Yes, the feedback threads have been bookmarked, noted, and passed to the appropriate Devs, and they have also read/considered them.
Please keep in mind that we do listen to all feedback, and take what we can from what is constructive, and try to base future decisions on what we hear from our player community. ~CaptainSmirk
Wait, hold up. Then can you explain why borticuscryptic believes that everyone is calling for a CMDR Tactical seat? Everyone is asking for the Lt.Cmdr. seat to be changed? Some even suggesting to flip it when the saucer is separated?
Allow me to just chime in here, so we can try and stem the tide of requests for a Commander Tac on the Gal-X.
A ship that has a Comm Array will not have a Commander Tactical station. A Commander Engineering slot is one of the defining factors in determining whether or not a ship has a Comm Array. Furthermore, a Commander Engineering slot is one of the core defining characteristics of a Cruiser, which the Gal-X is, and will remain.
So, I'm afraid you can cross that one off your wish list.
It's like the devs haven't been seen the suggestions posted in Dev Blog #54. There are A LOT of really really really good suggestions that would address the primary problem most players are having with the Galaxy revamp and stays faithful to the lore.
• 1 Ensign Universal. Pointless. Ensign Universal is only useful when you have only 1 Ensign station of either Engineering or Tact. Like needing 2 Ensign Engineering, for dual EPtS1. This ship has 2 Ensign stations already. Soo, it's just going to be an Ensign Tact... like it was.
• 1 Lieutenant Commander Engineering. There's rarely a real good reason for a 1 Lieutenant Commander Engineering station: A2B/A2D both work fine with Lt. only. Engineering simply doesn't have an ability that needs a Lieutenant Commander Engineering station per se.
• Science, however, *does* need a Lieutenant Commander station (for GW1).
• Tactical, however, *does* need a Lieutenant Commander station too, so you can at least have an Attack Pattern Beta, plus something better than BFAW1. And no, it's not unreasonable of an Engineering boat to ask that it can do a decent BFAW.
• 4 Tactical consoles; great! Too bad the ship doesn't come with any real Tactical stations to get much out of them.
• With a turn rate of 6 (+1 for Fleet) it's still a brick. Bricks need BFAW. See above.
I'm genuinely surprised and disappointed that the Galaxy X isn't getting a Lt. Commander Universal or Lt. Commander Tactical slot. It seems that's the only consistent change most requested, would satisfy most of the player base, and not be out of line with other existing ships. The bridge seat configuration for the type of ship this is, is truly not in the spirit of what this ship is supposed to be. In even it's modified state, there's really no place for it in endgame, and it's very difficult to fathom what the internal decision process behind it was. Unless of course, there's a huge secret project of revamping how offense and defense in the game works, and it would make an uber tank like this viable, as it's certainly not now.
"I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."
Yes, the feedback threads have been bookmarked, noted, and passed to the appropriate Devs, and they have also read/considered them.
Please keep in mind that we do listen to all feedback, and take what we can from what is constructive, and try to base future decisions on what we hear from our player community.
However, that does not mean that we can change everything in-game to what all players are asking for. There will always be the plain and simple truth that we cannot change everything to make everyone happy 100% of the time. But that doesn't mean we don't try to do things for the benefit of our players.
When we work on reboots such as the Galaxy reboot, and when we add Fleet versions of desired ships, we have our own internal reasons behind every decision. Sometimes, these decisions don't make sense to our players at the time, but all we ask is for your understanding and your patience in response to these changes, and changes to come.
Angry abusive posts wont get any of us anywhere, so keep in mind, the more pages upon pages of non-constructive posts will only bury constructive feedback posts, making it even harder to hear the things that could affect real change to our decision making process.
The last thing we want is any of you to feel that you are being ignored or that your voices are unheard. That being said, sometimes those voices need to understand that even though you really really want something to change, if we do not change things to accommodate your requests, this is nothing personal.
We will continue to listen to your feedback and take it into consideration.
We sincerely appreciate your support, as well as your passion for STO.
~CaptainSmirk
You Sir, just won the internetz!
I hope that Cryptic does listen to all the numerous threads on the Galaxy. Clearly this iconic ship has a special place in Federation players hearts. Over 6000 posts and close to 240,000 views. Very passionate response.
Its also a huge pool of revenue for the game, revenue that can support my faction, the KDF some day
As a pure KDF player, even I could support an Universal LTC station for this ship. The history of the ship is modular, allowing for extensive customization based on mission requirements.
Its a good promotion of the franchise. New players want to feel like they are in Star Trek, and what better shop to be seen patrolling sector space than the majestic Galaxy.
When we work on reboots such as the Galaxy reboot, and when we add Fleet versions of desired ships, we have our own internal reasons behind every decision. Sometimes, these decisions don't make sense to our players at the time, but all we ask is for your understanding and your patience in response to these changes, and changes to come.
~CaptainSmirk
The only way this "revamp/reboot" would make sense is if there are any major upcoming changes to the way tactical powers and tactical consoles work in the pipeline.
I'll pass on this one. I had considered getting the Fleet one since I already own the Dread, but given that the overwhelming amount of feedback over the past week regarding the abysmal Boff seating - whether it was heard by the Devs or not - was not taken into account, I see no point. I have a fleet Avenger for my Eng, which will far outstrip this in terms of raw DPS, and an Odyssey, which is great for the times where I need versatility.
Still zero point to the Dread. Frankly, i'm surprised none of the feedback was even considered. Yes, we know you don't want to make it too much like the Avenger, Excelsior Retro or Fleet Assault cruiser by giving it Lt. Cmdr Tac slot, or too much like the Odyssey by giving it a Lt. Cmdr Uni slot, because it'll hurt sales of those ships.
Instead, what you've done is made the Dread no more appealing than it was prior to this "reboot", really.
You're just a machine. And machines can be broken.
The last thing we want is any of you to feel that you are being ignored or that your voices are unheard.
I don't think that's the last thing you guys want. I think you'd probably prefer us thinking that compared to what many people are (that refused to earlier, as many others already had) beginning to think of Cryptic...
...yeah, if you guys were ignoring us - it would be much better than what I'm thinking about you guys right now.
And I don't even have a single Fed toon...it's just that much of a /facepalm, that it affects everybody.
Had a perfectly good opportunity to do something amazing and it fell flat on its face. I mean I though at worse we were going to get a Regent with all the Dreadnought perks, at best Scimitar layout with the console layout we got, instead we got a Galaxy class with a Universal Ensign slot and finally a 4th tac slot...so a slightly upgraded lvl 40 assault cruiser.
Hi, my name is: Elim Garak, Former Cardassian Oppressor
LTS, here since...when did this game launch again?
No. There are too many limitations. Fed crew, 4 tac consoles, +5 bonus weapon power, max of BFaW1 and APB1. At least a LtCmdr tac would have opened up BFaW3 and then it might be reachable, but not with this setup.
Yes, the feedback threads have been bookmarked, noted, and passed to the appropriate Devs, and they have also read/considered them.
Please keep in mind that we do listen to all feedback, and take what we can from what is constructive, and try to base future decisions on what we hear from our player community.
However, that does not mean that we can change everything in-game to what all players are asking for. There will always be the plain and simple truth that we cannot change everything to make everyone happy 100% of the time. But that doesn't mean we don't try to do things for the benefit of our players.
When we work on reboots such as the Galaxy reboot, and when we add Fleet versions of desired ships, we have our own internal reasons behind every decision. Sometimes, these decisions don't make sense to our players at the time, but all we ask is for your understanding and your patience in response to these changes, and changes to come.
Angry abusive posts wont get any of us anywhere, so keep in mind, the more pages upon pages of non-constructive posts will only bury constructive feedback posts, making it even harder to hear the things that could affect real change to our decision making process.
The last thing we want is any of you to feel that you are being ignored or that your voices are unheard. That being said, sometimes those voices need to understand that even though you really really want something to change, if we do not change things to accommodate your requests, this is nothing personal.
We will continue to listen to your feedback and take it into consideration.
We sincerely appreciate your support, as well as your passion for STO.
~CaptainSmirk
Thank you for at least taking the time to make a thoughtful reply even if you can't explain what's going on inside the developers heads. I hope at least they have looked at how they can make certain roles more valuable. Engineering captains and many boff abilities, need their numbers looked at as a growing number of their abilities are becoming obsolete with power creep.
Yes, the feedback threads have been bookmarked, noted, and passed to the appropriate Devs, and they have also read/considered them.
Please keep in mind that we do listen to all feedback, and take what we can from what is constructive, and try to base future decisions on what we hear from our player community.
However, that does not mean that we can change everything in-game to what all players are asking for. There will always be the plain and simple truth that we cannot change everything to make everyone happy 100% of the time. But that doesn't mean we don't try to do things for the benefit of our players.
Which players do you have in mind here? Because it seems Cryptic's policy is to benefit players who are willing to continue spending the most money on artificially promoted shinies (Lock Boxes, Lobi and overpriced bundles with "totally not OP" ships and stuff).
You can't really expect understanding when the game's mechanics and balance are a joke, and despite YEARS of feedback, pleads and constructive criticism you (Cryptic/certain devs) cannot even get the ships' stats right, with some vessels being clearly more versatile or powerful than others. Power creep has become a joke, each and every lock box/Lobi/Doff pack ship is laughably OP when compared to Fleet/C-Store options, and even when you do embrace the changes you - quite frankly - do it wrong, like with this so called Galaxy Reboot. Not necessarily when it comes to the changes themselves, but the way you present and communicate them to your playerbase.
After following the development of this game for over four years now I am really more and more depressed seeing how things seem to develop. Three years ago I was eagerly listening to STOked interviews with certain devs about their plans for the game, and now I listen to PriorityOne interviewing the same devs and I just dread that they don't even hide the fact everything they do is about money. Sometimes they claim it's about "making things fun", but In the end it all comes down to more and more repetitive grind that's being introduced just to "motivate" players to log in every day...
For quite some time I was actually one of those few people who were ready to defend certain monetization attempts and Cryptic's F2P business model decissions. I was hoping that at least some of this would make the game better. Sadly, all the enthusiasm I once had is now gone, as I fail to see any positive changes to the game that would make me want to play more. Instead I keep seeing more and more controversial and really unpleasant decissions, like with the anniversary grind, set items restriced to limited-time offer ships, overpriced dyson ship bundle, fail to "fix" the iconic ship class, awful new website, Arc and so on...
So, yeah, not really optimistic here, I must say...
However, that does not mean that we can change everything in-game to what all players are asking for. There will always be the plain and simple truth that we cannot change everything to make everyone happy 100% of the time. But that doesn't mean we don't try to do things for the benefit of our players.
The feedback on the Fleet Dreadnought Cruiser has been virtually unanimous: give it a Lt. Cmdr Tac Boff. Everyone is saying that. !00% of everyone will be happy if you did it.
The feedback on the Exploration Cruiser line is also unanimous. Do SOMETHING to change it. Anything. Everybody is sick of begging for what you guys refuse to deliver. Just make the Fleet Exploration Cruiser better in any way at all and you will have your praises sung for finally doing what your customers want instead of merely trusting that your own internal conversations on the subject have reached the best conclusions.
In my opinion, the Lieutenant Commander Engineering slot should be changed into a Lieutenant Commander Universal slot, like with the Odyssey, Bortasqu', Scimitar, Chimera, Peghqu', Daeinos, and Vesta.
One little Ensign Universal slot feels just a tad bit useless, as many other ships at that level have much better setups, and there aren't that many useful ensign level powers to choose from.
Baaa :mad: wanted to buy the Gal-X + Fleet one, but no
Boff seating just suck to much.
Too bad really love the look of Gal-X, but TRIBBLE is still TRIBBLE
even if it looks good
No. There are too many limitations. Fed crew, 4 tac consoles, +5 bonus weapon power, max of BFaW1 and APB1. At least a LtCmdr tac would have opened up BFaW3 and then it might be reachable, but not with this setup.
it will be possible. whether or not you can do it, who knows.
I was thinking about getting the Galaxy pack after skipping all Dyson ships, but you guys top yourselves with coming up with undesirable ships and store stuff lately.
I will skip this since there is literally no improvement and the reboot is hardly a reboot. There is no update on the seating and changing an ENS Engineer slot to an ENS universal helps you how to make it a Dreadnaught? The changes are gimmick changes at most, nothing more.
Sorry, but this is clearly a failed attemt to actually listen and reboot such iconic ships. Next...
Baaa :mad: wanted to buy the Gal-X + Fleet one, but no
Boff seating just suck to much.
Too bad really love the look of Gal-X, but TRIBBLE is still TRIBBLE
even if it looks good
Engineering Team 1, Auxiliary to Battery 1, Emergency Power to X 3 (Aux, Engines, Shields, Weapons), Directed Energy Manipulation 3
Emergency Power to X 1 (Aux, Engines, Shields, Weapons), Auxiliary to Battery 1, Reverse Shield Polarity 2
Tactical Team 1
Beam: Fire at Will 1, Attack Pattern Beta 1
Hazard Emitters 1, Tractor Beam Repulsors 1
The Feedback on the Fleet Dreadnought Cruiser has been virtually unanimous: give it a Lt. Cmdr Tac Boff. Everyone is saying that. !00% of everyone will be happy if you did it.
The Feedback on the Exploration Cruiser line is also unanimous. Do SOMETHING to change it. Anything. Everybody is sick of begging for what you guys refuse to deliver. Just change the Fleet Exploration Cruiser better in any way at all and you will have your praises sung for finally doing what your customers want instead of merely trusting that your own internal conversations on the subject have reached the best conclusions.
Largely why it's time for them to start telling us why they have left things the way they are. At least that will tell us what they are thinking with these ships, and why they think they are fine the way they are despite all the contrary feedback. Because if we, the players, are missing something, telling us what we're missing (even if it'll start more complaints) is a lot better than just being quiet on the issue.
The Feedback on the Fleet Dreadnought Cruiser has been virtually unanimous: give it a Lt. Cmdr Tac Boff. Everyone is saying that. !00% of everyone will be happy if you did it.
No, not "100% of everyone" would be happy about that. That would be a blatant feeding of STO's underlying problems, not a fix in any definition of the word.
Comments
Wait, hold up. Then can you explain why borticuscryptic believes that everyone is calling for a CMDR Tactical seat? Everyone is asking for the Lt.Cmdr. seat to be changed? Some even suggesting to flip it when the saucer is separated?
Source:
It's like the devs haven't been seen the suggestions posted in Dev Blog #54. There are A LOT of really really really good suggestions that would address the primary problem most players are having with the Galaxy revamp and stays faithful to the lore.
The last Indiana Jones movie was nothing personal either .
It was just offensive to what came before it .
Same as this shameful "reboot" .
Let's review this:
• 1 Ensign Universal. Pointless. Ensign Universal is only useful when you have only 1 Ensign station of either Engineering or Tact. Like needing 2 Ensign Engineering, for dual EPtS1. This ship has 2 Ensign stations already. Soo, it's just going to be an Ensign Tact... like it was.
• 1 Lieutenant Commander Engineering. There's rarely a real good reason for a 1 Lieutenant Commander Engineering station: A2B/A2D both work fine with Lt. only. Engineering simply doesn't have an ability that needs a Lieutenant Commander Engineering station per se.
• Science, however, *does* need a Lieutenant Commander station (for GW1).
• Tactical, however, *does* need a Lieutenant Commander station too, so you can at least have an Attack Pattern Beta, plus something better than BFAW1. And no, it's not unreasonable of an Engineering boat to ask that it can do a decent BFAW.
• 4 Tactical consoles; great! Too bad the ship doesn't come with any real Tactical stations to get much out of them.
• With a turn rate of 6 (+1 for Fleet) it's still a brick. Bricks need BFAW. See above.
You Sir, just won the internetz!
I hope that Cryptic does listen to all the numerous threads on the Galaxy. Clearly this iconic ship has a special place in Federation players hearts. Over 6000 posts and close to 240,000 views. Very passionate response.
Its also a huge pool of revenue for the game, revenue that can support my faction, the KDF some day
As a pure KDF player, even I could support an Universal LTC station for this ship. The history of the ship is modular, allowing for extensive customization based on mission requirements.
Its a good promotion of the franchise. New players want to feel like they are in Star Trek, and what better shop to be seen patrolling sector space than the majestic Galaxy.
The only way this "revamp/reboot" would make sense is if there are any major upcoming changes to the way tactical powers and tactical consoles work in the pipeline.
I'll pass on this one. I had considered getting the Fleet one since I already own the Dread, but given that the overwhelming amount of feedback over the past week regarding the abysmal Boff seating - whether it was heard by the Devs or not - was not taken into account, I see no point. I have a fleet Avenger for my Eng, which will far outstrip this in terms of raw DPS, and an Odyssey, which is great for the times where I need versatility.
Still zero point to the Dread. Frankly, i'm surprised none of the feedback was even considered. Yes, we know you don't want to make it too much like the Avenger, Excelsior Retro or Fleet Assault cruiser by giving it Lt. Cmdr Tac slot, or too much like the Odyssey by giving it a Lt. Cmdr Uni slot, because it'll hurt sales of those ships.
Instead, what you've done is made the Dread no more appealing than it was prior to this "reboot", really.
Commander Engineering
Lt Commander Engineering
Lt Commander Tactical
Lt Science.
