No change to the Galaxy. I'm throwing in the towel.:(
Honestly its more of a engineering power problem then the ship, top teir engineering powers are generally useless. Comparable to tact and science.
Direct weapon modulations 3 and aux to structural integrity 3 and extend shields 3, are the best.
eject warp plasma 3 has uses, like say getting a escort or bop and raider off your tail, but so can evasive maneuvering or emergency power to engines. Those don't even have a chance to fail or be completely countered.
with aux to structural integrity 3 most of the damage resistance are killed by the fact damage resistance doesn't stack as well as damage does in the case of the almighty attack pattern omega, and since cruisers have high number of resistance consoles anyways further kills it... The only thing left is the healing which haz emitters and engineering team does better, but it doesn't hit a timer with them so it still manages to be somewhat useful.
Directed Energy Modulation 3 needs some work yes its useful but I dunno it still has nothing on attack pattern omega or even attack pattern beta.
Rotate shield frequency 3 this is pointless rosp 1 does everything you could ever need...
Boarding party 3 really ? this ability is ultimately pointless shuttles travel too slow and get shot down... maybe if they were as tough as Danube then they would be worth something or even delta flyers...
Extend shields 3 great support skill over all but with it a lot of shields reach over the shield resist cap.
Aceton Beam 3
I've attempted to use this skill its pointless in pve... I haven't seen it do much in lowering excort damage in pvp and that's if i can turn my slow turning cruiser into range of escorts... the damage is rather pathetic. My only thought on improving this is a debuff to shield resistance like 10-15% at aceton beam 3 and 5% at one. Its also extremely easy to get rid of...
The lack of low end boff abilities in engineering that don't have cooldown with one another or other low in tact and science abilities is also a problem. The ship its self can excel in team support and tanking in this role it serves really well, along with the oddy. Both of which can tank more damage then any other cruisers, while still supporting allies with repairs and shielding.
So, it all boils down to "moar DPS, less DPS suckz0rz!!1" in the end. Is that really the way you want to argue? Instead of making the ships useful (the BOFF layout is terrible, the Venture/Star Cruiser layout would already help and a bigger sci focus instead of a tac one would also change the ship's usefulness, just saying) the whole discussion boils down to "give me 3+ tac consoles and a ltc tac boff, otherwise I won't touch the ship with a 20 foot pole."
i am also not agree with the imply idea that tanking/support ship should get a 3nd tact console because the game is dps centric.
if that is so then the star cruiser, engi and science odyssey should have a 3nd tact console as well.
this is just indeed " MOAR DPS" without any consideration to the ship role in the first place.
a 3nd tact console on a tanking ship is just nonsense if it is not followed by more tact bridge officer, but if you do that, we are not speaking about a tanking/support cruiser anymore but a tactical cruiser.
it is already hard to make cryptic change the bo layout of a ship in it own categorie, what make you think that they will transform a "healboat" into a tactical cruiser?
who's going to be next then?
maybe i am wrong, maybe it is the desire of cryptic in future release of ships that they all have at least 3 tact console but for now the only way you can see cryptic transforming the galaxy retrofit into a tactical ship is in the form of a 3 pack ship.
that the only way, they could keep the galaxy retrofit the way it is right now and call it the engi version, and you would have a science and tactical version of the ship.
and these would not be a galaxy dreadnought for tactical and an other for science.
the science and tactical should be completely new and be able to buy separatly for 2500z.
that way, the work they done for these ships would give them money.
the one that like the galaxy retrofit the way it is would keep it, if they wanted the added bonuse of console set that will certainly come with it,they could buy the pack.
and the one that are not happy with the current version could buy the tactical version OR the science version.
everyone get the version of the galaxy they like ( even the one that don't want a dreadnought as a tactical galaxy ) and cryptic get money for the work involved while doing what they wanted to do for a long time with the dreadnought, reworking this familly and give it set powers and separation console.
because i don't see cryptic changing the ship from tanking to tactical alone, and certainly not without a price.
Now "we" want the Galaxy to deliver exactly the same so she isn't the "worst" anymore. But is this really the right way to go?
the problem is that some people bielieve that the galaxy retrofit is bad because he is not tactical enought.
but the ship is not bad because it is not a tactical ship, it is already bad in the tanking/support role that cryptic assign him to in comparison to any other tanking ship ( and even some tactical ship )
one can not ask cryptic to change this ship into tactical just like one can not ask cryptic to give the defiant a commander engi slot and a lt commander science slot ( even if i known that no one would do that with the game mechanism right now ) because he want to.
(...)one can not ask cryptic to change this ship into tactical just like one can not ask cryptic to give the defiant a commander engi slot and a lt commander science slot ( even if i known that no one would do that with the game mechanism right now ) because he want to.
You hit the nail on the head, so to speak. This is what I couldn't articulate until now
Of course no one would demand such changes for the Defiant because it does good damage and damage is king. But it would be the exact same sort of "demand". The Galaxy in this game is badly represented, that is not the question. As a command ship, she SHOULD be equally fit for every task and only outperformed by specialists in that regard. But this is a Star Trek GAME and those have always made up their own rules. And in this set of rules the Galaxy got the unlucky draw. But instead of just transforming the ship into an Avenger clone why not improve what that ship does well (Engineering skills and armour) and make that as worthwhile as tactical abilities? I mean it cannot really be the canon debate anymore. In that regard, the Excelsior, Ambassador, Nova, Sabre and a lot of other ships are also portrayed "wrong" but you don't see anyone complaining because their misrepresentation makes them perform well in this game and no one would DARE to take away the four tactical consoles from the planetary research vessel "Nova".
If anything, it's hard evidence that both the ship and the profession are criminally underperforming. You're welcome.
Underperforming in damage. You are basically complaining that the Engineer, in the engineering heaviest ship cannot outperform (or be equal) to a Tactician in the most tactical cruiser which's specialty is damage.
I get all the complaints about the Galaxy and about Engineers. My fed main and most played character IS an Engineer IN a Exploration Cruiser R. I get all of that and I want something changed. But if the complaint is that the non damage dealing class in a non-damage dealing ship does not perform equal or better than the damage dealing class in a damage dealing ship then we are jumping the shark here, guys.
Let the complaint be "why is every content in this game aimed at dps dealing?" (Time gated missions that require you to dispose of ridiculously overcharged enemies in short time). "Why does one profession inexplicably lack setup options, especially on ships specializing in that profession?". "Why can't I use my profession's traits in any content in this game to my advantage?". "Why does one profession and ship specialization basically get all the benefits without any kind of trade off?". Those are good questions, at least in my opinion.
^ 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
The Galaxy needs about 3 to 4X the firepower it has to be the ship it was in the series thats what the fans of this game want
Let something some ship cryptic makes be the fleet repair ship no one will care and 3 people will buy it !!!!.....kidding
Picard didnt go around looking for something to repair !!!
