One thing I've learned from experience is that the team does listen to our feedback. A perfect example was when they upgraded the Galaxy X and brought it in line w/ other ships of it's type. Sp while I'm obviously concerned my hope is that they do the same w/ Fleet Ships, Flagships and LB ships.
Which was more than welcome. However, they failed to update the model itself and fix the many, many issues that have been present since its creation.
One thing I've learned from experience is that the team does listen to our feedback. A perfect example was when they upgraded the Galaxy X and brought it in line w/ other ships of it's type. Sp while I'm obviously concerned my hope is that they do the same w/ Fleet Ships, Flagships and LB ships.
The Galaxy update is probably not the best example of them listening to what the players wanted;):P:eek:
The Galaxy update is probably not the best example of them listening to what the players wanted;):P:eek:
Exactly this. According to Herr Commandant Rivera and company, the Galaxy is completely usable and filling a needed role (tanking in a game that eschews The Trinity). This is exactly the kind of treatment to expect for T5 ships ... maybe slightly more for some of the fan favorites.
I am also sure the Excelsior will rock in X2 for OBVIOUS reasons!
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
The Galaxy update is probably not the best example of them listening to what the players wanted;):P:eek:
I don't recall saying it was the best example. It is an example none the less. It's also a relevant example, since it illustrates them upgrading an old and under-powered ship.
Exactly this. According to Herr Commandant Rivera and company, the Galaxy is completely usable and filling a needed role (tanking in a game that eschews The Trinity). This is exactly the kind of treatment to expect for T5 ships ... maybe slightly more for some of the fan favorites.
I am also sure the Excelsior will rock in X2 for OBVIOUS reasons!
This is to be fully expected of most T5 ships to be honest. I mean, how else are they going to get players out of their old ships and into these new hyped ones? It's going to be the Captain ship debate all over. Tons of players hated giving up their Captain ships because they LOVED the ship itself. However, the ships weren't functional in the VA content until Fleet Ships and VA "refit" versions came out.
This is to be fully expected of most T5 ships to be honest. I mean, how else are they going to get players out of their old ships and into these new hyped ones? It's going to be the Captain ship debate all over. Tons of players hated giving up their Captain ships because they LOVED the ship itself. However, the ships weren't functional in the VA content until Fleet Ships and VA "refit" versions came out.
One solution is to provide players with tokens which instantly upgrades their T5.x ship to T6 status. All end game ships should have this option and it should cost $5 to $10 per token ... which would be reasonable.
Instant rational profit for Cryptic and they can continue to make better T6 ships over time with unique consoles and gimmicks. And there is always the countless lock box potential from Delta Quadrant!
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
My beef is this: I have the Brel, the Mogh, the oddy pack, the scimi pack and the galaxy pack to name just a few. In total, that's about $200 worth of ships. I didn't blow $200 worth of Zen to own the 'Second Best" tier ships in the game. I really don't give a flying crack if they can be upgraded to 'almost' tier 6. I can fly a mirror ship and still hold my own (although those are REALLY going to look like garbage when t6 comes out). I don't think its unreasonable to feel cheated that this is happening.
What would be my solution? PvP filters. Let me set up a game and chose tier filters for battles. Hell, you might even be able to sell more lower tier cstore ships with an option to go T2 vs T2 for example. Miranda's vs Connie's would be sweet, easy to do, and fun for players.
I'd like more info on these T6:ships though before I totally lose my mind.
The problem comes with things like Fleet Ships... Many of us spent A LOT of time and resources to get our Fleet Ships because they were the "top of the line". Another appeal of the Fleet Ships was that we could get ANY model we wanted. It was a GREAT way to get the ship you loved with the top of the line stats. Now they'll be obsolete.
Only if you were a Fed or a Rom could you fly most ships at the fleet level. Not so much if you wanted to play on the KDF side.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
One thing I've learned from experience is that the team does listen to our feedback. A perfect example was when they upgraded the Galaxy X and brought it in line w/ other ships of it's type.
Huh? When did it get a LC Tac station! (You say they listened to us.)
Well Al also said that the T.6 ships will make the power creep go away because there will be an increase in the level of difficulty .
Let's see how that will play out, shall we?
- The new content is fun to play in T.6 ships, but less so in the refurbished T.5 ships.
- Stubborn payers in their T.5 ships will cry " NERF " .
- Cryptic does just that .
- T.6 ships now considered to be a " power creep" .
Well that's one scenario at any rate.
What's more likely is that within a month, you will be back doing ISE with your T.6 ship .
Huh? When did it get a LC Tac station! (You say they listened to us.)
Please, don't try and split hairs with me. They listened to us in that they gave it an upgrade like we asked. OBVIOUSLY they aren't going to do EVERYTHING we want to it, or make it according to OUR specifications... Given the nature of the player base it would be an impossible task to make players happy if they designed a ship the way WE asked them to. No matter what, someone is going to complain that it's either too OP, or too weak, or not enough of this, or too much of that...
They listened to us in that they gave it an upgrade like we asked.
I'm sorry, but no - in the Galaxy case they didn't even remotely do what "we" as a playerbase asked. What we've been asking for more than 1.5 year now is improving the Galaxy-R because it's too heavy invested in it's engineering/tankig role that it has become redundant, especially in the completely DPS-centric end game content of STO.
What did they do about it? Gave the ship a console set bonus made from already existing consoles in game that, believe it or not, makes the ship even tankier! They've been listening to something alright, just not the playerbase in the case you're speaking of here.
What they actually did in the so called 'Galaxy Revamp' is releaseing a fleet version of the Galaxy-X when they finally worked out the Galaxy-X separation they have been working on since the game went F2P and slapping a hangar on it. And that's about it.
Then they bundled 3 exisitng ships in a "new" bundle to try and sell them as something new even though everything in that bundle already existed except from the hangar slapped on the Galaxy-X.
Sorry, but the "Galaxy Revamp" is one of the worst examples, if not the worst, about Cryptic listening to the playerbase.
I'm sorry, but no - in the Galaxy case they didn't even remotely do what "we" as a playerbase asked. What we've been asking for more than 1.5 year now is improving the Galaxy-R because it's too heavy invested in it's engineering/tankig role that it has become redundant, especially in the completely DPS-centric end game content of STO.
What did they do about it? Gave the ship a console set bonus made from already existing consoles in game that, believe it or not, makes the ship even tankier! They've been listening to something alright, just not the playerbase in the case you're speaking of here.
What they actually did in the so called 'Galaxy Revamp' is releaseing a fleet version of the Galaxy-X when they finally worked out the Galaxy-X separation they have been working on since the game went F2P and slapping a hangar on it. And that's about it.
Then they bundled 3 exisitng ships in a "new" bundle to try and sell them as something new even though everything in that bundle already existed except from the hangar slapped on the Galaxy-X.
Sorry, but the "Galaxy Revamp" is one of the worst examples, if not the worst, about Cryptic listening to the playerbase.
Who is WE? Cause I certainly never asked for that. And I personally know that none of my fleet mates who own the ship did. So who is WE? Again, not everyone asks for the SAME thing out of their ships. Not everyone plays the game the same way. Also, the Galaxy-X IS a tanking ship. That's what it's been from the start. What would you have them do? Completely rework it and make it something else? That's like asking that they make the Intrepid into a tactical ship or the defiant into a Sci ship. What happens then to those who LIKE IT as a tank ship? What happens then to the people who purchased it explicitly for that reason?
Compromise is the word in play here. The upgrade WAS a compromise. We got some of what some of us wanted but no one got everything they wanted. They obviously can't give us everything everyone wants because again, we don't all want the same thing. CapnLogan once said that given the requests players make the team could easily spend a year tweaking ONE ship and people still wouldn't be completely satisfied. And he was just talking on the modeling end of it.
The mechanics end of it is even more complex. A perfect example was the Nebula class. Some wanted is as a Sci ship, others wanted it as an Eng ship. The people who wanted it to be a Sci ship couldn't agree exactly what they wanted out of it and neither could the people in the Eng camp. But EVERYONE had an opinion on what the ship "should" be.
If your definition of "listening" to the players is doing exactly what we want how we want it, then you'll be hard pressed to get that. Because as a business Cryptic can't afford to spend time and resources trying to give us ALL what we want. The fact that we are a fickle, picky, temperamental group doesn't help matters.
I have no idea what this even means. Half of my toons are KDF and they all have access to Fleet Ships. As do my Fleet mates on the KDF side
My point is that the KDF has a lot less tier 5 C-store ships that have fleet versions. So while a Rom or a Fed can either have their ships already be at fleet level sometimes (ship three packs for example), or have a LOT of options for FSM-discounted fleet ships because so many tier 5 C-store ships get the discount.
The KDF have three ships if memory serves that qualify, four depending on how you look at it:
1. The B'rel
2. The Varanus
3. The Kar'fi
4. The KDF Vet ship (if you count it on a similar vein as the others, but it is lifers/long-term subs only)
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
Who is WE? Cause I certainly never asked for that. And I personally know that none of my fleet mates who own the ship did. So who is WE? Again, not everyone asks for the SAME thing out of their ships. Not everyone plays the game the same way. Also, the Galaxy-X IS a tanking ship. That's what it's been from the start. What would you have them do? Completely rework it and make it something else? That's like asking that they make the Intrepid into a tactical ship or the defiant into a Sci ship. What happens then to those who LIKE IT as a tank ship? What happens then to the people who purchased it explicitly for that reason?
"We" as in the rather large group of players who asked for Galaxy improvements in the first place. You know, all the people posting feedback, testing and ideas in that old thread with 7+k posts and the new one started by askray.
True, different people wanted different options, but if you wanted to make an intersection - you'd clearly see the basic guidelines everyone agreed on. And those were not the ship lacking tankiness.
And there were multiple very good ideas on how to handle it.
For ex. ddis proposed a new 3-pack that you can see by clicking my sig. that would leave the old Galaxy as it is, but if anyone wants sth. different they could buy this pack.
They could have released a "Revamped Galaxy" just like they released the new Patrol Escort - you get to keep your old one and can buy the new one if you want.
Heck, I'm the first one that said multiple times in the "Beef" thread that I wouldn't be happy if they change the current Galaxy-R from the root, because my entire ship is built around it's current setup and that's a lot of time, grind and cash involved. However, I'd buy a new and more relevant Galaxy in a heartbeat.
Compromise is the word in play here. The upgrade WAS a compromise. We got some of what some of us wanted but no one got everything they wanted. They obviously can't give us everything everyone wants because again, we don't all want the same thing. CapnLogan once said that given the requests players make the team could easily spend a year tweaking ONE ship and people still wouldn't be completely satisfied. And he was just talking on the modeling end of it.
Not to sound rude or mean, and I'm sorry if this sounds like it, but I'm not sure "compromise" means what you think it means here. Compromise is the part I just posted above - let the people keep what they have, but release an improved version based on the players' feedback.
The upgrade was not even an upgarde, much less a compromise. The No.1 main problem every single person that was pro-Galaxy revamp on the forum pointed out is the ship being overally tanky & engineering oriented - to the degree of starting to be redundant and hinder preformance. Cryptic added a console set bonus that makes it even more tanky than before. How is this a compromise?
If your definition of "listening" to the players is doing exactly what we want how we want it, then you'll be hard pressed to get that. Because as a business Cryptic can't afford to spend time and resources trying to give us ALL what we want. The fact that we are a fickle, picky, temperamental group doesn't help matters.
No, but my definiton of listening is not doing nothing or doing the exact oposite of what people asked for.
"We" as in the rather large group of players who asked for Galaxy improvements in the first place. You know, all the people posting feedback, testing and ideas in that old thread with 7+k posts and the new one started by askray.
True, different people wanted different options, but if you wanted to make an intersection - you'd clearly see the basic guidelines everyone agreed on. And those were not the ship lacking tankiness.
And there were multiple very good ideas on how to handle it.
For ex. ddis proposed a new 3-pack that you can see by clicking my sig. that would leave the old Galaxy as it is, but if anyone wants sth. different they could buy this pack.
They could have released a "Revamped Galaxy" just like they released the new Patrol Escort - you get to keep your old one and can buy the new one if you want.
Heck, I'm the first one that said multiple times in the "Beef" thread that I wouldn't be happy if they change the current Galaxy-R from the root, because my entire ship is built around it's current setup and that's a lot of time, grind and cash involved. However, I'd buy a new and more relevant Galaxy in a heartbeat.
Not to sound rude or mean, and I'm sorry if this sounds like it, but I'm not sure "compromise" means what you think it means here. Compromise is the part I just posted above - let the people keep what they have, but release an improved version based on the players' feedback.
The upgrade was not even an upgarde, much less a compromise. The No.1 main problem every single person that was pro-Galaxy revamp on the forum pointed out is the ship being overally tanky & engineering oriented - to the degree of starting to be redundant and hinder preformance. Cryptic added a console set bonus that makes it even more tanky than before. How is this a compromise?
No, but my definiton of listening is not doing nothing or doing the exact oposite of what people asked for.
We're not going to agree, and that's fine by me. I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me, so we can end this absolutely POINTLESS exchange right here and now because frankly that's not what any of this is about anyway. This is about the NEW ships. Not about the Galaxy-X, or Cryptics ability/inability or willingness/unwillingness to do what people demand.
Glad i never got suckered into the lobi ship/ lockbox nonsense.
So Near as I can tell, these ships all have new DSD-boff-swapping-esque abilities built into the ship itself rather than requiring consoles.
Not that big of a deal really. Though being able to have a 5 fore slot warbird that has cool abilities built in that don't require a single console slot [so i can min max] isn't exactly horribly unbalancing, but it's enough to make people want to buy them.
We're not going to agree, and that's fine by me. I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me, so we can end this absolutely POINTLESS exchange right here and now because frankly that's not what any of this is about anyway. This is about the NEW ships. Not about the Galaxy-X, or Cryptics ability/inability or willingness/unwillingness to do what people demand.
Agreed, it has become obvious to me as well by now that we're not going to agree on this. Or did we just agree? :P
Just to make it clear - I was not saying that Cryptic never listenes to the playerbase or the feedback provided, I was just stating that the "Galaxy Revamp" is not one of those cases.
Anyway, back to the topic: my biggest concern curently is that the T5 ships I own can't be upgraded to the same level as T6 ships. I don't care about the cost, effort or resources needed to upgrade the ships, MMOs generally raise the cap ocassionally and this is to be expected.
My only issue with T6 ships could be the possibility of the new T6 ships have something as a tier in general that would provide advantage over the upgraded T5 ships. I'm saying this because I tend to create backstories for my chars and tend to tie certain chars with certain ships. I wouldn't mind upgrading my Galaxy, Vesta, B'rel or any other ship I own to full T6 no matter the price - what I don't want is to be forced to leave behind a ship design I love because there's a new tier of ships that's better. There's no reason for such an arbitrary restriction, hell charge us 80-85% of the T6 ship's price for a full T6 upgrade of our T5 ships, I don't mind. Just give me the option to do so, I'd still like to be rolling my iconic Galaxy in the same weightclass as any other end-game ship in the new environment.
I'm looking forward to seeing what "competitive" means, exactly. I have an extremely large number of ships from years of dedicated play, including the top ships in the game, and if I feel like my best option is to fly T6 ships and not T5, even if T5 is still a decent option, then my interest in the game will come to an end. I am happy with the diversity of ships and ship options currently in the game and am concerned about a situation where the new tier is really a call to purchase new items more than anything else. I can accept needing to replace the large amount of fleet gear I currently have. That's the cost of playing an MMO, really.
Anyone consider the double dipping that will occur when we all have to buy new ship slots for T6? Haha. Oh man, GTA V ... perhaps I've been ignoring you too long.
My point is that the KDF has a lot less tier 5 C-store ships that have fleet versions. So while a Rom or a Fed can either have their ships already be at fleet level sometimes (ship three packs for example), or have a LOT of options for FSM-discounted fleet ships because so many tier 5 C-store ships get the discount.
The KDF have three ships if memory serves that qualify, four depending on how you look at it:
1. The B'rel
2. The Varanus
3. The Kar'fi
4. The KDF Vet ship (if you count it on a similar vein as the others, but it is lifers/long-term subs only)
when the fleet ship system first launched, the kdf actually had zero discounted fleet ships, while feds had at least half a dozen. it remains as evidence of either cryptics effort to justify ignoring the faction due to orchestrated poor sales, or testament to incompetence of epic proportions.
We're not going to agree, and that's fine by me. I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me, so we can end this absolutely POINTLESS exchange right here and now because frankly that's not what any of this is about anyway. This is about the NEW ships. Not about the Galaxy-X, or Cryptics ability/inability or willingness/unwillingness to do what people demand.
Except all opinions are not equal. You are way off base and he hits the mark. There are dozens or hundreds of players clamoring for the Galaxy fix ... and there are a handful of opposing players like you. Frankly, if you are so happy with Galaxy why go out of the way to opposed the existence of another variant which satisfies so many players? Could there be something else going on ... like vapid fanboyism or plain trolling?
Sorry people seem to think that all sides of the issue should always be treated as evenly balanced. This is inherently unbalanced and unfair!
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Anyone consider the double dipping that will occur when we all have to buy new ship slots for T6? Haha. Oh man, GTA V ... perhaps I've been ignoring you too long.
We have missed that part. But hey ... in the frenzy of their blood lust for cash ... like sharks swirling around fat seals ... they might throw us a bone. Maybe we will get 1-2 slots and new missions to grind at end game ... to put those T6 monstrosities through the paces!
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
We have missed that part. But hey ... in the frenzy of their blood lust for cash ... like sharks swirling around fat seals ... they might throw us a bone. Maybe we will get 1-2 slots and new missions to grind at end game ... to put those T6 monstrosities through the paces!
Yeah, I hope the new content includes better multiplayer stuff. To be honest, I'm pretty sick of Tuvok and Kim slapping there faces on every TRIBBLE Trek project out there ( if only for the sad reason that they're cheap and available). If we end up with another grind for T6 just so we can run the same 4-5 PvE s over and over I'll be pissed.
From the look of the tier 6 ships, especially the fed ships tronish look, that Iconian technology has been incorporated into them. Perhaps one of the Abilities intergrated into them is limited Gateway Technology.
I personally think that the Tier 6 ships will get unique abilities and the retrofit retrofits will get extra consoles instead.
Comments
Which was more than welcome. However, they failed to update the model itself and fix the many, many issues that have been present since its creation.
The Galaxy update is probably not the best example of them listening to what the players wanted;):P:eek:
Exactly this. According to Herr Commandant Rivera and company, the Galaxy is completely usable and filling a needed role (tanking in a game that eschews The Trinity). This is exactly the kind of treatment to expect for T5 ships ... maybe slightly more for some of the fan favorites.
I am also sure the Excelsior will rock in X2 for OBVIOUS reasons!
- Judge Aaron Satie
I don't recall saying it was the best example. It is an example none the less. It's also a relevant example, since it illustrates them upgrading an old and under-powered ship.
This is to be fully expected of most T5 ships to be honest. I mean, how else are they going to get players out of their old ships and into these new hyped ones? It's going to be the Captain ship debate all over. Tons of players hated giving up their Captain ships because they LOVED the ship itself. However, the ships weren't functional in the VA content until Fleet Ships and VA "refit" versions came out.
One solution is to provide players with tokens which instantly upgrades their T5.x ship to T6 status. All end game ships should have this option and it should cost $5 to $10 per token ... which would be reasonable.
Instant rational profit for Cryptic and they can continue to make better T6 ships over time with unique consoles and gimmicks. And there is always the countless lock box potential from Delta Quadrant!
- Judge Aaron Satie
What would be my solution? PvP filters. Let me set up a game and chose tier filters for battles. Hell, you might even be able to sell more lower tier cstore ships with an option to go T2 vs T2 for example. Miranda's vs Connie's would be sweet, easy to do, and fun for players.
I'd like more info on these T6:ships though before I totally lose my mind.
Only if you were a Fed or a Rom could you fly most ships at the fleet level. Not so much if you wanted to play on the KDF side.
Huh?
Let's see how that will play out, shall we?
- The new content is fun to play in T.6 ships, but less so in the refurbished T.5 ships.
- Stubborn payers in their T.5 ships will cry " NERF " .
- Cryptic does just that .
- T.6 ships now considered to be a " power creep" .
Well that's one scenario at any rate.
What's more likely is that within a month, you will be back doing ISE with your T.6 ship .
Not to mention that the Galaxy-R has more in common with the K'Tinga ( a 23rd century ship) than anything else.
I'm stubborn and unless there is a T6 Excelsior I will likely stay at T5.5 but I wont be crying nerf! I'll be too busy demolishing things.
I have no idea what this even means. Half of my toons are KDF and they all have access to Fleet Ships. As do my Fleet mates on the KDF side
Please, don't try and split hairs with me. They listened to us in that they gave it an upgrade like we asked. OBVIOUSLY they aren't going to do EVERYTHING we want to it, or make it according to OUR specifications... Given the nature of the player base it would be an impossible task to make players happy if they designed a ship the way WE asked them to. No matter what, someone is going to complain that it's either too OP, or too weak, or not enough of this, or too much of that...
A visual aid. To illustrate exactly what I was saying about EVERYONE having their own opinion on what a particular ship "should" be.
I'm sorry, but no - in the Galaxy case they didn't even remotely do what "we" as a playerbase asked. What we've been asking for more than 1.5 year now is improving the Galaxy-R because it's too heavy invested in it's engineering/tankig role that it has become redundant, especially in the completely DPS-centric end game content of STO.
What did they do about it? Gave the ship a console set bonus made from already existing consoles in game that, believe it or not, makes the ship even tankier! They've been listening to something alright, just not the playerbase in the case you're speaking of here.
What they actually did in the so called 'Galaxy Revamp' is releaseing a fleet version of the Galaxy-X when they finally worked out the Galaxy-X separation they have been working on since the game went F2P and slapping a hangar on it. And that's about it.
Then they bundled 3 exisitng ships in a "new" bundle to try and sell them as something new even though everything in that bundle already existed except from the hangar slapped on the Galaxy-X.
Sorry, but the "Galaxy Revamp" is one of the worst examples, if not the worst, about Cryptic listening to the playerbase.
Who is WE? Cause I certainly never asked for that. And I personally know that none of my fleet mates who own the ship did. So who is WE? Again, not everyone asks for the SAME thing out of their ships. Not everyone plays the game the same way. Also, the Galaxy-X IS a tanking ship. That's what it's been from the start. What would you have them do? Completely rework it and make it something else? That's like asking that they make the Intrepid into a tactical ship or the defiant into a Sci ship. What happens then to those who LIKE IT as a tank ship? What happens then to the people who purchased it explicitly for that reason?
Compromise is the word in play here. The upgrade WAS a compromise. We got some of what some of us wanted but no one got everything they wanted. They obviously can't give us everything everyone wants because again, we don't all want the same thing. CapnLogan once said that given the requests players make the team could easily spend a year tweaking ONE ship and people still wouldn't be completely satisfied. And he was just talking on the modeling end of it.
The mechanics end of it is even more complex. A perfect example was the Nebula class. Some wanted is as a Sci ship, others wanted it as an Eng ship. The people who wanted it to be a Sci ship couldn't agree exactly what they wanted out of it and neither could the people in the Eng camp. But EVERYONE had an opinion on what the ship "should" be.
If your definition of "listening" to the players is doing exactly what we want how we want it, then you'll be hard pressed to get that. Because as a business Cryptic can't afford to spend time and resources trying to give us ALL what we want. The fact that we are a fickle, picky, temperamental group doesn't help matters.
My point is that the KDF has a lot less tier 5 C-store ships that have fleet versions. So while a Rom or a Fed can either have their ships already be at fleet level sometimes (ship three packs for example), or have a LOT of options for FSM-discounted fleet ships because so many tier 5 C-store ships get the discount.
The KDF have three ships if memory serves that qualify, four depending on how you look at it:
1. The B'rel
2. The Varanus
3. The Kar'fi
4. The KDF Vet ship (if you count it on a similar vein as the others, but it is lifers/long-term subs only)
Thx
Of course a official Dev Blog on the matter detailing everything now would be nice - but somehow I think that is a little ways off:(
"We" as in the rather large group of players who asked for Galaxy improvements in the first place. You know, all the people posting feedback, testing and ideas in that old thread with 7+k posts and the new one started by askray.
True, different people wanted different options, but if you wanted to make an intersection - you'd clearly see the basic guidelines everyone agreed on. And those were not the ship lacking tankiness.
And there were multiple very good ideas on how to handle it.
For ex. ddis proposed a new 3-pack that you can see by clicking my sig. that would leave the old Galaxy as it is, but if anyone wants sth. different they could buy this pack.
They could have released a "Revamped Galaxy" just like they released the new Patrol Escort - you get to keep your old one and can buy the new one if you want.
Heck, I'm the first one that said multiple times in the "Beef" thread that I wouldn't be happy if they change the current Galaxy-R from the root, because my entire ship is built around it's current setup and that's a lot of time, grind and cash involved. However, I'd buy a new and more relevant Galaxy in a heartbeat.
Not to sound rude or mean, and I'm sorry if this sounds like it, but I'm not sure "compromise" means what you think it means here. Compromise is the part I just posted above - let the people keep what they have, but release an improved version based on the players' feedback.
The upgrade was not even an upgarde, much less a compromise. The No.1 main problem every single person that was pro-Galaxy revamp on the forum pointed out is the ship being overally tanky & engineering oriented - to the degree of starting to be redundant and hinder preformance. Cryptic added a console set bonus that makes it even more tanky than before. How is this a compromise?
No, but my definiton of listening is not doing nothing or doing the exact oposite of what people asked for.
We're not going to agree, and that's fine by me. I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me, so we can end this absolutely POINTLESS exchange right here and now because frankly that's not what any of this is about anyway. This is about the NEW ships. Not about the Galaxy-X, or Cryptics ability/inability or willingness/unwillingness to do what people demand.
So Near as I can tell, these ships all have new DSD-boff-swapping-esque abilities built into the ship itself rather than requiring consoles.
Not that big of a deal really. Though being able to have a 5 fore slot warbird that has cool abilities built in that don't require a single console slot [so i can min max] isn't exactly horribly unbalancing, but it's enough to make people want to buy them.
Agreed, it has become obvious to me as well by now that we're not going to agree on this. Or did we just agree? :P
Just to make it clear - I was not saying that Cryptic never listenes to the playerbase or the feedback provided, I was just stating that the "Galaxy Revamp" is not one of those cases.
Anyway, back to the topic: my biggest concern curently is that the T5 ships I own can't be upgraded to the same level as T6 ships. I don't care about the cost, effort or resources needed to upgrade the ships, MMOs generally raise the cap ocassionally and this is to be expected.
My only issue with T6 ships could be the possibility of the new T6 ships have something as a tier in general that would provide advantage over the upgraded T5 ships. I'm saying this because I tend to create backstories for my chars and tend to tie certain chars with certain ships. I wouldn't mind upgrading my Galaxy, Vesta, B'rel or any other ship I own to full T6 no matter the price - what I don't want is to be forced to leave behind a ship design I love because there's a new tier of ships that's better. There's no reason for such an arbitrary restriction, hell charge us 80-85% of the T6 ship's price for a full T6 upgrade of our T5 ships, I don't mind. Just give me the option to do so, I'd still like to be rolling my iconic Galaxy in the same weightclass as any other end-game ship in the new environment.
when the fleet ship system first launched, the kdf actually had zero discounted fleet ships, while feds had at least half a dozen. it remains as evidence of either cryptics effort to justify ignoring the faction due to orchestrated poor sales, or testament to incompetence of epic proportions.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Except all opinions are not equal. You are way off base and he hits the mark. There are dozens or hundreds of players clamoring for the Galaxy fix ... and there are a handful of opposing players like you. Frankly, if you are so happy with Galaxy why go out of the way to opposed the existence of another variant which satisfies so many players? Could there be something else going on ... like vapid fanboyism or plain trolling?
Sorry people seem to think that all sides of the issue should always be treated as evenly balanced. This is inherently unbalanced and unfair!
- Judge Aaron Satie
We have missed that part. But hey ... in the frenzy of their blood lust for cash ... like sharks swirling around fat seals ... they might throw us a bone. Maybe we will get 1-2 slots and new missions to grind at end game ... to put those T6 monstrosities through the paces!
- Judge Aaron Satie
Yeah, I hope the new content includes better multiplayer stuff. To be honest, I'm pretty sick of Tuvok and Kim slapping there faces on every TRIBBLE Trek project out there ( if only for the sad reason that they're cheap and available). If we end up with another grind for T6 just so we can run the same 4-5 PvE s over and over I'll be pissed.
I personally think that the Tier 6 ships will get unique abilities and the retrofit retrofits will get extra consoles instead.