You people...this really is quite immature it's actually unbelievable.
Why hate on those who like the changes and like the ship? It's their cash, not yours. And they play the game in a way they want, and not yours. They should at least be shown the courtesy of being able to say thanks for it in a relevant thread without being dumped on by idiots who happen to disagree with them.
After thinking about this a bit more and watching the footage from the shows again of the gal x i think the single most important thing must be the lance. In in-game terms what i saw was:
-shooting straight ahead (very low arc as in 10*)
-firing multiple times in short to medium intervals (as in firing a sequence like normal beam weapons 4-5 shots, just with doubled interval length)
-the shots go straight through the shields and hull (the lance should have very high shield penetrating value or some kind of build in dmg resistance debuff for shields and hull)
-the dread did not fire any other weapons at the same time
-it actually did hit the target with all of the 4-5 shots fired (as in having better than TRIBBLE accuracy)
So just do exactly that. Activating lance mode shuts down all other weapons and basically puts the dread in a single weapon state where its only using the lance but it has the buffs and stuff as discribed like not being a single ability with a 3min cd but an actual weapon. I would also remove or at least half the range dmg penalty for it too.
So it will be usable as a first strike assault when the dread actually faces towards the enemy in the beginning of the battle and then when it becomes a problem to keep the enemy in the very low arc the dread switches to normal phaser mode and the lance is deactivated.
Thus the ship would be like a big flying gun that actually doesnt need any kind of special tactical abilities as it just decloaks and hits very hard with the lance. The usual phaser mode without the
According to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, when the Enterprise-D was initially launched from Utopia Planitia, a full 35% of the customizable space was left empty, to be later filled with individual modules as seen fit.
With so much customisation available to the Galaxy class, at a time of war, the Federation decide that bolting on a phaser lance is the only offensive upgrade they are going to bother with? We have seen how powerful they can make a warship with the Defiant.
The Galaxy-X seen in "All good things" is from around 2395 (albeit in a separate timeline), the Scimitar from "Nemesis" is originally from 2379 and vastly out guns it. The Federation couldn't match the Romulans with 15 years of extra development time? (I won't go into how the Excelsior from over 100 years into the past out performs it)
This shows a comparison of how badly the Galaxy-X fares against the Scimitar, every variant of Dreadnaught Warbird has a Commander tactical station with 2 universals. For the Galaxy ship class, customisation was at the heart of its design philosophy, that seems to have been swept aside.
Since the Galaxy-X has undergone a full refit there should be more differentiation from the exploration cruiser line that is was based off of. Yes it shares similar hull geometry but the internal systems would have seen a major overhaul and upgrade to fit the new philosophy of the ship.
I am very dissapointet in humanity. You are the example of how easily people give into rage and insulting and threatening behaviour because of... a digital $ 25-30 item? One ship out of dozens. Days ago, hardcore only fans debatet about the Dreadnaught, but now even people who never showed interest in the Galaxies, have adapted that insulting and raging behaviour.
Stating opinions is one thing, but this rage against Cryptic has reached a personal Level where certain Devs are beeing insulted, and players have even occassionally threatened Cryptic and Devs.
And this behaviour, about a few years old videogame, about a digital item, makes me loose all hope in a better humanity to come. Insulting and threatening people because of an in-game item...
You people really should put all your hate and rage together and convert it into something usefull. What should all those people in Africa say about their life? Or in the poor districts of India? Or in those war torn areas of East-Europe? They have real life problems. They value every little bit and piece they can call their own.
But please go on, just care about yourselves and make you more important than anyone else. And please start explaining your behaviours because you are socially handicapped, can't leave the house, are sick, or whatever.
And one last thing goes out to the "clean-up" crew in this forum: over the last week, I have seen players repeatedly insulting Cryptic and Devs on a personal Level.
I have a handfull of names of players, still posting comments, and I wonder why those players are not banned.
I have received a warning because I felt disturbed in a thread by whining off-topic posts, and certain players call Devs idiots, incompetent, say threats and nothing is done?
Thats what I call fraternizing.
I wish you people out there good luck with your attitude towards your families. I am off this forum.
I must say this coin has another side as in ppl just ignoring jobs done badly and being so peace and quiet loving that they would accept any kind of TRIBBLE given to them is at least in my opinion the least desireable behavior here and in real live in general as well. If something is bad ppl must be able to say when something is not right and in the most part this discussion has very little hate but a hell lot of dissappointment if you read more than 1 or 2 posts. So keep your high horse to yourself and learn to accept the fact that ppl arent perfect and make mistakes and those mistakes need to be adressed. Sticking ones head in the sand just to have a big cryptic loving arena of flowers and love is not the way to go. Maybe for you but certainly not for everyone and in general its not even a desireable quality in a person to just accept and take all TRIBBLE given to him.
Practically every posting included some sence of what he/she expects of the gal r/x to be interesting to them.
Damm, still no Lt.Com Universal or Tactical boff station
Probably we wont see it anyway, so I'll pass too.
TNG fed fans are getting mocked here badly. If the other factions got the Fleet Tor'khat (Fleet Vor'cha) and Fleet D'Deridex, wich are great ships, each with a Lt.Com tactical boff seat, the Fed ones remain subpar. Funny how an Excelcior class, wich is 100 years old design, can be better then the Galaxy class ships. Why is a Lt.Com tac soo much to ask? Most feedback this requested, not to make the ship into a scimitar or other OP ships out there.
And the money issue doesnt hold either, as in players wont buy any ships in the future if they get this one with a Lt.Com tac station. Like after Scimitar release and sales, players stop buying ships??? Of course not, whatever that was some players dream ship or the best ship in the game (wich still is) and it wouldnt have been the case here aswell.
And I see ppl that like the ship with just a Lt. tac and claim is players fault, not cryptic's, for wanting a Lt.Com tac station. Really??? Just an example: have you done a Starbase 24 or Crystaline Entity in a Gal R or X and manage to get the 1st place?? I higly doubt it, or if you did, it was very hard and after countless attempts against poorly geared players. And this is not a DPS e-peen contest that players are pulling from ISE, is Cryptic's game content with competitive PvE, wich this ship line fails completly.
And ultimely, if the fleet version gets a Lt.Com uni station, how will afect those players who like the ship is in its current state?? They will still have the same ship, but it will provide more versatility for others who wants to stay competitive in this game.
we hav approx 10 to 20 people in our fed team speak every day amd we have all talked about this revamp to the Gal X
its a 2500 zen ship that does not even equal the Fleet Regent/Assualt cruiser
its not even in the shadow of the avenger
So its pretty worthless as a new buy for any of our fleet members
Our fleet will not support this weak ship as a primary ship for new level 50 player . It is still too weak
We will continue to direct our members to the avenger and not waste there Zen on this
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
After thinking about this a bit more and watching the footage from the shows again of the gal x i think the single most important thing must be the lance. In in-game terms what i saw was:
-shooting straight ahead (very low arc as in 10*)
-firing multiple times in short to medium intervals (as in firing a sequence like normal beam weapons 4-5 shots, just with doubled interval length)
-the shots go straight through the shields and hull (the lance should have very high shield penetrating value or some kind of build in dmg resistance debuff for shields and hull)
-the dread did not fire any other weapons at the same time
-it actually did hit the target with all of the 4-5 shots fired (as in having better than TRIBBLE accuracy)
So just do exactly that. Activating lance mode shuts down all other weapons and basically puts the dread in a single weapon state where its only using the lance but it has the buffs and stuff as discribed like not being a single ability with a 3min cd but an actual weapon. I would also remove or at least half the range dmg penalty for it too.
So it will be usable as a first strike assault when the dread actually faces towards the enemy in the beginning of the battle and then when it becomes a problem to keep the enemy in the very low arc the dread switches to normal phaser mode and the lance is deactivated.
Thus the ship would be like a big flying gun that actually doesnt need any kind of special tactical abilities as it just decloaks and hits very hard with the lance. The usual phaser mode without the
Actually, the 'ancient' ship argument doesn't even hold water since Cryptic has released a ton of other skins for the Galaxy and at least one for the Galaxy-X which are all new 2409 ships built as successors to the Galaxy. So, for all they know you could be flying a Venture class Dreadnought which is brand new.
I thought the only special skin for the Galaxy was the Venture skin, the rest are "stock Federation skins".
Said posting was less about "age of design" and more about "we can't be using superseded starships", being that the Galaxy (and alternate Galaxy-X) has been replaced by first the Soverign then the Oddessy, therefore "it shouldn't be as capable as either of these ships". Admittedly, this entire statement / train of thought is born of bitterness over arguing the point in Connie threads, yet I thought it was an "appropriate" lead into the concept that "hero ships can't be useful, otherwise that's all we'll see"...
galaxy design and development started in 2357 with the first ships being launched in 2363 the USS Galaxy, USS Enterprise-D, and USS Yamato. then when the Dominion war broke out the construction of the class was increased in 2370's and where refitted with added phasers and the ability to fire quantum torpedoes
My bad. Half asleep math had me using the start of the Kirk era then tacking on 86 years, not the end of the Kirk era, which is more appropriate. Thank you for the reminder...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
I purchased the galaxy-X way back because i liked the ship knowing fully that the stats were horrible. To spend another 500 zen on an upgrade (not counting 2000 zen for the Saucer Separation console) is not going to happen unless the Galaxy-X is made at least somewhat useful.
Sure i can fly my SC/Turret Galaxy-X in PVE and perform reasonably well.
If i spend a lot of dilithium on fleet consoles i can even boost the turning rate enough to use DHC.
However, the developers stated they wanted to bring the Galaxy-X more or less on par with other dreadnaughts and it boggles me that they hope to achieve that by slapping on a hangar and not addressing the real issues with the Galaxy-X.
It's a dreadnaught which slaps like a little girl because of the lack of tactical Boff and consoles.
This reboot feels like we've been asked to take off our trousers and ride a bicycle without a saddle.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
This gives us a polynominal regression equation of:
y = 1.252035127·10^-7 x^4 - 9.862171854·10^-5 x^3 + 2.556652797·10^-2 x^2 - 2.891322634 x + 373.8107908
Where x=arc.
So let's say it's a 20 degree arc weapon. 325 DPS seems appropriate given no other mods. Assuming a speed of a standard DHC, that should be 488.2 DPV, 325.4 DPS. 20 degree firing arc.
I think I'd take that as an always on weapon. I'd rather see that as a special fore weapon than an integrated ability. If they wanted to borrow the Kumari approach, maybe the Dreadnought could be a 5/4 weapon loadout.
I think that would make it distinct enough even with the BO seatings as-is if they kept the hangar, although I'd ditch the hangar and go with Lt. Cmdr Tac.
a forth order polynomial interpolation lol nice one. I must say i liked my idea of using it as a switch like lance only / rest as usual 4/4. Also i would still give it build in shield penetrating and hull resis reducing effects. Your idea would also be fine but as with the kumari weapaon, its just another nice visual effekt and a weapon with a bit more dmg but otherwise it does not have any real special effect to it other than the set stuff. You could make the lance weapon part of a galaxy 3-set with the separation and antimatter spread although i dont really like ss and ams tbh.
There are several ships with special modes like the ferengi marauder battle mode, the chimera has one, the arkif set provides one and there are propably lots of others. ALso there is precedent for specials shutting down normal weapons as with the elachi console set special attack. Just combine that with the weapon switch mode from the new dyson set and you got something very special approriate for a very special ship. If they have to just make it a gal x refit to make us pay for it again.
I would really refer to pay more for the right ship then pay nothing for revamp that doesnt change what made me keep the ship docked in the first place.
edit:
oh and i guess the hangar stuff is our fault as a player base as it seemed to have worked with the arkif for them when they gave it one cause noone liked it before.
Interestingly enough, I'm "almost" on board with giving the Galaxy-X a 5/3 loadout, and "locking" the Phaser Lance in as the 5th forward weapon (much as the Sci-royers have the locked in proton cannons). Go with that ~500 DPV math and give it priority for BO use (so if I pull the trigger on BO and the lance is in-arc, it will "accept" the BO and fire at that strength, otherwise, it goes to the "first available array".
That would also match the "canon" in that the lance fired what, twice at least, at the same RoF that the standard arrays were firing at?
Though personally, I'm still alright with it remaining a 3 min "cooldown clicky special power" as long as it's damage potential (and accuracy) are "improved" to be on a par with the Vet ship's lotus, that KDF destroyer-lance, or the Vesta's deflector-phaser power, all of which are "3 minute cooldown, (semi-)integrated powers...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Undoubtedly this is the reason they do what they do. However they fail to think the argument through further. That is people who are most enthusiastic about STO, who see it as their prime gaming pursuit are the people that will gamble $$$ on lock boxes or buy keys. However they are also the people with multiple toons, 7 toons seems to be about average.
With multiple toons you have the room to fly your dream hero ship AND lots of other expensive lobi ships. I doubt the expensive ships are bought by the casual player who only sticks at STO for a few months before leaving. All they do with bull **** reboots like this is alienate the very players that keep STO supplied with cash, I for one have made a personal decision never to spend another penny on this game until they listen to the very reasonable requests made by the people that play their game and hence keep them in employment.
You're very right. I do the exact same thing you described here - each of my chars. has his/hers own ship to command. Yes, I use the Galaxy-R on my primary Fed. character, but I don't use the same ship on all of my characters.
What they should be seriously worried about is the saturation of the ship market. They've been pumping out ships like insane the past year/year and a half and it's starting to be a bit too much. They'll need to reconsider their ways of income very very soon and find some other way to fund. At least for me and the people I know and communicate the most in STO. All of my chars are set with the ships I need, so I'm at a point where I'm no longer spending $ on ships.
I'd gladly buy enhancements to the Galaxy-R in terms of different Boff layout, the original TNG Galaxy bridge the or Enterprise-D interiors.
Like I said before, untill I see some real love for the Galaxy-R - my wallet will remain shut.
You're very right. I do the exact same thing you described here - each of my chars. has his/hers own ship to command. Yes, I use the Galaxy-R on my primary Fed. character, but I don't use the same ship on all of my characters.
Word. I actually usually make new toons, when there's a new ship I want to fly.
The "New" Dreadnought really destroys what made the it unique.
Giving it Saucer Separation?!?! What the HELL?!?!?! According to Star Trek, the reason it DID NOT have Saucer Separation was because the SPINAL LANCE was attached both the primary and secondary hull.
Hell, might as well give the T'Varo the ability to fire EVERYTHING while cloaked. Oh, wait....that would be over-powered, wouldn't it? Well, you pretty much screwed over lore with the "NEW" dreadnought, so might as well give us the ability create our own ships with all the stats from the secondary hull, console slots of our choice and the ability to swap nacelles, primary hull, and other parts from other ships.
Thanks very EFFIN much Cryptic for TRIBBLE over lore you so proudly claimed to have held.
After long deliberation -- after having been quite enthusiastic about the bundle at first -- I have decided to decline. I just cannot fathom, in any walk of life, how I can make a measly Lt. Tactical station work properly on ship that's supposed to be a big, bad mother. Dreadnoughts are supposed to be offensive beasts. This reboot, however, feels like a joke. Or, as McCoy would say:
Interestingly enough, I'm "almost" on board with giving the Galaxy-X a 5/3 loadout, and "locking" the Phaser Lance in as the 5th forward weapon (much as the Sci-royers have the locked in proton cannons). Go with that ~500 DPV math and give it priority for BO use (so if I pull the trigger on BO and the lance is in-arc, it will "accept" the BO and fire at that strength, otherwise, it goes to the "first available array".
That would also match the "canon" in that the lance fired what, twice at least, at the same RoF that the standard arrays were firing at?
Though personally, I'm still alright with it remaining a 3 min "cooldown clicky special power" as long as it's damage potential (and accuracy) are "improved" to be on a par with the Vet ship's lotus, that KDF destroyer-lance, or the Vesta's deflector-phaser power, all of which are "3 minute cooldown, (semi-)integrated powers...
I could see arguing for 5/4 with the locked in lance because it means less changing and because the BO loadout is so suboptimal.
Another thing to consider is that "prioritization" seems unlikely which would help justify the 5/4 but also provide incentive to use cannons or torpedoes, to maximize the odds of beam powers working on the lance.
Firstly, I just want to say that I do appreciate our receiving a response from the Devs. Even if it's not what we want to hear, it's better than silence. So, thank you Smirk.
Now, a disclaimer: I don't own the Gal-X. I doubt I ever will; I never cared for what it did to the smooth lines of the Galaxy. So the feedback that follows can be considered (at least somewhat) impartial.
Onto the Galaxy-X, the Dreadnought Cruiser. From the outset, it's pretty clear that this is a tactical oriented ship. The "dreadnought" title, the 4 Tac Consoles and even the opening to this blog all emphasise this ship's battle directed nature. Okay, not a problem so far.
The problem comes when this ship gets compared to the existing tactical cruisers, a niche of the Fed cruiser lineup that's reasonably saturated. The trick here is to make the ship appealing in its own right, but still competitive with the other options. The Excelsior/Sovereign comparison exemplifies this perfectly; the Sovereign offers that valuable Tac Ensign, but the Excelsior has +1 turn, which for a slow turning cruiser, can be quite important.
Now, for the Galaxy-X, I very much see it's point of competition as its hangar. That's its selling point compared to the two aforementioned ships (I won't refer to the Avenger since that's just a +1 to the other Tac Cruisers); you have a worse turn rate than either of them, but gain the added versatility of a hangar. And with that inaccurate lance, some tractor beam and warp plasma dropping Yellowstones could be very useful indeed.
Okay. So far so good. And then we come to the Boff layout.
It's horrible. You compare this ship to the Excelsior or the Sovereign and the difference is obvious; that Lt Cmdr Eng slot kills the Gal-X. It can't hope to match up to either of them in terms of damage dealing ability; that Lt Cmdr Tac just opens up so many more options.
Now, not having a Lt Cmdr Tac isn't necessarily a problem for a ship - no one would complain about that on the Ambassador, for example. The Support Cruiser is, funnily enough, a support ship, and the Boff and console layout reflects that. But as I mentioned earlier, the Dreadnought Cruiser is a tactical oriented ship... and while it's console layout reflects that, it's Boff layout does not.
To put it bluntly, this is a ship that's worse at its job than any of its competitors. Why should I switch to this ship from my Fleet Sovereign, let alone my Avenger? It's just flat out worse.
So, that's why the ship needs that Lt Cmdr Tac; to be viable and competitive in its role as defined both by its console layout and its description.
Now let's look at what happens to the Fleet Galaxy-X when you change the Lt Cmdr slot from Eng to Tac with no other changes; you get:
Cmdr Eng Lt Cmdr Tac
Lt Tac
Lt Sci
Ens Uni
Now, this is an interesting Boff layout for several reasons, the most interesting of which is that it's more Tac heavy than any of the existing cruisers. But isn't that a problem for the balance of the ship? Well... no. Look closely and you'll see that like the Tor'kaht, this Gal-X can only run one Lt Eng ability, limiting its ability to use an Aux2Bat build - part of what the other tac cruisers so deadly.
I mentioned already that the benefits of a hangar are balanced by the low turn rate, and it seems to me at least that the benefits of a Lt Cmdr + Lt Tac are balanced by the poor Aux2Bat ability. So balance isn't a problem.
And looking at the Fleet Galaxy Dreadnought with this proposed layout? It's a capable and competitive ship, but between the hangar and the Boff layout it's also more unique than any of the three current 4 Tac console cruisers are when compared to each other. Not to mention that it allows the ship to perform in its role.
In closing, I don't see any reason at all to leave the ship with its current layout, which makes is poor at its intended role, and I see no reasons why it should not be given the Lt Cmdr tac, which would allow the Dreadnought to perform as it should whilst remaining distinct from the other Tac Cruisers.
Whew, this post's long! If you made it this far, go get yourself a cookie; you've earned it! And to the devs, thanks for reading!
This^^^^^
This is the best post I've seen so far. Smirk, PLEASE send this post to the devs. PLEASE.
And I have to agree partially with all of the angry people who hate the Gal-R reboot. As nice as the set bonus and other tweaks are, the Gal-R (even the fleet version) suffers from the same problems as the Gal-X, only exacerbated because it lacks even the lance weapon and the new hangar bay.
I seriously think that some new reboots are in order. I'm still saving up for the pack (sometimes, it's fun to fly an underpowered ship; what can I say?), but I think that if you want to have this line of ships used for anything but casual Foundry missions, you need to give the entire line some more serious work.
An idea I saw that sounded cool was a seperation-dependent eng/tac transformation for the Gal-X and Gal-R, similar to the Dyson Science Destroyers.
Great suggestion that, and would most certainly fly the Gal-X with that layout. The other issues of the model still remain however, and they will need addressing before many will truly consider it a reboot. After having to revisit the models to incorporate the saucer separation there is simply no excuse for not correcting OBVIOUS model errors with the off centre lance and antenna/photon roll bar assemblies.
The issues with the Galaxy-R still remain however, any reboot will HAVE to include that. A simple two set bonus and a new animation do not constitute that.
I will do everything I can to dissuade players from purchasing the pack when it goes live. Hopefully if it doesn't sell well Cryptic will perk up and realise what a total farce this is.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
in that pic it says it is the only cruiser than can equip cannons , i can fit single cannons to any cruiser :P . it does need updating the text does lol
Great suggestion that, and would most certainly fly the Gal-X with that layout. The other issues of the model still remain however, and they will need addressing before many will truly consider it a reboot. After having to revisit the models to incorporate the saucer separation there is simply no excuse for not correcting OBVIOUS model errors with the off centre lance and antenna/photon roll bar assemblies.
The issues with the Galaxy-R still remain however, any reboot will HAVE to include that. A simple two set bonus and a new animation do not constitute that.
I will do everything I can to dissuade players from purchasing the pack when it goes live. Hopefully if it doesn't sell well Cryptic will perk up and realise what a total farce this is.
They'll probably just assume people don't like updates to existing ships and just not do anymore.
Comments
You've read a few angry hate posts and a few that insulted some devs and blame the whole humanity? You have a very very VERY selective perception...
Why hate on those who like the changes and like the ship? It's their cash, not yours. And they play the game in a way they want, and not yours. They should at least be shown the courtesy of being able to say thanks for it in a relevant thread without being dumped on by idiots who happen to disagree with them.
-shooting straight ahead (very low arc as in 10*)
-firing multiple times in short to medium intervals (as in firing a sequence like normal beam weapons 4-5 shots, just with doubled interval length)
-the shots go straight through the shields and hull (the lance should have very high shield penetrating value or some kind of build in dmg resistance debuff for shields and hull)
-the dread did not fire any other weapons at the same time
-it actually did hit the target with all of the 4-5 shots fired (as in having better than TRIBBLE accuracy)
So just do exactly that. Activating lance mode shuts down all other weapons and basically puts the dread in a single weapon state where its only using the lance but it has the buffs and stuff as discribed like not being a single ability with a 3min cd but an actual weapon. I would also remove or at least half the range dmg penalty for it too.
So it will be usable as a first strike assault when the dread actually faces towards the enemy in the beginning of the battle and then when it becomes a problem to keep the enemy in the very low arc the dread switches to normal phaser mode and the lance is deactivated.
Thus the ship would be like a big flying gun that actually doesnt need any kind of special tactical abilities as it just decloaks and hits very hard with the lance. The usual phaser mode without the
Digging into Star Trek lore
With so much customisation available to the Galaxy class, at a time of war, the Federation decide that bolting on a phaser lance is the only offensive upgrade they are going to bother with? We have seen how powerful they can make a warship with the Defiant.
The Galaxy-X seen in "All good things" is from around 2395 (albeit in a separate timeline), the Scimitar from "Nemesis" is originally from 2379 and vastly out guns it. The Federation couldn't match the Romulans with 15 years of extra development time? (I won't go into how the Excelsior from over 100 years into the past out performs it)
This shows a comparison of how badly the Galaxy-X fares against the Scimitar, every variant of Dreadnaught Warbird has a Commander tactical station with 2 universals. For the Galaxy ship class, customisation was at the heart of its design philosophy, that seems to have been swept aside.
Since the Galaxy-X has undergone a full refit there should be more differentiation from the exploration cruiser line that is was based off of. Yes it shares similar hull geometry but the internal systems would have seen a major overhaul and upgrade to fit the new philosophy of the ship.
I must say this coin has another side as in ppl just ignoring jobs done badly and being so peace and quiet loving that they would accept any kind of TRIBBLE given to them is at least in my opinion the least desireable behavior here and in real live in general as well. If something is bad ppl must be able to say when something is not right and in the most part this discussion has very little hate but a hell lot of dissappointment if you read more than 1 or 2 posts. So keep your high horse to yourself and learn to accept the fact that ppl arent perfect and make mistakes and those mistakes need to be adressed. Sticking ones head in the sand just to have a big cryptic loving arena of flowers and love is not the way to go. Maybe for you but certainly not for everyone and in general its not even a desireable quality in a person to just accept and take all TRIBBLE given to him.
Practically every posting included some sence of what he/she expects of the gal r/x to be interesting to them.
Probably we wont see it anyway, so I'll pass too.
TNG fed fans are getting mocked here badly. If the other factions got the Fleet Tor'khat (Fleet Vor'cha) and Fleet D'Deridex, wich are great ships, each with a Lt.Com tactical boff seat, the Fed ones remain subpar. Funny how an Excelcior class, wich is 100 years old design, can be better then the Galaxy class ships. Why is a Lt.Com tac soo much to ask? Most feedback this requested, not to make the ship into a scimitar or other OP ships out there.
And the money issue doesnt hold either, as in players wont buy any ships in the future if they get this one with a Lt.Com tac station. Like after Scimitar release and sales, players stop buying ships??? Of course not, whatever that was some players dream ship or the best ship in the game (wich still is) and it wouldnt have been the case here aswell.
And I see ppl that like the ship with just a Lt. tac and claim is players fault, not cryptic's, for wanting a Lt.Com tac station. Really??? Just an example: have you done a Starbase 24 or Crystaline Entity in a Gal R or X and manage to get the 1st place?? I higly doubt it, or if you did, it was very hard and after countless attempts against poorly geared players. And this is not a DPS e-peen contest that players are pulling from ISE, is Cryptic's game content with competitive PvE, wich this ship line fails completly.
And ultimely, if the fleet version gets a Lt.Com uni station, how will afect those players who like the ship is in its current state?? They will still have the same ship, but it will provide more versatility for others who wants to stay competitive in this game.
Its as good a theory as any I guess, because this 'reboot' is anything but.
its a 2500 zen ship that does not even equal the Fleet Regent/Assualt cruiser
its not even in the shadow of the avenger
So its pretty worthless as a new buy for any of our fleet members
Our fleet will not support this weak ship as a primary ship for new level 50 player . It is still too weak
We will continue to direct our members to the avenger and not waste there Zen on this
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
I thought the only special skin for the Galaxy was the Venture skin, the rest are "stock Federation skins".
Said posting was less about "age of design" and more about "we can't be using superseded starships", being that the Galaxy (and alternate Galaxy-X) has been replaced by first the Soverign then the Oddessy, therefore "it shouldn't be as capable as either of these ships". Admittedly, this entire statement / train of thought is born of bitterness over arguing the point in Connie threads, yet I thought it was an "appropriate" lead into the concept that "hero ships can't be useful, otherwise that's all we'll see"...
My bad. Half asleep math had me using the start of the Kirk era then tacking on 86 years, not the end of the Kirk era, which is more appropriate. Thank you for the reminder...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
$0 for the Galaxy bundle/ships
Well my fleet is now well aware of the hazards of this ship and none of them will be buying it either. Enjoy those metrics, Cryptic.
Sure i can fly my SC/Turret Galaxy-X in PVE and perform reasonably well.
If i spend a lot of dilithium on fleet consoles i can even boost the turning rate enough to use DHC.
However, the developers stated they wanted to bring the Galaxy-X more or less on par with other dreadnaughts and it boggles me that they hope to achieve that by slapping on a hangar and not addressing the real issues with the Galaxy-X.
It's a dreadnaught which slaps like a little girl because of the lack of tactical Boff and consoles.
This reboot feels like we've been asked to take off our trousers and ride a bicycle without a saddle.
a forth order polynomial interpolation lol nice one. I must say i liked my idea of using it as a switch like lance only / rest as usual 4/4. Also i would still give it build in shield penetrating and hull resis reducing effects. Your idea would also be fine but as with the kumari weapaon, its just another nice visual effekt and a weapon with a bit more dmg but otherwise it does not have any real special effect to it other than the set stuff. You could make the lance weapon part of a galaxy 3-set with the separation and antimatter spread although i dont really like ss and ams tbh.
