its really time people dropped their personal bias, based on their interpretation of the canon, regarding these ships. and to judge it only as a faceless ship, and on its stats and performance in game. this is what is done for every cryptic design at the very least, and all the otehr canon designs have station setups that outperform thier canon counterpart
Then I'd cry. :P
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
maybe it'll be a tactical. and if it is, will you guys shut up yet? that'll give you as many as the avenger, which is the only cruiser intentionally designed for damage.
While this thread gave the much needed space for Galaxy-X players to share their issues with the heavier sister of the Galaxy in STO, you do realize that this thread was created with the Galaxy-R in mind first, right?
Galaxy Dreadnought Improvements
This from the dev blog. So to bring the Galaxy Dreadnought in line with other dreadnoughts (there is only one other to my knowledge which is the Scimitar) they have changed the ensign tac into an ensign universal. Um.... the ship already lacks tac seating why change one of it's tac seats to universal? This would have made way more sense on the Galaxy Retrofit not the Dreadnought, but hey now it has a hangar bay. -.-
only other dreadnoughts besides scimitar and as you can see have very varied stats.. and boff layouts.
Lieutenant Commander Tactical stations should come standard on Dreadnought-type ships, given that every other ship with "Dreadnought" in the class name has one.
only other dreadnoughts besides scimitar and as you can see have very varied stats.. and boff layouts.
Yah I forgot about the Jem'Hadar because it's a full carrier and the Voth one because I try to ignore the dinos. Seriously tho, how does making the tac ensign universal help the ship at all? It will continue to be used as a tac seat because the ship is so tactically impotent already. Those two ships you linked up there prove that. They along with the scimitar are miles ahead of the dreadnought even with this bs update.
Yah I forgot about the Jem'Hadar because it's a full carrier and the Voth one because I try to ignore the dinos. Seriously tho, how does making the tac ensign universal help the ship at all? It will continue to be used as a tac seat because the ship is so tactically impotent already. Those two ships you linked up there prove that. They along with the scimitar are miles ahead of the dreadnought even with this bs update.
Actually, another Ensign Tactical station is a bit of a hindrance for a beam boat. Turning it to Ensign Science and running Polarize Hull at global is pretty handy.
While this thread gave the much needed space for Galaxy-X players to share their issues with the heavier sister of the Galaxy in STO, you do realize that this thread was created with the Galaxy-R in mind first, right?
i understand that. and while the galaxy-R truly does suffer DPS wise, with only 2 tactical and all, were people really expecting that with the sovereign, oddy, and avenger cruisers around, all designed for more and more damage after the galaxy, that the original would be able to do more then them?
(although the excelsior i really cant explain. that's just.... i have no idea.)
that said, the main argument i've heard is that the galaxy cant compete. with 2 tactical, and 3 science, i can think of many ways to gain agro. at which point, it's ultimate tank function becomes quite useful to a science like my alt. while those pesky escorts own the game, we cruisers and science really need to stick together.
Lieutenant Commander Tactical stations should come standard on Dreadnought-type ships, given that every other ship with "Dreadnought" in the class name has one.
Honestly Dreadnoughts should have Cmdr Tacs, like the scimitar. They are cruisers built for damage... But not for maneuverability, like battlecruisers. At least in this game that's how i see them.
The boff build I see Gal-x using is Cmdr Tac,Lt com engi, lt engi, lt sci, uni ensign
4/4/1 tac/eng/sci
fleet version 5/4/1
Voth bulkwork
Cmdr Tac, Lt com uni , lt sci
,lt sci, ensign uni
console layout 4/2/3 fleet 4/3/3
Something like that would have made more sense IMO
Actually, another Ensign Tactical station is a bit of a hindrance for a beam boat. Turning it to Ensign Science and running Polarize Hull at global is pretty handy.
You need three things for a FaW build. TT1 for survival - this is probably the best defensive skill in the game. Attack Pattern Beta to debuff the target(s) damage resistance rating so that your Fire at will can destroy said target(s). You can argue that you don't need the attack pattern, but your damage will be much lower without it. If you don't believe me go parse it. I did multiple tests with two builds in a foundry farm mission. One build with only FaW the other with FaW and Attack Pattern Beta. The first ship without Beta parsed an average of 7.5k dps. The second ship using Beta parsed at a little over 11k dps. This was with a ship using garbage gear from the exchange. The disparity grows even more once you have fleet and rep gear and all the other fancy toys. So I suppose if you don't mind gimping your damage you can throw polarize hull in there.
i understand that. and while the galaxy-R truly does suffer DPS wise, with only 2 tactical and all, were people really expecting that with the sovereign, oddy, and avenger cruisers around, all designed for more and more damage after the galaxy, that the original would be able to do more then them?
(although the excelsior i really cant explain. that's just.... i have no idea.)
that said, the main argument i've heard is that the galaxy cant compete. with 2 tactical, and 3 science, i can think of many ways to gain agro. at which point, it's ultimate tank function becomes quite useful to a science like my alt. while those pesky escorts own the game, we cruisers and science really need to stick together.
Ideally (for me) - I'd like the following layout for the Galaxy R: TRIBBLE X XXXXX TRIBBLE, with the current console setup. Similar to the D'Deridex, but locked more in engineering.
At this point, I'd satisfy with making the eng.ens universal, if nothing then to add just a bit of flexibility.
What I'm trying to say is, personally I would like more science availible on the R than pure damage. The Fleet Ambassador setup was also sweet for a ship like the Galaxy-R.
Not to say that I can't handle the ship as it is. I can, it's my main ship and I'm quite used to her. Like I said, I'll continue flying my Galaxy untill STO shuts down, hopefully many years from now.
The point I was trying to make is that one of the most iconic ships in the history of Star Trek deserves a better treatment.
the cruiser with the worst damage potentual, proboly could use more damage potential. just throwing that out there.
i mean, ships MUCH better at tanking and healing also have more damage potentual. ther isnt some category of performance the galaxy excels at that would make up for being bad at these 2 things, thats called imbalance.
its really time people dropped their personal bias, based on their interpretation of the canon, regarding these ships. and to judge it only as a faceless ship, and on its stats and performance in game. this is what is done for every cryptic design at the very least, and all the other canon designs have station setups that outperform their canon counterpart
DDIS, I already gave you my $.02, and the arguments I've gotten back were based on nothing but fallacies and pure emotion. Now if you're gonna throw some more opinion-based claims at me, that's fine. But they're not objective.
I have no personal bias at all, if you are accusing me of that. I merely present cold, hard facts, as well as my own opinions which I try to back up with as much reason and justification as I can.
Ideally (for me) - I'd like the following layout for the Galaxy R: TRIBBLE X XXXXX TRIBBLE, with the current console setup. Similar to the D'Deridex, but locked more in engineering.
At this point, I'd satisfy with making the eng.ens universal, if nothing then to add just a bit of flexibility.
What I'm trying to say is, personally I would like more science availible on the R than pure damage. The Fleet Ambassador setup was also sweet for a ship like the Galaxy-R.
Not to say that I can't handle the ship as it is. I can, it's my main ship and I'm quite used to her. Like I said, I'll continue flying my Galaxy untill STO shuts down, hopefully many years from now.
The point I was trying to make is that one of the most iconic ships in the history of Star Trek deserves a better treatment.
indeed. though i wish the game had more customization, being able to choose any Boff layout you want, with the difference between ships being one is better at certain Boff powers.
imagine if some engineering specific ships had a +30% engineering efficiency, but could have any Boff layout you felt like (to the current game's limit of course). that way ships like the avenger could have +15% all beam damage skills, and +15% all power skills. then something like the support cruiser could have +20% all heal/buff skills, with maybe a +10% if used on another player.
but that wishful thinking out of the way, my message now is that the galaxy X does indeed appear to be able to compete now. something for all you galaxy fans to play with. meanwhile i'll go back over with the silent crowd of multivectors, and hope we get our fix.
Actually, another Ensign Tactical station is a bit of a hindrance for a beam boat. Turning it to Ensign Science and running Polarize Hull at global is pretty handy.
APB and FAW1 will get you better beam boat damage, especially in pve. if you actually weren't running an AtB build, you want all enough tac for at least full FAW and TT uptime, making the ENS universal takes away any sort of apparent tac leaning it had, that doesn't make much sense. over all its an improvement of course, an ENS uni an incredibly useful thing that can single handedly improve a ship a huge amount.
i can only hope that by next thrusday they will have taken the universal feedback and at least give it a LTC tac and LT eng, if not give these ships the saucer sep dyson ship station swapping tech they deserve.
PHANTASTIC!!!
like brandon said it is really Xeptional!!
an universal ensign on my galaxy dreadnought!!
WONDERFULL! that EXACTLY what i always wanted!
i mean i always thaught that a lt tact + an ensign tact was really TOO MUCH for a TACTICAL SHIP wich was rename DREADNOUGHT!
no seriously, now i will at last be able to put it in science, or even better in engeeniring to mimick the most OP bo layout available in the game as of today: the galaxy retrofit!!!
a lt commander tact?!!! for a dreadnought?!!! where on hell did you see something like that??!!!!!
pfffff, naaaaa! i got a better idea.
what about loosing half of your firepower to gain a little flexibility in your tanking skill?
that seem like a fair bargain woudn't you said? huh?
and perfectly fit with the role of a tactical ship btw.
and of course the well known recipy, when in doubt slap a hangar bay!!
what? you are not happy? it not over, take this, a useless saucer separation console.
reduced lance cooldown and better accuracy? are you creazy?!! you don't want it to become almost as efficient as a javeling don't you, hey it is a galaxy ship we are talking about man, not a tier 5 cstore ship
yes! it is different!
but we keep the best for the end, we didn't announce what the 10th console will beeeeeeeee! hehehe.
guess what it will be? engi or science?
what? what?
what are you talking about, a tactical console, hello hello anybody home? think mcfly, think!
it a galaxy ship, not a tactical cruiser you idiot!
ho and for the galaxy retrofit? good job! they were nothing that you could have done netter anyway, the ship is already borderless OP with it current bo layout, any change to it would have diminish it.
yeah, even a universal engi ensign.
the ship got too much firepower anyway, and too much flexibility.
i fear the nerf thread with this new separation ability, you can even fire while separating!!
can you imagine! NWS prepare yourself here we come!!!
Let's make sure STO never forgets... the name...Enterprise! captain gecko
DDIS, I already gave you my $.02, and the arguments I've gotten back were based on nothing but fallacies and pure emotion. Now if you're gonna throw some more opinion-based claims at me, that's fine. But they're not objective.
I have no personal bias at all, if you are accusing me of that. I merely present cold, hard facts, as well as my own opinions which I try to back up with as much reason and justification as I can.
your defensiveness does not explain why the cruiser with the worst damage, no CC, and some of the lowest tanking and healing potential should not get a buff to damage, or at least something else. are you trying to say you think it should stay poor and imbalanced? this sounds like a ship costume related bias to me
your defensiveness does not explain why the cruiser with the worst damage, no CC, and some of the lowest tanking and healing potential should not get a buff to damage, or at least something else. are you trying to say you think it should stay poor and imbalanced? this sounds like a ship costume related bias to me
I'm not saying anything like that from my previous post. I've been saying that I agree that the Galaxy-R is the most useless ship right now, and something does need to change to make it better. However, that's where our agreement ends. What I think needs to change isn't the Galaxy-R itself, but other elements of the game. IMO, more BOFF powers need to be added. Gameplay needs to be added that doesn't revolve around who has the most DPS. Ship-specific features(liker saucer sep) need to be enhanced and supported. Passively, I believe that those will automatically make the Galaxy 'better' and more enticing to play.
That is the point I'm making, and I don't mean for it to sound biased at all.
I'm not saying anything like that from my previous post. I've been saying that I agree that the Galaxy-R is the most useless ship right now, and something does need to change to make it better. However, that's where our agreement ends. What I think needs to change isn't the Galaxy-R itself, but other elements of the game. IMO, more BOFF powers need to be added. Gameplay needs to be added that doesn't revolve around who has the most DPS. Ship-specific features(liker saucer sep) need to be enhanced and supported.
That is the point I'm making, and I don't mean for it to sound biased at all.
But we all know that is not happening, ever, so if people are going to try and get Cryptic to change something, it might as well be the slightly more realistic thing. Of course, Cryptic is probably wondering what all of the complaining is about, they probably believe what they changed made the Gal-R powerful or something.
no seriously, now i will at last be able to put it in science, or even better in engeeniring to mimick the most OP bo layout available in the game as of today: the galaxy retrofit!!!
But we all know that is not happening, ever, so if people are going to try and get Cryptic to change something, it might as well be the slightly more realistic thing. Of course, Cryptic is probably wondering what all of the complaining is about, they probably believe what they changed made the Gal-R powerful or something.
Well I'm not gonna claim to know the future. Especially since STO is breaking my own negative MMORPG expectations constantly. They listen to us. They make content constant updates(more than any MMORPG I have ever played combined), and despite the naysayers, they do squash bugs.
Maybe what we specifically want might not come, but I don't think things will stay how we don't want them for long. IMO, of course.
DDIS, I already gave you my $.02, and the arguments I've gotten back were based on nothing but fallacies and pure emotion. Now if you're gonna throw some more opinion-based claims at me, that's fine. But they're not objective, a
I have no personal bias at all, if you are accusing me of that. I merely present cold, hard facts, as well as my own opinions which I try to back up with as much reason and justification as I can.
Okay, since you're so bent on cold, hard facts being the deciding factor of the Fleet Exploration Cruiser's effectiveness, let's analyze the value of my build. It's capable of doing 6,000 DPS solo, and 10,000+ DPS in team missions like Infected: The Conduit (Elite).
If you ignore the costs of actually progressing through the various Reputation tracks, this ship and gear will cost you:
2,500 Zen
1,080,000 Fleet Credits
337,277 Dilithium
200 Lobi Crystals
1,180 Romulan Marks
2,500 Omega Marks
30 Borg Neural Processors
Eleven months of my time and effort poured into acquiring those resources and the Fleet Exploration Cruiser still can't even hit 7,000 solo DPS, the standard to reliably complete No-Win Scenario. Meanwhile, ships like the Ambassador and the Tactical variant of the Odyssey can comfortably meet those requirements with far less investment.
You want to explain to me why this ship doesn't need better damage output?
So looking at the BOFF layouts and console layouts of the three prime ships, I can understand the points, and roles they are supposed to play. Sadly those roles are no longer needed and should be discarded and the ships should be modeled according to design.
Exploration Cruiser. A Cruiser designed for exploration SHOULD IMO have a slightly more well rounded bent, capacity to survive, enough damage output to be able to defend against some level of the unknown, and of course the scientific ability to actually make sense of the exploration part. Frankly I believe that the Exploration Cruiser, (not the Gal X which is supposed to be a Combat Vessel), should have a build more in line with the Ambassador/Support Cruiser. Science, a bit more damage, and of course some durability.
Happy they have some level of fix for the Gal X, but I really want the Exploration Cruiser to get the overhaul it SHOULD have and to be fixed correctly.
Okay, since you're so bent on cold, hard facts being the deciding factor of the Fleet Exploration Cruiser's effectiveness, let's analyze the value of my build. It's capable of doing 6,000 DPS solo, and 10,000+ DPS in team missions like Infected: The Conduit (Elite).
...
Eleven months of my time and effort poured into acquiring those resources and the Fleet Exploration Cruiser still can't even hit 7,000 solo DPS, the standard to reliably complete No-Win Scenario. Meanwhile, ships like the Ambassador and the Tactical variant of the Odyssey can comfortably meet those requirements with far less investment.
You want to explain to me why this ship doesn't need better damage output?
Yes, I'm aware that it lacks enough DPS. But I'm not arguing in favor of the Galaxy having sufficient DPS. See my post here
So looking at the BOFF layouts and console layouts of the three prime ships, I can understand the points, and roles they are supposed to play. Sadly those roles are no longer needed and should be discarded and the ships should be modeled according to design.
Exploration Cruiser. A Cruiser designed for exploration SHOULD IMO have a slightly more well rounded bent, capacity to survive, enough damage output to be able to defend against some level of the unknown, and of course the scientific ability to actually make sense of the exploration part. Frankly I believe that the Exploration Cruiser, (not the Gal X which is supposed to be a Combat Vessel), should have a build more in line with the Ambassador/Support Cruiser. Science, a bit more damage, and of course some durability.
Happy they have some level of fix for the Gal X, but I really want the Exploration Cruiser to get the overhaul it SHOULD have and to be fixed correctly.
yes that pretty much what the galaxy retrofit could have been in this game, we think alike on this one.
yes the pet will give more flexibility and firepower to the gal x but i really would have love a different way than the mrfixit hangar.
Yes, I'm aware that it lacks enough DPS. But I'm not arguing in favor of the Galaxy having sufficient DPS. See my post here
I don't disagree with your approach, but we should plan for both scenarios. Borticus did say "maaaaybe" when I asked him for an Engineering BOff ability review on TTS a couple of months back, but the chances of Cryptic actually changing the underlying systems because of one ship are minimal.
