damn, i really hoped for at least a comment yesterday
I'm worried that it's down to politics. Cryptic is not really good at admitting mistakes and even with their usual "Asterisk: This may all be subject to change" footnote, they've rarely if ever reacted to feedback.
I'm worried that it's down to politics. Cryptic is not really good at admitting mistakes and even with their usual "Asterisk: This may all be subject to change" footnote, they've rarely if ever reacted to feedback.
yeah, it mostly is more like: let's see how far we can go with obvious bs. and if the forum brakes from the rage they're mostly like: oops, really guys? we not would have expected ur disapointments (while the reasons for those are obvious from the start).
lets paint the red car green now :rolleyes: :mad:
Well they react to feedback just not written stuff. Maybe they listen for the next ship of this new pack of theirs fails hard. Thats the only chance i see. Like when the arkif gained a hangar over night. Sadly the galx already got one added^^
Can we get a way to purchase some of these special modules with dilithium? I have a galaxy dread and absolutely love the idea of saucer separation but I can't afford or rationalize purchasing a 2000 C store ship only to get the saucer separation module.
Then grind enough dilithium to sell for zen to buy the ship to get the console. That's the only way you'll be able to do it. I didn't buy a Venture refit because I wanted one, I just wanted the skin for my dreadnaught, the anti-matter spread console was a bonus.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
And this is a way of thinking that's puts these machines down - no one wants to be the tank, everyone wants to see how high their DPS can hit and steamroll everything in their path. And I have to ask: doesn't that get BORING? Is that all that matters now, just how high you can push things so that everything's a joke?
And if this game actually needed pure damage soaking tanks that also don't need to do damage, you'd have a point. Again, the ship as it is designed is not needed. There's a problem with that and I don't think changing gameplay is the correct way to go about changing that. Updating the ship is.
Doesn't need to be a DPS power house, probably shouldn't do more than some of the more tactically oriented cruisers now. Just need to be relevant. The Intrepid us more relevant than this ship and it has the same tactical boff layout. Specifically the Galaxy-R and its fllet version I'm talking about.
I think some people simply won't be happy till the Galaxy can outright destroy any other ship with a single shot, use every science ability in the game, and be invulnerable to destruction by anything outside of a Doomsday Machine.
(..)
A ridiculous strawman-argument up front and then some huge essay of a post that most players won't even bother to read since you've lost all credibility in the first paragraph.
Really?
If you had actually read and tried to understand what people don't like about the Galaxy and which changes they propose, you'd have noticed that it's a 'less terribad' Galaxy, and not an 'uber Galaxy' which has been asked for.
But I guess you just prefer to deliberately misunderstand people, so you can jump on that high horse and lecture them, hm?
And if this game actually needed pure damage soaking tanks that also don't need to do damage, you'd have a point.
The game has NEVER needed "pure damage soaking tanks that do damage", not even in the design. Consider that the ability to attract attention is directly keyed to the ability to DO DAMAGE. A ship that does not do damage, does not pull threat. Furthermore, having a ship that soaks up ALL the damage is actually counterproductive. The ideal situation has NEVER been to have a single ship that soaks up all fire, because this is a great way to get it KILLED. The ideal situation is for ships to spread damage across the entire team, so no single member takes a disproportionately large share of damage, maximizing the effects of healing and regeneration. Because ultimately, the Galaxy has no instrinsically greater ability to take damage than any other ship of 1.0-ish shield mod, EPTS1, and the occasional TSS. Any ship running this setup has exactly the SAME amount of shielding, and very little difference in hull. Hull Tanking is Not A Thing, and never has been.
damn, i really hoped for at least a comment yesterday
I was hoping for at least a "Thanks for the Feedback". I dont know, they probably know that they are mistaken but are to proud to admit it or to afraid of Geko to even deliver the feedback, what ever it is, the Iconic Galaxy and their fans are the ones that suffer.
That's less of a "reboot" or even a "revamp" and more of a "fix" or "update".
The game has NEVER needed "pure damage soaking tanks that do damage", not even in the design. Consider that the ability to attract attention is directly keyed to the ability to DO DAMAGE. A ship that does not do damage, does not pull threat. Furthermore, having a ship that soaks up ALL the damage is actually counterproductive. The ideal situation has NEVER been to have a single ship that soaks up all fire, because this is a great way to get it KILLED. The ideal situation is for ships to spread damage across the entire team, so no single member takes a disproportionately large share of damage, maximizing the effects of healing and regeneration. Because ultimately, the Galaxy has no instrinsically greater ability to take damage than any other ship of 1.0-ish shield mod, EPTS1, and the occasional TSS. Any ship running this setup has exactly the SAME amount of shielding, and very little difference in hull. Hull Tanking is Not A Thing, and never has been.
Thats exactly his point.. The only thing the galr is better at than other ships is tanking which is mostly useless in this game.
Thats exactly his point.. The only thing the galr is better at than other ships is tanking which is mostly useless in this game.
Is not better at that either. The Ody and the Ambassador are far superior, also de Fleet Star Cruiser. And this just in the Federation.
The Fleet Negh'Var, the Bortasqu' Cruiser, the Voth Bastion, the Voth Bulwark, the Tholian Recluse and Advanced Obelisk, just to said some, are far better at tanking.
yeah ok so here a rundown of suggestions made so far, so that all those derps that always talk about how we want the GX to own everything can finally just stfu.
For The Gal R, the most favorite changes so was suggested by Dot..something.
It basically involves bringing the ship state change abilities displayed on the Dysons and the Mode-switching Veteran to the Galaxy, as follows:
Once the saucer separates, the ship goes into tactical mode and switched to a tactically oriented boff and ship stat layout.
This is the gist of it. A mode change. One that makes perfect sense, is rooted in canon and would do the ship good.
Having the third engineer ensign become an universal generally would also help.
Arguments have been made to switch the standard boff layout to Commander Engineer, ltcom sci (its an explorer), LT Engineer and LT TaC and universal ensign. The Saucer sep would then swap science lt com to tac ltcom.
How, the hell, is this considered OP?
As for the dreadnought:
Simple really: Turn the lance into an integrated extremely narrow arc weapon that does considerable damage.
The LTcom engineer becomes a ltcom tac. the Lt Tac becomes and lt Eng.
The ship does not get saucer separation, because this ships entire premise is to train that huge freaking gun onto a target, not to play escort.
The cloak is either re-integrated as a standard ship ability that does not consume a console slot, or it gets an upgrade to be a battle cloak.
Nothing here is overpowered.
No one asked for a second scimitar. Those who do are trolling. The scimi should remain what it is: a slip of judgement, one better not repeated.
For a long time now, the community ask for a galaxy/x refit, for a long time they ask too for more tactical seats. Cryptic after....a long time too...come with this :
We will take your precious tactical seat, and turn in something call universal slot...you will be able to replace your precious tactical ensign by a not needed engineer ( Who will need to put a engineer lol) or a even not needed science officer. At least if i want to use one more science skill on this ship it will be gravity well to try to counter my poor turnrate ...for example.
So...at the end we will keep our precious tactical ensign in its first place.
Consequently you have done nothing...it's just a illusion of refitting.
For a long time now, the community ask for a galaxy/x refit, for a long time they ask too for more tactical seats. Cryptic after....a long time too...come with this :
We will take your precious tactical seat, and turn in something call universal slot...you will be able to replace your precious tactical ensign by a not needed engineer ( Who will need to put a engineer lol) or a even not needed science officer. At least if i want to use one more science skill on this ship it will be gravity well to try to counter my poor turnrate ...for example.
So...at the end we will keep our precious tactical ensign in its first place.
Consequently you have done nothing...it's just a illusion of refitting.
At minimum we need one more ensign tactical.
At minimum we need you to stfu about what the minimum should be ^^
A second ensign tac does nothing. It would turn into a 3 tac ensign defiant-esque debacle. Noone needs 3 tac ensigns anywhere, noone needs 3 ensigns of any type on anything anywhere.
I would really love to understand your reasoning for castrating one of the most iconic and loved ships in the entire franchise. Instead of milking it for every penny you can get you shaft us, you shaft the ship and you shaft the memory. I'm really getting pissed off now with the lack of response from you.
Listen to your customers Cryptic, whilst you still have some. Get this right and you will reap the rewards, get it wrong and...well, we'll see who bothers to even tell you.
The thing that bothers me most, is that is some one makes a post about the fact that he loves the new Dyson Ships, in less that 24hs one of the community representatives said "thanks for your feedback" and here, after 50 pages only in this thread with real feedback (there at least 4 or 5 more) we only have silence.. not even a "thanks for your feedback".
If they think that this rage is only localized in this forum, they are wrong. Like I said I am the leader of the biggest Spanish fleet and the one that translate the news to the only Star Trek Online portal on Spanish, and I can tell you that everyone is pissed by this. Also this is going on in the in game chats.
The thing that bothers me most, is that is some one makes a post about the fact that he loves the new Dyson Ships, in less that 24hs one of the community representatives said "thanks for your feedback" and here, after 50 pages only in this thread with real feedback (there at least 4 or 5 more) we only have silence.. not even a "thanks for your feedback".
If they think that this rage is only localized in this forum, they are wrong. Like I said I am the leader of the biggest Spanish fleet and the one that translate the news to the only Star Trek Online portal on Spanish, and I can tell you that everyone is pissed by this. Also this is going on in the in game chats.
And this is not going away because is weekend.
I couldnt agree more. Cryptic has awful selective hearing when it comes to customer feedback. Threads praising cryptic answered within moments while everyone who asks a reasonable question is ignored or fobbed off.
I remember last year when Season 8 knocked out hundreds of us from the game for weeks. We went days without information while threads about shoulder pads were answered.
I wouldn't expect to see a dev here anytime soon. And if one does grace us with their presence they'll trawl through the last 50 pages to quote the one guy who doesn't realise how bad it is while ignoring the rest of us.
Sigh. Back to my beloved Excelsior. At least one ship is as awesome as it is beautiful.
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 (-:
I'll be frank.. After this I don't want to hear Geko on podcasts trying to rationalize this insane maneuver they're trying to pull on us. I don't want to even play this game so that I'm curious enough to get annoyed at hearing him try.
It's because of Geko that I stopped throwing money at this game due to season 8. Next I'll stop contributing to metrics all together and go play Star Citizen. At least they have an honest record at involving pledges with their ship design.
I hate sounding like a jerk but I've never felt more justified in saying that Geko has to go. "Star Trek" is the only reason I'm still on here.
Come March 6, if they don't fix this DumpTruck Dreadnaught.. I'm walkin' away and spending my money elsewhere for good.
I'll be frank.. After this I don't want to hear Geko on podcasts trying to rationalize this insane maneuver they're trying to pull on us. I don't want to even play this game so that I'm curious enough to get annoyed at hearing him try.
It's because of Geko that I stopped throwing money at this game due to season 8. Next I'll stop contributing to metrics all together and go play Star Citizen. At least they have an honest record at involving pledges with their ship design.
I hate sounding like a jerk but I've never felt more justified in saying that Geko has to go. "Star Trek" is the only reason I'm still on here.
Come March 6, if they don't fix this garbage design I'm walkin' away and spending my money elsewhere for good.
A ridiculous strawman-argument up front and then some huge essay of a post that most players won't even bother to read since you've lost all credibility in the first paragraph.
Really?
If you had actually read and tried to understand what people don't like about the Galaxy and which changes they propose, you'd have noticed that it's a 'less terribad' Galaxy, and not an 'uber Galaxy' which has been asked for.
But I guess you just prefer to deliberately misunderstand people, so you can jump on that high horse and lecture them, hm?
One would hope for a seating like Cmdr Eng, LtCmdr Tac, LtCmdr Sci, Lt Eng, to use the cannon potential and throw out GWs like the NPC dreads do, since there's still a week to say 'hey that wouldn't be a bad idea' and all. Nice though.
From what i read here its more of a cosmetic revamp and will not bring up the fed dread even close to being a usable ship. Even more sadly no change to the lance not even visually. So it will still have bad accuracy and miss constantly.
Its like an only bling and no meat update. No frigate pets and only usual fleet stats for the fleet dread.
i hope the galaxy R was excluded from this blog so it can get its own, tommarrow. cause, the galaxy X is ok as is, but the galaxy R is the worst ship IN THE GAME BY FAR.
the new 'relaunch' of the galaxy line, you could make it so good cryptic. please dont stop short of what these ships deserve.
Changing out the Ensign tactical slot for a Universal doesn't fix the ship's problem. It can't make full use of it's ability to equip Dual Heavy Cannons. Granted, the Single Hanger slot is nice but without a Lt. Commander tactical slot at the least, this is going to be a half TRIBBLE update. We're so close to having a kick TRIBBLE Galaxy-X, lets push this a little further.
Is not, is a half made work and do you think they are going complete it in the future? This is the Galaxy that we are going to have for years.. is the same Galaxy that its useless against the current ships and is going to be even more TRIBBLE against the ships that are going to be releases in the 2015.
No other ship in the history of star trek, outside of the connie, is as iconic as the galaxy class. No other ship in all of STO has a 5778+ posting thread on people wanting it to be improved. No other ship can be monetized by doing absolutely nothing to it, but continuing to spout off as if they just did everyone a favor.
Another baffling decision made by Captain Geko and or the Cryptic team. Al, please explain to us how this makes the Gal-x Dread on par with the Scimi and the Jemmy Dread? Why wasn't it given a Commander Tac or at least a LTC Tac? Come on dude...this is a joke right?
Slapping a hangar bay on it? Why aren't all the Galaxies getting hangar bays then?
This type of half-butted, lame attempts are why I don't play this game anymore. Get a clue Cryptic! Maybe some of the Neverwinter team can take over your jobs. They seem to have a little better idea of how to run a game. At this point in time STO is far far behind what Neverwinter is and has to offer players. Why is this?
Personally I don't like the changes made to the Gal-X.
The phaser lance is like a high density beam rifle..it was supposed to shoot through multiple target in a straight line.
Rather than make that lance be the key defining feature of the Gal-X they make it AOE to fit in with the current aoe-dps-vomiting meta and if that wasn't enough, they're breaking canon by giving this ship saucer separation.
The lance PHYSICALLY is located in the saucer and 'neck' of the battle section. The ship was not supposed to separate by design.
I would have considered an acceptable change if:
1- Phaser lance was improved to damage ships out to 12km range (diminishing damage with range) and the damage of the current lance was increased by having it use both WEP and AUX power to boost its damage.
2- I would have given the Gal-X the ability to use energy weapon doffs with the lance. Aka timer reduction, BO penetration bonus, etc. I would have allowed it to boost its lance with beam overload.
3- The ship itself only really needed better power bonuses. +15 to weapon +15 to shield would have brought it smack perfect into the dreadnaught range.
The updates to the Galaxy ships are very disappointing.
Don't get me wrong, any "fixes" to existing content is great. The only thing I can think of as to why this update is so underwhelming is that Cryptic didn't want the sales of their other C-Store items to be affected much by this, so basically this is just an update to say that they have addressed the Galaxy "issue".
That itself is disappointing as the Galaxy, being as iconic as it is, should have been given better attention than what it has even with the update.
I personally hate the sight of the Galaxy, but I do recognize its importance to Star Trek. Why can't Cryptic?
...and I could go on, but I know from your reply that you find long posts too bothersome to read.
And all this for ships that can complete end-game content missions without trouble, and that perform their functions well (the functions intended for them within the game, not the functions the players think they should be intended for in the game).
Useless? Hardly.
No one want's an 'uber Galaxy', with two hangers launching frigates, phaser lances that reach 12km and blow completely through multiple ships, and/or more power than any other ship in the game? Read above, please for all of these suggestions.
And they don't want this because the Galaxy-class is 'iconic' and 'deserves more'?
Finally, let's be frank here. An update that will result in a Federation cruiser that cloaks, comes with a free double-firing weapon, full tanking abilities, adequate tactical abilities for a cruiser, average science abilities for a cruiser, the ability to accept a Saucer Seperation module, two cruiser AOE command options, a hangar bay, and the option to upgrade to a Fleet version that will likely result in it having the most hull in the fleet (tied with the Galaxy-Fleet) and increased shielding on top of all of this....."will not bring up the fed dread even close to being a usable ship"? What kind of ship, then, does that say the players would consider 'close to being usable'?
And a ship that has the Engineering stats to run as many or more Engineering abilities than any other Cruiser in the game, enough hull to outlast just about any engagement, ability to increase its handling if the player wants more maneuverability and an additional gun at his/her side at the cost of some of that exceptional tanking ability, and the option to upgrade to a Fleet version on par with an Odyssey-Ops....is "the worst ship IN THE GAME BY FAR". Worse than the Star Cruiser, which has 1000 fewer hull, only a 1-degree better turn mode without the ability to improve that, and a Science ensign to replace the Engineering ensign on an -Engineering- ship? By far? Really?
I'm sorry, but I think you need to re-read the posts yourself and really think about what people are saying before claiming I am the one with the 'strawman argument' and on the high horse.
I would really love to understand your reasoning for castrating one of the most iconic and loved ships in the entire franchise.
I went on about that in another post .
It's simple :
Iconic Ship + good design = problematic long term profit .
You (and many others) will not buy their latest Lockbox ship if you are happy with what you have .
Thus , by that reasoning , you must not be made happy with what you have .
And that's what's happening .
Now if cryptic were to sell ... I duno , content instead of ships , then you could get your ship in the way you wanted .
But that is what's not happening .
I swear , sometimes playing STO is like watching DS9 or TNG in reverse . :rolleyes:
At first it's awesome and you have days or weeks of fun leveling , and then you have more hours of fun in difficult STF's .
Then you get the Lockboxes .
Then you get the grind .
Then you get more levels of grind .
And in the midst of all this spiral downward , you notice that Iconic ships are getting shafted , and yet you still find jewels like the FE's and stuff .
So it's not all bad ... , but what is surrounding the "not all bad" makes your heart bleed .
Actually , this is their tried-and-true tactic of letting us yell at the walls until our throats hurt ... -- and sadly I've seen more then enough threads die out after an exhausting weekend of yelling at the walls ppl were left speechless (or that everything that could have been possibly said has been said , and they did not want to rehash) .
But that did not make the feeling of being disgusted go away ... .
Cryyyyptic! You recently released one of the most awesome designs you ever released (and it's nearly for free). The Mirror Heavy Cruiser Retrofit along with the Constellation saucer (I know you patched it out as choice.. but I still fly it :P)
It shares it's boff layout with the Ambassador class and the Kamarag which is a very nice.
Give a modified version of this to us for the Galaxy and it will be perfect. I would buy the 4k zen pack for sure then. I could even be persuaded to finally start an Engineer on the Fed side. That's 4k zen plus 1k zen for modules from me.
Retrofit the old to make them fun to play and more people will buy them. I for one wanna see less Scimitars and more Iconic cruisers in game.
T5 Galaxy Boff Layout:
Lt. Tac
Ens. Tac
Cmdr. Eng
Lt. Uni
Lt.Cmdr Sci
The Galaxy would be the science cruiser it should always be. Exploration Cruiser .. 'nuff said.
And the Uni Lt. would give it something special without becoming overpowered. It would even share some utility with it's sister class the Nebula (which is perfectly fine.. when the secondary deflectors go live).
I would love to see this change on the Fleet Kamarag or Fleet K'tinga too (along with a Shield Modifier increase on those). Give them Klingons their mean iconic beasts back. Anyway...
Galaxy X Boff Layout:
Ltc. Tac
Ens. Tac
Cmdr. Eng
Ltc. Uni
Ens. Sci
It would give this ship more tactical use like a Dreadnought usually has along with a bit universal use. I think it would be balanced. The normal galaxy could possibly have better sci powers and still use aux2bat while Gal X needs to make trade offs but can pull alot more in offense. Like it should as a Dreadnought.
I think both designs are "balanced" and would give us an incentive to buy the new old Galaxy pack along with Fleet Upgrades for 5k Zen.
...and I could go on, but I know from your reply that you find long posts too bothersome to read.
And all this for ships that can complete end-game content missions without trouble, and that perform their functions well (the functions intended for them within the game, not the functions the players think they should be intended for in the game).
Useless? Hardly.
No one want's an 'uber Galaxy', with two hangers launching frigates, phaser lances that reach 12km and blow completely through multiple ships, and/or more power than any other ship in the game? Read above, please for all of these suggestions.
And they don't want this because the Galaxy-class is 'iconic' and 'deserves more'?
Finally, let's be frank here. An update that will result in a Federation cruiser that cloaks, comes with a free double-firing weapon, full tanking abilities, adequate tactical abilities for a cruiser, average science abilities for a cruiser, the ability to accept a Saucer Seperation module, two cruiser AOE command options, a hangar bay, and the option to upgrade to a Fleet version that will likely result in it having the most hull in the fleet (tied with the Galaxy-Fleet) and increased shielding on top of all of this....."will not bring up the fed dread even close to being a usable ship".
And a ship that has the Engineering stats to run as many or more Engineering abilities than any other Cruiser in the game, enough hull to outlast just about any engagement, ability to increase its handling if the player wants more maneuverability and an additional gun at his/her side at the cost of some of that exceptional tanking ability, and the option to upgrade to a Fleet version on par with an Odyssey-Ops....is "the worst ship IN THE GAME BY FAR".
I'm sorry, but I think you need to re-read the posts yourself and really think about what people are saying before claiming I am the one with the 'strawman argument' and on the high horse.
Although I see where your coming from about the tac-ness of the ship being enough for a cruiser, we need to remember its not just a cruiser. Its a Dreadnaught, one of the most expensive ships in the whole game, and by that measurement a Dreadnaught needs a Ltc Tac.
In addition, the lance is, as it stands, awful. It needs more accuracy to be able to fit anything other than a stationary target.
Yes, it can beat most PVE content easily. The same can be said of the T2 Exeter. However, for competing with other ships in either PVP or ranked environments it is woefully inadequate. Certainly not eve remotely close to Scimitar, Jem Dread or others and its infuriating its been hyped as such by cryptic.
It needs a competitive Boff layout and the lance getting some accuracy. We can only hope the boff layout will be remedied with the fleet version.
Personally, I'd like to see something like Cmdr Eng, LtC Uni (or tac), LtC (or even Lt) Sci, Lt Eng, Ensign uni
Of course an even bigger issue is that the Galaxy R doesnt get anything at all. No hangar, no boff change, nothing at all. It needed its third ensign changed to uni, tac or even sci and the console layout of the fleet version changed.
As it stands the only hope for this fine ship design lies with the unlikely, distant hope of a mirror Galaxy.
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 (-:
Modders modded the game sins of a solar empire rebellion to be about feds, romulans klingons and borg duking it out in an 4x-rts.
Oh, and they managed the phaser charge up animation.
Because apparently they are better tech guys than the people cryptic pays.
Wow thanks for that. I'm gunna check it out right now. I just hit with cryptic's insane deleta-a-ship-and-scramble-all-your-loadouts bug so not enthusiastic about setting every single ship up again anytime soon.
Although I see where your coming from about the tac-ness of the ship being enough for a cruiser, we need to remember its not just a cruiser. Its a Dreadnaught, one of the most expensive ships in the whole game, and by that measurement a Dreadnaught needs a Ltc Tac.
In addition, the lance is, as it stands, awful. It needs more accuracy to be able to fit anything other than a stationary target.
Yes, it can beat most PVE content easily. The same can be said of the T2 Exeter. However, for competing with other ships in either PVP or ranked environments it is woefully inadequate. Certainly not eve remotely close to Scimitar, Jem Dread or others and its infuriating its been hyped as such by cryptic.
It needs a competitive Boff layout and the lance getting some accuracy. We can only hope the boff layout will be remedied with the fleet version.
Personally, I'd like to see something like Cmdr Eng, LtC Uni (or tac), LtC (or even Lt) Sci, Lt Eng, Ensign uni
Of course an even bigger issue is that the Galaxy R doesnt get anything at all. No hangar, no boff change, nothing at all. It needed its third ensign changed to uni, tac or even sci and the console layout of the fleet version changed.
As it stands the only hope for this fine ship design lies with the unlikely, distant hope of a mirror Galaxy.
I can understand your perspective, but please understand that my point is that these ships are quite usable before the additions, and these additions are being put on without any increase in the price of the ships, which only improves them. They are not the 'useless' ships claimed to be (I'm running the Galaxy-R myself at the moment, and haven't encountered any problems with Elite STF play), even if they aren't all some players want. Claims that they are dirt or 'worst ships in the game' are far from the truth.
The problem with the Galaxy-R is that it is a 2000-Z ship, not a 2500-Z ship, and is yet being measured up to 2500-Z ships. That makes adding features to it without questioning it's current price a problem. Do you bring it up to the standards of an Odyssey-Ops without requiring the same price, and if you do so, do you strip current owners of their ships and force them to repurchase? The fact that these ships already are owned and been released for some time makes the process of upgrading them different from adjusting and adding to designs either not released yet or very recently released.
I could very easily accept the galaxy-R getting the Universal Ensign slot and even the ability to accept the Dreadnaught's cloaking console, as long as it remained true to it's place of being the specialist Engineering ship for the Federation.
Regardless, the ship changes are still good -additions- to what were already usable ships. The PVP considerations are really beside the point as that is not what ship classes are balanced against. To start adjusting ship classes for PVP performance in a PVE-focused game is going to skew the scale of other elements, such as the bonus/penalties of selecting a particular fleet (Fed/KDF/Rom), STF challenge elements, and NPC characteristics. I don't see that as being a good thing, though PVP is certainly a good optional part of the game. What matters is if a ship can compete in the PVE side of things in its intended role. My opinion is that both the Galaxy-R and Galaxy-X can do so, even if they aren't where some players might like them to be.
Ultimately, nothing is perfect. The question is if these ships are what the player wants to command. For the galaxy-R, it is a ship entirely focused on Engineering to the maximum capacity within the Cruiser side of the Federation fleet. For the Galaxy-X, it is a Federation stealth dreadnaught with a heavy emphasis on Engineering abilities and a switch from Science to Tactical support from the Galaxy-R. If they aren't, then there are other ships in the Federation fleet that they probably will suit their preferences more. Starfleet needs captains for those ships, too.
Comments
I'm worried that it's down to politics. Cryptic is not really good at admitting mistakes and even with their usual "Asterisk: This may all be subject to change" footnote, they've rarely if ever reacted to feedback.
yeah, it mostly is more like: let's see how far we can go with obvious bs. and if the forum brakes from the rage they're mostly like: oops, really guys? we not would have expected ur disapointments (while the reasons for those are obvious from the start).
lets paint the red car green now :rolleyes: :mad:
Doesn't need to be a DPS power house, probably shouldn't do more than some of the more tactically oriented cruisers now. Just need to be relevant. The Intrepid us more relevant than this ship and it has the same tactical boff layout. Specifically the Galaxy-R and its fllet version I'm talking about.
A ridiculous strawman-argument up front and then some huge essay of a post that most players won't even bother to read since you've lost all credibility in the first paragraph.
Really?
If you had actually read and tried to understand what people don't like about the Galaxy and which changes they propose, you'd have noticed that it's a 'less terribad' Galaxy, and not an 'uber Galaxy' which has been asked for.
But I guess you just prefer to deliberately misunderstand people, so you can jump on that high horse and lecture them, hm?
The game has NEVER needed "pure damage soaking tanks that do damage", not even in the design. Consider that the ability to attract attention is directly keyed to the ability to DO DAMAGE. A ship that does not do damage, does not pull threat. Furthermore, having a ship that soaks up ALL the damage is actually counterproductive. The ideal situation has NEVER been to have a single ship that soaks up all fire, because this is a great way to get it KILLED. The ideal situation is for ships to spread damage across the entire team, so no single member takes a disproportionately large share of damage, maximizing the effects of healing and regeneration. Because ultimately, the Galaxy has no instrinsically greater ability to take damage than any other ship of 1.0-ish shield mod, EPTS1, and the occasional TSS. Any ship running this setup has exactly the SAME amount of shielding, and very little difference in hull. Hull Tanking is Not A Thing, and never has been.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
I was hoping for at least a "Thanks for the Feedback". I dont know, they probably know that they are mistaken but are to proud to admit it or to afraid of Geko to even deliver the feedback, what ever it is, the Iconic Galaxy and their fans are the ones that suffer.
Division Hispana
www.divisionhispana.com
Thats exactly his point.. The only thing the galr is better at than other ships is tanking which is mostly useless in this game.
Is not better at that either. The Ody and the Ambassador are far superior, also de Fleet Star Cruiser. And this just in the Federation.
The Fleet Negh'Var, the Bortasqu' Cruiser, the Voth Bastion, the Voth Bulwark, the Tholian Recluse and Advanced Obelisk, just to said some, are far better at tanking.
Division Hispana
www.divisionhispana.com
For The Gal R, the most favorite changes so was suggested by Dot..something.
It basically involves bringing the ship state change abilities displayed on the Dysons and the Mode-switching Veteran to the Galaxy, as follows:
Once the saucer separates, the ship goes into tactical mode and switched to a tactically oriented boff and ship stat layout.
This is the gist of it. A mode change. One that makes perfect sense, is rooted in canon and would do the ship good.
Having the third engineer ensign become an universal generally would also help.
Arguments have been made to switch the standard boff layout to Commander Engineer, ltcom sci (its an explorer), LT Engineer and LT TaC and universal ensign. The Saucer sep would then swap science lt com to tac ltcom.
How, the hell, is this considered OP?
As for the dreadnought:
Simple really: Turn the lance into an integrated extremely narrow arc weapon that does considerable damage.
The LTcom engineer becomes a ltcom tac. the Lt Tac becomes and lt Eng.
The ship does not get saucer separation, because this ships entire premise is to train that huge freaking gun onto a target, not to play escort.
The cloak is either re-integrated as a standard ship ability that does not consume a console slot, or it gets an upgrade to be a battle cloak.
Nothing here is overpowered.
No one asked for a second scimitar. Those who do are trolling. The scimi should remain what it is: a slip of judgement, one better not repeated.
For a long time now, the community ask for a galaxy/x refit, for a long time they ask too for more tactical seats. Cryptic after....a long time too...come with this :
We will take your precious tactical seat, and turn in something call universal slot...you will be able to replace your precious tactical ensign by a not needed engineer ( Who will need to put a engineer lol) or a even not needed science officer. At least if i want to use one more science skill on this ship it will be gravity well to try to counter my poor turnrate ...for example.
So...at the end we will keep our precious tactical ensign in its first place.
Consequently you have done nothing...it's just a illusion of refitting.
At minimum we need one more ensign tactical.
At minimum we need you to stfu about what the minimum should be ^^
A second ensign tac does nothing. It would turn into a 3 tac ensign defiant-esque debacle. Noone needs 3 tac ensigns anywhere, noone needs 3 ensigns of any type on anything anywhere.
The thing that bothers me most, is that is some one makes a post about the fact that he loves the new Dyson Ships, in less that 24hs one of the community representatives said "thanks for your feedback" and here, after 50 pages only in this thread with real feedback (there at least 4 or 5 more) we only have silence.. not even a "thanks for your feedback".
If they think that this rage is only localized in this forum, they are wrong. Like I said I am the leader of the biggest Spanish fleet and the one that translate the news to the only Star Trek Online portal on Spanish, and I can tell you that everyone is pissed by this. Also this is going on in the in game chats.
And this is not going away because is weekend.
Division Hispana
www.divisionhispana.com
I couldnt agree more. Cryptic has awful selective hearing when it comes to customer feedback. Threads praising cryptic answered within moments while everyone who asks a reasonable question is ignored or fobbed off.
I remember last year when Season 8 knocked out hundreds of us from the game for weeks. We went days without information while threads about shoulder pads were answered.
I wouldn't expect to see a dev here anytime soon. And if one does grace us with their presence they'll trawl through the last 50 pages to quote the one guy who doesn't realise how bad it is while ignoring the rest of us.
Sigh. Back to my beloved Excelsior. At least one ship is as awesome as it is beautiful.
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/87XKSGH
It's because of Geko that I stopped throwing money at this game due to season 8. Next I'll stop contributing to metrics all together and go play Star Citizen. At least they have an honest record at involving pledges with their ship design.
I hate sounding like a jerk but I've never felt more justified in saying that Geko has to go. "Star Trek" is the only reason I'm still on here.
Come March 6, if they don't fix this DumpTruck Dreadnaught.. I'm walkin' away and spending my money elsewhere for good.
watch this, and play this. you will feel better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSvzwFnnpVI
BTW.
Modders modded the game sins of a solar empire rebellion to be about feds, romulans klingons and borg duking it out in an 4x-rts.
Oh, and they managed the phaser charge up animation.
Because apparently they are better tech guys than the people cryptic pays.
Really?
...and I could go on, but I know from your reply that you find long posts too bothersome to read.
And all this for ships that can complete end-game content missions without trouble, and that perform their functions well (the functions intended for them within the game, not the functions the players think they should be intended for in the game).
Useless? Hardly.
No one want's an 'uber Galaxy', with two hangers launching frigates, phaser lances that reach 12km and blow completely through multiple ships, and/or more power than any other ship in the game? Read above, please for all of these suggestions.
And they don't want this because the Galaxy-class is 'iconic' and 'deserves more'?
Finally, let's be frank here. An update that will result in a Federation cruiser that cloaks, comes with a free double-firing weapon, full tanking abilities, adequate tactical abilities for a cruiser, average science abilities for a cruiser, the ability to accept a Saucer Seperation module, two cruiser AOE command options, a hangar bay, and the option to upgrade to a Fleet version that will likely result in it having the most hull in the fleet (tied with the Galaxy-Fleet) and increased shielding on top of all of this....."will not bring up the fed dread even close to being a usable ship"? What kind of ship, then, does that say the players would consider 'close to being usable'?
And a ship that has the Engineering stats to run as many or more Engineering abilities than any other Cruiser in the game, enough hull to outlast just about any engagement, ability to increase its handling if the player wants more maneuverability and an additional gun at his/her side at the cost of some of that exceptional tanking ability, and the option to upgrade to a Fleet version on par with an Odyssey-Ops....is "the worst ship IN THE GAME BY FAR". Worse than the Star Cruiser, which has 1000 fewer hull, only a 1-degree better turn mode without the ability to improve that, and a Science ensign to replace the Engineering ensign on an -Engineering- ship? By far? Really?
I'm sorry, but I think you need to re-read the posts yourself and really think about what people are saying before claiming I am the one with the 'strawman argument' and on the high horse.
I went on about that in another post .
It's simple :
Iconic Ship + good design = problematic long term profit .
You (and many others) will not buy their latest Lockbox ship if you are happy with what you have .
Thus , by that reasoning , you must not be made happy with what you have .
And that's what's happening .
Now if cryptic were to sell ... I duno , content instead of ships , then you could get your ship in the way you wanted .
But that is what's not happening .
I swear , sometimes playing STO is like watching DS9 or TNG in reverse . :rolleyes:
At first it's awesome and you have days or weeks of fun leveling , and then you have more hours of fun in difficult STF's .
Then you get the Lockboxes .
Then you get the grind .
Then you get more levels of grind .
And in the midst of all this spiral downward , you notice that Iconic ships are getting shafted , and yet you still find jewels like the FE's and stuff .
So it's not all bad ... , but what is surrounding the "not all bad" makes your heart bleed .
Actually , this is their tried-and-true tactic of letting us yell at the walls until our throats hurt ... -- and sadly I've seen more then enough threads die out after an exhausting weekend of yelling at the walls ppl were left speechless (or that everything that could have been possibly said has been said , and they did not want to rehash) .
But that did not make the feeling of being disgusted go away ... .
It shares it's boff layout with the Ambassador class and the Kamarag which is a very nice.
Give a modified version of this to us for the Galaxy and it will be perfect. I would buy the 4k zen pack for sure then. I could even be persuaded to finally start an Engineer on the Fed side. That's 4k zen plus 1k zen for modules from me.
Retrofit the old to make them fun to play and more people will buy them. I for one wanna see less Scimitars and more Iconic cruisers in game.
T5 Galaxy Boff Layout:
Lt. Tac
Ens. Tac
Cmdr. Eng
Lt. Uni
Lt.Cmdr Sci
The Galaxy would be the science cruiser it should always be. Exploration Cruiser .. 'nuff said.
And the Uni Lt. would give it something special without becoming overpowered. It would even share some utility with it's sister class the Nebula (which is perfectly fine.. when the secondary deflectors go live).
I would love to see this change on the Fleet Kamarag or Fleet K'tinga too (along with a Shield Modifier increase on those). Give them Klingons their mean iconic beasts back. Anyway...
Galaxy X Boff Layout:
Ltc. Tac
Ens. Tac
Cmdr. Eng
Ltc. Uni
Ens. Sci
It would give this ship more tactical use like a Dreadnought usually has along with a bit universal use. I think it would be balanced. The normal galaxy could possibly have better sci powers and still use aux2bat while Gal X needs to make trade offs but can pull alot more in offense. Like it should as a Dreadnought.
I think both designs are "balanced" and would give us an incentive to buy the new old Galaxy pack along with Fleet Upgrades for 5k Zen.
Although I see where your coming from about the tac-ness of the ship being enough for a cruiser, we need to remember its not just a cruiser. Its a Dreadnaught, one of the most expensive ships in the whole game, and by that measurement a Dreadnaught needs a Ltc Tac.
In addition, the lance is, as it stands, awful. It needs more accuracy to be able to fit anything other than a stationary target.
Yes, it can beat most PVE content easily. The same can be said of the T2 Exeter. However, for competing with other ships in either PVP or ranked environments it is woefully inadequate. Certainly not eve remotely close to Scimitar, Jem Dread or others and its infuriating its been hyped as such by cryptic.
It needs a competitive Boff layout and the lance getting some accuracy. We can only hope the boff layout will be remedied with the fleet version.
Personally, I'd like to see something like Cmdr Eng, LtC Uni (or tac), LtC (or even Lt) Sci, Lt Eng, Ensign uni
Of course an even bigger issue is that the Galaxy R doesnt get anything at all. No hangar, no boff change, nothing at all. It needed its third ensign changed to uni, tac or even sci and the console layout of the fleet version changed.
As it stands the only hope for this fine ship design lies with the unlikely, distant hope of a mirror Galaxy.
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/87XKSGH
Wow the mod is sweat!
It remindes me of the Master of Orion series and I can't wait to load it up!
It made me feel ... angry ... and sad .
But I loved it !
Is this Mod the whole game , or just a mod ?
Can I get the game from somewhere ?
You can PM me ingame if you have any info about this ... @Aelfwin
Thankies .
Wow thanks for that. I'm gunna check it out right now. I just hit with cryptic's insane deleta-a-ship-and-scramble-all-your-loadouts bug so not enthusiastic about setting every single ship up again anytime soon.
I can understand your perspective, but please understand that my point is that these ships are quite usable before the additions, and these additions are being put on without any increase in the price of the ships, which only improves them. They are not the 'useless' ships claimed to be (I'm running the Galaxy-R myself at the moment, and haven't encountered any problems with Elite STF play), even if they aren't all some players want. Claims that they are dirt or 'worst ships in the game' are far from the truth.
The problem with the Galaxy-R is that it is a 2000-Z ship, not a 2500-Z ship, and is yet being measured up to 2500-Z ships. That makes adding features to it without questioning it's current price a problem. Do you bring it up to the standards of an Odyssey-Ops without requiring the same price, and if you do so, do you strip current owners of their ships and force them to repurchase? The fact that these ships already are owned and been released for some time makes the process of upgrading them different from adjusting and adding to designs either not released yet or very recently released.
I could very easily accept the galaxy-R getting the Universal Ensign slot and even the ability to accept the Dreadnaught's cloaking console, as long as it remained true to it's place of being the specialist Engineering ship for the Federation.
Regardless, the ship changes are still good -additions- to what were already usable ships. The PVP considerations are really beside the point as that is not what ship classes are balanced against. To start adjusting ship classes for PVP performance in a PVE-focused game is going to skew the scale of other elements, such as the bonus/penalties of selecting a particular fleet (Fed/KDF/Rom), STF challenge elements, and NPC characteristics. I don't see that as being a good thing, though PVP is certainly a good optional part of the game. What matters is if a ship can compete in the PVE side of things in its intended role. My opinion is that both the Galaxy-R and Galaxy-X can do so, even if they aren't where some players might like them to be.
Ultimately, nothing is perfect. The question is if these ships are what the player wants to command. For the galaxy-R, it is a ship entirely focused on Engineering to the maximum capacity within the Cruiser side of the Federation fleet. For the Galaxy-X, it is a Federation stealth dreadnaught with a heavy emphasis on Engineering abilities and a switch from Science to Tactical support from the Galaxy-R. If they aren't, then there are other ships in the Federation fleet that they probably will suit their preferences more. Starfleet needs captains for those ships, too.