Don't know if this has been covered as I'm not looking through 2393 posts to check, but there's been talk of a Fleet Galaxy Dreadnought for some time now, the reason given for its delay is getting the lance and saucer seperation to work together.
So here's my thoughts on that: Do we really need/want the saucer separation? Personally it's never something I look for in a ship, I've recently got the Galaxy Dread' and I do enjoy it but I think it would benefit more from an extra slot somewhere, weapons or consoles or extra b'off ability, it's much like my Atrox in that way, if there were to be an upgrade of either of these ships released I'd much rather see an extra slot in weapons, consoles, b'off abilities or hangars than a saucer separation console I'd probably remove after getting it, but that may just be me...
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
As an Engineer, I'm getting a bit tired of seeing all the Tac and Sci captains who want to change the Galaxy into a cruiser that suits their skills. The Galaxy is the top Engineering ship in the game for its 2000-Z pricetag, and any change to it should reflect increased Engineering stats, not Tactical or Science. This isn't a battlecruiser or science vessel.
I fly mine quite regularly, and the -only- problem with it is the way Saucer Sep is done. If it were made identical to the Odyssey-Ops Chevron Seperation, that would help, but I've never had a problem with doing my job (repair and tank) in any team.
As for the Galaxy-X, it already receives Cloak and the Spinal Mount, so it doesn't need any more special abilities (don't know of any ship that receives three special items). Perhaps converting the Science station to a Tactical station (providing the increase in tactical abilities at the price of absolutely no science abilities...logical for a ship that has had all its exploration abilities ripped out to mount weapons systems never intended to be on the ship), but the ship is perfectly capable of fighting alongside any other endgame cruiser and doing the job of a cruiser...tanking and repair.....as well as most other cruisers. Of course, another option would be to remove either the Cloak or Spinal Mount for some other ability of equal worth, but then you are removing core elements of the ship's profile as seen in media.
Bottom line: The Galaxy class work in their intended roles very well as-is. If there is a problem, it's with the role of Cruisers in the game, and not the Galaxy class itself, and that's where the change needs to be. People who are trying to make this a battlecruiser or a science tank need to remember what this ship is supposed to be...one of the premier -ENGINEERING- ships in the game, and keep their suggestions in true faith to that.
Bottom line: The Galaxy class work in their intended roles very well as-is. If there is a problem, it's with the role of Cruisers in the game, and not the Galaxy class itself, and that's where the change needs to be. People who are trying to make this a battlecruiser or a science tank need to remember what this ship is supposed to be...one of the premier -ENGINEERING- ships in the game, and keep their suggestions in true faith to that.
It's engineering powers that are flawed in STO, especially the ensign ranks.
Too many shared cooldowns, to say it short.
Since the Galaxy -R has 3 ensign Engineering slots and only one Lt science, its tanking abilities are worse than a Star cruisers. (and worse than a Assault Cruiser which could use Attack Pattern Delta, WITHOUT sacrificing the only offensive BOFF slot this ship has)
Its Offensive abilities are even worse (one Lt. tac, 2 tac consoles) so this ship has drawn the short straw even thrice IMO.
THAT's why it needs to be changed.
What the Galaxy -R in STO needs are some Muscles, nothing else. Giving the Fleet version a fifth engineering console seems like a bad joke. (That was something the ship needed the last.)
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
As an Engineer, I'm getting a bit tired of seeing all the Tac and Sci captains who want to change the Galaxy into a cruiser that suits their skills. The Galaxy is the top Engineering ship in the game for its 2000-Z pricetag, and any change to it should reflect increased Engineering stats, not Tactical or Science. This isn't a battlecruiser or science vessel.
I fly mine quite regularly, and the -only- problem with it is the way Saucer Sep is done. If it were made identical to the Odyssey-Ops Chevron Seperation, that would help, but I've never had a problem with doing my job (repair and tank) in any team.
As for the Galaxy-X, it already receives Cloak and the Spinal Mount, so it doesn't need any more special abilities (don't know of any ship that receives three special items). Perhaps converting the Science station to a Tactical station (providing the increase in tactical abilities at the price of absolutely no science abilities...logical for a ship that has had all its exploration abilities ripped out to mount weapons systems never intended to be on the ship), but the ship is perfectly capable of fighting alongside any other endgame cruiser and doing the job of a cruiser...tanking and repair.....as well as most other cruisers. Of course, another option would be to remove either the Cloak or Spinal Mount for some other ability of equal worth, but then you are removing core elements of the ship's profile as seen in media.
Bottom line: The Galaxy class work in their intended roles very well as-is. If there is a problem, it's with the role of Cruisers in the game, and not the Galaxy class itself, and that's where the change needs to be. People who are trying to make this a battlecruiser or a science tank need to remember what this ship is supposed to be...one of the premier -ENGINEERING- ships in the game, and keep their suggestions in true faith to that.
this has nothing to do with captain types. you like he station setup? well your not experienced enough to know better then. having so many eng stations sucks, the galaxy R has the worst station setup of any ship in the game. because there is nothing to choose from at ENS level, other then a team skill that trips cooldowns on TT and ST, or EPt skills that thanks to 3 ENS slots, you cant run higher then version 1, no EPtS3 on this ship. if the ENS was an other type, it would be a much better ship for ANY possible role you would use on it, simply because you dont have global cooldowns tripping over each other, and preventing you from using any skill first available at ENS at a higher level. the best station setup for an engineer in a cruiser is a sci ody with the LTC used for sci so it has access to the most sci heals possible. because those are much more powerful then eng heals
I was reading the stats and comments on the veteran destroyer when this quote caught my attention:
badgerpants999 @ Oct 12th, 2012 5:17AM
I have to say I'm loving these ships. The ships are wonderfull to use! such a surprize to find a good tactical ship from the cruiser loving dev's! Thankyou!
If this is right, we went in less than a year from cruiser loving to escorts'r'us???
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
this has nothing to do with captain types. you like he station setup? well your not experienced enough to know better then. having so many eng stations sucks, the galaxy R has the worst station setup of any ship in the game. because there is nothing to choose from at ENS level, other then a team skill that trips cooldowns on TT and ST, or EPt skills that thanks to 3 ENS slots, you cant run higher then version 1, no EPtS3 on this ship. if the ENS was an other type, it would be a much better ship for ANY possible role you would use on it, simply because you dont have global cooldowns tripping over each other, and preventing you from using any skill first available at ENS at a higher level. the best station setup for an engineer in a cruiser is a sci ody with the LTC used for sci so it has access to the most sci heals possible. because those are much more powerful then eng heals
Blunt, but correct. I've noticed that many people who argue against changes to the galaxy either are either 1) a little ignorant or 2) don't really use cruisers so don't really give a TRIBBLE. Three ensign level engineering bridge officer stations suck. Unfortunately, the Excelsior also suffers from this as well. I tend to just toss ET1 in there, but it doesn't really get much mileage as dontdrunkimshoot pointed out it shares that cool down with TT (which is essential in any end game/pvp build). Had they made that ensign station universal, like they did with the Fleet Negh'Var the ship would be infinitely more useful. Unfortunately, it looks like nothing is ever going to be done. This is probably the largest and most viewed threads on the forums and we still haven't got a dev to step in and post anything at all.
I've noticed that many people who argue against changes to the galaxy either are either 1) a little ignorant or 2) don't really use cruisers so don't really give a TRIBBLE. Three ensign level engineering bridge officer stations suck. Unfortunately, the Excelsior also suffers from this as well. I tend to just toss ET1 in there, but it doesn't really get much mileage as dontdrunkimshoot pointed out it shares that cool down with TT (which is essential in any end game/pvp build). Had they made that ensign station universal, like they did with the Fleet Negh'Var the ship would be infinitely more useful. Unfortunately, it looks like nothing is ever going to be done. This is probably the largest and most viewed threads on the forums and we still haven't got a dev to step in and post anything at all.
As a person who uses cruisers almost exclusively, I guess I'm ignorant then? Considering that I was flying only the Galaxy (now Fleet Galaxy) since what, January?
I argue against changes because the changes some people postulate in this thread are foolhardy and ignorant of the repercussions of changing a ship. I've created hypothetical scenarios which have apparently failed to convey their intended message to other people in this thread. So, let me reiterate.
If one component of the game is changed, it WILL affect the other components in the game.
Some people, like drunk and torvinecho25, have created their own builds. That's fine, since they have clearly thought deeply about the impact of their proposed changes on the game's balance and where the ship is, in relation to other ships.
Others propose sweeping changes to all aspects of the Galaxy-class, with no motive other than "I feel this is what the ship 'should' be", or "The Galaxy-class needs more firepower". I agree with those statements, but I don't act on them without careful consideration.
Cryptic originally believed in the "Trinity" model. The Galaxy, Defiant and Intrepid were the vertices of this triangle of prior balance. Defiant had the most tactical consoles, the most tac boff seat space. Intrepid had the most sci console slots, the most sci boff space. Galaxy had the most eng console slots, the most eng boff space. I realize trinity has been severely warped, but it is still the foundation on which this game stands precariously on.
It is the foolhardy of us who propose obliterating the current ship and replacing it with a ship that is slanted towards tactical or science who are at the root of the problem. They refuse to understand or accept where the ship's proper place is. TNG and DS9 have depicted these vessels as durable starships. Compared to the Mirandas, Oberths and Excelsiors, and even the Sovereign-class Enterprise-E, the Galaxy-class has had a remarkable history of durability and flexibility. Durability. Emphasized by the heavy slant on Engineering.
It's not a perfect ship. But really, what is perfect in this game, or in life? It's flawed, but so is everything else. Leave the ship as it is, or risk frakking up everything else as a side effect of changing this starship.
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!
As a person who uses cruisers almost exclusively, I guess I'm ignorant then? Considering that I was flying only the Galaxy (now Fleet Galaxy) since what, January?
I argue against changes because the changes some people postulate in this thread are foolhardy and ignorant of the repercussions of changing a ship. I've created hypothetical scenarios which have apparently failed to convey their intended message to other people in this thread. So, let me reiterate.
If one component of the game is changed, it WILL affect the other components in the game.
Some people, like drunk and torvinecho25, have created their own builds. That's fine, since they have clearly thought deeply about the impact of their proposed changes on the game's balance and where the ship is, in relation to other ships.
Others propose sweeping changes to all aspects of the Galaxy-class, with no motive other than "I feel this is what the ship 'should' be", or "The Galaxy-class needs more firepower". I agree with those statements, but I don't act on them without careful consideration.
Cryptic originally believed in the "Trinity" model. The Galaxy, Defiant and Intrepid were the vertices of this triangle of prior balance. Defiant had the most tactical consoles, the most tac boff seat space. Intrepid had the most sci console slots, the most sci boff space. Galaxy had the most eng console slots, the most eng boff space. I realize trinity has been severely warped, but it is still the foundation on which this game stands precariously on.
It is the foolhardy of us who propose obliterating the current ship and replacing it with a ship that is slanted towards tactical or science who are at the root of the problem. They refuse to understand or accept where the ship's proper place is. TNG and DS9 have depicted these vessels as durable starships. Compared to the Mirandas, Oberths and Excelsiors, and even the Sovereign-class Enterprise-E, the Galaxy-class has had a remarkable history of durability and flexibility. Durability. Emphasized by the heavy slant on Engineering.
