500 pages, top of the board. Who says they are ignoring it? All we know is they have not come onto this thread and made a official comment.
And really, who can blame them? It would be like dropping a bleeding goat in a shark tank.
Honestly, at this point even a short post saying; "we are looking into your concerns" or something along those lines would at least offer some hope.
Honestly, at this point even a short post saying; "we are looking into your concerns" or something along those lines would at least offer some hope.
And for several here I would agree with you. For many others it would be flame bait.
One of the things I saw requested lots of pages ago was to boost the purpose of cruisers over all. This would fix the Galaxy and make her functional in game as she should be.
So they made cruiser commands and any ship that can vaguely called a cruiser can buff itself and those allies near it. Cool right? When I asked if this fixed the Galaxy I was told, no. because it applied to all cruisers so the Galaxy is still broken.
To use the hunger analogy in someone's signature.
"The argument that you can't be hungry because I have a sandwich." (Sorry I don't recall the exact text)
This is like someone handing out sandwiches and someone declaring they did not get one because everyone got one too.
In that kind of arguing environment, would you want to make a public post from the devs?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
And for several here I would agree with you. For many others it would be flame bait.
One of the things I saw requested lots of pages ago was to boost the purpose of cruisers over all. This would fix the Galaxy and make her functional in game as she should be.
So they made cruiser commands and any ship that can vaguely called a cruiser can buff itself and those allies near it. Cool right? When I asked if this fixed the Galaxy I was told, no. because it applied to all cruisers so the Galaxy is still broken.
To use the hunger analogy in someone's signature.
"The argument that you can't be hungry because I have a sandwich." (Sorry I don't recall the exact text)
This is like someone handing out sandwiches and someone declaring they did not get one because everyone got one too.
In that kind of arguing environment, would you want to make a public post from the devs?
I'm sorry to say this, but this shows that you haven't understood what most of us want.
As i said numerous times, you can make the Galaxy Class perform acceptable, but every other ship performs better.
THAT'S whats wrong with it.
People can fly other ships and only it's fans are stuck with a sub par (COMPARED to any other ship in STO) ship, that does NOT perform as it should.
Buffing all cruisers did NOT inrease the Galaxy -R performance COMPARED to other ships.
Meaning, the GCS keeps being that underperforming brick it was from the beginning of STO.
Of course i would be glad if a dev would appear and say they take a look at it.
But to be honest, they have lost all credibility when they made the Galor, the FERENGI marauder and the Bug ship outperform the Galaxy. (not to speak of every other escort, man i really hate escorts in STO, lol)
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
And for several here I would agree with you. For many others it would be flame bait.
One of the things I saw requested lots of pages ago was to boost the purpose of cruisers over all. This would fix the Galaxy and make her functional in game as she should be.
So they made cruiser commands and any ship that can vaguely called a cruiser can buff itself and those allies near it. Cool right? When I asked if this fixed the Galaxy I was told, no. because it applied to all cruisers so the Galaxy is still broken.
Cruisers in general are much better now then they were a year ago. The problem with the Galaxy is that it has such a gimped console and bridge officer layout that the ship is not worth using for anything. I can come up with a decent build for the Galaxy and have, but that same build can be slapped on ANY of the other fed cruisers and suddenly be better.
I'm sorry to say this, but this shows that you haven't understood what most of us want.
As i said numerous times, you can make the Galaxy Class perform acceptable, but every other ship performs better.
That's patently wrong. The Galaxy is arguably the best tank in the game. What needs to be done is to make tanks useful for tanking rather than to try making every ship tactical-oriented.
Cruisers in general are much better now then they were a year ago. The problem with the Galaxy is that it has such a gimped console and bridge officer layout that the ship is not worth using for anything. I can come up with a decent build for the Galaxy and have, but that same build can be slapped on ANY of the other fed cruisers and suddenly be better.
Better at what? DPS? This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The Galaxy isn't meant to be a tactical-oriented ship, period. And if you're pointing to canon, you best be talking about the level 30 Galaxy, the level 20 Ambassador/Excelsior, etc, rather than any refits/retrofits. The Enterprize-D was a basic Galaxy model when Galaxy-class ships were fresh and new.
Cruisers in general are much better now then they were a year ago. The problem with the Galaxy is that it has such a gimped console and bridge officer layout that the ship is not worth using for anything. I can come up with a decent build for the Galaxy and have, but that same build can be slapped on ANY of the other fed cruisers and suddenly be better.
Yes, the problem with the Galaxy is that it is extremely focused on engineering, both consoles and boff stations.
And engineering is the one area out of all three where (currently) more doesn't really mean better. A certain base number is good, but everything on top would better be located in tac or sci..
- Engineering console slots are the least flexible. Even science has everything from pure defensive field generators to kinda offensive embassy plasma/particle gen/flow cap consoles.
- Engineering stations suffer from lots and lots of overlapping cooldowns. Engineering team, Emergency power to x and Auxiliary power to y come to mind.
To fix the Galaxy, Cryptic needs to rework the engineering and science skill trees (some skills are too weak, some sci skills could be put into engineering and vice verse), and put more emphasis into roles and overall PvE challenge.
As long as fleet action rewards are largely based on dps, the Galaxy is screwed.
As long as tanks aren't needed in STFs, the Galaxy is redundant.
From the top of my head, I'd like to see higher sustained NPC dps (instead of loldmginstapwn plasma torps of doom..) and harsher death penalties.
Yes, the problem with the Galaxy is that it is extremely focused on engineering, both consoles and boff stations.
And engineering is the one area out of all three where (currently) more doesn't really mean better. A certain base number is good, but everything on top would better be located in tac or sci..
- Engineering console slots are the least flexible. Even science has everything from pure defensive field generators to kinda offensive embassy plasma/particle gen/flow cap consoles.
- Engineering stations suffer from lots and lots of overlapping cooldowns. Engineering team, Emergency power to x and Auxiliary power to y come to mind.
To fix the Galaxy, Cryptic needs to rework the engineering and science skill trees (some skills are too weak, some sci skills could be put into engineering and vice verse), and put more emphasis into roles and overall PvE challenge.
As long as fleet action rewards are largely based on dps, the Galaxy is screwed.
As long as tanks aren't needed in STFs, the Galaxy is redundant.
From the top of my head, I'd like to see higher sustained NPC dps (instead of loldmginstapwn plasma torps of doom..) and harsher death penalties.
Besides the first paragraph, I agree with this. Don't rag on a ship for being good at the 'wrong' thing, make that 'wrong' thing better and more viable.
Besides the first paragraph, I agree with this. Don't rag on a ship for being good at the 'wrong' thing, make that 'wrong' thing better and more viable.
I agree, this is where something has to be done, really. Of course the in-game representation of the ship is not close to what was suggested throughout the shows, but what vessel IS actually well portrayed in this game? I can't think of a single one, most of them are rather randomly assigned to a "function" and since they introduced hybrids everything just runs wild, basically.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
That's patently wrong. The Galaxy is arguably the best tank in the game. What needs to be done is to make tanks useful for tanking rather than to try making every ship tactical-oriented.
Better at what? DPS? This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The Galaxy isn't meant to be a tactical-oriented ship, period. And if you're pointing to canon, you best be talking about the level 30 Galaxy, the level 20 Ambassador/Excelsior, etc, rather than any refits/retrofits. The Enterprize-D was a basic Galaxy model when Galaxy-class ships were fresh and new.
There are currently only two roles for cruisers in the game at the moment. DPS cruiser, and Support Healer (which is something generally left to PvP). There are of course ships in the middle of this spectrum which can do damage and heal, but the role of straight up tank isn't something that's needed or welcome in end game content and even if there was a need the Galaxy isn't better at it then the other fed cruisers which are all quite tanky.
Think of the skills that are needed to tank damage in the game. Now look at the bridge officer layouts on all the federation cruisers. Most have at minimum a Cmd & Lt Engineering station. This is more then enough and when you start adding even more engineering stations it becomes redundant and even problematic.
The Exploration Cruiser just does not fit well into any of the roles I mentioned above. Obviously, it can be used, but it will not perform as well as the other cruisers. The Fleet Avenger, Assault Cruiser, and Advanced Heavy Cruiser will always do more damage then the Exploration Cruiser, and the Odyssey and Support Cruiser will be superior support ships (while coincidentally also being able to do more damage at the same time). The only thing the Exploration Cruiser has on these other ships is 1 additional engineering console slot, which (because of diminishing returns of resistance consoles) is useless.
In the end my question to the people that support leaving the Galaxy in it's current state is simply this - What does the Galaxy bring to the table? What can it do that the other Federation cruisers can't?
That's patently wrong. The Galaxy is arguably the best tank in the game. What needs to be done is to make tanks useful for tanking rather than to try making every ship tactical-oriented.
Better at what? DPS? This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The Galaxy isn't meant to be a tactical-oriented ship, period. And if you're pointing to canon, you best be talking about the level 30 Galaxy, the level 20 Ambassador/Excelsior, etc, rather than any refits/retrofits. The Enterprize-D was a basic Galaxy model when Galaxy-class ships were fresh and new.
again with the great galaxy is the best tank lie. if you have ever pvped, or used any other cruiser, you would know this is BS. no cruiser that only has a LT sci will every be anywhere close to being one of the best tanks. in fact you want a fairly even spread of sci and eng for best tanking, because the best over time tanking healing skills are sci, not eng. if you tank by relying on cycling 2 copies of RSP, 1 subnuk will take you out. got room for ST and 2 copies of TSS and HE like the ody could run? SNB will be inconvenient.
i fought a fairly good tank galaxy yesterday, once i had a nice alpha lined up between his RSPs, and since he used ST so he has no room for TSS, he fell apart like a house of cards. that ST use opening him up for FOMM too, if he had room for TSS too he proboly would have lived. a star cruiser or ody would have lived through that, haveing room for ST and TSS.
a game were raw tanking is as useful as CC and damage dealing sounds totally awful, so no thanks, the current zombie cruisers out there make things boring enough as it is. since every single character class/ship, is multi classed cleric/has heals, the role of tank or healer will never be as important, because everyone can basically cover their own TRIBBLE, especially in pve. theres plenty of canon precedent for turning the galaxy class in game into something like the d'deridex is now. anything would be an improvement really, except making it a flight deck cruiser.
you can tank PvE in a shuttle so really using a bunch of ships in PvE is not a great indicator and will not let you see the issues int he bridge set up. the galaxy is in fact probably the worst tank in the game at tier 5 cruiser
and more hull would do jack unless it can heal that much hull which the galaxy can not
I can't say I've PvPed, but I've used a great variety of ships myself in PvE. So as per the last part of your claim, how can I not know?
how can you not know? its entirely possible, nay an absolute certainty, that you have a minimal grasp of the nuances of effective ship building, otherwise you wouldnt for a second suggest the galaxy R was more then ok, or below average, at tanking.
If anything is changed about the Galaxy, I'd vote to give it more hull.
i feel so trolled by this statement its not even funny. in a game were healing is how you tank, hitpoints start having little value other then being sudden spike soak. of all the impotent stats a ship can have, hull HP as long as its above 30k base is the least important by far.
how can you not know? its entirely possible, nay an absolute certainty, that you have a minimal grasp of the nuances of effective ship building, otherwise you wouldnt for a second suggest the galaxy R was more then ok, or below average, at tanking.
Well I've obviously never experienced what you're claiming, despite me having flew two Galaxy-Rs before(both with different builds). Granted, my mains fly a fleet Advanced Research and fleet MVAE, but that's irrelevant. The Galaxy seems to me like a beast at tanking.
Keep in mind that I'm not a PvPer, so I have no clue how it performs there.
i feel so trolled by this statement its not even funny. in a game were healing is how you tank, hitpoints start having little value other then being sudden spike soak. of all the impotent stats a ship can have, hull HP as long as its above 30k base is the least important by far.
So other viewpoints count as trolling nowadays...? Really...?
