Way back when it was first released I had to strain family relations to get 5 referrals to get this ship. The game was a train wreck back then.
At the time it was an awesome ship, but thus began the PvPr's QQKlub and Cryptic's ongoing mistake of listening to them.
So this once great ship was nerfed.
Then they gave them to everybody after yet more forum QQ.
So this bundle here? You are getting off light.
That said I went into the Spacedock and made sure my old Galaxy X was properly configured with the 2 piece bonus and equipment using the new selection system.
I'm still flying my store bought 9 pack of Dyson ships however.
Going back into the 2010 history of the Dreadnaught Cruiser on the wiki, it turns out that the original configuration was a Commander Engineering. LtCdr Engineering, Ens Tactical, and Lt Sci, Lt, Eng, and Lt Tac.
So they've dropped the Lt engineer and replaced the ens tac with an ens universal. I'm not sure if it was nerfed or a victim of the times.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
H'mmm. Good for the dread, brings it at least a bit closer to real battlecruiser stats.
I will say this: The dreadnought series is now sort of close to par with the regent and fleet regent, with maybe a little over-focus on eng. The hangar bay should make this a...creative ship to use. Yellowstone runabouts would be my pet of choice.
It's still underpowered, and definitely not a dreadnought like the Scimitar, and the Gal-R is still a joke, but at least the Gal-X should be able to run a decent battlecruiser beam-boat build, if you use EP2W a lot.
And yet this ship cannot make appropriate use of it's ability to mount dual cannons. Lt. Tactical is not sufficient. The Lt. Commander Engineering position could have been changed to tactical.
like this makes any difference when its not + to the base, but just + to the final. for these bonuses not to a joke, the console bonus would give 5 to 7 final turn, or actually bump the base turn
i have a few ideas regarding the dreadnought cruiser while the changes made are certainly great i would like it much better if u could add new variants most notably the monarch variant from the galaxy class retrofit in my opinion its absolutely begging to have a dreadnought version i have a dreadnought already but i dont have the retrofit and while i would like to have it i would b much more willing to go and spent the money for it if i could get its variant for the dreadnought as well as the console it has
What I love about Cryptic over the years like in the dev blog where they mention the part where in all good things about the attack vector it used to attack the klingon ships. Much like most Cryptic made ships function nothing like they did in the franchise lol.
So make it turn like a shuttle, sprinkle hanger dust to grow more hangars, and boost the console set power and you'll sell them. Or just make gimmick ships and word gets around its just a gimmick and then you can blame the player base for them not selling
i like what they have done with the Gal-X reboot and the Fleet Gal-X. But with making a uni enisin slot. i wowuld have made the Tac slot Lt. Commander. Everythng else is fine. Its a Tac/Eng style ship so make it a little more Tactical.
Knowing the set bonus was +2 turn rate and not +1 might have swayed me to purchase the bundle.
Since turn rate has always been one of the Galaxy's biggest problems, a +2 increase would have made it nimble enough to keep pace with other cruisers.
And now I am at work with no way to buy it before the sale expires... and so lost opportunity means I won't consider buying it without another sale... and there are other ships I have a higher priority to get on sale.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I think it is funny how much people ask for a Lt. Cmdr. Tac slot.
From a game perspective I can understand why, but they seem to forget (or don't know) that the Gal-X is not a brand new ship the Federation created but an existing ship (Enterprise-D) that was modified by Riker as a personal ship else it would have been decommissioned.
As such, to stay true to canon, cryptic can't simply redesign the whole purpose of the ship by making it tactical heavy. The Galaxy class's priorities are: Engineering/Operations with Science & Tactical being secondary because it was an "Exploration" vessel. The only error cryptic has made at this point is calling it a "Dreadnaught", cuz it really is not a "war" machine.
The universal ensign slot makes sense because the modification allows a captain to sacrifice a small amount for engineering for a small tactical gain or small science gain depending on strategy.
As for some arguments like, "Why isn't <x> function built in? Why is it a console ability?" I can only guess that it was a game balancing mechanic; else, ships that didn't have cool functions like saucer separation would never be used. Because why would someone use a ship that has no cool functions over a ship that has built-in functions AND could still use all console slots?
Cryptic could have forced the special unique ship functions to be built in, by removing a console slot as a balance, but chose to leave it up to the ship's captain as to whether the function was worth a console slot or not since many captains buy a ship for the "look" or Boff layout more than the extra functions.
At this point, the only thing I find TRIBBLE with the Gal-X (& other "Cloak" ships) is that there is a difference between Cloak & Battle Cloak as far as when it can be activated. If a ship has cloak, the captain should be able to activate it at any time (cooldown respected of course). Now if you want to have Battle Cloak provide some additional bonus over Cloak...fine, but preventing activation in combat is just dumb.
Comments
Going back into the 2010 history of the Dreadnaught Cruiser on the wiki, it turns out that the original configuration was a Commander Engineering. LtCdr Engineering, Ens Tactical, and Lt Sci, Lt, Eng, and Lt Tac.
So they've dropped the Lt engineer and replaced the ens tac with an ens universal. I'm not sure if it was nerfed or a victim of the times.
The 2 Piece Console Set Bonus grants a +2 Turn rate, not the previously mentioned +1
~CaptainSmirk
They stay at +1
~CaptainSmirk
H'mmm. Good for the dread, brings it at least a bit closer to real battlecruiser stats.
I will say this: The dreadnought series is now sort of close to par with the regent and fleet regent, with maybe a little over-focus on eng. The hangar bay should make this a...creative ship to use. Yellowstone runabouts would be my pet of choice.
It's still underpowered, and definitely not a dreadnought like the Scimitar, and the Gal-R is still a joke, but at least the Gal-X should be able to run a decent battlecruiser beam-boat build, if you use EP2W a lot.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
So make it turn like a shuttle, sprinkle hanger dust to grow more hangars, and boost the console set power and you'll sell them. Or just make gimmick ships and word gets around its just a gimmick and then you can blame the player base for them not selling
Just my thoughts on it.
Tayos
Knowing the set bonus was +2 turn rate and not +1 might have swayed me to purchase the bundle.
Since turn rate has always been one of the Galaxy's biggest problems, a +2 increase would have made it nimble enough to keep pace with other cruisers.
And now I am at work with no way to buy it before the sale expires... and so lost opportunity means I won't consider buying it without another sale... and there are other ships I have a higher priority to get on sale.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
From a game perspective I can understand why, but they seem to forget (or don't know) that the Gal-X is not a brand new ship the Federation created but an existing ship (Enterprise-D) that was modified by Riker as a personal ship else it would have been decommissioned.
As such, to stay true to canon, cryptic can't simply redesign the whole purpose of the ship by making it tactical heavy. The Galaxy class's priorities are: Engineering/Operations with Science & Tactical being secondary because it was an "Exploration" vessel. The only error cryptic has made at this point is calling it a "Dreadnaught", cuz it really is not a "war" machine.
The universal ensign slot makes sense because the modification allows a captain to sacrifice a small amount for engineering for a small tactical gain or small science gain depending on strategy.
As for some arguments like, "Why isn't <x> function built in? Why is it a console ability?" I can only guess that it was a game balancing mechanic; else, ships that didn't have cool functions like saucer separation would never be used. Because why would someone use a ship that has no cool functions over a ship that has built-in functions AND could still use all console slots?
Cryptic could have forced the special unique ship functions to be built in, by removing a console slot as a balance, but chose to leave it up to the ship's captain as to whether the function was worth a console slot or not since many captains buy a ship for the "look" or Boff layout more than the extra functions.
At this point, the only thing I find TRIBBLE with the Gal-X (& other "Cloak" ships) is that there is a difference between Cloak & Battle Cloak as far as when it can be activated. If a ship has cloak, the captain should be able to activate it at any time (cooldown respected of course). Now if you want to have Battle Cloak provide some additional bonus over Cloak...fine, but preventing activation in combat is just dumb.