test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

What is your beef with the Galaxy Cryptic?

1226227228229231

Comments

  • Options
    orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    neo1nx wrote: »
    but what you fail to anderstand is that i am not talking about the galaxy retrofit here, who already got a "revamp" if i may said so:rolleyes:
    but about all the other "undesirable" ship that could use a revamp.
    the point is that they will not going back to EVERY ship that have been left behind because some of them will not make significant revenu.
    unless they change their business model and remove the old bo layout of these ship and make us paid for a new one with the same skin, just like the patrol escort refit.
    otherwhise it will be new cstore and lockbox ship, and there is also the new faction ship that are comming
    No, what you're saying here makes perfect sense.

    I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make. D=
  • Options
    captainzheicaptainzhei Member Posts: 203 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    I'm just going to throw in my two energy credits here.

    All that is needed to revive interest in the Galaxy Retrofit is to turn that Engineering Ensign station into a Universal station and I'd start using it again.

    However... the Galaxy Dreadnought kind of outclasses it now since it can also use the Saucer Sep, and it has a cloaking device... and a giant phaser cannon mounted on it... and better station arrangement...

    Ooph. Okay, maybe the old girl needs a little more of a makeover in terms of play mechanics. How about a more definite science lean? Seeing as the Galaxy Class was intended to be a ship of exploration and scientific discovery as much as a diplomatic flagship of the Federation (for the time), that might be the logical course of action.
    ==========================================
    Captaincy, Excelsior-Class U.S.S. Bianca Beauchamp NCC-99947-F

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    jtoney3448jtoney3448 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Thats kinda what we are getting at, the galaxy x got everything leaving the R with nothing but a bad layout. All the trick and toys can be tossed onto the ship that was never shown to use them. Aka Anti matter spread/saucer seperation.

    What we have at current is a Galaxy R, that cant fight its way out of a paper bag. Yet in the show it blew a hole through a borg cube in the first encounter *not asking for it to do that ingame fyi would be OP*, and slugged it out with almost every enemy in the alpha quadrant and lived *cept that damn old bop!*. A galaxy r cant science its way out of a soaking wet paper bag, in the show it was an exploration vessel.

    In the shows it was a very flexable ship since on multi role missions, ingame it has 1 role dont die..... awesome.... totally useful.

    Just give it a 4/3/3 layout like the fleet D'd, LTC tac, LTC sci, Lt uni, Cmd engineer. Throw in the super deflector beam of doom from the episode "best of both worlds" as a console that only the galaxy r/fleet r can use. Why? Cause it was cool as hell and if the Galaxy X gets to rob the R, turn about is fair play!

    Why such an iconic ship has got set poor treatment is beyond me. Did all the devs hate TNG? Cause it sure feels that way a lot of the time.

    At current the galaxy r, is a toothless *almost 0 tac options*, brain dead *aka no sci*, zombie *to much eng*. And you know what a toothless zombie that cant think gets? *points to the baseball bat in your hands*. Exactly.

    Hasn't the 4 year beat down on the galaxy been enough? We can all get her up to running through STFs, but thats nothing, thanks to power creep. *pets A2B* Content has been dumbed down, power creep has gone up. And thats the only things keeping the R's head above water.

    But considering a level cap raise is been on the way forever, and the devs have said they are making content harder and harder. The ship that was already left behind will one day be out of sight completely.

    And btw, treading water isn't surviving, its delaying drownding. Id rather see the galaxy swim, than continue to just tread water as she slowly sinks. And honestly, if you can tell me a worse T5 cruiser layout, ill admit I'm wrong about the galaxy. *pulls out a stop watch and starts the timer* go ahead ill wait.
  • Options
    dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    the galaxy R got nothing in the reboot, to say that 2 console bonus is something it got, is like saying the old fleet patrol got something when the refit launched because you can use the patrol refit's console on it.
  • Options
    hawke89305092hawke89305092 Member Posts: 237 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    I'm just going to throw in my two energy credits here.

    All that is needed to revive interest in the Galaxy Retrofit is to turn that Engineering Ensign station into a Universal station and I'd start using it again.

    However... the Galaxy Dreadnought kind of outclasses it now since it can also use the Saucer Sep, and it has a cloaking device... and a giant phaser cannon mounted on it... and better station arrangement...