There are several ships with special modes like the ferengi marauder battle mode, the chimera has one, the arkif set provides one and there are propably lots of others. ALso there is precedent for specials shutting down normal weapons as with the elachi console set special attack. Just combine that with the weapon switch mode from the new dyson set and you got something very special approriate for a very special ship. If they have to just make it a gal x refit to make us pay for it again.
I would really refer to pay more for the right ship then pay nothing for revamp that doesnt change what made me keep the ship docked in the first place.
edit:
oh and i guess the hangar stuff is our fault as a player base as it seemed to have worked with the arkif for them when they gave it one cause noone liked it before.
That would also match the "canon" in that the lance fired what, twice at least, at the same RoF that the standard arrays were firing at?
Though personally, I'm still alright with it remaining a 3 min "cooldown clicky special power" as long as it's damage potential (and accuracy) are "improved" to be on a par with the Vet ship's lotus, that KDF destroyer-lance, or the Vesta's deflector-phaser power, all of which are "3 minute cooldown, (semi-)integrated powers...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Can i just say, Your updated signature is gold. I think i might rename mine the U.S.S. Half Assed..
You're very right. I do the exact same thing you described here - each of my chars. has his/hers own ship to command. Yes, I use the Galaxy-R on my primary Fed. character, but I don't use the same ship on all of my characters.
What they should be seriously worried about is the saturation of the ship market. They've been pumping out ships like insane the past year/year and a half and it's starting to be a bit too much. They'll need to reconsider their ways of income very very soon and find some other way to fund. At least for me and the people I know and communicate the most in STO. All of my chars are set with the ships I need, so I'm at a point where I'm no longer spending $ on ships.
I'd gladly buy enhancements to the Galaxy-R in terms of different Boff layout, the original TNG Galaxy bridge the or Enterprise-D interiors.
Like I said before, untill I see some real love for the Galaxy-R - my wallet will remain shut.
Word. I actually usually make new toons, when there's a new ship I want to fly.
Giving it Saucer Separation?!?! What the HELL?!?!?! According to Star Trek, the reason it DID NOT have Saucer Separation was because the SPINAL LANCE was attached both the primary and secondary hull.
Hell, might as well give the T'Varo the ability to fire EVERYTHING while cloaked. Oh, wait....that would be over-powered, wouldn't it? Well, you pretty much screwed over lore with the "NEW" dreadnought, so might as well give us the ability create our own ships with all the stats from the secondary hull, console slots of our choice and the ability to swap nacelles, primary hull, and other parts from other ships.
Thanks very EFFIN much Cryptic for TRIBBLE over lore you so proudly claimed to have held.
"it's offensive, Jim, but not as we know it."
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
I could see arguing for 5/4 with the locked in lance because it means less changing and because the BO loadout is so suboptimal.
Another thing to consider is that "prioritization" seems unlikely which would help justify the 5/4 but also provide incentive to use cannons or torpedoes, to maximize the odds of beam powers working on the lance.
http://pl.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2i7prib&s=8
Thank you in advance
This^^^^^
This is the best post I've seen so far. Smirk, PLEASE send this post to the devs. PLEASE.
And I have to agree partially with all of the angry people who hate the Gal-R reboot. As nice as the set bonus and other tweaks are, the Gal-R (even the fleet version) suffers from the same problems as the Gal-X, only exacerbated because it lacks even the lance weapon and the new hangar bay.
I seriously think that some new reboots are in order. I'm still saving up for the pack (sometimes, it's fun to fly an underpowered ship; what can I say?), but I think that if you want to have this line of ships used for anything but casual Foundry missions, you need to give the entire line some more serious work.
An idea I saw that sounded cool was a seperation-dependent eng/tac transformation for the Gal-X and Gal-R, similar to the Dyson Science Destroyers.
My 2 cents.
Worffan101
The issues with the Galaxy-R still remain however, any reboot will HAVE to include that. A simple two set bonus and a new animation do not constitute that.
I will do everything I can to dissuade players from purchasing the pack when it goes live. Hopefully if it doesn't sell well Cryptic will perk up and realise what a total farce this is.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
in that pic it says it is the only cruiser than can equip cannons , i can fit single cannons to any cruiser :P . it does need updating the text does lol
DELTA PRICE RISING
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
fixed for you :P
DELTA PRICE RISING