i would say that is contextual.
if my Prometheus had a similar turn rate to the similar size Dakota class,
rather than twice that turn rate, would you still find the galaxies orbi... turn rate,
to be the same draw back?
what if all 3, installed gear being equal, shared the same top speed, but with different acceleration rates?
what if the galaxy on account of its size got greater dps from its weapons, offsetting that acceleration?
if my Prometheus had a similar turn rate to the similar size Dakota class,
rather than twice that turn rate, would you still find the galaxies orbi... turn rate,
to be the same draw back?
Yes, because i don't don't want to fly a Prometheus. Changing an other ships turnrate doesn't make the Galaxys turnrate better or worse.
what if all 3, installed gear being equal, shared the same top speed, but with different acceleration rates?
Well if all 3 had exactly the same stats adn abilities and so on, except the different accelleration rates, the Galaxy would need some other compensation, regarding its huge size and mass.
what if the galaxy on account of its size got greater dps from its weapons, offsetting
I think that depends, if Escorts get a defensive bonus, because they are faster and smaller, then a much bigger ship should get a firepower bonus outside the BOFF & Console layout. That would only be fair IMO.
Btw, refering to your first question. I find the Stargazer/Dakota/Cheyenne turnrate perfectly ok for a ship that size, giving a ship with the same size double the turnrate just shows what type of ship the devs prefer IMO.
Without checking all 60 pages of this thread does anyone know if the DEVs have made any response either here or elsewhere to a Galaxy revamp?
No, they never did.
Seriously, they just don't care. I cannot remember ANY dev reacting or answering to this or any other similar thread, in 3 years...
As long as their beloved Escorts are the DSP/survivability monsters as they are, everything is allright.
At least for them.
They don't even seem to reckognise that anything wrong with it.
They seriously bvelieve that the Stone(Cruisers)/Paper(Science ships)/Shotgun(escorts) System is perfectly ok with Star Trek ships. lol
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I think I've said this once before, but if they made the Galaxy actually good, you would barely see any other cruiser class. So I think one reason they gimped it so hard was to maintain in-game ship variety.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
I think I've said this once before, but if they made the Galaxy actually good, you would barely see any other cruiser class. So I think one reason they gimped it so hard was to maintain in-game ship variety.
Nah. They made the Excelsior amazing and in-game ship variety was maintained.
Nah. They made the Excelsior amazing and in-game ship variety was maintained.
The Fleet Assault Cruiser Refit, Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit, and Oddy are all arguably on par with the Fleet Excelsior. The Excel isn't the end all of cruisers. They could make the Galaxy usable without stepping on any toes, but for some reason (perhaps what hereticknight085 suggested) they just made the ship bad.
The Fleet Assault Cruiser Refit, Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit, and Oddy are all arguably on par with the Fleet Excelsior.
I'm referring to the long stretch of time when none of those ships existed, but the T5 Excelsior did. Back then, the Excel pretty much blew away the Assault Cruiser and the Galaxy R and the Star Cruiser. But ship variety still existed. I mean it was stretched, because the ship was new, had a ton of old school trek fans geeking out over it, and was the most powerful cruiser in the game back when cruisers were a lot more playable in end-game. But even then, it didn't get rid of variety completely.
EDIT: And the Galaxy X. I always forget to include that one sorry. But yeah, f2pdrakron sums up what I was getting at. Back then the Excel didn't get rid of variety. I'm not convinced making the Galaxy top banana would get rid of variety either.
They could make the Galaxy usable without stepping on any toes, but for some reason (perhaps what hereticknight085 suggested) they just made the ship bad.
I think they made the ship bad because they don't like the ship.
But I think the ship's problems are exacerbated by the problems with BOFF powers and shared cooldowns. All those Engineering slots would be a lot better if you know, ensign engi powers weren't so narrow.
And other decisions made the situation worst, right now is Escorts Online were a Lt Cmdr tactical station is preferable to anything, this is why the Sovy and Excel are the end all along with the Odyssey ... the Galaxy cannot compete because as a tank its inferior to the Odyssey and both will be oneshooted by invisible Borg Torps along with the rest of overpowered enemies Cryptic been adding to the game meaning you have tanks that cannot really tank because even their hulls cannot survive the amount of spike damage players and NPCs can deal.
This ISNT a problem of the Galaxy itself, it a problem of the entire cruiser line by default and reasony the other ships I refer suffer less is because they can actually deal damage ... not as good as a escort but at least dealing more damage that the Galaxy and Galaxy-X.
Stats wise the Galaxy is fine, game-wise is not because the entire system make them useless.
I think you got a point.
Low level Engineering powers are too "narrow", too few and too specialized in healing/buffs compared to all other classes.
Additionally engineering powers are extremely passive and too much focused on healing, which makes Cruisers too passive in Combat. The Galaxy Class is just affected by this the most, because of it's extreme focus on engineering. But no, the Galaxy class is not ok as it is right now.
Obviously they wanted to have the "hero" ships be the most extreme ships (defiant:tactical/Interpid:Science/Galaxy:Engineering), but i think that idea was faulty from the beginnning.
People especially estimate certain things about their favourite ships, like having enough defensive to survive and be able to DO something in combat. Making them exteme in a certain area can ONLY end in disappointment.
Instead of making the Hero ships an extreme example of a ship type (Escort, Science/Cruiser) they should have been the moderatest ships of their type, leaving being extreme in a certain area to other ships.
So they all would have been able to be relatively good in surviving and being able to be comparable dangerous in battle.
IF Cryptic would have done that, i think there would have been much less people demanding Escorts to be survival specialists as they have become by now, because the "main" Escort (Defiant) was already comparable good in that.
On the other hand the Galaxy would be much more balanced between offensive and defensive, too.
The Intrepid on the other hand is a special case since Science powers (althrough nerfed way too much) are more versatile, so it so obvious that she is also a extreme specialist.
I think Cryptic should do two things:
First, redo the Galaxy Class.
- give it either two universal Lt.
- or one universal Lt. Cmdr.
in exchange of its Engineering and Science Ensign and Science Lt.
Add an additional Tac. Console.
Second, rework Space BOFF powers, especially Engineering powers to become more versatile and cover a much wider array of defensive and offensive powers.
"...'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
well i honestly don't anderstand why it is so hard to think of a more powerfull galaxy class or galaxy x in the game.
as we clearly see in this cannon video that the ship is capable of destroying a death star on it own with relativ ease and still able to fight an OP falcon ship that seem to have commun gens with the jem hadar bug:)
The core problem is the Trinity model used in most MMOs being applied to STO. In the case of the game, the trinity is that of Tactical, Science, and Engineering, and each being viewed by the devs as equally important to a functional team overcoming challenges in the game.
To this end, each of the Professions were given a ship that is the 'apex' specialist in that area, meant to provide maximum ability in exchange for specialization. For the Tactical area, this is the Tactical Escort Retrofit, while the Long Range Science Vessel Retrofit provides for the Science area. For the Engineering profession, the ship chosen to represent the pinnacle of this area of the game was chosen to be the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit. Note all of these ships feature a 4/3/1 BOFF split in their specialist field.
The problem is that these professions are not equally required by the missions and setup of the game itself. With the emphasis on quick damage and crowd control, the Escort and Science Vessel both have important roles to play in any team, but the lack of need in Engineering abilities in missions leaves the Exploration cruiser seeming lacking in ability...soley because the Engineering capabilities within the game do not equal those of the Science and Tactical fields in both need and effect.
There is nothing wrong with the Galaxy, except that it specializes in a role that doesn't require specialists (especially when Escorts and Science vessels are sporting equal Engineering abilities to Cruisers these days). Until this changes, it's similar to having a Nascar racecar in a farming village...everyone looks at it and says "Why did you buy that when a bulldozer or pickup truck is better?". There is nothing wrong with the racing car, but the environment it is in doesn't take advantage of what it can do.
The core problem is the Trinity model used in most MMOs being applied to STO. In the case of the game, the trinity is that of Tactical, Science, and Engineering, and each being viewed by the devs as equally important to a functional team overcoming challenges in the game.
...
There is nothing wrong with the Galaxy, except that it specializes in a role that doesn't require specialists (especially when Escorts and Science vessels are sporting equal Engineering abilities to Cruisers these days). Until this changes, it's similar to having a Nascar racecar in a farming village...everyone looks at it and says "Why did you buy that when a bulldozer or pickup truck is better?". There is nothing wrong with the racing car, but the environment it is in doesn't take advantage of what it can do.
The problem in my opinion is that the "trinity" model just doesn't work with star trek ships at all.
Star Trek ships aren't that specialized like they are in STO. For instance, in "real" Trek no cruiser was build to "repair" other ships over distance, which isn't possible at all IMO.
It is quite the contrary, all ships where generalists. Surely some where better in a certain field than others, but the basic premise of a star trek ship is, that it is capable to do a wide field of operations.
Just look at the Defiant, in DS9 it was able to withstand serious firepower, but also was capable to fight back of course. This has nothing to do with it being a "hero" ship, not at all.
All Star Trek ships are more or less like that. Surely most ships have much lesser firepower or weaker armor, but still basicly they're all the same.
In my opinion putting Star Trek ships in certain "roles" was a serious mistake by Cryptics designers, just to keep everything simple for the standard MMO player. But they turned Star Trek ship upside down at the same time. Ships like the Galaxy Class have been made completely wrong for the sake of that trinity.
Instead of making it versatile, they made it passive and extremely boring.
I appreciate the trend that every ship in STO can take care of themselves. Still people like to play together STFs or other multiplayer missions, because they like doing missions with other players, not because they are forced to do so in order to win the mission. This gives everyone much more freedom in choosing the ship he/she wants to fly. (At least in theory, since Escorts are just totally OP IMO, but that's another problem.)
On the other hand, Cryptics original system of putting Star Trek ships into the MMO trinity was unneccessary and just wrong.
Since Cryptic devs won't likely redo every single ship in the Game, i think they should at least make Engineering BOFF powers much more versatile, so some of them have a much more active (offensive) influence to space combat.
No matter if they change Engineering powers or not, the Galaxy Class NEEDS to be worked on.
It needs to have some universal BOFF (Lt/Lt.Cmdr.), and a third Tactical console, in order to make it at least a bit as it is supposed to be, a highly versatile front line explorer capable of doing almost any mission type. This doesn't mean i want it to be able to win a STF single-handedly, but to be able to be configured for either support others, do damage or even do some science stuff. Of course it shouldn't be the best in that field, but it should put the player in a position to actively influence space combat in a variety of ways.
"...'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
Apparently Capt. Gecko talked about bringing older C-Store ships "up to par" LINK
Could that mean we get finally a reworked Galaxy Class?
Or just a Excelsior capable of using DHCs?:eek:
"...'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
Apparently Capt. Gecko talked about bringing older C-Store ships "up to par" LINK
Could that mean we get finally a reworked Galaxy Class?
Or just a Excelsior capable of using DHCs?:eek:
since all the old c store ships are cheaper, and have a fleet version except the vulcan ship, i don't see what can really be done for older c store ships that hasn't already been done by the fleet shipyard
since all the old c store ships are cheaper, and have a fleet version except the vulcan ship, i don't see what can really be done for older c store ships that hasn't already been done by the fleet shipyard
Maybe just hot air, as one would say where i come from, lol.
But we shouldn't stop creating pressure dam.. oh... well express our unhappiness about the Galaxy or the shipsystem itself IMO.
I know Cryptic won't change anything just because of one thread, but on the other hand, it's still better than to do nothing at all.
"...'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
maybe it has to do with geko wanting to add armor slots to cruisers?
of course that would make the galaxy and fleet galaxy even more useless ans the extra engine console slot was added to make it more "tanky" so it would just be an extra slot for an engineering console but then maybe you could load it up with 5 RCS and have one of the best turning cruisers with no armor sacrifice... hmmm not sure what the diminishing returns are on the RCS console is though. maybe that would not be such a bad thing for the galaxy
maybe it has to do with geko wanting to add armor slots to cruisers?
of course that would make the galaxy and fleet galaxy even more useless ans the extra engine console slot was added to make it more "tanky" so it would just be an extra slot for an engineering console but then maybe you could load it up with 5 RCS and have one of the best turning cruisers with no armor sacrifice... hmmm not sure what the diminishing returns are on the RCS console is though. maybe that would not be such a bad thing for the galaxy
I heard rumors about this too and if it's true, it couldn't be anything more superfluous, lol.
The only thing i would add to give (Starfleet) Cruisers a slight improvement would be a console that makes them able to equip Heavy Cannons (NOT DHCs).
This would occupy one console slot (any type) at those ships, but no Hull Hitpoint loss since Starfleet Cruisers in general are still less maneuverable than comparable KDF Crusiers, for example.
While on the other hand Klingon Cruisers still could use DHCs instead of just Heavy Cannons and could use their cloak for alpha striking, it wouldn't make Starfleet Cruisers on par with them. Both ship types would still be different in performance and playstyle, but Starfleet Cruisers where able to fight back, instead of just waiting for others to fight for them.
Also this console would also change all cannon weapons fx to look like Beam weapons, just for the sake of canon. (we all know the devs woudln't do that, of course. lol.)
So Starfleet cruisers would get the ability to equip Heavy Cannons in exchange for one Console slot, i think that would be justifiable IMO.
"...'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
So Starfleet cruisers would get the ability to equip Heavy Cannons in exchange for one Console slot, i think that would be justifiable IMO.
At this point I've come to the conclusion that they'd be better off simply opening up all weapons to all ships. That way if someone really wanted to they could make a DHC fed cruiser. I have doubts as to how effective it would be in practice even with a turning buff. But at least people would be able to truly play as they want to.
At this point I've come to the conclusion that they'd be better off simply opening up all weapons to all ships. That way if someone really wanted to they could make a DHC fed cruiser. I have doubts as to how effective it would be in practice even with a turning buff. But at least people would be able to truly play as they want to.
I can imagine the fun to be had with dual heavy cannons on federation cruisers. The Excelsior might be able to pull it off, but yeah not sure why the restriction considering nearly all the fed cruisers would be horrible with them anyway.
At this point I've come to the conclusion that they'd be better off simply opening up all weapons to all ships. That way if someone really wanted to they could make a DHC fed cruiser. I have doubts as to how effective it would be in practice even with a turning buff. But at least people would be able to truly play as they want to.
Oh lord. Let all the fail Odyssey Enterprise F wannabes with DHCs please step forward... XD
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Oh lord. Let all the fail Odyssey Enterprise F wannabes with DHCs please step forward... XD
It's already become a noob boat at this point. I tend to shutter when I see an oddy in an elite stf because they are usually piloted by terrible captains using a combination of cannons, turrets, and beams. Adding dual heavy cannons will just add even more variety to the fail.
Oh lord. Let all the fail Odyssey Enterprise F wannabes with DHCs please step forward... XD
Klingon Cruisers can use DHCs, i think it would be only fair that Starfleet Cruiser could equip DCs with a special console.
For Example:
Starfleet Cruiser (Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit):
A bit more hull (KDF:34,450/ Starfleet: 39,600)
Dual Cannons (one console slot less than the Klingon ship)
Klingon Cruiser (Fleet K't'inga Battle Cruiser Retrofit):
Dual heavy Cannons
Higher base turnrate (KDF:11/ Starfleet: 8)
Cloak (first strike)
I think giving Starfleet Cruisers acess to Dual Cannons wouldn't be a mistake, since a bit more Hull can't compensate all the other advantages like high turnrate or the chance to strike first.
I mean it should be the players judgement if it makes sense to equip the ship with certain weapons or not, but to categorical restrict them is just unfair IMO.
"...'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
They are just saving the galaxy up for when they really need a lot of money fast and nothing else works then they'll give us a new "improved" fed lock box (improved meaning reduced drop rates^^) with a good version of the galaxy in it at 0.0001% dropchance and 10 bucks a key.
I thought it would be obvious that the Galaxy is a victim of its own appeal.
Cruisers are already engineer heavy. Given their approach to ship design, they needed some sort of cruiser to take the engineering focused build. Perhaps Star Trek's most iconic cruiser is an obvious winner, since it will sell well regardless of the deficient layout.
The biggest problem with this is that engineer boff abilities are lackluster. I mean to say, any of the heavily focused boff layouts are problematic (my FTER sacrifices the ensign tac boff because there's literally nothing useful to put there). Not only is this no different for the engineering focused layouts, but its made worse because engineering boff abilities are really weak; at least tactical heavy has its weapons to fall back on, and science heavy has a variety of utility abilities to use (and even then I hear science is mediocre).
Some approaches to fixing this would include redesigning engineering boff abilities, or reworking ship layouts to avoid some of the least desirable layout combinations (such as engineering boff heavy + engineering console heavy).
I could easily see the Galaxy being engineering console heavy, with a leaning towards science boffs.
And because it's worth mentioning, some other suggestions are to normalize weapon firing cycles to the DHC cycle, adjust RCS consoles to provide a flat turn rate bonus, or one suggestion which I came up with, offer larger ships more active doff slots to reflect their larger crew compliment.
But personally, I think it's obvious that the Galaxy was purposefully paired with an awful layout, because some ship had to take that layout, and the obvious answer that not all layouts needed to be supported was simply too obvious for overworked and clearly malnourished developers (I'm assuming obvious developer stupidity is a result of malnourishment).
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Oh lord. Let all the fail Odyssey Enterprise F wannabes with DHCs please step forward... XD
So long as they are having a good time what would it matter? They'd probably be the same Ody pilots that don't really contribute much anyway so if they went with DHCs the difference to a team would be minor but to them the level of pew pew fun would go up the scales.
I may be in a minority in saying this but after carrying hapless pilots in countless teams I'd rather they at least have fun playing how they want to play.
Klingon Cruisers can use DHCs, i think it would be only fair that Starfleet Cruiser could equip DCs with a special console.
Why use up a console slot? Unlesss said console also had a turn bonus similar to one from an RCS console.
At this point the Federation is at war on multiple fronts and it feels like the "Peace at all costs" party finally lost its last council seat! Open up all weapons on all ships I say. The only ship class that'd need ot be looked at might be Sci Vesels. Mixing in DHCs with their Sensor Scan might be too much. It'd be something worth keeping an eye on; after all, Sci vessels turn like escorts these days.
and clearly malnourished developers (I'm assuming obvious developer stupidity is a result of malnourishment).
There was a time when there were no cups in the kitchen. No cups in the kitchen also implies there was no food in it either. I think you're onto something.
There was a time when there were no cups in the kitchen. No cups in the kitchen also implies there was no food in it either. I think you're onto something.
We should get Michelle Obama on it, before I hear one more story about some unsuspecting second-grader having their turkey sandwich, apple and milk carton taken away because it didn't include an appropriate vegetable, only for it to be replaced with chicken nuggets (which doesn't include an appropriate vegetable either, but does include an inappropriate amount of nanny state).
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
We should get Michelle Obama on it, before I hear one more story about some unsuspecting second-grader having their turkey sandwich, apple and milk carton taken away because it didn't include an appropriate vegetable, only for it to be replaced with chicken nuggets (which doesn't include an appropriate vegetable either, but does include an inappropriate amount of nanny state).
Chicken Nuggets could feed almost half a dev team! I like this. We could have the key to unlocking the content problems Cryptic has faced for the past two years!
Comments
if my Prometheus had a similar turn rate to the similar size Dakota class,
rather than twice that turn rate, would you still find the galaxies orbi... turn rate,
to be the same draw back?
Yes, because i don't don't want to fly a Prometheus. Changing an other ships turnrate doesn't make the Galaxys turnrate better or worse.
what if all 3, installed gear being equal, shared the same top speed, but with different acceleration rates?
Well if all 3 had exactly the same stats adn abilities and so on, except the different accelleration rates, the Galaxy would need some other compensation, regarding its huge size and mass.
what if the galaxy on account of its size got greater dps from its weapons, offsetting
I think that depends, if Escorts get a defensive bonus, because they are faster and smaller, then a much bigger ship should get a firepower bonus outside the BOFF & Console layout. That would only be fair IMO.
Btw, refering to your first question. I find the Stargazer/Dakota/Cheyenne turnrate perfectly ok for a ship that size, giving a ship with the same size double the turnrate just shows what type of ship the devs prefer IMO.
No, they never did.
Seriously, they just don't care. I cannot remember ANY dev reacting or answering to this or any other similar thread, in 3 years...
As long as their beloved Escorts are the DSP/survivability monsters as they are, everything is allright.
At least for them.
They don't even seem to reckognise that anything wrong with it.
They seriously bvelieve that the Stone(Cruisers)/Paper(Science ships)/Shotgun(escorts) System is perfectly ok with Star Trek ships. lol
Nah. They made the Excelsior amazing and in-game ship variety was maintained.
The Fleet Assault Cruiser Refit, Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit, and Oddy are all arguably on par with the Fleet Excelsior. The Excel isn't the end all of cruisers. They could make the Galaxy usable without stepping on any toes, but for some reason (perhaps what hereticknight085 suggested) they just made the ship bad.
I'm referring to the long stretch of time when none of those ships existed, but the T5 Excelsior did. Back then, the Excel pretty much blew away the Assault Cruiser and the Galaxy R and the Star Cruiser. But ship variety still existed. I mean it was stretched, because the ship was new, had a ton of old school trek fans geeking out over it, and was the most powerful cruiser in the game back when cruisers were a lot more playable in end-game. But even then, it didn't get rid of variety completely.
EDIT: And the Galaxy X. I always forget to include that one sorry. But yeah, f2pdrakron sums up what I was getting at. Back then the Excel didn't get rid of variety. I'm not convinced making the Galaxy top banana would get rid of variety either.
I think they made the ship bad because they don't like the ship.
But I think the ship's problems are exacerbated by the problems with BOFF powers and shared cooldowns. All those Engineering slots would be a lot better if you know, ensign engi powers weren't so narrow.
Low level Engineering powers are too "narrow", too few and too specialized in healing/buffs compared to all other classes.
Additionally engineering powers are extremely passive and too much focused on healing, which makes Cruisers too passive in Combat. The Galaxy Class is just affected by this the most, because of it's extreme focus on engineering. But no, the Galaxy class is not ok as it is right now.
Obviously they wanted to have the "hero" ships be the most extreme ships (defiant:tactical/Interpid:Science/Galaxy:Engineering), but i think that idea was faulty from the beginnning.
People especially estimate certain things about their favourite ships, like having enough defensive to survive and be able to DO something in combat. Making them exteme in a certain area can ONLY end in disappointment.
Instead of making the Hero ships an extreme example of a ship type (Escort, Science/Cruiser) they should have been the moderatest ships of their type, leaving being extreme in a certain area to other ships.
So they all would have been able to be relatively good in surviving and being able to be comparable dangerous in battle.
IF Cryptic would have done that, i think there would have been much less people demanding Escorts to be survival specialists as they have become by now, because the "main" Escort (Defiant) was already comparable good in that.
On the other hand the Galaxy would be much more balanced between offensive and defensive, too.
The Intrepid on the other hand is a special case since Science powers (althrough nerfed way too much) are more versatile, so it so obvious that she is also a extreme specialist.
I think Cryptic should do two things:
First, redo the Galaxy Class.
- give it either two universal Lt.
- or one universal Lt. Cmdr.
in exchange of its Engineering and Science Ensign and Science Lt.
Add an additional Tac. Console.
Second, rework Space BOFF powers, especially Engineering powers to become more versatile and cover a much wider array of defensive and offensive powers.
as we clearly see in this cannon video that the ship is capable of destroying a death star on it own with relativ ease and still able to fight an OP falcon ship that seem to have commun gens with the jem hadar bug:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8t7WCEeBRU
hmm? what do you think?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
To this end, each of the Professions were given a ship that is the 'apex' specialist in that area, meant to provide maximum ability in exchange for specialization. For the Tactical area, this is the Tactical Escort Retrofit, while the Long Range Science Vessel Retrofit provides for the Science area. For the Engineering profession, the ship chosen to represent the pinnacle of this area of the game was chosen to be the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit. Note all of these ships feature a 4/3/1 BOFF split in their specialist field.
The problem is that these professions are not equally required by the missions and setup of the game itself. With the emphasis on quick damage and crowd control, the Escort and Science Vessel both have important roles to play in any team, but the lack of need in Engineering abilities in missions leaves the Exploration cruiser seeming lacking in ability...soley because the Engineering capabilities within the game do not equal those of the Science and Tactical fields in both need and effect.
There is nothing wrong with the Galaxy, except that it specializes in a role that doesn't require specialists (especially when Escorts and Science vessels are sporting equal Engineering abilities to Cruisers these days). Until this changes, it's similar to having a Nascar racecar in a farming village...everyone looks at it and says "Why did you buy that when a bulldozer or pickup truck is better?". There is nothing wrong with the racing car, but the environment it is in doesn't take advantage of what it can do.
Star Trek ships aren't that specialized like they are in STO. For instance, in "real" Trek no cruiser was build to "repair" other ships over distance, which isn't possible at all IMO.
It is quite the contrary, all ships where generalists. Surely some where better in a certain field than others, but the basic premise of a star trek ship is, that it is capable to do a wide field of operations.
Just look at the Defiant, in DS9 it was able to withstand serious firepower, but also was capable to fight back of course. This has nothing to do with it being a "hero" ship, not at all.
All Star Trek ships are more or less like that. Surely most ships have much lesser firepower or weaker armor, but still basicly they're all the same.
In my opinion putting Star Trek ships in certain "roles" was a serious mistake by Cryptics designers, just to keep everything simple for the standard MMO player. But they turned Star Trek ship upside down at the same time. Ships like the Galaxy Class have been made completely wrong for the sake of that trinity.
Instead of making it versatile, they made it passive and extremely boring.
I appreciate the trend that every ship in STO can take care of themselves. Still people like to play together STFs or other multiplayer missions, because they like doing missions with other players, not because they are forced to do so in order to win the mission. This gives everyone much more freedom in choosing the ship he/she wants to fly. (At least in theory, since Escorts are just totally OP IMO, but that's another problem.)
On the other hand, Cryptics original system of putting Star Trek ships into the MMO trinity was unneccessary and just wrong.
Since Cryptic devs won't likely redo every single ship in the Game, i think they should at least make Engineering BOFF powers much more versatile, so some of them have a much more active (offensive) influence to space combat.
No matter if they change Engineering powers or not, the Galaxy Class NEEDS to be worked on.
It needs to have some universal BOFF (Lt/Lt.Cmdr.), and a third Tactical console, in order to make it at least a bit as it is supposed to be, a highly versatile front line explorer capable of doing almost any mission type. This doesn't mean i want it to be able to win a STF single-handedly, but to be able to be configured for either support others, do damage or even do some science stuff. Of course it shouldn't be the best in that field, but it should put the player in a position to actively influence space combat in a variety of ways.
LINK
Could that mean we get finally a reworked Galaxy Class?
Or just a Excelsior capable of using DHCs?:eek:
In short it has the size n power = to the newer cruisers.
hint...should have better options and power than both
the Excelsior & support cruiser
The Galaxy has 3 versions, Galaxy, Galaxy-R, Fleet Galaxy.
they differences are not great enough to even bother, honestly
I dont want gizmos on my Galaxy, most will agree
Just fix the Boff and console layout, please
since all the old c store ships are cheaper, and have a fleet version except the vulcan ship, i don't see what can really be done for older c store ships that hasn't already been done by the fleet shipyard
Maybe just hot air, as one would say where i come from, lol.
But we shouldn't stop creating pressure dam.. oh... well express our unhappiness about the Galaxy or the shipsystem itself IMO.
I know Cryptic won't change anything just because of one thread, but on the other hand, it's still better than to do nothing at all.
of course that would make the galaxy and fleet galaxy even more useless ans the extra engine console slot was added to make it more "tanky" so it would just be an extra slot for an engineering console but then maybe you could load it up with 5 RCS and have one of the best turning cruisers with no armor sacrifice... hmmm not sure what the diminishing returns are on the RCS console is though. maybe that would not be such a bad thing for the galaxy
The only thing i would add to give (Starfleet) Cruisers a slight improvement would be a console that makes them able to equip Heavy Cannons (NOT DHCs).
This would occupy one console slot (any type) at those ships, but no Hull Hitpoint loss since Starfleet Cruisers in general are still less maneuverable than comparable KDF Crusiers, for example.
While on the other hand Klingon Cruisers still could use DHCs instead of just Heavy Cannons and could use their cloak for alpha striking, it wouldn't make Starfleet Cruisers on par with them. Both ship types would still be different in performance and playstyle, but Starfleet Cruisers where able to fight back, instead of just waiting for others to fight for them.
Also this console would also change all cannon weapons fx to look like Beam weapons, just for the sake of canon.
(we all know the devs woudln't do that, of course. lol.)
So Starfleet cruisers would get the ability to equip Heavy Cannons in exchange for one Console slot, i think that would be justifiable IMO.
At this point I've come to the conclusion that they'd be better off simply opening up all weapons to all ships. That way if someone really wanted to they could make a DHC fed cruiser. I have doubts as to how effective it would be in practice even with a turning buff. But at least people would be able to truly play as they want to.
I can imagine the fun to be had with dual heavy cannons on federation cruisers. The Excelsior might be able to pull it off, but yeah not sure why the restriction considering nearly all the fed cruisers would be horrible with them anyway.
Oh lord. Let all the fail Odyssey Enterprise F wannabes with DHCs please step forward... XD
It's already become a noob boat at this point. I tend to shutter when I see an oddy in an elite stf because they are usually piloted by terrible captains using a combination of cannons, turrets, and beams. Adding dual heavy cannons will just add even more variety to the fail.
Klingon Cruisers can use DHCs, i think it would be only fair that Starfleet Cruiser could equip DCs with a special console.
For Example:
Starfleet Cruiser (Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit):
A bit more hull (KDF:34,450/ Starfleet: 39,600)
Dual Cannons (one console slot less than the Klingon ship)
Klingon Cruiser (Fleet K't'inga Battle Cruiser Retrofit):
Dual heavy Cannons
Higher base turnrate (KDF:11/ Starfleet: 8)
Cloak (first strike)
I think giving Starfleet Cruisers acess to Dual Cannons wouldn't be a mistake, since a bit more Hull can't compensate all the other advantages like high turnrate or the chance to strike first.
I mean it should be the players judgement if it makes sense to equip the ship with certain weapons or not, but to categorical restrict them is just unfair IMO.
Cruisers are already engineer heavy. Given their approach to ship design, they needed some sort of cruiser to take the engineering focused build. Perhaps Star Trek's most iconic cruiser is an obvious winner, since it will sell well regardless of the deficient layout.
The biggest problem with this is that engineer boff abilities are lackluster. I mean to say, any of the heavily focused boff layouts are problematic (my FTER sacrifices the ensign tac boff because there's literally nothing useful to put there). Not only is this no different for the engineering focused layouts, but its made worse because engineering boff abilities are really weak; at least tactical heavy has its weapons to fall back on, and science heavy has a variety of utility abilities to use (and even then I hear science is mediocre).
Some approaches to fixing this would include redesigning engineering boff abilities, or reworking ship layouts to avoid some of the least desirable layout combinations (such as engineering boff heavy + engineering console heavy).
I could easily see the Galaxy being engineering console heavy, with a leaning towards science boffs.
And because it's worth mentioning, some other suggestions are to normalize weapon firing cycles to the DHC cycle, adjust RCS consoles to provide a flat turn rate bonus, or one suggestion which I came up with, offer larger ships more active doff slots to reflect their larger crew compliment.
But personally, I think it's obvious that the Galaxy was purposefully paired with an awful layout, because some ship had to take that layout, and the obvious answer that not all layouts needed to be supported was simply too obvious for overworked and clearly malnourished developers (I'm assuming obvious developer stupidity is a result of malnourishment).
I love the last statement about the devs;)
So long as they are having a good time what would it matter? They'd probably be the same Ody pilots that don't really contribute much anyway so if they went with DHCs the difference to a team would be minor but to them the level of pew pew fun would go up the scales.
I may be in a minority in saying this but after carrying hapless pilots in countless teams I'd rather they at least have fun playing how they want to play.
Why use up a console slot? Unlesss said console also had a turn bonus similar to one from an RCS console.
At this point the Federation is at war on multiple fronts and it feels like the "Peace at all costs" party finally lost its last council seat! Open up all weapons on all ships I say. The only ship class that'd need ot be looked at might be Sci Vesels. Mixing in DHCs with their Sensor Scan might be too much. It'd be something worth keeping an eye on; after all, Sci vessels turn like escorts these days.
I leave it in your enthusiastic and capable hands.
Feel free to take all the credit for starting a Developer Food Bank.