test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What is your beef with the Galaxy Cryptic?

13132343637232

Comments

  • jjumetleyjjumetley Member Posts: 281 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    dalnar83 wrote: »
    Another change the ship needs is the change to saucer separation.

    First, it should be natural ability without console. Second the separate state should have this bonuses added:

    +30% energy damage
    +30% torpedo damage

    This would turn a separated galaxy into a 4 tac console ships, where one console is used for torpedoes. While reducing it surviability to be lower than other cruisers.
    I would prefer the separation to have a cooldown reduced to 1 minute. Especially now when the D'Deridex has it's turn rate boosted during cloak which can be used every 40 seconds.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    on tribble i could get the galaxy to turn at about 20 with 4 turn consoles. kdf cruisers i can get turning over 40. that base of 6 is a killer.
  • captainwestbrookcaptainwestbrook Member Posts: 231 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    on tribble i could get the galaxy to turn at about 20 with 4 turn consoles. kdf cruisers i can get turning over 40. that base of 6 is a killer.

    That's good. But realistically I'm not gonna use 4x consoles. Maybe two.. idk. I just think 1x is enough and then hey, the amount of engineering BO abilities the ship has, can use atleast 1x Aux to Damp or engines to pimp it up.
    @captainwestbrook
    EPG builds / SCI ground enthusiast
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Realistically a Fleet Galaxy can easily afford tachyonetic converter and one RCS + saucer sep console. That leaves you still with 2 engineering consoles for SIF or Armors.

    However, while I was yesterday plowing through fleet actions with my Tac-Galaxy (and won almost every time lol) I got an excellent idea how to improve saucer separation.

    Given that they already have tech for items to increase power cap, through warp cores.

    I would simply give saucer sep a +10 weapon cap power. That means in separate mode you could be able to increase your energy weapon output by 10%, which is a little more than tac console.
    "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.”
  • azazel420azazel420 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    TBH none of the T4 Retrofits have great BOFF set-ups. Looking at the defiant retrofit thinking what am I going to do with comm/lt. comm/ensign tactical? Most escorts are going to be using straight cannons and ensign tac abilities are basically tac team and leadership and beam junk.

    I think the idea is to push you towards a T5 Retrofit. Then you need to have a better starbase, put more effort (and hopefully money) into the game, and possibly you buy both so more zen sales.
  • wanderintxwanderintx Member Posts: 144 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Well, this was an interesting dev proposal for the upcoming D'deridex.
    -I am considering changing the D'deridex Retrofit to the following:

    Ensign Tac, Lt. Com Tac, Commander Eng, Lt. Com Sci, En Universal

    Consoles would most likely be adjusted as well if this change was made, probably to 3-3-3 on the Retrofit and 3-4-3 (4 Eng) on the Fleet version.

    As always, these are just possible changes - nothing is set in stone.

    If this makes it, maybe the Galaxy could also get a more unique BOFF layout. Maybe sacrifice that ensign engineer for, not a universal ensign, but a beefed up tac or sci lt. to lt. cmd. The Venture variant makes a case for a more science oriented Galaxy. So...

    Cmd Engineer, Lt. Cmd Engineer, Lt. Cmd Science, Lt. Tactical.

    (This probably brings it too close to the Nebula in some respects for most, but I love that ship.)
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    My prefernce would be..

    Lt.cmd
    Cmd.
    Lt.
    Lt.cmd

    4/3/3 console layout, but I could live even with the current 5/3/2
    "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.”
  • xigbargxigbarg Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I've been wondering. Is there a fleet consisting solely of Galaxy classes. Would be pretty interesting to see.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    well, from what gecko said in his last interviews it seem that they are going to give some love to the galaxy x outside of the saucer sep and the usual 10% shield and hull, that good new!
    i hope that the same thing will be done for you too galaxy lovers ( even if we have no idea if the changes will be good, but can it be worst?).
    in any case let continue with this now more than 100 pages topic, we need to hold " pressure":)
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    ho i just forget he also mentioned that they have thaught about give him hangar, just like someone suggest in an other thread.
    and i thaught it was a rather good idea, but like usual you got people that came in with ultimate argument that this ship is not capable of transport little ship.

    it is really strange tho, why ho why these guy are so afraid of any improvement that would be made to any galaxy class ship?
    the answer to life itself may be hiding in the answer;)
  • hasukurobihasukurobi Member Posts: 1,421 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    ho i just forget he also mentioned that they have thaught about give him hangar, just like someone suggest in an other thread.
    and i thaught it was a rather good idea, but like usual you got people that came in with ultimate argument that this ship is not capable of transport little ship.