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Just want to share my thoughts on Pure Tanks in PVE Content mainly Borg STFS
A Tank in PvE and why it is obsolete. The NPC is a one trick pony, it's AI is programmed to repeat the same pattern of attacks again and again. If you know the NPC and what Boff powers it uses it is very easy to counter this if you know what Boff powers to equip for said NPC, this allows for minimal heals/tanking giving a greater focus to take offence action against it.
I am of the option the majority of people who bring a true tank into PVE content are afraid of dying, they over kill on the hull/healing. Now there are some people that like to be a support ship and keep everyone alive. But in all honesty in the borg stfs focusing on simply healing the team and bringing no guns to the battle, you are effectively playing a man short as the other 4 have to provide the extra dps between them to make up for the lack of it from the tank/healer.
The Galaxy should not only be able to support but just like the Ambassador/Regent/Excelsior/Avenger it should also be able to dish out the punishment it is expected to take.
The ship doesn't need the LTC tact station keep it for the regent/excelsior and Avenger But having access to 2 x Lt. Tact stations and a 3rd tact console will bring the ship up to spec and allow it to both support and deal out punishment by having access to 4 tact powers low end ones however. TT1 & 2 BFAW 1 or 2 Torpedo powers 1 & 2 or Attack pattern Beta 1 BO 1 or 2
So lets simply just give the fleet galaxy one of these 2 boff layouts
1, Mirror the Nebula as the Engineering counterpart
Lt.Tact
Cmd Engineering
Lt. Cmd Science
Ens Engineering
Lt. Uni
I think this would work. The ship would not be over powered she would not knock the Regent/Avenger off the top of the tree but i think she would give the Excelsior and Ambassador a run for their money.
add antimatter spread and deflector shot to your BO layout as part of the ship not a console and you have a money making machine for cryptic
both abilitys the ship had in canon btw
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
1, Mirror the Nebula as the Engineering counterpart
Lt.Tact
Cmd Engineering
Lt. Cmd Science
Ens Engineering
Lt. Uni
(...)
I think that is the most reasonable suggestion for a new variant that also pays credit to the Venture refit. Seriously, the Venture type is maybe the only Cryptic designed Starfleet ship that isn't fugly and it get's totally neglected. Cryptic, do something with it
If the ship gets a 4/2/4 or 4/3/3 console layout is up to the devs. I would love to have 4 sci consoles but I would settle for the 4/3/3 as well.
^ 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
If anything, it's hard evidence that both the ship and the profession are criminally underperforming. You're welcome.
of course it is, no question about that, the real question is, why did you try to proove yourself the contrary.
you have done a good job with that build, you should be proud of it.
but like we said it before, there is no build you can make with this ship that would allow him to do something that any others cruiser can't already.
and their is certainly no build that would allow this cruiser to kill an other cruiser, using beam, if the opponent is somewhat competent that is.
if you tried to proove that this ship can't do as much damage as an avenger, there was no need.
where i have question however is how a single avenger was able to kill you in a galaxy with an engeener toon?
Just want to share my thoughts on Pure Tanks in PVE Content mainly Borg STFS
A Tank in PvE and why it is obsolete. The NPC is a one trick pony, it's AI is programmed to repeat the same pattern of attacks again and again. If you know the NPC and what Boff powers it uses it is very easy to counter this if you know what Boff powers to equip for said NPC, this allows for minimal heals/tanking giving a greater focus to take offence action against it.
I am of the option the majority of people who bring a true tank into PVE content are afraid of dying, they over kill on the hull/healing. Now there are some people that like to be a support ship and keep everyone alive. But in all honesty in the borg stfs focusing on simply healing the team and bringing no guns to the battle, you are effectively playing a man short as the other 4 have to provide the extra dps between them to make up for the lack of it from the tank/healer.
The Galaxy should not only be able to support but just like the Ambassador/Regent/Excelsior/Avenger it should also be able to dish out the punishment it is expected to take.
The ship doesn't need the LTC tact station keep it for the regent/excelsior and Avenger But having access to 2 x Lt. Tact stations and a 3rd tact console will bring the ship up to spec and allow it to both support and deal out punishment by having access to 4 tact powers low end ones however. TT1 & 2 BFAW 1 or 2 Torpedo powers 1 & 2 or Attack pattern Beta 1 BO 1 or 2
So lets simply just give the fleet galaxy one of these 2 boff layouts
1, Mirror the Nebula as the Engineering counterpart
Lt.Tact
Cmd Engineering
Lt. Cmd Science
Ens Engineering
Lt. Uni
I think this would work. The ship would not be over powered she would not knock the Regent/Avenger off the top of the tree but i think she would give the Excelsior and Ambassador a run for their money.
I love it. Most original and simple idea, but I think it would work.
The reason the Galaxy sucks is far more simple: No Worf. Can you imagine how much better the ship would be if Worf were slotted into his appropriate slot? Worf fixes all of the problems it has.
i really dont care for COM, ENS eng setups, cause that severely impacts possible AtB builds, and if you then use the universal for ENG, your back with 3 ENS eng powers.
based on the canon i can reference thats about right, for a war time galaxy, but in game it might be a bit much.
an eng captain :rolleyes: that was as much of the problem as the ship he was using
I don''t think that will be too much in the game. It's not like I asked to load DHC's on it. Actually the canon Galaxy was built during the Cardasian War so it was not some peace cruiseliner. The ship behaved based on it's captain's wishes. Cpt. Jean-luc Picard was a diplomatic guy that's why the ship wasn't fighting as much, as lets say, Cpt. Kirk's Enterprise.
The reason the Galaxy sucks is far more simple: No Worf. Can you imagine how much better the ship would be if Worf were slotted into his appropriate slot? Worf fixes all of the problems it has.
Galaxy needs Worf to not suck. It always has.
...and as always, he will get denied over and over again.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
i am also not agree with the imply idea that tanking/support ship should get a 3nd tact console because the game is dps centric.
if that is so then the star cruiser, engi and science odyssey should have a 3nd tact console as well.
this is just indeed " MOAR DPS" without any consideration to the ship role in the first place.
a 3nd tact console on a tanking ship is just nonsense if it is not followed by more tact bridge officer, but if you do that, we are not speaking about a tanking/support cruiser anymore but a tactical cruiser.
it is already hard to make cryptic change the bo layout of a ship in it own categorie, what make you think that they will transform a "healboat" into a tactical cruiser?
who's going to be next then?
maybe i am wrong, maybe it is the desire of cryptic in future release of ships that they all have at least 3 tact console but for now the only way you can see cryptic transforming the galaxy retrofit into a tactical ship is in the form of a 3 pack ship.
that the only way, they could keep the galaxy retrofit the way it is right now and call it the engi version, and you would have a science and tactical version of the ship.
and these would not be a galaxy dreadnought for tactical and an other for science.
the science and tactical should be completely new and be able to buy separatly for 2500z.
that way, the work they done for these ships would give them money.
the one that like the galaxy retrofit the way it is would keep it, if they wanted the added bonuse of console set that will certainly come with it,they could buy the pack.
and the one that are not happy with the current version could buy the tactical version OR the science version.
everyone get the version of the galaxy they like ( even the one that don't want a dreadnought as a tactical galaxy ) and cryptic get money for the work involved while doing what they wanted to do for a long time with the dreadnought, reworking this familly and give it set powers and separation console.
because i don't see cryptic changing the ship from tanking to tactical alone, and certainly not without a price.
the problem is that some people bielieve that the galaxy retrofit is bad because he is not tactical enought.
but the ship is not bad because it is not a tactical ship, it is already bad in the tanking/support role that cryptic assign him to in comparison to any other tanking ship ( and even some tactical ship )
one can not ask cryptic to change this ship into tactical just like one can not ask cryptic to give the defiant a commander engi slot and a lt commander science slot ( even if i known that no one would do that with the game mechanism right now ) because he want to.
