test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Easy changes to make galaxy x work again
scramspam
Member Posts: 73 Arc User
1. increase turn by 2
2.add 50% disable all systems proc to lance
3.reduce lance cd to 1 min cd sec
4.make lance 20% more accurate
Watch as most galaxy x players say they can hold out until fleet version!:cool:
2.add 50% disable all systems proc to lance
3.reduce lance cd to 1 min cd sec
4.make lance 20% more accurate
Watch as most galaxy x players say they can hold out until fleet version!:cool:
PoPeRz WiLl PoPeRz Ur BoPeRz UnTilz PoPeRz GeTz GaNkz
Post edited by scramspam on
0
Comments
I would hold out if this was added TO the fleet version....
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Fleet variants keep their predecessors' turn rates. So that's probably something you should remove from your list.
I don't want them to change the Lance because their suggestion as an "upgrade" (space shotgun) breaks how useful it is in PVP by making it a PVE upgrade.
I don't trust these people to make things better, basically. Just give me +10% hull and +10-20% shields and I'm good.
But if they DO change the lance to what OP suggests, I'm all for it. However, I do believe they won't, so I rather they did nothing but stat changes they understand.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!
Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
1. So give it the Excelsiors turn rate... That doesn't make sense.
2. Seems reasonable if you don't do 3 or 4.
3. Seems Reasonable if you don't do 2
4. I've never seen the Javelin Miss on the Garumba, may as well make the Lance the same.
I don't see the Turn Rate increase or the 50% disable happening. But a lower cooldown and a more Accurate Lance seem fair.
How about remove the Lt and Ensign Tac and replace them with a Lt.Com Tac.
Nacelles work in pairs (according to Star Trek) so a 3rd Nacelle is a back up. 4 Nacelles create two Warp Bubbles. A single Nacelle isn't meant to work so I assume it's a single housing for 2 small Nacelles which is why they are slow ship.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
They did it before when it only had 4 weapons for 3 aft
This thing needs better turn for cannons
The lance does miss a lot honestly
It does need a better turn rate to use Dual Heavy Cannons, I just don't think there is a logical reason to give it a better turn rate. If you increase the turn rate of this ship I'd argue you should increase the turn rate of every ship in the game except Carriers. And that doesn't make sense.
RCS, Aux2Damp, Both improve turn, perhaps redesigning your build would be a better idea.
Once again I agree with the Lance firing more frequently and more Accurately. I'd even agree with it getting a 5/3 weapons layout.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
There's no reason to make the turn better there's plenty of Odysseys and bortas that are mean ships that bring the rain it's a cruiser not a battle cruiser
Forget. About using cannons unless your shooting Borg
Agree with the ideas for the lance well the accuracy and ROF part but not the proc part
However it doesn't matter the devs will never fix this ship or any other get over it already
Hehehe, i love you bud:)
Your proposal have zero chance to be accepted by cryptic but it daes not matter... I still love you!
Now i going to make sweet dream with my + 2 turn 1min coooldown accurate phaser lance!
BEWARE EVUL KLINGONS!!!!!
I AM COMMMMINNNNNNG!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Actually, no!
It is a dreadnought... Not a cruiser.
If it were a cruiser, it would have acces to ALL new cruiser power, wich is not the case.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
For best overall use... I'd enjoy if a Lt.Commander universal slot were present... as it is. a ship meant to be a dreadnaught.. a heavy warship.. has extremely limited tactical capability.
That's like a BOP not having a cloaking device.... just weird...
many if not all of the ship's failings could be effectively overlooked with adequate BOFF slots alone... anything else I think is worthy of debate as this ship is a durable beast... well designed overall... just gimped badly.
Tactical: Commander
Tactical LT
Universal: Lt Commander
Engineer: Lt Commander
Science: Lt
Fleet Gal-X additional Science: Lt
if you think the BOFF setup is a bit much... remember.. this is supposed to be a Dreadnaught.
i am regretfully come to be agree with this view, if they change it to make it even worse, i would prefer them to keep it that way.
last interview with gecko confirmed that he want to slap an hangar on it and saucer separation. wich is something i either don't want or totally don't care.
even if technically saucer separation would be of a great help to use a cannon build, i prefer to use the ship with the saucer.
if all what i wanted would be a tiny ship that can use cannon i would have gone with escort already.
the good thing i heard is that he also want to make a power set bonus with the console.
that could be the tiny boost i expected.
just wait and see.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
yes, but this is just not possible, you can have that much bridge officer power in a ship, dreadnought or not.
there is a maximum number of bridge officer power one ship can carry.
if we want to change the ship like you propose but stay in cryptic rule it would look more like this:
Tactical: Commander
Tactical ensign
Universal: Lt Commander
Engineer: Lt Commander
Science: ensign
i do like however you proposal of no commander in engi, maybe we can do interesting and unique build with that, something that would be specific to this ship.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
It's a Cruiser so it's not going to get a Tac Commander. You have 14 BOFF abilities, the limit is 12, and your Fleet version has 16.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
First I think you should read the following article. I will not vouch for its complete historical accuracy but it does make you think. http://futurewarstories.blogspot.com/2013/02/fws-ships-of-line-dreadnought.html
Ok now that you read that, and very similar to an article I posted in another forum about someone wanting a Battlestar Gallactica Carrier here we go.
If you were master of Starfleet and could make ships like the Galaxy X or the Andorian Escort which would you make? Well lets not go down the ?exploration and science argument? but from a combat standpoint. IE If I can take 5 forward weapons and 3 rear weapons, have an incredible turn rate, the same warp core, same 10 consoles, etc and fit it into a Andorian, I can probably have 3 for the price of one. That?s not realistic.
Ships are ?bigger? because they have to be. You are not putting 16? battleship guns on a PT Boat, but in Star Trek Online you can. Yes the battleship has more hull, more armor, etc, but the fact is you are not going to put all the weapons you can on a battleship on a PT Boat.
So a cruiser (or in this case a Dreadnaught) should have more Armor, More Weapons, etc but turn like a Battleship in WWII. Ie Slow. Anyone remember Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Commander Decker specifically stated that to increase the fire power of the phasers the energy came from the Warp Core. I know of nothing that says power for weapons does not come that way now. So more weapons, larger weapons, means?.yes you need a bigger engine. More consoles mean, more energy, and thus a bigger engine. If the Warp Core to power all the weapons on the defiant, can also power all the consoles and crew then why not use that warp core. The thing on the Odyssey is huge.
Even descriptions of ships make no sense. From the Tactical Odyssey (http://sto.gamepedia.com/Odyssey_Star_Cruiser) . In this extended period of conflict, the Starfleet Corps of Engineers were tasked with developing a cruiser with additional firepower. The Odyssey Tactical Cruiser is a unique development that emerged from this goal. While the EPS systems were tuned to provide superior power to weapons, the standout feature is the wholesale replacement of the secondary shuttle bay with a specially designed Aquarius-class escort. Um, it?s the same weapons as every other cruiser. 4 forward, 4 rear. Oh you get an extra Tac console which is one less than the Assault Cruiser. Oh year the Aquarius. That MIGHT be useful if it was a ship you could configure, but as is, big deal. Your actually probably getting better DPS on the Sovereign Fleet.
Then there is the bridge officers. These are great. However, the make the flaws even bigger as the Cruisers never get a Commander Tactical.
TLDR Version: Bigger ships should have more firepower and do more damage then smaller ships. They pay for that with limited maneuverability.
That was a mistake made before game launch I think escorts should have had less weapons but been able to out maneuver cruisers while cruisers had more heavy weapons and armor. In my sto dream world all cruisers have at least base turn of 8 they also have ltc tac slots standard, we also would have heavy beam arrays or beam cannons ( which would still love to see). I see escorts having base turns of 20 and above with 4,2 weapon layouts
I'd go even further and limit raiders, escorts and raptors to 2,1 weapon slots. In-universe a Starcruiser like the Galaxy Class has something along the lines of 14 phaser arrays and banks and 8 (?) torpedo launchers. This is represented in-game with 4,4 weapon slots. The Defiant has the twin-linked quad-cannon and presumably a twin-linked torpedo launcher fore, a 360 degree phaser array dorsal and a torpedo launcher/mine layer aft. This is represented by 4,3 weapon slots. A B'Rel raider has it's twin-linked cannons, a torpeo launcher fore and aft. Same weapon layout.Why?
The basic design of this game sucks, plain and simple. Given the fact that "escort" isn't even a ship class. Maybe they should've gone with "frigates" and put the Defiant next to the Norway and Sabre classes which would feature less guns but way more manneuvreability than other ships which would be the Raider equivalent (with different tactics of course). Then there would be a light cruiser class that has everything from Miranda, Steamrunner over Intrepid, Prometheus and other smaller ships which would "rival" Raptors/Destroyers. More weapons (4 to 5 total), less manneuvreability, more hull etc. Next we'd see heavy cruisers. Cheyenne, Akira, Sovereign, Ambassador and the like. Direct counter to Battlecruisers (not copies mind you). And eventually each faction would have it's "king's class" of ships hat are dubbed "Explorers" in Starfleet (Galaxy, Nebula and adding Cryptic ships Star Cruiser and Oddy) and maybe "Command Vessels" in the KDF (Negh'Var, Vo'Quv...).
No artificial "Tier" limit, just different ships versataille enough for different tasks. Have ship models roughly represent different tactical foci (like more tac, more eng and more sci heavy layouts) but all of them are end-game compatible. You just can't face a battlecruiser with a Defiant or Sabre Class face to face, it's suicide. If the game would've followed a few rules it would've greatly improved the feel of the game in my opinion.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
IT would need to be able to run Aux2batt and just give it a LT CMDR Tac station and it would be %100 better. Hell the new Avengers Boff seating is perfect for this ship. The Excelsior's Boff seating is perfect also. Aux2Batt with at least 4 Tac abilities, 2 Tac teams and the ability to use a BO and CRF or a good Torp skill.
http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww317/jgreer721/untitled_zps7a52bc2d.png
just bought this bad boy yesterday
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Seems someone needs to get a question into the devs about why they are ignoring threads and not on these forums talking to their playbase.
I don't want to hit X commanders on their head, but there is a difference between what the players want and what the game "needs". Increased turnrate on the Gal X doesn't make a lot of sense. It is the Galaxy Class, after all. Modified (a unique mod, by the way, but that's not the point here
On the other hand, the base model of the ship, the Galaxy R, is seriously borked. Not because of turn rate but because of the BOFF layout that is, by the game's own rules, inferior/broken as opposed to other ships (there are various threads about that). The Galaxy is supposed to be the Negh'Var counter, they are exact copies more or less (though the one gets battlecruiser boni and the other cruiser boni). Yet, the Negh'Var got a universal ensign BOFF in it's fleet version while the Gal R didn't. That universal ensign fixes the BOFF layout - it makes sense for players to ask for a change in that regard since they cannot bypass the "not working" BOFF layout. On the other hand, players demanding LTC universals or LTC+ tacs on the Galaxy demand unreasonable things.
tl;dr: Players always want their ships to be fixed to their preferred playstyle, devs don't need to comment on that. But they are some things that NEED to be fixed, really.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
" it is the galaxy class, after all"
you see how cryptic succeded to convinced you and all sto player that these ship must be inferior to any other no matter what.
why should the galaxy retrofit be made to turn lower than a star cruiser?
the star cruiser is bigger and they both are as engie heavy.
there is no real valid explanation. not from a canon point of view, not from a gameplay point of view.
as for the galaxy x, any tactical ship will benefit for having a better turn rate, cannon build or not.
that being said the cruiser turn power is a joke, so since we are ( again ) unfairly force to use 2 power, the shield frequency boost would have been my choice instead of attrack fire.
i would really love that galaxy fan and non fan stop with this galaxy syndrome.
the one that force us to bielieve that for any abilitie that make us on part with other ship we have to paid in exchange with something that bring us back to tier4.
ambassador and exelsior don't suffer that complex, why should we?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
You misunderstood my intentions. I wanted to say that there is no reason to boost any of the Gal X's stats above those of the Gal R since they are basically the same ship only that the Gal X got its fixed tac ens, a third tac console, cloak and the lance and the DHC ability. That's already quite a bunch
As far as the Galaxy's turn goes I agree that it shouldnt be lower than the Star Cruiser (I never checked that, I never used a Star Cruiser myself). Remember me from the Galaxy thread? I do want that ship improved, the most realistic possibility to me seems atm a fleet version with an universal ENS or LT and a third tac console for the R (3/4/3). The turnrate however is nothing I personally have a problem with. I wouldn't mind it being en par with the Star Cruiser (It's only logical after all) though not above that of smaller vessels. The Galaxy is the largest canon Starcruiser Starfleet ever build.
The cruiser commands are an entirely different topic. It was Cryptics possiblity to make the Galaxy and other 2 tac console cruisers truly unique and valuable. They blew it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I do not disagree that people are handicapped by the turn rate. HOWEVER, let the roecrd show as per: http://sto.gamepedia.com/Dreadnought_Cruiser
The Dreadnought Cruiser is distinguished from other Federation Cruisers by its ability to equip Dual Cannons, its Phaser Spinal Lance, and a Cloaking Device console.
So MAYBE people was to be able to use the dual heavy cannons becuase they were sold on the point that it could equip and use them. Personally I would say that its a little false advertising and not becuase the Avenger can use it now, but becuase equiping it does not help.
Honestly if you look at Naval Warfare its all about ships punding the heck out of each other with firepower. No Ships in movies, actual naval warfare, etc are zipping around each other liek fighter aircraft except well small fighters. THAT is the biggest design flaw. Heck watch Wrath of Khan, they are basically just shooting at each other, not outmaneuvering each other. The ability for Escorts to have a rediculous amount of maneuverability while still able to power and equip the same weapons as larger cruisers is the problem, so cruisers should be compensated by having something....that something is up to the developers to build. But there twoo buys making new ships instead of fixing the old stiff.
I agree completely. Look a few posts before I posted a new "classification" that I would feel fit the game much better.
Regarding the Gal X though, they didn't lie. It can equip DHCs - they never said it makes sense. I mean you can put RCS embassy consoles on it and you can get the turnrate to something in the high 20's I believe. Though since "cannons" never were what we saw Starfleet uses on-screen with a single exception maybe it's time they introduce heavy beam weapons for cruisers. After all a Starcruiser should be slow, heavy and you should wet yourself when it doesn't like you
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising. "Truth" refers to essentially the same concept, that customers have the right to know what they are buying, and that all necessary information should be on the label.
https://www.google.com/#q=misleading
giving the wrong idea or impression.
No, I would not accuse Cryptic of lieng. However, by suggesting to a customer, hey here is a ship that we allow you to use cannons on, you would assume that it would be effective. All other cruisers do not get them becuase there not effective. I would say that suggesting to players it has these benefits are the enticements to buy and as it does not work as needed customers should be allowed to return. I would say that the advertisement does meet the definition of misleading.
just because you CAN do something with a product, doesn't mean you should, or you can do whatever effectively. Nowhere does it say that it is EFFECTIVE... any misleading that has been done about effectiveness of DHCs on a Galaxy is done by the mind of the person(s) that slapped them on and didn't bother to give a flip about compensating for the horrible mobility.
Just because you saw Daisy Duke in those hot shorts as a kid doesn't mean your girlfriend is gonna look just as good if you buy her those same shorts.
Yes and if she doesn't I can return it can't I?
Return the shorts or return the girl? ponder that.