    Ooph. Okay, maybe the old girl needs a little more of a makeover in terms of play mechanics. How about a more definite science lean? Seeing as the Galaxy Class was intended to be a ship of exploration and scientific discovery as much as a diplomatic flagship of the Federation (for the time), that might be the logical course of action.

    Personally, I don't think giving the Galaxy a universal ensign would be much of an improvement.

    You can put either a tac or a sci officer there - in which case your Galaxy is now either a Heavy Cruiser (with a worse console layout and turn rate), or a Star Cruiser (with a worse console layout and turn rate). Or you put an eng officer there... wait, no you don't. :P

    Don't get me wrong, it would make the ship substantially more playable, and I would be overjoyed if the devs did even that much for the Galaxy - I just don't think it would solve the ship's "Sucks-worse-than-everything-else-at-anything-it-can-do" syndrome.

    I just think it's gonna take more than a universal ensign slot to fix the old Gal. :(
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Personally, I don't think giving the Galaxy a universal ensign would be much of an improvement.

    You can put either a tac or a sci officer there - in which case your Galaxy is now either a Heavy Cruiser (with a worse console layout and turn rate), or a Star Cruiser (with a worse console layout and turn rate). Or you put an eng officer there... wait, no you don't. :P

    Don't get me wrong, it would make the ship substantially more playable, and I would be overjoyed if the devs did even that much for the Galaxy - I just don't think it would solve the ship's "Sucks-worse-than-everything-else-at-anything-it-can-do" syndrome.

    I just think it's gonna take more than a universal ensign slot to fix the old Gal. :(
    Agreed, just a simple universal ensign wouldn't help much.

    Cmdr. Engineering

    Lt. Cmdr. Science
    Lt. Cmdr. (or Lt.) Universal
    Lt. (or Ensign) Universal


    Consoles: 3 (Fleet:4), 3, 3

    ... or something similar would be way better than just turning its engineering ensign into universal.
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • Options
    orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    the galaxy R got nothing in the reboot, to say that 2 console bonus is something it got, is like saying the old fleet patrol got something when the refit launched because you can use the patrol refit's console on it.
    I agree. But then I'd actually say that the standard Patrol Escort having access to the Nadeon Detonation Bomb console is something it got. ;)
  • Options
    ussboleynussboleyn Member Posts: 598 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Personally, I don't think giving the Galaxy a universal ensign would be much of an improvement.

    You can put either a tac or a sci officer there - in which case your Galaxy is now either a Heavy Cruiser (with a worse console layout and turn rate), or a Star Cruiser (with a worse console layout and turn rate). Or you put an eng officer there... wait, no you don't. :P

    Don't get me wrong, it would make the ship substantially more playable, and I would be overjoyed if the devs did even that much for the Galaxy - I just don't think it would solve the ship's "Sucks-worse-than-everything-else-at-anything-it-can-do" syndrome.

    I just think it's gonna take more than a universal ensign slot to fix the old Gal. :(

    Agree with this ^^

    An easy fix for me would be if we could use the Gal-R skin on the Gal-X, like you could when they released the Gal-X all those years ago.


    But I'd love for the Gal-R to have a boff set up similar to the D'D...

    Cmdr Eng
    Lt. Cmdr Eng

    Lt. Cmdr Uni
    Ens Sci
    Ens Sci


    3/3/4

    /\
  • Options
    neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    ussboleyn wrote: »

    An easy fix for me would be if we could use the Gal-R skin on the Gal-X, like you could when they released the Gal-X all those years ago.


    3/3/4

    ho yeah, i remember this, when you could remove the third nacelle of the galaxy x, a suky job, the light of the third nacelle where still there, and i don't speak about the texture, but still, it was fun.
    cryptic solution to fix the graaphic glitches? remove the option to remove the third nacelle, problem fix.
    yeah good job cryptic!

    i would like a 2 nacelle galaxy x for a change.
  • Options
    neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    jtoney3448 wrote: »
    And honestly, if you can tell me a worse T5 cruiser layout, ill admit I'm wrong about the galaxy. *pulls out a stop watch and starts the timer* go ahead ill wait.

    hehehe, too late, we already proove it is impossible!

    ho no wait, there is one... here we go

    lt tac
    commander eng
    ltcommander eng
    ensign eng
    lt sci

    console layout
    6 eng console slot
    3 sci console slot
    1 tact console slot

    and voila!
    TADA! :D
  • Options
    neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    hmmm and what about that, something unique

    lt tac
    commander eng
    commander eng
    lt sc

    wonder what could we do with this, but 2 commander slot would definitly be something unique
  • Options
    jtoney3448jtoney3448 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    So your idea is to take the most eng heavy ship... and make it just as eng heavy....? *gets a doctor to examine your head* In all seriousness that would not really help the ship, most high lvl eng skills share global with lower skills. Even Cmd, and anything we could do combo wise with what we have would be what that could do so it doesnt change anything.

    Give you points for thinking outside the box atleast.

    PS, 699 pages guys 1 more to go for the big 7 0 0
  • Options
    neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    jtoney3448 wrote: »
    So your idea is to take the most eng heavy ship... and make it just as eng heavy....? *gets a doctor to examine your head* In all seriousness that would not really help the ship, most high lvl eng skills share global with lower skills. Even Cmd, and anything we could do combo wise with what we have would be what that could do so it doesnt change anything.

    Give you points for thinking outside the box atleast.

    PS, 699 pages guys 1 more to go for the big 7 0 0

    i was not very serious about it, it just came to me that since they want to make a heavie engie of this ship, well at least make the 8 engie power a commander level and not an ensign.

    i did not think of it very seriously tho, it is just to talk, but i am curious about the purpose of a double engie commander build, forget the galaxy retrofit for a moment, what can be the role ( if any ) that this combination could have.

    we have to assume that this is something that cryptic, one day or the other will propose, even if it is not for the galaxy.
    what kind of build would you do for it?
    even if you don't want it, what everyone here would do with that?
  • Options
    jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited June 2014
    neo1nx wrote: »
    hmmm and what about that, something unique

    lt tac
    commander eng
    commander eng
    lt sc

    wonder what could we do with this, but 2 commander slot would definitly be something unique

    I have always thought due to its role shown on the tng series it should be

    Cmdr Tac
    Cmdr Eng
    Cmdr Sci
    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
  • Options
    jtoney3448jtoney3448 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    A double cmd eng ship I see as something like a pure support vessle. Something akin to like a troop ship/military supply ship/colony ship. A type of ship that comes in and is almost like a mobile space dock for fast emergency repairs. There is typicly only one cmd on a galaxy the XO/first officer.

    People like worf, data etc are normally LT, LTC. So for a ship to have 2, would make it something out of the ordinary. A Jupiter class I could see being like that, its large and unique. Something like a mobile fleet support carrier.

    6 eng consoles - But fix some eng consoles so 6 is useful first. SIF consoles massive heals/resist.
    2 sci
    2 tac

    Lt Tac
    Lt Sci
    2x Cmd eng

    2 hanger bays. Low turnrate like D'd. But high shields and hull. Hull just above a carriers, and shields just below a sci ship. Hard to crack.

    Unique console something like, fleet emergency repairs, an AOE team wide miracle worker, but only restores like 25% shields and 25% hull. Long cool down around 4mins so it isnt spameable really.

    Unique pets Fleet support repair shuttles. Give tac team 1, eng team 1 buffs and Sci team 1 to team mates. Throw in some new hanger pets for fed side, Venture class scouts - Data's ship from insurrection similar to a delta flyer but recon type specials. And the Aquarious as a frigate.

    They could also release the venture as a new shuttle. With built in sensor masking tech, NOT A CLOAK, save the rage! Just something like lowered detection range at 10km + etc stealthy but not hidden.

    Would be a useful ship for pvp and hard pve *if any ever gets hard*. Hard to kill but not dangerous by itself just extreaaammmly useful for keeping everyone alive.
  • Options
    yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    What are you guys talking about?
    2x cmdr stations?
    full universal station setup?
    pets?

    are you sure you are talking about the Galaxy Class?

    No ship gets two Commander BOFF stations, i am sure if the devs would introduce it, they'd choose another ship but not the GCS.
    (If anything it would be 1 cmdr engineering and 1 cmdr science, btw.)

    A little reminder here, the Galaxy Class Starship (GCS) was a explorer/battleship, it was NOT a carrier or healer ship.
    In terms of STO, its place should be as a science Cruiser with a Lt.Cmdr uni station and a balanced console Layout 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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • Options
    jtoney3448jtoney3448 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    neo1nx wrote: »
    i was not very serious about it, it just came to me that since they want to make a heavie engie of this ship, well at least make the 8 engie power a commander level and not an ensign.

    i did not think of it very seriously tho, it is just to talk, but i am curious about the purpose of a double engie commander build, forget the galaxy retrofit for a moment, what can be the role ( if any ) that this combination could have.

    we have to assume that this is something that cryptic, one day or the other will propose, even if it is not for the galaxy.
    what kind of build would you do for it?
    even if you don't want it, what everyone here would do with that?

    This is what I was talking about. He asked what would a double commander ship be like. I gave my opinion. We werent talking about the galaxy. Take a breath and read things first.
  • Options
    yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Let me just sum up something:
    • Replacing TNG-styled compressed/dual phaser pistols with a generic looking sci fi gun. (Pre release STO) = Kick in the nuts of TNG fans.
    • TNG (series) uniform made to look like worn for 20 years = Kick in the nuts of TNG fans.
    • Introduction of the T5 Excelsior = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the Cardassian Galor Class Cruiser = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the Ferengi D'Kora Marauder = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the T5 Nova Class = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the Risian Luxury Cruiser = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Release of the "Galaxy 3 pack" without changing ANYTHING with G-R's BOFF layout = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    ...i think it really starts hurting...lol

    Why do the devs hate the GCS/TNG so much?
    Why is everything related to the GCS or TNG made to look/perform weak/passive or just inferior?
    Where that hate comes from?
    Do they seriously think being peaceful equals being weak or foolish?
    Is their picture of Star Trek really that superficial?


    Seriously i really don't get it...
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • Options
    orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    yreodred wrote: »
    Why do the devs hate the GCS/TNG so much?
    Why is everything related to the GCS or TNG made to look/perform weak/passive or just inferior?
    Where that hate comes from?


    Seriously i really don't get it...
    Maybe because you're assuming there is hate. Maybe try considering that there could be other reasons for their decisions...?
  • Options
    shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    yreodred wrote: »
    Is their picture of Star Trek really that superficial?

    Yes, yes it is.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • Options
    jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited June 2014
    yreodred wrote: »
    Let me just sum up something:
    • Replacing TNG-styled compressed/dual phaser pistols with a generic looking sci fi gun. (Pre release STO) = Kick in the nuts of TNG fans.
    • TNG (series) uniform made to look like worn for 20 years = Kick in the nuts of TNG fans.
    • Introduction of the T5 Excelsior = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the Cardassian Galor Class Cruiser = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the Ferengi D'Kora Marauder = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the T5 Nova Class = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the Risian Luxury Cruiser = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Release of the "Galaxy 3 pack" without changing ANYTHING with G-R's BOFF layout = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    ...i think it really starts hurting...lol

    Why do the devs hate the GCS/TNG so much?
    Why is everything related to the GCS or TNG made to look/perform weak/passive or just inferior?
    Where that hate comes from?
    Do they seriously think being peaceful equals being weak or foolish?
    Is their picture of Star Trek really that superficial?


    Seriously i really don't get it...



    All very good and valid points

    I believe cryptic thinks a massive amount of fed players would buy and never leave a competive galaxy class costing them sales in the long run

    If a galaxy was as good as the Avenger I would fly it and nothing else
    I think a great many others would be too

    The same with the Nebula
    The same with the intrepid

    Thats why cryptic keeps these ships so weak
    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
  • Options
    yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    orangeitis wrote: »
    Maybe because you're assuming there is hate. Maybe try considering that there could be other reasons for their decisions...?
    It is much more than a mere coincidence IMO.
    It looks much more like they where systematicly trying to make the peaceful/exploration part of trek look weak or "uncool", because war killing and destruction are much more fun form them.

    On the other hand if all that is indeed just a coincidence, then the ppl in charge are just incompetent for not seeing what they are doing.
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • Options
    jtoney3448jtoney3448 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    yreodred wrote: »
    Let me just sum up something:
    • Replacing TNG-styled compressed/dual phaser pistols with a generic looking sci fi gun. (Pre release STO) = Kick in the nuts of TNG fans.
    • TNG (series) uniform made to look like worn for 20 years = Kick in the nuts of TNG fans.
    • Introduction of the T5 Excelsior = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the Cardassian Galor Class Cruiser = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the Ferengi D'Kora Marauder = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the T5 Nova Class = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Introduction of the Risian Luxury Cruiser = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    • Release of the "Galaxy 3 pack" without changing ANYTHING with G-R's BOFF layout = kick in the nuts of GCS fans.
    ...i think it really starts hurting...lol

    Why do the devs hate the GCS/TNG so much?
    Why is everything related to the GCS or TNG made to look/perform weak/passive or just inferior?
    Where that hate comes from?
    Do they seriously think being peaceful equals being weak or foolish?
    Is their picture of Star Trek really that superficial?


    Seriously i really don't get it...

    Yeah you pretty much said same thing I said a few days ago. The cold war that was the alpha quadrant in TNG doesn't mean people or factions were weak. If thats the case the US and RUS were both weak during cold war.

    Avoiding conflict isnt the same as being unable to handle it. I trained in martial arts for a lot of years, and while i look unassuming I can break a person down fast, but first thing I was taught was "Avoid fighting, and never using your training unless you have to. You don't train to prepare for combat you train that so when combat is unavoidable you are prepared."

    Prime example is, while the federation was at piece and had no plans for war. The GCS was made and became the flagship, the romulans who always build their ships for a future fight built the D'D. Both the GCS and the D'D in TNG were considered equals and a fight between them would end in both ships being destroyed.

    I love that in TNG they avoided shooting if at all possible, and that while the GCS was powerful the situations it was placed in was usually at a disadvantage to it and its crew. Even in Generations it was placed at a disadvantage and still saved the crew.

    The Enterprise D was every bit the character the A B C E were, yet in this game the devs treat it like its the lepper of the group. Its unfitting for the ship, and unprofessional for cryptic, and unfair to the fans. You know them cryptic, the "Customers". The people your supposed to build the game for.

    And Star Trek is about exploration and the hope of a better tomorrow for humanity. Our "exploration" cruiser is built to explore what? Self heals and shield bubbles? The Galaxy R is exploration cruiser in name only. The Star cruiser is a better exploration vessel.

    PS
    Gratz cryptic on keeping this thread going for 700 pages. Im sure we have 700 more to look forward to....
  • Options
    angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    shpoks wrote: »
    Yes, yes it is.

    I agree and that makes me a sad targ.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ 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
  • Options
    f9thretxcf9thretxc Member Posts: 505 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    With the game down, I can't really find the info I need.

    But for Fed Engineer, and a month of DIlithium grinding, should I go with the Galaxy Bundle, or the Odyssey Bundle?

    My end goal would be for the fleet Dreadnaught.

    But if the Odyssey is the better cruiser...

    I do have the old one from way back when the mission gave you one (Odyssey) but none of the three pack.

    On the other hand, I could just keep grinding and go for the 100 buck dyson , and be done with it, if they out do the cruiser line, across all factions.

    Dang, I guess I should have just made a separate thread, so my apologies here, fellow STO fans.
    My mother always told me to walk away from a fight, The Marines taught me how.
  • Options
    angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    f9thretxc wrote: »
    With the game down, I can't really find the info I need.

    But for Fed Engineer, and a month of DIlithium grinding, should I go with the Galaxy Bundle, or the Odyssey Bundle?

    My end goal would be for the fleet Dreadnaught.

    But if the Odyssey is the better cruiser...

    I do have the old one from way back when the mission gave you one (Odyssey) but none of the three pack.

    On the other hand, I could just keep grinding and go for the 100 buck dyson , and be done with it, if they out do the cruiser line, across all factions.

    Dang, I guess I should have just made a separate thread, so my apologies here, fellow STO fans.

    If you are just going for numbers, the (fleet) Avenger will be better than any of the ships you mentioned. If it's about aesthetics and wanting a ship that feels right you should just go with what you love and make it work :)
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ 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
  • Options
    f9thretxcf9thretxc Member Posts: 505 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Thank you Angrytarg. That helps me a lot, and leaves a ton of my sub and grinding Dilithium left over for later use.

    Much appreciated.
    My mother always told me to walk away from a fight, The Marines taught me how.
  • Options
    bunansabunansa Member Posts: 928 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    orangeitis wrote: »
    Maybe because you're assuming there is hate. Maybe try considering that there could be other reasons for their decisions...?

    what are they?


    Im open to suggestions/conspiracy theories and anything else...

    my theory is that its not just the galaxy but all the iconic ships from the shows

    defiant, galaxy, d'deridex, intrepid, vorcha, all could use a hug and some love

    than theres that argument that people make saying that something 30 years old shouldn't be as good as any of the new stuff...

    even though its still part of real life today....

    f4 phantom still in use
    67 chevy still in use
    Enterprise (the carrier) recently put to rest after...how many decades of use???
    tumblr_ndmkqm59J31r5ynioo2_r2_500.gif

  • Options
    orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    bunansa wrote: »
    what are they?
    I don't know either, but my guess is a good as yours.

    Let's see, other than your hypothesis, which is still a possibility, I'd say that Cryptic could be working on something that has a bigger picture than merely current balancing issues. I gave a somewhat plausible example earlier in this thread here. Another possibility is that Cryptic's vision of the Galaxy is completely different from most of the vocal players' vision. As in, say Cryptic might just want the Galaxy as a lot-DPS tank.

    Granted, scenario #2 would need to assume more, like Cryptic ignoring that the Galaxy isn't even optimal as a tank, or that the tanking role in practice is downplayed in favor of more strict damage-dealing roles.

    Those two possibilities I find more probably than yours, but indeed any of these possibilities could be true. Though I think we can both agree that Cryptic's communication on the matter could be a lot better.
    yreodred wrote: »
    It is much more than a mere coincidence IMO.
    It looks much more like they where systematicly trying to make the peaceful/exploration part of trek look weak or "uncool", because war killing and destruction are much more fun form them.

    On the other hand if all that is indeed just a coincidence, then the ppl in charge are just incompetent for not seeing what they are doing.
    You're proposing a false dichotomy. See above for more possibilities.
  • Options
    jtoney3448jtoney3448 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Well the sad thing is the "trinity" aspect they supposedly started out on in sto never really exsisted. Cruisers were NEVER given the tools at the start to manage agro worth a flip. And while we have increased agro stuff now its still not proper tanking.

    Look at WoW paladin/warrior. Those are tanks, they draw and hold agro, but more importantly they can PULL it off other people. The fact that healers in this game didnt even factor into a score in stuff like crystaline entity says a lot.

    STO has always been 1 thing, DPS race. They cling to their precious idea of some mythical trinity that they have and it isnt there and never was.

    Things like that is why cryptic rates below amateurs in my book. Ive seen modders who get paid nothing make far better stuff then these guys who get paid to. Geko likes to talk up how much time it takes to put a ship into game and how much it costs them to do it.

    Yet plenty of modders can knock out the ship model in a day, texture in another, weapon hardpoints in a few hours if that. And thats 1 guy doing all the work, not a bunch of people in diff departments. And the thing will actually be correct to the show!

    How many times have some ships been redone, and still arent right? The galaxy had missing surfaces in its necells upon release. I look at cryptics track record, and use that as a base line. Their work has been 1/2 a$$ed since day 1, and continues to be. Its a company that bit off more then it can chew, they got a Star Trek title and dont have the skill/time/talent/money to pull it off.

    Don't get me wrong, they can make a game to play, but it suffers from being a truely great game by all that. Im not a Trekkie, i dont have tons of ST stuff or anything. But I grew up watching TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. Seen every episode and every movie I have respect for the IP, and know enough about making games to know when someone is trying to blow smoke up my a$$ like Geko tries to do.

    It would take 5mins to fix the galaxy, in a day you could have reworked every old ships boff/console layout. They cry they dont have the time, a dev made the whole doff system in his spare time. Your telling me not 1 dev cares enough to spend 1 night to fix a long standing mess?

    Its a sad state when games that are over 10 years old have better looking ship models and textures. STO has come a long way, but honestly cryptic is more an anchor around its leg then a life jacket.
This discussion has been closed.