I don't know why you are comparing the Galaxy to the Star Cruise. The Star Cruiser sucks as much the Galaxy but you don't get as much grief about it because it was not on TV and it doesn't have a big fan base. The game is very DPS sentric. Look at all of the new Cruisers and Alien battlcruisers sporting cannons and 5 tac consoles. If that is not DPS centric then you are blind. There are too many older style cruisers beating the Galaxy in DPS and can tank just as good. If they made a tier 5 Constitution or Stargazer they would probably outgun the Galaxy. The Fans want the Icon ship to be the icon ship it once was and not the basterd child that the Devs would like to forget.
Could we just make the ENS eng slot into a universal, and take one of engineering console slots, implement a bit of new tech to make it into a universal console slot. Gives it a bit of flexibility while letting anyone that likes the ship as is to keep it that way.
Would that suffice to make it moderately more useful?
i really dont care for COM, ENS eng setups, cause that severely impacts possible AtB builds, and if you then use the universal for ENG, your back with 3 ENS eng powers.
Excuse me, but it sounds more and more like "I want a LTC tac A2B build to achieve dps like the Avenger and Scimitars do. Everything else is stupid."
I begin to see why "we" aren't going anywhere, because it boils down to "we want the Galaxy skin on the Avenger. Period."
The Engineered Nebula setup would make sense from a canonical standpoint even and it would greatly enhance the ship's usefulness. But now it seems like the Galxy will suck unless t fits a cookie cutter dps build. So does the star Cruiser, doesn't it? That ship is dubbed as "Battleship" in it's NPC variant I think. It is even bigger than the Galaxy. Why doesn't that one need LTC tac and 4 tac consoles? Why do we even bother having ships with different BOFF layout in this game because they can't compete against each other?
Could we just make the ENS eng slot into a universal, and take one of engineering console slots, implement a bit of new tech to make it into a universal console slot. Gives it a bit of flexibility while letting anyone that likes the ship as is to keep it that way.
Would that suffice to make it moderately more useful?
That is the least Cryptic should do. The Exploration cruiser is the mirror of the Negh'Var which got a universal ensign in it's fleet state. There is no reason the Exploration Cruiser shouldn't get the same treatment and it would improve the ship. I support this.
As far as new variants of the Exploration Cruiser and Dreadnaught Cruiser go, I'll have my final vote on the Engineer-Nebula setup. It fits the design lineage and promotes the Refits of both ship to endgame level.
This setup came up repeatedly by different people in this thread and I think it's a neat one. The regular Explo-Refit could also recieve a third tac console instead of a science console. It is not the best but quite powerful and keeps the tone of all "Type 6 material" refits. I would also support a similiar treatment to the Sao Paolo and Bellerophon (SP Cmdr, Ens tac, Bellerophon Cmdr, Ens Sci, LTC tac) and we have a pretty neat Starfleet 2409 Refit line-up
Just my opinion and probably my final verdict on that one. I don't see the Galaxy being a top grade battleship, it's a backbone command cruiser. Huge firepower, but lacks finesse to utilize it like a smaller heavy cruiser could. Highly resistant to any form of punishment, able to equally fit every needed role but outclassed by it's supposed successor or specialist vessels. To me, this is the best and most reasonable variant in regards to this games gameplay and tone - you have to keep in mind that the new cruisers have literally no disadvantages for having superior firepower - of course that circumstance makes it hard to work with. In another thread someone asked the Fleet Aquarius to be improved because it sucks. It is akin to a Raider and will probably get the new Raider gameplay as well - but all other Starfleet "Escorts" have cruiser level hull and starfighter agility, of course everything sucks that's not a "omnipotent" vessel - it's quite similiar with cruisers.
In the end, the only thing that we can agree on is that this game is seriously borked in it's premise.
^ 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
The more I think about it, the more I think the Galaxy should have a layout similar to the Ambassador. That (the Ambassador's) layout is very versatile, and more to the point, I think it reflects the jack of all trades nature of Starfleet Explorers - very durable, has the teeth to defend itself, good science ability. Swap the Ambassador's sci and tac seating for the Galaxy so it's more like the Galor and I think we'd have an excellent ship:
COM Eng
LTCOM Tac
LT Eng
LT Sci
Ens Sci
And the same console layout as both the Ambassador and Galor. I think that would be a fair representation of the ship we know and love and wouldn't step on anyone's toes. You could make the LT Eng universal on the fleet version like the Ambassador, too, I guess.
As for the universal ensign - I agree the Galaxy should get it, but... even then it would just be either a Heavy Cruiser or a Star Cruiser with a worse console layout. Personally, I would worry Cryptic would just give the ship the universal ensign and call it a day, when the Galaxy needs more fixing than that. But as an interim fix, it would certainly help.
As for the universal ensign - I agree the Galaxy should get it, but... even then it would just be either a Heavy Cruiser or a Star Cruiser with a worse console layout. Personally, I would worry Cryptic would just give the ship the universal ensign and call it a day, when the Galaxy needs more fixing than that. But as an interim fix, it would certainly help.
That's why I'd say take it a step further. Take away an engineering console slot, and have it be the first ship to feature a universal console slot. That way you could get that extra tac console slot, or sci slot, or preserve the ship exactly as it is now for those that want that...for some reason. Then do the same for the Neg on KDF side to keep things even.
Can I just say regarding the star cruiser. Although not a fleet ship the star cruiser skin is usable on the mirror assault cruiser. Therefore giving the star cruiser the assault cruiser boff and console layout. So the free version got buffed and it is cheap enough to pick up off he exchange.
I don't know why you are comparing the Galaxy to the Star Cruise.
well...maybe because they are both tanking specialist? no?
why do you compare a tank/healer ship with a tactical ship?
The Star Cruiser sucks as much the Galaxy
wrong.
as we proove it in the last 300 pages, the star cruiser is better, in every way
now if you mean that it suck as much as the galaxy because he can't do damage as well as a specialist damage dealer, well that an other story, but daes that mean that we should all go to tactical ship?
should cryptic remove the tanking/healer ship in the game as well?
we will all flying escort, cruiser tactical and " viva la diversidad".
There are too many older style cruisers beating the Galaxy in DPS and can tank just as good.
too many? is that imply that it exist some cruiser that can't do as much damage as a galaxy? because i may be mistaken but i don't remember one cruiser that have less firepower than this one.
so the correct sentence should be: all cruisers are beating the galaxy in dps....
anyway, cryptic decided that the galaxy in this game should be a tank/healer, not a tactical ship, get over it.
they will not transform this ship into a tactical one just because some want to.
because you known, i am sure that some want the star cruiser to be more tactical, some want the intrepid to be more tactical and some want to ambassador to be more tactical.
it is just like people that said we should remove pvp because there is not much people that play with it.
we should all have tactical dps ship because this game is dps centric, cmon, let transform all tanking ship into dps monster!!
no? really?
the galaxy suck because there is nothing you can do with it that can not be done better with an other cruiser, and not because he is not a tactical ship.
now i can anderstand you desire to see this ship doing better performance at dealing damage than what cryptic serve us.
i would have prefer that they made it a tactical ship in the first place, but they don't.
and they will not change their minds about it.
the only way you can see cryptic doing a tactical version of this one is in the form of a 3 pack.
but they will not push a ship that was in tanking aera, to the dps aera, so stop dreaming.
I don't know why you are comparing the Galaxy to the Star Cruise. The Star Cruiser sucks as much the Galaxy but you don't get as much grief about it because it was not on TV and it doesn't have a big fan base. The game is very DPS sentric. Look at all of the new Cruisers and Alien battlcruisers sporting cannons and 5 tac consoles. If that is not DPS centric then you are blind. There are too many older style cruisers beating the Galaxy in DPS and can tank just as good. If they made a tier 5 Constitution or Stargazer they would probably outgun the Galaxy. The Fans want the Icon ship to be the icon ship it once was and not the basterd child that the Devs would like to forget.
the star cruiser is a FAR better ship. of all cruisers, it can make EWP the strongest wile compromising the least by running EWP3. 4 plasma particle consoles to boost the EWP, and your with plasma weapons you get about 3 and a half tac consoles total worth of buffing, and you got room for your TT and FAW2, all a beam boat really needs.
and thats just offense, its a MUCH better healer, instead of crappy ET1, it can have 2 copies of HE. it has no issue with skills tripping over each other.
Excuse me, but it sounds more and more like "I want a LTC tac A2B build to achieve dps like the Avenger and Scimitars do. Everything else is stupid."
I begin to see why "we" aren't going anywhere, because it boils down to "we want the Galaxy skin on the Avenger. Period."
tone down the rhetoric. what is with the absolute hystaria people get at the slightest suggestion of giving the galaxy R a bit of tac. its no cream puff, it should not be a 2 tac console ship. anymore then the excelsior should have any sort of tactical ability at all :rolleyes:
any cruiser that cant use AtB easily has been left behind for damage dealing duty, see fleet vorcha. its needs to be an available option on every cruiser station setup, it would be like an escort that couldn't run cannons at this point. you use AtB to kirk around, and you dont if you want to run it as a tank/healer/support boat. they need to have both options to be of value.
none of the serious proposals have suggested anything close to making it an avenger clone. we arent getting anywhere when people like you freak out and blow things out of proportion.
The Engineered Nebula setup would make sense from a canonical standpoint even and it would greatly enhance the ship's usefulness. But now it seems like the Galxy will suck unless t fits a cookie cutter dps build. So does the star Cruiser, doesn't it? That ship is dubbed as "Battleship" in it's NPC variant I think. It is even bigger than the Galaxy. Why doesn't that one need LTC tac and 4 tac consoles? Why do we even bother having ships with different BOFF layout in this game because they can't compete against each other?
That is the least Cryptic should do. The Exploration cruiser is the mirror of the Negh'Var which got a universal ensign in it's fleet state. There is no reason the Exploration Cruiser shouldn't get the same treatment and it would improve the ship. I support this.
As far as new variants of the Exploration Cruiser and Dreadnaught Cruiser go, I'll have my final vote on the Engineer-Nebula setup. It fits the design lineage and promotes the Refits of both ship to endgame level.
This setup came up repeatedly by different people in this thread and I think it's a neat one. The regular Explo-Refit could also recieve a third tac console instead of a science console. It is not the best but quite powerful and keeps the tone of all "Type 6 material" refits. I would also support a similiar treatment to the Sao Paolo and Bellerophon (SP Cmdr, Ens tac, Bellerophon Cmdr, Ens Sci, LTC tac) and we have a pretty neat Starfleet 2409 Refit line-up
Just my opinion and probably my final verdict on that one. I don't see the Galaxy being a top grade battleship, it's a backbone command cruiser. Huge firepower, but lacks finesse to utilize it like a smaller heavy cruiser could. Highly resistant to any form of punishment, able to equally fit every needed role but outclassed by it's supposed successor or specialist vessels. To me, this is the best and most reasonable variant in regards to this games gameplay and tone - you have to keep in mind that the new cruisers have literally no disadvantages for having superior firepower - of course that circumstance makes it hard to work with. In another thread someone asked the Fleet Aquarius to be improved because it sucks. It is akin to a Raider and will probably get the new Raider gameplay as well - but all other Starfleet "Escorts" have cruiser level hull and starfighter agility, of course everything sucks that's not a "omnipotent" vessel - it's quite similiar with cruisers.
In the end, the only thing that we can agree on is that this game is seriously borked in it's premise.
if you see it as a big ship with huge firepower that lacks finesse, then your describing the ship with 4 tac consoles and its normal crappy mobility. the galor shows the value of mobility even in beam boats, its arguable a better tac cruiser still then those with more tac consoles then it has. a hypothetical max DPS galaxy would basically be a lumbering bortas, a ship everyone still scoffs at, despite its potential damage dealing.
i think its sort of universal agreed that the galaxy should have a 4/3/3 console setup around here though, regardless of the station setup debate.
they screwed up the nebula. and galaxy, and excelsior. if they wanted to be more canon accurate, the excelsior and galaxy would swap consoles and stations. and the nebula would be cruiser with a sci LTC version of that station setup style. but its a sci ship, one with the least tac consoles, even though it basically has the same armament as the galaxy, that again is not even close to correct in game.
the galaxy having the same station setup type that the nebula has is more of what has caused all the trouble in the first place. a station setup style its arbitrary trapped into haveing regardless if its any good for it, or fits it at all. that, and the less then ideal AtB capability situation is why i dont care for it.
The more I think about it, the more I think the Galaxy should have a layout similar to the Ambassador. That (the Ambassador's) layout is very versatile, and more to the point, I think it reflects the jack of all trades nature of Starfleet Explorers - very durable, has the teeth to defend itself, good science ability. Swap the Ambassador's sci and tac seating for the Galaxy so it's more like the Galor and I think we'd have an excellent ship:
COM Eng
LTCOM Tac
LT Eng
LT Sci
Ens Sci
And the same console layout as both the Ambassador and Galor. I think that would be a fair representation of the ship we know and love and wouldn't step on anyone's toes. You could make the LT Eng universal on the fleet version like the Ambassador, too, I guess.
As for the universal ensign - I agree the Galaxy should get it, but... even then it would just be either a Heavy Cruiser or a Star Cruiser with a worse console layout. Personally, I would worry Cryptic would just give the ship the universal ensign and call it a day, when the Galaxy needs more fixing than that. But as an interim fix, it would certainly help.
i like that too, thats one of the possible things you could do with my proposed setup with the universal TLC and LT. that or some much more interesting super sci heavy setups
@ DDIS: First I want to apologize if I sounded harsh. I just saw in your posts (and you said it literally in the recent one) that it is mandatory for a cruiser to have the double A2B setup in it, crowned by LTC tac. But that's just because it is the flavour of the month, isn't it? Prior to the magical DOFFs that majorly scrwewed with the game (my opinion) nobody gave a targ's furry TRIBBLE about A2B and now it has becomde as mandatory as TT (I use neither of them, but I don't PvP). And if everything that doesn't offer that is inferior there is really no reason to have different BOFF setups at all.
The second I don't get is what neo1nx said. What was in canon or not has absolutely no meaning in STOs gameplay, you have to agree on that one. So everything that counts has to be based on gameplay's means. And regarding that we have the Galaxy as a part of the trinity they introduced "back then". Now the trinity doesn't work anymore (it never has really) and those ships suffer and that's a reasonable complaint. But demanding a LTC tac or even uni on that 4 year old ship is way out of proportion and just doesn't seem reasonable other than "my favourite ship can't compete with recent power creep ships. I demand improvement!" - bt that's not how that game works. On the other hand, we have the refits of those trinity ships that offer a more sensible BOFF layout but are completely obsolete because they are T4 ships. So having fleet refits that emphasize on the strength of those T4 versions (which are pretty much an acknowledgement of the devs that something's wrong with the retrofits) is a reasonable demand because otherwise those refits are a complete waste of money since you cannot play them any longer.
That's where I am coming from, I really don't want to come across as being hysteric. But would Engineering be king in this game for some reason nobody would demand a LTC tac on the Galaxy. The gameplay is seriously borked because there is a clear tactical preference to it, but I don't think it helps to further increase that misconception instead of coming up with a few alternative builds. I realize that the LTC uni build you suggested would also make a science build possible, but a LTC uni is a pretty strong gimmick and reserved for top of the line ships and lockbox prizes first, and second you know as well as I that a LTC uni is basically reserved as a tac station as well.
Regarding the Nebby layout: I personally like it. I even don't have a problem with her being a "science vessel" - stats wise she's basically a cruiser and since it lacks virtually the entire secondary hull I see that there are less weapons on her (those 8 or 5 weapon slots dont make sense from a canon perspective in the first place ).
^ 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
It's unbeliveable why this ship hasn't been fixed by now. Not only that, there hasn't been any response by ANY dev to this thread, ever.
Is there any reason to belive they will even consider take a closer look on that ship?
To be honest my patience has run out.
I mean we don't ask for a big game change or something that is completely unrealistic.
Just a small BOFF change on the Galaxy Class. Is that already too much to ask for?
Maybe Cryptic devs are already overstrained or Mr. Rivera has a bad day, I DO NOT CARE.
I just want that friggin ship finally to be fun and not be ashamed by its impotence in battle. Heck they even could make the Galor or the Excelsior a better ship, just because some dev (mr. Rivera) is a fan of that ship.
Am i the only one seeing the bizarreness in this?
Man i wish there where some other Trek game where the devs would really care to make a good Star Trek game and listen to the players.
I mean it's more than offending to be ignored in this matter, but if some dev says the GCS would be ok as it is, it only show how little this person and Cryptic understand of their own game or Star Trek in general.
Seriously after almost four years my patience has run out, Cryptic should finally do something 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
Not only that, there hasn't been any response by ANY dev to this thread, ever.
Not entirely true. Branflakes did pop up several pages back and censored someone. I suppose he disagreed with the post.
Has someone tried to make a sort of Bug Report post about the inefficiency of the Galaxy series, having made it sound clinical and business like instead of 400 pages of rambling and whatnot?
Why not put it in the Fed Gameplay subforum, since it relate to gameplay in general?
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Not entirely true. Branflakes did pop up several pages back and censored someone. I suppose he disagreed with the post.
Has someone tried to make a sort of Bug Report post about the inefficiency of the Galaxy series, having made it sound clinical and business like instead of 400 pages of rambling and whatnot?
Why not put it in the Fed Gameplay subforum, since it relate to gameplay in general?
Well that could meand someone may read it from time to time, but didn't bother to comment it or even try to seriously argue our case to Mr Rivera.
I don't know but their lack of interest isn't very encouraging and in no case strengthen my belive in Cryptic. (not if i had any, lol)
Seriously, i am at the point i do no longer care for other things than ships in STO.
It's not they wouldn't create ships with good BOFF/Console layout and other stats, but when it comes to Starfleet ships Cryptics designers seem to belive the ugiler the better.
It is almost as if they would thing a good looking Starfleet ship HAS to perform bad (or at least be a teethless tank) and the more offensive a Starfleet ship becomes, the more uglier it has to be. THANKS MR. RIVERA.
Maybe we should really create bug reports about the GCS-R, at least we COULD archive to get at least some attention.
Personally i find it unbeliveable that CBS doesn't intervene. The assumingly vetoed a T5 Constitution (which is ok in my eyes), but they DO NOT CARE about the GCS being the most crappy ship in STO.
On the other hand Cryptic pretends as if they would work on the Galaxy -X and would keep it from release because of some clipping issue with the saucer sep, lol.
Maybe they haven't looked at it yet, but the GCS-R has clipping issues and errors with the saucer seperation for years!
This whole issue just seems to be based on Mr. Riveras dislike towards TNG the GCS or whatever. It's frustrating and "not Exiting" in terms of STOs devs.
"...'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
Comments
No change to the Galaxy. I'm throwing in the towel.:(
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Honestly its more of a engineering power problem then the ship, top teir engineering powers are generally useless. Comparable to tact and science.
Direct weapon modulations 3 and aux to structural integrity 3 and extend shields 3, are the best.
eject warp plasma 3 has uses, like say getting a escort or bop and raider off your tail, but so can evasive maneuvering or emergency power to engines. Those don't even have a chance to fail or be completely countered.
with aux to structural integrity 3 most of the damage resistance are killed by the fact damage resistance doesn't stack as well as damage does in the case of the almighty attack pattern omega, and since cruisers have high number of resistance consoles anyways further kills it... The only thing left is the healing which haz emitters and engineering team does better, but it doesn't hit a timer with them so it still manages to be somewhat useful.
Directed Energy Modulation 3 needs some work yes its useful but I dunno it still has nothing on attack pattern omega or even attack pattern beta.
Rotate shield frequency 3 this is pointless rosp 1 does everything you could ever need...
Boarding party 3 really ? this ability is ultimately pointless shuttles travel too slow and get shot down... maybe if they were as tough as Danube then they would be worth something or even delta flyers...
Extend shields 3 great support skill over all but with it a lot of shields reach over the shield resist cap.
Aceton Beam 3
I've attempted to use this skill its pointless in pve... I haven't seen it do much in lowering excort damage in pvp and that's if i can turn my slow turning cruiser into range of escorts... the damage is rather pathetic. My only thought on improving this is a debuff to shield resistance like 10-15% at aceton beam 3 and 5% at one. Its also extremely easy to get rid of...
The lack of low end boff abilities in engineering that don't have cooldown with one another or other low in tact and science abilities is also a problem. The ship its self can excel in team support and tanking in this role it serves really well, along with the oddy. Both of which can tank more damage then any other cruisers, while still supporting allies with repairs and shielding.
A lot of people don't. I use the non-fleet retrofit regularly.
but...
I'd like to see the versatility that is provided by the Saucer Separation ability to be reflected in the Station and Console layouts.
One each of the existing engineering stations and console slots should be made universal.
And it, along with all cruisers, should be able to mount dual and dual heavy cannons.
i am also not agree with the imply idea that tanking/support ship should get a 3nd tact console because the game is dps centric.
if that is so then the star cruiser, engi and science odyssey should have a 3nd tact console as well.
this is just indeed " MOAR DPS" without any consideration to the ship role in the first place.
a 3nd tact console on a tanking ship is just nonsense if it is not followed by more tact bridge officer, but if you do that, we are not speaking about a tanking/support cruiser anymore but a tactical cruiser.
it is already hard to make cryptic change the bo layout of a ship in it own categorie, what make you think that they will transform a "healboat" into a tactical cruiser?
who's going to be next then?
maybe i am wrong, maybe it is the desire of cryptic in future release of ships that they all have at least 3 tact console but for now the only way you can see cryptic transforming the galaxy retrofit into a tactical ship is in the form of a 3 pack ship.
that the only way, they could keep the galaxy retrofit the way it is right now and call it the engi version, and you would have a science and tactical version of the ship.
and these would not be a galaxy dreadnought for tactical and an other for science.
the science and tactical should be completely new and be able to buy separatly for 2500z.
that way, the work they done for these ships would give them money.
the one that like the galaxy retrofit the way it is would keep it, if they wanted the added bonuse of console set that will certainly come with it,they could buy the pack.
and the one that are not happy with the current version could buy the tactical version OR the science version.
everyone get the version of the galaxy they like ( even the one that don't want a dreadnought as a tactical galaxy ) and cryptic get money for the work involved while doing what they wanted to do for a long time with the dreadnought, reworking this familly and give it set powers and separation console.
because i don't see cryptic changing the ship from tanking to tactical alone, and certainly not without a price.
the problem is that some people bielieve that the galaxy retrofit is bad because he is not tactical enought.
but the ship is not bad because it is not a tactical ship, it is already bad in the tanking/support role that cryptic assign him to in comparison to any other tanking ship ( and even some tactical ship )
one can not ask cryptic to change this ship into tactical just like one can not ask cryptic to give the defiant a commander engi slot and a lt commander science slot ( even if i known that no one would do that with the game mechanism right now ) because he want to.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
yep, choosing the worst ship with the worst proffesion captain for damage, result should have been predictable from the start.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
If anything, it's hard evidence that both the ship and the profession are criminally underperforming. You're welcome.
You hit the nail on the head, so to speak. This is what I couldn't articulate until now
Of course no one would demand such changes for the Defiant because it does good damage and damage is king. But it would be the exact same sort of "demand". The Galaxy in this game is badly represented, that is not the question. As a command ship, she SHOULD be equally fit for every task and only outperformed by specialists in that regard. But this is a Star Trek GAME and those have always made up their own rules. And in this set of rules the Galaxy got the unlucky draw. But instead of just transforming the ship into an Avenger clone why not improve what that ship does well (Engineering skills and armour) and make that as worthwhile as tactical abilities? I mean it cannot really be the canon debate anymore. In that regard, the Excelsior, Ambassador, Nova, Sabre and a lot of other ships are also portrayed "wrong" but you don't see anyone complaining because their misrepresentation makes them perform well in this game and no one would DARE to take away the four tactical consoles from the planetary research vessel "Nova".
Underperforming in damage. You are basically complaining that the Engineer, in the engineering heaviest ship cannot outperform (or be equal) to a Tactician in the most tactical cruiser which's specialty is damage.
I get all the complaints about the Galaxy and about Engineers. My fed main and most played character IS an Engineer IN a Exploration Cruiser R. I get all of that and I want something changed. But if the complaint is that the non damage dealing class in a non-damage dealing ship does not perform equal or better than the damage dealing class in a damage dealing ship then we are jumping the shark here, guys.
Let the complaint be "why is every content in this game aimed at dps dealing?" (Time gated missions that require you to dispose of ridiculously overcharged enemies in short time). "Why does one profession inexplicably lack setup options, especially on ships specializing in that profession?". "Why can't I use my profession's traits in any content in this game to my advantage?". "Why does one profession and ship specialization basically get all the benefits without any kind of trade off?". Those are good questions, at least in my opinion.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Let something some ship cryptic makes be the fleet repair ship no one will care and 3 people will buy it !!!!.....kidding
Picard didnt go around looking for something to repair !!!
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
A Tank in PvE and why it is obsolete. The NPC is a one trick pony, it's AI is programmed to repeat the same pattern of attacks again and again. If you know the NPC and what Boff powers it uses it is very easy to counter this if you know what Boff powers to equip for said NPC, this allows for minimal heals/tanking giving a greater focus to take offence action against it.
I am of the option the majority of people who bring a true tank into PVE content are afraid of dying, they over kill on the hull/healing. Now there are some people that like to be a support ship and keep everyone alive. But in all honesty in the borg stfs focusing on simply healing the team and bringing no guns to the battle, you are effectively playing a man short as the other 4 have to provide the extra dps between them to make up for the lack of it from the tank/healer.
The Galaxy should not only be able to support but just like the Ambassador/Regent/Excelsior/Avenger it should also be able to dish out the punishment it is expected to take.
The ship doesn't need the LTC tact station keep it for the regent/excelsior and Avenger But having access to 2 x Lt. Tact stations and a 3rd tact console will bring the ship up to spec and allow it to both support and deal out punishment by having access to 4 tact powers low end ones however. TT1 & 2 BFAW 1 or 2 Torpedo powers 1 & 2 or Attack pattern Beta 1 BO 1 or 2
So lets simply just give the fleet galaxy one of these 2 boff layouts
1, Mirror the Nebula as the Engineering counterpart
Lt.Tact
Cmd Engineering
Lt. Cmd Science
Ens Engineering
Lt. Uni
2.
Lt Tact
Cmd Engineering
Lt Engineering
Lt. Uni
Lt. Science
Console layout
4/3/3
I think this would work. The ship would not be over powered she would not knock the Regent/Avenger off the top of the tree but i think she would give the Excelsior and Ambassador a run for their money.
both abilitys the ship had in canon btw
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
I think that is the most reasonable suggestion for a new variant that also pays credit to the Venture refit. Seriously, the Venture type is maybe the only Cryptic designed Starfleet ship that isn't fugly and it get's totally neglected. Cryptic, do something with it
If the ship gets a 4/2/4 or 4/3/3 console layout is up to the devs. I would love to have 4 sci consoles but I would settle for the 4/3/3 as well.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
of course it is, no question about that, the real question is, why did you try to proove yourself the contrary.
you have done a good job with that build, you should be proud of it.
but like we said it before, there is no build you can make with this ship that would allow him to do something that any others cruiser can't already.
and their is certainly no build that would allow this cruiser to kill an other cruiser, using beam, if the opponent is somewhat competent that is.
if you tried to proove that this ship can't do as much damage as an avenger, there was no need.
where i have question however is how a single avenger was able to kill you in a galaxy with an engeener toon?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I love it. Most original and simple idea, but I think it would work.
Galaxy needs Worf to not suck. It always has.
I don''t think that will be too much in the game. It's not like I asked to load DHC's on it. Actually the canon Galaxy was built during the Cardasian War so it was not some peace cruiseliner. The ship behaved based on it's captain's wishes. Cpt. Jean-luc Picard was a diplomatic guy that's why the ship wasn't fighting as much, as lets say, Cpt. Kirk's Enterprise.
I don't know why you are comparing the Galaxy to the Star Cruise. The Star Cruiser sucks as much the Galaxy but you don't get as much grief about it because it was not on TV and it doesn't have a big fan base. The game is very DPS sentric. Look at all of the new Cruisers and Alien battlcruisers sporting cannons and 5 tac consoles. If that is not DPS centric then you are blind. There are too many older style cruisers beating the Galaxy in DPS and can tank just as good. If they made a tier 5 Constitution or Stargazer they would probably outgun the Galaxy. The Fans want the Icon ship to be the icon ship it once was and not the basterd child that the Devs would like to forget.
Would that suffice to make it moderately more useful?
Excuse me, but it sounds more and more like "I want a LTC tac A2B build to achieve dps like the Avenger and Scimitars do. Everything else is stupid."
I begin to see why "we" aren't going anywhere, because it boils down to "we want the Galaxy skin on the Avenger. Period."
The Engineered Nebula setup would make sense from a canonical standpoint even and it would greatly enhance the ship's usefulness. But now it seems like the Galxy will suck unless t fits a cookie cutter dps build. So does the star Cruiser, doesn't it? That ship is dubbed as "Battleship" in it's NPC variant I think. It is even bigger than the Galaxy. Why doesn't that one need LTC tac and 4 tac consoles? Why do we even bother having ships with different BOFF layout in this game because they can't compete against each other?
That is the least Cryptic should do. The Exploration cruiser is the mirror of the Negh'Var which got a universal ensign in it's fleet state. There is no reason the Exploration Cruiser shouldn't get the same treatment and it would improve the ship. I support this.
As far as new variants of the Exploration Cruiser and Dreadnaught Cruiser go, I'll have my final vote on the Engineer-Nebula setup. It fits the design lineage and promotes the Refits of both ship to endgame level.
Fleet Venture Type (Nebby-fied layout)
Fleet Venture Type Dreadnaught (Nebby-fied layout)
This setup came up repeatedly by different people in this thread and I think it's a neat one. The regular Explo-Refit could also recieve a third tac console instead of a science console. It is not the best but quite powerful and keeps the tone of all "Type 6 material" refits. I would also support a similiar treatment to the Sao Paolo and Bellerophon (SP Cmdr, Ens tac, Bellerophon Cmdr, Ens Sci, LTC tac) and we have a pretty neat Starfleet 2409 Refit line-up
Just my opinion and probably my final verdict on that one. I don't see the Galaxy being a top grade battleship, it's a backbone command cruiser. Huge firepower, but lacks finesse to utilize it like a smaller heavy cruiser could. Highly resistant to any form of punishment, able to equally fit every needed role but outclassed by it's supposed successor or specialist vessels. To me, this is the best and most reasonable variant in regards to this games gameplay and tone - you have to keep in mind that the new cruisers have literally no disadvantages for having superior firepower - of course that circumstance makes it hard to work with. In another thread someone asked the Fleet Aquarius to be improved because it sucks. It is akin to a Raider and will probably get the new Raider gameplay as well - but all other Starfleet "Escorts" have cruiser level hull and starfighter agility, of course everything sucks that's not a "omnipotent" vessel - it's quite similiar with cruisers.
In the end, the only thing that we can agree on is that this game is seriously borked in it's premise.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
COM Eng
LTCOM Tac
LT Eng
LT Sci
Ens Sci
And the same console layout as both the Ambassador and Galor. I think that would be a fair representation of the ship we know and love and wouldn't step on anyone's toes. You could make the LT Eng universal on the fleet version like the Ambassador, too, I guess.
As for the universal ensign - I agree the Galaxy should get it, but... even then it would just be either a Heavy Cruiser or a Star Cruiser with a worse console layout. Personally, I would worry Cryptic would just give the ship the universal ensign and call it a day, when the Galaxy needs more fixing than that. But as an interim fix, it would certainly help.
That's why I'd say take it a step further. Take away an engineering console slot, and have it be the first ship to feature a universal console slot. That way you could get that extra tac console slot, or sci slot, or preserve the ship exactly as it is now for those that want that...for some reason. Then do the same for the Neg on KDF side to keep things even.
well...maybe because they are both tanking specialist? no?
why do you compare a tank/healer ship with a tactical ship?
wrong.
as we proove it in the last 300 pages, the star cruiser is better, in every way
now if you mean that it suck as much as the galaxy because he can't do damage as well as a specialist damage dealer, well that an other story, but daes that mean that we should all go to tactical ship?
should cryptic remove the tanking/healer ship in the game as well?
we will all flying escort, cruiser tactical and " viva la diversidad".
too many? is that imply that it exist some cruiser that can't do as much damage as a galaxy? because i may be mistaken but i don't remember one cruiser that have less firepower than this one.
so the correct sentence should be: all cruisers are beating the galaxy in dps....
anyway, cryptic decided that the galaxy in this game should be a tank/healer, not a tactical ship, get over it.
they will not transform this ship into a tactical one just because some want to.
because you known, i am sure that some want the star cruiser to be more tactical, some want the intrepid to be more tactical and some want to ambassador to be more tactical.
it is just like people that said we should remove pvp because there is not much people that play with it.
we should all have tactical dps ship because this game is dps centric, cmon, let transform all tanking ship into dps monster!!
