Now, my time watching Star Trek might be fuzzy, but I certainly don't remember Kirk or Picard telling their crewmates to fire the Enterprise's dual cannons like a bunch of gun-crazy nuts.
Never saw them calling for their dual beam banks or swapping out their warp cores, torpedoes, shields, engines... for something they acquired from the Borg either... or the Breen, Jen-Hadar, Voth...
I do recall them occasionally mentioning a weapon update, as new weapons were developed.
And seriously... is there any reason that dropping the Saucer would make the ship more "formidable", other than keeping targets in a narrow firing arc?
Now, Riker in the Galaxy-X, that's whole different story and we got that ship.
Kind of a selective application of your critique, isn't it? I never saw cannons on the Gal-X.
Frankly, I think it would be utterly stupid for any Cruiser outside of the Galaxy-X and the Avenger to run around with cannons, any sort of war be darned!
People bought Galaxy R for its current boff and console slots. these people are aware what they bought. No one forced you to buy or play the current Galaxy R. It fits a current playstyle and build which is contradictory to sci or tac playstyle or most galaxy r complainers, whiners in forums.
I bought my Gal-R before the Odyssey was introduced. The game is not the same now as it was then. Although I may have been whining about it then too.
Hold up!!!!!!! You complaining about sombody wanting the Galaxy to be a god ship but why aren't you or anybody complaining about the Jem'Hadar Bug ship being OP? The game vesion of the ship is way off canon and is the most op and tanking ship out of all escorts. Some people want keep the cruisers nerfed so they can continue to fly their escorts unchallenged. Maybe, you should complain about that godship bug first, then try to block a competitive Galaxy later.
Why would I complain on the Bugship? I don't own one but I have killed a few in my day.
As to blocking the Galaxy from love, I'm not.
I'm making fun of the many posts that want the Galaxy to be a 5 Tac console, DPS Tac Boff monster like the Bugship while being the best Engineer healer since Scotty and the best Science power flinging wizard since Merlin all wrapped in armor like the Doomsday machine.
Frankly you TNG fans that cant pull common sense out of the scripted capabilities the Enterprise displayed onscreen are doing more to harm your cause than I am.
The Galaxy is not the master of all trades. It was the best at its time but that time has passed it by in STO. Stop trying to make it the Ubership and just make it a decent ship with a sensible purpose.
Seperate your blind fandom from your desires and you will get farther.
what stats say that? theres no way to know what its actual armament was, you cant just count arrays on it like you could a fed ship. no mater what the valient did, it couldn't harm that dreadnought, not alone. sorta like how 3 bug ships could shoot at a shieldless galaxy for 10 minutes and not really do all that much damage too it.
I got the stats from memory alpha. I could not find any other sites that are close to being canon thats get specific about the stats of the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought. All i find are game connected sites and even the speculate on weapons systems. Star Trek did a poor job of catalogging star ships so people have to speculate. Star Wars catalogged every piece of equipment, including all spacecraft on and off screen.
Fleet Galaxy R is a very competitive ship for its role. It is an excellent tank/healer. It is a decent pve ship and an excellent pvp ship.
Its not competitive when you want to play it like an assault cruiser, escort or a sci control ship build or ship playstyle. It is not even meant to be versatile ship but Fleet Galaxy R excels on its role as long the player knows how to play and build the Fleet galaxy R.
Absent of Ramming the ship, If you want it to hull tank 3 bug ships and not get destroyed, this ship becomes more powerful than the lockbox ships and Voth dreadnoughts, tac cubes. 3 well built, well played BUG ships can destroy all those mobs. Hence, that kind of build would make this an OP ship.
I own one and i have a hard time tanking a well built bug ship. Most times if i tank well, opponants start spamming me and subnuking me so i can't tank.
Maybe you need to share your build and we can try it out and see if it works or not.
Why would I complain on the Bugship? I don't own one but I have killed a few in my day.
As to blocking the Galaxy from love, I'm not.
I'm making fun of the many posts that want the Galaxy to be a 5 Tac console, DPS Tac Boff monster like the Bugship while being the best Engineer healer since Scotty and the best Science power flinging wizard since Merlin all wrapped in armor like the Doomsday machine.
Frankly you TNG fans that cant pull common sense out of the scripted capabilities the Enterprise displayed onscreen are doing more to harm your cause than I am.
The Galaxy is not the master of all trades. It was the best at its time but that time has passed it by in STO. Stop trying to make it the Ubership and just make it a decent ship with a sensible purpose.
Seperate your blind fandom from your desires and you will get farther.
Why are you generalizing all of us TNG fans? We all don't want the same thing, we post our idea to start a debate. Not once have you seen me ask for 5 tac consoles. I only ask for 4 tac consoles on the fleet version because it comes with an extra console and I don't think it needs 3 science consoles. The ship have weak science powers.
You don't care to make the Galaxy better than it is so don't come in here critisizing peoples ideas, because you don't have any of your own. We don't come in here complaining about your Klingon ships or asking them to be made different or nerfed.
This post was made TNG people can vent and debate on how the Galaxy should be revamp and made better.
You say you have killed a few bugs, so have I but I know they were not good built bugs. I play PVP anough to remember players if their ship were tough to survive against.
I bet you can't name some players with good Bug setups. I know a few infamous bug owners. Edna, Cryox, Lynk@zelda.
I know you are an all Klingon bais player. Separate yourself from your blind opposition from a competitive Galaxy or go back to your Klingon world and talk about those ships. No TNG fans go and wine about your Klingon ship ideas.
I own one and i have a hard time tanking a well built bug ship. Most times if i tank well, opponants start spamming me and subnuking me so i can't tank.
Maybe you need to share your build and we can try it out and see if it works or not.
MY build doesn't work against all I think you may not understand that just becuase a ship can tank well, doesn't mean it will tank the best against every build, much less tank vs lots of builds at once.
Also there is a skill part of any build some people can make a build work that others can't or don't do as well.
I need to do some tweaking but and you need to get the EPTX doffs for better cycling, and warp core doff for more power. + all the engineering traits. You also need to learn how to do without tact team.
Keeping people off your tail and keeping them at a flank is must for any sort of dps. But I rarely die in pvp, also never die in pve and I do pretty good job of healing.
Subnuking is the bane of my build but with a good team who cross heals, there shouldn't be a problem.
I believe you want to change the Galaxy R in accordance to your playstyle.
