To bring this back to its original intention, the Galaxy Class in STO is not the same ship which was the Enterprise-D. Therefore this entire game is not really Star Trek, just a space combat simulation with a Star Trek theme. The Galaxy Class will always be more famous and interesting then ANY ship Cryptic creates because its what makes Star Trek.
Cryptic are probably jealous of that fact and thought they would TRIBBLE over the ship as quick as they can.
Honestly, I don't think this is the case. The Excelsior wasn't created by Cryptic, but it's a lot more capable than the Galaxy. The same can be said for the Sovereign, the Negh'Var, the Vor'Cha, the Fleet K'Tinga...the list goes on.
I'd think they were worried about the older Galaxy looking better than the new Sovereign...if not for the fact that the Excelsior is older than both, and is far better than the Galaxy (and is right on even footing with the better versions of the Sovereign).
Also...and this is just my opinion...the Venture class, made by Cryptic, is absolutely beautiful. I'd take it over the Galaxy if they would fix what's broken on it.
Even though the setting is further ahead than the 2360's era of Galaxy-class supremacy, I would agree, the Galaxy-class should make a better accounting of itself than the Excelsior, which I already stated is over 100 years old.
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!
No, all their attention was dedicated to the Odyssey and let every other starship be damned...
The Fleet Excelsior is, arguably, more effective in STF's than the Odyssey...and the Fleet Defiant is, arguably, more effective than both in STF's. Hell, I think the free Negh'Var is more effective than the Odyssey in STF's.
So I still strongly disagree that Cryptic is jealous. I really don't think they sit around the office all day, brooding, and griping about how they'll never make a ship a cool as the Galaxy. IMHO, they already have...but that's a matter of opinion.
I can understand all who request a redesign of the Galaxy. A few weeks ago I was close on buying the Fleet-Version. One look at the Boff-Layout and the turnrate scared me away. The Galaxy should be a versatile cruiser, that does well in all possibles roles you can imagine (but doesn't excel in any). A multi-mission ship like the TNG Enterprise.
Sure, the huge hull looks impressive. But as i stated in other threads, hull is sadly not much of a factor in this game (at least in pvp). One DHC critical hit and that extra hull in comparision with escorts is vaporized.
Agreed. Especially with those one-shot insta-kill Borg torpedoes. Picard's Enterprise-D never had that issue.
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!
I can understand all who request a redesign of the Galaxy. A few weeks ago I was close on buying the Fleet-Version. One look at the Boff-Layout and the turnrate scared me away. The Galaxy should be a versatile cruiser, that does well in all possibles roles you can imagine (but doesn't excel in any). A multi-mission ship like the TNG Enterprise.
Sure, the huge hull looks impressive. But as i stated in other threads, hull is sadly not much of a factor in this game (at least in pvp). One DHC critical hit and that extra hull in comparision with escorts is vaporized.
My initial hope was, they make the galaxy Class much more similar like they did the Tier 5 Nebula Class. It would be something like a engineering counterpart to the Nebula.
I think such a BO layout would have been way more appropriate than this boring brick we have in STO.
Additionally it should have gotten two heavy Beam Arrays, which represents its both huge Phaser arrays on top and bottom of the saucer section. They should either have an integrated Beam Overload III power or do DHC equivalent damage.
It wouldn't be OP or excell in anything but it would be a much better representation to the ship we know than this boring and teethless piece of metal we have in STO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
My initial hope was, they make the galaxy Class much more similar like they did the Tier 5 Nebula Class. It would be something like a engineering counterpart to the Nebula.
I think such a BO layout would have been way more appropriate than this boring brick we have in STO.
Additionally it should have gotten two heavy Beam Arrays, which represents its both huge Phaser arrays on top and bottom of the saucer section. They should either have an integrated Beam Overload III power or do DHC equivalent damage.
It wouldn't be OP or excell in anything but it would be a much better representation to the ship we know than this boring and teethless piece of metal we have in STO.
The Universal slot is a great idea, however it's already been implemented in the Galaxy-class successor, the Odyssey.
An innate ability to have Beam Overload would be nice, it would add some value to the ship.
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!
The problem with threads like this is that they don't take into account the nessesary differences inherent of a three class system. The game is all about smaller ships doing more damage while bigger ships tank. If bigger ships were numerically worse tanks the anger would be ten times worse and rightfully so. To remove this dynamic would render fans of movie, ds9, and voyager trek without competitive ships. They are the majority of fans assuming the distribution is even close to even, so what's wrong with playing diplomat like picard would have done? Most importantly, the role of tank healer is not useless in pve or pvp. I will admit it can be a strain on time for pve, but if you heal your escorts they can keep the guns blazing longer and harder.
I'm 99% sure a group with half as many escorts firing on the target twice as long will kill it quicker thanks to cruiser support.
If you haven't seen a cruiser that can indefinitely tank most escort damage you should pvp some more, I love doing it with my ktinga. Nothing satisfies me more than an evening stroll across the map with a cute little Jem hadar bug that reminds me of my dead dog. Most bugs are better than that, but most other escorts aren't.
Everything in the post tng canon shows us that newer and smaller packs a bigger punch. So it's not like cryptic is walking all over the galaxies grave. You should give being a tos tmp or ent fan a shot, than you'll really know what suffering feels like.
Well, not every Cruiser is going to be suited to Tactical Captains. The Galaxy was aimed at Engineering capability, so decrying it for not having as much Tactical ability as a cruiser built for attack (such as an Excelsior or Regent) isn't really a fair comparison.
As far as the Odyssey goes, the two ships are actually not far apart at all.
Consider....Galaxy-Retrofit vrs Odyssey-Ops.
Odyssey has +2000 hull, +1500 Crew (but crew have no impact on the game, so this is meaningless), +1 Engineering slot, and has and extra 15% shield capability (which translates to an extra 900 shield, on average). Officer seating is more flexible with the two Universal slots, but to match the Galaxy-Retro, these must be assigned to exactly the same configuration, so the only advantage is gained by losing abilities in Engineering capability. +Advanced Slipstream Drive. Cost: +500 (approx. $5.00 USD).
