Yes, I'm that Askray@Batbayer in game. Yes, I still play. No, I don't care.
Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker.
Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Needed upgrades to Galaxy Class?
askray
Member Posts: 3,329 Arc User
Since there is a lot of outpouring over the closing of the last thread, I've decided to remake this thread for the time being. I cannot say if it'll be closed or not later on but for now here AND ONLY HERE is where you can discuss it.
Let me be very very clear - DISCUSSION OF MODERATION, FLAMING PLAYERS/CRYPTIC/PWE/MODS, TROLLING PLAYERS/CRYPTIC/PWE/MODS, OR ANYTHING THAT VIOLATES THE FORUM RULES WILL RESULT IN MODERATION WITHOUT NOTICE.
There will be no further warnings about any rules.
Enjoy.
Original Thread for comparison: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931
Let me be very very clear - DISCUSSION OF MODERATION, FLAMING PLAYERS/CRYPTIC/PWE/MODS, TROLLING PLAYERS/CRYPTIC/PWE/MODS, OR ANYTHING THAT VIOLATES THE FORUM RULES WILL RESULT IN MODERATION WITHOUT NOTICE.
There will be no further warnings about any rules.
Enjoy.
Original Thread for comparison: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Hahaha! XD
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
As for my thoughts on the Galaxy-class, they revolve more around the gameplay of STO rather than any direct problem with the ship itself.
If the game rewarded gameplay for ships that have a clear focus on engineering capabilities (such as boff layouts and consoles), in the same way ship designs lately have focused on tactical or tactical-hybrid capabilities, we would not need threads like this.
Instead of providing a robust playtime experience with Engineering-heavy ships (the cruiser commands were a marked improvement, but still falls short of what needs to be done), Cryptic has focused on making cruisers more escort-like (Avenger, Fleet Dreadnought), Science vessels more escort-like (Vesta, Dyson Science Ships), and Escorts more cruiser-like (Tempest).
This leaves Engineering-focused Cruisers out in the rain, because of a trend towards a high damage output gameplay style.
The obvious solutions are to either give Engineering consoles (not universal consoles) more stats/powers/bonuses to make Engineering-skewed ships on par with the latest 'meta'... or provide gameplay experience that is equally as rewarding as something as the high damage output we've come to accept as 'regular gameplay'.
If your latest ship designs from the development team have a very obvious bias towards tactical capabilities, do not be surprised when fans of the Galaxy-class want their piece of the action too.
Make the LCdr Eng a LCdr Uni.
Make the Ens Eng an Ens Uni.
Make the Lt Tac a Lt Eng.
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X
X, X, X
X
Make the 5th Eng Console a 3rd Tac Console.
3 - 4 - 3
We shouldn't change the Galaxy at all. We should concentrate on making the XX/XXXXX/TRIBBLE console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout better. Even if the Galaxy's configuration changes, we should still work towards making the XX/XXXXX/TRIBBLE console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout more competitively viable.
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
A 5-piece Engineering Console Set could conceivably do this. Only a few ships like the Fleet Negh'Var, Ha'apax, Operations Odyssey and Galaxy-class could use all 5 set piece bonuses.
You could even offer more than one 5-piece set for various playstyles and even more options. And since they get more powerful as set bonuses stack -- other ships could still benefit from the 3 or 4-piece set bonuses (even if they don't have access to the fifth), thus appealing to a wide demographic of the playerbase.
Therefore Cryptic could make the fifth console set bonus do... well... literally anything they wanted it to in order to make said ships more competetive with the tactical meta. And you wouldn't have to alter the ship itself at all.
New boff powers are needed for all classes at this point, and would go a long way towards taking the strain off the older ships, but would still benfit newer ships just as much.
The D'd layout I think is still the best immediate solution to the galaxy-r. Honestly if you think of eng heavy ship, id think of a heavy cruiser, not an exploration one, that Id expect to be more sci based.
Though I don't want the heavy cruiser turned into g-r layout. Only other fed ship with that layout is the operations oddy, and everyone suggests going with tac or sci oddy so that aught to say something about that specific layout in the current game.
I want to have your babies.
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
I can't really think off the top of my head (and there were a lot of posts in the old thread) but I was keen on the idea of changing the Bridge Officers round as for the Dreadnought to make it more Tactical Leaning...
However, I think that one of the things that could do with being improved is that the Galaxy should have better states than the Excelsior due to the Galaxy being a newer ship than the Excelsior and being used more often in things than the Excelsior.
please consider giving the galaxy R a universal ENS.
-since doffs have been introduced, there are not enough eng station power system cooldowns to have 3 ENS level eng skills on a ship, in most cases
-another cruiser problem is that there are not enough good LTC+ level eng skills, so ships with 3 LTC+ eng power are not considered all that good. not when you take into consideration the opportunity cost of not having access to a LTC level tac or sci skill instead.
-i think you know that, not a single lockbox cruiser comes with a COM/LTC eng.
unfortunately, the galaxy R has both of those problems. 3 ENS level eng powers, and 3 LTC+ level eng powers. this is why the ship is so bad. this is why we say its the worst ship, why its uncompetitive, why its an anomaly in an otherwise fairly balanced system. its so bad, that better builds can be made by writing off completely the 3rd ENS eng skill, then trying to include it. this is why an ENS universal would make such a huge difference.
other then the mirror ships, there hasn't been a ship released without universal stations standard for years. this is a modest modernization that has become necessary for one of the oldest c store ships in the game
I have to agree with this. The problem is not with the Galaxy itself, but engineering functionality in general. Being fairly engineering heavy can be a big advantage as it gives a ship greater survivability; specialising in engineering as much as the Galaxy does is kind of pointless however.
It's hard to win at anything just by not dying; you need to be able to do things to your opponents too. Engineering doesn't have much that helps there.
I'd add to what Iconians' is saying that another thing that could be worth doing is giving engineering Boff powers more aggressive uses. Making the DoTs on EWP and AB more powerful and harder to clear for example.
For me the only real issue I have with it is the sub-par turn rate (which is helped tremendously by the saucer separation console.) Regardless of this though I find that the galaxy retrofit is hands down my favorite ship to fly in the game.
The only change that I would like to see would be the inclusion of a hanger bay. (With a main shuttle bay that big, just makes sense to me.) This would probably go a long way to solve the issues that some people have with it.
R.I.P. Leonard Nimoy
i also like layouts like this, were you have the option of leaving off completely one of the 3 station types. there has yet to be a cruiser were you can do this. its similar to what the odyssey has, but different. not necessarily better, not necessarily worse
Then you get into defining viable, no? Are you talking viable DPS? If so, then what is viable DPS? Are you talking some other role? Then you're talking a lot of changes to the game and potentially creating the requirement for a ship with a similar layout, no?
im curious, as someone who likes it as is, how do you use it?
Many of the major problems are solved right there for both ships.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Also the higher level eng boff powers are a bit pants to be honest. Unless you use DEMIII for better dps or use eject plasma for some crowd control you're pretty limited to what you can do.
Unlike with tac and sci powers where you've got a wide range of skills that can be used for lots of playstyles.
I've always thought of the Galaxy as a big support cruiser. It's got plenty of guns but its wasn't built as a warship so it is not really designed to be in the thick of it. But because of the size it should be really tough so it can take a hell of a beating. Plus it should have a decent amount of both eng and sci powers to utilize as it is at the end of the day filled with science labs in TNG.
I think the Ambasador support cruiser does really well what the Galaxy should do even better, be a jack of all trades capital ship. It should be able to hold its own and "rally the troops", it was the fleet flagship after all.
@askray
Thanks for opening this thread, that's a very kind thing to do.
I couldn't have said it any better.
But i am ok with ppl not wanting to change the existing ship.
That's why i would like to see a "mirror Galaxy Class" somewhen in a future Lockbox.
Such a ship could be made similar to the mirror Negh'var, (fleet) Ambassador, or D'Deridex BOFF and Console Layout.
I think most ppl could live with such a ship, since it would be much more versatile and not be trapped in the Engineering corner.
Another idea would be to just unlock the G-R ship parts for the G-X. So depending on a players preference it could be a Engineering heavy or tactical version of the ship.
Anyway, lets wait till monday.
It gets into what rank did Worf have before the Ent-D crashed into V-III. He was a LCdr, so shouldn't the Fleet Gal-R have the option of having that LCdr Tac there? It also gets into how some of their missions went - might have been focusing more on Science or Engineering in that sense, so perhaps they only had an Ensign there if anybody at all.
As for the 3rd Tac console instead of the 5th Eng, that's getting into the time period sort of thing - sure, the earlier Ent-D may have been built for one thing - but as timeline progressed, things got more dangerous. It's how we got from the Galaxy to the Sovereign.
Honestly, I'm kind of surprised they didn't go with a Universal Console for Fleet Vessels. Let the player put it where they wanted it along with however they did their Universal BOFF.
Think they could have done that without worrying about folks tripping over ships and skipping purchases.
Of course, that definition relies on subjective elements, but IMO is still reasonable.
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
and with it you could create an also ran tac cruiser, inferior to the excelsior, regent, avenger and monbosh, that all turn better and have more tac consoles. or you could make it a good healer with just a ENS tac, and the LTC for sci. one maybe as good as a recluse. so, the galaxy would be improved, but still be mid pack if used for dps. people would still buy new releases like always, people bought the avenger after the regent was release, and people bought the refit patrol after the akira was released.
I'm sorry to people who I, in the past, insulted, annoyed, etc.
it was possible on the dyson ships, so that tech is out there, waiting to be reused. there are so many good ways to improve the ship, its never been hard to think them up.
So something like the Galaxy would actually gain the most from it, while other Cruisers would still get a benefit.
My opinion on the Galaxy Class issue is widely known, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Agree! Good call on keeping this open until CM weigh in.
I still feel the most realistic improvement is the simplest one. Make the ensign engineering universal which is a single change in the database along with some text descriptions. If they really want to make it something special (not likely to happen) they could do something more unique:
Cmdr Engineering
LtCmdr Science
LtCmdr Universal
Lt Tac
- Judge Aaron Satie
XXXX
XX
XX
XX
X
X
That would allow it to be used in a wide variety of roles, but would not be able to run high-level tactical or science abilities.
However the Dreadnought should get the LtCmdr tactical layout
XXXX
TRIBBLE
XX
XX
X
...loses a uni ensign
Here's one:
First, make tractor beam an engineering power. Tractor beams don't come from the deflector anyway.
Second, let's have a wide-angle tractor beam.
In TNG we have seen the Enterprise use it tractor beam to push a small moon. So the tractor beam is obviously quite powerful and can cover a wide area, even if it wasn't quite up to pushing a planetary body.
So what about a top tier engineering power that works like tractor beam, but covers a 90 degree cone in front of the ship out to 10km and stops all targets from moving?
Just off the top of my head.
Yeah, when it's Saucer is attached BOFF seating is more, science'ish, when it's Saucer is detached more tactical and more bonus weapons power. This could also improve the Odyssey and the Multi-Vector Escort and the Odssey.
HERE DAT CRYPTIC?
I'm sorry to people who I, in the past, insulted, annoyed, etc.
The Oddy got the boff layout the Galaxy should've had from day one.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/