The Boff setup and the console setup of the galaxy X is ENG heavy setup and maximizing this ship with an ENG toon. The best role for this ship is a tank/healer.
It is not meant to do sci control crowd stuff nor dps like the other cruisers. The 2 Sci boff slots are enough for a tank/healer Fleet Galaxy R on the ENG side. With its current tac and sci slots, you can slot TT, HE and TSS. All the complaints that you say that the Galaxy R is utterly lacking.
ENG boffs have also the best resistance when you compare EPTS vs TSS or Aux2Sif vs HE.
ENG boffs have still the best burst heals out there -> EPTS vs TSS or Aux2Sif VS HE.
2 Tac console and boffs are enough to be above average(2 times) your DPS PUG in pve.
It is still one of the best pvp ships out their for its role.
When it comes to defense, all cruisers have the same base defense % rate. Only escorts have higher defense % rate than any cruiser. For speed, all fed fleet cruisers have the same impulse modifier. So where did you get your info?
Turn rate? Are you kidding? This is one of the largest ships out there in STO. This ship is not meant do bring DHCs. Nor have the same playstyle as an Avenger, assault cruisers or Escorts. Why make it have better Turn rate when you can heal anyone even at your back?
The only buffs that I would probably agree on the Fleet Galaxy R are increase in hull and shield modifier due to more and more ships are having near or better than its hull and shield hp even though those ships roles are not for tanking.
Obviously you don't PVP much in a Galaxy or you would be embarressed or raging mad at how badly the setup is. I would even Challenge you myself I have to prove you wrong, but if you accept, you have to do it quickly because soon I will not have access to the forums one I get to China next week.
Fleet Galaxy R is a very competitive ship for its role. It is an excellent tank/healer. It is a decent pve ship and an excellent pvp ship.
Its not competitive when you want to play it like an assault cruiser, escort or a sci control ship build or ship playstyle. It is not even meant to be versatile ship but Fleet Galaxy R excels on its role as long the player knows how to play and build the Fleet galaxy R.
wrong. its healing and tanking ability is hamstrung by the low amount of system cooldowns available at ENS for eng, and the giveing up of extreamly valuable sci or tac skills at that level for something useless. also those 3 ENS eng lock out things like any EPtX3 skill, and ET3. with 3 station powers at LTC eng and above, your best choices at that level are blocked of use. you end up leaving an ENS station empty, or using a high end ENG station slot on something useless to you .and again, your missing out on a high end skill that would be actually helpful in ether at LTC for sci or tac.
an actual good tank station setup has at least as much sci as it does eng, like an ody with the LTC station used for sci. thats an actual good tank/healer.
Absent of Ramming the ship, If you want it to hull tank 3 bug ships and not get destroyed, this ship becomes more powerful than the lockbox ships and Voth dreadnoughts, tac cubes. 3 well built, well played BUG ships can destroy all those mobs. Hence, that kind of build would make this an OP ship.
Why would I complain on the Bugship? I don't own one but I have killed a few in my day.
As to blocking the Galaxy from love, I'm not.
I'm making fun of the many posts that want the Galaxy to be a 5 Tac console, DPS Tac Boff monster like the Bugship while being the best Engineer healer since Scotty and the best Science power flinging wizard since Merlin all wrapped in armor like the Doomsday machine.
Frankly you TNG fans that cant pull common sense out of the scripted capabilities the Enterprise displayed onscreen are doing more to harm your cause than I am.
The Galaxy is not the master of all trades. It was the best at its time but that time has passed it by in STO. Stop trying to make it the Ubership and just make it a decent ship with a sensible purpose.
Seperate your blind fandom from your desires and you will get farther.
i think i figured out what roach is going on about. when we are talking about tanking 3 bug ships in canon, we are not saying it should be able to do that in game, seeing as the bug is the best non battlecloaking escort in game. canon and in game are 2 different things, galaxy fans know that better then anyone believe me. non of us talking about the canon have made outrageous requests for revamps ether.
keep in mind though, things like 5 tactical consoles, several very high end universal stations, these are all par for the course on every new ship release. they are now the standard, not the exception. there is a bias against this ship because its been in game since nearly the beginning, and because its the galaxy class, and thus that brings with it a mountain of opinion baggage. before the lady doth protest too much, methinks, additionally, check your objectivity by those 2 factors :P
I'm making fun of the many posts that want the Galaxy to be a 5 Tac console, DPS Tac Boff monster like the Bugship while being the best Engineer healer since Scotty and the best Science power flinging wizard since Merlin all wrapped in armor like the Doomsday machine.
that statement is not logical, you can't be a tact boff monster while at the same time being a engi and science boff monster, if you have one, it is at the expense of an other, and i am not even speaking about turn rate and inertia, basic game mechanic.
so how can you make fun at a proposal that can not be?
that being said,i bielieve that the galaxy should not get 5 or 4, and even 3 tact console and a lt commander bo power.
not because one may think it would make it overpowered ( simple game mechaniqm comprehension allow you to anderstand why a 6 base turn and 25 inertia ship will not transform into a god ship because he receive 3 tact console and a lt commander tact slot, look at the odyssey for that ).
but because this will create a precedent, since the galaxy was move to the healing tanking area to the tact area, why woudn't we do it with the star cruiser then?
the star cruiser also only have a lt tact slot and 2 tact console, i see no reason why this ship didn't get love too while the galaxy do, i don't like favoritism.
and that will be for every other ship in the game that found themselves in this situation.
the galaxy should have been made tactical from the start, if you move it to that area now, every other ship that are in the same situation will ask to get the same treatement and rightfully so.
and we will then all flying different iteration of a tactical ship with absolutly no other gameplay choices, this is a reduction in gameplay diversity, that will be a lost for the game.
that should have been the reason you could have come up to if you want to make fun of some of us, but stating that we want a god ship stats?
even the more overpowered "serious" proposal are far from this.
The Galaxy is not the master of all trades. It was the best at its time but that time has passed it by in STO. Stop trying to make it the Ubership and just make it a decent ship with a sensible purpose.
and sorry but i will have to kill this legend right now.
the galaxy NEVER been the best at it time.
i have been here since game launch, so you will not going to fool me on this, that could work with the F2P players, not with me.
let me refresh you memory, the galaxy retrofit was launch at season 2: ancient enemy and was available to player with a token that you can obtain by reaching the new level cap of vice admiral 51 ( at that time ) or directly in cstore.
it was already less efficient at tanking than a star cruiser at that time ( exept for a little boost in hull for the galaxy the stats of both ship didn't change since ), and the star cruiser was already 6 month older.
every one was playing with the new separation console, and it was the first galaxy to be mass available at tiers 5, but when the shiny past out, everyone drop the ship 1 week later because of it crappy stats.
the galaxy never been the master of all trade, but in sto it alway have been the master of all fail, that for sure.
