It would have been nice if instead of having Cruiser, Escorts and Science ships if each ship operated in its own unique way.
Say the Ambassador and the Sovereign fill the roles of fast multi ship engagement vessels.
Sovereign hits harder where the Ambassador has greater damage soak due to her size.
The Akira would remain a hard hitting single target beam boat with the ability to engage multiple targets with her absurd amount of torpedo launchers.
The Galaxy would be the backbone of the fleet, the ship that lands the first and the last salvo against most targets with her larger phaser arrays.
The Intrepid would be a fast advanced recon cruiser, one that allows for greater precision from the rest of the fleet as she engages smaller vessels and lights up larger ones.
The Defiant is a first strike and mop-up vessel. Hitting a target hard lighting her up for the larger cruisers before peeling off to pop smaller vessels or help finish off a prior target.
The Saber could be a screen/swarm vessel?
Laying down constant anti-proton scans to detect cloaked vessels, giving advanced warning of incoming vessels and helping the overwhelm an enemies ability to accurately target vessels with advanced ECM/ECCM.
Sure there would still be slants here and there but that's the nature of any game.
these suggestions would change too much. there's so much detail in STOs current model they couldn't just drop it all on a moments notice. we need suggestions the devs can actually consider and implement.
such as giving large ships like the galaxy torpedo and crew bonuses that puts cruisers on par with escorts and science ships..
torpedo bonus as in MORE torpedoes, not up the dmg please... tired of only shooting a single torpedo... so tired....
Lyndon Brewer: 20% chance to capture enemy ship for 60 seconds on successful use of boarding party.
yea, that also being a reason i suggest to make bo a captain power.
Making BO a Captain Power, would mean that one career would get a heavy push compred to other careers, even if it where Engineers. Not that i would be against it but many other players would be. Another thing you shouldn't forget is that AtB wouldn't affect this skill at all. So its would cooldwon would be impractical high IMO.
Allright guys i get it, taking away something other people need isn't a good idea.
But i think, since they will never change the Galaxy Class into something more useful/fun, or Change fundamtentaly how their game works(like changing the relation between DHC and Beam Damage), we should come up with something different.
Maybe we could discuss ways to improve already existing engineering Powers or come up with something entirely new.
The Galaxy Class would directly benefit from a more offensive/damage boosting Engineering power.
Why a Engineering power?
Because i still think Escorts shouln't be masters of beam Weapons, Cruisers should.
In all my years i play STO i cannot remember one single person saying that Aceton Beam where actually useful or even a good Engineering power. In my opinion Aceton Beam should be changed/improved into something more powerful, instead of being just a weak DoT nobody wants/needs.
At first i think it's targeting arc should be massively increased from 90 degrees to about 250-270.
Actually i have no idea what to do with this power, i think we already have enough bleedthrough damage boosting powers. Heck i think i have died more by bleedthrough than anything else, lol.
When it comes to Beam weapon related powers in STO we already have beam overload, fire at will, DEM, and the various target Subsystem x Powers. (correct me if i have forgotten something)
So what did Cryptic forget? (anything useful in Trek Canon ?)
What do Cruisers need? (your experiences?)
Raw Damage? More utility?
What do you PvPer say?
In my opinion, there should be a engineering power which boosts Beam Weapon power by increasing the overall rate of fire. Rank I: Lt.Cmdr, Rank II&III: Cmdr.
I can only tell from my experience (which consists mostly from PvE playing and only ocassionally PvP).
I know there are arguments against a Beam Weapon: Rapid Fire but to be honest i have never delved into this matter very much, so maybe it's nonsense but i think Cruisers could need something like that especially when broadsiding. (i never liked FAW very much, it is just not focussed enough, distributing the ships firepower too much instead of attacking a certain area or enemy)
Another thing would be to give Cruisers a direct damage boost when equipping Beam weapons.
Maybe this boost could be directly related with the ships Size/Mass, so the bigger the ship the bigger the bonus.
Cryptic could introduce special Cruiser Warpcores which boost Beam weapon powers, but the they would also introduce Escort Warp cores which increase Cannon weapon Powers, so i think this idea wouldn't help much.
I like dontdrunkimshoots idea of giving Cruisers something like a on/off switch to make all their Weapons fire at once in a single powerful beam, just like we saw numerous times in various post TOS series.
All ships besides Cruisers have something special, Escorts can mount DHCs, Science ships have TSSx.
I think it would only be fair to give cruisers something special too.
"...'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
yea you can.
especially when most of the heals only count for one or 2 dhc volleys, at most, if the target isnt using tac team.
but yea, they do do different things. different things that you need at least 2 powers from other classes to get the equivalence of.
The way to survive is not through out healing an opponent's damage, its by layering defenses so you take less damage and get more out of what you heal yourself.
The Galaxy Class would directly benefit from a more offensive/damage boosting Engineering power.
I think the problem is that too many people refuse to accept that the Galaxy was designed when the game was very different. So different that the Galaxy as it is simply does not have a place in today's meta. TBH, most older designs, even ones upgraded to fleet level, are also out of place in today's meta. How much of this is done to push lockbox/lobi/etc. sales is up for debate, but what isn't is that the Galaxy with its 3 engi stations is simply NOT SUITABLE for "top end" play. Sure, you can make it work and have a good time if you are a Galaxy fan, but it will never perform as well as an AC, Excel, Ody, etc.
If you're a cruiser fan there's alternatives, the Regent and Fleet AC are amazing, as are the Excels. Heck, even the Ody can do in a pinch. Learn to love Aux2Batt and gear up.
If you're a Galaxy fan you're out of luck. I don't like it either, as much as I hate the look and feel of the Galaxy I am a fan of the Defiant, which also suffers from having 3 boffs of the same type and yet manages to not get any worthwhile buffs when upgraded to fleet level (fifth tac console? really? that's useless in the age of 5 forward weapon ships).
If you're a fan of the older ships, you know, the ones based on cannon and of actual starfleet make, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that there is zero financial interest from Cryptic in making those older ships align with the new meta.:(
Edit: BTW, I'm not sure why some people claim they can't use BO3 on their crusiers. I've tried using BO3 on mine and found it to be generally lacking but I had no trouble slotting it or using it. I've also used/tried BO1 and BO2 on other occasions without any problems.
I think the problem is that too many people refuse to accept that the Galaxy was designed when the game was very different. So different that the Galaxy as it is simply does not have a place in today's meta. TBH, most older designs, even ones upgraded to fleet level, are also out of place in today's meta. How much of this is done to push lockbox/lobi/etc. sales is up for debate, but what isn't is that the Galaxy with its 3 engi stations is simply NOT SUITABLE for "top end" play. Sure, you can make it work and have a good time if you are a Galaxy fan, but it will never perform as well as an AC, Excel, Ody, etc.
Very true.
Cryptic showed us they actually CAN create useful/fun/viable ships if they want to. Just look at the regent and first and foremost the Fleet regent, which are all descend from the Assault Cruiser, more or less.
Or look at the Vesta and its variants, it is a highly viable and well made federation ship.
Even the T5 Ambassador has got a much better Console and BOFF layout and it's free!
In my opinion the Galaxy Class deserves to get a rework, much more than any other ship in STO.
For me and some other people the Galaxy Class is more than just a ship, it stands for a Star Trek we have grown up with, and it breaks my heart how miserable they made this ship.
As if that wheren't already bad enough Cryptic made the Galor Class and the Ferengi (!) ship able to outgun the Galaxy Class by far.
That's not all, only because some devs are fans of the Excelsior, they gave it a Lt.Cmdr Tactical and a much higer turnrate than the Galaxy.
If you're a cruiser fan there's alternatives, the Regent and Fleet AC are amazing, as are the Excels. Heck, even the Ody can do in a pinch. Learn to love Aux2Batt and gear up.
Believe me i have tried MANY things to make it work.
The point is no matter how you set up your BOFFs the Galaxy gets outgunned or outhealed by any other Cruiser in STO and it is just a pint to fly it.
We have already discussed this a hunded times in this thread already.
(sorry to say that)
Of course there are the Regent, the Excelsior or even the Odyssey but they are not the Galaxy Class. Basically they made the Assault Cruiser (Sovereign) right (within their own rules), but the Galaxy Class is just made totally wrong, even according to Cryptics own standards. They made the Galaxy Class a extreme tank, maybe because they felt it had to become the most passive ship or they just didn't care. Anyway, they where wrong. If they had made their homework they would know, the Galaxy class was the most adaptive and powerful ship in Starfleet.
(this has also been discussed MANY times in this thread )
If you're a Galaxy fan you're out of luck. I don't like it either, as much as I hate the look and feel of
the Galaxy I am a fan of the Defiant, which also suffers from having 3 boffs of the same type and yet manages to not get any worthwhile buffs when upgraded to fleet level (fifth tac console? really? that's useless in the age of 5 forward weapon ships).
Compared to the defiant (which is still a very useful ship IMO) the Galaxy Class is just a pain to fly and never was as it should have been.
This ship has NOTHING to do with the "original", Cryptic made it just a total tank, with the LEAST firepower or utility of ALL Cruisers in the Game, just because they didn't care about it.
Instead of that the Galaxy class should be at least able to easily outgun a Galor if set up right and be the most viable Cruiser in Starfleet (which seems to build more mission specific ships ever since).
If you're a fan of the older ships, you know, the ones based on cannon and of actual starfleet make, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that there is zero financial interest from Cryptic in making those older ships align with the new meta.:(
If we where, this thread would have been died months ago.
As i said the Galaxy Class is more than just another starfleet ship, it has a special meaning for many of us.
Is there a realistic chance we get a reworked ship?
No, but if we give up we certainly won't get it.
Edit: BTW, I'm not sure why some people claim they can't use BO3 on their crusiers. I've tried using BO3 on mine and found it to be generally lacking but I had no trouble slotting it or using it. I've also used/tried BO1 and BO2 on other occasions without any problems.
Please show me how to use BO3 on a ship that ONLY has one single Lieutenant Tactical.
EDIT:
The point is, the Galaxy Class should easily be able to use BO3, not only because it is supposed to be the most cruiser(ish) ship in STO, but also because in "real" Trek it had the Strongest Beam array of all ships ever build in Starfleet history. And since all ships in STO are equipped with the latest technology the Galaxy Class main beam Array should still be one, if not THE strongest beam array in Starfleet IMHO.
THATS why i was suggesting to make BO a engineering power, to do cruisers strong beam arrays justice.
But i understand that Escorts jocks also need BO to be useful and taking away would only alienate the precious Escort fanboy club.
So we keep everything as it is and try to come up with something that isn't quite right, but still would help Cruiser to get a bit more "bite".
There's another thread suggesting to give Cruisers a special slot for a torpedo Launcher. I think that would still be better than nothing IMHO.
"...'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'd actually have a lot of fun. Look at Star Trek Bridge Commander's single player campaign. Some of the greatest moments were diplomacy with hostile aliens.
Look at some of the greatest TNG episodes. Some of them had little combat and were focused on characters interacting without fighting. The Drumhead, the episode introducing Barclay, The Inner Light... these episodes had virtually no combat and were puzzle solving and getting-along episodes.
Google "Star Trek Excalibur" and look closely at the description. The game is not all about combat, there's some ship management, diplomacy, away missions, etc.
I assure you that an MMO with what you wish will not survive because of the lack of action that people are looking for.
Especially the Star Trek universe offers so much more than military or combat missions. It's a shame Cryptic made it a dull space shooter and most people don't seem to have a problem with that fact at all.
Don't missunderstand me, i am not completely against space combat but space combat in STO should be much more strategic and less action oriented and first and foremost much less frequent in general.
What about puzzeling missions (each sollution could be different every time you play it)?
STOs diplomatic missions where a good start but wheren't developed any further.
Random created missions inside the players ship, aliens of the week and so on just look at the Star Trek Wiki and let you inspire from most episodes.
The possibilities are almost endless, if STOs developers where a bit more adventurous.