    it is really strange tho, why ho why these guy are so afraid of any improvement that would be made to any galaxy class ship?
    the answer to life itself may be hiding in the answer;)

    Especially because the argument that the Vesta deserved a Hangar was "it had a large shuttle bay"... Well the Galaxy has an ENORMOUS shuttle bay and a few smaller ones... It is more than spacious enough to be a hangar.
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Because carriers are the most horrible thing that happened in STO, especially daNOOBe and yellowpee shuttles. Most people here want working Galaxy, not a carrier :confused:
    "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.”
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    dalnar83 wrote: »
    Because carriers are the most horrible thing that happened in STO, especially daNOOBe and yellowpee shuttles. Most people here want working Galaxy, not a carrier :confused:

    well i will not give my entire support to a hangar for a galaxy too.
    i like the idea because i like to see my galaxy with 3 runabout flying next to him just like in the serie, but i really don't care if it happened or not.

    and if gecko give us choice: you want a rework galaxy or hangar pet, my response will be pretty clear, fast and with no regret, REWORK GALAXY!!!!!
    the pet idea is valide in my opinion if there is no intention in cryptic camp to redo the bo layout, turn rate of this ship, in that case it would be one way to enhanced the ship potential in the game ( one that cryptic would be agree with).

    but like you i do think that pet in this game are to OP, first, and that it will not be my first and even not my third choice to enhanced the galaxy.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    because i like to see my galaxy with 3 runabout flying next to him just like in the serie,

    I must have missed those episodes. Which series are you referring to?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    dalnar83 wrote: »
    Because carriers are the most horrible thing that happened in STO, especially daNOOBe and yellowpee shuttles. Most people here want working Galaxy, not a carrier :confused:

    QFT. I want a competitive Galaxy class at end game. For what it's worth, they could leave it as it is and buff the eng.skils (especially low-end ones) and rework the end game in STO to make cruisers and sci.ships more plausible, so the Galaxy's current layout could be of benefit to the owner as well as the whole team.

    But, I don't want to fly a Galaxy-class carrier, just because they have some strange fetish lately to make every second ship a carrier or to have a hangar bay. Just as I wouldn't want them to put cloak on the Galaxy. Or ability to mount DHC for that matter. I just want the good old Galaxy all of us here came to love on TNG to preform in STO in a competitive manner and stay true to what it is - a cruiser, not a carrier, not a BoP and certainly not a destroyer.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd have no problem with them adding a carrier that has a Starfleet design, but if they want to they should make a new design and not mess up the Galaxy. There are milion of other ways of improving the Galaxy and not turning her into something that she never was. Just my honest opinion. The Galaxy would probably be more powerfull with a hangar bay, but to me it won't be the same ship anymore. Just as the Galaxy-X doesn't cut it, I know many people love it, but for me it's not the same Galaxy class ship from TNG.
    neo1nx wrote: »
    in any case let continue with this now more than 100 pages topic, we need to hold " pressure":)

    Ofcourse we should. After all, the Galaxy is a cruiser that is suposed to apply "pressure damage" with beams. lol :D
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I must have missed those episodes. Which series are you referring to?

    ho it is just one episode in ds9 i think, hehe, yes that episode where the ship get murder suicide by a jem ship.
    they may be a few others, i honestly don't remember, but the image of it bring good wave on me.
    i hope the last sentence won't convince crytic that hangar is the way to go other than bo layout modification tho, hehe.

    in any case i can already do it in game with pet, but they just disapear in combat.
    would love that cryptic give us the abilitie to not make them disapears, but they wont join the fight or be targetable, in that way i would have what i want.

    but that just a phantasy, and not very important, i will not fight for it.
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    shpoks wrote: »
    QFT. I want a competitive Galaxy class at end game. For what it's worth, they could leave it as it is and buff the eng.skils (especially low-end ones) and rework the end game in STO to make cruisers and sci.ships more plausible, so the Galaxy's current layout could be of benefit to the owner as well as the whole team.

    But, I don't want to fly a Galaxy-class carrier, just because they have some strange fetish lately to make every second ship a carrier or to have a hangar bay. Just as I wouldn't want them to put cloak on the Galaxy. Or ability to mount DHC for that matter. I just want the good old Galaxy all of us here came to love on TNG to preform in STO in a competitive manner and stay true to what it is - a cruiser, not a carrier, not a BoP and certainly not a destroyer.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd have no problem with them adding a carrier that has a Starfleet design, but if they want to they should make a new design and not mess up the Galaxy. There are milion of other ways of improving the Galaxy and not turning her into something that she never was. Just my honest opinion. The Galaxy would probably be more powerfull with a hangar bay, but to me it won't be the same ship anymore. Just as the Galaxy-X doesn't cut it, I know many people love it, but for me it's not the same Galaxy class ship from TNG.



    Ofcourse we should. After all, the Galaxy is a cruiser that is suposed to apply "pressure damage" with beams. lol :D

    yes agree with what you said.
    the galaxy need love,for what it is, they are some new player in the game that don't known it history ( some that don't known about star trek at all)

    i was in a stf the other day with my gal x, and at the end a player private me to ask me if that was a console abilitie?
    i ask him: what "that"? what are you talking about exactly?
    he respond to me: you cloack all the time.

    and here i realize that the guy didn't known the history of the galaxy x, that he think that i have aquired a cloacking console that can be put on any fed ship whatsoever.

    that the kind of player that will not buy a galaxy class if he is a little bit aware of the game mechanism, or he will buy it and use it for 5 hours than let it gather dust and then insult cryptic to fool him with this dilithium/zen ship.
    he will not be bound to emotionl attachement and will move on an other ship without any regret than the cost and time that he loose.
    that is sad for 2 reasons
    that is sad for the image and history that this ship have in the serie and the image that is send to the player base right now.
    and that is sad for all player who spend money on this ship and who only gain disapointement in the end.
  • azazel420azazel420 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I think the "problem" with cruisers is really overstated. Now I am not "end-game" but running rear admiral upper with both mirror escorts, mirror sci vessel and the standard sovereign. The science vessel sucks and I keep it around for looks. Now I honestly prefer the escorts, just as a personal preference, but I can run around in my sov, run starbase 24 runs and not feel like I have lost anything by keeping my escort at home. I'm readily taking 1st place in any ship I take and actually have only ever gotten 1st on my sov (I've taken 2nd a couple times in escort).

    In reality, if you build it right Sov with Single Cannons = Mirror Advanced Escort with Single Cannons. So the big benefit to running escort is I can equip DHC and blow things up faster. But I hear all kinds of lies about how escorts are too good like escorts somehow have the best defense (LOL!) when in reality I am far more reliant on active shield regeneration in my escort. My sov I can even use some hull as buffer shielding if I need to because with the crew complement I can rebuild hull so fast and I have so much of it. If my escort gets lowish in hull then I better get on point and keep my shields up until conflict is over or it's back to the load screen.

    Now some of the arguments about the galaxy are good. The console layout keeps even the retrofit from appealing much to me. I can't do the kind of damage I want to do with so few tac consoles. Seriously 2 tac consoles on a vice admiral ship is weak. But it's not a problem with cruisers, just this particular model.

    If I got the Sov retrofit or the odyssey tac cruiser I'd be blowing things out of the water happily. Of course I will never stop running escorts in favor of just cruiser. I don't want to spend all day in a clunky overgrown ship. That is personal preference though, the only way I'd be putting escorts to bed is if they somehow made cruisers escorts, which would be a sucky thing to do.
  • jarfarujarfaru Member Posts: 579 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I'm new to the game and when i heard how powerful the EX is compared to new ships it shocked me. The EX is an old boat and shouldn't be on the level of newer ships. I also think all the Fed ships should be upgraded because of this.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    jarfaru wrote: »
    I'm new to the game and when i heard how powerful the EX is compared to new ships it shocked me. The EX is an old boat and shouldn't be on the level of newer ships. I also think all the Fed ships should be upgraded because of this.

    Welcome to STO. And yeah, you are noticing something that has been an anachronism in this game for years. It's unlikely to change. The Excelsior is admitted to be one of the favorite ships of the developer who is in charge of ship layout and specs. So top banana is stays.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    azazel420 wrote: »
    I think the "problem" with cruisers is really overstated. Now I am not "end-game" but running rear admiral upper with both mirror escorts, mirror sci vessel and the standard sovereign. The science vessel sucks and I keep it around for looks. Now I honestly prefer the escorts, just as a personal preference, but I can run around in my sov, run starbase 24 runs and not feel like I have lost anything by keeping my escort at home. I'm readily taking 1st place in any ship I take and actually have only ever gotten 1st on my sov (I've taken 2nd a couple times in escort).

    In reality, if you build it right Sov with Single Cannons = Mirror Advanced Escort with Single Cannons. So the big benefit to running escort is I can equip DHC and blow things up faster.


    ok....

    first.
    Sov with Single Cannons = Mirror Advanced Escort with Single Cannons

    .....well, we can see right here that your a new player.
    sorry to tear appart your phantast thinking man but a sovy with single cannon will not match in term of firepower the mirror advanced escort.
    there many reasons for that.
    1st, but one with not much importance the sovy have 3 tact console, the escort 4.