Galaxy-Retro seems to be lacking, but you are also paying 500 less for it, while still gaining a similar ship. Adding to the comparison is if you compare the Fleet options for both ships. Doing that, the balance shifts, with the Fleet Galaxy gaining a +2000 hull over the Odyssey-Ops, eliminating the +1 Engineering slot, and dropping the shield advantage of the Odyssey-Ops to only 5% (300 shields...almost nothing). The fleet store Odyssey is actually inferior to the Odyssey-Ops, so it offers no 'upgrade' to enhance the comparison.
So, for about the same price (Galaxy-Retro+discounted Galaxy Fleet), the only advantages the Odyssey has over the Galaxy-Fleet is an almost non-existant shield enhancement, universal Officers slots that can only be used if the ship is detracted from its Engineering role, and the Advanced Slipstream Drive. It, however, lags behind the Galaxy-Fleet by 2000 Hull. So the differences between the ship are not very much at all, and the Galaxy-Fleet can actually perform better in a battle than the Odyssey-Ops (though it will not get to a particular part of the galaxy as fast, once there it has more hull to withstand punishment).
Now, what about the Tactical Odyssey?
Well, that's a different ship, and the Galaxy's Tactical version would be the Galaxy-X. Comparing the two, we see the Odyssey-Tac has +2000 hull, +15% shielding (900 shields or so), one more Science Console (for an additional 15% shielding bonus on average, bringing the total to +1800 shields), the aforementioned Universal slots which, to match the Galaxy-X, must be allocated the same...so no advantage without sacrificing ability, +5 weapon power, the Aquarius Escort combat pet, and Advanced Slipstream drive.
The Galaxy-X, by comparison, features the Phaser Lance additional weapon, Cloak (damage enhancement), +5 Engine power, and the option to mount Dual Heavy cannon (minor ability, but an option). In the final analysis, the Odyssey-Tac is the tougher ship that will get to a mission faster and have a short-lived combat pet to help it, while the Galaxy-X will have greater damage output and the tactical option to Cloak. Which one is the better Tactical cruiser will depend on your tactics, but since damage output and not durability is the primary defining quality people seem to place on Tactical cruisers, the Galaxy-X comes out the better Tactical cruiser.
So, in my opinion, the Galaxy class is very close to the Odyssey, with a much wider range of different abilities between the Engineering and Tactical versions of itself than that of the Odyssey's versions.
Finally, please remember that the Galaxy class was the face of the main Star Trek series on which much of the franchise is now based, and CBS will be watching how the game treats this class greater than any other, and be most likely to veto anything that smacks of being different than what was displayed in the media (CBS doesn't play STO, and is likely only interested that the class is depicted accurately, not competatively). The classes that STO introduce clear of that oversight and burden of heritage have greater range of control by the Devs, and so they can edit the abilities of the home-grown designs without having to seek permission and legal acceptance by any number of outside agencies.
Well, not every Cruiser is going to be suited to Tactical Captains. The Galaxy was aimed at Engineering capability, so decrying it for not having as much Tactical ability as a cruiser built for attack (such as an Excelsior or Regent) isn't really a fair comparison.
As far as the Odyssey goes, the two ships are actually not far apart at all.
Consider....Galaxy-Retrofit vrs Odyssey-Ops.
Odyssey has +2000 hull, +1500 Crew (but crew have no impact on the game, so this is meaningless), +1 Engineering slot, and has and extra 15% shield capability (which translates to an extra 900 shield, on average). Officer seating is more flexible with the two Universal slots, but to match the Galaxy-Retro, these must be assigned to exactly the same configuration, so the only advantage is gained by losing abilities in Engineering capability. +Advanced Slipstream Drive. Cost: +500 (approx. $5.00 USD).
Galaxy-Retro seems to be lacking, but you are also paying 500 less for it, while still gaining a similar ship. Adding to the comparison is if you compare the Fleet options for both ships. Doing that, the balance shifts, with the Fleet Galaxy gaining a +2000 hull over the Odyssey-Ops, eliminating the +1 Engineering slot, and dropping the shield advantage of the Odyssey-Ops to only 5% (300 shields...almost nothing). The fleet store Odyssey is actually inferior to the Odyssey-Ops, so it offers no 'upgrade' to enhance the comparison.
So, for about the same price (Galaxy-Retro+discounted Galaxy Fleet), the only advantages the Odyssey has over the Galaxy-Fleet is an almost non-existant shield enhancement, universal Officers slots that can only be used if the ship is detracted from its Engineering role, and the Advanced Slipstream Drive. It, however, lags behind the Galaxy-Fleet by 2000 Hull, however. So the differences between the ship are not very much at all, and the Galaxy-Fleet can actually perform better in a battle than the Odyssey-Ops (though it will not get to a particular part of the galaxy as fast, once there it has more hull to withstand punishment).
Now, what about the Tactical Odyssey? Well, that's a different ship, and the Galaxy's Tactical version would be the Galaxy-X. Comparing the two, we see the Odyssey-Tac has +2000 hull, +15% shielding (900 shields or so), one more Science Console (for an additional 15% shielding bonus on average, bringing the total to +1800 shields), the aforementioned Universal slots which, to match the Galaxy-X, must be allocated the same...so no advantage without sacrificing ability, +5 weapon power, the Aquarius Escort combat pet, and Advanced Slipstream drive.
The Galaxy-X, by comparison, features the Phaser Lance additional weapon, Cloak (damage enhancement), +5 Engine power, and the option to mount Dual Heavy cannon (minor ability, but an option). In the final analysis, the Odyssey-Tac is the tougher ship that will get to a mission faster and have a short-lived combat pet to help it, while the Galaxy-X will have greater damage output and the tactical option to Cloak. Which one is the better Tactical cruiser will depend on your tactics, but since damage output and not durability is the primary defining quality people seem to place on Tactical cruisers, the Galaxy-X comes out the better Tactical cruiser.
So, in my opinion, the Galaxy class is very close to the Odyssey, with a much wider range of different abilities between the Engineering and Tactical versions of itself than that of the Odyssey's versions.
Finally, please remember that the Galaxy class was the face of the main Star Trek series on which much of the franchise is now based, and CBS will be watching how the game treats this class greater than any other, and be most likely to veto anything that smacks of being different than what was displayed in the media (CBS doesn't play STO, and is likely only interested that the class is depicted accurately, not competatively). The classes that STO introduce clear of that oversight and burden of heritage have greater range of control by the Devs, and so they can edit the abilities of the home-grown designs without having to seek permission and legal acceptance by any number of outside agencies.
Hope this helps.
My own two cents.
More like two dollars. *rubs eyes*
Yeah, the Galaxy Retrofit and the Odyssey are comparable, but I still feel that the Galaxy class should be a better tanker than the Excelsior is (or so I've heard, that's why I'm picking one up soon). Galaxy's are newer, bigger, and more technologically advanced. Why are there so few in comparison to the much older Excelsiors?
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!
The problem with the Galaxy is that it's pigeon-holed hard by it's boff layout, but it's not even too great at that. As a healer, it can be pretty boss, but it's never going to be as good as a Star Cruiser or Odyssey in that role.
The sad fact is, Cryptic does not want it to be good. Why? I've no idea. But even when the fleet upgrades came into being its opposite number, the Negh'var got a more useful additional console and a universal lieutenant slot. Why this wasn't done for the Galaxy R as well is unfathomable, unless you look past logical reasons to petty ones.
The Devs have a history of doing what pleases them rather than what's best for the game when it comes to things like this and what they perceive as cool. At the end of the day, I doubt anything'll change for the Galaxy R. One of the most featured designs in Star Trek is consigned to the proverbial scrapheap when upgrades for ships like the Excelsior or K't'inga to maintain usefulness in the 25th century (at endgame level) are par for the course.
My only hope is that we stop seeing new ships with sub-7 base turn rates. That's the absolute rock bottom at this point that I can really stand to fly.
Yeah, the Galaxy Retrofit and the Odyssey are comparable, but I still feel that the Galaxy class should be a better tanker than the Excelsior is (or so I've heard, that's why I'm picking one up soon). Galaxy's are newer, bigger, and more technologically advanced. Why are there so few in comparison to the much older Excelsiors?
Yeah, sorry for the wall of text, but when you are comparing not just two ships but four, and with different roles, it's not a simple thing.
As far as the Galaxy's being 'newer' and 'more technologically advanced', that isn't a true statement.
The Galaxy class was that when they were built, and they perform very well even in STO's time, just as the T3 Excelsior does (though the actual Excelsior and Lakota class ships don't actually exist anymore, as these would need to be standard drive versions, and none of those exist in STO). However, they were designed as exploration ships to move large numbers of -civilians- over long periods of travel as much as anything else, and didn't really offer anything to justify major changes to their design until the Galaxy-X.
The Excelsiors, by comparison, were designed to use Transwarp drive, a very unique spacetravel method. While they were relegated to workhorse duty when it failed, and many were replaced by the Sovereign class when it came online, they retained the needed engineering considerations no other ship had. When the Transwarp Drive was made workable, the Excelsior class had a reason for Starfleet to construct new ships with the very latest technology (T3 and T5 Excelsior class) to use it, while the Galaxy class received the Galaxy-X major modifications to turn it into a dreadnaught.
So the Excelsiors everyone is using to compare to the latest cruisers in the game are, in fact, very modern ships with the latest technology and a very unique drive system that makes it worthwhile to build them. The Galaxy-class, by comparison, is a good workhorse design that lacks any real reason for Starfleet to change it noticably for it to continue to do its job, except for when they need a new dreadnaught.
And I don't see the Galaxy-X as inferior to the Excelsior. Just different.
Yeah, the Galaxy Retrofit and the Odyssey are comparable, but I still feel that the Galaxy class should be a better tanker than the Excelsior is (or so I've heard, that's why I'm picking one up soon). Galaxy's are newer, bigger, and more technologically advanced. Why are there so few in comparison to the much older Excelsiors?
But the fleet galaxy is a better healer and tank in every measurable way, even to the fleet excelsior.
The Galaxy should be a better battleship, it fought in the Dominion War, not in a support role but as a front-line battleship at all major battles. Its lack of tactical power is what makes it weak and non-viable.
I know the reason why the Devs want the Galaxy to suck, because they want to promote THEIR designs and THEIR work over the classic Star Trek feel.
The Galaxy should be a better battleship, it fought in the Dominion War, not in a support role but as a front-line battleship at all major battles. Its lack of tactical power is what makes it weak and non-viable.
I know the reason why the Devs want the Galaxy to suck, because they want to promote THEIR designs and THEIR work over the classic Star Trek feel.
Which is the same reason why the bug is the best escort, followed by the defiant and the Prometheus class, oh and the Akira too.
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!
ah the galaxy class, the biggest victim of ship stats and stat trends in the game.
first we have the defient to thank for that. being so tactical focused, the tac ensign made sense on it. but that also dragged along it's tier mates, the galaxy and intrepid along with it to VA. the intrepid certainly doesn't suffer from its station setup, there are a ton of great sci abilities at ensign. though the station setup hardly matches the intrepid that well imo. something more along the lines of COM sci, LTC tac, LT sci, TL eng and ENS eng would be the actual intrepid class.
of but the galaxy, also being slave to the defiant station setup, suffers greatly. its exacerbated more recently with doffs like the tech doffs and the damage control doffs, that allow you to run only 1 copy of any of the EPtX ability, and it lets you have the uptime of having 2 of those abilities. so 3 at ensign level and 1 at LT level for your s subsytem boosting abilities is very outdated on a cruiser, a waist of slots. when using the right doffs, you have the 3rd odd eng ENS, the only thing you can put there is ET1, a mediocre heal that interrupts TT and ST cooldowns. at also makes having ET3 anywhere on the ship feel redundant and unideal. regardless, you got global cooldowns interrupting your healing and supporting in ways the star cruiser for example doesn't have to deal with. the ensifn level sci heals are extremly good compared to just ET1. so your a worse healer no mater what then a star cruiser. as it is theres no other point to this ship then to heal with it, and its already got a built in hurdle for doing that well.
its worth mentioning that the flawed ship system has not a single advantage associated with size. not more or better station powers, not more powerful weapons, no noticeable increase in base hitpoints, no subsystem power level advantage, none of that. thats just all i can think of off the top of my head for big ship advantages, and there are non of them. small ships on the other hand have the same stats as large ships, like excelsior, ktinga, wile also having small ship advantages. higher turn rate, higher impulse mods, access to stupidly more powerful weapons, ability to actually use torpedoes effectively, higher defense scores, and station powers that synergize with, and improve all those advantages. there is nothing to synergize with largeness at all, even turn consoles hate large ships and favor already high turn rates. nothing synergizes with largeness because theres not a single advantage to largeness. so its fare to say the bigger it is, the worse it is.
well the galaxy class specifically, it needs to be broken away from the defiant station type. but what of the galaxy from canons? that should be the guide to any galaxy class fix. we didn't get to see the D do all that much fighting, as the federation was basically at peace with everything, and fighting is expensive in the pre cgi day. then the cardasian and the fact that they were at war for the federation for decades got added. other conflicts got mentioned too, "the last tzenkethy war", implying there were several, tholians destroying star bases, so some warfare there, and skirmishes with other minor powers too. all of these things mentioned happening off screen took place durring development of the galaxy class. oh, its built to defend the federation alright.
the galaxy is twice the volume of the ambassador class that it succeeded, and all ships that came after it in cannon are so much smaller then it, that the volume of the saucer alone is greater then any of them, by a substantial amount. in fact 1 akira class and 1 sovereign class combined have only slightly more volume then a galaxy class's saucer. length is a misleading figure among ships, volume means actual size.
according to the show creators made tech manuals, the galaxy class design objectives were to
Provide a mobile platform for a wide range of ongoing scientific and cultural research projects.
Replace aging Ambassador and Oberth class starships as primary instruments of Starfleet's exploration programs.
Provide autonomous capability for full execution of Federation policy options in outlying areas.
Incorporate recent advancements in warp powerplant technology and improved science instrumentation.
before anyone says the galaxy is just old and inferior
DESIGN LIFE
Spaceframe design life of approximately one hundred
years, assuming approximately five major shipwide system
swapouts and upgrades at average intervals of twenty years.
Such upgrades help insure the continuing usefulness of the
ship even though significant advances in technology are
anticipated during that time. Minor refurbishment and upgrade
to occur at approximately one- to five-year intervals,
depending on specific mission requirements and hardware
availability.
there is every indication that the galaxy would age better then the ambassador at this point in its existence too. it comes with extreamly large phaser arrays, extreamly large torpedo bays and is designed to have basically every component swappable decades later as technology progresses.
this is also an interesting passage
DESIGN LIFE
The forty-two decks are internally divided around major
load-bearing structures. A great many systems, especially
the pressurized habitation sections, are suspended within the
open spaces, essentially "floating" on flexible ligaments to
minimize mechanical, thermal, and conductive radiation
shocks. As the Enterprise left the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards,
approximately 35% of the internal volume was not yet filled
with room modules and remained as empty spaceframe for
future expansion and mission-specific applications.
it sounds like a significant, if not a majority amount of the ship is modular, and whats the same thing as being modular in game? universal stations. the ship we see in canon, and described by the creators of canon, is not some insanely overspecialized for engendering fail ship. its a ship with near bop like universal station potential. that should be an advantage to largeness, modular setups granted by universal stations.
fixed galaxy R stations
COM eng
LTC eng
LT uni
LT uni
ENS uni
3 universal stations, but dont worry, your a lot more limited in potential setup then you might think. you have the 3 low level stations to arrange your sci and tactical as you please, to be assault or star cruiser like or have a double LT in one or the other. there is no access to any high end LTC and up abilities here. with the galaxy r's movement and firepower disadvantage, a setup like this would give it a shot at relevance unmong other choices.
i think the fleet version should have a universal LTC as well, with only the COM eng established. you could make one of the LTs eng, but that would prevent COM and LTC setups. with what you could build off of this, it still wouldn't be a better healer then the recluse or the sci ody ether.
and for christ sake, a 4/3/3 console setup, the galaxy isn't an engineering to a fault ship like the fail POS we have in game. best of all these changes don't take away anything from anyone crazy enough to complain about a change to the station setup, you can maintain the fail setup all you want.
i wont even get into how powerful its weapon are in canon, and how it should be at the top of the firepower food chain, and not literally the bottom in game. this is enough.
ah the galaxy class, the biggest victim of ship stats and stat trends in the game.
first we have the defient to thank for that. being so tactical focused, the tac ensign made sense on it. but that also dragged along it's tier mates, the galaxy and intrepid along with it to VA. the intrepid certainly doesn't suffer from its station setup, there are a ton of great sci abilities at ensign. though the station setup hardly matches the intrepid that well imo. something more along the lines of COM sci, LTC tac, LT sci, TL eng and ENS eng would be the actual intrepid class.
of but the galaxy, also being slave to the defiant station setup, suffers greatly. its exacerbated more recently with doffs like the tech doffs and the damage control doffs, that allow you to run only 1 copy of any of the EPtX ability, and it lets you have the uptime of having 2 of those abilities. so 3 at ensign level and 1 at LT level for your s subsytem boosting abilities is very outdated on a cruiser, a waist of slots. when using the right doffs, you have the 3rd odd eng ENS, the only thing you can put there is ET1, a mediocre heal that interrupts TT and ST cooldowns. at also makes having ET3 anywhere on the ship feel redundant and unideal. regardless, you got global cooldowns interrupting your healing and supporting in ways the star cruiser for example doesn't have to deal with. the ensifn level sci heals are extremly good compared to just ET1. so your a worse healer no mater what then a star cruiser. as it is theres no other point to this ship then to heal with it, and its already got a built in hurdle for doing that well.
its worth mentioning that the flawed ship system has not a single advantage associated with size. not more or better station powers, not more powerful weapons, no noticeable increase in base hitpoints, no subsystem power level advantage, none of that. thats just all i can think of off the top of my head for big ship advantages, and there are non of them. small ships on the other hand have the same stats as large ships, like excelsior, ktinga, wile also having small ship advantages. higher turn rate, higher impulse mods, access to stupidly more powerful weapons, ability to actually use torpedoes effectively, higher defense scores, and station powers that synergize with, and improve all those advantages. there is nothing to synergize with largeness at all, even turn consoles hate large ships and favor already high turn rates. nothing synergizes with largeness because theres not a single advantage to largeness. so its fare to say the bigger it is, the worse it is.
well the galaxy class specifically, it needs to be broken away from the defiant station type. but what of the galaxy from canons? that should be the guide to any galaxy class fix. we didn't get to see the D do all that much fighting, as the federation was basically at peace with everything, and fighting is expensive in the pre cgi day. then the cardasian and the fact that they were at war for the federation for decades got added. other conflicts got mentioned too, "the last tzenkethy war", implying there were several, tholians destroying star bases, so some warfare there, and skirmishes with other minor powers too. all of these things mentioned happening off screen took place durring development of the galaxy class. oh, its built to defend the federation alright.
the galaxy is twice the volume of the ambassador class that it succeeded, and all ships that came after it in cannon are so much smaller then it, that the volume of the saucer alone is greater then any of them, by a substantial amount. in fact 1 akira class and 1 sovereign class combined have only slightly more volume then a galaxy class's saucer. length is a misleading figure among ships, volume means actual size.
according to the show creators made tech manuals, the galaxy class design objectives were to
Provide a mobile platform for a wide range of ongoing scientific and cultural research projects.
Replace aging Ambassador and Oberth class starships as primary instruments of Starfleet's exploration programs.
Provide autonomous capability for full execution of Federation policy options in outlying areas.
Incorporate recent advancements in warp powerplant technology and improved science instrumentation.
before anyone says the galaxy is just old and inferior
DESIGN LIFE
Spaceframe design life of approximately one hundred
years, assuming approximately five major shipwide system
swapouts and upgrades at average intervals of twenty years.
Such upgrades help insure the continuing usefulness of the
ship even though significant advances in technology are
anticipated during that time. Minor refurbishment and upgrade
to occur at approximately one- to five-year intervals,
depending on specific mission requirements and hardware
availability.
there is every indication that the galaxy would age better then the ambassador at this point in its existence too. it comes with extreamly large phaser arrays, extreamly large torpedo bays and is designed to have basically every component swappable decades later as technology progresses.
this is also an interesting passage
DESIGN LIFE
The forty-two decks are internally divided around major
load-bearing structures. A great many systems, especially
the pressurized habitation sections, are suspended within the
open spaces, essentially "floating" on flexible ligaments to
minimize mechanical, thermal, and conductive radiation
shocks. As the Enterprise left the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards,
approximately 35% of the internal volume was not yet filled
with room modules and remained as empty spaceframe for
future expansion and mission-specific applications.
it sounds like a significant, if not a majority amount of the ship is modular, and whats the same thing as being modular in game? universal stations. the ship we see in canon, and described by the creators of canon, is not some insanely overspecialized for engendering fail ship. its a ship with near bop like universal station potential. that should be an advantage to largeness, modular setups granted by universal stations.
fixed galaxy R stations
COM eng
LTC eng
LT uni
LT uni
ENS uni
3 universal stations, but dont worry, your a lot more limited in potential setup then you might think. you have the 3 low level stations to arrange your sci and tactical as you please, to be assault or star cruiser like or have a double LT in one or the other. there is no access to any high end LTC and up abilities here. with the galaxy r's movement and firepower disadvantage, a setup like this would give it a shot at relevance unmong other choices.
i think the fleet version should have a universal LTC as well, with only the COM eng established. you could make one of the LTs eng, but that would prevent COM and LTC setups. with what you could build off of this, it still wouldn't be a better healer then the recluse or the sci ody ether.
and for christ sake, a 4/3/3 console setup, the galaxy isn't an engineering to a fault ship like the fail POS we have in game. best of all these changes don't take away anything from anyone crazy enough to complain about a change to the station setup, you can maintain the fail setup all you want.
i wont even get into how powerful its weapon are in canon, and how it should be at the top of the firepower food chain, and not literally the bottom in game. this is enough.
*rubs eyes more*
Even though I skim-read this, for the majority of the passage, I agree with the proposals here. Cryptic not only botched the look of the Galaxy class, but also the stats.
The excess Universal slots are intriguing, and offer a lot of flexibility, similar to the many roles the Enterprise-D was capable of fulfilling in the show. We'll see what happens - it is radical, and something doesn't feel right about all those Universal seats, but I'll support it.
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!
The galaxy class is represented just fine in the game. Other than it should have one or two universal slots to represent it's versatility but other than that it is fine.
Instead they should fix the underlining problems that cause the issues. Like terrible Cruiser turn rates, lack of ensign abilities for Eng, and Tac to an extent, and the general inferiority of beams.
The galaxy class is represented just fine in the game. Other than it should have one or two universal slots to represent it's versatility but other than that it is fine.
Instead they should fix the underlining problems that cause the issues. Like terrible Cruiser turn rates, lack of ensign abilities for Eng, and Tac to an extent, and the general inferiority of beams.
So, you're saying it's fine, but it isn't.
In other words, it's not fine.
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!
What this Ship needs it a special Beam Ability/Console that will do the attack from the video where the phaser light travels from both ends of the saucer until it combines into one heavy beam. like the scene where it one shotted the BOP. Make it similar to the Galaxy X's lance or the Vesta's Beam attack but not quite as strong but with a 40 sec cool down. Make it so you need to boost it with BO3 or an ACC booster or Crit booster. It would give cruisers something like an escourts CFR3. Escourts hitting TT attack pattern alpha and go down fighting and attack pattern beta then CRF3 can strip facing shields and %50 of hull in one pass, Call it "Focus Beam arrays" And give it the power to spike as much as cannon rapid fire does and that would begin to bring cruiser back into the game. Its counter is the visual build up. You would see the two/three lights brighten the start to travel down the saucer until they combine and fire, the person being targeted would have about 2 sec to hit evasive or TT or EPTS to absorb it. So an eject warp plasma or a Tractor beam would work well with it. It has to be more powerful that BO3, It should be similar to an escourts attack pattern that you can combine it with BO3 for really powerful attacks.
.
What this Ship needs it a special Beam Ability/Console that will do the attack from the video where the phaser light travels from both ends of the saucer until it combines into one heavy beam. like the scene where it one shotted the BOP. Make it similar to the Galaxy X's lance or the Vesta's Beam attack but not quite as strong but with a 40 sec cool down. Make it so you need to boost it with BO3 or an ACC booster or Crit booster. It would give cruisers something like an escourts CFR3. Escourts hitting TT attack pattern alpha and go down fighting and attack pattern beta then CRF3 can strip facing shields and %50 of hull in one pass, Call it "Focus Beam arrays" And give it the power to spike as much as cannon rapid fire does and that would begin to bring cruiser back into the game. Its counter is the visual build up. You would see the two/three lights brighten the start to travel down the saucer until they combine and fire, the person being targeted would have about 2 sec to hit evasive or TT or EPTS to absorb it. So an eject warp plasma or a Tractor beam would work well with it. It has to be more powerful that BO3, It should be similar to an escourts attack pattern that you can combine it with BO3 for really powerful attacks.
.
That "both ends of the saucer into a heavy beam" is the phaser effect that is supposed to be in this game in the first place. That's the standard shipboard phaser.
However, the ability to use an innate Beam Overload III or something would be interesting.
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!
Comments
Honestly, I don't think this is the case. The Excelsior wasn't created by Cryptic, but it's a lot more capable than the Galaxy. The same can be said for the Sovereign, the Negh'Var, the Vor'Cha, the Fleet K'Tinga...the list goes on.
I'd think they were worried about the older Galaxy looking better than the new Sovereign...if not for the fact that the Excelsior is older than both, and is far better than the Galaxy (and is right on even footing with the better versions of the Sovereign).
Also...and this is just my opinion...the Venture class, made by Cryptic, is absolutely beautiful. I'd take it over the Galaxy if they would fix what's broken on it.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
The Fleet Excelsior is, arguably, more effective in STF's than the Odyssey...and the Fleet Defiant is, arguably, more effective than both in STF's. Hell, I think the free Negh'Var is more effective than the Odyssey in STF's.
So I still strongly disagree that Cryptic is jealous. I really don't think they sit around the office all day, brooding, and griping about how they'll never make a ship a cool as the Galaxy. IMHO, they already have...but that's a matter of opinion.
Sure, the huge hull looks impressive. But as i stated in other threads, hull is sadly not much of a factor in this game (at least in pvp). One DHC critical hit and that extra hull in comparision with escorts is vaporized.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
My initial hope was, they make the galaxy Class much more similar like they did the Tier 5 Nebula Class. It would be something like a engineering counterpart to the Nebula.
Tac: Lt
Engineering: Cmdr
Engineering: Ensign
Science: Lt.Cmdr
Universal: Lt
I think such a BO layout would have been way more appropriate than this boring brick we have in STO.
Additionally it should have gotten two heavy Beam Arrays, which represents its both huge Phaser arrays on top and bottom of the saucer section. They should either have an integrated Beam Overload III power or do DHC equivalent damage.
It wouldn't be OP or excell in anything but it would be a much better representation to the ship we know than this boring and teethless piece of metal we have in STO.
The Universal slot is a great idea, however it's already been implemented in the Galaxy-class successor, the Odyssey.
An innate ability to have Beam Overload would be nice, it would add some value to the ship.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I'm 99% sure a group with half as many escorts firing on the target twice as long will kill it quicker thanks to cruiser support.
If you haven't seen a cruiser that can indefinitely tank most escort damage you should pvp some more, I love doing it with my ktinga. Nothing satisfies me more than an evening stroll across the map with a cute little Jem hadar bug that reminds me of my dead dog. Most bugs are better than that, but most other escorts aren't.
Everything in the post tng canon shows us that newer and smaller packs a bigger punch. So it's not like cryptic is walking all over the galaxies grave. You should give being a tos tmp or ent fan a shot, than you'll really know what suffering feels like.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
As far as the Odyssey goes, the two ships are actually not far apart at all.
Consider....Galaxy-Retrofit vrs Odyssey-Ops.
Odyssey has +2000 hull, +1500 Crew (but crew have no impact on the game, so this is meaningless), +1 Engineering slot, and has and extra 15% shield capability (which translates to an extra 900 shield, on average). Officer seating is more flexible with the two Universal slots, but to match the Galaxy-Retro, these must be assigned to exactly the same configuration, so the only advantage is gained by losing abilities in Engineering capability. +Advanced Slipstream Drive. Cost: +500 (approx. $5.00 USD).
Galaxy-Retro seems to be lacking, but you are also paying 500 less for it, while still gaining a similar ship. Adding to the comparison is if you compare the Fleet options for both ships. Doing that, the balance shifts, with the Fleet Galaxy gaining a +2000 hull over the Odyssey-Ops, eliminating the +1 Engineering slot, and dropping the shield advantage of the Odyssey-Ops to only 5% (300 shields...almost nothing). The fleet store Odyssey is actually inferior to the Odyssey-Ops, so it offers no 'upgrade' to enhance the comparison.
So, for about the same price (Galaxy-Retro+discounted Galaxy Fleet), the only advantages the Odyssey has over the Galaxy-Fleet is an almost non-existant shield enhancement, universal Officers slots that can only be used if the ship is detracted from its Engineering role, and the Advanced Slipstream Drive. It, however, lags behind the Galaxy-Fleet by 2000 Hull. So the differences between the ship are not very much at all, and the Galaxy-Fleet can actually perform better in a battle than the Odyssey-Ops (though it will not get to a particular part of the galaxy as fast, once there it has more hull to withstand punishment).
Now, what about the Tactical Odyssey?
Well, that's a different ship, and the Galaxy's Tactical version would be the Galaxy-X. Comparing the two, we see the Odyssey-Tac has +2000 hull, +15% shielding (900 shields or so), one more Science Console (for an additional 15% shielding bonus on average, bringing the total to +1800 shields), the aforementioned Universal slots which, to match the Galaxy-X, must be allocated the same...so no advantage without sacrificing ability, +5 weapon power, the Aquarius Escort combat pet, and Advanced Slipstream drive.
The Galaxy-X, by comparison, features the Phaser Lance additional weapon, Cloak (damage enhancement), +5 Engine power, and the option to mount Dual Heavy cannon (minor ability, but an option). In the final analysis, the Odyssey-Tac is the tougher ship that will get to a mission faster and have a short-lived combat pet to help it, while the Galaxy-X will have greater damage output and the tactical option to Cloak. Which one is the better Tactical cruiser will depend on your tactics, but since damage output and not durability is the primary defining quality people seem to place on Tactical cruisers, the Galaxy-X comes out the better Tactical cruiser.
So, in my opinion, the Galaxy class is very close to the Odyssey, with a much wider range of different abilities between the Engineering and Tactical versions of itself than that of the Odyssey's versions.
Finally, please remember that the Galaxy class was the face of the main Star Trek series on which much of the franchise is now based, and CBS will be watching how the game treats this class greater than any other, and be most likely to veto anything that smacks of being different than what was displayed in the media (CBS doesn't play STO, and is likely only interested that the class is depicted accurately, not competatively). The classes that STO introduce clear of that oversight and burden of heritage have greater range of control by the Devs, and so they can edit the abilities of the home-grown designs without having to seek permission and legal acceptance by any number of outside agencies.
Hope this helps.
My own two cents.
More like two dollars. *rubs eyes*
Yeah, the Galaxy Retrofit and the Odyssey are comparable, but I still feel that the Galaxy class should be a better tanker than the Excelsior is (or so I've heard, that's why I'm picking one up soon). Galaxy's are newer, bigger, and more technologically advanced. Why are there so few in comparison to the much older Excelsiors?
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
The sad fact is, Cryptic does not want it to be good. Why? I've no idea. But even when the fleet upgrades came into being its opposite number, the Negh'var got a more useful additional console and a universal lieutenant slot. Why this wasn't done for the Galaxy R as well is unfathomable, unless you look past logical reasons to petty ones.
The Devs have a history of doing what pleases them rather than what's best for the game when it comes to things like this and what they perceive as cool. At the end of the day, I doubt anything'll change for the Galaxy R. One of the most featured designs in Star Trek is consigned to the proverbial scrapheap when upgrades for ships like the Excelsior or K't'inga to maintain usefulness in the 25th century (at endgame level) are par for the course.
My only hope is that we stop seeing new ships with sub-7 base turn rates. That's the absolute rock bottom at this point that I can really stand to fly.
Yeah, sorry for the wall of text, but when you are comparing not just two ships but four, and with different roles, it's not a simple thing.
As far as the Galaxy's being 'newer' and 'more technologically advanced', that isn't a true statement.
The Galaxy class was that when they were built, and they perform very well even in STO's time, just as the T3 Excelsior does (though the actual Excelsior and Lakota class ships don't actually exist anymore, as these would need to be standard drive versions, and none of those exist in STO). However, they were designed as exploration ships to move large numbers of -civilians- over long periods of travel as much as anything else, and didn't really offer anything to justify major changes to their design until the Galaxy-X.
The Excelsiors, by comparison, were designed to use Transwarp drive, a very unique spacetravel method. While they were relegated to workhorse duty when it failed, and many were replaced by the Sovereign class when it came online, they retained the needed engineering considerations no other ship had. When the Transwarp Drive was made workable, the Excelsior class had a reason for Starfleet to construct new ships with the very latest technology (T3 and T5 Excelsior class) to use it, while the Galaxy class received the Galaxy-X major modifications to turn it into a dreadnaught.
So the Excelsiors everyone is using to compare to the latest cruisers in the game are, in fact, very modern ships with the latest technology and a very unique drive system that makes it worthwhile to build them. The Galaxy-class, by comparison, is a good workhorse design that lacks any real reason for Starfleet to change it noticably for it to continue to do its job, except for when they need a new dreadnaught.
And I don't see the Galaxy-X as inferior to the Excelsior. Just different.
That's the Constitution-class.
But the fleet galaxy is a better healer and tank in every measurable way, even to the fleet excelsior.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
Alas, now if only all those Gal-R pilots would use TC so their tankiness would be useful.
I'm a Gal-R pilot and would love to use TC. So, ahhh... what's TC again?
I know the reason why the Devs want the Galaxy to suck, because they want to promote THEIR designs and THEIR work over the classic Star Trek feel.
Which is the same reason why the bug is the best escort, followed by the defiant and the Prometheus class, oh and the Akira too.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
This^ is the Galaxy ship I want.
Don't we all
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
first we have the defient to thank for that. being so tactical focused, the tac ensign made sense on it. but that also dragged along it's tier mates, the galaxy and intrepid along with it to VA. the intrepid certainly doesn't suffer from its station setup, there are a ton of great sci abilities at ensign. though the station setup hardly matches the intrepid that well imo. something more along the lines of COM sci, LTC tac, LT sci, TL eng and ENS eng would be the actual intrepid class.
of but the galaxy, also being slave to the defiant station setup, suffers greatly. its exacerbated more recently with doffs like the tech doffs and the damage control doffs, that allow you to run only 1 copy of any of the EPtX ability, and it lets you have the uptime of having 2 of those abilities. so 3 at ensign level and 1 at LT level for your s subsytem boosting abilities is very outdated on a cruiser, a waist of slots. when using the right doffs, you have the 3rd odd eng ENS, the only thing you can put there is ET1, a mediocre heal that interrupts TT and ST cooldowns. at also makes having ET3 anywhere on the ship feel redundant and unideal. regardless, you got global cooldowns interrupting your healing and supporting in ways the star cruiser for example doesn't have to deal with. the ensifn level sci heals are extremly good compared to just ET1. so your a worse healer no mater what then a star cruiser. as it is theres no other point to this ship then to heal with it, and its already got a built in hurdle for doing that well.
its worth mentioning that the flawed ship system has not a single advantage associated with size. not more or better station powers, not more powerful weapons, no noticeable increase in base hitpoints, no subsystem power level advantage, none of that. thats just all i can think of off the top of my head for big ship advantages, and there are non of them. small ships on the other hand have the same stats as large ships, like excelsior, ktinga, wile also having small ship advantages. higher turn rate, higher impulse mods, access to stupidly more powerful weapons, ability to actually use torpedoes effectively, higher defense scores, and station powers that synergize with, and improve all those advantages. there is nothing to synergize with largeness at all, even turn consoles hate large ships and favor already high turn rates. nothing synergizes with largeness because theres not a single advantage to largeness. so its fare to say the bigger it is, the worse it is.
well the galaxy class specifically, it needs to be broken away from the defiant station type. but what of the galaxy from canons? that should be the guide to any galaxy class fix. we didn't get to see the D do all that much fighting, as the federation was basically at peace with everything, and fighting is expensive in the pre cgi day. then the cardasian and the fact that they were at war for the federation for decades got added. other conflicts got mentioned too, "the last tzenkethy war", implying there were several, tholians destroying star bases, so some warfare there, and skirmishes with other minor powers too. all of these things mentioned happening off screen took place durring development of the galaxy class. oh, its built to defend the federation alright.
the galaxy is twice the volume of the ambassador class that it succeeded, and all ships that came after it in cannon are so much smaller then it, that the volume of the saucer alone is greater then any of them, by a substantial amount. in fact 1 akira class and 1 sovereign class combined have only slightly more volume then a galaxy class's saucer. length is a misleading figure among ships, volume means actual size.
according to the show creators made tech manuals, the galaxy class design objectives were to
before anyone says the galaxy is just old and inferior
DESIGN LIFE
years, assuming approximately five major shipwide system
swapouts and upgrades at average intervals of twenty years.
Such upgrades help insure the continuing usefulness of the
ship even though significant advances in technology are
anticipated during that time. Minor refurbishment and upgrade
to occur at approximately one- to five-year intervals,
depending on specific mission requirements and hardware
availability.
there is every indication that the galaxy would age better then the ambassador at this point in its existence too. it comes with extreamly large phaser arrays, extreamly large torpedo bays and is designed to have basically every component swappable decades later as technology progresses.
this is also an interesting passage
DESIGN LIFE
load-bearing structures. A great many systems, especially
the pressurized habitation sections, are suspended within the
open spaces, essentially "floating" on flexible ligaments to
minimize mechanical, thermal, and conductive radiation
shocks. As the Enterprise left the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards,
approximately 35% of the internal volume was not yet filled
with room modules and remained as empty spaceframe for
future expansion and mission-specific applications.
it sounds like a significant, if not a majority amount of the ship is modular, and whats the same thing as being modular in game? universal stations. the ship we see in canon, and described by the creators of canon, is not some insanely overspecialized for engendering fail ship. its a ship with near bop like universal station potential. that should be an advantage to largeness, modular setups granted by universal stations.
fixed galaxy R stations
COM eng
LTC eng
LT uni
LT uni
ENS uni
3 universal stations, but dont worry, your a lot more limited in potential setup then you might think. you have the 3 low level stations to arrange your sci and tactical as you please, to be assault or star cruiser like or have a double LT in one or the other. there is no access to any high end LTC and up abilities here. with the galaxy r's movement and firepower disadvantage, a setup like this would give it a shot at relevance unmong other choices.
i think the fleet version should have a universal LTC as well, with only the COM eng established. you could make one of the LTs eng, but that would prevent COM and LTC setups. with what you could build off of this, it still wouldn't be a better healer then the recluse or the sci ody ether.
and for christ sake, a 4/3/3 console setup, the galaxy isn't an engineering to a fault ship like the fail POS we have in game. best of all these changes don't take away anything from anyone crazy enough to complain about a change to the station setup, you can maintain the fail setup all you want.
i wont even get into how powerful its weapon are in canon, and how it should be at the top of the firepower food chain, and not literally the bottom in game. this is enough.
*rubs eyes more*
Even though I skim-read this, for the majority of the passage, I agree with the proposals here. Cryptic not only botched the look of the Galaxy class, but also the stats.
The excess Universal slots are intriguing, and offer a lot of flexibility, similar to the many roles the Enterprise-D was capable of fulfilling in the show. We'll see what happens - it is radical, and something doesn't feel right about all those Universal seats, but I'll support it.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Instead they should fix the underlining problems that cause the issues. Like terrible Cruiser turn rates, lack of ensign abilities for Eng, and Tac to an extent, and the general inferiority of beams.
So, you're saying it's fine, but it isn't.
In other words, it's not fine.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
What this Ship needs it a special Beam Ability/Console that will do the attack from the video where the phaser light travels from both ends of the saucer until it combines into one heavy beam. like the scene where it one shotted the BOP. Make it similar to the Galaxy X's lance or the Vesta's Beam attack but not quite as strong but with a 40 sec cool down. Make it so you need to boost it with BO3 or an ACC booster or Crit booster. It would give cruisers something like an escourts CFR3. Escourts hitting TT attack pattern alpha and go down fighting and attack pattern beta then CRF3 can strip facing shields and %50 of hull in one pass, Call it "Focus Beam arrays" And give it the power to spike as much as cannon rapid fire does and that would begin to bring cruiser back into the game. Its counter is the visual build up. You would see the two/three lights brighten the start to travel down the saucer until they combine and fire, the person being targeted would have about 2 sec to hit evasive or TT or EPTS to absorb it. So an eject warp plasma or a Tractor beam would work well with it. It has to be more powerful that BO3, It should be similar to an escourts attack pattern that you can combine it with BO3 for really powerful attacks.
.
That "both ends of the saucer into a heavy beam" is the phaser effect that is supposed to be in this game in the first place. That's the standard shipboard phaser.
However, the ability to use an innate Beam Overload III or something would be interesting.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!