a cruisers role in this game should be to be the most diverse and multi purpose of ships. able to cover every basis at least pretty well, some better then others in certain ways due to their station setup.
their innate strength is to support and throw heals, but that shouldn't be the only thing they can do. any escort can throw 2 or 3 heals at a team mate too, if cruisers were the ONLY ships that could heal, then that would be as important as escort DPS. but everyone can be a healer too, sci ships are as good or better heal platforms even, its only fair that cruisers can deal more damage then they do now in exchange for their original purpose being so un-unique. and its not like they could do both well, there is a healing opportunity cost for building a DPS cruiser.
thats why eng captains suck too, all team supporting heals are from station powers, so any captain could use them. the eng captain only has a few training wheel self heals that dont do much good when no body bothers to shoot you. a sci captain in its place is another nuk and scan, and sci fleet. all extreamly important game changing abilities if used at the right time.
at one point, strong damage over time had an effect, and could force heals and reactions from the players you were shooting at. all the powercreep is effectively anti pressure, with proc heals and regeneration buffs undoing in an instance minutes of cruiser witiling down. the game has changed so that pressure damage no longer functions (against players), but letting everything use DHCs is not the answer.
the answer is to make beam arrays more like they actually are, they got them SO wrong in game. just changing beam array fireing cycles to 2 shots per cycle would give much more bite to their damage dealing, and not apply it in such gradual amounts that simply keeps pace with regeneration. it wont be nearly the spike a barrage of DHCs can cause, but it might be enough to cut through shields and expose the hull a bit. thats the DHC spike difference, hurting hull without having to shoot through all 4 shield facings worth of shields before you can even begin dealing hull damage. thats what pressure damage has to do, so it doesn't mater how strong it is, its always going to suck.
what would be best is only on large cruisers, is that beam arrays would fire 1 shot per cycle fore, from their large arrays that weren't disco balls, and aft arrays firng 2 shots per cycle like they would on all other ships fore or aft. beam arrays mounted fore could spike pretty hard actually, but have no follow up, a long time before another shot. but that shot, thats effective damage. thats down a shield facing damage, thats a cruiser could realistically use a torp too damage. it would also look more canon, arrays fire 1 full power, full array discharge shot at a time, when their goal is to deal damage. disco ball mode is for small target point defense and and cloak detection, so i see no reason to change FAW, it would be fine as it is.
this would make cruisers different but still good. escorts would still have more DPS and effective damage, but the survivability/dps balance would be more fair for cruisers.
demonstrably wrong.
pve has definite and clear minimum dps requirments.
be it holding a side of probes in vortex, or taking out a transformer group.
if you cant dps the probes your ship is pretty much bull****
if you cant solo the cube over a transformer, easily done with an escort, you have a complete failboat.
sorry , i am not agree with you on that point.
i can hold the probes even with a star cruiser, it will certainly take more time but it doable, and you don't need an auxtobat build with marion and kcb to do it.
warp plasma, tractor beam and BFAW, that all you need, not a very complicated build as you can see.
and solo cube above transformer too, they are not that much resistant, however if you find yourself in a position of soloing these cube your team got a coordination problem.
when i playing a cruiser i don't expect to do the same damage as an escort or to kill enemy as fast as they do, but that is not neccesary to do the job right.
i alway pug these stf, average people are good enought today to not need a fleet team to finish them with optional.
if you want to proove that cruiser are imbalanced you will have a hard time to do it with pve as a proof, unless your proof is that escort can do it faster than you, but that the role of escort man!
some build can make a cruiser do almost as much dps as an escort, but these build work only in pve.
so arguing that cruiser suck with pve as a proof will only get you the suspicion that your build is bad, because some guys have succeded to finish infected space with just one cruiser you known.
don't get me wrong, i am convinced just like dontdrunkhimshoot that cruiser need a little improvement concerning their firepower with beam, but that is important only for pvp.
for pve it is not neccesary and will only satisfy the people that want to show there ACT score where they will do as much damage as their escort friend.
and ultimately the hurry people:)
but that is sadly the source of our problem, since for pve, when perfectly build, cruiser are good enought there is no justification for cryptic to enhanced beam, since for now, they don't care about pvp.
I agree; and now that you mention it, the beams in this game do fire like "disco balls".
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!
You mean improving a ship that i have already paid for wouldn't be a popular move?
I think it would be quite the contrary, most people would be very happy about it and it would be a nice move from cryptics devs.
At least they could finally release a different BOFF & Console Layout forthe Galaxy-R as a unlock.
the problem is that Cryptics devs deliberately made the Galaxy Class the most passive ship. They exactly knew that it would be just a static brick in Space Combat with the least firepower of all ships in their game.
They deliberately made engineering BOFF powers the most passive ones, while making Tacitical (and Science) much more offensive or at least versatile.
They deliberately gave the Galaxy Class the lowest turn rate of all cruisers.
In my eyes they did almost everything to make the Galaxy Class the most unattractive and most boring ship in the game.
The only reason that we even have it in STO is its popularity outside STO and the fact that Cryptic can put it on some promo shots to attract people to their game.
So does this justify making the one of the most popular ship the most boring one by far?
By giving it such a BOFF and Console Layout (and a turnrate like that) they clearly showed that they didn't care about how ships in Trek work, they just needed some ship to put the most extreme passive BOFF and Console layout on.
Compared to the Galaxy, the regent is without doubt one of the best cruisers in Starfleet, heck they even made the Excelsior a much better ship.
They obviously know exactly what makes a ship boring and what doesn't or they wouldn't have given the Excelsior its BOFF and Consolr layout. So you can't justify the Galaxys BOFF layout with a lack of knowledge about their own game, in my opinion they exactly know what they are doing. (at least in terms of making a ship fun to fly or not.)
So in my opinion, it is NOT a issue of game evolution in STO, they made the Galaxy deliberately the most boring ship, but the worst thing is they don't seem to think that this is a problem at all.
On the other hand they made Escorts (a type of ship almost not existant in Trek) the kings of their game and almost disgusting OP just because of some personal preferences.
To be honest, i find that just unprofessional.
The more those ships (escorts) are put in the focus of the game the more i hate them.
Don't get me wrong here initially i wasn't a big fan of the Galaxy Class, but to see how bad Cryptics designers made that ship is just unacepptable and plainly unfair for its fans.
I hardly think this ship is "one of the most popular, I think FAR more people would like to see a Constitution and/or Enterprise retrofit & Fleet refit. So as far as I'm concerned, I could care less about the Galaxy, as you've already gotten more than fans like me are getting. And also, the Galaxy SHOULD be pretty slow turning, etc. It's not exactly a combat cruiser, after all.:cool:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Over 1600 replies to this thread? Wow! Lots of people have passionate feelings about this iconic vessel.
That said, why assume that a flagship would be the most bad-TRIBBLE vessel of a fleet? A flagship is a show of power, sure, but it is also somewhat decorative and symbolic.
I don't usually play Cruisers, but I bought some Orion Cruiser/Carriers lately and been having fun with those. The fighter wings and deployable weapon turrets make up for my relative low dps. I do load fore cannons but use aft beam arrays and mines. I have pumped up my defense but without my fighters and temp pets, it would take a long time to defeat a target when compared to the same fight with an Escort or Bird of Prey. Cruisers are built to out-last, not kill fast. Period. You will always find an exception to the rule, but that is pretty much the bottom line.
Since Exploration Cruisers, like the Galaxy, are so freaking big maybe there should be a variant that has a Hangar?
I did not read the previous 1.5K replies in this thread. Maybe these ideas have already been covered.
95% of the time I do PVE so my opinions are solely based upon my experiences.
<Edit> Additionally, some time has passed since the Galaxy cruiser was the newest, hottest ship in the Star Trek universe. Consider that recent innovations brought about by the new war might have over-shadowed its past glory.
Over 1600 replies to this thread? Wow! Lots of people have passionate feelings about this iconic vessel.
That said, why assume that a flagship would be the most bad-TRIBBLE vessel of a fleet? A flagship is a show of power, sure, but it is also somewhat decorative and symbolic.
I don't usually play Cruisers, but I bought some Orion Cruiser/Carriers lately and been having fun with those. The fighter wings and deployable weapon turrets make up for my relative low dps. I do load fore cannons but use aft beam arrays and mines. I have pumped up my defense but without my fighters and temp pets, it would take a long time to defeat a target when compared to the same fight with an Escort or Bird of Prey. Cruisers are built to out-last, not kill fast. Period. You will always find an exception to the rule, but that is pretty much the bottom line.
Since Exploration Cruisers, like the Galaxy, are so freaking big maybe there should be a variant that has a Hangar?
I did not read the previous 1.5K replies in this thread. Maybe these ideas have already been covered.
95% of the time I do PVE so my opinions are solely based upon my experiences.
<Edit> Additionally, some time has passed since the Galaxy cruiser was the newest, hottest ship in the Star Trek universe. Consider that recent innovations brought about by the new war might have over-shadowed its past glory.
Except that there are ships older then the galaxy and yet more powerful/useful. Excel and ambassador are both much older then it yet able to put out more dmg/healing. All the Galaxy class can do in this game is take a hit, and it doesnt do that better than any other cruiser.
This ship needs a new layout and it needs it pretty bad. Cryptic has missed out on so much $ cause of this. If this ship had a more useful role other then sit there and get shot they would sell a ton of Cstore versions and fleet modules for the fleet version. If they changed the layout to the samething the D'D has id buy one tomorrow.
But im not going to pay money for a floating target practice hulk, and honestly why should anyone else. Forget all the age, cannon junk etc for a moment. This is a game, it comes down to gameplay and is the ship fun. Honestly few can say they enjoy their galaxy more then other fleet cruisers, outside of looks. People keep saying but 5 eng consoles is awesome all that armor!? cept that more then 2 armor consoles usually results in such massive diminishing returns that 3rd is border line useless and the 4th and 5th are total wastes.
Which is easier to do, change/make ton of Eng boff skills/consoles. OR, redo the ship layout to be more flexable? People are still asking for +2 degrees per sec to turnrate even after we got a turnrate increase in LOR. People keep saying they wont change the boff layout since they still havent done it, well whats more likely all this ^ or that?
I want to fly a galaxy, not a galaxy carrier, not a galaxy x, not a flying space debris target that it is, and not a full time stardrive section. I wanna see the real galaxy from TNG, the ship i grew up with, not this bast*rdized thing they call a galaxy that has less punch then a 90lbs girl, or a exploration science ship that has so little sci boff slots its a joke.
Honestly, we all hated how the original T5 "assault" cruiser was a joke in name. Now we have the T5 reagent that is actually a good analog to what the Ent-E was. The Ent-D was a balance of firepower/science labs/and engineering of the best standard at the time it was made, and in the dominion wars the backbone of the fed fleets.
Ask yourselves is this cruiser good compared to all the other fed cruisers? If your answer is no then the debate is over. Fix it already, 3 years is a long time to wait, just ask the kumari and ambassador fans *both of which iam*. Fixing this is good for everyone, cryptic makes $, $ supports game, game stays alive longer, yall have fun playing it. Who loses on the deal?
the answer is to make beam arrays more like they actually are, they got them SO wrong in game. just changing beam array fireing cycles to 2 shots per cycle would give much more bite to their damage dealing, and not apply it in such gradual amounts that simply keeps pace with regeneration. it wont be nearly the spike a barrage of DHCs can cause, but it might be enough to cut through shields and expose the hull a bit. thats the DHC spike difference, hurting hull without having to shoot through all 4 shield facings worth of shields before you can even begin dealing hull damage. thats what pressure damage has to do, so it doesn't mater how strong it is, its always going to suck.
what would be best is only on large cruisers, is that beam arrays would fire 1 shot per cycle fore, from their large arrays that weren't disco balls, and aft arrays firng 2 shots per cycle like they would on all other ships fore or aft. beam arrays mounted fore could spike pretty hard actually, but have no follow up, a long time before another shot. but that shot, thats effective damage. thats down a shield facing damage, thats a cruiser could realistically use a torp too damage. it would also look more canon, arrays fire 1 full power, full array discharge shot at a time, when their goal is to deal damage. disco ball mode is for small target point defense and and cloak detection, so i see no reason to change FAW, it would be fine as it is.
But didn't you hear Geko? Beam Arrays are WAD. And if he has his way, they will never be updated. Or improved. Or even looked at for something other than a good laugh.
And to the guy who said the Tor'kaht was a cruiser in name only, you're wrong. You can run cruiser builds on it with ease. I can almost exactly replicate the build I run on my Tactical Odyssey on my Fleet Tor'kaht, except unfortunately I can't put that Ens Eng into Sci, and I have been too lazy to find someone to give me an EPtS3, which I run on my Odyssey. The ONLY difference between KDF BATTLEcruisers and fed cruisers are that KDF battlecruisers are much better suited to combat, can turn better, and can mount DHCs. However, even with BAs/DBBs, KDF BCs can deal a TON of damage.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
People keep saying but 5 eng consoles is awesome all that armor!? cept that more then 2 armor consoles usually results in such massive diminishing returns that 3rd is border line useless and the 4th and 5th are total wastes.
You have a lot of valid points.
I just want to point out that after mounting the best armor load, those extra Eng console slots could be used for RCS Accelerators for added turn speed. If Injector Assembly adds to turn rate, that could be useful also.
a few degrees per sec of turnrate in trade for completely gimped boff layout and console layout really worth it? As things sit its by far the worst cruiser, not by a little bit but by a lot.
Over 1600 replies to this thread? Wow! Lots of people have passionate feelings about this iconic vessel.
That said, why assume that a flagship would be the most bad-TRIBBLE vessel of a fleet? A flagship is a show of power, sure, but it is also somewhat decorative and symbolic.
well, the problem is that i didn't see in cryptic cstore description that the galaxy is a powerfull decorative ship with the best symbolic phaser array....or did i?:D
anyway, you seem to be a new player, and your view on the galaxy, even if i do not share it is refreshing... somehow.
welcome to the thread!
don't worry if you happened to get snipe by one of us creazy mad galaxy fan, we'r just like that! no harmed intended:D
I Have a great Idea, and i want to know your opinion about it, , i think they can add it in game in a (blink),, here it comes what if, all newbies at the beginning , like every single officer must earn there first , new ship. and they should start ,, yes ,, there it comes as a first officer ,, fits totaly in a startrek story and easy build in,, well let me know how you guys think about it,,, sory for my english writting skills cause iam dutch (-.
demonstrably wrong.
pve has definite and clear minimum dps requirments.
be it holding a side of probes in vortex, or taking out a transformer group.
if you cant dps the probes your ship is pretty much bull****
if you cant solo the cube over a transformer, easily done with an escort, you have a complete failboat.
That "minimum" is almost an insignificant amount.
You can also say that PvE has a minimum durability requirement to not get blown up on every hit. Here you're saying "you need to shoot! you shouldn't need to shoot! Being able to tank or CC needs to be enough!!!"
.....And Cruisers are the aircraft carriers in the fleet. Originally only 3 Galaxys were operational.
Carriers, are the carriers of the fleets. Not cruisers, seeing as how they have no launch bays. As far as the limited number of Galaxy class ships there originally were...there was only ONE USS Defiant originally, you don't see the Defiant fan boys claiming that somehow that matters do you?
I Have a great Idea, and i want to know your opinion about it, , i think they can add it in game in a (blink),, here it comes what if, all newbies at the beginning , like every single officer must earn there first , new ship. and they should start ,, yes ,, there it comes as a first officer ,, fits totaly in a startrek story and easy build in,, well let me know how you guys think about it,,, sory for my english writting skills cause iam dutch (-.
hmm, sorry but... what this have to do with the tread dutchboy?:)
You can also say that PvE has a minimum durability requirement to not get blown up on every hit. Here you're saying "you need to shoot! you shouldn't need to shoot! Being able to tank or CC needs to be enough!!!"
Carriers, are the carriers of the fleets. Not cruisers, seeing as how they have no launch bays. As far as the limited number of Galaxy class ships there originally were...there was only ONE USS Defiant originally, you don't see the Defiant fan boys claiming that somehow that matters do you?
Dude Carrier is the cruiser in trek. They largerly abadoned fighters in trek. the most we ever saw was dominion war and the Galaxy and others like the Sovreign can easily hold them. But the ships like the Galaxy are always the core of a fleet. in the battle for DS9 the fed forces was 2 fleets and we saw 4 galaxys, that's 2 per fleet. and note our carriers are in the same boat there.
Also Defiant was a prototype mothball that was reactivated after Odyessy went boom boom. Sisko and Obrein made her work and the Defiant class began production. I defiant is much easier to construct than a Galaxy. but can't hold as much.
if its the difference between being able to effectivly fulfil a role and not, then its not insignificant.
a role that can be done afk in an escort, and is a pain in the TRIBBLE for cruisers or neutered sci ships
:
Fulfilling the DPS requirements for content in STO is laughably easy for even a team of cruisers. If only they bothered to build their ships well and play them right. All too often you see cruiser pilots sit at just under 10 Km range and plink away with beam arrays.... sure, those cruisers are NEVER going to get anything done.
Fulfilling the DPS requirements for content in STO is laughably easy for even a team of cruisers. If only they bothered to build their ships well and play them right. All too often you see cruiser pilots sit at just under 10 Km range and plink away with beam arrays.... sure, those cruisers are NEVER going to get anything done.
Whereas a proper cruiser goes in and slams the target with BAs and Torps and the KCB from 3k or less.
Because a proper cruiser can tank a gate/tac cube/donatra all day and not care.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Just the fact the Fleet Negh'var got universal ensign and Fleet Galaxy-R did not can tell you, how much devs care about TNG ships and the so called "ship balance". There is no reason, why those two ships, that were FED/KDF mirrors from launch, should not get the same fleet treatment, except for personal bias.
Let's review it.
Negh'Var has -1100 hps, and gets +3 turn, cloak, ability to have dual cannons and on top of it, universal ensign...ship balance at it's finest.
Negh'var got universal ensign probably due to them not really having an equivalent of a starcruiser and assault.
also because the fleet patrol got a universal ens, 1 each i guess. the fleet patrol, the most redundant and unremarkable end game escorts the feds have, what a waste :rolleyes:
The Neg'vhar is also better for combat because even in Canon she was designed for fighting, and ONLY fighting. So it stands to reason she would be more offensively and combat oriented.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Carriers, are the carriers of the fleets. Not cruisers, seeing as how they have no launch bays. As far as the limited number of Galaxy class ships there originally were...there was only ONE USS Defiant originally, you don't see the Defiant fan boys claiming that somehow that matters do you?
... I'm going to have call you out on this one skyranger.
You misunderstand why Carriers became top dog vs the Battleship.
In ship vs ship combat the Iowa Class Battleship is arguably one of the best, if not the best.
No Aircraft Carrier with her 2 inch thick armor could stand up to or put a dent in an Iowa.
She doesn't have the capacity to duel one. Simple fact.
Destroyers, Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, same thing. They can't take on a fully functional and up to date Battleship. Or even the USS Missouri after her latest refit from mothballs.
The Battleship is designed for ship to ship combat and limited bombardment support.
And in that role she reigns supreme.
Now, why did the Carrier and Destroyer replace the Battleship then if it is still so "superior?"
Range would be the simplest answer.
The big guns on the Iowa had a roughly 20-25 mile range.
Compare that to a now retired Jet the F-14 Tomcats combat range of 578 miles with the ability to hit a target with precision and with far superior firepower.
Destroyers could be made faster, for far less and were cheaper to refit, and could carry long range ordinance.
And suddenly it becomes clear.
In Star Trek, there is no Aircraft Carrier replacing the Battleship.
Why?
Because the firepower carried by a Star Trek Battleship will never be out done by a star fighter. The best it can do is equal it in that they both can fire a photon torpedo.
But the Battleship carries far more, and doesn't need to come home and refuel and reload before unloading again.
Then you have Phasers.
I don't care what you think of the SDE theory, or the NDF theory or if you even care about what any of that is. I have yet to meet anyone on here that thinks a shuttlecrafts Phaser blasts hit near as hard as the starship we have seen fire onscreen. Because they don't.
Then there is speed of deployment and range.
Warp drive. 1-10. Shuttles rarely exceed Warp 2.
Range. Even if a Shuttle can match pace with a Cruiser, the Cruiser has far superior range.
So guess what.
In Star Trek, the Battleship is king.
Cruisers are literally the best and most efficient use of your resources.
They cannot be "outdps'd" by anything smaller than them minus some great disparity between techs.
And some of you people accuse JJ of being all SW on ST.
At least he seems to understand how the ship power structure goes in ST. Larger usually means its going to eat you.
Probably the most logical and sensible advice ever given in this entire thread. Also the least likely to be followed. Am I the only one that finds that to be funny?
It read to me more like "Don't worry cruiser captains, be happy with your mediocrity".
... I'm going to have call you out on this one skyranger.
You misunderstand why Carriers became top dog vs the Battleship.
Wut? If you want to talk about which is top dog that's one thing, but its incorrect to refer as cruisers as carriers due to their lack of launch bays. Carriers have launch bays, ful carriers have 2 launch bays, and cruisers have none. I'm not sure what isn't clear?
In ship vs ship combat the Iowa Class Battleship is arguably one of the best, if not the best.
No Aircraft Carrier with her 2 inch thick armor could stand up to or put a dent in an Iowa.
She doesn't have the capacity to duel one. Simple fact.
I'm not sure what this has to do with you mislabeling a ship type, but thanks for refreshing my memory, its been a few years since I wrote papers about this very subject in college.
And suddenly it becomes clear.
In Star Trek, there is no Aircraft Carrier replacing the Battleship.
Why?
Because the firepower carried by a Star Trek Battleship will never be out done by a star fighter. The best it can do is equal it in that they both can fire a photon torpedo.
But the Battleship carries far more, and doesn't need to come home and refuel and reload before unloading again.
Then you have Phasers.
I don't care what you think of the SDE theory, or the NDF theory or if you even care about what any of that is. I have yet to meet anyone on here that thinks a shuttlecrafts Phaser blasts hit near as hard as the starship we have seen fire onscreen. Because they don't.
This is less about STO but more about future weapons in general, but......How do you know? We've seen in TV episodes a single overloaded hand phaser rock a connie, a HAND phaser. We've seen fighter wings take on groups of cruisers and be expected to do sufficient damage to not be ignored.
You're thinking in 20th century energy to mass ratios. In Star Trek they have mastered energy storage/energy conversion sufficiently that they can have hand held energy weapons of incredible potency, that alone makes all of your arguments invalid. Its not a matter of the energy supply, but rather of the channeling or conversion equipment..AKA, your weapons.
Naturally shuttles/fighters get fewer weapons slots due to their smaller size, but more than size proportionality would lead us to believe thanks to such gear being relatively small. But lets ignore all that, like you yourself said strapping a pair of photon torpedoes to a Peregrine would be more than enough to ruin a cruiser's day, especially if that Peregrine brought along 12 of his or her closest friends! If anything we can all see that in STO fighters are very low power compared to what they could be.
Of course we could then look at shields, most would keep thinking in 20th century power/mass ratios and conclude that a big ship would have stronger shields... I have to ask again, how do you know? In most cases a bigger bubble is harder to maintain than a smaller one, maybe shields work under the same rules, maybe they do not.
In STO NPC combat pets are made to be complementary to the carrier, and not replace its firepower. Which makes sense, STO is not about simulating modern naval warfare. That would be silly, its about playing exciting ships, not sending NPCs to do your job.
So guess what.
In Star Trek, the Battleship is king.
Cruisers are literally the best and most efficient use of your resources.
They cannot be "outdps'd" by anything smaller than them minus some great disparity between techs.
I fail to see why you bring this up, no one is disputing the ships are the main thing in space combat and NOT the fighters or shuttles... so why bring this up?
And some of you people accuse JJ of being all SW on ST.
At least he seems to understand how the ship power structure goes in ST. Larger usually means its going to eat you.
What I DO find funny is that in all this you don't bring up the one thing that would doom small weapon delivery platforms with big weapons. Energy point defense systems of great range and power.
those federation fighters needed several passes to even inflict harm on galors. their weapons are nearly harmless to actual starships. we have seen a galaxy class swat like 10 strike craft sized targets in about a second. fighters are in no way a viable weapon in the star trek universe, not against star ships at least. if the iowa had deflector shields that would change things, battleships wouldn't just get picked apart by aircraft. but in star trek, its not the large ship thats vulnerable, its the fighter. and the starships's weapons arent artillery pieces, they are ultra precise beam arrays, at a scale and power output 100 times or greater then what a fighter could carry.
those federation fighters needed several passes to even inflict harm on galors. their weapons are nearly harmless to actual starships. we have seen a galaxy class swat like 10 strike craft sized targets in about a second. fighters are in no way a viable weapon in the star trek universe, not against star ships at least. if the iowa had deflector shields that would change things, battleships wouldn't just get picked apart by aircraft. but in star trek, its not the large ship thats vulnerable, its the fighter. and the starships's weapons arent artillery pieces, they are ultra precise beam arrays, at a scale and power output 100 times or greater then what a fighter could carry.
Fighters are good for distracting targets in pve. My pet fighters aren't going to kill even small frigates, but it keeps 1 or 2 busy while I destroy 1 at a time. Even against another cruiser-type vessel, it makes them do aoe attacks instead of only focusing on me.
PS, I LOVE the tractor beam mines! It's so useful to lock a target into place while my carrier/cruiser makes several passes on it.
I don't pvp that much, so I can't speak to whether fighters are worthwhile in those situations.
Comments
their innate strength is to support and throw heals, but that shouldn't be the only thing they can do. any escort can throw 2 or 3 heals at a team mate too, if cruisers were the ONLY ships that could heal, then that would be as important as escort DPS. but everyone can be a healer too, sci ships are as good or better heal platforms even, its only fair that cruisers can deal more damage then they do now in exchange for their original purpose being so un-unique. and its not like they could do both well, there is a healing opportunity cost for building a DPS cruiser.
thats why eng captains suck too, all team supporting heals are from station powers, so any captain could use them. the eng captain only has a few training wheel self heals that dont do much good when no body bothers to shoot you. a sci captain in its place is another nuk and scan, and sci fleet. all extreamly important game changing abilities if used at the right time.
at one point, strong damage over time had an effect, and could force heals and reactions from the players you were shooting at. all the powercreep is effectively anti pressure, with proc heals and regeneration buffs undoing in an instance minutes of cruiser witiling down. the game has changed so that pressure damage no longer functions (against players), but letting everything use DHCs is not the answer.
the answer is to make beam arrays more like they actually are, they got them SO wrong in game. just changing beam array fireing cycles to 2 shots per cycle would give much more bite to their damage dealing, and not apply it in such gradual amounts that simply keeps pace with regeneration. it wont be nearly the spike a barrage of DHCs can cause, but it might be enough to cut through shields and expose the hull a bit. thats the DHC spike difference, hurting hull without having to shoot through all 4 shield facings worth of shields before you can even begin dealing hull damage. thats what pressure damage has to do, so it doesn't mater how strong it is, its always going to suck.
what would be best is only on large cruisers, is that beam arrays would fire 1 shot per cycle fore, from their large arrays that weren't disco balls, and aft arrays firng 2 shots per cycle like they would on all other ships fore or aft. beam arrays mounted fore could spike pretty hard actually, but have no follow up, a long time before another shot. but that shot, thats effective damage. thats down a shield facing damage, thats a cruiser could realistically use a torp too damage. it would also look more canon, arrays fire 1 full power, full array discharge shot at a time, when their goal is to deal damage. disco ball mode is for small target point defense and and cloak detection, so i see no reason to change FAW, it would be fine as it is.
this would make cruisers different but still good. escorts would still have more DPS and effective damage, but the survivability/dps balance would be more fair for cruisers.
sorry , i am not agree with you on that point.
i can hold the probes even with a star cruiser, it will certainly take more time but it doable, and you don't need an auxtobat build with marion and kcb to do it.
warp plasma, tractor beam and BFAW, that all you need, not a very complicated build as you can see.
and solo cube above transformer too, they are not that much resistant, however if you find yourself in a position of soloing these cube your team got a coordination problem.
when i playing a cruiser i don't expect to do the same damage as an escort or to kill enemy as fast as they do, but that is not neccesary to do the job right.
i alway pug these stf, average people are good enought today to not need a fleet team to finish them with optional.
if you want to proove that cruiser are imbalanced you will have a hard time to do it with pve as a proof, unless your proof is that escort can do it faster than you, but that the role of escort man!
some build can make a cruiser do almost as much dps as an escort, but these build work only in pve.
so arguing that cruiser suck with pve as a proof will only get you the suspicion that your build is bad, because some guys have succeded to finish infected space with just one cruiser you known.
don't get me wrong, i am convinced just like dontdrunkhimshoot that cruiser need a little improvement concerning their firepower with beam, but that is important only for pvp.
for pve it is not neccesary and will only satisfy the people that want to show there ACT score where they will do as much damage as their escort friend.
and ultimately the hurry people:)
but that is sadly the source of our problem, since for pve, when perfectly build, cruiser are good enought there is no justification for cryptic to enhanced beam, since for now, they don't care about pvp.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I agree; and now that you mention it, the beams in this game do fire like "disco balls".
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I hardly think this ship is "one of the most popular, I think FAR more people would like to see a Constitution and/or Enterprise retrofit & Fleet refit. So as far as I'm concerned, I could care less about the Galaxy, as you've already gotten more than fans like me are getting. And also, the Galaxy SHOULD be pretty slow turning, etc. It's not exactly a combat cruiser, after all.:cool:
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
That said, why assume that a flagship would be the most bad-TRIBBLE vessel of a fleet? A flagship is a show of power, sure, but it is also somewhat decorative and symbolic.
I don't usually play Cruisers, but I bought some Orion Cruiser/Carriers lately and been having fun with those. The fighter wings and deployable weapon turrets make up for my relative low dps. I do load fore cannons but use aft beam arrays and mines. I have pumped up my defense but without my fighters and temp pets, it would take a long time to defeat a target when compared to the same fight with an Escort or Bird of Prey. Cruisers are built to out-last, not kill fast. Period. You will always find an exception to the rule, but that is pretty much the bottom line.
Since Exploration Cruisers, like the Galaxy, are so freaking big maybe there should be a variant that has a Hangar?
I did not read the previous 1.5K replies in this thread. Maybe these ideas have already been covered.
95% of the time I do PVE so my opinions are solely based upon my experiences.
<Edit> Additionally, some time has passed since the Galaxy cruiser was the newest, hottest ship in the Star Trek universe. Consider that recent innovations brought about by the new war might have over-shadowed its past glory.
Except that there are ships older then the galaxy and yet more powerful/useful. Excel and ambassador are both much older then it yet able to put out more dmg/healing. All the Galaxy class can do in this game is take a hit, and it doesnt do that better than any other cruiser.
This ship needs a new layout and it needs it pretty bad. Cryptic has missed out on so much $ cause of this. If this ship had a more useful role other then sit there and get shot they would sell a ton of Cstore versions and fleet modules for the fleet version. If they changed the layout to the samething the D'D has id buy one tomorrow.
But im not going to pay money for a floating target practice hulk, and honestly why should anyone else. Forget all the age, cannon junk etc for a moment. This is a game, it comes down to gameplay and is the ship fun. Honestly few can say they enjoy their galaxy more then other fleet cruisers, outside of looks. People keep saying but 5 eng consoles is awesome all that armor!? cept that more then 2 armor consoles usually results in such massive diminishing returns that 3rd is border line useless and the 4th and 5th are total wastes.
Which is easier to do, change/make ton of Eng boff skills/consoles. OR, redo the ship layout to be more flexable? People are still asking for +2 degrees per sec to turnrate even after we got a turnrate increase in LOR. People keep saying they wont change the boff layout since they still havent done it, well whats more likely all this ^ or that?
I want to fly a galaxy, not a galaxy carrier, not a galaxy x, not a flying space debris target that it is, and not a full time stardrive section. I wanna see the real galaxy from TNG, the ship i grew up with, not this bast*rdized thing they call a galaxy that has less punch then a 90lbs girl, or a exploration science ship that has so little sci boff slots its a joke.
Honestly, we all hated how the original T5 "assault" cruiser was a joke in name. Now we have the T5 reagent that is actually a good analog to what the Ent-E was. The Ent-D was a balance of firepower/science labs/and engineering of the best standard at the time it was made, and in the dominion wars the backbone of the fed fleets.
Ask yourselves is this cruiser good compared to all the other fed cruisers? If your answer is no then the debate is over. Fix it already, 3 years is a long time to wait, just ask the kumari and ambassador fans *both of which iam*. Fixing this is good for everyone, cryptic makes $, $ supports game, game stays alive longer, yall have fun playing it. Who loses on the deal?
But didn't you hear Geko? Beam Arrays are WAD. And if he has his way, they will never be updated. Or improved. Or even looked at for something other than a good laugh.
And to the guy who said the Tor'kaht was a cruiser in name only, you're wrong. You can run cruiser builds on it with ease. I can almost exactly replicate the build I run on my Tactical Odyssey on my Fleet Tor'kaht, except unfortunately I can't put that Ens Eng into Sci, and I have been too lazy to find someone to give me an EPtS3, which I run on my Odyssey. The ONLY difference between KDF BATTLEcruisers and fed cruisers are that KDF battlecruisers are much better suited to combat, can turn better, and can mount DHCs. However, even with BAs/DBBs, KDF BCs can deal a TON of damage.
You have a lot of valid points.
I just want to point out that after mounting the best armor load, those extra Eng console slots could be used for RCS Accelerators for added turn speed. If Injector Assembly adds to turn rate, that could be useful also.
well, the problem is that i didn't see in cryptic cstore description that the galaxy is a powerfull decorative ship with the best symbolic phaser array....or did i?:D
anyway, you seem to be a new player, and your view on the galaxy, even if i do not share it is refreshing... somehow.
welcome to the thread!
don't worry if you happened to get snipe by one of us creazy mad galaxy fan, we'r just like that! no harmed intended:D
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
That "minimum" is almost an insignificant amount.
You can also say that PvE has a minimum durability requirement to not get blown up on every hit. Here you're saying "you need to shoot! you shouldn't need to shoot! Being able to tank or CC needs to be enough!!!"
Carriers, are the carriers of the fleets. Not cruisers, seeing as how they have no launch bays. As far as the limited number of Galaxy class ships there originally were...there was only ONE USS Defiant originally, you don't see the Defiant fan boys claiming that somehow that matters do you?
hmm, sorry but... what this have to do with the tread dutchboy?:)
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Dude Carrier is the cruiser in trek. They largerly abadoned fighters in trek. the most we ever saw was dominion war and the Galaxy and others like the Sovreign can easily hold them. But the ships like the Galaxy are always the core of a fleet. in the battle for DS9 the fed forces was 2 fleets and we saw 4 galaxys, that's 2 per fleet. and note our carriers are in the same boat there.
Also Defiant was a prototype mothball that was reactivated after Odyessy went boom boom. Sisko and Obrein made her work and the Defiant class began production. I defiant is much easier to construct than a Galaxy. but can't hold as much.
Fulfilling the DPS requirements for content in STO is laughably easy for even a team of cruisers. If only they bothered to build their ships well and play them right. All too often you see cruiser pilots sit at just under 10 Km range and plink away with beam arrays.... sure, those cruisers are NEVER going to get anything done.
Whereas a proper cruiser goes in and slams the target with BAs and Torps and the KCB from 3k or less.
Because a proper cruiser can tank a gate/tac cube/donatra all day and not care.
^^^^This
[/SIGPIC]
sadly agreed
Negh'var got universal ensign probably due to them not really having an equivalent of a starcruiser and assault.
also because the fleet patrol got a universal ens, 1 each i guess. the fleet patrol, the most redundant and unremarkable end game escorts the feds have, what a waste :rolleyes:
... I'm going to have call you out on this one skyranger.
You misunderstand why Carriers became top dog vs the Battleship.
In ship vs ship combat the Iowa Class Battleship is arguably one of the best, if not the best.
No Aircraft Carrier with her 2 inch thick armor could stand up to or put a dent in an Iowa.
She doesn't have the capacity to duel one. Simple fact.
Destroyers, Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, same thing. They can't take on a fully functional and up to date Battleship. Or even the USS Missouri after her latest refit from mothballs.
The Battleship is designed for ship to ship combat and limited bombardment support.
And in that role she reigns supreme.
Now, why did the Carrier and Destroyer replace the Battleship then if it is still so "superior?"
Range would be the simplest answer.
The big guns on the Iowa had a roughly 20-25 mile range.
Compare that to a now retired Jet the F-14 Tomcats combat range of 578 miles with the ability to hit a target with precision and with far superior firepower.
Destroyers could be made faster, for far less and were cheaper to refit, and could carry long range ordinance.
And suddenly it becomes clear.
In Star Trek, there is no Aircraft Carrier replacing the Battleship.
Why?
Because the firepower carried by a Star Trek Battleship will never be out done by a star fighter. The best it can do is equal it in that they both can fire a photon torpedo.
But the Battleship carries far more, and doesn't need to come home and refuel and reload before unloading again.
Then you have Phasers.
I don't care what you think of the SDE theory, or the NDF theory or if you even care about what any of that is. I have yet to meet anyone on here that thinks a shuttlecrafts Phaser blasts hit near as hard as the starship we have seen fire onscreen. Because they don't.
Then there is speed of deployment and range.
Warp drive. 1-10. Shuttles rarely exceed Warp 2.
Range. Even if a Shuttle can match pace with a Cruiser, the Cruiser has far superior range.
So guess what.
In Star Trek, the Battleship is king.
Cruisers are literally the best and most efficient use of your resources.
They cannot be "outdps'd" by anything smaller than them minus some great disparity between techs.
And some of you people accuse JJ of being all SW on ST.
At least he seems to understand how the ship power structure goes in ST. Larger usually means its going to eat you.
What I DO find funny is that in all this you don't bring up the one thing that would doom small weapon delivery platforms with big weapons. Energy point defense systems of great range and power.
Fighters are good for distracting targets in pve. My pet fighters aren't going to kill even small frigates, but it keeps 1 or 2 busy while I destroy 1 at a time. Even against another cruiser-type vessel, it makes them do aoe attacks instead of only focusing on me.
PS, I LOVE the tractor beam mines! It's so useful to lock a target into place while my carrier/cruiser makes several passes on it.
I don't pvp that much, so I can't speak to whether fighters are worthwhile in those situations.