Drop the ensign. Let it upgrade the Lt tactical slot. It also would not overlap the regent and avenger.
I don't care how they make the layout but it needs a lt commander tac.
eptx1 a2b1 rsp2
tt1
bfaw1 apb1
he1 tbr1
will be able to do 30k
Casual players make up the majority of STO players.
This ship is only available to people in a T4 fleet.
Most casual players can't maintain enough game presence to be in a fleet.
So the majority of STO players won't be spending a dime on this ship because they can't.
Good business sense? (no)
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
I don't think that's the last thing you guys want. I think you'd probably prefer us thinking that compared to what many people are (that refused to earlier, as many others already had) beginning to think of Cryptic...
...yeah, if you guys were ignoring us - it would be much better than what I'm thinking about you guys right now.
And I don't even have a single Fed toon...it's just that much of a /facepalm, that it affects everybody.
That's how powerful the wide beam lance is, it leaves it's targets unrecognizable. :eek:
LTS, here since...when did this game launch again?
Thank you for at least taking the time to make a thoughtful reply even if you can't explain what's going on inside the developers heads. I hope at least they have looked at how they can make certain roles more valuable. Engineering captains and many boff abilities, need their numbers looked at as a growing number of their abilities are becoming obsolete with power creep.
For someone who isn't too saavy with all those abbreviations, could you write them out so I can understand what they all are?
You can't really expect understanding when the game's mechanics and balance are a joke, and despite YEARS of feedback, pleads and constructive criticism you (Cryptic/certain devs) cannot even get the ships' stats right, with some vessels being clearly more versatile or powerful than others. Power creep has become a joke, each and every lock box/Lobi/Doff pack ship is laughably OP when compared to Fleet/C-Store options, and even when you do embrace the changes you - quite frankly - do it wrong, like with this so called Galaxy Reboot. Not necessarily when it comes to the changes themselves, but the way you present and communicate them to your playerbase.
After following the development of this game for over four years now I am really more and more depressed seeing how things seem to develop. Three years ago I was eagerly listening to STOked interviews with certain devs about their plans for the game, and now I listen to PriorityOne interviewing the same devs and I just dread that they don't even hide the fact everything they do is about money. Sometimes they claim it's about "making things fun", but In the end it all comes down to more and more repetitive grind that's being introduced just to "motivate" players to log in every day...
For quite some time I was actually one of those few people who were ready to defend certain monetization attempts and Cryptic's F2P business model decissions. I was hoping that at least some of this would make the game better. Sadly, all the enthusiasm I once had is now gone, as I fail to see any positive changes to the game that would make me want to play more. Instead I keep seeing more and more controversial and really unpleasant decissions, like with the anniversary grind, set items restriced to limited-time offer ships, overpriced dyson ship bundle, fail to "fix" the iconic ship class, awful new website, Arc and so on...
So, yeah, not really optimistic here, I must say...
There, I fixed it for you guys, go ahead and add it to the blog post please.
[Unrepentant] Lapo@overlapo: the problem with space STF
is that you can't properly teabag your defeated opponent
Unrepentant: Home of the Rainbow Warrior and the Rainbow Brigade.
The feedback on the Fleet Dreadnought Cruiser has been virtually unanimous: give it a Lt. Cmdr Tac Boff. Everyone is saying that. !00% of everyone will be happy if you did it.
The feedback on the Exploration Cruiser line is also unanimous. Do SOMETHING to change it. Anything. Everybody is sick of begging for what you guys refuse to deliver. Just make the Fleet Exploration Cruiser better in any way at all and you will have your praises sung for finally doing what your customers want instead of merely trusting that your own internal conversations on the subject have reached the best conclusions.
One little Ensign Universal slot feels just a tad bit useless, as many other ships at that level have much better setups, and there aren't that many useful ensign level powers to choose from.
Boff seating just suck to much.
Too bad really love the look of Gal-X, but TRIBBLE is still TRIBBLE
even if it looks good
it will be possible. whether or not you can do it, who knows.
I will skip this since there is literally no improvement and the reboot is hardly a reboot. There is no update on the seating and changing an ENS Engineer slot to an ENS universal helps you how to make it a Dreadnaught? The changes are gimmick changes at most, nothing more.
Sorry, but this is clearly a failed attemt to actually listen and reboot such iconic ships. Next...
Grammar is your friend.
Here, I'm feeling the need to be a little positive in some regard...otherwise I'll never see 9k posts, ahem.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial