from that loose, wonky "canon" point of view we agreed to neglect for now, but also does this in no way shape or form help that ship at all. Though it is a comfortable way for Cryptic to claim that they fixed something.
Regarding the beam arrays, that came up a few times already. In fact, an ability like Beam Overload makes no sense being a tactical ability while something like boarding party makes no sense being an engineering ability. I personally would like to see them swapped or changed in some way, though the outrage would be of epic proportions. Because change is bad. Generally speking.
Regarding DDIS LTC and LT uni idea, I still don't understand what is so special about the Galaxy to deserve a completely unique station setup in the first place? In-game lore (on-screen canon doesn't count, but let's try to be consistent in Cryptics own lore. Someone has to do it
The thing with the Star Cruiser is, it's a free ship wheres the Explo-R is a store ship. Basically, a store ship should not be worse than an free ship and with the "Refit", Cryptic already introduced the Explo-R being the store version of the Star Cruiser. So it actually would make sense to fuse the two together since they basically fulfill the same purpose, so the R should get the Ventures T5 equivalent BOFF seating and the Star Cruiser skins available. But they obviously took another route, namely using canon ships to represent the T5 trinity.
The thing with the Odyssey, while arguably not having the best available BOFF seating, it is the new Galaxy. Cryptic stated that and they are not willing to change the Odyssey as well so there is no way they would make the Galaxy superior by giving her, out od nowhere, a LTC and LT uni seating. It would simply outperform the Oddy set-up and there is no way to justify that in my opinion.
I'll say again, I think our best, most realistic and fact approved bet would be to suggest that the fleet Explo-R mirrors the fleet Negh'Var like it's supposed to in the first place, meaning the uni ensign would allow for a Star Cruiser or a free Assault Cruiser or Explo-R seating while keeping it's "cruiser benefits". The third tac console is something I'd welcome; I would however accept a damage-boosting engineering console as well (because damage IS needed to even stay in the tank role Cryptic forces upon the ship). Or, again, better cruiser commands to introduce a whole new subfaction of cruisers.
All the other radical changes, at least in my opinion, come out of nowhere, like a LTC tac, 3 or 4 tac console T2 fleet cruiser or something lke that. I just don't see how that works. Then again, Cryptic made the excelsior and even the planetary research vessel Nova top tactical vessels. I don't know.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
whats so special about the excelsior? or ambassador? or monbosh? or galor? all station setups as good or beter then the ody. ody still has a higher shield mod and hull i believe, and the 2 ships will end up having different station setups. again, its not about what exactly is universal, its what you can do with it. theres no canon lore about the ody, theres plenty about the galaxy. the ody hasnt been held as a limit or benchmark for years, most every cruiser thats come after is beter. ONLY the galaxy, of ALL ships, seems to be the victim of well, it has to be worse then ______ syndrome. total bs, its a powerhouse, always was. it deserves a place of usefulness and flexibility. i already mentioned that voth sci ship, this galaxy is tamer then that. its par for the course on new releases.
What was on the show has just no meaning at all for STO. The same goes for every other Star Trek game, btw. Games are not canon and make up their own rules.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
it is not quite that, i was just talking about something that is unique to the federation cruiser ( as far as i known but i may have forgotten a new one lately, you tell me ), to have 2 universal BO.
the fact that the odyssey is also TRIBBLE didn't enter in the balance here.
i must also take this into comparison, if i want to speak about something that don't stole the role of an other ship, and that also how cryptic could see it.
that we like it or not.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
can cryptic do that? i hope.
yeah i known, the oddy suck too.
i don't known, but they still can launch a new galaxy... without one;) hehehe!
true, i knew i was missing something, somehow XD
true, there is nothing more unpleasant for me to deal with than a sci in an escort ( if the player do it well, that goes without saying )
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
we have already covered that, a hangar, we have all agree that it was not a good idea, for many reason.
i was not opposed to it in the beguining personally, but then quickly realized that first and more important for me, it would mean more spam to the game, i think we have enought of them.
second, this indeed, could also be a " flash cryptic fix" that will not really fix the ship.
yes it will have more firepower or more crow control, but we bielieve that this is not in the spirit of what this ship should be, just like the galaxy x btw.
since it would not solve it core problem and would just add firepower or other things.
just like a 3nd tact console.
many people bielieve that adding just a third tact console will do it.
you won't even notice it.
there is a other thread where a guy argue that he want this 3nd tact console for the galaxy because it is what keep him to compete with the exelsior and assault cruiser.
what this guy fail to realize is that these 2 ship are not more powerfull just because of the 3nd tact console, but it is the addition of this console + the turn rate and the ensign or lt commander tact slot.
the galaxy dreadnought use to have 2 tact console only, i remember dreaming of that day when we will got a third, bielieving that it will , at last, make the ship more efficient.
guess what?
yes it was a little better, but i am sure that if one would have made a blind test here, i woudn't have notice the difference.
it is better to have it for sure, but that would certainly not be enought.
that is, if the solution would be: give me my 3tact console and we got a deal.
this console would serve you nothing if you don't have the turn and tactical slot that must go with it.
there was already a proposal for that idea in this thread, i personally don't think it is a good one, and so dontdrunk i think.
but hey, maybe i was wrong, the thing is to see if this would turn out like you want it to be, you must look at all possibilities.
the question are, what are the goals of this changes.
and daes this changes would meet the goals in every possible ship and configuration?
will this proposal would make things really better than what they are now?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Why do you hate freedom? Let each player decide for themselves, what their ship is supposed to be. Let that choice be dictated by the ship/captain's ability (turn rate) and not by an arbitrary restriction.
one should not ignore lockbox ship because they are seemingly more difficult to obtain than normal ship.
they are part of the game, and are a reality choice for everyplayer.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Exactly. Although not everyone can own a lockbox ship, anyone still can. Next to the 3-pack Scimitar and the Avenger(you'll never need a dedicated cruiser or escort ever again!), they're blatant power creep that's obsoleting just about everything else in this game.
The Bastion is a Fleet Ambassador with a fighter bay, for christ's sake.
http://i.imgur.com/UUFQw1K.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/g5owXbS.jpg
(ignore the a2b, i didnt have the doffs on for it, so all it did was give me useless power shunting and not much else)
I dont see any issue with the galaxy class.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus