test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Fleet Galaxy Dreadnought Announcement Imminent? (Announced)

1567911

Comments

  • killdozer9211killdozer9211 Member Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lianthelia wrote: »
    So...just because 99% of people don't pvp doesn't mean 99% of people are for this change like they claimed.

    Except Holo Emitters are the only thing that actually makes a noticeable change. How often to people even use those in pvp? Heck I don't even see them in the 99% played pve.

    Arguing against any form of customization being added to this barren game is literally advocating for the devil.

    One of the best pvpers I know very regularly uses holo emitters in pvp and pve. Also, that argument works against you too. How many people do you know who use ship customization options to fool potential enemies into thinking they're flying a different ship?
  • kantazo1kantazo1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Seek and ye shall find. Yeshua
  • erraberrab Member Posts: 1,434 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    So.... no Lt. Cmdr. Tactical? :( Not even a Lt. Cmdr. Science? Who ever raised their hand and asked for a universal Ensign Seat?

    I mean, i'll take the Fleet Version for a Fleet Module, that's kinda okay, but... that's it? A useless Hangar, a meh Setbonus for two meh consoles and a NERF to the already weak Lance while seperated? Where are the two lacking Cruiser Commands? Where's the buffed Turn Rate? Where's the Lance Accuracy Fix?

    I would have been happy with at least a second Lt. Tactical... well at least some of it is free. I guess. I didn't expect a lot and i'm still disappointed.

    Call me ungrateful but I'm a bit upset that the X did not get the Lt.C Tactical station that many of us had been asking for over the years.

    I would have like a layout like this:

    Comander Engineering, Lt.C Tactical, Lt. Science, Lt. Universal and Ensign Universal

    I wonder where the extra console slot will end up on the Fleet X, I guessing Science.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,896 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Arguing against any form of customization being added to this barren game is literally advocating for the devil.

    One of the best pvpers I know very regularly uses holo emitters in pvp and pve. Also, that argument works against you too. How many people do you know who use ship customization options to fool potential enemies into thinking they're flying a different ship?

    I'll answer that once you answer me what ship in game has customization that makes it look like it belongs to another class?

    But since I know the answer to that I will answer you...no I don't know any.
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • uryenserellonturyenserellont Member Posts: 858 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Nothing in this game has had me excited for a long time, but this is exciting. There's a chance for real improvements to arguably everyone's favorite ships canonically. The addition of a hangar to the dreadnought is very interesting.

    One thing that bothers me though is that I'm not seeing stat, boff seating or console slot improvements other than the new set bonus, +10% fleet variant improvements and the ensign universal slot. A lot of the reboot seems to be about the saucer separation

    The console bonus is a tanking bonus, and tanking is not useful. STO is all about DPS, not armor and hull tanking.

    Are these improvements enough to make the ships worth it? The T5 retrofit is probably still not worth it at all, but the dreadnought could possibly be with saucer separation and a hangar.

    I haven't wanted to spend zen on a c-store ship or bundle since the scimitar (and I still haven't bought it, I only have 1 romulan character) but I might consider this bundle. We'll see.
  • killdozer9211killdozer9211 Member Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lianthelia wrote: »
    I'll answer that once you answer me what ship in game has customization that makes it look like it belongs to another class?

    But since I know the answer to that I will answer you...no I don't know any.

    So you're saying that if you saw a galaxy in pvp, you'd recognize it and know that, given the gal-x's unique ability to hide its 3rd nacelle, you'd know what to expect and be more cautious?

    Fascinating.
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    are we talking about how to identify the galaxy x with out the 3rd warp nacelle? that easy look at the saucer
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,896 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    So you're saying that if you saw a galaxy in pvp, you'd recognize it and know that, given the gal-x's unique ability to hide its 3rd nacelle, you'd know what to expect and be more cautious?

    Fascinating.

    What does that have to do with what you asked? My point is that is exactly what could happen in pvp and why people might complain. There is no ship in game that has natural customization that allows it to look like another class.
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Nothing in this game has had me excited for a long time, but this is exciting. There's a chance for real improvements to arguably everyone's favorite ships canonically. The addition of a hangar to the dreadnought is very interesting.

    One thing that bothers me though is that I'm not seeing stat, boff seating or console slot improvements other than the new set bonus, +10% fleet variant improvements and the ensign universal slot. A lot of the reboot seems to be about the saucer separation

    The console bonus is a tanking bonus, and tanking is not useful. STO is all about DPS, not armor and hull tanking.

    Are these improvements enough to make the ships worth it? The T5 retrofit is probably still not worth it at all, but the dreadnought could possibly be with saucer separation and a hangar.

    I haven't wanted to spend zen on a c-store ship or bundle since the scimitar (and I still haven't bought it, I only have 1 romulan character) but I might consider this bundle. We'll see.

    That is because Cryptic is trolling, they finally gave the Gal and Gal-X an update like everyone was asking, but it is an update that is fairly useless overall and ignores the main problems with the ships, as well as ignoring common sense and giving the Gal-X a hangar because they are REALLY lazy
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lianthelia wrote: »
    What does that have to do with what you asked? My point is that is exactly what could happen in pvp and why people might complain. There is no ship in game that has natural customization that allows it to look like another class.

    just like the fleet tarvo cant look like a tilss
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    There's a chance for real improvements to arguably everyone's favorite ships canonically.

    The Galaxy X doesn't really match your description. The Galaxy does though.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • killdozer9211killdozer9211 Member Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lianthelia wrote: »
    What does that have to do with what you asked? My point is that is exactly what could happen in pvp and why people might complain. There is no ship in game that has natural customization that allows it to look like another class.

    The issue posed by your question contained its answer all along.

    >GX disables 3rd nacelle
    >that's not fair it looks like a galaxy now
    >other things can look like other things already
    >but what other thing can look like a similar other thing?
    >if there's no other thing, then obviously this is the only case in which a thing can look like a very similar thing, in which case the similar thing gains a unique nature under which to be regarded with suspicion and expectation. If you know a galaxy X can look like a galaxy, then you know that the galaxy you're seeing could be a galaxy-x, and you're not caught off guard when it starts shooting at you.

    try to keep up.
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    The issue posed by your question contained its answer all along.

    >GX disables 3rd nacelle
    >that's not fair it looks like a galaxy now
    >other things can look like other things already
    >but what other thing can look like a similar other thing?
    >if there's no other thing, then obviously this is the only case in which a thing can look like a very similar thing, in which case the similar thing gains a unique nature under which to be regarded with suspicion and expectation. If you know a galaxy X can look like a galaxy, then you know that the galaxy you're seeing could be a galaxy-x, and you're not caught off guard when it starts shooting at you.

    try to keep up.

    hiding the 3rd nacelle will not fool me i know what a galaxy X saucer looks like and its not like the original
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,896 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    The issue posed by your question contained its answer all along.

    >GX disables 3rd nacelle
    >that's not fair it looks like a galaxy now
    >other things can look like other things already
    >but what other thing can look like a similar other thing?
    >if there's no other thing, then obviously this is the only case in which a thing can look like a very similar thing, in which case the similar thing gains a unique nature under which to be regarded with suspicion and expectation. If you know a galaxy X can look like a galaxy, then you know that the galaxy you're seeing could be a galaxy-x, and you're not caught off guard when it starts shooting at you.

    try to keep up.

    So I suppose because it can equip duals that means every single Gal-X pilot will be using DHC's right? With a turn rate of 6 or 7...people will just throw some RCS consoles on it and use cannons huh?
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • erraberrab Member Posts: 1,434 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    daan2006 wrote: »
    hiding the 3rd nacelle will not fool me i know what a galaxy X saucer looks like and its not like the original

    It's not like the lance that runs down the middle of the saucer section won't give it away anyways ;)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,896 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    daan2006 wrote: »
    hiding the 3rd nacelle will not fool me i know what a galaxy X saucer looks like and its not like the original

    Except they want it to look exactly like a Galaxy...not just get rid of the 3rd nacelle. So there would be no 3rd nacelle, no lance, and no saucer cannon mounts.
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    errab wrote: »
    It's not like the lance that runs down the middle of the saucer section won't give it away anyways ;)

    that and the turrets mounted on the top
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lianthelia wrote: »
    Except they want it to look exactly like a Galaxy...not just get rid of the 3rd nacelle. So there would be no 3rd nacelle, no lance, and no saucer cannon mounts.

    here is what i got to say to that umm how about no and you will like it to keep in mind that is not directed towards you
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • uryenserellonturyenserellont Member Posts: 858 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    That is because Cryptic is trolling, they finally gave the Gal and Gal-X an update like everyone was asking, but it is an update that is fairly useless overall and ignores the main problems with the ships, as well as ignoring common sense and giving the Gal-X a hangar because they are REALLY lazy

    Well I'm hoping that "More detailed stats for the Fleet Galaxy Dreadnought Cruiser will be posted in a Dev Blog next week." means they will show an improved boff layout. To me that's most important. It needs a lt cmdr tac slot because STO has evolved into a DPS-only game.

    Swap the lt cmdr engineer and the lt tactical slots and I'll feel better about the ship. Keep them as they are and I might have to pass it up even if I'm excited about them being rebooted.
  • killdozer9211killdozer9211 Member Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lianthelia wrote: »
    So I suppose because it can equip duals that means every single Gal-X pilot will be using DHC's right? With a turn rate of 6 or 7...people will just throw some RCS consoles on it and use cannons huh?

    What does it matter what it's using? You know it'll either be a decloak alpha or a2b, neither of which either the galaxy or gx can do well. Also, anyone with braincells runs turn neutroniums anyway, and once you've got 3 of them, cruiser turn from either ship is completely irrelevant.

    Come to think of it, what was the point in even posting this anyway?
    What does this have to do with anything?
    It doesn't support your argument about the nacelle at all.

    How did we get from customization to ship loadouts?

    You're the one that thinks it makes such a big difference as to whether or not a galaxy has a third nacelle on how you react to an enemy ship, you're the one that's just assuming you'll be having to worry about cannons from every galaxy without a third nacelle you see. So a gal-x without a third nacelle running beams is just going to save you the trouble of worrying in the first place.
    lianthelia wrote: »
    Except they want it to look exactly like a Galaxy...not just get rid of the 3rd nacelle. So there would be no 3rd nacelle, no lance, and no saucer cannon mounts.

    That's a slippery slope argument. I'd post the yourlogicalfallacyis page, but it's obvious by now that you've forsaken logic. You're also assuming that if this was an option, people would only run their ships to look like galaxies and wouldn't kitbash the GX parts.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,896 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    What does it matter what it's using? You know it'll either be a decloak alpha or a2b, neither of which either the galaxy or gx can do well. Also, anyone with braincells runs turn neutroniums anyway, and once you've got 3 of them, cruiser turn from either ship is completely irrelevant.

    Come to think of it, what was the point in even posting this anyway?
    What does this have to do with anything?
    It doesn't support your argument about the nacelle at all.

    How did we get from customization to ship loadouts?

    You're the one that thinks it makes such a big difference as to whether or not a galaxy has a third nacelle on how you react to an enemy ship, you're the one that's just assuming you'll be having to worry about cannons from every galaxy without a third nacelle you see. So a gal-x without a third nacelle running beams is just going to save you the trouble of worrying in the first place.



    That's a slippery slope argument. I'd post the yourlogicalfallacyis page, but it's obvious by now that you've forsaken logic. You're also assuming that if this was an option, people would only run their ships to look like galaxies and wouldn't kitbash the GX parts.


    My point is you're making some little blanket argument which doesn't take into account multiple factors.

    I've forsaken logic? Why don't you use a little? You care to explain to me what does "Can you give the Gal-X a Galaxy skin" mean if not remove everything that makes a Gal-X look like the X?
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • killdozer9211killdozer9211 Member Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lianthelia wrote: »
    My point is you're making some stupid little blanket argument which doesn't take into account multiple factors.

    I've forsaken logic? Why don't you use a little? You care to explain to me what does "Can you give the Gal-X a Galaxy skin" mean if not remove everything that makes a Gal-X look like the X?

    I presented you with the logic 2 posts back, which flew right over your head apparently.

    Nobody said give it a galaxy skin. The first post that started all this was a simple request for the removal of the third nacelle. You took this to mean galaxy skin. I would assume that if anything, the easiest way for this to be implemented would just to be allowing all the galaxy parts for the gx in the tailor, which would include dozens of combinations of kitbash. You'd be just as likely to see at least one recognizable gx part as you wouldn't be.

    Either way, you'd know to regard any galaxy type you saw in pvp with caution because
    1)nobody pvps with a galaxy
    2) you'd know the galaxyx can use galaxy parts, so youd know the galaxy you're seeing could be a galaxy x
    3) even if this worked both ways and you could be seeing a galaxy with a gal-x kitbash, you'd still know this is the only instance in game where two ships can look like each other and you'd know it'd either be one or the other
    3) is still better than not knowing what to expect under a holoemitter or an empty patch of space where a cloaked ship is, or whether or not a ship is running a certain set with the visuals disabled.
    4) if you're pvping and not doing so for your very first time (in which case you're going to lose no matter what because pvp doesn't make any accommodations for noobs anywhere) the difference to you in a target between a gal-x and gal is going to be so inconsequential to you, and any adjustments you would need to make in your build will likely be accessible from your boff/doff roster and inventory.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,896 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I presented you with the logic 2 posts back, which flew right over your head apparently.

    Nobody said give it a galaxy skin. The first post that started all this was a simple request for the removal of the third nacelle. You took this to mean galaxy skin. I would assume that if anything, the easiest way for this to be implemented would just to be allowing all the galaxy parts for the gx in the tailor, which would include dozens of combinations of kitbash. You'd be just as likely to see at least one recognizable gx part as you wouldn't be.

    Either way, you'd know to regard any galaxy type you saw in pvp with caution because
    1)nobody pvps with a galaxy
    2) you'd know the galaxyx can use galaxy parts, so youd know the galaxy you're seeing could be a galaxy x
    3) even if this worked both ways and you could be seeing a galaxy with a gal-x kitbash, you'd still know this is the only instance in game where two ships can look like each other and you'd know it'd either be one or the other
    3) is still better than not knowing what to expect under a holoemitter or an empty patch of space where a cloaked ship is, or whether or not a ship is running a certain set with the visuals disabled.
    4) if you're pvping and not doing so for your very first time (in which case you're going to lose no matter what because pvp doesn't make any accommodations for noobs anywhere) the difference to you in a target between a gal-x and gal is going to be so inconsequential to you, and any adjustments you would need to make in your build will likely be accessible from your boff/doff roster and inventory.

    Well here you go...one request and not that only one I've seen...I don't feel like digging through the entire 28 page thread or the possible other threads.
    coffeemike wrote: »
    Eh... I wanna see the Fleet Galaxy-X first before I decide. I doubt that its the same as this ship if it's going to require a special dev blog next week.

    GIVE US THE ABILITY TO USE THE REGULAR GALAXY SKIN IN THE FLEET GALAXY X!!!!

    Sorry I've been keeping this to myself for 4 years...

    I suppose logic would dictate that you got involved in a argument that didn't involve you or your point of view since my comment was about making a Galaxy skin for the Gal-X and not just the option to remove the third nacelle. I mean since you say you just want the option to remove the third nacelle...right?
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • edwardianededwardianed Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    No hangar bay for the retrofit, despite it having the same shuttle capabilities as the dreadnought? :(
  • mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    No hangar bay for the retrofit, despite it having the same shuttle capabilities as the dreadnought? :(

    The Gal-X should not have gotten a Hangar bay to begin with, so thank god they were not stupid enough to add one to the Galaxy-R
  • killdozer9211killdozer9211 Member Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lianthelia wrote: »
    Well here you go...one request and not that only one I've seen...I don't feel like digging through the entire 28 page thread or the possible other threads.



    I suppose logic would dictate that you got involved in a argument that didn't involve you or your point of view since my comment was about making a Galaxy skin for the Gal-X and not just the option to remove the third nacelle. I mean since you say you just want the option to remove the third nacelle...right?

    You assumed my argument supported that point of view and that point of view only, whereas, in actuality, I posted my realistic view on how that would be achieved in my previous post. And even in my suggestion, the possibility you were arguing against would still be included, and therefore would require my response and defense all the same.

    Now I'm confused, can you not reason, or can you not read?
  • reginamala78reginamala78 Member Posts: 4,593 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Hopefully they'll adjust it to something like Cmdr Eng, LtCmdr Tac, LtCmdr Sci, Lt Eng, 4 boffs like the Vo'quv or Fleet Norgh, make it something truly unique fed side instead of just a reskin of the layout they already have on the Avenger and Regent. Go 4/3/3 on the consoles and its ready to go do anything and everything without stepping on anyone's toes.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,896 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    No hangar bay for the retrofit, despite it having the same shuttle capabilities as the dreadnought? :(

    I always thought maybe the Retrofit would be the one to get a hangar and the Ens Uni and maybe the dread a more modified boff layout.
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,896 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    You assumed my argument supported that point of view and that point of view only, whereas, in actuality, I posted my realistic view on how that would be achieved in my previous post. And even in my suggestion, the possibility you were arguing against would still be included, and therefore would require my response and defense all the same.

    Now I'm confused, can you not reason, or can you not read?

    So I guess if you support the Galaxy skin for the Gal-X that makes your comment about no one wanting it false since you say you support it.
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • killdozer9211killdozer9211 Member Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lianthelia wrote: »
    So I guess if you support the Galaxy skin for the Gal-X that makes your comment about no one wanting it false since you say you support it.

    Dear God, it's like you can't speak English.

    I didn't say nobody wants it. People want lots of things, and there's a difference between wanting something and supporting it.
    I presented you with the logic 2 posts back, which flew right over your head apparently.

    Nobody said give it a galaxy skin. The first post that started all this was a simple request for the removal of the third nacelle. You took this to mean galaxy skin. I would assume that if anything, the easiest way for this to be implemented would just to be allowing all the galaxy parts for the gx in the tailor, which would include dozens of combinations of kitbash. You'd be just as likely to see at least one recognizable gx part as you wouldn't be.

    Either way, you'd know to regard any galaxy type you saw in pvp with caution because
    1)nobody pvps with a galaxy
    2) you'd know the galaxyx can use galaxy parts, so youd know the galaxy you're seeing could be a galaxy x
    3) even if this worked both ways and you could be seeing a galaxy with a gal-x kitbash, you'd still know this is the only instance in game where two ships can look like each other and you'd know it'd either be one or the other
    3) is still better than not knowing what to expect under a holoemitter or an empty patch of space where a cloaked ship is, or whether or not a ship is running a certain set with the visuals disabled.
    4) if you're pvping and not doing so for your very first time (in which case you're going to lose no matter what because pvp doesn't make any accommodations for noobs anywhere) the difference to you in a target between a gal-x and gal is going to be so inconsequential to you, and any adjustments you would need to make in your build will likely be accessible from your boff/doff roster and inventory.

    Points where I was wrong:
    -Somebody said give it a galaxy skin.

    That doesn't change the fact that your argument is illogical because of the reasoning I've presented that you are unable to come to terms with.
This discussion has been closed.