I disagree that healing is more important than shield and hull strength. If you don't like it, tough. But don't accuse someone of trolling because they disagree with you.
Edit: Could you just try thinking of me not as some enemy trying to troll you and start thinking of me as just someone who just has an alternate view and just try explaining why yours is right?
you used that argument until its just vapid.
30k hull with a 50% resist is equivailen to 60k hp, the difference being, the 30k hp ship can fully heal in less time, meaning the extra 20k hp of a ship with 50k base is nothing but spike soak.
this is self evident, yet you deny it. you dont have "other viewpoints" you are just wrong.
No, I don't deny that. When I talk more HP, I'm talking over 100k at the very least. Yeah, I really dislike gameplay-story segregation, and I don't think enemy bosses should have any attribute that players shouldn't be able to have with the same models. Player Galaxy-Xs should rival the Stadi FFS, and I think that even with 4 hull Hp consoles from the mines on a Gal-X and it still can't even come close to the Stadi's HP is utter BS.
Yeah, 60k ain't nothing much compared to 30k with a 50% res, but 120k might be nice to have. Admittedly the 30k hull ship with a 50% resistance would eventually outlast any ship with 0% res, but that's to be expected. Though it would be that much better if the crewmen system was revamped so all those thousands of crew members would actually do something other than get killed...
But please. And this goes for anyone. Next time you face an argument that you feel is too stupid to even be serious, you might want to consider that there's a misunderstanding first. Being reasonable is far better than being frustrated and hostile, and you might even learn something from those who you at first consider to be the opposition.
again, you are wrong, a galaxy with 120k base hp would be game breaking as it would only serve to create immortal tickle boats.
this is due to the rpg trinity being used in game environments it never should have seen, and was foolhardy to apply it.
I'm not 'wrong', because I never said that the only ship that should have its HP rescaled is the Galaxy. But ships, especially tanks, do have to keep up with power creep. You're attacking a strawman again.
And I'm not wanting the Galaxy's HP to skyrocket just because it is meant to be 'tank'. On the contrary, it's just a Big ship. The Defiant is a small fraction of its size, even within the screwed size scale of STO... yet it only has a few thousand more hull points? That's not right. And IMO, the HP of all ships should be scaled in relation to their size and/or durability. As well as giving them real scale in relation to each other, but that's a different topic altogether.
as i have said before countelss times, the the rpg tank is a dead concept in a game the scale of sto.
the rpg trinity is an antiquated font of putrescance fit only for small team pve dungeon raid games.
Indeed. I agree that applying the RPG trinity into everything is foolish. The devs are making STO out to be a mere game, when a lot of us believe that it should instead be Star Trek. The standard combat-only RPG-styled setup just doesn't work with STO's setting. IMO, the whole damned system needs reworked.
trying to apply it to sto, or any game like it, is brazen misconception. and represents complete disregard for the intended environment of the rpg trinity system.
Yeah... dragons and dungeons, not phasers and warp drive.
if you want some semblance of how to implement a "tank" into a game like sto's space play, look at how tanks work in rts titles, for ground, look at things like the max suits in planetside 2 or the exosuit in x-com.
Interesting. What mechanics make them stand out...?
But please. And this goes for anyone. Next time you face an argument that you feel is too stupid to even be serious, you might want to consider that there's a misunderstanding first. Being reasonable is far better than being frustrated and hostile, and you might even learn something from those who you at first consider to be the opposition.
the harshness was in proportion to just how wildly off course your assessment of the ship was. i just could not express my self eloquently when i had to start so far away from the way it just is, with what makes a good tank.
if you haven't been in this thread long you wouldn't know this, so you dont deserve quite this amount of scorn, but the case you made has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread. to say literally 100 times already would not be a stretch in this 500 page thread. we are all very sick and tired of this patently wrong claim, and wasting time posting refutation of it.
also, just adding hull is a particular sore point with me, because thats quite literally all they did for it with the fleet version. instead of an additional useful console, a 5th eng. instead of a universal ENS like the negh'var, the terrible 3rd ENS eng remained. that, and more hull. the fleet galaxy was their 1 chance to make a half good clean looking galaxy class. and they totally, unforgivably, BLEW IT.
I'm sorry to say this, but this shows that you haven't understood what most of us want.
As i said numerous times, you can make the Galaxy Class perform acceptable, but every other ship performs better.
THAT'S whats wrong with it.
People can fly other ships and only it's fans are stuck with a sub par (COMPARED to any other ship in STO) ship, that does NOT perform as it should.
Buffing all cruisers did NOT inrease the Galaxy -R performance COMPARED to other ships.
Meaning, the GCS keeps being that underperforming brick it was from the beginning of STO.
And as you may have noted, I am for seeing the Tier 4 level 30 base Galaxy be, at minimum, better than the tier 3 ships it replaced. If an ambassador or Excelsior out performs the Galaxy, then the base ship is still broken. Did cruiser commands mitigate the inadequacies of her representation. Yes or no. I ask mitigation as a point.
Because if the answer is yes, then the proper balance for the ship may be to nudge her base stats (before cruiser commands) in those directions so she does her job at tier 4.
Since she is the base ship for the Venture, the dreadnaught, and the refit. The trickle effect of the base change should produce the desired tier 5 modifications.
But as I was pointing out the first thing a comment is given here is a brusque brush off. Even to those that support the concept of improvement. So how much more hostile would people be to a dev?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
And as you may have noted, I am for seeing the Tier 4 level 30 base Galaxy be, at minimum, better than the tier 3 ships it replaced. If an ambassador or Excelsior out performs the Galaxy, then the base ship is still broken. Did cruiser commands mitigate the inadequacies of her representation. Yes or no. I ask mitigation as a point.
Because if the answer is yes, then the proper balance for the ship may be to nudge her base stats (before cruiser commands) in those directions so she does her job at tier 4.
Since she is the base ship for the Venture, the dreadnaught, and the refit. The trickle effect of the base change should produce the desired tier 5 modifications.
But as I was pointing out the first thing a comment is given here is a brusque brush off. Even to those that support the concept of improvement. So how much more hostile would people be to a dev?
anything below tier 5 is basically irreverent, and shouldn't be a determining factor of anything at end game, for good or ill. how they could stick the galaxy at tier 4 in the first place is beyond me. it was still at the time the game launched the largest and most capable federation ship. by 2409, the galaxy's built in the 2360s would be getting their second full overhaul too, it being done every 20 years. they would all by top of the line by the time your reached tier 5 ships.
anything below tier 5 is basically irreverent, and shouldn't be a determining factor of anything at end game, for good or ill. how they could stick the galaxy at tier 4 in the first place is beyond me. it was still at the time the game launched the largest and most capable federation ship. by 2409, the galaxy's built in the 2360s would be getting their second full overhaul too, it being done every 20 years. they would all by top of the line by the time your reached tier 5 ships.
Please tell me you did not say forty levels of play are irrelevant. This is the form of dismissal that prevents correction as it demands absolutes.
Example: If all prior to tier 5 is irrelevant then why not just start the game at level 50 and ignore all else entirely?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
the early levels are irrelivent to end game play, in they they are at best a training period.
they have no inherent value beyond allowing players emulte a sence of achievment through an arbitrary system that limits them to inferior ingame items until they gain an arbitrary amount of "exp".
unfortunatly, they are as outdated as the galaxy its self, due to the limited nature of the npc's that havnt been updated to new content, nor have the early game items & ships.
If all early game is irrelevant and the concept outdated and arbitrary (interesting how that is a bad connotation now. As laws are arbitrary) Why are you even in the game? From these post the only thing(s) that matter is maximum level, maximum damage, and have the Galaxy be that maximum. If all other considerations are irrelevant then one of us has wasted considerable time.
And considering which of us does not consider 80% of what is done irrelevant. . .
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
the levelling system isnt "out dated", but it is still an artificial system to make people feel they are advancing, for purely fluff reasons.
its the content involved in that, the old "early game content", that is out dated.
there is no need to be asinine with responses of "waa waa why are you here then?" nor is there any need for hyperbole about the galaxy somehow becoming the embodiment of galaxy trek online. especially in a game with 50+ ships.
Except that the point I made a few points ago was how a dev would be jumped on if they posted here. And made a comment concerning a build and possible solution and got jumped on.
So go back and read what went on here and ask again if I do not have a point?
As for the "waa waa" response. It is to the constant comments about 'It is a game' 'It is just stupid' 'It is irrelevant' That makes people wonder what is wrong with Trek fans. The idea of a constructive proposal, counter arguments, defense of stance, and a resulting understanding or compromise solution seem to fall away to ridicule and dismissal.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
the harshness was in proportion to just how wildly off course your assessment of the ship was. i just could not express my self eloquently when i had to start so far away from the way it just is, with what makes a good tank.
if you haven't been in this thread long you wouldn't know this, so you dont deserve quite this amount of scorn, but the case you made has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread. to say literally 100 times already would not be a stretch in this 500 page thread. we are all very sick and tired of this patently wrong claim, and wasting time posting refutation of it.
also, just adding hull is a particular sore point with me, because thats quite literally all they did for it with the fleet version. instead of an additional useful console, a 5th eng. instead of a universal ENS like the negh'var, the terrible 3rd ENS eng remained. that, and more hull. the fleet galaxy was their 1 chance to make a half good clean looking galaxy class. and they totally, unforgivably, BLEW IT.
No one in this thread deserves 'scorn' just for their stance in a mere internet debate, no matter how convicted or repetitive. Not to mention, think about the possibility that the case you yourself has made has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread. It's a two-way street. Both sides should be treated with equal respect, even if the opposing side seems too absurd to respect at all.
If you think any part of what I claim is patently wrong, please, demonstrate it. I am a skeptic rationalist, and I want to believe in as many true things as possible while disbelieving in as many false things as possible, so if I'm claiming something that can be demonstrated to be wrong, I want to know about it so I can stop believing in it.
But I do firmly believe that adding a 5th engineering console to the fleet Galaxy isn't a bad thing at all - I do think that they should rework eng consoles to be more useful though. To the point that the eng console slots aren't the default slots everyone goes to for universal consoles. Hell, I'd love to see the day when people have no problems putting uni consoles in the tac slots, but one thing at a time.
anything below tier 5 is basically irreverent, and shouldn't be a determining factor of anything at end game, for good or ill. how they could stick the galaxy at tier 4 in the first place is beyond me. it was still at the time the game launched the largest and most capable federation ship. by 2409, the galaxy's built in the 2360s would be getting their second full overhaul too, it being done every 20 years. they would all by top of the line by the time your reached tier 5 ships.
Most TV show and movie ships are below tier 5, with the exception of the Prometheus- and Soveriegn-classes. I'm not sure if you are an advocate of show-accurate ships, but if you are, the 25th-century retrofits aren't the things to base them on.
Though to be fair, the playable Enterprise-C breaks all logic in the regards of tier 1-5 ships in relation to 'canon'...
As for the leveling system, I believe as well that it is outdated and needs to be reworked.
No one in this thread deserves 'scorn' just for their stance in a mere internet debate, no matter how convicted or repetitive. Not to mention, think about the possibility that the case you yourself has made has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread. It's a two-way street. Both sides should be treated with equal respect, even if the opposing side seems too absurd to respect at all.
If you think any part of what I claim is patently wrong, please, demonstrate it. I am a skeptic rationalist, and I want to believe in as many true things as possible while disbelieving in as many false things as possible, so if I'm claiming something that can be demonstrated to be wrong, I want to know about it so I can stop believing in it.
But I do firmly believe that adding a 5th engineering console to the fleet Galaxy isn't a bad thing at all - I do think that they should rework eng consoles to be more useful though. To the point that the eng console slots aren't the default slots everyone goes to for universal consoles. Hell, I'd love to see the day when people have no problems putting uni consoles in the tac slots, but one thing at a time.
Most TV show and movie ships are below tier 5, with the exception of the Prometheus- and Soveriegn-classes. I'm not sure if you are an advocate of show-accurate ships, but if you are, the 25th-century retrofits aren't the things to base them on.
Though to be fair, the playable Enterprise-C breaks all logic in the regards of tier 1-5 ships in relation to 'canon'...
As for the leveling system, I believe as well that it is outdated and needs to be reworked.
First, well put.
If the devs would redo the tier levels and purposes. I think (as far as cruisers go.)
Tier 1 = Movie Enterprise
Tier 2 = Excelsior
Tier 3 = Ambassador
Tier 4 = Galaxy
Tier 5 = Sovereign
Tier 6* = All currently modern ships.
*All of the level 50 ships really should be considered another tier in my opinion.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Please tell me you did not say forty levels of play are irrelevant. This is the form of dismissal that prevents correction as it demands absolutes.
Example: If all prior to tier 5 is irrelevant then why not just start the game at level 50 and ignore all else entirely?
umm, exactly. with the focus being entirely on progression from max level since the game launched, the 1-50 leveling seems completely pointless, a concept as outdated as any trinity setup.
If all early game is irrelevant and the concept outdated and arbitrary (interesting how that is a bad connotation now. As laws are arbitrary) Why are you even in the game? From these post the only thing(s) that matter is maximum level, maximum damage, and have the Galaxy be that maximum. If all other considerations are irrelevant then one of us has wasted considerable time.
And considering which of us does not consider 80% of what is done irrelevant. . .
umm, what? here for the end game content of course. for any of my characters, except my romulan thats not multiple years old yet, 99.9% of their game play has been done at max level, not 20%. not a single item or ship from leveling was kept, its all garbage at max level. a majority of the content becomes available at max level, anything below that is an out dated formality and time waister. telling you the truth is not being dismissive, haveing to hear a point of view that is not your own is not insensitive or disrespectful on my part.
Except that the point I made a few points ago was how a dev would be jumped on if they posted here. And made a comment concerning a build and possible solution and got jumped on.
So go back and read what went on here and ask again if I do not have a point?
As for the "waa waa" response. It is to the constant comments about 'It is a game' 'It is just stupid' 'It is irrelevant' That makes people wonder what is wrong with Trek fans. The idea of a constructive proposal, counter arguments, defense of stance, and a resulting understanding or compromise solution seem to fall away to ridicule and dismissal.
devs only get trolled by the dev tracker stalkers. any dev that would want to engage, debate, maybe explain their side of things on this subject would be welcomed here. it happens often in the foundry, pvp and skills and ability section. devs post insightful information, we report bugs and testing results, everyone gets along fine. they proboly dont post here because they know that ya it sucks, and we dont think theres a good solution or incentive to fix it, and we arent going to do anything galaxy related until we make saucer sep 2.0 work on the galaxy X, which seems as likely as new pvp content. :rolleyes:
this thread is mostly just the same bad ideas being shot down over and over. theres over 500 pages of us again and again proving the position that the galaxy is the worst ship, any cruiser is better, and that changing half the game to fix the galaxy is absurd. not only does it have unbalancing effects these suggesters dont even understand, it wont effect the galaxy in relation to other cruisers, which is the whole point. debating this basic premise is a waist of time, and drags this thread through the dirt every time some special snow flake decides to post how fine the galaxy is, because its possible to complete pve content with it.
No one in this thread deserves 'scorn' just for their stance in a mere internet debate, no matter how convicted or repetitive. Not to mention, think about the possibility that the case you yourself has made has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread. It's a two-way street. Both sides should be treated with equal respect, even if the opposing side seems too absurd to respect at all.
If you think any part of what I claim is patently wrong, please, demonstrate it. I am a skeptic rationalist, and I want to believe in as many true things as possible while disbelieving in as many false things as possible, so if I'm claiming something that can be demonstrated to be wrong, I want to know about it so I can stop believing in it.
But I do firmly believe that adding a 5th engineering console to the fleet Galaxy isn't a bad thing at all - I do think that they should rework eng consoles to be more useful though. To the point that the eng console slots aren't the default slots everyone goes to for universal consoles. Hell, I'd love to see the day when people have no problems putting uni consoles in the tac slots, but one thing at a time.
Most TV show and movie ships are below tier 5, with the exception of the Prometheus- and Soveriegn-classes. I'm not sure if you are an advocate of show-accurate ships, but if you are, the 25th-century retrofits aren't the things to base them on.
Though to be fair, the playable Enterprise-C breaks all logic in the regards of tier 1-5 ships in relation to 'canon'...
As for the leveling system, I believe as well that it is outdated and needs to be reworked.
one argument is based on data and is entirely provable, the other is based on inexperience. these are not two positions that deserve equal consideration, and im not going to coddle anyone that makes them. on things i know i dont have an expansive knowledge of, with years of experience on, i actually choose not to comment on at all, but instead learn and observe. because i dont want to be treated like an idiot by those that do. if your going to post your opinion on the internet, your going to want to conduct your self in a similar fashion, things will go much smother for you.
i did demonstrate the galaxy's tanking shortcomings in that telling of an encounter i had in the previews day, as a curtsey. it fell on me to prove my position, and i had a fresh real world example handy. the galaxy's station setup is not only hamstrung by system cooldown interference at the ENS eng level, but it also gives up ether an ENS tac or ENS sci skill that has incredibly useful potential. just on that point, it loses twice. the best tanks are cruisers that have an even spread of sci and eng, the galaxy is farthest from that.
everything the fleet galaxy got was just more of what was doing it absolutely no good, of what kept it behind other cruisers. 5 eng console are the least desirable a ship can have. with a 6 base turn, and no use of DHCs, turn consoles are basically useless to it, armor has massive diminishing return after 2 or 3, all of the + to power consoles are a joke, the SFI consoles are ok, but unless your a pure healer they have no opportunity cost over any universal console. its just a dumping ground for universal consoles, it in no way is helpful like an additional sci or tac console would have been.
basically every single ship is at tier 5 thanks to fleet ships, further making everything sub tier 5 look irreverent. retrofits did away with what tier a ship is at meaning anything.
