Yeah I know the Husnock Warship couldn't be beaten since it was more of less an illusion created by Kevin Uxbridge. BTW Here's what should have happened to that BoP (I posted this before) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGAS-vKdKqA
This is the only logical ending of such a battle IMO.
Riker wouldn't even had to order to rotate weapons frequencies (rather shield frequency). A full torp. spread and a phaser salvo would have obliterated that frelling BoP out of this reality.
But as almost everyone in that move he is determined to get rid of the Ent. D.
I had another thought on weapons and how to kinda bring it closer to canon. Remember it's just a thought experiment, but what about having weapons actually take different amount of space on a ship?
A phaser array like one on the Galaxy's saucer is way bigger than a single cannon. So, what if a phaser array would take three weapon slots, a DBB take two and a single emitter take on etc.?
Of course, a real phaser array would have to have a ~300 degree firing arc and do much more damage than a single beam or a cannon and so forth.
I like that idea. They could introduce such a special fireing array for Galaxy class family ships occupying 3 weapons slots (forward).
Additionally they could add 2 slot variants (fore and aft) exclusively for all Starfleet ships, having a much lower fireing rate (but accordingly stronger, of course). That way Starfleet ships would have something unique on their own without having to equip DCs or DHCs.
But since Cryptics devs don't care about canon or Starfleet "cruisers" they won't introduce weapons like that.
Special stuff like the proton Beam/cannon doesn't count, since you can only equip one single weapon like that at a time.
As long as it is about canon Trek, i really doubt that, lol.
But i would love to get proven otherwise.
"...'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
Wow over 500 pages and its still at the top of the board and cryptic still ignores it.
Just amazing
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.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
As long as it is about canon Trek, i really doubt that, lol.
But i would love to get proven otherwise.
You mean how the 25th-century refits and retrofits supposed to represent the show and movie models and be accurate gauges to their power levels instead of the lower-tier versions...?
You mean how the 25th-century refits and retrofits supposed to represent the show and movie models and be accurate gauges to their power levels instead of the lower-tier versions...?
I'm sorry but i do not understand what you mean.
If you are talking about the T5 galaxy class ship model then i would like to suggest taking a closer look at it...
But i wasn't really talking about the ship models, rather the ships "roles" Cryptics devs gave them. TBH i have never seen a more superficial interpretation of star trek ships in any game so far. Thats what i blams Cryptics devs the most. Not some trivial ship model mistakes.
The whole system of how Star trek ships work in this game is fundamental wrong IMO.
(no trinity, Starfleet ships aren't mere tanks, and so on. You get the point)
"...'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
If you are talking about the T5 galaxy class ship model then i would like to suggest taking a closer look at it...
But i wasn't really talking about the ship models, rather the ships "roles" Cryptics devs gave them. TBH i have never seen a more superficial interpretation of star trek ships in any game so far. Thats what i blams Cryptics devs the most. Not some trivial ship model mistakes.
The whole system of how Star trek ships work in this game is fundamental wrong IMO.
(no trinity, Starfleet ships aren't mere tanks, and so on. You get the point)
You have clearly not played Star Trek: Conquest, where the Defiant and the Oberth have identical performance...
On topic, I do I actually think Cryptic does a pretty good job with making the ships feel like they were on the shows within the framework they've set out. The Defiant, the Ambassador, the Sovereign, the Vor'Cha... I'd say that the majority of ships are close enough to give me the sense I'm flying what I saw on screen.
Of course, that makes the ones that are way off (such as the Intrepid and of course of the Galaxy) seem even more egregious...
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.
Comments
Riker wouldn't even had to order to rotate weapons frequencies (rather shield frequency). A full torp. spread and a phaser salvo would have obliterated that frelling BoP out of this reality.
But as almost everyone in that move he is determined to get rid of the Ent. D.
I like that idea. They could introduce such a special fireing array for Galaxy class family ships occupying 3 weapons slots (forward).
Additionally they could add 2 slot variants (fore and aft) exclusively for all Starfleet ships, having a much lower fireing rate (but accordingly stronger, of course). That way Starfleet ships would have something unique on their own without having to equip DCs or DHCs.
But since Cryptics devs don't care about canon or Starfleet "cruisers" they won't introduce weapons like that.
Special stuff like the proton Beam/cannon doesn't count, since you can only equip one single weapon like that at a time.
As long as it is about canon Trek, i really doubt that, lol.
But i would love to get proven otherwise.
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.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
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 sorry but i do not understand what you mean.
If you are talking about the T5 galaxy class ship model then i would like to suggest taking a closer look at it...
But i wasn't really talking about the ship models, rather the ships "roles" Cryptics devs gave them. TBH i have never seen a more superficial interpretation of star trek ships in any game so far. Thats what i blams Cryptics devs the most. Not some trivial ship model mistakes.
The whole system of how Star trek ships work in this game is fundamental wrong IMO.
(no trinity, Starfleet ships aren't mere tanks, and so on. You get the point)
You have clearly not played Star Trek: Conquest, where the Defiant and the Oberth have identical performance...
On topic, I do I actually think Cryptic does a pretty good job with making the ships feel like they were on the shows within the framework they've set out. The Defiant, the Ambassador, the Sovereign, the Vor'Cha... I'd say that the majority of ships are close enough to give me the sense I'm flying what I saw on screen.
Of course, that makes the ones that are way off (such as the Intrepid and of course of the Galaxy) seem even more egregious...
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.