How dare this thread nearly get bumped down to the third page!?
This issue is never going away. I want this thread to be active for as long as the game is going. That would be amusing if the game finally closes in a decade and this thread is still going strong.
How dare this thread nearly get bumped down to the third page!?
This issue is never going away. I want this thread to be active for as long as the game is going. That would be amusing if the game finally closes in a decade and this thread is still going strong.
Galaxy still needs fixing.
I think most people have given up on it. Cryptic "rebooted" the Galaxy line and the Galaxy-R got..wait for it.... a set bonus. Wooooo~ that's an amazing buff to such a garbage ship! Now it can be garbage while using anti-matter spread and saucer separation! Everything the Galaxy-R can do can be done better on every single other federation cruiser. Sad state of affairs for such a beloved ship. Anyway, I doubt they will give the ship another pass anytime soon...
I think most people have given up on it. Cryptic "rebooted" the Galaxy line and the Galaxy-R got..wait for it.... a set bonus. Wooooo~ that's an amazing buff to such a garbage ship! Now it can be garbage while using anti-matter spread and saucer separation! Everything the Galaxy-R can do can be done better on every single other federation cruiser. Sad state of affairs for such a beloved ship. Anyway, I doubt they will give the ship another pass anytime soon...
If the thread never goes away then I'm sure will work on the Galaxy again. I'm not even a fan of the Galaxy but I know that there are quite a few people who are and they deserve a rebooted Galaxy for being such loyal fans.
I'm sorry to people who I, in the past, insulted, annoyed, etc.
I think most people have given up on it. Cryptic "rebooted" the Galaxy line and the Galaxy-R got..wait for it.... a set bonus. Wooooo~ that's an amazing buff to such a garbage ship! Now it can be garbage while using anti-matter spread and saucer separation! Everything the Galaxy-R can do can be done better on every single other federation cruiser. Sad state of affairs for such a beloved ship. Anyway, I doubt they will give the ship another pass anytime soon...
Basically, it was a Galaxy-X revamp. A revamp based on a one-time ship that got less than 1% of screentime compared to its actual version.
Cryptic was just being a smart-aleck when they announced this revamp. "Oh, well stardestroyer and the rest of those Galaxy buffoons want a revamp, huh? Well, I see the name "Galaxy" in their signatures... must mean the Dreadnought Cruiser!! Har har har. Now take your revamp and shut yer mouths, cause you got a "Galaxy" revamp!"
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 saucer separation mechanic was finally bought in-line with that of the Odyssey. Combined with the shared cooldown on team abilities being removed, the Galaxy "R" did indeed get an update. Just not the top to bottom overhaul (game wise) that some of you wanted.
So, I'm going to point out that continued griping and "asking" for a total revamp, is more or less beating the proverbial dead horse. Much in the same manner, I must point out, that some of the very ones in this thread accuse T5 Constitution supporters of doing.
The developers listened. And they took action. It's just not what some of you have wanted. And I don't expect them to do much else to the in-game Galaxy, if anything at all.
The saucer separation mechanic was finally bought in-line with that of the Odyssey. Combined with the shared cooldown on team abilities being removed, the Galaxy "R" did indeed get an update. Just not the top to bottom overhaul (game wise) that some of you wanted.
The Galaxy-X received the same new saucer separation mechanic, which means that the new saucer separation isn't unique to the Gal-R. So really, this was a half-improvement. (Besides, most of us were doing fine with the old mechanic. This wasn't a game changer in the slightest.)
So, I'm going to point out that continued griping and "asking" for a total revamp, is more or less beating the proverbial dead horse. Much in the same manner, I must point out, that some of the very ones in this thread accuse T5 Constitution supporters of doing.
The developers listened. And they took action. It's just not what some of you have wanted. And I don't expect them to do much else to the in-game Galaxy, if anything at all.
Save your energy and just play the damned game.
We're not asking for a total revamp. We're asking for, at the minimum, the same boff changes as the Dreadnought cruiser. Something that would have taken the developer a minute to copy and paste into the Gal-R ship specs file, but refused to do.
As for the T5 Connie, that ship is banned and there really isn't much more to that. As opposed to pushing for a change, the pro-T5 Connie crazies are beating their heads against a brick wall (and the wrong one at that - go to CBS directly if you want something to be changed).
The developers did listen, but they decided to be a smart TRIBBLE about it, which isn't at all how we expected game developers to behave, when creating a product that is supposed to sell and please the customers.
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 saucer separation mechanic was finally bought in-line with that of the Odyssey. Combined with the shared cooldown on team abilities being removed, the Galaxy "R" did indeed get an update. Just not the top to bottom overhaul (game wise) that some of you wanted.
So, I'm going to point out that continued griping and "asking" for a total revamp, is more or less beating the proverbial dead horse. Much in the same manner, I must point out, that some of the very ones in this thread accuse T5 Constitution supporters of doing.
The developers listened. And they took action. It's just not what some of you have wanted. And I don't expect them to do much else to the in-game Galaxy, if anything at all.
Save your energy and just play the damned game.
there is no comparison between a tier 5 connies and asking them to make the galaxy class somewhat competitive, comparing the 2 adds some gross sort of legitimacy to something as absurd as a tier 5 connie, and that just shows how valid the galaxy topic is.
the new saucer sep tech is a gimic that effects the ship in no way other then aesthetic. like ive said before, the removal of the shared cooldowns helped most the ships with a wide range of station powers, not ships that have a lot of 1 type and few of other. of all ships, the galaxy R was helped by this the LEAST.
an overhaul would be great, but we would settle for a fraction of what the dreadnaught got. namely the universal ENS. its still a mystery why the X got that, and the R didn't. the fact that the galaxy R did not get the DESPERATELY needed, game changing, for it, universal ENS, is a very loud and clear FU to everyone in this thread who would really like to use the beautiful galaxy R, wile not using the WORST ship in the game, by a mile. it would just be the worst ship in the game, by a tiny bit, then.
Id like to point out saying that the team unlinking was a specific buff to galaxys is a joke ALL ships got that benfit. While the galaxy got helped by it the excel has 3 ens boff stations got the exact same boost thus keeping the galaxy under par to its brother cruisers.
The Gal x got the same improvement from the console set bonus + gained saucer seperation + uni slot allowing it to actually be more flexable. The galaxy r got what? +set bonus and can now seperate on the move... k thats useful IF and only IF you use saucer seperation.
It still has the worst console layout, the worst boff layout, low turnrate. Its an uber tank in a game where everyone can tank a boss ship without needing to be an uber tank. I can tank a tac cube in an aquarius. Its a declawed tiger in a game that they turned into a dps race, dispite it being one of the federations best ships for the entire TNG. Its an "Exploration" cruiser that has laughable science capability.
Its a ship that in the show was superior to the Galor, Excel, Jem bug, Ambassador, etc. Yet in STO it comes in last place in terms of usefulness to all them. Not to meantion the galaxy models ingame are ugly as hell vs some very nice mod work in much older games sad for a professional company.
I dont need or want some uber god ship galaxy, but for god sake lets not look at the issue with closed eyes. If all that doesnt say "Hey maybe the ship needs redone top to bottom" to you maybe you need some glasses.
Make the ship right. It was an Enterprise for almost 10 years, do it the justice it deserves like the rest got. (Fleet ambassador, Fleet excel, Oddy, Fleet Assault cruiser) All good ships, I bet if cryptic put up a poll for what the worst T5 fed cruiser is the Galaxy R would get the win hands down. No ship has to be last place, unless they let it. True balance leaves them all useful. An uber tank with no claws to maintain agro, in a game where every T3-5 ship can tank a boss ship, nor has anything to make it really unique as a cruiser aside from being "the worst". Isn't Useful, its sad!
Doubly Sad when it bore the name Enterprise and is beloved by millions of fans.
True balance leaves them all useful. An uber tank with no claws to maintain agro, in a game where every T3-5 ship can tank a boss ship, nor has anything to make it really unique as a cruiser aside from being "the worst". Isn't Useful, its sad!
You speak of balance, yet your idea of balance is "sufficient firepower"? Have you even tried to tank in a Galaxy with a maxed Threat Control, 3 +Th embassy consoles, and the threat generation cruiser command active? I have yet to see anyone claim to do that, even those that claim that the Galaxy cannot hold aggro at all.
And you even note that every tier 3-5 ship can tank bosses. You don't think that balance would be to instead not let every non-tank ship be able to tank? It's because of power creep and overall game imbalance. The Galaxy itself does not have the great flaws that everyone here claims it to have. This game will never be balanced as long as every ship can tank. All it will be is imbalanced if you all got your way.
It still has the worst console layout, the worst boff layout, low turnrate. Its an uber tank in a game where everyone can tank a boss ship without needing to be an uber tank. I can tank a tac cube in an aquarius. Its a declawed tiger in a game that they turned into a dps race, dispite it being one of the federations best ships for the entire TNG. Its an "Exploration" cruiser that has laughable science capability.
its not an uber tank. i really wish people would stop assigning it strengths it does not have. it almost makes it seem like it has redeeming qualities. an uber tank, a uber hull tanker specifically that it keeps getting refereed too, wouldn't be all but restricted to ET1. its station setup hamstrings its ability to tank, no mater how you set it up or what doffs you use. uber tanks, even uber hull tanks, have more sci then this ship does. the galaxy's Rs ability to tank is at best on par with that of a tac cruiser, with non of the dps, actually the very worst dps. simply horrifying how bad this ship is, when its something so iconic and has so much canon supporting it being good, the most powerful canon ship specifically.
...an overhaul would be great, but we would settle for a fraction of what the dreadnaught got. namely the universal ENS. its still a mystery why the X got that, and the R didn't. the fact that the galaxy R did not get the DESPERATELY needed, game changing, for it, universal ENS, is a very loud and clear FU to everyone in this thread who would really like to use the beautiful galaxy R, wile not using the WORST ship in the game, by a mile. it would just be the worst ship in the game, by a tiny bit, then.
Agreed...when I first read that the dreadnought was getting an ensign universal my first thought was --- err wtf? I don't know anyone that flies the Galaxy-X that uses anything other then a tac in that seat since the revamp. The Galaxy-R on the other hand would have been helped immensely by that ensign universal.
Everybody keep calm and relax. Cryptic has heard your plea to revisit and upgrade the Galaxy, so in true, Star Trek Online spirit, and for the good of the Galaxy lover's esprit de corps, Al Rivera himself dropped the following bit of info on the last Priority One Podcast:
They're buffing the Vesta.
If you feel Keel'el's effect is well designed, please, for your own safety, be very careful around shallow pools of water.
Everybody keep calm and relax. Cryptic has heard your plea to revisit and upgrade the Galaxy, so in true, Star Trek Online spirit, and for the good of the Galaxy lover's esprit de corps, Al Rivera himself dropped the following bit of info on the last Priority One Podcast:
They're buffing the Vesta.
that's what we need, a podcast. that dufus that somehow cant own in a vesta managed to get it buffed with one :rolleyes:
its been proven over and over. your in denial or just don't know enough about build theory to make an informed judgment call on the subject.
Proven? No. The only thing you have been doing is pointing out the obvious(that the Galaxy is hands down THE weakest ship in-game now; a fact that no one I've noticed is disagreeing with), and making that the excuse to appeal to game imbalance. When someone explains your fallacious stance, you make emotional posts calling them out on a personal level because you can't give a proper retort.
And on top of that, you can't even decide what you're accusing me of. You're trying to imagine me with the problem, rather than listening to a reasonable counter-position.
And "build theory"? Really?!? Do you have any idea how it works yourself? Do you even know what "perfect imbalance" is?
No, DDIS. This isn't about me or you, and it's certainly not personal. You're gonna cut the BS, personal attacks, jumping around the topic so you 'feel' like you're winning an argument, and question avoidance and tell me how your support of game imbalance is better than fixing the underlying problems. Now drop the agenda and give me a real damned argument for your position.
Proven? No. The only thing you have been doing is pointing out the obvious(that the Galaxy is hands down THE weakest ship in-game now; a fact that no one I've noticed is disagreeing with), and making that the excuse to appeal to game imbalance. When someone explains your fallacious stance, you make emotional posts calling them out on a personal level because you can't give a proper retort.
And on top of that, you can't even decide what you're accusing me of. You're trying to imagine me with the problem, rather than listening to a reasonable counter-position.
And "build theory"? Really?!? Do you have any idea how it works yourself? Do you even know what "perfect imbalance" is?
No, DDIS. This isn't about me or you, and it's certainly not personal. You're gonna cut the BS, personal attacks, jumping around the topic so you 'feel' like you're winning an argument, and question avoidance and tell me how your support of game imbalance is better than fixing the underlying problems. Now drop the agenda and give me a real damned argument for your position.
cool your orangeitis. haven't you been following this thread for quite a wile now? haven't you seen this 'proven' time and time again? id like to know how many times i have to verbatum explain just how bad it is in this very thread before ive done it enough times to prove the point completely. im quite tired of waisting my time writing up new walls of text on the subject every time someone like you cant see all the obvious compounding issues just by looking at its stats.
tell you what, i'll let you decide. do you want me to track down old posts and quote them, or do you want me to type out a fresh full analysis of every hamstrung thing you can do with the galaxy R? your choice, cause you asked so nicely.
if you want to know if i, DDIS, have a passing knowledge of build theroy, you are free to check out the link in my sig to the huge pvp build and help thread, to see for yourself.
what exactly is this cute little notion your going on about here? appealing to game imbalance? perfect imbalance? my support of game imbalance, instead of fixing underlying problems? this sounds like quite the fantasy! if it were true the galaxy R would be the only ship right, and every other ship and all game content would be wrong! i think majority rules here.
let me guess, its about there not being enough content were you just sit there and 'tank', right? ya, and if there was, this wouldn't do anything to make the galaxy R more relevant then the removal of the team skill system cooldowns did. because the galaxy R isnt the best tank, a great tank, or even a good tank. that tanking content would be great for the ships that actually are the great tanks.
cool your orangeitis. haven't you been following this thread for quite a wile now? haven't you seen this 'proven' time and time again? id like to know how many times i have to verbatum explain just how bad it is in this very thread before ive done it enough times to prove the point completely. im quite tired of waisting my time writing up new walls of text on the subject every time someone like you cant see all the obvious compounding issues just by looking at its stats.
tell you what, i'll let you decide. do you want me to track down old posts and quote them, or do you want me to type out a fresh full analysis of every hamstrung thing you can do with the galaxy R? your choice, cause you asked so nicely.
Wow. Dude. I have just stated, what I thought was clearly, that I agreed with you on this. Let me state it afgain so you get that.
I, Orangeitis, fully and wholeheartedly agree with DDIS that the Galaxy is not only the worst ship in the game right now, but not even worthy enough to use as a space-paperweight. I also realize that looking at its stats will tell me that, as I know my way around the game and know that configuration is painfully suboptimal at best.
What we do not agree on is how that could be fixed. You seem to think that it's a good idea to ignore that tactical and science elements are more valuable than engineering elements. You seem to think it's a bad idea for the devs to try to make an overspecialized build competitively viable. Or for that matter, that it's an overall bad idea to try making every possible configuration competitively viable. THAT is where we disagree.
if you want to know if i, DDIS, have a passing knowledge of build theroy, you are free to check out the link in my sig to the huge pvp build and help thread, to see for yourself.
Knowing your way around the game is one thing. Realizing what's best for the overall health of the gameplay environment is another. I am aware of your knowledge of PvP and I respect that. But I only give credit where it's due, and I feel that what you are advocating in this thread is bad for the game in the long run.
We both want the Galaxy to be a viable ship to fly. But we have different ideas for it.
what exactly is this cute little notion your going on about here? appealing to game imbalance? perfect imbalance? my support of game imbalance, instead of fixing underlying problems? this sounds like quite the fantasy! if it were true the galaxy R would be the only ship right, and every other ship and all game content would be wrong! i think majority rules here.
I've tried to explain it before. As clearly as I could. But for the sake of the game, and to show you that I have nothing personal against ya, I will give it another attempt.
let me guess, its about there not being enough content were you just sit there and 'tank', right? ya, and if there was, this wouldn't do anything to make the galaxy R more relevant then the removal of the team skill system cooldowns did. because the galaxy R isnt the best tank, a great tank, or even a good tank. that tanking content would be great for the ships that actually are the great tanks.
No, it isn't about that. But I do believe that the "sit and tank" method should indeed be viable if one chooses. And yes, I realize that currently the Galaxy isn't a good tank at all.
No, it's actually about making the Galaxy, in its current configuration, competitively viable. Whether it's "sit and tank" or otherwise. I am advocating to increase the amount of engineering BOFF ability choices(as well as tac and sci, but that's a different topic) that is available so that the Galaxy's 3 Eng BOFF stations aren't presented as a crippling overspecialization. I am also advocating to make Engineering consoles and Science consoles just as valuable as Tactical consoles... so much so that you would actually consider putting universal consoles in any of the 3 positions, depending on build, and feel no regrets. My position also includes improving the Galaxy's other traits without touching the Galaxy itself, such as giving its saucer section non-TRIBBLE A.I. and proper abilities on its own other than a little bonus if you have a console equipped to the stardrive section. Even if the additions don't turn the Galaxy into some weird super-tank, I'd still want it in its current configuration to be able to attain optimal performance.
Why I think that this would be better than just changing the Galaxy's configuration is because the ideas of my position would increase the variety of competitive builds for every ship, and not just make the Galaxy better, but other suboptimal ships like the Star Cruiser, and other ship features like the 3rd tac BOFF seat on the Tac Escort. And more variety leads to a more healthy gameplay environment.
Edit: If this post is too tl;dr, just read the bolded paragraphs.
Who honestly wants to go into a mission and sit there and be shot at and just absorb damage, and not have the guns to hit back. Doesn't sound like fun to me.
The ship just isn't fun to play. It is gimped by a bad boff setup, bad console setup and poor inertia and turn rate.
Now take the Excelsior, good boff setup, good console setup, good inertia and turn rate. Has the ability to tank just as well as a Galaxy but has the potential to deal a hell of a lot more damage.
So the Galaxy is a tank and as such is "balanced" by its awful turn rate, inertia and lack of tactical abilities and engineering heavy boff and console layout
The Excelsior can tank but is not balanced due to getting a good turn rate and inertia, good boff and console layout making it a ideal tank and dps cruiser.
So one ship gets drawbacks and the other gets none.
Just an example of how poorly the Galaxy has been treated compared to just one of the other fed cruisers.
Wow. Dude. I have just stated, what I thought was clearly, that I agreed with you on this. Let me state it afgain so you get that.
I, Orangeitis, fully and wholeheartedly agree with DDIS that the Galaxy is not only the worst ship in the game right now, but not even worthy enough to use as a space-paperweight. I also realize that looking at its stats will tell me that, as I know my way around the game and know that configuration is painfully suboptimal at best.
The Galaxy itself does not have the great flaws that everyone here claims it to have.
followed by being so hung up on me not giving a proper retort (ie, obligatory HUGE wall of text) about things we apparently both knew were true and SHOULD go without saying.
What we do not agree on is how that could be fixed. You seem to think that it's a good idea to ignore that tactical and science elements are more valuable than engineering elements. You seem to think it's a bad idea for the devs to try to make an overspecialized build competitively viable. Or for that matter, that it's an overall bad idea to try making every possible configuration competitively viable. THAT is where we disagree.
Knowing your way around the game is one thing. Realizing what's best for the overall health of the gameplay environment is another. I am aware of your knowledge of PvP and I respect that. But I only give credit where it's due, and I feel that what you are advocating in this thread is bad for the game in the long run.
We both want the Galaxy to be a viable ship to fly. But we have different ideas for it.
I've tried to explain it before. As clearly as I could. But for the sake of the game, and to show you that I have nothing personal against ya, I will give it another attempt.
No, it isn't about that. But I do believe that the "sit and tank" method should indeed be viable if one chooses. And yes, I realize that currently the Galaxy isn't a good tank at all.
No, it's actually about making the Galaxy, in its current configuration, competitively viable. Whether it's "sit and tank" or otherwise. I am advocating to increase the amount of engineering BOFF ability choices(as well as tac and sci, but that's a different topic) that is available so that the Galaxy's 3 Eng BOFF stations aren't presented as a crippling overspecialization. I am also advocating to make Engineering consoles and Science consoles just as valuable as Tactical consoles... so much so that you would actually consider putting universal consoles in any of the 3 positions, depending on build, and feel no regrets. My position also includes improving the Galaxy's other traits without touching the Galaxy itself, such as giving its saucer section non-TRIBBLE A.I. and proper abilities on its own other than a little bonus if you have a console equipped to the stardrive section. Even if the additions don't turn the Galaxy into some weird super-tank, I'd still want it in its current configuration to be able to attain optimal performance.
Why I think that this would be better than just changing the Galaxy's configuration is because the ideas of my position would increase the variety of competitive builds for every ship, and not just make the Galaxy better, but other suboptimal ships like the Star Cruiser, and other ship features like the 3rd tac BOFF seat on the Tac Escort. And more variety leads to a more healthy gameplay environment.
Edit: If this post is too tl;dr, just read the bolded paragraphs.
well, im against engineering and science being tactical #2 and tactical #3. they serve thier own perposes, have thier own types of skills. and even tactical ships NEED certain eng skills, as much as they need thier tactical skills. the ONLY time eng or sci or even tac has a problem is when there is TO MUCH of 1 kind. every ships thats got at 3 or more skills in at least 2 out of 3 station types is basically golden. when a ship has that, everything is just fine.
as you know, eng, more then the other 2, runs into the biggest problems when you have an overload of it, more so then if you have an overload of tac or sci. the solution will always be never make a ship with more then 7 or 8 eng skills, not unballance everything else in the relitivly balanced game by preserving an undesirable, no mater what you change, station setup. just like with the team skill cooldown change, more diverse ships will benifit from a new eng skill more. but that's not even the biggest reason. no mater what new skill you could potentually add to eng, you will never have a 3rd sci, or a 3rd tac skill that are more must have then whatever new eng skill they add would be. to be a decent tank or heal boat, its not that the galaxy has to much eng, its that it lacks 3 eng skills. or it cant run APB1 and FAW1 to deal a fair bit more damage. a new eng skill wont change that fact, and if the new skill is basically a replacement for a tac or sci skill, then that skill should not exist, or is clearly in the wrong place.
as far as consoles go, eng consoles like the + to power are just garbage and need to do something else. maybe they should be mini EPt consoles? like the to weapons power would add +4 power and +1% energy damage. that would be ok, but not making eng and sci consoles tac consoles #2 and tac consoles #3. the embassy consoles buffing plasma or adding a dot are enough there too.
followed by being so hung up on me not giving a proper retort (ie, obligatory HUGE wall of text) about things we apparently both knew were true and SHOULD go without saying.
Okay, I see where that might have been misunderstood.
well, im against engineering and science being tactical #2 and tactical #3. they serve thier own perposes, have thier own types of skills. and even tactical ships NEED certain eng skills, as much as they need thier tactical skills. the ONLY time eng or sci or even tac has a problem is when there is TO MUCH of 1 kind. every ships thats got at 3 or more skills in at least 2 out of 3 station types is basically golden. when a ship has that, everything is just fine.
Okay, as I understand it... you consider Engineering to be more or less the "defensive" portion of a ship(if I'm interpreting the implications of the sentences "im against engineering and science being tactical #2 and tactical #3. they serve thier own perposes" correctly), and since you dislike the idea of the Galaxy being a super tank, you want it to be less eng-heavy. Okay, I'm understanding your position a little better.
Though I don't accept the idea that engineering should be purely defensive. If something makes sense in the context of the fictional universe it's applied to, and it helps gameplay, I don't have a problem with it. Star Trek's engineers have done some crazy things before, from rigging torpedoes to devastate their targets to creating holographic assassins. The engineering specialty has a far greater potential IMHO than the state it is in now. Whether the dev team is creative enough to push that potential to its limits is another topic though.
as you know, eng, more then the other 2, runs into the biggest problems when you have an overload of it, more so then if you have an overload of tac or sci. the solution will always be never make a ship with more then 7 or 8 eng skills, not unballance everything else in the relitivly balanced game by preserving an undesirable, no mater what you change, station setup. just like with the team skill cooldown change, more diverse ships will benifit from a new eng skill more. but that's not even the biggest reason. no mater what new skill you could potentually add to eng, you will never have a 3rd sci, or a 3rd tac skill that are more must have then whatever new eng skill they add would be. to be a decent tank or heal boat, its not that the galaxy has to much eng, its that it lacks 3 eng skills. or it cant run APB1 and FAW1 to deal a fair bit more damage. a new eng skill wont change that fact, and if the new skill is basically a replacement for a tac or sci skill, then that skill should not exist, or is clearly in the wrong place.
It may be true that more balanced ships would benefit more from some new eng powers, but the Galaxy line does have features that most other ships do not. Saucer sep comes to mind, though the Odyssey(a less eng-focused Cruiser) also features that.
as far as consoles go, eng consoles like the + to power are just garbage and need to do something else. maybe they should be mini EPt consoles? like the to weapons power would add +4 power and +1% energy damage. that would be ok, but not making eng and sci consoles tac consoles #2 and tac consoles #3. the embassy consoles buffing plasma or adding a dot are enough there too.
Yeah, I agree that the three specialties should be distinct enough. But they should also be equal, as they are presented in-game as equal.
The +power consoles do need to be rethought. I can't imagine why the devs thought they needed a nerf in the first place. But it might be a good start to re-imagining eng consoles. Also, maybe add Tac consoles that could benefit tactically weaker ships more. Though my area of understanding stops when delving into the fine mechanics such as damage-calculation formulas, so I'm not sure straight damage bonuses on Cruisers would perform all that much better than percentage bonuses on tac ships like Escorts or Raptors.
For what it's worth, I think your ideas would be fine if tac, eng, and sci weren't presented equally in-game(as in, equal console space within the overall ship selection, equal skill values in BOFF abilities, etc). If say for instance only tactical consoles existed and eng/sci were featured in totally different game elements instead, then I wouldn't have much issue about this. As the game is now, I don't think changing ship setups are the way to go.
How is that supposed to be a "Fleet" version of a ship thats built with the latest tech and to the highest standard???????
Because the Engineering ship elements like BOFF skills and console slots are presented to be equal in the ship setups to Tactical and Science, even though they are not equal in practice. The devs probably want 5 Eng console slots to function equally to 5 Tac slots. You know, except for the whole diminished returns thing.
I'm sure part of the reasons with the Galaxy being so poor is in part to the ships popularity. No other ship other than a Connie brings about more forum discussion and rage than this ship.
Personally if the Galaxy had the same setup as a D'kora, Tor'Khat, Excelsior, Regent or Galor whether i was Sci,Tact or Engineering i wouldn't be flying anything else other than a Galaxy and maybe this is Cryptics concern.
Selling ships is a big part of funding this game hence the biggest reward in a lockbox is a ship. There will always be people that prefer different designs but i'd imagine having a well balanced Galaxy on par stats wise with the Excelsior would see a drop in ship sales as everyone who wants to fly a competitive Enterprise D can.
Originally they put the ship in a tier 4 so it wasn't a end game ship it was only due to player feedback it got a tier 5 version. So just from that point, its evident to me Cryptic don't want to see the Galaxy dominating end game content.
However until someone at Cryptic Studios explains the true reasoning behind the lack or changes in the recent Galaxy Reboot where the Galaxy got no real love, when the current game mechanics don't require an all out tank, i guess we can only have our own options and speculate.
True tanking died in PvE content the moment it became time gated as pulling aggro and not being able to kill anything whilst the clock ticks down results in failure.
I wouldnt fly anything else other than a galaxy if it was competitive with the best cruisers in the game
perhaps a lot of other players would be the same
perhaps thats why it is the worst cruiser in the game
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
The saucer separation mechanic was finally bought in-line with that of the Odyssey. Combined with the shared cooldown on team abilities being removed, the Galaxy "R" did indeed get an update. Just not the top to bottom overhaul (game wise) that some of you wanted.
While I very much wellcome the ability to separate the saucer in the go and it's more in line with canon, this was not the burden of the Galaxy-R.
The changes on the "team abilites" were not an update for the Galaxy, they were an update for every single ship in STO. Yes, it makes the 3-rd ens.engineer somewhat more viable. But guess what? That change alone just made the Excelsior about 100 times better than it made the Galaxy. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about, my Excel is ridiculously better after this change.
So, I'm going to point out that continued griping and "asking" for a total revamp, is more or less beating the proverbial dead horse. Much in the same manner, I must point out, that some of the very ones in this thread accuse T5 Constitution supporters of doing.
Honestly, I do realize that we're probably beating a dead horse. At least as long as Geko's in charge. That is what I think.
We're not neccessarily asking for a "total revamp" whatever it means, most of us would just want the ship to be somewhat viable. Heck, I'd be happy if she wasn't the worst cruiser in game, the fact that she is - is insulting to the fans and to the franchise. And we'll probably keep beating that horse even if it's dead until some changes happen or until STO shuts down leaving this thread as a sad reminder of how terribad the developer treated one of the franchise's most iconinc representations.
They could have implemented the Dyson "trick" for the Galaxy upon separation. But God forbid they make something good for the Galaxy and make it a decent ship.
And as I said in another thread - don't overgeneralize about the Connie thing. Actions of an individual are not the actions of a group. Here in this thread we have people that absolutely loathe the idea of a T5 Connie and we have people like me that don't understand this stance given everything that's happening in STO and always gladly support that particular idea.
The developers listened. And they took action. It's just not what some of you have wanted. And I don't expect them to do much else to the in-game Galaxy, if anything at all.
Yes they listened. :rolleyes:
If by listening you mean sticking the fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALALALALALA".
We're not actually wasting much energy. We're just pointing out the misspresentation and injustice that is happening towards a single ship that by itself is one of the most iconic representations of the IP. We happen to be passionate about this and are simply expressing our dissent.
And playing the damned game is getting more and more lackluster when you see them sticking a big FU sign to the most iconic ships like the Galaxy or the Connie for that matter, while aparently gutted and lobotomized OP Undine ships are a go.
Comments
This issue is never going away. I want this thread to be active for as long as the game is going. That would be amusing if the game finally closes in a decade and this thread is still going strong.
Galaxy still needs fixing.
I think most people have given up on it. Cryptic "rebooted" the Galaxy line and the Galaxy-R got..wait for it.... a set bonus. Wooooo~ that's an amazing buff to such a garbage ship! Now it can be garbage while using anti-matter spread and saucer separation! Everything the Galaxy-R can do can be done better on every single other federation cruiser. Sad state of affairs for such a beloved ship.
If the thread never goes away then I'm sure will work on the Galaxy again. I'm not even a fan of the Galaxy but I know that there are quite a few people who are and they deserve a rebooted Galaxy for being such loyal fans.
I'm sorry to people who I, in the past, insulted, annoyed, etc.
Basically, it was a Galaxy-X revamp. A revamp based on a one-time ship that got less than 1% of screentime compared to its actual version.
Cryptic was just being a smart-aleck when they announced this revamp. "Oh, well stardestroyer and the rest of those Galaxy buffoons want a revamp, huh? Well, I see the name "Galaxy" in their signatures... must mean the Dreadnought Cruiser!! Har har har. Now take your revamp and shut yer mouths, cause you got a "Galaxy" revamp!"
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
So, I'm going to point out that continued griping and "asking" for a total revamp, is more or less beating the proverbial dead horse. Much in the same manner, I must point out, that some of the very ones in this thread accuse T5 Constitution supporters of doing.
The developers listened. And they took action. It's just not what some of you have wanted. And I don't expect them to do much else to the in-game Galaxy, if anything at all.
Save your energy and just play the damned game.
The Galaxy-X received the same new saucer separation mechanic, which means that the new saucer separation isn't unique to the Gal-R. So really, this was a half-improvement. (Besides, most of us were doing fine with the old mechanic. This wasn't a game changer in the slightest.)
We're not asking for a total revamp. We're asking for, at the minimum, the same boff changes as the Dreadnought cruiser. Something that would have taken the developer a minute to copy and paste into the Gal-R ship specs file, but refused to do.
As for the T5 Connie, that ship is banned and there really isn't much more to that. As opposed to pushing for a change, the pro-T5 Connie crazies are beating their heads against a brick wall (and the wrong one at that - go to CBS directly if you want something to be changed).
The developers did listen, but they decided to be a smart TRIBBLE about it, which isn't at all how we expected game developers to behave, when creating a product that is supposed to sell and please the customers.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
there is no comparison between a tier 5 connies and asking them to make the galaxy class somewhat competitive, comparing the 2 adds some gross sort of legitimacy to something as absurd as a tier 5 connie, and that just shows how valid the galaxy topic is.
the new saucer sep tech is a gimic that effects the ship in no way other then aesthetic. like ive said before, the removal of the shared cooldowns helped most the ships with a wide range of station powers, not ships that have a lot of 1 type and few of other. of all ships, the galaxy R was helped by this the LEAST.
an overhaul would be great, but we would settle for a fraction of what the dreadnaught got. namely the universal ENS. its still a mystery why the X got that, and the R didn't. the fact that the galaxy R did not get the DESPERATELY needed, game changing, for it, universal ENS, is a very loud and clear FU to everyone in this thread who would really like to use the beautiful galaxy R, wile not using the WORST ship in the game, by a mile. it would just be the worst ship in the game, by a tiny bit, then.
The Gal x got the same improvement from the console set bonus + gained saucer seperation + uni slot allowing it to actually be more flexable. The galaxy r got what? +set bonus and can now seperate on the move... k thats useful IF and only IF you use saucer seperation.
It still has the worst console layout, the worst boff layout, low turnrate. Its an uber tank in a game where everyone can tank a boss ship without needing to be an uber tank. I can tank a tac cube in an aquarius. Its a declawed tiger in a game that they turned into a dps race, dispite it being one of the federations best ships for the entire TNG. Its an "Exploration" cruiser that has laughable science capability.
Its a ship that in the show was superior to the Galor, Excel, Jem bug, Ambassador, etc. Yet in STO it comes in last place in terms of usefulness to all them. Not to meantion the galaxy models ingame are ugly as hell vs some very nice mod work in much older games sad for a professional company.
I dont need or want some uber god ship galaxy, but for god sake lets not look at the issue with closed eyes. If all that doesnt say "Hey maybe the ship needs redone top to bottom" to you maybe you need some glasses.
Make the ship right. It was an Enterprise for almost 10 years, do it the justice it deserves like the rest got. (Fleet ambassador, Fleet excel, Oddy, Fleet Assault cruiser) All good ships, I bet if cryptic put up a poll for what the worst T5 fed cruiser is the Galaxy R would get the win hands down. No ship has to be last place, unless they let it. True balance leaves them all useful. An uber tank with no claws to maintain agro, in a game where every T3-5 ship can tank a boss ship, nor has anything to make it really unique as a cruiser aside from being "the worst". Isn't Useful, its sad!
Doubly Sad when it bore the name Enterprise and is beloved by millions of fans.
And you even note that every tier 3-5 ship can tank bosses. You don't think that balance would be to instead not let every non-tank ship be able to tank? It's because of power creep and overall game imbalance. The Galaxy itself does not have the great flaws that everyone here claims it to have. This game will never be balanced as long as every ship can tank. All it will be is imbalanced if you all got your way.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
its not an uber tank. i really wish people would stop assigning it strengths it does not have. it almost makes it seem like it has redeeming qualities. an uber tank, a uber hull tanker specifically that it keeps getting refereed too, wouldn't be all but restricted to ET1. its station setup hamstrings its ability to tank, no mater how you set it up or what doffs you use. uber tanks, even uber hull tanks, have more sci then this ship does. the galaxy's Rs ability to tank is at best on par with that of a tac cruiser, with non of the dps, actually the very worst dps. simply horrifying how bad this ship is, when its something so iconic and has so much canon supporting it being good, the most powerful canon ship specifically.
HA, that's a good one
Agreed...when I first read that the dreadnought was getting an ensign universal my first thought was --- err wtf? I don't know anyone that flies the Galaxy-X that uses anything other then a tac in that seat since the revamp. The Galaxy-R on the other hand would have been helped immensely by that ensign universal.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
its been proven over and over. your in denial or just don't know enough about build theory to make an informed judgment call on the subject.
They're buffing the Vesta.
that's what we need, a podcast. that dufus that somehow cant own in a vesta managed to get it buffed with one :rolleyes:
And on top of that, you can't even decide what you're accusing me of. You're trying to imagine me with the problem, rather than listening to a reasonable counter-position.
And "build theory"? Really?!? Do you have any idea how it works yourself? Do you even know what "perfect imbalance" is?
No, DDIS. This isn't about me or you, and it's certainly not personal. You're gonna cut the BS, personal attacks, jumping around the topic so you 'feel' like you're winning an argument, and question avoidance and tell me how your support of game imbalance is better than fixing the underlying problems. Now drop the agenda and give me a real damned argument for your position.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
cool your orangeitis. haven't you been following this thread for quite a wile now? haven't you seen this 'proven' time and time again? id like to know how many times i have to verbatum explain just how bad it is in this very thread before ive done it enough times to prove the point completely. im quite tired of waisting my time writing up new walls of text on the subject every time someone like you cant see all the obvious compounding issues just by looking at its stats.
tell you what, i'll let you decide. do you want me to track down old posts and quote them, or do you want me to type out a fresh full analysis of every hamstrung thing you can do with the galaxy R? your choice, cause you asked so nicely.
if you want to know if i, DDIS, have a passing knowledge of build theroy, you are free to check out the link in my sig to the huge pvp build and help thread, to see for yourself.
what exactly is this cute little notion your going on about here? appealing to game imbalance? perfect imbalance? my support of game imbalance, instead of fixing underlying problems? this sounds like quite the fantasy! if it were true the galaxy R would be the only ship right, and every other ship and all game content would be wrong! i think majority rules here.
let me guess, its about there not being enough content were you just sit there and 'tank', right? ya, and if there was, this wouldn't do anything to make the galaxy R more relevant then the removal of the team skill system cooldowns did. because the galaxy R isnt the best tank, a great tank, or even a good tank. that tanking content would be great for the ships that actually are the great tanks.
I, Orangeitis, fully and wholeheartedly agree with DDIS that the Galaxy is not only the worst ship in the game right now, but not even worthy enough to use as a space-paperweight. I also realize that looking at its stats will tell me that, as I know my way around the game and know that configuration is painfully suboptimal at best.
What we do not agree on is how that could be fixed. You seem to think that it's a good idea to ignore that tactical and science elements are more valuable than engineering elements. You seem to think it's a bad idea for the devs to try to make an overspecialized build competitively viable. Or for that matter, that it's an overall bad idea to try making every possible configuration competitively viable. THAT is where we disagree.
Knowing your way around the game is one thing. Realizing what's best for the overall health of the gameplay environment is another. I am aware of your knowledge of PvP and I respect that. But I only give credit where it's due, and I feel that what you are advocating in this thread is bad for the game in the long run.
We both want the Galaxy to be a viable ship to fly. But we have different ideas for it.
As for perfect imbalance, check this video out.
I've tried to explain it before. As clearly as I could. But for the sake of the game, and to show you that I have nothing personal against ya, I will give it another attempt.
No, it isn't about that. But I do believe that the "sit and tank" method should indeed be viable if one chooses. And yes, I realize that currently the Galaxy isn't a good tank at all.
No, it's actually about making the Galaxy, in its current configuration, competitively viable. Whether it's "sit and tank" or otherwise. I am advocating to increase the amount of engineering BOFF ability choices(as well as tac and sci, but that's a different topic) that is available so that the Galaxy's 3 Eng BOFF stations aren't presented as a crippling overspecialization. I am also advocating to make Engineering consoles and Science consoles just as valuable as Tactical consoles... so much so that you would actually consider putting universal consoles in any of the 3 positions, depending on build, and feel no regrets. My position also includes improving the Galaxy's other traits without touching the Galaxy itself, such as giving its saucer section non-TRIBBLE A.I. and proper abilities on its own other than a little bonus if you have a console equipped to the stardrive section. Even if the additions don't turn the Galaxy into some weird super-tank, I'd still want it in its current configuration to be able to attain optimal performance.
Why I think that this would be better than just changing the Galaxy's configuration is because the ideas of my position would increase the variety of competitive builds for every ship, and not just make the Galaxy better, but other suboptimal ships like the Star Cruiser, and other ship features like the 3rd tac BOFF seat on the Tac Escort. And more variety leads to a more healthy gameplay environment.
Edit: If this post is too tl;dr, just read the bolded paragraphs.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
The ship just isn't fun to play. It is gimped by a bad boff setup, bad console setup and poor inertia and turn rate.
Now take the Excelsior, good boff setup, good console setup, good inertia and turn rate. Has the ability to tank just as well as a Galaxy but has the potential to deal a hell of a lot more damage.
So the Galaxy is a tank and as such is "balanced" by its awful turn rate, inertia and lack of tactical abilities and engineering heavy boff and console layout
The Excelsior can tank but is not balanced due to getting a good turn rate and inertia, good boff and console layout making it a ideal tank and dps cruiser.
So one ship gets drawbacks and the other gets none.
Just an example of how poorly the Galaxy has been treated compared to just one of the other fed cruisers.
this was not at all clear, due to you saying this
followed by being so hung up on me not giving a proper retort (ie, obligatory HUGE wall of text) about things we apparently both knew were true and SHOULD go without saying.
well, im against engineering and science being tactical #2 and tactical #3. they serve thier own perposes, have thier own types of skills. and even tactical ships NEED certain eng skills, as much as they need thier tactical skills. the ONLY time eng or sci or even tac has a problem is when there is TO MUCH of 1 kind. every ships thats got at 3 or more skills in at least 2 out of 3 station types is basically golden. when a ship has that, everything is just fine.
as you know, eng, more then the other 2, runs into the biggest problems when you have an overload of it, more so then if you have an overload of tac or sci. the solution will always be never make a ship with more then 7 or 8 eng skills, not unballance everything else in the relitivly balanced game by preserving an undesirable, no mater what you change, station setup. just like with the team skill cooldown change, more diverse ships will benifit from a new eng skill more. but that's not even the biggest reason. no mater what new skill you could potentually add to eng, you will never have a 3rd sci, or a 3rd tac skill that are more must have then whatever new eng skill they add would be. to be a decent tank or heal boat, its not that the galaxy has to much eng, its that it lacks 3 eng skills. or it cant run APB1 and FAW1 to deal a fair bit more damage. a new eng skill wont change that fact, and if the new skill is basically a replacement for a tac or sci skill, then that skill should not exist, or is clearly in the wrong place.
as far as consoles go, eng consoles like the + to power are just garbage and need to do something else. maybe they should be mini EPt consoles? like the to weapons power would add +4 power and +1% energy damage. that would be ok, but not making eng and sci consoles tac consoles #2 and tac consoles #3. the embassy consoles buffing plasma or adding a dot are enough there too.
Okay, as I understand it... you consider Engineering to be more or less the "defensive" portion of a ship(if I'm interpreting the implications of the sentences "im against engineering and science being tactical #2 and tactical #3. they serve thier own perposes" correctly), and since you dislike the idea of the Galaxy being a super tank, you want it to be less eng-heavy. Okay, I'm understanding your position a little better.
Though I don't accept the idea that engineering should be purely defensive. If something makes sense in the context of the fictional universe it's applied to, and it helps gameplay, I don't have a problem with it. Star Trek's engineers have done some crazy things before, from rigging torpedoes to devastate their targets to creating holographic assassins. The engineering specialty has a far greater potential IMHO than the state it is in now. Whether the dev team is creative enough to push that potential to its limits is another topic though.
It may be true that more balanced ships would benefit more from some new eng powers, but the Galaxy line does have features that most other ships do not. Saucer sep comes to mind, though the Odyssey(a less eng-focused Cruiser) also features that.
Yeah, I agree that the three specialties should be distinct enough. But they should also be equal, as they are presented in-game as equal.
The +power consoles do need to be rethought. I can't imagine why the devs thought they needed a nerf in the first place. But it might be a good start to re-imagining eng consoles. Also, maybe add Tac consoles that could benefit tactically weaker ships more. Though my area of understanding stops when delving into the fine mechanics such as damage-calculation formulas, so I'm not sure straight damage bonuses on Cruisers would perform all that much better than percentage bonuses on tac ships like Escorts or Raptors.
For what it's worth, I think your ideas would be fine if tac, eng, and sci weren't presented equally in-game(as in, equal console space within the overall ship selection, equal skill values in BOFF abilities, etc). If say for instance only tactical consoles existed and eng/sci were featured in totally different game elements instead, then I wouldn't have much issue about this. As the game is now, I don't think changing ship setups are the way to go.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Personally if the Galaxy had the same setup as a D'kora, Tor'Khat, Excelsior, Regent or Galor whether i was Sci,Tact or Engineering i wouldn't be flying anything else other than a Galaxy and maybe this is Cryptics concern.
Selling ships is a big part of funding this game hence the biggest reward in a lockbox is a ship. There will always be people that prefer different designs but i'd imagine having a well balanced Galaxy on par stats wise with the Excelsior would see a drop in ship sales as everyone who wants to fly a competitive Enterprise D can.
Originally they put the ship in a tier 4 so it wasn't a end game ship it was only due to player feedback it got a tier 5 version. So just from that point, its evident to me Cryptic don't want to see the Galaxy dominating end game content.
However until someone at Cryptic Studios explains the true reasoning behind the lack or changes in the recent Galaxy Reboot where the Galaxy got no real love, when the current game mechanics don't require an all out tank, i guess we can only have our own options and speculate.
True tanking died in PvE content the moment it became time gated as pulling aggro and not being able to kill anything whilst the clock ticks down results in failure.
perhaps a lot of other players would be the same
perhaps thats why it is the worst cruiser in the game
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
While I very much wellcome the ability to separate the saucer in the go and it's more in line with canon, this was not the burden of the Galaxy-R.
The changes on the "team abilites" were not an update for the Galaxy, they were an update for every single ship in STO. Yes, it makes the 3-rd ens.engineer somewhat more viable. But guess what? That change alone just made the Excelsior about 100 times better than it made the Galaxy. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about, my Excel is ridiculously better after this change.
Honestly, I do realize that we're probably beating a dead horse. At least as long as Geko's in charge. That is what I think.
We're not neccessarily asking for a "total revamp" whatever it means, most of us would just want the ship to be somewhat viable. Heck, I'd be happy if she wasn't the worst cruiser in game, the fact that she is - is insulting to the fans and to the franchise. And we'll probably keep beating that horse even if it's dead until some changes happen or until STO shuts down leaving this thread as a sad reminder of how terribad the developer treated one of the franchise's most iconinc representations.
They could have implemented the Dyson "trick" for the Galaxy upon separation. But God forbid they make something good for the Galaxy and make it a decent ship.
And as I said in another thread - don't overgeneralize about the Connie thing. Actions of an individual are not the actions of a group. Here in this thread we have people that absolutely loathe the idea of a T5 Connie and we have people like me that don't understand this stance given everything that's happening in STO and always gladly support that particular idea.
Yes they listened. :rolleyes:
If by listening you mean sticking the fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALALALALALA".
We're not actually wasting much energy. We're just pointing out the misspresentation and injustice that is happening towards a single ship that by itself is one of the most iconic representations of the IP. We happen to be passionate about this and are simply expressing our dissent.
And playing the damned game is getting more and more lackluster when you see them sticking a big FU sign to the most iconic ships like the Galaxy or the Connie for that matter, while aparently gutted and lobotomized OP Undine ships are a go.