Have to put it simply, the Gal X is still not a DREADNAUGHT its nice to have a cruiser supporting cannons but limitations abound for its tactical capacity and effectiveness...
Something that might help. What ever engineering ability is used that has a duty officer attached to make it better would increase its power based on the rank its used on. For example, if you use a very rare purple tech. duty officer on a Lt A2B it would lower the CD by 6 secs. If you had A2B slotted in the Lt comm. it would lower it by 8 secs. You could use this tactic for all boff abilitys. The duty officers that lower CDs would be the easiest to fix.
The higher the ability the more of a buff it gets. also BTW if there was a Commander A2B the doff would give the ability a 10 sec. CD.
My first thought on how they should of "Revamped" the Gal-R was to just make the Lt. Cmdr universal, that allows the few who like the Gal-R boff set up to keep on using it.
Cmdr Eng Lt. Cmdr Uni Lt. Tac Lt. Sci Ens Eng
Couple of problem I see with this boff set up, you can't Aux2Batt it without using the Lt. Cmdr as an Eng and almost all other Fed, Lock box and Lobi cruisers are better choices.
While I would never say never(although I actually do sometimes:P) - the chances of another Galaxy reboot are about the same as them cutting dilithium costs by 90% across the board, paying people to play the game, and the devs spending 8 hrs a day talking to people on the forums:P
So I really doubt there is much use to this thread other than for purely "social" interaction purposes. Which is still fine.:)
Well since they galaxy never got a reboot in the first place, the galaxy x did, id say its more likely then us getting paid to play.
That aside, simple changes like making it a 4/3/3 and a couple uni stations could turn it around and boost its sales a lot. Same with the defiant and intrepid, both those could use some station/console rework. Especially since its minimal time/effort involved to increase the future sale of a ton of ships.
The idea was that they would make the galaxy intrepid and defiant into fully focused version of each class. After they released them they found out what a mistake those layouts actually are. I would have taken the stock assault/star cruiser layout over the one the G-R currently has.
But if we are going to redo the ship to match the new ships it atleast needs a boff layout as good as the fleet D'D, or the new upcoming neg'var.
Sad that dragging it up to a reg assault/star cruiser is such a big improvement gameplay wise. Dragging it up from there to a full new retro fleet layout like the D'D is a massive improvement. Same goes for the Intrepid, defaint, nebula, dryker etc. Reason we don't see many of these ships any more is cause they are just flat outclassed now.
The vesta is better then the intrepid by miles. FPER is better then the defiant by miles *though the defiant is prolly the highest fuctioning out of all the effected ships but needs tweaked*. Its sad when the old reason to buy these ships any more is just if your a fan... I hope cryptic changes that for the better.
I think I figured out why there was a crackdown on the topic.
With the changes on Tribble, they REMOVED Exploration clusters.
Seems like that goes in line with the development team's overall view of Exploration in Star Trek. And thus, they wanted to move on from the discussion of the Exploration cruiser.
That's my guess.
In any event, I wonder if Askray could possibly create a T5 Connie Thread for future discussion, much as he did with this one?
Well since they galaxy never got a reboot in the first place, the galaxy x did, id say its more likely then us getting paid to play.
.
Your kind of splitting hairs about my post. I believe Cryptic is done with the "Galaxy" reboot - as in any ships related to the Galaxy class.
I wish I was wrong because I really love the Galaxy class of starship - it's just such an iconic ship. That said I think Cryptic is done with it - just as they were done with the last thread.
But everyone is free to dream as long as it stays civil - not much harm in dreaming - even if the dream is almost impossible.
Al Rivera said he will be looking at the Vesta and the Nebula next. So lets see that first.
Well Cryptic could just nip this entirely in the bud with three very simple decisions....
Mirror Galaxy Class with LTC Tac.
Alternate Galaxy Class (Ent-D from Yesterday's Enterprise) with the LTC Tac.
Fleet Alt. Galaxy Class (Fleet Version) of the above ship.
I still maintain that Cryptic was completely and utterly wrong in its assessment of the Galaxy's combat role from day one. It is a line battleship, the ship that receives close support and provides slow-moving heavy firepower, not the one that provides support. Look at its role in roughly any battle of the Dominion War. It was sitting at the heart of multi-starship formations, escorted by Mirandas and Excelsiors.
The Oddy got the boff layout the Galaxy should've had from day one.
Al Rivera said he will be looking at the Vesta and the Nebula next. So lets see that first.
Right, looking at the Vesta, the one sci ship in the game that doesn't need help. :rolleyes:
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
My issue is always been with the BOFF layout that is THE main problem with the ship and a zen ship to boot. I here's what i want to happen. ! The T4 Gal stays as is. the Gal R goes all universal BOFFs. Fleet Gal is tac leaning and loses a universal BOFF. And graphic fixes. add the T4 gal models for the fleet and Gal R and fix the lance misalignment in the GlaX and the missing windows on the Venture skin.
All I really want is for the Galaxy line to be better than a party boat. A cruise liner that some Ferengi slapped some guns on performs better than a Starfleet cruiser. I just can't get over that.
I do like the idea of adding in the dyson boff swapping tech to saucer sep. That would be so sweet.
And of course, all the visual issues that the GX has. Those should have been fixed 3 years ago.
this out of left field, and a direction im usually against, but if EPt skills had their system cooldowns removed like the team skills did, no ship would benefit more then the galaxy R, and COM/LTC eng cruisers would benefit the second most, they could use a buff as well. most other ships simply wouldn't have room for 3rd and certainly not a 4th EPt skill in their build, so the ships that dont need a buff shouldn't get one.
this out of left field, and a direction im usually against, but if EPt skills had their system cooldowns removed like the team skills did, no ship would benefit more then the galaxy R, and COM/LTC eng cruisers would benefit the second most, they could use a buff as well. most other ships simply wouldn't have room for 3rd and certainly not a 4th EPt skill in their build, so the ships that dont need a buff shouldn't get one.
With EPTx skills having no shared cooldowns, there would be huge, huge, huge ramifications.
As you said, very ENG heavy ships would benefit greatly, but, IMO, "Destroyer" or other more balanced "Hybrid' BOFF seating ships would come out in a superior state than the gains a ENG heavy Cruiser like the Assault Cruiser or Galaxy/Galaxy-X would.
You know damage reigns supreme in this game. It resides obviously in anything with Cmdr & LtCdr TAC seating ships. But no EPTx shared CDs will even make the performance of something even with Lt & Ens ENG stations shine that much more yet still have the fancy high count TAC stations.
How would those Escorts and TAC Crusiers perform with simultaneously running something like EPTS/EPTW all the time? Or EPTE/EPTW? Or EPTE/EPTS? There are Escorts and TAC Cruisers of course that can stack up more EPTx abilities. Hell, imagine what a Science Vessel can do simultaneously running EPTA/EPTS? Some can go more like the Nebula, EPTS/EPTA/EPTW, if it was possible.
I get what you're saying in how removing shared EPTx CDs will greatly help ENG heavy Cruisers like the Galaxy, but that is opening a massive floodgate. Namely because even the very basic Ens & Lt ENG stations can do quite a lot with that, and there are other TAC-heavy ships that can do better.
I think I figured out why there was a crackdown on the topic.
With the changes on Tribble, they REMOVED Exploration clusters.
Seems like that goes in line with the development team's overall view of Exploration in Star Trek. And thus, they wanted to move on from the discussion of the Exploration cruiser.
That's my guess.
In any event, I wonder if Askray could possibly create a T5 Connie Thread for future discussion, much as he did with this one?
Would be consistent and fair, imo.
If they did, that would be an appeal to equivocation, and I'd shake my index finger mightily at Cryptic.
this out of left field, and a direction im usually against, but if EPt skills had their system cooldowns removed like the team skills did, no ship would benefit more then the galaxy R, and COM/LTC eng cruisers would benefit the second most, they could use a buff as well. most other ships simply wouldn't have room for 3rd and certainly not a 4th EPt skill in their build, so the ships that dont need a buff shouldn't get one.
That would be pretty nice gameplay-wise, but would be a step back in the Gameplay and Story Segregation spectrum. Which I suppose is just a matter of taste, though I'm more often than not going to be opposed to the G&SS route, unless it involved character defecation or something. (in other words MUH IMMERSION)
However, maybe if there was an actual "Emergency Power" meter that gives you some stacked usage of the emergency power skills, I'd be okay with it. They could even remove their cooldowns totally, but the EP meter has to regen after so many uses. EP2X I skills using the least EP from the meter, EP2X II using an average amount, and EP2X III skills using the most EP. As in EP2X I skills would be the most spammable, while higher tiered EP2X skills would use more sparingly.
With EPTx skills having no shared cooldowns, there would be huge, huge, huge ramifications.
As you said, very ENG heavy ships would benefit greatly, but, IMO, "Destroyer" or other more balanced "Hybrid' BOFF seating ships would come out in a superior state than the gains a ENG heavy Cruiser like the Assault Cruiser or Galaxy/Galaxy-X would.
You know damage reigns supreme in this game. It resides obviously in anything with Cmdr & LtCdr TAC seating ships. But no EPTx shared CDs will even make the performance of something even with Lt & Ens ENG stations shine that much more yet still have the fancy high count TAC stations.
How would those Escorts and TAC Crusiers perform with simultaneously running something like EPTS/EPTW all the time? Or EPTE/EPTW? Or EPTE/EPTS? There are Escorts and TAC Cruisers of course that can stack up more EPTx abilities. Hell, imagine what a Science Vessel can do simultaneously running EPTA/EPTS? Some can go more like the Nebula, EPTS/EPTA/EPTW, if it was possible.
I get what you're saying in how removing shared EPTx CDs will greatly help ENG heavy Cruisers like the Galaxy, but that is opening a massive floodgate. Namely because even the very basic Ens & Lt ENG stations can do quite a lot with that, and there are other TAC-heavy ships that can do better.
since the damage control and tech doffs were introduced, EVERY good build has run 2 different EPt skills, even ships with just a LT eng can do it. but, like i said, only really eng heavy ships, almost exclusively those that have 7 eng powers, would even have room for a 3rd type.
I'm thinking all ships that have sections that separate could use a revamp to the console itself. Give it the kit treatment. Have it take just the one console slot like it does now, but have 'gem' slots that can hold certain items. The basics, two weapon slots, shields, impulse, deflector...maybe a universal console slot for armor, or a tac console? It would have to apply to both of the extra sections for the Prommy, wouldn't make sense to take two console slots for it.
This would have the advantages of making the separated sections have weapon types that match the main ship for immersion purposes, give them some teeth, and give something else to grind out (Cryptic's favorite thing).
The other thing that would have to be looked at is combat pet AI. Everything from fighters to saucers seem to be commanded by redshirts that try to one up each other in the 'stupid ways to die olympics'
These things are such integral parts of the ship, but have no real reason to have them take up a console slot as it is right now. Give me a reason.
Huh, it was quite a surprise to see the old threadnought closed. It was kinda like the mascot of the STO forums; seeing it closed is a little... sad.
Anyway, to actually get back on topic, here are some of my thoughts on the Galaxy and its implementation in STO (Disclaimer: there are a lot, and they might not be totally coherent).
The first (and arguably biggest problem with the ship) is the boff layout. Frankly put, having so many eng powers is a detriment to the ship, for reasons that have been detailed over and over again. It pushes the ship into a fairly narrow tank/healer playstyle - except there are many ships that can do that better, since they have the crucial science boff slots needed for such a thing. Heck, it even has trouble generating the damage to grab threat.
I think there's another big problem with the ship's eng heavy boff layout - which is that the Galaxy is not a ship that's particularly good at using a number of Engineering powers. To name a few:
- Aceton Beam (lol) - not a power with much use... but it's also a power with a narrow arc, which is a problem for a ship with a turn rate of 6.
- Eject Warp Plasma - again, the Galaxy's low maneuverability makes this of limited use.
- Directed Energy Modulation - the ship doesn't have the tactical capability to get much out of this skill, unlike any of the more dangerous cruisers.
These sorts of problems are hardly exclusive to the Galaxy... but in a lot of ways I think she suffers worse than other cruisers in this regard. Additionally, many of those powers are high level, too - you'd think they'd be the crown jewels in an Engineering focused ship's complement - except that the ship is actually quite poorly equipped to make use of them. I think that lack of synergy is a very real problem for the ship.
Second, we come to the ship's console layout... which is again, pretty terrible. But why is it so bad? Well, Eng consoles are pretty rubbish, except for turn rate and armour boosts. There's not much point to boosting turn rate on a Galaxy, which leaves us with armour - and due to the way they stack, you would never really want to put more than a couple of those consoles on the ship. So there's not really much point to having that many Engineering consoles.
Again, this problem isn't exclusive to the Galaxy - but again, I think she suffers much worse for it. Just compare it to the Negh'Var, which can get real benefits from boosting its turn rate and might even fill 3 or 4 of its Eng console slots. Or the Voth Bulwark, which with its higher hull/turn will get more out of those 5 eng consoles than the Galaxy ever would.
As an aside about the whole console layout thing, I'm still a little perplexed by the fact that the ship didn't get a 3rd tactical console on its fleet version, which it sorely needed. There's the whole "it's one of the hero ships, so it's extremely focused on one thing rationale", true... except that the Fleet Intrepid received a 3rd tac console. The Galaxy (which I'd argue gets less out of a 5th Eng console than the Intrepid would have out of a 5th Sci) is actually the odd one out of the hero ships at the fleet level...
At this point, I'd like to make a direct comparison between the Fleet Galaxy and the Fleet Negh'Var, since they're extremely similar ships with the same boff layout at the RA level.
Compared to the Negh'Var, the Galaxy gets +5 shield and aux power, a cruiser command, a sci console and 1,100 hull.
Compared to the Galaxy, the Negh'Var gets +5 weapon and engine power, a cloak, the ability to use dual cannons, a tac console, 1500 extra crew (not actually an advantage, but theoretically it should be), + 3 (!!!) turn rate and a universal ensign.
We'll discard the power level and console differences, since they (in theory) balance out. I'd say the Negh'var gets a much better deal, but for the sake of argument, let's set them aside. The cannon use and the cloak cancel out against the cruiser command as differences between types, so that leaves us with:
The Negh'Var has better crew, much better turn and even the universal ensign, while the Galaxy gets 1,100 hull.
1,100 hull in a game when Borg torps can hit you for 127 000 (yes, this actually happened to me) and people throw around DPS numbers like 20000. What kind of a deal is that? :P
And the Negh'Var isn't even a powerful ship, or a power-creepy one... it's pretty lackluster. Look how much worse than it the Galaxy is. That's a problem. Compare the Galaxy to something newer, or more powerful, and things only get worse.
Now, let's talk canon. Not specifics, I just want to touch on the general role of the ship; it was a balanced type that could do pretty much anything. It was durable, diplomatic, had massive cargo capacity, it was great at research, and it dished it out. That's not well represented in STO's version at all. Now, that's not necessarily a huge problem - not every ship can translate well into a game format. But then we have ships like the D'Deridex and Ambassador, which manage that "jack-of-all-trades" nature very well. The Galaxy epitomised that nature on the shows, and I think it (of all ships) deserves to be given something that matches a Starfleet Explorer better than what it is now.
As a personal proposal, I think you could get that pretty easily just be taking the Ambassador boff layout and and swapping the tac and sci stations, so on the Fleet Galaxy you'd get:
COM ENG LTCOM TAC LT SCI
ENS SCI
LT UNI
Give the ship a 3/4/3 console layout as well and I'd never make a post drawing a connection between the Galaxy and certain meat products again.
Now, as a final point (I do promise this post is nearly over ), I just want to point out that the Galaxy is the most seen ship type in Star Trek canon. Different people are going to have different tastes, true... but that's still a really bad choice for this particular layout. Heck, if the Galaxy didn't exist and need some stats, would anyone even use this layout? We'd have the possibility of it on an Odyssey or Bulwark, sure, but I don't think many would set their ship up that way.
Ultimately, the Galaxy is simply a poorly designed ship in today's STO. It's not fun. It's not especially good at what it does. It's outclassed by another cruiser in pretty much any role a cruiser could pull. It's redundant. I sincerely believe it needs to be drastically reworked, and I can't see any real downsides to doing so.
Whew, this post was long! If you're still reading, go get yourself a cookie. You've earned it...
I've been flying a Galaxy-R for the last few years and the only changes I might want to see are:
Ensign universal slot
Hangar bay slot
The rear torpedo for the separated saucer
Carrier type commands for the separated saucer
1) Yes
2) No, galaxy is not a carrier full of fighters
3) No, the saucer has not a torpedo tubes
4) I can not imagine how could this work
My idea for Galaxy Refit is switch lt.cmdr eng boff stations for lt.cmdr uni , +10% ship shields, reduced subsystem targeting (weapons and engines) , saucer separation more usefull: +15 weapon power instead 10, +15 turn instead of 10, more abilities for detached saucer section- science team, tactical team , hazzard emitters , jam sensors
They can be added to new things what convinces players to buy this ship like dual photon torpedo (2980x2 dmg [acc][crtD], 10 sec reload) and/or 3 console set bonus with tachyon detection field console: Improved sensor screening +1 stealth sight , +20 sensors, +10% accuracy, +20% severity , +2% critical chance
Such a ship would be playable well and still half weaker than the scimitar with shield generator.
Actually, yes it does. It's on a part of the saucer that's normally covered by the head of the engineering section. When the ship separates, the rear torpedo launcher on the saucer is exposed and can fire.
Actually, yes it does. It's on a part of the saucer that's normally covered by the head of the engineering section. When the ship separates, the rear torpedo launcher on the saucer is exposed and can fire.
I've never seen it in tv show, that the ship torpedoes shot from the bottom of the saucer, only from the " holder " .
In addition, the saucer would really not be intended to fight, for God's sake after all, there are kids!
LOL, a weapon system that's only functional for use on that less than 1% chance that a Galaxy operates under?
If that is indeed canon, that is horrible, HORRIBLE Starfleet ship design.
Like the ambassador not original even having torpedo tubes in the show. Keep in mind the ST designs are made by writers/modelers not by actual engineers at a space dock.
The main problem, in my opinion, is that all of the "big three", namely the Defiant, Intrepid and Galaxy, have a T4 payship "refit" which makes all of those ships much more veratile and usable, yet there is no way of playing this ship you paid for at endgame content. The Explorer, Intrepid and Defiant all should have at least their current fleet ships removed and being reworked into "fleet refits", based on the Bellerophon, Venture and Sao Paolo designs. Those ships should have a (semi-) universal LTC and ENS BOFF slot and maybe even a (semi-) universal console slot to be able to switch between the T4 retro and T4 refit layout, so you don't "lose" your refit you are used to play
Actually, yes it does. It's on a part of the saucer that's normally covered by the head of the engineering section. When the ship separates, the rear torpedo launcher on the saucer is exposed and can fire.
Are you sure? According to page 128 of the technical manual, the saucer mdule launcher is not obstructed by anything, it's located right beneath the bridge module and should be able to fire separated and joined.
I've never seen it in tv show, that the ship torpedoes shot from the bottom of the saucer, only from the " holder " .
In addition, the saucer would really not be intended to fight, for God's sake after all, there are kids!
It was never shown in the shows just like the Calypso, although both of them are there according to the technical manual which is based on the writer's bible to explain how things are supposed to work. In my opinion this counts as long as it's not contradicted by the writing of the show. The saucer module launcher is, according o page 128 of the TNG TM, located rigt underneah the bridge module and is not obstructed by anything prior or after separation.
People always complained separating in a battle was nonsensical. Now it turns out the saucer isn't all that defenseless after all and now it's still not right. Make up your mind, people
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
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
Y'now what? I'd change the universal lt. cmdr into a universal lieutenant and make the universal ensign into ANOTHER universal lieutenant. I think we have enough universal lt. cmdrs on other ships. Like so:
X, X, X, X
X, X X, X X, X,
X, X,
I think a cruiser with no lt. cmdr at all, but with three lieutenants (two universal) and no ensign would make for an interesting and original layout. It would still be a better layout than what the ship currently has and it wouldn't scream "overpowered" or make other cruisers obsolete.
Build another version of the Galaxy that caters to Sci needs, like a mirror version
If however, we are stuck with this version, I am for Uni Boffs amd Uni Consoles. However, I am against changing the fixed consoles and/or boffs, like changing the Lt Com eng into Lt Com Tac. There are players who adapted to Gal R setup, spent time and money to build their own Galaxy R based on the current format. You are just changing one group of complainers for another if you change the fixed consoles/boffs.
Give Galaxy R an inert tanking ability like a phaser lance for Galaxy X to balance both ships in the Galaxy bundle in their respective roles, Gal X for dps, Gal R for Tanking.
More importantly, if these are not actionable, respect the decision of the devs, adapt to the current Galaxy R and move on, since there are a lot of players that are currently enjoying the Galaxy R to its maximum potential.
Well since they galaxy never got a reboot in the first place, the galaxy x did, id say its more likely then us getting paid to play.
That aside, simple changes like making it a 4/3/3 and a couple uni stations could turn it around and boost its sales a lot. Same with the defiant and intrepid, both those could use some station/console rework. Especially since its minimal time/effort involved to increase the future sale of a ton of ships.
The idea was that they would make the galaxy intrepid and defiant into fully focused version of each class. After they released them they found out what a mistake those layouts actually are. I would have taken the stock assault/star cruiser layout over the one the G-R currently has.
But if we are going to redo the ship to match the new ships it atleast needs a boff layout as good as the fleet D'D, or the new upcoming neg'var.
Sad that dragging it up to a reg assault/star cruiser is such a big improvement gameplay wise. Dragging it up from there to a full new retro fleet layout like the D'D is a massive improvement. Same goes for the Intrepid, defaint, nebula, dryker etc. Reason we don't see many of these ships any more is cause they are just flat outclassed now.
The vesta is better then the intrepid by miles. FPER is better then the defiant by miles *though the defiant is prolly the highest fuctioning out of all the effected ships but needs tweaked*. Its sad when the old reason to buy these ships any more is just if your a fan... I hope cryptic changes that for the better.
Build another version of the Galaxy that caters to Sci needs, like a mirror version
If however, we are stuck with this version, I am for Uni Boffs amd Uni Consoles. However, I am against changing the fixed consoles and/or boffs, like changing the Lt Com eng into Lt Com Tac. There are players who adapted to Gal R setup, spent time and money to build their own Galaxy R based on the current format. You are just changing one group of complainers for another if you change the fixed consoles/boffs.
Give Galaxy R an inert tanking ability like a phaser lance for Galaxy X to balance both ships in the Galaxy bundle in their respective roles, Gal X for dps, Gal R for Tanking.
More importantly, if these are not actionable, respect the decision of the devs, adapt to the current Galaxy R and move on, since there are a lot of players that are currently enjoying the Galaxy R to its maximum potential.
Problem with the Gal-R, anything it can do, another ship can do BETTER. It's maximum potential is just not even in the same league as other ships out there. That's the problem.
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!
Another thing I've been thinking about lately is completely new boff skills. New tac, sci, and eng skills on every level. Most MMOs have new powers or abilities added in after a while, but we have the same old ones since STO launched. Not only would something like this benefit the Galaxy line, but many other ships that are lagging behind too.
Obviously that's a huge job, but it's still one I've been wanting for a bit now. Basically I'm going on the whole line of: If Cryptic is unwilling to change it's boff slots, then lets get some new skills in there to capitalize on it's layout.
Comments
BOff seating ...
Consoles...
The higher the ability the more of a buff it gets. also BTW if there was a Commander A2B the doff would give the ability a 10 sec. CD.
Cmdr Eng
Lt. Cmdr Uni
Lt. Tac
Lt. Sci
Ens Eng
Couple of problem I see with this boff set up, you can't Aux2Batt it without using the Lt. Cmdr as an Eng and almost all other Fed, Lock box and Lobi cruisers are better choices.
≡/\≡
So I really doubt there is much use to this thread other than for purely "social" interaction purposes. Which is still fine.:)
That aside, simple changes like making it a 4/3/3 and a couple uni stations could turn it around and boost its sales a lot. Same with the defiant and intrepid, both those could use some station/console rework. Especially since its minimal time/effort involved to increase the future sale of a ton of ships.
The idea was that they would make the galaxy intrepid and defiant into fully focused version of each class. After they released them they found out what a mistake those layouts actually are. I would have taken the stock assault/star cruiser layout over the one the G-R currently has.
But if we are going to redo the ship to match the new ships it atleast needs a boff layout as good as the fleet D'D, or the new upcoming neg'var.
Sad that dragging it up to a reg assault/star cruiser is such a big improvement gameplay wise. Dragging it up from there to a full new retro fleet layout like the D'D is a massive improvement. Same goes for the Intrepid, defaint, nebula, dryker etc. Reason we don't see many of these ships any more is cause they are just flat outclassed now.
The vesta is better then the intrepid by miles. FPER is better then the defiant by miles *though the defiant is prolly the highest fuctioning out of all the effected ships but needs tweaked*. Its sad when the old reason to buy these ships any more is just if your a fan... I hope cryptic changes that for the better.
With the changes on Tribble, they REMOVED Exploration clusters.
Seems like that goes in line with the development team's overall view of Exploration in Star Trek. And thus, they wanted to move on from the discussion of the Exploration cruiser.
That's my guess.
In any event, I wonder if Askray could possibly create a T5 Connie Thread for future discussion, much as he did with this one?
Would be consistent and fair, imo.
Your kind of splitting hairs about my post. I believe Cryptic is done with the "Galaxy" reboot - as in any ships related to the Galaxy class.
I wish I was wrong because I really love the Galaxy class of starship - it's just such an iconic ship. That said I think Cryptic is done with it - just as they were done with the last thread.
But everyone is free to dream as long as it stays civil - not much harm in dreaming - even if the dream is almost impossible.
Al Rivera said he will be looking at the Vesta and the Nebula next. So lets see that first.
Mirror Galaxy Class with LTC Tac.
Alternate Galaxy Class (Ent-D from Yesterday's Enterprise) with the LTC Tac.
Fleet Alt. Galaxy Class (Fleet Version) of the above ship.
Just food for thought.
Right, looking at the Vesta, the one sci ship in the game that doesn't need help. :rolleyes:
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I do like the idea of adding in the dyson boff swapping tech to saucer sep. That would be so sweet.
And of course, all the visual issues that the GX has. Those should have been fixed 3 years ago.
Mine Trap Supporter
With EPTx skills having no shared cooldowns, there would be huge, huge, huge ramifications.
As you said, very ENG heavy ships would benefit greatly, but, IMO, "Destroyer" or other more balanced "Hybrid' BOFF seating ships would come out in a superior state than the gains a ENG heavy Cruiser like the Assault Cruiser or Galaxy/Galaxy-X would.
You know damage reigns supreme in this game. It resides obviously in anything with Cmdr & LtCdr TAC seating ships. But no EPTx shared CDs will even make the performance of something even with Lt & Ens ENG stations shine that much more yet still have the fancy high count TAC stations.
How would those Escorts and TAC Crusiers perform with simultaneously running something like EPTS/EPTW all the time? Or EPTE/EPTW? Or EPTE/EPTS? There are Escorts and TAC Cruisers of course that can stack up more EPTx abilities. Hell, imagine what a Science Vessel can do simultaneously running EPTA/EPTS? Some can go more like the Nebula, EPTS/EPTA/EPTW, if it was possible.
I get what you're saying in how removing shared EPTx CDs will greatly help ENG heavy Cruisers like the Galaxy, but that is opening a massive floodgate. Namely because even the very basic Ens & Lt ENG stations can do quite a lot with that, and there are other TAC-heavy ships that can do better.
That would be pretty nice gameplay-wise, but would be a step back in the Gameplay and Story Segregation spectrum. Which I suppose is just a matter of taste, though I'm more often than not going to be opposed to the G&SS route, unless it involved character defecation or something. (in other words MUH IMMERSION)
However, maybe if there was an actual "Emergency Power" meter that gives you some stacked usage of the emergency power skills, I'd be okay with it. They could even remove their cooldowns totally, but the EP meter has to regen after so many uses. EP2X I skills using the least EP from the meter, EP2X II using an average amount, and EP2X III skills using the most EP. As in EP2X I skills would be the most spammable, while higher tiered EP2X skills would use more sparingly.
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
since the damage control and tech doffs were introduced, EVERY good build has run 2 different EPt skills, even ships with just a LT eng can do it. but, like i said, only really eng heavy ships, almost exclusively those that have 7 eng powers, would even have room for a 3rd type.
Ensign universal slot
Hangar bay slot
The rear torpedo for the separated saucer
Carrier type commands for the separated saucer
This would have the advantages of making the separated sections have weapon types that match the main ship for immersion purposes, give them some teeth, and give something else to grind out (Cryptic's favorite thing).
The other thing that would have to be looked at is combat pet AI. Everything from fighters to saucers seem to be commanded by redshirts that try to one up each other in the 'stupid ways to die olympics'
These things are such integral parts of the ship, but have no real reason to have them take up a console slot as it is right now. Give me a reason.
Moved over from another thread about upgrades.
Anyway, to actually get back on topic, here are some of my thoughts on the Galaxy and its implementation in STO (Disclaimer: there are a lot, and they might not be totally coherent).
The first (and arguably biggest problem with the ship) is the boff layout. Frankly put, having so many eng powers is a detriment to the ship, for reasons that have been detailed over and over again. It pushes the ship into a fairly narrow tank/healer playstyle - except there are many ships that can do that better, since they have the crucial science boff slots needed for such a thing. Heck, it even has trouble generating the damage to grab threat.
I think there's another big problem with the ship's eng heavy boff layout - which is that the Galaxy is not a ship that's particularly good at using a number of Engineering powers. To name a few:
- Aceton Beam (lol) - not a power with much use... but it's also a power with a narrow arc, which is a problem for a ship with a turn rate of 6.
- Eject Warp Plasma - again, the Galaxy's low maneuverability makes this of limited use.
- Directed Energy Modulation - the ship doesn't have the tactical capability to get much out of this skill, unlike any of the more dangerous cruisers.
These sorts of problems are hardly exclusive to the Galaxy... but in a lot of ways I think she suffers worse than other cruisers in this regard. Additionally, many of those powers are high level, too - you'd think they'd be the crown jewels in an Engineering focused ship's complement - except that the ship is actually quite poorly equipped to make use of them. I think that lack of synergy is a very real problem for the ship.
Second, we come to the ship's console layout... which is again, pretty terrible. But why is it so bad? Well, Eng consoles are pretty rubbish, except for turn rate and armour boosts. There's not much point to boosting turn rate on a Galaxy, which leaves us with armour - and due to the way they stack, you would never really want to put more than a couple of those consoles on the ship. So there's not really much point to having that many Engineering consoles.
Again, this problem isn't exclusive to the Galaxy - but again, I think she suffers much worse for it. Just compare it to the Negh'Var, which can get real benefits from boosting its turn rate and might even fill 3 or 4 of its Eng console slots. Or the Voth Bulwark, which with its higher hull/turn will get more out of those 5 eng consoles than the Galaxy ever would.
As an aside about the whole console layout thing, I'm still a little perplexed by the fact that the ship didn't get a 3rd tactical console on its fleet version, which it sorely needed. There's the whole "it's one of the hero ships, so it's extremely focused on one thing rationale", true... except that the Fleet Intrepid received a 3rd tac console. The Galaxy (which I'd argue gets less out of a 5th Eng console than the Intrepid would have out of a 5th Sci) is actually the odd one out of the hero ships at the fleet level...
At this point, I'd like to make a direct comparison between the Fleet Galaxy and the Fleet Negh'Var, since they're extremely similar ships with the same boff layout at the RA level.
Compared to the Negh'Var, the Galaxy gets +5 shield and aux power, a cruiser command, a sci console and 1,100 hull.
Compared to the Galaxy, the Negh'Var gets +5 weapon and engine power, a cloak, the ability to use dual cannons, a tac console, 1500 extra crew (not actually an advantage, but theoretically it should be), + 3 (!!!) turn rate and a universal ensign.
We'll discard the power level and console differences, since they (in theory) balance out. I'd say the Negh'var gets a much better deal, but for the sake of argument, let's set them aside. The cannon use and the cloak cancel out against the cruiser command as differences between types, so that leaves us with:
The Negh'Var has better crew, much better turn and even the universal ensign, while the Galaxy gets 1,100 hull.
1,100 hull in a game when Borg torps can hit you for 127 000 (yes, this actually happened to me) and people throw around DPS numbers like 20000. What kind of a deal is that? :P
And the Negh'Var isn't even a powerful ship, or a power-creepy one... it's pretty lackluster. Look how much worse than it the Galaxy is. That's a problem. Compare the Galaxy to something newer, or more powerful, and things only get worse.
Now, let's talk canon. Not specifics, I just want to touch on the general role of the ship; it was a balanced type that could do pretty much anything. It was durable, diplomatic, had massive cargo capacity, it was great at research, and it dished it out. That's not well represented in STO's version at all. Now, that's not necessarily a huge problem - not every ship can translate well into a game format. But then we have ships like the D'Deridex and Ambassador, which manage that "jack-of-all-trades" nature very well. The Galaxy epitomised that nature on the shows, and I think it (of all ships) deserves to be given something that matches a Starfleet Explorer better than what it is now.
As a personal proposal, I think you could get that pretty easily just be taking the Ambassador boff layout and and swapping the tac and sci stations, so on the Fleet Galaxy you'd get:
COM ENG
LTCOM TAC
LT SCI
ENS SCI
LT UNI
Give the ship a 3/4/3 console layout as well and I'd never make a post drawing a connection between the Galaxy and certain meat products again.
Now, as a final point (I do promise this post is nearly over
Ultimately, the Galaxy is simply a poorly designed ship in today's STO. It's not fun. It's not especially good at what it does. It's outclassed by another cruiser in pretty much any role a cruiser could pull. It's redundant. I sincerely believe it needs to be drastically reworked, and I can't see any real downsides to doing so.
Whew, this post was long! If you're still reading, go get yourself a cookie. You've earned it...
1) Yes
2) No, galaxy is not a carrier full of fighters
3) No, the saucer has not a torpedo tubes
4) I can not imagine how could this work
My idea for Galaxy Refit is switch lt.cmdr eng boff stations for lt.cmdr uni , +10% ship shields, reduced subsystem targeting (weapons and engines) , saucer separation more usefull: +15 weapon power instead 10, +15 turn instead of 10, more abilities for detached saucer section- science team, tactical team , hazzard emitters , jam sensors
They can be added to new things what convinces players to buy this ship like dual photon torpedo (2980x2 dmg [acc][crtD], 10 sec reload) and/or 3 console set bonus with tachyon detection field console: Improved sensor screening +1 stealth sight , +20 sensors, +10% accuracy, +20% severity , +2% critical chance
Such a ship would be playable well and still half weaker than the scimitar with shield generator.
Actually, yes it does. It's on a part of the saucer that's normally covered by the head of the engineering section. When the ship separates, the rear torpedo launcher on the saucer is exposed and can fire.
If that is indeed canon, that is horrible, HORRIBLE Starfleet ship design.
I've never seen it in tv show, that the ship torpedoes shot from the bottom of the saucer, only from the " holder " .
In addition, the saucer would really not be intended to fight, for God's sake after all, there are kids!
Like the ambassador not original even having torpedo tubes in the show. Keep in mind the ST designs are made by writers/modelers not by actual engineers at a space dock.
(once again
Are you sure? According to page 128 of the technical manual, the saucer mdule launcher is not obstructed by anything, it's located right beneath the bridge module and should be able to fire separated and joined.
It was never shown in the shows just like the Calypso, although both of them are there according to the technical manual which is based on the writer's bible to explain how things are supposed to work. In my opinion this counts as long as it's not contradicted by the writing of the show. The saucer module launcher is, according o page 128 of the TNG TM, located rigt underneah the bridge module and is not obstructed by anything prior or after separation.
People always complained separating in a battle was nonsensical. Now it turns out the saucer isn't all that defenseless after all and now it's still not right. Make up your mind, people
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is best idea
PVP 2014 - Fawn00bs,Vapers and leavers...
Y'now what? I'd change the universal lt. cmdr into a universal lieutenant and make the universal ensign into ANOTHER universal lieutenant. I think we have enough universal lt. cmdrs on other ships. Like so:
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X
X, X,
X, X,
I think a cruiser with no lt. cmdr at all, but with three lieutenants (two universal) and no ensign would make for an interesting and original layout. It would still be a better layout than what the ship currently has and it wouldn't scream "overpowered" or make other cruisers obsolete.
Build another version of the Galaxy that caters to Sci needs, like a mirror version
If however, we are stuck with this version, I am for Uni Boffs amd Uni Consoles. However, I am against changing the fixed consoles and/or boffs, like changing the Lt Com eng into Lt Com Tac. There are players who adapted to Gal R setup, spent time and money to build their own Galaxy R based on the current format. You are just changing one group of complainers for another if you change the fixed consoles/boffs.
Give Galaxy R an inert tanking ability like a phaser lance for Galaxy X to balance both ships in the Galaxy bundle in their respective roles, Gal X for dps, Gal R for Tanking.
More importantly, if these are not actionable, respect the decision of the devs, adapt to the current Galaxy R and move on, since there are a lot of players that are currently enjoying the Galaxy R to its maximum potential.
Problem with the Gal-R, anything it can do, another ship can do BETTER. It's maximum potential is just not even in the same league as other ships out there. That's the problem.
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
Obviously that's a huge job, but it's still one I've been wanting for a bit now. Basically I'm going on the whole line of: If Cryptic is unwilling to change it's boff slots, then lets get some new skills in there to capitalize on it's layout.
Mine Trap Supporter