    2nd, the sovy have only 1 lt tactical bo, wich mean only rapid fire 1 power...nothing more, even if that power can be virtually double with an auxtobat build.
    the escort have a lt commander tactical bo and a commander tactical bo, wich mean that it can slot more powerfull version of rapid fire, but most important, some attack pattern wich will enhanced the firepower much better.

    and third, turn rate and inertia wich will allow these ship to have all their weapons on the target 98% of the time.
    and that point is more important than the 2 previous one.

    and why an escort would want to run single cannon anyway??!!
    But I hear all kinds of lies about how escorts are too good like escorts somehow have the best defense (LOL!)

    lol? you lol??!!
    ho boy! do you have any idea of what a defense score is? so let me explain to you...
    yes, the escort have the best defense score in the game, it is the way it is since the beguining of the game, they are the best for "speed tanking", and this combine with a good build in tanking make them really hard to kill.
    they will not be as tanky as a cruiser in the number ( meaning the amount of damage that they can absord) but when you combine their tanking abilitie to their defense score they can be better tank than a cruiser.
    even gecko recognize it in his interview with podcast ugc.
    you known who gecko is don't you?....it the lead designer of sto, just so you known.

    but all this seem obviously come from a pve player with not much experience in the game mechanisms, that good, nothing wrong with it, but before comming here and try to do us a lecture about how good the cruiser are, just do your homework about it.

    now if you want to have fun, i have 2 suggestions for you.

    first go with your sovy and single cannon in pvp, you will see, it hilarious, even for you.
    second, if you want to known what a defense score do, take the same cruiser with beam and shoot at some escort, in pvp of course.
    mindless automatons pve AI is not what i call a benchmark for you ship capabilities.

    but you known some cruiser are very good indeed, it just that this thread is about the galaxy retrofit who is just very bad.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    ho boy! do you have any idea of what a defense score is?

    According to Zach Lowe, if you're able to hold your opponent to less than 95 points per 100 possessions, that's a good score.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,579 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    dalnar83 wrote: »
    My prefernce would be..

    Lt.cmd
    Cmd.
    Lt.
    Lt.cmd

    4/3/3 console layout, but I could live even with the current 5/3/2

    with that i could torpedo spam like on the show

    torpedoes everywhere!!!!!!
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • nikephorusnikephorus Member Posts: 2,744 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I thought this was funny check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGAS-vKdKqA It's how star trek generations should have ended. :P
    Tza0PEl.png
  • azazel420azazel420 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    When I say Sov with single cannon = mirror escort with single cannon I mean base damage. I understand an escort wouldn't run single cannons. Yes you lose 1 tac console with the sov but you also pick up an aft weapon, so the net impact is minimal. Losing 1 phaser relay and gaining a turret isn't bad. As to your other points, turn rate doesn't really mean a thing if you are running single cannons on a sov. If you can't keep 180 degree weapons in arc even with cruiser turn rate then you really shouldn't be piloting any type of starship. Turn rate only becomes important with 45 degree arcs, which you won't be putting on a cruiser in the first place.
  • supergirl1611supergirl1611 Member Posts: 809 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Several things that are annoying with the Galaxy class, every other Federation cruiser from Rear Admiral Lower Half can out dps her, Every Klingon cruiser can out dps her, Every forth coming Romulan cruiser can out dps her,

    People say the Galaxy class isn't a iconic ship, Well Cryptic have no issues using the ships image for marketing, promotional or commercial use. What ship is in the top right hand corner of this forum, Galaxy class is shown in screen shots on the back of my game box, Look through the Omega slides and Galaxy turns up.

    The intrepid, Defiant and Galaxy were the flagship ships of their respective T.V shows, the only one that cryptic did any justice with is the Defiant as this is a dps game, Starbase 24, Gorn Minefield, and Klingon Scout Force are dps races, Borg STF's are dps races,

    Its been said and its true the Galaxy is cripple by having too many engineering powers, engineering powers that are defense focused.

    The D'Deridex looks to be getting a lt cmd tact and Sci station. The galaxy should have its lt cmd engineer turned to sci and the current lt sci turned to uni. And the Fleet version should be given a 3rd tact console.

    Although sci powers got nerfed my fleet nebula on my sci out dps's my fleet galaxy on my engineer by up to 2500 points. Showing Sci powers are more offensive than engineering.

    Other than PvP where tanking has a place in PvE a ship such as the galaxy is more of a hinderence to the team racing against time due to it having no punch.

    Cryptic please fix the Galaxy as at this moment in time much like the intrepid both ships are the worst in their class and the only point in flying them is fan love.
  • steelspawn21steelspawn21 Member Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    So the OP is ranting about how the Galaxy is terrible and wonders why the Excelsior Retrofits are better but then goes on to say that the Galaxy should be just as powerful as the Odyssey? Even after stating that the Galaxy should be more powerful than the Excelsior because the Galaxy is a newer ship?

    By that logic the Odyssey should completely mop the Galaxy up in every possible way its the newest of them all....
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Every forth coming Romulan cruiser can out dps her,

    Those are warbirds I thought? Like all of them are classed as warbirds aren't they?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    azazel420 wrote: »
    When I say Sov with single cannon = mirror escort with single cannon I mean base damage. I understand an escort wouldn't run single cannons. Yes you lose 1 tac console with the sov but you also pick up an aft weapon, so the net impact is minimal. Losing 1 phaser relay and gaining a turret isn't bad. As to your other points, turn rate doesn't really mean a thing if you are running single cannons on a sov. If you can't keep 180 degree weapons in arc even with cruiser turn rate then you really shouldn't be piloting any type of starship. Turn rate only becomes important with 45 degree arcs, which you won't be putting on a cruiser in the first place.

    well, like someone i know would said, this last post is "truly facepalm worthy":eek:

    you can not determine the potential firepower of a ship solely by the number or location of it weapons slot, it is a combination of multiple factor and the number of weapons slot is part of the less important one.
    one of the most important is the number of tactical bo power.
    you can't make a comparison on your so called " base damage", no one ( at least i hope) play this game leaving it tactical bo slot empty, so this comparison is irrelevant.
    sov is NOT equal to ANY escort no matter in wich way you want to do it, period.

    turn rate is important for every ship, yes, EVERY, it is just more important for somes than for other.
    for the beam cruiser it help when you want to fire BO with a DBB, a torpedo power or simply help you keep you target as long as possible in your broadsiding arc.
    that is not very difficult in pve, but it a different story in pvp.

    for the escort and cruiser with canon now it become critical.
    and there, it is not just the turnrate but the inertia too.
    a cruiser with single canon should not have much problem to bring it target in it 180degre firing arc in PVE, i insist on the term PVE ( i hope you known what it mean ), but bringing it enemy on that arc is not the problem, it the time it take it to do so compared to an escort.
    an escort will do it faster because of it turn rate and it inertia wich allow them to accelerate and decelerate very quickly resulting on a TOT ( time on target) much, much bigger wich then translate in better dps.
    and that is just in the pve world.

    in pvp, i am sorry to break your illusion but no cruiser pilot, no matter how skill he is will outturn an escort and having 180 degree weapons won't help you to bring these weapons on that kind of target.
    a skill pilot will be able to surprise an escort once with a reverse evasive maneuver or a tractor beam but that kind of trick do not work everytime, especially the tractor beam who is easily counter.

    so then again stop pretending you have the experience and knownlege to teach other how to use their ship and just learn how to play this game.
    you will do everyone a big favor.
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    So the OP is ranting about how the Galaxy is terrible and wonders why the Excelsior Retrofits are better but then goes on to say that the Galaxy should be just as powerful as the Odyssey? Even after stating that the Galaxy should be more powerful than the Excelsior because the Galaxy is a newer ship?

    i am not sure that the OP said that, there are many opinion in this 100 page thread,and the OP have left the tread a long time ago.
    but the consensus that we are agree on is that the galaxy retrofit should be as efficient as any other cstore ship.
    you noticed that i haven't said " as powerfull", because everyone want to make this ship in a different way than the other.
    it could be as efficient in term of firepower, or tanking and healing capabilitie, you choose your pick but it should have a role where it equal the capabilities of an other cstore ship in a particular categorie.
    let said you want to speak about it healing and tanking capabilitie, even in that department it is outclassed by the star cruiser and the ambassador wich are not even cstore ship.
    you see the point?
    By that logic the Odyssey should completely mop the Galaxy up in every possible way its the newest of them all....

    that is already the case, the odyssey ALREADY mop the galaxy up in every possible way.
    not that i care and i am rather ok with that concept, even an overhaul galaxy should remain inferior to the odyssey who is the flagship of that time.
    by inferior i mean less versatility.
    but as i already stated before, the galaxy retrofit don't need to be better or as efficient as an odyssey to be better than what it is right now.
    so we have plenty of room for improvement.
This discussion has been closed.