test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Feedback› Federation Discussion

Cryptic, Why do you STILL have a beat with the Galaxy?

admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
edited June 2014 in Federation Discussion
Sorry Cryptic but closing the original thread will not stop this discussion. Faced it. you screwed up with the galaxy in this game. In cannon she is the second most powerful and the most versitile ship in fleet history yet in this game the Galaxy is only used by the daring or the Galaxy lovers who made a decent build on her. and the Three pack was a wasted opprotunity to fix the gamplay issues AND the graphic issues with the iconic ship. Heck the 3 pack only affected the Galaxy X.
You need to own up to this TRIBBLE up and fix it. I give an easy solution since your devs seem to be pretty lazy at times. The main issues with the Galaxy R and the fleet version is the Bridge Officer slots. It's too engineering dependent and hampers it's ability to perform. Thus why i suggest the universal Bo slot for all Bo slots. One it's easy to do and fixes the issue. Two gives the feds 2 ships like this while the KDF have an entire line of such ships. Do this and not only can people keep the decent build they have made but allows the ship to be more canon and be the versitile ship it was meant to be.
Post edited by admiralq1732 on

Comments

  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    There's exactly zero things wrong with the Galaxy*. What we should be doing is trying to make the XX/XXXXX/TRIBBLE console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout perform better.

    * Not the BOFF/console configurations at least.
    U.S.S.%20Mastermind%20Signature_zpsgsyjxxz1.jpg~original
    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
  • sfc#5932 sfc
    sfc#5932
         Member Posts: 992 Bug Hunter
    edited June 2014
    What's wrong with Engineering dependent cruisers? You don't want to be tanky?
  • jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited June 2014
    orangeitis wrote: »
    There's exactly zero things wrong with the Galaxy. What we should be doing is trying to make the XX/XXXXX/TRIBBLE console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout better.[/QU

    Its painfully clear you dont own one fly one or know anything about a Galaxy

    1 lt tac is the most boring layouts a ship can have

    does dramitically low dps

    quite frankly i believe your just trolling
    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
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    nakedsnake001 wrote: »
    What's wrong with Engineering dependent cruisers? You don't want to be tanky?

    fly one and you will understand. but the biggest issue is that there are only so many useful eng abilities.
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    jellico1 wrote: »
    Its painfully clear you dont own one fly one or know anything about a Galaxy
    Strange how it's clear to someone who is not me. What's clear to me is that I fly a Galaxy, a Monarch, and a Venture.
    jellico1 wrote: »
    1 lt tac is the most boring layouts a ship can have
    That's your opinion.
    jellico1 wrote: »
    does dramitically low dps
    What's your point?
    jellico1 wrote: »
    quite frankly i believe your just trolling
    Trolling or not, I'm ready to present reasons for my claims. Are you ready to present reasons for yours?
    U.S.S.%20Mastermind%20Signature_zpsgsyjxxz1.jpg~original
    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
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    nakedsnake001 wrote: »
    What's wrong with Engineering dependent cruisers? You don't want to be tanky?

    The "real" problem is that low level engineering powers share too many cooldowns and are very limited in general. Unlike Science which has a wide variety of different powers, Engineering only has Emergency Power to x or Engeineering team.
    A ship having three Ensign Engineering stations almost can't use Emergency power to X II or III. So the range of Engineering powers are too limited and in too passive in nature.

    Additionally, only two tactical consoles are just not enough.

    All that wouldn't be so bad if it where a dedicated cryptic made ship, but to put the Galaxy Class into the healer/"tank without teeth" corner is just plainly wrong.
    I don't want to explain all the canon instances that proof my opinion here, please look at the dedicated Galaxy Class thread if you want to know more about this.
    "...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--" - (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie

    A tale of two Picards
    https://youtu.be/d-f3bscZa0E?t=105
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited June 2014
    no your not worth the effort to something a 3rd grader can see

    just keep trolling
    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
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Y'know, when a thread gets closed, there's usually a reason for it.

    Speaking as a Mod, I really get irritated when somebody opens a new thread that does the exact same thing that got the old thread closed.

    You don't get a pass on reopening a thread that's more about raking Cryptic over the coals than making suggestions and asking for changes. And you don't get to second-guess moderation decisions.

    Closed.
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
This discussion has been closed.