Making a much more trek like game wouldn't be impossible but creating a action game is much more save for Cryptic. Thats why i said 4 years ago Star Trek and MMOS don't match.
The Star Trek universe does offer more, but MMO wise a low action, low combat game it would be a surefire failure.
Asking what we'd do in a Star Trek game besides combat is a bit... weird.
Look at games like Bridge Commander, 25th Anniversary, Judgement Rites, A final Unity - The first being a quasi-simulation including lot's of dialogue and combat and the latter three being point and click adventures with a lot of dialogue and puzzles but also pretty solid combat (one arcade version and one more strategical version).
And nobody says Star Trek shouldn't have combat. Space combat in Star Trek is something I very much like, it's exciting and fun but only if the game mechanics do treat it like a combat in Star Trek's "universe" would feel like. Look at Brdige Commander or Starfleet Command as a exammple.
A good start would be treating factions and their used starships more diverse. Now it's all the same and most ships feel more like starfighters like cruisers. Let the design philosophies of all the different people affect the way you use those ships - and Starfleet consists of only multi-mission capable types of ships able to be combat ready but there are no true "warships" while Klingons almost exclusively employ Battlecruisers (they're military after all, Starfleet isn't) and so on.
What cruiser do you play that doesn't have the capability of sporting BO3 as a ENG ability?
The problems with what you are speaking of is that those other games were not MMO, and this is, interaction with other players makes non-combat harder to translate in an entertaining manner. If you think that this games level of holding massive number of players interest is bad, that would be even worse.
Why is everyone obsessed with having a carrier?
Seriously i don't get it.
I am surely not obsessed about having a carrier. I do believe they should be in the game and and similar to what they are now, but the combines firepower of the carrier and its fighters should be able to keep escorts on their heels by attacking from multiple sources. I am by no means saying carriers should be battle-stars.
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.
How about this:
Cruisers get an innate bonus to attacks with (only) BO that effectively improve the attack by one rank higher.
please stop with the rpg trinity derived thinking... its not the early 90s anymore:rolleyes:
i dont mean captain power for one class, i just mean captain power.
a power that the players captain has.
if anything, the level of the available power would depend on point allocation to the players skilltree. even if that thing could do with a few... 'tweaks'.
that along with the beam target subsystem powers
Allright, i missunderstood you.
I think it should be a faction specific power. I just don't (want to) see Klingons flying a BoP unleash the same destructive Beam power like a Galaxy Class. Thats just silly. (i know its already possible in STO, but it is still utter nonsense)
If i where to decide, the magnitude of that Fed Captain power would be dependant on
1. The point allocation of the according skill tree (just as you already said) and
2. The ships Size (maybe inertia inversed, so the bigger the ship the more powerful the Beam Overload)
3. The actual Weapon Power at the moment the weapon is fired.
(KDF and ROM Captains should get a faction characteristic power too, of course.)
Btw. I absolutely :mad:H A T E:mad: the MMO trinity.
Cruisers get an innate bonus to attacks with (only) BO that effectively improve the attack by one rank higher.
This way every ship class has a bonus to it.
I could live with that , but surely many escort jockeys won't, because... well you know.
"...'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
too many species use arrays in canon.
i imagine that heavy forward beam on a galor being rather heavy duty... (...)
That's not quite true. Many species use beam emitters, it is probably the most common weapon technology in Trek, but we never saw anybody actually use the "long strip" arrays Starfleet utilizes on their vessels. I think we can assume that this is their specialty while other people rely on other forms of weaponry (emitters, cannons, special torpedoes etc.)
^ 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
The problems with what you are speaking of is that those other games were not MMO, and this is, interaction with other players makes non-combat harder to translate in an entertaining manner. If you think that this games level of holding massive number of players interest is bad, that would be even worse.
Why do so many people fail to realize this?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The problems with what you are speaking of is that those other games were not MMO, and this is, interaction with other players makes non-combat harder to translate in an entertaining manner. If you think that this games level of holding massive number of players interest is bad, that would be even worse.
I see what you're trying to say, though I don't think some more appealing "adventure" missions wouldn't necessarily shoo away players. On the contrary, having to explore randomly generated planets and worlds in a coop group would appeal to many players - just a different group. Those two things COULD coexist together. In another game, that is. STO is final as it stands and won't change. But maybe another studio gets the license and tries again, using the potential involved
^ 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
I see what you're trying to say, though I don't think some more appealing "adventure" missions wouldn't necessarily shoo away players. On the contrary, having to explore randomly generated planets and worlds in a coop group would appeal to many players - just a different group. Those two things COULD coexist together. In another game, that is. STO is final as it stands and won't change. But maybe another studio gets the license and tries again, using the potential involved
- - - amen - - -
Maybe next time the license holder try something new, something they haven't done for years and get some people who actually like Star Trek and not try to make it something it isn't.
"...'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
Or look at the Vesta and its variants, it is a highly viable and well made federation ship.
Even the T5 Ambassador has got a much better Console and BOFF layout and it's free!
But you can say the same of any ship made after the original designs were released. Its no coincidence that ships with more balanced layouts function better the hyper specialized ships of old such as the Galaxy, Defiant, and Intrepid. Its just an issue of these ships being old designs from before Cryptic figured out what ti was going to do. I realize we've been told innumerable things about what STO was going to be, but I'm pretty sure that at one time there was talk of having non combat missions where cruisers and sci vessels would feature prominently. If anything I'd imagine the idea was for each captain to be able to switch to different ships for different types of missions (and therefore sell more ships).
In my opinion the Galaxy Class deserves to get a rework, much more than any other ship in STO.
As a Galaxy hater myself, I'd much rather see the Defiant remade into something competitive with the current meta. That said I don't see why ALL 3 iconic ships couldn't get the rework treatment. Its not like its hard to turn the third ens slot to an universal one, and make them all have the proper bonuses for being fleet level.
As if that wheren't already bad enough Cryptic made the Galor Class and the Ferengi (!) ship able to outgun the Galaxy Class by far.
Sadly, that was just Cryptic being bad salesmen again. Its clear that they truly believe the only way to sell new things is to make them more powerful than what was available before. To them what cosmetic skin a ship wears is completely secondary, only the fans seem to care at all .
.
Believe me i have tried MANY things to make it work.
The point is no matter how you set up your BOFFs the Galaxy gets outgunned or outhealed by any other Cruiser in STO and it is just a pint to fly it.
We have already discussed this a hunded times in this thread already.
(sorry to say that)
To be fair the Galaxy and Starcruisers use a boff/console arrangement that would never see the light of day today. I don't think there's anything you can do because even with a slick aux2batt build, using the latest and best gear, and sporting the perfect build.... the Galaxy will still be outdone by several other cruiser models, not by a little, by a lot. And a Galaxy pilot will know that, and it will always be at the beck of their mind, slowly eating away at them.
They made the Galaxy Class a extreme tank, maybe because they felt it had to become the most passive ship or they just didn't care. Anyway, they where wrong. If they had made their homework they would know, the Galaxy class was the most adaptive and powerful ship in Starfleet.
(this has also been discussed MANY times in this thread )
I am convinced they expected that such qualities would make the Galaxy a desirable ship.. back when the original game was being designed. The galaxy being super tanky would also ensure new players excited to fly it would not suddenly find themselves destroyed casually by an NPC.
That said I will always contest the idea that the Galaxy was the most powerful and adaptive ship in the fleet. Perhaps it was designed to be such. The audience was certainly told over and over how powerful the Galaxy was, but in practice the only ships the Galaxy would be superior against were older, low tech ships armed with lasers and nuclear weapons. More often than not the supposedly powerful Enterprise would find itself outgunned, outmaneuvered, and outclassed. If not simply outright made irrelevant by some random ship of the week!
I realize this was done to give a sense of drama to the show and to highlight how amazing and competent the crew were (in theory, in practice I found the TNG crew to be mostly inept and lacking in common sense, with a penchant to sitting in high horses they had no right sitting on).
But lets assume for a moment that indeed, the Galaxy was the most powerful ship in the fleet in its time, how is that relevant to a modern starfleet? Clearly their best was not good enough in multiple occasions so it stands to reason they would work to rectify that. And who's to say the Galaxy received the benefits of such remedial work? Maybe they simply said "hmmm, the Galaxy was meant to be awesome but in practice it has totally suxxored, we have too few of them, lets not waste time upgrading them, lets upgrade the tons and tons of excels we have instead! And fron now on make smaller more capable ships, we'll save space and weight by NOT making them needlessly adaptive!"
This ship has NOTHING to do with the "original", Cryptic made it just a total tank, with the LEAST firepower or utility of ALL Cruisers in the Game, just because they didn't care about it.
Instead of that the Galaxy class should be at least able to easily outgun a Galor if set up right and be the most viable Cruiser in Starfleet (which seems to build more mission specific ships ever since).
But then how would they've sold keys for cardy lockboxes? The f2p change may have made the game more profitable, but it has also brought us a lot of immersion breaking nonsense. Which is what most of the more savvy observers predicted. Doesn't mean I don't wish we'd all been wrong...
If we where, this thread would have been died months ago.
As i said the Galaxy Class is more than just another starfleet ship, it has a special meaning for many of us.
Is there a realistic chance we get a reworked ship?
No, but if we give up we certainly won't get it.
Please show me how to use BO3 on a ship that ONLY has one single Lieutenant Tactical.
Ah, I understand now, I thought the complaint was about cruisers in general. I think its safe to assume all cruisers worth using have a non engi Lt. CMDR. slot, and if we're talking about BO3 we're talking about a cruiser with a Lt. CMDR. tac. In a galaxy I would never use a BO, I would stick with an APB on the Lt. tac slot.
theres nothing to complain about with regards to the defiant, its still a fine and useable ship. 5 tac consoles, a cloak, a superior turn rate, room for 2 APO, 2 CRF, and 2 BO/HY. with damage control doffs you can run EPtE and EPtS, and have HE and TSS sci heals. seriously, theres nothing wrong with that ship, its still an awesome escort.
wile the intrepid should have had a LTC tac and ENS eng instead of such a sci heavy setup to more acuratly go with its canon counterpart, that much sci still makes it a good ship, unlike eng, you cant have enough sci.
But you can say the same of any ship made after the original designs were released. Its no coincidence that ships with more balanced layouts function better the hyper specialized ships of old such as the Galaxy, Defiant, and Intrepid. Its just an issue of these ships being old designs from before Cryptic figured out what ti was going to do. I realize we've been told innumerable things about what STO was going to be, but I'm pretty sure that at one time there was talk of having non combat missions where cruisers and sci vessels would feature prominently. If anything I'd imagine the idea was for each captain to be able to switch to different ships for different types of missions (and therefore sell more ships).
This would only work if cryptic would have show much more spitit of enterprise (what a wordplay, grin), in the first place. But they didn't IMO.
The perspective of non combat missions ended up in smoke very fast. Cryptic did everything to make their game as "exiting" (speaking, action oriented) as possible. They boosted Escorts on many levels to make them OP. At one point they said themselves they liked Escorts the most and would rather make a Star Wars like game.
As a Galaxy hater myself, I'd much rather see the Defiant remade into something competitive with the current meta. That said I don't see why ALL 3 iconic ships couldn't get the rework treatment. Its not like its hard to turn the third ens slot to an universal one, and make them all have the proper bonuses for being fleet level.
So if you hate the Galaxy, i have good news for you:
YOU HAVE ALREADY WON!
Your defiant is still much more competetive as the Galaxy or Intrepid, so why do you bother discussing about the galaxy?
The problem is how Cryptic designed this game in the first place. The Trinity doesn't apply to Star Trek ships, i hope we all agree with that. (Cruisers are no Healers, Escorts are no glass cannons and the Oberth and Nova(?) are only science ships )
If they (cryptic) where consequent from the beginning they would have discarted the whole idea of PvP and made the game different from the established MMO mechanic.
Every ship shoul have had it's own strenghts and weaknesses, some are slower but stronger in attack and defense, otheres are faster but weaker in defense, and so on.
Sadly, that was just Cryptic being bad salesmen again. Its clear that they truly believe the only way to sell new things is to make them more powerful than what was available before. To them what cosmetic skin a ship wears is completely secondary, only the fans seem to care at all .
No it's more than that, they easily could have introduced the Hutet or a similar Cardassion ship (which really is a behemot compared to big ships like the Galaxy) and make it OP to them. but IF they knew Star Trek as the claim they would, they EXACTLY knew that the Galor in "real" Star Trek was just a bad joke compared to a Galaxy Class.
Althrough little is known about the D'Kora in canon trek, i am certain the cowardly Ferengi wouldn't make better Battleships than Klingons or Starfleet.
...
That said I will always contest the idea that the Galaxy was the most powerful and adaptive ship in the fleet. Perhaps it was designed to be such. The audience was certainly told over and over how powerful the Galaxy was, but in practice the only ships the Galaxy would be superior against were older, low tech ships armed with lasers and nuclear weapons. More often than not the supposedly powerful Enterprise would find itself outgunned, outmaneuvered, and outclassed. If not simply outright made irrelevant by some random ship of the week!
I realize this was done to give a sense of drama to the show and to highlight how amazing and competent the crew were (in theory, in practice I found the TNG crew to be mostly inept and lacking in common sense, with a penchant to sitting in high horses they had no right sitting on).
But lets assume for a moment that indeed, the Galaxy was the most powerful ship in the fleet in its time, how is that relevant to a modern starfleet? Clearly their best was not good enough in multiple occasions so it stands to reason they would work to rectify that. And who's to say the Galaxy received the benefits of such remedial work? Maybe they simply said "hmmm, the Galaxy was meant to be awesome but in practice it has totally suxxored, we have too few of them, lets not waste time upgrading them, lets upgrade the tons and tons of excels we have instead! And fron now on make smaller more capable ships, we'll save space and weight by NOT making them needlessly adaptive!"
Come on, this has been discussed thousand times in this thread alone...
The reasons we didn't see the Galaxy in full action had many reasons, if it where because of budget reasons to the peaceful mission of the big -D.
Unlike ships build after it, the Galaxy was much more a Multi Mission ship then the Sovereign for instance. In my opinion the galaxy was the last (canon) true multi mission ship starfleet has build and we know of.
The Sovereign was much more focussed and optimized for tactical engagements. Not that the Galaxy couldn't do the same thing, but building a sovereign was more economic than building a huge Galaxy Class which also has several Laboratories and other stuff not needed at wartimes. So i think compared with the Sovereign the Galaxy is on par with it, it is just a bit more costly and complex to optimize it for warfare in spacedock, if the ship is outfitted for Exploration, or vice versa. Starfleet command obviously decided to build more mission specific ships rather then big Multi Mission Ships.
Of course the galaxy is a bit older than the sovereign or other ships of that era, but since it is clearly possible to refit even a hundred year old Excelsior with new technology, there is absolutely no reason not to do the same thing with a Galaxy Class, especially since the Galaxy was designed to be adaptable for new technology perfectioning the experiences made with the Excelsior.
I hope you can now understand how i see things related to the Galaxy.
Another thing, i fully agree with you about the Crew of the big -D. More than once they where arrogant and sometimes utter incompetent (especially the first officer), which finally lead to the destruction of the ship.
"...'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 see what you're trying to say, though I don't think some more appealing "adventure" missions wouldn't necessarily shoo away players. On the contrary, having to explore randomly generated planets and worlds in a coop group would appeal to many players - just a different group. Those two things COULD coexist together. In another game, that is. STO is final as it stands and won't change. But maybe another studio gets the license and tries again, using the potential involved
But to make diplomacy and exploration the prevailing substance of the MMO, as was suggested before, would be horrid. Increasing some level of content of exploration/diplomacy is one thing but to have it take over as the "spirit of Star Trek" is another.
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.
With the new traits out there, pop a battery and an Emergency power to X and the power levels will rise to help defray some of the drain from a BO. BO is good for dropping shields, follow up with torps. Mind you, I do not think it should be an engineer power, but higher level engineer powers should be reworked to be as effective as the higher level tac' and sci' ones.
Another thing, i fully agree with you about the Crew of the big -D. More than once they where arrogant and sometimes utter incompetent (especially the first officer), which finally lead to the destruction of the ship.
Your whole point is why the ship came to be known as the "Love Boat", between the actions of the crew and the civilian friendly atmosphere of the ship, it earned that reputation.
this is a fundamental misunderstanding that you have.
f2p is not p2w. companies are learning that the hard way, by having their p2w games die out.
the rest is nothing more than "bad game design".
I understand the difference between f2p and p2w quite well, I was merely putting voice to what I felt were Cryptic's thoughts on the matter. To them p2w cannot really exist regardless of built in power creep because PvP is done only by an insignificant fraction of the playerbase. I realize that is nonsense but again, this is what I think Cryptic believes.
And yes, I foresee this constant cycle of powercreep to be the eventual death of the game for me (and presumably most players that play STO over a prolonged period of time), which is why STO has been turned into a churn game. Its funny how often they talk about wanting to increase player retention, but I never get the impression its permanent of long term player retention.... just long enough to get them to buy a few ships, get some Dil, and open up some lockboxes.
This would only work if cryptic would have show much more spitit of enterprise (what a wordplay, grin), in the first place. But they didn't IMO.
The perspective of non combat missions ended up in smoke very fast. Cryptic did everything to make their game as "exiting" (speaking, action oriented) as possible. They boosted Escorts on many levels to make them OP. At one point they said themselves they liked Escorts the most and would rather make a Star Wars like game.
I think simply saying "they liked escorts better" is too much like letting them off the hook.
So if you hate the Galaxy, i have good news for you:
YOU HAVE ALREADY WON!
I don't see it like that at all. I think we ALL lost here. None of us is getting to play the ships we love the way we want to. That's why I said that even though I hated the Galaxy's look and style I was behind reworking all the Iconics.
No it's more than that, they easily could have introduced the Hutet or a similar Cardassion ship (which really is a behemot compared to big ships like the Galaxy) and make it OP to them. but IF they knew Star Trek as the claim they would, they EXACTLY knew that the Galor in "real" Star Trek was just a bad joke compared to a Galaxy Class.
Althrough little is known about the D'Kora in canon trek, i am certain the cowardly Ferengi wouldn't make better Battleships than Klingons or Starfleet.
They could have. You know, that phrase seems to be in front of so many things when we talk about Cryptic. I can't decide if they were simply lazy or doing all they could to appeal to as many buyers as they could by marketing them at trek fans, tangential trek fans, and players looking for more powerful ships. The appeal to trek fans is obvious, tangential trek fans may have seen or at least heard of a Galor and D'Kora, and folks wanting more powerful cruisers... well, the appeal to them is obvious!
Come on, this has been discussed thousand times in this thread alone...
.........
Another thing, i fully agree with you about the Crew of the big -D. More than once they where arrogant and sometimes utter incompetent (especially the first officer), which finally lead to the destruction of the ship.
I think everyone will always have a soft spot for the ship they love. I hated the Galaxy so I focused on its failings. But like I said, just because I hated it does not mean i'm against it getting reworked for the benefit of its fans. I have also stated before that fed cruisers getting a +1 or even a +2 turn rate bump across the board would not break anything and would improve player's enjoyment of cruisers.
Finally, the first officer was an idiot most of the time, but the BS started at the tp and simply rolled downhill, starting with Gene....
Comments
Say the Ambassador and the Sovereign fill the roles of fast multi ship engagement vessels.
Sovereign hits harder where the Ambassador has greater damage soak due to her size.
The Akira would remain a hard hitting single target beam boat with the ability to engage multiple targets with her absurd amount of torpedo launchers.
The Galaxy would be the backbone of the fleet, the ship that lands the first and the last salvo against most targets with her larger phaser arrays.
The Intrepid would be a fast advanced recon cruiser, one that allows for greater precision from the rest of the fleet as she engages smaller vessels and lights up larger ones.
The Defiant is a first strike and mop-up vessel. Hitting a target hard lighting her up for the larger cruisers before peeling off to pop smaller vessels or help finish off a prior target.
The Saber could be a screen/swarm vessel?
Laying down constant anti-proton scans to detect cloaked vessels, giving advanced warning of incoming vessels and helping the overwhelm an enemies ability to accurately target vessels with advanced ECM/ECCM.
Sure there would still be slants here and there but that's the nature of any game.
Instead we got pew pew pew...
these suggestions would change too much. there's so much detail in STOs current model they couldn't just drop it all on a moments notice. we need suggestions the devs can actually consider and implement.
such as giving large ships like the galaxy torpedo and crew bonuses that puts cruisers on par with escorts and science ships..
torpedo bonus as in MORE torpedoes, not up the dmg please... tired of only shooting a single torpedo... so tired....
cause sometimes its party time!
Allright guys i get it, taking away something other people need isn't a good idea.
But i think, since they will never change the Galaxy Class into something more useful/fun, or Change fundamtentaly how their game works(like changing the relation between DHC and Beam Damage), we should come up with something different.
Maybe we could discuss ways to improve already existing engineering Powers or come up with something entirely new.
The Galaxy Class would directly benefit from a more offensive/damage boosting Engineering power.
Why a Engineering power?
Because i still think Escorts shouln't be masters of beam Weapons, Cruisers should.
In all my years i play STO i cannot remember one single person saying that Aceton Beam where actually useful or even a good Engineering power. In my opinion Aceton Beam should be changed/improved into something more powerful, instead of being just a weak DoT nobody wants/needs.
At first i think it's targeting arc should be massively increased from 90 degrees to about 250-270.
Actually i have no idea what to do with this power, i think we already have enough bleedthrough damage boosting powers. Heck i think i have died more by bleedthrough than anything else, lol.
When it comes to Beam weapon related powers in STO we already have beam overload, fire at will, DEM, and the various target Subsystem x Powers. (correct me if i have forgotten something)
So what did Cryptic forget? (anything useful in Trek Canon ?)
What do Cruisers need? (your experiences?)
Raw Damage? More utility?
What do you PvPer say?
In my opinion, there should be a engineering power which boosts Beam Weapon power by increasing the overall rate of fire. Rank I: Lt.Cmdr, Rank II&III: Cmdr.
I can only tell from my experience (which consists mostly from PvE playing and only ocassionally PvP).
I know there are arguments against a Beam Weapon: Rapid Fire but to be honest i have never delved into this matter very much, so maybe it's nonsense but i think Cruisers could need something like that especially when broadsiding. (i never liked FAW very much, it is just not focussed enough, distributing the ships firepower too much instead of attacking a certain area or enemy)
Another thing would be to give Cruisers a direct damage boost when equipping Beam weapons.
Maybe this boost could be directly related with the ships Size/Mass, so the bigger the ship the bigger the bonus.
Cryptic could introduce special Cruiser Warpcores which boost Beam weapon powers, but the they would also introduce Escort Warp cores which increase Cannon weapon Powers, so i think this idea wouldn't help much.
I like dontdrunkimshoots idea of giving Cruisers something like a on/off switch to make all their Weapons fire at once in a single powerful beam, just like we saw numerous times in various post TOS series.
All ships besides Cruisers have something special, Escorts can mount DHCs, Science ships have TSSx.
I think it would only be fair to give cruisers something special too.
The way to survive is not through out healing an opponent's damage, its by layering defenses so you take less damage and get more out of what you heal yourself.
I think the problem is that too many people refuse to accept that the Galaxy was designed when the game was very different. So different that the Galaxy as it is simply does not have a place in today's meta. TBH, most older designs, even ones upgraded to fleet level, are also out of place in today's meta. How much of this is done to push lockbox/lobi/etc. sales is up for debate, but what isn't is that the Galaxy with its 3 engi stations is simply NOT SUITABLE for "top end" play. Sure, you can make it work and have a good time if you are a Galaxy fan, but it will never perform as well as an AC, Excel, Ody, etc.
If you're a cruiser fan there's alternatives, the Regent and Fleet AC are amazing, as are the Excels. Heck, even the Ody can do in a pinch. Learn to love Aux2Batt and gear up.
If you're a Galaxy fan you're out of luck. I don't like it either, as much as I hate the look and feel of the Galaxy I am a fan of the Defiant, which also suffers from having 3 boffs of the same type and yet manages to not get any worthwhile buffs when upgraded to fleet level (fifth tac console? really? that's useless in the age of 5 forward weapon ships).
If you're a fan of the older ships, you know, the ones based on cannon and of actual starfleet make, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that there is zero financial interest from Cryptic in making those older ships align with the new meta.:(
Edit: BTW, I'm not sure why some people claim they can't use BO3 on their crusiers
Cryptic showed us they actually CAN create useful/fun/viable ships if they want to. Just look at the regent and first and foremost the Fleet regent, which are all descend from the Assault Cruiser, more or less.
Or look at the Vesta and its variants, it is a highly viable and well made federation ship.
Even the T5 Ambassador has got a much better Console and BOFF layout and it's free!
In my opinion the Galaxy Class deserves to get a rework, much more than any other ship in STO.
For me and some other people the Galaxy Class is more than just a ship, it stands for a Star Trek we have grown up with, and it breaks my heart how miserable they made this ship.
As if that wheren't already bad enough Cryptic made the Galor Class and the Ferengi (!) ship able to outgun the Galaxy Class by far.
That's not all, only because some devs are fans of the Excelsior, they gave it a Lt.Cmdr Tactical and a much higer turnrate than the Galaxy.
This isn't funny anymore IMO.
Believe me i have tried MANY things to make it work.
The point is no matter how you set up your BOFFs the Galaxy gets outgunned or outhealed by any other Cruiser in STO and it is just a pint to fly it.
We have already discussed this a hunded times in this thread already.
(sorry to say that)
Of course there are the Regent, the Excelsior or even the Odyssey but they are not the Galaxy Class. Basically they made the Assault Cruiser (Sovereign) right (within their own rules), but the Galaxy Class is just made totally wrong, even according to Cryptics own standards. They made the Galaxy Class a extreme tank, maybe because they felt it had to become the most passive ship or they just didn't care. Anyway, they where wrong. If they had made their homework they would know, the Galaxy class was the most adaptive and powerful ship in Starfleet.
(this has also been discussed MANY times in this thread
Compared to the defiant (which is still a very useful ship IMO) the Galaxy Class is just a pain to fly and never was as it should have been.
This ship has NOTHING to do with the "original", Cryptic made it just a total tank, with the LEAST firepower or utility of ALL Cruisers in the Game, just because they didn't care about it.
Instead of that the Galaxy class should be at least able to easily outgun a Galor if set up right and be the most viable Cruiser in Starfleet (which seems to build more mission specific ships ever since).
If we where, this thread would have been died months ago.
As i said the Galaxy Class is more than just another starfleet ship, it has a special meaning for many of us.
Is there a realistic chance we get a reworked ship?
No, but if we give up we certainly won't get it.
Please show me how to use BO3 on a ship that ONLY has one single Lieutenant Tactical.
EDIT:
The point is, the Galaxy Class should easily be able to use BO3, not only because it is supposed to be the most cruiser(ish) ship in STO, but also because in "real" Trek it had the Strongest Beam array of all ships ever build in Starfleet history. And since all ships in STO are equipped with the latest technology the Galaxy Class main beam Array should still be one, if not THE strongest beam array in Starfleet IMHO.
THATS why i was suggesting to make BO a engineering power, to do cruisers strong beam arrays justice.
But i understand that Escorts jocks also need BO to be useful and taking away would only alienate the precious Escort fanboy club.
So we keep everything as it is and try to come up with something that isn't quite right, but still would help Cruiser to get a bit more "bite".
There's another thread suggesting to give Cruisers a special slot for a torpedo Launcher. I think that would still be better than nothing IMHO.
I assure you that an MMO with what you wish will not survive because of the lack of action that people are looking for.
The Star Trek universe does offer more, but MMO wise a low action, low combat game it would be a surefire failure.
The problems with what you are speaking of is that those other games were not MMO, and this is, interaction with other players makes non-combat harder to translate in an entertaining manner. If you think that this games level of holding massive number of players interest is bad, that would be even worse.
I am surely not obsessed about having a carrier. I do believe they should be in the game and and similar to what they are now, but the combines firepower of the carrier and its fighters should be able to keep escorts on their heels by attacking from multiple sources. I am by no means saying carriers should be battle-stars.
How about this:
Cruisers get an innate bonus to attacks with (only) BO that effectively improve the attack by one rank higher.
This way every ship class has a bonus to it.
I think it should be a faction specific power. I just don't (want to) see Klingons flying a BoP unleash the same destructive Beam power like a Galaxy Class. Thats just silly.
(i know its already possible in STO, but it is still utter nonsense)
If i where to decide, the magnitude of that Fed Captain power would be dependant on
1. The point allocation of the according skill tree (just as you already said) and
2. The ships Size (maybe inertia inversed, so the bigger the ship the more powerful the Beam Overload)
3. The actual Weapon Power at the moment the weapon is fired.
(KDF and ROM Captains should get a faction characteristic power too, of course.)
Btw. I absolutely :mad:H A T E:mad: the MMO trinity.
Im all with you, but Cryptic will never abandon their "holy" MMO trinity.
I could live with that
That's not quite true. Many species use beam emitters, it is probably the most common weapon technology in Trek, but we never saw anybody actually use the "long strip" arrays Starfleet utilizes on their vessels. I think we can assume that this is their specialty while other people rely on other forms of weaponry (emitters, cannons, special torpedoes etc.)
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
kind of how enterprise fended off the k'vorts in the episode yesterdays enterprise??
would be engineer in a cruiser specific? like a passive if you have beam overload equipped?
cause sometimes its party time!
Why do so many people fail to realize this?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I see what you're trying to say, though I don't think some more appealing "adventure" missions wouldn't necessarily shoo away players. On the contrary, having to explore randomly generated planets and worlds in a coop group would appeal to many players - just a different group. Those two things COULD coexist together. In another game, that is. STO is final as it stands and won't change. But maybe another studio gets the license and tries again, using the potential involved
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
- - - amen - - -
Maybe next time the license holder try something new, something they haven't done for years and get some people who actually like Star Trek and not try to make it something it isn't.
Comments in red
wile the intrepid should have had a LTC tac and ENS eng instead of such a sci heavy setup to more acuratly go with its canon counterpart, that much sci still makes it a good ship, unlike eng, you cant have enough sci.
This would only work if cryptic would have show much more spitit of enterprise (what a wordplay, grin), in the first place. But they didn't IMO.
The perspective of non combat missions ended up in smoke very fast. Cryptic did everything to make their game as "exiting" (speaking, action oriented) as possible. They boosted Escorts on many levels to make them OP. At one point they said themselves they liked Escorts the most and would rather make a Star Wars like game.
So if you hate the Galaxy, i have good news for you:
YOU HAVE ALREADY WON!
Your defiant is still much more competetive as the Galaxy or Intrepid, so why do you bother discussing about the galaxy?
The problem is how Cryptic designed this game in the first place. The Trinity doesn't apply to Star Trek ships, i hope we all agree with that. (Cruisers are no Healers, Escorts are no glass cannons and the Oberth and Nova(?) are only science ships )
If they (cryptic) where consequent from the beginning they would have discarted the whole idea of PvP and made the game different from the established MMO mechanic.
Every ship shoul have had it's own strenghts and weaknesses, some are slower but stronger in attack and defense, otheres are faster but weaker in defense, and so on.
No it's more than that, they easily could have introduced the Hutet or a similar Cardassion ship (which really is a behemot compared to big ships like the Galaxy) and make it OP to them. but IF they knew Star Trek as the claim they would, they EXACTLY knew that the Galor in "real" Star Trek was just a bad joke compared to a Galaxy Class.
Althrough little is known about the D'Kora in canon trek, i am certain the cowardly Ferengi wouldn't make better Battleships than Klingons or Starfleet.
Come on, this has been discussed thousand times in this thread alone...
The reasons we didn't see the Galaxy in full action had many reasons, if it where because of budget reasons to the peaceful mission of the big -D.
Unlike ships build after it, the Galaxy was much more a Multi Mission ship then the Sovereign for instance. In my opinion the galaxy was the last (canon) true multi mission ship starfleet has build and we know of.
The Sovereign was much more focussed and optimized for tactical engagements. Not that the Galaxy couldn't do the same thing, but building a sovereign was more economic than building a huge Galaxy Class which also has several Laboratories and other stuff not needed at wartimes. So i think compared with the Sovereign the Galaxy is on par with it, it is just a bit more costly and complex to optimize it for warfare in spacedock, if the ship is outfitted for Exploration, or vice versa. Starfleet command obviously decided to build more mission specific ships rather then big Multi Mission Ships.
Of course the galaxy is a bit older than the sovereign or other ships of that era, but since it is clearly possible to refit even a hundred year old Excelsior with new technology, there is absolutely no reason not to do the same thing with a Galaxy Class, especially since the Galaxy was designed to be adaptable for new technology perfectioning the experiences made with the Excelsior.
I hope you can now understand how i see things related to the Galaxy.
Another thing, i fully agree with you about the Crew of the big -D. More than once they where arrogant and sometimes utter incompetent (especially the first officer), which finally lead to the destruction of the ship.
But to make diplomacy and exploration the prevailing substance of the MMO, as was suggested before, would be horrid. Increasing some level of content of exploration/diplomacy is one thing but to have it take over as the "spirit of Star Trek" is another.
With the new traits out there, pop a battery and an Emergency power to X and the power levels will rise to help defray some of the drain from a BO. BO is good for dropping shields, follow up with torps. Mind you, I do not think it should be an engineer power, but higher level engineer powers should be reworked to be as effective as the higher level tac' and sci' ones.
Your whole point is why the ship came to be known as the "Love Boat", between the actions of the crew and the civilian friendly atmosphere of the ship, it earned that reputation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmUlKPthrag
I'm not saying it should be a shunned ship or anything, but now you know why people call it what they do.
I understand the difference between f2p and p2w quite well, I was merely putting voice to what I felt were Cryptic's thoughts on the matter. To them p2w cannot really exist regardless of built in power creep because PvP is done only by an insignificant fraction of the playerbase. I realize that is nonsense but again, this is what I think Cryptic believes.
And yes, I foresee this constant cycle of powercreep to be the eventual death of the game for me (and presumably most players that play STO over a prolonged period of time), which is why STO has been turned into a churn game. Its funny how often they talk about wanting to increase player retention, but I never get the impression its permanent of long term player retention.... just long enough to get them to buy a few ships, get some Dil, and open up some lockboxes.
I agree, but you putting everything in that sand text makes everything so messy. I'm trying a copy past for quote start and finish,should work better.
I think simply saying "they liked escorts better" is too much like letting them off the hook.
I don't see it like that at all. I think we ALL lost here. None of us is getting to play the ships we love the way we want to. That's why I said that even though I hated the Galaxy's look and style I was behind reworking all the Iconics.
They could have. You know, that phrase seems to be in front of so many things when we talk about Cryptic. I can't decide if they were simply lazy or doing all they could to appeal to as many buyers as they could by marketing them at trek fans, tangential trek fans, and players looking for more powerful ships. The appeal to trek fans is obvious, tangential trek fans may have seen or at least heard of a Galor and D'Kora, and folks wanting more powerful cruisers... well, the appeal to them is obvious!
I think everyone will always have a soft spot for the ship they love. I hated the Galaxy so I focused on its failings. But like I said, just because I hated it does not mean i'm against it getting reworked for the benefit of its fans. I have also stated before that fed cruisers getting a +1 or even a +2 turn rate bump across the board would not break anything and would improve player's enjoyment of cruisers.
Finally, the first officer was an idiot most of the time, but the BS started at the tp and simply rolled downhill, starting with Gene....