I need to do some tweaking but and you need to get the EPTX doffs for better cycling, and warp core doff for more power. + all the engineering traits. You also need to learn how to do without tact team.
being an engineer in a cruiser spec for tanking is what allow you to do without tactical team, that would not be the same story if you were a tactical captain.
but that also leave you very vunerable to a decloack alpha with photonic shocwave and tricobalt or any over new hight instant damage weapons, since you don't have the auxtodamp power or tact team to soft or hard conter them.
As an quite active contributor to the Galaxy thread I have to say that I am not in-line with the proposed changes.
I personally don't want to play a battleship when I play a Galaxy Class. I like the Star Cruiser theme, I would want a bit more room for sci abilities, though. If you want a Galaxy with 4 tac consoles and 2 sci consoles I'd be okay with the Dreadnaught filling that role but I would be upset if my R got it's 3rd sci slot removed.
The Galaxy is a balanced command ship. Either go 3/3/3 consoles and Star Cruiser BOFF layout for the R and 4/3/3 + one universal station for the fleet variant or even 4/4/2 (eng/sci/tac that is) and a LTC sci but I'm against the tactical powerhouse route just because that's the flavour of the game. That's why there is a "Dreadnaught". I mean even the heavy battlecruisers of the KDF have a eng heavy set-up (minus the recent power creep additions).
Turnrate has never been an issue for me personally and I don't get the obsession about it. You are free to seperate and/or use RCS consoles, that's what those are for. I absolutely get that you cannot compensate the lack of damage, but you can compensate the turnrate issue by in-game means.
I'm all for improving engineering skills across the board, however. Engineering skills are all about energy levels (rather obsolete now that every console and item boost power levels) and hull resistance. What about improvements to accuracy, damage, debuffs, drains, anything? I'd like some of that in the engineering branch and I'd love to see egnineering consoles improving damage so that a eng heavy ship can generate enough aggro to tank, if that's what it's supposed to be doing.
I don't like your 3/3/3 console set up plus the fleet version has an added console slot making it 10. The C-store Galaxy R should have 4/2/3. It works for the Galaxy X, and I can tank all day in that thing and sting back. The Galaxy R and Galaxy X are the same ship minus the weapons and cloak. Having cannons do make a big difference in making DPS becaue I tried to make my Galaxy X a beam boat and compared it with my current beam/cannon/DHC setup. The current setup came out on top and more kills than the all beam setup. I just had to use tractor beams to lock opponants into place so I can keep them in my foward arcs. Maybe The Galaxy X should come with a weapon damage modifier of 1.5 to make the difference but the Galaxy X assault style boff and console setup still out tanks the Galaxy R's Engeering useless style setup.
The Fleet Galaxy R comes 5/3/2 console setup and the exact same weak boff setup as the C-store version. It should be set up with 4/3/3 or 4/2/4 to give a beam boat teeth. There is no need for the ship to have 3 Sci consoles because it doesn't do Science spam at all. The BOFF layout shoud get cmdr Eng/LTC Tac/LTC Uni /LT Sci. There should not be a need for Ens BOFF slots on a tier 5 fleet ship since they are mostly weak ans useless.
I know the are alot of people out there trying to turn the Galaxy ship into a science ship but you forget that Picard, and Riker were tactical officers, along with Worf, the best at tactical systems, all packed in one bridge. Only one Ops officer(Data), one engineer(Laforge), and no science officer. Doctor Crushe occasionally doubled as science officer when new lifeforms was discoverd. Voyager was the crew that had her captain with Science background, and not other tactical experience besides Tuvoc. The all explore Enterprise got it's behind kicked in all first 4 seasons until Archer got fed up with being cannon fodder and started arming the ship with top of the line weapons to ward off the aggresive alien cultures.
There was no show with all Engineers on board.
Well noone listens to my explanation as they must be in denial as to it being why the galaxy will not get an update. Now if were talking about the galaxy-x then that will get an update with the fleet version but the galaxy will not.
Are you a DEV? If you are then, you need to post in the offical pink or yellow color name. If you just a player then, don't tell me what the DEVs will and will not do.
being an engineer in a cruiser spec for tanking is what allow you to do without tactical team, that would not be the same story if you were a tactical captain.
but that also leave you very vunerable to a decloack alpha with photonic shocwave and tricobalt or any over new hight instant damage weapons, since you don't have the auxtodamp power or tact team to soft or hard conter them.
Hmmmm then maybe tacts shouldn't be in the galaxy class starship... But you could pull of tanking pretty easily tact just make sure you have 130 shield power at all times sure you lose out on some damage. But that's not what the ship was ever designed for... If you want to do damage in pvp pick a tact cruiser or a escort.
I'm sorry but you seem to want to design the ship around your playstyle... While i agree there are problems, specifically with all the shared cooldowns in engi Boffs. Also the lack of ensign Boffs without shared cool downs is non existent is a problem. The ship its self is perfectly doable, but does it suit your particular playstyle no.
I like tng as well but when it comes to the galaxy it is hard to argue.
In the show the Galaxy was made in a time of peace. It was a luxury liner in space. No other ship in any series showed a ship designed with a school on it for kids. Most of the galaxy class ships blew up. There was one point where Wesley's school project almost blew up the ship. there were a few times where the Enterprise-D was only saved by Data's unique abilities where if he weren't there they would have blown up.
This ship was designed to do system patrols and chest thumping along the boarders to make people like the Romulans think twice.
There has also been a lot of people who think the Excelsior should not be more power. That ship was a war ship designed to fight Klingons. In DS9 the Defiant went head on head with the Lakota it was able to hold its own. the defiant killed many attack ships and when DS9 had the opportunity to show the galaxy off it was blown up once again.
This favoritism is not just in sto but is depicted in a few locations. The galaxy may have large numbers in cannon but it is not a war ship. It more of a case of too many options to be effective.