no? really?
the galaxy suck because there is nothing you can do with it that can not be done better with an other cruiser, and not because he is not a tactical ship.
now i can anderstand you desire to see this ship doing better performance at dealing damage than what cryptic serve us.
i would have prefer that they made it a tactical ship in the first place, but they don't.
and they will not change their minds about it.
the only way you can see cryptic doing a tactical version of this one is in the form of a 3 pack.
but they will not push a ship that was in tanking aera, to the dps aera, so stop dreaming.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
the star cruiser is a FAR better ship. of all cruisers, it can make EWP the strongest wile compromising the least by running EWP3. 4 plasma particle consoles to boost the EWP, and your with plasma weapons you get about 3 and a half tac consoles total worth of buffing, and you got room for your TT and FAW2, all a beam boat really needs.
and thats just offense, its a MUCH better healer, instead of crappy ET1, it can have 2 copies of HE. it has no issue with skills tripping over each other.
tone down the rhetoric. what is with the absolute hystaria people get at the slightest suggestion of giving the galaxy R a bit of tac. its no cream puff, it should not be a 2 tac console ship. anymore then the excelsior should have any sort of tactical ability at all :rolleyes:
any cruiser that cant use AtB easily has been left behind for damage dealing duty, see fleet vorcha. its needs to be an available option on every cruiser station setup, it would be like an escort that couldn't run cannons at this point. you use AtB to kirk around, and you dont if you want to run it as a tank/healer/support boat. they need to have both options to be of value.
none of the serious proposals have suggested anything close to making it an avenger clone. we arent getting anywhere when people like you freak out and blow things out of proportion.
if you see it as a big ship with huge firepower that lacks finesse, then your describing the ship with 4 tac consoles and its normal crappy mobility. the galor shows the value of mobility even in beam boats, its arguable a better tac cruiser still then those with more tac consoles then it has. a hypothetical max DPS galaxy would basically be a lumbering bortas, a ship everyone still scoffs at, despite its potential damage dealing.
i think its sort of universal agreed that the galaxy should have a 4/3/3 console setup around here though, regardless of the station setup debate.
they screwed up the nebula. and galaxy, and excelsior. if they wanted to be more canon accurate, the excelsior and galaxy would swap consoles and stations. and the nebula would be cruiser with a sci LTC version of that station setup style. but its a sci ship, one with the least tac consoles, even though it basically has the same armament as the galaxy, that again is not even close to correct in game.
the galaxy having the same station setup type that the nebula has is more of what has caused all the trouble in the first place. a station setup style its arbitrary trapped into haveing regardless if its any good for it, or fits it at all. that, and the less then ideal AtB capability situation is why i dont care for it.
i like that too, thats one of the possible things you could do with my proposed setup with the universal TLC and LT. that or some much more interesting super sci heavy setups
The second I don't get is what neo1nx said. What was in canon or not has absolutely no meaning in STOs gameplay, you have to agree on that one. So everything that counts has to be based on gameplay's means. And regarding that we have the Galaxy as a part of the trinity they introduced "back then". Now the trinity doesn't work anymore (it never has really) and those ships suffer and that's a reasonable complaint. But demanding a LTC tac or even uni on that 4 year old ship is way out of proportion and just doesn't seem reasonable other than "my favourite ship can't compete with recent power creep ships. I demand improvement!" - bt that's not how that game works. On the other hand, we have the refits of those trinity ships that offer a more sensible BOFF layout but are completely obsolete because they are T4 ships. So having fleet refits that emphasize on the strength of those T4 versions (which are pretty much an acknowledgement of the devs that something's wrong with the retrofits) is a reasonable demand because otherwise those refits are a complete waste of money since you cannot play them any longer.
That's where I am coming from, I really don't want to come across as being hysteric. But would Engineering be king in this game for some reason nobody would demand a LTC tac on the Galaxy. The gameplay is seriously borked because there is a clear tactical preference to it, but I don't think it helps to further increase that misconception instead of coming up with a few alternative builds. I realize that the LTC uni build you suggested would also make a science build possible, but a LTC uni is a pretty strong gimmick and reserved for top of the line ships and lockbox prizes first, and second you know as well as I that a LTC uni is basically reserved as a tac station as well.
Regarding the Nebby layout: I personally like it. I even don't have a problem with her being a "science vessel" - stats wise she's basically a cruiser and since it lacks virtually the entire secondary hull I see that there are less weapons on her (those 8 or 5 weapon slots dont make sense from a canon perspective in the first place
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Is there any reason to belive they will even consider take a closer look on that ship?
To be honest my patience has run out.
I mean we don't ask for a big game change or something that is completely unrealistic.
Just a small BOFF change on the Galaxy Class. Is that already too much to ask for?
Maybe Cryptic devs are already overstrained or Mr. Rivera has a bad day, I DO NOT CARE.
I just want that friggin ship finally to be fun and not be ashamed by its impotence in battle. Heck they even could make the Galor or the Excelsior a better ship, just because some dev (mr. Rivera) is a fan of that ship.
Am i the only one seeing the bizarreness in this?
Man i wish there where some other Trek game where the devs would really care to make a good Star Trek game and listen to the players.
I mean it's more than offending to be ignored in this matter, but if some dev says the GCS would be ok as it is, it only show how little this person and Cryptic understand of their own game or Star Trek in general.
Seriously after almost four years my patience has run out, Cryptic should finally do something about it.
Not entirely true. Branflakes did pop up several pages back and censored someone. I suppose he disagreed with the post.
Has someone tried to make a sort of Bug Report post about the inefficiency of the Galaxy series, having made it sound clinical and business like instead of 400 pages of rambling and whatnot?
Why not put it in the Fed Gameplay subforum, since it relate to gameplay in general?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
I don't know but their lack of interest isn't very encouraging and in no case strengthen my belive in Cryptic. (not if i had any, lol)
Seriously, i am at the point i do no longer care for other things than ships in STO.
It's not they wouldn't create ships with good BOFF/Console layout and other stats, but when it comes to Starfleet ships Cryptics designers seem to belive the ugiler the better.
It is almost as if they would thing a good looking Starfleet ship HAS to perform bad (or at least be a teethless tank) and the more offensive a Starfleet ship becomes, the more uglier it has to be. THANKS MR. RIVERA.
Maybe we should really create bug reports about the GCS-R, at least we COULD archive to get at least some attention.
Personally i find it unbeliveable that CBS doesn't intervene. The assumingly vetoed a T5 Constitution (which is ok in my eyes), but they DO NOT CARE about the GCS being the most crappy ship in STO.
On the other hand Cryptic pretends as if they would work on the Galaxy -X and would keep it from release because of some clipping issue with the saucer sep, lol.
Maybe they haven't looked at it yet, but the GCS-R has clipping issues and errors with the saucer seperation for years!
This whole issue just seems to be based on Mr. Riveras dislike towards TNG the GCS or whatever. It's frustrating and "not Exiting" in terms of STOs devs.