test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What is your beef with the Galaxy Cryptic?

17273757778232

Comments

  • usscapitalusscapital Member Posts: 985 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    feiqa wrote: »
    Data in Insurrection twice uses a shuttle to harrass/damage a sona'a ship.

    that was not a shuttle it was a scout ship , the film was on film 4 last night
    NERF NERF NERF ONLINE

    DELTA PRICE RISING
  • feiqafeiqa Member Posts: 2,410 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    usscapital wrote: »
    that was not a shuttle it was a scout ship , the film was on film 4 last night

    I am going to have to say they define ship very loosely as the 'mission scout ship' was the size of a small shuttle and had seating for one in it's cockpit.

    Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
    Network engineers are not ship designers.
    Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
  • usscapitalusscapital Member Posts: 985 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    feiqa wrote: »
    I am going to have to say they define ship very loosely as the 'mission scout ship' was the size of a small shuttle and had seating for one in it's cockpit.

    look at this video at 1 min 7 seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LOtf5Yq39Y
    NERF NERF NERF ONLINE

    DELTA PRICE RISING
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    yreodred wrote: »
    Pure Cruiser Get 1x Engineering CMDR and at least 1x Engineering Lieutenant (Engineering overkill IMO).
    Do you really think that sacrificing one single Power would have such a dramatic impact?
    I don't.


    i am sure it is for me anyway.
    let's not lie to ourselves, the idea to trandfert BO in engineering is clearly drive by the desire to gain acces to BO3.
    it a ltcommander spot, here it would take the place of either my EPTS3 or warp plasma.
    both of these are unvaluable for my long term tanking build in pvp.
    i don't have to comment about EPTS3 ( just the best self heal in the game ) but i would anderstand that you question the utilitie of warp plasma.
    i known, i have the same thaught a while back, they were no auxtobat then, so i wanted to remove warp plasma and put a second EPST3.
    the best shield heal in the game availble every 30 sec sound pretty tanky isn't it?
    well.... no, 2 escort stuck in my rear get over it very quickly, my tractor beam could only stop one, so warp plasma was the only power that would have allow me to remove them from there efficiently.
    it also help to deploy zone of denial, protect againt mine, pets, and can stop your enemy from moving.
    so yes, remove one of these power and my survivability in pvp as a 6 base turn rate and 25 inertia ship is greatly reduce.

    beside since i fly a heavy engi ship i don't have the capacity to properly buff BO3 to make it a real difference over BO2.because ship like mine got what? 2 or 3 tactical console slot, 1 lt tact slot, that is not sufficient to correctly boost BO3.
    i could use the tactical power like APA and the like that are available to tactical captain, but these have long cooldown.
    and what about the engi captain, they will buff it with tact team only? because nadion inversion and the like serve only after the shot is fire.
    so to sum it up the lost of survivability is not a bargain considering the few more dps that it bring.

    and that is just me.

    what about the guy in the regent with bo2 and 3 setup? now he will have to survive with an escort setup in engi ( 2 ensign engi + 1 lt engi )
    here again the increase in firepower is not worth the lost in survivability.

    what about the dem build with france marion dulmur?

    and that just a few example i can find and only in the federation faction, we haven't took a look at klingons and romulan one.

    so no, not all cruiser would benefit from it.
    it just seem to me that it would only fit your type of cruiser, with your playstyle in a pve environment, and even then i can tell you that it would not be the big things that you think it would.
    but i grant you that the compromise is acceptable in pve environment
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    feiqa wrote: »
    Couple thoughts based on some of the recent posts.

    Escorts and one or two cruisers mount cannons. But everyone can mount beam arrays and turrets. How about an overloaded beam array that is only slottable on a cruiser? Make it like the Defiant quad leveless purple cannon. One per ship.

    i like that idea, something more powerfull than a dual beam bank then?
    but that could be OP in some cruiser.
  • feiqafeiqa Member Posts: 2,410 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    i like that idea, something more powerfull than a dual beam bank then?
    but that could be OP in some cruiser.

    Just a mild question. Like the quad heavy cannon is not OP in some escorts?

    Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
    Network engineers are not ship designers.
    Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    @neo1nx
    What if Aceton Beam where actually a useful Power?
    You had to decide between the availlable ones and choose what fits to your playstyle, the same is for a Engineering Beam Overload power.
    Look at Tactical or Science Powers there are many possibilites to make a viable build, but Engineering is just too much limited.


    Of course making BO a Engineering power is for the purpose to use Beam Overload 3 on a Cruiser. Cruisers are supposed to use Beam Weapons, why shouldn't they be able to use the according power at the highest rank?

    On the other hand, having the strongest Beam Attack availlable to all escorts but only very few Cruisers doesn't make sense.
    It would be the same as if Cannon Rapid Fire 3 where availlable to all Cruisers but only a few Escorts, this wouldn't make any sense either.
    Escort jocks would mount the barricades, and they where right.
    But us Cruiser Captains are so much accustomed NOT to get what we need, we don't reckoginse what would be right anymore.
    For tactical focussed Cruisers there are more than enough tactical Powers, like torpedo spread, torpedo High yield or various Attack Patterns still availlable.
    Surley you had to decide which Engineering power to use in your build, since the range of useful power would have increased, but on the other hands science ships have the same "problem".



    Let's try to look at it from another perspective, who gets the biggest benefit with Beam Overload being a tactical power?
    Escorts, so they can equip one Beam Array/Bank an use BO3 to even further enhance their Attack power.
    In my opinion they should be able to utilize BO1 at max.
    Additionally only few Cruisers can actually benefit from a tactical BO3, to me this doesn't make sense.



    I can understand you don't want to change your build after you found out what works best for you, but as i said i think Beam Overload has to be a Cruiser power so Escorts couldn't use it more easily than a Cruiser.
    An engineering Beam Overload could easily made get the same tiers as Aceton beam and start at Lieutenant Level and end at Commander, unlike tactical BO.
    You still could use DEM but you had to decide which Power to sacrifice in order to use DEM.


    In the end a Engineering Beam Overload would shift some Cruisers more into focus and would make engineering heavy Cruisers more popular. Not only the Galaxy Class would benefit from it, even the Odyssey and many other ships too.
    Tactical BOFF slots wouldn't be the as much in the focus anymore, when it comes to Cruisers.
    In my opinion there would be much more positive effects than negative ones by making BO an engineering power.

    good night :)
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • edited July 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    shpoks wrote: »
    Oh, you ment those....but they have nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. Those are the ships NPCs use. I was referring to a player controlled mirror Galaxy. That won't happen because the Galaxy is a Zen purchase and they make mirror versions for the lockboxes only out of free ships. To me the whole idea of these mirror ships in lockboxes is meh, but whatever.

    The point was - Cryptic won't make a mirror C-Store ship and put it in a lockbox because it's not in their best interest to allow an item that costs 20/25$ become availible for doing a fragment of the "Tour the Universe" event through the exchange.

    I have MVAM Prommie and mirror Prommie, the MVAM works on both. Thus even if the mirror Gal is the T4 version saucer sep would work for her to.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,014 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    shpoks wrote: »
    Actually, you just proved my point. :)

    The Mirror Vor'cha is the counterpart of the Vor'cha Retrofit - which is a free ship for the KDF availible at Brigadeer General level(lvl 40).
    The C-Store one is the Vor'Kang, which is a refit of the standard Vor'cha, a ship availible at Captain(lvl 30) for the KDF.

    So no, Cryptic have never made a mirror version of a C-Store ship and I firmly believe they never will.

    My bad, I confused the two. I assumed that a retrofit meant it's a c-store variant :)
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • general1devongeneral1devon Member Posts: 298 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    skollulfr wrote: »
    prometheus is a cruiser, so is the akira.
    ship class specific powers on ships like that is blatant power creep & lazy game design.
    all you will achieve is plastering over the elements that need ripped out in the first place.

    thats called building yourself into a corner.
    something that has been done here too much already.

    Sorry but the Prometheus is the Multi Vector Advanced Escort and the Akira is the Heavy Escort. You sir, are wrong
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • edited July 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    skollulfr wrote: »
    prometheus is a cruiser, so is the akira.
    ship class specific powers on ships like that is blatant power creep & lazy game design.
    all you will achieve is plastering over the elements that need ripped out in the first place.
    Yes Cryptic put many ships into the wrong classification, so what? They did much more things wrong.
    Would you prefer to keep everything as it is?

    Escorts still could use Beam Overload if they have enough free Engineering Powers.
    The point is that Cruisers should easily be able to maximize that skill, at least more easily than Escorts.
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • edited July 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    skollulfr wrote: »
    false dichotomy.

    you make BO a built in "cruiser" ability and at most all you will get is crf becoming an escort build in power in a few months...
    on top of that you would still have the disparity between doff class powers
    and the gimped agility stats.
    I'm sorry to say that, but please read my previous posts again.
    I am talking about making Beam Overload an Engineering power, not a build in Cruiser power.
    So cruisers can use that Power more easily than a Escort.

    The situation now is like if Hazard Emitters where a tactical power.
    Some people would rant and say: "if you make Hazard emitters a Science powers and my ship only has 2 Free Science Powers, i couldn't use Tractor Beam anymore".

    You see?
    My point is, like Science powers Engineering powers should have more options for their specific ship class. Cruisers are supposed to use Beam Weapons, i think we all agree with that, therefore Beam Overload should be a Engineering skill.
    Of course Crusiers can use a lower rank of that power but having tiny, little escorts having even stronger Beam weapons than a 5 times bigger Cruiser is just rediculus.

    Lets be realistic, we will never get Heavy Beam Arrays, so Cruisers can generate more firepower.
    We will never get better BOFF layouts for Cruisers, so they can utilize their main source of firepower.

    Why not correct what was wrong in the first place?
    skollulfr wrote: »
    so, how do you correct for those?
    1) refitable boff layouts to let players circumvent bad game design in the boff powers chat scuds cruisers.
    2) making turn rate inversely multiply the weapon range, compensating for the stupid turnrates.
    3) if not the removal of the stupid impulse mods, then something that directly trades off for them.
    I like those ideas, but i doubt Cryptic would realize them, because they favour their beloved Escorts.
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    I have MVAM Prommie and mirror Prommie, the MVAM works on both. Thus even if the mirror Gal is the T4 version saucer sep would work for her to.

    Why for the love of Trek, would you consider using a Tier 4 mirror Galaxy class an improvement to the Galaxy? And why would you want to use that at end game?? :confused:

    Also, there has never been a T4 mirror ship.
    angrytarg wrote: »
    My bad, I confused the two. I assumed that a retrofit meant it's a c-store variant :)

    Yeah, I was quite suprised about that as well when I found out, I expected to pay for a retrofit. :P
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • supergirl1611supergirl1611 Member Posts: 809 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    Anyone here flown the Fleet Vor'cha yet, proof that Cryptic can give cruisers some love if they like the ship. That ship is probably the most fun cruiser to play. Turns just shy of a escort. Able to mount DHC and turrets and make use of them. Has good boff layout and good console layout.
    Sure i don't want to be mounting DHC or turrets on my Galaxy it would ruin the experience of flying her. But the Vor'cha is proof that a cruiser can be a battleship and tank that doesn't get penalised by a crippling turn rate or low end tact boff seating or lack of tact consoles.

    I pulled my Fleet Galaxy out of mothball last night after flying a Regent and D'kora, did a Gorn Minefield and my god it was a painful experience using that ship. It felt like a chore during that run, turning, killing Gorn ships, it was not fun. And there is one of the points of this thread, this ship is just not fun to fly. I was using rommie disruptor beams and a aux2bat/dem build.

    Poor turn rate
    Low end tact abilities
    Too many Engineering abilities that are heals or the attack minded ones do too little damage Aceton Beam i've found is not great, EWP just slows enemies in elite matches doesn't sratch the paint.
    Poor console layout
    Saucer separation has too long a cd plus if the stardrive is destroyed you should respawn as the stardrive not the whole ship. That would help with turn rate. rather than respawn and wait 5 mins to be able to separate again
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    ...
    I pulled my Fleet Galaxy out of mothball last night after flying a Regent and D'kora, did a Gorn Minefield and my god it was a painful experience using that ship. It felt like a chore during that run, turning, killing Gorn ships, it was not fun. And there is one of the points of this thread, this ship is just not fun to fly. I was using rommie disruptor beams and a aux2bat/dem build.

    Poor turn rate
    Low end tact abilities
    Too many Engineering abilities that are heals or the attack minded ones do too little damage Aceton Beam i've found is not great, EWP just slows enemies in elite matches doesn't sratch the paint.
    Poor console layout
    Saucer separation has too long a cd plus if the stardrive is destroyed you should respawn as the stardrive not the whole ship. That would help with turn rate. rather than respawn and wait 5 mins to be able to separate again
    I know it is almost masochistic to fly a Galaxy -R.
    Cryptics should have used one of their ugly own ship designs for the role of a Healer/Tank and make the Galaxy a jack of alll trades. But obviously someone at Cryptic (yes i mean you Mr. Rivera) hates the Galaxy and no one at Cryptic dares to object that.

    So our wish to improve that ship is essentially a political thing within cryptics staff.
    They obviously prefer Escorts and Carriers more than Cruisers and let's not forget they made Cannons the uber weapons in Star Trek, pretty bizarre IMO.
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • supergirl1611supergirl1611 Member Posts: 809 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    Need to add the new Mine RCS consoles are a god send. With the Helmsman Trait, Tachyokenetic Converter and 3 Mine RCS mk x i managed to get the turn rate up to 20.7 degrees without to much compromised on Armor resist. What a difference this made to the flying experience of this ship. Dare i say it, it brought some enjoyment being able to maneuver and out maneuver ships.
  • general1devongeneral1devon Member Posts: 298 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    yreodred wrote: »
    I know it is almost masochistic to fly a Galaxy -R.
    Cryptics should have used one of their ugly own ship designs for the role of a Healer/Tank and make the Galaxy a jack of alll trades. But obviously someone at Cryptic (yes i mean you Mr. Rivera) hates the Galaxy and no one at Cryptic dares to object that.

    So our wish to improve that ship is essentially a political thing within cryptics staff.
    They obviously prefer Escorts and Carriers more than Cruisers and let's not forget they made Cannons the uber weapons in Star Trek, pretty bizarre IMO.
    This entirely, the only way though we can stop them from shoving more escorts down our throats is to have the community stop buying and flying them. If a large enough number do they'll have to give us what we want. Hell when Star Wars Fans Demanded a new Battlefront guess what they're getting? a New Battlefront. Petitions work guys.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    BO is a skill you use on an escort with a DBB as a closer once you breach shields with cannons. its is not that helpful on a beam array cruiser at all, it tends to just cut into your dps, not deliver enough damage to really hurt someone. it couldn't make less sense to make it an engineering power.
  • edited July 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    BO is a skill you use on an escort with a DBB as a closer once you breach shields with cannons. its is not that helpful on a beam array cruiser at all, it tends to just cut into your dps, not deliver enough damage to really hurt someone. it couldn't make less sense to make it an engineering power.

    So just let's give anything that boost your offensive to Escorts and leave the passive stuff to Cruisers....

    The problem with cruisers is that they can't hurt anyone at all. Beam Overload wouldn't magically make Cruisers into one Hit killers, that's true. But in my opinion it would help them to generate SOME Spike Damage. And on the other hand, i just don't like it that Escorts get Cannons AND Beam weapon Powers with their high emphasis on tactical BOFF slots.

    Maybe it's more about the basic principle i want to have "corrected".
    I don't care anymore if Escorts DHCs kill everything in seconds, but Cruisers should be able to at least FULLLY utilize their armament IMHO.


    As someone who likes to fly Cruisers i just can't understand why Escorts need to have BO3, those little ships can already mount the Heaviest Weapons in the game, why on earth do they also have to have acess to the highest Cruisers Main weapons spike BOFF Power? A small annoying Escort can use BO3 but a Huge Star Crusier/Galaxy/whatever can't? Where's the logic in that?
    Sorry but i'm just annoyed by stuff like that.

    I'ts almost as the devs gave everything good to Escorts/sci vessels and all the boring stuff went to cruisers, which however should be the kings of this game, not the beggars.
    "...'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

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • edited July 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    tactical station powers are were tactical powers belong. luckily, every ship has a little of all the types of station powers. changing BO is not the answer for fixing cruiser damage delivery, changing beam arrays and single cannons so they have less shots but more DPV so they deal damage in a more abrupt front loaded way is the answer. because in this game, there are shields, and shields with all the regenerative methods for keeping them up do away with all pressure damage, you might as well not even shoot. thats the problem. the actual DPS can be sky high, but it wont mater if you cant deliver it abruptly. fixing the galaxy specificly so its more on par with every other cruiser would be nice, but this is the real problem
  • edited July 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    skollulfr wrote: »
    doesnt change that the tac powers are as effective as 2 and often 3 other powers at the same level.

    no they dont. the all do different things anyway, you cant really directly compare a heal to a damage dealing skill
  • edited July 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited July 2013
    yreodred wrote: »
    @neo1nx
    What if Aceton Beam where actually a useful Power?
    You had to decide between the availlable ones and choose what fits to your playstyle, the same is for a Engineering Beam Overload power.
    Look at Tactical or Science Powers there are many possibilites to make a viable build, but Engineering is just too much limited.

    yes, there is no debate about that, everyone would agree by now that engi power especially in ensign slot are too limited.
    On the other hand, having the strongest Beam Attack availlable to all escorts but only very few Cruisers doesn't make sense.

    if we see this from the series and movie perspective it is effectively a nonsense.
    i don't recal seeing smaller ship having bigger firepower when shooting phaser.
    but this is sto, and the devs have made a choice concerning how power is handle on this game, many of us here disagree, but that how they do it
    I can understand you don't want to change your build after you found out what works best for you, but as i said i think Beam Overload has to be a Cruiser power so Escorts couldn't use it more easily than a Cruiser.
    An engineering Beam Overload could easily made get the same tiers as Aceton beam and start at Lieutenant Level and end at Commander, unlike tactical BO.
    You still could use DEM but you had to decide which Power to sacrifice in order to use DEM.


    In the end a Engineering Beam Overload would shift some Cruisers more into focus and would make engineering heavy Cruisers more popular. Not only the Galaxy Class would benefit from it, even the Odyssey and many other ships too.
    Tactical BOFF slots wouldn't be the as much in the focus anymore, when it comes to Cruisers.
    In my opinion there would be much more positive effects than negative ones by making BO an engineering power.

    i anderstand what you want to do here, but i strongly disagree for many reason.

    first, and the less important one, it will not give cruiser the firepower you think it would.

    second, and here it most serious, this thread is about making all galaxy class ship on part with other cruiser.
    it is not to make them better AT THE EXPENSE of any other ship in the game.
    your proposal is basically this, remove to A to give to B

    and third, and here there is no way out, pushing for this change throught the devs have no chance to be validate, for the same reason i explain 3 lines before, they will not risking to alienate all escort and also some cruiser ( like me, but i am sure they will be others ) by making a change of that magnitude just to satisfy the small population of heavy engie cruiser player

    so yeah, even if everyone in secret found it completely stupid that a runabout is able to match the firepower of a cruiser' BO1, it will stay the same if that mean removing abilitie to one type of ship to give it to an other
  • edited July 2013
    This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.