yep, and even with new eng power, i can't see an ensign level bo power that would make the galaxy refit a real choice option in comparison to a star cruiser.
that would be a hell of a disbalanced power if that happened, and even so what would then prevent the star cruiser to equip one, since it is so good, the star cruiser got 2 ensign engi slot.
so yeah, it really daesn't make sense when you look at it closely althrought it sound good when we said it: fix the eng bo power and that will fix the galaxy.
well....no, it won't, as i was forced to explain to everyone that support that idea many time in this thread.
You are aware that the Excelsior has the same amount of Ensign Engineer doff slots as the Gal-R does, aren't you? I actually have mine balanced between EPTE, EPTS and an ET1. It works for me and gives me the flexibilty I want between the two EPTX ones.
yeah, but you just forget a little detail... 6base turn and 25 inertia.
the galaxy problem do not resume to the 3rd eng ens......
Beam Arrays have a far wider arc than the 6/25 can inhibit. Plus a fifth Engineer console and the Fleet Consoles can buff up cruiser critical stuff and add to maneuverability. Not to mention engineers boosts in power when the hit an EPTX or battery.
and i really wonder why you do that in the first place, since it is not a problem for a ship that is supposed to tank and support
your atrox got pets that compensate for it lack of mobility and it reduced weapons slot , very simple to anderstand.
and i am not even speaking about the 1.2 shield modifer, integrated susbsytem targeting, his commander and ltcommander sci bo, +10 auxiliary power and his 4 sci console slot.
if even 1/4 of that were given to the galaxy, you could eventually begun to argue.
stop trying to resume the galaxy retrofit problem to a single thing.
the galaxy problem is not the turn rate alone, or the 3ens eng alone, or the lack of sci slot and whatnot, it all of them combined.
it is not logical to state that a ship is fine as is when it combined all the bad stats this game can possibly provide, without any viable compensation whatsoever.
and this have nothing to do with how you fly the ship, but in any case you will have a hard time to teach me how to fly my galaxy.
Try using the cruiser command that boosts turn rate when you feel you need a turn boost, the third ensign slot can help if you use EPTE1.
Heck, if you really want to work around it, go on the exchange and buy a Helmsman Trait.
the cruiser capable of dealing the least damage deals 'enough' huh? in what context exactly? i can equip nothing but a shield, impulse engine, and some beam arrays, use no station powers, and i deal enough damage to get through any pve. the minimum bar is that low.
I think kimmy means by "enough" has to do with the 10k dps that was mentioned earlier. Maybe if kimmy would clarify what "enough" is, that would help.
'enough damage', thats more like an average. the galaxy deals below average damage, drags what the average damage is down quite a bit in fact.
it does not deal enough damage in pvp. even with a tactical AtB build you barely outpace passive regeneration and EPtS cycling.
In regards to this argument. If kimmy is saying that the Galaxy does "enough" damage and enough is "average", there would have to be a ship that does significantly less damage than it for it to be near average. That includes even if the Galaxy skews down the average.
Maybee kimmy can discuss the build that is being referred to that is getting "enough" dps.
that post didnt make much sense to me. he went into detail about that ship's particular shortcomings compared to other ships, then he pivots and said its eng skills thats the problem. no, its always this 1 particular ship thats the problem, no need to upset the balance of every single ship in the game that has eng stations just to address this 1 ship's short comings.
im not in complete disagreement that eng skills could use adjusting, tweeking, or adding to, but the galaxy class is the wrong reason to do it, the focus of such a change needs to have every single ship in consideration.
It doesn't only effect the Gal-R, tho. The Gal-R just gets hit with the double whammy.
Any ship with 3 eng ensigns feels some sort of pinch (Excelsior) and ships with both a commander and a ltcom eng feel cramped at the top end. The Gal-R just showcases both, on a ship that many people want to fly because of its status in the show, and we get threads with over 500 pages of people that want a ship that isn't really broken changed in ways that don't really make any sense or have any flow at all with existing ships. People finally for the most part got over the Defiant having a third tac ens. Nobody ever really got that excited about an Intrepid and her 3rd sci ens. A third eng ens? hold the phone something is wrong. It doesn't feel good on other ships with it, either. They just have more in the way of raw damage output to make people get over it.
And honestly, if tac team wasn't broken as in "to-over-powered-for-the-good-of-the-game" then even a 3rd eng ens wouldn't suck that badly... you would take eng team and get over it. The real problem lies on that bloody tac team...
This is pretty much spot on IMHO.
The 3rd engineering ens. is not the Galaxy's main or only problem, it's a whole combination of shortcommings asociated with this ship and related to the end game content in STO.
Like you said, I also don't feel the 3rd engineering ens. as a liability in my Excelsior, but that's because the Excel with +1 Lt.Comander Boff ability and with 4 tactical consoles is able to do a lot of damage. And when I say a lot, i mean lot! The turn rate has never been much of an issue to me as I actually prefer slower ships.
The thing at hand is - yes, the Galaxy is suitable to walk over any end-game content just fine. That has more to do with the end-game content of STO being a joke, but that's another topic. Like ddis said, any ship with basic white equipment and wonky use of Boff abilities could do ok in this game's end-content.
The issue I'm having is that if you make a list of all the ships availible on the Federation side according to usefulness in the end-game content, the Galaxy would be right there at the bottom. That's not to say that a good player won't do better in a Galaxy than a bad player in a MVAE or that this ship wouldn't complete the content, cause it will. But she doesn't deserve to be the least usefull ship in the lineup, nobody here as far as I'm aware wants it to be at the top of that list, but it's not ok for the Galaxy to be at the bottom, too.
The way I see it in my personal opinion is to rework and adjust the end-game content in this game to be suitable for all char classes and types of ship and not be just one big DPS fest. Because if tanking had use in this content, than the Galaxy would be usefull and a Galaxy pilot will be able to say, yes your cruiser tanks well but my Galaxy could tank more damage and do it better.
Unfortunately it has been widely reckognized that Cryptic has serious issues in balancing their games and that their content is allways a DPS fest. Just take a look at the comments from their latest achievment - NW, people over there say the same thing, it's all about DPS. That's why their games usually have bad PvP implemented as an afterthought. That's why I stand behind somekind of an enhancement to this ship itself, cause thinking that Cryptic will finally wake up and adjust their end-game to be more meaningfull and complexed just doesn't seem realistic at the moment.
the 3rd ENS eng, on top of 3 LTC and up eng powers is the biggest problem. turn rate isn't that big of a problem with beam boats, and the sep helps quite a bit if you need more turn, though it does nothing to make you deal anymore damage. a LT tac is enough to get by with as long as your using an AtB build, and wile 2 tac consoles are terrible the ship doesn't necessarily need to be a good damage dealing if it did something else well.
the excelsior doesn't really have much of a problem. i sorta like having ET1 around for an extra hull heal, tends to mean i also get to run EPtS3 or EPtW3. on the gal and excel your stuck with level 1 of each, but at least the excelsior doesn't have more LTC and up eng slots then it could possibly use to any helpful effect. the excelsior gets a 3rd high level tac skill, and the ambassador gets a 3rd high level sci skill. both give a plethora of skill options that have the potential to be an order of magnitude more helpful then yet another LTC eng skill. half of which you can chose at LTC are locked out by being forced to use the version 1 of those abilities at ENS, this problem compounds itself a staggering amount.
I wouldn't dare to tell anyone to "learn to fly", though as I stated before, I never had any problems with the ship's turnrate. Seperation, EPtE, AtD, RCS consoles, cruiser commands - turnate is no real issue especially since you can improve it via in-game means, if you so desire.
I personally do The Breach Elite in a seperated Explorer. I don't die, I save all NPCs by myself, I never get stuck. It works for me.
a bad turn rate and inertia is not what would give you trouble to finish ANY pve content.
it is however, that you care about it or not, something that you will have to compensate in pvp if it is not already done by an appropriate bo layout.
you need the best turnrate possible to keep your broadside on your target the longer possible, to bring into arc your DBB , to show an other shield facing more rapidly when your tact team power is not on or have been disabled by a subnuk.
and i don't even speak about cannon users.
cruiser are not carrier, they don't have a virtual 360? firing angle due to their pet, they must bring weapons to the target by themselves.
having a reasonable turnrate is needed when you fly a cruiser in pvp.
RCS console, cruiser command, epte are use to try to compensate, but if a good turnrate have been given in the first place you would have use the other version of the fleet console, the one give you less turn but more hull resistence.
you would use the cruiser command that give you less energy drain instead of the one who give you more turn and finally you would have use EPTW instead of EPTE.
6 base turn and 25 inertia wouldn't have been a problem on it own if the bo layout given with it were apropriate.
look at the dderidex, ltcommander tact, commander eng, lt commander sci + 1 uni ensign, integrated battle cloack that enhanced turn while cloack.
he got somethings that compensate his 5 base turn and don't make it look like a punchbag.
same for the odyssey, the universal bo allow him to compensate for it 6base turn, even tho he could already enhanced it with it consoles bonus.
and if you look at all the low turn ship in the game you will find that they all have the bo layout, pets or abilities or all of that at the same time that compensate for the lack of survivability that a low turn and inertia automatically introduced in a ship.
...but... not the galaxy, very bad turn rate and inertia combined with the worst bo layout for tanking that one can imagine ( lt tac, lt sci, 3 ens eng )
and if that wasn't enought you got, of course, the least firepower of all ships in the game.
these are all the things that a galaxy pilot need to compensate by skillpoints, gears, consoles and whatnot to try to be a little more than an anoyance in pvp.
and even if you don't feel that it is not that bad in pve, these bad stats still limits your performance
You are aware that the Excelsior has the same amount of Ensign Engineer doff slots as the Gal-R does, aren't you? I actually have mine balanced between EPTE, EPTS and an ET1. It works for me and gives me the flexibilty I want between the two EPTX ones.
yes, thank you, i am aware of that, like i mentioned in some earlier post.
and, like i mentioned, this is just a little annoyance to this ship due to it turnrate/inertia and lt commander tact bo.
so i repeat, we have been discussing this for a thousand time but you didn't seem to get the idea.
the galaxy problem is not the 3 ens eng ALONE!
the galaxy problem is not the 6 base turn and 25 inertia ALONE!
the galaxy problem is not the limited tact and sci slot ALONE!
it is these 3 points combined that make the problem!!
why do you always try to isolate these point one by one and then compared them to a ship that got 1 of these problem but not the other 2?
how is that logical?
Beam Arrays have a far wider arc than the 6/25 can inhibit. Plus a fifth Engineer console and the Fleet Consoles can buff up cruiser critical stuff and add to maneuverability. Not to mention engineers boosts in power when the hit an EPTX or battery.
beam array do not suffer of the turn rate like cannon do, however they still benefit from it, the less you got, the less your beam will be effective.
beam array are effective on duration, if your broadside time is reduced, your overall dps is reduced.
an escort that sit in your back will negate your broadise abilitie, but let said you tractor that escort.
it will still take you much more time to bring it back in your broadside with a galaxy than with an exelsior.
and turn daesn't just affect beam, but like mentioned in my previous post it also affect your general survivability and your ability to surprised your oponent.
it never a good thing, or something that can be consider as just a detail, to have less turnrate.
and anything you can bring to compensate is something that could have been use elsewhere in your build.
Try using the cruiser command that boosts turn rate when you feel you need a turn boost, the third ensign slot can help if you use EPTE1.
Heck, if you really want to work around it, go on the exchange and buy a Helmsman Trait.
....
do you known who i am?
no really... just to check if everythings fine on your side.
you remember you and me having a discussion about that 50 or 100 pages ago?
where i told you i have push my gal x to 20 turn rate
i didn't wait for you to buy the helsman trait in the exchange ( wich give me a fantastic 0.6 turnrate boost btw ) and i aslo use epte.
and i would love to use the strategic maneuvering from time to time if that was an option available in a galaxy x.... but it is not.
howerver just like i said before if the galaxy family problem were just the turnrate, i wouldn't bother to come to the forum to talk about it.
Enough is context sensitive, but ISE is tuned for 3-5k. Yes, you heard me. 3-5k DPS.
5 people doing 3k each can almost make the optional, might even have a shot at it if they fly perfect.
5 people doing 5k each will face roll it.
The fact that we have ships that can do 30-40k doesn't mean a ship that can hit 12.5k isn't doing enough damage. Anything over 10k is twice what you are expected to have at the top end of ISE. I'd want some more in Hive or NWS, but even there, anything over 10k is what in wow we would call "Overgeared for the content" and waiting for the next challenge.
Just becuase other ships power creeped up thru the roof, doesn't mean that 12.5k is unacceptable. In fact, it is more then double what I'm expected to have before I've gotten bored of the place.
And while I haven't tried... I think I'd be hard pressed to beat 12.5k in a number of other endgame ships, D'kyr, FDSSV, Golfball... Of course they all bring sci utility to offset the lack. Maybe I'm wrong maybe I could make those ships hit that high nowadays.
I didn't mean offense by "learn to fly," sorry if it came off harsh. But honestly, I don't ever have a problem with turn rate. I can fly a Bortie, I can fly a Gal-X, I can fly a carrier... Turn rate is a non-issue to me entirely in a beam boat once you've done the DHC on a turn 6 cruiser bit. I'm good at big ships. A Gal-R can even sep if you really can't stand the turn... It's like the best RCS generator ever if you can take the hit to your hull. That's why I won't really approach that argument. I can only approach it in ways that seem like "I fly better then you, get over it." I can talk math and stats to the rest of it. If you hate the turn, then I can't change your mind.
The build I keep reffering to I linked earlier in the thread, not far, 3 pages maybe 4. (Edit: Wow, thread grew fast, here is the link: http://www.stoacademy.com/tools/skillplanner/index.php?build=kimdpsgalr_5664 ) Basic A2B with plasma, marion, and DEM... nothing spectacular. Nothing that anybody else gearing a cruiser for DPS wouldn't be using. Hit 12.5k in a single run with no fine tuning and no warm up time or even checking to make sure all my settings were perfect. Even forgot my EWP entirely. A Gal-R can do plenty of DPS. She will never win the race, but she does enough if that is what you want her to do. If you want the ship that does the most damage, and you bought a Gal-R, I can't help that you misread the stats :P
Edit: Ok yeah I have lobi consoles, I got for free with my free lobi, but if I'm having to defend the honor of my DPS against the people churning out 30k, give me the same allowance they have hehe.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
yes, thank you, i am aware of that, like i mentioned in some earlier post.
and, like i mentioned, this is just a little annoyance to this ship due to it turnrate/inertia and lt commander tact bo.
so i repeat, we have been discussing this for a thousand time but you didn't seem to get the idea.
the galaxy problem is not the 3 ens eng ALONE!
the galaxy problem is not the 6 base turn and 25 inertia ALONE!
the galaxy problem is not the limited tact and sci slot ALONE!
it is these 3 points combined that make the problem!!
why do you always try to isolate these point one by one and then compared them to a ship that got 1 of these problem but not the other 2?
how is that logical?
I don't "always" do anything. Only reason why I mentioned the Excel was the complaint about having three "wasted" ensign engineering boff slots. If one is tied to EPTE, it can actually work to offset part of the poor turn ability of the second mentioned problem.
As far as the third problem (limited tac/sci), if Engineer abilities were equal to Tac/Sci in usefulness, this thread really wouldn't exist.
beam array do not suffer of the turn rate like cannon do, however they still benefit from it, the less you got, the less your beam will be effective.
beam array are effective on duration, if your broadside time is reduced, your overall dps is reduced.
an escort that sit in your back will negate your broadise abilitie, but let said you tractor that escort.
it will still take you much more time to bring it back in your broadside with a galaxy than with an exelsior.
and turn daesn't just affect beam, but like mentioned in my previous post it also affect your general survivability and your ability to surprised your oponent.
it never a good thing, or something that can be consider as just a detail, to have less turnrate.
and anything you can bring to compensate is something that could have been use elsewhere in your build.
Look atthe last comment. For 'scortson your back, I prefer evasive, epte and reverse with my Gal-X
....
do you known who i am?
no really... just to check if everythings fine on your side.
You will really need to elaborate this comment , I really can't tell if your being sincere or what. (usually any statement that starts with "do you know who I am" is tied to a degree of lunacy, no offense intended). I really don't know where you are going here.
you remember you and me having a discussion about that 50 or 100 pages ago?
where i told you i have push my gal x to 20 turn rate
i didn't wait for you to buy the helsman trait in the exchange ( wich give me a fantastic 0.6 turnrate boost btw ) and i aslo use epte.
and i would love to use the strategic maneuvering from time to time if that was an option available in a galaxy x.... but it is not.
howerver just like i said before if the galaxy family problem were just the turnrate, i wouldn't bother to come to the forum to talk about it.
I remember talking to someone about that. Do you own the armor consoles that also give a boost in turn? What are your power levels at. IMHO though a beam ship doesn't need a 20' turn rate,even to keep strong shield facings going.
As far as the Gal-X, thats a beast of a slightly different color, and needs different attention than the R does. What works well on the R doesnt always work well on the X and visa-versa. But thats a different conversation.
i just hate there is only one build (A2B) and any other cruiser can do the same build... better
i am also strange and prefer to use phasers on my federation ships and hate that to do "acceptable" damage i must use plasma
You're not strange, this game is weird.
I do the same thing, only phasers+quantum on Feds, disruptors+photon on KDF and plasma+plasma on Rommies.
I want to fly my ships as they were in the IP and I just don't overally care much about anything else on that matter. If anyone has complaints they can file them at the complaints desk and I'll get through them.....when the Galaxy gets a revamp.
The Galaxy has massive shuttle bays. Give the Galaxy two hangers and change the ensign slot to a uni slot. Make the shuttles for the Galaxy like the Orion raiders for the KDF.
The Galaxy has massive shuttle bays. Give the Galaxy two hangers and change the ensign slot to a uni slot.
On the shuttlebay point alone, that's easy to prove. Look at screenshots. It has three. One massive one on the saucer, and two smaller ones on the neck.
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
I don't "always" do anything. Only reason why I mentioned the Excel was the complaint about having three "wasted" ensign engineering boff slots. If one is tied to EPTE, it can actually work to offset part of the poor turn ability of the second mentioned problem.
epte is not an offset, it is a situational choice, it share a cooldown with all eptx power, so also with epts. you can't count on it to enhance your turn like you can do with an rcs console wich boost is always on.
and it is a dangerous game to try to do it in a dragon build style, where you chain epts with epte, in a pvp environement, if the opponent you face have a bit of a brain.
predictable behavior is not the best way to play in pvp.
altrought i saw some do well with it in some escort, you will not be able to escape like they do if things goes wrong with a galaxy.
As far as the third problem (limited tac/sci), if Engineer abilities were equal to Tac/Sci in usefulness, this thread really wouldn't exist.
equal in usefuless? that a little vague, do you mean as efficient?
because engeneer abilitie are as usefull as tact or sci, they just didn't have the same purpose.
i bielieve that there is room for more variety and enhancement with this career, but in the end, if it is done in the same way that cryptic seem to want it to be ( resistance, healing, and power management ) you will end up with a career that would just bring more general resistance.
engi power will not be change to mimik or copy the tactical and science one, that would change the purpose of the career and in consequences will depreciate the purpose of the other career.
seem like a drastic game change to fix just one ship.
so a change in engi power that don't completely change the way this game actually work will only give us more tanky ship in the end.
and for now, no one have been able to show me a tangible example of new eng power in a build that would give options of playstyle to a galaxy retrofit that can not be reproduced by a star cruiser.
i can't see how that can be, but maybe someone can show me, i am open on the idea, maybe i didn't think about that combination, or that power ect etc.
no problem, show me.
if someone can show some new eng power that don't break the balanced of other ship, enhanced engi career and give a role to the galaxy, i would be very exited indeed.
Look atthe last comment. For 'scortson your back, I prefer evasive, epte and reverse with my Gal-X
to give you my opinion to this concerning the example i provide earlier, i will not waist my evasive just to bring my broadsive faster on a traget.
i prefer to use it defense score boost to counter an alpha strike and get out of firering arc.
I remember talking to someone about that. Do you own the armor consoles that also give a boost in turn? What are your power levels at. IMHO though a beam ship doesn't need a 20' turn rate,even to keep strong shield facings going.
so you really don't remember.
yes i use fleet rcs to enhanced turn and all other trick this game can provide to have aproximatly 20 turn.
and that not for a beam build, better turn is alway good even for beam, but here the price to paid in regard to the little it give you back would be ridiculous.
it was for a cannon build, remember now?
The Galaxy has massive shuttle bays. Give the Galaxy two hangers and change the ensign slot to a uni slot. Make the shuttles for the Galaxy like the Orion raiders for the KDF.
I can't think of a bigger disgrace to this iconic starship than turn it into something she clearly never was and something that has no place in the ST IP, a carrier.
Enough is context sensitive, but ISE is tuned for 3-5k. Yes, you heard me. 3-5k DPS.
5 people doing 3k each can almost make the optional, might even have a shot at it if they fly perfect.
5 people doing 5k each will face roll it.
The fact that we have ships that can do 30-40k doesn't mean a ship that can hit 12.5k isn't doing enough damage. Anything over 10k is twice what you are expected to have at the top end of ISE. I'd want some more in Hive or NWS, but even there, anything over 10k is what in wow we would call "Overgeared for the content" and waiting for the next challenge.
Just becuase other ships power creeped up thru the roof, doesn't mean that 12.5k is unacceptable. In fact, it is more then double what I'm expected to have before I've gotten bored of the place.
irrelevant, there is no ship that is not capable to complete stf, even in tier 4.
you can not demonstrate that a ship is balanced or not because you can finish an stf with it or that you can reach x amount of dps with it.
and it is also rather illogical to try demonstrate the dps capabilitie of a tank/healer ship.
... and we get threads with over 500 pages of people that want a ship that isn't really broken changed in ways that don't really make any sense or have any flow at all with existing ships
that is exactly what you have done by building this ship like a dps machine to "proove" his usefulness.
I didn't mean offense by "learn to fly," sorry if it came off harsh. But honestly, I don't ever have a problem with turn rate. I can fly a Bortie, I can fly a Gal-X, I can fly a carrier... Turn rate is a non-issue to me entirely in a beam boat once you've done the DHC on a turn 6 cruiser bit. I'm good at big ships. A Gal-R can even sep if you really can't stand the turn... It's like the best RCS generator ever if you can take the hit to your hull. That's why I won't really approach that argument. I can only approach it in ways that seem like "I fly better then you, get over it." I can talk math and stats to the rest of it. If you hate the turn, then I can't change your mind.
to your information i fly a DHC galaxy x since LOR, and i don't do it only in pve but pvp and that generally against zipie escort.
so the " i fly better than you, get over it" still sound like an icredible assuption of your.
and been able to fly these ship correctly daesn't blind me to the fact that a bad turn rate and inertia automatically introduced limitation that you have to compensate either by build or playstyle.
that is what every player try to do in every ship, however galaxy player must do with too much limitation at the same time on every front.
you may not feel that a burden in pve, but when playing against the best pvpers they will rapidly show you where this ship limits your performances and potential, and that not matter what you pilotings skill are.
i just hate there is only one build (A2B) and any other cruiser can do the same build... better
i am also strange and prefer to use phasers on my federation ships and hate that to do "acceptable" damage i must use plasma
a single cannon auxtodamp build on a galaxy or DHC auxtodamp on a galaxy x could be very interesting, but that would required a lt commander tact slot.
once again an other interesting combination that are unavailable to the galaxy family due to bo layout limitations.
I'm fully support the topicstarter. Galaxy need way more attention that it has now. But not just galaxy. I'd really like to see TNG uniform textures improved, as well as galaxy class bridges texture bugs removed. Viva la galaxy.
Hate to break it to some of ya, but this game doesn't revolve around PvP.
The vast majority of game play revolves around PvE.
The Galaxy, as it stands now, can more than get the job done in PvE. Which means, as far as I'm concerned, it's no more broken than other victims of the "power creep", which mostly applies to PvP (the "dead letter stamp" of STO). So, using PvE as a yardstick to measure the Galaxy in-game is more than appropriate.
Is there some flaws to the ship as it stands? Sure. And I wouldn't mind seeing the ship tweaked a little. But it's far from being "broken", when basing evaluations under the facts I mentioned above.
Probably why the developers are in no hurry to "fix" what power gamers, deepsters, PvPers, and hardcore fans seem to think is "broken". It's not going to be an UBERSHIP OF DOOOOOM!!!111!1ONEELVENTY!!1 in the game. It's not going to be changed into a god**mned battleship that can perforate a small moon just because it has big phaser arrays. It's never going to be changed to suit the whims of the deepsters with their DPS monster boats. It's not going to be changed to suit the PvP "miniscule minority" or min/maxxers.
What is going to happen is, until the developers decree otherwise, is that the Galaxy will remain just another big cruiser with a heavier engineering focus than most. And the same four or five people are going to be the main posters in this thread, complaining that the Galaxy sucks because the devs hate it. And talking down to anybody who disagrees with them or has different ideas on how to "improve" it. Not to mention, dog piling anybody who posts that they have success with the ship, instead of being glad for them for enjoying a ship that the aforementioned dog pilers claim to be a fan of. Probably out of some irrational fear that if the devs see people actually enjoy playing the ship in-game, and being successful with it, that they will see no need to change what the detractors claim is "broken".
Which, of course, is total bulls**t when taking the devs' history of changing things into account.
This post isn't entirely directed at any one person. But it's mostly what I see in this thread from where I'm sitting, and seeing the recent argumentative turn the thread has taken. I've seen a lot of good ideas posted. But it's all kosher as long as the ideas run lock-step with what those "four or five people" believe to be the right, and only, answers to the STO Galaxy question.
Open discussion and sharing of ideas should be the order of the day. Polite and civil disagreement and points should be a big part of this discussion (which it always isn't). Talking down and outright slamming people and their ideas does nothing for the "cause".
Hate to break it to some of ya, but this game doesn't revolve around PvP.
The vast majority of game play revolves around PvE.
The Galaxy, as it stands now, can more than get the job done in PvE. Which means, as far as I'm concerned, it's no more broken than other victims of the "power creep", which mostly applies to PvP (the "dead letter stamp" of STO). So, using PvE as a yardstick to measure the Galaxy in-game is more than appropriate.
Is there some flaws to the ship as it stands? Sure. And I wouldn't mind seeing the ship tweaked a little. But it's far from being "broken", when basing evaluations under the facts I mentioned above.
Probably why the developers are in no hurry to "fix" what power gamers, deepsters, PvPers, and hardcore fans seem to think is "broken". It's not going to be an UBERSHIP OF DOOOOOM!!!111!1ONEELVENTY!!1 in the game. It's not going to be changed into a god**mned battleship that can perforate a small moon just because it has big phaser arrays. It's never going to be changed to suit the whims of the deepsters with their DPS monster boats. It's not going to be changed to suit the PvP "miniscule minority" or min/maxxers.
What is going to happen is, until the developers decree otherwise, is that the Galaxy will remain just another big cruiser with a heavier engineering focus than most. And the same four or five people are going to be the main posters in this thread, complaining that the Galaxy sucks because the devs hate it. And talking down to anybody who disagrees with them or has different ideas on how to "improve" it. Not to mention, dog piling anybody who posts that they have success with the ship, instead of being glad for them for enjoying a ship that the aforementioned dog pilers claim to be a fan of. Probably out of some irrational fear that if the devs see people actually enjoy playing the ship in-game, and being successful with it, that they will see no need to change what the detractors claim is "broken".
Which, of course, is total bulls**t when taking the devs' history of changing things into account.
This post isn't entirely directed at any one person. But it's mostly what I see in this thread from where I'm sitting, and seeing the recent argumentative turn the thread has taken. I've seen a lot of good ideas posted. But it's all kosher as long as the ideas run lock-step with what those "four or five people" believe to be the right, and only, answers to the STO Galaxy question.
Open discussion and sharing of ideas should be the order of the day. Polite and civil disagreement and points should be a big part of this discussion (which it always isn't). Talking down and outright slamming people and their ideas does nothing for the "cause".
Just a few points to ponder.
Anyway, peace out.
whos talking about pvp? sure, non dps centered roles for cruisers in pve have little use, but nobody is saying the ship should directly transition from canon into game. if they did that then only a handful of ships could be considered top tier, and everything else would be totally inferior.
its fine because it can struggle through any content? flawed logic. every counter argument to 'just fix the galaxy' is riddled and overflowing with flawed logic. got good dps in it? well combine your talent with any other cruiser and the DPS would be higher. contort and change around eng powers just so the galaxy doesn't suck as bad? that effects every single ship in the game, and the galaxy is still missing out on must have tac or sci skills.
its the worst ship, we can and have proven it. you would be better off with literally any other ship with any other build. its not ok that any ship is the worst at everything, every ship should have something its at least good at, the galaxy doesn't.
Yes, the ship is fine because it works fine for the things that the players that matter use it for. Most of that is unoptimized PvE, where the point is to just play and have fun, and not try to stress other players out with some meaningless epeen measuring contest about who does enough DPS to be "useful" in finishing a mission not just before the optional timer ends, but in some new arbitrary standard for what is "good enough". Most people just don't play the game the way you do, or the way you and others think they should. The fact is, STO isn't the kind of sharply engineered, finely tuned, mechanically elegant competition engine you seem to want it to be, and "fixing" the Galaxy isn't going to change that. You sound like one of those clowns who constantly wants to tell you how fast their car will do a quarter mile, as if that were a thing that matters. Yeah, sure, great, you've got such torques and so revs, I'm happy for you. I'm not here to race, or whatever, I'm just here to have fun driving my little car in a way that I enjoy.
Seriously, there's no need to change.
Point 1) The game is, to all appearances, surviving just fine - even thriving. I'm sure the usual doomsayers will come out and talk about how the game is a failure and how it is doomed to be closed soon because of (reasons), but they have no evidence to back up those claims, and their track record is not so great - after all, most of them have been saying the same thing for nigh on to 4 years.
Point 2) Even if you believe the game is indeed in trouble, the odds that it's the Galaxy class' representation in the game that's the problem are... vanishingly slight. The people that matter (see above) don't give a fig about it - they just want the next cool mission, the next new ship, etc. If the game IS doomed, it's not going to be the Galaxy that causes the collapse, nor will it save the game.
Point 3) The literal "need" for a Galaxy change is thus precisely zero. The demonstrated, empirical proof is that the Galaxy class doesn't need to be anything other than what it is for the game to work. What does the game ACTUALLY need to survive? We don't know for sure, I think, but given that the worst time in the game's history was the year of no content, I'd say "new content" is pretty high on everyone's list. Also up there is "new ships", which certainly is something a Galaxy overhaul is likely to trade off with.
Point 4) Since the game doesn't need a Galaxy overhaul to survive, the only remaining justification for such a change is that doing so would provide a net benefit to the game - that is, the benefits would outweigh the costs. This is a real sticking point in this thread, since so far people have been (as far as I can tell) utterly blase about exactly what kind of cost such a change could incur, both in terms of political capital with the player base, and in terms of actual money. While I'm sure the Galaxy fans would like to think it's just a matter of a few keystrokes and done, I'm pretty sure it isn't. For starters, most people want to swap around the console slots and bridge officer seating. Sounds easy, but consider that most ships already have those slots filled with officers and items - what happens when the slots change? Historically, Cryptic as avoided making these types of changes precisely because they are difficult to implement. Adding things isn't so bad, because you can just run a single script and hey presto new ability or open item slot. Changing existing slots, though - rare, because it's much more difficult than people want to believe. Of course, the more radical the proposed solution (like the idea of a new Galaxy 3-pack), the higher the costs are likely to be.
Point 5) The pro change lobby is also remarkably ineffective in their demonstration that making a change would provide a substantial benefit to the game as a whole, despite their constant proclamations at having "proven" a problem exists. Don't get me wrong, they are very good at demonstrating that there would be benefit to themselves, but they can't get past that emotional sense of "I want" to see the bigger picture - At best, changing the Galaxy really benefits only those people who want to fly a Galaxy in the first place, who have a problem with the current rules, who would be satisfied with the specific change made, and who would not be even happier with some entirely different solution. That's like a sub-sub-sub-sub section of the game's population. Even if you assumed the Galaxy was the single most popular ship in Star Trek Fandom (and I'm pretty sure it's not), that's still a small minority of the player base as a whole, and we only make the slice of the pie we're talking about smaller from there.
Point 6) Given the previous two points, the benefits of this change to the average STO player are uncertain at best, and the existence of any kind of net benefit to the game as a whole it thus highly suspect. This means that, in effect, the pro change club is asking for the entire player base to pay the cost in lost dev hours, delayed new content and ships, and additional forum drama (as groups wonder why the Galaxy got special attention and their pet issue didn't), yet only a very very small number of players can expect to see any benefit. This is on face not persuasive to me. If there's no existential need for change to save the game, and there's no net benefit to the majority of the player base, why should we support spending any resources on it?
Point 7) The recent history of this thread has shown that the compromises that reasonable people might support, like a broader overhaul to Eng powers, or granting cruisers in general additional functions (cruiser commands), have been widely panned because they didn't target the Galaxy specifically, and thus didn't solve the perceived problem that the Galaxy is the "worst ship". This might sound reasonable, until you realize that the implication is essentially that they are explicitly not interested in making the game better for the player base as a whole, but rather only in serving the narrow interests of the true Galaxy faithful. If you don't intend to fly a Galaxy, they don't want you to gain an advantage to your own playstyle, because if you did, the changes might not serve their purpose of making it easier for them to use the Galaxy to "beat" you in a game that's generally not a competition in the first place.
On balance, there just isn't a compelling reason for Cryptic to act on their own, and there isn't a compelling reason for the majority of the player base to rise up and demand change, because the majority of players won't get anything out of it. It sucks for the people who can evidently only enjoy the game if they are in a Galaxy and "beating" other players. Happily, the players that actually matter (the rest of us) seem to be able to get on just fine.
epte is not an offset, it is a situational choice, it share a cooldown with all eptx power, so also with epts. you can't count on it to enhance your turn like you can do with an rcs console wich boost is always on.
and it is a dangerous game to try to do it in a dragon build style, where you chain epts with epte, in a pvp environement, if the opponent you face have a bit of a brain.
predictable behavior is not the best way to play in pvp.
altrought i saw some do well with it in some escort, you will not be able to escape like they do if things goes wrong with a galaxy.
If its actived to improve turn rate in some situations, it does offest the ships weaker turn rate. Its as much of a "situational choice" as using a EPTsability on ships with a with poor shield mods when they need. The ship has a third ensign eng. and it can be used for it. The more power to engines, the better the turn, even if it isnt all the time. You know how long the duration is, so at least its more predictable to you.
I wish aux2inertial could be an ensign, but it doesn't. I do it in my Gal-X all the time, its a crappy turner, but I go into it knowing that and use it when I want more turn. As far as escaping, theres always room for a Deut' tank (I never leave home without it on a cruiser).
equal in usefuless? that a little vague, do you mean as efficient?
because engeneer abilitie are as usefull as tact or sci, they just didn't have the same purpose.
i bielieve that there is room for more variety and enhancement with this career, but in the end, if it is done in the same way that cryptic seem to want it to be ( resistance, healing, and power management ) you will end up with a career that would just bring more general resistance.
engi power will not be change to mimik or copy the tactical and science one, that would change the purpose of the career and in consequences will depreciate the purpose of the other career.
seem like a drastic game change to fix just one ship.
so a change in engi power that don't completely change the way this game actually work will only give us more tanky ship in the end.
and for now, no one have been able to show me a tangible example of new eng power in a build that would give options of playstyle to a galaxy retrofit that can not be reproduced by a star cruiser.
i can't see how that can be, but maybe someone can show me, i am open on the idea, maybe i didn't think about that combination, or that power ect etc.
no problem, show me.
if someone can show some new eng power that don't break the balanced of other ship, enhanced engi career and give a role to the galaxy, i would be very exited indeed.
"Equal in usefulness" in terms of people complaining the same amount (or lackthereof) when a ship has a "full slant" eng, sci or tac build as the Exploration Cruiser has for its boffs
to give you my opinion to this concerning the example i provide earlier, i will not waist my evasive just to bring my broadsive faster on a traget.
i prefer to use it defense score boost to counter an alpha strike and get out of firering arc.
As you have said before, thats a situational choice (and a preference). If you don't like "pulling Rockfords", thats all you, but the options out there, there might be a time that it is the best thing to do. But thats my opinion, just as much as you have yours.
No offense (really, I do mean it), but given the choice of working hard to finish my bachelors TRIBBLE laude, being a new father, dealing with almost losing my wife, and working my internship to earn a job or remembering everyone/thing said in this forum, which would you chose as a priority? I know everyone goes through their own stuff, but I have had alot on my plate for the last several months to give me room to not remember everyone and thier builds/prefs'/etc.
yes i use fleet rcs to enhanced turn and all other trick this game can provide to have aproximatly 20 turn.
and that not for a beam build, better turn is alway good even for beam, but here the price to paid in regard to the little it give you back would be ridiculous.
it was for a cannon build, remember now?
Wasnt the dragon build DBB/BA's? I hope you are using single cannons. IMHO DHC heavy loadouts even on Avengers is a bit risky for not being able to effectively make use of them.
its fine because it can struggle through any content? flawed logic. every counter argument to 'just fix the galaxy' is riddled and overflowing with flawed logic.
Just to point this out, this is part of the problem I am seeing and why I warned Kymmy that she was wasting her time. It seems (to me) that any idea that isn't inline with certain peoples opinion to "fix the Galaxy" is considered a "counter argument" by them. I am not necessarily saying what Mr-Head is saying is right, but there is a consistant pattern in calling any opinion but those agreed upon by a portion on the thread as against fixing the ship. This is where I take humbrage.
This is the funniest definition of "uncoherent ramblings" I have ever seen. You, sir, have a career ahead of you as a stand-up comedian.
Seriously, Mr Head's post was the most concentrated good sense on this topic I've seen in several hundred pages.
This response, on the other hand, makes it pretty clear that the comments whamhammer1 made on this thread look to be right on the money.
If not for the fact that intelligent, thoughtful people are being insulted and abused by certain members of this thread (the "four or five" mentioned by oldravenman3025), I'd be sitting back with a tub of popcorn, being vastly entertained by the comedians who seem to believe that they can represent for their favorite ship by behaving in ways that, among responsible adults, are considered counterproductive, at the very least. However, the fact that the best response those Galaxy fans can come up with to a well-reasoned, respectful, intelligent and detailed post is "holy uncoherent ramblings, Batman" says something about the quality of argument they bring to the table. It also says something about how likely it is that they'll ever get what they want, since it is human nature to dig in and refuse to give in to that type of behavior, even if the ones displaying that behavior were (as is not the case in this instance) right.
--
Coffee, chocolate, bacon, and phasers. What more do I need?
Comments
You are aware that the Excelsior has the same amount of Ensign Engineer doff slots as the Gal-R does, aren't you? I actually have mine balanced between EPTE, EPTS and an ET1. It works for me and gives me the flexibilty I want between the two EPTX ones.
Beam Arrays have a far wider arc than the 6/25 can inhibit. Plus a fifth Engineer console and the Fleet Consoles can buff up cruiser critical stuff and add to maneuverability. Not to mention engineers boosts in power when the hit an EPTX or battery.
Try using the cruiser command that boosts turn rate when you feel you need a turn boost, the third ensign slot can help if you use EPTE1.
Heck, if you really want to work around it, go on the exchange and buy a Helmsman Trait.
I think kimmy means by "enough" has to do with the 10k dps that was mentioned earlier. Maybe if kimmy would clarify what "enough" is, that would help.
In regards to this argument. If kimmy is saying that the Galaxy does "enough" damage and enough is "average", there would have to be a ship that does significantly less damage than it for it to be near average. That includes even if the Galaxy skews down the average.
Maybee kimmy can discuss the build that is being referred to that is getting "enough" dps.
Case in point......:D
This is pretty much spot on IMHO.
The 3rd engineering ens. is not the Galaxy's main or only problem, it's a whole combination of shortcommings asociated with this ship and related to the end game content in STO.
Like you said, I also don't feel the 3rd engineering ens. as a liability in my Excelsior, but that's because the Excel with +1 Lt.Comander Boff ability and with 4 tactical consoles is able to do a lot of damage. And when I say a lot, i mean lot! The turn rate has never been much of an issue to me as I actually prefer slower ships.
The thing at hand is - yes, the Galaxy is suitable to walk over any end-game content just fine. That has more to do with the end-game content of STO being a joke, but that's another topic. Like ddis said, any ship with basic white equipment and wonky use of Boff abilities could do ok in this game's end-content.
The issue I'm having is that if you make a list of all the ships availible on the Federation side according to usefulness in the end-game content, the Galaxy would be right there at the bottom. That's not to say that a good player won't do better in a Galaxy than a bad player in a MVAE or that this ship wouldn't complete the content, cause it will. But she doesn't deserve to be the least usefull ship in the lineup, nobody here as far as I'm aware wants it to be at the top of that list, but it's not ok for the Galaxy to be at the bottom, too.
The way I see it in my personal opinion is to rework and adjust the end-game content in this game to be suitable for all char classes and types of ship and not be just one big DPS fest. Because if tanking had use in this content, than the Galaxy would be usefull and a Galaxy pilot will be able to say, yes your cruiser tanks well but my Galaxy could tank more damage and do it better.
Unfortunately it has been widely reckognized that Cryptic has serious issues in balancing their games and that their content is allways a DPS fest. Just take a look at the comments from their latest achievment - NW, people over there say the same thing, it's all about DPS. That's why their games usually have bad PvP implemented as an afterthought. That's why I stand behind somekind of an enhancement to this ship itself, cause thinking that Cryptic will finally wake up and adjust their end-game to be more meaningfull and complexed just doesn't seem realistic at the moment.
the excelsior doesn't really have much of a problem. i sorta like having ET1 around for an extra hull heal, tends to mean i also get to run EPtS3 or EPtW3. on the gal and excel your stuck with level 1 of each, but at least the excelsior doesn't have more LTC and up eng slots then it could possibly use to any helpful effect. the excelsior gets a 3rd high level tac skill, and the ambassador gets a 3rd high level sci skill. both give a plethora of skill options that have the potential to be an order of magnitude more helpful then yet another LTC eng skill. half of which you can chose at LTC are locked out by being forced to use the version 1 of those abilities at ENS, this problem compounds itself a staggering amount.
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
a bad turn rate and inertia is not what would give you trouble to finish ANY pve content.
it is however, that you care about it or not, something that you will have to compensate in pvp if it is not already done by an appropriate bo layout.
you need the best turnrate possible to keep your broadside on your target the longer possible, to bring into arc your DBB , to show an other shield facing more rapidly when your tact team power is not on or have been disabled by a subnuk.
and i don't even speak about cannon users.
cruiser are not carrier, they don't have a virtual 360? firing angle due to their pet, they must bring weapons to the target by themselves.
having a reasonable turnrate is needed when you fly a cruiser in pvp.
RCS console, cruiser command, epte are use to try to compensate, but if a good turnrate have been given in the first place you would have use the other version of the fleet console, the one give you less turn but more hull resistence.
you would use the cruiser command that give you less energy drain instead of the one who give you more turn and finally you would have use EPTW instead of EPTE.
6 base turn and 25 inertia wouldn't have been a problem on it own if the bo layout given with it were apropriate.
look at the dderidex, ltcommander tact, commander eng, lt commander sci + 1 uni ensign, integrated battle cloack that enhanced turn while cloack.
he got somethings that compensate his 5 base turn and don't make it look like a punchbag.
same for the odyssey, the universal bo allow him to compensate for it 6base turn, even tho he could already enhanced it with it consoles bonus.
and if you look at all the low turn ship in the game you will find that they all have the bo layout, pets or abilities or all of that at the same time that compensate for the lack of survivability that a low turn and inertia automatically introduced in a ship.
...but... not the galaxy, very bad turn rate and inertia combined with the worst bo layout for tanking that one can imagine ( lt tac, lt sci, 3 ens eng )
and if that wasn't enought you got, of course, the least firepower of all ships in the game.
these are all the things that a galaxy pilot need to compensate by skillpoints, gears, consoles and whatnot to try to be a little more than an anoyance in pvp.
and even if you don't feel that it is not that bad in pve, these bad stats still limits your performance
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Voth_Bulwark_Dreadnought_Cruiser
and this one is just to show that having just a lt tact and 2 tact console is not a bad thing if you got the stats that go with it.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
yes, thank you, i am aware of that, like i mentioned in some earlier post.
and, like i mentioned, this is just a little annoyance to this ship due to it turnrate/inertia and lt commander tact bo.
so i repeat, we have been discussing this for a thousand time but you didn't seem to get the idea.
the galaxy problem is not the 3 ens eng ALONE!
the galaxy problem is not the 6 base turn and 25 inertia ALONE!
the galaxy problem is not the limited tact and sci slot ALONE!
it is these 3 points combined that make the problem!!
why do you always try to isolate these point one by one and then compared them to a ship that got 1 of these problem but not the other 2?
how is that logical?
beam array do not suffer of the turn rate like cannon do, however they still benefit from it, the less you got, the less your beam will be effective.
beam array are effective on duration, if your broadside time is reduced, your overall dps is reduced.
an escort that sit in your back will negate your broadise abilitie, but let said you tractor that escort.
it will still take you much more time to bring it back in your broadside with a galaxy than with an exelsior.
and turn daesn't just affect beam, but like mentioned in my previous post it also affect your general survivability and your ability to surprised your oponent.
it never a good thing, or something that can be consider as just a detail, to have less turnrate.
and anything you can bring to compensate is something that could have been use elsewhere in your build.
....
do you known who i am?
no really... just to check if everythings fine on your side.
you remember you and me having a discussion about that 50 or 100 pages ago?
where i told you i have push my gal x to 20 turn rate
i didn't wait for you to buy the helsman trait in the exchange ( wich give me a fantastic 0.6 turnrate boost btw ) and i aslo use epte.
and i would love to use the strategic maneuvering from time to time if that was an option available in a galaxy x.... but it is not.
howerver just like i said before if the galaxy family problem were just the turnrate, i wouldn't bother to come to the forum to talk about it.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
5 people doing 3k each can almost make the optional, might even have a shot at it if they fly perfect.
5 people doing 5k each will face roll it.
The fact that we have ships that can do 30-40k doesn't mean a ship that can hit 12.5k isn't doing enough damage. Anything over 10k is twice what you are expected to have at the top end of ISE. I'd want some more in Hive or NWS, but even there, anything over 10k is what in wow we would call "Overgeared for the content" and waiting for the next challenge.
Just becuase other ships power creeped up thru the roof, doesn't mean that 12.5k is unacceptable. In fact, it is more then double what I'm expected to have before I've gotten bored of the place.
And while I haven't tried... I think I'd be hard pressed to beat 12.5k in a number of other endgame ships, D'kyr, FDSSV, Golfball... Of course they all bring sci utility to offset the lack. Maybe I'm wrong maybe I could make those ships hit that high nowadays.
I didn't mean offense by "learn to fly," sorry if it came off harsh. But honestly, I don't ever have a problem with turn rate. I can fly a Bortie, I can fly a Gal-X, I can fly a carrier... Turn rate is a non-issue to me entirely in a beam boat once you've done the DHC on a turn 6 cruiser bit. I'm good at big ships. A Gal-R can even sep if you really can't stand the turn... It's like the best RCS generator ever if you can take the hit to your hull. That's why I won't really approach that argument. I can only approach it in ways that seem like "I fly better then you, get over it." I can talk math and stats to the rest of it. If you hate the turn, then I can't change your mind.
The build I keep reffering to I linked earlier in the thread, not far, 3 pages maybe 4. (Edit: Wow, thread grew fast, here is the link: http://www.stoacademy.com/tools/skillplanner/index.php?build=kimdpsgalr_5664 ) Basic A2B with plasma, marion, and DEM... nothing spectacular. Nothing that anybody else gearing a cruiser for DPS wouldn't be using. Hit 12.5k in a single run with no fine tuning and no warm up time or even checking to make sure all my settings were perfect. Even forgot my EWP entirely. A Gal-R can do plenty of DPS. She will never win the race, but she does enough if that is what you want her to do. If you want the ship that does the most damage, and you bought a Gal-R, I can't help that you misread the stats :P
Edit: Ok yeah I have lobi consoles, I got for free with my free lobi, but if I'm having to defend the honor of my DPS against the people churning out 30k, give me the same allowance they have hehe.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
I don't "always" do anything. Only reason why I mentioned the Excel was the complaint about having three "wasted" ensign engineering boff slots. If one is tied to EPTE, it can actually work to offset part of the poor turn ability of the second mentioned problem.
As far as the third problem (limited tac/sci), if Engineer abilities were equal to Tac/Sci in usefulness, this thread really wouldn't exist.
Look atthe last comment. For 'scortson your back, I prefer evasive, epte and reverse with my Gal-X
You will really need to elaborate this comment , I really can't tell if your being sincere or what. (usually any statement that starts with "do you know who I am" is tied to a degree of lunacy, no offense intended). I really don't know where you are going here.
I remember talking to someone about that. Do you own the armor consoles that also give a boost in turn? What are your power levels at. IMHO though a beam ship doesn't need a 20' turn rate,even to keep strong shield facings going.
As far as the Gal-X, thats a beast of a slightly different color, and needs different attention than the R does. What works well on the R doesnt always work well on the X and visa-versa. But thats a different conversation.
i am also strange and prefer to use phasers on my federation ships and hate that to do "acceptable" damage i must use plasma
You're not strange, this game is weird.
I do the same thing, only phasers+quantum on Feds, disruptors+photon on KDF and plasma+plasma on Rommies.
I want to fly my ships as they were in the IP and I just don't overally care much about anything else on that matter. If anyone has complaints they can file them at the complaints desk and I'll get through them.....when the Galaxy gets a revamp.
that sort of agrees with the statement i made any other ship can double the damage and can get away with out having to use a specialized build
it;s been a long time sense i parsed or was parsed but i think at the peak DPS i put out was 12,000 with my gal-r
i am also an engineer so that also hurts and i just can not be bothered to roll a sci or tac toon and redo every thing
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
epte is not an offset, it is a situational choice, it share a cooldown with all eptx power, so also with epts. you can't count on it to enhance your turn like you can do with an rcs console wich boost is always on.
and it is a dangerous game to try to do it in a dragon build style, where you chain epts with epte, in a pvp environement, if the opponent you face have a bit of a brain.
predictable behavior is not the best way to play in pvp.
altrought i saw some do well with it in some escort, you will not be able to escape like they do if things goes wrong with a galaxy.
equal in usefuless? that a little vague, do you mean as efficient?
because engeneer abilitie are as usefull as tact or sci, they just didn't have the same purpose.
i bielieve that there is room for more variety and enhancement with this career, but in the end, if it is done in the same way that cryptic seem to want it to be ( resistance, healing, and power management ) you will end up with a career that would just bring more general resistance.
engi power will not be change to mimik or copy the tactical and science one, that would change the purpose of the career and in consequences will depreciate the purpose of the other career.
seem like a drastic game change to fix just one ship.
so a change in engi power that don't completely change the way this game actually work will only give us more tanky ship in the end.
and for now, no one have been able to show me a tangible example of new eng power in a build that would give options of playstyle to a galaxy retrofit that can not be reproduced by a star cruiser.
i can't see how that can be, but maybe someone can show me, i am open on the idea, maybe i didn't think about that combination, or that power ect etc.
no problem, show me.
if someone can show some new eng power that don't break the balanced of other ship, enhanced engi career and give a role to the galaxy, i would be very exited indeed.
to give you my opinion to this concerning the example i provide earlier, i will not waist my evasive just to bring my broadsive faster on a traget.
i prefer to use it defense score boost to counter an alpha strike and get out of firering arc.
so you really don't remember.
yes i use fleet rcs to enhanced turn and all other trick this game can provide to have aproximatly 20 turn.
and that not for a beam build, better turn is alway good even for beam, but here the price to paid in regard to the little it give you back would be ridiculous.
it was for a cannon build, remember now?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Uhm....how about no?
I can't think of a bigger disgrace to this iconic starship than turn it into something she clearly never was and something that has no place in the ST IP, a carrier.
irrelevant, there is no ship that is not capable to complete stf, even in tier 4.
you can not demonstrate that a ship is balanced or not because you can finish an stf with it or that you can reach x amount of dps with it.
and it is also rather illogical to try demonstrate the dps capabilitie of a tank/healer ship.
that is exactly what you have done by building this ship like a dps machine to "proove" his usefulness.
to your information i fly a DHC galaxy x since LOR, and i don't do it only in pve but pvp and that generally against zipie escort.
so the " i fly better than you, get over it" still sound like an icredible assuption of your.
and been able to fly these ship correctly daesn't blind me to the fact that a bad turn rate and inertia automatically introduced limitation that you have to compensate either by build or playstyle.
that is what every player try to do in every ship, however galaxy player must do with too much limitation at the same time on every front.
you may not feel that a burden in pve, but when playing against the best pvpers they will rapidly show you where this ship limits your performances and potential, and that not matter what you pilotings skill are.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
a single cannon auxtodamp build on a galaxy or DHC auxtodamp on a galaxy x could be very interesting, but that would required a lt commander tact slot.
once again an other interesting combination that are unavailable to the galaxy family due to bo layout limitations.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
The vast majority of game play revolves around PvE.
The Galaxy, as it stands now, can more than get the job done in PvE. Which means, as far as I'm concerned, it's no more broken than other victims of the "power creep", which mostly applies to PvP (the "dead letter stamp" of STO). So, using PvE as a yardstick to measure the Galaxy in-game is more than appropriate.
Is there some flaws to the ship as it stands? Sure. And I wouldn't mind seeing the ship tweaked a little. But it's far from being "broken", when basing evaluations under the facts I mentioned above.
Probably why the developers are in no hurry to "fix" what power gamers, deepsters, PvPers, and hardcore fans seem to think is "broken". It's not going to be an UBERSHIP OF DOOOOOM!!!111!1ONEELVENTY!!1 in the game. It's not going to be changed into a god**mned battleship that can perforate a small moon just because it has big phaser arrays. It's never going to be changed to suit the whims of the deepsters with their DPS monster boats. It's not going to be changed to suit the PvP "miniscule minority" or min/maxxers.
What is going to happen is, until the developers decree otherwise, is that the Galaxy will remain just another big cruiser with a heavier engineering focus than most. And the same four or five people are going to be the main posters in this thread, complaining that the Galaxy sucks because the devs hate it. And talking down to anybody who disagrees with them or has different ideas on how to "improve" it. Not to mention, dog piling anybody who posts that they have success with the ship, instead of being glad for them for enjoying a ship that the aforementioned dog pilers claim to be a fan of. Probably out of some irrational fear that if the devs see people actually enjoy playing the ship in-game, and being successful with it, that they will see no need to change what the detractors claim is "broken".
Which, of course, is total bulls**t when taking the devs' history of changing things into account.
This post isn't entirely directed at any one person. But it's mostly what I see in this thread from where I'm sitting, and seeing the recent argumentative turn the thread has taken. I've seen a lot of good ideas posted. But it's all kosher as long as the ideas run lock-step with what those "four or five people" believe to be the right, and only, answers to the STO Galaxy question.
Open discussion and sharing of ideas should be the order of the day. Polite and civil disagreement and points should be a big part of this discussion (which it always isn't). Talking down and outright slamming people and their ideas does nothing for the "cause".
Just a few points to ponder.
Anyway, peace out.
whos talking about pvp? sure, non dps centered roles for cruisers in pve have little use, but nobody is saying the ship should directly transition from canon into game. if they did that then only a handful of ships could be considered top tier, and everything else would be totally inferior.
its fine because it can struggle through any content? flawed logic. every counter argument to 'just fix the galaxy' is riddled and overflowing with flawed logic. got good dps in it? well combine your talent with any other cruiser and the DPS would be higher. contort and change around eng powers just so the galaxy doesn't suck as bad? that effects every single ship in the game, and the galaxy is still missing out on must have tac or sci skills.
its the worst ship, we can and have proven it. you would be better off with literally any other ship with any other build. its not ok that any ship is the worst at everything, every ship should have something its at least good at, the galaxy doesn't.
Seriously, there's no need to change.
Point 1) The game is, to all appearances, surviving just fine - even thriving. I'm sure the usual doomsayers will come out and talk about how the game is a failure and how it is doomed to be closed soon because of (reasons), but they have no evidence to back up those claims, and their track record is not so great - after all, most of them have been saying the same thing for nigh on to 4 years.
Point 2) Even if you believe the game is indeed in trouble, the odds that it's the Galaxy class' representation in the game that's the problem are... vanishingly slight. The people that matter (see above) don't give a fig about it - they just want the next cool mission, the next new ship, etc. If the game IS doomed, it's not going to be the Galaxy that causes the collapse, nor will it save the game.
Point 3) The literal "need" for a Galaxy change is thus precisely zero. The demonstrated, empirical proof is that the Galaxy class doesn't need to be anything other than what it is for the game to work. What does the game ACTUALLY need to survive? We don't know for sure, I think, but given that the worst time in the game's history was the year of no content, I'd say "new content" is pretty high on everyone's list. Also up there is "new ships", which certainly is something a Galaxy overhaul is likely to trade off with.
Point 4) Since the game doesn't need a Galaxy overhaul to survive, the only remaining justification for such a change is that doing so would provide a net benefit to the game - that is, the benefits would outweigh the costs. This is a real sticking point in this thread, since so far people have been (as far as I can tell) utterly blase about exactly what kind of cost such a change could incur, both in terms of political capital with the player base, and in terms of actual money. While I'm sure the Galaxy fans would like to think it's just a matter of a few keystrokes and done, I'm pretty sure it isn't. For starters, most people want to swap around the console slots and bridge officer seating. Sounds easy, but consider that most ships already have those slots filled with officers and items - what happens when the slots change? Historically, Cryptic as avoided making these types of changes precisely because they are difficult to implement. Adding things isn't so bad, because you can just run a single script and hey presto new ability or open item slot. Changing existing slots, though - rare, because it's much more difficult than people want to believe. Of course, the more radical the proposed solution (like the idea of a new Galaxy 3-pack), the higher the costs are likely to be.
Point 5) The pro change lobby is also remarkably ineffective in their demonstration that making a change would provide a substantial benefit to the game as a whole, despite their constant proclamations at having "proven" a problem exists. Don't get me wrong, they are very good at demonstrating that there would be benefit to themselves, but they can't get past that emotional sense of "I want" to see the bigger picture - At best, changing the Galaxy really benefits only those people who want to fly a Galaxy in the first place, who have a problem with the current rules, who would be satisfied with the specific change made, and who would not be even happier with some entirely different solution. That's like a sub-sub-sub-sub section of the game's population. Even if you assumed the Galaxy was the single most popular ship in Star Trek Fandom (and I'm pretty sure it's not), that's still a small minority of the player base as a whole, and we only make the slice of the pie we're talking about smaller from there.
Point 6) Given the previous two points, the benefits of this change to the average STO player are uncertain at best, and the existence of any kind of net benefit to the game as a whole it thus highly suspect. This means that, in effect, the pro change club is asking for the entire player base to pay the cost in lost dev hours, delayed new content and ships, and additional forum drama (as groups wonder why the Galaxy got special attention and their pet issue didn't), yet only a very very small number of players can expect to see any benefit. This is on face not persuasive to me. If there's no existential need for change to save the game, and there's no net benefit to the majority of the player base, why should we support spending any resources on it?
Point 7) The recent history of this thread has shown that the compromises that reasonable people might support, like a broader overhaul to Eng powers, or granting cruisers in general additional functions (cruiser commands), have been widely panned because they didn't target the Galaxy specifically, and thus didn't solve the perceived problem that the Galaxy is the "worst ship". This might sound reasonable, until you realize that the implication is essentially that they are explicitly not interested in making the game better for the player base as a whole, but rather only in serving the narrow interests of the true Galaxy faithful. If you don't intend to fly a Galaxy, they don't want you to gain an advantage to your own playstyle, because if you did, the changes might not serve their purpose of making it easier for them to use the Galaxy to "beat" you in a game that's generally not a competition in the first place.
On balance, there just isn't a compelling reason for Cryptic to act on their own, and there isn't a compelling reason for the majority of the player base to rise up and demand change, because the majority of players won't get anything out of it. It sucks for the people who can evidently only enjoy the game if they are in a Galaxy and "beating" other players. Happily, the players that actually matter (the rest of us) seem to be able to get on just fine.
If its actived to improve turn rate in some situations, it does offest the ships weaker turn rate. Its as much of a "situational choice" as using a EPTsability on ships with a with poor shield mods when they need. The ship has a third ensign eng. and it can be used for it. The more power to engines, the better the turn, even if it isnt all the time. You know how long the duration is, so at least its more predictable to you.
I wish aux2inertial could be an ensign, but it doesn't. I do it in my Gal-X all the time, its a crappy turner, but I go into it knowing that and use it when I want more turn. As far as escaping, theres always room for a Deut' tank (I never leave home without it on a cruiser).
"Equal in usefulness" in terms of people complaining the same amount (or lackthereof) when a ship has a "full slant" eng, sci or tac build as the Exploration Cruiser has for its boffs
As you have said before, thats a situational choice (and a preference). If you don't like "pulling Rockfords", thats all you, but the options out there, there might be a time that it is the best thing to do. But thats my opinion, just as much as you have yours.
No offense (really, I do mean it), but given the choice of working hard to finish my bachelors TRIBBLE laude, being a new father, dealing with almost losing my wife, and working my internship to earn a job or remembering everyone/thing said in this forum, which would you chose as a priority? I know everyone goes through their own stuff, but I have had alot on my plate for the last several months to give me room to not remember everyone and thier builds/prefs'/etc.
Wasnt the dragon build DBB/BA's? I hope you are using single cannons. IMHO DHC heavy loadouts even on Avengers is a bit risky for not being able to effectively make use of them.
Just to point this out, this is part of the problem I am seeing and why I warned Kymmy that she was wasting her time. It seems (to me) that any idea that isn't inline with certain peoples opinion to "fix the Galaxy" is considered a "counter argument" by them. I am not necessarily saying what Mr-Head is saying is right, but there is a consistant pattern in calling any opinion but those agreed upon by a portion on the thread as against fixing the ship. This is where I take humbrage.
Holy uncoherent ramblings, Batman! :eek:
This is the funniest definition of "uncoherent ramblings" I have ever seen. You, sir, have a career ahead of you as a stand-up comedian.
Seriously, Mr Head's post was the most concentrated good sense on this topic I've seen in several hundred pages.
This response, on the other hand, makes it pretty clear that the comments whamhammer1 made on this thread look to be right on the money.
If not for the fact that intelligent, thoughtful people are being insulted and abused by certain members of this thread (the "four or five" mentioned by oldravenman3025), I'd be sitting back with a tub of popcorn, being vastly entertained by the comedians who seem to believe that they can represent for their favorite ship by behaving in ways that, among responsible adults, are considered counterproductive, at the very least. However, the fact that the best response those Galaxy fans can come up with to a well-reasoned, respectful, intelligent and detailed post is "holy uncoherent ramblings, Batman" says something about the quality of argument they bring to the table. It also says something about how likely it is that they'll ever get what they want, since it is human nature to dig in and refuse to give in to that type of behavior, even if the ones displaying that behavior were (as is not the case in this instance) right.
Coffee, chocolate, bacon, and phasers. What more do I need?