I guess you seem to look at bits pieces of the show and now you think you know the whole story. The Galaxy was designed during the Cardasian War( certainly not a time of peace), to give Starfleet an edge over Cardasian Galors. The first Galaxy destroyed was the USS Yamato that incountered the Iconion probe that gave it a computer virus that ultimatle shut down the antimatter containment in the warp core which will cause the destrucion of any ship, no matter the size. tha same was going to happen to the Enterprise and the Romulan Warbird. No where in the show it was said to be a luxury liner, so quit making things up. The quarters onboard the Enterprise E were just as luxurious as the Galaxy classes so you are not making a good point about whether a ship is battle worthy or not. Humans generally like more comfort than the Klingons and Jem'Hadar. The second Galaxy that was destroyed was the USS Odyssey because it didn't have shields that defend against Jem'Hadar polaron weapons. The weapons didn't really do much damage to the ship so it was rammed in a suicide attack, that killed all kinds of ship in the War, Vorchas, and D'Deridex's alike. Go back and look at the show again and this time pay attention to the scripting, not just the pictures.
Hmmmm then maybe tacts shouldn't be in the galaxy class starship... But you could pull of tanking pretty easily tact just make sure you have 130 shield power at all times sure you lose out on some damage. But that's not what the ship was ever designed for... If you want to do damage in pvp pick a tact cruiser or a escort.
I'm sorry but you seem to want to design the ship around your playstyle... While i agree there are problems, specifically with all the shared cooldowns in engi Boffs. Also the lack of ensign Boffs without shared cool downs is non existent is a problem. The ship its self is perfectly doable, but does it suit your particular playstyle no.
a tactical toon in a galaxy retrofit, as of today, is indeed not a good idea.
however my point was not about damage but survival, you are able to survive without tact team because you toon proffesion compensate for it.
if you would try it with a tact, you will rapidly realize that you coud not do the same.
that is important to bring to your attention because it mean that this strategy is only viable in an engi toon.
it not that you have learn to not use it, you have compensate for it, because if that was something that you have learn, you would be able to reproduce it with a tact toon, and i assure you, you can not.
i don't want to design this ship around my playstyle, not in the least, but you seem to bielieve on the other hand that this ship should only be play with an engie toon.
and while at the moment it is the best choice to stay alive in this ship, one shoudn't be force to use an engie toon to make it work, that my point.
with other toon proffession, this ship is not viable in serious engagement, that should not be, even if one can not expect to survive as much with a tact toon than with an engie toon in a galaxy, the difference shoudn't be day and night.
a tact toon in a galaxy without tact team will survive for only the duration of it rsp against serious player, sound a little strange to me for a cruiser don't you think?
a tactical toon in a galaxy retrofit, as of today, is indeed not a good idea.
however my point was not about damage but survival, you are able to survive without tact team because you toon proffesion compensate for it.
if you would try it with a tact, you will rapidly realize that you coud not do the same.
that is important to bring to your attention because it mean that this strategy is only viable in an engi toon.
it not that you have learn to not use it, you have compensate for it, because if that was something that you have learn, you would be able to reproduce it with a tact toon, and i assure you, you can not.
i don't want to design this ship around my playstyle, not in the least, but you seem to bielieve on the other hand that this ship should only be play with an engie toon.
and while at the moment it is the best choice to stay alive in this ship, one shoudn't be force to use an engie toon to make it work, that my point.
with other toon proffession, this ship is not viable in serious engagement, that should not be, even if one can not expect to survive as much with a tact toon than with an engie toon in a galaxy, the difference shoudn't be day and night.
a tact toon in a galaxy without tact team will survive for only the duration of it rsp against serious player, sound a little strange to me for a cruiser don't you think?
Any class can play any ship, but engi's as space class = tank, so who can be surprised when tact isn't able to pull off as much survival as a engi... When tact captain abilities are focused on burst dps... Science are focused on team support...
If you don't want the galaxy class starship be around your playstyle, then why even think about changing the BOFF seating, as well console slots... I mean while a ensign universal should be there. Other then that the seating is fine. The only problems aren't with the ship, but engi boff abilities and perhaps engi consoles...
The current galaxy fits my playstyle.. It works well, its not a dps machine by any standards, the game is constantly making all ships weaker and weaker due to a dps power creep. But the issues in the game aren't going to get any better if you just want to push more Tact into everything.
Instead engi boff abilities need a revamp, and new ones added.
The problems with the Galaxy's bridge officer stations are well known. Anyone that knows anything about the mechanics of the game can see that. Three ensign level engineering stations just don't work with the skills we currently have available. Your choices are the conflicting cool downs of EPtX or ET and TT (which is a staple of any end game build). As for fundamentally changing all engineering skills. Do you really have the confidence in the devs ability to rework all engineering skills? They can't even fix Fire at will!
I'm really fed up with people claiming this ship is the ultimate tank and/or healer. The Galaxy is neither of these things. Nearly all the Federation cruisers are damage sponges, all are quite tanky, including the much more offensive oriented cruisers. That's the main issue. I can jump in a Fleet Assault Cruiser, or Fleet Avenger and "tank" just as much damage as a Fleet Galaxy and then pump out double the dps. Or I can use the Fleet Support Cruiser or Odyssey and be a better support/healer/tank then the Galaxy. The Galaxy is just not good at anything. It's not a good damage dealer and it's not a good support ship either. It simply fails at everything. This Galaxy is the worst cruiser in the game.
that being said,i bielieve that the galaxy should not get 5 or 4, and even 3 tact console and a lt commander bo power.
not because one may think it would make it overpowered ( simple game mechaniqm comprehension allow you to anderstand why a 6 base turn and 25 inertia ship will not transform into a god ship because he receive 3 tact console and a lt commander tact slot, look at the odyssey for that ).
the ody is hardly a practical choice if you want a LTC tac, your stuck with a LT tac as well. too much for a beam boat, in the AtB age.
but because this will create a precedent, since the galaxy was move to the healing tanking area to the tact area, why woudn't we do it with the star cruiser then?
the star cruiser also only have a lt tact slot and 2 tact console, i see no reason why this ship didn't get love too while the galaxy do, i don't like favoritism.
and that will be for every other ship in the game that found themselves in this situation.
because theres not a thing wrong with the star cruiser? it fills its role just fine, and is a FAR better ship in practice then the galaxy. it can fill a non tactical role well, the galaxy cant.
the galaxy should have been made tactical from the start, if you move it to that area now, every other ship that are in the same situation will ask to get the same treatement and rightfully so.
and we will then all flying different iteration of a tactical ship with absolutly no other gameplay choices, this is a reduction in gameplay diversity, that will be a lost for the game.
that should have been the reason you could have come up to if you want to make fun of some of us, but stating that we want a god ship stats?
even the more overpowered "serious" proposal are far from this.
way to much pve logic there. heal boat, non tactical cruisers have thier place. it would be absurd to change all the zombie/tank/healboat cruisers into tac ships. the newest cruiser, that voth ship launched today, is the greatest zombie of all.
