test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What is your beef with the Galaxy Cryptic?

14445474950232

Comments

  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    ho! an other one has just been open:D:D

    http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=10719171&posted=1#post10719171

    these damn galaxy fan!!! can someone stop them??:rolleyes:
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    khan5000 wrote: »
    That's not a feature unique to the Galaxy...this was true for every ship named Enterprise

    or most of the fedships in Cannon
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    gpgtx wrote: »
    no idea what you are tying to get at

    While his manner of stating it is somewhat abrasive, I believe his overall point is that the Galaxy will most likely keep its low turn rate, bad inertia and engineering focus. So any tweaks moving forward should keep that in mind.

    I.E. more tactical stations, upped turn rate, and essentially pushing the ship into an assault cruiser or an excelsior, seems unlikely. The devs haven't shown much desire to turn the ship into that. And there are already ships that fill that role anyways, which would create too much redundancy in the ship choices.

    At this point, I think you folks should scrap the idea of tweaks to CURRENT ships. And push for a NEW Galaxy. A LOCKBOX Galaxy. That way it can fit the power state you all really want.

    But would fit the Cryptic business model. And thus be a viable choice that they may actually think to implement.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    While his manner of stating it is somewhat abrasive, I believe his overall point is that the Galaxy will most likely keep its low turn rate, bad inertia and engineering focus. So any tweaks moving forward should keep that in mind.

    I.E. more tactical stations, upped turn rate, and essentially pushing the ship into an assault cruiser or an excelsior, seems unlikely. The devs haven't shown much desire to turn the ship into that. And there are already ships that fill that role anyways, which would create too much redundancy in the ship choices.

    At this point, I think you folks should scrap the idea of tweaks to CURRENT ships. And push for a NEW Galaxy. A LOCKBOX Galaxy. That way it can fit the power state you all really want.

    But would fit the Cryptic business model. And thus be a viable choice that they may actually think to implement.

    Heck no!
    Enough with the stupid lockboxes.

    Curse these F2P games.
    The F2P model has ruined almost every game I have seen make the transition with very few exceptions. The idea of making you pay in order to remain competitive is so asinine and yet people eat it up.

    Instead of demanding a working game people just keep forking over the cash to play a completely smashed game. Either due to the IP or they enjoy smashing others that aren't paying into the system.

    F2P is the root of the problem.
    In a subscription game if they don't fix it people stop subscribing, and when they stop subscribing it means they can't play the game anymore either. So they have to stay on top of things if they want to keep their customer base.
    In F2P even if you aren't subscribing there is a chance you are still playing, and since you are still playing there is a chance you will eventually cave and buy one item to obtain a "preferred" or "gold" status to open more perks. And then if you do end up coming back, its a F2P system so you don't have to buy anything you can just install and play. But since you are behind you figure "Why not. I can sink some money into this to try and get back up to speed." They count on it. And you keep feeding them money and they have no reason to address any of the real issues that confront the game.


    Issues since launch.

    Ship balance. Still hasn't been touched.
    End game content. Token additions added. Still remains barren.
    PvP. Hasn't been touched.
    Ship roles in PvE/PvP. Hasn't been touched.
    Ground Combat. Worse off than when it started from what I am seeing.

    So what have they been doing?

    - Have released an over abundance of new ships. Only continuing to exasperate the ship balance/roles and PvP issues with each new ship released.
    - They have redesigned several ship models. For which we are most grateful.
    - Added some token PvP maps. For which there is no actual PvP to take place in them.
    - Added a few token PvE end-game scenarios. Some of which can now be solo'd, and none of them address or tried to solidify ship roles in the game.
    - Introduced Diplomacy missions. A nice touch for which we are grateful, but still addresses nothing.
    - Almost half a dozen different lockbox varieties, with the best prizes as ships. These ships only continue to exasperate the continuing ship balance/roles and PvP issues that still exist.
    - Consoles that are unique to C-store ships that again further exasperate the continuing ship balance/roles and PvP issues that still exist.
    - The Lobi-Store items... do the same thing as everything else. Make it worse.

    All but 2 of the above changes have done nothing to make this game a better game.
    Diplomacy and the touched up ship models.

    But because it is Star Trek. The game limps on.
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    Heck no!
    Enough with the stupid lockboxes.

    Curse these F2P games.
    The F2P model has ruined almost every game I have seen make the transition with very few exceptions. The idea of making you pay in order to remain competitive is so asinine and yet people eat it up.

    Instead of demanding a working game people just keep forking over the cash to play a completely smashed game. Either due to the IP or they enjoy smashing others that aren't paying into the system.

    F2P is the root of the problem.
    In a subscription game if they don't fix it people stop subscribing, and when they stop subscribing it means they can't play the game anymore either. So they have to stay on top of things if they want to keep their customer base.
    In F2P even if you aren't subscribing there is a chance you are still playing, and since you are still playing there is a chance you will eventually cave and buy one item to obtain a "preferred" or "gold" status to open more perks. And then if you do end up coming back, its a F2P system so you don't have to buy anything you can just install and play. But since you are behind you figure "Why not. I can sink some money into this to try and get back up to speed." They count on it. And you keep feeding them money and they have no reason to address any of the real issues that confront the game.


    Issues since launch.

    Ship balance. Still hasn't been touched.
    End game content. Token additions added. Still remains barren.
    PvP. Hasn't been touched.
    Ship roles in PvE/PvP. Hasn't been touched.
    Ground Combat. Worse off than when it started from what I am seeing.

    So what have they been doing?

    - Have released an over abundance of new ships. Only continuing to exasperate the ship balance/roles and PvP issues with each new ship released.
    - They have redesigned several ship models. For which we are most grateful.
    - Added some token PvP maps. For which there is no actual PvP to take place in them.
    - Added a few token PvE end-game scenarios. Some of which can now be solo'd, and none of them address or tried to solidify ship roles in the game.
    - Introduced Diplomacy missions. A nice touch for which we are grateful, but still addresses nothing.
    - Almost half a dozen different lockbox varieties, with the best prizes as ships. These ships only continue to exasperate the continuing ship balance/roles and PvP issues that still exist.
    - Consoles that are unique to C-store ships that again further exasperate the continuing ship balance/roles and PvP issues that still exist.
    - The Lobi-Store items... do the same thing as everything else. Make it worse.

    All but 2 of the above changes have done nothing to make this game a better game.
    Diplomacy and the touched up ship models.

    But because it is Star Trek. The game limps on.

    why do you play...seems like you are not getting any enjoyment out of the game?
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    Curse these F2P games.
    The F2P model has ruined almost every game I have seen make the transition with very few exceptions. The idea of making you pay in order to remain competitive is so asinine and yet people eat it up.

    Instead of demanding a working game people just keep forking over the cash to play a completely smashed game. Either due to the IP or they enjoy smashing others that aren't paying into the system.

    Unlike a lot of other F2P games, 99% of the acquirable content in STO can be acquired for free. Granted, it takes a lot of grinding, but it's free.

    (The 1% is the LTS rewards and the Steamrunner-class, which have to be purchased with real money from the STO site and Steam, respectively.)

    Paying just allows players to acquire that gear much faster than traditionally grinding and converting resources.

    Just saying. :)
    stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
    Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
    My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    id be kinda surprised if by the time they finally get nu saucer sep to work with that god damn venture skin, the cause of the massive delay, if the galaxy doesn't end up with the same station setup the d'deridex has now. and hopeful the same console setup too. they can keep those 2 ENS stations though, give it a LT eng instead. then, despite its turn rate and lack of battle cloak compared to the d'deridex, the galaxy R would finally be a good cruiser.
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    khan5000 wrote: »
    why do you play...seems like you are not getting any enjoyment out of the game?

    I don't +)
  • bluegrassgeekbluegrassgeek Member Posts: 360 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    I don't +)
    Then why are you wasting our time here? :rolleyes:
    ____
    Keep calm, and continue firing photon torpedoes.
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    id be kinda surprised if by the time they finally get nu saucer sep to work with that god damn venture skin, the cause of the massive delay, if the galaxy doesn't end up with the same station setup the d'deridex has now. and hopeful the same console setup too. they can keep those 2 ENS stations though, give it a LT eng instead. then, despite its turn rate and lack of battle cloak compared to the d'deridex, the galaxy R would finally be a good cruiser.

    that would be so good for galaxy retrofit fan, hope your intuition prove correct!

    anyway there is an other thread concerning the galaxy ( and, granted, also the odyssey) that have been launch, so it seem that our small vocal minority is getting bigger^^
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Then why are you wasting our time here? :rolleyes:

    because he haven't loose hope, and he still looking for a sign of cyptic to show him that they will improve the game in the right direction.

    and franckly, cryptic do listen to it customer as far as they demonstrate so far, of course they will not said yes to everything, but logical and reasonable request, as long as they don't disturb the "money plan" are generally done.
    so his attitude is logic and make sense to me, at least.
  • bluegrassgeekbluegrassgeek Member Posts: 360 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    because he haven't loose hope, and he still looking for a sign of cyptic to show him that they will improve the game in the right direction.

    and franckly, cryptic do listen to it customer as far as they demonstrate so far, of course they will not said yes to everything, but logical and reasonable request, as long as they don't disturb the "money plan" are generally done.
    so his attitude is logic and make sense to me, at least.

    Not to me. Cryptic isn't going to change things just to get back a handful of people who would care enough about this issue.
    ____
    Keep calm, and continue firing photon torpedoes.
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Not to me. Cryptic isn't going to change things just to get back a handful of people who would care enough about this issue.

    they already do that in the past.
    the galaxy dreadnought use to have a lance that was able to do half the damage that it do now, their was only 3 weapons slot in the back, the hull got less hitpoint and it use to have only 2 tactical console slot.

    that a part of the release note of tribble from march 1, 2011

    Galaxy X Update
    Increased the damage on the Phaser Spinal Lance
    Increased the number of aft weapon slots from 3 to 4.

    and the point is that they will not do it JUST for the galaxy retrofit.
    it seem that they want to redo a bunch of old ship , so the effort would not be for that ship alone
  • bryguy#1741 bryguy Member Posts: 122 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    It's nice that there continues to be fair amount of ongoing support for the Galaxy overhaul. I'm certainly a fan of the Galaxy design and would love to see it get some love by the devs.

    That said, I think people are starting to "over design" a new ship, for lack of a better word for it. I see talk hangers, uber heavy beam arrays, and debate if the saucer should have lance powers. IMO, it doesn't need any of this stuff. Let's keep it simple.

    The current Gal-X matched the console and Boff layout of the Sovereign/Assault Cruiser. So lets have a Fleet Gal-X match the Fleet Regent/Fleet A.C. Refit for Boff and console layout. Anything beyond that (turn rate bump, lance accuracy) would be extra love, but I don't think it's necessarily needed. I stick an RCS and Tachokinetic console on my current Gal-X and I can whip it around pretty good.

    I stand with those who want a buffed Galaxy class, but let's not get too complicated about it. :)
    Thank you for the T6 Galaxy Class. - I support Tovan Khev. - Please bring back the exploration missions.
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    It's nice that there continues to be fair amount of ongoing support for the Galaxy overhaul. I'm certainly a fan of the Galaxy design and would love to see it get some love by the devs.

    That said, I think people are starting to "over design" a new ship, for lack of a better word for it. I see talk hangers, uber heavy beam arrays, and debate if the saucer should have lance powers. IMO, it doesn't need any of this stuff. Let's keep it simple.

    The current Gal-X matched the console and Boff layout of the Sovereign/Assault Cruiser. So lets have a Fleet Gal-X match the Fleet Regent/Fleet A.C. Refit for Boff and console layout. Anything beyond that (turn rate bump, lance accuracy) would be extra love, but I don't think it's necessarily needed. I stick an RCS and Tachokinetic console on my current Gal-X and I can whip it around pretty good.

    I stand with those who want a buffed Galaxy class, but let's not get too complicated about it. :)

    for the galaxy x, just a lt commander tact slot would do nicely, not something exactly like the regent, let this ship have more option for tactical, it sound better and in any case i think it would hurt the galaxy dreadnought.

    the second big problem is the lance accuracy indeed, and turn rate. for the turn rate to be in the same line as my idea to make it a little less efficient than a sovereign just give it a + 0.5 degree more that should be enought ( this is just a "life easier" bonus )

    but remember that this is a galaxy retrofit thread, not a galaxy x one
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,579 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    While his manner of stating it is somewhat abrasive, I believe his overall point is that the Galaxy will most likely keep its low turn rate, bad inertia and engineering focus. So any tweaks moving forward should keep that in mind.

    I.E. more tactical stations, upped turn rate, and essentially pushing the ship into an assault cruiser or an excelsior, seems unlikely. The devs haven't shown much desire to turn the ship into that. And there are already ships that fill that role anyways, which would create too much redundancy in the ship choices.

    At this point, I think you folks should scrap the idea of tweaks to CURRENT ships. And push for a NEW Galaxy. A LOCKBOX Galaxy. That way it can fit the power state you all really want.

    But would fit the Cryptic business model. And thus be a viable choice that they may actually think to implement.

    i am one of the few people where the turn does not bother me much. just want a uni ensign and for the fleet version 3 tac consoles

    and i would be content
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,579 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    reyan01 wrote: »
    Sadly, the fact that the Spinal Lance received any kind of buff is diminshed by the Lance's lousy accuracy. Namely, it misses. Often.

    tractorbeam helps but even then you can still miss

    i have missed a transformer in a ISE with the lance an immobile object when i was sitting still
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • edited June 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    gpgtx wrote: »
    tractorbeam helps but even then you can still miss

    i have missed a transformer in a ISE with the lance an immobile object when i was sitting still

    yeah, but some will still lecture you and saying you didn't do it right:rolleyes:

    for my part i succesfully miss the gate, almost everytime, at 2km, while being at full stop ( and so daes the gate, i watch her carefully, she didn't move a finger at the moment i shoot at herXD ).
    i have report this to my targetting officer and ask him to check the targetting subroutine, i am still waiting for his report:D
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Then why are you wasting our time here? :rolleyes:
    neo1nx wrote: »
    because he haven't loose hope, and he still looking for a sign of cyptic to show him that they will improve the game in the right direction.

    and franckly, cryptic do listen to it customer as far as they demonstrate so far, of course they will not said yes to everything, but logical and reasonable request, as long as they don't disturb the "money plan" are generally done.
    so his attitude is logic and make sense to me, at least.

    ^
    I played prior to launch in the beta. I preordered from Amazon, visited Del taco several times so I could hand out the little shuttle pet to my friends in the game who didn't have access to one, and was really excited about the game.
    I stop by from time to time to check the pulse of the gaming community and to check out various changes. I have even re-installed the game in the past to check out some of the "major" updates that have happened.
    Not to me. Cryptic isn't going to change things just to get back a handful of people who would care enough about this issue.

    I'm not the targets.
    Everyone is. The changes aren't to to bring back Veraticus. They are to bring old players back through a renewed interest and generate new accounts through word of mouth and interest in a constantly evolving game that attempts to put together a well thought out and balanced game that is actually interested in the players. Not just their pocketbooks.
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    ^
    They are to bring old players back through a renewed interest and generate new accounts through word of mouth and interest in a constantly evolving game that attempts to put together a well thought out and balanced game that is actually interested in the players. Not just their pocketbooks.

    I hate to break it to you, but PWE is a moneymaking company. They are no Star Trek Excalibur in any way, and pay minimal attention to sticking to canon. It's truly unfortunate that this ship, of all ships, is the one to suffer for that.
    stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
    Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
    My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    I hate to break it to you, but PWE is a moneymaking company. They are no Star Trek Excalibur in any way, and pay minimal attention to sticking to canon. It's truly unfortunate that this ship, of all ships, is the one to suffer for that.

    Au contraire mon fraire.
    I am fully aware of that fact and have nothing against it.

    This game is a poor attempt at a Star Trek game based on a MMO model.
    And quite frankly, I demand more from my games than what this one currently offers.
    If you are willing to settle for mediocrity in the name of Star Trek, that is fine and I have nothing against that as it is your opinion and desire. I shouldn't fault that. Doesn't mean I always agree with it.

    I am not asking for an Excalibur. Never have.
    Since many of you only seem to read the first and last sentence of anything I write I will put it in the last.

    I want balanced ships with defined ship roles for end game PvE and real PvP.
  • knockyknocky Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    This game is a poor attempt at a Star Trek game based on a MMO model.
    And quite frankly, I demand more from my games than what this one currently offers.
    If you are willing to settle for mediocrity in the name of Star Trek, that is fine and I have nothing against that as it is your opinion and desire. I shouldn't fault that. Doesn't mean I always agree with it.


    Star Trek fan have been settling for mediocre ST games for decades. We will happily chew on whatever bone is thrown our way.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • veraticusveraticus Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    knocky wrote: »
    Star Trek fan have been settling for mediocre ST games for decades. We will happily chew on whatever bone is thrown our way.

    I know +(
    I had hope for the latest game based on the new movies... I should have known better
  • bluegrassgeekbluegrassgeek Member Posts: 360 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    I'm not the targets.
    Everyone is. The changes aren't to to bring back Veraticus. They are to bring old players back through a renewed interest and generate new accounts through word of mouth and interest in a constantly evolving game that attempts to put together a well thought out and balanced game that is actually interested in the players. Not just their pocketbooks.

    What? Changing the Galaxy a bit isn't going to attract more than a handful of players that left. LoR brought back quite a few, and added many more new ones. And every company is about making money, so you're never going to be happy.
    ____
    Keep calm, and continue firing photon torpedoes.
  • bluegrassgeekbluegrassgeek Member Posts: 360 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    veraticus wrote: »
    Au contraire mon fraire.
    I am fully aware of that fact and have nothing against it.

    This game is a poor attempt at a Star Trek game based on a MMO model.
    And quite frankly, I demand more from my games than what this one currently offers.
    If you are willing to settle for mediocrity in the name of Star Trek, that is fine and I have nothing against that as it is your opinion and desire. I shouldn't fault that. Doesn't mean I always agree with it.

    I am not asking for an Excalibur. Never have.
    Since many of you only seem to read the first and last sentence of anything I write I will put it in the last.

    I want balanced ships with defined ship roles for end game PvE and real PvP.

    Balanced according to whom? There is no objective measure of "balance." You're never going to achieve it for the "everyone" you thought you were speaking for. And the "mediocrity" insult doesn't help you any. Frankly, it just makes you sound like a troll.
    ____
    Keep calm, and continue firing photon torpedoes.
  • ozy83ozy83 Member Posts: 156 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Not to me. Cryptic isn't going to change things just to get back a handful of people who would care enough about this issue.

    You mean like how they change things for the PvP crowd (a significant minority undoubtedly) all the time?

    So... You were saying..
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Lag Watch:
    Delta Rising: Warning
    Anniversary Event: Severe
    Iconian Season: Critical
  • keiichi2032keiichi2032 Member Posts: 129 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    ozy83 wrote: »
    You mean like how they change things for the PvP crowd (a significant minority undoubtedly) all the time?

    So... You were saying..

    The PvP crowd happens to be the most vocal, and the ones who have been shelling out the most money to buy all the consoles and ships and bonuses and so forth. The only ones who come 2nd in the matter of purchases would be RPers who get all the uniforms, character and costume slots, and ship skins. But RPers are rarely vocal with complaints, certainly compared to angry PvPers whining about how powerful the Galaxy-X's Phaser Lance is, and yet have nothing to say about the Chimera's Phaser Lotus... oh wait, that's right, cuz THEY'RE the one flying the Chimera.
    Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    The PvP crowd happens to be the most vocal, and the ones who have been shelling out the most money to buy all the consoles and ships and bonuses and so forth. The only ones who come 2nd in the matter of purchases would be RPers who get all the uniforms, character and costume slots, and ship skins. But RPers are rarely vocal with complaints, certainly compared to angry PvPers whining about how powerful the Galaxy-X's Phaser Lance is, and yet have nothing to say about the Chimera's Phaser Lotus... oh wait, that's right, cuz THEY'RE the one flying the Chimera.

    ether of those things would have to actually be op for there to be any complaining about them :rolleyes:

    the LEAST op things in game are the things that simply deal damage. its the stuff that messes with you thats really dangerous.
  • tsf00181tsf00181 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    The galaxy seriously needs some work. Maybe that Ensign Engineering slot should be universal, I dunno. At the every least the fleet version should be on par with the admiral assault cruiser.

    I've manged to get mine up to 7k sustained DPS. It wasn't either and its well beyond the means of an average player. Between buying a galor just for the beams, fleet mods, and doffs I have like 200mil EC in the thing. I didn't mind spending it, but thats a hell of alot of EC just to make a ship competitive. I don't even want to think about the dilithium I pored into it.
This discussion has been closed.