So looking at the BOFF layouts and console layouts of the three prime ships, I can understand the points, and roles they are supposed to play. Sadly those roles are no longer needed and should be discarded and the ships should be modeled according to design.
Exploration Cruiser. A Cruiser designed for exploration SHOULD IMO have a slightly more well rounded bent, capacity to survive, enough damage output to be able to defend against some level of the unknown, and of course the scientific ability to actually make sense of the exploration part. Frankly I believe that the Exploration Cruiser, (not the Gal X which is supposed to be a Combat Vessel), should have a build more in line with the Ambassador/Support Cruiser. Science, a bit more damage, and of course some durability.
Happy they have some level of fix for the Gal X, but I really want the Exploration Cruiser to get the overhaul it SHOULD have and to be fixed correctly.
This is very much in line to what I was thinking regarding this topic.
My completely ideal Exploration Cruiser would have:
Boff slots - TRIBBLEX XXXX X TRIBBLE
Consoles - TRIBBLEXXXXTRIBBLE
Now that seems like a proper layout for an Explorer - a multipurpose ship, that is suposed to venture into the unknown and face whatever she encounters as you said.
I can kinda' understand what they wanted to do with the Galaxy-R, Defiant and Intrepid back then. Too bad the game mechanics don't favour much besides DPS. The end-game is in desperate need of change.
I guess I'll just keep trying to do the best I can with my Galaxy-R.
Comments
Then I'd cry. :P
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
While this thread gave the much needed space for Galaxy-X players to share their issues with the heavier sister of the Galaxy in STO, you do realize that this thread was created with the Galaxy-R in mind first, right?
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Voth_Bulwark_Dreadnought_Cruiser
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Jem%27Hadar_Dreadnought_Carrier
only other dreadnoughts besides scimitar and as you can see have very varied stats.. and boff layouts.
Lieutenant Commander Tactical stations should come standard on Dreadnought-type ships, given that every other ship with "Dreadnought" in the class name has one.
Yah I forgot about the Jem'Hadar because it's a full carrier and the Voth one because I try to ignore the dinos. Seriously tho, how does making the tac ensign universal help the ship at all? It will continue to be used as a tac seat because the ship is so tactically impotent already. Those two ships you linked up there prove that. They along with the scimitar are miles ahead of the dreadnought even with this bs update.
Actually, another Ensign Tactical station is a bit of a hindrance for a beam boat. Turning it to Ensign Science and running Polarize Hull at global is pretty handy.
i understand that. and while the galaxy-R truly does suffer DPS wise, with only 2 tactical and all, were people really expecting that with the sovereign, oddy, and avenger cruisers around, all designed for more and more damage after the galaxy, that the original would be able to do more then them?
(although the excelsior i really cant explain. that's just.... i have no idea.)
that said, the main argument i've heard is that the galaxy cant compete. with 2 tactical, and 3 science, i can think of many ways to gain agro. at which point, it's ultimate tank function becomes quite useful to a science like my alt. while those pesky escorts own the game, we cruisers and science really need to stick together.
Honestly Dreadnoughts should have Cmdr Tacs, like the scimitar. They are cruisers built for damage... But not for maneuverability, like battlecruisers. At least in this game that's how i see them.
The boff build I see Gal-x using is Cmdr Tac,Lt com engi, lt engi, lt sci, uni ensign
4/4/1 tac/eng/sci
fleet version 5/4/1
Voth bulkwork
Cmdr Tac, Lt com uni , lt sci
,lt sci, ensign uni
console layout 4/2/3 fleet 4/3/3
Something like that would have made more sense IMO
You need three things for a FaW build. TT1 for survival - this is probably the best defensive skill in the game. Attack Pattern Beta to debuff the target(s) damage resistance rating so that your Fire at will can destroy said target(s). You can argue that you don't need the attack pattern, but your damage will be much lower without it. If you don't believe me go parse it. I did multiple tests with two builds in a foundry farm mission. One build with only FaW the other with FaW and Attack Pattern Beta. The first ship without Beta parsed an average of 7.5k dps. The second ship using Beta parsed at a little over 11k dps. This was with a ship using garbage gear from the exchange. The disparity grows even more once you have fleet and rep gear and all the other fancy toys. So I suppose if you don't mind gimping your damage you can throw polarize hull in there.
Ideally (for me) - I'd like the following layout for the Galaxy R: TRIBBLE X XXXX X TRIBBLE, with the current console setup. Similar to the D'Deridex, but locked more in engineering.
At this point, I'd satisfy with making the eng.ens universal, if nothing then to add just a bit of flexibility.
What I'm trying to say is, personally I would like more science availible on the R than pure damage. The Fleet Ambassador setup was also sweet for a ship like the Galaxy-R.
Not to say that I can't handle the ship as it is. I can, it's my main ship and I'm quite used to her. Like I said, I'll continue flying my Galaxy untill STO shuts down, hopefully many years from now.
The point I was trying to make is that one of the most iconic ships in the history of Star Trek deserves a better treatment.
I have no personal bias at all, if you are accusing me of that. I merely present cold, hard facts, as well as my own opinions which I try to back up with as much reason and justification as I can.
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
indeed. though i wish the game had more customization, being able to choose any Boff layout you want, with the difference between ships being one is better at certain Boff powers.
imagine if some engineering specific ships had a +30% engineering efficiency, but could have any Boff layout you felt like (to the current game's limit of course). that way ships like the avenger could have +15% all beam damage skills, and +15% all power skills. then something like the support cruiser could have +20% all heal/buff skills, with maybe a +10% if used on another player.
but that wishful thinking out of the way, my message now is that the galaxy X does indeed appear to be able to compete now. something for all you galaxy fans to play with. meanwhile i'll go back over with the silent crowd of multivectors, and hope we get our fix.
APB and FAW1 will get you better beam boat damage, especially in pve. if you actually weren't running an AtB build, you want all enough tac for at least full FAW and TT uptime, making the ENS universal takes away any sort of apparent tac leaning it had, that doesn't make much sense. over all its an improvement of course, an ENS uni an incredibly useful thing that can single handedly improve a ship a huge amount.
i can only hope that by next thrusday they will have taken the universal feedback and at least give it a LTC tac and LT eng, if not give these ships the saucer sep dyson ship station swapping tech they deserve.
like brandon said it is really Xeptional!!
an universal ensign on my galaxy dreadnought!!
WONDERFULL! that EXACTLY what i always wanted!
i mean i always thaught that a lt tact + an ensign tact was really TOO MUCH for a TACTICAL SHIP wich was rename DREADNOUGHT!
no seriously, now i will at last be able to put it in science, or even better in engeeniring to mimick the most OP bo layout available in the game as of today: the galaxy retrofit!!!
a lt commander tact?!!! for a dreadnought?!!! where on hell did you see something like that??!!!!!
pfffff, naaaaa! i got a better idea.
what about loosing half of your firepower to gain a little flexibility in your tanking skill?
that seem like a fair bargain woudn't you said? huh?
and perfectly fit with the role of a tactical ship btw.
and of course the well known recipy, when in doubt slap a hangar bay!!
what? you are not happy? it not over, take this, a useless saucer separation console.
reduced lance cooldown and better accuracy? are you creazy?!! you don't want it to become almost as efficient as a javeling don't you, hey it is a galaxy ship we are talking about man, not a tier 5 cstore ship
yes! it is different!
but we keep the best for the end, we didn't announce what the 10th console will beeeeeeeee! hehehe.
guess what it will be? engi or science?
what? what?
what are you talking about, a tactical console, hello hello anybody home? think mcfly, think!
it a galaxy ship, not a tactical cruiser you idiot!
ho and for the galaxy retrofit? good job! they were nothing that you could have done netter anyway, the ship is already borderless OP with it current bo layout, any change to it would have diminish it.
yeah, even a universal engi ensign.
the ship got too much firepower anyway, and too much flexibility.
i fear the nerf thread with this new separation ability, you can even fire while separating!!
can you imagine! NWS prepare yourself here we come!!!
Let's make sure STO never forgets... the name...Enterprise! captain gecko
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
your defensiveness does not explain why the cruiser with the worst damage, no CC, and some of the lowest tanking and healing potential should not get a buff to damage, or at least something else. are you trying to say you think it should stay poor and imbalanced? this sounds like a ship costume related bias to me
BTW, I love massive threads (kind of like how I love Blue Hypergiant stars).
That is the point I'm making, and I don't mean for it to sound biased at all.
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
But we all know that is not happening, ever, so if people are going to try and get Cryptic to change something, it might as well be the slightly more realistic thing. Of course, Cryptic is probably wondering what all of the complaining is about, they probably believe what they changed made the Gal-R powerful or something.
LMAO!!
Darn it man, you made me spray soda all over my screen! :P
Maybe what we specifically want might not come, but I don't think things will stay how we don't want them for long. IMO, of course.
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
Okay, since you're so bent on cold, hard facts being the deciding factor of the Fleet Exploration Cruiser's effectiveness, let's analyze the value of my build. It's capable of doing 6,000 DPS solo, and 10,000+ DPS in team missions like Infected: The Conduit (Elite).
[Console - Tachyokinetic Converter], [Console - Universal - Assimilated Module], and a [Romulan Tactical Bridge Officer Candidate] to maximize critical hit chance and severity.
[Omega Force Tachyon Deflector Array Mk XII] and the [Omega Force Hyper-Impulse Engines Mk XII] for the Tetryon Glider set bonus.
Three [Romulan Plasma Beam Array Mk XII [Acc]x2]s and three [Advanced Fleet Plasma Beam Array Mk XII [Dmg]x2 [Acc]x2]s with a [Kinetic Cutting Beam Mk XII [Dmg]x3].
[Experimental Romulan Plasma Beam Array] with the [Console - Universal - Zero-Point Energy Conduit] for the +7.6% bonus to base Plasma energy damage.
Three [Console - Science - Flow Capacitor Mk XII [+Th] [Pla]]s for the +28.8% base Plasma energy damage increase.
Two [Console - Tactical - Vulnerability Locator Mk XII [+Pla]]s for the +63.8% increase in Plasma energy damage.
An [Elite Fleet Reinforced Warp Core Mk XII [Rep] [W->A] [ACap] [SSS] for optimal power levels.
If you ignore the costs of actually progressing through the various Reputation tracks, this ship and gear will cost you:
2,500 Zen
1,080,000 Fleet Credits
337,277 Dilithium
200 Lobi Crystals
1,180 Romulan Marks
2,500 Omega Marks
30 Borg Neural Processors
Eleven months of my time and effort poured into acquiring those resources and the Fleet Exploration Cruiser still can't even hit 7,000 solo DPS, the standard to reliably complete No-Win Scenario. Meanwhile, ships like the Ambassador and the Tactical variant of the Odyssey can comfortably meet those requirements with far less investment.
You want to explain to me why this ship doesn't need better damage output?
well, the future last long it seem.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Exploration Cruiser. A Cruiser designed for exploration SHOULD IMO have a slightly more well rounded bent, capacity to survive, enough damage output to be able to defend against some level of the unknown, and of course the scientific ability to actually make sense of the exploration part. Frankly I believe that the Exploration Cruiser, (not the Gal X which is supposed to be a Combat Vessel), should have a build more in line with the Ambassador/Support Cruiser. Science, a bit more damage, and of course some durability.
Happy they have some level of fix for the Gal X, but I really want the Exploration Cruiser to get the overhaul it SHOULD have and to be fixed correctly.
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 that pretty much what the galaxy retrofit could have been in this game, we think alike on this one.
yes the pet will give more flexibility and firepower to the gal x but i really would have love a different way than the mrfixit hangar.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I don't disagree with your approach, but we should plan for both scenarios. Borticus did say "maaaaybe" when I asked him for an Engineering BOff ability review on TTS a couple of months back, but the chances of Cryptic actually changing the underlying systems because of one ship are minimal.
guess so much about the usefulness of giving feedback in these forums
This is very much in line to what I was thinking regarding this topic.
My completely ideal Exploration Cruiser would have:
Boff slots - TRIBBLE X XXXX X TRIBBLE
Consoles - TRIBBLE XXXX TRIBBLE
Now that seems like a proper layout for an Explorer - a multipurpose ship, that is suposed to venture into the unknown and face whatever she encounters as you said.
I can kinda' understand what they wanted to do with the Galaxy-R, Defiant and Intrepid back then. Too bad the game mechanics don't favour much besides DPS. The end-game is in desperate need of change.
I guess I'll just keep trying to do the best I can with my Galaxy-R.
Maybe when we reach 11640 posts we'll get the full revamp?