MY build doesn't work against all I think you may not understand that just becuase a ship can tank well, doesn't mean it will tank the best against every build, much less tank vs lots of builds at once.
Also there is a skill part of any build some people can make a build work that others can't or don't do as well.
I need to do some tweaking but and you need to get the EPTX doffs for better cycling, and warp core doff for more power. + all the engineering traits. You also need to learn how to do without tact team.
Keeping people off your tail and keeping them at a flank is must for any sort of dps. But I rarely die in pvp, also never die in pve and I do pretty good job of healing.
Subnuking is the bane of my build but with a good team who cross heals, there shouldn't be a problem.
Of course if you got good team members that stick together and cross heal, you can tank forever but I have alot of fleet members that are on at different timezones so I am forced to pug it and is left to tank on my own.
I have gone up against some infamous Bug players from Fed and Klink side. Some of thise names like Cryox from "House of Beautiful Orions" fleet(Klingon), and Edna "ATNK" fleet. Those bug players I can't tank long against because their tac powers and cannon volleys outlast my longest RSP 3 shield tanking power. The bad thing is that i run into those players quite often when I PVP. and in many times i always end up on 1v1 with them. Once they kill you they hunt you down after you spawn in through the whole match. Thats what make me angry because I can't even wound these guys, let alone kill them with just 2 weapon consoles.
I do alot better when I'm in my Galaxy X and in my Ambassador because either of them have 3 weapons consoles.
that statement is not logical, you can't be a tact boff monster while at the same time being a engi and science boff monster, if you have one, it is at the expense of an other, and i am not even speaking about turn rate and inertia, basic game mechanic.
so how can you make fun at a proposal that can not be?
that being said,i bielieve that the galaxy should not get 5 or 4, and even 3 tact console and a lt commander bo power.
not because one may think it would make it overpowered ( simple game mechaniqm comprehension allow you to anderstand why a 6 base turn and 25 inertia ship will not transform into a god ship because he receive 3 tact console and a lt commander tact slot, look at the odyssey for that ).
but because this will create a precedent, since the galaxy was move to the healing tanking area to the tact area, why woudn't we do it with the star cruiser then?
the star cruiser also only have a lt tact slot and 2 tact console, i see no reason why this ship didn't get love too while the galaxy do, i don't like favoritism.
and that will be for every other ship in the game that found themselves in this situation.
the galaxy should have been made tactical from the start, if you move it to that area now, every other ship that are in the same situation will ask to get the same treatement and rightfully so.
and we will then all flying different iteration of a tactical ship with absolutly no other gameplay choices, this is a reduction in gameplay diversity, that will be a lost for the game.
that should have been the reason you could have come up to if you want to make fun of some of us, but stating that we want a god ship stats?
even the more overpowered "serious" proposal are far from this.
and sorry but i will have to kill this legend right now.
the galaxy NEVER been the best at it time.
i have been here since game launch, so you will not going to fool me on this, that could work with the F2P players, not with me.
let me refresh you memory, the galaxy retrofit was launch at season 2: ancient enemy and was available to player with a token that you can obtain by reaching the new level cap of vice admiral 51 ( at that time ) or directly in cstore.
it was already less efficient at tanking than a star cruiser at that time ( exept for a little boost in hull for the galaxy the stats of both ship didn't change since ), and the star cruiser was already 6 month older.
every one was playing with the new separation console, and it was the first galaxy to be mass available at tiers 5, but when the shiny past out, everyone drop the ship 1 week later because of it crappy stats.
the galaxy never been the master of all trade, but in sto it alway have been the master of all fail, that for sure.
You know what? I wouldn't care that the movement of the Galaxy from all ENG to balanced/TAC may cause them to change the Star cruiser to more tac. The star cruiser is also a weak ship. I never met a Star cruiser that can tank even my Galaxy and that speaks to the weak setup they made for these ships.
I think we all have to remember that the Galaxy class starships were developed in the 2250s. STO takes place nearly 60 years later. It was powerful yes, and was likely one of the most powerful designs of the mid 24th century. However, 60 years of subsequent development likely means it was inevitably going to be rendered obsolete.
As an analogy, could a newly made copy of the 60s era Kitty Hawk Class carrier defeat say the USS George HW Bush? With an expert crew, possibly. But given relatively equal crews and tactics, the Kitty Hawk inevitably has the disadvantage as its design, provided no major changes were made, includes deficiencies that were later corrected in subsequent classes like the Nimitz.
Can the 1960s cruiser USS Belknap dominate a modern Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer?
USS Canada
N.C.C. 171867
Sovereign Class
Saint John Fleet Yard
"A Mari Usque Ad Mare"
Hmmmm then maybe tacts shouldn't be in the galaxy class starship... But you could pull of tanking pretty easily tact just make sure you have 130 shield power at all times sure you lose out on some damage. But that's not what the ship was ever designed for... If you want to do damage in pvp pick a tact cruiser or a escort.
I'm sorry but you seem to want to design the ship around your playstyle... While i agree there are problems, specifically with all the shared cooldowns in engi Boffs. Also the lack of ensign Boffs without shared cool downs is non existent is a problem. The ship its self is perfectly doable, but does it suit your particular playstyle no.
They shouldn't have made the Galaxy a ship just to cater to one carreer. Every escort works just as powerful wether the captain is Tac, ENG, or Sci. it would be only fair for the cruisers work as well, no matter the career type.
Like I always say, the USS Enterprise D has 3 Tac command bridge officers to one Eng and no sci.
Ships shouldn't have a special carreers, only the Captains have carreers.
I think we all have to remember that the Galaxy class starships were developed in the 2250s. STO takes place nearly 60 years later. It was powerful yes, and was likely one of the most powerful designs of the mid 24th century. However, 60 years of subsequent development likely means it was inevitably going to be rendered obsolete.
As an analogy, could a newly made copy of the 60s era Kitty Hawk Class carrier defeat say the USS George HW Bush? With an expert crew, possibly. But given relatively equal crews and tactics, the Kitty Hawk inevitably has the disadvantage as its design, provided no major changes were made, includes deficiencies that were later corrected in subsequent classes like the Nimitz.
Can the 1960s cruiser USS Belknap dominate a modern Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer?
How about slap yourself back to reality. I am tired of people, that don't know Star Trek, saying the Galaxy is too old a ship class for anybody to care about upgrading with the current times. You people forget that the Excelsior, Ambassador, Miranda, and Oberth are all way older than the Galaxy Class. The KDF uses most of their old ship lines and yet they get upgraded with the times, so why don't you retire that old lazy excuse of yours on why the Galaxy can't get a revamp. If you don't like a Galaxy to get revisited for a revamp then maybe you should go back to your alien loving, lock box corner and leave us TNG fans alone.
I think we all have to remember that the Galaxy class starships were developed in the 2250s. STO takes place nearly 60 years later. It was powerful yes, and was likely one of the most powerful designs of the mid 24th century. However, 60 years of subsequent development likely means it was inevitably going to be rendered obsolete.
As an analogy, could a newly made copy of the 60s era Kitty Hawk Class carrier defeat say the USS George HW Bush? With an expert crew, possibly. But given relatively equal crews and tactics, the Kitty Hawk inevitably has the disadvantage as its design, provided no major changes were made, includes deficiencies that were later corrected in subsequent classes like the Nimitz.
Can the 1960s cruiser USS Belknap dominate a modern Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer?
That argument doesn't hold up. We've got several ships even older then the Galaxy that perform much better. The first ship that comes to mind is the Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit (Excelsior). It was, for a long time, the best cruiser available fedside. While it's been dethroned by the Fleet Battle Cruiser (Avenger) and arguably by the Fleet Assault Cruiser, it's still a viable ship end game that can put up some impressive dps numbers. The U.S.S. Excelsior was commissioned in 2293 the U.S.S. Galaxy 2363. So by your own logic the Excelsior should be weak when compared to the Galaxy, but this obviously isn't the case.
Comments
Lt.Com Universal
Ensign Tactical
Commander Engineer
Lt. Engineer
Lt. Science
1 hangar of Danubes
BOOM! fixed! Your welcome. I'll be here all nite long, be sure and tip your waitress.
Never saw them calling for their dual beam banks or swapping out their warp cores, torpedoes, shields, engines... for something they acquired from the Borg either... or the Breen, Jen-Hadar, Voth...
I do recall them occasionally mentioning a weapon update, as new weapons were developed.
And seriously... is there any reason that dropping the Saucer would make the ship more "formidable", other than keeping targets in a narrow firing arc?
Kind of a selective application of your critique, isn't it? I never saw cannons on the Gal-X.
I am stupid.
I bought my Gal-R before the Odyssey was introduced. The game is not the same now as it was then. Although I may have been whining about it then too.
Why would I complain on the Bugship? I don't own one but I have killed a few in my day.
As to blocking the Galaxy from love, I'm not.
I'm making fun of the many posts that want the Galaxy to be a 5 Tac console, DPS Tac Boff monster like the Bugship while being the best Engineer healer since Scotty and the best Science power flinging wizard since Merlin all wrapped in armor like the Doomsday machine.
Frankly you TNG fans that cant pull common sense out of the scripted capabilities the Enterprise displayed onscreen are doing more to harm your cause than I am.
The Galaxy is not the master of all trades. It was the best at its time but that time has passed it by in STO. Stop trying to make it the Ubership and just make it a decent ship with a sensible purpose.
Seperate your blind fandom from your desires and you will get farther.
R.I.P
I got the stats from memory alpha. I could not find any other sites that are close to being canon thats get specific about the stats of the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought. All i find are game connected sites and even the speculate on weapons systems. Star Trek did a poor job of catalogging star ships so people have to speculate. Star Wars catalogged every piece of equipment, including all spacecraft on and off screen.
Ref: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Jem'Hadar_battleship
I own one and i have a hard time tanking a well built bug ship. Most times if i tank well, opponants start spamming me and subnuking me so i can't tank.
Maybe you need to share your build and we can try it out and see if it works or not.
Some videos would be nice, too.
Why are you generalizing all of us TNG fans? We all don't want the same thing, we post our idea to start a debate. Not once have you seen me ask for 5 tac consoles. I only ask for 4 tac consoles on the fleet version because it comes with an extra console and I don't think it needs 3 science consoles. The ship have weak science powers.
You don't care to make the Galaxy better than it is so don't come in here critisizing peoples ideas, because you don't have any of your own. We don't come in here complaining about your Klingon ships or asking them to be made different or nerfed.
This post was made TNG people can vent and debate on how the Galaxy should be revamp and made better.
You say you have killed a few bugs, so have I but I know they were not good built bugs. I play PVP anough to remember players if their ship were tough to survive against.
I bet you can't name some players with good Bug setups. I know a few infamous bug owners. Edna, Cryox, Lynk@zelda.
I know you are an all Klingon bais player. Separate yourself from your blind opposition from a competitive Galaxy or go back to your Klingon world and talk about those ships. No TNG fans go and wine about your Klingon ship ideas.
MY build doesn't work against all I think you may not understand that just becuase a ship can tank well, doesn't mean it will tank the best against every build, much less tank vs lots of builds at once.
Also there is a skill part of any build some people can make a build work that others can't or don't do as well.
http://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/?build=explorationtank_4992
I need to do some tweaking but and you need to get the EPTX doffs for better cycling, and warp core doff for more power. + all the engineering traits. You also need to learn how to do without tact team.
Keeping people off your tail and keeping them at a flank is must for any sort of dps. But I rarely die in pvp, also never die in pve and I do pretty good job of healing.
Subnuking is the bane of my build but with a good team who cross heals, there shouldn't be a problem.
Obviously you don't PVP much in a Galaxy or you would be embarressed or raging mad at how badly the setup is. I would even Challenge you myself I have to prove you wrong, but if you accept, you have to do it quickly because soon I will not have access to the forums one I get to China next week.
wrong. its healing and tanking ability is hamstrung by the low amount of system cooldowns available at ENS for eng, and the giveing up of extreamly valuable sci or tac skills at that level for something useless. also those 3 ENS eng lock out things like any EPtX3 skill, and ET3. with 3 station powers at LTC eng and above, your best choices at that level are blocked of use. you end up leaving an ENS station empty, or using a high end ENG station slot on something useless to you .and again, your missing out on a high end skill that would be actually helpful in ether at LTC for sci or tac.
an actual good tank station setup has at least as much sci as it does eng, like an ody with the LTC station used for sci. thats an actual good tank/healer.
i think i figured out what roach is going on about. when we are talking about tanking 3 bug ships in canon, we are not saying it should be able to do that in game, seeing as the bug is the best non battlecloaking escort in game. canon and in game are 2 different things, galaxy fans know that better then anyone believe me. non of us talking about the canon have made outrageous requests for revamps ether.
keep in mind though, things like 5 tactical consoles, several very high end universal stations, these are all par for the course on every new ship release. they are now the standard, not the exception. there is a bias against this ship because its been in game since nearly the beginning, and because its the galaxy class, and thus that brings with it a mountain of opinion baggage. before the lady doth protest too much, methinks, additionally, check your objectivity by those 2 factors :P
that statement is not logical, you can't be a tact boff monster while at the same time being a engi and science boff monster, if you have one, it is at the expense of an other, and i am not even speaking about turn rate and inertia, basic game mechanic.
so how can you make fun at a proposal that can not be?
that being said,i bielieve that the galaxy should not get 5 or 4, and even 3 tact console and a lt commander bo power.
not because one may think it would make it overpowered ( simple game mechaniqm comprehension allow you to anderstand why a 6 base turn and 25 inertia ship will not transform into a god ship because he receive 3 tact console and a lt commander tact slot, look at the odyssey for that ).
but because this will create a precedent, since the galaxy was move to the healing tanking area to the tact area, why woudn't we do it with the star cruiser then?
the star cruiser also only have a lt tact slot and 2 tact console, i see no reason why this ship didn't get love too while the galaxy do, i don't like favoritism.
and that will be for every other ship in the game that found themselves in this situation.
the galaxy should have been made tactical from the start, if you move it to that area now, every other ship that are in the same situation will ask to get the same treatement and rightfully so.
and we will then all flying different iteration of a tactical ship with absolutly no other gameplay choices, this is a reduction in gameplay diversity, that will be a lost for the game.
that should have been the reason you could have come up to if you want to make fun of some of us, but stating that we want a god ship stats?
even the more overpowered "serious" proposal are far from this.
and sorry but i will have to kill this legend right now.
the galaxy NEVER been the best at it time.
i have been here since game launch, so you will not going to fool me on this, that could work with the F2P players, not with me.
let me refresh you memory, the galaxy retrofit was launch at season 2: ancient enemy and was available to player with a token that you can obtain by reaching the new level cap of vice admiral 51 ( at that time ) or directly in cstore.
it was already less efficient at tanking than a star cruiser at that time ( exept for a little boost in hull for the galaxy the stats of both ship didn't change since ), and the star cruiser was already 6 month older.
every one was playing with the new separation console, and it was the first galaxy to be mass available at tiers 5, but when the shiny past out, everyone drop the ship 1 week later because of it crappy stats.
the galaxy never been the master of all trade, but in sto it alway have been the master of all fail, that for sure.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
being an engineer in a cruiser spec for tanking is what allow you to do without tactical team, that would not be the same story if you were a tactical captain.
but that also leave you very vunerable to a decloack alpha with photonic shocwave and tricobalt or any over new hight instant damage weapons, since you don't have the auxtodamp power or tact team to soft or hard conter them.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I don't like your 3/3/3 console set up plus the fleet version has an added console slot making it 10. The C-store Galaxy R should have 4/2/3. It works for the Galaxy X, and I can tank all day in that thing and sting back. The Galaxy R and Galaxy X are the same ship minus the weapons and cloak. Having cannons do make a big difference in making DPS becaue I tried to make my Galaxy X a beam boat and compared it with my current beam/cannon/DHC setup. The current setup came out on top and more kills than the all beam setup. I just had to use tractor beams to lock opponants into place so I can keep them in my foward arcs. Maybe The Galaxy X should come with a weapon damage modifier of 1.5 to make the difference but the Galaxy X assault style boff and console setup still out tanks the Galaxy R's Engeering useless style setup.
The Fleet Galaxy R comes 5/3/2 console setup and the exact same weak boff setup as the C-store version. It should be set up with 4/3/3 or 4/2/4 to give a beam boat teeth. There is no need for the ship to have 3 Sci consoles because it doesn't do Science spam at all. The BOFF layout shoud get cmdr Eng/LTC Tac/LTC Uni /LT Sci. There should not be a need for Ens BOFF slots on a tier 5 fleet ship since they are mostly weak ans useless.
I know the are alot of people out there trying to turn the Galaxy ship into a science ship but you forget that Picard, and Riker were tactical officers, along with Worf, the best at tactical systems, all packed in one bridge. Only one Ops officer(Data), one engineer(Laforge), and no science officer. Doctor Crushe occasionally doubled as science officer when new lifeforms was discoverd. Voyager was the crew that had her captain with Science background, and not other tactical experience besides Tuvoc. The all explore Enterprise got it's behind kicked in all first 4 seasons until Archer got fed up with being cannon fodder and started arming the ship with top of the line weapons to ward off the aggresive alien cultures.
There was no show with all Engineers on board.
Are you a DEV? If you are then, you need to post in the offical pink or yellow color name. If you just a player then, don't tell me what the DEVs will and will not do.
I'm sorry but you seem to want to design the ship around your playstyle... While i agree there are problems, specifically with all the shared cooldowns in engi Boffs. Also the lack of ensign Boffs without shared cool downs is non existent is a problem. The ship its self is perfectly doable, but does it suit your particular playstyle no.
I guess you seem to look at bits pieces of the show and now you think you know the whole story. The Galaxy was designed during the Cardasian War( certainly not a time of peace), to give Starfleet an edge over Cardasian Galors. The first Galaxy destroyed was the USS Yamato that incountered the Iconion probe that gave it a computer virus that ultimatle shut down the antimatter containment in the warp core which will cause the destrucion of any ship, no matter the size. tha same was going to happen to the Enterprise and the Romulan Warbird. No where in the show it was said to be a luxury liner, so quit making things up. The quarters onboard the Enterprise E were just as luxurious as the Galaxy classes so you are not making a good point about whether a ship is battle worthy or not. Humans generally like more comfort than the Klingons and Jem'Hadar. The second Galaxy that was destroyed was the USS Odyssey because it didn't have shields that defend against Jem'Hadar polaron weapons. The weapons didn't really do much damage to the ship so it was rammed in a suicide attack, that killed all kinds of ship in the War, Vorchas, and D'Deridex's alike. Go back and look at the show again and this time pay attention to the scripting, not just the pictures.
Bridge Officer Stations: 1 Lieutenant Tactical, 1 Commander Engineering, 1 Lieutenant Science, 1 Ensign Universal, 1 Lieutenant Commander Universal
Console Modifications: 2 Tactical, 5 Engineering, 3 Science
a tactical toon in a galaxy retrofit, as of today, is indeed not a good idea.
however my point was not about damage but survival, you are able to survive without tact team because you toon proffesion compensate for it.
if you would try it with a tact, you will rapidly realize that you coud not do the same.
that is important to bring to your attention because it mean that this strategy is only viable in an engi toon.
it not that you have learn to not use it, you have compensate for it, because if that was something that you have learn, you would be able to reproduce it with a tact toon, and i assure you, you can not.
i don't want to design this ship around my playstyle, not in the least, but you seem to bielieve on the other hand that this ship should only be play with an engie toon.
and while at the moment it is the best choice to stay alive in this ship, one shoudn't be force to use an engie toon to make it work, that my point.
with other toon proffession, this ship is not viable in serious engagement, that should not be, even if one can not expect to survive as much with a tact toon than with an engie toon in a galaxy, the difference shoudn't be day and night.
a tact toon in a galaxy without tact team will survive for only the duration of it rsp against serious player, sound a little strange to me for a cruiser don't you think?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Any class can play any ship, but engi's as space class = tank, so who can be surprised when tact isn't able to pull off as much survival as a engi... When tact captain abilities are focused on burst dps... Science are focused on team support...
If you don't want the galaxy class starship be around your playstyle, then why even think about changing the BOFF seating, as well console slots... I mean while a ensign universal should be there. Other then that the seating is fine. The only problems aren't with the ship, but engi boff abilities and perhaps engi consoles...
The current galaxy fits my playstyle.. It works well, its not a dps machine by any standards, the game is constantly making all ships weaker and weaker due to a dps power creep. But the issues in the game aren't going to get any better if you just want to push more Tact into everything.
Instead engi boff abilities need a revamp, and new ones added.
I'm really fed up with people claiming this ship is the ultimate tank and/or healer. The Galaxy is neither of these things. Nearly all the Federation cruisers are damage sponges, all are quite tanky, including the much more offensive oriented cruisers. That's the main issue. I can jump in a Fleet Assault Cruiser, or Fleet Avenger and "tank" just as much damage as a Fleet Galaxy and then pump out double the dps. Or I can use the Fleet Support Cruiser or Odyssey and be a better support/healer/tank then the Galaxy. The Galaxy is just not good at anything. It's not a good damage dealer and it's not a good support ship either. It simply fails at everything. This Galaxy is the worst cruiser in the game.
the ody is hardly a practical choice if you want a LTC tac, your stuck with a LT tac as well. too much for a beam boat, in the AtB age.
because theres not a thing wrong with the star cruiser? it fills its role just fine, and is a FAR better ship in practice then the galaxy. it can fill a non tactical role well, the galaxy cant.
way to much pve logic there. heal boat, non tactical cruisers have thier place. it would be absurd to change all the zombie/tank/healboat cruisers into tac ships. the newest cruiser, that voth ship launched today, is the greatest zombie of all.
thats just the ody station setup, any revamped galaxy should not just be a carbon copy of that, whats the point?
Of course if you got good team members that stick together and cross heal, you can tank forever but I have alot of fleet members that are on at different timezones so I am forced to pug it and is left to tank on my own.
I have gone up against some infamous Bug players from Fed and Klink side. Some of thise names like Cryox from "House of Beautiful Orions" fleet(Klingon), and Edna "ATNK" fleet. Those bug players I can't tank long against because their tac powers and cannon volleys outlast my longest RSP 3 shield tanking power. The bad thing is that i run into those players quite often when I PVP. and in many times i always end up on 1v1 with them. Once they kill you they hunt you down after you spawn in through the whole match. Thats what make me angry because I can't even wound these guys, let alone kill them with just 2 weapon consoles.
I do alot better when I'm in my Galaxy X and in my Ambassador because either of them have 3 weapons consoles.
Here is my PVP Galaxy setup:
http://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/?build=fleetussgalaxypvp_5584
You know what? I wouldn't care that the movement of the Galaxy from all ENG to balanced/TAC may cause them to change the Star cruiser to more tac. The star cruiser is also a weak ship. I never met a Star cruiser that can tank even my Galaxy and that speaks to the weak setup they made for these ships.
As an analogy, could a newly made copy of the 60s era Kitty Hawk Class carrier defeat say the USS George HW Bush? With an expert crew, possibly. But given relatively equal crews and tactics, the Kitty Hawk inevitably has the disadvantage as its design, provided no major changes were made, includes deficiencies that were later corrected in subsequent classes like the Nimitz.
Can the 1960s cruiser USS Belknap dominate a modern Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer?
N.C.C. 171867
Sovereign Class
Saint John Fleet Yard
"A Mari Usque Ad Mare"
They shouldn't have made the Galaxy a ship just to cater to one carreer. Every escort works just as powerful wether the captain is Tac, ENG, or Sci. it would be only fair for the cruisers work as well, no matter the career type.
Like I always say, the USS Enterprise D has 3 Tac command bridge officers to one Eng and no sci.
Ships shouldn't have a special carreers, only the Captains have carreers.
How about slap yourself back to reality. I am tired of people, that don't know Star Trek, saying the Galaxy is too old a ship class for anybody to care about upgrading with the current times. You people forget that the Excelsior, Ambassador, Miranda, and Oberth are all way older than the Galaxy Class. The KDF uses most of their old ship lines and yet they get upgraded with the times, so why don't you retire that old lazy excuse of yours on why the Galaxy can't get a revamp. If you don't like a Galaxy to get revisited for a revamp then maybe you should go back to your alien loving, lock box corner and leave us TNG fans alone.
That argument doesn't hold up. We've got several ships even older then the Galaxy that perform much better. The first ship that comes to mind is the Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit (Excelsior). It was, for a long time, the best cruiser available fedside. While it's been dethroned by the Fleet Battle Cruiser (Avenger) and arguably by the Fleet Assault Cruiser, it's still a viable ship end game that can put up some impressive dps numbers. The U.S.S. Excelsior was commissioned in 2293 the U.S.S. Galaxy 2363. So by your own logic the Excelsior should be weak when compared to the Galaxy, but this obviously isn't the case.