test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

DEVS - Galaxy X Improvments NEEDED

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Dev Team, i need you to hear me out, i have spoken with friends and people about Galaxy X.

HERE are IMPROVEMENTS Needed For GALAXY X.

Galaxy X Improvements Needed:

4th Slot.
Commander Eng, Commander Tac, LT Com Eng, LT Com Sci, Ensign Eng.

4 Weapon fores, 4 Weapon afts

Turn Rate 25% better

should be Fair and Able to Stand up to All T5 Ships.

Phaser Lance should have 60 seconds cooldown

Galaxy X is ONLY Ship that has Battlecloak.

should have BETTER HULL than Refit Galaxy.

Saucer Seperation


here's my friend's ticket number:
999.172



you guys agree with this improvement?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    superlink1 wrote: »
    you guys agree with this improvement?

    No.

    /10char
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Not in the least bit do I agree. That setup would make it leaps and bounds superior to any other ship currently ingame, hell probably better than anything the devs will eventually put out as tier 6.

    Less cooldown on the lance sure, a bit better turn rate (though this should apply to all galaxy types) maybe a Lt Com tac slot rather than the Lt and ensign slots it has now but much more than that would unballance the ship in the wrong direction.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Idali wrote:
    No.

    /10char

    did u ever tried Galaxy X? i did and it sucks go ask others and they will tell u same
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    superlink1 wrote: »
    Dev Team, i need you to hear me out, i have spoken with friends and people about Galaxy X.

    HERE are IMPROVEMENTS Needed For GALAXY X.

    Galaxy X Improvements Needed:

    4th Slot.
    Commander Eng, Commander Tac, LT Com Eng, LT Com Sci, Ensign Eng. I think the current set up is fine

    4 Weapon fores, 4 Weapon afts Truthfully, the lance is a joke. Don't take weapons away from the ship.

    Turn Rate 25% better A cruiser is a cruiser

    should be Fair and Able to Stand up to All T5 Ships.

    Phaser Lance should have 60 seconds cooldown I would suggest a 10 degree arc to go with it.

    Galaxy X is ONLY Ship that has Battlecloak. It should have battle cloak, but not be exclusive

    should have BETTER HULL than Refit Galaxy. or at least comparable hull

    Saucer Seperation The lance makes this impossible.


    here's my friend's ticket number:
    999.172



    you guys agree with this improvement?

    Items in green I agree with. Items in red, I don't. My comments in yellow. As always, this is just my two cents.

    I've played with the G-X and I'm flying the Excelsior because the G-X is a relative paper ship. But what you suggested is overkill.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Yes most people will agree that its not up to teir 5 standards anywhere but on paper, but the 'improvements' you're suggesting are way too much. It may not be up to snuff with the other ships, but its not that far behind a few tweeks is all it really needs.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I never tryed it ...
    It has to have lance as usual faser weapon not long cooldown one.
    Fun part may be if it could be set to fire on 360 but only on side of lance ... not thru hull :)
    Has to have slicly better warp speed and maybe +5 ep on engines more due to 3rd nacelet.
    Not sure are nacelet have something to do with inertia and turn rate, but could have improvment here.
    BO 12 powers ... diferent from other Galaxy t5
    Hull, shield & so on - same as other Gal t5
    Nothing more, nothing less ... or it going to overpower other Galaxy refit.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Saucer Seperation is right out.

    If I remember correctly, the Gal-X cannot separate because of the way the Phaser Lance is integrated into the neck of the ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I Have The dreadnaught anything i hate about it is the turn rate is rather dreafull, and i thing it shud hav an extra tacitcal slot shud be 3.

    But other than that its fine, i use this as my tier 5 ship and i can tell ya anyone whos ever played me in pvp will tell ya tht the ships can take on any t5 ship with ease. In fact i can last . longer in the x than i can in my sovergin
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    The problem with the G-X (as with any ship) is that no ONE 'version' of the ship will appeal to everyone... some will want more hull, some will want more speed, some will want more firepower and some will want more console positions... and some will want all of that :p

    as it stands the G-X is - relatively - balanced so that you can turn it into the ship you want... making it anymore powerful in any of those concepts - or blasting it 'forward' with ALL of those changes - would either lead to one version of the ships users being ****ed because the ship doesn't fit their playstyle... or all the other players ****ing because how unbalanced the ship is
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    superlink1 wrote: »
    here's my friend's ticket number:
    999.172



    tell your fiend not to submit suggestions as bug reports.

    and you proposals to improve the galaxy x would turn it into the most powerful ship in the game, so no i dont agree at all. you want it to have commander slots for engineering and tactical, you want it to have 3 unique powers (saucer sep, phaser lance with 60 sec cooldown, and a battlecloak) with better hull, improved turn rate and all 4/4 weapon slots, and this is to make it fair?

    the ship could possible do with a few minor tweak and have one of your suggestions but to suggest all, if that what your saying is just extreme beyond belief.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Items in green I agree with. Items in red, I don't. My comments in yellow. As always, this is just my two cents.

    I've played with the G-X and I'm flying the Excelsior because the G-X is a relative paper ship. But what you suggested is overkill.

    Agreed, it should be on par with the Excelsior but no more, also some graphical changes would be appreciated. i.e. more work on the design not just a copy of the original Galaxy. Phaser Lance needs some rework in recharge times though, we lost a weapons slot for this and it is not worth it in my opinion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    well, T6 is coming soon.. so they should update it for that.. here's very good chance they might bring T6 versions into game in season 10 or 11 or sooner.. i even heard they might put in Typhoon Class too
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Soon? Seasons 10 or 11... you know that the seasons are on a roughly 3-4 month cycle and baring in mind that we're only just getting season 3... 10 or 11 should be rocking up sometime in 2013-2014. I wouldn't call that soon, nor have the devs mentioned anything about their plans for season that far down the line.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Gatness wrote: »
    Soon? Seasons 10 or 11... you know that the seasons are on a roughly 3-4 month cycle and baring in mind that we're only just getting season 3... 10 or 11 should be rocking up sometime in 2013-2014. I wouldn't call that soon, nor have the devs mentioned anything about their plans for season that far down the line.

    right, it's just my guess
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Not in the least do I agree. The galaxy X ship is a cosmetic ship. It was originally a reward for recruiting 5 friends to the game. If someone paid the 25$ tag and expected an end all, be all ship then they would be in for a surprise.

    I agree, it needs some tweaks but not an overhaul to make it the best possible ship that only 1 faction has access to.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I disagree with the idea that the Galaxy-X should get a better turn rate. It might be great for it to have it, but that doesn't necessarily mean its a good idea. If the Galaxies have this turn rate, no reason to change it for the X.

    I think adding a weapon slot or changing the cooldown on the lance are more sensible approaches. Both can reduce the issue of the low maneuverability. If you can fire more often, you are more flexible in when you use the power and can react better to "targets of opportunity" instead of having to carefully time it the moment you have your designated target in sight. 8 weapon slots makes its overall damage less dependent on the lance and thus less dependent of maneuverability.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I think adding a weapon slot or changing the cooldown on the lance are more sensible approaches. Both can reduce the issue of the low maneuverability. If you can fire more often, you are more flexible in when you use the power and can react better to "targets of opportunity" instead of having to carefully time it the moment you have your designated target in sight. 8 weapon slots makes its overall damage less dependent on the lance and thus less dependent of maneuverability.

    That's probably the biggest gripe. They took away two weapons slots and exchanged it for a weapon that is entirely dependent on ship maneuverability. But then they didn't give it any increase in maneuverability. My suggestion from the beginning has always been to put the two weapons slots back and make the Lance firing arc 10 degrees. That way the lance will be a weapon of opportunity, but it'll function as a standard galaxy otherwise.

    and you proposals to improve the galaxy x would turn it into the most powerful ship in the game, so no i dont agree at all. you want it to have commander slots for engineering and tactical, you want it to have 3 unique powers (saucer sep, phaser lance with 60 sec cooldown, and a battlecloak) with better hull, improved turn rate and all 4/4 weapon slots, and this is to make it fair?

    in his defense, I think ALL cloaks should be battlecloaks. There is nothing more aggravating than being 90% cloaked and getting hit by a phaser blast.
    But that's just my opinion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    superlink1 wrote: »
    here's my friend's ticket number:
    999.172

    Wait... did you or someone else bug ticket this? You do know that this ISN'T a support issue, right? And that submitting garbage like this clogs the channels and slows support getting to people who actually need it, right?

    And as for the suggestions... no on each and every one.

    The ship is relatively well balanced to the others. Is it great? No, but no ship is supposed to be. Average is the goal. If you were expecting to buy an "I WIN" button the problem was with your expectations.

    If you're going to suggest any change it would have to be a give and take. Such as gaining a fourth rear weapon in exchange for a Tactical BOff slot, after all the Lance is essentially a BO3, so sacrificing a BOff power for a BOff power seems slightly more logical than sacrificing a weapon for one.

    Oh, and anyone who would suggest a Battle Cloak on anything but a BoP has to be asked... you realize there's a reason they only exist on a BoP, the weakest ship in the game right? On a Cruiser it just wouldn't work. The only reason a Battle Cloak is even moderately acceptable in the game at all is because it's on a ship with such pathetic hull that any time it uses it there is a 50/50 chance that it will go *BOOM* ... a Cruiser doesn't have that same mid-fight deterrent.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    The Galaxy X blows, but those bridge officer and battle cloak suggestions are laughable at best.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    superlink1 wrote: »

    4th Slot.
    Commander Eng, Commander Tac, LT Com Eng, LT Com Sci, Ensign Eng.
    BoP has Cmdr, Lt cmdr, Lt, Lt. All universal slots for you to play with

    4 Weapon fores, 4 Weapon afts
    Who cares about 4/4 weapon slots when you can have your DHCs, torpedo tube, turrets, and DBB facing the enemy nearly all the time in a BoP?

    Turn Rate 25% better
    BoP = most agile craft in the game

    should be Fair and Able to Stand up to All T5 Ships.
    Many feddies consider a well flown BoP borderline overpowered, but we all know it's just cause we're cooler

    Phaser Lance should have 60 seconds cooldown
    BO3 + HY3 + CSV3 = 30 second cooldown, and you can activate all at once

    Galaxy X is ONLY Ship that has Battlecloak.
    You know there's already a ship that has sole rights to the battlecloak right? :D

    should have BETTER HULL than Refit Galaxy.
    You'd trade all the above for more hull? Really?

    Saucer Seperation
    Fly the BoP my friend, where you don't need to chop off your head in order to turn on a dime

    here's my friend's ticket number:
    999.172

    you guys agree with this improvement?
    Do you agree with my suggestion? :D

    My reply in red
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    superlink1 wrote: »
    you guys agree with this improvement?


    Available as a C-Store Item: 1,000 Emblems or 4,000 C-Points
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    There is no way that the Gal-X is balanced with any other tier 5 cruiser, yet they give it the title Dreadnaught which implies it is a bigger more powerful version of the cruiser. I ran it for awhile and spent most of my time in reverse so I could keep cannon arc on target. The turn rate is the same as the tier 4 galaxy, not the tier 5 retrofit. At the very least we should get the turn rate of the tier 5 galaxy. You give up weapon slots for a relatively poor phaser lance, which also ties you down to phaser only weapons. You give up a console slot as well. The ship isn't nearly as good as the free options for cruisers. It pales before the Excelsior which costs half the c-store points. Frankly I'd be happier if they just made the gal-x a skin for the assault cruiser than what we have now.

    Some of you actually think this is balanced and I think you are wrong. And lets not ignore that this is by far the most expensive c-store item in the game. While I don't think $25 should get you an I Win button you should get a ship as good as the ones that cost half as much. The Gal-X is not as good. It is a poor ship compared to the alternatives and yet is the only Dreadnaught available for Feds.

    A different comparison could be made with the Klingon battlecruisers, the ship most like the Gal-X since they are both cruisers which can fire cannons. Any doubt with anyone which ship is superior, the Gal-X or the Negh'var? It's not even close, and even the huge Negh'var does not carry the title Dreadnaught.

    It would be a viable option vs the Excelsior if they increased the turn rate to that of the Sov or the Galaxy refit, and gave it a 3rd tac console slot and make the boff layout like the Excelsior. Then it is a viable choice with the ship that costs half as much. Frankly the ship wouold be a lot better if they just gave it the same stats and layout as the Negh'var. Neither of these options would make it an overpowered ship; unfortunately the changes the OP suggests would be overpowered; you might pick one or two of those changes and lose the rest.

    I don't want the Gal-X to be the mandatory ship, but it would be nice for people who spent 25 bucks on it to make it a viable choice between the other c-store cruisers and the free ones.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    This was my suggestions from another thread

    I did this sort of based on the nebula. A cruiser converted to science. In this case a cruiser converted to tactical, not to the degree of the Excelsior though.

    No changes on weaponry or with the cloak. The spinal phaser should recharge should be halved. Ideally I’d change the Bridge officer stations to all universal (1 Comm, 2 LC, and 1 Lt). That alone would make the ship worthwhile.

    This allows maximum flexibility although with the bad turn radius they won’t be able to be properly utilized. The maneuverability is bad enough (I only suggest adding a single point to it) that I doubt anyone would complain about it getting this advantage. It would also make it worthwhile for purchase/a desirable reward, and make it a Jack of All Trades, allowing users maximum flexibility.
    Bridge Officer Stations:
    Universal: Lieutenant (1), Lieutenant Commander (2), Commander (1)
    Total Available Powers: 12

    --or--

    Alternatively this is another approach without the universal slots. Like on the Excelsior the LC bridge officer slot allows the Galaxy-X to touch the higher tier tactical powers. To more portry its dreadnought origins the LC science station also grants it a bit better powers then usually available. The Commander engineering station betrays its origins as a cruiser, while the LT station adds a bit of utility (I found this slot useful on the Galaxy-R.
    Bridge Officer Stations:
    Tactical: Lieutenant Commander (1)
    Engineering: Lieutenant (1), Commander (1)
    Science: Lieutenant Commander (1)
    Total Available Powers: 12

    I think being a dreadnought it should have another slot in tactical rather then engineering.
    Modification Slots:
    Tactical: 3
    Engineering: 3
    Science: 2

    One device slot lost, but maneuverability goes up 1 point. Although as the galaxy and retrofit versions both have the same maneuverability I might make it 6 too.
    Device Slots: 3
    Crew Size: 1000
    Impulse Speed: 15
    Turning Rate: 5

    Lastly Graphics. Would it be possible to allow an upgrade using any of the current galaxy hulls. Allot of people liked the celestial and envoy as well as the tier 5 retrofit versions (good job on those BTW). The spinal laser along with the third nacelle support wouldn’t need changed (although you might do something with the nebula support).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I disagree with the idea that the Galaxy-X should get a better turn rate. It might be great for it to have it, but that doesn't necessarily mean its a good idea. If the Galaxies have this turn rate, no reason to change it for the X.

    You do realize that the Gal X was a major retro fit upgraded Gal right? Meaning it was FAR Superior to the Gal itself? Fire power, Hull armor, shields and engines right? Not to mention this ship cost MORE by far then any other ship in the C-store and yet the Excel is better because not only does it equal the Gal X in stats but is much faster with a 4th weapon slot in the rear. The need to make the Gal X Stronger in hull and more powerful. I would think at least a slight turn upgrade is needed at least. For 2k C-store points we should get a stronger ship then one that costs 1200.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    XJadynX wrote: »
    Not to mention this ship cost MORE by far then any other ship in the C-store...

    :rolleyes: If you thought you were paying for an unbalanced ship that was going to give you an advantage you were wrong. That's not how these games are supposed to work.
    XJadynX wrote: »
    ...and yet the Excel is better because not only does it equal the Gal X in stats but is much faster with a 4th weapon slot in the rear.

    The Excelsior-R does not have...

    A Cloak. Which amounts to the ability to choose the time and place of combat. Which give a +15% damage bonus to your alpha strike.

    Cannons. Which admittedly are basically useless on a Fed Cruiser due to the turn rates.

    A Phaser Lance. Which is essentially a free Beam Overload 3, a T3 Tactical power. Though it's arc is limited, it again makes for a good alpha on approach.
    XJadynX wrote: »
    For 2k C-store points we should get a stronger ship then one that costs 1200.

    No. No you shouldn't. You should get a ship with advantages and disadvantages just like every other ship. The reason the Gal-X costs more isn't because it's better, but because it was a referral reward that had a number of people foolishly buy and subscribe to the game multiple times so they could get it despite the fact that it was supposed to be free to people who spread the word about STO. Since folks blew so much money trying to get something that was supposed to be free Cryptic felt they had to weigh that fact into pricing when they moved it to the store.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    No. No you shouldn't. You should get a ship with advantages and disadvantages just like every other ship. The reason the Gal-X costs more isn't because it's better, but because it was a referral reward that had a number of people foolishly buy and subscribe to the game multiple times so they could get it despite the fact that it was supposed to be free to people who spread the word about STO. Since folks blew so much money trying to get something that was supposed to be free Cryptic felt they had to weigh that fact into pricing when they moved it to the store.

    Let's not forget one of the common complaints that arose when the referral program launched was that a lot of people didn't have 5 people to recruit. They had already told their friends to join and they did. But I digress...

    I'll repeat what I said earlier. The G-X needs to be tweaked, yes. The ship as a whole does not measure up to my Excelsior, both of which are supposed to be T5. That's as a whole, not just weapons, or turn-rate. Of all of the T5 cruisers on the Federation side, the G-X is the weakest. Yet its name suggests otherwise.

    But what the OP suggests is overkill.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Idali wrote:
    No.

    /10char

    Agrees

    /10c
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    :rolleyes: If you thought you were paying for an unbalanced ship that was going to give you an advantage you were wrong. That's not how these games are supposed to work.

    I was not looking for an unbalanced ship that was going to give me an advantage. I was looking for a ship worth 2k C-store points vs a 1.2k ship that so far has proven a far better ship for 800 less.
    The Excelsior-R does not have...

    A Cloak. Which amounts to the ability to choose the time and place of combat. Which give a +15% damage bonus to your alpha strike.

    Cannons. Which admittedly are basically useless on a Fed Cruiser due to the turn rates.

    A Phaser Lance. Which is essentially a free Beam Overload 3, a T3 Tactical power. Though it's arc is limited, it again makes for a good alpha on approach.

    The cloak is as useless as they are for the Klinks. Sure I pop out with an attack bonus... to bad it does little to nothing to help a battle and leaves me with little to nothing else. Much like the klinks I've given up on using the cloak except for a very few rare circumstances like the Gorn VA daily.

    Yes big cannons are VERY useless on a ship this slow

    The phaser lance is a joke. I might as well use Beam overload 3 as I can get a better arc with an array with less of a cool down and will actually do more damage to shields. Not to mention the Excel has a T3 slot on it to allow you to do just that. Which means I can get Beam overload 3... use it with an array getting a MUCH better firing arc, on a ship that turns MUCH better AND on a ship with the same hull, shields and power output as a ship that is suppose to be much stronger... hmmmm

    No. No you shouldn't. You should get a ship with advantages and disadvantages just like every other ship. The reason the Gal-X costs more isn't because it's better, but because it was a referral reward that had a number of people foolishly buy and subscribe to the game multiple times so they could get it despite the fact that it was supposed to be free to people who spread the word about STO. Since folks blew so much money trying to get something that was supposed to be free Cryptic felt they had to weigh that fact into pricing when they moved it to the store.

    And this justifies making people pay more for a ship that's not on par with the others? The descrip and over all pitch of the Gal X on the C-store is misleading and it is not worth 2k points. Now I will admit that I went a little over board on what I would change on the Gal X still though this ship needs upgrades to make it worth the 2k points.

    What would I change now that I think of it more and not flying from the hip?

    Slightly better turning.. somewhere between the Gal R and the Excel

    Lowered Phaser lance cool down. I would go with 1 minute and possibly make it a little stronger

    4th rear weapon slot.

    Same Bo Load out as the Excel ( again Maybe ) rather then an Ensign and LT tactical slot 1 LTC slot

    Simple as that. Whatever is done if anything which I doubt This ship is not worth 2k C points and even if it was brought down to 1.2k it still would not be worth it with the excel being a much better ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Galaxy X Improvements Needed:

    4th Slot.
    Commander Eng, Commander Tac, LT Com Eng, LT Com Sci, Ensign Eng. I think the current set up is fine

    4 Weapon fores, 4 Weapon afts. Don't take weapons away from the ship. Agreed
    A cruiser is a cruiser

    should be Fair and Able to Stand up to All T5 Ships. Agreed

    Phaser Lance should have 60 seconds cooldown I would suggest a 10 degree arc to go with it.I have no problem with this

    It should have battle cloak, but not be exclusive I'm on the fence with this one. Battlecloak for Fed assault cruiser is a slippery slope.

    should have BETTER HULL than Refit Galaxy. or at least comparable hull Definitely
    As always, this is just my two cents.

    I've played with the G-X and I'm flying the Excelsior because the G-X is a relative paper ship. But what you suggested is overkill.

    I refuse to fly the Excelsior. Primarily because I think it's an ugly ship. It should have a reduced hull to compensate for it's LtC. Tac and superior turn rate. That's just my opinion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    (FYI: Theres a dual beam/cannons graphical problem at the moment too. )


    I'd like a version also made with retrofit parts too. It could make a really neat Galaxy X
Sign In or Register to comment.