one argument is based on data and is entirely provable, the other is based on inexperience. these are not two positions that deserve equal consideration, and im not going to coddle anyone that makes them. on things i know i dont have an expansive knowledge of, with years of experience on, i actually choose not to comment on at all, but instead learn and observe. because i dont want to be treated like an idiot by those that do. if your going to post your opinion on the internet, your going to want to conduct your self in a similar fashion, things will go much smother for you.
No, DDIS, here's how it works. It doesn't matter how much experience you have. It doesn't matter how long you've been playing or how tough you want to be on others. If you make a claim, especially on the internet, you must be ready to demonstrate it. I'm ready to demonstrate any of my claims. And if you want to be taken seriously be anyone, you need to be so as well, rather than say "I know what I'm talking about and you don't", period. You don't have more credit than anyone else in this thread. It's the facts one has provided that have worth in an argument, never the person claiming them.
i did demonstrate the galaxy's tanking shortcomings in that telling of an encounter i had in the previews day, as a curtsey. it fell on me to prove my position, and i had a fresh real world example handy. the galaxy's station setup is not only hamstrung by system cooldown interference at the ENS eng level, but it also gives up ether an ENS tac or ENS sci skill that has incredibly useful potential. just on that point, it loses twice. the best tanks are cruisers that have an even spread of sci and eng, the galaxy is farthest from that.
You do offer a good point here, and I can't say my own anecdotal experience holds that true, but your claim is logically sound.
everything the fleet galaxy got was just more of what was doing it absolutely no good, of what kept it behind other cruisers. 5 eng console are the least desirable a ship can have. with a 6 base turn, and no use of DHCs, turn consoles are basically useless to it, armor has massive diminishing return after 2 or 3, all of the + to power consoles are a joke, the SFI consoles are ok, but unless your a pure healer they have no opportunity cost over any universal console. its just a dumping ground for universal consoles, it in no way is helpful like an additional sci or tac console would have been.
Okay, this is the part where you're either misinterpreting what I've been saying, or strawmanning it to oblivion. Yes, we all know that 5 engineering console slots is horrible, and I have never denied that. But I do not think the solution is to give it a different console setup. I believe that a better solution would be to buff and/or rework the engineering consoles themselves so that 5 eng consoles will actually be viable.
That's why i never got why so many ppl where glad about newly released low level ships.
Level progression only makes sense if there are areas in a game that cannot be beaten until a certain level is reached. In STO Enemies adapt to a players level, which is quite the contrary to the purpose of leveling IMO.
If cryptics devs where bold, they would get rid of the whole Level concept and make everyone a Captain after the tutorial.
All ships would get endgame stats. Previous low level ships would be cheaper/easier to get, while powerful ones where harder to get (accolade points maybe?).
I'd suggest season 9 for this.
I must be the opposite of many of you then. I have 5 level 50's and have deleted almost as many of those. But have 12 characters level 4 through 32. I make new characters to try new builds, patterns and BOFF types. Even try an theme the crews. Once at 50 however the game play seems to end and turn into: Run this STF 50 times to get the marks you need for one piece of a three piece set. Once done, you need to do it again for the ground set.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I must be the opposite of many of you then. I have 5 level 50's and have deleted almost as many of those. But have 12 characters level 4 through 32. I make new characters to try new builds, patterns and BOFF types. Even try an theme the crews. Once at 50 however the game play seems to end and turn into: Run this STF 50 times to get the marks you need for one piece of a three piece set. Once done, you need to do it again for the ground set.
Just curious, you start a new character just to test a new build?
I don't know, but i have experimented with hundreds of different builds over the years but i never had the idea to start a new character for each one.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Just curious, you start a new character just to test a new build?
I don't know, but i have experimented with hundreds of different builds over the years but i never had the idea to start a new character for each one.
And sometimes to fly a specific ship. I got an Orb Weaver so I rolled a character just to fly it. I have am adapted destroyer in the bank that I created a character for it.
Since they will have irreplaceable ships they don't get deleted.
My first character won't be as she was my first. (And possibly worst)
And the supposedly joke character that has built up to an impressive Atrox sticks around.
(Okay fine I am also keeping my first KDF to reach 50.)
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Okay, this is the part where you're either misinterpreting what I've been saying, or strawmanning it to oblivion. Yes, we all know that 5 engineering console slots is horrible, and I have never denied that. But I do not think the solution is to give it a different console setup. I believe that a better solution would be to buff and/or rework the engineering consoles themselves so that 5 eng consoles will actually be viable.
the galaxy problem isn't just on it number of engi console slot, he also have too much engi bo power, and not enought turn rate considering the size and general stats of the ship.
too limited tact bo and science bo.
it got the worst of everything worst in this game.
so, the solution is not to change the entire engi power and console power of the game just to make this awfull combination of stats works.
as they said in my country:
Do not twist your TRIBBLE to **** right in a bottle!
a little crude, but to the point.
in a perfect world, with unlimited resources, time, and testing period, redoing the entire engi power and console stats "could" ( it is not even a certainty ) be the best solution.
but, i think you have integrated the fact by now, that cryptic will not directed his ressources to a project like that, especially when the only one who would gain an advantage out of this are the few engie heavy cruiser, in the federation faction.
yes, we are not talking about the entire cruiser line, just a very small portion of it.
just a simple bo layout change would fix the galaxy, nothing more.... nothing less.
no need to change the entire way the game fonction just to make THIS ship work.
because i guarantie you that this is not how cryptic will proceed.
the galaxy problem isn't just on it number of engi console slot, he also have too much engi bo power, and not enought turn rate considering the size and general stats of the ship.
too limited tact bo and science bo.
it got the worst of everything worst in this game.
Given that the BOFF stations are too 'imbalanced'... let's give more abilities to each career. Make the setup work.
so, the solution is not to change the entire engi power and console power of the game just to make this awfull combination of stats works.
Yes. Yes it is the solution. Why? Because of diversity. Diversity in the choices we have. If we give the Galaxy more of the same, then in becomes more of the same. But if we make what it has now actually work, then its desirability goes up far more than if it merely gained a cookie-cutter tactical cruiser setup.
How do I figure? Well if the Galaxy is given a cookie-cutter tactical cruiser setup, it will mainly be the competitives and players who care about just the optimum stuff will enjoy it. But if the Galaxy keeps its unique setup, but the setup itself gets tweaked to be viable, then not only the latter will be happy, but most of the rest of us will too.
It's not only about the Galaxy. It's about all ships that are undesirable because they focus 'too much' on a single career. Those other ships with only two tac console slots. Those ships with three tac BOFF seats. Attribute balance will not only give the Galaxy its much-needed worth, it'll give less desirable ships their time to shine as well.
Again, there is not as much wrong with how any ship is set up. The problem is with how those setups function.
in a perfect world, with unlimited resources, time, and testing period, redoing the entire engi power and console stats "could" ( it is not even a certainty ) be the best solution.
but, i think you have integrated the fact by now, that cryptic will not directed his ressources to a project like that, especially when the only one who would gain an advantage out of this are the few engie heavy cruiser, in the federation faction.
yes, we are not talking about the entire cruiser line, just a very small portion of it.
just a simple bo layout change would fix the galaxy, nothing more.... nothing less.
no need to change the entire way the game fonction just to make THIS ship work.
because i guarantie you that this is not how cryptic will proceed.
A change to the Galaxy setup would cause more harm than good. As I said before, it'll make it just another cookie-cutter tac cruiser, and it'll take a blind eye to the imbalance between the different console types, and the worth of heavy engineering specialization.
Yes. Yes it is the solution. Why? Because of diversity. Diversity in the choices we have. If we give the Galaxy more of the same, then in becomes more of the same. But if we make what it has now actually work, then its desirability goes up far more than if it merely gained a cookie-cutter tactical cruiser setup.
there is no diversity in a ship that is too much focuss on one career.
you can not speak about diversity when your ship have only one field of action.
the diversity of gameplay reside in the multiple choice a ship can bring to the player, these choice are awfully limmited with the galaxy.
bringing more of the same things daesn't give more diversity, but more redundancy.
having too much of one type of career is never a good thing, no matter how good that career is ( see tactical for that )
How do I figure? Well if the Galaxy is given a cookie-cutter tactical cruiser setup, it will mainly be the competitives and players who care about just the optimum stuff will enjoy it. But if the Galaxy keeps its unique setup, but the setup itself gets tweaked to be viable, then not only the latter will be happy, but most of the rest of us will too.
who speak about giving this ship a cookie cutter build? this ship, in cryptic gameplay, is supposed to tank and support.
the problem is that due to the game mechanisms, the bo layout and general stats made it the least capable cruiser in that area, a simple star cruiser can already do a lot better, and there is no doubt that an exelsior specced for tanking would be closed behind if not equal.
the problem of the galaxy is not that it is the less powerfull cruiser for dps, it problem is that he have a very hard time to be as tanky as even some non specialist cruiser in tanking
as of today, player only choose this ship by ignorance of game mechanism or they just like the ship look.
there is NOTHING that you can do with this ship that can not be done BETTER with one of the other cruisers.
it is not part of the choice given to player, it is a skin
A change to the Galaxy setup would cause more harm than good. As I said before, it'll make it just another cookie-cutter tac cruiser, and it'll take a blind eye to the imbalance between the different console types, and the worth of heavy engineering specialization.
no, the galaxy is not a choice today, it an illusion of a choice, even if one would give him a cookie cutter build it would be better for players choices, because this ship wouldn't be automatically ignored for once.
balanced can not be achieve just by one career, you can make that career and console better all you want, the galaxy will still be unbalanced by it overspecialisation.
there is no diversity in a ship that is too much focuss on one career.
you can not speak about diversity when your ship have only one field of action.
Let me clarify. I do not mean diversity within one ship. I mean diversity with different ship builds. Including ship builds that are simultaneously viable and that have extreme elements. If you still don't understand, let me paint a picture for you.
Set 1:
Full eng
Eng/sci
Full sci
Sci/tac
Full tac
Tac/eng
Tac/eng/sci
the diversity of gameplay reside in the multiple choice a ship can bring to the player, these choice are awfully limmited with the galaxy.
bringing more of the same things daesn't give more diversity, but more redundancy.
having too much of one type of career is never a good thing, no matter how good that career is ( see tactical for that )
Then let's un-limit it. Let's provide more Engineering BOFF ability choices. Let's make Eng consoles as good as tacticals. But the fault isn't innately Galaxy's design.
who speak about giving this ship a cookie cutter build? this ship, in cryptic gameplay, is supposed to tank and support.
the problem is that due to the game mechanisms, the bo layout and general stats made it the least capable cruiser in that area, a simple star cruiser can already do a lot better, and there is no doubt that an exelsior specced for tanking would be closed behind if not equal.
There are already many tactical cruisers. Odyssey Tac, Regent/Sovvy, Excelsior off the top of my head. And that's not even including the Avenger. We don't need another one. If we insist that all other cruisers have more tactical focus, that will start to break down the diversity of the game.
the problem of the galaxy is not that it is the less powerfull cruiser for dps, it problem is that he have a very hard time to be as tanky as even some non specialist cruiser in tanking
as of today, player only choose this ship by ignorance of game mechanism or they just like the ship look. there is NOTHING that you can do with this ship that can not be done BETTER with one of the other cruisers.
it is not part of the choice given to player, it is a skin
Which is why we should amplify the power of what the Galaxy DOES have going for it.
no, the galaxy is not a choice today, it an illusion of a choice, even if one would give him a cookie cutter build it would be better for players choices, because this ship wouldn't be automatically ignored for once.
balanced can not be achieve just by one career, you can make that career and console better all you want, the galaxy will still be unbalanced by it overspecialisation.
It doesn't matter if it would be ignored or not. It would be just like all the others. If you want to play a tac cruiser, there are plenty of choices. But if the Galaxy becomes a tac cruiser... there won't be any viable3 choices for anyone who wants eng cruisers, because eng would be downplayed for an aspect of the game that is imbalanced and up-played.
No, if we give in and just focused on the imbalanced aspect of the game, we're solving nothing because we're not addressing the root of the problem. We'd be destroying diversity and just be playing different flavors of tactical ships. Even if you want that, a lot of us does not.
I had another thought on weapons and how to kinda bring it closer to canon. Remember it's just a thought experiment, but what about having weapons actually take different amount of space on a ship?
A phaser array like one on the Galaxy's saucer is way bigger than a single cannon. So, what if a phaser array would take three weapon slots, a DBB take two and a single emitter take on etc.?
Of course, a real phaser array would have to have a ~300 degree firing arc and do much more damage than a single beam or a cannon and so forth.
I like that idea. They could introduce such a special fireing array for Galaxy class family ships occupying 3 weapons slots (forward).
Additionally they could add 2 slot variants (fore and aft) exclusively for all Starfleet ships, having a much lower fireing rate (but accordingly stronger, of course). That way Starfleet ships would have something unique on their own without having to equip DCs or DHCs.
But since Cryptics devs don't care about canon or Starfleet "cruisers" they won't introduce weapons like that.
Special stuff like the proton Beam/cannon doesn't count, since you can only equip one single weapon like that at a time.
Not a fan of weapons that take up multiple slots... but as an alternative, what if ships got some kind of bonus (Acc? CritX?) for having more than one array equipped in Fore (and/or Aft) slots?
The on-screen benefit of the array strips is that the ship can either split fire or focus fire. So if you have two or more arrays (of the same type) firing at a single target, shouldn't it be similar to focusing fire through one array? Maybe they could even rig the visuals to reflect that.
This would be sort of like an innate set bonus for arrays, but I think in order to count as a 'set' they all have to be in the same arc (Fore or Aft). That would compensate for a lot of things. And it would be fair because escorts could choose to forego cannons for arrays if they wanted to (and it might actually make sense to do it if there's an array set bonus in play).
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
And sometimes to fly a specific ship. I got an Orb Weaver so I rolled a character just to fly it. I have am adapted destroyer in the bank that I created a character for it.
Since they will have irreplaceable ships they don't get deleted.
My first character won't be as she was my first. (And possibly worst)
And the supposedly joke character that has built up to an impressive Atrox sticks around.
(Okay fine I am also keeping my first KDF to reach 50.)
I wouldn't have the patience to level up a new Character just to test a new build.
(you got my respect for that )
Don't get me wrong i have several charaters myself but in the end i focus on 2 or 3 most of the time.
Not a fan of weapons that take up multiple slots... but as an alternative, what if ships got some kind of bonus (Acc? CritX?) for having more than one array equipped in Fore (and/or Aft) slots?
The on-screen benefit of the array strips is that the ship can either split fire or focus fire. So if you have two or more arrays (of the same type) firing at a single target, shouldn't it be similar to focusing fire through one array? Maybe they could even rig the visuals to reflect that.
This would be sort of like an innate set bonus for arrays, but I think in order to count as a 'set' they all have to be in the same arc (Fore or Aft). That would compensate for a lot of things. And it would be fair because escorts could choose to forego cannons for arrays if they wanted to (and it might actually make sense to do it if there's an array set bonus in play).
This would need a change on ships themselves. Other and i have suggeested a similar "switch" (to change from single beam to multiple beams) long ago but it was't well accepted imo.
Personally i do not care very much if it's several beams that only look like one, or Beam weapons that take several slots. The result would be similar.
The point is that a ships appearance (the 3D model) should reflect a ships capabilities. But as it is now, only disadvantage get reflected.
Things like high mass, low turnrate, get are involved but superior power generation and other things a big ship have as advantage in "real" trek get ignore for the sake of "balance".
Additionally, other factions ships have much higher mass and are much bigger than Galaxy, Mabassador and even Odyssey but they get rediculusly high turn rates.
these are just examples, but in general STO ship mechanic highly favours almost any other ship type than Starfleet Cruisers, IMO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
There are already many tactical cruisers. Odyssey Tac, Regent/Sovvy, Excelsior off the top of my head. And that's not even including the Avenger. We don't need another one. If we insist that all other cruisers have more tactical focus, that will start to break down the diversity of the game.
then again, i repeat myself, since you didn't seem to read what i wrote, who are speaking about making this ship a tactical cruiser?
no me, changing this ship stats and layout daes not automatically bring as only option to make it a tact cruiser.
i don't want cryptic to make this ship a tactical cruiser, not because one would think it would reduce the overall player choice in build ( the galaxy setup is not a choice, all what he can do can already be done by a star cruiser ), but because this would create a precedent, every other eng heavie cruiser would ask then to become more tactically oriented, and that would be a lost of diversity, not every eng heavie cruiser are TRIBBLE.
i do said however, that if cryptic would choose to make it a tact cruiser ( very unlikely ) it wouldn't be a lost for game diversity but a gain.
right now the role of the galaxy is non existent, all what he can do can already be done by a star cruiser.
so we can't speak about the galaxy as an option, it is not, it daes not exist in term of gameplay possibilitie.
if a bug occur that would erase every galaxy retrofit in the game, the diversity of build choice would not suffer one bit.
so even a tact version would bring something new that the current eng version is incapable to bring in term of diversity, and i also don't think that the choice that we have right now in tact cruiser is the end of all, and that a new combination can not bring something in that area too.
but then again, don't make me said what i didn't, i am not for a tactical version of the galaxy retrofit, this was just to show you that continue to force this ship in an utra engie heavy setup daes not bring more diversity to the game in practice
Which is why we should amplify the power of what the Galaxy DOES have going for it.
no, an amplify galaxy would not bring something different than what an amplify star cruiser would, a galaxy retrofit got 1 more eng bo power and 1 more eng console in comparison to the star cruiser, with diminishing return or not it is still meaningless in term of potential build capabilitie.
and that is not even mentioning the disbalanced that these new amplifyng eng power would cause to the rest of the ship in the game, yes every ship use eng power remember?
It doesn't matter if it would be ignored or not.
IT DAES MATTER!
it is in fact what matter the most, having an ultra eng heavie layout ship in the game who 's only reason to exist is to satisfy the fear of loosing some ship build choice will infact bring nothing to the game.
why didn't we have an all tact ship in the game? that is a lost in possibilitie woudn't you said?
5 tactical bo, 12 tactical bo power!
do i need to insist on how stupid a bo layout like this would be?
that players not having this option available lead in lost in gameplay possibilities?
no, and that the same for the galaxy retrofit.
in this game choice in paper and choice in practice are 2 different things.
support no change to the galaxy retrofit bo layout only show the lack of anderstanding of how this game work
Let me clarify. I do not mean diversity within one ship. I mean diversity with different ship builds. Including ship builds that are simultaneously viable and that have extreme elements. If you still don't understand, let me paint a picture for you.
Set 1:
Full eng
Eng/sci
Full sci
Sci/tac
Full tac
Tac/eng
Tac/eng/sci
Set 2:
Eng/sci
Sci/tac
Tac/eng
Tac/eng/sci
Set 1 is more diverse.
just like i explain it before this give you more choice in paper, but not in pratice.
to give you an example of how an extreme bo layout limit you build choice in pratice.
let take the galaxy x.
this ship is capable to use cannon but if you want cannon power to be available non stop, you need an auxtobat build due to the ship lt tact bo.
a good idea would be to use an auxtodamp build with cannon, to have a better resistance and not losing firepower.
but you can't do that, you would need a lt commander tact for this to be possible.
this is how you limit the ship potential and capabilitie.
note that an avenger is totally adequate for this, not only him, an exelsior and regent too, and these ships could now disposed of more firepower than the galaxy while AT THE SAME TIME, be much more tanky.
and that should not be, an avenger is not supposed to be more tanky than a galaxy x, while at the same time be much more powerfull.
so as of today what bring a galaxy x in comparison to the avenger?
absolutly nothing.
reason? not enought hight level tact slot or sci slot
extreme bo layout is never a good idea, especially when these are follow by horrible stats ( 6base turn and 25 inertia )
you don't seem to have the experience in this game to anderstand that, maybe one day you will
I The point is that a ships appearance (the 3D model) should reflect a ships capabilities. But as it is now, only disadvantage get reflected.
Things like high mass, low turnrate, get are involved but superior power generation and other things a big ship have as advantage in "real" trek get ignore for the sake of "balance".
Additionally, other factions ships have much higher mass and are much bigger than Galaxy, Mabassador and even Odyssey but they get rediculusly high turn rates.
these are just examples, but in general STO ship mechanic highly favours almost any other ship type than Starfleet Cruisers, IMO.
I completely agree with these sentiments. Larger ships do seem to get the drawbacks of being larger, but not the advantages it brings.
The list being things like, more and larger weapons, better shields and the power plants to support them.
But the scale mechanic goes out the window and warp cores, weapons and shields are small enough to fit in shuttles or a Galaxy with no issue.
Small escorts can carry eight weapon slots, while larger ships have same or less.
The reason I support the slot size concept is keep the current slots on ships. But cruiser classes are two or three space (per slot) versus one on an escort. This way the cruiser fires powerful beams everywhere, but an escort gets similar firepower in a smaller and harder to hit ship by focusing it forward.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
then again, i repeat myself, since you didn't seem to read what i wrote, who are speaking about making this ship a tactical cruiser?
no me, changing this ship stats and layout daes not automatically bring as only option to make it a tact cruiser.
i don't want cryptic to make this ship a tactical cruiser, not because one would think it would reduce the overall player choice in build ( the galaxy setup is not a choice, all what he can do can already be done by a star cruiser ), but because this would create a precedent, every other eng heavie cruiser would ask then to become more tactically oriented, and that would be a lost of diversity, not every eng heavie cruiser are TRIBBLE.
A couple of people in here have advocated making the Galaxy a tac cruiser. Maybe not you though, but still.
this was just to show you that continue to force this ship in an utra engie heavy setup daes not bring more diversity to the game in practice
But I'm not appealing to the game as it is now. I'm making suggestions for the ultra-eng Galaxy setup to actually be viable in PvE and competitive in PvP so it does bring more diversity.
no, an amplify galaxy would not bring something different than what an amplify star cruiser would, a galaxy retrofit got 1 more eng bo power and 1 more eng console in comparison to the star cruiser, with diminishing return or not it is still meaningless in term of potential build capabilitie.
and that is not even mentioning the disbalanced that these new amplifyng eng power would cause to the rest of the ship in the game, yes every ship use eng power remember?
You're not getting what I'm saying. Yes, the Galaxy has one more Eengineering BOFF. Yes, it only brings the same ol', same ol' to the build. But you don't seem to see that I'm pointing that out myself to give my input. I'm not only addressing the diminishing returns of engineering consoles.
And my input is this: In order to make too many BOFF abilities of one type to be a viable build is to give them more BOFFF abilities in that category. If my suggestion was implimented, 3 eng BOFFs wouldn't be a hindurance. It would be a competitive build just like the rest.
IT DAES MATTER!
it is in fact what matter the most, having an ultra eng heavie layout ship in the game who 's only reason to exist is to satisfy the fear of loosing some ship build choice will infact bring nothing to the game.
why didn't we have an all tact ship in the game? that is a lost in possibilitie woudn't you said?
5 tactical bo, 12 tactical bo power!
do i need to insist on how stupid a bo layout like this would be?
that players not having this option available lead in lost in gameplay possibilities?
no, and that the same for the galaxy retrofit.
in this game choice in paper and choice in practice are 2 different things.
support no change to the galaxy retrofit bo layout only show the lack of anderstanding of how this game work
Here's the thing. I'm proposing the eng-heavy build of the Galaxy to instead bring something to the game. You're strawmanning a totally different argument and ignoring my proposition altogether.
And don't bring personal arguments in here. It's completely irrelevant what the amount of experience anyone has in an argument. The only thing that matters is facts. It doesn't matter if one 'demonstrates a lack of understanding', what matters is the facts one brings to the argument. And this shouldn't be an argument anyway, this should be just a discussion to help the Galaxy. We both have the same goal, we shouldn't be in oppsition in the first place.
I understand that what limits ships with too much focus on tac, eng, and sci is that there isn't enough decent choices in each. Easiest example is a cannon-only Promethius. Their only 'choice' at the ensign-level is Tactical Team. But of course, more than two Tactical Teams is effectively useless. Developing and adding more useful skills, say for instance a dual cannon-only ability, dual heavy-only ability, and/or a turret-only ability to the ensign tactical choices will render three tactical ensign spots a lot more desirable.
just like i explain it before this give you more choice in paper, but not in pratice.
to give you an example of how an extreme bo layout limit you build choice in pratice.
let take the galaxy x.
this ship is capable to use cannon but if you want cannon power to be available non stop, you need an auxtobat build due to the ship lt tact bo.
a good idea would be to use an auxtodamp build with cannon, to have a better resistance and not losing firepower.
but you can't do that, you would need a lt commander tact for this to be possible.
this is how you limit the ship potential and capabilitie.
note that an avenger is totally adequate for this, not only him, an exelsior and regent too, and these ships could now disposed of more firepower than the galaxy while AT THE SAME TIME, be much more tanky.
and that should not be, an avenger is not supposed to be more tanky than a galaxy x, while at the same time be much more powerfull.
so as of today what bring a galaxy x in comparison to the avenger?
absolutly nothing.
reason? not enought hight level tact slot or sci slot
extreme bo layout is never a good idea, especially when these are follow by horrible stats ( 6base turn and 25 inertia )
Look man... this whole "this give you more choice in paper, but not in pratice" point doesn't refute anything I've said, because I have specifically addressed it before. It's the basis for my point for crying out loud. The things that do not work in practice is what I'm proposing that we change.
you don't seem to have the experience in this game to anderstand that, maybe one day you will
And here are more personal attacks. If the only thing you can do to try winning an argument is strawman and personal attacks, why am I even bothering? None of what I'm saying is getting through. I'm repeating most of these points over and over anyway. It seems that it's just not sinking in...
Maybe you think this is a you vs me thing. It's not. This is all to help the Galaxy-class, which we both want. But how we want to help the Galaxy seems to be very different.
Okay, let me explain this as simple as I can possibly make it. You take the Galaxy as it is right now. According to a lot of people, it sucks. And blows. Simultaneously. I get that. I also get that the eng-heavy setup, as the game is now, is not a viable option compared to other shipsa because of the power creep.
But what I'm proposing is not to change it so that the inherent problems with a heavy-engineering setup are ignored. No, I'm proposing a focus to cure the heavy-eng setup of all its shortcomings so it can be a viable setup. Your "reason? not enought hight level tact slot or sci slot" is ignoring the possibility that if the engineering slots were reworked to be on-par with tac or sci, that would be a non-issue.
Engineering consoles give diminishing returns as it is now. A lot of them also aren't exactly good enough to compete with other types of consoles, such as tactical or universal consoles. I'm proposing that we increase the output of crappy eng consoles(even if you cound 'all of them' as crappy) and completely remove all diminishing returns.
The Galaxy, according to the insistence of a few other fellow STO players here, has 'too many engineering BOFFs'. The reason for this is that there isn't enough good engineering abilities to fill all those stations. Think about it - if every one of those 8 or so engineering abilities were not only each different, but none shared any cooldowns at all, and on top of that, were all covering each of the Galaxy's weaknesses and enhancing its strengths. That many eng abilities wouldn't be a burden any more. That's what else I'm proposing.
Also, thinking up something else that's wrong with the heavy-eng setup does not refute anything i'm proposing. It just adds yet another thing that my idea is proposing to correct. That's all. Would my idea bring the Galaxy on-par with the Avenger? Yes, if done correctly. There is so much the devs could do with eng consoles and abilities, it's not even funny. Saying "improbing BOFF abilities or consoles won't save engineering", I'm sorry, is ignorant. No offense. Ignorant in that it is ignoring the possibilities that would make eng viable, even overpowered in some cases. For instance, a commander-leven eng ability that reflects damage from one type of weapon back to the attacker, say torpedoes or DHCs...
Not trying to put any words in your mouth here, bit it seems to me that all your argument is doing is telling me "no, your idea won't work, cause the galaxy sucks", or "your idea won't work because you missed a spot". Yeah, the galaxy does suck, and that's why I'm giving this input. And if I missed a spot, please tell me how it can be improved, rather than telling us all that it has to go.
galaxy x is a great ambulance. name in sig i dont mind proving it.
Section 31Lane/Jeffjr/Varek @jeffjr USS Stadi/USS Grendel/USS AshigaruDreadnought Class Refit / Avenger Class Refit/Rhode Island Class Refit"With your shield or on it"/"Mors venit ad omnes."/"One with courage is a majority"https://www.youtube.com/@jeffjr84
You're not getting what I'm saying. Yes, the Galaxy has one more Eengineering BOFF. Yes, it only brings the same ol', same ol' to the build. But you don't seem to see that I'm pointing that out myself to give my input. I'm not only addressing the diminishing returns of engineering consoles.
And my input is this: In order to make too many BOFF abilities of one type to be a viable build is to give them more BOFFF abilities in that category. If my suggestion was implimented, 3 eng BOFFs wouldn't be a hindurance. It would be a competitive build just like the rest.
i perfectly anderstood what you propose, it not like you are the first one to make that proposal in this 500 pages thread you known.
but still that will not change the lack of role that the galaxy suffer.
better and more eng power with no share cooldown will be a good thing for the galaxy, will it change the fact that this ship is not an option in comparison to other cruiser in the same categorie? no!
why? because this is a eng career specific problem, no a galaxy problem, the star cruiser suffer from it too, every eng heavie are suffering from this.
it is very simple to proove it, show me a build with these new eng power for the galaxy that i can not reproduced with better efficiency with a star cruiser.
stop the theory and well written sentence and let go to the pratice a little to see where it get us.
Here's the thing. I'm proposing the eng-heavy build of the Galaxy to instead bring something to the game. You're strawmanning a totally different argument and ignoring my proposition altogether.
i don't ignore what you are saying, i just said it is the wrong way, it is not because i disagree with you that i am ignoring you.
bielieving that new eng power with no share cooldown and whatnot would make the galaxy to be usefull in comparison of other cruiser is an illusion.
having too much of one career type power is the problem, if you want to continue with a bo layout like this and succed in making the galaxy relevant, it would mean that the new power you are going to introduced are not really eng power anymore, but tact or sci disguised in eng power.
eng power are not offensive in nature, and not that much crow control either, this is obviously something wanted by cryptic, i don't see them changing that.
And don't bring personal arguments in here. It's completely irrelevant what the amount of experience anyone has in an argument. The only thing that matters is facts. It doesn't matter if one 'demonstrates a lack of understanding', what matters is the facts one brings to the argument. And this shouldn't be an argument anyway, this should be just a discussion to help the Galaxy. We both have the same goal, we shouldn't be in oppsition in the first place.
to the contrary, experience and knownlege in how the game work is relevant if one want to makes change to a system without breaking it with far strech idea based on nothing solid.
this is exactly why the dev get the help of experience pvper to test new things in this game, and that is exactly why the DDeridex have seen it bo layout change due to the dev listening to these same experienced pvpers.
you may support a change to the galaxy, but that will not automatically make me blindly agree with everything you said just because.
how can someone be credible if he automatically agree with everyone that would support a change in his favor and didn't care about what the changes will do?
And here are more personal attacks. If the only thing you can do to try winning an argument is strawman and personal attacks, why am I even bothering? None of what I'm saying is getting through. I'm repeating most of these points over and over anyway. It seems that it's just not sinking in...
it is not a personal attack, just a simple observation base on what you propose, you can take it as personal if you wish, but that is your business really, not mine.
Maybe you think this is a you vs me thing. It's not. This is all to help the Galaxy-class, which we both want. But how we want to help the Galaxy seems to be very different.
well no, i don't think that either, my care is about the galaxy class in this game nothing more nothing less. try to improve the galaxy is one thing, doing it in a coherent and cost effective way is an other.
But what I'm proposing is not to change it so that the inherent problems with a heavy-engineering setup are ignored. No, I'm proposing a focus to cure the heavy-eng setup of all its shortcomings so it can be a viable setup. Your "reason? not enought hight level tact slot or sci slot" is ignoring the possibility that if the engineering slots were reworked to be on-par with tac or sci, that would be a non-issue.
engineering career have inherent problem indeed, ignoring them is not a good idea.
that should be adressed.
but bielieve that fixing the eng career power will solve the galaxy role problem is simply wrong.
a ship almost entirely focussed on eng power can't have acces to all the possibilitie that this game offer, it is as simple as that, unless your eng power do things that are similar to sci and tact power, but are we still talking about eng power now if that would be the case?
Engineering consoles give diminishing returns as it is now. A lot of them also aren't exactly good enough to compete with other types of consoles, such as tactical or universal consoles. I'm proposing that we increase the output of crappy eng consoles(even if you cound 'all of them' as crappy) and completely remove all diminishing returns.
fine, but are you aware that they are escort in this game that have acces to 4 eng console slot, and you want to give them acces to no diminushing return eng console?
i mean...really? http://sto.gamepedia.com/Jem'Hadar_Attack_Ship
The Galaxy, according to the insistence of a few other fellow STO players here, has 'too many engineering BOFFs'. The reason for this is that there isn't enough good engineering abilities to fill all those stations. Think about it - if every one of those 8 or so engineering abilities were not only each different, but none shared any cooldowns at all, and on top of that, were all covering each of the Galaxy's weaknesses and enhancing its strengths. That many eng abilities wouldn't be a burden any more. That's what else I'm proposing.
it would certainly make the galaxy better, would i choose it over a star cruiser still? no!
i have hard time to conceive a change to eng power that would make this 6base turn ship completely relevant in comparison to the -1 bo eng power and -1 eng console that is the star cruiser.
Saying "improbing BOFF abilities or consoles won't save engineering", I'm sorry, is ignorant. No offense. Ignorant in that it is ignoring the possibilities that would make eng viable, even overpowered in some cases. For instance, a commander-leven eng ability that reflects damage from one type of weapon back to the attacker, say torpedoes or DHCs...
so you are speaking about a fbp for eng, a sci power disguised in eng power.
yeah, i supposed that if we proceed like this anything is possible.
what about a power.. let call it..polarize maneuver!
it would give a little damage buff to weapons, more speed and turn, and imunity to movement debuff, pretty handy huh?
any resemblance to other power already available would be really fortuitous:rolleyes:
Not trying to put any words in your mouth here, bit it seems to me that all your argument is doing is telling me "no, your idea won't work, cause the galaxy sucks", or "your idea won't work because you missed a spot". Yeah, the galaxy does suck, and that's why I'm giving this input. And if I missed a spot, please tell me how it can be improved, rather than telling us all that it has to go.
WE are telling you that this bo layout has to go, i am not alone here.
and as long as you don't anderstand that the galaxy didn't suck on his own but in comparison to other, you will indeed miss the point.
i perfectly anderstood what you propose, it not like you are the first one to make that proposal in this 500 pages thread you known.
but still that will not change the lack of role that the galaxy suffer.
better and more eng power with no share cooldown will be a good thing for the galaxy, will it change the fact that this ship is not an option in comparison to other cruiser in the same categorie? no!
why? because this is a eng career specific problem, no a galaxy problem, the star cruiser suffer from it too, every eng heavie are suffering from this.
Yes, it will change the lack of roll. Add more importance to eng-specific stuff, you give more importance to eng-heavy ships.
it is very simple to proove it, show me a build with these new eng power for the galaxy that i can not reproduced with better efficiency with a star cruiser.
stop the theory and well written sentence and let go to the pratice a little to see where it get us.
Wow, no one ever told me that my sentences were well-written. Thank you! =D
Hull difference: 1,100 in the Galaxy's favor
Consoles: +1 engineering(Gal) vs +1 science(Nom)
Bridge officer seats: 1 ensign eng(Gal) vs 1 ensign sci(Nom)
Turn rate difference of 1 in the Nomad's favor
Inertia rating difference is 10(if memory serves correctly, the Galaxy's rating is 25)
Galaxy's saucer sep vs the Nomad's nothing (this could be a HUEG advantage if the automated unit system was revamped)
To make the Galaxy fare better against the Nomad, as well as prevent teeny ships like a bugship or Andorian escort, we'll need to play off the Galaxy's strengths. Aaaand just to give a number to how many I can brainstorm, let's go with 10: -The first one that comes to mind that is unarguably better than what a Nomad could produce, or every other ship but maybe 2 or 3, is an engineering hull repair ability based on total hull strength... as in it heals a percentage, rather than a set number. Can the Nomad have it? Yes, but it simply will not be as effective. -Give a Ramming Speed-like BOFF ability whose strength is based on inertia. The hull damage would be lessened by its total resistance, which 5 eng consoles could help with. And let's just say the Ramming Speed DOFFs work with it as well. -Power and A.I. boost to automated ship components(like the Galaxy's saucer section), as well as a team U.I. so they won't be so useless. -At least 5 more ensign-level BOFF skills, partly for variety for all ships, but also for the Galaxy's 3 ens eng ability spots. Let's saaaay... an inertia buff, a crewman resistance buff, an automated ship component heal that costs crewmen with no cooldown, an ability that allows your teammates to revive you so you won't be staring at death cooldown, and I suppose one that gives your automated units more ship power. -An eng ability that disables your weapons briefly in order to make your ship turn 180 degrees. -An eng BOFF ability, maybe LtCmdr-level, that enables your ship components to use your capt abilities as well. If automated, it lasts for 10 sec. If you can activate the capt abilities for your automateds, let's only give it a 5-sec window. 30-sec cooldown at least. -Another engineering ability idea is one that grants a large hull resistance rating based on maximum HP and/or inertia rating. It would last maybe about 10-15sec. Yet another feat that the Galaxy would perform better than the Nomad. -An engineering console that provides damage resistance based on maximum hull strength and crew. Since the Galaxy and the Nomad has the same crew count, the Galaxy would still pull ahead because of hull strength. Say the console would give the Galaxy... maybe a 14% hull resistance rating with 5 fleet Mk XIIs? With 5 console slots, that's a whooping 70% resistance rating for the ol' Gal-R.The Nomad would barely be able to pull 55% with 4 console slots and a weaker hull. What's the only other ship that could pull this much resistance from this hypothetical console? The Voth dreadnought? I'd say that's pretty good. Though without my crewman revamp suggestion in play too, this one might be a bit iffy... -An eng BOFF ability that resets automated component cooldowns or revives them. Or maybe an ability that lets automated ship components revive [/b]you[/b]. -A Commander-level eng skill that self-destructs automated ship components(like the Galaxy's saucer section) for massive AoE damage at the cost of removing component re-integration ability for that round.
i don't ignore what you are saying, i just said it is the wrong way, it is not because i disagree with you that i am ignoring you.
bielieving that new eng power with no share cooldown and whatnot would make the galaxy to be usefull in comparison of other cruiser is an illusion.
having too much of one career type power is the problem, if you want to continue with a bo layout like this and succed in making the galaxy relevant, it would mean that the new power you are going to introduced are not really eng power anymore, but tact or sci disguised in eng power.
eng power are not offensive in nature, and not that much crow control either, this is obviously something wanted by cryptic, i don't see them changing that.
So basically you're appealing to the demand for high DPS, buffs/debuffs, and other sci manipulations in the current gameplay paradigm, correct? Yeah, I addressed this issue earlier on in this thread as well... I also think that it should be reworked so that tanks have their value too. Yes, even if it's in a standard RPGish format, though not necessarily.
to the contrary, experience and knownlege in how the game work is relevant if one want to makes change to a system without breaking it with far strech idea based on nothing solid.
this is exactly why the dev get the help of experience pvper to test new things in this game, and that is exactly why the DDeridex have seen it bo layout change due to the dev listening to these same experienced pvpers.
you may support a change to the galaxy, but that will not automatically make me blindly agree with everything you said just because.
how can someone be credible if he automatically agree with everyone that would support a change in his favor and didn't care about what the changes will do?
But this isn't anything about experience. The most experienced person around can be wrong on something, just as the most noobish of newbs can be correct on another thing, and even justified for the info. "Credibility" especially has nothing to do with arguments, as anyone can provide facts no matter what their credibility is. The fact is, experience and credibility matters not if you still have the information needed. And even if that weren't true, you or I are not the judges for that. And Appealing to 'credibility' is a weakness in your argument. Hell, this is Debating 101. The validity of the argument isn't determined by the credentials of the debater, but by the merits of their claims. You're absolutely wrong if you think that you can appeal to personal stuff and try to justify it or think it carries any weight. Leave it out of our arguments.
However, I'm glad that you refuse to blindly agree. Taking things on faith is horrid reasoning, and we need more skeptical thought in the world.
it is not a personal attack, just a simple observation base on what you propose, you can take it as personal if you wish, but that is your business really, not mine.
Actually, it was a personal attack. And it lends exactly nothing to the argument. An attempt to undermine the credibility of your opponent does not at all address the facts presented.
well no, i don't think that either, my care is about the galaxy class in this game nothing more nothing less. try to improve the galaxy is one thing, doing it in a coherent and cost effective way is an other.
Right, but there is other balance issues that need to be addressed than the Galaxy. I feel that my suggestions help out more than just the Galaxy.
fine, but are you aware that they are escort in this game that have acces to 4 eng console slot, and you want to give them acces to no diminushing return eng console?
i mean...really? http://sto.gamepedia.com/Jem'Hadar_Attack_Ship
I'm well acquainted with the bug ship, and I've demonstrated earlier in this response that there in fact can be engineering consoles and abilities that benefit bigger ships far more than smaller, despite them having around the same amount of engineering capability.
it would certainly make the galaxy better, would i choose it over a star cruiser still? no!
i have hard time to conceive a change to eng power that would make this 6base turn ship completely relevant in comparison to the -1 bo eng power and -1 eng console that is the star cruiser.
That's why I provided you with the list I made earlier in this response. If you can't think of anything reasonable to help the Galaxy's setup, there may in fact be several other people who can't.
so you are speaking about a fbp for eng, a sci power disguised in eng power.
yeah, i supposed that if we proceed like this anything is possible.
what about a power.. let call it..polarize maneuver!
it would give a little damage buff to weapons, more speed and turn, and imunity to movement debuff, pretty handy huh?
any resemblance to other power already available would be really fortuitous:rolleyes:
Considering that there's no clear-cut definition of what constitutes an "Engineering" power or a "Science" power besides what they actually are, your arguing yourself into a fallacy. I challenge that there are zero engineering abilities 'disguised' as science abilities, or vice versa, or any of the two disguised as tac abilities, or vice-versa. What they are is what they are. Engineering Team is Engineering, Hazard Emitters isn't. Transfer Shield Strength is Science, EPTS is not. And just because one ability from one career resembles that of another does not mean it is 'disguised' as the other career.
WE are telling you that this bo layout has to go, i am not alone here.
and as long as you don't anderstand that the galaxy didn't suck on his own but in comparison to other, you will indeed miss the point.
And I stand by my position that it does not have to. And others are with me. Maybe they haven't had strong arguments or cases before in this thread, but I feel that I do.
No, DDIS, here's how it works. It doesn't matter how much experience you have. It doesn't matter how long you've been playing or how tough you want to be on others. If you make a claim, especially on the internet, you must be ready to demonstrate it. I'm ready to demonstrate any of my claims. And if you want to be taken seriously be anyone, you need to be so as well, rather than say "I know what I'm talking about and you don't", period. You don't have more credit than anyone else in this thread. It's the facts one has provided that have worth in an argument, never the person claiming them.
after a few days of facepalming at this, i suppose i should finally respond. what. do you think. ive been doing. for 500+ pages? :rolleyes: i cant express how sick and tired i am of repeating these points for the hundredth time to every unique snow flake that decides to care about this topic, but has to have the most basic things about ship building explained to them.
here we go, remedial ship building 90, class is in session. at ENS eng, there is only EPt skills, all linked in a system cooldown, and ET, part of a system cooldown spanning all 3 station types. you have the option of running 2 different EPt1 skills, and a copy of ET1. ET in general is a bad skill, using it at all compromises your TT use, the most impotent skill at keeping you alive. having to take it is almost worse then nothing, at least when your use of it leads directly to getting you killed. here you are forced to take a bad skill, over a skill of monumental value in ether tac or sci. the galaxy is the only cruiser were you have no choice but to only use version 1 of these skills, you cant use say EPtS3 or ET3, because that would be the same as leaveing some ENS stations empty. at LTC and up, there are only so many skills of any value, weather you run an AtB build or healer build. ether way, 8 eng skills are far to many, when 6 or less is the ideal. not only do you have to take unideal ENG skills that do next to nothing to help you, but your losing out on ether sci or tac skills that would be actually helpful. you double lose here.
its console setup is garbage. 5 eng consoles are just a universal dumping ground here. at least on the fleet negvar, you can get a lot of turn rate and armor, and quite a bit of fun by running DHCs and 4 or 5 turn consoles on it. with a base turn of 6, 2 tac consoles and only 2 tac skills, turn rate consoles not only do next to nothing, even if they did buff turn rate it would do almost nothing beneficial for you. this also makes what could be cool, the saucer sep, entirely without value. the fleet star cruiser with 4 sci consoles, that you can really do something with. super high shield cap, buffed up plasma weapon damage from embassy sci consoles, make them partical gen and your EWP3 and TBR1 will be doing the top potentual damage ether skill could do on any cruiser. pull doff with TBR and EWP is an awesome combo. try to adapt that to the galaxy, and you give up a sci heal, and your down to 3 sci console slots. good for nothing, inferior ship no mater what you try to do.
your new here, and like dozens of others making similar claims before you, i have spelled out the many fundamental issues with the ship in excruciating detail. for any basic ship building novice, no such explanation should even be necessary. you look at the combination of stats, station setup and console slots and you know this is the least viable combination of stats by a wide margin. any other cruiser has vastly higher potential, among ship types, its the only example of worst ship among them. there really isn't a worst escort or worst sci ship. some might be quick to point out the aquarius, but it is at no loss of performance in dealing damage. it can match any other COM/LTC tac, 4 tac console escort's damage potential, its just more fragile. the galaxy R can not match another cruisers performance in a single area, it has large disadvantages in all possible capacities. tanking, DPS, healing, its inferior in every measurable way, thanks to its unique collection of stats.
You do offer a good point here, and I can't say my own anecdotal experience holds that true, but your claim is logically sound.
you ether know how to build a ship, know all about system cool downs and were 1 choice would invalidate another, and know how every single factor on the ship synergies, or you dont. just seeing a galaxy in action, being etiquette, means nothing. i could complete any of the pve story content in a shuttle, the fact that the galaxy R could do the same means nothing. no mater what you do with the ship, any other cruiser would serve you better. you could make a star cruiser a better DPS cruiser then the galaxy R. you would make a regent a better healer and support cruiser then a galaxy R. the goal of this thread is to get the galaxy R changed so it has an actual relevant place, somewhere in the cruiser hierarchy, doing something well.
Okay, this is the part where you're either misinterpreting what I've been saying, or strawmanning it to oblivion. Yes, we all know that 5 engineering console slots is horrible, and I have never denied that. But I do not think the solution is to give it a different console setup. I believe that a better solution would be to buff and/or rework the engineering consoles themselves so that 5 eng consoles will actually be viable.
its the same terrible idea every time. you are aware that every single ship has multiple eng console slots right? everything would benefit, and thats the opposite of whats necessary. everything else is fine, there is a sole anomaly, and thats the galaxy R.
it doesn't mater if your talking about changes or improvements to consoles or station powers, those changes effect every single ships. and every other ship will get a hell of a lot more use and advantage over these changes then the galaxy R, because they start off being so much better. new eng station powers wont make all the sci and tac skills the ship could have instead less important. even with all the new abilities its still missing those, and suffers for it. the best heal boats are cruisers with an even number of sci and eng skills, that would not change, there is no new skill replacement for HE or TSS that would be at all balanced. the station setup, and console setup, has to change. nothing of value will be lost, the odyssey could even replicate the old fail setup for anyone feeling nostalgic.
DDIS, if you don't care about reading what I post, I don't really care for reading yours. I have rebutted every single one of your points several times, and I don't really care to do it any more. Not to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that you're either saying "I've said these things before so you gotta trust me", or "I've answered things like this so it's not worth answering again". And neither is a valid 'argument'. I, or other people that come in here are under no obligation to take your word for it or sift through 525 pages.
Either cut your posts down to the point, without all the childish trash talking and "I've told others this" TRIBBLE if you want me to care about responding to you again. Or if you want something from me or want me to do something, get to that and maybe we can work something out. Till then, I'll only be responding to reasonable posts.
Oh, and go look at my very last post. The one right before yours.
I see your time in combat is at 3 minutes 49 seconds. So basically you ran with a team of pro's and it inflated your damage numbers. While it is entirely possible to get 10k damage on the Galaxy-R it's also true that any build you toss on the Galaxy will net you more damage on all the other federation cruisers. So when you say its not as bad as people go on about...well your wrong. This ship is the worst cruiser in the game.
Drunk went over some ship building basics in his post that you should read. He explains in detail why the excessive engineering stations and terrible console layout hurt the ship so much in any role you might want for it.
Drunk went over some ship building basics in his post that you should read. He explains in detail why the excessive engineering stations and terrible console layout hurt the ship so much in any role you might want for it.
And he didn't need to, because I have acknowledged that point long ago. I'm not sure what he's trying to do now.
So, after a bazillion pages since I last read this thread, I decided to pop back in.
The Galaxy Fanatics are presented with a DPS number from kimmym which was in the region of 12k, which actually beats my Fleet Excelsior since ive only managed to get 11k out of the dang thing so far and thats WITH the spire consoles. Did I do something wrong with the build? More than likely.
nikephorus came up with excuses of how Kim's DPS numbers are over inflated and that those numbers CANT be true AT ALL! DDIS is still talking down to people as if they are children, and everyone else in the Galaxy fan crowd still blatantly ignore folks giving them numbers and still want to turn the Galaxy into one of the most overpowered ships in the game.
Yeah.. nothing's changed here I see.
Carry on shooting your collective selves in the foot Galaxy fans...i'll pop back in when the thread reaches 1000 pages to see if anything has changed, probably not but hey I'm an optimist afterall.
"You know when that shark bites, with its teeth dear... scarlet billows start to spread..."
What was your build and boff setup? Curious to know if I can replicate that. Closest I have is the Gal X, but it should be able to do slightly better if that's the case. Getting a Gal-R is way outside my resources at the moment.
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Actually, it was a personal attack. And it lends exactly nothing to the argument. An attempt to undermine the credibility of your opponent does not at all address the facts presented.
but you don't present facts here, just a theorie, stop giving yourself too much credit.
do not try to make your theorie look like facts, it is not.
for now what you propose got too many vague area, and haven't been be tested in the entirety of the game mechanisms, situations or combinations, but i will come back to that laters.
I'm well acquainted with the bug ship, and I've demonstrated earlier in this response that there in fact can be engineering consoles and abilities that benefit bigger ships far more than smaller, despite them having around the same amount of engineering capability.
again, you haven't demonstrate anything, you just made a proposal.
removing diminishing return on eng console is the best way to make any ship a pain to kill.
my galaxy x with only 2 fleet rcs ( 10.6 energy damage resistance ) and 3 point in hull plating already got 23.7% damage resistance, that didn't take into consideration boff power like hazard emitter or auxtosif, polarize hull, it daesn't take into consideration item like the subspace field modulator, or trait like the last ditch effort, go down fighting, ot the tier4 dyson reputation space.
on top of that you want to add boff power with no share cooldown that enhanced resistance base on hull strenght, on shield capacity, on inertia rating combined with no diminushing return eng console...
imagine this with 6 point in hull plating, then, do the same with 9.
are you aware that their is a 75% hull resist cap in the game?
exept a ship abilitie, no one can go beyon
d, any ship would be able to reach that number very easily or to the least, be very close to it, and then you system that reward more hull by giving them more resistence would be become useless at giving an edge to the galaxy.
it would however be a formidable power creep layer.
Right, but there is other balance issues that need to be addressed than the Galaxy. I feel that my suggestions help out more than just the Galaxy.
i don't see any balanced issue that cripple the performance of any other ship as it do to the galaxy family.
these problem exist for other ship but are just a little anoyance, because they have other way to "compensate".
their is no ship in the game that is as cripple as the galaxy is and by a very big margin.
in a well build ship, going to the galaxy retrofit to the star cruiser feel like going to a tier 4 ship to a tiers 5 ship.
and indeed their is not much tangible benefit from going to tier 4 galaxy venture to the tier 5.
if there was one at all, considering that the tier 4 venture got more or less the layout of a star cruiser
But this isn't anything about experience. The most experienced person around can be wrong on something, just as the most noobish of newbs can be correct on another thing, and even justified for the info.
a noob is someone that have very poor knownlege about game mechanic, it would be someone who didn't known that science team clear the subnuk power for example among others things.
so the probability that the noobish of newbs be correct against the MOST experienced person is very, very low.
it could happened in theorie trought, just like the loto.
but i would attribute that to chance more than a good brainstorming on game mechanism.
"Credibility" especially has nothing to do with arguments, as anyone can provide facts no matter what their credibility is. The fact is, experience and credibility matters not if you still have the information needed. And even if that weren't true, you or I are not the judges for that. And Appealing to 'credibility' is a weakness in your argument. Hell, this is Debating 101. The validity of the argument isn't determined by the credentials of the debater, but by the merits of their claims. You're absolutely wrong if you think that you can appeal to personal stuff and try to justify it or think it carries any weight. Leave it out of our arguments.
do you read what i wrote sometime, or do you just pretend?
where exactly do you see me speaking about the credibility of an argument.
i was speaking about the credibility of behavior, that is just totally different.
that the second time you do that.
so i quote myself and invite you to read it again, with your eyes this time, before going into your uneccesary lecture.
how can someone be credible if he automatically agree with everyone that would support a change in his favor and didn't care about what the changes will do?
so in case if that wasn't self explanatory, it mean that i do not give credit to any person that blindfully accept any proposals, no matter what the proposasl are, just because these proposals would go in the way of improving what he like without any consideration about the potential repercussion they could have.
Considering that there's no clear-cut definition of what constitutes an "Engineering" power or a "Science" power besides what they actually are, your arguing yourself into a fallacy. I challenge that there are zero engineering abilities 'disguised' as science abilities, or vice versa, or any of the two disguised as tac abilities, or vice-versa. What they are is what they are. Engineering Team is Engineering, Hazard Emitters isn't. Transfer Shield Strength is Science, EPTS is not. And just because one ability from one career resembles that of another does not mean it is 'disguised' as the other career.
there is no clear-cut definition indeed, as they are some skills in every career that have elements that could be classified in other career type.
however it daesn't need to be a genious to see the generall orientaion of the carrier purpose.
the vast majority of tactical power don't do crow controls.
the vast majority of science power don't do significant damage.
the vast majority of engi power don't do debuff
boff power are not " just what they are", they serve the general direction purpose of the career as defined by cryptic.
stating that they can be switch, reproduce, copy or emulate at will without breaking the purpose of the career IS the fallacy.
So basically you're appealing to the demand for high DPS, buffs/debuffs, and other sci manipulations in the current gameplay paradigm, correct? Yeah, I addressed this issue earlier on in this thread as well... I also think that it should be reworked so that tanks have their value too. Yes, even if it's in a standard RPGish format, though not necessarily.
yes, i do, because it is an illusion to bielive that you can achieve the same amounts of flexibilitie with a ship that is too much career centric than with an other that is not
-The first one that comes to mind that is unarguably better than what a Nomad could produce, or every other ship but maybe 2 or 3, is an engineering hull repair ability based on total hull strength... as in it heals a percentage, rather than a set number. Can the Nomad have it? Yes, but it simply will not be as effective.
i have hard time to imagine a formula that would make the 1100 hp to be something relevant in term of tanking with this power, it would also mean that the difference beetween an escort and a cruiser would be gigantic![/COLOR]
-Give a Ramming Speed-like BOFF ability whose strength is based on inertia. The hull damage would be lessened by its total resistance, which 5 eng consoles could help with. And let's just say the Ramming Speed DOFFs work with it as well.
i like this boff power idea, even if it not what i would calla engi power, however ramming other ship has never been something that cruiser can do well due to their maneuvrabilitie, unless they are doing it against an other cruiser.
-Power and A.I. boost to automated ship components(like the Galaxy's saucer section), as well as a team U.I. so they won't be so useless.
yeah, but this is not a boff power, but a game mechanism improvement
-At least 5 more ensign-level BOFF skills, partly for variety for all ships, but also for the Galaxy's 3 ens eng ability spots. Let's saaaay... an inertia buff, a crewman resistance buff, an automated ship component heal that costs crewmen with no cooldown, an ability that allows your teammates to revive you so you won't be staring at death cooldown, and I suppose one that gives your automated units more ship power.
a little of everything and whatnot here, some are even not boff power, how much of inertia buff, what level of boff abilitie? a little vague all this is
-An eng ability that disables your weapons briefly in order to make your ship turn 180 degrees.
i would choose that abilitie as a reputation power, but i certainly not going to loose a boff power for that
-An eng BOFF ability, maybe LtCmdr-level, that enables your ship components to use your capt abilities as well. If automated, it lasts for 10 sec. If you can activate the capt abilities for your automateds, let's only give it a 5-sec window. 30-sec cooldown at least.
that not how cryptic design boff power, every boff power must be usable if the layout of the ship permited it, not if the ship got some "accesorie" that allow it to use them
-Another engineering ability idea is one that grants a large hull resistance rating based on maximum HP and/or inertia rating. It would last maybe about 10-15sec. Yet another feat that the Galaxy would perform better than the Nomad.
i am etasing that comment since i was obviously saying ****s, that will teach me to respond to a post like this a 3 hours in the morning where my attention definitivly not on the best, to resume i have confuse ( and just god known why) the hull capacity and the shield capacity.
I just realize that this morning when i wake up, and i can tell i am not quite awake since i even got trouble to remember my password!
I need rest:)
-An engineering console that provides damage resistance based on maximum hull strength and crew. Since the Galaxy and the Nomad has the same crew count, the Galaxy would still pull ahead because of hull strength. Say the console would give the Galaxy... maybe a 14% hull resistance rating with 5 fleet Mk XIIs? With 5 console slots, that's a whooping 70% resistance rating for the ol' Gal-R.The Nomad would barely be able to pull 55% with 4 console slots and a weaker hull. What's the only other ship that could pull this much resistance from this hypothetical console? The Voth dreadnought? I'd say that's pretty good. Though without my crewman revamp suggestion in play too, this one might be a bit iffy...
again, i have hard time to conceive a balanced formula that would give such an advantage to the galaxy with only 1100 base hp difference and 1 console slot, especially when, like i explain it before, it is already easy to put this ship to 30 or 40% resist if one want to in the current system, this look like more than a far strech idea base on fantasy than a well thaught proposal
-An eng BOFF ability that resets automated component cooldowns or revives them. Or maybe an ability that lets automated ship components revive [/b]you[/b].
again that can not be a bof abilitie, it don't concern every ship in the game
-A Commander-level eng skill that self-destructs automated ship components(like the Galaxy's saucer section) for massive AoE damage at the cost of removing component re-integration ability for that round.
same here
so in the end all this didn't seem to be well thaught, and look like more of fantasy that get rid of all basic game mechanism than a serious proposal.
and as explain it also fail to make the galaxy relevant in face of a simple star cruiser too.
So, after a bazillion pages since I last read this thread, I decided to pop back in.
The Galaxy Fanatics are presented with a DPS number from kimmym which was in the region of 12k, which actually beats my Fleet Excelsior since ive only managed to get 11k out of the dang thing so far and thats WITH the spire consoles. Did I do something wrong with the build? More than likely.
nikephorus came up with excuses of how Kim's DPS numbers are over inflated and that those numbers CANT be true AT ALL! DDIS is still talking down to people as if they are children, and everyone else in the Galaxy fan crowd still blatantly ignore folks giving them numbers and still want to turn the Galaxy into one of the most overpowered ships in the game.
Yeah.. nothing's changed here I see.
Carry on shooting your collective selves in the foot Galaxy fans...i'll pop back in when the thread reaches 1000 pages to see if anything has changed, probably not but hey I'm an optimist afterall.
comming in this thread and state that the galaxy is not bad because you can reach 12k dps with it just show the lack of anderstanding of the request of the thread and the problem of the galaxy.
you could come with a 15k dps if you want that would not change a thing.
why? very simple, the first thing that come to mind is that if you can do that with a galaxy, it mean that the same build in a regent will do far much damage in the same condition.
simple game mechanism comprehension, it is a very hard exercices to do less damage with 4 tact console than with 2, with a lt commander tact slot than with a lt, with 7 turn than with 6... with the same build.i am alway in admiration with people that can.
but, most important, damage would be relevant if this ship was build to do some in the first place, it is not, so we will not judge it capabilitie around that.
even in the tanking healing area it fail to give a significant role to player that known a little about game mechanism in comparison to other ship in the same categorie.
and you should known, i known you done some pvp from time to time, have you ever see someone in opvpchannel stating that he is going to make a good heal build with his galaxy, a crow control build with his galaxy, a more funny one, a dps ship.
THERE IS NONE! why, is everyone hate the galaxy in the pvp community?, or is it just that this ship simply suck to the point that no serious veteran continu to fly it.
i give you idea, since you seem to think that we have a bias view here, why don't you ask the best pvper if there is something good that we can do with a galaxy exept exploding?
i hope you won't stereoptype them as galaxy fan when they all told you that this ship is good for nothing.
anyway, you are free to pop back in when the thread reaches 1000 pages to see if anything has changed with your attitude, and maybe you take a closer look to this ship.... probably not but hey I'm an optimist person too.... afterall.
What was your build and boff setup? Curious to know if I can replicate that. Closest I have is the Gal X, but it should be able to do slightly better if that's the case. Getting a Gal-R is way outside my resources at the moment.
