Why isn't the Galaxy on par with other cruisers cryptic?

jtoney3448

Since mods locked the other threads and we can't "second guess" the all-powerful mods who never make mistakes *cough* BS *Cough*.

The Galaxy-R isn't up to snuff with its onscreen appearances. And ingame its console/boff layout is widely considered the worst. So lets continue to talk about what is wrong, and what can be changed to fix it.

I suggest a 4 eng/ 3 tac/ 3 sci console layout.
Cmd Eng
Ltc Tac
Ltc Sci
LT uni

4 Years and this discussion is still "ongoing". So what are your suggestions to fix the galaxy, and the older ships that have fallen behind?

oracion666

Y u do dis? Y?

This has been talked about too death, up there with feds/cloaking, STBC playstyle, and a T5 Connie. Cryptic gave us the 'updated' Galaxy, and that's about all we'll get out of it. Leave it at that please.

nikephorus

Don't post about the ship that shall not be named! We aren't to speak of it anymore! :cool:

questerius

jtoney3448 wrote: »

Since mods locked the other threads and we can't "second guess" the all-powerful mods who never make mistakes *cough* BS *Cough*.

The Galaxy-R isn't up to snuff with its onscreen appearances. And ingame its console/boff layout is widely considered the worst. So lets continue to talk about what is wrong, and what can be changed to fix it.

I suggest a 4 eng/ 3 tac/ 3 sci console layout.
Cmd Eng
Ltc Tac
Ltc Sci
LT uni

4 Years and this discussion is still "ongoing". So what are your suggestions to fix the galaxy, and the older ships that have fallen behind?

From a marketing point of view it'd be bad business to give the iconic ship stats which are on par or better than the rest because once the fans buy the iconic ship (with good stats) why would they buy anything else.

The truth behind this however is that the Galaxy probably got the sister of one of the devs pregnant and didn't man up afterward and married the girl.

yreodred

nikephorus wrote: »

Don't post about the ship that shall not be named! We aren't to speak of it anymore! :cool:

do you mean the Galaxy Class?!? :eek::D:eek:

questerius wrote: »

From a marketing point of view it'd be bad business to give the iconic ship stats which are on par or better than the rest because once the fans buy the iconic ship (with good stats) why would they buy anything else.

The truth behind this however is that the Galaxy probably got the sister of one of the devs pregnant and didn't man up afterward and married the girl.

Yeah, something really bad must have happend, lol.

dontdrunkimshoot

im not sure how citing canon to prove the ship shouldn't be as bad as it is in game is grounds for thread locking. i suppose its a roundabout way of saying cryptic, you are wrong! and that's a terrible thing for us to do, because its then easy to play the that's not constructive card.

we have only given them ~4000 constructive no brainer posts about a constructive solution to the ship being TRIBBLE poor at everything. cryptic need only pick one of these solutions, and we will SHUT UP FOREVER ABOUT THE GALAXY CLASS. mods rejoice! you would never again be forced to skim threadnaughts about the ship looking look for things that need moderating.

so dont hate us, its the devs that are drawing this out. until the ship is competitive there will never be an end to the posting about it. and we are not complaining that our favorite ship is not good enough, we are complaining that it is the worst combination of ship stats possible, as if its some kind of joke parity. it is that bad. it makes the aquarius and qin raptor look like a masterpiece.

a uni ENS was good enough for the fleet negvar and dreadnaught, 2 LTC stations were good enough for the d'deridex. am i raking cryptic over the coals pointing this out? if that makes cryptic feel bad to hear, then its because they know they have done wrong, and if not then all it is is a neutral fact.

as for all the constructive solutions, heres all the good ones i recall

-dyson tech station fliping seen on the dysen sci destroyers applied to all saucer sep ships. not COM stations, LTC or LT at most.

-a simple universal ENS, that will unhamstring the build options of the ship tremendously.

-a large number of universal stations

-a relaunch level overhaul, with something like COM eng, LTC uni, LT uni, LT sci, ENS sci

-copy/paste the d'deridex station setup onto it, or a variant of it

architect13

When were they built? 1987?

jellico1

jtoney3448 wrote: »

Since mods locked the other threads and we can't "second guess" the all-powerful mods who never make mistakes *cough* BS *Cough*.

The Galaxy-R isn't up to snuff with its onscreen appearances. And ingame its console/boff layout is widely considered the worst. So lets continue to talk about what is wrong, and what can be changed to fix it.

I suggest a 4 eng/ 3 tac/ 3 sci console layout.
Cmd Eng
Ltc Tac
Ltc Sci
LT uni

4 Years and this discussion is still "ongoing". So what are your suggestions to fix the galaxy, and the older ships that have fallen behind?

---

To answer your question

a great many Feds would fly the galaxy if it was competitive and would buy no other ships costing cryptic cash in the lock boxes

if there was a good galaxy class ship...............it would cost cryptic cash because it would remove large segment of there plyer base from buying new ships

yreodred

dontdrunkimshoot wrote: »

im not sure how citing canon to prove the ship shouldn't be as bad as it is in game is grounds for thread locking. i suppose its a roundabout way of saying cryptic, you are wrong! and that's a terrible thing for us to do, because its then easy to play the that's not constructive card.

we have only given them ~4000 constructive no brainer posts about a constructive solution to the ship being TRIBBLE poor at everything. cryptic need only pick one of these solutions, and we will SHUT UP FOREVER ABOUT THE GALAXY CLASS. mods rejoice! you would never again be forced to skim threadnaughts about the ship looking look for things that need moderating.

so dont hate us, its the devs that are drawing this out. until the ship is competitive there will never be an end to the posting about it. and we are not complaining that our favorite ship is not good enough, we are complaining that it is the worst combination of ship stats possible, as if its some kind of joke parity. it is that bad. it makes the aquarius and qin raptor look like a masterpiece.

a uni ENS was good enough for the fleet negvar and dreadnaught, 2 LTC stations were good enough for the d'deridex. am i raking cryptic over the coals pointing this out? if that makes cryptic feel bad to hear, then its because they know they have done wrong, and if not then all it is is a neutral fact.

as for all the constructive solutions, heres all the good ones i recall

-dyson tech station fliping seen on the dysen sci destroyers applied to all saucer sep ships. not COM stations, LTC or LT at most.

-a simple universal ENS, that will unhamstring the build options of the ship tremendously.

-a large number of universal stations

-a relaunch level overhaul, with something like COM eng, LTC uni, LT uni, LT sci, ENS sci

-copy/paste the d'deridex station setup onto it, or a variant of it

I think no one could have said it better!
I hope you don't mind if i link this with my signature picture.

dontdrunkimshoot

jellico1 wrote: »

---

To answer your question

a great many Feds would fly the galaxy if it was competitive and would buy no other ships costing cryptic cash in the lock boxes

if there was a good galaxy class ship...............it would cost cryptic cash because it would remove large segment of there plyer base from buying new ships

a fat 6 turn cruiser will never replace the game play of all the sci ships, escorts, destroyers, warbirds, battlecruiser or even cruisers with an 8 or 9 turn rate. ships with 6 turn or under are in a very small niche, it will never totally satisfy, like how the avenger arguably can satisfy any and all cruiser gameplay wants.

why is it that anyone flys the avenger when there's the regent with the more popular then even the galaxy sovereign look? that's like the coolest starfleet ship ever right, how can anyone stand flying anything else? i see a lot more avengers then sovereign, hell i see more monbosh then sovereign, explain that.

this 'fact' is not a fact at all, and has been wrong in practice in every single example. the only possible way it could cost them long term money is if they went and made it the best cruiser, best + iconic is the only thing that could hurt sales.

askray

If you think a mod made a mistake then file a ticket. You are not allowed to open a new thread about a thread that was closed by a mod.

Consider this a fair warning folks.

/closed.