[Suggestion] Happy First Contact Day! Where's our Fleet Dreadnought?

khayuung · April 2013

In commemmoration of this glorious meeting between two races in 50 years time, I'd propose we get our Fleet Dreadnought retrofit!

HP: 39,000
Shield mod: 1.0
Weapons: 4/4 and Lance, can equip dual cannons
Boffs: Comm Tac, LtComm Eng, LtComm Eng, Lt Sci
Consoles: 4/3/3
Turn: 6
INERTIAL RATING: 60
Crew: 1000

What this means is compared to the original dreadnought, the newer one accelerates faster and doesn't overshoot its target, while still turning like a Galaxy does in this game, allowing this ship to justify its 3rd nacelle for making it slightly more nimble without actually being more nimble.

The Boff layout is special for being the only Tactically-focused cruiser on the Federation side, and yet be still be able to support other lighter-armored ships.

It gives up any Fleet bonuses to hull and shield and gains a weird Sci console instead of Tac, diverting all that extra power into the 3rd nacelle for less inertia and a better boff layout. I see this role as better fitting for the Gal-X, as a Tactically-focused stealth-capable forward command cruiser of the 25th century.

What say you? I think this is a bit more balanced than some proposals out there.

stardestroyer001 · April 2013

*The lance should have its accuracy re-looked at.
*I disagree with the console layout, I believe 5 / 2 / 3 would be better suited for a cruiser.
*Capable of saucer separation, if the player has the Saucer Separation console.
*Keep the old Boff layout, but change one of the Boff seats into a Universal.

I would add/change these on your proposal, but otherwise, I am all for it.

westx211 · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

*The lance should have its accuracy re-looked at.
*I disagree with the console layout, I believe 5 / 2 / 3 would be better suited for a cruiser.
*Capable of saucer separation, if the player has the Saucer Separation console.
*Keep the old Boff layout, but change one of the Boff seats into a Universal.

I would add/change these on your proposal, but otherwise, I am all for it.

That's a horrible plan it needs 4 TAC and eng consoles and at least a Lt cmdr TAC boff slot.

emacsheadroom · April 2013

Hull hitpoints need to be 44k at least.

kimmym · April 2013

I say just add a tac console, buff its shield mod and hull as the rest, and call it a day.

Her boff layout is plenty workable. People just want her to be a different ship then she is.

nelson2014 · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

*The lance should have its accuracy re-looked at.
*I disagree with the console layout, I believe 5 / 2 / 3 would be better suited for a cruiser.
*Capable of saucer separation, if the player has the Saucer Separation console.
*Keep the old Boff layout, but change one of the Boff seats into a Universal.

I would add/change these on your proposal, but otherwise, I am all for it.

I agree but it should come with the Saucer Separation console.

rellimie · April 2013

westx211 wrote: »

That's a horrible plan it needs 4 TAC and eng consoles and at least a Lt cmdr TAC boff slot.

It's a cruiser not an escort, 3 Tac consoles is fine. 44k HP, and the Lt Cmd slot is universal.

neo1nx · April 2013

khayuung wrote: »

In commemmoration of this glorious meeting between two races in 50 years time, I'd propose we get our Fleet Dreadnought retrofit!

HP: 39,000
Shield mod: 1.0
Weapons: 4/4 and Lance, can equip dual cannons
Boffs: Comm Tac, LtComm Eng, LtComm Eng, Lt Sci
Consoles: 4/3/3
Turn: 6
INERTIAL RATING: 60
Crew: 1000

What this means is compared to the original dreadnought, the newer one accelerates faster and doesn't overshoot its target, while still turning like a Galaxy does in this game, allowing this ship to justify its 3rd nacelle for making it slightly more nimble without actually being more nimble.

The Boff layout is special for being the only Tactically-focused cruiser on the Federation side, and yet be still be able to support other lighter-armored ships.

It gives up any Fleet bonuses to hull and shield and gains a weird Sci console instead of Tac, diverting all that extra power into the 3rd nacelle for less inertia and a better boff layout. I see this role as better fitting for the Gal-X, as a Tactically-focused stealth-capable forward command cruiser of the 25th century.

What say you? I think this is a bit more balanced than some proposals out there.

agree on the idea, not the bo proposal, hehe

neo1nx · April 2013

rellimie wrote: »

It's a cruiser not an escort, 3 Tac consoles is fine. 44k HP, and the Lt Cmd slot is universal.

it a tactical cruiser not a tanking healing cruiser, 4 tact console slot to support the lance IS fine.

neo1nx · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

*The lance should have its accuracy re-looked at.
*I disagree with the console layout, I believe 5 / 2 / 3 would be better suited for a cruiser.
*Capable of saucer separation, if the player has the Saucer Separation console.
*Keep the old Boff layout, but change one of the Boff seats into a Universal.

I would add/change these on your proposal, but otherwise, I am all for it.

The lance should have its accuracy re-looked at. the hell it daes!!!

I disagree with the console layout, I believe 5 / 2 / 3 would be better suited for a cruiser. nope, not on a tactical oriented cruiser

Capable of saucer separation, if the player has the Saucer Separation console. sure if some want to use it

Keep the old Boff layout, but change one of the Boff seats into a Universal. yeah i am quite good with that too for now

neo1nx · April 2013

kimmym wrote: »

Her boff layout is plenty workable. People just want her to be a different ship then she is.

is that your answer to every ship bo layout proposal, or you just don't known what your talking about?

ps: sorry for quadruple post thingy again:)

stardestroyer001 · April 2013

Some people obviously think that the 5 / 2 / 3 layout is "not enough for a tactically oriented cruiser".

Allow me to give a brief refresher: The Galaxy-X is a tactical improvement over the Galaxy-class starship. They slap on a third nacelle, slap on some antennae, a weird box-thing, some 90's fins, and a kick-butt lance.

It does not mean that the ship joins the ranks of the Sovereign-class in having four tactical consoles. That's what we have the Sovereign (and Fleet Excelsior) for. If you want four tactical consoles, go fly one of those ships instead.

In the meantime, for those who understand that under all of those cosmetic changes is a resilient girl, let's continue with 5 Engineering consoles.

neo1nx · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

Some people obviously think that the 5 / 2 / 3 layout is "not enough for a tactically oriented cruiser".

Allow me to give a brief refresher: The Galaxy-X is a tactical improvement over the Galaxy-class starship. They slap on a third nacelle, slap on some antennae, a weird box-thing, some 90's fins, and a kick-butt lance.

It does not mean that the ship joins the ranks of the Sovereign-class in having four tactical consoles. That's what we have the Sovereign (and Fleet Excelsior) for. If you want four tactical consoles, go fly one of those ships instead.

In the meantime, for those who understand that under all of those cosmetic changes is a resilient girl, let's continue with 5 Engineering consoles.

it have the abilitie to mount DHC, a cloacking device, and a phaser lance, you don't mount that on a ship that is meant for tanking, even if he has the abilitie to tank as well with it current bo layout, this ship is meant for war, it not a luxuary liner.
if you want to tank go on galaxy refit, star cruiser or ambassador, period.

ps: the little antenna that you talking about are the canon btw.
In the meantime, for those who understand that galaxy x and galaxy refit are NOT the same ship, let's continue with 4 tactical consoles proposal.

westx211 · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

Some people obviously think that the 5 / 2 / 3 layout is "not enough for a tactically oriented cruiser".

Allow me to give a brief refresher: The Galaxy-X is a tactical improvement over the Galaxy-class starship. They slap on a third nacelle, slap on some antennae, a weird box-thing, some 90's fins, and a kick-butt lance.

It does not mean that the ship joins the ranks of the Sovereign-class in having four tactical consoles. That's what we have the Sovereign (and Fleet Excelsior) for. If you want four tactical consoles, go fly one of those ships instead.

In the meantime, for those who understand that under all of those cosmetic changes is a resilient girl, let's continue with 5 Engineering consoles.

Its Supposed to be a tactically focused cruiser that's why it can equip cannons. As it is now it simply can't be the powerhouse that its supposed to. And you're suggestion of that console layout would put it up there with the standard galaxy which noone would like. Also what the guy above me said too.

stardestroyer001 · April 2013

neo1nx wrote: »

it have the abilitie to mount DHC, a cloacking device, and a phaser lance, you don't mount that on a ship that is meant for tanking, even if he has the abilitie to tank as well with it current bo layout, this ship is meant for war, it not a luxuary liner.
if you want to tank go on galaxy refit, star cruiser or ambassador, period.

ps: the little antenna that you talking about are the canon btw.
In the meantime, for those who understand that galaxy x and galaxy refit are NOT the same ship, let's continue with 4 tactical consoles proposal.

It has the ability to mount cannons, a cloaking device, a phaser lance... Listen to him go!
I'm only going to say this once, since it should be common knowledge...

If you want to fly an escort, fly an escort.

If you want to fly a cruiser, fly a cruiser like the Ambassador, star cruiser, or Odyssey.

If you want to fly a cruiser that packs a little more firepower but is still a cruiser, fly the Galaxy-X.

Do not fly a ship it is not intended for. Yes, there are specific builds made to increase the Galaxy-X's effectiveness, in terms of offensive abilities and boosting the Lance. But it is still a cruiser. Don't let the antennae fool you.

(And yes, I knew what they were even before I joined STO. Thanks for pointing out the perfectly obvious.)

For those who understand - and not "pretend to understand and rant over several posts, when in fact they don't understand" - that the Galaxy-X is still a cruiser, let's continue with no incorrect and foolish presumptions.

westx211 wrote:

Its Supposed to be a tactically focused cruiser that's why it can equip cannons. As it is now it simply can't be the powerhouse that its supposed to. And you're suggestion of that console layout would put it up there with the standard galaxy which noone would like. Also what the guy above me said too.

It's all about the build. If I was interested, I could set up my Galaxy-X so it would deal the most damage possible. But I don't fly cruisers in PVP under inaccurate presumptions that I will obliterate all of my opponents with one of the slowest turning, engineering-focused starships in the game.

kimmym wrote:

Her boff layout is plenty workable. People just want her to be a different ship then she is.

This is exactly my point - thank you Kimmy. I'm surprised that both of you haven't heeded the words of this intelligent lady.

neo1nx · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

If you want to fly an escort, fly an escort.

thank you, I could never have come to this conclusion without you

If you want to fly a cruiser that packs a little more firepower but is still a cruiser, fly the Galaxy-X.

they are better choice out there, odyssey tactical, galor, regent, exelsior, and you known what? they are still cruiser, unless the definition of a cruiser have change lately.

But I don't fly cruisers in PVP under inaccurate presumptions that I will obliterate all of my opponents with one of the slowest turning, engineering-focused starships in the game.

and so do we, galaxy x pilots, hence the multiple proposal to enhance it's tactical abilitie at the expense or survivabilities if neccesary, so we are not stuck with what it current layout force it to be:
a cruiser that packs a LITTLE more firepower.
for now every lover of this ship that whant to fly it in a tactical way are forced to abandoned it in favor of more efficient cruiser like the galor, regent and all the other i already talk about.
i would have been agree with that if we were speaking about the galaxy refit, who we can safely said that it primary role is tanking, but not with the galaxy x, who the design intended is to do damage.

For those who understand - and not "pretend to understand and rant over several posts, when in fact they don't understand" - that the Galaxy-X is still a cruiser, let's continue with no incorrect and foolish presumptions.

i think the problem here is not anderstanding, it is bielief.
you bielieve that cruiser should not make significant damage and being stuck in the passive healing/tanking role, i bielieve that some of them could fill the role of a sub damage dealer ( compared to an escort ).
that is already the case in the game, see the galor, but the galaxy x is not part of that group due to it stat that make it a wanabbe of the 2 categorie.

althought it have been given assets that in theorie could allow it to be part of that group they have been undermine from day one to reduced their efficiency to almots zero.
a phaser lance with 45? targetting arc in a 6 base turn rate ship with no accuracy what so ever and 3 minute cooldown ( compared to the 1.30 min of the gurumba ).
DHC on a 6base and 25 inertia turn ship...should i said more?
and the cloaking device who now take a console slot reducing overall efficiency especially when this abilitie is usefull just in the beguining of a fight.

Now, since you apparently know the absolute truth about how cruiser should be played in this game, i suggest you to make the star trek online playersa favor.
make a new thread asking the devs to remove every tactical oriented cruiser in the game because people that want to do damage with them are obviously fooling themselves.
i am sure the devs will figure the wrong way they been going so far by listening to your view on how the game should be played with this type of ship.

...but something is rather strange nontheless, because, i still do not see the best pvper flying the galaxy x in arena,is that they could not find a role where it exel?
that this role is to do damage or being a support ship, whatever.
i have fight hilbert in pvp the other time and he ask me out of curiousity what was my build for the gal x, because he like that ship too, so why did i never saw him flying the things?
note that he was flying the negvar when that happened.
one would figure that one of the best pvper, founder of the pvpbootcamp and the hilbert guide would have found a way to make a ship that he like useful in one way or an other.

ho wait! it just strike me!
i just didn't realize that you are simply an extraordinary guy!
my mistake bud, i wait with great impatience the build your prepared for us, that will ave us all, galaxy pilot out there.
i suggest that when this build came out the devs would make a status of your toon in SFA, and make that day the stardestroyer 's day!
we all, star trek player own you that, at least.

nikephorus · April 2013

khayuung wrote: »

In commemmoration of this glorious meeting between two races in 50 years time, I'd propose we get our Fleet Dreadnought retrofit!

HP: 39,000
Shield mod: 1.0
Weapons: 4/4 and Lance, can equip dual cannons
Boffs: Comm Tac, LtComm Eng, LtComm Eng, Lt Sci
Consoles: 4/3/3
Turn: 6
INERTIAL RATING: 60
Crew: 1000

What this means is compared to the original dreadnought, the newer one accelerates faster and doesn't overshoot its target, while still turning like a Galaxy does in this game, allowing this ship to justify its 3rd nacelle for making it slightly more nimble without actually being more nimble.

The Boff layout is special for being the only Tactically-focused cruiser on the Federation side, and yet be still be able to support other lighter-armored ships.

It gives up any Fleet bonuses to hull and shield and gains a weird Sci console instead of Tac, diverting all that extra power into the 3rd nacelle for less inertia and a better boff layout. I see this role as better fitting for the Gal-X, as a Tactically-focused stealth-capable forward command cruiser of the 25th century.

What say you? I think this is a bit more balanced than some proposals out there.

Where is the Fleet Dreadnought? Probably at the Qualor II Surplus Depot awaiting disposal. :P

stardestroyer001 · April 2013

neo1nx wrote: »

and so do we, galaxy x pilots, hence the multiple proposal to enhance it's tactical abilitie at the expense or survivabilities if neccesary, so we are not stuck with what it current layout force it to be:
a cruiser that packs a LITTLE more firepower.
for now every lover of this ship that whant to fly it in a tactical way are forced to abandoned it in favor of more efficient cruiser like the galor, regent and all the other i already talk about.
i would have been agree with that if we were speaking about the galaxy refit, who we can safely said that it primary role is tanking, but not with the galaxy x, who the design intended is to do damage.

i think the problem here is not anderstanding, it is bielief.
you bielieve that cruiser should not make significant damage and being stuck in the passive healing/tanking role, i bielieve that some of them could fill the role of a sub damage dealer ( compared to an escort ).
that is already the case in the game, see the galor, but the galaxy x is not part of that group due to it stat that make it a wanabbe of the 2 categorie.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Well, you go ahead and do that then. I can't be the person to say you are successful in a build - you are. Good luck with your build.

reyan01 wrote:

Agree for the most part, although I do still think a Lt-Cmdr Tac would be of great benefit.

Perhaps if the LtCmdr Tactical bridge officer seat was a universal instead of an engineering seat, and the existing Lt Tactical turned into an Engineering seat as well...?

neo1nx · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

Well, you go ahead and do that then. I can't be the person to say you are successful in a build - you are. Good luck with your build.

Do what? I didn't propose anything here.
You didn't even bother to read it.

stardestroyer001 · April 2013

neo1nx wrote: »

Do what? I didn't propose anything here.
You didn't even bother to read it.

neo1nx wrote:

you bielieve that cruiser should not make significant damage and being stuck in the passive healing/tanking role, i bielieve that some of them could fill the role of a sub damage dealer ( compared to an escort ).
that is already the case in the game, see the galor, but the galaxy x is not part of that group due to it stat that make it a wanabbe of the 2 categorie.

...You want to place the Galaxy-X in a role most similar to an escort than a cruiser?

Then go ahead. No one is stopping you.

You are the one not bothering to read what people post, not I.

ozy83 · April 2013

My My, stardestroyer001, you certainly had your fill of condesending-flakes for breakfast didn't you? :rolleyes:

That said there are a number of issues that need to be addressed with the Gal-X in a fleet version, everything from the lance accuracy (to require another console/ability to improve its accuracy is just a ludicrous suggestion) to its BOFF layout.

Yes it should have a Lt Commander Boff slot or 4 tac consoles at least. It is a dreadnought, and while it is definitely a cruiser, it is built withstand and GIVE damage, everything from its design to setup implies this. To argue otherwise is just daft, and only implies that someone has their own agenda in being so dismissive.

neo1nx · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

...You want to place the Galaxy-X in a role most similar to an escort than a cruiser?

Then go ahead. No one is stopping you..

as a matter of fact they are!
the devs first, by giving this ship an engi heavy BO layout, and then people like you who want to push the enveloppe in a way that would transform it in a second galaxy refit of some sort.

anyway, i think ozy83 hit the nail on the head about your view on the question

Yes it should have a Lt Commander Boff slot or 4 tac consoles at least. It is a dreadnought, and while it is definitely a cruiser, it is built withstand and GIVE damage, everything from its design to setup implies this. To argue otherwise is just daft, and only implies that someone has their own agenda in being so dismissive.

but who care now, i am going to do what everybody do with cruiser now, doing a double auxtobat build, because no matter how much post i or you do on it i hardly see them make any change on this ship anyway

cmdrskyfaller · April 2013

kimmym wrote: »

I say just add a tac console, buff its shield mod and hull as the rest, and call it a day.

Her boff layout is plenty workable. People just want her to be a different ship then she is.

People often forget the Galaxy Dreadnaught is still a galaxy class with some oomph added to it.

I think it only needs to be given the shield modifier of a sci ship, the hull of a cruiser and then have the lance weapon buffed up to use up both aux and wep power. Meaning aux adds as much damage as wep power when it is fired.

stardestroyer001 · April 2013

ozy83 wrote: »

My My, stardestroyer001, you certainly had your fill of condesending-flakes for breakfast didn't you? :rolleyes:

That said there are a number of issues that need to be addressed with the Gal-X in a fleet version, everything from the lance accuracy (to require another console/ability to improve its accuracy is just a ludicrous suggestion) to its BOFF layout.

Yes it should have a Lt Commander Boff slot or 4 tac consoles at least. It is a dreadnought, and while it is definitely a cruiser, it is built withstand and GIVE damage, everything from its design to setup implies this. To argue otherwise is just daft, and only implies that someone has their own agenda in being so dismissive.

Yeah, lol, I do get a little emotional when it comes to people who don't understand basic knowledge of the trinity in this game. I'm a reasonable guy when people are all on the same page. :P

And I am in no way being dismissive. I enjoy flying different types of vessels and their strengths and weaknesses. It just seems like a repeat of the Regent class, with four tac consoles, and the Excelsior which also has four tac consoles. We don't need yet another offensive cruiser. We need a cruiser that can take the damage from escorts, swiftly, and not an escort-wannabe.

neo1nx wrote:

as a matter of fact they are!
the devs first, by giving this ship an engi heavy BO layout, and then people like you who want to push the enveloppe in a way that would transform it in a second galaxy refit of some sort.

Sounds good. I'll pull out my escort, and we'll really see about your ship being more of an escort... or more of a cruiser.

neo1nx wrote:

but who care now, i am going to do what everybody do with cruiser now, doing a double auxtobat build, because no matter how much post i or you do on it i hardly see them make any change on this ship anyway

That's what I do anyway. It works for certain builds - namely that of tanking. I suppose if you really wanted to, you could use it to help further your escruiser build. I suggest at least three blue Technician doffs.

westx211 · April 2013

cmdrskyfaller wrote: »

People often forget the Galaxy Dreadnaught is still a galaxy class with some oomph added to it.

I think it only needs to be given the shield modifier of a sci ship, the hull of a cruiser and then have the lance weapon buffed up to use up both aux and wep power. Meaning aux adds as much damage as wep power when it is fired.

Sounds like you just want to make it into a science cruiser hybrid which isn't what is was meant for its supposed to be tactically focused not science.

westx211 · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

Yeah, lol, I do get a little emotional when it comes to people who don't understand basic knowledge of the trinity in this game. I'm a reasonable guy when people are all on the same page.

Hahahahaha roflol.

Oh man you crack me up oh I don't think I've ever heard that big of a joke you mast either be stupid, a troll, or just plain naive. There is a sort of trinity but it simply is not needed. Nobody really wants to tank or heal because there's very little need for it while there is plenty of need for dps in the game.

cryptkeeper0 · April 2013

I like the idea of a commander tac cruiser and dreadnaught it would make since I love that layout it might be a bit overpowered though... loose one of the lt com and and a lt engineering and ensign tact.

But if a commander isn't viable I could see two lt tact commander eng lt com eng, ensign universal.

ozy83 · April 2013

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

Yeah, lol, I do get a little emotional when it comes to people who don't understand basic knowledge of the trinity in this game. I'm a reasonable guy when people are all on the same page. :P

And I am in no way being dismissive. I enjoy flying different types of vessels and their strengths and weaknesses. It just seems like a repeat of the Regent class, with four tac consoles, and the Excelsior which also has four tac consoles. We don't need yet another offensive cruiser. We need a cruiser that can take the damage from escorts, swiftly, and not
an escort-wannabe.

The flaw I see with your rationale, is that its based on the presumption that their are no grey areas, when we see major examples in STO that illustrate the contrary. For starters, we have the Vesta which is capable of 11k dps, as a sci ship, primarily through the use of Cannons. A regent build capable of 10k dps etc, these achievements are made at the expense of some or most of its "trinity" strengths. The reason for this is obvious, STO is sadly structured in a way that prioritises rewards based on how fast you can kill something vs dps. Everything else is secondary. Youre not going to get any good loot or a place in a ranking (like Gorn Minefield) for healing, sci powers or a war of attrition (like cruisers are built for), so what do us scis and cruiser captains have to do in order to try and stay competitive? We're forced to squeeze as much dps out of our weapons and skills as possible to get ANYWHERE, supporting teamates outside of pvp is completely irrelevant. Hell, I wont even heal an escort because that is completely counter intuitive in regards to me getting anything.

The other issue you're overlooking is that many ships have come out since the dread was released, each with arguably far more accurate and reliable abilities/consoles (Im looking at you terrible lance accuracy and cool down) and with quite the edge in weapon power. Its a DREADNOUGHT for a reason, so in its update and in respect to being competitive, it needs at least a Lt Commander TAC boff slot, or 4 Tac Consoles. Its lance accuracy and cool down has to be addressed also, its 3 minute cooldown.

I should point out Ive been a GalX captain for 2 years, despite all other ships and its own failings I always come back to her, but Ive pvped often enough to tell you Ive tanked a Jem bug and survived, but as you know doubt guessed a war of attrition with her leads to stalemate.

ozy83 · April 2013

Forgot to point out that the new plasma dmg bonuses which are awesome cant be used on the gal x which hinders her even more. Why? Because the phaser lance is built in, so youre forced to use phasers. Another reason why shes uncompetitive atm. If we're forced to use phasers on her (and there are no sets or consoles out there, bar phaser relays, that boost phaser damage) because we cant change weapon lance type. Then give us something to make up for it.

westx211 · April 2013

Whenever it first came out the lance was the definition of awesomeness but people cried for the Nerf cannon.

ozy83 · April 2013

Indeed, and sadly we're left with a barely devastating weapon, with a high miss rate and an extremely long cooldown.

I should make it clear Im an engy, so I dont benefit from APA. But then I shouldnt have to be a tac in order to make this weapon work, or get good damage out of it for its long cool down.

A huge shame.

[Suggestion] Happy First Contact Day! Where's our Fleet Dreadnought?

Comments