My point is, 12.5 is enough. The content is tuned for 3-5k. I'm over double the top end. I'm over triple the low end. I didn't even use my warp plasma, I forgot it was there. I didn't tune the ship. I tossed on some gear, chose skills that wouldn't disrupt my normal boffs too much to change back to after, and hit a single infected. Cold. I hadn't even warmed up.
Sure. It could be a better ship. But it isn't even the worst ship currently, even if all you care about is DPS (I never got my D'kyr to 12.5k, for example. Maybe I could now, but I doubt it.)
The real "issue" is engineering skills lack diversity, particularly at the low end. Fix that and the Gal-R fixes itself.
Edit: And Boarding Parties are silly. If they weren't always instantly neutralized they would be nice, but way, way too many downsides to them. If they were viable it would help a ton as well.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Comments
You do offer a good point here, and I can't say my own anecdotal experience holds that true, but your claim is logically sound.
Okay, this is the part where you're either misinterpreting what I've been saying, or strawmanning it to oblivion. Yes, we all know that 5 engineering console slots is horrible, and I have never denied that. But I do not think the solution is to give it a different console setup. I believe that a better solution would be to buff and/or rework the engineering consoles themselves so that 5 eng consoles will actually be viable.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
I must be the opposite of many of you then. I have 5 level 50's and have deleted almost as many of those. But have 12 characters level 4 through 32. I make new characters to try new builds, patterns and BOFF types. Even try an theme the crews. Once at 50 however the game play seems to end and turn into: Run this STF 50 times to get the marks you need for one piece of a three piece set. Once done, you need to do it again for the ground set.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Just curious, you start a new character just to test a new build?
I don't know, but i have experimented with hundreds of different builds over the years but i never had the idea to start a new character for each one.
And sometimes to fly a specific ship. I got an Orb Weaver so I rolled a character just to fly it. I have am adapted destroyer in the bank that I created a character for it.
Since they will have irreplaceable ships they don't get deleted.
My first character won't be as she was my first. (And possibly worst)
And the supposedly joke character that has built up to an impressive Atrox sticks around.
(Okay fine I am also keeping my first KDF to reach 50.)
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
the galaxy problem isn't just on it number of engi console slot, he also have too much engi bo power, and not enought turn rate considering the size and general stats of the ship.
too limited tact bo and science bo.
it got the worst of everything worst in this game.
so, the solution is not to change the entire engi power and console power of the game just to make this awfull combination of stats works.
as they said in my country:
Do not twist your TRIBBLE to **** right in a bottle!
a little crude, but to the point.
in a perfect world, with unlimited resources, time, and testing period, redoing the entire engi power and console stats "could" ( it is not even a certainty ) be the best solution.
but, i think you have integrated the fact by now, that cryptic will not directed his ressources to a project like that, especially when the only one who would gain an advantage out of this are the few engie heavy cruiser, in the federation faction.
yes, we are not talking about the entire cruiser line, just a very small portion of it.
just a simple bo layout change would fix the galaxy, nothing more.... nothing less.
no need to change the entire way the game fonction just to make THIS ship work.
because i guarantie you that this is not how cryptic will proceed.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Forget it. I just realized the beams are like cannons and do lose thier strenght the further out they are from thier target.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
Yes. Yes it is the solution. Why? Because of diversity. Diversity in the choices we have. If we give the Galaxy more of the same, then in becomes more of the same. But if we make what it has now actually work, then its desirability goes up far more than if it merely gained a cookie-cutter tactical cruiser setup.
How do I figure? Well if the Galaxy is given a cookie-cutter tactical cruiser setup, it will mainly be the competitives and players who care about just the optimum stuff will enjoy it. But if the Galaxy keeps its unique setup, but the setup itself gets tweaked to be viable, then not only the latter will be happy, but most of the rest of us will too.
It's not only about the Galaxy. It's about all ships that are undesirable because they focus 'too much' on a single career. Those other ships with only two tac console slots. Those ships with three tac BOFF seats. Attribute balance will not only give the Galaxy its much-needed worth, it'll give less desirable ships their time to shine as well.
Again, there is not as much wrong with how any ship is set up. The problem is with how those setups function.
A change to the Galaxy setup would cause more harm than good. As I said before, it'll make it just another cookie-cutter tac cruiser, and it'll take a blind eye to the imbalance between the different console types, and the worth of heavy engineering specialization.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
there is no diversity in a ship that is too much focuss on one career.
you can not speak about diversity when your ship have only one field of action.
the diversity of gameplay reside in the multiple choice a ship can bring to the player, these choice are awfully limmited with the galaxy.
bringing more of the same things daesn't give more diversity, but more redundancy.
having too much of one type of career is never a good thing, no matter how good that career is ( see tactical for that )
who speak about giving this ship a cookie cutter build? this ship, in cryptic gameplay, is supposed to tank and support.
the problem is that due to the game mechanisms, the bo layout and general stats made it the least capable cruiser in that area, a simple star cruiser can already do a lot better, and there is no doubt that an exelsior specced for tanking would be closed behind if not equal.
the problem of the galaxy is not that it is the less powerfull cruiser for dps, it problem is that he have a very hard time to be as tanky as even some non specialist cruiser in tanking
as of today, player only choose this ship by ignorance of game mechanism or they just like the ship look.
there is NOTHING that you can do with this ship that can not be done BETTER with one of the other cruisers.
it is not part of the choice given to player, it is a skin
no, the galaxy is not a choice today, it an illusion of a choice, even if one would give him a cookie cutter build it would be better for players choices, because this ship wouldn't be automatically ignored for once.
balanced can not be achieve just by one career, you can make that career and console better all you want, the galaxy will still be unbalanced by it overspecialisation.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Set 1:
Full eng
Eng/sci
Full sci
Sci/tac
Full tac
Tac/eng
Tac/eng/sci
Set 2:
Eng/sci
Sci/tac
Tac/eng
Tac/eng/sci
Set 1 is more diverse.
Then let's un-limit it. Let's provide more Engineering BOFF ability choices. Let's make Eng consoles as good as tacticals. But the fault isn't innately Galaxy's design.
There are already many tactical cruisers. Odyssey Tac, Regent/Sovvy, Excelsior off the top of my head. And that's not even including the Avenger. We don't need another one. If we insist that all other cruisers have more tactical focus, that will start to break down the diversity of the game.
Which is why we should amplify the power of what the Galaxy DOES have going for it.
It doesn't matter if it would be ignored or not. It would be just like all the others. If you want to play a tac cruiser, there are plenty of choices. But if the Galaxy becomes a tac cruiser... there won't be any viable3 choices for anyone who wants eng cruisers, because eng would be downplayed for an aspect of the game that is imbalanced and up-played.
No, if we give in and just focused on the imbalanced aspect of the game, we're solving nothing because we're not addressing the root of the problem. We'd be destroying diversity and just be playing different flavors of tactical ships. Even if you want that, a lot of us does not.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Not a fan of weapons that take up multiple slots... but as an alternative, what if ships got some kind of bonus (Acc? CritX?) for having more than one array equipped in Fore (and/or Aft) slots?
The on-screen benefit of the array strips is that the ship can either split fire or focus fire. So if you have two or more arrays (of the same type) firing at a single target, shouldn't it be similar to focusing fire through one array? Maybe they could even rig the visuals to reflect that.
This would be sort of like an innate set bonus for arrays, but I think in order to count as a 'set' they all have to be in the same arc (Fore or Aft). That would compensate for a lot of things. And it would be fair because escorts could choose to forego cannons for arrays if they wanted to (and it might actually make sense to do it if there's an array set bonus in play).
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
(you got my respect for that
Don't get me wrong i have several charaters myself but in the end i focus on 2 or 3 most of the time.
This would need a change on ships themselves. Other and i have suggeested a similar "switch" (to change from single beam to multiple beams) long ago but it was't well accepted imo.
Personally i do not care very much if it's several beams that only look like one, or Beam weapons that take several slots. The result would be similar.
The point is that a ships appearance (the 3D model) should reflect a ships capabilities. But as it is now, only disadvantage get reflected.
Things like high mass, low turnrate, get are involved but superior power generation and other things a big ship have as advantage in "real" trek get ignore for the sake of "balance".
Additionally, other factions ships have much higher mass and are much bigger than Galaxy, Mabassador and even Odyssey but they get rediculusly high turn rates.
these are just examples, but in general STO ship mechanic highly favours almost any other ship type than Starfleet Cruisers, IMO.
then again, i repeat myself, since you didn't seem to read what i wrote, who are speaking about making this ship a tactical cruiser?
no me, changing this ship stats and layout daes not automatically bring as only option to make it a tact cruiser.
i don't want cryptic to make this ship a tactical cruiser, not because one would think it would reduce the overall player choice in build ( the galaxy setup is not a choice, all what he can do can already be done by a star cruiser ), but because this would create a precedent, every other eng heavie cruiser would ask then to become more tactically oriented, and that would be a lost of diversity, not every eng heavie cruiser are TRIBBLE.
i do said however, that if cryptic would choose to make it a tact cruiser ( very unlikely ) it wouldn't be a lost for game diversity but a gain.
right now the role of the galaxy is non existent, all what he can do can already be done by a star cruiser.
so we can't speak about the galaxy as an option, it is not, it daes not exist in term of gameplay possibilitie.
if a bug occur that would erase every galaxy retrofit in the game, the diversity of build choice would not suffer one bit.
so even a tact version would bring something new that the current eng version is incapable to bring in term of diversity, and i also don't think that the choice that we have right now in tact cruiser is the end of all, and that a new combination can not bring something in that area too.
but then again, don't make me said what i didn't, i am not for a tactical version of the galaxy retrofit, this was just to show you that continue to force this ship in an utra engie heavy setup daes not bring more diversity to the game in practice
no, an amplify galaxy would not bring something different than what an amplify star cruiser would, a galaxy retrofit got 1 more eng bo power and 1 more eng console in comparison to the star cruiser, with diminishing return or not it is still meaningless in term of potential build capabilitie.
and that is not even mentioning the disbalanced that these new amplifyng eng power would cause to the rest of the ship in the game, yes every ship use eng power remember?
IT DAES MATTER!
it is in fact what matter the most, having an ultra eng heavie layout ship in the game who 's only reason to exist is to satisfy the fear of loosing some ship build choice will infact bring nothing to the game.
why didn't we have an all tact ship in the game? that is a lost in possibilitie woudn't you said?
5 tactical bo, 12 tactical bo power!
do i need to insist on how stupid a bo layout like this would be?
that players not having this option available lead in lost in gameplay possibilities?
no, and that the same for the galaxy retrofit.
in this game choice in paper and choice in practice are 2 different things.
support no change to the galaxy retrofit bo layout only show the lack of anderstanding of how this game work
just like i explain it before this give you more choice in paper, but not in pratice.
to give you an example of how an extreme bo layout limit you build choice in pratice.
let take the galaxy x.
this ship is capable to use cannon but if you want cannon power to be available non stop, you need an auxtobat build due to the ship lt tact bo.
a good idea would be to use an auxtodamp build with cannon, to have a better resistance and not losing firepower.
but you can't do that, you would need a lt commander tact for this to be possible.
this is how you limit the ship potential and capabilitie.
note that an avenger is totally adequate for this, not only him, an exelsior and regent too, and these ships could now disposed of more firepower than the galaxy while AT THE SAME TIME, be much more tanky.
and that should not be, an avenger is not supposed to be more tanky than a galaxy x, while at the same time be much more powerfull.
so as of today what bring a galaxy x in comparison to the avenger?
absolutly nothing.
reason? not enought hight level tact slot or sci slot
extreme bo layout is never a good idea, especially when these are follow by horrible stats ( 6base turn and 25 inertia )
you don't seem to have the experience in this game to anderstand that, maybe one day you will
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
I completely agree with these sentiments. Larger ships do seem to get the drawbacks of being larger, but not the advantages it brings.
The list being things like, more and larger weapons, better shields and the power plants to support them.
But the scale mechanic goes out the window and warp cores, weapons and shields are small enough to fit in shuttles or a Galaxy with no issue.
Small escorts can carry eight weapon slots, while larger ships have same or less.
The reason I support the slot size concept is keep the current slots on ships. But cruiser classes are two or three space (per slot) versus one on an escort. This way the cruiser fires powerful beams everywhere, but an escort gets similar firepower in a smaller and harder to hit ship by focusing it forward.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
But I'm not appealing to the game as it is now. I'm making suggestions for the ultra-eng Galaxy setup to actually be viable in PvE and competitive in PvP so it does bring more diversity.
You're not getting what I'm saying. Yes, the Galaxy has one more Eengineering BOFF. Yes, it only brings the same ol', same ol' to the build. But you don't seem to see that I'm pointing that out myself to give my input. I'm not only addressing the diminishing returns of engineering consoles.
And my input is this: In order to make too many BOFF abilities of one type to be a viable build is to give them more BOFFF abilities in that category. If my suggestion was implimented, 3 eng BOFFs wouldn't be a hindurance. It would be a competitive build just like the rest.
Here's the thing. I'm proposing the eng-heavy build of the Galaxy to instead bring something to the game. You're strawmanning a totally different argument and ignoring my proposition altogether.
And don't bring personal arguments in here. It's completely irrelevant what the amount of experience anyone has in an argument. The only thing that matters is facts. It doesn't matter if one 'demonstrates a lack of understanding', what matters is the facts one brings to the argument. And this shouldn't be an argument anyway, this should be just a discussion to help the Galaxy. We both have the same goal, we shouldn't be in oppsition in the first place.
I understand that what limits ships with too much focus on tac, eng, and sci is that there isn't enough decent choices in each. Easiest example is a cannon-only Promethius. Their only 'choice' at the ensign-level is Tactical Team. But of course, more than two Tactical Teams is effectively useless. Developing and adding more useful skills, say for instance a dual cannon-only ability, dual heavy-only ability, and/or a turret-only ability to the ensign tactical choices will render three tactical ensign spots a lot more desirable.
Look man... this whole "this give you more choice in paper, but not in pratice" point doesn't refute anything I've said, because I have specifically addressed it before. It's the basis for my point for crying out loud. The things that do not work in practice is what I'm proposing that we change.
And here are more personal attacks. If the only thing you can do to try winning an argument is strawman and personal attacks, why am I even bothering? None of what I'm saying is getting through. I'm repeating most of these points over and over anyway. It seems that it's just not sinking in...
Maybe you think this is a you vs me thing. It's not. This is all to help the Galaxy-class, which we both want. But how we want to help the Galaxy seems to be very different.
Okay, let me explain this as simple as I can possibly make it. You take the Galaxy as it is right now. According to a lot of people, it sucks. And blows. Simultaneously. I get that. I also get that the eng-heavy setup, as the game is now, is not a viable option compared to other shipsa because of the power creep.
But what I'm proposing is not to change it so that the inherent problems with a heavy-engineering setup are ignored. No, I'm proposing a focus to cure the heavy-eng setup of all its shortcomings so it can be a viable setup. Your "reason? not enought hight level tact slot or sci slot" is ignoring the possibility that if the engineering slots were reworked to be on-par with tac or sci, that would be a non-issue.
Engineering consoles give diminishing returns as it is now. A lot of them also aren't exactly good enough to compete with other types of consoles, such as tactical or universal consoles. I'm proposing that we increase the output of crappy eng consoles(even if you cound 'all of them' as crappy) and completely remove all diminishing returns.
The Galaxy, according to the insistence of a few other fellow STO players here, has 'too many engineering BOFFs'. The reason for this is that there isn't enough good engineering abilities to fill all those stations. Think about it - if every one of those 8 or so engineering abilities were not only each different, but none shared any cooldowns at all, and on top of that, were all covering each of the Galaxy's weaknesses and enhancing its strengths. That many eng abilities wouldn't be a burden any more. That's what else I'm proposing.
Also, thinking up something else that's wrong with the heavy-eng setup does not refute anything i'm proposing. It just adds yet another thing that my idea is proposing to correct. That's all. Would my idea bring the Galaxy on-par with the Avenger? Yes, if done correctly. There is so much the devs could do with eng consoles and abilities, it's not even funny. Saying "improbing BOFF abilities or consoles won't save engineering", I'm sorry, is ignorant. No offense. Ignorant in that it is ignoring the possibilities that would make eng viable, even overpowered in some cases. For instance, a commander-leven eng ability that reflects damage from one type of weapon back to the attacker, say torpedoes or DHCs...
Not trying to put any words in your mouth here, bit it seems to me that all your argument is doing is telling me "no, your idea won't work, cause the galaxy sucks", or "your idea won't work because you missed a spot". Yeah, the galaxy does suck, and that's why I'm giving this input. And if I missed a spot, please tell me how it can be improved, rather than telling us all that it has to go.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
i perfectly anderstood what you propose, it not like you are the first one to make that proposal in this 500 pages thread you known.
but still that will not change the lack of role that the galaxy suffer.
better and more eng power with no share cooldown will be a good thing for the galaxy, will it change the fact that this ship is not an option in comparison to other cruiser in the same categorie? no!
why? because this is a eng career specific problem, no a galaxy problem, the star cruiser suffer from it too, every eng heavie are suffering from this.
it is very simple to proove it, show me a build with these new eng power for the galaxy that i can not reproduced with better efficiency with a star cruiser.
stop the theory and well written sentence and let go to the pratice a little to see where it get us.
i don't ignore what you are saying, i just said it is the wrong way, it is not because i disagree with you that i am ignoring you.
bielieving that new eng power with no share cooldown and whatnot would make the galaxy to be usefull in comparison of other cruiser is an illusion.
having too much of one career type power is the problem, if you want to continue with a bo layout like this and succed in making the galaxy relevant, it would mean that the new power you are going to introduced are not really eng power anymore, but tact or sci disguised in eng power.
eng power are not offensive in nature, and not that much crow control either, this is obviously something wanted by cryptic, i don't see them changing that.
to the contrary, experience and knownlege in how the game work is relevant if one want to makes change to a system without breaking it with far strech idea based on nothing solid.
this is exactly why the dev get the help of experience pvper to test new things in this game, and that is exactly why the DDeridex have seen it bo layout change due to the dev listening to these same experienced pvpers.
you may support a change to the galaxy, but that will not automatically make me blindly agree with everything you said just because.
how can someone be credible if he automatically agree with everyone that would support a change in his favor and didn't care about what the changes will do?
it is not a personal attack, just a simple observation base on what you propose, you can take it as personal if you wish, but that is your business really, not mine.
well no, i don't think that either, my care is about the galaxy class in this game nothing more nothing less. try to improve the galaxy is one thing, doing it in a coherent and cost effective way is an other.
engineering career have inherent problem indeed, ignoring them is not a good idea.
that should be adressed.
but bielieve that fixing the eng career power will solve the galaxy role problem is simply wrong.
a ship almost entirely focussed on eng power can't have acces to all the possibilitie that this game offer, it is as simple as that, unless your eng power do things that are similar to sci and tact power, but are we still talking about eng power now if that would be the case?
fine, but are you aware that they are escort in this game that have acces to 4 eng console slot, and you want to give them acces to no diminushing return eng console?
i mean...really?
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Jem'Hadar_Attack_Ship
it would certainly make the galaxy better, would i choose it over a star cruiser still? no!
i have hard time to conceive a change to eng power that would make this 6base turn ship completely relevant in comparison to the -1 bo eng power and -1 eng console that is the star cruiser.
so you are speaking about a fbp for eng, a sci power disguised in eng power.
yeah, i supposed that if we proceed like this anything is possible.
what about a power.. let call it..polarize maneuver!
it would give a little damage buff to weapons, more speed and turn, and imunity to movement debuff, pretty handy huh?
any resemblance to other power already available would be really fortuitous:rolleyes:
WE are telling you that this bo layout has to go, i am not alone here.
and as long as you don't anderstand that the galaxy didn't suck on his own but in comparison to other, you will indeed miss the point.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
yeah, and the star cruiser and odyssey eng and sci, and many other that i don't care to signal are far much better at that role
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Join the Deltas today!
Wow, no one ever told me that my sentences were well-written. Thank you! =D
Anyway, this is as simple as just making stuff up, right? Let's first look at the differences to the Galaxy and the Nomad:
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Fleet_Exploration_Cruiser_Retrofit
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Fleet_Star_Cruiser
Hull difference: 1,100 in the Galaxy's favor
Consoles: +1 engineering(Gal) vs +1 science(Nom)
Bridge officer seats: 1 ensign eng(Gal) vs 1 ensign sci(Nom)
Turn rate difference of 1 in the Nomad's favor
Inertia rating difference is 10(if memory serves correctly, the Galaxy's rating is 25)
Galaxy's saucer sep vs the Nomad's nothing (this could be a HUEG advantage if the automated unit system was revamped)
To make the Galaxy fare better against the Nomad, as well as prevent teeny ships like a bugship or Andorian escort, we'll need to play off the Galaxy's strengths. Aaaand just to give a number to how many I can brainstorm, let's go with 10:
-The first one that comes to mind that is unarguably better than what a Nomad could produce, or every other ship but maybe 2 or 3, is an engineering hull repair ability based on total hull strength... as in it heals a percentage, rather than a set number. Can the Nomad have it? Yes, but it simply will not be as effective.
-Give a Ramming Speed-like BOFF ability whose strength is based on inertia. The hull damage would be lessened by its total resistance, which 5 eng consoles could help with. And let's just say the Ramming Speed DOFFs work with it as well.
-Power and A.I. boost to automated ship components(like the Galaxy's saucer section), as well as a team U.I. so they won't be so useless.
-At least 5 more ensign-level BOFF skills, partly for variety for all ships, but also for the Galaxy's 3 ens eng ability spots. Let's saaaay... an inertia buff, a crewman resistance buff, an automated ship component heal that costs crewmen with no cooldown, an ability that allows your teammates to revive you so you won't be staring at death cooldown, and I suppose one that gives your automated units more ship power.
-An eng ability that disables your weapons briefly in order to make your ship turn 180 degrees.
-An eng BOFF ability, maybe LtCmdr-level, that enables your ship components to use your capt abilities as well. If automated, it lasts for 10 sec. If you can activate the capt abilities for your automateds, let's only give it a 5-sec window. 30-sec cooldown at least.
-Another engineering ability idea is one that grants a large hull resistance rating based on maximum HP and/or inertia rating. It would last maybe about 10-15sec. Yet another feat that the Galaxy would perform better than the Nomad.
-An engineering console that provides damage resistance based on maximum hull strength and crew. Since the Galaxy and the Nomad has the same crew count, the Galaxy would still pull ahead because of hull strength. Say the console would give the Galaxy... maybe a 14% hull resistance rating with 5 fleet Mk XIIs? With 5 console slots, that's a whooping 70% resistance rating for the ol' Gal-R.The Nomad would barely be able to pull 55% with 4 console slots and a weaker hull. What's the only other ship that could pull this much resistance from this hypothetical console? The Voth dreadnought? I'd say that's pretty good. Though without my crewman revamp suggestion in play too, this one might be a bit iffy...
-An eng BOFF ability that resets automated component cooldowns or revives them. Or maybe an ability that lets automated ship components revive [/b]you[/b].
-A Commander-level eng skill that self-destructs automated ship components(like the Galaxy's saucer section) for massive AoE damage at the cost of removing component re-integration ability for that round.
So basically you're appealing to the demand for high DPS, buffs/debuffs, and other sci manipulations in the current gameplay paradigm, correct? Yeah, I addressed this issue earlier on in this thread as well... I also think that it should be reworked so that tanks have their value too. Yes, even if it's in a standard RPGish format, though not necessarily.
But this isn't anything about experience. The most experienced person around can be wrong on something, just as the most noobish of newbs can be correct on another thing, and even justified for the info. "Credibility" especially has nothing to do with arguments, as anyone can provide facts no matter what their credibility is. The fact is, experience and credibility matters not if you still have the information needed. And even if that weren't true, you or I are not the judges for that. And Appealing to 'credibility' is a weakness in your argument. Hell, this is Debating 101. The validity of the argument isn't determined by the credentials of the debater, but by the merits of their claims. You're absolutely wrong if you think that you can appeal to personal stuff and try to justify it or think it carries any weight. Leave it out of our arguments.
However, I'm glad that you refuse to blindly agree. Taking things on faith is horrid reasoning, and we need more skeptical thought in the world.
Actually, it was a personal attack. And it lends exactly nothing to the argument. An attempt to undermine the credibility of your opponent does not at all address the facts presented.
Right, but there is other balance issues that need to be addressed than the Galaxy. I feel that my suggestions help out more than just the Galaxy.
I'm well acquainted with the bug ship, and I've demonstrated earlier in this response that there in fact can be engineering consoles and abilities that benefit bigger ships far more than smaller, despite them having around the same amount of engineering capability.
That's why I provided you with the list I made earlier in this response. If you can't think of anything reasonable to help the Galaxy's setup, there may in fact be several other people who can't.
Considering that there's no clear-cut definition of what constitutes an "Engineering" power or a "Science" power besides what they actually are, your arguing yourself into a fallacy. I challenge that there are zero engineering abilities 'disguised' as science abilities, or vice versa, or any of the two disguised as tac abilities, or vice-versa. What they are is what they are. Engineering Team is Engineering, Hazard Emitters isn't. Transfer Shield Strength is Science, EPTS is not. And just because one ability from one career resembles that of another does not mean it is 'disguised' as the other career.
And I stand by my position that it does not have to. And others are with me. Maybe they haven't had strong arguments or cases before in this thread, but I feel that I do.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
after a few days of facepalming at this, i suppose i should finally respond. what. do you think. ive been doing. for 500+ pages? :rolleyes: i cant express how sick and tired i am of repeating these points for the hundredth time to every unique snow flake that decides to care about this topic, but has to have the most basic things about ship building explained to them.
here we go, remedial ship building 90, class is in session. at ENS eng, there is only EPt skills, all linked in a system cooldown, and ET, part of a system cooldown spanning all 3 station types. you have the option of running 2 different EPt1 skills, and a copy of ET1. ET in general is a bad skill, using it at all compromises your TT use, the most impotent skill at keeping you alive. having to take it is almost worse then nothing, at least when your use of it leads directly to getting you killed. here you are forced to take a bad skill, over a skill of monumental value in ether tac or sci. the galaxy is the only cruiser were you have no choice but to only use version 1 of these skills, you cant use say EPtS3 or ET3, because that would be the same as leaveing some ENS stations empty. at LTC and up, there are only so many skills of any value, weather you run an AtB build or healer build. ether way, 8 eng skills are far to many, when 6 or less is the ideal. not only do you have to take unideal ENG skills that do next to nothing to help you, but your losing out on ether sci or tac skills that would be actually helpful. you double lose here.
its console setup is garbage. 5 eng consoles are just a universal dumping ground here. at least on the fleet negvar, you can get a lot of turn rate and armor, and quite a bit of fun by running DHCs and 4 or 5 turn consoles on it. with a base turn of 6, 2 tac consoles and only 2 tac skills, turn rate consoles not only do next to nothing, even if they did buff turn rate it would do almost nothing beneficial for you. this also makes what could be cool, the saucer sep, entirely without value. the fleet star cruiser with 4 sci consoles, that you can really do something with. super high shield cap, buffed up plasma weapon damage from embassy sci consoles, make them partical gen and your EWP3 and TBR1 will be doing the top potentual damage ether skill could do on any cruiser. pull doff with TBR and EWP is an awesome combo. try to adapt that to the galaxy, and you give up a sci heal, and your down to 3 sci console slots. good for nothing, inferior ship no mater what you try to do.
your new here, and like dozens of others making similar claims before you, i have spelled out the many fundamental issues with the ship in excruciating detail. for any basic ship building novice, no such explanation should even be necessary. you look at the combination of stats, station setup and console slots and you know this is the least viable combination of stats by a wide margin. any other cruiser has vastly higher potential, among ship types, its the only example of worst ship among them. there really isn't a worst escort or worst sci ship. some might be quick to point out the aquarius, but it is at no loss of performance in dealing damage. it can match any other COM/LTC tac, 4 tac console escort's damage potential, its just more fragile. the galaxy R can not match another cruisers performance in a single area, it has large disadvantages in all possible capacities. tanking, DPS, healing, its inferior in every measurable way, thanks to its unique collection of stats.
you ether know how to build a ship, know all about system cool downs and were 1 choice would invalidate another, and know how every single factor on the ship synergies, or you dont. just seeing a galaxy in action, being etiquette, means nothing. i could complete any of the pve story content in a shuttle, the fact that the galaxy R could do the same means nothing. no mater what you do with the ship, any other cruiser would serve you better. you could make a star cruiser a better DPS cruiser then the galaxy R. you would make a regent a better healer and support cruiser then a galaxy R. the goal of this thread is to get the galaxy R changed so it has an actual relevant place, somewhere in the cruiser hierarchy, doing something well.
its the same terrible idea every time. you are aware that every single ship has multiple eng console slots right? everything would benefit, and thats the opposite of whats necessary. everything else is fine, there is a sole anomaly, and thats the galaxy R.
it doesn't mater if your talking about changes or improvements to consoles or station powers, those changes effect every single ships. and every other ship will get a hell of a lot more use and advantage over these changes then the galaxy R, because they start off being so much better. new eng station powers wont make all the sci and tac skills the ship could have instead less important. even with all the new abilities its still missing those, and suffers for it. the best heal boats are cruisers with an even number of sci and eng skills, that would not change, there is no new skill replacement for HE or TSS that would be at all balanced. the station setup, and console setup, has to change. nothing of value will be lost, the odyssey could even replicate the old fail setup for anyone feeling nostalgic.
Either cut your posts down to the point, without all the childish trash talking and "I've told others this" TRIBBLE if you want me to care about responding to you again. Or if you want something from me or want me to do something, get to that and maybe we can work something out. Till then, I'll only be responding to reasonable posts.
Oh, and go look at my very last post. The one right before yours.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
That is enough. Ship could be better, but it's not nearly as bad as people go on about.
http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g362/DarielaScc/124galr_zpseca419c3.png
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
I see your time in combat is at 3 minutes 49 seconds. So basically you ran with a team of pro's and it inflated your damage numbers. While it is entirely possible to get 10k damage on the Galaxy-R it's also true that any build you toss on the Galaxy will net you more damage on all the other federation cruisers. So when you say its not as bad as people go on about...well your wrong. This ship is the worst cruiser in the game.
@orangeitis
Drunk went over some ship building basics in his post that you should read. He explains in detail why the excessive engineering stations and terrible console layout hurt the ship so much in any role you might want for it.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
The Galaxy Fanatics are presented with a DPS number from kimmym which was in the region of 12k, which actually beats my Fleet Excelsior since ive only managed to get 11k out of the dang thing so far and thats WITH the spire consoles. Did I do something wrong with the build? More than likely.
nikephorus came up with excuses of how Kim's DPS numbers are over inflated and that those numbers CANT be true AT ALL! DDIS is still talking down to people as if they are children, and everyone else in the Galaxy fan crowd still blatantly ignore folks giving them numbers and still want to turn the Galaxy into one of the most overpowered ships in the game.
Yeah.. nothing's changed here I see.
Carry on shooting your collective selves in the foot Galaxy fans...i'll pop back in when the thread reaches 1000 pages to see if anything has changed, probably not but hey I'm an optimist afterall.
What was your build and boff setup? Curious to know if I can replicate that. Closest I have is the Gal X, but it should be able to do slightly better if that's the case. Getting a Gal-R is way outside my resources at the moment.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
but you don't present facts here, just a theorie, stop giving yourself too much credit.
do not try to make your theorie look like facts, it is not.
for now what you propose got too many vague area, and haven't been be tested in the entirety of the game mechanisms, situations or combinations, but i will come back to that laters.
again, you haven't demonstrate anything, you just made a proposal.
removing diminishing return on eng console is the best way to make any ship a pain to kill.
my galaxy x with only 2 fleet rcs ( 10.6 energy damage resistance ) and 3 point in hull plating already got 23.7% damage resistance, that didn't take into consideration boff power like hazard emitter or auxtosif, polarize hull, it daesn't take into consideration item like the subspace field modulator, or trait like the last ditch effort, go down fighting, ot the tier4 dyson reputation space.
on top of that you want to add boff power with no share cooldown that enhanced resistance base on hull strenght, on shield capacity, on inertia rating combined with no diminushing return eng console...
imagine this with 6 point in hull plating, then, do the same with 9.
are you aware that their is a 75% hull resist cap in the game?
exept a ship abilitie, no one can go beyon
d, any ship would be able to reach that number very easily or to the least, be very close to it, and then you system that reward more hull by giving them more resistence would be become useless at giving an edge to the galaxy.
it would however be a formidable power creep layer.
i don't see any balanced issue that cripple the performance of any other ship as it do to the galaxy family.
these problem exist for other ship but are just a little anoyance, because they have other way to "compensate".
their is no ship in the game that is as cripple as the galaxy is and by a very big margin.
in a well build ship, going to the galaxy retrofit to the star cruiser feel like going to a tier 4 ship to a tiers 5 ship.
and indeed their is not much tangible benefit from going to tier 4 galaxy venture to the tier 5.
if there was one at all, considering that the tier 4 venture got more or less the layout of a star cruiser
a noob is someone that have very poor knownlege about game mechanic, it would be someone who didn't known that science team clear the subnuk power for example among others things.
so the probability that the noobish of newbs be correct against the MOST experienced person is very, very low.
it could happened in theorie trought, just like the loto.
but i would attribute that to chance more than a good brainstorming on game mechanism.
do you read what i wrote sometime, or do you just pretend?
where exactly do you see me speaking about the credibility of an argument.
i was speaking about the credibility of behavior, that is just totally different.
that the second time you do that.
so i quote myself and invite you to read it again, with your eyes this time, before going into your uneccesary lecture.
so in case if that wasn't self explanatory, it mean that i do not give credit to any person that blindfully accept any proposals, no matter what the proposasl are, just because these proposals would go in the way of improving what he like without any consideration about the potential repercussion they could have.
there is no clear-cut definition indeed, as they are some skills in every career that have elements that could be classified in other career type.
however it daesn't need to be a genious to see the generall orientaion of the carrier purpose.
the vast majority of tactical power don't do crow controls.
the vast majority of science power don't do significant damage.
the vast majority of engi power don't do debuff
boff power are not " just what they are", they serve the general direction purpose of the career as defined by cryptic.
stating that they can be switch, reproduce, copy or emulate at will without breaking the purpose of the career IS the fallacy.
yes, i do, because it is an illusion to bielive that you can achieve the same amounts of flexibilitie with a ship that is too much career centric than with an other that is not
so in the end all this didn't seem to be well thaught, and look like more of fantasy that get rid of all basic game mechanism than a serious proposal.
and as explain it also fail to make the galaxy relevant in face of a simple star cruiser too.
just like we said it.... for 500 pages.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
comming in this thread and state that the galaxy is not bad because you can reach 12k dps with it just show the lack of anderstanding of the request of the thread and the problem of the galaxy.
you could come with a 15k dps if you want that would not change a thing.
why? very simple, the first thing that come to mind is that if you can do that with a galaxy, it mean that the same build in a regent will do far much damage in the same condition.
simple game mechanism comprehension, it is a very hard exercices to do less damage with 4 tact console than with 2, with a lt commander tact slot than with a lt, with 7 turn than with 6... with the same build.i am alway in admiration with people that can.
but, most important, damage would be relevant if this ship was build to do some in the first place, it is not, so we will not judge it capabilitie around that.
even in the tanking healing area it fail to give a significant role to player that known a little about game mechanism in comparison to other ship in the same categorie.
and you should known, i known you done some pvp from time to time, have you ever see someone in opvpchannel stating that he is going to make a good heal build with his galaxy, a crow control build with his galaxy, a more funny one, a dps ship.
THERE IS NONE! why, is everyone hate the galaxy in the pvp community?, or is it just that this ship simply suck to the point that no serious veteran continu to fly it.
i give you idea, since you seem to think that we have a bias view here, why don't you ask the best pvper if there is something good that we can do with a galaxy exept exploding?
i hope you won't stereoptype them as galaxy fan when they all told you that this ship is good for nothing.
anyway, you are free to pop back in when the thread reaches 1000 pages to see if anything has changed with your attitude, and maybe you take a closer look to this ship.... probably not but hey I'm an optimist person too.... afterall.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
http://www.stoacademy.com/tools/skillplanner/index.php?build=kimdpsgalr_5664
My point is, 12.5 is enough. The content is tuned for 3-5k. I'm over double the top end. I'm over triple the low end. I didn't even use my warp plasma, I forgot it was there. I didn't tune the ship. I tossed on some gear, chose skills that wouldn't disrupt my normal boffs too much to change back to after, and hit a single infected. Cold. I hadn't even warmed up.
Sure. It could be a better ship. But it isn't even the worst ship currently, even if all you care about is DPS (I never got my D'kyr to 12.5k, for example. Maybe I could now, but I doubt it.)
The real "issue" is engineering skills lack diversity, particularly at the low end. Fix that and the Gal-R fixes itself.
Edit: And Boarding Parties are silly. If they weren't always instantly neutralized they would be nice, but way, way too many downsides to them. If they were viable it would help a ton as well.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard