hmm, i don't known about that one, having a lt commander sci is good, but just 2 ensign tact?
even tho i known cryptic will never agree, i still prefer your first solution with almost all sci.
hmm, i don't known about that one, having a lt commander sci is good, but just 2 ensign tact?
even tho i known cryptic will never agree, i still prefer your first solution with almost all sci.
would love that, i could do my setup with it
ya i dont really care for that one in practice that much ether. just theory crafting mostly.
first, power to weapons are not to counter the lance here, that would be a useless use of them, the lance, just like bo will drawn 50 power of your weapons no matter how much overcapping you got in that area.
second +15 is also overkill, giving this ship +10 allow you to reach 125 weapons power without relying on special gears or console, or skillpoint, so that good.
but if you give him +15 that mean that this would be at the expense of either the shield or engine, and here the price is not worht it for a slow cruiser like this.
If the lance drops weapon power 50 points having +15 power will weaken that effect, won't it? That was my thinking, at least.
never shown to be a superior tactical focussed ship?
i don't known what you need as a proof.
the ship litterally rolfstomp a negvar type ship in what? 3 or 5 shot, i don't remember, and make the second one cry to it mammy.
i never see any star trek hero ship disposed of enemy of that size, that quick, without special technology.
this ship was reoriented to tactical because in this alternate timeline the federation were in war with the klingons.
we are not talking about an explorer anymore here, but about a ship retrofitted to be on part with other ship of it time and to defend the federation.
the lance is not here to throw flower to newcomer or first contact species but to destroy hull of starship, and so daes the little cannon on the saucer.
all that with a cloacking abilitie and i am sure that the now legendary versatilitie of the ship have been use to push it abilitie toward tactical.
it might not be the best tactical cruiser in it own timeline but it is certainly much more powerfull than the sto version we were giving. (...)
Well, we have that piercing phaser emitter that's right. But nothing else really hints at a different setup than the regular Galaxy had, in fact using on-screen reference the regular Galaxy would be capable of such powerful volleys without that "lance" as well. What hinders her tactical use is that she's a heavy brick and cannot utilise evaisive or flanking manneuvres that well/at all. In that timeline they were at war, but I don't see that being "at war" leads Starfleet to always construct doomsday machines for that time. They seem to always change uniforms when at war, though XD
My point is that I actually don't see a problem with the "X" not differing THAT much from the regular "R" fom a canonical point of view. In-game it's that "dreadnaught" term that gets people upset, though that's Cryptic's fault In the show, Riker just hot-rodded the Enterprise because it woul otherwise had been decomissioned. In the dominion war we had the (canon) Venture-type variant that got I think two more phaser arrays to cover the nacelles. Other than that the ship was fine as it was.
it daesn't matter that cryptic call him a dreadnought, what matter is that it is a tactical ship, and in this game a ship can not pretend to do a tactical job if he only got a lt tac combined with 6 base turnrate.
that where the joke is, especially when cryptic give him the abilitie to mount cannon.
a lt commander tact is the minimum to give this ship justice.
one could ask for more, but it would then be an other regent/avenger clone, and i bielieve that this ship got the abilitie to do something different.
something in between, and something that would not denied it primarely eng focus.
It is as much a tactical ship than the regular Assault Cruiser, and you wouldn't call that a tactical ship would you? It's the explorer with a different ensign and a gimmick we had in the show which could be quite powerful if it would actually work And it, I think, got a 3rd tac console in the meantime, did it?
yes, that is the reason why you think that this is a good idea, if you try to play a tactical ship like it should be play, you will quickly realized the shortcomming of your solution.
Well, I do have Battlecruiser on my Klingon (3 tac) but I don't really feel the difference, frankly. Cruiser to Raptor, sure that's a difference. But I don't want to argument from a subjective point of view, as I said that might be a problem. I command a Explorer-R and a Fleet Nebula on my feds and do, I think, very well in them. I get first places in fleet actions and can do fine in STFs, although I can't deny the flaws especially the Explo-R layout has.
^ 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 the lance drops weapon power 50 points having +15 power will weaken that effect, won't it? That was my thinking, at least.
Well, we have that piercing phaser emitter that's right. But nothing else really hints at a different setup than the regular Galaxy had, in fact using on-screen reference the regular Galaxy would be capable of such powerful volleys without that "lance" as well. What hinders her tactical use is that she's a heavy brick and cannot utilise evaisive or flanking manneuvres that well/at all. In that timeline they were at war, but I don't see that being "at war" leads Starfleet to always construct doomsday machines for that time. They seem to always change uniforms when at war, though XD
My point is that I actually don't see a problem with the "X" not differing THAT much from the regular "R" fom a canonical point of view. In-game it's that "dreadnaught" term that gets people upset, though that's Cryptic's fault In the show, Riker just hot-rodded the Enterprise because it woul otherwise had been decomissioned. In the dominion war we had the (canon) Venture-type variant that got I think two more phaser arrays to cover the nacelles. Other than that the ship was fine as it was.
It is as much a tactical ship than the regular Assault Cruiser, and you wouldn't call that a tactical ship would you? It's the explorer with a different ensign and a gimmick we had in the show which could be quite powerful if it would actually work And it, I think, got a 3rd tac console in the meantime, did it?
Well, I do have Battlecruiser on my Klingon (3 tac) but I don't really feel the difference, frankly. Cruiser to Raptor, sure that's a difference. But I don't want to argument from a subjective point of view, as I said that might be a problem. I command a Explorer-R and a Fleet Nebula on my feds and do, I think, very well in them. I get first places in fleet actions and can do fine in STFs, although I can't deny the flaws especially the Explo-R layout has.
I beg to differ on your opinion about the Galaxy X is not different than the Galaxy R. My Galaxy is tactically way more affective than my R due to the 3 weapon console slots and extra TAC BOFF. I get way more kills against players and NPC with the Dread than the Regular Galaxy.
I do think the Ensign Tac Boff is a gimmick when they could of made it a LT Commander Tac that would make it on par with other battlecruisers.
Well since the Galaxy-X and the Assault cruiser share identical boff stations on console layout the Fleet Galaxy-X should get the same boff and console layout of the Fleet Regent.
I like your thinking. Shame cryptic won't do this. They seem to think/have this idea that the phaser lance is a op benefit to the galaxy-x therefore I'd be very surprised to see us get access to a LtC tactical station. Heck the guramba lance is a overpowered weapon. Access to 4 tact consoles. Attack pattern beta 3 or omega 3 and half the recharge time.
Heck the x only got 2 cruiser commands one of which threat generation is wasted as the x isn't a great tank if built for dps.
It's simple cryptic don't want people flying the galaxy as it takes money and sales away from lockbox ships and the god ugly in house designs they spit out. If the galaxy had the fleet regent or excelsior layout. I'd be flying one regardless of career choice. And cryptic know there are many like minded people. So why make one of the 2 most popular and iconic star fleet ships top of the line and shoot your business model in the foot.
And that's the real reason you won't see a tier 5 connie. Not because CBS say no.
I like your thinking. Shame cryptic won't do this. They seem to think/have this idea that the phaser lance is a op benefit to the galaxy-x therefore I'd be very surprised to see us get access to a LtC tactical station. Heck the guramba lance is a overpowered weapon. Access to 4 tact consoles. Attack pattern beta 3 or omega 3 and half the recharge time.
Heck the x only got 2 cruiser commands one of which threat generation is wasted as the x isn't a great tank if built for dps.
It's simple cryptic don't want people flying the galaxy as it takes money and sales away from lockbox ships and the god ugly in house designs they spit out. If the galaxy had the fleet regent or excelsior layout. I'd be flying one regardless of career choice. And cryptic know there are many like minded people. So why make one of the 2 most popular and iconic star fleet ships top of the line and shoot your business model in the foot.
And that's the real reason you won't see a tier 5 connie. Not because CBS say no.
Seriously, what's with all the "Cryptic hates us" mentality?
The Galaxy was introduced into the game as the tanking part of the trinity to a time they strongly emphasized that type of gameplay. Yes, it is absolutely unfitting for a Star Trek game, but these are the facts. The Gal was a tank, the Defiant the DD and the Intrepid the mage/healer. They didn't chose to do so because they hate anything or anyone, that was what they were going for.
With the addition of lockbox ships and p2w powercreep they abandoned the trinity because there is only so much you can do with it. Now their source of revenue lies in ship layouts: If you want to play with layout XYZ you have to buy it. Having two ships share the same layout will cut on their profits so they try to keep those unique as long as possible. This why we can't have a double layout in one faction. When the X would be to copy the layout of the regent it would split sales between the two I suppose.
Cryptic doesn't pay a lot of attention to the integrity of the source material they use, this is obvious. Then again, this game abandoned any kind of consistency the moment it launched with the premise they chose. They don't hate you or anyone, they could just sell a OP Galaxy and probably would make a lot of sales with it too. Though the ship is already in this game and to my knowledge they never changed a ship that was "finalized", let alone after 4 years.
So we MIGHT be able to see a refit of the two ships at some point at endgame but I think they can't steal another ships layout or established "role".
^ 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 simple cryptic don't want people flying the galaxy as it takes money and sales away from lockbox ships and the god ugly in house designs they spit out. If the galaxy had the fleet regent or excelsior layout. I'd be flying one regardless of career choice. And cryptic know there are many like minded people. So why make one of the 2 most popular and iconic star fleet ships top of the line and shoot your business model in the foot.
And that's the real reason you won't see a tier 5 connie. Not because CBS say no.
This should be the header of every page for now on. It's almost 4 AM, so I'm probably talking out of my TRIBBLE.
But this echoes my feelings. This feels like the whole reason why. Rommie players got the D'deridex changed after it came out with the "Failaxy" Boff layout. With Voth stuff being the new shiny for the Devs, anything positive for us will be a long TRIBBLE wait. 3+ years, if we're lucky.
Us X-drivers will probably have to settle for Gecko only being able to get us a hangar as an improvement, despite all the noise he might be making about it. I wouldn't mind a hangar, but there are other fixes the ship desperately needs. I grew up with the base-model Galaxy, so believe me, I'm with you guys, she needs some lovins too.
I'm just starting to feel like no improvements will ever be forthcoming. Or at best they'll be vaporware improvements that will rival Duke Nukem Forever's legendary development time.
(That Gal-X Saucer Sep? There's an easy fix for that. No, it won't be as pretty or as elegant as the Chevron, action, bit it is simple , to the point, and gets it done. Flies over the 3rd nacelle, and drops into place. No clipping issues. Shadows of DNF vaporware, anyone?)
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Seriously, what's with all the "Cryptic hates us" mentality?
The Galaxy was introduced into the game as the tanking part of the trinity to a time they strongly emphasized that type of gameplay. Yes, it is absolutely unfitting for a Star Trek game, but these are the facts. The Gal was a tank, the Defiant the DD and the Intrepid the mage/healer. They didn't chose to do so because they hate anything or anyone, that was what they were going for.
With the addition of lockbox ships and p2w powercreep they abandoned the trinity because there is only so much you can do with it. Now their source of revenue lies in ship layouts: If you want to play with layout XYZ you have to buy it. Having two ships share the same layout will cut on their profits so they try to keep those unique as long as possible. This why we can't have a double layout in one faction. When the X would be to copy the layout of the regent it would split sales between the two I suppose.
Cryptic doesn't pay a lot of attention to the integrity of the source material they use, this is obvious. Then again, this game abandoned any kind of consistency the moment it launched with the premise they chose. They don't hate you or anyone, they could just sell a OP Galaxy and probably would make a lot of sales with it too. Though the ship is already in this game and to my knowledge they never changed a ship that was "finalized", let alone after 4 years.
So we MIGHT be able to see a refit of the two ships at some point at endgame but I think they can't steal another ships layout or established "role".
Its not about Cryptic Hates us Mentality. its about getting ships that fall into the trinity model improved, to be competitive in the modern game. Yes i am frustrated and always have been since the 1st day i stepped onto the bridge of a Galaxy 2 and a half years ago, to find how TRIBBLE it was compared to other ships of its class. And that frustration has come over in my recent posts.
TBH if it were any use and the Devs cared beyond selling the next shiny toy, i'd start 2 other threads Titled Cryptic what's your beef with the Intrepid ? and Cryptic what's your beef with the Nebula ?
The Intrepid is another hero ship pushed into a role within the Trinity and is a ship i wouldn't touch with a barge pole due to its boff layout. Flown it and it sucks. It is the poorest Sci ship on the feds side despite being Sci heavy. Only just beating the Atrox, due to the Atrox's hanger power.
The Nebula is a lot more playable mainly due to her boff setup. that Lt Uni station makes the ship, allowing for 4 tact powers to be used or def more flexibility in her build. Main beef with the Fleet Nebula is the Fleet Recon/Intrepid and Nova all got extra tact consoles to help with firepower, the Nebula got a 4th Eng console. Now my Sci is deadly in the Nebula running TT1 FAW 2 Torp Spread 1 and Attack Beta 2 and High Aux mixed with Max weapons power, but she deserved that 3rd tact console as she tanked dam fine without the 4th Eng it was a unnecessary console just like the Galaxy-r's 5th eng console.
If the lance drops weapon power 50 points having +15 power will weaken that effect, won't it? That was my thinking, at least.
if you had tried this ship seriously, you would have known.
phaser lance, just like beam overload will drain you 50 weapons power regardeless of your weapons overcapping.
you could have virtually 150 power available that wouldn't change a thing, you will still get 125 - 50.
Well, we have that piercing phaser emitter that's right. But nothing else really hints at a different setup than the regular Galaxy had
yeah, "just" that, man like you said, and i don't really known if it is true in canon, but the lance fuse both hull together.
so i don't need onscreen number evidence or whatsoever, just a little common sense, you don't undergo a procedure of that magnitude if it is not to make the ship more tactically oriented.
you also forget these little horrible antenna cannon on the top of the saucer, the cloack and the third nacelles.
all these must have come with a major refit of all internal system, and these refit were not to power the science laboratory or holodeck, if you known what i mean:rolleyes:.
when the galaxy launch, it was a powerhouse, but not a ship design to go to war in the first place. it can defend itself but it primary intended purpose was exploration and research among others things.
that is reversed with the galaxy x, the war they are on with the klingons is a serious one, and the purpose of the ship have been shifted accordingly.
exploration and research are no longer the main focussed of the ship, but tactical system concerning offense and defense are.
these ships are what we make of them, and the galaxy x is a more tactically oriented version of the galaxy.
but I don't see that being "at war" leads Starfleet to always construct doomsday machines for that time
i wouldn't call the galaxy x a doomsday machine, you've gone a little overboard with this.
anyway starfleet have already demonstrated their adaptation to serious threat concerning the federation existence, the defiant... remember?
isn't that sisko who said: it a warship, nothing more nothing less.
My point is that I actually don't see a problem with the "X" not differing THAT much from the regular "R" fom a canonical point of view
and i don't see a problem with that too in principle.
where i got a problem is that a tactical ship is not differing THAT much of an support ship in game, especially when the ship wich is being "copy" already have the least firepower of cruiser.
that begun to pose me a problem, because i can hardly call that ship a tactical ship then.
and if cryptic don't bielieve that this ship should be in the tactical area, then don't sell it like it, and call it a support tank ship.
In-game it's that "dreadnaught" term that gets people upset, though that's Cryptic's fault
we don't care about the name, we care about it performance, in that area his shortcomming are not compensated by stats like evey other ship daes. it an anomaly just like the galaxy retrofit is.
galaxy x have:
lt tactical bo
6 base turn and 25 inertia
a normal cloack that use a console slot
+5 to all susbsytem
a lance that is very accurate at missing target
the ship cost 2500zen
DDeridex have:
just 5 turn, but 30 inertia and to compensate that:
a lt commander tact and a lt commander sci
an INTEGRATED battle cloack that granted boost turn while cloack
+10 weapons power
the ship cost 2000zen
do you call that a doomsday machine?
the negvar have:
just a lt tactical bo...BUT! to compensate for this
9 turn
an INTEGRATED cloack
+10 weapons power +10 engine power
the ship is a free RA token if i am not mistaken
do you call that a doomsday machine?
and i didn't get into the full detail for these ship, it is not even neccesary.
shall we speak about the avenger and the scimitar?
no, i hope you get the point by now, a galaxy dreadnought with a ltcommander tact would not be more of a doomsday machine than the lance an effective weapon.
It is as much a tactical ship than the regular Assault Cruiser, and you wouldn't call that a tactical ship would you?
i am sorry, the assault cruiser is a tactical ship, 3 tactical bo, 3 tactical console slot, it is almost a middle ground but still in favor of tactical.
and certainly already more effective than a dreadnought cruiser due to it turnrate and inertia ( 7 degree and 30 inertia ), that almost 17% MORE turn.
but the comparison is not fair, the assault cruiser is a free ra token ship and the dreadnought a zen cstore ship, and a costly one.
the real comparison should be made against the regent for that matter.
And it, I think, got a 3rd tac console in the meantime, did it?
yes, but wich tactical cruiser in fed camp didn't.
they use to be one, yes the galaxy dreadnought again, funny isn't it?
Well, I do have Battlecruiser on my Klingon (3 tac) but I don't really feel the difference, frankly.
that exactly what i was saying, if you can't feel the difference it is because you haven't specced them properly to deal damage.
if you play them like an engeneer you will never apreciate the gain that turn , tactical console and higher tact bo bring to the ship.
a ship like this must be tune with the right gear, skillpoint, traits, rep power and of course the right captain proffession.
if you speeced them like a tanking ship you will have a tanking ship indeed, with just a little more firepower, but nothing extraordinary like you just mention.
as long as you don't specced them wrong, you will feel the difference.
Seriously, what's with all the "Cryptic hates us" mentality?
The Galaxy was introduced into the game as the tanking part of the trinity to a time they strongly emphasized that type of gameplay. Yes, it is absolutely unfitting for a Star Trek game, but these are the facts. The Gal was a tank, the Defiant the DD and the Intrepid the mage/healer. They didn't chose to do so because they hate anything or anyone, that was what they were going for.
With the addition of lockbox ships and p2w powercreep they abandoned the trinity because there is only so much you can do with it. Now their source of revenue lies in ship layouts: If you want to play with layout XYZ you have to buy it. Having two ships share the same layout will cut on their profits so they try to keep those unique as long as possible. This why we can't have a double layout in one faction. When the X would be to copy the layout of the regent it would split sales between the two I suppose.
Cryptic doesn't pay a lot of attention to the integrity of the source material they use, this is obvious. Then again, this game abandoned any kind of consistency the moment it launched with the premise they chose. They don't hate you or anyone, they could just sell a OP Galaxy and probably would make a lot of sales with it too. Though the ship is already in this game and to my knowledge they never changed a ship that was "finalized", let alone after 4 years.
So we MIGHT be able to see a refit of the two ships at some point at endgame but I think they can't steal another ships layout or established "role".
OOh, here is an Idea. Sell console layouts and BOFF layouts that can go on any ship skin the player desires. That way all ship fans can be happy. Galaxy fans will be able to take their ships off the shelf and refit them with new layouts. Cryptic could sell layouts as same price as whole ships.
OOh, here is an Idea. Sell console layouts and BOFF layouts that can go on any ship skin the player desires. That way all ship fans can be happy. Galaxy fans will be able to take their ships off the shelf and refit them with new layouts. Cryptic could sell layouts as same price as whole ships.
They've said they've had the idea and are discussing implementation
OOh, here is an Idea. Sell console layouts and BOFF layouts that can go on any ship skin the player desires. That way all ship fans can be happy. Galaxy fans will be able to take their ships off the shelf and refit them with new layouts. Cryptic could sell layouts as same price as whole ships.
Would be nice if they could put in a refitting system for bo and console slots. Say 1000 zen per Bo layout and 1000 zen for the console layout change. Make it so you can only chose from layouts of the same class as the ship skin you've chosen and make it so you have to own the ship with that layout. I know alot of ppl that would buy a ship faster to be able to have its layout for the ship they want to fly rather then buying a ship they don't like or don't like as much with the restriction they have to fly it to gain the layout they want to use.
Would be nice if they could put in a refitting system for bo and console slots. Say 1000 zen per Bo layout and 1000 zen for the console layout change. Make it so you can only chose from layouts of the same class as the ship skin you've chosen and make it so you have to own the ship with that layout. I know alot of ppl that would buy a ship faster to be able to have its layout for the ship they want to fly rather then buying a ship they don't like or don't like as much with the restriction they have to fly it to gain the layout they want to use.
What do you mean restrict them to class? The Galaxy only have one layout for its class and the Dread layout. There is no alternate Explorer class laout. The only way there can be alternate is if they came out with a 3 pack Galaxy or free up layouts of all cruisers.
What do you mean restrict them to class? The Galaxy only have one layout for its class and the Dread layout. There is no alternate Explorer class laout. The only way there can be alternate is if they came out with a 3 pack Galaxy or free up layouts of all cruisers.
I mean you can use the bo and console layout of any cruiser if your using a cruiser skin, same with science only picks from other science ships and escorts only from other escorts.
I would really love to put my Galaxy skin over my Avenger ))
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
its not so much that cryptic hates the galaxy, though judging by the fleet galaxy its rather hard to believe otherwise, the galaxy R station setup is just the luck of the draw. the intrepid suffers the least or not at all with all that sci, the defiant is not ideal for 4 DHC builds, and the galaxy is good for nothing, that was the luck of the draw with the station setup type those 3 got
I would really love to put my Galaxy skin over my Avenger ))
I can think of a lot of skins I'd like to use on the Avenger. I'm sure there are many other players who have skins they would like to apply to whatever ship they're flying.
its not so much that cryptic hates the galaxy, though judging by the fleet galaxy its rather hard to believe otherwise, the galaxy R station setup is just the luck of the draw. the intrepid suffers the least or not at all with all that sci, the defiant is not ideal for 4 DHC builds, and the galaxy is good for nothing, that was the luck of the draw with the station setup type those 3 got
i say to hell with that station set up type! it can already be recreated on the vesta, vet ship and odyssey, remove ithis locked in version of it from existence! stop sale on those 3 ships, and
change the galaxy to
COM eng LTC uni
LT uni LT sci
ENS sci
the intrepid to
COM sci LTC tac LT eng LT uni
ENS uni
and the defiant to
COM tac
LTC tac LT uni
LT uni
ENS uni
and raise the price to 2500 zen!
we are happy, the devs make money, other ships still get sold and used, everything is fine.
are those station setups 'equal'? one might say no, but they would be wrong. if they all had the same number of universal stations or something, they would be just as equal as thier current station setups. but wait a minute, those arent equal at all! they just look equal, but they are so far from it its not even funny. look at any ship build end result you could make with those station setups, judge those, see how they actually balance out, see how they actually fit canon, they are truly equal, finally.
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 want to change the Galaxy "family" just as much as other people in here, but I find it cheap game to just go with moar tactical boffs. It really doesn't help the game if we encourage the tac creep even more, don't you think?
What about the engineer-ized Nebula layout yreodred, myself and a few others came up with:
Cmdr Eng
LTC Sci
Lt Tac
Lt Uni
Ens Eng
4/4/2 consoles; Sci focus. Neat ship, but no three tac consoles. Inacceptable?
You could even make the X your tactical powerhouse with that one:
Cmdr Eng
LTC tac
Lt Sci
Lt Uni
Ens Eng
4/2/4 consoles, less shields and hull. That must be whoopee due to 5 tac skills and 4 consoles. Or do we needs a few weapons more? Integrated battlecloak? And maybe lock the ship for non tac captains
I'm sorry for being mean. But I don't know in what way we are advancing the game if we just copy over layouts from power creep ships and essentially make each and every ship have the same purpose.
I can think of a lot of skins I'd like to use on the Avenger. I'm sure there are many other players who have skins they would like to apply to whatever ship they're flying.
I don't foresee Cryptic making that happen.
That's the point, essentially. Basically everyone wants to play the Avenger with a different skin because that ship, being near the tip of the power creep iceberg, is all you need. You can achieve the highest dps with it which comes at literally no expense at all (2k less hull. That's wht, barely a second longer survival?) and you are done, period. 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?
^ 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
This is the culmination of months of work, the theoretical maximum damage potential a Galaxy-class ship can achieve within its layout. I finally achieved this build, and wasn't able to kill an Avenger pilot in a one-on-one battle. I managed to whittle him down to the point where he had to pop Go Down Fighting, but my defenses crumbled under the vastly superior damage output every time. I lost that game 0-5.
You know what the real kicker was? His defenses were just as good as mine, without the Lieutenant Commander Engineering station. That's the crux of the Galaxy's problem, as well as that of many other Cruisers. You don't need that station to be durable enough to take everything the game and other players can possibly throw at you. It hinders the potential damage output of the ship for... Eject Warp Plasma. Super.
That game of PvP is why I'm no longer playing this game and have no plans to unless someone explicitly asks me to log on. I paid a similar price tag to that Avenger-class ship. By law of value, also known as common sense, I rightfully expected a ship that was a viable alternative. It isn't. Not even close.
There's the issue of three Tactical Ensigns versus three Engineering. Sure, they both have redundant powers, but in the case of a third Tactical Ensign, that is still working in your favor by virtue of adding damage. Torpedo: High-Yield I is still a relatively useful skill. Ensign-level Engineering stations put three of the four Emergency Power abilities on global, or Tactical Team, which has been long established as vastly superior to Engineering Team due to its shield distribution properties. Every single option you can throw in that third slot is a hindrance in some way, shape, or form.
Tactical consoles affect other ships, via significant damage buffs that suffer no diminishing returns. Engineering consoles only affect you. They suffer heavy diminishing returns, all of the power level consoles are redundant due to the Plasmonic Leech, and damage resistance granted by a Neutronium Alloy console can be gained by throwing up the Attract Fire command. Engineering console slots have essentially become the new Universal console dumping ground.
You really need more Tactical stations and consoles on a ship in order for it to be competitive. That's the unavoidable bottom line. Anyone who claims otherwise, including Al Rivera himself, is willfully and abominably ignorant. Without some serious system changes to balance out Engineering's usefulness in relation to Tactical and Science, this ship is perpetually doomed to be a poorly-designed, poorly thought out, ineffective mess of redundancy.
(...)
You really need more Tactical stations and consoles on a ship in order for it to be competitive. That's the unavoidable bottom line. Anyone who claims otherwise, including Al Rivera himself, is willfully and abominably ignorant. Without some serious system changes to balance out Engineering's usefulness in relation to Tactical and Science, this ship is perpetually doomed to be a poorly-designed, poorly thought out, ineffective mess of redundancy.
I don't doubt a single word you have written and I am fully aware of all the problems you pointed out. But: Does that mean that all old ships should get a LTC tac and 3 tac consoles and the next ship they release will get 7 tac consoles? This stupid damage race is a one-way.
Would a LTC sci in any way shape or form help you in your tests? Could you have thrown a leech on the other player or a tykens rift or anything? If the answer is "no, not really" then it cannot be a solution to just slam more damage on all ships. We need a serious tweak on engineering and sci skills instead. Maybe spcial cruiser/sci vessel esclusive enginnering/science consoles that boost damage as well.
The Avenger will always be the top dog of cruisers. It is essentially an escort cruiser, it will get everything that is meant to improve the other cruisers as well and it does in no way shape or form pay a price for it's damage potential. So "we" have to stop competing with that ship, it is a particular developer's wet dream. And if we don't even out all stats and boffs to the exact same level there's no way to compete with that. But maybe the Galaxy and other ships can help Engineering and Science branches to a form of unique and fun gameplay that in some way counters straight forward "pew pew"?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I don't know if this can help to shed some light in this long-standing issue, but when I was doing the Federation campaign the Galaxy-R (yes, the Galaxy with the detachable saucer) was my favourite ship.
Equipped with 6 turrets and 2 arrays, or torpedoes, the ship was able to dispatch every kind of enemy. Very often I was motionless, letting the turrets to do the dirty job, counting on my neutronium plates and shields for my own safety.
Note: "the ship was able to dispatch every kind of enemy". Dispatch: yes. Dispatch quickly: no.
Then cames the ESTFs.
Despite all the neutronium the infamous "Invisible Torpedo of Death" was taking his toll, as well as the famous "(visible) Cube's High-Yield Shield-Shredder Armor-Waster Plasma Torpedo".
Shortly: my ship wasn't a tank anymore.
So I've tried to chase Assimilated BoPs (an easy task when the saucer is away) shooting down Probes etc.: my firepower was enough to destroy them, but not to destroy them quickly.
Now my Galaxy-R is in "mothball" status.
i say to hell with that station set up type! it can already be recreated on the vesta, vet ship and odyssey, remove ithis locked in version of it from existence! stop sale on those 3 ships, and
change the galaxy to
COM eng LTC uni
LT uni LT sci
ENS sci
the intrepid to
COM sci LTC tac LT eng LT uni
ENS uni
and the defiant to
COM tac
LTC tac LT uni
LT uni
ENS uni
and raise the price to 2500 zen!
we are happy, the devs make money, other ships still get sold and used, everything is fine.
are those station setups 'equal'? one might say no, but they would be wrong. if they all had the same number of universal stations or something, they would be just as equal as thier current station setups. but wait a minute, those arent equal at all! they just look equal, but they are so far from it its not even funny. look at any ship build end result you could make with those station setups, judge those, see how they actually balance out, see how they actually fit canon, they are truly equal, finally.
I disagree with your BOFF set up for the Galaxy. Leave science BOFF the way it is. Get rid of the ENG Ensign, make a Tac LTC and turn the ENG LTC to Universal. And please add a 3rd or 4 Tac consoles and subtract the 5th ENG console and 3rd science console. Make the sauser separation an organic power. It didn't make sense to make it a console in the first place because you can't transfer it to other ships to make them have separation power. Just like KDF and Romulan ship have natural cloaking ability, they should have done that with the Galaxy X and Defiant. Some fed ships should have there own organic powers that are console free.
This is the culmination of months of work, the theoretical maximum damage potential a Galaxy-class ship can achieve within its layout. I finally achieved this build, and wasn't able to kill an Avenger pilot in a one-on-one battle. I managed to whittle him down to the point where he had to pop Go Down Fighting, but my defenses crumbled under the vastly superior damage output every time. I lost that game 0-5.
You know what the real kicker was? His defenses were just as good as mine, without the Lieutenant Commander Engineering station. That's the crux of the Galaxy's problem, as well as that of many other Cruisers. You don't need that station to be durable enough to take everything the game and other players can possibly throw at you. It hinders the potential damage output of the ship for... Eject Warp Plasma. Super.
That game of PvP is why I'm no longer playing this game and have no plans to unless someone explicitly asks me to log on. I paid a similar price tag to that Avenger-class ship. By law of value, also known as common sense, I rightfully expected a ship that was a viable alternative. It isn't. Not even close.
There's the issue of three Tactical Ensigns versus three Engineering. Sure, they both have redundant powers, but in the case of a third Tactical Ensign, that is still working in your favor by virtue of adding damage. Torpedo: High-Yield I is still a relatively useful skill. Ensign-level Engineering stations put three of the four Emergency Power abilities on global, or Tactical Team, which has been long established as vastly superior to Engineering Team due to its shield distribution properties. Every single option you can throw in that third slot is a hindrance in some way, shape, or form.
Tactical consoles affect other ships, via significant damage buffs that suffer no diminishing returns. Engineering consoles only affect you. They suffer heavy diminishing returns, all of the power level consoles are redundant due to the Plasmonic Leech, and damage resistance granted by a Neutronium Alloy console can be gained by throwing up the Attract Fire command. Engineering console slots have essentially become the new Universal console dumping ground.
You really need more Tactical stations and consoles on a ship in order for it to be competitive. That's the unavoidable bottom line. Anyone who claims otherwise, including Al Rivera himself, is willfully and abominably ignorant. Without some serious system changes to balance out Engineering's usefulness in relation to Tactical and Science, this ship is perpetually doomed to be a poorly-designed, poorly thought out, ineffective mess of redundancy.
I don't doubt a single word you have written and I am fully aware of all the problems you pointed out. But: Does that mean that all old ships should get a LTC tac and 3 tac consoles and the next ship they release will get 7 tac consoles? This stupid damage race is a one-way.
Would a LTC sci in any way shape or form help you in your tests? Could you have thrown a leech on the other player or a tykens rift or anything? If the answer is "no, not really" then it cannot be a solution to just slam more damage on all ships. We need a serious tweak on engineering and sci skills instead. Maybe spcial cruiser/sci vessel esclusive enginnering/science consoles that boost damage as well.
The Avenger will always be the top dog of cruisers. It is essentially an escort cruiser, it will get everything that is meant to improve the other cruisers as well and it does in no way shape or form pay a price for it's damage potential. So "we" have to stop competing with that ship, it is a particular developer's wet dream. And if we don't even out all stats and boffs to the exact same level there's no way to compete with that. But maybe the Galaxy and other ships can help Engineering and Science branches to a form of unique and fun gameplay that in some way counters straight forward "pew pew"?
The Averger class was not said to be the top dog cruiser. It was said to just compete with KDF manuverable battlecruisers because of cannon wielding and manuverability. It was not ment to otdo the Galaxy X and it does not outdo mine. The thing the doesn't make since is the the oldest of the tier 5 ships outclass the Galaxy R, being the Excelsior and Ambassador.
The Galaxy don't need a LTC science power or it will be just like the failing Star Cruiser. The Ambassador has 3 tac consoles and a 3rd Science power but what put the Fleet version over the top was the LTC universal BOFF slot. The Fleet Galaxy R needs to get rid of the ensign power and change to ENG LTC to UNI and make a LTC TAC. A 3-4 Tac consoles is needed to get the Fleet Galaxy to outclass the Fleet Excelsior. In canon the Excelsior nor the Ambassador ever out did the Galaxy, ever. The Excelsior came from the days of Captain Kirk. The Galaxy is supposed to at least beat that.
I don't get how a Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit can out gun a Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit.
The older ship has more Tac 3 skills by default, can do 3 Sci skills = Feedback Pulse or Gravity Well, and a Lt Uni, which can be more Tac.
Has almost the same hull, turns faster, and has another Tac Console slot.
It makes no sense at all, if anything the galaxy (Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit) should be what the Ambassador is.
Not one galaxy class gets an Uni Bridge Station, and there are five variants of them!
Exploration Cruiser
Exploration Cruiser Refit
Exploration Cruiser Retrofit
Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit
Dreadnought Cruiser
Even going from Exploration Cruiser Refit to the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit version it loses a Sci Bridge Station, although it's a Tier higher ship.
Where as the Support Cruiser is Tier 3 and the Support Cruiser Retrofit Tier 5 gains more Tac, a bit more Engineering and finally more Science. Where as the Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit drops the Lt Engineering to gain a much more useful Lt Universal.
Cryptic makes no sense, almost like they just make up the layouts with out any reference to their other ship.
Just like they can't decide how much dilithium is worth in EC, they just pull prices from their @ss, same as these bridge layouts...
I disagree with your BOFF set up for the Galaxy. Leave science BOFF the way it is. Get rid of the ENG Ensign, make a Tac LTC and turn the ENG LTC to Universal. And please add a 3rd or 4 Tac consoles and subtract the 5th ENG console and 3rd science console. Make the sauser separation an organic power. It didn't make sense to make it a console in the first place because you can't transfer it to other ships to make them have separation power. Just like KDF and Romulan ship have natural cloaking ability, they should have done that with the Galaxy X and Defiant. Some fed ships should have there own organic powers that are console free.
sooo
COM eng LTC uni LTC tac LT sci
4/2/4 consoles?
based on the canon i can reference thats about right, for a war time galaxy, but in game it might be a bit much.
I believe that 1vs1 was against me. You did very well but you are right. My damage far exceeded yours, even though I saw your dps come close to 20k a few times. 4 tac consoles beats 2 tac consoles every time. I let my hull fall below 50% in order to get GDF+APA, otherwise it'll take much longer to kill you since you have Miracle Worker.
As I said that night take your build and move it to a fleet Excelsior and your damage would increase significantly. The Galaxy just can't get competitive against a pilot of near equal skill. As a tank or healer it's OK but falls short of the Ambassador and star cruiser or even the standard assault cruiser.
I support an upgrade for the Fleet Galaxy and the future Fleet Galaxy-X .
an eng captain :rolleyes: that was as much of the problem as the ship he was using
Comments
hmm, i don't known about that one, having a lt commander sci is good, but just 2 ensign tact?
even tho i known cryptic will never agree, i still prefer your first solution with almost all sci.
would love that, i could do my setup with it
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
ya i dont really care for that one in practice that much ether. just theory crafting mostly.
If the lance drops weapon power 50 points having +15 power will weaken that effect, won't it? That was my thinking, at least.
Well, we have that piercing phaser emitter that's right. But nothing else really hints at a different setup than the regular Galaxy had, in fact using on-screen reference the regular Galaxy would be capable of such powerful volleys without that "lance" as well. What hinders her tactical use is that she's a heavy brick and cannot utilise evaisive or flanking manneuvres that well/at all. In that timeline they were at war, but I don't see that being "at war" leads Starfleet to always construct doomsday machines for that time. They seem to always change uniforms when at war, though XD
My point is that I actually don't see a problem with the "X" not differing THAT much from the regular "R" fom a canonical point of view. In-game it's that "dreadnaught" term that gets people upset, though that's Cryptic's fault
It is as much a tactical ship than the regular Assault Cruiser, and you wouldn't call that a tactical ship would you? It's the explorer with a different ensign and a gimmick we had in the show which could be quite powerful if it would actually work
Well, I do have Battlecruiser on my Klingon (3 tac) but I don't really feel the difference, frankly. Cruiser to Raptor, sure that's a difference. But I don't want to argument from a subjective point of view, as I said that might be a problem. I command a Explorer-R and a Fleet Nebula on my feds and do, I think, very well in them. I get first places in fleet actions and can do fine in STFs, although I can't deny the flaws especially the Explo-R layout has.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I beg to differ on your opinion about the Galaxy X is not different than the Galaxy R. My Galaxy is tactically way more affective than my R due to the 3 weapon console slots and extra TAC BOFF. I get way more kills against players and NPC with the Dread than the Regular Galaxy.
I do think the Ensign Tac Boff is a gimmick when they could of made it a LT Commander Tac that would make it on par with other battlecruisers.
I like your thinking. Shame cryptic won't do this. They seem to think/have this idea that the phaser lance is a op benefit to the galaxy-x therefore I'd be very surprised to see us get access to a LtC tactical station. Heck the guramba lance is a overpowered weapon. Access to 4 tact consoles. Attack pattern beta 3 or omega 3 and half the recharge time.
Heck the x only got 2 cruiser commands one of which threat generation is wasted as the x isn't a great tank if built for dps.
It's simple cryptic don't want people flying the galaxy as it takes money and sales away from lockbox ships and the god ugly in house designs they spit out. If the galaxy had the fleet regent or excelsior layout. I'd be flying one regardless of career choice. And cryptic know there are many like minded people. So why make one of the 2 most popular and iconic star fleet ships top of the line and shoot your business model in the foot.
And that's the real reason you won't see a tier 5 connie. Not because CBS say no.
Seriously, what's with all the "Cryptic hates us" mentality?
The Galaxy was introduced into the game as the tanking part of the trinity to a time they strongly emphasized that type of gameplay. Yes, it is absolutely unfitting for a Star Trek game, but these are the facts. The Gal was a tank, the Defiant the DD and the Intrepid the mage/healer. They didn't chose to do so because they hate anything or anyone, that was what they were going for.
With the addition of lockbox ships and p2w powercreep they abandoned the trinity because there is only so much you can do with it. Now their source of revenue lies in ship layouts: If you want to play with layout XYZ you have to buy it. Having two ships share the same layout will cut on their profits so they try to keep those unique as long as possible. This why we can't have a double layout in one faction. When the X would be to copy the layout of the regent it would split sales between the two I suppose.
Cryptic doesn't pay a lot of attention to the integrity of the source material they use, this is obvious. Then again, this game abandoned any kind of consistency the moment it launched with the premise they chose. They don't hate you or anyone, they could just sell a OP Galaxy and probably would make a lot of sales with it too. Though the ship is already in this game and to my knowledge they never changed a ship that was "finalized", let alone after 4 years.
So we MIGHT be able to see a refit of the two ships at some point at endgame but I think they can't steal another ships layout or established "role".
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This should be the header of every page for now on. It's almost 4 AM, so I'm probably talking out of my TRIBBLE.
But this echoes my feelings. This feels like the whole reason why. Rommie players got the D'deridex changed after it came out with the "Failaxy" Boff layout. With Voth stuff being the new shiny for the Devs, anything positive for us will be a long TRIBBLE wait. 3+ years, if we're lucky.
Us X-drivers will probably have to settle for Gecko only being able to get us a hangar as an improvement, despite all the noise he might be making about it. I wouldn't mind a hangar, but there are other fixes the ship desperately needs. I grew up with the base-model Galaxy, so believe me, I'm with you guys, she needs some lovins too.
I'm just starting to feel like no improvements will ever be forthcoming. Or at best they'll be vaporware improvements that will rival Duke Nukem Forever's legendary development time.
(That Gal-X Saucer Sep? There's an easy fix for that. No, it won't be as pretty or as elegant as the Chevron, action, bit it is simple , to the point, and gets it done. Flies over the 3rd nacelle, and drops into place. No clipping issues. Shadows of DNF vaporware, anyone?)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Its not about Cryptic Hates us Mentality. its about getting ships that fall into the trinity model improved, to be competitive in the modern game. Yes i am frustrated and always have been since the 1st day i stepped onto the bridge of a Galaxy 2 and a half years ago, to find how TRIBBLE it was compared to other ships of its class. And that frustration has come over in my recent posts.
TBH if it were any use and the Devs cared beyond selling the next shiny toy, i'd start 2 other threads Titled Cryptic what's your beef with the Intrepid ? and Cryptic what's your beef with the Nebula ?
The Intrepid is another hero ship pushed into a role within the Trinity and is a ship i wouldn't touch with a barge pole due to its boff layout. Flown it and it sucks. It is the poorest Sci ship on the feds side despite being Sci heavy. Only just beating the Atrox, due to the Atrox's hanger power.
The Nebula is a lot more playable mainly due to her boff setup. that Lt Uni station makes the ship, allowing for 4 tact powers to be used or def more flexibility in her build. Main beef with the Fleet Nebula is the Fleet Recon/Intrepid and Nova all got extra tact consoles to help with firepower, the Nebula got a 4th Eng console. Now my Sci is deadly in the Nebula running TT1 FAW 2 Torp Spread 1 and Attack Beta 2 and High Aux mixed with Max weapons power, but she deserved that 3rd tact console as she tanked dam fine without the 4th Eng it was a unnecessary console just like the Galaxy-r's 5th eng console.
if you had tried this ship seriously, you would have known.
phaser lance, just like beam overload will drain you 50 weapons power regardeless of your weapons overcapping.
you could have virtually 150 power available that wouldn't change a thing, you will still get 125 - 50.
yeah, "just" that, man like you said, and i don't really known if it is true in canon, but the lance fuse both hull together.
so i don't need onscreen number evidence or whatsoever, just a little common sense, you don't undergo a procedure of that magnitude if it is not to make the ship more tactically oriented.
you also forget these little horrible antenna cannon on the top of the saucer, the cloack and the third nacelles.
all these must have come with a major refit of all internal system, and these refit were not to power the science laboratory or holodeck, if you known what i mean:rolleyes:.
when the galaxy launch, it was a powerhouse, but not a ship design to go to war in the first place. it can defend itself but it primary intended purpose was exploration and research among others things.
that is reversed with the galaxy x, the war they are on with the klingons is a serious one, and the purpose of the ship have been shifted accordingly.
exploration and research are no longer the main focussed of the ship, but tactical system concerning offense and defense are.
these ships are what we make of them, and the galaxy x is a more tactically oriented version of the galaxy.
i wouldn't call the galaxy x a doomsday machine, you've gone a little overboard with this.
anyway starfleet have already demonstrated their adaptation to serious threat concerning the federation existence, the defiant... remember?
isn't that sisko who said: it a warship, nothing more nothing less.
and i don't see a problem with that too in principle.
where i got a problem is that a tactical ship is not differing THAT much of an support ship in game, especially when the ship wich is being "copy" already have the least firepower of cruiser.
that begun to pose me a problem, because i can hardly call that ship a tactical ship then.
and if cryptic don't bielieve that this ship should be in the tactical area, then don't sell it like it, and call it a support tank ship.
we don't care about the name, we care about it performance, in that area his shortcomming are not compensated by stats like evey other ship daes. it an anomaly just like the galaxy retrofit is.
galaxy x have:
lt tactical bo
6 base turn and 25 inertia
a normal cloack that use a console slot
+5 to all susbsytem
a lance that is very accurate at missing target
the ship cost 2500zen
DDeridex have:
just 5 turn, but 30 inertia and to compensate that:
a lt commander tact and a lt commander sci
an INTEGRATED battle cloack that granted boost turn while cloack
+10 weapons power
the ship cost 2000zen
do you call that a doomsday machine?
the negvar have:
just a lt tactical bo...BUT! to compensate for this
9 turn
an INTEGRATED cloack
+10 weapons power +10 engine power
the ship is a free RA token if i am not mistaken
do you call that a doomsday machine?
and i didn't get into the full detail for these ship, it is not even neccesary.
shall we speak about the avenger and the scimitar?
no, i hope you get the point by now, a galaxy dreadnought with a ltcommander tact would not be more of a doomsday machine than the lance an effective weapon.
i am sorry, the assault cruiser is a tactical ship, 3 tactical bo, 3 tactical console slot, it is almost a middle ground but still in favor of tactical.
and certainly already more effective than a dreadnought cruiser due to it turnrate and inertia ( 7 degree and 30 inertia ), that almost 17% MORE turn.
but the comparison is not fair, the assault cruiser is a free ra token ship and the dreadnought a zen cstore ship, and a costly one.
the real comparison should be made against the regent for that matter.
yes, but wich tactical cruiser in fed camp didn't.
they use to be one, yes the galaxy dreadnought again, funny isn't it?
that exactly what i was saying, if you can't feel the difference it is because you haven't specced them properly to deal damage.
if you play them like an engeneer you will never apreciate the gain that turn , tactical console and higher tact bo bring to the ship.
a ship like this must be tune with the right gear, skillpoint, traits, rep power and of course the right captain proffession.
if you speeced them like a tanking ship you will have a tanking ship indeed, with just a little more firepower, but nothing extraordinary like you just mention.
as long as you don't specced them wrong, you will feel the difference.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
OOh, here is an Idea. Sell console layouts and BOFF layouts that can go on any ship skin the player desires. That way all ship fans can be happy. Galaxy fans will be able to take their ships off the shelf and refit them with new layouts. Cryptic could sell layouts as same price as whole ships.
They've said they've had the idea and are discussing implementation
Would be nice if they could put in a refitting system for bo and console slots. Say 1000 zen per Bo layout and 1000 zen for the console layout change. Make it so you can only chose from layouts of the same class as the ship skin you've chosen and make it so you have to own the ship with that layout. I know alot of ppl that would buy a ship faster to be able to have its layout for the ship they want to fly rather then buying a ship they don't like or don't like as much with the restriction they have to fly it to gain the layout they want to use.
What do you mean restrict them to class? The Galaxy only have one layout for its class and the Dread layout. There is no alternate Explorer class laout. The only way there can be alternate is if they came out with a 3 pack Galaxy or free up layouts of all cruisers.
I mean you can use the bo and console layout of any cruiser if your using a cruiser skin, same with science only picks from other science ships and escorts only from other escorts.
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 don't foresee Cryptic making that happen.
^and that's the worst part.
i say to hell with that station set up type! it can already be recreated on the vesta, vet ship and odyssey, remove ithis locked in version of it from existence! stop sale on those 3 ships, and
change the galaxy to
COM eng
LTC uni
LT uni
LT sci
ENS sci
the intrepid to
COM sci
LTC tac
LT eng
LT uni
ENS uni
and the defiant to
COM tac
LTC tac
LT uni
LT uni
ENS uni
and raise the price to 2500 zen!
we are happy, the devs make money, other ships still get sold and used, everything is fine.
are those station setups 'equal'? one might say no, but they would be wrong. if they all had the same number of universal stations or something, they would be just as equal as thier current station setups. but wait a minute, those arent equal at all! they just look equal, but they are so far from it its not even funny. look at any ship build end result you could make with those station setups, judge those, see how they actually balance out, see how they actually fit canon, they are truly equal, finally.
I want to change the Galaxy "family" just as much as other people in here, but I find it cheap game to just go with moar tactical boffs. It really doesn't help the game if we encourage the tac creep even more, don't you think?
What about the engineer-ized Nebula layout yreodred, myself and a few others came up with:
Cmdr Eng
LTC Sci
Lt Tac
Lt Uni
Ens Eng
4/4/2 consoles; Sci focus. Neat ship, but no three tac consoles. Inacceptable?
You could even make the X your tactical powerhouse with that one:
Cmdr Eng
LTC tac
Lt Sci
Lt Uni
Ens Eng
4/2/4 consoles, less shields and hull. That must be whoopee due to 5 tac skills and 4 consoles. Or do we needs a few weapons more? Integrated battlecloak? And maybe lock the ship for non tac captains
I'm sorry for being mean. But I don't know in what way we are advancing the game if we just copy over layouts from power creep ships and essentially make each and every ship have the same purpose.
EDIT:
That's the point, essentially. Basically everyone wants to play the Avenger with a different skin because that ship, being near the tip of the power creep iceberg, is all you need. You can achieve the highest dps with it which comes at literally no expense at all (2k less hull. That's wht, barely a second longer survival?) and you are done, period. 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?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You know what the real kicker was? His defenses were just as good as mine, without the Lieutenant Commander Engineering station. That's the crux of the Galaxy's problem, as well as that of many other Cruisers. You don't need that station to be durable enough to take everything the game and other players can possibly throw at you. It hinders the potential damage output of the ship for... Eject Warp Plasma. Super.
That game of PvP is why I'm no longer playing this game and have no plans to unless someone explicitly asks me to log on. I paid a similar price tag to that Avenger-class ship. By law of value, also known as common sense, I rightfully expected a ship that was a viable alternative. It isn't. Not even close.
There's the issue of three Tactical Ensigns versus three Engineering. Sure, they both have redundant powers, but in the case of a third Tactical Ensign, that is still working in your favor by virtue of adding damage. Torpedo: High-Yield I is still a relatively useful skill. Ensign-level Engineering stations put three of the four Emergency Power abilities on global, or Tactical Team, which has been long established as vastly superior to Engineering Team due to its shield distribution properties. Every single option you can throw in that third slot is a hindrance in some way, shape, or form.
Tactical consoles affect other ships, via significant damage buffs that suffer no diminishing returns. Engineering consoles only affect you. They suffer heavy diminishing returns, all of the power level consoles are redundant due to the Plasmonic Leech, and damage resistance granted by a Neutronium Alloy console can be gained by throwing up the Attract Fire command. Engineering console slots have essentially become the new Universal console dumping ground.
You really need more Tactical stations and consoles on a ship in order for it to be competitive. That's the unavoidable bottom line. Anyone who claims otherwise, including Al Rivera himself, is willfully and abominably ignorant. Without some serious system changes to balance out Engineering's usefulness in relation to Tactical and Science, this ship is perpetually doomed to be a poorly-designed, poorly thought out, ineffective mess of redundancy.
I don't doubt a single word you have written and I am fully aware of all the problems you pointed out. But: Does that mean that all old ships should get a LTC tac and 3 tac consoles and the next ship they release will get 7 tac consoles? This stupid damage race is a one-way.
Would a LTC sci in any way shape or form help you in your tests? Could you have thrown a leech on the other player or a tykens rift or anything? If the answer is "no, not really" then it cannot be a solution to just slam more damage on all ships. We need a serious tweak on engineering and sci skills instead. Maybe spcial cruiser/sci vessel esclusive enginnering/science consoles that boost damage as well.
The Avenger will always be the top dog of cruisers. It is essentially an escort cruiser, it will get everything that is meant to improve the other cruisers as well and it does in no way shape or form pay a price for it's damage potential. So "we" have to stop competing with that ship, it is a particular developer's wet dream. And if we don't even out all stats and boffs to the exact same level there's no way to compete with that. But maybe the Galaxy and other ships can help Engineering and Science branches to a form of unique and fun gameplay that in some way counters straight forward "pew pew"?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Equipped with 6 turrets and 2 arrays, or torpedoes, the ship was able to dispatch every kind of enemy. Very often I was motionless, letting the turrets to do the dirty job, counting on my neutronium plates and shields for my own safety.
Note: "the ship was able to dispatch every kind of enemy". Dispatch: yes. Dispatch quickly: no.
Then cames the ESTFs.
Despite all the neutronium the infamous "Invisible Torpedo of Death" was taking his toll, as well as the famous "(visible) Cube's High-Yield Shield-Shredder Armor-Waster Plasma Torpedo".
Shortly: my ship wasn't a tank anymore.
So I've tried to chase Assimilated BoPs (an easy task when the saucer is away) shooting down Probes etc.: my firepower was enough to destroy them, but not to destroy them quickly.
Now my Galaxy-R is in "mothball" status.
Bye / Qapla' / Jolan tru
I disagree with your BOFF set up for the Galaxy. Leave science BOFF the way it is. Get rid of the ENG Ensign, make a Tac LTC and turn the ENG LTC to Universal. And please add a 3rd or 4 Tac consoles and subtract the 5th ENG console and 3rd science console. Make the sauser separation an organic power. It didn't make sense to make it a console in the first place because you can't transfer it to other ships to make them have separation power. Just like KDF and Romulan ship have natural cloaking ability, they should have done that with the Galaxy X and Defiant. Some fed ships should have there own organic powers that are console free.
Well, said. I agree.
The Averger class was not said to be the top dog cruiser. It was said to just compete with KDF manuverable battlecruisers because of cannon wielding and manuverability. It was not ment to otdo the Galaxy X and it does not outdo mine. The thing the doesn't make since is the the oldest of the tier 5 ships outclass the Galaxy R, being the Excelsior and Ambassador.
The Galaxy don't need a LTC science power or it will be just like the failing Star Cruiser. The Ambassador has 3 tac consoles and a 3rd Science power but what put the Fleet version over the top was the LTC universal BOFF slot. The Fleet Galaxy R needs to get rid of the ensign power and change to ENG LTC to UNI and make a LTC TAC. A 3-4 Tac consoles is needed to get the Fleet Galaxy to outclass the Fleet Excelsior. In canon the Excelsior nor the Ambassador ever out did the Galaxy, ever. The Excelsior came from the days of Captain Kirk. The Galaxy is supposed to at least beat that.
The older ship has more Tac 3 skills by default, can do 3 Sci skills = Feedback Pulse or Gravity Well, and a Lt Uni, which can be more Tac.
Has almost the same hull, turns faster, and has another Tac Console slot.
It makes no sense at all, if anything the galaxy (Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit) should be what the Ambassador is.
Not one galaxy class gets an Uni Bridge Station, and there are five variants of them!
Exploration Cruiser
Exploration Cruiser Refit
Exploration Cruiser Retrofit
Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit
Dreadnought Cruiser
Even going from Exploration Cruiser Refit to the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit version it loses a Sci Bridge Station, although it's a Tier higher ship.
Where as the Support Cruiser is Tier 3 and the Support Cruiser Retrofit Tier 5 gains more Tac, a bit more Engineering and finally more Science. Where as the Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit drops the Lt Engineering to gain a much more useful Lt Universal.
Cryptic makes no sense, almost like they just make up the layouts with out any reference to their other ship.
Just like they can't decide how much dilithium is worth in EC, they just pull prices from their @ss, same as these bridge layouts...
sooo
COM eng
LTC uni
LTC tac
LT sci
4/2/4 consoles?
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