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
I appreciate you speaking on this.
This is something that you can do for free, without a minute of development time.
We're Star Trek fans here, we're a smart, dedicated, understanding bunch.
If you could extend a moment to explain to us these reasons that you've decided to keep things as is with these updates despite the generally negative...at best, feedback. Were you to explain your reasoning it would more than likely extinguish much of this firestorm.
I get it if you're trying to not spoil upcoming changes to the game, but this is concerning one of the most iconic ship lines in the entire series a little conversation on the matter is surely justified. If we are left to continue speculating in the dark then it isn't gonna increase our understanding any and only increase our suspicion that you don't care and are ignoring us.
"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, 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.
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.
I appreciate your thinking, it's very holistic.
But it is easier to alter the layout of a single ship than to actually build new content and alter old content to suitably rebalance the game for the foreseeable future and the long term. Until they're ready to make such adjustments, altering the ship for the current paradigm makes sense.
I don't see how the two goals are mutually exclusive.
"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"
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.
Hehe
Imagine this - I'm not buying anything that isn't Galaxy-R related in the future.
They want to sell me a new improved Galaxy-R? I'm down with that.
They want to sell me another Boff layout for Galaxy-R? I'm down with that.
They want to sell me the original TNG Galaxy bridge? Sure, I'd buy that for my Galaxy.
They want to sell me the Enterprise-D interior pack? Hell yeah!
They want me to buy a new ship because it's OP? No way Hose!
They can have their UBER-NEW Federation MEGADREAD or whatever, especially if it looks like they latest designs(I'm looking at you Dyson), I'm having none of that.
If they want my money - they'll do something nice for the Galaxy-R, otherwise my wallet will remain shut. Imagine that.
I love the changes that are being made to update the galaxy dreadnaught. However, I would like to ask that people who own this ship can purchase the saucer separation module separate from the galaxy retrofit. It seems unfair to need to purchase a 2,000 C-store ship in order to receive full benefit of the features offered by another. Please consider putting the saucer separation module up for purchase for Dilithium, lobi crystals, or even a smaller amount of C-store points.
I love the changes that are being made to update the galaxy dreadnaught. However, I would like to ask that people who own this ship can purchase the saucer separation module separate from the galaxy retrofit. It seems unfair to need to purchase a 2,000 C-store ship in order to receive full benefit of the features offered by another. Please consider putting the saucer separation module up for purchase for Dilithium, lobi crystals, or even a smaller amount of C-store points.
The D'Deridex has the same thing (part of its console set on another Cstore ship)
The same problem for the dreadnaught still exists... it can equip dual cannons, but your tac boff seating really limits the ability to use cannons.
It is sad to see ships that can equip but not use DHC. At the very least the Boff layout on the Galaxy should change after saucer seperation, afterall command is moved to the battle bridge.
Thanks for the Advanced Light Cruiser, Allied Escort Bundles, Jem-Hadar Light Battlecruiser, and Mek'leth
New Content Wishlist
T6 updates for the Kamarag & Vor'Cha
Heavy Cruiser & a Movie Era Style AoY Utility Cruiser
Considering it costs 2,500 ZEN just for the Galaxy X, shouldn't it already be a fleet-grade ship?
There's a consistency issue with regard to their 2500 Zen boats...you've got 9 console and 10 console boats, you've got ~Fleet and >RA going for the same price. It's something they should have addressed some time ago but haven't...
Ahh the Gal-X, it brings back so many memories of the final TNG episode when it decloaks above those Klingon ships, deploys its fighters, separates it's saucer then shoots its saw off shot gun phaser lance, good memories........:P
Where ever you go, there you are.......
Join The Space Invaders,..... Federation and KDF fleets.
The same problem for the dreadnaught still exists... it can equip dual cannons, but your tac boff seating really limits the ability to use cannons.
More than half the KDF Battle Cruisers have the same Tac seating or worse...
...which is why, imho, it might have been fine for the Gal-X . . . but the Fleet Gal-X should have followed the Uni LCdr of the Bulwark (the other Dreadnought Cruiser in the game).
Most of those why want an upgraded Galaxy X dreadnought or Galaxy refit already have them.
Not me. My whole issue is that the only way to rebalance the game is to upgrade the legacy ships, and Cryptic refusing to do it with this "reboot" means it will never happen. I dont own the ship and I'm sure not buying it now, worse is that all of the other older ships that I would like to own are going to remain as useless vanity craft for the foreseeable future.
Not me. My whole issue is that the only way to rebalance the game is to upgrade the legacy ships, and Cryptic refusing to do it with this "reboot" means it will never happen. I dont own the ship and I'm sure not buying it now, worse is that all of the other older ships that I would like to own are going to remain as useless vanity craft for the foreseeable future.
This is pretty much my concern. I don't have any Fed toons any longer...but this "reboot" and these stats show the Cryptic thought process behind things, and well yeah - that's got me a wee bit ticked about some purchases and rethinking other purchases. At what point are we going to have EV suits that are better than some of the iconic ships, eh?
Ahh the Gal-X, it brings back so many memories of the final TNG episode when it decloaks above those Klingon ships, deploys its fighters, separates it's saucer then shoots its saw off shot gun phaser lance, good memories........:P
Reviewed it before you posted it. If anyone in the player base legitimately asked for a "FLEET" ship it is only out of vanity and ignorance as your Odyssey, Vesta, and Andorian Escort (in spite of their bundles)are terrific examples of non-fleet-store ships that outclass other RA/VA craft (even without the special consoles) and are for all intents and purposes on-part with the craft given the "fleet property".
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.
Decisions are based on metrics, if you are going to be dishonest about something at least pick a topic Rivera has not already flat out stated the nature of in a recorded interview. Or do you believe the "bundle" of ships, which is one of the numerous legitimately constructive feedback examples posted on this forum, has to do with "good will towards others"?
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.
Listening to the objective elements of the player base would probably increase gross satisfaction to the point where PWE stops looking for replacements.
The fact of the matter is your consumer base is fickle. And barring schills and trolls, the people who defend Cryptic's choices are like the people who criticize it and collectively they could not care less if Cryptic rots in the deepest parts of Hell or rises to the highest pinnacle of Heaven so long as they get their Star Trek.
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.
Let us be realistic, shall we?
Your internal reasons are those very ones Rivera stated a few weeks ago in a recorded interview which I brought up under the thread here:
With those reasons translating to short term fiscal gains - no more, no less. Furthermore anyone who follows real world fiscal activities understands it is because of the parent company.
And the sad part is that there is no reason to deny this "reboot" could have been released two years ago and that the updates would have had the same gloss as Cryptic's precious space-whales (the Odyssey and Bortasqu).
Instead they try to shove the noxious "fleet agenda" further down the player's collective throats and have the nerve to look surprised when some people bite down.
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
After reading your remarks on this forum as well as Twitter I find your statement disingenuous.
I'm starting to liken Cryptic to a fast food company. You see the ads on telly, stating that it's 100% beef or whatever. State things which aren't quite right etc. You know the food is full of TRIBBLE, but some people will eat it anyway.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
I'm starting to liken Cryptic to a fast food company. You see the ads on telly, stating that it's 100% beef or whatever. State things which aren't quite right etc. You know the food is full of TRIBBLE, but some people will eat it anyway.
That's the world of f2p MMO's. Emphasis is based on churn and turn-around time and getting people in and out of the doors with their TRIBBLE.
For every person who will stop playing this game because they don't like X or Y, there will be 10 to 20 people to replace them with 10x more cash they don't mind forking over.
Players think they're X-Wings. The reality is they're TIE Fighters.
No offense intended Smirk, but Im pretty sure that a dreadnought without a tactical leaning will never make much sense
That is unless they plan to break up the damage abilities to be more evenly spread between Sci, Eng, and Tac.
There always would have been a case for the beam abilities (overload, at least, and maybe Fire at Will with a different name) to be Eng powers since beam attacks on the shows were powered by the engines, not the power allocated to tactical systems.
If we're moving away from the RPG trinity, maybe skills could be invented and reallocated so that the three trees focus on different weapon types and styles of damage rather than Tac being more damage focused.
That is unless they plan to break up the damage abilities to be more evenly spread between Sci, Eng, and Tac.
There always would have been a case for the beam abilities (overload, at least, and maybe Fire at Will with a different name) to be Eng powers since beam attacks on the shows were powered by the engines, not the power allocated to tactical systems.
If we're moving away from the RPG trinity, maybe skills could be invented and reallocated so that the three trees focus on different weapon types and styles of damage rather than Tac being more damage focused.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The problem isn't with the Galaxy-class or the Galaxy-X, or whatever ship isn't built tac-heavy.
The problem is with STO consistently favoring high damage and high dps since that is where the rewards are.
If STO gave players who liked playing support a cookie to make them as desirable as people with high damage, you would stop seeing these complaints as often.
People are only lashing out at the symptom of the problem, not the cause of it. It's not their fault. They only know what the game has shown thus far. High damage or get the hell out.
You make support ships like cruisers and science ships as fun/desirable/rewarding as tac-heavy ships and this all goes away (for the most part anyway).
Players spend too much time asking, "How will you fix that?" instead of asking, "Why does it need to be fixed to begin with?"
The Gal-X is not a brawler like the other tac leaning cruisers though.. It's a sniper, its meant to be built to support your team mates. Alpha, decloak hit, fight for a bit, get out when you have a chance to decloak, repeat.
The problem isn't with the Galaxy-class or the Galaxy-X, or whatever ship isn't built tac-heavy.
The problem is with STO consistently favoring high damage and high dps since that is where the rewards are.
If STO gave players who liked playing support a cookie to make them as desirable as people with high damage, you would stop seeing these complaints as often.
People are only lashing out at the symptom of the problem, not the cause of it. It's not their fault. They only know what the game has shown thus far. High damage or get the hell out.
You make support ships like cruisers and science ships as fun/desirable/rewarding as tac-heavy ships and this all goes away (for the most part anyway).
Players spend too much time asking, "How will you fix that?" instead of asking, "Why does it need to be fixed to begin with?"
I think CE is supposed to award for healing done as well as damage. They just need to update more to do that.
Which would still make the Galaxy-R not as useful in it's current configuration compared to others.
The Gal-X is not a brawler like the other tac leaning cruisers though.. It's a sniper, its meant to be built to support your team mates. Alpha, decloak hit, fight for a bit, get out when you have a chance to decloak, repeat.
If I were you, I would cloak and run. Boy, you are getting trouble from the rage club now for your blasphemic post
I think CE is supposed to award for healing done as well as damage. They just need to update more to do that.
They need to do a lot more than that. It's a good start. A good indicator. A step in the right direction.
But what I propose is to be a long-term sustainability solution. Because it isn't going to stop with the Galaxy-X. I'm not naive enough to think the same feedback we've seen the past few days regarding this "reboot" will be a one-and-done deal.
It'll happen again with another ship. And another after that. The Ar'kif was a good indication of things to come. The Galaxy-X is the writing on the wall that the gameplay system itself is flawed.
When your players want Lt. Cmdr. Tac boffs, or Lt. Cmdr. Universal slots (for tactical boffs), ask for more tac consoles, etc., it's not because they hate the ship.
It's because that's what makes them 'competitive' in the game.
If support roles that cruisers and science ships are supposed to fill out were in high-demand and enjoyable/rewarding as high damage, this performs a huge game-changer that affects all future ships to be released and rebooted, and ships that currently exist but are neglected.
Not just the ships released/rebooted at the time to focus/rage on them piecemeal as they become available.
CE/CCE still favors healing over damage. You can place 1st to get your crappy Mk X rewards without firing a single shot while just overhealing your teammates...
They need to do a lot more than that. It's a good start. A good indicator. A step in the right direction.
But what I propose is to be a long-term sustainability solution. Because it isn't going to stop with the Galaxy-X. I'm not naive enough to think the same feedback we've seen the past few days regarding this "reboot" will be a one-and-done deal.
It'll happen again with another ship. And another after that. The Ar'kif was a good indication of things to come. The Galaxy-X is the writing on the wall that the gameplay system itself is flawed.
When your players want Lt. Cmdr. Tac boffs, or Lt. Cmdr. Universal slots (for tactical boffs), ask for more tac consoles, etc., it's not because they hate the ship.
It's because that's what makes them 'competitive' in the game.
If support roles that cruisers and science ships are supposed to fill out were in high-demand and enjoyable/rewarding as high damage, this performs a huge game-changer that affects all future ships to be released and rebooted, and ships that currently exist but are neglected.
Not just the ships released/rebooted at the time to focus/rage on them piecemeal as they become available.
I doubt that they'll add much that will change the gameplay involved in this game. Plus, as I've said, I kind of like the games doesn't rely on set roles to be able to do group content.
They could just stop awarding things based on DPS (random awards for participating), and then the need for uber DPS is gone other than people wanting higher DPS (which will never go away no matter how much gameplay is changed).
What I think this means though is that all ships need to be updated so that they can have builds that choose between high survivability, high DPS, and high support. Some ships will allow choices between only two, some all three depending on the boff layout. Consoles would have to be evened out a bit on some ships, largely the ones with 5 of anything (including tactical) to no more than 4. This allows a bit more flexibility in console builds. We have some of this now, where a cruiser or escort can choose to maximize DPS but they loose survivability, or the player can choose to go the other way. As an example. A science ship could choose to go support by choosing more heals/CC, or go more DPS by maximizing those. But none of this will really matter if any other reboots are as half hearted as this one way.
But if people do really want trinity play, a new difficulty level should be added that would require a tanker, healer and DPS combination.
I just imagine Dan sitting in his new office, leaning back in his leather chair, smiling, one hand holding a glass with Kentucky Bourbon and the other hand in front of the monitor and his middlefinger doing a bad pose while reading all this.
Not me. My whole issue is that the only way to rebalance the game is to upgrade the legacy ships, and Cryptic refusing to do it with this "reboot" means it will never happen. I dont own the ship and I'm sure not buying it now, worse is that all of the other older ships that I would like to own are going to remain as useless vanity craft for the foreseeable future.
I wish that I could argue with this statement.
CaptainSmirk, I appreciate your candor earlier in this thread regarding player feedback vs. Cryptic's decision making. You seem to make a distinction between useful constructive feedback and less useful, possibly uncivil noise posts. In the interests of improving communication between devs and players, can you elaborate?
What format of feedback is most useful to the development team? What is the best way (if any) to promote a useful, healthy dialog between players and devs? What is the best way to get valid, constructive feedback seen by the people who are in a position to do something about player concerns?
In this particular instance, it seems to me that there was an abundance of well-reasoned, constructive, and useful feedback surrounding the Galaxy-X and especially the Galaxy-R. Yeah, there was a lot of hyperbole and fanboy drool to wade through, but the essential message could not have been missed:
Many people are dissatisfied with the Galaxy class. (No bloody X, Y, or Z.)
I won't repeat the various and sundry reasons that people are upset or disappointed by the Galaxy Reboot; that should be abundantly clear. It seems that a lot of the tooth-gnashing has to do with poor communication, leading to an update that almost seems to parody some of the most common player feedback. I don't think for a second that this was intentional, but at best the update to the Galaxy-X comes across as tone-deaf... if not slightly spiteful towards the Galaxy-R.
What I would like is for us to work on a way to improve communication so that player interests are more clear to the devs, and so that the dev thought process and goals are more clear to players.
Comments
quantum torpedo launchers. there are 4 barrels if you look at the studio model.
I appreciate you speaking on this.
This is something that you can do for free, without a minute of development time.
We're Star Trek fans here, we're a smart, dedicated, understanding bunch.
If you could extend a moment to explain to us these reasons that you've decided to keep things as is with these updates despite the generally negative...at best, feedback. Were you to explain your reasoning it would more than likely extinguish much of this firestorm.
I get it if you're trying to not spoil upcoming changes to the game, but this is concerning one of the most iconic ship lines in the entire series a little conversation on the matter is surely justified. If we are left to continue speculating in the dark then it isn't gonna increase our understanding any and only increase our suspicion that you don't care and are ignoring us.
Very true.
I appreciate your thinking, it's very holistic.
But it is easier to alter the layout of a single ship than to actually build new content and alter old content to suitably rebalance the game for the foreseeable future and the long term. Until they're ready to make such adjustments, altering the ship for the current paradigm makes sense.
I don't see how the two goals are mutually exclusive.
Hehe
Imagine this - I'm not buying anything that isn't Galaxy-R related in the future.
They want to sell me a new improved Galaxy-R? I'm down with that.
They want to sell me another Boff layout for Galaxy-R? I'm down with that.
They want to sell me the original TNG Galaxy bridge? Sure, I'd buy that for my Galaxy.
They want to sell me the Enterprise-D interior pack? Hell yeah!
They want me to buy a new ship because it's OP? No way Hose!
They can have their UBER-NEW Federation MEGADREAD or whatever, especially if it looks like they latest designs(I'm looking at you Dyson), I'm having none of that.
If they want my money - they'll do something nice for the Galaxy-R, otherwise my wallet will remain shut. Imagine that.
The D'Deridex has the same thing (part of its console set on another Cstore ship)
It is sad to see ships that can equip but not use DHC. At the very least the Boff layout on the Galaxy should change after saucer seperation, afterall command is moved to the battle bridge.
Since when?
There's a consistency issue with regard to their 2500 Zen boats...you've got 9 console and 10 console boats, you've got ~Fleet and >RA going for the same price. It's something they should have addressed some time ago but haven't...
Join The Space Invaders,..... Federation and KDF fleets.
More than half the KDF Battle Cruisers have the same Tac seating or worse...
...which is why, imho, it might have been fine for the Gal-X . . . but the Fleet Gal-X should have followed the Uni LCdr of the Bulwark (the other Dreadnought Cruiser in the game).
This is pretty much my concern. I don't have any Fed toons any longer...but this "reboot" and these stats show the Cryptic thought process behind things, and well yeah - that's got me a wee bit ticked about some purchases and rethinking other purchases. At what point are we going to have EV suits that are better than some of the iconic ships, eh?
lol nice one
Lt Cmdr Tactical
Commander Engineering
Lt Cmdr Engineering
Lt Science
The Gal-R should of received the universal ensign.
≡/\≡
Reviewed it before you posted it. If anyone in the player base legitimately asked for a "FLEET" ship it is only out of vanity and ignorance as your Odyssey, Vesta, and Andorian Escort (in spite of their bundles)are terrific examples of non-fleet-store ships that outclass other RA/VA craft (even without the special consoles) and are for all intents and purposes on-part with the craft given the "fleet property".
Say # again. SAY # AGAIN!
Not sure why but for some reason your posts make me think of that.
Decisions are based on metrics, if you are going to be dishonest about something at least pick a topic Rivera has not already flat out stated the nature of in a recorded interview. Or do you believe the "bundle" of ships, which is one of the numerous legitimately constructive feedback examples posted on this forum, has to do with "good will towards others"?
Listening to the objective elements of the player base would probably increase gross satisfaction to the point where PWE stops looking for replacements.
The fact of the matter is your consumer base is fickle. And barring schills and trolls, the people who defend Cryptic's choices are like the people who criticize it and collectively they could not care less if Cryptic rots in the deepest parts of Hell or rises to the highest pinnacle of Heaven so long as they get their Star Trek.
Let us be realistic, shall we?
Your internal reasons are those very ones Rivera stated a few weeks ago in a recorded interview which I brought up under the thread here:
With those reasons translating to short term fiscal gains - no more, no less. Furthermore anyone who follows real world fiscal activities understands it is because of the parent company.
And the sad part is that there is no reason to deny this "reboot" could have been released two years ago and that the updates would have had the same gloss as Cryptic's precious space-whales (the Odyssey and Bortasqu).
Instead they try to shove the noxious "fleet agenda" further down the player's collective throats and have the nerve to look surprised when some people bite down.
Novel idea: leash your sycophants.
After reading your remarks on this forum as well as Twitter I find your statement disingenuous.
And for anyone who thinks the "Phaser Lance" is a "one shot one kill" style weapon, your memory of what occurred is far from accurate.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
If I did Fleet ships, I would look into it. However I will get the Galaxy Bundle. That is a wonderful way to get ships, and save.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
That's the world of f2p MMO's. Emphasis is based on churn and turn-around time and getting people in and out of the doors with their TRIBBLE.
For every person who will stop playing this game because they don't like X or Y, there will be 10 to 20 people to replace them with 10x more cash they don't mind forking over.
Players think they're X-Wings. The reality is they're TIE Fighters.
I'll stick with my Fleet Avenger/ Fleet Assault Cruiser... If I ever get bored of my Klingons... which is never.
That is unless they plan to break up the damage abilities to be more evenly spread between Sci, Eng, and Tac.
There always would have been a case for the beam abilities (overload, at least, and maybe Fire at Will with a different name) to be Eng powers since beam attacks on the shows were powered by the engines, not the power allocated to tactical systems.
If we're moving away from the RPG trinity, maybe skills could be invented and reallocated so that the three trees focus on different weapon types and styles of damage rather than Tac being more damage focused.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The problem isn't with the Galaxy-class or the Galaxy-X, or whatever ship isn't built tac-heavy.
The problem is with STO consistently favoring high damage and high dps since that is where the rewards are.
If STO gave players who liked playing support a cookie to make them as desirable as people with high damage, you would stop seeing these complaints as often.
People are only lashing out at the symptom of the problem, not the cause of it. It's not their fault. They only know what the game has shown thus far. High damage or get the hell out.
You make support ships like cruisers and science ships as fun/desirable/rewarding as tac-heavy ships and this all goes away (for the most part anyway).
Players spend too much time asking, "How will you fix that?" instead of asking, "Why does it need to be fixed to begin with?"
Which would still make the Galaxy-R not as useful in it's current configuration compared to others.
If I were you, I would cloak and run. Boy, you are getting trouble from the rage club now for your blasphemic post
They need to do a lot more than that. It's a good start. A good indicator. A step in the right direction.
But what I propose is to be a long-term sustainability solution. Because it isn't going to stop with the Galaxy-X. I'm not naive enough to think the same feedback we've seen the past few days regarding this "reboot" will be a one-and-done deal.
It'll happen again with another ship. And another after that. The Ar'kif was a good indication of things to come. The Galaxy-X is the writing on the wall that the gameplay system itself is flawed.
When your players want Lt. Cmdr. Tac boffs, or Lt. Cmdr. Universal slots (for tactical boffs), ask for more tac consoles, etc., it's not because they hate the ship.
It's because that's what makes them 'competitive' in the game.
If support roles that cruisers and science ships are supposed to fill out were in high-demand and enjoyable/rewarding as high damage, this performs a huge game-changer that affects all future ships to be released and rebooted, and ships that currently exist but are neglected.
Not just the ships released/rebooted at the time to focus/rage on them piecemeal as they become available.
They could just stop awarding things based on DPS (random awards for participating), and then the need for uber DPS is gone other than people wanting higher DPS (which will never go away no matter how much gameplay is changed).
What I think this means though is that all ships need to be updated so that they can have builds that choose between high survivability, high DPS, and high support. Some ships will allow choices between only two, some all three depending on the boff layout. Consoles would have to be evened out a bit on some ships, largely the ones with 5 of anything (including tactical) to no more than 4. This allows a bit more flexibility in console builds. We have some of this now, where a cruiser or escort can choose to maximize DPS but they loose survivability, or the player can choose to go the other way. As an example. A science ship could choose to go support by choosing more heals/CC, or go more DPS by maximizing those. But none of this will really matter if any other reboots are as half hearted as this one way.
But if people do really want trinity play, a new difficulty level should be added that would require a tanker, healer and DPS combination.
I wish that I could argue with this statement.
CaptainSmirk, I appreciate your candor earlier in this thread regarding player feedback vs. Cryptic's decision making. You seem to make a distinction between useful constructive feedback and less useful, possibly uncivil noise posts. In the interests of improving communication between devs and players, can you elaborate?
What format of feedback is most useful to the development team? What is the best way (if any) to promote a useful, healthy dialog between players and devs? What is the best way to get valid, constructive feedback seen by the people who are in a position to do something about player concerns?
In this particular instance, it seems to me that there was an abundance of well-reasoned, constructive, and useful feedback surrounding the Galaxy-X and especially the Galaxy-R. Yeah, there was a lot of hyperbole and fanboy drool to wade through, but the essential message could not have been missed:
Many people are dissatisfied with the Galaxy class. (No bloody X, Y, or Z.)
I won't repeat the various and sundry reasons that people are upset or disappointed by the Galaxy Reboot; that should be abundantly clear. It seems that a lot of the tooth-gnashing has to do with poor communication, leading to an update that almost seems to parody some of the most common player feedback. I don't think for a second that this was intentional, but at best the update to the Galaxy-X comes across as tone-deaf... if not slightly spiteful towards the Galaxy-R.
What I would like is for us to work on a way to improve communication so that player interests are more clear to the devs, and so that the dev thought process and goals are more clear to players.