being an engineer in a cruiser spec for tanking is what allow you to do without tactical team, that would not be the same story if you were a tactical captain.
but that also leave you very vunerable to a decloack alpha with photonic shocwave and tricobalt or any over new hight instant damage weapons, since you don't have the auxtodamp power or tact team to soft or hard conter them.
Hmmmm then maybe tacts shouldn't be in the galaxy class starship... But you could pull of tanking pretty easily tact just make sure you have 130 shield power at all times sure you lose out on some damage. But that's not what the ship was ever designed for... If you want to do damage in pvp pick a tact cruiser or a escort.
I'm sorry but you seem to want to design the ship around your playstyle... While i agree there are problems, specifically with all the shared cooldowns in engi Boffs. Also the lack of ensign Boffs without shared cool downs is non existent is a problem. The ship its self is perfectly doable, but does it suit your particular playstyle no.
I like tng as well but when it comes to the galaxy it is hard to argue.
In the show the Galaxy was made in a time of peace. It was a luxury liner in space. No other ship in any series showed a ship designed with a school on it for kids. Most of the galaxy class ships blew up. There was one point where Wesley's school project almost blew up the ship. there were a few times where the Enterprise-D was only saved by Data's unique abilities where if he weren't there they would have blown up.
This ship was designed to do system patrols and chest thumping along the boarders to make people like the Romulans think twice.
There has also been a lot of people who think the Excelsior should not be more power. That ship was a war ship designed to fight Klingons. In DS9 the Defiant went head on head with the Lakota it was able to hold its own. the defiant killed many attack ships and when DS9 had the opportunity to show the galaxy off it was blown up once again.
This favoritism is not just in sto but is depicted in a few locations. The galaxy may have large numbers in cannon but it is not a war ship. It more of a case of too many options to be effective.
I guess you seem to look at bits pieces of the show and now you think you know the whole story. The Galaxy was designed during the Cardasian War( certainly not a time of peace), to give Starfleet an edge over Cardasian Galors. The first Galaxy destroyed was the USS Yamato that incountered the Iconion probe that gave it a computer virus that ultimatle shut down the antimatter containment in the warp core which will cause the destrucion of any ship, no matter the size. tha same was going to happen to the Enterprise and the Romulan Warbird. No where in the show it was said to be a luxury liner, so quit making things up. The quarters onboard the Enterprise E were just as luxurious as the Galaxy classes so you are not making a good point about whether a ship is battle worthy or not. Humans generally like more comfort than the Klingons and Jem'Hadar. The second Galaxy that was destroyed was the USS Odyssey because it didn't have shields that defend against Jem'Hadar polaron weapons. The weapons didn't really do much damage to the ship so it was rammed in a suicide attack, that killed all kinds of ship in the War, Vorchas, and D'Deridex's alike. Go back and look at the show again and this time pay attention to the scripting, not just the pictures.
Hmmmm then maybe tacts shouldn't be in the galaxy class starship... But you could pull of tanking pretty easily tact just make sure you have 130 shield power at all times sure you lose out on some damage. But that's not what the ship was ever designed for... If you want to do damage in pvp pick a tact cruiser or a escort.
I'm sorry but you seem to want to design the ship around your playstyle... While i agree there are problems, specifically with all the shared cooldowns in engi Boffs. Also the lack of ensign Boffs without shared cool downs is non existent is a problem. The ship its self is perfectly doable, but does it suit your particular playstyle no.
a tactical toon in a galaxy retrofit, as of today, is indeed not a good idea.
however my point was not about damage but survival, you are able to survive without tact team because you toon proffesion compensate for it.
if you would try it with a tact, you will rapidly realize that you coud not do the same.
that is important to bring to your attention because it mean that this strategy is only viable in an engi toon.
it not that you have learn to not use it, you have compensate for it, because if that was something that you have learn, you would be able to reproduce it with a tact toon, and i assure you, you can not.
i don't want to design this ship around my playstyle, not in the least, but you seem to bielieve on the other hand that this ship should only be play with an engie toon.
and while at the moment it is the best choice to stay alive in this ship, one shoudn't be force to use an engie toon to make it work, that my point.
with other toon proffession, this ship is not viable in serious engagement, that should not be, even if one can not expect to survive as much with a tact toon than with an engie toon in a galaxy, the difference shoudn't be day and night.
a tact toon in a galaxy without tact team will survive for only the duration of it rsp against serious player, sound a little strange to me for a cruiser don't you think?
a tactical toon in a galaxy retrofit, as of today, is indeed not a good idea.
however my point was not about damage but survival, you are able to survive without tact team because you toon proffesion compensate for it.
if you would try it with a tact, you will rapidly realize that you coud not do the same.
that is important to bring to your attention because it mean that this strategy is only viable in an engi toon.
it not that you have learn to not use it, you have compensate for it, because if that was something that you have learn, you would be able to reproduce it with a tact toon, and i assure you, you can not.
i don't want to design this ship around my playstyle, not in the least, but you seem to bielieve on the other hand that this ship should only be play with an engie toon.
and while at the moment it is the best choice to stay alive in this ship, one shoudn't be force to use an engie toon to make it work, that my point.
with other toon proffession, this ship is not viable in serious engagement, that should not be, even if one can not expect to survive as much with a tact toon than with an engie toon in a galaxy, the difference shoudn't be day and night.
a tact toon in a galaxy without tact team will survive for only the duration of it rsp against serious player, sound a little strange to me for a cruiser don't you think?
Any class can play any ship, but engi's as space class = tank, so who can be surprised when tact isn't able to pull off as much survival as a engi... When tact captain abilities are focused on burst dps... Science are focused on team support...
If you don't want the galaxy class starship be around your playstyle, then why even think about changing the BOFF seating, as well console slots... I mean while a ensign universal should be there. Other then that the seating is fine. The only problems aren't with the ship, but engi boff abilities and perhaps engi consoles...
The current galaxy fits my playstyle.. It works well, its not a dps machine by any standards, the game is constantly making all ships weaker and weaker due to a dps power creep. But the issues in the game aren't going to get any better if you just want to push more Tact into everything.
Instead engi boff abilities need a revamp, and new ones added.
The problems with the Galaxy's bridge officer stations are well known. Anyone that knows anything about the mechanics of the game can see that. Three ensign level engineering stations just don't work with the skills we currently have available. Your choices are the conflicting cool downs of EPtX or ET and TT (which is a staple of any end game build). As for fundamentally changing all engineering skills. Do you really have the confidence in the devs ability to rework all engineering skills? They can't even fix Fire at will!
I'm really fed up with people claiming this ship is the ultimate tank and/or healer. The Galaxy is neither of these things. Nearly all the Federation cruisers are damage sponges, all are quite tanky, including the much more offensive oriented cruisers. That's the main issue. I can jump in a Fleet Assault Cruiser, or Fleet Avenger and "tank" just as much damage as a Fleet Galaxy and then pump out double the dps. Or I can use the Fleet Support Cruiser or Odyssey and be a better support/healer/tank then the Galaxy. The Galaxy is just not good at anything. It's not a good damage dealer and it's not a good support ship either. It simply fails at everything. This Galaxy is the worst cruiser in the game.
that being said,i bielieve that the galaxy should not get 5 or 4, and even 3 tact console and a lt commander bo power.
not because one may think it would make it overpowered ( simple game mechaniqm comprehension allow you to anderstand why a 6 base turn and 25 inertia ship will not transform into a god ship because he receive 3 tact console and a lt commander tact slot, look at the odyssey for that ).
the ody is hardly a practical choice if you want a LTC tac, your stuck with a LT tac as well. too much for a beam boat, in the AtB age.
but because this will create a precedent, since the galaxy was move to the healing tanking area to the tact area, why woudn't we do it with the star cruiser then?
the star cruiser also only have a lt tact slot and 2 tact console, i see no reason why this ship didn't get love too while the galaxy do, i don't like favoritism.
and that will be for every other ship in the game that found themselves in this situation.
because theres not a thing wrong with the star cruiser? it fills its role just fine, and is a FAR better ship in practice then the galaxy. it can fill a non tactical role well, the galaxy cant.
the galaxy should have been made tactical from the start, if you move it to that area now, every other ship that are in the same situation will ask to get the same treatement and rightfully so.
and we will then all flying different iteration of a tactical ship with absolutly no other gameplay choices, this is a reduction in gameplay diversity, that will be a lost for the game.
that should have been the reason you could have come up to if you want to make fun of some of us, but stating that we want a god ship stats?
even the more overpowered "serious" proposal are far from this.
way to much pve logic there. heal boat, non tactical cruisers have thier place. it would be absurd to change all the zombie/tank/healboat cruisers into tac ships. the newest cruiser, that voth ship launched today, is the greatest zombie of all.
MY build doesn't work against all I think you may not understand that just becuase a ship can tank well, doesn't mean it will tank the best against every build, much less tank vs lots of builds at once.
Also there is a skill part of any build some people can make a build work that others can't or don't do as well.
I need to do some tweaking but and you need to get the EPTX doffs for better cycling, and warp core doff for more power. + all the engineering traits. You also need to learn how to do without tact team.
Keeping people off your tail and keeping them at a flank is must for any sort of dps. But I rarely die in pvp, also never die in pve and I do pretty good job of healing.
Subnuking is the bane of my build but with a good team who cross heals, there shouldn't be a problem.
Of course if you got good team members that stick together and cross heal, you can tank forever but I have alot of fleet members that are on at different timezones so I am forced to pug it and is left to tank on my own.
I have gone up against some infamous Bug players from Fed and Klink side. Some of thise names like Cryox from "House of Beautiful Orions" fleet(Klingon), and Edna "ATNK" fleet. Those bug players I can't tank long against because their tac powers and cannon volleys outlast my longest RSP 3 shield tanking power. The bad thing is that i run into those players quite often when I PVP. and in many times i always end up on 1v1 with them. Once they kill you they hunt you down after you spawn in through the whole match. Thats what make me angry because I can't even wound these guys, let alone kill them with just 2 weapon consoles.
I do alot better when I'm in my Galaxy X and in my Ambassador because either of them have 3 weapons consoles.
that statement is not logical, you can't be a tact boff monster while at the same time being a engi and science boff monster, if you have one, it is at the expense of an other, and i am not even speaking about turn rate and inertia, basic game mechanic.
so how can you make fun at a proposal that can not be?
that being said,i bielieve that the galaxy should not get 5 or 4, and even 3 tact console and a lt commander bo power.
not because one may think it would make it overpowered ( simple game mechaniqm comprehension allow you to anderstand why a 6 base turn and 25 inertia ship will not transform into a god ship because he receive 3 tact console and a lt commander tact slot, look at the odyssey for that ).
but because this will create a precedent, since the galaxy was move to the healing tanking area to the tact area, why woudn't we do it with the star cruiser then?
the star cruiser also only have a lt tact slot and 2 tact console, i see no reason why this ship didn't get love too while the galaxy do, i don't like favoritism.
and that will be for every other ship in the game that found themselves in this situation.
the galaxy should have been made tactical from the start, if you move it to that area now, every other ship that are in the same situation will ask to get the same treatement and rightfully so.
and we will then all flying different iteration of a tactical ship with absolutly no other gameplay choices, this is a reduction in gameplay diversity, that will be a lost for the game.
that should have been the reason you could have come up to if you want to make fun of some of us, but stating that we want a god ship stats?
even the more overpowered "serious" proposal are far from this.
and sorry but i will have to kill this legend right now.
the galaxy NEVER been the best at it time.
i have been here since game launch, so you will not going to fool me on this, that could work with the F2P players, not with me.
let me refresh you memory, the galaxy retrofit was launch at season 2: ancient enemy and was available to player with a token that you can obtain by reaching the new level cap of vice admiral 51 ( at that time ) or directly in cstore.
it was already less efficient at tanking than a star cruiser at that time ( exept for a little boost in hull for the galaxy the stats of both ship didn't change since ), and the star cruiser was already 6 month older.
every one was playing with the new separation console, and it was the first galaxy to be mass available at tiers 5, but when the shiny past out, everyone drop the ship 1 week later because of it crappy stats.
the galaxy never been the master of all trade, but in sto it alway have been the master of all fail, that for sure.
You know what? I wouldn't care that the movement of the Galaxy from all ENG to balanced/TAC may cause them to change the Star cruiser to more tac. The star cruiser is also a weak ship. I never met a Star cruiser that can tank even my Galaxy and that speaks to the weak setup they made for these ships.
I think we all have to remember that the Galaxy class starships were developed in the 2250s. STO takes place nearly 60 years later. It was powerful yes, and was likely one of the most powerful designs of the mid 24th century. However, 60 years of subsequent development likely means it was inevitably going to be rendered obsolete.
As an analogy, could a newly made copy of the 60s era Kitty Hawk Class carrier defeat say the USS George HW Bush? With an expert crew, possibly. But given relatively equal crews and tactics, the Kitty Hawk inevitably has the disadvantage as its design, provided no major changes were made, includes deficiencies that were later corrected in subsequent classes like the Nimitz.
Can the 1960s cruiser USS Belknap dominate a modern Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer?
USS Canada
N.C.C. 171867
Sovereign Class
Saint John Fleet Yard
"A Mari Usque Ad Mare"
Hmmmm then maybe tacts shouldn't be in the galaxy class starship... But you could pull of tanking pretty easily tact just make sure you have 130 shield power at all times sure you lose out on some damage. But that's not what the ship was ever designed for... If you want to do damage in pvp pick a tact cruiser or a escort.
I'm sorry but you seem to want to design the ship around your playstyle... While i agree there are problems, specifically with all the shared cooldowns in engi Boffs. Also the lack of ensign Boffs without shared cool downs is non existent is a problem. The ship its self is perfectly doable, but does it suit your particular playstyle no.
They shouldn't have made the Galaxy a ship just to cater to one carreer. Every escort works just as powerful wether the captain is Tac, ENG, or Sci. it would be only fair for the cruisers work as well, no matter the career type.
Like I always say, the USS Enterprise D has 3 Tac command bridge officers to one Eng and no sci.
Ships shouldn't have a special carreers, only the Captains have carreers.
I think we all have to remember that the Galaxy class starships were developed in the 2250s. STO takes place nearly 60 years later. It was powerful yes, and was likely one of the most powerful designs of the mid 24th century. However, 60 years of subsequent development likely means it was inevitably going to be rendered obsolete.
As an analogy, could a newly made copy of the 60s era Kitty Hawk Class carrier defeat say the USS George HW Bush? With an expert crew, possibly. But given relatively equal crews and tactics, the Kitty Hawk inevitably has the disadvantage as its design, provided no major changes were made, includes deficiencies that were later corrected in subsequent classes like the Nimitz.
Can the 1960s cruiser USS Belknap dominate a modern Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer?
How about slap yourself back to reality. I am tired of people, that don't know Star Trek, saying the Galaxy is too old a ship class for anybody to care about upgrading with the current times. You people forget that the Excelsior, Ambassador, Miranda, and Oberth are all way older than the Galaxy Class. The KDF uses most of their old ship lines and yet they get upgraded with the times, so why don't you retire that old lazy excuse of yours on why the Galaxy can't get a revamp. If you don't like a Galaxy to get revisited for a revamp then maybe you should go back to your alien loving, lock box corner and leave us TNG fans alone.
I think we all have to remember that the Galaxy class starships were developed in the 2250s. STO takes place nearly 60 years later. It was powerful yes, and was likely one of the most powerful designs of the mid 24th century. However, 60 years of subsequent development likely means it was inevitably going to be rendered obsolete.
As an analogy, could a newly made copy of the 60s era Kitty Hawk Class carrier defeat say the USS George HW Bush? With an expert crew, possibly. But given relatively equal crews and tactics, the Kitty Hawk inevitably has the disadvantage as its design, provided no major changes were made, includes deficiencies that were later corrected in subsequent classes like the Nimitz.
Can the 1960s cruiser USS Belknap dominate a modern Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer?
That argument doesn't hold up. We've got several ships even older then the Galaxy that perform much better. The first ship that comes to mind is the Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit (Excelsior). It was, for a long time, the best cruiser available fedside. While it's been dethroned by the Fleet Battle Cruiser (Avenger) and arguably by the Fleet Assault Cruiser, it's still a viable ship end game that can put up some impressive dps numbers. The U.S.S. Excelsior was commissioned in 2293 the U.S.S. Galaxy 2363. So by your own logic the Excelsior should be weak when compared to the Galaxy, but this obviously isn't the case.
Obviously you don't PVP much in a Galaxy or you would be embarressed or raging mad at how badly the setup is. I would even Challenge you myself I have to prove you wrong, but if you accept, you have to do it quickly because soon I will not have access to the forums one I get to China next week.
Apparently, You do not know what you are saying. you only do 1 on1 pvp or pug pvp. The galaxy R nor the Galaxy X aint for pvp pugs or 1 or 1 pvp.
Galaxy R and galaxy x tests the capability of player to build around the ship and know its role.
I remember players complaining Galaxy X many years back upto the point the Hakashin put how to play a Galaxy X, as an alpha striker. The same thing can be said of a Galaxy R. Dont know how to build, dont know how to play it, you will utterly fail.
They shouldn't have made the Galaxy a ship just to cater to one carreer. Every escort works just as powerful wether the captain is Tac, ENG, or Sci. it would be only fair for the cruisers work as well, no matter the career type.
Like I always say, the USS Enterprise D has 3 Tac command bridge officers to one Eng and no sci.
Ships shouldn't have a special carreers, only the Captains have carreers.
the ent-D did have a sci LT commander data he was the chief science officer and second officer (third in command) he wore gold because of his dual role as chief of operations. and the costume department thought brent spiner in the white make up looked better in gold then blue
actually that is another thing they should have slit career boffs. boffs that can be fitted in to both careers and have access to both powers
say with data as an example he counts as a engineer and a science and would be able to be placed as a sci or eng boff and have access to both eng and sci powers so on a gal-r you could have grav well and aux2stif
I think we all have to remember that the Galaxy class starships were developed in the 2250s. STO takes place nearly 60 years later. It was powerful yes, and was likely one of the most powerful designs of the mid 24th century. However, 60 years of subsequent development likely means it was inevitably going to be rendered obsolete.
As an analogy, could a newly made copy of the 60s era Kitty Hawk Class carrier defeat say the USS George HW Bush? With an expert crew, possibly. But given relatively equal crews and tactics, the Kitty Hawk inevitably has the disadvantage as its design, provided no major changes were made, includes deficiencies that were later corrected in subsequent classes like the Nimitz.
Can the 1960s cruiser USS Belknap dominate a modern Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer?
sure it could
refit it with 2013 class weapons the burke has what 1990 weaponry ?
Its not the hull its what is inside the hull that counts
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
I remember players complaining Galaxy X many years back upto the point the Hakashin put how to play a Galaxy X, as an alpha striker. The same thing can be said of a Galaxy R. Dont know how to build, dont know how to play it, you will utterly fail.
lol @ Gal-R being an alpha striker.
Really not getting why some people are so resistant to allowing the Galaxies to have some flexibility via universal stations and console slots.
The problems with the Galaxy's bridge officer stations are well known. Anyone that knows anything about the mechanics of the game can see that. Three ensign level engineering stations just don't work with the skills we currently have available. Your choices are the conflicting cool downs of EPtX or ET and TT (which is a staple of any end game build). As for fundamentally changing all engineering skills. Do you really have the confidence in the devs ability to rework all engineering skills? They can't even fix Fire at will!
I'm really fed up with people claiming this ship is the ultimate tank and/or healer. The Galaxy is neither of these things. Nearly all the Federation cruisers are damage sponges, all are quite tanky, including the much more offensive oriented cruisers. That's the main issue. I can jump in a Fleet Assault Cruiser, or Fleet Avenger and "tank" just as much damage as a Fleet Galaxy and then pump out double the dps. Or I can use the Fleet Support Cruiser or Odyssey and be a better support/healer/tank then the Galaxy. The Galaxy is just not good at anything. It's not a good damage dealer and it's not a good support ship either. It simply fails at everything. This Galaxy is the worst cruiser in the game.
But yes the first part is what needs to be changed and improved not changing a ship.
That last part I'm fed up with people claiming that tact cruiser can out tank, which really isn't the case... Galaxy and oddy can out tank tact focused cruisers on fed side at least... The only things that can some times out tank me are recluse, and some of the other lock box ships. Most of them are OP anyways.
They shouldn't have made the Galaxy a ship just to cater to one carreer. Every escort works just as powerful wether the captain is Tac, ENG, or Sci. it would be only fair for the cruisers work as well, no matter the career type.
Like I always say, the USS Enterprise D has 3 Tac command bridge officers to one Eng and no sci.
Ships shouldn't have a special carreers, only the Captains have carreers.
That bull escorts aren't just as powerful with engi captians... Alpha strike and subnuc are too powerful in a escort to fly as engineering ever... Also you can still tank with out tact team in galaxy in tact or sci. Just not as well... Engi captians are better off in cruisers or science vessels.
Also I should note your build needs alot of work RSP past teir 1 is pointless.. Aux to battery will also hurt your healing, and torpedo spread doesn't do much for cruiser as fire at will would. Two weapon power consoles too o.O your already using aux to battery there is no need for them replace with neutrinos you'll get a better tank. Never mix teams remove the other two teams if you plan on using tact team.
Its really no wonder from the build you've shown how you can't tank in your tact. I would also respec your skills if you plan on going offensive pvp galaxy. Make sure to max defense and accuracy, you don't need max armor either. Unless your going full tank 3-6 in armor is fine.
Also picard was more science then he was tact. The red color on his uniform was just becuase he is the captian same with riker, though he was probably tact. Worf was security, and Tasha yar had yellow uniform before him.
Honestly the show has no baring on the BOFFS in game, becuase if they were most would be universal.
That last part I'm fed up with people claiming that tact cruiser can out tank, which really isn't the case... Galaxy and oddy can out tank tact focused cruisers on fed side at least...
...le sigh :rolleyes:
Tactical officers, the most squishy career since they don't have access to any captain skills that are defensive in nature, can tank all day in any of the more tactical oriented cruisers. As for a pure support ships you are correct the Odyssey is a good choice, but the Galaxy is not. The Odyssey and Ambassador would be the ships to pick if you want to absorb damage and/or heal.
The Galaxy sucks at everything. It's terrible as an offensive cruiser because it has limited tac officer stations and the lowest number of tactical console slots of any fedship, giving it the worst damage of all the cruisers, tied only with the Fleet Star Cruiser. And it also sucks as a support cruiser, again because of it's bridge officer layout, which lacks flexibility (no universals) and has limited science stations with only an Lt sci. The three ensign level engineering stations exasperate the problem and offer nothing of any consequence in any role offensive or defensive.
Just a quick point, all those who say that the Galaxy Class is old in the world of STO, according to the TNG Technical Manual the Galaxy Class has a Design Life of approx. 100 years with the potential for 5 major shipwide system swapouts and upgrades every 20 years. If we go by the Enterprise D which was built in 2360's then the Galaxy Class isn't even half way through it's design life yet.
The Continuing Voyages of Bridge Commander Captain Lee Drake - USS Sovereign Captain Draxon - IKS RanKuf Commander Torenn - IRW Soryak Captain Gregory MacCray - USS Geronimo
Its not just the Galaxy class. I'd like a relevant Intrepid, Galaxy, Soverign. Maybe Starfleet stopped the practice of refitting...
There are only a handful of, Cryptic Trek ships, that i can actually look at without feeling insulted. The Regent is one of them, and if anything, that should have been the new Enterprise.
It seems, there may be a disconnect between the people who make the decision, and the idea that these original ships have nostalgic value, and that they are pleasant to look at, because they are, pleasant to look at.
Then again. Flogging the same ships, over and over again, a refit every Season. That would annoy me. So im divided.
I know the are alot of people out there trying to turn the Galaxy ship into a science ship but you forget that Picard, and Riker were tactical officers, along with Worf, the best at tactical systems, all packed in one bridge. Only one Ops officer(Data), one engineer(Laforge), and no science officer. Doctor Crushe occasionally doubled as science officer when new lifeforms was discoverd. Voyager was the crew that had her captain with Science background, and not other tactical experience besides Tuvoc. The all explore Enterprise got it's behind kicked in all first 4 seasons until Archer got fed up with being cannon fodder and started arming the ship with top of the line weapons to ward off the aggresive alien cultures.
There was no show with all Engineers on board.
I would like her to be a science cruiser, yes. Quite similiar to her little sister, the Nebula but ultimately that is based on personal preference. Though your depiction of the crew is not correct. Picard most likely served in Command Division most of his career (he was flight controller on board of the Stargazer) you cannot place him in a "tactical" role. He had a very deep undersandiong of tactics but his most prominent abilities were his scientific interests and his diplomatic skills. And Will Riker was an Engineer prior to his command training. The Ent-D had Worf and Yar, sure, but Data, LaForge, Troi, Wesley and O'Brien they all would promote a Eng/Sci heavy layout, if that would in any way be relevant to the in-game incarnation of the ship
I don't think that Voy had no one with tactical finesse. The thing is in the time of "Enterprise" there was no Starfleet. It was just an united earth ship and was under the jurisdiction of the united earth space probing authority (or something like that, I forgot the name). It was supposedly in this time they discovered that space is hostile and in order to explore the unknown you had to defend yourself. That's why they got military (MACOS) in there. well, that and to glorify the US armed services post 9/11 But with the foundation of the Federation and Starfleet the memberworlds abandoned their militaries and their ressources were absorbed into Starfleet. Fromt his time forward, everyone serving on a Starfleet vessel had to recieve at least basic tactical training, even the botanists in science division. You still had Starfleet Tactical, though it was a strategic department not a specialization. The "tactical" branch in STO really shouldn't exist, it's just to please the trinity of DD/Tank/Mage. They should've placed all players into command division and let them design a character background during creation
Really not getting why some people are so resistant to allowing the Galaxies to have some flexibility via universal stations and console slots.
Well, at least in my opinion I'd argue with game mechanics. Universal stations above Lt grade are soething very powerful and reserved to the top of the line ships. The Galaxy R is here since season 2 in it's current configuration - retractively changing that ship in such a way seems out of the question, mechanically and from a loose in-game lore's standpoint.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Comments
I'm sorry but you seem to want to design the ship around your playstyle... While i agree there are problems, specifically with all the shared cooldowns in engi Boffs. Also the lack of ensign Boffs without shared cool downs is non existent is a problem. The ship its self is perfectly doable, but does it suit your particular playstyle no.
I guess you seem to look at bits pieces of the show and now you think you know the whole story. The Galaxy was designed during the Cardasian War( certainly not a time of peace), to give Starfleet an edge over Cardasian Galors. The first Galaxy destroyed was the USS Yamato that incountered the Iconion probe that gave it a computer virus that ultimatle shut down the antimatter containment in the warp core which will cause the destrucion of any ship, no matter the size. tha same was going to happen to the Enterprise and the Romulan Warbird. No where in the show it was said to be a luxury liner, so quit making things up. The quarters onboard the Enterprise E were just as luxurious as the Galaxy classes so you are not making a good point about whether a ship is battle worthy or not. Humans generally like more comfort than the Klingons and Jem'Hadar. The second Galaxy that was destroyed was the USS Odyssey because it didn't have shields that defend against Jem'Hadar polaron weapons. The weapons didn't really do much damage to the ship so it was rammed in a suicide attack, that killed all kinds of ship in the War, Vorchas, and D'Deridex's alike. Go back and look at the show again and this time pay attention to the scripting, not just the pictures.
Bridge Officer Stations: 1 Lieutenant Tactical, 1 Commander Engineering, 1 Lieutenant Science, 1 Ensign Universal, 1 Lieutenant Commander Universal
Console Modifications: 2 Tactical, 5 Engineering, 3 Science
a tactical toon in a galaxy retrofit, as of today, is indeed not a good idea.
however my point was not about damage but survival, you are able to survive without tact team because you toon proffesion compensate for it.
if you would try it with a tact, you will rapidly realize that you coud not do the same.
that is important to bring to your attention because it mean that this strategy is only viable in an engi toon.
it not that you have learn to not use it, you have compensate for it, because if that was something that you have learn, you would be able to reproduce it with a tact toon, and i assure you, you can not.
i don't want to design this ship around my playstyle, not in the least, but you seem to bielieve on the other hand that this ship should only be play with an engie toon.
and while at the moment it is the best choice to stay alive in this ship, one shoudn't be force to use an engie toon to make it work, that my point.
with other toon proffession, this ship is not viable in serious engagement, that should not be, even if one can not expect to survive as much with a tact toon than with an engie toon in a galaxy, the difference shoudn't be day and night.
a tact toon in a galaxy without tact team will survive for only the duration of it rsp against serious player, sound a little strange to me for a cruiser don't you think?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Any class can play any ship, but engi's as space class = tank, so who can be surprised when tact isn't able to pull off as much survival as a engi... When tact captain abilities are focused on burst dps... Science are focused on team support...
If you don't want the galaxy class starship be around your playstyle, then why even think about changing the BOFF seating, as well console slots... I mean while a ensign universal should be there. Other then that the seating is fine. The only problems aren't with the ship, but engi boff abilities and perhaps engi consoles...
The current galaxy fits my playstyle.. It works well, its not a dps machine by any standards, the game is constantly making all ships weaker and weaker due to a dps power creep. But the issues in the game aren't going to get any better if you just want to push more Tact into everything.
Instead engi boff abilities need a revamp, and new ones added.
I'm really fed up with people claiming this ship is the ultimate tank and/or healer. The Galaxy is neither of these things. Nearly all the Federation cruisers are damage sponges, all are quite tanky, including the much more offensive oriented cruisers. That's the main issue. I can jump in a Fleet Assault Cruiser, or Fleet Avenger and "tank" just as much damage as a Fleet Galaxy and then pump out double the dps. Or I can use the Fleet Support Cruiser or Odyssey and be a better support/healer/tank then the Galaxy. The Galaxy is just not good at anything. It's not a good damage dealer and it's not a good support ship either. It simply fails at everything. This Galaxy is the worst cruiser in the game.
the ody is hardly a practical choice if you want a LTC tac, your stuck with a LT tac as well. too much for a beam boat, in the AtB age.
because theres not a thing wrong with the star cruiser? it fills its role just fine, and is a FAR better ship in practice then the galaxy. it can fill a non tactical role well, the galaxy cant.
way to much pve logic there. heal boat, non tactical cruisers have thier place. it would be absurd to change all the zombie/tank/healboat cruisers into tac ships. the newest cruiser, that voth ship launched today, is the greatest zombie of all.
thats just the ody station setup, any revamped galaxy should not just be a carbon copy of that, whats the point?
Of course if you got good team members that stick together and cross heal, you can tank forever but I have alot of fleet members that are on at different timezones so I am forced to pug it and is left to tank on my own.
I have gone up against some infamous Bug players from Fed and Klink side. Some of thise names like Cryox from "House of Beautiful Orions" fleet(Klingon), and Edna "ATNK" fleet. Those bug players I can't tank long against because their tac powers and cannon volleys outlast my longest RSP 3 shield tanking power. The bad thing is that i run into those players quite often when I PVP. and in many times i always end up on 1v1 with them. Once they kill you they hunt you down after you spawn in through the whole match. Thats what make me angry because I can't even wound these guys, let alone kill them with just 2 weapon consoles.
I do alot better when I'm in my Galaxy X and in my Ambassador because either of them have 3 weapons consoles.
Here is my PVP Galaxy setup:
http://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/?build=fleetussgalaxypvp_5584
You know what? I wouldn't care that the movement of the Galaxy from all ENG to balanced/TAC may cause them to change the Star cruiser to more tac. The star cruiser is also a weak ship. I never met a Star cruiser that can tank even my Galaxy and that speaks to the weak setup they made for these ships.
As an analogy, could a newly made copy of the 60s era Kitty Hawk Class carrier defeat say the USS George HW Bush? With an expert crew, possibly. But given relatively equal crews and tactics, the Kitty Hawk inevitably has the disadvantage as its design, provided no major changes were made, includes deficiencies that were later corrected in subsequent classes like the Nimitz.
Can the 1960s cruiser USS Belknap dominate a modern Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer?
N.C.C. 171867
Sovereign Class
Saint John Fleet Yard
"A Mari Usque Ad Mare"
They shouldn't have made the Galaxy a ship just to cater to one carreer. Every escort works just as powerful wether the captain is Tac, ENG, or Sci. it would be only fair for the cruisers work as well, no matter the career type.
Like I always say, the USS Enterprise D has 3 Tac command bridge officers to one Eng and no sci.
Ships shouldn't have a special carreers, only the Captains have carreers.
How about slap yourself back to reality. I am tired of people, that don't know Star Trek, saying the Galaxy is too old a ship class for anybody to care about upgrading with the current times. You people forget that the Excelsior, Ambassador, Miranda, and Oberth are all way older than the Galaxy Class. The KDF uses most of their old ship lines and yet they get upgraded with the times, so why don't you retire that old lazy excuse of yours on why the Galaxy can't get a revamp. If you don't like a Galaxy to get revisited for a revamp then maybe you should go back to your alien loving, lock box corner and leave us TNG fans alone.
That argument doesn't hold up. We've got several ships even older then the Galaxy that perform much better. The first ship that comes to mind is the Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit (Excelsior). It was, for a long time, the best cruiser available fedside. While it's been dethroned by the Fleet Battle Cruiser (Avenger) and arguably by the Fleet Assault Cruiser, it's still a viable ship end game that can put up some impressive dps numbers. The U.S.S. Excelsior was commissioned in 2293 the U.S.S. Galaxy 2363. So by your own logic the Excelsior should be weak when compared to the Galaxy, but this obviously isn't the case.
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
a troll like you cannot be satisfied? You are really trying to compare different ships? a Fleet Fed cruiser vs a lobi store ship?
Apparently, you cannot play galaxy r to its fullest and good at whinning and complaining at the forums.
Apparently, You do not know what you are saying. you only do 1 on1 pvp or pug pvp. The galaxy R nor the Galaxy X aint for pvp pugs or 1 or 1 pvp.
Galaxy R and galaxy x tests the capability of player to build around the ship and know its role.
I remember players complaining Galaxy X many years back upto the point the Hakashin put how to play a Galaxy X, as an alpha striker. The same thing can be said of a Galaxy R. Dont know how to build, dont know how to play it, you will utterly fail.
the ent-D did have a sci LT commander data he was the chief science officer and second officer (third in command) he wore gold because of his dual role as chief of operations. and the costume department thought brent spiner in the white make up looked better in gold then blue
actually that is another thing they should have slit career boffs. boffs that can be fitted in to both careers and have access to both powers
say with data as an example he counts as a engineer and a science and would be able to be placed as a sci or eng boff and have access to both eng and sci powers so on a gal-r you could have grav well and aux2stif
sure it could
refit it with 2013 class weapons the burke has what 1990 weaponry ?
Its not the hull its what is inside the hull that counts
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
This board needs a report post button.
lol @ Gal-R being an alpha striker.
Really not getting why some people are so resistant to allowing the Galaxies to have some flexibility via universal stations and console slots.
That last part I'm fed up with people claiming that tact cruiser can out tank, which really isn't the case... Galaxy and oddy can out tank tact focused cruisers on fed side at least... The only things that can some times out tank me are recluse, and some of the other lock box ships. Most of them are OP anyways.
That bull escorts aren't just as powerful with engi captians... Alpha strike and subnuc are too powerful in a escort to fly as engineering ever... Also you can still tank with out tact team in galaxy in tact or sci. Just not as well... Engi captians are better off in cruisers or science vessels.
Also I should note your build needs alot of work RSP past teir 1 is pointless.. Aux to battery will also hurt your healing, and torpedo spread doesn't do much for cruiser as fire at will would. Two weapon power consoles too o.O your already using aux to battery there is no need for them replace with neutrinos you'll get a better tank. Never mix teams remove the other two teams if you plan on using tact team.
Its really no wonder from the build you've shown how you can't tank in your tact. I would also respec your skills if you plan on going offensive pvp galaxy. Make sure to max defense and accuracy, you don't need max armor either. Unless your going full tank 3-6 in armor is fine.
Infact here are the changes i think you should make http://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/?build=editedgalaxy_4992
Also picard was more science then he was tact. The red color on his uniform was just becuase he is the captian same with riker, though he was probably tact. Worf was security, and Tasha yar had yellow uniform before him.
Honestly the show has no baring on the BOFFS in game, becuase if they were most would be universal.
...le sigh :rolleyes:
Tactical officers, the most squishy career since they don't have access to any captain skills that are defensive in nature, can tank all day in any of the more tactical oriented cruisers. As for a pure support ships you are correct the Odyssey is a good choice, but the Galaxy is not. The Odyssey and Ambassador would be the ships to pick if you want to absorb damage and/or heal.
The Galaxy sucks at everything. It's terrible as an offensive cruiser because it has limited tac officer stations and the lowest number of tactical console slots of any fedship, giving it the worst damage of all the cruisers, tied only with the Fleet Star Cruiser. And it also sucks as a support cruiser, again because of it's bridge officer layout, which lacks flexibility (no universals) and has limited science stations with only an Lt sci. The three ensign level engineering stations exasperate the problem and offer nothing of any consequence in any role offensive or defensive.
Captain Lee Drake - USS Sovereign
Captain Draxon - IKS RanKuf
Commander Torenn - IRW Soryak
Captain Gregory MacCray - USS Geronimo
There are only a handful of, Cryptic Trek ships, that i can actually look at without feeling insulted. The Regent is one of them, and if anything, that should have been the new Enterprise.
It seems, there may be a disconnect between the people who make the decision, and the idea that these original ships have nostalgic value, and that they are pleasant to look at, because they are, pleasant to look at.
Then again. Flogging the same ships, over and over again, a refit every Season. That would annoy me. So im divided.
Did i mention the Regent is awesome?
I would like her to be a science cruiser, yes. Quite similiar to her little sister, the Nebula but ultimately that is based on personal preference. Though your depiction of the crew is not correct. Picard most likely served in Command Division most of his career (he was flight controller on board of the Stargazer) you cannot place him in a "tactical" role. He had a very deep undersandiong of tactics but his most prominent abilities were his scientific interests and his diplomatic skills. And Will Riker was an Engineer prior to his command training. The Ent-D had Worf and Yar, sure, but Data, LaForge, Troi, Wesley and O'Brien they all would promote a Eng/Sci heavy layout, if that would in any way be relevant to the in-game incarnation of the ship
I don't think that Voy had no one with tactical finesse. The thing is in the time of "Enterprise" there was no Starfleet. It was just an united earth ship and was under the jurisdiction of the united earth space probing authority (or something like that, I forgot the name). It was supposedly in this time they discovered that space is hostile and in order to explore the unknown you had to defend yourself. That's why they got military (MACOS) in there. well, that and to glorify the US armed services post 9/11
Well, at least in my opinion I'd argue with game mechanics. Universal stations above Lt grade are soething very powerful and reserved to the top of the line ships. The Galaxy R is here since season 2 in it's current configuration - retractively changing that ship in such a way seems out of the question, mechanically and from a loose in-game lore's standpoint.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!