Youi for get the S, it was not one really long war but a series of conflicts each perhaps only a few months to a year only, even going by the dates they give in that entry. Thus while powerful Nebula and Galaxy designed leaning peace. the the feds are smart enough to know conflict can happen thus they are still armed. again then explain why Intrepid's upper phaser array is divided instead of single?
its been refereed to as a war several times by characters that served in it. 20 solid years of it in that time frame? no, proboly not. but ground and ship combat between the 2 powers was not rare during the period.
array lengths on ships where they could have been made longer is proboly due to the limit of available power. they made the main arrays long enough so they can fire full array discharges at a certain rate, with typical available power during normal circumstances. sure, they could have made it longer, but the ship could not support longer arrays well enough to justify it.
its been refereed to as a war several times by characters that served in it. 20 solid years of it in that time frame? no, proboly not. but ground and ship combat between the 2 powers was not rare during the period.
array lengths on ships where they could have been made longer is proboly due to the limit of available power. they made the main arrays long enough so they can fire full array discharges at a certain rate, with typical available power during normal circumstances. sure, they could have made it longer, but the ship could not support longer arrays well enough to justify it.
which means memory alpha is probably wrong. one short few years war then peace. Could have been over for 10 years considering o'brien's age.
array lengths on ships where they could have been made longer is proboly due to the limit of available power. they made the main arrays long enough so they can fire full array discharges at a certain rate, with typical available power during normal circumstances. sure, they could have made it longer, but the ship could not support longer arrays well enough to justify it.
Makes sense. Voyager was always running into power problems throughout the show - probably has something to do with its "Eco-Friendly" warp core. Besides, Intrepid-class starships have never been seen as front line vessels anyways. The Nova and Intrepid have both been on the sidelines during the Dominion War. They are, most likely, not designed for fleet fighting.
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!
which means memory alpha is probably wrong. one short few years war then peace. Could have been over for 10 years considering o'brien's age.
Lol, really admiral?
Memory Alpha is wrong because it doesn't line up with what you think the timeline should be.
Or the possible reasons behind it. Despite it getting its sources from the actual episodes concerning it?
Should we go to Memory Beta then?
Or ExAstris?
stexpanded?
sgvst?
To the episodes?
TNG: Ehtics; Chain of Command Part I & II; The Wounded; Journey's End; Realm of Fear
DS9: Tribunal; Nor the Battle to the Strong
VOY: Prey
Or will you just continue to disagree with it because it runs contradictory to your opinion on it.
Memory Alpha is wrong because it doesn't line up with what you think the timeline should be.
Or the possible reasons behind it. Despite it getting its sources from the actual episodes concerning it?
Should we go to Memory Beta then?
Or ExAstris?
stexpanded?
sgvst?
To the episodes?
TNG: Ehtics; Chain of Command Part I & II; The Wounded; Journey's End; Realm of Fear
DS9: Tribunal; Nor the Battle to the Strong
VOY: Prey
Or will you just continue to disagree with it because it runs contradictory to your opinion on it.
As far as i saw their was only one war and it was a few years ago. I'm going by what i originally saw on television on the episodes. Granted it's been a while since i saw them all.
As far as i saw their was only one war and it was a few years ago. I'm going by what i originally saw on television on the episodes. Granted it's been a while since i saw them all.
Fair enough.
Memory Alpha does do a great job of staying as true to what is shown and heard in those episodes. But don't take my word for it... :eek::D
I think a debate about how long the federation - Cardassian war was doesn't help us.
Instead we should maybe collect some ideas outside the common BOFF/Console or Weapon strength category.
Maybe the Game Star Trek: Birth of the federation or other games could serve a inspiration to give the Galaxy Class something unique, helpful and NOT game breaking.
I think it is important to archive something like an agreement within the playerbase about how to improve the Galaxy Class. (More or less, of course. There will always be people opposing everything.)
I think the Galaxy Class and ships from other factions could maybe get a new designation: Command Cruiser.
I would change just two things:
First, the Galaxy Class gets a unique bonus, a Weapons range increasement from 10 Km to 15Km (but only beam weapons).
OR the amount of shots per cycle could be reduced to just one instead of four.
Second, this applies to all Command Cruisers:
Let me explain it in short, the Galaxy (D'deridex and Negh'Var) could serve as command center to support other ships in their jobs, by giving them Bonus in offensive or defensive, depending on situation.
It could work like this:
When in space the HUD gets a new window, similar to the Energy allocation window.
Here you can set the focus of your support, which will be a passive bonus for yourself and all other ships within weapons range. This bonus will be permanent unlike like the "Dominion Command Interface".
That window would have a lever to set the weighting of your bonus between offensive or a defensive boost. I'm not so sure about the actual amount of bonus, but i think it should be roughly as much as a attack pattern. If there are more than one Command cruisers in range the bonus becomes diminishing, similar to Tactical consoles.
I think this could be a alternative to make some Crusiers in STO a bit more useful and unique. Of course this is just a start, the Command Cruiser mechanic could become something really unique and powerful.
Hopefully some of you have additional ideas or come up with something completely different.
I think if we could focus on something similar like this, we could have something productive to discuss.
Personally, i don't think the devs will ever rework the Galaxy Class to give her a 10 round Torpedo Spread and a Beam Overload ability she deserves. They just won't do it IMO.
But on the other hand if we find something that includes other ships and gives them something unique, we might have more luck.
"...'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
Most of the ******** about the Galaxy, in my experience, comes from the PvP and Elite STF crowd. This also applies to cruisers in general.
However, the ship (as it stands now) works in all other instances. Or, at the very least, squeaks by.
some people claim to be able to finish elite stf with shuttle and connie ship, daes that mean these ships are on part with tier 5 ship? no.
you don't evaluate the capacities of a ship by the less challenging area of the game since it will not show you the limits of it and how daes it perform against other ship in the same categorie.
Back when I was a lowly captain, I ran a Galaxy as my primary. I did just fine in Fleet Actions and other instances. And my Galaxy-X could more than do it's part in normal STFs and endgame missions.
i do run the galaxy x as my primary, and that is an understatement since i only fly that ship since 2 years altrought i got an exelsior, breen, free odysssey and defiant available.
i do not switch ship for any content, elite stf or pvp ( even if i don't have much time for pvp lately )
so even today, elite stf and the like ( exept pvp ) are not that challenging even for that ship.
Personally, my only real gripe with any of the Galaxy variants is that the dreadnought cruiser should have been tactically oriented from the get-go.
i couldn't agree more on that point.
I can understand that the two aforementioned types of players, who are fans of the Galaxy, wanting a Galaxy that is viable in those venues. But considering the points I mentioned above, I seriously doubt that a "better" Galaxy is on top of the devs list of things to do.
that depend of what you mean by "better".
for the galaxy retrofit, better, in my opinion daesn't mean more powerfull, but more efficient.
3 ensign engie power is not efficient.
to show you are inefficient this ship is let do a little comparison.
can you find any "free" tactical cruiser that is as good or better than the cstore exelsior or assault cruiser ( remember, cruiser not hybrid ) ?
response: no
can you find any "free" ship that is as good or better than the cstore galaxy retrofit?
response: yes and in fact it is better and it's the star cruiser
To play the devil's advocate, is there any real reason to outfit a Cruiser, especially a Cruiser like the Galaxy Claas with even more than just 1 forward and 1 backward Beam array?
Since their pressure damage isn't heavy enough to make any difference in the first place. So wouldn't it be better to use other weapons like the Romulan Hyper-Plasma Torpedo Launcher (basicly a fire and forget Weapon) and Experimental Romulan Plasma Beam Array (+ Zero-Point Energy Conduit console to get the Plasma Hyperflux power) for example?
using 8 beam array on this ship is not the way to go in my opinion anyway, so you are free to use any torpedo and beam type you want.
there is a guy name vexashen that have post a build to do 10k in stf with this ship using these weapons.
so i think there is a way to mix his build with your playstyle and weapons to make your galaxy more powerfull, if that was the point of the question.
using 8 beam array on this ship is not the way to go in my opinion anyway, so you are free to use any torpedo and beam type you want.
there is a guy name vexashen that have post a build to do 10k in stf with this ship using these weapons.
so i think there is a way to mix his build with your playstyle and weapons to make your galaxy more powerfull, if that was the point of the question.
This is an interesting build that doesn't rely on AtB to improve the overall damage capacity. It does use only the best gear and one or two not easily achievable consoles, but it even plays the seperation card in a favourable way.
It might be not that easy, but I never said the Gal-R is a bad ship. You can play decently with it, I do, I'm not even bothered by the turnrate. The worst thing is that the BOFF layout of the Gal-R is just broken and there's no reason to justify that. Of course a built-in ability or another type of heavy beam or something would improve the ship but it really doesn't require THAT radical changes. Of course it's nowhere near the in-universe Gal, but I don't think we try to cram any "reason" into that game anymore
^ 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 think a debate about how long the federation - Cardassian war was doesn't help us.
Instead we should maybe collect some ideas outside the common BOFF/Console or Weapon strength category.
Maybe the Game Star Trek: Birth of the federation or other games could serve a inspiration to give the Galaxy Class something unique, helpful and NOT game breaking.
I think it is important to archive something like an agreement within the playerbase about how to improve the Galaxy Class. (More or less, of course. There will always be people opposing everything.)
I think the Galaxy Class and ships from other factions could maybe get a new designation: Command Cruiser.
I would change just two things:
First, the Galaxy Class gets a unique bonus, a Weapons range increasement from 10 Km to 15Km (but only beam weapons).
OR the amount of shots per cycle could be reduced to just one instead of four.
Second, this applies to all Command Cruisers:
Let me explain it in short, the Galaxy (D'deridex and Negh'Var) could serve as command center to support other ships in their jobs, by giving them Bonus in offensive or defensive, depending on situation.
It could work like this:
When in space the HUD gets a new window, similar to the Energy allocation window.
Here you can set the focus of your support, which will be a passive bonus for yourself and all other ships within weapons range. This bonus will be permanent unlike like the "Dominion Command Interface".
That window would have a lever to set the weighting of your bonus between offensive or a defensive boost. I'm not so sure about the actual amount of bonus, but i think it should be roughly as much as a attack pattern. If there are more than one Command cruisers in range the bonus becomes diminishing, similar to Tactical consoles.
I think this could be a alternative to make some Crusiers in STO a bit more useful and unique. Of course this is just a start, the Command Cruiser mechanic could become something really unique and powerful.
Hopefully some of you have additional ideas or come up with something completely different.
I think if we could focus on something similar like this, we could have something productive to discuss.
Personally, i don't think the devs will ever rework the Galaxy Class to give her a 10 round Torpedo Spread and a Beam Overload ability she deserves. They just won't do it IMO.
But on the other hand if we find something that includes other ships and gives them something unique, we might have more luck.
interesting idea, but hate the hud part my is already clutered as is.
If they ever fix Beam Arrays and DHCs Galaxy will be more useful. There is really no need for additional consoles or powers. Cut the drain on BAs and make the drain of DHC more inline with current BAs. Also remove the silly 4 or what pulses per cycle for BAs and make it one pulse per cycle.
Then Galaxy and cruiser in general will become more useful.
Cryptic does not need to change or add something. They need just to fix what we already have.
interesting idea, but hate the hud part my is already clutered as is.
My intention is to give Cruisers a bigger meaning in Battle.
Since Carriers got a unique window to control their fighters, i think crusiers should get a equal important mechanic.
Of course my idea was just a half-baked concept, but i think that especially the Galaxy class needs to have some additional purpose, and the last thing i won't to see is the galaxy becoming a carrier.
So i think the basic idea of making her a Command Cruiser shouldn't be abandoned, just changed to make her powerful enough to make a bigger impact in Battle.
If they ever fix Beam Arrays and DHCs Galaxy will be more useful. There is really no need for additional consoles or powers. Cut the drain on BAs and make the drain of DHC more inline with current BAs. Also remove the silly 4 or what pulses per cycle for BAs and make it one pulse per cycle.
Then Galaxy and cruiser in general will become more useful.
Cryptic does not need to change or add something. They need just to fix what we already have.
I wish i would get 1 euro for every time i write this. COMPARED to all other crusiers (even Starfleet cruisers) the Galaxy class just got the short end of the stick.
Cryptic intentionally made it the eningeering heaviest ship in the game, knowing that Engineering will have the most passive (and boring) BOFF powers of all career branches.
And if that's not enough they gave that ship 3 science and only 2 tactical console slots (?), althrough it only got a Lt. Science BOFF slot.
All other ships can either tank better or be more offensive, because having 3 (!) ensign Engineering slots doesn't make sense since the CD of most Engineering ensign powers interfere with each other. If that's not enough, being so engineering heavy makes that ship extremely passive, even science ships have more means to become active in combat.
Having the least offensive potential of all cruisers in the game you can just hope to outheal your enemy.(something even other ships can do better, if they have more Science BOFF slots.)
So they have a couple of options to solve this problem:
Either they change Engineering powers to make them not interfere with each other.
They could also change some engineering powers to allow engineering heavy ships to become more active. (which wouldn't solve the 3 ensign problem of the galaxy class, but it would them a bit more active IMO)
Or they could give the galaxy class some unique inherent ability that makes that ship
1. more unique and...
2. more true to how it was (supposed to be) in the show.
Another opotion would be to (slightly change) its BOFF/Console layout by making her ensign Engineering into a Lt. universal. (or something else)
"...'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
Honestly, I would settle for them making the Engineer LtCom a Universal LtCom. Then it would be one of the most adaptable and flexible ships in the fleet - just like it's supposed to be. You want a tank, slot your engineer. You want to heal/support, slot your sci. You want to fight, slot your tac. Sure it would be poaching on the Odyssey just a hair, but the ship would then be something everyone could use with one simple, easy little fix.
Would I like a seriously awesome three pack with the consoles discussed in this thread, absolutely. But at this point I'll settle on something simple that would at least make the ship a bit more fun.
Honestly, I would settle for them making the Engineer LtCom a Universal LtCom. Then it would be one of the most adaptable and flexible ships in the fleet - just like it's supposed to be. You want a tank, slot your engineer. You want to heal/support, slot your sci. You want to fight, slot your tac. Sure it would be poaching on the Odyssey just a hair, but the ship would then be something everyone could use with one simple, easy little fix.
Would I like a seriously awesome three pack with the consoles discussed in this thread, absolutely. But at this point I'll settle on something simple that would at least make the ship a bit more fun.
I just gotta say.
There is no poaching in this game.(Not attacking here just using your comment as a segue)
You cannot step on any ships toes as it were, provided they are in the same classification.
Say the Sovereign, the Ambassador and the Galaxy had the exact same setup and stats in every conceivable way. Would you fly the Sovereign, Ambassador or the Galaxy? And why?
Flavor.
And it makes no difference within the game if two or more ships have the same layout or not.
Does it remove some of the uniqueness of that ship or the game?
Sure, a little. But it doesn't really affect game-play or enjoyment of your preferred ship does it?
Despite sharing stats those ships carry different skins and players will view them through whatever tinted glasses they so choose to.
So I say to heck with overlapping or so called cloning of other ships, within reason.
Yes having some added flavor for each ship is great and something I think they should expand upon.
But if the Galaxy were to get the same layout as say the Regent, it would still be the Galaxy and the Regent would still be the Regent.
So I say to heck with overlapping or so called cloning of other ships, within reason.
Yes having some added flavor for each ship is great and something I think they should expand upon.
But if the Galaxy were to get the same layout as say the Regent, it would still be the Galaxy and the Regent would still be the Regent.
I fully agree with everything you said.
I am sure some PvPers would have another opinion.
But hey, there is the prime universe Assault cruiser (or starcruiser) and the according mirror ships.
I'm not a great PvP player but i am sure only few players have had opposed them, when they where introduced.
Just as you said if it is within reason, so making a Cruiser look like an Escort or vice versa would be nonsesne, of course.
But as long as it does make sense (like Galaxy -> Regent) i see no real reason to be against it.
Personally i would love to buy a C-Store service/unlock which lets my Fleet Regent permanently look like a Galaxy Class and have access to all ship parts i have availlable for the galaxy Class of course.
In STO noone seems to care about canon anyways, but when it comes to the Galaxy Class every one treats this game as if it where the holy bible and we would live still in the medieval.
"...'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
new galaxy dreadnought cruiser cstore version: improve stats
7 degree turn rate
cloack return as an integrated one ( not a console )
little boost in lance accuracy
bo layout:
lt commander tactical
commander engineer
ltcommander engineer
ensign science
ensign science
FLEET VERSION:
usual +10% hull and shields
tactical console for the 10th console slot
i don't have a galaxy retrofit proposal since it been a long time i don't fly it anymore, so i do not have a precise idea of the role i can give it in pve and pvp, in support and tanking specialisation in comparison with other ship ready for that out there.
and i don't think pushing this ship to tactical is a good idea either even if he could use 1 more ensign tactical at least.
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?
Comments
its been refereed to as a war several times by characters that served in it. 20 solid years of it in that time frame? no, proboly not. but ground and ship combat between the 2 powers was not rare during the period.
array lengths on ships where they could have been made longer is proboly due to the limit of available power. they made the main arrays long enough so they can fire full array discharges at a certain rate, with typical available power during normal circumstances. sure, they could have made it longer, but the ship could not support longer arrays well enough to justify it.
which means memory alpha is probably wrong. one short few years war then peace. Could have been over for 10 years considering o'brien's age.
Makes sense. Voyager was always running into power problems throughout the show - probably has something to do with its "Eco-Friendly" warp core. Besides, Intrepid-class starships have never been seen as front line vessels anyways. The Nova and Intrepid have both been on the sidelines during the Dominion War. They are, most likely, not designed for fleet fighting.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Lol, really admiral?
Memory Alpha is wrong because it doesn't line up with what you think the timeline should be.
Or the possible reasons behind it. Despite it getting its sources from the actual episodes concerning it?
Should we go to Memory Beta then?
Or ExAstris?
stexpanded?
sgvst?
To the episodes?
TNG: Ehtics; Chain of Command Part I & II; The Wounded; Journey's End; Realm of Fear
DS9: Tribunal; Nor the Battle to the Strong
VOY: Prey
Or will you just continue to disagree with it because it runs contradictory to your opinion on it.
As far as i saw their was only one war and it was a few years ago. I'm going by what i originally saw on television on the episodes. Granted it's been a while since i saw them all.
Fair enough.
Memory Alpha does do a great job of staying as true to what is shown and heard in those episodes. But don't take my word for it... :eek::D
Instead we should maybe collect some ideas outside the common BOFF/Console or Weapon strength category.
Maybe the Game Star Trek: Birth of the federation or other games could serve a inspiration to give the Galaxy Class something unique, helpful and NOT game breaking.
I think it is important to archive something like an agreement within the playerbase about how to improve the Galaxy Class.
(More or less, of course. There will always be people opposing everything.)
I think the Galaxy Class and ships from other factions could maybe get a new designation: Command Cruiser.
I would change just two things:
OR the amount of shots per cycle could be reduced to just one instead of four.
Second, this applies to all Command Cruisers:
Let me explain it in short, the Galaxy (D'deridex and Negh'Var) could serve as command center to support other ships in their jobs, by giving them Bonus in offensive or defensive, depending on situation.
It could work like this:
When in space the HUD gets a new window, similar to the Energy allocation window.
Here you can set the focus of your support, which will be a passive bonus for yourself and all other ships within weapons range. This bonus will be permanent unlike like the "Dominion Command Interface".
That window would have a lever to set the weighting of your bonus between offensive or a defensive boost. I'm not so sure about the actual amount of bonus, but i think it should be roughly as much as a attack pattern. If there are more than one Command cruisers in range the bonus becomes diminishing, similar to Tactical consoles.
I think this could be a alternative to make some Crusiers in STO a bit more useful and unique. Of course this is just a start, the Command Cruiser mechanic could become something really unique and powerful.
Hopefully some of you have additional ideas or come up with something completely different.
I think if we could focus on something similar like this, we could have something productive to discuss.
Personally, i don't think the devs will ever rework the Galaxy Class to give her a 10 round Torpedo Spread and a Beam Overload ability she deserves. They just won't do it IMO.
But on the other hand if we find something that includes other ships and gives them something unique, we might have more luck.
some people claim to be able to finish elite stf with shuttle and connie ship, daes that mean these ships are on part with tier 5 ship? no.
you don't evaluate the capacities of a ship by the less challenging area of the game since it will not show you the limits of it and how daes it perform against other ship in the same categorie.
i do run the galaxy x as my primary, and that is an understatement since i only fly that ship since 2 years altrought i got an exelsior, breen, free odysssey and defiant available.
i do not switch ship for any content, elite stf or pvp ( even if i don't have much time for pvp lately )
so even today, elite stf and the like ( exept pvp ) are not that challenging even for that ship.
i couldn't agree more on that point.
that depend of what you mean by "better".
for the galaxy retrofit, better, in my opinion daesn't mean more powerfull, but more efficient.
3 ensign engie power is not efficient.
to show you are inefficient this ship is let do a little comparison.
can you find any "free" tactical cruiser that is as good or better than the cstore exelsior or assault cruiser ( remember, cruiser not hybrid ) ?
response: no
can you find any "free" ship that is as good or better than the cstore galaxy retrofit?
response: yes and in fact it is better and it's the star cruiser
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
using 8 beam array on this ship is not the way to go in my opinion anyway, so you are free to use any torpedo and beam type you want.
there is a guy name vexashen that have post a build to do 10k in stf with this ship using these weapons.
so i think there is a way to mix his build with your playstyle and weapons to make your galaxy more powerfull, if that was the point of the question.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=592401
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
This is an interesting build that doesn't rely on AtB to improve the overall damage capacity. It does use only the best gear and one or two not easily achievable consoles, but it even plays the seperation card in a favourable way.
It might be not that easy, but I never said the Gal-R is a bad ship. You can play decently with it, I do, I'm not even bothered by the turnrate. The worst thing is that the BOFF layout of the Gal-R is just broken and there's no reason to justify that. Of course a built-in ability or another type of heavy beam or something would improve the ship but it really doesn't require THAT radical changes. Of course it's nowhere near the in-universe Gal, but I don't think we try to cram any "reason" into that game anymore
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
interesting idea, but hate the hud part my is already clutered as is.
Then Galaxy and cruiser in general will become more useful.
Cryptic does not need to change or add something. They need just to fix what we already have.
Since Carriers got a unique window to control their fighters, i think crusiers should get a equal important mechanic.
Of course my idea was just a half-baked concept, but i think that especially the Galaxy class needs to have some additional purpose, and the last thing i won't to see is the galaxy becoming a carrier.
So i think the basic idea of making her a Command Cruiser shouldn't be abandoned, just changed to make her powerful enough to make a bigger impact in Battle.
I wish i would get 1 euro for every time i write this.
COMPARED to all other crusiers (even Starfleet cruisers) the Galaxy class just got the short end of the stick.
Cryptic intentionally made it the eningeering heaviest ship in the game, knowing that Engineering will have the most passive (and boring) BOFF powers of all career branches.
And if that's not enough they gave that ship 3 science and only 2 tactical console slots (?), althrough it only got a Lt. Science BOFF slot.
All other ships can either tank better or be more offensive, because having 3 (!) ensign Engineering slots doesn't make sense since the CD of most Engineering ensign powers interfere with each other. If that's not enough, being so engineering heavy makes that ship extremely passive, even science ships have more means to become active in combat.
Having the least offensive potential of all cruisers in the game you can just hope to outheal your enemy.(something even other ships can do better, if they have more Science BOFF slots.)
So they have a couple of options to solve this problem:
Either they change Engineering powers to make them not interfere with each other.
They could also change some engineering powers to allow engineering heavy ships to become more active. (which wouldn't solve the 3 ensign problem of the galaxy class, but it would them a bit more active IMO)
Or they could give the galaxy class some unique inherent ability that makes that ship
1. more unique and...
2. more true to how it was (supposed to be) in the show.
Another opotion would be to (slightly change) its BOFF/Console layout by making her ensign Engineering into a Lt. universal. (or something else)
Would I like a seriously awesome three pack with the consoles discussed in this thread, absolutely. But at this point I'll settle on something simple that would at least make the ship a bit more fun.
I just gotta say.
There is no poaching in this game.(Not attacking here just using your comment as a segue)
You cannot step on any ships toes as it were, provided they are in the same classification.
Say the Sovereign, the Ambassador and the Galaxy had the exact same setup and stats in every conceivable way. Would you fly the Sovereign, Ambassador or the Galaxy? And why?
Flavor.
And it makes no difference within the game if two or more ships have the same layout or not.
Does it remove some of the uniqueness of that ship or the game?
Sure, a little. But it doesn't really affect game-play or enjoyment of your preferred ship does it?
Despite sharing stats those ships carry different skins and players will view them through whatever tinted glasses they so choose to.
So I say to heck with overlapping or so called cloning of other ships, within reason.
Yes having some added flavor for each ship is great and something I think they should expand upon.
But if the Galaxy were to get the same layout as say the Regent, it would still be the Galaxy and the Regent would still be the Regent.
I am sure some PvPers would have another opinion.
But hey, there is the prime universe Assault cruiser (or starcruiser) and the according mirror ships.
I'm not a great PvP player but i am sure only few players have had opposed them, when they where introduced.
Just as you said if it is within reason, so making a Cruiser look like an Escort or vice versa would be nonsesne, of course.
But as long as it does make sense (like Galaxy -> Regent) i see no real reason to be against it.
Personally i would love to buy a C-Store service/unlock which lets my Fleet Regent permanently look like a Galaxy Class and have access to all ship parts i have availlable for the galaxy Class of course.
In STO noone seems to care about canon anyways, but when it comes to the Galaxy Class every one treats this game as if it where the holy bible and we would live still in the medieval.
new galaxy dreadnought cruiser cstore version: improve stats
7 degree turn rate
cloack return as an integrated one ( not a console )
little boost in lance accuracy
bo layout:
lt commander tactical
commander engineer
ltcommander engineer
ensign science
ensign science
FLEET VERSION:
usual +10% hull and shields
tactical console for the 10th console slot
i don't have a galaxy retrofit proposal since it been a long time i don't fly it anymore, so i do not have a precise idea of the role i can give it in pve and pvp, in support and tanking specialisation in comparison with other ship ready for that out there.
and i don't think pushing this ship to tactical is a good idea either even if he could use 1 more ensign tactical at least.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
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?