...
@ yreodred: Tying manual shield redistribution to turn rate (and thus ship mass) sounds like a neat idea Someone has to take a look at the numbers wether this would be a viable thing. I prefer that over "everybody can tank anyway"
Thanks!
The idea behind this is to make tanking (using a powerful shield Distrb.) easier for Cruisers and more difficult for Escorts, which is quite the opposite as it is now.
Sorry for being Off Topic.:o
"...'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'm not sure if it is the most pictured ship, but when looking at the example pictures at the rep stores, i find it striking how often the Galaxy class is pictured with the Borg set or other stuff. But that's just my personal observation, maybe it's just me.
That could also just be one of the artists is alongside you, preferring the Galaxy for his artwork. Who knows?
I think the STO staff addressing a cruiser issue to satisfy customers than is more likely than drastically altering the setup of one ship.
Personally i don't trust them in any way.
The latest thing is that new Energy Weapons DOFF which is supposed to be mostly beneficial for Cruisers, but in reality it buffs Escorts even more. LINK.
Seriously there are just two explainations for this,
ONE, they have no idea what kind of powers people actually use and how their own game works or
TWO, they are just pretending to buff cruisers while buffing Escorts even more in secret.
Either way, they cannot be trusted with making Cruisers more powerful, they clearly want Escorts to be OP forever in Star Trek.
Buffs can be made invalid with the next patch, but changing a ship needs at least some explaination.
That's why i think we should focus on directly enhancing the ships that need love instead on trusting Cryptics devs to fix it somehow for us.
I just hope that one day there will be a true Star Trek game so Cryptic can keep STO for themselves and buff escorts as much as they want.
I just hate to be dependent on people who don't care a fig about Star Trek.
"...'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 just grabbed a fleet Galaxy And I have to admit i love that old bird
I rember driving one out of the sol system when my engeer just hit captin:o.
I rember the frustration of watching it pop durring the cardi missions.
I rember the feeling when I could finaly make that hippo dance!
it was magical like a fing disney movie:eek:
Sorry I just had to share!
I just grabbed a fleet Galaxy And I have to admit i love that old bird
I rember driving one out of the sol system when my engeer just hit captin:o.
I rember the frustration of watching it pop durring the cardi missions.
I rember the feeling when I could finaly make that hippo dance!
it was magical like a fing disney movie:eek:
Sorry I just had to share!
You kept it into the cardassian missions instead of upgrading to a star cruiser?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I did pretty well in the USS Bajor for quite a while, though I do wish it was a little bit easier to bring my dual beams to bear (a single RCS console helps a lot). Still, in a target-rich environment it could get off quite a lot of beam spam.
You kept it into the cardassian missions instead of upgrading to a star cruiser?
Maybe he played the storyline straight through and didn't make admiral by the time he hit the Cardies.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
To be honest, i have no idea why Cryptics devs refuse to rework the GCS.
I mean no one wants it to be OP or better than the newest Lockbox ship but a more reasonable BOFF/Console layout cannot be too much to ask for.
If it's only for the fans it should be reason enough.
In this thread alone are enough people to justifiy a rework. If it is about the numbers, how many people "voted" for the Vesta, Akira or Excelsior Class?
Other than that, i think we have presented more than enough reasons that would justifiy a rework, so what are the devs waiting for?
Are they afraid once they give in and overhaul the GCS, they will have to rework another and another ship?
The GCS is a exception on so many levels, i know of no other ship that was made even remotely as bad as Cryptics Galaxy -R.
Please someone explain me why they are ignoring us and why they don't want to rework the GCS in the first place?
"...'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
Personally i don't trust them in any way.
The latest thing is that new Energy Weapons DOFF which is supposed to be mostly beneficial for Cruisers, but in reality it buffs Escorts even more. LINK.
Seriously there are just two explainations for this,
ONE, they have no idea what kind of powers people actually use and how their own game works or
TWO, they are just pretending to buff cruisers while buffing Escorts even more in secret.
Either way, they cannot be trusted with making Cruisers more powerful, they clearly want Escorts to be OP forever in Star Trek.
Buffs can be made invalid with the next patch, but changing a ship needs at least some explaination.
That's why i think we should focus on directly enhancing the ships that need love instead on trusting Cryptics devs to fix it somehow for us.
I just hope that one day there will be a true Star Trek game so Cryptic can keep STO for themselves and buff escorts as much as they want.
I just hate to be dependent on people who don't care a fig about Star Trek.
I agree that there is a trust issue regarding balance, but that it stretches across the whole cruiser spectrum, not just one ship, pressing for change to just one ship may minimize their sense of urgency to enact change because there are other ships that have fit the profile that many here have asked for in the GCS.
To be honest, i have no idea why Cryptics devs refuse to rework the GCS.
I mean no one wants it to be OP or better than the newest Lockbox ship but a more reasonable BOFF/Console layout cannot be too much to ask for.
If it's only for the fans it should be reason enough.
In this thread alone are enough people to justifiy a rework. If it is about the numbers, how many people "voted" for the Vesta, Akira or Excelsior Class?
Other than that, i think we have presented more than enough reasons that would justifiy a rework, so what are the devs waiting for?
Are they afraid once they give in and overhaul the GCS, they will have to rework another and another ship?
The GCS is a exception on so many levels, i know of no other ship that was made even remotely as bad as Cryptics Galaxy -R.
Please someone explain me why they are ignoring us and why they don't want to rework the GCS in the first place?
The problem I see with reworking the Boff/Console slots on the Galaxy is that there are other ships out there that pretty much have those setups. With a uni-LT or Lt. Cmdr slot what are the odds that those slots WONT be used as a tactical, similar to an Oddy' or Excel? I would say pretty high. In effect they would just be making the ship just like other ships.
The problem I see with reworking the Boff/Console slots on the Galaxy is that there are other ships out there that pretty much have those setups. With a uni-LT or Lt. Cmdr slot what are the odds that those slots WONT be used as a tactical, similar to an Oddy' or Excel? I would say pretty high. In effect they would just be making the ship just like other ships.
To be blunt, who cares?
If that ship is finally useable, and most important fun to fly, i couldn't care less if another ship has the same BOFF/Console Layout.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
The revised (Fleet) Exploration Cruiser - Galaxy Class Starship.
(The Retrofit respectively missing the inherent "fleet" boni, i.e. Retrofit = - 10% Hull & Shield, -1 ENG console)
Why? - Since the game evolved beyond the trinity of pre F2P times many of the old ships have fallen into a state of uselessness. This is an attempt to make the Galaxy Class usable again in a matter that tries to credit her intended purpose within STOs limitations.
How? - By effectively featuring a layout that mirrors her little sister, the Nebula Class, in a engineering-heavy way. This setup shows the Galaxy's intended purpose: A heavy multi-mission cruiser. Her modular nature makes her feasable for most tasks and is only outperformed by more specialized ships. This setup creates a consistency between the closely related design concepts of the two classes.
This setup keeps the basic cruiser setup (for example I don't understand why DDiS 3-pack has a 5/3 weapon layout? I still like the idea of the pack, but 5 fore weapons on a 6 turnrate cruiser?) and does not trump any of the other T5 (Fleet) cruisers or other vessels.
Of course a general fix of the flaws that plague all cruisers in general ("Distribute Shields", Eng Boffs tripping over each other, missions that don't solely rely on dps) I would welcome as well or even prefer
^ 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
To be blunt, who cares?
If that ship is finally useable, and most important fun to fly, i couldn't care less if another ship has the same BOFF/Console Layout.
That's your opinion, and you (and others) are entitled to it. Cryptic's point (and some others will agree) will be that there are already ships with that layout and it would be redundant to give the same to the Galaxy, which has its own specific layout (albeit a low dps setup). The argument would be made that those ships are available and they highly recommend that you use them if they fit you play-style better.
The crux of the pro-Galaxy change group is that the Engineer Boff skills and weak beam weapon dependency are what keeps the ship down. Working to have a movement, with other cruiser players, to improve the Boff Engineer skills and some sort of innate bonus to BO output or reduced energy drain would benefit the Galaxy and other cruisers, not just a singular ship skin.
Even the three piece set mentioned by some is just somewhat of rehash of the Odyssey layout, just with shifting uni-'s to hard stations and the two and three piece bonus are designed to make up for that designs built in deficiencies.
This setup keeps the basic cruiser setup (for example I don't understand why DDiS 3-pack has a 5/3 weapon layout? I still like the idea of the pack, but 5 fore weapons on a 6 turnrate cruiser?) and does not trump any of the other T5 (Fleet) cruisers or other vessels.
I do think that is a bit over the top as well. I think he was trying to mimic the large beam array concept but kinda went too far. I am sure any cruiser captain would want a 5/3 setup, I personally would love to have 4 single cannons my 180' torp, two turrets and the kinetic cutting beam layout, but I also want $1.99 gas in my neighborhood, neither are likely to happen.
Of course a general fix of the flaws that plague all cruisers in general ("Distribute Shields", Eng Boffs tripping over each other, missions that don't solely rely on dps) I would welcome as well or even prefer
This is what I have been in favor for cruisers in general, improve the effectiveness of engineer boff skills and offer some sort of innate bonus to cruisers that either improve the damage on BO or reduce its energy drain.
That's your opinion, and you (and others) are entitled to it. Cryptic's point (and some others will agree) will be that there are already ships with that layout and it would be redundant to give the same to the Galaxy, which has its own specific layout (albeit a low dps setup). The argument would be made that those ships are available and they highly recommend that you use them if they fit you play-style better.
The crux of the pro-Galaxy change group is that the Engineer Boff skills and weak beam weapon dependency are what keeps the ship down. Working to have a movement, with other cruiser players, to improve the Boff Engineer skills and some sort of innate bonus to BO output or reduced energy drain would benefit the Galaxy and other cruisers, not just a singular ship skin.
Even the three piece set mentioned by some is just somewhat of rehash of the Odyssey layout, just with shifting uni-'s to hard stations and the two and three piece bonus are designed to make up for that designs built in deficiencies.
I think all of us in this thread would be in favour of having the general mechanics of this game changed, but the whole idea started because the devs DID say that they are going to revise the pre-F2P ships and take a look particular at the Galaxy Class. Of course that's what got us "dreaming" (and afraid of what they will come up with ).
Of course this game is based upon "if you want to do something different buy another ship. Preferably by lottery that makes you spend hundreds of dollars". But they did change some ships in the past and will most likely not perform a major gameplay overhaul so might as well come up with ways to upgrade the ship while keeping all of the current mechanics intact.
^ 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 problem with cruisers is the fact that they're set up to be tanks in a game that doesn't want or need them. The Regent/Sovereign, Excelsior, and Odyssey can squeeze out just enough fire power with their boff layouts to still be usable and fun - with the same survivability as the Galaxy.
No one in this game will thank you for showing up to any of the more difficult events with a pure tank Galaxy. You can't tank the lances in Hive Elite, you drag down the team in Infected, Cure, and Khitomer Accords. You're useless in No-Win-Scenario, and you don't add anything of worth to PVP or Crystalline Entity.
None of the people posting in this thread want an overpowered pure dps Galaxy - just one tweaked enough that it can be useful with the current in game mechanics and let us fly a ship we love without being punished for it.
A Lt or LtCom UNI (NOT BOTH) would be a fair and welcome change. Though in my opinion the LtCom would be the best choice. It would make the Galaxy a very, very flexible cruiser that could fit a tac, engineer, or sci captain's wants. And keeping the station universal would mean the people who love the Galaxy as it is - wouldn't lose the way they want to fly it. Tac captains could have their beam overload 3/torp spread 3/omega 1, Sci Captains captains could have their Grav Well 1/TSS 3/Photonic Shockwaves, and Eng Captains can keep their EPTS 3, DEM 2, RSP 2, Extend Shields. Win, Win, Win.
People are saying that the Galaxy shouldn't be more powerful then the Sovereign - and I'll agree with their stance. At the time of the Sovereign's launch, the Galaxy would have been slightly outdated. However by STO's timeline, both the Galaxy and Sovereign would have seen at least two major refits with several minor - and any new Galaxy spaceframes would have tech on par with an Odyssey built in. Galaxy and Sovereign would both be equal on the power chart with the Odyssey being the 'latest and greatest'. Though while a launch Sovereign should be more advanced then the Galaxy - the Galaxy being outpowered by Excelsiors and Galors is just ridiculous.
(...)A Lt or LtCom UNI (NOT BOTH) would be a fair and welcome change. Though in my opinion the LtCom would be the best choice. It would make the Galaxy a very, very flexible cruiser that could fit a tac, engineer, or sci captain's wants. And keeping the station universal would mean the people who love the Galaxy as it is - wouldn't lose the way they want to fly it. Tac captains could have their beam overload 3/torp spread 3/omega 1, Sci Captains captains could have their Grav Well 1/TSS 3/Photonic Shockwaves, and Eng Captains can keep their EPTS 3, DEM 2, RSP 2, Extend Shields. Win, Win, Win.(...)
While I agree with everything you said, I think the LTC uni would be too much since that would potentially outclass the regent and even the odyssey ("vanity" version which has a universal LTC). And the current gameplay would pretty much require the LTC to be a tac anyway and I'm kinda fed up with all the "tactical" set ups to improve a ship. The Galaxy needs a slight boost in firepower, perhaps with a third tac console so it is not outdamaged by her two predecessors but brought in line with most T5 cruisers.
^ 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
That's your opinion, and you (and others) are entitled to it. Cryptic's point (and some others will agree) will be that there are already ships with that layout and it would be redundant to give the same to the Galaxy, which has its own specific layout (albeit a low dps setup). The argument would be made that those ships are available and they highly recommend that you use them if they fit you play-style better.
I think Cryptic should take more care about catching the spirit of a ship than put some BOFF layout on it, just to make it different to others.
If the Odysseys (just a example) BOFF layout would fit to the GCS, then i wouldn't have any problem with it.
Ships still have other stats or abilities to make them different.
But as you said that's just my opinion, most other people just looking at the BOFF layout and the ships stats when deciding if they buy it or not.
And that's what really important to Cryptic, isn't it?
Not a qualitative Star Trek, just the money and nothing else.
The crux of the pro-Galaxy change group is that the Engineer Boff skills and weak beam weapon dependency are what keeps the ship down. Working to have a movement, with other cruiser players, to improve the Boff Engineer skills and some sort of innate bonus to BO output or reduced energy drain would benefit the Galaxy and other cruisers, not just a singular ship skin.
Even the three piece set mentioned by some is just somewhat of rehash of the Odyssey layout, just with shifting uni-'s to hard stations and the two and three piece bonus are designed to make up for that designs built in deficiencies.
The problem would be to create a consensus about HOW to change BOFF powers so everyone would be satisfied with it. I doubt that STO will still be around if until then lol.
But it think some small changes could make Cruisers at least a bit more viable. LINK
I think all of us in this thread would be in favour of having the general mechanics of this game changed, but the whole idea started because the devs DID say that they are going to revise the pre-F2P ships and take a look particular at the Galaxy Class. Of course that's what got us "dreaming" (and afraid of what they will come up with ).
I must have missed that.
How long ago?
What irritates me the most is that there is no mentioning about the GCSs problem by the devs. They just seem to ignore that ship completely.
It would be different if once in a while, some devs would say "yes people we take care about this" or something like that.
Not that i would belive them, but it would be still better than being completely ignored by them.
"...'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
Sorry, I cannot answer that, but I did read it somewhere. It was the thing with Gecko saying they were "looking into" slapping a hangar on the Galaxy (Dread?) and that statement included that they wanted to take a look at all or most of the old ships since they seem to be aware of the "problem".
^ 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
Sorry, I cannot answer that, but I did read it somewhere. It was the thing with Gecko saying they were "looking into" slapping a hangar on the Galaxy (Dread?) and that statement included that they wanted to take a look at all or most of the old ships since they seem to be aware of the "problem".
Oh my god... :eek:
"...'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
"...'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
While I don't want the Galaxy to be a carrier - I think that would be the worst thing for her - it would make her usable and make other players less likely to ***** about seeing her. So... I would reluctantly accept it.
If the Galaxy Class had shuttlebays added it would be a welcome upgrade.
People say the Galaxy Class shouldn't be a carrier, but of all the canon ships its one of the few ships that would have that capability.
Its main shuttlebay is "huge", and can easily carry a large number of shuttlecraft and even runabouts.
We do know for a fact that federation starships served as carriers during the dominion wars, as evident by the use of Federation Attack Fighters, small craft that would not have the warp capability to keep up with a fleet of high-warp starships.
Still, a problem is the lack of tactical options on a ship that pretty much has been portrayed in canon as a battleship.
Please, for the love of targ not again the carrier debate :eek: Seriously, we had that a dozen times already. All I was saying was that Gecko made a statement like that (don't quote me on that, perhaps I confused it with just an users interpretation of what he said) and I think that statement also said that they want to revisit the old ships in some way.
I just got an idea how they could "improve" the whole galaxy family without changing the existing ship. Th regent is just an upgrade of the sovereign, right? So what about calling a new galaxy layout (I use the model I suggested as an example because I tried to emphasize on the Galaxy families' common resemblance) "Advanced Support Cruiser" and use the Monarch skin for it (which would remove the Monarch skin from new purchases from the Gal-R) with the option to use the Galaxy skin if you own both (and the Venture if you also own the Refit) and offer a "(Advanced) Science Cruiser" or something along these lines which is the Magellan Class which adds one tactical console (removing one engineering) to the Nebula. I would like that, and both the advanced support and the science cruiser could get a new fun unique console like a heavy beam array or something we had talked about in the thread
^ 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
Comments
Thanks!
The idea behind this is to make tanking (using a powerful shield Distrb.) easier for Cruisers and more difficult for Escorts, which is quite the opposite as it is now.
Sorry for being Off Topic.:o
That could also just be one of the artists is alongside you, preferring the Galaxy for his artwork. Who knows?
I think the STO staff addressing a cruiser issue to satisfy customers than is more likely than drastically altering the setup of one ship.
Picard when he pressed that 'Data' was not Data in the first appearance of the crystaline entity?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
-Increased damage from the use of the ability (10-15%) to make up for the immense power drain for added on attacks
or
-Reduced percentage of energy drain from using the skill (10-15%)
Actually, I did, during the episode "The Naked Now" , October 5th, 1987 at 8:15 Eastern Time.
Personally i don't trust them in any way.
The latest thing is that new Energy Weapons DOFF which is supposed to be mostly beneficial for Cruisers, but in reality it buffs Escorts even more.
LINK.
Seriously there are just two explainations for this,
ONE, they have no idea what kind of powers people actually use and how their own game works or
TWO, they are just pretending to buff cruisers while buffing Escorts even more in secret.
Either way, they cannot be trusted with making Cruisers more powerful, they clearly want Escorts to be OP forever in Star Trek.
Buffs can be made invalid with the next patch, but changing a ship needs at least some explaination.
That's why i think we should focus on directly enhancing the ships that need love instead on trusting Cryptics devs to fix it somehow for us.
I just hope that one day there will be a true Star Trek game so Cryptic can keep STO for themselves and buff escorts as much as they want.
I just hate to be dependent on people who don't care a fig about Star Trek.
I rember driving one out of the sol system when my engeer just hit captin:o.
I rember the frustration of watching it pop durring the cardi missions.
I rember the feeling when I could finaly make that hippo dance!
it was magical like a fing disney movie:eek:
Sorry I just had to share!
You kept it into the cardassian missions instead of upgrading to a star cruiser?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I mean no one wants it to be OP or better than the newest Lockbox ship but a more reasonable BOFF/Console layout cannot be too much to ask for.
If it's only for the fans it should be reason enough.
In this thread alone are enough people to justifiy a rework. If it is about the numbers, how many people "voted" for the Vesta, Akira or Excelsior Class?
Other than that, i think we have presented more than enough reasons that would justifiy a rework, so what are the devs waiting for?
Are they afraid once they give in and overhaul the GCS, they will have to rework another and another ship?
The GCS is a exception on so many levels, i know of no other ship that was made even remotely as bad as Cryptics Galaxy -R.
Please someone explain me why they are ignoring us and why they don't want to rework the GCS in the first place?
I'd argue that if you really thought that way, that you would be taking it fat too personally.
I agree that there is a trust issue regarding balance, but that it stretches across the whole cruiser spectrum, not just one ship, pressing for change to just one ship may minimize their sense of urgency to enact change because there are other ships that have fit the profile that many here have asked for in the GCS.
The problem I see with reworking the Boff/Console slots on the Galaxy is that there are other ships out there that pretty much have those setups. With a uni-LT or Lt. Cmdr slot what are the odds that those slots WONT be used as a tactical, similar to an Oddy' or Excel? I would say pretty high. In effect they would just be making the ship just like other ships.
If that ship is finally useable, and most important fun to fly, i couldn't care less if another ship has the same BOFF/Console Layout.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6295/2p9n.png
The revised (Fleet) Exploration Cruiser - Galaxy Class Starship.
(The Retrofit respectively missing the inherent "fleet" boni, i.e. Retrofit = - 10% Hull & Shield, -1 ENG console)
Why? - Since the game evolved beyond the trinity of pre F2P times many of the old ships have fallen into a state of uselessness. This is an attempt to make the Galaxy Class usable again in a matter that tries to credit her intended purpose within STOs limitations.
How? - By effectively featuring a layout that mirrors her little sister, the Nebula Class, in a engineering-heavy way. This setup shows the Galaxy's intended purpose: A heavy multi-mission cruiser. Her modular nature makes her feasable for most tasks and is only outperformed by more specialized ships. This setup creates a consistency between the closely related design concepts of the two classes.
This setup keeps the basic cruiser setup (for example I don't understand why DDiS 3-pack has a 5/3 weapon layout? I still like the idea of the pack, but 5 fore weapons on a 6 turnrate cruiser?) and does not trump any of the other T5 (Fleet) cruisers or other vessels.
Of course a general fix of the flaws that plague all cruisers in general ("Distribute Shields", Eng Boffs tripping over each other, missions that don't solely rely on dps) I would welcome as well or even prefer
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That's your opinion, and you (and others) are entitled to it. Cryptic's point (and some others will agree) will be that there are already ships with that layout and it would be redundant to give the same to the Galaxy, which has its own specific layout (albeit a low dps setup). The argument would be made that those ships are available and they highly recommend that you use them if they fit you play-style better.
The crux of the pro-Galaxy change group is that the Engineer Boff skills and weak beam weapon dependency are what keeps the ship down. Working to have a movement, with other cruiser players, to improve the Boff Engineer skills and some sort of innate bonus to BO output or reduced energy drain would benefit the Galaxy and other cruisers, not just a singular ship skin.
Even the three piece set mentioned by some is just somewhat of rehash of the Odyssey layout, just with shifting uni-'s to hard stations and the two and three piece bonus are designed to make up for that designs built in deficiencies.
I do think that is a bit over the top as well. I think he was trying to mimic the large beam array concept but kinda went too far. I am sure any cruiser captain would want a 5/3 setup, I personally would love to have 4 single cannons my 180' torp, two turrets and the kinetic cutting beam layout, but I also want $1.99 gas in my neighborhood, neither are likely to happen.
This is what I have been in favor for cruisers in general, improve the effectiveness of engineer boff skills and offer some sort of innate bonus to cruisers that either improve the damage on BO or reduce its energy drain.
I think all of us in this thread would be in favour of having the general mechanics of this game changed, but the whole idea started because the devs DID say that they are going to revise the pre-F2P ships and take a look particular at the Galaxy Class. Of course that's what got us "dreaming" (and afraid of what they will come up with
Of course this game is based upon "if you want to do something different buy another ship. Preferably by lottery that makes you spend hundreds of dollars". But they did change some ships in the past and will most likely not perform a major gameplay overhaul so might as well come up with ways to upgrade the ship while keeping all of the current mechanics intact.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I drove the Commander level Heavy Cruiser (not the Excel) through that part and did fine, rarely lost my ship, even in the heavier fights.
No one in this game will thank you for showing up to any of the more difficult events with a pure tank Galaxy. You can't tank the lances in Hive Elite, you drag down the team in Infected, Cure, and Khitomer Accords. You're useless in No-Win-Scenario, and you don't add anything of worth to PVP or Crystalline Entity.
None of the people posting in this thread want an overpowered pure dps Galaxy - just one tweaked enough that it can be useful with the current in game mechanics and let us fly a ship we love without being punished for it.
A Lt or LtCom UNI (NOT BOTH) would be a fair and welcome change. Though in my opinion the LtCom would be the best choice. It would make the Galaxy a very, very flexible cruiser that could fit a tac, engineer, or sci captain's wants. And keeping the station universal would mean the people who love the Galaxy as it is - wouldn't lose the way they want to fly it. Tac captains could have their beam overload 3/torp spread 3/omega 1, Sci Captains captains could have their Grav Well 1/TSS 3/Photonic Shockwaves, and Eng Captains can keep their EPTS 3, DEM 2, RSP 2, Extend Shields. Win, Win, Win.
People are saying that the Galaxy shouldn't be more powerful then the Sovereign - and I'll agree with their stance. At the time of the Sovereign's launch, the Galaxy would have been slightly outdated. However by STO's timeline, both the Galaxy and Sovereign would have seen at least two major refits with several minor - and any new Galaxy spaceframes would have tech on par with an Odyssey built in. Galaxy and Sovereign would both be equal on the power chart with the Odyssey being the 'latest and greatest'. Though while a launch Sovereign should be more advanced then the Galaxy - the Galaxy being outpowered by Excelsiors and Galors is just ridiculous.
While I agree with everything you said, I think the LTC uni would be too much since that would potentially outclass the regent and even the odyssey ("vanity" version which has a universal LTC). And the current gameplay would pretty much require the LTC to be a tac anyway and I'm kinda fed up with all the "tactical" set ups to improve a ship. The Galaxy needs a slight boost in firepower, perhaps with a third tac console so it is not outdamaged by her two predecessors but brought in line with most T5 cruisers.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
If the Odysseys (just a example) BOFF layout would fit to the GCS, then i wouldn't have any problem with it.
Ships still have other stats or abilities to make them different.
But as you said that's just my opinion, most other people just looking at the BOFF layout and the ships stats when deciding if they buy it or not.
And that's what really important to Cryptic, isn't it?
Not a qualitative Star Trek, just the money and nothing else.
The problem would be to create a consensus about HOW to change BOFF powers so everyone would be satisfied with it. I doubt that STO will still be around if until then lol.
But it think some small changes could make Cruisers at least a bit more viable. LINK
I must have missed that.
How long ago?
What irritates me the most is that there is no mentioning about the GCSs problem by the devs. They just seem to ignore that ship completely.
It would be different if once in a while, some devs would say "yes people we take care about this" or something like that.
Not that i would belive them, but it would be still better than being completely ignored by them.
I wouldn't be surprised if we would get a even worse ship in the end, lol.
Cryptics devs are capable of anything, just saying.
@jer5488
Fully agrement here
Sorry, I cannot answer that, but I did read it somewhere. It was the thing with Gecko saying they were "looking into" slapping a hangar on the Galaxy (Dread?) and that statement included that they wanted to take a look at all or most of the old ships since they seem to be aware of the "problem".
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Oh my god... :eek:
Bad idea.
/10chars
People say the Galaxy Class shouldn't be a carrier, but of all the canon ships its one of the few ships that would have that capability.
Its main shuttlebay is "huge", and can easily carry a large number of shuttlecraft and even runabouts.
We do know for a fact that federation starships served as carriers during the dominion wars, as evident by the use of Federation Attack Fighters, small craft that would not have the warp capability to keep up with a fleet of high-warp starships.
Still, a problem is the lack of tactical options on a ship that pretty much has been portrayed in canon as a battleship.
I just got an idea how they could "improve" the whole galaxy family without changing the existing ship. Th regent is just an upgrade of the sovereign, right? So what about calling a new galaxy layout (I use the model I suggested as an example because I tried to emphasize on the Galaxy families' common resemblance) "Advanced Support Cruiser" and use the Monarch skin for it (which would remove the Monarch skin from new purchases from the Gal-R) with the option to use the Galaxy skin if you own both (and the Venture if you also own the Refit) and offer a "(Advanced) Science Cruiser" or something along these lines which is the Magellan Class which adds one tactical console (removing one engineering) to the Nebula. I would like that, and both the advanced support and the science cruiser could get a new fun unique console like a heavy beam array or something we had talked about in the thread
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!