So, even if you are right, you think that (what you consider to be) the minority should be ignored?
Well from a business standpoint, Paramount/Viacom/CBS CLEARLY doesn't think so and haven't for 17 years, and to a certain extent, they may be right. You guys who are complaining are no different than the guys from 1998 complaining about the Galaxy in "Birth Of The Federation" or the successive games afterwards. They constantly complained about those games, and yet kept coming back for more Star Trek games, and then complained about those, and STILL kept coming back for more, only to keep complaining. No lessons learned, but still determined to complain instead of just moving on to another game.
So from a business standpoint, Paramount/Viacom/CBS probably figures that if 70-80% of players are happy, and the remaining percentage, while not happy with the game will just grumble about it, but STILL play it ANYWAY and provide revenue, the it's a "win-win".
Okay let's take a note here on all games featureing the Galaxy. In all of them the Galaxy is among the top of the Fed Ships. SFC3 she is only beaten my the Sovereign. Armada 2 the same, In Birth of the Federation is the Command cruiser and a beast. Legacy stock would be near second place in battleship after sov again. Ultimate Universe Mod has many varients that also put her high teir ships. Bridge Commander again according to the game there's only 2 sovs so again the Galaxy near top. So the complaints are valid.
I say the T4 version remains unchanged but the Retro make as an all or mainly universal BO slot ships and tweak the turn rate a bit.
Okay let's take a note here on all games featureing the Galaxy. In all of them the Galaxy is among the top of the Fed Ships. SFC3 she is only beaten my the Sovereign. Armada 2 the same, In Birth of the Federation is the Command cruiser and a beast. Legacy stock would be near second place in battleship after sov again. Ultimate Universe Mod has many varients that also put her high teir ships. Bridge Commander again according to the game there's only 2 sovs so again the Galaxy near top. So the complaints are valid.
I say the T4 version remains unchanged but the Retro make as an all or mainly universal BO slot ships and tweak the turn rate a bit.
No offense, but I think that you really need to play "Birth Of The Federation" again. In order to even get the Sovereign or Defiant, you had to bulid a more Advanced shipyard. Not so for the Galaxy. And as said earlied, those mods are not the original licensed products, so they don't count. And in Bridge, it sure didn't take long for the player to be ushered into a more advance, more powerful Sovereign.
So, as far as giving the Galaxy all universal consoles as you suggested, I can imagine all of the Sovereign owners complaining about why does an "inferior" ship like the Galaxy have a more flexible bridge layout than they (Sovereign) does.
However, you have reineforced the point that I was making. The Galaxy will NEVER be THE top ship as some on this. In every case that you mentioned, it was beaten by the Sovereign and usually by the Defiant. It will always be beaten by the Sovereign and mostly by the Defiant. The game developers don't care about what was printed in a 20 year old "TNG Tech Manual". There is no "modular ability" that Paramount/Viacom/CBS will ever let into the game that will let the Galaxy beat out a Sovereign.
I see that no one has accepted the challenge of citing ONE Star Trek game in the last 17 years where the Galaxy was more than just a "so-so" ship. The problem in no large part appears to be from Paramount/Viacom/CBS, ALL whom have at some point or another, have given the "green light" for programmers and developers to require the Galaxy to take a back seat to other ships, mostly the Sovereign and Defiant. They have NEVER signed to the premise that the Galaxy is "modular" as some on this board have insisted.
Mainly because I think the point is irrelevant. I don't think it's the concious choice of CBS to make a point to game developers that the galaxy is a mediocre ship. In fact, I'd argue that as long as some basic stipulations are met, CBS probably doesn't care what they do with it so long as they get ???.
What you're left with then is the conceit by game developers that "newer is better", this is true of STO and I'd argue it was true of all previous examples you cited. It doesn't matter what technical specification are of ships or their modular or upgrade abilities, if a ship was newer it was automatically assumed to be better than ALL ships before it. Regardless of what niche that ship was actually good at, or what strategic purpose that ship served (i.e The Trinity in STO).
In any case, the Galaxy is a hero ship, it is iconic, and it was because of this design and the crew that served on her that breathed fresh life into the franchise. While I'm not advocating that the ship should be "Crusier God Mode", what i am saying is alot of people who grew up in the TNG want a ship that's competitive and capable. For the Galaxy to be regulated to the back row of cruisers, even behind the excelsior (a 2-300 year old ship ffs) is just insulting.
Yes, the ship is probably the best tank in the game. But that too is irrelevant in a game that rewards players primarily on dps (hence why tacs/escorts are the kings of STO right now). Healing is irrelevant outside of PvP too, because now we have very capable escorts who can solo cubes in KASE, and where death really holds no penalty for them.
Welcome to Star Trek: Escorts Online.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
No offense, but I think that you really need to play "Birth Of The Federation" again. In order to even get the Sovereign or Defiant, you had to bulid a more Advanced shipyard. Not so for the Galaxy. And as said earlied, those mods are not the original licensed products, so they don't count. And in Bridge, it sure didn't take long for the player to be ushered into a more advance, more powerful Sovereign.
So, as far as giving the Galaxy all universal consoles as you suggested, I can imagine all of the Sovereign owners complaining about why does an "inferior" ship like the Galaxy have a more flexible bridge layout than they (Sovereign) does.
However, you have reineforced the point that I was making. The Galaxy will NEVER be THE top ship as some on this. In every case that you mentioned, it was beaten by the Sovereign and usually by the Defiant. It will always be beaten by the Sovereign and mostly by the Defiant. The game developers don't care about what was printed in a 20 year old "TNG Tech Manual". There is no "modular ability" that Paramount/Viacom/CBS will ever let into the game that will let the Galaxy beat out a Sovereign.
Okay I said near the top in Birth of the Fed, didn't you normally see her in the fleets? And the Galaxy Cannon wise was a multi role vessel capable of doing many things at once so she's versitle thus the uni slots will work with cannon and as I said only for the Retro and fleet not the t 4 version, Note the Fleet version can have 1 lesst uni slot for tac since it is combat oriented. and for the sov players, note that the t5 sov is weaker than a Zen ship, the Regent well that was a crappy ship. but also the sov in cannon is more combat oriented then the Gal and has a much better turn rate.
Thought ? this 17 year thing with Star Trek Games where the Defiant and Sovereign get so much attention and put at the top of the ship tier. Could it be that during this spell, DS9 was still in the course if its series production and the Ent-E was the ship used in the movies. So they are used/were used as the flagship models.
Regarding the Galaxy's performances in TNG. It's down to 2 things. Special effects for the time and budget and 2nd the cast and how they coped with situations was the primary setting for the show. DS9 was a darker trek a war trek. TNG was sci fantasy about the human condition and how we dealt with the unknown.
The Galaxy in this game does suffer severely from too many passive low tier engineering skills.
Mainly because I think the point is irrelevant. I don't think it's the concious choice of CBS to make a point to game developers that the galaxy is a mediocre ship. In fact, I'd argue that as long as some basic stipulations are met, CBS probably doesn't care what they do with it so long as they get ???.
What you're left with then is the conceit by game developers that "newer is better", this is true of STO and I'd argue it was true of all previous examples you cited. It doesn't matter what technical specification are of ships or their modular or upgrade abilities, if a ship was newer it was automatically assumed to be better than ALL ships before it. Regardless of what niche that ship was actually good at, or what strategic purpose that ship served (i.e The Trinity in STO).
In any case, the Galaxy is a hero ship, it is iconic, and it was because of this design and the crew that served on her that breathed fresh life into the franchise. While I'm not advocating that the ship should be "Crusier God Mode", what i am saying is alot of people who grew up in the TNG want a ship that's competitive and capable. For the Galaxy to be regulated to the back row of cruisers, even behind the excelsior (a 2-300 year old ship ffs) is just insulting.
Welcome to Star Trek: Escorts Online.
I'm confused. First you decry the "Newer Is not better" train of thought, then when it comes to the Excelsior, you then critcize that it should be weaker than the Galaxy because the Galaxy is "newer"??? So if "newer" is not better, why are you minimizing the Excelsior for not being "newer" than the Galaxy?
Also, the Galaxy is a hero ship for SOME. For others, it may be the Sovereign, Defiant, Intrepid, Excelsior, etc. The Galaxy is not a "default" ship for ALL, as can be seen for the last 17 years.
I'm confused about your agenta ? You obviously have no interested in Galaxy, so why spoil for others than do ? Noone wants OP ship, just that devs decisions are consistent.
Galaxy class in STO is mirrored by Negh'var on KDF side.
On fleet level the difference is
universal ensign
DHC
free cloak
+3 turn and some inertia
vs
+1100 hps on the Galaxy and crappy three engineering ensigns
Does it seem you balanced ? for mirrors ? I'm pretty much tired about the RP excuses and stupid tech blabble. I'm interested in balance and numbers. There is no explanation why the Galaxy is so TRIBBLE compared to it's mirror.
It is not a free ship, it is a somewhat expensive ship with venture skin, and as customer I would expect it had the value.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
can we stop responding to mr polaronbeam now?:) if you don't already notice he is the biggest golgoth troll that we will ever face.
he try to fool us with his techno babble and game developer view and present them as fact, where it is clearly his view and that alone.
he give us troll challenges but is not capable to respond simple questions:
_do you think the galaxy is good as it is?
_why the ambassador and the exelsior are more powerfull in this game than the galaxy?
_ why the galaxy could not be as powerfull as the exelsior in this game?
i known the last question seems to be the same than the 2nd, but bielieve me, it is not!
he is just the typical galaxy hater that disguise himself behind his pseudo rationality and fact, where those are obviously twist to serve his view.
as soon as you begun to speak about a better galaxy ship he enter in rage and accuse you to ask for a "uber god ship".
as if the slightest improvement to this ship will automaticaly make it uber, because you known, it is already so damn powerfull^^
that or will try to make us look like some fool because no serious change have been added to this ship since 3 years now that player complained about it.
so either raging or insulting, troll traits!:rolleyes:
now, you known what? no, let continue responding to him after all ( but don't take it seriously) that will make the thread going slowly to it 100 pages.
and don't prevent yourself from posting new interesting bo layout as well:D
can we stop responding to mr polaronbeam now?:) if you don't already notice he is the biggest golgoth troll that we will ever face.
he try to fool us with his techno babble and game developer view and present them as fact, where it is clearly his view and that alone.
he give us troll challenges but is not capable to respond simple questions:
_do you think the galaxy is good as it is?
_why the ambassador and the exelsior are more powerfull in this game than the galaxy?
_ why the galaxy could not be as powerfull as the exelsior in this game?
i known the last question seems to be the same than the 2nd, but bielieve me, it is not!
he is just the typical galaxy hater that disguise himself behind his pseudo rationality and fact, where those are obviously twist to serve his view.
as soon as you begun to speak about a better galaxy ship he enter in rage and accuse you to ask for a "uber god ship".
as if the slightest improvement to this ship will automaticaly make it uber, because you known, it is already so damn powerfull^^
that or will try to make us look like some fool because no serious change have been added to this ship since 3 years now that player complained about it.
so either raging or insulting, troll traits!:rolleyes:
now, you known what? no, let continue responding to him after all ( but don't take it seriously) that will make the thread going slowly to it 100 pages.
and don't prevent yourself from posting new interesting bo layout as well:D
Lol! Well, I guess that any fame will do! The one fact that is undeniable, is that after three years of complaining, you have absolutely NOTHING to show for it. Nothing has changed, and there is absolutely no indication that it will change. Many of you want people to listen to you, but clearly don't want to listen to anyone else's opinion. You want everyone to love your ship, while simultaneously criticize and belittle their favorite ships, and you think that will get you sympathy?
Many of you try to put "sense" into a fictionalized universe when it suits you, and when it doesn't, you cry "foul" on the very same tactics that many of you employ on an all too regular basis. Many of you constantly use conflicting arguments and rationale to conveiently fit your own view of how thing "should" be. Many of you think that TNG and anything related is the end all and be all, without accepting the possibility that not ALL Star Trek fans feel that way about TNG or the Galaxy.
When things haven't went your way, it becomes "the writers' fault", when things have gone your way, the characters and the ship somehow magically operate independent of the writers and it's no longer "the writers fault". "Canon" becomes only what many of you want it to be, and what doesn't fit in your preconceptions it tossed out, ignored, or somehow minimized.
You pull out a 20 year old "Tech Manual" trying to justify your belief about ship size and power, and yet completely choose to ignore the fact that, in that very same document that many of you claim to revere, it proposes that the next generation design of starships (NCC 1710-E) would have up to 40 % less internal volume in them (TNG Manual -Section 17.2) and SMALLER due to improved manufacturing processes and materials, etc., thus obliterating your arguments that "bigger" ships are always more powerful. But nope, that will be ignored from the very same people who claim to cherish and adhere to all of the "verses" of that book.
So, with all of this confusion going around from many of you, the logic rationale for the changes that many of you want becomes nearly impossible to discern.
If it's not a big deal then why does this thread have nearly 900 posts and 25 thousand views? Not to mention this is one of many threads asking for the galaxy to be fixed. I don't see any threads asking for the excelsior or the prometheus to get "fixed". It doesn't matter what your personal feelings are about the ship, if you have even the smallest grasp of how this game works you can look at the bridge officer layout and console layout and know that it's TRIBBLE. You don't care because it's not your favorite ship, but I think everyone should get to fly their favorite ship and it would be nice if it was at least somewhat effective.
Eehh... I have tried time and again to get the Prometheus fixed... It should be all but overwhelmingly superior to the Defiant in every respect and certainly make things like the Bug look like old news (seems how if we are honest the Defiant is vastly superior to the Bug in the shows). Yet in STO it is a decent Escort that only barely shines above any other.
I have, and I implore YOU to watch it more CAFEFULLY. In the battle dialog that Picard is listening to, it clearly states that the Defiant started engaging the Borg in the Typhon Sector, which is clearly NOT in the Sol system ("Cause and "Effect"). In any event, the Defiant sure lasted in battle a lot longer than the Ent-D did in "Best Of Both Worlds" before it ran into it way too conveient "plot nebula".
Again, how does this help YOUR issue with the Galaxy.
Yet I was not talking about the Galaxy in that post. Nice attempt to make a Strawman there but it will not help your case. The Defiant got owned by that cube and the Sovereign did not. The Defiant has also been blown up before in DS9 and has proven that while it is a good ship it is not meant to be a big heavy ship of the line like the Sovereign or even the Galaxy is.
As for the Defiant lasting longer than the Enterprise D did, sure, after they had time to develop new armor and weapons to fight against the Borg. The D was wholly unprepared for the Borg whereas the Defiant was one of the new class of ships designed specifically to help fight against the Borg. It did serve its role well in that battle too, it dealt good damage, kept the Borg's attention, and its small crew was able to be beamed to safety when it failed very easily. That seems actually like a very good design for a ship to battle the Borg so Props to the writers for some real strategy for once.
As for ways to fix the Galaxy... I think its Saucer Sep should be a bit more impressive than it is for the Odyssey. I mean the Galaxy loses nearly 60% of its Mass and the Star Drive (the power plant) is left to move the thing. That is like what happened when they took the Engine out a Viper and put it in a little Motorcycle. It was insanely fast and nimble. (Dangerously so actually)
On top of that either they need to make having all those Engineers more useful or give the thing the ability to have one Universal Lt. Com position (Just for the Retro & Fleet versions not the standard). That would at least help it be somewhat competitive and worthwhile. It does not need to be better than the Odyssey (it should be inferior to the Odyssey) but it should very well be more powerful than the Excelsior or at least just as good, less of a DPSer than the Sovereign but more versatile than the Sovereign (because it was designed to be able to handle a wider range of tasks whereas the Sovvy IS a battleship by design), and clearly superior to the Ambassador in every way.
I think it is very hard to argue with that placement for where the Galaxy should stand among the Cruisers for anyone who wants to use Rational Thought.
Eehh... I have tried time and again to get the Prometheus fixed... It should be all but overwhelmingly superior to the Defiant in every respect and certainly make things like the Bug look like old news (seems how if we are honest the Defiant is vastly superior to the Bug in the shows). Yet in STO it is a decent Escort that only barely shines above any other.
Yet I was not talking about the Galaxy in that post. Nice attempt to make a Strawman there but it will not help your case. The Defiant got owned by that cube and the Sovereign did not. The Defiant has also been blown up before in DS9 and has proven that while it is a good ship it is not meant to be a big heavy ship of the line like the Sovereign or even the Galaxy is.
As for the Defiant lasting longer than the Enterprise D did, sure, after they had time to develop new armor and weapons to fight against the Borg. The D was wholly unprepared for the Borg whereas the Defiant was one of the new class of ships designed specifically to help fight against the Borg. It did serve its role well in that battle too, it dealt good damage, kept the Borg's attention, and its small crew was able to be beamed to safety when it failed very easily. That seems actually like a very good design for a ship to battle the Borg so Props to the writers for some real strategy for once.
As for ways to fix the Galaxy... I think its Saucer Sep should be a bit more impressive than it is for the Odyssey. I mean the Galaxy loses nearly 60% of its Mass and the Star Drive (the power plant) is left to move the thing. That is like what happened when they took the Engine out a Viper and put it in a little Motorcycle. It was insanely fast and nimble. (Dangerously so actually)
On top of that either they need to make having all those Engineers more useful or give the thing the ability to have one Universal Lt. Com position (Just for the Retro & Fleet versions not the standard). That would at least help it be somewhat competitive and worthwhile. It does not need to be better than the Odyssey (it should be inferior to the Odyssey) but it should very well be more powerful than the Excelsior or at least just as good, less of a DPSer than the Sovereign but more versatile than the Sovereign (because it was designed to be able to handle a wider range of tasks whereas the Sovvy IS a battleship by design), and clearly superior to the Ambassador in every way.
I think it is very hard to argue with that placement for where the Galaxy should stand among the Cruisers for anyone who want to use Rational Thought.
This is what I'm talking about. You guys want to criticize other ships, but want full support for all the changes that you want. But I find it funny, because at least I like MY ship. So, go right ahead and criticize all of the other ships while I go off and win yet another Elite STF with my powerful escort. -lol
If you'd like for this thread to stay open, the antagonistic responses need to stop.
If you have encountered a post that violated the forum rules, please report it and do not respond to it.
If you have posted any comments that violate the forum rules, please edit your posts before a moderator does. Warnings and/or infractions will be issued if this continues and any and all posts that violate the rules will be fair game.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Lol! Well, I guess that any fame will do! The one fact that is undeniable, is that after three years of complaining, you have absolutely NOTHING to show for it. Nothing has changed, and there is absolutely no indication that it will change. Many of you want people to listen to you, but clearly don't want to listen to anyone else's opinion. You want everyone to love your ship, while simultaneously criticize and belittle their favorite ships, and you think that will get you sympathy?
where did you see me or any other critizise others ships?
and i don't "want" everyone to love my ship, everyone MUST love my ship, this is an order not a wish, hehehe!
Many of you try to put "sense" into a fictionalized universe when it suits you, and when it doesn't, you cry "foul" on the very same tactics that many of you employ on an all too regular basis. Many of you constantly use conflicting arguments and rationale to conveiently fit your own view of how thing "should" be. Many of you think that TNG and anything related is the end all and be all, without accepting the possibility that not ALL Star Trek fans feel that way about TNG or the Galaxy.
funny, i could said the exact same thing about all your techno bable and 17years game developer theorie:)
When things haven't went your way, it becomes "the writers' fault", when things have gone your way, the characters and the ship somehow magically operate independent of the writers and it's no longer "the writers fault". "Canon" becomes only what many of you want it to be, and what doesn't fit in your preconceptions it tossed out, ignored, or somehow minimized.
again same comment as above
So, with all of this confusion going around from many of you, the logic rationale for the changes that many of you want becomes nearly impossible to discern.
indeed it seem that you got a big problem to anderstand the request here, but i ll help you, this is how it should be resume:
give us a viable ship cryptic, god dammnit!!!!:D:D
there, look this is how it should have been from the beguining in this game
all galaxy class bo layout and build ( inclinding galaxy tier4 and gal x ):
100000 hull hitpoint
15 degree base turn rate with 100 inertia
5 weapons slot in the front.... and rear!
but this good build will be nothing if other ship don't have what it take so for all other ship in the game ( science ship, escort and the rest of the cruiser ) this is the build they should get:
2hull hitpoint
3 degree turn rate and 10 inertia
4 weapons slot in front and 3 in the back
now i known what you goonna said but yes, i have put much thaught into it but in the end i think that the galaxy build should have a base turn rate of just 15 instead of the 20 that i initially imagine in the first place, yeah i don't want to make it OP you known.
now you see, we are prepare to make sacrifice if neccesary so that everyone is happy!
can we stop responding to mr polaronbeam now?:) if you don't already notice he is the biggest golgoth troll that we will ever face.
he try to fool us with his techno babble and game developer view and present them as fact, where it is clearly his view and that alone.
he give us troll challenges but is not capable to respond simple questions
You're right, reviewing previous postings he appaears to be after drama.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
all i want is the fleet version to have 3 tac consoles and a uni ensign and the retro to have a uni ensign i don't think that's too much to ask for and would not make the ship uber powerful at all
I know you're joking, but I have to admit this made me pause for a moment and dream of how awesome that would be. Back to reality...sadly
That said, I continue to support the "Please Overhaul the Galaxy Class" effort.
The only problem with that BOFF layout is keeping track of that many buttons and the overlapping cooldowns would be a nightmare scenario... I find the Vesta is a big enough pain without quite that much going on thanks to everything IT has... I have literally had it make my head swim trying to keep up with all the commands I need to be issuing.
Some things about Starfleet and Star Trek ships in general. Gene saw Starfleet as a navy in space, now before missiles, aircraft carriers ruled naval engagements, ships were all about tonnage and the bigger the tonnage the bigger the guns and the better the battering the ship could take.
The point of this thread is compared with other ships of the line the Galaxy suffers from a lack of Tactical consoles although i can live with 2, and BOFF setup focused solely on engineering and the fact that engineering powers are very passive in nature, they are designed for healing hull and absorbing damage
Now if that was the original concept of the cruisers role in STO then by definition all cruisers should be as toothless as the Galaxy and focused as tanks, who can be shot at all day but don't have the abilities to shoot back and cause any damage as they are there to take the beating whilst Science debuffs the target and escort blow up the target.
Once you started introducing cruisers like the Regent and the Excelsior which are more combat originated and nerfing sci powers and making escorts mini tanks having a ship like the Galaxy makes it completely redundant and pointless as it has no role to fill.
All the Galaxy bashers, all we are asking for is the Galaxy be brought update and comparable to the other cruisers in this game. The way the Galaxy is setup as is at present has no place in this game.
Once you started introducing cruisers like the Regent and the Excelsior which are more combat originated and nerfing sci powers and making escorts mini tanks having a ship like the Galaxy makes it completely redundant and pointless as it has no role to fill.
Quoted for truth.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
Maybe I'm just bored, but here's an interesting build you can try with the Gal-R. As for the Doff setup, try going 3 CD reduction Technicians and a rare Quartermaster that reduces battery skill cooldowns.
Maybe I'm just bored, but here's an interesting build you can try with the Gal-R. As for the Doff setup, try going 3 CD reduction Technicians and a rare Quartermaster that reduces battery skill cooldowns.
Simply put: The Gal-R has become a mobile tanking DPS crowd control Escort...I mean cruiser!
So, beam banks and turrets combined with a build that has no beam or cannon attack powers? Yeah, this build is genius. :rolleyes:
It's not your fault however. You have inadvertently confirmed the reason why the Gal-R is such a useless conbat boat. A maximum of two tactical boff powers are laughably pathetic on any ship.
So, beam banks and turrets combined with a build that has no beam or cannon attack powers? Yeah, this build is genius. :rolleyes:
It's not your fault however. You have inadvertently confirmed the reason why the Gal-R is such a useless conbat boat. A maximum of two tactical boff powers are laughably pathetic on any ship.
You could always replace APB1 for BO2. I just prefer to have the consistent damage resistance reduction. Or if you're feeling like a crazy escort that doesn't need TT, get BO1 and APB1.
Of course, you could also vie for 4 cannons front and 4 turrets back. Change APB into CRF. And if you're feeling comfortable enough, go with the 2 piece Omega set for the tetryon glider. :rolleyes:
On a side note: I'm just trying to help out anybody still flying a Galaxy. Who's to say it isn't fun to make one of the slowest ships in the game fly circles like an escort?
__________________________________________________
All hands! Prepare the popcorn and tinfoil hats!
You could always replace APB1 for BO2. I just prefer to have the consistent damage resistance reduction.
Of course, you could also vie for 4 cannons front and 4 turrets back. Change APB into CRF. And if you're feeling comfortable enough, go with the 2 piece Omega set for the tetryon glider. :rolleyes:
On a side note: I'm just trying to help out anybody still flying a Galaxy. Who's to say it isn't fun to make one of the slowest ships in the game fly circles like an escort?
With its saucer off it can be somewhat quick... but a proper escort still flies circles around it.
The problem here though is just that even with a very nice build for the ship its utter lack of tactical stations means that A) You cannot really have dual Tactical Teams which you will all but NEED to tank effectively against any sort of serious pounding and You can never enhance your fire very well which is a real problem when you only have 2 Tactical Consoles to help out your DPS to begin with...
So even with the BEST and most fearsome setup you will be dealing less damage than some Science Ships and turning more poorly as well... (And I do not mean the Vesta, that is a thing unto itself) Meanwhile the Excelsior can dish it out better than your boat can, turns almost as well, and can tank just fine.
I think supergirl1611 hit the nail squarely on the head in her earlier post.
With its saucer off it can be somewhat quick... but a proper escort still flies circles around it.
The problem here though is just that even with a very nice build for the ship its utter lack of tactical stations means that A) You cannot really have dual Tactical Teams which you will all but NEED to tank effectively against any sort of serious pounding and You can never enhance your fire very well which is a real problem when you only have 2 Tactical Consoles to help out your DPS to begin with...
Let me stop you there for a second and say: With Aux2Bat, you don't need 2 copies of anything. As long as you have 1 Tac. Team, it'll be up every 15 seconds. Same with Beam Overload 2 or APB1.
So even with the BEST and most fearsome setup you will be dealing less damage than some Science Ships and turning more poorly as well... (And I do not mean the Vesta, that is a thing unto itself) Meanwhile the Excelsior can dish it out better than your boat can, turns almost as well, and can tank just fine.
Aye, I'm not saying that the lack of the 3rd tact. station doesn't hurt. I am merely trying to compensate for that loss with a different setup that's not normally seen on cruisers. After all, there're plenty of science ships that do fine with 3 dual beams and 2 tact consoles. The loss of one tact. console would be (at highest tier consoles) around 28-30% of a weapon's base damage. Also, this setup would allow for a cruiser to chain crowd control on a ship. It doesn't hurt to try after all. :P
I think supergirl1611 hit the nail squarely on the head in her earlier post.
I like the general assessment, however I don't agree that the Gal-X "has no place in the game..." While there's no way it'll ever do DPS like an escort or the latest cruisers, it could still be outfitted to do some decent damage and crowd control.
__________________________________________________
All hands! Prepare the popcorn and tinfoil hats!
I like the general assessment, however I don't agree that the Gal-X "has no place in the game..."
The quote is in reference to the Galaxy, not the Galaxy X. The Galaxy X is much better in comparison to the Galaxy, and can still hold her own and punch above her own weight, but she still needs that fleet version with some corrections to remain competitive.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
Comments
Well from a business standpoint, Paramount/Viacom/CBS CLEARLY doesn't think so and haven't for 17 years, and to a certain extent, they may be right. You guys who are complaining are no different than the guys from 1998 complaining about the Galaxy in "Birth Of The Federation" or the successive games afterwards. They constantly complained about those games, and yet kept coming back for more Star Trek games, and then complained about those, and STILL kept coming back for more, only to keep complaining. No lessons learned, but still determined to complain instead of just moving on to another game.
So from a business standpoint, Paramount/Viacom/CBS probably figures that if 70-80% of players are happy, and the remaining percentage, while not happy with the game will just grumble about it, but STILL play it ANYWAY and provide revenue, the it's a "win-win".
I say the T4 version remains unchanged but the Retro make as an all or mainly universal BO slot ships and tweak the turn rate a bit.
No offense, but I think that you really need to play "Birth Of The Federation" again. In order to even get the Sovereign or Defiant, you had to bulid a more Advanced shipyard. Not so for the Galaxy. And as said earlied, those mods are not the original licensed products, so they don't count. And in Bridge, it sure didn't take long for the player to be ushered into a more advance, more powerful Sovereign.
So, as far as giving the Galaxy all universal consoles as you suggested, I can imagine all of the Sovereign owners complaining about why does an "inferior" ship like the Galaxy have a more flexible bridge layout than they (Sovereign) does.
However, you have reineforced the point that I was making. The Galaxy will NEVER be THE top ship as some on this. In every case that you mentioned, it was beaten by the Sovereign and usually by the Defiant. It will always be beaten by the Sovereign and mostly by the Defiant. The game developers don't care about what was printed in a 20 year old "TNG Tech Manual". There is no "modular ability" that Paramount/Viacom/CBS will ever let into the game that will let the Galaxy beat out a Sovereign.
Mainly because I think the point is irrelevant. I don't think it's the concious choice of CBS to make a point to game developers that the galaxy is a mediocre ship. In fact, I'd argue that as long as some basic stipulations are met, CBS probably doesn't care what they do with it so long as they get ???.
What you're left with then is the conceit by game developers that "newer is better", this is true of STO and I'd argue it was true of all previous examples you cited. It doesn't matter what technical specification are of ships or their modular or upgrade abilities, if a ship was newer it was automatically assumed to be better than ALL ships before it. Regardless of what niche that ship was actually good at, or what strategic purpose that ship served (i.e The Trinity in STO).
In any case, the Galaxy is a hero ship, it is iconic, and it was because of this design and the crew that served on her that breathed fresh life into the franchise. While I'm not advocating that the ship should be "Crusier God Mode", what i am saying is alot of people who grew up in the TNG want a ship that's competitive and capable. For the Galaxy to be regulated to the back row of cruisers, even behind the excelsior (a 2-300 year old ship ffs) is just insulting.
Yes, the ship is probably the best tank in the game. But that too is irrelevant in a game that rewards players primarily on dps (hence why tacs/escorts are the kings of STO right now). Healing is irrelevant outside of PvP too, because now we have very capable escorts who can solo cubes in KASE, and where death really holds no penalty for them.
Welcome to Star Trek: Escorts Online.
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
Okay I said near the top in Birth of the Fed, didn't you normally see her in the fleets? And the Galaxy Cannon wise was a multi role vessel capable of doing many things at once so she's versitle thus the uni slots will work with cannon and as I said only for the Retro and fleet not the t 4 version, Note the Fleet version can have 1 lesst uni slot for tac since it is combat oriented. and for the sov players, note that the t5 sov is weaker than a Zen ship, the Regent well that was a crappy ship. but also the sov in cannon is more combat oriented then the Gal and has a much better turn rate.
Regarding the Galaxy's performances in TNG. It's down to 2 things. Special effects for the time and budget and 2nd the cast and how they coped with situations was the primary setting for the show. DS9 was a darker trek a war trek. TNG was sci fantasy about the human condition and how we dealt with the unknown.
The Galaxy in this game does suffer severely from too many passive low tier engineering skills.
I'm confused. First you decry the "Newer Is not better" train of thought, then when it comes to the Excelsior, you then critcize that it should be weaker than the Galaxy because the Galaxy is "newer"??? So if "newer" is not better, why are you minimizing the Excelsior for not being "newer" than the Galaxy?
Also, the Galaxy is a hero ship for SOME. For others, it may be the Sovereign, Defiant, Intrepid, Excelsior, etc. The Galaxy is not a "default" ship for ALL, as can be seen for the last 17 years.
Galaxy class in STO is mirrored by Negh'var on KDF side.
On fleet level the difference is
universal ensign
DHC
free cloak
+3 turn and some inertia
vs
+1100 hps on the Galaxy and crappy three engineering ensigns
Does it seem you balanced ? for mirrors ? I'm pretty much tired about the RP excuses and stupid tech blabble. I'm interested in balance and numbers. There is no explanation why the Galaxy is so TRIBBLE compared to it's mirror.
It is not a free ship, it is a somewhat expensive ship with venture skin, and as customer I would expect it had the value.
he try to fool us with his techno babble and game developer view and present them as fact, where it is clearly his view and that alone.
he give us troll challenges but is not capable to respond simple questions:
_do you think the galaxy is good as it is?
_why the ambassador and the exelsior are more powerfull in this game than the galaxy?
_ why the galaxy could not be as powerfull as the exelsior in this game?
i known the last question seems to be the same than the 2nd, but bielieve me, it is not!
he is just the typical galaxy hater that disguise himself behind his pseudo rationality and fact, where those are obviously twist to serve his view.
as soon as you begun to speak about a better galaxy ship he enter in rage and accuse you to ask for a "uber god ship".
as if the slightest improvement to this ship will automaticaly make it uber, because you known, it is already so damn powerfull^^
that or will try to make us look like some fool because no serious change have been added to this ship since 3 years now that player complained about it.
so either raging or insulting, troll traits!:rolleyes:
now, you known what? no, let continue responding to him after all ( but don't take it seriously) that will make the thread going slowly to it 100 pages.
and don't prevent yourself from posting new interesting bo layout as well:D
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Lol! Well, I guess that any fame will do! The one fact that is undeniable, is that after three years of complaining, you have absolutely NOTHING to show for it. Nothing has changed, and there is absolutely no indication that it will change. Many of you want people to listen to you, but clearly don't want to listen to anyone else's opinion. You want everyone to love your ship, while simultaneously criticize and belittle their favorite ships, and you think that will get you sympathy?
Many of you try to put "sense" into a fictionalized universe when it suits you, and when it doesn't, you cry "foul" on the very same tactics that many of you employ on an all too regular basis. Many of you constantly use conflicting arguments and rationale to conveiently fit your own view of how thing "should" be. Many of you think that TNG and anything related is the end all and be all, without accepting the possibility that not ALL Star Trek fans feel that way about TNG or the Galaxy.
When things haven't went your way, it becomes "the writers' fault", when things have gone your way, the characters and the ship somehow magically operate independent of the writers and it's no longer "the writers fault". "Canon" becomes only what many of you want it to be, and what doesn't fit in your preconceptions it tossed out, ignored, or somehow minimized.
You pull out a 20 year old "Tech Manual" trying to justify your belief about ship size and power, and yet completely choose to ignore the fact that, in that very same document that many of you claim to revere, it proposes that the next generation design of starships (NCC 1710-E) would have up to 40 % less internal volume in them (TNG Manual -Section 17.2) and SMALLER due to improved manufacturing processes and materials, etc., thus obliterating your arguments that "bigger" ships are always more powerful. But nope, that will be ignored from the very same people who claim to cherish and adhere to all of the "verses" of that book.
So, with all of this confusion going around from many of you, the logic rationale for the changes that many of you want becomes nearly impossible to discern.
Eehh... I have tried time and again to get the Prometheus fixed... It should be all but overwhelmingly superior to the Defiant in every respect and certainly make things like the Bug look like old news (seems how if we are honest the Defiant is vastly superior to the Bug in the shows). Yet in STO it is a decent Escort that only barely shines above any other.
Yet I was not talking about the Galaxy in that post. Nice attempt to make a Strawman there but it will not help your case. The Defiant got owned by that cube and the Sovereign did not. The Defiant has also been blown up before in DS9 and has proven that while it is a good ship it is not meant to be a big heavy ship of the line like the Sovereign or even the Galaxy is.
As for the Defiant lasting longer than the Enterprise D did, sure, after they had time to develop new armor and weapons to fight against the Borg. The D was wholly unprepared for the Borg whereas the Defiant was one of the new class of ships designed specifically to help fight against the Borg. It did serve its role well in that battle too, it dealt good damage, kept the Borg's attention, and its small crew was able to be beamed to safety when it failed very easily. That seems actually like a very good design for a ship to battle the Borg so Props to the writers for some real strategy for once.
As for ways to fix the Galaxy... I think its Saucer Sep should be a bit more impressive than it is for the Odyssey. I mean the Galaxy loses nearly 60% of its Mass and the Star Drive (the power plant) is left to move the thing. That is like what happened when they took the Engine out a Viper and put it in a little Motorcycle. It was insanely fast and nimble. (Dangerously so actually)
On top of that either they need to make having all those Engineers more useful or give the thing the ability to have one Universal Lt. Com position (Just for the Retro & Fleet versions not the standard). That would at least help it be somewhat competitive and worthwhile. It does not need to be better than the Odyssey (it should be inferior to the Odyssey) but it should very well be more powerful than the Excelsior or at least just as good, less of a DPSer than the Sovereign but more versatile than the Sovereign (because it was designed to be able to handle a wider range of tasks whereas the Sovvy IS a battleship by design), and clearly superior to the Ambassador in every way.
I think it is very hard to argue with that placement for where the Galaxy should stand among the Cruisers for anyone who wants to use Rational Thought.
This is what I'm talking about. You guys want to criticize other ships, but want full support for all the changes that you want. But I find it funny, because at least I like MY ship. So, go right ahead and criticize all of the other ships while I go off and win yet another Elite STF with my powerful escort. -lol
If you'd like for this thread to stay open, the antagonistic responses need to stop.
If you have encountered a post that violated the forum rules, please report it and do not respond to it.
If you have posted any comments that violate the forum rules, please edit your posts before a moderator does. Warnings and/or infractions will be issued if this continues and any and all posts that violate the rules will be fair game.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
where did you see me or any other critizise others ships?
and i don't "want" everyone to love my ship, everyone MUST love my ship, this is an order not a wish, hehehe!
funny, i could said the exact same thing about all your techno bable and 17years game developer theorie:)
again same comment as above
indeed it seem that you got a big problem to anderstand the request here, but i ll help you, this is how it should be resume:
give us a viable ship cryptic, god dammnit!!!!:D:D
there, look this is how it should have been from the beguining in this game
all galaxy class bo layout and build ( inclinding galaxy tier4 and gal x ):
_commander tactical
_commander tactical
_commander engineer
_commander engineer
_commander science
100000 hull hitpoint
15 degree base turn rate with 100 inertia
5 weapons slot in the front.... and rear!
but this good build will be nothing if other ship don't have what it take so for all other ship in the game ( science ship, escort and the rest of the cruiser ) this is the build they should get:
_ ensign tactical
_ensign tactical
_ensign tactical
_ensign engi
_ensign engi
2hull hitpoint
3 degree turn rate and 10 inertia
4 weapons slot in front and 3 in the back
now i known what you goonna said but yes, i have put much thaught into it but in the end i think that the galaxy build should have a base turn rate of just 15 instead of the 20 that i initially imagine in the first place, yeah i don't want to make it OP you known.
now you see, we are prepare to make sacrifice if neccesary so that everyone is happy!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I know you're joking, but I have to admit this made me pause for a moment and dream of how awesome that would be. Back to reality...sadly
That said, I continue to support the "Please Overhaul the Galaxy Class" effort.
You're right, reviewing previous postings he appaears to be after drama.
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
The only problem with that BOFF layout is keeping track of that many buttons and the overlapping cooldowns would be a nightmare scenario... I find the Vesta is a big enough pain without quite that much going on thanks to everything IT has... I have literally had it make my head swim trying to keep up with all the commands I need to be issuing.
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
The point of this thread is compared with other ships of the line the Galaxy suffers from a lack of Tactical consoles although i can live with 2, and BOFF setup focused solely on engineering and the fact that engineering powers are very passive in nature, they are designed for healing hull and absorbing damage
Now if that was the original concept of the cruisers role in STO then by definition all cruisers should be as toothless as the Galaxy and focused as tanks, who can be shot at all day but don't have the abilities to shoot back and cause any damage as they are there to take the beating whilst Science debuffs the target and escort blow up the target.
Once you started introducing cruisers like the Regent and the Excelsior which are more combat originated and nerfing sci powers and making escorts mini tanks having a ship like the Galaxy makes it completely redundant and pointless as it has no role to fill.
All the Galaxy bashers, all we are asking for is the Galaxy be brought update and comparable to the other cruisers in this game. The way the Galaxy is setup as is at present has no place in this game.
Quoted for truth.
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
http://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/?build=dualbeamexplorationcruiser_0
Simply put: The Gal-R has become a mobile tanking DPS crowd control Escort...I mean cruiser!
All hands! Prepare the popcorn and tinfoil hats!
So, beam banks and turrets combined with a build that has no beam or cannon attack powers? Yeah, this build is genius. :rolleyes:
It's not your fault however. You have inadvertently confirmed the reason why the Gal-R is such a useless conbat boat. A maximum of two tactical boff powers are laughably pathetic on any ship.
You could always replace APB1 for BO2. I just prefer to have the consistent damage resistance reduction. Or if you're feeling like a crazy escort that doesn't need TT, get BO1 and APB1.
Of course, you could also vie for 4 cannons front and 4 turrets back. Change APB into CRF. And if you're feeling comfortable enough, go with the 2 piece Omega set for the tetryon glider. :rolleyes:
On a side note: I'm just trying to help out anybody still flying a Galaxy. Who's to say it isn't fun to make one of the slowest ships in the game fly circles like an escort?
All hands! Prepare the popcorn and tinfoil hats!
With its saucer off it can be somewhat quick... but a proper escort still flies circles around it.
The problem here though is just that even with a very nice build for the ship its utter lack of tactical stations means that A) You cannot really have dual Tactical Teams which you will all but NEED to tank effectively against any sort of serious pounding and
So even with the BEST and most fearsome setup you will be dealing less damage than some Science Ships and turning more poorly as well... (And I do not mean the Vesta, that is a thing unto itself) Meanwhile the Excelsior can dish it out better than your boat can, turns almost as well, and can tank just fine.
I think supergirl1611 hit the nail squarely on the head in her earlier post.
Let me stop you there for a second and say: With Aux2Bat, you don't need 2 copies of anything. As long as you have 1 Tac. Team, it'll be up every 15 seconds. Same with Beam Overload 2 or APB1.
Aye, I'm not saying that the lack of the 3rd tact. station doesn't hurt. I am merely trying to compensate for that loss with a different setup that's not normally seen on cruisers. After all, there're plenty of science ships that do fine with 3 dual beams and 2 tact consoles. The loss of one tact. console would be (at highest tier consoles) around 28-30% of a weapon's base damage. Also, this setup would allow for a cruiser to chain crowd control on a ship. It doesn't hurt to try after all. :P
I like the general assessment, however I don't agree that the Gal-X "has no place in the game..." While there's no way it'll ever do DPS like an escort or the latest cruisers, it could still be outfitted to do some decent damage and crowd control.
All hands! Prepare the popcorn and tinfoil hats!
The quote is in reference to the Galaxy, not the Galaxy X. The Galaxy X is much better in comparison to the Galaxy, and can still hold her own and punch above her own weight, but she still needs that fleet version with some corrections to remain competitive.
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical