"I dont think any of us can forget the visual of a high speed Enterprise-D decloaking and vertically charging towards the Klingon vessel that was set out to destroy Captain Picard and the TNG crewmembers onboard the U.S.S. Pasteur, firing a massive phaser beam out of the Spinal Phaser Lance, obliterating the KDF Vessel with one powerful shot, and speeding through the debris with 3 nacelles on its back. Such a strong scene has certainly remained one of the most memorable in all of TNG lore."
Here, for me anyway, lies the problem: the fans watched this phaser lance deploy and witnessed what it was capable of. I'll agree, it was an awesome visual - something that stuck with the fanbase and was something they probably thought the ship would be built around.
But what they got instead is features not represented in that scene: hangar pets, saucer separation and a "sawed off shotgun" cone attack. Sure, the lance is there but it is really no better than a beam overload, something any captain can put into any ship/build. Heck, ,I will go further and even suggest that of all the phaser-based special attacks (Chimera's lotus and Vesta's phocus controller or whaterver it's called) the lance is by far the weakest I have tested.
Seeing that iconic deployment of the spinal phaser lance invoked images of "100% crit after decloaking" and "commander tactical seating", but this is not that ship. It has the same silhouette, but that's about it.
This was an opportunity to show the players you were listening. Yes, I'll agree Cryptic has improved the GalX, but it doesn't parallel the "obliterating the KDF Vessel with one powerful shot" visual I think everyone was hoping for.
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.
I don't think making the game require dedicated tanks again is the correct way to fix these ships. Hard trinity is a bad thing.
Either make the ships work with current content, or add more boff powers that would make them more interesting to use.
Yes, the feedback threads have been bookmarked, noted, and passed to the appropriate Devs, and they have also read/considered them.
You do understand that we dont really feel like being listened to when after 6k posts on this subject we only get one short statement by bort why there cant be a com tac, where like 95% of the ppl where asking for at least a ltc tac not com tac. Also no mentioning of the lance ppl where concerened about. And his reason given was: no ship with cc has a com tac which is wrong is the tal shiar bc has ccs and a com uni. All this could have been avoided with a little more efford on the explanation side.
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. Well its not like we demanded something extremely op or something.
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. There where like 1k posts alone about the lance and at least say 100 posts about the warp/impulse trail being off centered and stuff like that. Dont you think a "revamp" should fix stuff like that? or do you have an idea when we could see a second revamp fixing those issues?
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
Its quite obvious that the ship would sell much better with a ltc tac. So the only reasons left for keeping it as it is must be either balance or marketing/money related. since the scim you could basically give the fed dread 3 coms bo layout and it still wouldnt best the scim so balance cant really be the thing. So it must be money and i guess that the main argument is that if such iconic ships like the gal x/r would be any good ppl may stop buying other ships. Thats basically the only reason i could come up with for why the gal x still has the stats it has. All other reasons i can think of are more the like of cryptic just being stubborn or other not so nice things so lets not include those options.
The last thing we want is any of you to feel that you are being ignored or that your voices are unheard.
Really?! So, how many times have I asked Cryptic to fix the missing body parts on the Embassy boffs? And how many times have you ignored it?!
So, you either never heard of it, or you've been ignoring it.
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.
That sounds like PWE alright: unite all the players under one Arc, so everyone can be interfered with or ignored equally.
There have literally been thousands upon thousands of posts about an upgrade to the Galaxy series, and this is what you came up with. Along with some patronizing comment that Cryptic works in mysterious ways, and that one day all will become clear to us.
Would like more insight into the reasoning on why so many good suggestions were ignored. I think the many posts and feedback on this warrant a bit more info as a courtesy.
The Galaxy-R got a correction to it's saucer separation function. That's not a reboot. Changing niche consoles that a player may not even access if they buy the fleet version does not count either.
I don't have a Galaxy-X, but I think I understand the confusion and frustration with that as well.
The combined packaging of these ships seems a bit of a mess too.
My ears perked up at the thought of revisions to the Galaxy, but I'm not enticed to buy into it. If the sales fall flat, do we get more revisions or does it collect dust again?
Great new stats! Same mediocre layout. One of the most highly anticipated and sought after ships and it's still a letdown compared to the other two "Dreadnoughts" in the game.
This ship desperately needs a LC Tactical BoFF slot. As it stands the Fleet Sovereign and Fleet Excelsior will out DPS it thanks to their ability to run APB.
The official classification of the Gal-X is that it's a Dreadnought CRUISER. Cruisers by default are not designed to be DPS heavy like an escort. The fact that it isn't a regular Dreadnought makes sense with the bridge officer stations to me.
From a standpoint of someone who isn't very compentent at PvP, I know that this ship will never have a big role in the DPS craze. I don't get into the whole need more DPS, though I can see where the more DPS you have the better. This ship is just designed for a different niche.
Either make the ships work with current content, or add more boff powers that would make them more interesting to use.
But the current content is imbalanced. Tactical, Engineering, and Science console slots and BOFF powers are presented to be equal. But gameplay-wise, they are not. Adding more to them would be good, but I hardly think it would be a fix.
IMO, they need to rebalance everything to take into account all the power creep that has been happening over the years, and to give every ship configuration a use. Or just wipe the slate clean and implement a new ship configuration system, which might be just like making a whole new game.
I'm not going to spend money on this ship. I earned mine back in the day when it only had 3 weapons aft, and it was a reward for recruiting players to the game. The Lieutenant tactical seating is a joke for a ship that is supposed to be a warship. It needs at a bare minimum a Lt. Commander tactical position.
You gave it to the Avenger, but the Galaxy-X, the ship that's actually been seen on television gets the shaft? This is really, really disappointing. I was looking forward to having a viable Galaxy-class to play, as a tactical officer.
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.
So WHAT EXACTLY is the plain and simple truth in having the Galaxy Dreadnought, a warship, be tactically dwarfed by ships in triple digit age numbers and science vessels? Is it "plain and simple": "We don't want our players to fly Galaxys"? I highly doubt that since we're getting a "reboot" of them (a terrible choice of words considering the franchise, btw) with at least a Fleet Version and a Hangar (which might not improve the situation but at least the latter one is free, so... thank you?), but again - what IS the truth here?
but all we ask is for your understanding and your patience in response to these changes, and changes to come.
What you "ask" for is to support meaningless, two-thirds useless changes like a universal Tac Ensign and slapping a Hangar on the X with our money when dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds of paying customers have given you huge amounts of suggestions, none of which were followed up upon. (I am NOT counting the Fleet X as it comes with no fixes aside from giving the battleship a fourth tac console slot which i hope required no player feedback.)
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.
I'm sorry, but whoever was responsible for the "reboot" ignored thread after thread of people literally doing their job as far as the theoretical designwork goes - are you really so naive as to expect them to not vent when someone gets their hopes up only to crash and burn them with a Universal Tac, a useless setbonus and sausage seperation?
1.) Welcome to the Internet. You must be new here.
2.) If you want to have people play nice on the web throw them a bone. Having your only response to player feedback be "you can't have a Commander Tactical" when pretty much everyone asks for a LtCmdr doesn't make one feel listened too, and quite frankly - the tone could have been politer, too. At least tell them to upgrade the Universal to Lt to show some goodwill.
The last thing we want is any of you to feel that you are being ignored or that your voices are unheard.
The only real answer we got to pages upon pages of asking for a LtCmdr Tac (which is, quite frankly, asking for very little when we have flying wormcanopeners like the Scimitar flying around) was someone talking about how the X is never going to get a Cmdr Tactical for reasons that he has yet to actually explain. Please do tell me how i am supposed to not feel ignored and unheard by this.
We will continue to listen to your feedback and take it into consideration.
Then please, pass this along: Fleet X: Ensign Universal -> Lt Universal. Throw us a bone. A little one.
The official classification of the Gal-X is that it's a Dreadnought CRUISER. Cruisers by default are not designed to be DPS heavy like an escort. The fact that it isn't a regular Dreadnought makes sense with the bridge officer stations to me.
From a standpoint of someone who isn't very compentent at PvP, I know that this ship will never have a big role in the DPS craze. I don't get into the whole need more DPS, though I can see where the more DPS you have the better. This ship is just designed for a different niche.
Funny, there are at least three other cruisers with LTC Tac boffs (one is technically a battle cruiser, but it's still a cruiser). Cruisers can be more tac heavy than this is and still be a cruiser.
I would be happy buying a new 3 nacelle Dreadnought variant with the same console synergies if it didn't come with the Galaxy-X or Venture skins but owning those unlocked those costumes for the new ship.
Introduce a new 3 nacelle variant with a new costume and better BO loadout in place of the hangar. Able to use the other costumes. Better BO loadout (Lt Cmdr Tac or Universal). The new ship could maybe have a phaser lance weapon like the Kumari Wing cannons.
It would be worth a separate purchase as long as the original purchase granted something unique like the Galaxy costume.
I was considering getting the Gal-X for a Tactical Captain, but as it stands now, the Excelsior, Regent, Avenger, even the Odyssey are capable of doing more damage. The Gal-X is only slightly better than the free Assault cruiser you can get at level 40.
That seems to be what they want though, and their game's gameplay doesn't match.
We don't know what they want right now since they keep on adding things that have more DPS while not updating the game to require anything but while seeming to want to keep ships that have no real use in current content the same as they were years ago when you still needed a trininty.
But the current content is imbalanced. Tactical, Engineering, and Science console slots and BOFF powers are presented to be equal. But gameplay-wise, they are not. Adding more to them would be good, but I hardly think it would be a fix.
IMO, they need to rebalance everything to take into account all the power creep that has been happening over the years, and to give every ship configuration a use. Or just wipe the slate clean and implement a new ship configuration system, which might be just like making a whole new game.
Or they could just update ships so that they are at least fun in the current content by swapping some boff layouts without doing a complete redesign of the game. Because I don't like hard trinity for most end game content in a video game, I like it the way we have it now where you can do the content with any group of ships.
Most of those why want an upgraded Galaxy X dreadnought or Galaxy refit already have them.
Improvements would bring about little in the form of money when compared to possible future ships.
Imagine Cryptic rolling out a NEW Federation dreadnought ship class. ... Then even the people who bought the Galaxy X would go for it as it would have the better BOFF layout.
I was considering getting the Gal-X for a Tactical Captain, but as it stands now, the Excelsior, Regent, Avenger, even the Odyssey are capable of doing more damage. The Gal-X is only slightly better than the free Assault cruiser you can get at level 40.
So I'll keep my $45.
Preach it, brother. Been waiting and waiting and waiting to give Cryptic some money again. They just don't want it.
The reason why the Gal-X sucks is all neatly summed up in your post.
Yes, the feedback threads have been bookmarked, noted, and passed to the appropriate Devs, and they have also read/considered them.
(edit)
We sincerely appreciate your support, as well as your passion for STO.
~CaptainSmirk
We do know that you read and in some cases act upon the feedback from the forums. It's only in those cases where we overwhelming believe you're wrong does the feedback persist.
This is a case of bad communication. You needed to sell WHY you were going a different route than what was being asked for.
You could have handled it better. "guys, here's why we did what we did, for these reasons"
Instead we got one-off comments telling the customers why we're all wrong.
It's a huge missed opportunity.
The core player base knows that consoles and special abilities that are ship-centric are gimmicks. Fun for a few days, then overwhelming discarded to produce a build better for PvP and PvE. A ships value is based on three things (1) number and type of Boffs and slots (2) the physics (turn, hull, crew), and (3) is it cool to look at?
The Galaxy class has a BUILT-IN fan base. We want this ship.
The first Galaxy build failed on points 1 and 2. The reboot does little to improve upon that.
Might wanna point out the one time that this ship showed up on screen it practically 1 shot 2 Neg'vars, this thing is a tactical DPSer and should be in league with other dreadnoughts.
EDIT: And the stuff about a ship not having Comm Array and Tac Cmdr., Singularity power on Romulan ships which are all tactically oriented...
Hi, my name is: Elim Garak, Former Cardassian Oppressor
LTS, here since...when did this game launch again?
Its quite obvious that the ship would sell much better with a ltc tac. So the only reasons left for keeping it as it is must be either balance or marketing/money related. since the scim you could basically give the fed dread 3 coms bo layout and it still wouldnt best the scim so balance cant really be the thing. So it must be money and i guess that the main argument is that if such iconic ships like the gal x/r would be any good ppl may stop buying other ships. Thats basically the only reason i could come up with for why the gal x still has the stats it has. All other reasons i can think of are more the like of cryptic just being stubborn or other not so nice things so lets not include those options.
I was going to point this out when I saw the dev blog. Reading player feedback is one thing, acting on it is another. We've received a small bone to chew on while the ship remains largely the same. Why is this so? Money of course.
The Galaxy X and Galaxy R have been out for quite a while. A lot of us already have one or both ships purchased. The potential sales from improving both ships wouldn't be as large as say adding a new ship to the game. So the dev costs and time are better spent on adding new ships for you to spend on rather than upgrading older ships that you already own.
I'm also quite sure that many of you remember the previous poor decisions the devs have made and then reversed in a move that would make many Olympic gymnasts green with envy. Negative constructive feedback on the decisions made is one way to express your dissatisfaction. Voting with your wallet is another.
Most of those why want an upgraded Galaxy X dreadnought or Galaxy refit already have them.
Improvements would bring about little in the form of money when compared to possible future ships.
Imagine Cryptic rolling out a NEW Federation dreadnought ship class. ... Then even the people who bought the Galaxy X would go for it as it would have the better BOFF layout.
Methinks you are so very right. Shame though, I would have bought both.
I was going to point this out when I saw the dev blog. Reading player feedback is one thing, acting on it is another. We've received a small bone to chew on while the ship remains largely the same. Why is this so? Money of course.
The Galaxy X and Galaxy R have been out for quite a while. A lot of us already have one or both ships purchased. The potential sales from improving both ships wouldn't be as large as say adding a new ship to the game. So the dev costs and time are better spent on adding new ships for you to spend on rather than upgrading older ships that you already own.
I'm also quite sure that many of you remember the previous poor decisions the devs have made and then reversed in a move that would make many Olympic gymnasts green with envy. Negative constructive feedback on the decisions made is one way to express your dissatisfaction. Voting with your wallet is another.
Looks like I wasn't the only picking up the pieces and thinking this scenario might fit.
Can someone please explain to me what the practical point of swapping the ensign tactical to a ensign universal is? I really would like to know which clown thought would be a good idea! Throw a lieutenant commander universal into the mix (Like the Odyssey) then that would be half decent. Not to mention if you take the details from the show the spinal lance actually strikes the Klingon ship around 5 times not just twice like we currently get. If we cant get more strikes per shot then at least make the cool down on it a little less.
We don't know what they want right now since they keep on adding things that have more DPS while not updating the game to require anything but while seeming to want to keep ships that have no real use in current content the same as they were years ago when you still needed a trininty.
No, we don't know what they want. But we can make educated guesses based on what their game content presents. Though it is a mystery why they're not updating game content to match the power creep.
Or they could just update ships so that they are at least fun in the current content by swapping some boff layouts without doing a complete redesign of the game. Because I don't like hard trinity for most end game content in a video game, I like it the way we have it now where you can do the content with any group of ships.
But the current content is imbalanced. Just ignoring the imbalance and giving every playable thing imbalanced features will do nothing for the game. Certain BOFF layouts are good, some are not... that means we fix the game where all BOFF layouts are good, rather than only give the players limited competitive choices.
Can someone please explain to me what the practical point of swapping the ensign tactical to a ensign universal is? I really would like to know which clown thought would be a good idea! Throw a lieutenant commander universal into the mix (Like the Odyssey) then that would be half decent. Not to mention if you take the details from the show the spinal lance actually strikes the Klingon ship around 5 times not just twice like we currently get. If we cant get more strikes per shot then at least make the cool down on it a little less.
yes its pointless, it will be used as tac on most builds anyway becuase of its limited tac seating and because dps ships need romulan tac boffs, so its a false universal.
with a lt.commander / commander universal it's a def. purchase.
current set up is.... there are tons of better equipment consoles or other ships which would get my priority.
*edit To add some more thought/info
currently I only see this ship as a possible tank but with no offensive bite (tac. boffs) or real support abilities (science boffs)
I can only ride along in stf's in this ship and not use it effectively in No win Scenario. it's a "sure you can tag along ship" simply because the boffs give no real option to make a real impact in stf's imho.
lt.commander universal is a must imho for this ship to be a def. purchase
This thing is supposed to be Dreadnought, as in dreading nothing! As in being a fearsome heavy cruiser type. In its current state, it's more of a Scarenought.
Comments
Here, for me anyway, lies the problem: the fans watched this phaser lance deploy and witnessed what it was capable of. I'll agree, it was an awesome visual - something that stuck with the fanbase and was something they probably thought the ship would be built around.
But what they got instead is features not represented in that scene: hangar pets, saucer separation and a "sawed off shotgun" cone attack. Sure, the lance is there but it is really no better than a beam overload, something any captain can put into any ship/build. Heck, ,I will go further and even suggest that of all the phaser-based special attacks (Chimera's lotus and Vesta's phocus controller or whaterver it's called) the lance is by far the weakest I have tested.
Seeing that iconic deployment of the spinal phaser lance invoked images of "100% crit after decloaking" and "commander tactical seating", but this is not that ship. It has the same silhouette, but that's about it.
This was an opportunity to show the players you were listening. Yes, I'll agree Cryptic has improved the GalX, but it doesn't parallel the "obliterating the KDF Vessel with one powerful shot" visual I think everyone was hoping for.
Either make the ships work with current content, or add more boff powers that would make them more interesting to use.
Ltc Eng, emergency power to x1, aux2bat1, reverse shield polarity2
Lt Tac, tactical team 1, attack pattern beta 1
Ens Tac, beam fire at will 1
Lt Sci, hazard emitters 1, tractor beam repulsors 1
two embassy rom tacs with sro 1 fednaus sci, 2 fednaus eng
Its quite obvious that the ship would sell much better with a ltc tac. So the only reasons left for keeping it as it is must be either balance or marketing/money related. since the scim you could basically give the fed dread 3 coms bo layout and it still wouldnt best the scim so balance cant really be the thing. So it must be money and i guess that the main argument is that if such iconic ships like the gal x/r would be any good ppl may stop buying other ships. Thats basically the only reason i could come up with for why the gal x still has the stats it has. All other reasons i can think of are more the like of cryptic just being stubborn or other not so nice things so lets not include those options.
Really?! So, how many times have I asked Cryptic to fix the missing body parts on the Embassy boffs? And how many times have you ignored it?!
So, you either never heard of it, or you've been ignoring it.
That sounds like PWE alright: unite all the players under one Arc, so everyone can be interfered with or ignored equally.
There have literally been thousands upon thousands of posts about an upgrade to the Galaxy series, and this is what you came up with. Along with some patronizing comment that Cryptic works in mysterious ways, and that one day all will become clear to us.
The Galaxy-R got a correction to it's saucer separation function. That's not a reboot. Changing niche consoles that a player may not even access if they buy the fleet version does not count either.
I don't have a Galaxy-X, but I think I understand the confusion and frustration with that as well.
The combined packaging of these ships seems a bit of a mess too.
My ears perked up at the thought of revisions to the Galaxy, but I'm not enticed to buy into it. If the sales fall flat, do we get more revisions or does it collect dust again?
This ship desperately needs a LC Tactical BoFF slot. As it stands the Fleet Sovereign and Fleet Excelsior will out DPS it thanks to their ability to run APB.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Dreadnought_Cruiser
The official classification of the Gal-X is that it's a Dreadnought CRUISER. Cruisers by default are not designed to be DPS heavy like an escort. The fact that it isn't a regular Dreadnought makes sense with the bridge officer stations to me.
From a standpoint of someone who isn't very compentent at PvP, I know that this ship will never have a big role in the DPS craze. I don't get into the whole need more DPS, though I can see where the more DPS you have the better. This ship is just designed for a different niche.
But the current content is imbalanced. Tactical, Engineering, and Science console slots and BOFF powers are presented to be equal. But gameplay-wise, they are not. Adding more to them would be good, but I hardly think it would be a fix.
IMO, they need to rebalance everything to take into account all the power creep that has been happening over the years, and to give every ship configuration a use. Or just wipe the slate clean and implement a new ship configuration system, which might be just like making a whole new game.
They're probably supposed to.
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
This ^^^, I don't know, I just don't know anymore..
You gave it to the Avenger, but the Galaxy-X, the ship that's actually been seen on television gets the shaft? This is really, really disappointing. I was looking forward to having a viable Galaxy-class to play, as a tactical officer.
What you "ask" for is to support meaningless, two-thirds useless changes like a universal Tac Ensign and slapping a Hangar on the X with our money when dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds of paying customers have given you huge amounts of suggestions, none of which were followed up upon. (I am NOT counting the Fleet X as it comes with no fixes aside from giving the battleship a fourth tac console slot which i hope required no player feedback.)
I'm sorry, but whoever was responsible for the "reboot" ignored thread after thread of people literally doing their job as far as the theoretical designwork goes - are you really so naive as to expect them to not vent when someone gets their hopes up only to crash and burn them with a Universal Tac, a useless setbonus and sausage seperation?
1.) Welcome to the Internet. You must be new here.
2.) If you want to have people play nice on the web throw them a bone. Having your only response to player feedback be "you can't have a Commander Tactical" when pretty much everyone asks for a LtCmdr doesn't make one feel listened too, and quite frankly - the tone could have been politer, too. At least tell them to upgrade the Universal to Lt to show some goodwill.
The only real answer we got to pages upon pages of asking for a LtCmdr Tac (which is, quite frankly, asking for very little when we have flying wormcanopeners like the Scimitar flying around) was someone talking about how the X is never going to get a Cmdr Tactical for reasons that he has yet to actually explain. Please do tell me how i am supposed to not feel ignored and unheard by this.
Then please, pass this along: Fleet X: Ensign Universal -> Lt Universal. Throw us a bone. A little one.
Just want to add what I've said before:
I would be happy buying a new 3 nacelle Dreadnought variant with the same console synergies if it didn't come with the Galaxy-X or Venture skins but owning those unlocked those costumes for the new ship.
Introduce a new 3 nacelle variant with a new costume and better BO loadout in place of the hangar. Able to use the other costumes. Better BO loadout (Lt Cmdr Tac or Universal). The new ship could maybe have a phaser lance weapon like the Kumari Wing cannons.
It would be worth a separate purchase as long as the original purchase granted something unique like the Galaxy costume.
I was considering getting the Gal-X for a Tactical Captain, but as it stands now, the Excelsior, Regent, Avenger, even the Odyssey are capable of doing more damage. The Gal-X is only slightly better than the free Assault cruiser you can get at level 40.
So I'll keep my $45.
We don't know what they want right now since they keep on adding things that have more DPS while not updating the game to require anything but while seeming to want to keep ships that have no real use in current content the same as they were years ago when you still needed a trininty.
Or they could just update ships so that they are at least fun in the current content by swapping some boff layouts without doing a complete redesign of the game. Because I don't like hard trinity for most end game content in a video game, I like it the way we have it now where you can do the content with any group of ships.
Most of those why want an upgraded Galaxy X dreadnought or Galaxy refit already have them.
Improvements would bring about little in the form of money when compared to possible future ships.
Imagine Cryptic rolling out a NEW Federation dreadnought ship class. ... Then even the people who bought the Galaxy X would go for it as it would have the better BOFF layout.
U.S.S. Maelstrom, NCC-71417 (Constitution III-class/flagship) --- Fleet Admiral Hauk' --|-- Dahar Master Hauk --- I.K.S. qu'In 'an bortaS (D7-class / flagship)
Preach it, brother. Been waiting and waiting and waiting to give Cryptic some money again. They just don't want it.
The reason why the Gal-X sucks is all neatly summed up in your post.
We do know that you read and in some cases act upon the feedback from the forums. It's only in those cases where we overwhelming believe you're wrong does the feedback persist.
This is a case of bad communication. You needed to sell WHY you were going a different route than what was being asked for.
You could have handled it better. "guys, here's why we did what we did, for these reasons"
Instead we got one-off comments telling the customers why we're all wrong.
It's a huge missed opportunity.
The core player base knows that consoles and special abilities that are ship-centric are gimmicks. Fun for a few days, then overwhelming discarded to produce a build better for PvP and PvE. A ships value is based on three things (1) number and type of Boffs and slots (2) the physics (turn, hull, crew), and (3) is it cool to look at?
The Galaxy class has a BUILT-IN fan base. We want this ship.
The first Galaxy build failed on points 1 and 2. The reboot does little to improve upon that.
EDIT: And the stuff about a ship not having Comm Array and Tac Cmdr., Singularity power on Romulan ships which are all tactically oriented...
LTS, here since...when did this game launch again?
I was going to point this out when I saw the dev blog. Reading player feedback is one thing, acting on it is another. We've received a small bone to chew on while the ship remains largely the same. Why is this so? Money of course.
The Galaxy X and Galaxy R have been out for quite a while. A lot of us already have one or both ships purchased. The potential sales from improving both ships wouldn't be as large as say adding a new ship to the game. So the dev costs and time are better spent on adding new ships for you to spend on rather than upgrading older ships that you already own.
I'm also quite sure that many of you remember the previous poor decisions the devs have made and then reversed in a move that would make many Olympic gymnasts green with envy. Negative constructive feedback on the decisions made is one way to express your dissatisfaction. Voting with your wallet is another.
Methinks you are so very right. Shame though, I would have bought both.
Looks like I wasn't the only picking up the pieces and thinking this scenario might fit.
U.S.S. Maelstrom, NCC-71417 (Constitution III-class/flagship) --- Fleet Admiral Hauk' --|-- Dahar Master Hauk --- I.K.S. qu'In 'an bortaS (D7-class / flagship)
Its pointless.
Can someone please explain to me what the practical point of swapping the ensign tactical to a ensign universal is? I really would like to know which clown thought would be a good idea! Throw a lieutenant commander universal into the mix (Like the Odyssey) then that would be half decent. Not to mention if you take the details from the show the spinal lance actually strikes the Klingon ship around 5 times not just twice like we currently get. If we cant get more strikes per shot then at least make the cool down on it a little less.
But the current content is imbalanced. Just ignoring the imbalance and giving every playable thing imbalanced features will do nothing for the game. Certain BOFF layouts are good, some are not... that means we fix the game where all BOFF layouts are good, rather than only give the players limited competitive choices.
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
yes its pointless, it will be used as tac on most builds anyway becuase of its limited tac seating and because dps ships need romulan tac boffs, so its a false universal.
current set up is.... there are tons of better equipment consoles or other ships which would get my priority.
*edit To add some more thought/info
currently I only see this ship as a possible tank but with no offensive bite (tac. boffs) or real support abilities (science boffs)
I can only ride along in stf's in this ship and not use it effectively in No win Scenario. it's a "sure you can tag along ship" simply because the boffs give no real option to make a real impact in stf's imho.
lt.commander universal is a must imho for this ship to be a def. purchase