test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

Galaxy "Reboot" Feedback

1356733

Comments

  • Options
    oakland4lifeoakland4life Member Posts: 545 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    f2pdrakron wrote: »
    Yes but PvP is dead since everyone flies Scimitars and vapor builds anyway.

    Plus you add another tactical cruiser in PvP for what purpose? Dont we already have enough and I bet a lot of people do want to use the flavor of the month I mentioned, not in taking those ships into PvP so we can have slower moving Avengers and Sovies.

    nvm ur a PvE'er :O
  • Options
    sfc#5932 sfc Member Posts: 992 Bug Hunter
    edited February 2014
    *facepalm* I'm going to just straight up say it:

    You are blind to the humor of how they're failing so hard their bylines are even wrong.
    You're blind to the fact that Geko writes the article, sends it to Smirk, then he posts it. This has nothing to do with "humor."

    They've done this since the first dev blog.
  • Options
    mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    woops, Wrong thread
  • Options
    sonnikkusonnikku Member Posts: 77 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    lol, they're turning the tac seat into a universal. That's the one people actually found useful in it's original state. XD It's not a shocker though when you think about it. My fleet sovereign is a good ship, but it's universal? Two Tacs. Two engineers. One universal. I mean what in hell? What did they THINK people were going to put there? Unless you think hazard emitters is trash, Pointless feature is pointless.
  • Options
    erraberrab Member Posts: 1,428 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I just got the big picture :o

    So if you want the Galaxy X be it the Zen version or the Fleet version to be able to cloak and get its 2 piece set bonus you'll need to take up 3 of you 9 or 10 console slots :eek:

    I'm not sure that that's a trade I'd be willing to make.

    I'm glad that we'll be getting an updated and a Fleet version of the X but I think that Cryptic dropped the ball with the Boff slots.

    Turning an Ensign Tactical station in to a Universal Ensign seems pointless IMO.

    The X would have benefited greatly if it had been given a Universal Lt.C station or a Tactical Lt.C station.

    The X is from a Timeline where the Federation is fighting a loosing war against the Mighty Klingon Empire and the best the Federation could muster for it was a Lt. Tactical station :confused: Now I know why the feds were loosing :P

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7XVcqZodAM

    No mention of if the Phaser Lance is now a sure hit has long has your target is in range and in the lances firing arc.

    Granted the new hanger will be ok but I don't think that adding it was the way to go.

    If I could design the Galaxy X if would look something like this

    Weapons 5/3

    Hull 40000

    Shield Mod 1

    Turn rate 7

    Crew 1000

    Can equipped Dual Cannons

    Device Slots 4

    +10 power to Weapons and Engines

    Boff stations: Commander Engineering, Ltc. Tactical, Ltc. Universal, Lt. Science

    Console Mods: 4 Engineering, 3 Tactical, 2 Science

    Specials

    Cloak via optional console

    Saucer Separation vai optional console

    Omni Powered Phaser Lance (integrated) (100% hit chance has long has target is in arc and range)

    Omni Powered Phaser lance is hard coded to be Phaser type damage but can be boosted by any Beam Energy Weapon type tactical console slotted.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ddesjardinsddesjardins Member Posts: 3,056 Media Corps
    edited February 2014
    Ok - we're excited about a serious Galaxy model that can complete in today's STO.

    Our fleet channel has been quite active. Most of the older players agree we want to resurrect the Gal-X fleet version, if it can be made competitive.

    We're all ST junkies at heart.

    BUT...

    After much debate, most if not all of us agreed that if the new version lacks a commander tactical slot, it's a non-starter.

    Right now cruisers are where it's at for damage. They look and feel like the trek ships we know and love. The Gal-X was always the good looking, but functionally awkward and practically useless ship in our rosters.

    After a quick hands up - all of us admitted to buying and then releasing the Gal-x from our stables of ships.

    We'd love to have it again. IF....
  • Options
    sfc#5932 sfc Member Posts: 992 Bug Hunter
    edited February 2014
    Lt. Cmdr Tac maybe for the gal-x and the gal retrofit maybe.
  • Options
    potencethe1stpotencethe1st Member Posts: 257 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I was seriously expecting a ship to finally be made on par to the scimitar.

    Talk about pathetic, it's the way Feds have zero decent carriers and have to jump through far more hoops.

    Scimitar... Zen ship. 5 fore, 5 tactical, cruiser level turn rate, innate battle cloaking without aconsole stolen for it, cruiser hull and shields, cloak damage boost, and hangar pets.

    Nothing the fed or kdf has even comes close to this setup, not to mention rom boffs.

    This was cryptics chance to give fed something close to it or the mogh, but no. Fed get crapped on again.
  • Options
    potencethe1stpotencethe1st Member Posts: 257 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Lol I personally won't be buying any more ships until Fed get something comparable to the scimitar.

    Period. I suspect there is a sizable amount of fed players like myself
  • Options
    potencethe1stpotencethe1st Member Posts: 257 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Love? Masochistic love?

    It's not a fed scimitar, not even close. Like, a huge dook in the face of fed. And course some lap it up like its pudding.

    Fed players shafted again.
  • Options
    puttenhamputtenham Member Posts: 1,052 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    personally, I think the galaxy r should have a lt cmdr. and the dready should have a cmdr.. and the dread should also have 5 fore and 3 rear weapons seeing as though it has not only the standard compliment of galaxy weapons (- the original fore torpedo tube) but has the two cannons and a much more robust torpedo tube..

    it makes sense.. the galaxy dready should be the federation counterpart to the scimitar..
  • Options
    monkeybone13monkeybone13 Member Posts: 4,640 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Ok - we're excited about a serious Galaxy model that can complete in today's STO.

    Our fleet channel has been quite active. Most of the older players agree we want to resurrect the Gal-X fleet version, if it can be made competitive.

    We're all ST junkies at heart.

    BUT...

    After much debate, most if not all of us agreed that if the new version lacks a commander tactical slot, it's a non-starter.

    Right now cruisers are where it's at for damage. They look and feel like the trek ships we know and love. The Gal-X was always the good looking, but functionally awkward and practically useless ship in our rosters.

    After a quick hands up - all of us admitted to buying and then releasing the Gal-x from our stables of ships.

    We'd love to have it again. IF....

    I never agreed to anything with you or anybody else. :mad:
  • Options
    erraberrab Member Posts: 1,428 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I was seriously expecting a ship to finally be made on par to the scimitar.

    Talk about pathetic, it's the way Feds have zero decent carriers and have to jump through far more hoops.

    Scimitar... Zen ship. 5 fore, 5 tactical, cruiser level turn rate, innate battle cloaking without aconsole stolen for it, cruiser hull and shields, cloak damage boost, and hangar pets.

    Nothing the fed or kdf has even comes close to this setup, not to mention rom boffs.

    This was cryptics chance to give fed something close to it or the mogh, but no. Fed get crapped on again.

    The Mogh is just a copy of the Fed Avenger ;)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    reginamala78reginamala78 Member Posts: 4,593 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Its a still a cruiser, still based around the Galaxy platform. Modified to be tac heavier, but still Cmdr Eng at its core.
  • Options
    reginamala78reginamala78 Member Posts: 4,593 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    It's not a fed scimitar, not even close.

    Who the heck wants another Scimitar? That overpowered POS is flying power creep, and the last thing this game needs is more like it.
  • Options
    ddesjardinsddesjardins Member Posts: 3,056 Media Corps
    edited February 2014
    I never agreed to anything with you or anybody else. :mad:


    Muah-ha-ha... I have your chat logs...

    COMMANDER TAC! COMMANDER TAC! WE NEED COMMANDER TAC!
  • Options
    redz4twredz4tw Member Posts: 3
    edited February 2014
    Chill out dudes. The stats for the fleet galaxy X hasn't even been announced yet. If you own the galaxy X, it's only one ship module, which is pretty cheap, only like 5-7 mil EC last time i checked. If you don't own the galaxy X, why the fudge are you complaining? I for one am really happy they're updating the galaxy X with a fleet version, i never expected the c-store version to be buffed. Seriously, chill out and stop with your whining.

    Edit: Also thank you cryptic, no matter what haters say, your respect in my eyes just went up exponetially
  • Options
    orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Wanting a Commander BOFF position that doesn't match the ship type is grossly irrational, IMO. Hell, when the Dyson Sci ships gain a tac Commander BOFF, it becomes a Destroyer.
  • Options
    redz4twredz4tw Member Posts: 3
    edited February 2014
    I disagree, a tac cruiser is perfectly functional with a Ltcmdr tac and ensign tac. In fact, if it doesn't have a commander engineering slot, I usually don't fly it.
  • Options
    redsnake721redsnake721 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I was drooling to buy this ship if they did it correctly. Alas they did not. IT NEEDS A LTCMDR OR CMDR TACS STATION!!!!! how many threads and posts from hundreds of players have said this? Why do they not listen? Do they not want sales? I was ready to spend money for this ship but now after seeing what is will be I will not be buying this (still) worthless ship.
  • Options
    adverberoadverbero Member Posts: 2,045 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Agreed

    Though its the internet, somebody has to be negative about it, its in the rules I'm sure of it
    solar_approach_by_chaos_sandwhich-d74kjft.png


    These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
  • Options
    puttenhamputtenham Member Posts: 1,052 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    What is with all the anger over this ship and it's re-release?

    Everyone here knows - or should know - the Galaxy-class was meant from the get go, by Gene Roddenberry himself as a 'cruise ship' in outer space as a way to get away from the 'militarzation' that The Original Series had.

    That's right folks, the Galaxy was MEANT from Gene himself, to be a 'Love Boat' in space. That's why it looks as god-awful as it does (one of the biggest disappointments of Star Trek coming back on TV at the time) and why the first season of TNG sucked so badly.

    Deal with it - it's a lumbering cruise ship that you all want to see turned into a racecar battleship. Ain't gonna (and shouldn't!) happen.

    nice try, but we are talking about the galaxy x.. which is a whole different animal... also, gene intended it to have that feel, but.. it was also a ship that stared down every other ship it came across, it was know to be tactically superior to most ships.. it was the flag ship. generations, lursa and be' etor commented on it. galaxy classes are what held everything together in the large scale fights in the dominion war. the hull is literally covered in weapons.. so loveboat yes, with lots of guns..

    and I disagree with orange.. who says a cruiser has to be engineering at its core.. its technically not a cruiser.. its a dreadnaught.. and if dreadnaught doesn't scream tactical, I don't know what does..
  • Options
    adverberoadverbero Member Posts: 2,045 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Would be pretty cool if the special bridge pack could be the Battle Bridge perhaps?
    solar_approach_by_chaos_sandwhich-d74kjft.png


    These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
  • Options
    rmy1081rmy1081 Member Posts: 2,840 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Meh. I don't really care about the Galaxy.

    I think you'd change your tone if it was the Arc-Galaxy-X. lol
  • Options
    snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    Kinda makes me wonder, now, whether I should go with the Galaxy Dreadnought 3-pack, or the Advanced Dyson Destroyer 3-pack. Galaxy Dreadnought *is* kinda iconic. :) I dunno, does it come with its own unique bridge? (like C-Store Ody)

    I'd say neither. Get the Vesta 3 pack.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    kimmymkimmym Member Posts: 1,317 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Give a mouse a cookie...

    They finally give it the attention they said they would, give it more then we expected, and yet here starts the complaints! It needs a LtCom tac now. Next it will need 7 front weapon slots, 3 hangars, and all tac consoles...

    Thanks for the Saucer Separation. That is what you promised me over 2 years ago. Excstatic about the hangar bay, that is pure extra. Uni ens? I'll likely load it tac most of the time, but I'll take that, too!

    The rest of you... bah... learn to fly the ships the way they are and you will have a much better time of things then constantly complaining that X ship needs Y buff.
    I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
    kimmym_5664.jpg
    Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
  • Options
    snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    As a general reply - is anyone curious if they're going to be updating the models of the base-designs to be more accurate? One odd bit I noticed among the misalignment of parts on the models is how the Dreadnought is missing a big old torpedo launcher-looking part on the top of the saucer (edit: they turned it into a small bit that has phaser cannon nodes apparently).

    The Galaxy model has been adjusted more times than any other model in the game. And really, it was Logan's pet project, and he's long gone. So I really doubt they're going to adjust it again, after Logan did it three or four times.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.