Actually there are certain builds that can function optimal with 8 Eng boffs. The issue is that you got to play Galaxy R in Season 9 on those roles. Those roles are not as high adrenaline as Fleet Galaxy X or as group oriented as Sci based cruisers. However, if you are going for dps boat, of course 8 Eng boffs is not that good.
What builds are optimal with 8 Eng boffs? The Galaxy layout locks you into ET1 and means you can't effectively use higher level EPTX powers, a problem any ship with 7 Eng boffs doesn't have (with a much more useful Ensign power to boot).
I'm not trying to be mean here, I just genuinely can't think of anything.
Actually this has nothing to do with the shows. Even the original post never stated that this should be in parallel to the shows. He stated he want this to become a dps boat, which a year or so before the release of Fleet Galaxy X.
Only players in this thread morphed this into their personal rant thread to make Galaxy flexible to their playstyles or the builds they have in mind.
The problem is everyone who is complaining about Galaxy R wants it to morph into a Galaxy X or Sci Cruiser which the devs already admitted they wont do.
It is already too late change the boffs due to many players already crafted and spent their money creating a viable tank/healing Eng based Galaxy R as well the devs already disagreeing with any changes to the boffs.
The issue with your comparison is your comparing Risan Luxury Liner to the non dps boat in the Galaxy bundle. When I compare the Luxury Liner with Galaxy X, it aint the case. If I want a dps Galaxy boat, I will play the Fleet Galaxy X.
Actually there are certain builds that can function optimal with 8 Eng boffs. The issue is that you got to play Galaxy R in Season 9 on those roles. Those roles are not as high adrenaline as Fleet Galaxy X or as group oriented as Sci based cruisers. However, if you are going for dps boat, of course 8 Eng boffs is not that good.
The only thing left for our us to do is actually give suggestions that is actionable to the devs which is balance Fleet galaxy R by giving it an inert ability based on its current role rather continue ranting about things that are not actionable.
There are certain builds that can function with 8 ENG BOFF skills, but how useful are they compared to even a 7 skill slot one?
Also, there is absolutely NO content in this game, PVE or PVP, that makes anyone feel the need to break out the Galaxy-R. It does not hold any worthy edge even over the freebie Lv40 Assault or Star Cruisers. The Lv40 Assault / Star Cruisers have more than enough ENG stations to be robust and supportive, but not waste that extra ENG skill slot. It goes into TAC or SCI, respectively, for a better BOFF layout. A Lv40 Assault / Star Cruiser can be more damaging or bring more sci support (respectively) than even a Fleet Galaxy, and yet still retain all the definitive, supportive abilities of a very ENG heavy Cruiser. And move around better without having to resort to gimmick consoles with bonuses that really should have been part of the ship to begin with by default.
Everything you think you can do in a Fleet Galaxy, a Lv40 Assault / Star Cruiser can do, and be better for the team.
The only thing the Galaxy has to its advantage is its iconic skin. Nothing more. Because everything about the BOFF layout, mediocre stats and console slotting make the Galaxy a loser.
What builds are optimal with 8 Eng boffs? The Galaxy layout locks you into ET1 and means you can't effectively use higher level EPTX powers, a problem any ship with 7 Eng boffs doesn't have (with a much more useful Ensign power to boot).
I'm not trying to be mean here, I just genuinely can't think of anything.
Correct. The issue stems from the very simple fact that Ensign level ENG skills suck balls. Almost all except for 1 abillity is an "Emergency Power" and will throw the other 3 into shared cooldowns. Then you have ET1. And no other viable ENG abilities in that tier.
In contrast to the Ensign level skills in TAC or SCI, you have bonafide options that don't throw the whole other range into shared cooldowns.
Conflicting TAC Ensign abilities:
All the above with their "sister" abilities (i.e. BFAW throws BO into shared cooldowns, but not Torp abilities or Subsystem Targ or Tactical Team). Tac Team is fully independent.
Non-conflicting ENG Ensign abilities:
Engineering Team
Conflicting ENG Ensign abilities:
All Emergency Power abilities throw the other into shared cooldowns. That means 4/5 Ensign ENG abilities throws each other into shared CDs.
Conflicting SCI Ensign abilities:
Jam Sensors with Mask Energy Signature
As you can see, Tactical & Science Ensign abilities bring far more to the table than Engineering does. That's why the Galaxy-R/Fleet Galaxy are such a fail. This is one of the reasons why the Galaxy is such a fail of a package. There's more than simply this, but this is one of those thorns.
What builds are optimal with 8 Eng boffs? The Galaxy layout locks you into ET1 and means you can't effectively use higher level EPTX powers, a problem any ship with 7 Eng boffs doesn't have (with a much more useful Ensign power to boot).
I'm not trying to be mean here, I just genuinely can't think of anything.
there's not a single good 8 eng power build. so, of course we want it to morph into something else. we aren't even that picky as too what anymore, change anything and the ship is automatically better. even just a universal ENS would be amazing.
Actually this has nothing to do with the shows. Even the original post never stated that this should be in parallel to the shows. He stated he want this to become a dps boat, which a year or so before the release of Fleet Galaxy X.
Only players in this thread morphed this into their personal rant thread to make Galaxy flexible to their playstyles or the builds they have in mind.
The problem is everyone who is complaining about Galaxy R wants it to morph into a Galaxy X or Sci Cruiser which the devs already admitted they wont do.
It is already too late change the boffs due to many players already crafted and spent their money creating a viable tank/healing Eng based Galaxy R as well the devs already disagreeing with any changes to the boffs.
The issue with your comparison is your comparing Risan Luxury Liner to the non dps boat in the Galaxy bundle. When I compare the Luxury Liner with Galaxy X, it aint the case. If I want a dps Galaxy boat, I will play the Fleet Galaxy X.
Actually there are certain builds that can function optimal with 8 Eng boffs. The issue is that you got to play Galaxy R in Season 9 on those roles. Those roles are not as high adrenaline as Fleet Galaxy X or as group oriented as Sci based cruisers. However, if you are going for dps boat, of course 8 Eng boffs is not that good.
The only thing left for our us to do is actually give suggestions that is actionable to the devs which is balance Fleet galaxy R by giving it an inert ability based on its current role rather continue ranting about things that are not actionable.
I am with you to a certain degree. After all, despite all the complaining I love my Galaxy and I have a build that works and I have FUN. If there was a universal LTC all of a sudden, I don't know if I'd even change that to something else because right now I have two lvl III emergency powers up all the time which is pretty great.
But there are also some issues that persist, aside from "I want the ship to fit my playstyle". The Explorer specifically is a payship, yet it is objectively "worse" (measured in numbers) than the free ships. This is not about "I have paid, I want to be better", but at least "I have paid, I don't want to downgrade". This is something that is a problem the Galaxy has.
Then we have the issue of it's mirror, the NeghVar. This is also not a "great" ship but it works. It's a battle cruiser and got 3 tac consoles, the Explorer got 3 sci for that, I can get behind that. But the fleet Negh'Var got a universal ensign station while the Explorer didn't. Why? What's the reason?
Then we have the "refit" issue. Cryptic offers T4 payship-refits for the "big three". BUT if you decide to get those you are *not allowed* to continue to play these ships you grew a custom with in endgame content, the option simply isn't there. But I personally want that. If I buy the Sao Paolo or Venture or Bellerophon, I would like to play THESE ships at endgame which means a science slant for the Gal and Engineer slants for the others, either with a LTC or ENS option (at least!). This is not possible and that's stupid. This is why I have at least proposed a "semi-uni" LTC and/or ensign, able to switch between the Retrofit and Refit layouts.
The fourth objectively viable point is that the Galaxy is supposed to be the "ubertank", yet it's limited tac layout makes it hard for the ship to even generate enough damage (read: threat) to fulfull that purpose. It would need some kind of set bonus, set ability or gimmick to help out, so it WORKS at least *as intended*.
The discussion what a better ingame representation of the canon ship would be is, for the most part, just fun and interesting for us who love the ship and the diving into fictional treknology. I certainly wouldn't mind a lot of changes proposed, but that's not what I expect of Cryptic, honestly. But I would expect the above four points to be at least acknowledged and commented on by the devs
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I think the only realistic chance to get a acceptable Galaxy Class in STO would be a Mirror version (lockbox).
By releasing such a ship they would limit its numbers in STO and they wouldn't have to change their beloved teethless healer C-Store ship at all. Both sides could live with it IMO.
Nope, that won't cut it for me and it's not a solution that would make me happy. The MU ships are not fleet level, therefore their stats will always be lower and second class to fleet ships and this is not sufficient for me. Plus you'll never get 10 consoles on a MU ship like you suggested.
Actually this has nothing to do with the shows. Even the original post never stated that this should be in parallel to the shows. He stated he want this to become a dps boat, which a year or so before the release of Fleet Galaxy X.
Only players in this thread morphed this into their personal rant thread to make Galaxy flexible to their playstyles or the builds they have in mind.
The problem is everyone who is complaining about Galaxy R wants it to morph into a Galaxy X or Sci Cruiser which the devs already admitted they wont do.
It is already too late change the boffs due to many players already crafted and spent their money creating a viable tank/healing Eng based Galaxy R as well the devs already disagreeing with any changes to the boffs.
The issue with your comparison is your comparing Risan Luxury Liner to the non dps boat in the Galaxy bundle. When I compare the Luxury Liner with Galaxy X, it aint the case. If I want a dps Galaxy boat, I will play the Fleet Galaxy X.
Actually there are certain builds that can function optimal with 8 Eng boffs. The issue is that you got to play Galaxy R in Season 9 on those roles. Those roles are not as high adrenaline as Fleet Galaxy X or as group oriented as Sci based cruisers. However, if you are going for dps boat, of course 8 Eng boffs is not that good.
The only thing left for our us to do is actually give suggestions that is actionable to the devs which is balance Fleet galaxy R by giving it an inert ability based on its current role rather continue ranting about things that are not actionable.
First of all, Galaxy-X =/= Galaxy Class. People need to understand this. The Galaxy Class is the Galaxy Class, the Enterprise-D, Yamato, Odyssey, etc. The Galaxy-X is a figment of Q's imagination that had about 20 seconds of screen time.
Flying a ship that kinda' looks like the Galaxy, but cloaks, has "horns" on the saucer, a big gun that screams "badass" and a rather silly looking (IMHO) 3-rd nacelle is not flying a Galaxy Class for me and for many others it seems. Especially after they just slapped the idiotic hangar onto it.
Secondly, there are hundreds of ways to modify the Boff layout without pissing off people that made a build revolving around the current Boff layout. A new "retrorefit" variant or whatever, a choice given to players to switch to the new layout or keep their old one, etc. It's not all black and white as you assume. Heck, I even said myslef that after several years of fine-tuning a build that kinda' works I'd be pissed myself if they mess around with my ship.
However, a new variant adapted better to their game, I would buy even if it seams I'm bying the same ship twice.
Third, there is no such thing as a Galaxy bundle. They invented that to squeeze cash from TNG fans without actually putting any effort into the ships. They basically tied 3 already exisiting ships together, one of which is a T4 ship! Show me another "bundle" like this one. Show me another bundle where the ships aren't able to mixmatch parts? They didn't even bother fixing the glaring graphical missalignments and issues on any of these ships.
They just took the separation on Galaxy-X, something that they have been saying they're working on for 2.5 years before this release, slapped a hangar and called it a day. And then bundled 3 completely different ships in an attempt to squeeze some more cash from fans and to shut us up, because hey, they revamped the Galaxy, right? :rolleyes:
The Galaxy-X is not the DPS version of the Galaxy Class. It never was, it's a different ship. It has always been treated like different. The Galaxy dread was initally a reward ship for recruiters that would bring people to STO, but then F2P came and it was put in the C-Store to not be a wasted asset when it already is created.
There are builds that function with 8 eng.Boffs. I wouldn't call them optimal, but they work. Then again, in STO's "elite" end-game content T3 ships work. Hell, people have done it in T1 ships.
That's not the point here. The point is that in STO, the legendary and iconic Galaxy Class, the ship with most time on screen in the franchise history, a ship that is at half it's intended service age (and this is talking about the very first batch of six) in STO's timeframe, the Enterprise-D is by far and i underline by far the worst of all cruisers in game and just there in the top worst ships in general. This is not what this ship deserves and that's all.
Nope, that won't cut it for me and it's not a solution that would make me happy. The MU ships are not fleet level, therefore their stats will always be lower and second class to fleet ships and this is not sufficient for me. Plus you'll never get 10 consoles on a MU ship like you suggested.
After so many years i wouldn't mind a slightly weaker GCS, as long as it doesn't suck as the current one.
Personally i don't think that they will release ANOTHER Galaxy Class variant, too many ppl would say that they want different ships.
I had the Mirror Universe Negh'Var in my mind when thinking about a Mirror GCS. I just can't understand why a similar ship should be impossible to do.
In the end, i think a real good Fleet level GCS is far beyond of what we can hope for. Heck i would be satisfied with a GCS with the BOFF Layout of the Fleet Ambassador and the consoles of the D'D.:D
I think Cryptics antipathy against the GCS is already more then grotesque, with the Excelsior and the Ambassador being clearly the better ships.
So i'm certainly glad that there is no T5 Constitution Class, i'm sure it would outgun the Galaxy Class by far, lol.
I'm sure Cryptics fanboys would find some "obvious" justifications for a constitution class able to outgun a Galaxy Class.
(Let's just wait for the T4.5/5 Constellation, to will surely embarrass the GCS even further )
First of all, Galaxy-X =/= Galaxy Class. People need to understand this. The Galaxy Class is the Galaxy Class, the Enterprise-D, Yamato, Odyssey, etc. The Galaxy-X is a figment of Q's imagination that had about 20 seconds of screen time.
Flying a ship that kinda' looks like the Galaxy, but cloaks, has "horns" on the saucer, a big gun that screams "badass" and a rather silly looking (IMHO) 3-rd nacelle is not flying a Galaxy Class for me and for many others it seems. Especially after they just slapped the idiotic hangar onto it.
Secondly, there are hundreds of ways to modify the Boff layout without pissing off people that made a build revolving around the current Boff layout. A new "retrorefit" variant or whatever, a choice given to players to switch to the new layout or keep their old one, etc. It's not all black and white as you assume. Heck, I even said myslef that after several years of fine-tuning a build that kinda' works I'd be pissed myself if they mess around with my ship.
However, a new variant adapted better to their game, I would buy even if it seams I'm bying the same ship twice.
Third, there is no such thing as a Galaxy bundle. They invented that to squeeze cash from TNG fans without actually putting any effort into the ships. They basically tied 3 already exisiting ships together, one of which is a T4 ship! Show me another "bundle" like this one. Show me another bundle where the ships aren't able to mixmatch parts? They didn't even bother fixing the glaring graphical missalignments and issues on any of these ships.
They just took the separation on Galaxy-X, something that they have been saying they're working on for 2.5 years before this release, slapped a hangar and called it a day. And then bundled 3 completely different ships in an attempt to squeeze some more cash from fans and to shut us up, because hey, they revamped the Galaxy, right? :rolleyes:
The Galaxy-X is not the DPS version of the Galaxy Class. It never was, it's a different ship. It has always been treated like different. The Galaxy dread was initally a reward ship for recruiters that would bring people to STO, but then F2P came and it was put in the C-Store to not be a wasted asset when it already is created.
There are builds that function with 8 eng.Boffs. I wouldn't call them optimal, but they work. Then again, in STO's "elite" end-game content T3 ships work. Hell, people have done it in T1 ships.
That's not the point here. The point is that in STO, the legendary and iconic Galaxy Class, the ship with most time on screen in the franchise history, a ship that is at half it's intended service age (and this is talking about the very first batch of six) in STO's timeframe, the Enterprise-D is by far and i underline by far the worst of all cruisers in game and just there in the top worst ships in general. This is not what this ship deserves and that's all.
100% agreed.
By now i'm really annoyed by the opinion of the G-X being the tactical version of the Galaxy Class, because it is like you said, the G-X is just a spawn of Q's fantasy. (Heck if it would at least look cool or real Badass, but it looks like made by a 5 year old kid, ruining the lines of the GCS completely IMO)
The GCS "Bundle" was just a extreme lame try to squeeze some money out of some TNG fans. But on the other hand it opens up a lot of easy excuses for them to ignore us and our cause completely from now on.
Now, they can just say that they have spend more time on GCS variants then any other ship, they can also claim that the sales where so low, no one would be interestend in a real revamp of the GCS and so on.
Maybe i'm a bit pessemistic, but i think our chance to get a decent Fleet level GCS in tends to zero.
That's why i still hope for a mirror version of the GCS.
Heck if THEY can create a good mirror Negh'Var, then why not a Mirror GCS having the same BOFF/Console Layout? Do they really hate the Galaxy Class that much?!? (Man i think i'm gonna roll a KDF char and try to ignore my antipathy against their "mass murdering - slave trading - bio Weapon experimenting - flexible honor" mentality, 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
After so many years i wouldn't mind a slightly weaker GCS, as long as it doesn't suck as the current one.
Personally i don't think that they will release ANOTHER Galaxy Class variant, too many ppl would say that they want different ships.
I had the Mirror Universe Negh'Var in my mind when thinking about a Mirror GCS. I just can't understand why a similar ship should be impossible to do.
In the end, i think a real good Fleet level GCS is far beyond of what we can hope for. Heck i would be satisfied with a GCS with the BOFF Layout of the Fleet Ambassador and the consoles of the D'D.:D
I think Cryptics antipathy against the GCS is already more then grotesque, with the Excelsior and the Ambassador being clearly the better ships.
So i'm certainly glad that there is no T5 Constitution Class, i'm sure it would outgun the Galaxy Class by far, lol.
I'm sure Cryptics fanboys would find some "obvious" justifications for a constitution class able to outgun a Galaxy Class.
(Let's just wait for the T4.5/5 Constellation, to will surely embarrass the GCS even further )
100% agreed.
By now i'm really annoyed by the opinion of the G-X being the tactical version of the Galaxy Class, because it is like you said, the G-X is just a spawn of Q's fantasy. (Heck if it would at least look cool or real Badass, but it looks like made by a 5 year old kid, ruining the lines of the GCS completely IMO)
The GCS "Bundle" was just a extreme lame try to squeeze some money out of some TNG fans. But on the other hand it opens up a lot of easy excuses for them to ignore us and our cause completely from now on.
Now, they can just say that they have spend more time on GCS variants then any other ship, they can also claim that the sales where so low, no one would be interestend in a real revamp of the GCS and so on.
Maybe i'm a bit pessemistic, but i think our chance to get a decent Fleet level GCS in tends to zero.
That's why i still hope for a mirror version of the GCS.
Heck if THEY can create a good mirror Negh'Var, then why not a Mirror GCS having the same BOFF/Console Layout? Do they really hate the Galaxy Class that much?!? (Man i think i'm gonna roll a KDF char and try to ignore my antipathy against their "mass murdering - slave trading - bio Weapon experimenting - flexible honor" mentality, lol)
Figment of Q's imagination? i think not. He showed a possible future to picard going from what was happening at the point. The the Gal X was always a possiblity. Heck if you figure out some things. the STo universe closely matches the the Alternate future Picard saw.
But for GCS we all know that Craotic devs are lazy the bundle idea didn't even fix the known graphical glitches in the models. So yes a nice easy solution ALL UNIVERSAL BO slots for the the GALR and Fleet Gal and all gal models available to T4 gal, Venture, Retro, and Fleet gal. I'll even throw in Gal X.
Figment of Q's imagination? i think not. He showed a possible future to picard going from what was happening at the point. The the Gal X was always a possiblity. Heck if you figure out some things. the STo universe closely matches the the Alternate future Picard saw.
Onepossible future, therefore a figment of Q's imagination as far as everyone is concerned. Another possible future could be Riker riding a rainbow unicorn to save the day from the Klingons. There are infinite possible futures and outcomes and this one was just based on what Q felt like at that moment. In any case, it was not real - that's the point.
And the STO universe doesn't even remotely match anything, it's one hell of a mess on it's own.
Onepossible future, therefore a figment of Q's imagination as far as everyone is concerned. Another possible future could be Riker riding a rainbow unicorn to save the day from the Klingons. There are infinite possible futures and outcomes and this one was just based on what Q felt like at that moment. In any case, it was not real - that's the point.
And the STO universe doesn't even remotely match anything, it's one hell of a mess on it's own.
That's just nitpicking here and hardly has anything to do with the topic, but I don't think it wa Qs creation. The alternate timelines we saw during the anti-time phenomenon were just as real as the prime timeline. Everything there happened in it's own timeline and some elements of those timelines overlapped each other in the end. Mind you, the AGt timeline was terminated and cannot be what STO takes place in (albeit I consider STO another anti-time future, which is why my Starfleet crews are all dressed in AGT garment and badge ). Regarding the "dradnaught", even if what we saw on screen has not been Qs imagination but "real" like I think, even then the Galaxy Refit was a one-of-a-kind trick played by Admiral Riker to save the Enterprise from decomission because an admiral can choose his ship. It was not a mass produced version of the ship, nor does anything indicate that it was in any way a kind of "tactical" ship, it was essentially the same Enterprise, refitted to technological standard and with an added phaser emitter that could pierce shielding which could just as well be fitted on any other vessel.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
So i'm certainly glad that there is no T5 Constitution Class, i'm sure it would outgun the Galaxy Class by far, lol.
[/I]
since we proove that it is not possible to make a bo layout and console layout less effective than the one of the galaxy class at tier 5, it is a FACT that an hypothetical t5 constitution would at least be as "powerfull" as a galaxy class.
it can't be less, unless you really think cryptic is going to make a tier 5 ship with 2 science console slot and 1 tac console, or 1 science console slot and 2 tact console slot.
not credible isn't it?
since we proove that it is not possible to make a bo layout and console layout less effective than the one of the galaxy class at tier 5, it is a FACT that an hypothetical t5 constitution would at least be as "powerfull" as a galaxy class.
it can't be less, unless you really think cryptic is going to make a tier 5 ship with 2 science console slot and 1 tac console, or 1 science console slot and 2 tact console slot.
not credible isn't it?
That was exactly my point.
The GCS is so awful, its hard to come up with something even worse, even for a ship that is supposed to be far inferior.
It just shows how superficial the devs are concerning the GCS. It is NOT supposed to be a pure tank nor is the Intrepid a pure science vessel. That's just nonsense in favour of a stone/paper/scissor system that was abandoned long ago (thankfully).
To insist in their own mistakers doesn't make it better 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
What builds are optimal with 8 Eng boffs? The Galaxy layout locks you into ET1 and means you can't effectively use higher level EPTX powers, a problem any ship with 7 Eng boffs doesn't have (with a much more useful Ensign power to boot).
I'm not trying to be mean here, I just genuinely can't think of anything.
Everything you think you can do in a Fleet Galaxy, a Lv40 Assault / Star Cruiser can do, and be better for the team.
The only thing the Galaxy has to its advantage is its iconic skin. Nothing more. Because everything about the BOFF layout, mediocre stats and console slotting make the Galaxy a loser.
Clearly, you guys havent played Fleet Galaxy R recently in its most recent patch on an optimal tanking build. Yes, Star Cruiser contributes more on a premade team as Sci Support than Fleet Galaxy R. Fleet Galaxy R's strength has never been the premade teams as tanking and self healing does not equate being good in premade teams. I concur with Fleet Galaxy R's weakness on premade teams compared to specific roles occupied Recluse healer or a Scimitar tac dps or a vape escort.
The only thing comparable to Fleet Galaxy R in Fed Fleet line is the Odyssey Operations Cruiser. As they have the same console slots, with only the Odyssey having uni boffs being its strength.
If you havent really hard tank Borg Queen on Hive Onslaught Elite inside 5km with a good group on a well made well played on a 100k+ hull and shield buffer tank Fleet Galaxy R that can do 10k dps on ISE without dying, you havent optimized the ship and spent more time complaining here than actually playing the ship.
Thats what those extra eng boffs are for, to bring your hull or shields back to 100% after being alphad by a mob in a sec or 2 as certain mobs especially the Borg queen hits fast and hard and spams viral matrix.
I am with you to a certain degree. After all, despite all the complaining I love my Galaxy and I have a build that works and I have FUN. If there was a universal LTC all of a sudden, I don't know if I'd even change that to something else because right now I have two lvl III emergency powers up all the time which is pretty great.
But there are also some issues that persist, aside from "I want the ship to fit my playstyle". The Explorer specifically is a payship, yet it is objectively "worse" (measured in numbers) than the free ships. This is not about "I have paid, I want to be better", but at least "I have paid, I don't want to downgrade". This is something that is a problem the Galaxy has.
Then we have the issue of it's mirror, the NeghVar. This is also not a "great" ship but it works. It's a battle cruiser and got 3 tac consoles, the Explorer got 3 sci for that, I can get behind that. But the fleet Negh'Var got a universal ensign station while the Explorer didn't. Why? What's the reason?
Then we have the "refit" issue. Cryptic offers T4 payship-refits for the "big three". BUT if you decide to get those you are *not allowed* to continue to play these ships you grew a custom with in endgame content, the option simply isn't there. But I personally want that. If I buy the Sao Paolo or Venture or Bellerophon, I would like to play THESE ships at endgame which means a science slant for the Gal and Engineer slants for the others, either with a LTC or ENS option (at least!). This is not possible and that's stupid. This is why I have at least proposed a "semi-uni" LTC and/or ensign, able to switch between the Retrofit and Refit layouts.
The fourth objectively viable point is that the Galaxy is supposed to be the "ubertank", yet it's limited tac layout makes it hard for the ship to even generate enough damage (read: threat) to fulfull that purpose. It would need some kind of set bonus, set ability or gimmick to help out, so it WORKS at least *as intended*.
The discussion what a better ingame representation of the canon ship would be is, for the most part, just fun and interesting for us who love the ship and the diving into fictional treknology. I certainly wouldn't mind a lot of changes proposed, but that's not what I expect of Cryptic, honestly. But I would expect the above four points to be at least acknowledged and commented on by the devs
You just pointed out the problem that persists that those complain here. They want a dps ship on enforced on a non dps ship. The devs already said they didnt want to change this, we are moving around circles when you know it wont happen.
I am in favor uni boffs, but I am against making fixed changes on boffs like making something sci or tac boff permanent or changes on consoles on the galaxy R. A lot of players already built that ship. Changing the whole concept would mean those who built that ship on its current setup will lose their money. But all this discussion on Galaxy R boffs is already moot as they already have decided on what to do about this.
Thats why I suggested it should have a built in ability to tank in parallel to phaser lance which is actionable to the devs rather than force the issues that we know the devs wont do any action on.
Clearly, you guys havent played Fleet Galaxy R recently in its most recent patch on an optimal tanking build. Yes, Star Cruiser contributes more on a premade team as Sci Support than Fleet Galaxy R. Fleet Galaxy R's strength has never been the premade teams as tanking and self healing does not equate being good in premade teams. I concur with Fleet Galaxy R's weakness on premade teams compared to specific roles occupied Recluse healer or a Scimitar tac dps or a vape escort.
The only thing comparable to Fleet Galaxy R in Fed Fleet line is the Odyssey Operations Cruiser. As they have the same console slots, with only the Odyssey having uni boffs being its strength.
If you havent really hard tank Borg Queen on Hive Onslaught Elite inside 5km with a good group on a well made well played on a 100k+ hull and shield buffer tank Fleet Galaxy R that can do 10k dps on ISE without dying, you havent optimized the ship and spent more time complaining here than actually playing the ship.
Thats what those extra eng boffs are for, to bring your hull or shields back to 100% after being alphad by a mob in a sec or 2 as certain mobs especially the Borg queen hits fast and hard and spams viral matrix.
You just pointed out the problem that persists that those complain here. They want a dps ship on enforced on a non dps ship. The devs already said they didnt want to change this, we are moving around circles when you know it wont happen.
I am in favor uni boffs, but I am against making fixed changes on boffs like making something sci or tac boff permanent or changes on consoles on the galaxy R. A lot of players already built that ship. Changing the whole concept would mean those who built that ship on its current setup will lose their money. But all this discussion on Galaxy R boffs is already moot as they already have decided on what to do about this.
Thats why I suggested it should have a built in ability to tank in parallel to phaser lance which is actionable to the devs rather than force the issues that we know the devs wont do any action on.
That's why my all universal Bo slots is the best solution. It handles the main problem with the GCS, it's easy to do, and it allows those with good builds on it to keep it if they want. Unlike a certain person it can be truth. If you like your build you can keep your build. What the devs should just do is a complete revamp of the GCS. Fix graphic issues, make the alt model skins availible for all types, and do the BO thing. PROBLEM SOLVED.
That's why my all universal Bo slots is the best solution. It handles the main problem with the GCS, it's easy to do, and it allows those with good builds on it to keep it if they want. Unlike a certain person it can be truth. If you like your build you can keep your build. What the devs should just do is a complete revamp of the GCS. Fix graphic issues, make the alt model skins availible for all types, and do the BO thing. PROBLEM SOLVED.
the all universal solution would bring about cryptic's ultimate nightmare, a fan favorite cruiser would be the best! they would totally never sell any other ship again, and they would lose so much money on this disaster they would have to shut down all 3 games :rolleyes:
something like the breen raider with everything but the COM universal is the closest thing to reasonable, and bound to happen to something eventually. probably to something even dumber then the risan cruise ship.
it need not be so universal heavy handed, i still think this station setup is best. well, next to applying dyson station swapping tech on saucer separation
COM eng LTC uni
LT uni LT sci
ENS sci
high level eng, and plentiful base sci, with its tac completely up in the air. a lot, some or none, similar to galaxy variants seen in the show. the best configuration for it would be sloting at least one of those stations with sci, and going tac-less. that would be a unique niche for it to have, the most sci heavy cruiser. on the other end you could make it an also ran tac cruiser, STILL worse at that then even the hirogen or risan cruiser.
Clearly, you guys havent played Fleet Galaxy R recently in its most recent patch on an optimal tanking build. Yes, Star Cruiser contributes more on a premade team as Sci Support than Fleet Galaxy R. Fleet Galaxy R's strength has never been the premade teams as tanking and self healing does not equate being good in premade teams. I concur with Fleet Galaxy R's weakness on premade teams compared to specific roles occupied Recluse healer or a Scimitar tac dps or a vape escort.
I (respectfully) disagree. The Galaxy is decent at tanking, sure, but she's definitely not a great one - she doesn't have enough sci slots. It can't even run HE, ST and TSS all at the same time like, say, the Star Cruiser, let alone access higher levels of those powers like an Ambassador or Oddy.
The bottom line is, the amount of Eng it has is excessive, even for a tank. What Eng skills do you want? 2 EPTX, an ET, an RSP, probably an A2SIF. That's five abilities, and pretty much covers everything you'd need for self healing. You could get rid of the doffs for the EPTX, abilities, okay, then you'd be using seven, maybe chuck in another ET as well to get that to global, and you're done.
The problem is, another cruiser can use the Damage Control doffs and get pretty much the same effect - with more sci boff slots, giving it cruciial access to more sci powers, which are going to more for its self healing than those last few eng abilities.
Let's compare the following (I don't claim to be an expert ship builder, take these with a grain of salt):
Which of these two ships is going to be more durable? The one with more heals and more cleanses for more situations, and that's not the Galaxy. If Eng was the only profession in game to contain heals it might be a different story - but Science Boff powers are just as integral to healing and tanking as Engineering ones, and a ship with only a LT Sci just isn't going to be the best at at that role.
The Fleet Galaxy-R just has no reason to exist. Personally, I find comparing it to similar ships to be entirely depressing, no matter what role you're looking for...
That's why my all universal Bo slots is the best solution. It handles the main problem with the GCS, it's easy to do, and it allows those with good builds on it to keep it if they want. Unlike a certain person it can be truth. If you like your build you can keep your build. What the devs should just do is a complete revamp of the GCS. Fix graphic issues, make the alt model skins availible for all types, and do the BO thing. PROBLEM SOLVED.
I'm sorry, but it is not. I'm not trying to be rude, but don't you realise that the all-universal raiders on KDF side are not comparable with what you are proposing? And that doesn't even take into account what DDIS said about profits.
I agree that more universal consoles would be good, since I strongly believe that STO got it's basic conept all wrong. Starfleet ships should feature more universal boffs than KDF while KDF should feature highly specialized ships, that's how we know it from the IP. But STO and Cryptic don't care about the established rules of the IP. If the Galaxy would be to get a LTC uni I would be fine with it, but they won't do this since then the Gal would compete with another payship which is even supposed to be superior in game lore.
I can't see them redoing the ship from the ground, that's why I think we need a set bonus to help it generate some threat and a universal ensign for the fleet version because it makes no sense to specifically take this ship out of the usual fleet treatment. A LTC and ENS uni would be perfect because it would allow us to play either the retro or refit version at endgame, something Cryptic themselves introduced in the first place, but the ensign would already help a little bit.
But you won't see all universals or a complete reimagining of the ship that's in game like this since release (or shortly after). Unfortunately.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
the all universal solution would bring about cryptic's ultimate nightmare, a fan favorite cruiser would be the best! they would totally never sell any other ship again, and they would lose so much money on this disaster they would have to shut down all 3 games :rolleyes:
something like the breen raider with everything but the COM universal is the closest thing to reasonable, and bound to happen to something eventually. probably to something even dumber then the risan cruise ship.
it need not be so universal heavy handed, i still think this station setup is best. well, next to applying dyson station swapping tech on saucer separation
COM eng LTC uni
LT uni LT sci
ENS sci
high level eng, and plentiful base sci, with its tac completely up in the air. a lot, some or none, similar to galaxy variants seen in the show. the best configuration for it would be sloting at least one of those stations with sci, and going tac-less. that would be a unique niche for it to have, the most sci heavy cruiser. on the other end you could make it an also ran tac cruiser, STILL worse at that then even the hirogen or risan cruiser.
I would go even a step further and merge the Lt. Sci and the Ens Sci into one Lt. Cmdr Sci, to make it more up to date.
Apart from that, i think this setup offers enough flexibility to create a decent build and it would finally make the GCS unique without stepping on other ships toes.
What also nedds a change is its Console Layout, i think most of us agree that just two tac stations aren't enbough for the GCS.
(i'm not a tac fanatic, but the "real" Galaxy had a harder punch, than that milksop Cryptic created :rolleyes:)
I think a 3, 3, 3 (Fleet: 3, 4, 3) Station setup would be much more reasonable.
"...'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
the all universal solution would bring about cryptic's ultimate nightmare, a fan favorite cruiser would be the best! they would totally never sell any other ship again, and they would lose so much money on this disaster they would have to shut down all 3 games :rolleyes:
something like the breen raider with everything but the COM universal is the closest thing to reasonable, and bound to happen to something eventually. probably to something even dumber then the risan cruise ship.
it need not be so universal heavy handed, i still think this station setup is best. well, next to applying dyson station swapping tech on saucer separation
COM eng LTC uni
LT uni LT sci
ENS sci
high level eng, and plentiful base sci, with its tac completely up in the air. a lot, some or none, similar to galaxy variants seen in the show. the best configuration for it would be sloting at least one of those stations with sci, and going tac-less. that would be a unique niche for it to have, the most sci heavy cruiser. on the other end you could make it an also ran tac cruiser, STILL worse at that then even the hirogen or risan cruiser.
I'm sorry, but it is not. I'm not trying to be rude, but don't you realise that the all-universal raiders on KDF side are not comparable with what you are proposing? And that doesn't even take into account what DDIS said about profits.
I agree that more universal consoles would be good, since I strongly believe that STO got it's basic conept all wrong. Starfleet ships should feature more universal boffs than KDF while KDF should feature highly specialized ships, that's how we know it from the IP. But STO and Cryptic don't care about the established rules of the IP. If the Galaxy would be to get a LTC uni I would be fine with it, but they won't do this since then the Gal would compete with another payship which is even supposed to be superior in game lore.
I can't see them redoing the ship from the ground, that's why I think we need a set bonus to help it generate some threat and a universal ensign for the fleet version because it makes no sense to specifically take this ship out of the usual fleet treatment. A LTC and ENS uni would be perfect because it would allow us to play either the retro or refit version at endgame, something Cryptic themselves introduced in the first place, but the ensign would already help a little bit.
But you won't see all universals or a complete reimagining of the ship that's in game like this since release (or shortly after). Unfortunately.
seriously why are you guys so against this idea. again it's simple and easy to do forthe lazy Devs. It solves the main problem with the GCS. and note the ONLY thing changing is the BO slots all other stats remain the same. This also lines up with the canon of the real GCS. There is absolutely no logical reason to be against this idea.
One of the problems I find for the Galaxy for Tanking (Actual Tanking, not Turtling, yes there's a huge difference) is that it doesn't have at least 3 Tac powers, which is TT, FAW, and APD (With +Thread DOffs)
If you use only 2 out of the 3, you're losing out somewhere.
No TT means your shield facings are suffering and you're prone to boarding party.
No FAW means you can only tank 1 target at a time.
No APD means you lose out on the extra mitigation and the extra thread, not to mention the debuff that everything you're tanking gets slapped on them.
If we gave the GCS all universal then we might as well do it for all ships. If you put it on 1 cruiser you risk doing what they did with the Fleet patrol escort and make all other escorts useless.
If we had 1 ship that could do everything what would be the point of the other cruisers? The BoP sac a lot to get all uni but that is unique to their line so all of the BoPs have it thus no FPE issue.
If you gave the GCS all uni on the other hand but none of the other cruisers, bam FPE problem. I honestly like the layout posted up above.
Cmd Eng
Ltc Uni
Ltc Sci
Lt Uni
4 eng, 3 tac, 3 sci consoles.
Gives it wonderful flexability which is what most of us want, and honestly what would you do with all Uni besides slot something similar to that?
Not like we dont understand why youd want all uni, its just pointless unless everything gets it. And asking for all uni on GCS isnt ever going to happen unless they decide all ships get them.
Since a complete ship revamp for every ship isn't what this thread is for, stop asking for it. Set your goal on a realistic Galaxy revamp.
Cryptic should have never made the locked boff system. Cmd should be, everything else should be uni, but they screwed up, even admit to it. But we cant undo it atm, so we are working for what we can change.
seriously why are you guys so against this idea. again it's simple and easy to do forthe lazy Devs. It solves the main problem with the GCS. and note the ONLY thing changing is the BO slots all other stats remain the same. This also lines up with the canon of the real GCS. There is absolutely no logical reason to be against this idea.
Because it doesn't work this way and I bolded the main reason why.
A raider pays for the all universal layout because it is a RAIDER, a very fragile ship with less boff abilities than any ship in the game, it is completely reliant on it's cloak to stay alive. Unless you are willing to sacrifice from the same downsides there will be no full uni ship for Starfleet ever. The Galaxy is a cruiser. Cruisers need to have a fixed CMDR ENG and everyhing else is chosen so it doesn't copy another ship's layout, because this game generates revenue on ship sales. If you want layout X you need to buy ship Y. Giving such an amount of uni stations to a ship cuts ship saes because with an all or almost uni cruiser you are making all other ships obsolete. And the 2 tac consoles aren't much of a trade-off anymore if you can slot so many different boffs. Your suggestion violates the basic rules of the game that are, despite everything, still in place.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Even if the Galaxy gets a new BOFF seating and console layout, the XX/XXXXX/TRIBBLE console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout will still be terrible. We need to concentrate on making THAT competitively viable whether or not the Galaxy keeps it, because that will be healthier for the game.
It has the hull and shields of a Raider but the turn of an Escort, while not having the 4/3 or +Defense of an Escort or the Flanking and Universal BO of the Radier.
Clearly, you guys havent played Fleet Galaxy R recently in its most recent patch on an optimal tanking build. Yes, Star Cruiser contributes more on a premade team as Sci Support than Fleet Galaxy R. Fleet Galaxy R's strength has never been the premade teams as tanking and self healing does not equate being good in premade teams. I concur with Fleet Galaxy R's weakness on premade teams compared to specific roles occupied Recluse healer or a Scimitar tac dps or a vape escort.
The only thing comparable to Fleet Galaxy R in Fed Fleet line is the Odyssey Operations Cruiser. As they have the same console slots, with only the Odyssey having uni boffs being its strength.
If you havent really hard tank Borg Queen on Hive Onslaught Elite inside 5km with a good group on a well made well played on a 100k+ hull and shield buffer tank Fleet Galaxy R that can do 10k dps on ISE without dying, you havent optimized the ship and spent more time complaining here than actually playing the ship.
Thats what those extra eng boffs are for, to bring your hull or shields back to 100% after being alphad by a mob in a sec or 2 as certain mobs especially the Borg queen hits fast and hard and spams viral matrix.
Dude, I've been playing the Galaxy-R since it appeared in game, I played it yesterday, currently and a year from now. It's my main ship on my main char. Being attached to this ship is the reason I'm bitchin' in this thread for so long. So don't talk to me about not playing the ship.
My Galaxy can do over 15k DPS if I'm on a good day and in the mood for it. The thing is, this was achieved after years of excessive grind, testing, fine-tuning and even financial investments on my behalf. I can do everything my Galaxy can do, if not more, with my Excelsior fresh out of the C-Store. Or Ambassador for that matter. I'm not naming the newer ships here, just these older ones as an example.
Again, it's about perspective and honoring the IP they're milking. This is the iconic Galaxy Class we're talking about here and it their own game meta it's the worst or closely tied for worst in every relevant role for the end-game they designed.
This kind of thing is not ok and this particular ship doesn't deserve the treatment it gets from this company.
You just pointed out the problem that persists that those complain here. They want a dps ship on enforced on a non dps ship. The devs already said they didnt want to change this, we are moving around circles when you know it wont happen.
I am in favor uni boffs, but I am against making fixed changes on boffs like making something sci or tac boff permanent or changes on consoles on the galaxy R. A lot of players already built that ship. Changing the whole concept would mean those who built that ship on its current setup will lose their money. But all this discussion on Galaxy R boffs is already moot as they already have decided on what to do about this.
Thats why I suggested it should have a built in ability to tank in parallel to phaser lance which is actionable to the devs rather than force the issues that we know the devs wont do any action on.
And this right here is a proof that you don't read things that people say. Not being snarky and arrogant here, just pointing out the obvious facts. It will do you good to read what has been said previously before participating in a discussion.
Anyway, I still have ddis's old 3-pack proposal linked in my sig. It is a good solid, tangible and sensible idea that should have been the 'Galaxy Revamp'.
Instead all they did and all we got was facade, something they have mastered doing in STO.
I still like his 'BOFF seating switch in Saucer Separation mode' idea. Would be neat IMO.
Neat ya, but I want to play a galaxy class not 1/2 of one. But barring fixing the G-R main layout first I dont want a lame gimmick that i have to use just to escape that horrible stock layout.
Something like this would work.
Joined mode - No bonus, No negatives.
Cmd eng
Ltc tac
Ltc sci
Lt Uni
Stardrive mode - Moderate -hps + large turn + power -shields
Cmd Eng
Ltc Tac
Ltc Tac
Lt sci
Saucer mode - Massive -hps + moderate turn -Power + aux +shields
Cmd Eng
Ltc Sci
Ltc Sci
Lt tac
But again, that would be to useful, just like all Uni slots. Shame cause it would really reflect the galaxys nature, but again it would make it to capable. This kinda thing would let us all enjoy the galaxy, those of us who want to fly her whole, or just a piece of her. But just adding the boff seating swapping without fixing stock layout isn't the answer for us who want to fly her whole.
Just like how I didn't want to use saucer sep just to be able to turn in under a min, back in the day. Now with fleet consoles I dont have to and I can still turn within a solar system lol. God those days sucked without those consoles.
Sadly when they add the constellation class as a skin for the heavy cruiser, yet another ship much older then the galaxy will be better then it...... but after the cruise liner.... guess thats not nearly as big a slap in the face as it was going to be.
On a side note, at they guy telling us we dont fly galaxies. If you have to have 100k hull to tank something your doing it 9 kinds of wrong. And why the c*ap would you want to tank the queen inside of 5km when there is 0 point to doing it. Tanking in this game is a joke, people have completed STFs in all shuttle groups. *Speed Tanking* made actual tanks pointless when escorts can avoid and survive just as well as a cruiser.
Even if the Galaxy gets a new BOFF seating and console layout, the XX/XXXXX/TRIBBLE console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout will still be terrible. We need to concentrate on making THAT competitively viable whether or not the Galaxy keeps it, because that will be healthier for the game.
If just the stardrive section's BOFF stations changed, at least there'd still be more of a reason to want to make the original BOFF seatings better.
Comments
What builds are optimal with 8 Eng boffs? The Galaxy layout locks you into ET1 and means you can't effectively use higher level EPTX powers, a problem any ship with 7 Eng boffs doesn't have (with a much more useful Ensign power to boot).
I'm not trying to be mean here, I just genuinely can't think of anything.
There are certain builds that can function with 8 ENG BOFF skills, but how useful are they compared to even a 7 skill slot one?
Also, there is absolutely NO content in this game, PVE or PVP, that makes anyone feel the need to break out the Galaxy-R. It does not hold any worthy edge even over the freebie Lv40 Assault or Star Cruisers. The Lv40 Assault / Star Cruisers have more than enough ENG stations to be robust and supportive, but not waste that extra ENG skill slot. It goes into TAC or SCI, respectively, for a better BOFF layout. A Lv40 Assault / Star Cruiser can be more damaging or bring more sci support (respectively) than even a Fleet Galaxy, and yet still retain all the definitive, supportive abilities of a very ENG heavy Cruiser. And move around better without having to resort to gimmick consoles with bonuses that really should have been part of the ship to begin with by default.
Everything you think you can do in a Fleet Galaxy, a Lv40 Assault / Star Cruiser can do, and be better for the team.
The only thing the Galaxy has to its advantage is its iconic skin. Nothing more. Because everything about the BOFF layout, mediocre stats and console slotting make the Galaxy a loser.
Correct. The issue stems from the very simple fact that Ensign level ENG skills suck balls. Almost all except for 1 abillity is an "Emergency Power" and will throw the other 3 into shared cooldowns. Then you have ET1. And no other viable ENG abilities in that tier.
In contrast to the Ensign level skills in TAC or SCI, you have bonafide options that don't throw the whole other range into shared cooldowns.
Non-conflicting TAC Ensign abilities:
Subsystem Targeting
Torpedo Abilities
Beam Abilities
Tactical Team
Conflicting TAC Ensign abilities:
All the above with their "sister" abilities (i.e. BFAW throws BO into shared cooldowns, but not Torp abilities or Subsystem Targ or Tactical Team). Tac Team is fully independent.
Non-conflicting ENG Ensign abilities:
Engineering Team
Conflicting ENG Ensign abilities:
All Emergency Power abilities throw the other into shared cooldowns. That means 4/5 Ensign ENG abilities throws each other into shared CDs.
Non-conflicting SCI Ensign abilities:
Hazard Emitters
Polarized Hull
Science Team
Tachyon Beam
Tractor Beam
Conflicting SCI Ensign abilities:
Jam Sensors with Mask Energy Signature
As you can see, Tactical & Science Ensign abilities bring far more to the table than Engineering does. That's why the Galaxy-R/Fleet Galaxy are such a fail. This is one of the reasons why the Galaxy is such a fail of a package. There's more than simply this, but this is one of those thorns.
there's not a single good 8 eng power build. so, of course we want it to morph into something else. we aren't even that picky as too what anymore, change anything and the ship is automatically better. even just a universal ENS would be amazing.
I am with you to a certain degree. After all, despite all the complaining I love my Galaxy and I have a build that works and I have FUN. If there was a universal LTC all of a sudden, I don't know if I'd even change that to something else because right now I have two lvl III emergency powers up all the time which is pretty great.
But there are also some issues that persist, aside from "I want the ship to fit my playstyle". The Explorer specifically is a payship, yet it is objectively "worse" (measured in numbers) than the free ships. This is not about "I have paid, I want to be better", but at least "I have paid, I don't want to downgrade". This is something that is a problem the Galaxy has.
Then we have the issue of it's mirror, the NeghVar. This is also not a "great" ship but it works. It's a battle cruiser and got 3 tac consoles, the Explorer got 3 sci for that, I can get behind that. But the fleet Negh'Var got a universal ensign station while the Explorer didn't. Why? What's the reason?
Then we have the "refit" issue. Cryptic offers T4 payship-refits for the "big three". BUT if you decide to get those you are *not allowed* to continue to play these ships you grew a custom with in endgame content, the option simply isn't there. But I personally want that. If I buy the Sao Paolo or Venture or Bellerophon, I would like to play THESE ships at endgame which means a science slant for the Gal and Engineer slants for the others, either with a LTC or ENS option (at least!). This is not possible and that's stupid. This is why I have at least proposed a "semi-uni" LTC and/or ensign, able to switch between the Retrofit and Refit layouts.
The fourth objectively viable point is that the Galaxy is supposed to be the "ubertank", yet it's limited tac layout makes it hard for the ship to even generate enough damage (read: threat) to fulfull that purpose. It would need some kind of set bonus, set ability or gimmick to help out, so it WORKS at least *as intended*.
The discussion what a better ingame representation of the canon ship would be is, for the most part, just fun and interesting for us who love the ship and the diving into fictional treknology. I certainly wouldn't mind a lot of changes proposed, but that's not what I expect of Cryptic, honestly. But I would expect the above four points to be at least acknowledged and commented on by the devs
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Nope, that won't cut it for me and it's not a solution that would make me happy. The MU ships are not fleet level, therefore their stats will always be lower and second class to fleet ships and this is not sufficient for me. Plus you'll never get 10 consoles on a MU ship like you suggested.
First of all, Galaxy-X =/= Galaxy Class. People need to understand this. The Galaxy Class is the Galaxy Class, the Enterprise-D, Yamato, Odyssey, etc. The Galaxy-X is a figment of Q's imagination that had about 20 seconds of screen time.
Flying a ship that kinda' looks like the Galaxy, but cloaks, has "horns" on the saucer, a big gun that screams "badass" and a rather silly looking (IMHO) 3-rd nacelle is not flying a Galaxy Class for me and for many others it seems. Especially after they just slapped the idiotic hangar onto it.
Secondly, there are hundreds of ways to modify the Boff layout without pissing off people that made a build revolving around the current Boff layout. A new "retrorefit" variant or whatever, a choice given to players to switch to the new layout or keep their old one, etc. It's not all black and white as you assume. Heck, I even said myslef that after several years of fine-tuning a build that kinda' works I'd be pissed myself if they mess around with my ship.
However, a new variant adapted better to their game, I would buy even if it seams I'm bying the same ship twice.
Third, there is no such thing as a Galaxy bundle. They invented that to squeeze cash from TNG fans without actually putting any effort into the ships. They basically tied 3 already exisiting ships together, one of which is a T4 ship! Show me another "bundle" like this one. Show me another bundle where the ships aren't able to mixmatch parts? They didn't even bother fixing the glaring graphical missalignments and issues on any of these ships.
They just took the separation on Galaxy-X, something that they have been saying they're working on for 2.5 years before this release, slapped a hangar and called it a day. And then bundled 3 completely different ships in an attempt to squeeze some more cash from fans and to shut us up, because hey, they revamped the Galaxy, right? :rolleyes:
The Galaxy-X is not the DPS version of the Galaxy Class. It never was, it's a different ship. It has always been treated like different. The Galaxy dread was initally a reward ship for recruiters that would bring people to STO, but then F2P came and it was put in the C-Store to not be a wasted asset when it already is created.
There are builds that function with 8 eng.Boffs. I wouldn't call them optimal, but they work. Then again, in STO's "elite" end-game content T3 ships work. Hell, people have done it in T1 ships.
That's not the point here. The point is that in STO, the legendary and iconic Galaxy Class, the ship with most time on screen in the franchise history, a ship that is at half it's intended service age (and this is talking about the very first batch of six) in STO's timeframe, the Enterprise-D is by far and i underline by far the worst of all cruisers in game and just there in the top worst ships in general. This is not what this ship deserves and that's all.
Personally i don't think that they will release ANOTHER Galaxy Class variant, too many ppl would say that they want different ships.
I had the Mirror Universe Negh'Var in my mind when thinking about a Mirror GCS. I just can't understand why a similar ship should be impossible to do.
In the end, i think a real good Fleet level GCS is far beyond of what we can hope for. Heck i would be satisfied with a GCS with the BOFF Layout of the Fleet Ambassador and the consoles of the D'D.:D
I think Cryptics antipathy against the GCS is already more then grotesque, with the Excelsior and the Ambassador being clearly the better ships.
So i'm certainly glad that there is no T5 Constitution Class, i'm sure it would outgun the Galaxy Class by far, lol.
I'm sure Cryptics fanboys would find some "obvious" justifications for a constitution class able to outgun a Galaxy Class.
(Let's just wait for the T4.5/5 Constellation, to will surely embarrass the GCS even further
100% agreed.
By now i'm really annoyed by the opinion of the G-X being the tactical version of the Galaxy Class, because it is like you said, the G-X is just a spawn of Q's fantasy. (Heck if it would at least look cool or real Badass, but it looks like made by a 5 year old kid, ruining the lines of the GCS completely IMO)
The GCS "Bundle" was just a extreme lame try to squeeze some money out of some TNG fans. But on the other hand it opens up a lot of easy excuses for them to ignore us and our cause completely from now on.
Now, they can just say that they have spend more time on GCS variants then any other ship, they can also claim that the sales where so low, no one would be interestend in a real revamp of the GCS and so on.
Maybe i'm a bit pessemistic, but i think our chance to get a decent Fleet level GCS in tends to zero.
That's why i still hope for a mirror version of the GCS.
Heck if THEY can create a good mirror Negh'Var, then why not a Mirror GCS having the same BOFF/Console Layout? Do they really hate the Galaxy Class that much?!?
(Man i think i'm gonna roll a KDF char and try to ignore my antipathy against their "mass murdering - slave trading - bio Weapon experimenting - flexible honor" mentality, lol)
Figment of Q's imagination? i think not. He showed a possible future to picard going from what was happening at the point. The the Gal X was always a possiblity. Heck if you figure out some things. the STo universe closely matches the the Alternate future Picard saw.
But for GCS we all know that Craotic devs are lazy the bundle idea didn't even fix the known graphical glitches in the models. So yes a nice easy solution ALL UNIVERSAL BO slots for the the GALR and Fleet Gal and all gal models available to T4 gal, Venture, Retro, and Fleet gal. I'll even throw in Gal X.
One possible future, therefore a figment of Q's imagination as far as everyone is concerned. Another possible future could be Riker riding a rainbow unicorn to save the day from the Klingons. There are infinite possible futures and outcomes and this one was just based on what Q felt like at that moment. In any case, it was not real - that's the point.
And the STO universe doesn't even remotely match anything, it's one hell of a mess on it's own.
That's just nitpicking here and hardly has anything to do with the topic, but I don't think it wa Qs creation. The alternate timelines we saw during the anti-time phenomenon were just as real as the prime timeline. Everything there happened in it's own timeline and some elements of those timelines overlapped each other in the end. Mind you, the AGt timeline was terminated and cannot be what STO takes place in (albeit I consider STO another anti-time future, which is why my Starfleet crews are all dressed in AGT garment and badge
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
since we proove that it is not possible to make a bo layout and console layout less effective than the one of the galaxy class at tier 5, it is a FACT that an hypothetical t5 constitution would at least be as "powerfull" as a galaxy class.
it can't be less, unless you really think cryptic is going to make a tier 5 ship with 2 science console slot and 1 tac console, or 1 science console slot and 2 tact console slot.
not credible isn't it?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
The GCS is so awful, its hard to come up with something even worse, even for a ship that is supposed to be far inferior.
It just shows how superficial the devs are concerning the GCS. It is NOT supposed to be a pure tank nor is the Intrepid a pure science vessel. That's just nonsense in favour of a stone/paper/scissor system that was abandoned long ago (thankfully).
To insist in their own mistakers doesn't make it better IMO.
Clearly, you guys havent played Fleet Galaxy R recently in its most recent patch on an optimal tanking build. Yes, Star Cruiser contributes more on a premade team as Sci Support than Fleet Galaxy R. Fleet Galaxy R's strength has never been the premade teams as tanking and self healing does not equate being good in premade teams. I concur with Fleet Galaxy R's weakness on premade teams compared to specific roles occupied Recluse healer or a Scimitar tac dps or a vape escort.
The only thing comparable to Fleet Galaxy R in Fed Fleet line is the Odyssey Operations Cruiser. As they have the same console slots, with only the Odyssey having uni boffs being its strength.
If you havent really hard tank Borg Queen on Hive Onslaught Elite inside 5km with a good group on a well made well played on a 100k+ hull and shield buffer tank Fleet Galaxy R that can do 10k dps on ISE without dying, you havent optimized the ship and spent more time complaining here than actually playing the ship.
Thats what those extra eng boffs are for, to bring your hull or shields back to 100% after being alphad by a mob in a sec or 2 as certain mobs especially the Borg queen hits fast and hard and spams viral matrix.
You just pointed out the problem that persists that those complain here. They want a dps ship on enforced on a non dps ship. The devs already said they didnt want to change this, we are moving around circles when you know it wont happen.
I am in favor uni boffs, but I am against making fixed changes on boffs like making something sci or tac boff permanent or changes on consoles on the galaxy R. A lot of players already built that ship. Changing the whole concept would mean those who built that ship on its current setup will lose their money. But all this discussion on Galaxy R boffs is already moot as they already have decided on what to do about this.
Thats why I suggested it should have a built in ability to tank in parallel to phaser lance which is actionable to the devs rather than force the issues that we know the devs wont do any action on.
That's why my all universal Bo slots is the best solution. It handles the main problem with the GCS, it's easy to do, and it allows those with good builds on it to keep it if they want. Unlike a certain person it can be truth. If you like your build you can keep your build. What the devs should just do is a complete revamp of the GCS. Fix graphic issues, make the alt model skins availible for all types, and do the BO thing. PROBLEM SOLVED.
the all universal solution would bring about cryptic's ultimate nightmare, a fan favorite cruiser would be the best! they would totally never sell any other ship again, and they would lose so much money on this disaster they would have to shut down all 3 games :rolleyes:
something like the breen raider with everything but the COM universal is the closest thing to reasonable, and bound to happen to something eventually. probably to something even dumber then the risan cruise ship.
it need not be so universal heavy handed, i still think this station setup is best. well, next to applying dyson station swapping tech on saucer separation
COM eng
LTC uni
LT uni
LT sci
ENS sci
high level eng, and plentiful base sci, with its tac completely up in the air. a lot, some or none, similar to galaxy variants seen in the show. the best configuration for it would be sloting at least one of those stations with sci, and going tac-less. that would be a unique niche for it to have, the most sci heavy cruiser. on the other end you could make it an also ran tac cruiser, STILL worse at that then even the hirogen or risan cruiser.
I (respectfully) disagree. The Galaxy is decent at tanking, sure, but she's definitely not a great one - she doesn't have enough sci slots. It can't even run HE, ST and TSS all at the same time like, say, the Star Cruiser, let alone access higher levels of those powers like an Ambassador or Oddy.
The bottom line is, the amount of Eng it has is excessive, even for a tank. What Eng skills do you want? 2 EPTX, an ET, an RSP, probably an A2SIF. That's five abilities, and pretty much covers everything you'd need for self healing. You could get rid of the doffs for the EPTX, abilities, okay, then you'd be using seven, maybe chuck in another ET as well to get that to global, and you're done.
The problem is, another cruiser can use the Damage Control doffs and get pretty much the same effect - with more sci boff slots, giving it cruciial access to more sci powers, which are going to more for its self healing than those last few eng abilities.
Let's compare the following (I don't claim to be an expert ship builder, take these with a grain of salt):
A Galaxy:
EPTA1 - RSP1 - EPTS3 - A2SIF3
EPTA1 - ET2 - EPTS3
ET1
ST1 - HE2
TT1 - APD1
An Sci Oddy:
EPTA1 - RSP1 - EPTS3 - A2SIF3
ET1
ST1 - HE2 - ST3
TSS1 - HE2
TT1 - APD1
Which of these two ships is going to be more durable? The one with more heals and more cleanses for more situations, and that's not the Galaxy. If Eng was the only profession in game to contain heals it might be a different story - but Science Boff powers are just as integral to healing and tanking as Engineering ones, and a ship with only a LT Sci just isn't going to be the best at at that role.
The Fleet Galaxy-R just has no reason to exist. Personally, I find comparing it to similar ships to be entirely depressing, no matter what role you're looking for...
I'm sorry, but it is not. I'm not trying to be rude, but don't you realise that the all-universal raiders on KDF side are not comparable with what you are proposing? And that doesn't even take into account what DDIS said about profits.
I agree that more universal consoles would be good, since I strongly believe that STO got it's basic conept all wrong. Starfleet ships should feature more universal boffs than KDF while KDF should feature highly specialized ships, that's how we know it from the IP. But STO and Cryptic don't care about the established rules of the IP. If the Galaxy would be to get a LTC uni I would be fine with it, but they won't do this since then the Gal would compete with another payship which is even supposed to be superior in game lore.
I can't see them redoing the ship from the ground, that's why I think we need a set bonus to help it generate some threat and a universal ensign for the fleet version because it makes no sense to specifically take this ship out of the usual fleet treatment. A LTC and ENS uni would be perfect because it would allow us to play either the retro or refit version at endgame, something Cryptic themselves introduced in the first place, but the ensign would already help a little bit.
But you won't see all universals or a complete reimagining of the ship that's in game like this since release (or shortly after). Unfortunately.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Apart from that, i think this setup offers enough flexibility to create a decent build and it would finally make the GCS unique without stepping on other ships toes.
What also nedds a change is its Console Layout, i think most of us agree that just two tac stations aren't enbough for the GCS.
(i'm not a tac fanatic, but the "real" Galaxy had a harder punch, than that milksop Cryptic created :rolleyes:)
I think a 3, 3, 3 (Fleet: 3, 4, 3) Station setup would be much more reasonable.
seriously why are you guys so against this idea. again it's simple and easy to do forthe lazy Devs. It solves the main problem with the GCS. and note the ONLY thing changing is the BO slots all other stats remain the same. This also lines up with the canon of the real GCS. There is absolutely no logical reason to be against this idea.
If you use only 2 out of the 3, you're losing out somewhere.
No TT means your shield facings are suffering and you're prone to boarding party.
No FAW means you can only tank 1 target at a time.
No APD means you lose out on the extra mitigation and the extra thread, not to mention the debuff that everything you're tanking gets slapped on them.
If we had 1 ship that could do everything what would be the point of the other cruisers? The BoP sac a lot to get all uni but that is unique to their line so all of the BoPs have it thus no FPE issue.
If you gave the GCS all uni on the other hand but none of the other cruisers, bam FPE problem. I honestly like the layout posted up above.
Cmd Eng
Ltc Uni
Ltc Sci
Lt Uni
4 eng, 3 tac, 3 sci consoles.
Gives it wonderful flexability which is what most of us want, and honestly what would you do with all Uni besides slot something similar to that?
Not like we dont understand why youd want all uni, its just pointless unless everything gets it. And asking for all uni on GCS isnt ever going to happen unless they decide all ships get them.
Since a complete ship revamp for every ship isn't what this thread is for, stop asking for it. Set your goal on a realistic Galaxy revamp.
Cryptic should have never made the locked boff system. Cmd should be, everything else should be uni, but they screwed up, even admit to it. But we cant undo it atm, so we are working for what we can change.
Because it doesn't work this way and I bolded the main reason why.
A raider pays for the all universal layout because it is a RAIDER, a very fragile ship with less boff abilities than any ship in the game, it is completely reliant on it's cloak to stay alive. Unless you are willing to sacrifice from the same downsides there will be no full uni ship for Starfleet ever. The Galaxy is a cruiser. Cruisers need to have a fixed CMDR ENG and everyhing else is chosen so it doesn't copy another ship's layout, because this game generates revenue on ship sales. If you want layout X you need to buy ship Y. Giving such an amount of uni stations to a ship cuts ship saes because with an all or almost uni cruiser you are making all other ships obsolete. And the 2 tac consoles aren't much of a trade-off anymore if you can slot so many different boffs. Your suggestion violates the basic rules of the game that are, despite everything, still in place.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
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
It needs +Turn and full Uni BO.
Dude, I've been playing the Galaxy-R since it appeared in game, I played it yesterday, currently and a year from now. It's my main ship on my main char. Being attached to this ship is the reason I'm bitchin' in this thread for so long. So don't talk to me about not playing the ship.
My Galaxy can do over 15k DPS if I'm on a good day and in the mood for it. The thing is, this was achieved after years of excessive grind, testing, fine-tuning and even financial investments on my behalf. I can do everything my Galaxy can do, if not more, with my Excelsior fresh out of the C-Store. Or Ambassador for that matter. I'm not naming the newer ships here, just these older ones as an example.
Again, it's about perspective and honoring the IP they're milking. This is the iconic Galaxy Class we're talking about here and it their own game meta it's the worst or closely tied for worst in every relevant role for the end-game they designed.
This kind of thing is not ok and this particular ship doesn't deserve the treatment it gets from this company.
And this right here is a proof that you don't read things that people say. Not being snarky and arrogant here, just pointing out the obvious facts. It will do you good to read what has been said previously before participating in a discussion.
Anyway, I still have ddis's old 3-pack proposal linked in my sig. It is a good solid, tangible and sensible idea that should have been the 'Galaxy Revamp'.
Instead all they did and all we got was facade, something they have mastered doing in STO.
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
Neat ya, but I want to play a galaxy class not 1/2 of one. But barring fixing the G-R main layout first I dont want a lame gimmick that i have to use just to escape that horrible stock layout.
Something like this would work.
Joined mode - No bonus, No negatives.
Cmd eng
Ltc tac
Ltc sci
Lt Uni
Stardrive mode - Moderate -hps + large turn + power -shields
Cmd Eng
Ltc Tac
Ltc Tac
Lt sci
Saucer mode - Massive -hps + moderate turn -Power + aux +shields
Cmd Eng
Ltc Sci
Ltc Sci
Lt tac
But again, that would be to useful, just like all Uni slots. Shame cause it would really reflect the galaxys nature, but again it would make it to capable. This kinda thing would let us all enjoy the galaxy, those of us who want to fly her whole, or just a piece of her. But just adding the boff seating swapping without fixing stock layout isn't the answer for us who want to fly her whole.
Just like how I didn't want to use saucer sep just to be able to turn in under a min, back in the day. Now with fleet consoles I dont have to and I can still turn within a solar system lol. God those days sucked without those consoles.
Sadly when they add the constellation class as a skin for the heavy cruiser, yet another ship much older then the galaxy will be better then it...... but after the cruise liner.... guess thats not nearly as big a slap in the face as it was going to be.
On a side note, at they guy telling us we dont fly galaxies. If you have to have 100k hull to tank something your doing it 9 kinds of wrong. And why the c*ap would you want to tank the queen inside of 5km when there is 0 point to doing it. Tanking in this game is a joke, people have completed STFs in all shuttle groups. *Speed Tanking* made actual tanks pointless when escorts can avoid and survive just as well as a cruiser.
If just the stardrive section's BOFF stations changed, at least there'd still be more of a reason to want to make the original BOFF seatings better.
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