It's not a perfect ship. But really, what is perfect in this game, or in life? It's flawed, but so is everything else. Leave the ship as it is, or risk frakking up everything else as a side effect of changing this starship.
lets doom a ship to suck for the sake of being arbitrary :rolleyes:
the intrepid and defiant does not suffer due to their station setups, and their other stats are good for the kind of ship they are. the galaxy on the other hand is dysfunctionaly bad due to its station setup, combined with its lackluster stats. if there was a single advantage grated by being a large ship that would be one thing, but theres not, its a bad thing to be with no exceptions in this game.
Even as someone who only captains escorts, I think the Galaxy needs a serious rethink.
Came across one earlier in PVP for the first time in ages. He was a good player, cycling his skills well had a good gear setup.
But even Elite Fleet Shields couldnt save him. He couldnt maneavre fast enough to get out of the way of dhc's for longer than a few seconds at best, and thanks to the joys of running 2 EptS1 my Charal took minimal damage from his aft weapons (yes, he could have done more with a broadside, but how is anything that slow supposed to keep a target in its main arc).
Even I turned down the opportunity for such easy prey (and I normally need all the help I can get in PVP), and despite his/her best efforts he didnt pose a serious enough threat.
I think that at the very least they need to give it a turn rate boost, and an extra tac console.
Then either change the boff layout to lose the pointless 3rd eng ensign, or rethink BOFF skills in general. Especially at ensign level.
Got a cat? Have 10 minutes to help someone make the best degree dissertation of all time?
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
None of this probably will come as a surprise to those posting here. But I decided to do a little research on the Bridge officer powers.
I checked ensign level number, and how many shared cool downs. And as an added thought how many bridge officer powers in a career path.
Engineering:
5) Ensign 14) total skills
At Ensign; Emergency to Aux/ Emergency to Weap/ Emergency to Engin/ Emergency to Shield Share cooldowns
Also Engineering Team
So at Ensign all five skill have a shared cool down with someone.
Science:
8) Ensign 18) total skills
At Ensign; Jam sensors/Mask energy sig share cooldowns
Also Science team
So at ensign three of eight skills with cooldowns.
Tactical:
9) Ensign 16) total skills
At Ensign; Beam fire at will/ beam overload / Targ Weap / Targ Engin / Targ Shield/ Targ Aux Share cooldowns
Torp High / Torp spread Share cool downs
Also Tactical Team
So at ensign all nine have a shared cooldown with someone.
So choices without sharing a cooldown by class at Ensign.
Engineer: 2
Science: 7
Tactical: 3
Seems to me Engineering bridge officers need alot of love followed by Tactical.
Why tactical? Because while they have the most skills front loaded a bulk of them share cooldowns and are for a weapon type a tactical captain would not use at all. Now I do get you want some options for an engineering ship or science ship. But Science ships get target sub systems for free. So in theory they need the least number of tactical positions to have access to the skills. Cruisers need More to have the choices to use the weapons intended for them.
I would offer a recommendation of giving cruisers subsystem targeting to offset the lesser available tactical positions since they are expected to be loaded with beams.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
As a person who uses cruisers almost exclusively, I guess I'm ignorant then? Considering that I was flying only the Galaxy (now Fleet Galaxy) since what, January?
Yes you are... and why would you choose to fly a Galaxy over say a Fleet Assault Cruiser or Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser, both of which are superior in every single way. There is absolutely nothing that the Galaxy brings to the table that other cruisers can't do. This is the fundamental problem with the ship. It's terrible at everything. People often mention that it's a great "tank" ship. I'm sorry to say it's not any better then any of the other fed cruisers. The extra engineering stations don't make "tanking" any easier since that extra ensign stations is near useless. There isn't anything useful you can put in there that will help you survive longer or do more damage.
I argue against changes because the changes some people postulate in this thread are foolhardy and ignorant of the repercussions of changing a ship. I've created hypothetical scenarios which have apparently failed to convey their intended message to other people in this thread. So, let me reiterate.
If one component of the game is changed, it WILL affect the other components in the game.
Changing the Galaxy will not have any major impact on the game other then people might actually use the ship more. Some have advocated a rethinking of all engineering abilities in this case you would be correct that it would have a major impact on the state of the game. Which in all honesty may not be a bad thing. As it is now the ship either needs a bridge officer layout change or engineering skills, particularly ensign level, need to be looked at.
Others propose sweeping changes to all aspects of the Galaxy-class, with no motive other than "I feel this is what the ship 'should' be", or "The Galaxy-class needs more firepower". I agree with those statements, but I don't act on them without careful consideration.
I'm not advocating the galaxy be changed to be thel end all of cruisers, but the ship as it is now is garbage.
Cryptic originally believed in the "Trinity" model. The Galaxy, Defiant and Intrepid were the vertices of this triangle of prior balance. Defiant had the most tactical consoles, the most tac boff seat space. Intrepid had the most sci console slots, the most sci boff space. Galaxy had the most eng console slots, the most eng boff space. I realize trinity has been severely warped, but it is still the foundation on which this game stands precariously on.
They may have believed in the trinity model, but that time has long since past and now basically any ship in the game can absorb large amounts of damage using only EPtS, HE, and TSS. Those three skills on their own can handle most incoming damage.
It is the foolhardy of us who propose obliterating the current ship and replacing it with a ship that is slanted towards tactical or science who are at the root of the problem. They refuse to understand or accept where the ship's proper place is. TNG and DS9 have depicted these vessels as durable starships. Compared to the Mirandas, Oberths and Excelsiors, and even the Sovereign-class Enterprise-E, the Galaxy-class has had a remarkable history of durability and flexibility. Durability. Emphasized by the heavy slant on Engineering.
Foolhardy? The ship is terrible. At the moment there is no reason at all to use it. Every single other federation cruiser is superior. It is arguably the worst ship in the game. Whatever great setup you or anyone else can come up with for the Galaxy can be used on another cruiser where it will perform better.
It's not a perfect ship. But really, what is perfect in this game, or in life? It's flawed, but so is everything else. Leave the ship as it is, or risk frakking up everything else as a side effect of changing this starship.
You got that right. It is actuality the worst ship. What's wrong with wanting a Galaxy that can be competitive with the likes of the Fleet Assault Cruiser and Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser?
...and why would you choose to fly a Galaxy over say a Fleet Assault Cruiser or Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser, both of which are superior in every single way. There is absolutely nothing that the Galaxy brings to the table that other cruisers can't do. This is the fundamental problem with the ship. It's terrible at everything. People often mention that it's a great "tank" ship. I'm sorry to say it's not any better then any of the other fed cruisers. The extra engineering stations don't make "tanking" any easier since that extra ensign stations is near useless. There isn't anything useful you can put in there that will help you survive longer or do more damage.
Some quick stats.
Fleet Sovereign
LtC, Ens Tac
Cmdr, Lt Eng
Lt Uni
4 eng, 2 sci, 4 tac
True, that extra Engineering station is redundant. I agree with you on that point. However, take a look at the console station setup. Fleet Sovereign and Excelsior both share 4 tactical slots. What does the Galaxy bring to the table in terms of tanking ability? 5 engineering (allowing for some compensating in lieu of the Leadership hull repair nerf), and 3 science (allowing 2 field generators and 1 Fleet Emitter array). This should be a huge flashing neon sign that this ship is meant for durability, and not for offense.
Changing the Galaxy will not have any major impact on the game other then people might actually use the ship more.
Stop right there. People will use the ship more. Meaning, that particular aspect of the game will become more important as more people choose to use that ship instead of another. Look at the effects of Aux2Bat, another aspect of the game. The more people use it, the more other people have to adapt to overcome this tactic; thereby causing a repercussive effect that changes how people choose to outfit their ships to counter these Aux2Bat cruisers. This is the exact same deal; people will create new builds to adapt to the influx of increased Galaxy captains, thereby changing the game's dynamic balance.
I'm puzzled as to why people don't think there are ripple effects for each action a player or Cryptic takes in this game. It's something each person must consider when proposing a change or addition; especially for the game developers.
Some have advocated a rethinking of all engineering abilities in this case you would be correct that it would have a major impact on the state of the game. Which in all honesty may not be a bad thing. As it is now the ship either needs a bridge officer layout change or engineering skills, particularly ensign level, need to be looked at.
I agree. Careful consideration, and a backup plan in case things go wrong.
Foolhardy? The ship is terrible. At the moment there is no reason at all to use it. Every single other federation cruiser is superior. It is arguably the worst ship in the game. Whatever great setup you or anyone else can come up with for the Galaxy can be used on another cruiser where it will perform better.
Define "better". Each ship in this game has its own niche, and experienced players will know this to be so. Look at drunk's list of ship builds. Virtually all endgame ships are on that list, and each of them has a different goal, a different method of approach. Each is "better" at what it was designed to do.
Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole is not the solution.
The player chooses a goal. The player then finds the ship to fulfill that goal.
This is the way it should be. If you are attempting to fit a goal onto a ship, you may find you are not as effective at fulfilling that goal compared to if you had the right ship for the job. It is the same thing; people believe this starship should be an offensive starship. But it isn't, and a cursory look at the boff and console layouts should be indicative of its engineering slant.
Try to tank in a Fleet Sovereign. Or in a Fleet Excelsior. I did; I bought a Fleet Excelsior to test out whether people's opinions of the ship compared to the Galaxy were true. They were not (although I will continue with the Fleet Excelsior to further test it out, in fairness).
You got that right. It is actuality the worst ship. What's wrong with wanting a Galaxy that can be competitive with the likes of the Fleet Assault Cruiser and Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser?
Because in the process of fulfilling this selfish request, millions of players are affected as a result. The last thing any of us need are further nerfs or stealth adjustments to any component of this game. Besides, it's ahead of the competition, if you choose to view the Galaxy as a tank, and not as an offensive cruiser.
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!
Seems to me Engineering bridge officers need alot of love followed by Tactical.
Why tactical? Because while they have the most skills front loaded a bulk of them share cooldowns and are for a weapon type a tactical captain would not use at all. Now I do get you want some options for an engineering ship or science ship. But Science ships get target sub systems for free. So in theory they need the least number of tactical positions to have access to the skills. Cruisers need More to have the choices to use the weapons intended for them.
I would offer a recommendation of giving cruisers subsystem targeting to offset the lesser available tactical positions since they are expected to be loaded with beams.
+1
Your analysis shows the main problem with Engineering powers in STO.
But i wouldn't want to give Cruisers subsystem Targeting if i had the choice or remove powers from Science to Engineering like Tractor beam for example. Instead i would introduce some new Powers more adequate and useful for Cruisers and Engineering overall, since Engineering has just too few powers altogether.
I would like to throw in just a few ideas for possible Engineering Powers to increase their variety in consideration of Cruisers Multi Mission nature. Thankfully Cryptic finally realized that Crusiers should be more than just Tanks by introducing AtB DOFFs.
Here are some random ideas:
The first thing that comes to my mind is a Beam Weapon Power fireing similar like Scatter volley but to the sides of the ship using a 100 degrees fireing arc. I always hated FAW, it's just too undirected for my taste (well not really hate but i think it's not really great for attacking things, since your attacking power gets too much diverted to be effective at all). This power however would attack everything within its fireing arc with a inreased rate of fire. So its purpose is to broadside a area with Beam arrays, without attracting every NPC in weapons range.
Another Engineering power could be something that greatly increases the Hull and shield Repair rate for 15 seconds. This effect applies to the player ship and everything in weapons range but decreasing in power if a ally is farther than 5 Km. Note this power does NOT give any resistances, just pure Shield and Hull healing over time.
There could also be a accuracy buff power, depending on the player ships aux power. Per 10 aux power the ships Weapons get a Acc bonus of 1.
The following idea comes from ST:1 where the ship was able to reroute Engineering Power directly to the Phasers. This power would directly add Engineering power to the ship weapon power for one weapons cycle. But at the same time Engineering power would be completely depleted.
A similar power could also work as a Shield heal, by rerouting Engineering Power to the shields for healing and thus greatly inreceasing the ships shields regeneration rate.
A more tactical power would be a increasement of beam weapons range. It could have the same duration and CD as AtS for example. The higher the rank the greater the additional weapons range. Beginning with 3 km at rank 1 up to 6 km at rank 3.
Weapons disable Mode.
The ships energy weapons are set on non destructive mode, this works more like a switch. So it would be unlike any other power we have seen in Star Trek Online.
It would work like this:
If weapons are set at non destructive mode, the weapons damage is reduced by 15% (Rank 1) 10% (Rank2) or 5% (Rank3).
If the enemies hull reaches zero, the ship is disabled resulting in a higher chance to get higher rated drops appearing besides the disabled ship. This power would start at Ensign, similar to engineering Team for example, so all other ship types could use it also.
As i said these are just some random ideas, i am sure the also would help the GCS to become a bit better in STO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
...
True, that extra Engineering station is redundant. I agree with you on that point. However, take a look at the console station setup. Fleet Sovereign and Excelsior both share 4 tactical slots. What does the Galaxy bring to the table in terms of tanking ability? 5 engineering (allowing for some compensating in lieu of the Leadership hull repair nerf), and 3 science (allowing 2 field generators and 1 Fleet Emitter array). This should be a huge flashing neon sign that this ship is meant for durability, and not for offense.
Which is a completely wrong interpetation of the GCS.
The problem is NOT that we want the GCS to become a completely different ship as it is supposed to be. Cryptic made it a Healer/Tank, maybe because they lack to understand anything about the GCS, maybe they just didn't care or they simply hate that ship so they deliberately made it the most boring and passive ship in their game. In my opinion they made it a bad healer/tank, because they think that (especially) the GCS and what it stands for is too "un-cool" for their militarized Star Trek game.
But in the mean time they don't seem to have any remorse to use the GCS for promotion of their game.
In "real" Trek, the GCS was never a pure tank, ever.
It was the ultimative Multi Mission ship IMO, making it the exact opposite (a healer/tank) is not what i want it to be. It is wrong and should be corrected ASAP.
Especially since ships like the Excelsior are made much better, should be inferior by far.
Before you start a discussion about the word better, in STO "better" means combat worthy = more firepower, more offensive potential and be able to survive at the mean time.
STO has (thankfully) changed, slowly leaving the (un-holy) trinity behind and going towards a more trekkish approach.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Stop right there. People will use the ship more. Meaning, that particular aspect of the game will become more important as more people choose to use that ship instead of another. Look at the effects of Aux2Bat, another aspect of the game. The more people use it, the more other people have to adapt to overcome this tactic; thereby causing a repercussive effect that changes how people choose to outfit their ships to counter these Aux2Bat cruisers. This is the exact same deal; people will create new builds to adapt to the influx of increased Galaxy captains, thereby changing the game's dynamic balance.
I'm puzzled as to why people don't think there are ripple effects for each action a player or Cryptic takes in this game. It's something each person must consider when proposing a change or addition; especially for the game developers.
I know what you are saying.
It's far more placid here then I have seen it in other games, but yes. I know what you mean. However. I don't see it making that kind of change or effect upon the game.
More people playing Aux2Bat is a playstyle. Not a ship.
Having more people play in the Galaxy does not trouble the water in any kind of comparable way. If you were to change the BOff layout, or tweak the consoles, or even both. The ship does not alter the game. It has simply become competitive.
If you gave the GCS the same build as the Fleet Excelsior, it would not suddenly create a new playstyle that could potentially have drastic effects on others playstyles. It doesn't work that way.
Suggesting a Heavy Beam Array for only the GCS, does.
Suggesting that its BOff and Console layout change, does not.
Because in the process of fulfilling this selfish request, millions of players are affected as a result. The last thing any of us need are further nerfs or stealth adjustments to any component of this game. Besides, it's ahead of the competition, if you choose to view the Galaxy as a tank, and not as an offensive cruiser.
There are no tanks in this game.
Even if there were, the GCS would still not be getting taken due to the severity of overlapping skills within the Engineering tree and the over abundant amount of Ensign Engineering skills that it has slotted.
There is only DPS and burst in this game.
All end game content can be completed with just Escorts. Be it a team of BoPs or a team of Armitages. The result is the same. Completed end game content with the secondary accomplished and in under 6 or 7 minutes.
Taking anything else to those is often considered a waste others time and of resources as the likely hood of possible failure is amplified.
Cruisers skill set along with their weapon kit is ill suited for current STF's.
Asking for changes to help them change this oversight is not a selfish request.
Was it a selfish request in WoW when the Retribution Paladins asked for Resilience, thee PvP stat and as the only spec in the game to be without it, on their PvP gear?
No, it was an oversight. One that in light of the games changing nature towards Arena PvP and making a run at becoming an eSport, needed to be addressed.
Same thing here.
The game began as a Trinity system, and has rapidly evolved away from it.
The GCS in its current incarnation is no longer fit for the game.
Adjustments are needed.
Same thing here.
The game began as a Trinity system, and has rapidly evolved away from it.
The GCS in its current incarnation is no longer fit for the game. Adjustments are needed.
Very right!
I never could have said it better.
We can see that Cryptic did actually administer that change when they released the T5 Ambassador Class. But even since then, they are reluctant to rework or release a new version of the GCS -R for whatever reason. Maybe just some internal refusal at the expense of us GCS fans and supporters.
Btw. Personally, i welcome that change away from the unholy Trinity, since i never saw Crusiers (in Star Trek Terms: Starships) as Tanks/Healers.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I think they don't want to alter a ship already out there for fear of annoying those two or three people who love the Galaxy R in it's current form.
I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why. When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
I personally find it funny how other ships have more firepower, more turn rate, better officer layouts, better special abilities...
I think the slower the ship turns, the more console slots it should have. There is not such thing as tanking in this game, so there needs to be balance sought in other directions.
Slow ships have to have some additional benefits, because when you put the Federation ships side by side against the ships that have come out.. they not only fall short.. they fall laughably short.
Ships the size of 10 of ours that can turn loops around us as we manage to put-put around a slow turn... teleportation, 1 shot super kill combos and all sorts of other just over-the-top abilities that seem to come standard. Those of us who have spent our money in the past.. the same value.. the same prices.. have ships that are so sub par that nobody would buy them today.
Cryptic should consider this, as it WILL hurt their sales as nobody will buy an obsolete ship as a possible alternative.
Eleven of Twenty-Nine. Thousands of pvp matches done...hundreds of tournaments ran..and still seeing the same problems grow even larger than ever for us engineers.
Which is a completely wrong interpetation of the GCS.
The problem is NOT that we want the GCS to become a completely different ship as it is supposed to be. Cryptic made it a Healer/Tank, maybe because they lack to understand anything about the GCS, maybe they just didn't care or they simply hate that ship so they deliberately made it the most boring and passive ship in their game. In my opinion they made it a bad healer/tank, because they think that (especially) the GCS and what it stands for is too "un-cool" for their militarized Star Trek game.
But in the mean time they don't seem to have any remorse to use the GCS for promotion of their game.
And ladies and gentlemen, here is a prime example of someone who doesn't understand what STO's Galaxy is supposed to be doing. It is a tank. I've tried flying this ship as healer, and it simply isn't cut out for it (it lacks the science boff seats that make a good healer such as the Recluse).
What you define as "boring", Boring is a subjective term. There are other people who think tanking is more exciting than dealing damage or flying science. Go visit Ker'rat, that's where tanking builds and captains thrive in, Ask them if tanking is boring. I doubt they would say yes.
In "real" Trek, the GCS was never a pure tank, ever.
It was the ultimative Multi Mission ship IMO, making it the exact opposite (a healer/tank) is not what i want it to be. It is wrong and should be corrected ASAP.
Especially since ships like the Excelsior are made much better, should be inferior by far.
Before you start a discussion about the word better, in STO "better" means combat worthy = more firepower, more offensive potential and be able to survive at the mean time.
The Galaxy-class in canon Trek was multipurpose, but Cryptic can't make ships that can literally do everything. The Galaxy-class has great offensive capabilities (torpedo spreads and the large phaser array), great defensive capabilities (strong shields without the need to remodulate), great science capabilities, great engine speed, saucer separation, swappable internal space, large accomodations for diplomatic functions. On and on the list goes. It's a hero ship.
Cryptic had to pick what the most defining feature of the Galaxy-class was. They already saw the Defiant as a warship, so into the Escort category it goes. Intrepid, well, I'm not sure how it ended up in science instead of a medium cruiser, but whatever, into Science it goes. The Galaxy-class, although having a history of losing ships due to viruses, ramming and Geordi's SpyCam, has been known to be a durable starship. So into Engineering it goes.
They can't make a ship that is the end-all of every other ship on the Federation side. That would defeat the purpose of having a selection of ships to choose from, and a "fleet" instead of a "swarm".
As for your definition of "better", that is very, very flawed. "Better" as an adjective means "Of a more excellent or effective type or quality" (Thank you Google). Who's to say one ship is "better" than another, simply because they are being forced into one definitive category?
I could say the JHAS is a better ship than the Recluse, because according to "my Star Trek Online gameplay", JHAS are faster killers, have higher damage output from the ship, etc. But really, they are just as good as Recluses, since Recluses are far better suited at doing another thing: Team healing. Both are good at what they are designed to do.
"Better: Of a more excellent or effective type or quality". In terms of pure tanking, I don't see another cruiser that can tank as well as the Galaxy-class. 5 engineering/3 science console slots, lots of Engi boff space... That makes it a far more capable cruiser at tanking than the Fleet Excelsior or Sovereign.
I know what you are saying.
It's far more placid here then I have seen it in other games, but yes. I know what you mean. However. I don't see it making that kind of change or effect upon the game.
More people playing Aux2Bat is a playstyle. Not a ship.
Having more people play in the Galaxy does not trouble the water in any kind of comparable way. If you were to change the BOff layout, or tweak the consoles, or even both. The ship does not alter the game. It has simply become competitive.
If you gave the GCS the same build as the Fleet Excelsior, it would not suddenly create a new playstyle that could potentially have drastic effects on others playstyles. It doesn't work that way.
Suggesting a Heavy Beam Array for only the GCS, does.
Suggesting that its BOff and Console layout change, does not.
An ability or a set of abilities impacts just as hard as a ship and a ship's build. I'm surprised to hear this comment even spoken at all.
Look at the new Romulan faction. Not counting the low level starships, Legacy of Romulus took off with 18 new starships to fly at endgame. Since then, 6 starships have been added to the list. Every existing player gained a free New Character slot, and it is very likely that a huge number of players have already created Romulan characters, fly Romulan ships, and have builds designed for Romulan success. I see it in PvP, the T'Varo, Dhelan, Mogai, Scimitar are all a common sight these days. T'Varo's BoP-like setups, Scimitar gameplay, and more builds suited towards these ships with new boff and console layouts, with or without the ship special consoles.
And you're telling me that new boff and console layouts, whether changed or newly created, doesn't create ripple effects throughout the game?
Even if there were, the GCS would still not be getting taken due to the severity of overlapping skills within the Engineering tree and the over abundant amount of Ensign Engineering skills that it has slotted.
I do agree with the Ensign engineering slots being excessive. However, since this ship is a tank, I'm not too concerned with that. That slot has saved my life on numerous occasions.
There is only DPS and burst in this game.
All end game content can be completed with just Escorts. Be it a team of BoPs or a team of Armitages. The result is the same. Completed end game content with the secondary accomplished and in under 6 or 7 minutes.
Taking anything else to those is often considered a waste others time and of resources as the likely hood of possible failure is amplified.
Cruisers skill set along with their weapon kit is ill suited for current STF's.
You talk about PvE, and I agree, in most cases. If a pug group contains a cruiser, it's very likely that cruiser pilot has no idea how to make cruisers into "DPS monsters", and especially not in a Galaxy-class.
Was it a selfish request in WoW when the Retribution Paladins asked for Resilience, thee PvP stat and as the only spec in the game to be without it, on their PvP gear?
No, it was an oversight. One that in light of the games changing nature towards Arena PvP and making a run at becoming an eSport, needed to be addressed.
I'm not sure what you're talking about (I have never played WoW, I'm not familiar with their game system).
Same thing here.
The game began as a Trinity system, and has rapidly evolved away from it.
The GCS in its current incarnation is no longer fit for the game.
Adjustments are needed.
True. Careful adjustments, not sloppy ones like "Add Moar Tac Consoles!!1!!". Drunk's and Torvinecho25's builds, although Torvin's is still being revised, are a good place to start. They have the existing STO Galaxy-class, but add features and functionalities that benefit cruisers. It would be prudent of the Devs to take a look and analyse how it would affect the game.
We can see that Cryptic did actually administer that change when they released the T5 Ambassador Class. But even since then, they are reluctant to rework or release a new version of the GCS -R for whatever reason. Maybe just some internal refusal at the expense of us GCS fans and supporters.
It was stated in a podcast not too long ago (podcast 135? I'm not sure) that Geko plans a "re-release of the Galaxy-class" in the future. I'll try and find the podcast page and link it here.
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!
Star Destroyer, explain the BOP since it's entire line is universal. Why can't just thew Galaxy have all universal for the feds. It will be a simple thing to do and it will give the ship the versetility she has.
I think Many more more players PvE and in PvE the Galaxy is a failure
2 Tac bridge officer slots dont cut it
2 Tac consoles dont cut it
and a 6 turn rate adds salt into the open wound
A lot of PvE players would use the Galaxy if was on par with the Romulan ships in its class
First thing though is PvE and PvP must be seperated into differnt games
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Star Destroyer, explain the BOP since it's entire line is universal. Why can't just thew Galaxy have all universal for the feds. It will be a simple thing to do and it will give the ship the versetility she has.
For the 1.000.000-th time - because this is not how it works. The BoPs pay dearly to have all universal Boff setup. If you slap that setup on a ship with the Galaxy stats you just made every single Fed. cruiser pretty much obsolete since the Galaxy could mimic every Boff setup, while retaining the highest hull in the game and a nice shield modifier.
It will also be vastly imbalanced - something we should be fighting against in STO rather than supporting imbalanced introductions to the game.
yes... galaxy class in this game shall not be change... AT ALL.
it have indeed a great potential of backsfire that we can not even beguin to imagine, with our smally tiny brain.
thank god cryptic in all his wisdom have prevent such a things to happen until now, among over things such as introducing overpowered ships, broken items, consoles, reputation systems, doffs, bofs, traits.
they have tested all theses new things very carrefully for a long time before introducing them, and all these have been done with pve and pvp in mind, mind you.
it would sad cryptic greatly if one of their item could cause a big unbalanced in the pvp world for example.
yeah, they have done it right, i can't even think of one console for example that is, or have been broken in this game.. wait! hmmm:rolleyes:...no!.... no, not even 1:D.
if 1 ship, the galaxy class, would to be change even in the slightest, it would definitly break apart the perfect fine tunning balance environement of the game that cryptic fight so hard to preserve.
the galaxy class is the core of the meta of the game, change it a bit, and the entire game change.
if you do,people will start playing only with galaxy class ship ( since it was perfect as it is, and now is in a " perfect as it is enhance version" ), wich will introduce the end of diversity and crash the dilithium exchange as a result.
romulan player will star quit the game since they will not have acces to this monster, this will further precipitate the end of the game as no one continue to buy things in the cstore.
scramble sensor will be ban of serious pvp match since it introducing kaos in a match full of galaxy class.
sto server will finally close 1 years after.
you think it will stop here? if only!
the real life consequence will begun to unfold 2 years later, as an nerdy sto player addict ( who can not support life without sto )begun to hack the acces code of american nuclear silo to, as was stated in his facebook pages " follow the steps of zefram cochrane to contact extraterestrial life ".
now as you have already guess by now, this nut guy just launch the missile without modifying it trajectory, wich end up directly in Moscow causing the counter attack chain reaction wich lead to the complete anihilation of the planet.
one missile even penetrate the Earth's crust to go explode directly into the magnetic core wich destabilize the usual rotational speed of the earth who, then, left her traditional orbit.
it lead her in direct collision course with the nibiru planet wich, on impact, cause an other chain reaction with some extraterestrial technologie present at her surface.
the phenomenal magnetic explosion that ensue rip the space time continuum, opening a doorway to an other universe that is collapsing on his own du to it extremely hight gravity.
our own entire universe is then suck completely into the rift to end in the big crunch that follow.
so no! please pleople do not change the galaxy class ship in sto, or bear the consequence of your decision!
you can not say that i didn't warn you!
I'm not sure whether this is an attempt at humor, sarcasm, or paranoid belief. In any case, Neo has one part right; any change to any ship will affect ship and build balances in both PvP and PvE, and I'm glad that he understands and made mention of 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!
And ladies and gentlemen, here is a prime example of someone who doesn't understand what STO's Galaxy is supposed to be doing. It is a tank. I've tried flying this ship as healer, and it simply isn't cut out for it (it lacks the science boff seats that make a good healer such as the Recluse).
What you define as "boring", Boring is a subjective term. There are other people who think tanking is more exciting than dealing damage or flying science. Go visit Ker'rat, that's where tanking builds and captains thrive in, Ask them if tanking is boring. I doubt they would say yes.
The Galaxy-class in canon Trek was multipurpose, but Cryptic can't make ships that can literally do everything. The Galaxy-class has great offensive capabilities (torpedo spreads and the large phaser array), great defensive capabilities (strong shields without the need to remodulate), great science capabilities, great engine speed, saucer separation, swappable internal space, large accomodations for diplomatic functions. On and on the list goes. It's a hero ship.
Cryptic had to pick what the most defining feature of the Galaxy-class was. They already saw the Defiant as a warship, so into the Escort category it goes. Intrepid, well, I'm not sure how it ended up in science instead of a medium cruiser, but whatever, into Science it goes. The Galaxy-class, although having a history of losing ships due to viruses, ramming and Geordi's SpyCam, has been known to be a durable starship. So into Engineering it goes.
They can't make a ship that is the end-all of every other ship on the Federation side. That would defeat the purpose of having a selection of ships to choose from, and a "fleet" instead of a "swarm".
As for your definition of "better", that is very, very flawed. "Better" as an adjective means "Of a more excellent or effective type or quality" (Thank you Google). Who's to say one ship is "better" than another, simply because they are being forced into one definitive category?
I could say the JHAS is a better ship than the Recluse, because according to "my Star Trek Online gameplay", JHAS are faster killers, have higher damage output from the ship, etc. But really, they are just as good as Recluses, since Recluses are far better suited at doing another thing: Team healing. Both are good at what they are designed to do.
"Better: Of a more excellent or effective type or quality". In terms of pure tanking, I don't see another cruiser that can tank as well as the Galaxy-class. 5 engineering/3 science console slots, lots of Engi boff space... That makes it a far more capable cruiser at tanking than the Fleet Excelsior or Sovereign.
And I agree with that, especially with the Romulan ships which are all designed "warbirds". A good move from Cryptic.
An ability or a set of abilities impacts just as hard as a ship and a ship's build. I'm surprised to hear this comment even spoken at all.
Look at the new Romulan faction. Not counting the low level starships, Legacy of Romulus took off with 18 new starships to fly at endgame. Since then, 6 starships have been added to the list. Every existing player gained a free New Character slot, and it is very likely that a huge number of players have already created Romulan characters, fly Romulan ships, and have builds designed for Romulan success. I see it in PvP, the T'Varo, Dhelan, Mogai, Scimitar are all a common sight these days. T'Varo's BoP-like setups, Scimitar gameplay, and more builds suited towards these ships with new boff and console layouts, with or without the ship special consoles.
And you're telling me that new boff and console layouts, whether changed or newly created, doesn't create ripple effects throughout the game?
Wrong. Look at Ker'rat. Look at 1v1.
I do agree with the Ensign engineering slots being excessive. However, since this ship is a tank, I'm not too concerned with that. That slot has saved my life on numerous occasions.
You talk about PvE, and I agree, in most cases. If a pug group contains a cruiser, it's very likely that cruiser pilot has no idea how to make cruisers into "DPS monsters", and especially not in a Galaxy-class.
It is, when the people pushing for such changes are ignorant to the aftershocks of such a change.
I'm not sure what you're talking about (I have never played WoW, I'm not familiar with their game system).
True. Careful adjustments, not sloppy ones like "Add Moar Tac Consoles!!1!!". Drunk's and Torvinecho25's builds, although Torvin's is still being revised, are a good place to start. They have the existing STO Galaxy-class, but add features and functionalities that benefit cruisers. It would be prudent of the Devs to take a look and analyse how it would affect the game.
It was stated in a podcast not too long ago (podcast 135? I'm not sure) that Geko plans a "re-release of the Galaxy-class" in the future. I'll try and find the podcast page and link it here.
Podcast would be great.
To answer your statements as best I can. I for one am trying to offer some thoughts on a balanced revision. Right now I look at the engineering Boffs and how their abilities stack and shut each other down and see that as a stumbling block for any ship trying to be a 'tank' I started as an Engineering captain and ran nothing but Cruisers. Keeping up the heals does not work since you can be detonated faster than the cooldowns. You need 3 to 4 heals or make the existing engineering ones bigger. Now if we are trying to fix cruisers that specialize in carrying engineering Boffs. Then the goal is to make all those slots they have been given mean something. This is in my opinion a better choice. Will it make a ripple effect in PvP? You betcha. Right now from what I hear and my limited taste, Escorts are the go to ships. Up the diversity on cruisers and they will have more staying power. Not more fire power. Thus they can counter some of the heavy damage coming in and make new tactics and builds for handling different ships.
Fair, again in my opinion, would be an escort and a cruiser face off. Same tier, loaded for their job would have 50/50 odds either way of victory. Now give the science ships enough distractions that are tough enough to challenge those two one on one and each class has it's different play style without being broken. Maybe I am suggesting the 'holy trinity' be reinforced. But if you don't you will have cannons'r'us ships and nothing else by making only one path to success.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
And ladies and gentlemen, here is a prime example of someone who doesn't understand what STO's Galaxy is supposed to be doing. It is a tank. I've tried flying this ship as healer, and it simply isn't cut out for it (it lacks the science boff seats that make a good healer such as the Recluse).
What you define as "boring", Boring is a subjective term. There are other people who think tanking is more exciting than dealing damage or flying science. Go visit Ker'rat, that's where tanking builds and captains thrive in, Ask them if tanking is boring. I doubt they would say yes.
Yes and No.
I love tanking. What I hate is relying on others to do a job that they could care less to understand because they are to busy trying to get "massive numbers"
And in the GCS it is a frantic mess.
It is not enjoyable as you lack some of the most basic tools.
TT actually becomes harmful, ST and ET share cooldowns with TT and can't be used at the same time, yet ST is probably the most useful of the 3 when it comes to anything above a single combatant.
RSP and EPtS are next as they affect each shield facing.
But EPtS shares cooldowns with every other EPtX ability out there, crimping the effect.
Sure, 1v1 its not going to die without first adding several layers of gray to the opponents head. But neither will a properly played Regent, Excelsior or Ambassador. So kind of a moot point there.
Won't even touch the 6.
They can't make a ship that is the end-all of every other ship on the Federation side. That would defeat the purpose of having a selection of ships to choose from, and a "fleet" instead of a "swarm".
We aren't asking for it to be.
Even you have stated as much.
"Better: Of a more excellent or effective type or quality". In terms of pure tanking, I don't see another cruiser that can tank as well as the Galaxy-class. 5 engineering/3 science console slots, lots of Engi boff space... That makes it a far more capable cruiser at tanking than the Fleet Excelsior or Sovereign.
Not true.
If they stacked like Tac consoles then yes. But they don't. They suffer from DR and a hard cap. The number of BOffs tailored to Engineering is counter productive with the Engineering powers as they currently are.
An ability or a set of abilities impacts just as hard as a ship and a ship's build. I'm surprised to hear this comment even spoken at all.
Look at the new Romulan faction. Not counting the low level starships, Legacy of Romulus took off with 18 new starships to fly at endgame. Since then, 6 starships have been added to the list. Every existing player gained a free New Character slot, and it is very likely that a huge number of players have already created Romulan characters, fly Romulan ships, and have builds designed for Romulan success. I see it in PvP, the T'Varo, Dhelan, Mogai, Scimitar are all a common sight these days. T'Varo's BoP-like setups, Scimitar gameplay, and more builds suited towards these ships with new boff and console layouts, with or without the ship special consoles.
And you're telling me that new boff and console layouts, whether changed or newly created, doesn't create ripple effects throughout the game?
No.
What we are seeing is a revamped look at Cruisers in the game.
Its a complete overhaul and in an entirely different direction from what was already in the game. They changed the parameters of the contest.
We aren't asking for that with the Galaxy.
If we were to give the GCS unique consoles, a significant turn buff and special weapons.
Yes, we would see a shift. And likely a significant one too.
But we aren't.
We are asking for a minimum of a single point in turn to bump it to 7.
And an altered BOff and Console layout.
It does not change the meta game, nor step on other ships toes as there are none to step on.
We don't even care if it remains a more tanky ship. But it still needs work.
Wrong. Look at Ker'rat. Look at 1v1.
Ker'rat does not this game make.
It isn't even 1% of what this game has to offer.
That is like saying Faramir's second in command played a large role in the destruction of the ring in Lord of the Rings.
I do agree with the Ensign engineering slots being excessive. However, since this ship is a tank, I'm not too concerned with that. That slot has saved my life on numerous occasions.
How?
It overlaps with all the other Ensign skills in Engineering.
Between two Ensign level skills you should be able to have almost 100% uptime on any given skill. 3 is overkill.
You talk about PvE, and I agree, in most cases. If a pug group contains a cruiser, it's very likely that cruiser pilot has no idea how to make cruisers into "DPS monsters", and especially not in a Galaxy-class.
Again, there is no place for tanking in this game.
Regardless of what a Cruiser is capable of, people expect DPS.
You could have a GCS that can solo any Elite space mission. And you will still be dropped from queues and abandoned inside matches.
The game has not evolved to include such mechanics.
Even Science powers are largely unwanted and ignored by the player base.
If the game were to evolve back into a game that needed beefier ships to take the punishment, you still have a problem with threat. And poorly implemented Engineering skills.
I'm not sure what you're talking about (I have never played WoW, I'm not familiar with their game system).
It reduces damage taken.
Only one spec in the game didn't have it. It was an oversight.
Kind of like we have hear, except it involves all Cruisers.
True. Careful adjustments, not sloppy ones like "Add Moar Tac Consoles!!1!!". Drunk's and Torvinecho25's builds, although Torvin's is still being revised, are a good place to start. They have the existing STO Galaxy-class, but add features and functionalities that benefit cruisers. It would be prudent of the Devs to take a look and analyse how it would affect the game.
I thought we had gotten past that point.
We all agree that the ship needs a looking at. But a careful and measured one.
We don't need a second monstrosity (read Scimitar) in the game.
A revamp of the Engineering skills would help greatly.
New skills that are targeted at benefiting Cruisers as a whole would drastically alter the game, yet you are in support of this. As are many of us.
We don't want a game breaking ship.
You already know that.
If you were to copy over the Regent's BOff layout and even leave the console layout as it is, that would be a most welcome improvement. And it does not negatively affect anyone, ship or mechanic in the game. If it does. Enlighten me.
And ladies and gentlemen, here is a prime example of someone who doesn't understand what STO's Galaxy is supposed to be doing. It is a tank. I've tried flying this ship as healer, and it simply isn't cut out for it (it lacks the science boff seats that make a good healer such as the Recluse).
What you define as "boring", Boring is a subjective term. There are other people who think tanking is more exciting than dealing damage or flying science. Go visit Ker'rat, that's where tanking builds and captains thrive in, Ask them if tanking is boring. I doubt they would say yes.
The point is that Star trek "cruisers" aren't supposed to be Healers/Tanks in the first place. In STO the unholy trinity doesn't exist anymore (thankfully).
I know Ker'rat very well and i know when fighting a ship with firepower your only "fun" is to delay the inevitable. Of course some people may have fun in doing that, but there are already ships well suited for that purpose, like the Odyssey or Carriers.
More balanced BOFF layouts allow much more different tactics in contrast to a teethless tank like the GCS in STO is.
I am not against people having fun flying a fortress without offensive or capabilities to strike back, they shall become happy with it. But the GCS is just the wrong ship for that. (Not because of its current BOFF layout, but because Cryptic made it wrong in the first place.)
The Galaxy-class in canon Trek was multipurpose, but Cryptic can't make ships that can literally do everything. The Galaxy-class has great offensive capabilities (torpedo spreads and the large phaser array), great defensive capabilities (strong shields without the need to remodulate), great science capabilities, great engine speed, saucer separation, swappable internal space, large accomodations for diplomatic functions. On and on the list goes. It's a hero ship.
That's nothing every hero ship has, look at the defiant.
It wasn't built like the GCS was. It was basicly just a engine with some rediculus powerful cannons, nothing more.
Or the intrepid, althrough similar to the GCS, it was much smaller and less powerful (offensvie and defensive) the point of that ship was to have a underdog that had to struggle to get home. Which the producers have obviously forgotten. :rolleyes:
The GCS on the other hand was the ultimative multi mission ship. Unlike the Sovereign for example it was able to be outfitted for various missions, so it was far more a generalist than a specialist.
If Cryptic would have understood this concept, they would have given it a more balanced BOFF layout, similar to the D'Deridex Warbird Retrofit we have now in game.
They should have made one of their own designs to be the tankiest ship in their Game, but Intrepid and Galaxy Class should have been much more faithful to their original. (not mentioning the Defiant which is at least made with the right emphsais)
I am NOT saying (in fact i have NEVER EVER said) the GCS should become a ship that can do everything, just more blanced between Science, Tactical and Engineering. You know giving a ship which is a dedicated as a Multi Mission ship the most extreme passive BOFF layout is just plainly wrong, i can't say it otherwise.
The Galaxy Class Starship in STO should offer versatility and adaptability for the player but as a Engineering heavy ship it does the exact opposite. Just look at the D'Deridex -R or the Nebula Retrofit BOFF layout, they are much more versatile and offer what a GCS should have.
Yes, you can make a multi mission like ship in STO, the point is that Cryptics Devs have to want to make a specific ship that way.
Cryptic had to pick what the most defining feature of the Galaxy-class was. They already saw the Defiant as a warship, so into the Escort category it goes. Intrepid, well, I'm not sure how it ended up in science instead of a medium cruiser, but whatever, into Science it goes. The Galaxy-class, although having a history of losing ships due to viruses, ramming and Geordi's SpyCam, has been known to be a durable starship. So into Engineering it goes.
This classification is only based on the unholy trinity, which has been thrown overboard (thankfully).
Extreme ship BOFF Layouts have almost no purpose anymore. Compared to Tactical and Science, Engineering BOFF powers are just more inflexible (3 engineering ensigns hadicap each other) and passsive.
The reason the Intrepid isn't a medium cruiser, is because in the unholy trinity medium cruisers have no place. Instead of that, Cryptic should have created a range of more cruiser like ships, with different focus, but all more or less equal strong.
Cryptics devs exactly knew that a BOFF layout having 3 ensigns engineering is very limited, and by giving the GCS -R such a layout just prooves someone at cryptic doesn't like that ship.
All those events you listed, that led to the lost of a GCS would have easily destroyed any other ship just as well, just faster. So Cryptic had to make her a engineering focussed ship. But they selectively choose only events that made the GCS look bad and made the ship to accord to it.
The Defiant on the other hand (a ship we know some devs are fans of) got a heavy emphsis on tactical, which is ok. But Cryptic made tactical powers way to strong and dominate everything else.
Thats the (flawed) origin, but luckily STO has eveolved.
They noticed that (starfleet) cruisers where made too passive and applying the unholy trinity was the wrong way for a Star Trek game. (Let's all thank Q for that )
Now we have the (in theory) most tankish ship in STO, and since the unholy trinity get less and less relevant, people start to realize that the GCS -R is made in a way that has no purpose in this game.
It's BOFF layou does seem great for tanking at the first glance, but if you look more close at it the it doesn't look so good anymore.
They can't make a ship that is the end-all of every other ship on the Federation side. That would defeat the purpose of having a selection of ships to choose from, and a "fleet" instead of a "swarm".
I think that is one of the main problem of pressing the Star Trek universe into the standard MMO mechanic.
Ships of Star Trek just aren't calssified into Science (noly very few), Cruiser or Escorts (only one).
At least Starfleet consist mostly of Starships (something like a Cruiser with eihter a tactical or science focus or both equal).
But they are NOT extreme specialists as Crpytic wanted to them to be.
And I agree with that, especially with the Romulan ships which are all designed "warbirds". A good move from Cryptic.
So Multi purpose BOFF layouts are ok, as long as it isn't the GCS? :rolleyes:
And why can't Starfleet ships be designated "Starships" having a much more Balanced BOFF/Console Layout?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Here's hoping that Holy Trinity of MMOs burns in the nearest available star in STO for all time.
The idea that a ship is suppose to be a "healer" in the first place in Star Trek is....antithetical.
There were never any ships in any Star Trek that was a healer. At best you could remotely operate someone's computer system to repair something, extend your shields (which is a science ability around here), or send over a Repair team. You could use a power transfer beam but not in combat.
And the idea of ships being "tanks" is also erroneous. All ships are supposed to be able to absorb punishment for the very fact that receiving repairs is so difficult.
Starfleet ships in this game generally have a defensive focus, Klingons offensive, and now the Romulan vessels have that stealth focus. This is proper to an extent. Klingon ships are dedicated warships, Federation ships are designed to get their crews home alive, and Romulans are ambush specialists. That's as close to any trinity as it should ever get.
The Galaxy was honestly never that tough, it was designed in peacetime. Compared to the Defiant which in DS9 was a qualified damage sponge or the Sovereign which is probably the most superb Battlecruiser Starfleet produced, the Galaxy as seen on TNG was lackluster. Except during the Dominion War where they were premiere Battlecruisers. Because they were refitted.
Which is what is needed here.
I'm not much of a PvP guy. But endgame PvE is almost absurdly DPS focused. StarDestroyer I respect your opinion, but I gotta say, as much as you talk about Aftershocks you haven't acknowledged that the aftershocks, significant alterations to the Galaxy class could make may be in fact very positive.
And someone else said earlier, there should be a benefit to flying a large ship besides having a high hull that gets burned through almost as soon as your shields are gone.
Bottom line: The Galaxy class work in their intended roles very well as-is. If there is a problem, it's with the role of Cruisers in the game, and not the Galaxy class itself, and that's where the change needs to be. People who are trying to make this a battlecruiser or a science tank need to remember what this ship is supposed to be...one of the premier -ENGINEERING- ships in the game, and keep their suggestions in true faith to that.
Hey, the Klingons call it a Battlecruiser, I'ma call it a battlecruiser.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
The Galaxy was honestly never that tough, it was designed in peacetime. Compared to the Defiant which in DS9 was a qualified damage sponge or the Sovereign which is probably the most superb Battlecruiser Starfleet produced, the Galaxy as seen on TNG was lackluster. Except during the Dominion War where they were premiere Battlecruisers. Because they were refitted.
Comments
So here's my thoughts on that: Do we really need/want the saucer separation? Personally it's never something I look for in a ship, I've recently got the Galaxy Dread' and I do enjoy it but I think it would benefit more from an extra slot somewhere, weapons or consoles or extra b'off ability, it's much like my Atrox in that way, if there were to be an upgrade of either of these ships released I'd much rather see an extra slot in weapons, consoles, b'off abilities or hangars than a saucer separation console I'd probably remove after getting it, but that may just be me...
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
I fly mine quite regularly, and the -only- problem with it is the way Saucer Sep is done. If it were made identical to the Odyssey-Ops Chevron Seperation, that would help, but I've never had a problem with doing my job (repair and tank) in any team.
As for the Galaxy-X, it already receives Cloak and the Spinal Mount, so it doesn't need any more special abilities (don't know of any ship that receives three special items). Perhaps converting the Science station to a Tactical station (providing the increase in tactical abilities at the price of absolutely no science abilities...logical for a ship that has had all its exploration abilities ripped out to mount weapons systems never intended to be on the ship), but the ship is perfectly capable of fighting alongside any other endgame cruiser and doing the job of a cruiser...tanking and repair.....as well as most other cruisers. Of course, another option would be to remove either the Cloak or Spinal Mount for some other ability of equal worth, but then you are removing core elements of the ship's profile as seen in media.
Bottom line: The Galaxy class work in their intended roles very well as-is. If there is a problem, it's with the role of Cruisers in the game, and not the Galaxy class itself, and that's where the change needs to be. People who are trying to make this a battlecruiser or a science tank need to remember what this ship is supposed to be...one of the premier -ENGINEERING- ships in the game, and keep their suggestions in true faith to that.
Too many shared cooldowns, to say it short.
Since the Galaxy -R has 3 ensign Engineering slots and only one Lt science, its tanking abilities are worse than a Star cruisers. (and worse than a Assault Cruiser which could use Attack Pattern Delta, WITHOUT sacrificing the only offensive BOFF slot this ship has)
Its Offensive abilities are even worse (one Lt. tac, 2 tac consoles) so this ship has drawn the short straw even thrice IMO.
THAT's why it needs to be changed.
What the Galaxy -R in STO needs are some Muscles, nothing else. Giving the Fleet version a fifth engineering console seems like a bad joke. (That was something the ship needed the last.)
this has nothing to do with captain types. you like he station setup? well your not experienced enough to know better then. having so many eng stations sucks, the galaxy R has the worst station setup of any ship in the game. because there is nothing to choose from at ENS level, other then a team skill that trips cooldowns on TT and ST, or EPt skills that thanks to 3 ENS slots, you cant run higher then version 1, no EPtS3 on this ship. if the ENS was an other type, it would be a much better ship for ANY possible role you would use on it, simply because you dont have global cooldowns tripping over each other, and preventing you from using any skill first available at ENS at a higher level. the best station setup for an engineer in a cruiser is a sci ody with the LTC used for sci so it has access to the most sci heals possible. because those are much more powerful then eng heals
If this is right, we went in less than a year from cruiser loving to escorts'r'us???
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Blunt, but correct. I've noticed that many people who argue against changes to the galaxy either are either 1) a little ignorant or 2) don't really use cruisers so don't really give a TRIBBLE. Three ensign level engineering bridge officer stations suck. Unfortunately, the Excelsior also suffers from this as well. I tend to just toss ET1 in there, but it doesn't really get much mileage as dontdrunkimshoot pointed out it shares that cool down with TT (which is essential in any end game/pvp build). Had they made that ensign station universal, like they did with the Fleet Negh'Var the ship would be infinitely more useful. Unfortunately, it looks like nothing is ever going to be done. This is probably the largest and most viewed threads on the forums and we still haven't got a dev to step in and post anything at all.
As a person who uses cruisers almost exclusively, I guess I'm ignorant then? Considering that I was flying only the Galaxy (now Fleet Galaxy) since what, January?
I argue against changes because the changes some people postulate in this thread are foolhardy and ignorant of the repercussions of changing a ship. I've created hypothetical scenarios which have apparently failed to convey their intended message to other people in this thread. So, let me reiterate.
If one component of the game is changed, it WILL affect the other components in the game.
Some people, like drunk and torvinecho25, have created their own builds. That's fine, since they have clearly thought deeply about the impact of their proposed changes on the game's balance and where the ship is, in relation to other ships.
Others propose sweeping changes to all aspects of the Galaxy-class, with no motive other than "I feel this is what the ship 'should' be", or "The Galaxy-class needs more firepower". I agree with those statements, but I don't act on them without careful consideration.
Cryptic originally believed in the "Trinity" model. The Galaxy, Defiant and Intrepid were the vertices of this triangle of prior balance. Defiant had the most tactical consoles, the most tac boff seat space. Intrepid had the most sci console slots, the most sci boff space. Galaxy had the most eng console slots, the most eng boff space. I realize trinity has been severely warped, but it is still the foundation on which this game stands precariously on.
It is the foolhardy of us who propose obliterating the current ship and replacing it with a ship that is slanted towards tactical or science who are at the root of the problem. They refuse to understand or accept where the ship's proper place is. TNG and DS9 have depicted these vessels as durable starships. Compared to the Mirandas, Oberths and Excelsiors, and even the Sovereign-class Enterprise-E, the Galaxy-class has had a remarkable history of durability and flexibility. Durability. Emphasized by the heavy slant on Engineering.
It's not a perfect ship. But really, what is perfect in this game, or in life? It's flawed, but so is everything else. Leave the ship as it is, or risk frakking up everything else as a side effect of changing this starship.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
lets doom a ship to suck for the sake of being arbitrary :rolleyes:
the intrepid and defiant does not suffer due to their station setups, and their other stats are good for the kind of ship they are. the galaxy on the other hand is dysfunctionaly bad due to its station setup, combined with its lackluster stats. if there was a single advantage grated by being a large ship that would be one thing, but theres not, its a bad thing to be with no exceptions in this game.
Came across one earlier in PVP for the first time in ages. He was a good player, cycling his skills well had a good gear setup.
But even Elite Fleet Shields couldnt save him. He couldnt maneavre fast enough to get out of the way of dhc's for longer than a few seconds at best, and thanks to the joys of running 2 EptS1 my Charal took minimal damage from his aft weapons (yes, he could have done more with a broadside, but how is anything that slow supposed to keep a target in its main arc).
Even I turned down the opportunity for such easy prey (and I normally need all the help I can get in PVP), and despite his/her best efforts he didnt pose a serious enough threat.
I think that at the very least they need to give it a turn rate boost, and an extra tac console.
Then either change the boff layout to lose the pointless 3rd eng ensign, or rethink BOFF skills in general. Especially at ensign level.
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/87XKSGH
I checked ensign level number, and how many shared cool downs. And as an added thought how many bridge officer powers in a career path.
Engineering:
5) Ensign 14) total skills
At Ensign; Emergency to Aux/ Emergency to Weap/ Emergency to Engin/ Emergency to Shield Share cooldowns
Also Engineering Team
So at Ensign all five skill have a shared cool down with someone.
Science:
8) Ensign 18) total skills
At Ensign; Jam sensors/Mask energy sig share cooldowns
Also Science team
So at ensign three of eight skills with cooldowns.
Tactical:
9) Ensign 16) total skills
At Ensign; Beam fire at will/ beam overload / Targ Weap / Targ Engin / Targ Shield/ Targ Aux Share cooldowns
Torp High / Torp spread Share cool downs
Also Tactical Team
So at ensign all nine have a shared cooldown with someone.
So choices without sharing a cooldown by class at Ensign.
Engineer: 2
Science: 7
Tactical: 3
Seems to me Engineering bridge officers need alot of love followed by Tactical.
Why tactical? Because while they have the most skills front loaded a bulk of them share cooldowns and are for a weapon type a tactical captain would not use at all. Now I do get you want some options for an engineering ship or science ship. But Science ships get target sub systems for free. So in theory they need the least number of tactical positions to have access to the skills. Cruisers need More to have the choices to use the weapons intended for them.
I would offer a recommendation of giving cruisers subsystem targeting to offset the lesser available tactical positions since they are expected to be loaded with beams.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Yes you are... and why would you choose to fly a Galaxy over say a Fleet Assault Cruiser or Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser, both of which are superior in every single way. There is absolutely nothing that the Galaxy brings to the table that other cruisers can't do. This is the fundamental problem with the ship. It's terrible at everything. People often mention that it's a great "tank" ship. I'm sorry to say it's not any better then any of the other fed cruisers. The extra engineering stations don't make "tanking" any easier since that extra ensign stations is near useless. There isn't anything useful you can put in there that will help you survive longer or do more damage.
Changing the Galaxy will not have any major impact on the game other then people might actually use the ship more. Some have advocated a rethinking of all engineering abilities in this case you would be correct that it would have a major impact on the state of the game. Which in all honesty may not be a bad thing. As it is now the ship either needs a bridge officer layout change or engineering skills, particularly ensign level, need to be looked at.
I'm not advocating the galaxy be changed to be thel end all of cruisers, but the ship as it is now is garbage.
They may have believed in the trinity model, but that time has long since past and now basically any ship in the game can absorb large amounts of damage using only EPtS, HE, and TSS. Those three skills on their own can handle most incoming damage.
Foolhardy? The ship is terrible. At the moment there is no reason at all to use it. Every single other federation cruiser is superior. It is arguably the worst ship in the game. Whatever great setup you or anyone else can come up with for the Galaxy can be used on another cruiser where it will perform better.
You got that right. It is actuality the worst ship. What's wrong with wanting a Galaxy that can be competitive with the likes of the Fleet Assault Cruiser and Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser?
Some quick stats.
Fleet Sovereign
LtC, Ens Tac
Cmdr, Lt Eng
Lt Uni
4 eng, 2 sci, 4 tac
Fleet Excelsior
Ltc Tac
Cmdr, Lt, Ens Eng
Lt Sci
4 eng, 2 sci, 4 tac
Fleet Galaxy
Lt Tac
Cmdr, LtC, Ens Eng
Lt Sci
5 eng, 3 sci, 2 tac
True, that extra Engineering station is redundant. I agree with you on that point. However, take a look at the console station setup. Fleet Sovereign and Excelsior both share 4 tactical slots. What does the Galaxy bring to the table in terms of tanking ability? 5 engineering (allowing for some compensating in lieu of the Leadership hull repair nerf), and 3 science (allowing 2 field generators and 1 Fleet Emitter array). This should be a huge flashing neon sign that this ship is meant for durability, and not for offense.
Stop right there. People will use the ship more. Meaning, that particular aspect of the game will become more important as more people choose to use that ship instead of another. Look at the effects of Aux2Bat, another aspect of the game. The more people use it, the more other people have to adapt to overcome this tactic; thereby causing a repercussive effect that changes how people choose to outfit their ships to counter these Aux2Bat cruisers. This is the exact same deal; people will create new builds to adapt to the influx of increased Galaxy captains, thereby changing the game's dynamic balance.
I'm puzzled as to why people don't think there are ripple effects for each action a player or Cryptic takes in this game. It's something each person must consider when proposing a change or addition; especially for the game developers.
I agree. Careful consideration, and a backup plan in case things go wrong.
Define "better". Each ship in this game has its own niche, and experienced players will know this to be so. Look at drunk's list of ship builds. Virtually all endgame ships are on that list, and each of them has a different goal, a different method of approach. Each is "better" at what it was designed to do.
Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole is not the solution.
The player chooses a goal. The player then finds the ship to fulfill that goal.
This is the way it should be. If you are attempting to fit a goal onto a ship, you may find you are not as effective at fulfilling that goal compared to if you had the right ship for the job. It is the same thing; people believe this starship should be an offensive starship. But it isn't, and a cursory look at the boff and console layouts should be indicative of its engineering slant.
Try to tank in a Fleet Sovereign. Or in a Fleet Excelsior. I did; I bought a Fleet Excelsior to test out whether people's opinions of the ship compared to the Galaxy were true. They were not (although I will continue with the Fleet Excelsior to further test it out, in fairness).
Because in the process of fulfilling this selfish request, millions of players are affected as a result. The last thing any of us need are further nerfs or stealth adjustments to any component of this game. Besides, it's ahead of the competition, if you choose to view the Galaxy as a tank, and not as an offensive cruiser.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Your analysis shows the main problem with Engineering powers in STO.
But i wouldn't want to give Cruisers subsystem Targeting if i had the choice or remove powers from Science to Engineering like Tractor beam for example. Instead i would introduce some new Powers more adequate and useful for Cruisers and Engineering overall, since Engineering has just too few powers altogether.
I would like to throw in just a few ideas for possible Engineering Powers to increase their variety in consideration of Cruisers Multi Mission nature. Thankfully Cryptic finally realized that Crusiers should be more than just Tanks by introducing AtB DOFFs.
Here are some random ideas:
Another Engineering power could be something that greatly increases the Hull and shield Repair rate for 15 seconds. This effect applies to the player ship and everything in weapons range but decreasing in power if a ally is farther than 5 Km. Note this power does NOT give any resistances, just pure Shield and Hull healing over time.
There could also be a accuracy buff power, depending on the player ships aux power. Per 10 aux power the ships Weapons get a Acc bonus of 1.
The following idea comes from ST:1 where the ship was able to reroute Engineering Power directly to the Phasers. This power would directly add Engineering power to the ship weapon power for one weapons cycle. But at the same time Engineering power would be completely depleted.
A similar power could also work as a Shield heal, by rerouting Engineering Power to the shields for healing and thus greatly inreceasing the ships shields regeneration rate.
A more tactical power would be a increasement of beam weapons range. It could have the same duration and CD as AtS for example. The higher the rank the greater the additional weapons range. Beginning with 3 km at rank 1 up to 6 km at rank 3.
Weapons disable Mode.
The ships energy weapons are set on non destructive mode, this works more like a switch. So it would be unlike any other power we have seen in Star Trek Online.
It would work like this:
If the enemies hull reaches zero, the ship is disabled resulting in a higher chance to get higher rated drops appearing besides the disabled ship. This power would start at Ensign, similar to engineering Team for example, so all other ship types could use it also.
As i said these are just some random ideas, i am sure the also would help the GCS to become a bit better in STO.
The problem is NOT that we want the GCS to become a completely different ship as it is supposed to be. Cryptic made it a Healer/Tank, maybe because they lack to understand anything about the GCS, maybe they just didn't care or they simply hate that ship so they deliberately made it the most boring and passive ship in their game. In my opinion they made it a bad healer/tank, because they think that (especially) the GCS and what it stands for is too "un-cool" for their militarized Star Trek game.
But in the mean time they don't seem to have any remorse to use the GCS for promotion of their game.
In "real" Trek, the GCS was never a pure tank, ever.
It was the ultimative Multi Mission ship IMO, making it the exact opposite (a healer/tank) is not what i want it to be. It is wrong and should be corrected ASAP.
Especially since ships like the Excelsior are made much better, should be inferior by far.
Before you start a discussion about the word better, in STO "better" means combat worthy = more firepower, more offensive potential and be able to survive at the mean time.
STO has (thankfully) changed, slowly leaving the (un-holy) trinity behind and going towards a more trekkish approach.
I know what you are saying.
It's far more placid here then I have seen it in other games, but yes. I know what you mean. However. I don't see it making that kind of change or effect upon the game.
More people playing Aux2Bat is a playstyle. Not a ship.
Having more people play in the Galaxy does not trouble the water in any kind of comparable way. If you were to change the BOff layout, or tweak the consoles, or even both. The ship does not alter the game. It has simply become competitive.
If you gave the GCS the same build as the Fleet Excelsior, it would not suddenly create a new playstyle that could potentially have drastic effects on others playstyles. It doesn't work that way.
Suggesting a Heavy Beam Array for only the GCS, does.
Suggesting that its BOff and Console layout change, does not.
There are no tanks in this game.
Even if there were, the GCS would still not be getting taken due to the severity of overlapping skills within the Engineering tree and the over abundant amount of Ensign Engineering skills that it has slotted.
There is only DPS and burst in this game.
All end game content can be completed with just Escorts. Be it a team of BoPs or a team of Armitages. The result is the same. Completed end game content with the secondary accomplished and in under 6 or 7 minutes.
Taking anything else to those is often considered a waste others time and of resources as the likely hood of possible failure is amplified.
Cruisers skill set along with their weapon kit is ill suited for current STF's.
Asking for changes to help them change this oversight is not a selfish request.
Was it a selfish request in WoW when the Retribution Paladins asked for Resilience, thee PvP stat and as the only spec in the game to be without it, on their PvP gear?
No, it was an oversight. One that in light of the games changing nature towards Arena PvP and making a run at becoming an eSport, needed to be addressed.
Same thing here.
The game began as a Trinity system, and has rapidly evolved away from it.
The GCS in its current incarnation is no longer fit for the game.
Adjustments are needed.
I never could have said it better.
We can see that Cryptic did actually administer that change when they released the T5 Ambassador Class. But even since then, they are reluctant to rework or release a new version of the GCS -R for whatever reason. Maybe just some internal refusal at the expense of us GCS fans and supporters.
Btw. Personally, i welcome that change away from the unholy Trinity, since i never saw Crusiers (in Star Trek Terms: Starships) as Tanks/Healers.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
I think the slower the ship turns, the more console slots it should have. There is not such thing as tanking in this game, so there needs to be balance sought in other directions.
Slow ships have to have some additional benefits, because when you put the Federation ships side by side against the ships that have come out.. they not only fall short.. they fall laughably short.
Ships the size of 10 of ours that can turn loops around us as we manage to put-put around a slow turn... teleportation, 1 shot super kill combos and all sorts of other just over-the-top abilities that seem to come standard. Those of us who have spent our money in the past.. the same value.. the same prices.. have ships that are so sub par that nobody would buy them today.
Cryptic should consider this, as it WILL hurt their sales as nobody will buy an obsolete ship as a possible alternative.
And ladies and gentlemen, here is a prime example of someone who doesn't understand what STO's Galaxy is supposed to be doing. It is a tank. I've tried flying this ship as healer, and it simply isn't cut out for it (it lacks the science boff seats that make a good healer such as the Recluse).
What you define as "boring", Boring is a subjective term. There are other people who think tanking is more exciting than dealing damage or flying science. Go visit Ker'rat, that's where tanking builds and captains thrive in, Ask them if tanking is boring. I doubt they would say yes.
The Galaxy-class in canon Trek was multipurpose, but Cryptic can't make ships that can literally do everything. The Galaxy-class has great offensive capabilities (torpedo spreads and the large phaser array), great defensive capabilities (strong shields without the need to remodulate), great science capabilities, great engine speed, saucer separation, swappable internal space, large accomodations for diplomatic functions. On and on the list goes. It's a hero ship.
Cryptic had to pick what the most defining feature of the Galaxy-class was. They already saw the Defiant as a warship, so into the Escort category it goes. Intrepid, well, I'm not sure how it ended up in science instead of a medium cruiser, but whatever, into Science it goes. The Galaxy-class, although having a history of losing ships due to viruses, ramming and Geordi's SpyCam, has been known to be a durable starship. So into Engineering it goes.
They can't make a ship that is the end-all of every other ship on the Federation side. That would defeat the purpose of having a selection of ships to choose from, and a "fleet" instead of a "swarm".
As for your definition of "better", that is very, very flawed. "Better" as an adjective means "Of a more excellent or effective type or quality" (Thank you Google). Who's to say one ship is "better" than another, simply because they are being forced into one definitive category?
I could say the JHAS is a better ship than the Recluse, because according to "my Star Trek Online gameplay", JHAS are faster killers, have higher damage output from the ship, etc. But really, they are just as good as Recluses, since Recluses are far better suited at doing another thing: Team healing. Both are good at what they are designed to do.
"Better: Of a more excellent or effective type or quality". In terms of pure tanking, I don't see another cruiser that can tank as well as the Galaxy-class. 5 engineering/3 science console slots, lots of Engi boff space... That makes it a far more capable cruiser at tanking than the Fleet Excelsior or Sovereign.
And I agree with that, especially with the Romulan ships which are all designed "warbirds". A good move from Cryptic.
An ability or a set of abilities impacts just as hard as a ship and a ship's build. I'm surprised to hear this comment even spoken at all.
Look at the new Romulan faction. Not counting the low level starships, Legacy of Romulus took off with 18 new starships to fly at endgame. Since then, 6 starships have been added to the list. Every existing player gained a free New Character slot, and it is very likely that a huge number of players have already created Romulan characters, fly Romulan ships, and have builds designed for Romulan success. I see it in PvP, the T'Varo, Dhelan, Mogai, Scimitar are all a common sight these days. T'Varo's BoP-like setups, Scimitar gameplay, and more builds suited towards these ships with new boff and console layouts, with or without the ship special consoles.
And you're telling me that new boff and console layouts, whether changed or newly created, doesn't create ripple effects throughout the game?
Wrong. Look at Ker'rat. Look at 1v1.
I do agree with the Ensign engineering slots being excessive. However, since this ship is a tank, I'm not too concerned with that. That slot has saved my life on numerous occasions.
You talk about PvE, and I agree, in most cases. If a pug group contains a cruiser, it's very likely that cruiser pilot has no idea how to make cruisers into "DPS monsters", and especially not in a Galaxy-class.
It is, when the people pushing for such changes are ignorant to the aftershocks of such a change.
I'm not sure what you're talking about (I have never played WoW, I'm not familiar with their game system).
True. Careful adjustments, not sloppy ones like "Add Moar Tac Consoles!!1!!". Drunk's and Torvinecho25's builds, although Torvin's is still being revised, are a good place to start. They have the existing STO Galaxy-class, but add features and functionalities that benefit cruisers. It would be prudent of the Devs to take a look and analyse how it would affect the game.
It was stated in a podcast not too long ago (podcast 135? I'm not sure) that Geko plans a "re-release of the Galaxy-class" in the future. I'll try and find the podcast page and link it here.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
What persent of the players PvE
I think Many more more players PvE and in PvE the Galaxy is a failure
2 Tac bridge officer slots dont cut it
2 Tac consoles dont cut it
and a 6 turn rate adds salt into the open wound
A lot of PvE players would use the Galaxy if was on par with the Romulan ships in its class
First thing though is PvE and PvP must be seperated into differnt games
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
For the 1.000.000-th time - because this is not how it works. The BoPs pay dearly to have all universal Boff setup. If you slap that setup on a ship with the Galaxy stats you just made every single Fed. cruiser pretty much obsolete since the Galaxy could mimic every Boff setup, while retaining the highest hull in the game and a nice shield modifier.
It will also be vastly imbalanced - something we should be fighting against in STO rather than supporting imbalanced introductions to the game.
it have indeed a great potential of backsfire that we can not even beguin to imagine, with our smally tiny brain.
thank god cryptic in all his wisdom have prevent such a things to happen until now, among over things such as introducing overpowered ships, broken items, consoles, reputation systems, doffs, bofs, traits.
they have tested all theses new things very carrefully for a long time before introducing them, and all these have been done with pve and pvp in mind, mind you.
it would sad cryptic greatly if one of their item could cause a big unbalanced in the pvp world for example.
yeah, they have done it right, i can't even think of one console for example that is, or have been broken in this game.. wait! hmmm:rolleyes:...no!.... no, not even 1:D.
if 1 ship, the galaxy class, would to be change even in the slightest, it would definitly break apart the perfect fine tunning balance environement of the game that cryptic fight so hard to preserve.
the galaxy class is the core of the meta of the game, change it a bit, and the entire game change.
if you do,people will start playing only with galaxy class ship ( since it was perfect as it is, and now is in a " perfect as it is enhance version" ), wich will introduce the end of diversity and crash the dilithium exchange as a result.
romulan player will star quit the game since they will not have acces to this monster, this will further precipitate the end of the game as no one continue to buy things in the cstore.
scramble sensor will be ban of serious pvp match since it introducing kaos in a match full of galaxy class.
sto server will finally close 1 years after.
you think it will stop here? if only!
the real life consequence will begun to unfold 2 years later, as an nerdy sto player addict ( who can not support life without sto )begun to hack the acces code of american nuclear silo to, as was stated in his facebook pages " follow the steps of zefram cochrane to contact extraterestrial life ".
now as you have already guess by now, this nut guy just launch the missile without modifying it trajectory, wich end up directly in Moscow causing the counter attack chain reaction wich lead to the complete anihilation of the planet.
one missile even penetrate the Earth's crust to go explode directly into the magnetic core wich destabilize the usual rotational speed of the earth who, then, left her traditional orbit.
it lead her in direct collision course with the nibiru planet wich, on impact, cause an other chain reaction with some extraterestrial technologie present at her surface.
the phenomenal magnetic explosion that ensue rip the space time continuum, opening a doorway to an other universe that is collapsing on his own du to it extremely hight gravity.
our own entire universe is then suck completely into the rift to end in the big crunch that follow.
so no! please pleople do not change the galaxy class ship in sto, or bear the consequence of your decision!
you can not say that i didn't warn you!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I'm not sure whether this is an attempt at humor, sarcasm, or paranoid belief. In any case, Neo has one part right; any change to any ship will affect ship and build balances in both PvP and PvE, and I'm glad that he understands and made mention of that.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Podcast would be great.
To answer your statements as best I can. I for one am trying to offer some thoughts on a balanced revision. Right now I look at the engineering Boffs and how their abilities stack and shut each other down and see that as a stumbling block for any ship trying to be a 'tank' I started as an Engineering captain and ran nothing but Cruisers. Keeping up the heals does not work since you can be detonated faster than the cooldowns. You need 3 to 4 heals or make the existing engineering ones bigger. Now if we are trying to fix cruisers that specialize in carrying engineering Boffs. Then the goal is to make all those slots they have been given mean something. This is in my opinion a better choice. Will it make a ripple effect in PvP? You betcha. Right now from what I hear and my limited taste, Escorts are the go to ships. Up the diversity on cruisers and they will have more staying power. Not more fire power. Thus they can counter some of the heavy damage coming in and make new tactics and builds for handling different ships.
Fair, again in my opinion, would be an escort and a cruiser face off. Same tier, loaded for their job would have 50/50 odds either way of victory. Now give the science ships enough distractions that are tough enough to challenge those two one on one and each class has it's different play style without being broken. Maybe I am suggesting the 'holy trinity' be reinforced. But if you don't you will have cannons'r'us ships and nothing else by making only one path to success.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I know Ker'rat very well and i know when fighting a ship with firepower your only "fun" is to delay the inevitable. Of course some people may have fun in doing that, but there are already ships well suited for that purpose, like the Odyssey or Carriers.
More balanced BOFF layouts allow much more different tactics in contrast to a teethless tank like the GCS in STO is.
I am not against people having fun flying a fortress without offensive or capabilities to strike back, they shall become happy with it. But the GCS is just the wrong ship for that. (Not because of its current BOFF layout, but because Cryptic made it wrong in the first place.)
That's nothing every hero ship has, look at the defiant.
It wasn't built like the GCS was. It was basicly just a engine with some rediculus powerful cannons, nothing more.
Or the intrepid, althrough similar to the GCS, it was much smaller and less powerful (offensvie and defensive) the point of that ship was to have a underdog that had to struggle to get home. Which the producers have obviously forgotten. :rolleyes:
The GCS on the other hand was the ultimative multi mission ship. Unlike the Sovereign for example it was able to be outfitted for various missions, so it was far more a generalist than a specialist.
If Cryptic would have understood this concept, they would have given it a more balanced BOFF layout, similar to the D'Deridex Warbird Retrofit we have now in game.
They should have made one of their own designs to be the tankiest ship in their Game, but Intrepid and Galaxy Class should have been much more faithful to their original. (not mentioning the Defiant which is at least made with the right emphsais)
I am NOT saying (in fact i have NEVER EVER said) the GCS should become a ship that can do everything, just more blanced between Science, Tactical and Engineering. You know giving a ship which is a dedicated as a Multi Mission ship the most extreme passive BOFF layout is just plainly wrong, i can't say it otherwise.
The Galaxy Class Starship in STO should offer versatility and adaptability for the player but as a Engineering heavy ship it does the exact opposite. Just look at the D'Deridex -R or the Nebula Retrofit BOFF layout, they are much more versatile and offer what a GCS should have.
Yes, you can make a multi mission like ship in STO, the point is that Cryptics Devs have to want to make a specific ship that way.
This classification is only based on the unholy trinity, which has been thrown overboard (thankfully).
Extreme ship BOFF Layouts have almost no purpose anymore. Compared to Tactical and Science, Engineering BOFF powers are just more inflexible (3 engineering ensigns hadicap each other) and passsive.
The reason the Intrepid isn't a medium cruiser, is because in the unholy trinity medium cruisers have no place. Instead of that, Cryptic should have created a range of more cruiser like ships, with different focus, but all more or less equal strong.
Cryptics devs exactly knew that a BOFF layout having 3 ensigns engineering is very limited, and by giving the GCS -R such a layout just prooves someone at cryptic doesn't like that ship.
All those events you listed, that led to the lost of a GCS would have easily destroyed any other ship just as well, just faster. So Cryptic had to make her a engineering focussed ship. But they selectively choose only events that made the GCS look bad and made the ship to accord to it.
The Defiant on the other hand (a ship we know some devs are fans of) got a heavy emphsis on tactical, which is ok. But Cryptic made tactical powers way to strong and dominate everything else.
Thats the (flawed) origin, but luckily STO has eveolved.
They noticed that (starfleet) cruisers where made too passive and applying the unholy trinity was the wrong way for a Star Trek game. (Let's all thank Q for that
Now we have the (in theory) most tankish ship in STO, and since the unholy trinity get less and less relevant, people start to realize that the GCS -R is made in a way that has no purpose in this game.
It's BOFF layou does seem great for tanking at the first glance, but if you look more close at it the it doesn't look so good anymore.
I think that is one of the main problem of pressing the Star Trek universe into the standard MMO mechanic.
Ships of Star Trek just aren't calssified into Science (noly very few), Cruiser or Escorts (only one).
At least Starfleet consist mostly of Starships (something like a Cruiser with eihter a tactical or science focus or both equal).
But they are NOT extreme specialists as Crpytic wanted to them to be.
You know what i meant.
So Multi purpose BOFF layouts are ok, as long as it isn't the GCS? :rolleyes:
And why can't Starfleet ships be designated "Starships" having a much more Balanced BOFF/Console Layout?
Sorry about that.
How has your day been?
The idea that a ship is suppose to be a "healer" in the first place in Star Trek is....antithetical.
There were never any ships in any Star Trek that was a healer. At best you could remotely operate someone's computer system to repair something, extend your shields (which is a science ability around here), or send over a Repair team. You could use a power transfer beam but not in combat.
And the idea of ships being "tanks" is also erroneous. All ships are supposed to be able to absorb punishment for the very fact that receiving repairs is so difficult.
Starfleet ships in this game generally have a defensive focus, Klingons offensive, and now the Romulan vessels have that stealth focus. This is proper to an extent. Klingon ships are dedicated warships, Federation ships are designed to get their crews home alive, and Romulans are ambush specialists. That's as close to any trinity as it should ever get.
The Galaxy was honestly never that tough, it was designed in peacetime. Compared to the Defiant which in DS9 was a qualified damage sponge or the Sovereign which is probably the most superb Battlecruiser Starfleet produced, the Galaxy as seen on TNG was lackluster. Except during the Dominion War where they were premiere Battlecruisers. Because they were refitted.
Which is what is needed here.
I'm not much of a PvP guy. But endgame PvE is almost absurdly DPS focused. StarDestroyer I respect your opinion, but I gotta say, as much as you talk about Aftershocks you haven't acknowledged that the aftershocks, significant alterations to the Galaxy class could make may be in fact very positive.
And someone else said earlier, there should be a benefit to flying a large ship besides having a high hull that gets burned through almost as soon as your shields are gone.
Hey, the Klingons call it a Battlecruiser, I'ma call it a battlecruiser.
Utterly wrong.