Like jtoney3448 said, it's not about tailoring the ship to the elite-dps-crowd and getting big numbers but more fundamental gameplay/gamedesign aspects (Zen ship, Refit issue, Portrayal)
Never the less, proof that it CAN compete with the 20k dps crowd means that tac consoles and tac stations is not where the creativity of players should end. I'm just curious, what would the numbers look if you don't use the default a2b-romplas-faw-dem3-marion build?
^ 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
" all beam weapons will randomly select up to two targets within their arc and attack them five times each (for a total of 10 beam attacks per cycle). The effect will apply to any firing cycle that begins during the ability's duration. If only one target is present, only five attacks are performed."
The op's build will only ever do half the stated dps on a single target at most. Otherwise the dps is spread over multiple targets. Assuming the 23k dps parse is against more than one target:
1- 2 targets will get 11.5k dps each.
3 targets will get 7.7k dps each
4 targets wiill get 5.8k dps each
5 targets will get 4.6k dps each
6 targets will get 3.8k dps each
And the build can go all the way to 14 targets (7 beams, each hitting two targets at once) which will get a whopping 1.6k dps each.
The fewer the targets, the more effective FAW is.
Aside from that, the total dps does look impressive, but I believe 11.5 is considered average against one target when compared to what cannon builds can do.
When there is evidence grounded in reality of your loaded question.
There's going to be hyperbole on both sides of that particular discussion. However, there is some difference in meaningful damage done to targets and the result you see in a dps parse of borg STFs.
The primary example being in ISE, when you are firing at will at the generators, some of your spam is hitting transformer. That damage isn't helpful since it gets regenerated.
This is in the overall picture a minor detail. So how significant that is to any discussion is really debatable. Usually it can be better determined to have any actual impact by looking at data from parses. And this thread, for once, is about an actual parse. So we could, if we wanted to, go into that parse and look at which damage was like that and isn't really useful damage and discount it. Then we can recalculate the DPS. I'm guessing it will still be a very good number.
But for the most part, discussions about DPS tend not to have much in the way of data. So hyperbole takes its place. That doesn't have to be the case here. The parse is right there in the first post. So you know, let's do the math!
I wouldn't trust the information in STO wiki. in this case it isn't exactly correct.
if you have a target selected, FAW will shoot all 5 shots at that target. so 7x5 shots for the 10s FAW is up is to that one target regardless of how many targets there are. the other 7x5 shots will be at random targets. FAW also has a maximum uptime of 50%. so half the time you are getting +25% fire rate and a small damage bonus to one target, and the same amount of damage spread across random targets.
The other thing you aren't considering is that 23k or 26k is the sustained average DPS. my sustained DPS actually goes up 3x, 4x, or 5x that amount during the runs for brief periods.
I believe your opinion is that it shouldn't be changed. You cannot predict that it never will be.
I believe it to be a very accurate prediction for two reasons:
1. the devs have already stated they won't be changing the Gal-R. that's it. the ship is fine for it's role.
2. the misbehavior of certain forumites when the original "what's your beef with the galaxy" was closed. And it was misbehavoir, full blown childish temper tantrums. Any changes to the Gal-R would be rewarding that bad behavoir. that's the final nail in the coffin. it will never ever be changed.
I believe your opinion is that it shouldn't be changed. You cannot predict that it never will be.
Nah, I think the poster is just taking the very obvious hint Geko gave about the Galaxy R when they say it won't be changed. No matter if they support changes or do not support changes, Geko's pretty much done everything but officially post on these forums that it won't be changed.
why? Because Worf and Riker were excellent tacticians and gave the Galaxy teeth.
I'm torn between whether changing the secondary Engineering boff slot for a universal equivalent is worth while but I'm leaning in that direction for additional flexibility.
One more engineering console
One more tactical console
I wanted to share some good news and some bad news with the Galaxy Revamp section of the forums.
The good news is, I've flip flopped, and am now fully in support of revamping and changing the Galaxy R. I've been back and forth on this time and time again. But right now I've been thinking, hey, it's a convincing argument. So you've won me over.
The bad news? Cryptic never does ANYTHING I like in this game. Like ever.
2. the misbehavior of certain forumites when the original "what's your beef with the galaxy" was closed. And it was misbehavoir, full blown childish temper tantrums. Any changes to the Gal-R would be rewarding that bad behavoir. that's the final nail in the coffin. it will never ever be changed.
Uhm....have you seen these boards?
Whatever they do in STO would be rewarding the bad behavior of some people. By this logic they should completely give up on the game, because I guarantee you that for every single topic there are a few posters that like to belittle, throw tantrums, flame, etc.
It's not just this board, it's a general "problem" of the Internet. People need some valve they can open to lower their pressure.
It would be nice to see some big threads about e.g. praising a new ship's design for a change. But this won't happen. Still would be nice for developers, I think... You know, to inspire them!
Maybe mix criticism and praisings for a chance? Like "Hey, I love your Galaxy revamp, now get us some challenging content to tank with it!"
Maybe mix criticism and praisings for a chance? Like "Hey, I love your Galaxy revamp, now get us some challenging content to tank with it!"
A lot of people praised the Galaxy Dreadnought improvements. Some people disliked them but for the most part it was accepted by the fanbase. And this was accompanied by requests that the Galacy-R might need some improvement too. Nothing happened.
Cryptic loves the praise but still won't change their minds even if suggestions come with that praise.
It's pretty evident though that the developers are not open to the idea. So why push for something they have clearly stated they aren't even going to consider?
Geko's not going to give the ship that layout.
Geko already regrets BoPs having all universal.
yeah well geko's a moron. his bias against the Galaxy is well known and frankly shouldn't be in his position.
THe key point is. many want the Galaxy changed and some want to keep their current builds. my solution allows that.
Nah, I think the poster is just taking the very obvious hint Geko gave about the Galaxy R when they say it won't be changed. No matter if they support changes or do not support changes, Geko's pretty much done everything but officially post on these forums that it won't be changed.
Then geko should lose his job. You have a zen ship at endgame area that can be out performed in every area by free or cheaper zen ships. Geko may dislike the Galaxy but many love the ship and want to see it compete. personal bias should not be a factor in this.
Relative to your other ship builds, this is not a very good score for an offensive tactical build, and many many other ships are able to get 50% to 100% more damage for the same amount of time-on-target. So even in this highly-optimized environment, where you know exactly what pattern to fly and have highly min-max build, the Galaxy is only pulling half the DPS of other ships, because of poor damage output. Is some other role for the Galaxy, other than damage, that the game rewards, that is not also surpassed by other ships/builds? Do you really not see the problem?
The Galaxy-R isn't going to be changed because Cryptic has decided that they need a ship with a Commander Engineer, Lieutenant Commander Engineer, and Ensign Engineer. Just like they have a ship with three tac boffs and a ship with three sci boffs following the same pattern.
Y'all may not want that ship, and you may not like this ship being that ship. But they've got a game design dart board and a dart landed on "we need this ship to exist." And this ship is it. And it's not going to change, because in STO's design, the Galaxy, the Defiant, and the Intrepid are the Star Trek trinity.
The Fleet Galaxy-X Dreadnought likewise has the boff layout that it has because if it didn't, they would not have a fleet cruiser with Lieutenant Tac and Ensign Tac. That's a position they decided that they had to fill.
You can take any endgame ship in STO- even the Galaxy-R -and be so stupidly effective with it that you blow their casual gameplay balance out of the water. That's the point of this thread.
The other message I take is that there's nothing at all worth putting in that Ensign Eng slot. A second pointless copy of ET, great. Another eng boff ability is something we might be able to get out of Cryptic. That's certainly more likely to happen than any changes to the Gal-R.
The other message I take is that there's nothing at all worth putting in that Ensign Eng slot. A second pointless copy of ET, great. Another eng boff ability is something we might be able to get out of Cryptic. That's certainly more likely to happen than any changes to the Gal-R.
Gah they merged my thread. poo!
The second ET in my build is there because A2B does not bring any of the teams down to global. there is still a gap, That's why i'm using a Hamlet for the TT. The second ET insures that i can trigger it every 15s.
Then geko should lose his job. You have a zen ship at endgame area that can be out performed in every area by free or cheaper zen ships. Geko may dislike the Galaxy but many love the ship and want to see it compete. personal bias should not be a factor in this.
Someone should lose their job because you can't get your way in a space pixels game? speaking about personal bias...
wait, aren't you the guy who flipped out on the forums because your 2.6k DPS kinetic aggro tank couldn't hold threat from a 26k DPS player?
also wait, did you throw a temper tantrum and start insulting the mods when the original galaxy thread was closed?
Relative to your other ship builds, this is not a very good score for an offensive tactical build, and many many other ships are able to get 50% to 100% more damage for the same amount of time-on-target. So even in this highly-optimized environment, where you know exactly what pattern to fly and have highly min-max build, the Galaxy is only pulling half the DPS of other ships, because of poor damage output. Is some other role for the Galaxy, other than damage, that the game rewards, that is not also surpassed by other ships/builds? Do you really not see the problem?
50% to 100% is a lot of hyperbole. 15% to 35% would be more in control.
This build might not do as much DPS as my other cruiser builds with 3 or 4 tac consoles (who would have guessed) but it still out tanks them, and can out heal them.
I wanted to share some good news and some bad news with the Galaxy Revamp section of the forums.
The good news is, I've flip flopped, and am now fully in support of revamping and changing the Galaxy R. I've been back and forth on this time and time again. But right now I've been thinking, hey, it's a convincing argument. So you've won me over.
The bad news? Cryptic never does ANYTHING I like in this game. Like ever.
So I think my support might actually be a curse.
Still, I'm convinced.
cryptic never wanted to changed the galaxy retrofit status but we just didn't known about it.
this was confirmed with the galaxy reboot.
so don't worry, that you support it or not will not make any difference in the end.
but nevertheless, welcome!
we can continue to discuss this ship that will never be changed
cryptic never wanted to changed the galaxy retrofit status but we just didn't known about it.
this was confirmed with the galaxy reboot.
so don't worry, that you support it or not will not make any difference in the end.
but nevertheless, welcome!
we can continue to discuss this ship that will never be changed
I think you at least deserve an explanation from Cryptic.
23k DPS Parse. was actually running at 28k but i died.
26k DPS Parse. Not a perfect run either, but still...
So... what's the problem with the Gal-R again?
PS: if this had been the fleet version i would have added an ISO for even more DEEPS. :cool:
the problem with the galaxy refit again?
so because a ship is capable to reach x amount of dps, it should be considered good? no matter what the rest?
that how you judge the general performance of a ship? and even if it was that, this is the lowest score you have done with a cruiser if i am correct.
but, the real problem that the " what is your beef " thread have point out is that this ship is redundant.
there is nothing that you can do with this ship that you can not do better with an other.
you want to be a dps king ( even if that a real stupid idea with a ship that is not designed to be ) well, you can do better with any other cruiser, because of the boff/console layout, turn and inertia.
you want to be a crow control guy, again you will do better with a simple star cruiser.
you want to be a tank/ healer, star cruiser is better
the only differences between a star cruiser and a galaxy retrofit are, a third ensign engie for the gal while the star cruiser got an ensign science, 6turn/25 inertia for the gal, 7/30 for the star cruiser and the galaxy retrofit got a little bit more hull.
there is nothing that you can put in that third engie ensign that will outshined the star cruiser .
are you also aware that i am comparing a free RA ship against a cstore ship, are you also aware that the star cruiser is older than the galaxy retrofit?
and i am just talking about the star cruiser, let forget the odyssey, lockbox ship and other faction ship.
so if the intention is, the galaxy retrofit should be the last in everything, yes, there is nothing wrong with the ship.
and we could even said that cryptic did a very good job with it.
so much that you can not make an other bo layout less efficient than that... like you just can't!
but we, in the galaxy thread bielieve that one of the most iconic ship in all the star trek franchise, the one that got the most onscreen time should get a better threatement in this game.
and that not neccesaraly in the dps department, even if you will find some people that dream about it.
everyone got his own opinion about how the ship should be changed, some even want to change the entire game meta to make the galaxy relevant.
so yes, when you got a RA ship that perform better than a newer cstore ship and that this have been like that since the launch of the game ( star cruiser was here from the beguining ) it is not very hard to see that there is something wrong in the business model of cryptic in that particular area... ( or not! )
but cryptic make the call, the galaxy is good as is, let ignored the multiple thread since launch that this ship have generated and the now all too well known 702 page thread that have been ninja closed without any explanation and continue our way.
there an old saying: there are no smoke without fire.
I think you at least deserve an explanation from Cryptic.
deserve an explanation? that sounds a little entitled don't you think?
Look at it this way: cryptic doesn't need to explain anything to us players. whenever they do it causes rage, tears, and much nashing of teeth. the ironic thing is if they don't explain their decision they will still get the same rage, tears, and teeth nashing.
So it's not really worth it to expend energy on explaining decisions that are already made and set in stone. better to use that energy on something else.
Comments
Never the less, proof that it CAN compete with the 20k dps crowd means that tac consoles and tac stations is not where the creativity of players should end. I'm just curious, what would the numbers look if you don't use the default a2b-romplas-faw-dem3-marion build?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The evidence is in the firing mechanic of FAW:
" all beam weapons will randomly select up to two targets within their arc and attack them five times each (for a total of 10 beam attacks per cycle). The effect will apply to any firing cycle that begins during the ability's duration. If only one target is present, only five attacks are performed."
The op's build will only ever do half the stated dps on a single target at most. Otherwise the dps is spread over multiple targets. Assuming the 23k dps parse is against more than one target:
1- 2 targets will get 11.5k dps each.
3 targets will get 7.7k dps each
4 targets wiill get 5.8k dps each
5 targets will get 4.6k dps each
6 targets will get 3.8k dps each
And the build can go all the way to 14 targets (7 beams, each hitting two targets at once) which will get a whopping 1.6k dps each.
The fewer the targets, the more effective FAW is.
Aside from that, the total dps does look impressive, but I believe 11.5 is considered average against one target when compared to what cannon builds can do.
There's going to be hyperbole on both sides of that particular discussion. However, there is some difference in meaningful damage done to targets and the result you see in a dps parse of borg STFs.
The primary example being in ISE, when you are firing at will at the generators, some of your spam is hitting transformer. That damage isn't helpful since it gets regenerated.
This is in the overall picture a minor detail. So how significant that is to any discussion is really debatable. Usually it can be better determined to have any actual impact by looking at data from parses. And this thread, for once, is about an actual parse. So we could, if we wanted to, go into that parse and look at which damage was like that and isn't really useful damage and discount it. Then we can recalculate the DPS. I'm guessing it will still be a very good number.
But for the most part, discussions about DPS tend not to have much in the way of data. So hyperbole takes its place. That doesn't have to be the case here. The parse is right there in the first post. So you know, let's do the math!
ACR vs ECR
ACR Out DPS ECR? yes. by a small margin
ACR Out tank and out heal ECR? no.
if it can be made to look decent then it is decent.
The Gal-R is perfectly fine the way it is. it's never going to be changed.
I believe your opinion is that it shouldn't be changed. You cannot predict that it never will be.
I wouldn't trust the information in STO wiki. in this case it isn't exactly correct.
if you have a target selected, FAW will shoot all 5 shots at that target. so 7x5 shots for the 10s FAW is up is to that one target regardless of how many targets there are. the other 7x5 shots will be at random targets. FAW also has a maximum uptime of 50%. so half the time you are getting +25% fire rate and a small damage bonus to one target, and the same amount of damage spread across random targets.
The other thing you aren't considering is that 23k or 26k is the sustained average DPS. my sustained DPS actually goes up 3x, 4x, or 5x that amount during the runs for brief periods.
I believe it to be a very accurate prediction for two reasons:
1. the devs have already stated they won't be changing the Gal-R. that's it. the ship is fine for it's role.
2. the misbehavior of certain forumites when the original "what's your beef with the galaxy" was closed. And it was misbehavoir, full blown childish temper tantrums. Any changes to the Gal-R would be rewarding that bad behavoir. that's the final nail in the coffin. it will never ever be changed.
Nah, I think the poster is just taking the very obvious hint Geko gave about the Galaxy R when they say it won't be changed. No matter if they support changes or do not support changes, Geko's pretty much done everything but officially post on these forums that it won't be changed.
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
why? Because Worf and Riker were excellent tacticians and gave the Galaxy teeth.
I'm torn between whether changing the secondary Engineering boff slot for a universal equivalent is worth while but I'm leaning in that direction for additional flexibility.
One more engineering console
One more tactical console
That should just about do it.
The good news is, I've flip flopped, and am now fully in support of revamping and changing the Galaxy R. I've been back and forth on this time and time again. But right now I've been thinking, hey, it's a convincing argument. So you've won me over.
The bad news? Cryptic never does ANYTHING I like in this game. Like ever.
So I think my support might actually be a curse.
Still, I'm convinced.
Uhm....have you seen these boards?
Whatever they do in STO would be rewarding the bad behavior of some people. By this logic they should completely give up on the game, because I guarantee you that for every single topic there are a few posters that like to belittle, throw tantrums, flame, etc.
It would be nice to see some big threads about e.g. praising a new ship's design for a change. But this won't happen. Still would be nice for developers, I think... You know, to inspire them!
Maybe mix criticism and praisings for a chance? Like "Hey, I love your Galaxy revamp, now get us some challenging content to tank with it!"
A lot of people praised the Galaxy Dreadnought improvements. Some people disliked them but for the most part it was accepted by the fanbase. And this was accompanied by requests that the Galacy-R might need some improvement too. Nothing happened.
Cryptic loves the praise but still won't change their minds even if suggestions come with that praise.
Mine Trap Supporter
yeah well geko's a moron. his bias against the Galaxy is well known and frankly shouldn't be in his position.
THe key point is. many want the Galaxy changed and some want to keep their current builds. my solution allows that.
Then geko should lose his job. You have a zen ship at endgame area that can be out performed in every area by free or cheaper zen ships. Geko may dislike the Galaxy but many love the ship and want to see it compete. personal bias should not be a factor in this.
Relative to your other ship builds, this is not a very good score for an offensive tactical build, and many many other ships are able to get 50% to 100% more damage for the same amount of time-on-target. So even in this highly-optimized environment, where you know exactly what pattern to fly and have highly min-max build, the Galaxy is only pulling half the DPS of other ships, because of poor damage output. Is some other role for the Galaxy, other than damage, that the game rewards, that is not also surpassed by other ships/builds? Do you really not see the problem?
Y'all may not want that ship, and you may not like this ship being that ship. But they've got a game design dart board and a dart landed on "we need this ship to exist." And this ship is it. And it's not going to change, because in STO's design, the Galaxy, the Defiant, and the Intrepid are the Star Trek trinity.
The Fleet Galaxy-X Dreadnought likewise has the boff layout that it has because if it didn't, they would not have a fleet cruiser with Lieutenant Tac and Ensign Tac. That's a position they decided that they had to fill.
You can take any endgame ship in STO- even the Galaxy-R -and be so stupidly effective with it that you blow their casual gameplay balance out of the water. That's the point of this thread.
The other message I take is that there's nothing at all worth putting in that Ensign Eng slot. A second pointless copy of ET, great. Another eng boff ability is something we might be able to get out of Cryptic. That's certainly more likely to happen than any changes to the Gal-R.
Gah they merged my thread. poo!
The second ET in my build is there because A2B does not bring any of the teams down to global. there is still a gap, That's why i'm using a Hamlet for the TT. The second ET insures that i can trigger it every 15s.
That works also.
Someone should lose their job because you can't get your way in a space pixels game? speaking about personal bias...
wait, aren't you the guy who flipped out on the forums because your 2.6k DPS kinetic aggro tank couldn't hold threat from a 26k DPS player?
also wait, did you throw a temper tantrum and start insulting the mods when the original galaxy thread was closed?
50% to 100% is a lot of hyperbole. 15% to 35% would be more in control.
This build might not do as much DPS as my other cruiser builds with 3 or 4 tac consoles (who would have guessed) but it still out tanks them, and can out heal them.
cryptic never wanted to changed the galaxy retrofit status but we just didn't known about it.
this was confirmed with the galaxy reboot.
so don't worry, that you support it or not will not make any difference in the end.
but nevertheless, welcome!
we can continue to discuss this ship that will never be changed
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
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
the problem with the galaxy refit again?
so because a ship is capable to reach x amount of dps, it should be considered good? no matter what the rest?
that how you judge the general performance of a ship? and even if it was that, this is the lowest score you have done with a cruiser if i am correct.
but, the real problem that the " what is your beef " thread have point out is that this ship is redundant.
there is nothing that you can do with this ship that you can not do better with an other.
you want to be a dps king ( even if that a real stupid idea with a ship that is not designed to be ) well, you can do better with any other cruiser, because of the boff/console layout, turn and inertia.
you want to be a crow control guy, again you will do better with a simple star cruiser.
you want to be a tank/ healer, star cruiser is better
the only differences between a star cruiser and a galaxy retrofit are, a third ensign engie for the gal while the star cruiser got an ensign science, 6turn/25 inertia for the gal, 7/30 for the star cruiser and the galaxy retrofit got a little bit more hull.
there is nothing that you can put in that third engie ensign that will outshined the star cruiser .
are you also aware that i am comparing a free RA ship against a cstore ship, are you also aware that the star cruiser is older than the galaxy retrofit?
and i am just talking about the star cruiser, let forget the odyssey, lockbox ship and other faction ship.
so if the intention is, the galaxy retrofit should be the last in everything, yes, there is nothing wrong with the ship.
and we could even said that cryptic did a very good job with it.
so much that you can not make an other bo layout less efficient than that... like you just can't!
but we, in the galaxy thread bielieve that one of the most iconic ship in all the star trek franchise, the one that got the most onscreen time should get a better threatement in this game.
and that not neccesaraly in the dps department, even if you will find some people that dream about it.
everyone got his own opinion about how the ship should be changed, some even want to change the entire game meta to make the galaxy relevant.
so yes, when you got a RA ship that perform better than a newer cstore ship and that this have been like that since the launch of the game ( star cruiser was here from the beguining ) it is not very hard to see that there is something wrong in the business model of cryptic in that particular area... ( or not! )
but cryptic make the call, the galaxy is good as is, let ignored the multiple thread since launch that this ship have generated and the now all too well known 702 page thread that have been ninja closed without any explanation and continue our way.
there an old saying: there are no smoke without fire.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
The Gal-R will out tank and out heal the Starcruiser. throw in the saucer sep and it will out DPS and out manuaver the starcruiser.
next.
You want to fly the ship that was on TNG? You want the T4 version. It handily out performs the T3 Excelsior and Ambassador.
deserve an explanation? that sounds a little entitled don't you think?
Look at it this way: cryptic doesn't need to explain anything to us players. whenever they do it causes rage, tears, and much nashing of teeth. the ironic thing is if they don't explain their decision they will still get the same rage, tears, and teeth nashing.
So it's not really worth it to expend energy on explaining decisions that are already made and set in stone. better to use that energy on something else.