We level so quickly in this game it's hard to get any enjoyment of lower level ships. An old fleet mate leveled a new toon in less than 48 hours to level 50! With the Rep system who wants to level new characters now a days if you already have 3-8 characters @ lvl 50.
So End Game is everything.
That's why i never got why so many ppl where glad about newly released low level ships.
Level progression only makes sense if there are areas in a game that cannot be beaten until a certain level is reached. In STO Enemies adapt to a players level, which is quite the contrary to the purpose of leveling IMO.
If cryptics devs where bold, they would get rid of the whole Level concept and make everyone a Captain after the tutorial.
All ships would get endgame stats. Previous low level ships would be cheaper/easier to get, while powerful ones where harder to get (accolade points maybe?).
I'd suggest season 9 for this.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
How many of you are just using beams only on this ship and going at full impulse.You should just be doing flybys and staying at ranges 8 as beam don't disapate the farther out you go unlike cannons.
First, well put.
If the devs would redo the tier levels and purposes. I think (as far as cruisers go.)
Tier 1 = Movie Enterprise
Tier 2 = Excelsior
Tier 3 = Ambassador
Tier 4 = Galaxy
Tier 5 = Sovereign
Tier 6* = All currently modern ships.
Then there would be as many ppl playing this game now would there.I ma a TOS/TMP for the most part for TNG DS9 only.
This is my desktop
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Age StarTrek-Gamers Administrator
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer Star Trek Gamers
How many of you are just using beams only on this ship and going at full impulse.You should just be doing flybys and staying at ranges 8 as beam don't disapate the farther out you go unlike cannons.
Then there would be as many ppl playing this game now would there.I ma a TOS/TMP for the most part for TNG DS9 only.
This is my desktop
I am sorry, but I do not understand the statement. Can you explain it for me, please?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Comments
Honestly, at this point even a short post saying; "we are looking into your concerns" or something along those lines would at least offer some hope.
And for several here I would agree with you. For many others it would be flame bait.
One of the things I saw requested lots of pages ago was to boost the purpose of cruisers over all. This would fix the Galaxy and make her functional in game as she should be.
So they made cruiser commands and any ship that can vaguely called a cruiser can buff itself and those allies near it. Cool right? When I asked if this fixed the Galaxy I was told, no. because it applied to all cruisers so the Galaxy is still broken.
To use the hunger analogy in someone's signature.
"The argument that you can't be hungry because I have a sandwich." (Sorry I don't recall the exact text)
This is like someone handing out sandwiches and someone declaring they did not get one because everyone got one too.
In that kind of arguing environment, would you want to make a public post from the devs?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
As i said numerous times, you can make the Galaxy Class perform acceptable, but every other ship performs better.
THAT'S whats wrong with it.
People can fly other ships and only it's fans are stuck with a sub par (COMPARED to any other ship in STO) ship, that does NOT perform as it should.
Buffing all cruisers did NOT inrease the Galaxy -R performance COMPARED to other ships.
Meaning, the GCS keeps being that underperforming brick it was from the beginning of STO.
Of course i would be glad if a dev would appear and say they take a look at it.
But to be honest, they have lost all credibility when they made the Galor, the FERENGI marauder and the Bug ship outperform the Galaxy. (not to speak of every other escort, man i really hate escorts in STO, lol)
Cruisers in general are much better now then they were a year ago. The problem with the Galaxy is that it has such a gimped console and bridge officer layout that the ship is not worth using for anything. I can come up with a decent build for the Galaxy and have, but that same build can be slapped on ANY of the other fed cruisers and suddenly be better.
Better at what? DPS? This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The Galaxy isn't meant to be a tactical-oriented ship, period. And if you're pointing to canon, you best be talking about the level 30 Galaxy, the level 20 Ambassador/Excelsior, etc, rather than any refits/retrofits. The Enterprize-D was a basic Galaxy model when Galaxy-class ships were fresh and new.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Yes, the problem with the Galaxy is that it is extremely focused on engineering, both consoles and boff stations.
And engineering is the one area out of all three where (currently) more doesn't really mean better. A certain base number is good, but everything on top would better be located in tac or sci..
- Engineering console slots are the least flexible. Even science has everything from pure defensive field generators to kinda offensive embassy plasma/particle gen/flow cap consoles.
- Engineering stations suffer from lots and lots of overlapping cooldowns. Engineering team, Emergency power to x and Auxiliary power to y come to mind.
To fix the Galaxy, Cryptic needs to rework the engineering and science skill trees (some skills are too weak, some sci skills could be put into engineering and vice verse), and put more emphasis into roles and overall PvE challenge.
As long as fleet action rewards are largely based on dps, the Galaxy is screwed.
As long as tanks aren't needed in STFs, the Galaxy is redundant.
From the top of my head, I'd like to see higher sustained NPC dps (instead of loldmginstapwn plasma torps of doom..) and harsher death penalties.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
I agree, this is where something has to be done, really. Of course the in-game representation of the ship is not close to what was suggested throughout the shows, but what vessel IS actually well portrayed in this game? I can't think of a single one, most of them are rather randomly assigned to a "function" and since they introduced hybrids everything just runs wild, basically.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
There are currently only two roles for cruisers in the game at the moment. DPS cruiser, and Support Healer (which is something generally left to PvP). There are of course ships in the middle of this spectrum which can do damage and heal, but the role of straight up tank isn't something that's needed or welcome in end game content and even if there was a need the Galaxy isn't better at it then the other fed cruisers which are all quite tanky.
Think of the skills that are needed to tank damage in the game. Now look at the bridge officer layouts on all the federation cruisers. Most have at minimum a Cmd & Lt Engineering station. This is more then enough and when you start adding even more engineering stations it becomes redundant and even problematic.
The Exploration Cruiser just does not fit well into any of the roles I mentioned above. Obviously, it can be used, but it will not perform as well as the other cruisers. The Fleet Avenger, Assault Cruiser, and Advanced Heavy Cruiser will always do more damage then the Exploration Cruiser, and the Odyssey and Support Cruiser will be superior support ships (while coincidentally also being able to do more damage at the same time). The only thing the Exploration Cruiser has on these other ships is 1 additional engineering console slot, which (because of diminishing returns of resistance consoles) is useless.
In the end my question to the people that support leaving the Galaxy in it's current state is simply this - What does the Galaxy bring to the table? What can it do that the other Federation cruisers can't?
again with the great galaxy is the best tank lie. if you have ever pvped, or used any other cruiser, you would know this is BS. no cruiser that only has a LT sci will every be anywhere close to being one of the best tanks. in fact you want a fairly even spread of sci and eng for best tanking, because the best over time tanking healing skills are sci, not eng. if you tank by relying on cycling 2 copies of RSP, 1 subnuk will take you out. got room for ST and 2 copies of TSS and HE like the ody could run? SNB will be inconvenient.
i fought a fairly good tank galaxy yesterday, once i had a nice alpha lined up between his RSPs, and since he used ST so he has no room for TSS, he fell apart like a house of cards. that ST use opening him up for FOMM too, if he had room for TSS too he proboly would have lived. a star cruiser or ody would have lived through that, haveing room for ST and TSS.
a game were raw tanking is as useful as CC and damage dealing sounds totally awful, so no thanks, the current zombie cruisers out there make things boring enough as it is. since every single character class/ship, is multi classed cleric/has heals, the role of tank or healer will never be as important, because everyone can basically cover their own TRIBBLE, especially in pve. theres plenty of canon precedent for turning the galaxy class in game into something like the d'deridex is now. anything would be an improvement really, except making it a flight deck cruiser.
If anything is changed about the Galaxy, I'd vote to give it more hull.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
and more hull would do jack unless it can heal that much hull which the galaxy can not
:rolleyes: ...oh wow. More hull? Really? This post makes me sad, but not for the reason you might think.
how can you not know? its entirely possible, nay an absolute certainty, that you have a minimal grasp of the nuances of effective ship building, otherwise you wouldnt for a second suggest the galaxy R was more then ok, or below average, at tanking.
i feel so trolled by this statement its not even funny. in a game were healing is how you tank, hitpoints start having little value other then being sudden spike soak. of all the impotent stats a ship can have, hull HP as long as its above 30k base is the least important by far.
Keep in mind that I'm not a PvPer, so I have no clue how it performs there.
So other viewpoints count as trolling nowadays...? Really...?
I disagree that healing is more important than shield and hull strength. If you don't like it, tough. But don't accuse someone of trolling because they disagree with you.
Edit: Could you just try thinking of me not as some enemy trying to troll you and start thinking of me as just someone who just has an alternate view and just try explaining why yours is right?
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Yeah, 60k ain't nothing much compared to 30k with a 50% res, but 120k might be nice to have. Admittedly the 30k hull ship with a 50% resistance would eventually outlast any ship with 0% res, but that's to be expected. Though it would be that much better if the crewmen system was revamped so all those thousands of crew members would actually do something other than get killed...
But please. And this goes for anyone. Next time you face an argument that you feel is too stupid to even be serious, you might want to consider that there's a misunderstanding first. Being reasonable is far better than being frustrated and hostile, and you might even learn something from those who you at first consider to be the opposition.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
I'm not 'wrong', because I never said that the only ship that should have its HP rescaled is the Galaxy. But ships, especially tanks, do have to keep up with power creep. You're attacking a strawman again.
And I'm not wanting the Galaxy's HP to skyrocket just because it is meant to be 'tank'. On the contrary, it's just a Big ship. The Defiant is a small fraction of its size, even within the screwed size scale of STO... yet it only has a few thousand more hull points? That's not right. And IMO, the HP of all ships should be scaled in relation to their size and/or durability. As well as giving them real scale in relation to each other, but that's a different topic altogether.
Indeed. I agree that applying the RPG trinity into everything is foolish. The devs are making STO out to be a mere game, when a lot of us believe that it should instead be Star Trek. The standard combat-only RPG-styled setup just doesn't work with STO's setting. IMO, the whole damned system needs reworked.
Yeah... dragons and dungeons, not phasers and warp drive.
Interesting. What mechanics make them stand out...?
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
the harshness was in proportion to just how wildly off course your assessment of the ship was. i just could not express my self eloquently when i had to start so far away from the way it just is, with what makes a good tank.
if you haven't been in this thread long you wouldn't know this, so you dont deserve quite this amount of scorn, but the case you made has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread. to say literally 100 times already would not be a stretch in this 500 page thread. we are all very sick and tired of this patently wrong claim, and wasting time posting refutation of it.
also, just adding hull is a particular sore point with me, because thats quite literally all they did for it with the fleet version. instead of an additional useful console, a 5th eng. instead of a universal ENS like the negh'var, the terrible 3rd ENS eng remained. that, and more hull. the fleet galaxy was their 1 chance to make a half good clean looking galaxy class. and they totally, unforgivably, BLEW IT.
And as you may have noted, I am for seeing the Tier 4 level 30 base Galaxy be, at minimum, better than the tier 3 ships it replaced. If an ambassador or Excelsior out performs the Galaxy, then the base ship is still broken. Did cruiser commands mitigate the inadequacies of her representation. Yes or no. I ask mitigation as a point.
Because if the answer is yes, then the proper balance for the ship may be to nudge her base stats (before cruiser commands) in those directions so she does her job at tier 4.
Since she is the base ship for the Venture, the dreadnaught, and the refit. The trickle effect of the base change should produce the desired tier 5 modifications.
But as I was pointing out the first thing a comment is given here is a brusque brush off. Even to those that support the concept of improvement. So how much more hostile would people be to a dev?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
anything below tier 5 is basically irreverent, and shouldn't be a determining factor of anything at end game, for good or ill. how they could stick the galaxy at tier 4 in the first place is beyond me. it was still at the time the game launched the largest and most capable federation ship. by 2409, the galaxy's built in the 2360s would be getting their second full overhaul too, it being done every 20 years. they would all by top of the line by the time your reached tier 5 ships.
Please tell me you did not say forty levels of play are irrelevant. This is the form of dismissal that prevents correction as it demands absolutes.
Example: If all prior to tier 5 is irrelevant then why not just start the game at level 50 and ignore all else entirely?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
If all early game is irrelevant and the concept outdated and arbitrary (interesting how that is a bad connotation now. As laws are arbitrary) Why are you even in the game? From these post the only thing(s) that matter is maximum level, maximum damage, and have the Galaxy be that maximum. If all other considerations are irrelevant then one of us has wasted considerable time.
And considering which of us does not consider 80% of what is done irrelevant. . .
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Except that the point I made a few points ago was how a dev would be jumped on if they posted here. And made a comment concerning a build and possible solution and got jumped on.
So go back and read what went on here and ask again if I do not have a point?
As for the "waa waa" response. It is to the constant comments about 'It is a game' 'It is just stupid' 'It is irrelevant' That makes people wonder what is wrong with Trek fans. The idea of a constructive proposal, counter arguments, defense of stance, and a resulting understanding or compromise solution seem to fall away to ridicule and dismissal.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
If you think any part of what I claim is patently wrong, please, demonstrate it. I am a skeptic rationalist, and I want to believe in as many true things as possible while disbelieving in as many false things as possible, so if I'm claiming something that can be demonstrated to be wrong, I want to know about it so I can stop believing in it.
But I do firmly believe that adding a 5th engineering console to the fleet Galaxy isn't a bad thing at all - I do think that they should rework eng consoles to be more useful though. To the point that the eng console slots aren't the default slots everyone goes to for universal consoles. Hell, I'd love to see the day when people have no problems putting uni consoles in the tac slots, but one thing at a time.
Most TV show and movie ships are below tier 5, with the exception of the Prometheus- and Soveriegn-classes. I'm not sure if you are an advocate of show-accurate ships, but if you are, the 25th-century retrofits aren't the things to base them on.
Though to be fair, the playable Enterprise-C breaks all logic in the regards of tier 1-5 ships in relation to 'canon'...
As for the leveling system, I believe as well that it is outdated and needs to be reworked.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
First, well put.
If the devs would redo the tier levels and purposes. I think (as far as cruisers go.)
Tier 1 = Movie Enterprise
Tier 2 = Excelsior
Tier 3 = Ambassador
Tier 4 = Galaxy
Tier 5 = Sovereign
Tier 6* = All currently modern ships.
*All of the level 50 ships really should be considered another tier in my opinion.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
umm, exactly. with the focus being entirely on progression from max level since the game launched, the 1-50 leveling seems completely pointless, a concept as outdated as any trinity setup.
umm, what? here for the end game content of course. for any of my characters, except my romulan thats not multiple years old yet, 99.9% of their game play has been done at max level, not 20%. not a single item or ship from leveling was kept, its all garbage at max level. a majority of the content becomes available at max level, anything below that is an out dated formality and time waister. telling you the truth is not being dismissive, haveing to hear a point of view that is not your own is not insensitive or disrespectful on my part.
devs only get trolled by the dev tracker stalkers. any dev that would want to engage, debate, maybe explain their side of things on this subject would be welcomed here. it happens often in the foundry, pvp and skills and ability section. devs post insightful information, we report bugs and testing results, everyone gets along fine. they proboly dont post here because they know that ya it sucks, and we dont think theres a good solution or incentive to fix it, and we arent going to do anything galaxy related until we make saucer sep 2.0 work on the galaxy X, which seems as likely as new pvp content. :rolleyes:
this thread is mostly just the same bad ideas being shot down over and over. theres over 500 pages of us again and again proving the position that the galaxy is the worst ship, any cruiser is better, and that changing half the game to fix the galaxy is absurd. not only does it have unbalancing effects these suggesters dont even understand, it wont effect the galaxy in relation to other cruisers, which is the whole point. debating this basic premise is a waist of time, and drags this thread through the dirt every time some special snow flake decides to post how fine the galaxy is, because its possible to complete pve content with it.
one argument is based on data and is entirely provable, the other is based on inexperience. these are not two positions that deserve equal consideration, and im not going to coddle anyone that makes them. on things i know i dont have an expansive knowledge of, with years of experience on, i actually choose not to comment on at all, but instead learn and observe. because i dont want to be treated like an idiot by those that do. if your going to post your opinion on the internet, your going to want to conduct your self in a similar fashion, things will go much smother for you.
i did demonstrate the galaxy's tanking shortcomings in that telling of an encounter i had in the previews day, as a curtsey. it fell on me to prove my position, and i had a fresh real world example handy. the galaxy's station setup is not only hamstrung by system cooldown interference at the ENS eng level, but it also gives up ether an ENS tac or ENS sci skill that has incredibly useful potential. just on that point, it loses twice. the best tanks are cruisers that have an even spread of sci and eng, the galaxy is farthest from that.
everything the fleet galaxy got was just more of what was doing it absolutely no good, of what kept it behind other cruisers. 5 eng console are the least desirable a ship can have. with a 6 base turn, and no use of DHCs, turn consoles are basically useless to it, armor has massive diminishing return after 2 or 3, all of the + to power consoles are a joke, the SFI consoles are ok, but unless your a pure healer they have no opportunity cost over any universal console. its just a dumping ground for universal consoles, it in no way is helpful like an additional sci or tac console would have been.
basically every single ship is at tier 5 thanks to fleet ships, further making everything sub tier 5 look irreverent. retrofits did away with what tier a ship is at meaning anything.
Level progression only makes sense if there are areas in a game that cannot be beaten until a certain level is reached. In STO Enemies adapt to a players level, which is quite the contrary to the purpose of leveling IMO.
If cryptics devs where bold, they would get rid of the whole Level concept and make everyone a Captain after the tutorial.
All ships would get endgame stats. Previous low level ships would be cheaper/easier to get, while powerful ones where harder to get (accolade points maybe?).
I'd suggest season 9 for this.
Then there would be as many ppl playing this game now would there.I ma a TOS/TMP for the most part for TNG DS9 only.
This is my desktop
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
I am sorry, but I do not understand the statement. Can you explain it for me, please?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.