Eh....no, not quite. This is STO - a game based on Star Trek that unfortunatley just vaguely resembles Star Trek as of late.
This is not where Star Trek is now. Star Trek now is in one of 3 places (depending on how you observe it). It either is in Nemesis (going by Trek chronology), in ENT (going by our own chronology) or in J.J. Into Darkness (if you don't mind the whole another universe/timeline thing).
However, STO? It's just a game based on Trek. It's not where Star Trek is really and it never was.
That's obviously a matter of opinion...canon folks will argue what's canon until everybody's blue in the face.
And there is only 3 of them that are Fleet Versions, and those are even far far better than the Galaxy. So, thanks virusdancer for proving our point.
I did no such thing, imho. I actually proved the opposite. The Lt/En is the norm. The LCdr is the abnormality. If the norm is changed, then it would become abnormal.
It's the inner conflict of the idealist and the realist. The idealist makes a stand that things should be a certain way. The realist accepts that everything sucks so things will be a certain way. I'd rather fight for the idealist aspect than waste time on something that I accept as sucking but being the way it is...
On the subject of the Galaxy-R, I think the LtCdr universal is the best possible idea and truly captures the spirit of the Galaxy class which was the top of the line go anywhere do anything ship.
30-50 years ago...its role wouldn't be the same now. Heck, its role wasn't the same as the series/movies went along.
"THAT is a Galaxy class starship we're no match for them."
"This ship is a ship of exploration, our mission is peaceful"
If it needs to be able to fight then you can go tac, if it needs to be able to heal and crowd control then you can pop sci, and for everyone who loves being the damage sponge you can keep it LtCdr. But the Galaxy class was all those things.
We don't have an all those things ship in the game...not in that sense. It's folly to think they would do such - they wouldn't sell any other ships. We can look at almost any ship to see where there's design weaknesses requiring one to purchase a different ship to do something else. That's the nature of the game...
I also think that implementing the Dyson Science ship tech into the Saucer Separation mode is genius. The same as they're going to add Breen Heavy Frigate flanking to the other raiders. New mechanics for existing and beloved ships.
There's a far difference between Raiders being given Flanking and going Hybrid with Saucer Separation...
The ensign universal slot is a half descent idea but why not go as far as making the eng Lt. Cmdr an universal as per the Odyssey class. It would at lease give it some more flexibility.
Because if you're one ship can do almost everything, you won't buy another ship. It's a F2P game - they've got to generate revenue.
The changes to the Dreadnaught are nice enough. But any situation we could put the dreadnaught in we could still do better in an Avenger.
And what exactly is the issue with that? The Avenger is the newer ship, should it not be better? If it wasn't better, then why would they have built it?
The Gal-R and Gal-X aren't there to be the best ships...they're there so folks that want to fly them can fly them. They're more than capable for the overwhelming vast majority of content in the game.
Are they a min/maxers fantasy come true? No...but min/maxing has very little to do with STO.
...why not? What's the deal with the belief that a ship needs a LCdr+ Tac and at least 3+ Tac Consoles or it's garbage, eh?
i do think he refers to ships that are capable of carrying dhc's, isnt he? if so i think he's right on the boffs (at least one ltcdr.+, or 2 lts.). yeah i know, kinda idealistic :rolleyes:
i do think he refers to ships that are capable of carrying dhc's, isnt he? if so i think he's right on the boffs (at least one ltcdr.+, or 2 lts.). yeah i know, kinda idealistic :rolleyes:
Heh, admittedly - I've got the stuff Geko said about Expansion 2 running around in the back of my mind wondering if we're all just spinning our wheels with the discussion as a whole.
There's basically three groups, eh?
1) It's fine!
2) It needs more!
3) It needs oh so much more!
The vast majority appear to agree on it needs more...even as we're arguing amongst ourselves about that more, eh?
But yeah, have to wonder if it will be moot with Expansion 2...
Hello all. I'm sure that with all the previous messages, i'll be repeating what already have been said.
Been years in this game. Many many years. I grew up watching TNG (after seeing TOS and the movies first) it can be said i'm a hardcore trekkie. TOS and TNG are my favs (i like Ds9, voy and ent too, despite a lot of hate people have for the last 2 ones)
I have all galaxy ships. Always felt that the galaxy should have been a damage dealer like in tng, cos she was. With the poor boff seats and console layout, still i made her decent for combat (tho with an odyssey or a EXCELSIOR..an older ship than her, can do it better)
Cryptic has always treated the iconic galaxy poorly since day one. like they are afraid of her being driven more than an odyssey if its given a bit more of firepower, that she should have.
Even with the fleet version, she at least should have received the ensign universal like the fleet negh'var. And they didn't even do that. (and they laught again in our faces, doing that to the gal x, that she doesn't need it)
Sorry i talk too much. I feel with this "reboot" they say, like they have slap me in my face and laught at me. All this years me and other players have stood with the game and the problems it has, all the money i've spend in this game all this years (you can watch my record cryptic, of how many ships i bought and money used) and after all this years of what we have said of the problems that these ships have, you do this?
For starters, i was about to buy the mega-pack dyson ships. Now i'm not going to do that. and no more money spend. Sorry. This was the last drop. My patience of being laughted at my face is over.
You think that new players of the game are the ones that make STO alive? players that come and go. The ones like me that have been in here all these years are the ones that made STO being alive. And spit on our faces instead.
Just 2 things that would made the 2 galaxy class ON PAR of the other fed cruisers, if you don't want to touch the c-store ones thats fine, do it with the fleet variants:
Fleet galaxy: convert the liutenant tac station and the ensign engi to a liutennant commader tac. This way the ship doesn't lose her caracteristic of engi-oriented ship and has enought tac power to be ON PAR (i say this again, for people that say that we demand this ships to be superior to others, thats not true) with the other ships.
Do the same with the Fleet gal-X. Liutenant tac and ensign tac (now ensign uni. WOO! What a change!) converted to Ltc. tac.
So both ships would be: Liutennant commander tac, Commander engi, liutennant commander engi, liutennant Sci.
2on: make the Phaser Lance a weapon that actually hits the target, like you know? the other weapons in the game?
This little changes and i would shut up. for ever. and i even buy then the dyson pack. But i know you, you like to laught at our faces and i know you are incapable of treating us well.
That was my 2 EC's .
I've never been so much dissapointed with something in this game.
Sorry for this long post people and sorry for my english if something is wrong written.
Heh, admittedly - I've got the stuff Geko said about Expansion 2 running around in the back of my mind wondering if we're all just spinning our wheels with the discussion as a whole.
There's basically three groups, eh?
1) It's fine!
2) It needs more!
3) It needs oh so much more!
The vast majority appear to agree on it needs more...even as we're arguing amongst ourselves about that more, eh?
But yeah, have to wonder if it will be moot with Expansion 2...
i actually have no idea about what geko said about xpansion 2. though i really like that image of spinning in wheels ... as much if i disliked the fact if mootyness turns out the be true.
..actually the more i think about (without any information on what geko said or on what ya referring) i'm gettin scared... u meanie :cool:
i actually have no idea about what geko said about xpansion 2. though i really like that image of spinning in wheels ... as much if i disliked the fact if mootyness turns out the be true.
..actually the more i think about (without any information on what geko said or on what ya referring) i'm gettin scared... u meanie :cool:
Heh, just in relation to the potential skill revamp - kit revamp - boff training revamp...and those sorts of things. Believe it was the PriorityOne 158.5 podcast...
edit: And with that, I'm going to leave the thread...saying again, I believe they both need more - but they don't need to be the best ships available. There's room between where they are and that extreme.
I want to fly a Galaxy Class. Not a three nacelled kit-bash. I do like the Venture variant of the Dreadnaught mind you.
Setting aside stats and cost, this is why I am unhappy:
I want to fly a Galaxy Class, but every time I jump into one I gimp myself and hold back my team by not jumping into something else.
That right there is the problem for me, and for most of the people who have been pleading qith cryptic over this issue for years. We can argue with each other and with cryptic over stats and cost until the targs come home, but the root problem is opportunity cost, and The proposed changes do nothing to resolve this.
The Dev blog claims this is a Galaxy class Reboot, but its not, its a Dreadnaught Reboot. The Galaxy Class is still getting mostly ignored.
The changes to the Dreadnaught are nice enough. But any situation we could put the dreadnaught in we could still do better in an Avenger.
The Galaxy-R changes aren't exactly satisfactory either, you have a lot of support here. And frankly you should be able to see that there are plenty who are calling this an inadequate Dreadnaught reboot. No need for insults, when there are plenty that love both designs.
It's the inner conflict of the idealist and the realist. The idealist makes a stand that things should be a certain way. The realist accepts that everything sucks so things will be a certain way. I'd rather fight for the idealist aspect than waste time on something that I accept as sucking but being the way it is...
Agreed.
They also have -5 Shield & -5 Aux...and +5 Engine. It's not simply a case they have more without also having less.
It still comes out as more in the end. Integrated cloak (logical), and equal tanking ability overall. Though I gotta say, having only one Lt tac even on the Fleet Negh'var does not make me optimistic about the Fleet Gal-X.
Which contemporaries? Cause...
Generally speaking the pre-F2P era C-store ship. I'm not saying it sticks in my craw, but the Excelsior shouldn't outgun the Dreadnaught, it's just weird to me. I love the Lakota, but a newer upgrade of a newer ship...it just doesn't sit right. And it can't even equip Dual Cannons. So weird.
...why not? What's the deal with the belief that a ship needs a LCdr+ Tac and at least 3+ Tac Consoles or it's garbage, eh?
It already has three tac consoles. As wast33 said, my issue is the the relation of available weapons vs available tactical abilities. This Galaxy-X which has fewer cruiser commands than the normal Galaxy should be more tactical focused overall. It's a specialist ship. Most people throw a tac into the ensign slot for Tac Team, then either a BO or FAW and APB into the Lt. I would put a torpedo ability in the ensign and have both beam abilities on the Lt slot. But if I want to run the Dreadnaught as a cannon boat, then I get one cannon ability. I think it's excessively limiting.
Also I'm not even sure it's fair to compare to the normal KDF battlecruisers as A) A dreadnaught should be above a battlecruiser in firing capability (but slower so the turn rate is fine in my opinion) and It is a C-store ship.
If they're trying to avoid a BO3 Phaser Lance combo, then perhaps the two Lieutenant Tacs is the way to go.
Heh, I guess that would be the idealist vs. the realist thing, eh? Meh...
Idealist is in the job description of a Starfleet officer.
That's a rough road to follow...
Especially when your main is a Starfleet engineer. But you know what? I'm really getting the hang of it now, and it's a lot of fun. It's taken me a year of trying to figure the blasted thing out, but I like my little Hegh'ta.
30-50 years ago...its role wouldn't be the same now. Heck, its role wasn't the same as the series/movies went along.
I disagree. The Galaxy was designed with a 100 year life span and it's only half through that as of this game. With its size and ability to swap out parts and spaces, I think it should still be an up to date and effective part of Starfleet's inventory. When we met Kirk the Enterprise and the Constitution class was 20 years old, and at 25 she was completely rebuilt and went on to another 20+ years of service.
It's ability to be outfitted for whatever task is needed really shouldn't have changed. They're still using Mirandas for crying out loud. I'm not talking about making an Oberth a battlecruiser.
We don't have an all those things ship in the game...not in that sense. It's folly to think they would do such - they wouldn't sell any other ships. We can look at almost any ship to see where there's design weaknesses requiring one to purchase a different ship to do something else. That's the nature of the game...
I don't buy that. I want to buy a Dreadnaught for my tac alt. My Eng main has his assault cruiser, one day I'll get the fleet version.
There are people that will buy every ship, and there are people that might buy one ship in the entire life cycle of their time here.
If I was really so intent on having the boff seating or the kill everything layout, I'd buy her an Avenger. But I don't really want that ship. This is the place where we can make our case for the improvements that we think should be made.
There's a far difference between Raiders being given Flanking and going Hybrid with Saucer Separation...
I disagree. It's a new technology introduced on one ship of a particular class that will be back ported to other ships of that class. The same with Science ships receiving secondary deflectors. Adding that functionality to the Galaxy-R makes perfect sense from an IP perspective.
Another thing is using the Eng Ensign boff slot. I mean....it's redundant. Engineering powers have a lot of mutual exclusion. Can't use Aux2Bat and Aux2SIF at the same time, Eng Team conflicts with sci team and tac team, you can't actually have more than two EPt? powers active. Other people speak more eloquently and extensively on it than I, but the ensign slot is a waste of space behind the Comm and LtCdr.
Because if you're one ship can do almost everything, you won't buy another ship. It's a F2P game - they've got to generate revenue.
I think the bigger risk is in people having a ship their satisfied with. But on the other hand, they stunt revenue by not providing a ship that the customer is satisfied with. None of the ideas presented in this thread are new, we've been asking for a while now, other people way longer than me.
But making every ship satisfactory throws the ball back to us and what we want to play with. I don't feel that intentionally gimping notable and iconic ships is a great business model either.
And be serious they don't care about making a ship that can do everything. The people cried out OP. They called it the Scimitar and it was good.
Heh, admittedly - I've got the stuff Geko said about Expansion 2 running around in the back of my mind wondering if we're all just spinning our wheels with the discussion as a whole.
There's basically three groups, eh?
1) It's fine!
2) It needs more!
3) It needs oh so much more!
The vast majority appear to agree on it needs more...even as we're arguing amongst ourselves about that more, eh?
But yeah, have to wonder if it will be moot with Expansion 2...
I missed that convo, what has you so intrigued?
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Heh, just in relation to the potential skill revamp - kit revamp - boff training revamp...and those sorts of things. Believe it was the PriorityOne 158.5 podcast...
edit: And with that, I'm going to leave the thread...saying again, I believe they both need more - but they don't need to be the best ships available. There's room between where they are and that extreme.
I couldn't agree more with some of the sentiments above. When I saw the blog title 'Galaxy Class Reboot' I yelped with delight. What we actually got was a much-deserved buff for the Galaxy-X (which I don't have myself), but nothing for the Galaxy itself apart form a polish of the saucer sep graphics.
Now I'm not a big Galaxy-class pilot, my favourite ship is actually the Excelsior, but I would like to use the ship more - it's iconic, it's got beautiful clean lines that (Odyssey aside) seem to have gone out of the window in STO. But I completely agree with the sentiments above that there is no way the Excelsior (even with the DS9 revamp of the Lakota) should outgun a Galaxy-class. And therein lies the problem. Like others above, when I get my Galaxy RF out of spacedock I instantly feel like I'm gimping myself, and end up switching back to my Excelsior or Avenger. What makes me shake my head in frustration is that we constantly hear how there can be no Tier 5 Connie (apologies for mentioning that) and so on because it breaks canon, it would be OP etc. - very valid points. Yet we can have Tier 5 B'rels and Excelsiors that are over 100 years old and still outgun what was Starfleet's premier vessel from many decades later. It just makes no sense.
I'm a longtime STO fan. I've been playing for over three years now. I came to it as a Trek fan first, and it was my first real MMO. I've since branched out into others but I'm sure I'll play STO for a s long as it exists. But this sort of stuff really does baffle me. Add to that the anniversary grind, the improbable Dyson ships that are thought up and developed in weeks (most starships take years), and I've never been more worried about the leadership of the game. The quality of life improvements are very welcome, the new guest stars are fabulous, but mis-steps like this really do take the wind out of your sails.
This is not a Galaxy Class Reboot.
(Just for the record, I do fly ships for RP or aesthetic reasons - I have an alt with a Nova RF that I use almost exclusively for RP and Foundry, despite having better ships available). It just would be nice to see an iconic ship like the Galaxy get the makeover it really deserves. And while we're at it - how about a 2409 skin for the Excelsior as many have asked? At least that way it would feel like it justified its great stats - having it outgun the Galaxy and be on a par with the Odyssey breaks immersion for me - to use an analogy, the Flying Scotsman and Mallard are beautiful steam locomotives, but they aren't going to outrun a Japanese bullet train!).
The Avenger is the newer ship, should it not be better? If it wasn't better, then why would they have built it?
I never said what should or shouldnt be. I just cut away the stats and pointed to why this wont resolve anything.
This is about what people want, not what is or what should be. People want to fly their favrate hull, and so long as they are forced to compremise between the look of their ship and the efficency of their ship the debate will never die.
Once again I would like to point out that I am not saying what should or shouldnt change, or even that their should be a change. I am just saying that we have been discussing and arguing about the subject of the Galaxy Class for years and we arnt going to stop doing so with these changes, for the aformentioned reason.
880+ postings and 45500+ views in 2 threads in 4 days.
the "beef"-thread with almost 6000 postings with 235000+ views within about a year...
with a lot of discussion how it should be done right. but the vastly majority is sure that there should be done something in sense of canon and common-sense (whatever that is).
and most of those posters in the 2 threads from thursday on do think what cryptic has done with that so called reboot is absolutely not enough.
hell, i would paint a picture if it would help cryptic to understand.... and i'm a bad painter
I always wanted the Galaxy Dread for my tac, but the BOFF and console layout is a NO NO NO buy.
No surprise why the Avenger sold like crazy when it was released. And yes Cryptic is a company and yes it should offer items to make profit. More good products mean more sales. Offering diversity in the Battle cruiser category is more profitable. Having the Avenger does not stop me from buying the Dread if it matches the performance.(performance does not mean same BOFF layout or weapon configuration)
Hence,
when I read the revamp I was expecting more. Personally, I would prefer a better BOFF layout than a hangar. Seriously more spam will help with what?
The post also mentions to make it more in par with the Klingon and Romulan counterparts. I will grant that the Klingon besides the Tor'Kaht (the best battle cruiser before the Mogh) do not have many good alternatives. The Bortas is just plain ok. The fleet Negh should have 4 tac consoles. For the Romulans the answer is simple. Scimitar dominates everything. I hate it but I use it because it is one of the best ships in the game (The only negative is the awful inertia).
But what the revamp should mean for the Galaxy Dread. [I still remember the decloak attack on the Klingons the Phaser Lance. One of the top ten scenes in TNG]
Making the ensign universal does not help.
Will the following BOFF layout making it OP? Lt.Com. Tactical Com. Engineering
Lt.Com Engineering Lt. Science
Mind due no hangar.
2 and 3 set piece bonus for AMS, Saucer Sep. and Cloak console.
I can read the answer that with Aux2Bat it will. Yes it might but then the Aux2Bat is at fault and the issue and not the ship itself. And keep in mind Aux2Bat Avenger/Mogh, Aux2Bat Scimis, everything with Aux2Bat. (Bacon goes with less things )
That's obviously a matter of opinion...canon folks will argue what's canon until everybody's blue in the face.
A matter of fact actually. People may argue about what they think is canon untill they're blue in the face, but the fact remains that the IP holder declares what is to be considered canon and the IP holder of Star Trek has been pretty clear on that.
STO is a nice place when many of us Star Trek fans can play out our dreams and enjoy being a part of our favourite universe, but can't be in any conceivable way considered as canon.
As things stand, most ships tend to have the following BOFF layout:-
1 x Commander
1 x Lt Commander
2 x Lt
1 x Ensign.
I've read on recent Galaxy threads that the Galaxy class ships should be flexible, if they're going to be canon. With that being the case, how about sacrificing the commander chair and in it's place upgrading one of the Lt. stations to a Lt Commander?
- People like the Galaxy class
- People don't like the Galaxy class' stats
- People would like to buy and use the Galaxy class if it had better stats
- Cryptic/PWE would vere likely make money if they came up with a proper solution
Isn't it that easy? I mean, if you ignore the chest-beating, the ego-flexing and the pissing contests?
It's basically Cryptic's/PWE's decision, and it's a business decision. Well, should be.
And to be ****ing honest, I don't see the problem here.
Why do people even walz into these threads and act like they were Cryptic's agents?
Weird, very weird. Or fascinating, as Spock might say.
So I am not one of the few attending this storm on Crypticstein's Castle with torches and hay forks to kill Crypticstein's abomination, but.. what should the Galaxy be now to be loved by everyone?
- People like the Galaxy class
- People don't like the Galaxy class' stats
- People would like to buy and use the Galaxy class if it had better stats
- Cryptic/PWE would vere likely make money if they came up with a proper solution
Isn't it that easy? I mean, if you ignore the chest-beating, the ego-flexing and the pissing contests?
It's basically Cryptic's/PWE's decision, and it's a business decision. Well, should be.
And to be ****ing honest, I don't see the problem here.
Why do people even walz into these threads and act like they were Cryptic's agents?
Weird, very weird. Or fascinating, as Spock might say.
Because everyone thinks their views are right (if they didn't and still stood by them, they would have some serious problems beyond the scope of the game). And they want everyone else to see why they believe they are right. That's a natural function of a forum. And no one likes to be told they can't have what they want.
Ultimately, Cryptic/PWE has decided what the role of the Galaxy will be in their game, and CBS has put their approval on it. That their subsequent classes of ships and content modifications have reduced this role in the eyes of the players to the point of not being seen as equal to other roles doesn't change this. Some ship has to be the specialist Engineering hull in the game, and the powers that be decided that would be the Galaxy at the beginning of the game.
These changes are meant to tweak the ability of each ship to fill the roles they have, not change their place in the game. Some players want the Galaxies to be different, and make suggestions (reasonable and unreasonable alike) or demands in the hope the ship will be changed to suit what they want it to be. But, like any content that has a following, emotions run high.
Anyway, we'll see what we'll see. The ships do their jobs well as it is, and this will just make them better at it. Time will tell if the devs agree with some of the suggestions here, or decide that the ships are where they should be.
why not even bring a pure galaxy 3 pack?
one tac (dready with option to remove 3rd nacelle, built in-cloak, reworked lance as a console and altered con and boff layout), one eng (gal-r we got with some minor mods) and one sci version (which have to be copy-pasted with another altered boff and con layout and a third console). console set could consist off lance-con, seperation-con and the to create sci-con. ams not had to be in the set.
call it tchekov class, galaxy class and yamato class
...damn it. with almost 6k posts in the beef thread i'm way sure such an idea is already in there :rolleyes:
Well, if they don't want to change the existing Galaxys in the game they could always introduce a new version of it that is compatible with the existing costumes and abilities.
Hasn't stopped them before (See Akira class, which they imo did a great job with).
Issue a new ship class, I hear 3 packs are doing well these days.
Sure, it might step on the toes of the Odyssey a bit, but honestly, who cares?
880+ postings and 45500+ views in 2 threads in 4 days.
the "beef"-thread with almost 6000 postings with 235000+ views within about a year...
with a lot of discussion how it should be done right. but the vastly majority is sure that there should be done something in sense of canon and common-sense (whatever that is).
and most of those posters in the 2 threads from thursday on do think what cryptic has done with that so called reboot is absolutely not enough.
hell, i would paint a picture if it would help cryptic to understand.... and i'm a bad painter
Seriously, This has been running through my head for some time now.
But Cryptic does read our posts and they do listen, so I'M hoping they step up to this.
I'd to take my majestic Galaxy class out again for a few elite STF runs, and actually contribute something useful, rather than spamming AMS and tossing out a few heals to escorts that don't need them.
As things stand, most ships tend to have the following BOFF layout:-
1 x Commander
1 x Lt Commander
2 x Lt
1 x Ensign.
I've read on recent Galaxy threads that the Galaxy class ships should be flexible, if they're going to be canon. With that being the case, how about sacrificing the commander chair and in it's place upgrading one of the Lt. stations to a Lt Commander?
I for one would be delighted if my ship had the above BOFF layout.
Nice but approaching OP in its own way to be honest. I mean consider, you could run Aux2Batt, BO3, and Gravity Well. Still with nothing at commander it could work. It would certainly be an interesting ship to fly. Kind of like a giant Bird of Prey.
why not even bring a pure galaxy 3 pack?
one tac (dready with option to remove 3rd nacelle, built in-cloak, reworked lance as a console and altered con and boff layout), one eng (gal-r we got with some minor mods) and one sci version (which have to be copy-pasted with another altered boff and con layout and a third console). console set could consist off lance-con, seperation-con and the to create sci-con. ams not had to be in the set.
call it tchekov class, galaxy class and yamato class
...damn it. with almost 6k posts in the beef thread i'm way sure such an idea is already in there :rolleyes:
There's an idea. If the game is still going (hopefully ) maybe they'll do it for TNG's 30 year anniversary.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Im confused, id it only the Galaxy X being changed, not the normal Galaxy ship t4 and t5?
T4: stays the same
T5: Saucer Separation getting an update
X: Minor changes on Boff seating etc, can separate the Saucer now, Hangar Bay
Antimatter Spread console from the T4 and Saucer Separation from the T5 can now combine into an item-Set
Set Bonus The Antimatter Spread Console and Saucer Separation console will enjoy a 2 piece set bonus. Equipping both on a ship will grant you:
+20 Starship Starship Hull Plating skill
+20 Starship Armor Reinforcement skill
+1 Turn Rate bonus
Im confused, id it only the Galaxy X being changed, not the normal Galaxy ship t4 and t5?
Pretty much.
The standard Galaxy-R is only getting the advanced saucer separation (which means the ship will not need to stop and can continue firing when separating the saucer) and access to a new 2-piece set bonus if you have both the Saucer Separation (from the T5 Galaxy) and Antimatter Spread (from the T4 Galaxy). And that's about it.
The Galaxy class was never a battleship and never meant to be one. It was an exploration cruiser. It was basically the Love Boat with big phaser arrays, warp nacells, and a deflector dish. The only thing tactical about it was that starfleet gave it phaser arrays that were more powerful than other starships in the fleet. That's it. It was not designed to go into battle, although if pulled into a fight, it's phasers could inflict heavy damage to a target (at least that was the idea). It was Starfleet's "Hey look at our Cool Starship" ("We saved the spacewhales by building them and adding phasers, be amazed.")
Don't mistake plot devices for class capability. If the many of the things in the shows happened to a ship that wasn't named Enterprise, it would have been a very short program. The Enterprise got away with it, not because it was a Galaxy class, but because it was the Enterprise. Plot armor will save any ship from destruction, and plot devices will carry the day vs any difficulty.
I think that they way the Galaxy class was lain out by Cryptic was fine, and in holding with the ship's intent, and with what we saw onscreen. It needs no special tactical ability, nor Lt Commander tactical slot. That is only a player desire, not a need.
The Galaxy-X on the other hand was a one off ship from an alternate timeline that was closed with the destruction of the temporal anomaly seen in All Good Things....
Adding a hangar to the Galaxy-X, in my opinion, is really a bad idea. Other that it being a starship, with normal shuttle capability, it didn't have any special attack craft that were shown. The saucer separation is fine, since the Galaxy class had this ability, and this ship was a modified one. Itwas, again, the Love Boat but with a BFG and cloak.
The only capability we see from it is the ability to cloak, fire a wave moti...er really huge phaser that can punch straight through shielded battlecruisers, travel at warp 13, and has a weird third nacelle. It fires no other weapons, doesn't do any amazing maneuvers, or display any special tactical ability other than "decloak and fire the BFG lots" (Read: Press [spacebar] repeatedly).
The only thing that the Galaxy-X needs is an increase to the spinal phaser's rate of fire bringing, it into line with what was shown onscreen. In fact, that is the only weapon we see it firing, and I can't imagine in a desperate bid to save a ship full of close friends you would hold anything back. That being so, I have to wonder, is the spinal phaser the only weapon mounted forward? With that much firepower, would you need any other forward weapons? If we could get the current spinal phaser on the in game Galaxy-X to behave like the one in the show, it would alleviate some of the complaints, and not be grossly overpowered, as well as keeping the whole mighty ship aspect of being a dreadnaught, I think (you would still have to maneuver to keep your targets in your firing arc). The current status of the spinal phaser is...less than amazing, given it's cooldown, and mediocre accuracy. Missing with that weapon really leaves you thinking "Wow..that sucked":(.
The Galaxy class was never a battleship and never meant to be one. It was an exploration cruiser. It was basically the Love Boat with big phaser arrays, warp nacells, and a deflector dish. The only thing tactical about it was that starfleet gave it phaser arrays that were more powerful than other starships in the fleet. That's it. It was not designed to go into battle, although if pulled into a fight, it's phasers could inflict heavy damage to a target (at least that was the idea). It was Starfleet's "Hey look at our Cool Starship" ("We saved the spacewhales by building them and adding phasers, be amazed.")
Don't mistake plot devices for class capability. If the many of the things in the shows happened to a ship that wasn't named Enterprise, it would have been a very short program. The Enterprise got away with it, not because it was a Galaxy class, but because it was the Enterprise. Plot armor will save any ship from destruction, and plot devices will carry the day vs any difficulty.
I think that they way the Galaxy class was lain out by Cryptic was fine, and in holding with the ship's intent, and with what we saw onscreen. It needs no special tactical ability, nor Lt Commander tactical slot. That is only a player desire, not a need.
The Galaxy-X on the other hand was a one off ship from an alternate timeline that was closed with the destruction of the temporal anomaly seen in All Good Things....
Adding a hangar to the Galaxy-X, in my opinion, is really a bad idea. Other that it being a starship, with normal shuttle capability, it didn't have any special attack craft that were shown. The saucer separation is fine, since the Galaxy class had this ability, and this ship was a modified one. Itwas, again, the Love Boat but with a BFG and cloak.
The only capability we see from it is the ability to cloak, fire a wave moti...er really huge phaser that can punch straight through shielded battlecruisers, travel at warp 13, and has a weird third nacelle. It fires no other weapons, doesn't do any amazing maneuvers, or display any special tactical ability other than "decloak and fire the BFG lots" (Read: Press [spacebar] repeatedly).
The only thing that the Galaxy-X needs is an increase to the spinal phaser's rate of fire bringing, it into line with what was shown onscreen. In fact, that is the only weapon we see it firing, and I can't imagine in a desperate bid to save a ship full of close friends you would hold anything back. That being so, I have to wonder, is the spinal phaser the only weapon mounted forward? With that much firepower, would you need any other forward weapons? If we could get the current spinal phaser on the in game Galaxy-X to behave like the one in the show, it would alleviate some of the complaints, and not be grossly overpowered, as well as keeping the whole mighty ship aspect of being a dreadnaught, I think (you would still have to maneuver to keep your targets in your firing arc). The current status of the spinal phaser is...less than amazing, given it's cooldown, and mediocre accuracy. Missing with that weapon really leaves you thinking "Wow..that sucked":(.
Someone with sense. Now we are 3 already. But beware, every sentence you wrote will be turned around and used against you with hard-believed "Galaxy=Mary Sue" facts and believs.
Comments
That's obviously a matter of opinion...canon folks will argue what's canon until everybody's blue in the face.
I did no such thing, imho. I actually proved the opposite. The Lt/En is the norm. The LCdr is the abnormality. If the norm is changed, then it would become abnormal.
It's the inner conflict of the idealist and the realist. The idealist makes a stand that things should be a certain way. The realist accepts that everything sucks so things will be a certain way. I'd rather fight for the idealist aspect than waste time on something that I accept as sucking but being the way it is...
They also have -5 Shield & -5 Aux...and +5 Engine. It's not simply a case they have more without also having less.
Which contemporaries? Cause...
...why not? What's the deal with the belief that a ship needs a LCdr+ Tac and at least 3+ Tac Consoles or it's garbage, eh?
Heh, I guess that would be the idealist vs. the realist thing, eh? Meh...
That's a rough road to follow...
30-50 years ago...its role wouldn't be the same now. Heck, its role wasn't the same as the series/movies went along.
We don't have an all those things ship in the game...not in that sense. It's folly to think they would do such - they wouldn't sell any other ships. We can look at almost any ship to see where there's design weaknesses requiring one to purchase a different ship to do something else. That's the nature of the game...
There's a far difference between Raiders being given Flanking and going Hybrid with Saucer Separation...
Because if you're one ship can do almost everything, you won't buy another ship. It's a F2P game - they've got to generate revenue.
And what exactly is the issue with that? The Avenger is the newer ship, should it not be better? If it wasn't better, then why would they have built it?
The Gal-R and Gal-X aren't there to be the best ships...they're there so folks that want to fly them can fly them. They're more than capable for the overwhelming vast majority of content in the game.
Are they a min/maxers fantasy come true? No...but min/maxing has very little to do with STO.
i do think he refers to ships that are capable of carrying dhc's, isnt he? if so i think he's right on the boffs (at least one ltcdr.+, or 2 lts.). yeah i know, kinda idealistic :rolleyes:
Heh, admittedly - I've got the stuff Geko said about Expansion 2 running around in the back of my mind wondering if we're all just spinning our wheels with the discussion as a whole.
There's basically three groups, eh?
1) It's fine!
2) It needs more!
3) It needs oh so much more!
The vast majority appear to agree on it needs more...even as we're arguing amongst ourselves about that more, eh?
But yeah, have to wonder if it will be moot with Expansion 2...
Hello all. I'm sure that with all the previous messages, i'll be repeating what already have been said.
Been years in this game. Many many years. I grew up watching TNG (after seeing TOS and the movies first) it can be said i'm a hardcore trekkie. TOS and TNG are my favs (i like Ds9, voy and ent too, despite a lot of hate people have for the last 2 ones)
I have all galaxy ships. Always felt that the galaxy should have been a damage dealer like in tng, cos she was. With the poor boff seats and console layout, still i made her decent for combat (tho with an odyssey or a EXCELSIOR..an older ship than her, can do it better)
Cryptic has always treated the iconic galaxy poorly since day one. like they are afraid of her being driven more than an odyssey if its given a bit more of firepower, that she should have.
Even with the fleet version, she at least should have received the ensign universal like the fleet negh'var. And they didn't even do that. (and they laught again in our faces, doing that to the gal x, that she doesn't need it)
Sorry i talk too much. I feel with this "reboot" they say, like they have slap me in my face and laught at me. All this years me and other players have stood with the game and the problems it has, all the money i've spend in this game all this years (you can watch my record cryptic, of how many ships i bought and money used) and after all this years of what we have said of the problems that these ships have, you do this?
For starters, i was about to buy the mega-pack dyson ships. Now i'm not going to do that. and no more money spend. Sorry. This was the last drop. My patience of being laughted at my face is over.
You think that new players of the game are the ones that make STO alive? players that come and go. The ones like me that have been in here all these years are the ones that made STO being alive. And spit on our faces instead.
Just 2 things that would made the 2 galaxy class ON PAR of the other fed cruisers, if you don't want to touch the c-store ones thats fine, do it with the fleet variants:
Fleet galaxy: convert the liutenant tac station and the ensign engi to a liutennant commader tac. This way the ship doesn't lose her caracteristic of engi-oriented ship and has enought tac power to be ON PAR (i say this again, for people that say that we demand this ships to be superior to others, thats not true) with the other ships.
Do the same with the Fleet gal-X. Liutenant tac and ensign tac (now ensign uni. WOO! What a change!) converted to Ltc. tac.
So both ships would be: Liutennant commander tac, Commander engi, liutennant commander engi, liutennant Sci.
2on: make the Phaser Lance a weapon that actually hits the target, like you know? the other weapons in the game?
This little changes and i would shut up. for ever. and i even buy then the dyson pack. But i know you, you like to laught at our faces and i know you are incapable of treating us well.
That was my 2 EC's .
I've never been so much dissapointed with something in this game.
Sorry for this long post people and sorry for my english if something is wrong written.
i actually have no idea about what geko said about xpansion 2. though i really like that image of spinning in wheels
..actually the more i think about (without any information on what geko said or on what ya referring) i'm gettin scared... u meanie
Heh, just in relation to the potential skill revamp - kit revamp - boff training revamp...and those sorts of things. Believe it was the PriorityOne 158.5 podcast...
edit: And with that, I'm going to leave the thread...saying again, I believe they both need more - but they don't need to be the best ships available. There's room between where they are and that extreme.
The Galaxy-R changes aren't exactly satisfactory either, you have a lot of support here. And frankly you should be able to see that there are plenty who are calling this an inadequate Dreadnaught reboot. No need for insults, when there are plenty that love both designs. Agreed.
It still comes out as more in the end. Integrated cloak (logical), and equal tanking ability overall. Though I gotta say, having only one Lt tac even on the Fleet Negh'var does not make me optimistic about the Fleet Gal-X.
Generally speaking the pre-F2P era C-store ship. I'm not saying it sticks in my craw, but the Excelsior shouldn't outgun the Dreadnaught, it's just weird to me. I love the Lakota, but a newer upgrade of a newer ship...it just doesn't sit right. And it can't even equip Dual Cannons. So weird.
It already has three tac consoles. As wast33 said, my issue is the the relation of available weapons vs available tactical abilities. This Galaxy-X which has fewer cruiser commands than the normal Galaxy should be more tactical focused overall. It's a specialist ship. Most people throw a tac into the ensign slot for Tac Team, then either a BO or FAW and APB into the Lt. I would put a torpedo ability in the ensign and have both beam abilities on the Lt slot. But if I want to run the Dreadnaught as a cannon boat, then I get one cannon ability. I think it's excessively limiting.
Also I'm not even sure it's fair to compare to the normal KDF battlecruisers as A) A dreadnaught should be above a battlecruiser in firing capability (but slower so the turn rate is fine in my opinion) and
If they're trying to avoid a BO3 Phaser Lance combo, then perhaps the two Lieutenant Tacs is the way to go.
Idealist is in the job description of a Starfleet officer.
Especially when your main is a Starfleet engineer. But you know what? I'm really getting the hang of it now, and it's a lot of fun. It's taken me a year of trying to figure the blasted thing out, but I like my little Hegh'ta.
I disagree. The Galaxy was designed with a 100 year life span and it's only half through that as of this game. With its size and ability to swap out parts and spaces, I think it should still be an up to date and effective part of Starfleet's inventory. When we met Kirk the Enterprise and the Constitution class was 20 years old, and at 25 she was completely rebuilt and went on to another 20+ years of service.
It's ability to be outfitted for whatever task is needed really shouldn't have changed. They're still using Mirandas for crying out loud. I'm not talking about making an Oberth a battlecruiser.
I don't buy that. I want to buy a Dreadnaught for my tac alt. My Eng main has his assault cruiser, one day I'll get the fleet version.
There are people that will buy every ship, and there are people that might buy one ship in the entire life cycle of their time here.
If I was really so intent on having the boff seating or the kill everything layout, I'd buy her an Avenger. But I don't really want that ship. This is the place where we can make our case for the improvements that we think should be made.
I disagree. It's a new technology introduced on one ship of a particular class that will be back ported to other ships of that class. The same with Science ships receiving secondary deflectors. Adding that functionality to the Galaxy-R makes perfect sense from an IP perspective.
Another thing is using the Eng Ensign boff slot. I mean....it's redundant. Engineering powers have a lot of mutual exclusion. Can't use Aux2Bat and Aux2SIF at the same time, Eng Team conflicts with sci team and tac team, you can't actually have more than two EPt? powers active. Other people speak more eloquently and extensively on it than I, but the ensign slot is a waste of space behind the Comm and LtCdr.
I think the bigger risk is in people having a ship their satisfied with. But on the other hand, they stunt revenue by not providing a ship that the customer is satisfied with. None of the ideas presented in this thread are new, we've been asking for a while now, other people way longer than me.
But making every ship satisfactory throws the ball back to us and what we want to play with. I don't feel that intentionally gimping notable and iconic ships is a great business model either.
And be serious they don't care about making a ship that can do everything. The people cried out OP. They called it the Scimitar and it was good. I missed that convo, what has you so intrigued?
thx for info
Now I'm not a big Galaxy-class pilot, my favourite ship is actually the Excelsior, but I would like to use the ship more - it's iconic, it's got beautiful clean lines that (Odyssey aside) seem to have gone out of the window in STO. But I completely agree with the sentiments above that there is no way the Excelsior (even with the DS9 revamp of the Lakota) should outgun a Galaxy-class. And therein lies the problem. Like others above, when I get my Galaxy RF out of spacedock I instantly feel like I'm gimping myself, and end up switching back to my Excelsior or Avenger. What makes me shake my head in frustration is that we constantly hear how there can be no Tier 5 Connie (apologies for mentioning that) and so on because it breaks canon, it would be OP etc. - very valid points. Yet we can have Tier 5 B'rels and Excelsiors that are over 100 years old and still outgun what was Starfleet's premier vessel from many decades later. It just makes no sense.
I'm a longtime STO fan. I've been playing for over three years now. I came to it as a Trek fan first, and it was my first real MMO. I've since branched out into others but I'm sure I'll play STO for a s long as it exists. But this sort of stuff really does baffle me. Add to that the anniversary grind, the improbable Dyson ships that are thought up and developed in weeks (most starships take years), and I've never been more worried about the leadership of the game. The quality of life improvements are very welcome, the new guest stars are fabulous, but mis-steps like this really do take the wind out of your sails.
This is not a Galaxy Class Reboot.
(Just for the record, I do fly ships for RP or aesthetic reasons - I have an alt with a Nova RF that I use almost exclusively for RP and Foundry, despite having better ships available). It just would be nice to see an iconic ship like the Galaxy get the makeover it really deserves. And while we're at it - how about a 2409 skin for the Excelsior as many have asked? At least that way it would feel like it justified its great stats - having it outgun the Galaxy and be on a par with the Odyssey breaks immersion for me - to use an analogy, the Flying Scotsman and Mallard are beautiful steam locomotives, but they aren't going to outrun a Japanese bullet train!).
Cheers, and apologies for the rant.
WoW !!
I think I outlined the issue with it clearly:
Thats the issue.
I never said what should or shouldnt be. I just cut away the stats and pointed to why this wont resolve anything.
This is about what people want, not what is or what should be. People want to fly their favrate hull, and so long as they are forced to compremise between the look of their ship and the efficency of their ship the debate will never die.
Once again I would like to point out that I am not saying what should or shouldnt change, or even that their should be a change. I am just saying that we have been discussing and arguing about the subject of the Galaxy Class for years and we arnt going to stop doing so with these changes, for the aformentioned reason.
People want what they want.
880+ postings and 45500+ views in 2 threads in 4 days.
the "beef"-thread with almost 6000 postings with 235000+ views within about a year...
with a lot of discussion how it should be done right. but the vastly majority is sure that there should be done something in sense of canon and common-sense (whatever that is).
and most of those posters in the 2 threads from thursday on do think what cryptic has done with that so called reboot is absolutely not enough.
hell, i would paint a picture if it would help cryptic to understand.... and i'm a bad painter
I always wanted the Galaxy Dread for my tac, but the BOFF and console layout is a NO NO NO buy.
No surprise why the Avenger sold like crazy when it was released. And yes Cryptic is a company and yes it should offer items to make profit. More good products mean more sales. Offering diversity in the Battle cruiser category is more profitable. Having the Avenger does not stop me from buying the Dread if it matches the performance.(performance does not mean same BOFF layout or weapon configuration)
Hence,
when I read the revamp I was expecting more. Personally, I would prefer a better BOFF layout than a hangar. Seriously more spam will help with what?
The post also mentions to make it more in par with the Klingon and Romulan counterparts. I will grant that the Klingon besides the Tor'Kaht (the best battle cruiser before the Mogh) do not have many good alternatives. The Bortas is just plain ok. The fleet Negh should have 4 tac consoles. For the Romulans the answer is simple. Scimitar dominates everything. I hate it but I use it because it is one of the best ships in the game (The only negative is the awful inertia).
But what the revamp should mean for the Galaxy Dread. [I still remember the decloak attack on the Klingons the Phaser Lance. One of the top ten scenes in TNG]
Making the ensign universal does not help.
Will the following BOFF layout making it OP?
Lt.Com. Tactical
Com. Engineering
Lt.Com Engineering
Lt. Science
Mind due no hangar.
2 and 3 set piece bonus for AMS, Saucer Sep. and Cloak console.
I can read the answer that with Aux2Bat it will. Yes it might but then the Aux2Bat is at fault and the issue and not the ship itself. And keep in mind Aux2Bat Avenger/Mogh, Aux2Bat Scimis, everything with Aux2Bat. (Bacon goes with less things
KDF Eng: Boreas I.K.S. Demonon Nemesis {Fleet: HoS}
Rom Sci: Crius I.R.W. Noctem Aeternus {Fleet: LoS}
Fed Tac: Kronos U.S.S. Xibalba, I.S.S. Theogonia{Fleet: HSF}
A matter of fact actually. People may argue about what they think is canon untill they're blue in the face, but the fact remains that the IP holder declares what is to be considered canon and the IP holder of Star Trek has been pretty clear on that.
STO is a nice place when many of us Star Trek fans can play out our dreams and enjoy being a part of our favourite universe, but can't be in any conceivable way considered as canon.
1 x Commander
1 x Lt Commander
2 x Lt
1 x Ensign.
I've read on recent Galaxy threads that the Galaxy class ships should be flexible, if they're going to be canon. With that being the case, how about sacrificing the commander chair and in it's place upgrading one of the Lt. stations to a Lt Commander?
So we would have something along the lines of
Lt.Com. Tactical
Lt.Com. Engineering
Lt.Com. Science
Lt. Engineering (Possibly universal)
Ensign Tactical. (Possibly universal)
I for one would be delighted if my ship had the above BOFF layout.
- People like the Galaxy class
- People don't like the Galaxy class' stats
- People would like to buy and use the Galaxy class if it had better stats
- Cryptic/PWE would vere likely make money if they came up with a proper solution
Isn't it that easy? I mean, if you ignore the chest-beating, the ego-flexing and the pissing contests?
It's basically Cryptic's/PWE's decision, and it's a business decision. Well, should be.
And to be ****ing honest, I don't see the problem here.
Why do people even walz into these threads and act like they were Cryptic's agents?
Weird, very weird. Or fascinating, as Spock might say.
5 Tactical Consoles
4 Engineering Consoles
4 Science Consoles
Commander Tactical
Commander Engineering
Lt. Commander Science
2x Universal Lieutenant
Hull 45.000
Shield 5.900
Shield Mod. 1.1
Turn: 13
Anti-Matter Spread in-built
Saucer Separation in-built
2x Hangar Slots with Advanced Typ-10 Shuttles
Dual Heavy Cannons
I'd buy it
Because everyone thinks their views are right (if they didn't and still stood by them, they would have some serious problems beyond the scope of the game). And they want everyone else to see why they believe they are right. That's a natural function of a forum. And no one likes to be told they can't have what they want.
Ultimately, Cryptic/PWE has decided what the role of the Galaxy will be in their game, and CBS has put their approval on it. That their subsequent classes of ships and content modifications have reduced this role in the eyes of the players to the point of not being seen as equal to other roles doesn't change this. Some ship has to be the specialist Engineering hull in the game, and the powers that be decided that would be the Galaxy at the beginning of the game.
These changes are meant to tweak the ability of each ship to fill the roles they have, not change their place in the game. Some players want the Galaxies to be different, and make suggestions (reasonable and unreasonable alike) or demands in the hope the ship will be changed to suit what they want it to be. But, like any content that has a following, emotions run high.
Anyway, we'll see what we'll see. The ships do their jobs well as it is, and this will just make them better at it. Time will tell if the devs agree with some of the suggestions here, or decide that the ships are where they should be.
Quoted because I am in agreement
why not even bring a pure galaxy 3 pack?
one tac (dready with option to remove 3rd nacelle, built in-cloak, reworked lance as a console and altered con and boff layout), one eng (gal-r we got with some minor mods) and one sci version (which have to be copy-pasted with another altered boff and con layout and a third console). console set could consist off lance-con, seperation-con and the to create sci-con. ams not had to be in the set.
call it tchekov class, galaxy class and yamato class
...damn it. with almost 6k posts in the beef thread i'm way sure such an idea is already in there :rolleyes:
Hasn't stopped them before (See Akira class, which they imo did a great job with).
Issue a new ship class, I hear 3 packs are doing well these days.
Sure, it might step on the toes of the Odyssey a bit, but honestly, who cares?
Seriously, This has been running through my head for some time now.
But Cryptic does read our posts and they do listen, so I'M hoping they step up to this.
I'd to take my majestic Galaxy class out again for a few elite STF runs, and actually contribute something useful, rather than spamming AMS and tossing out a few heals to escorts that don't need them.
There's an idea. If the game is still going (hopefully
T4: stays the same
T5: Saucer Separation getting an update
X: Minor changes on Boff seating etc, can separate the Saucer now, Hangar Bay
Antimatter Spread console from the T4 and Saucer Separation from the T5 can now combine into an item-Set
Set Bonus The Antimatter Spread Console and Saucer Separation console will enjoy a 2 piece set bonus. Equipping both on a ship will grant you:
+20 Starship Starship Hull Plating skill
+20 Starship Armor Reinforcement skill
+1 Turn Rate bonus
Pretty much.
The standard Galaxy-R is only getting the advanced saucer separation (which means the ship will not need to stop and can continue firing when separating the saucer) and access to a new 2-piece set bonus if you have both the Saucer Separation (from the T5 Galaxy) and Antimatter Spread (from the T4 Galaxy). And that's about it.
The Galaxy class was never a battleship and never meant to be one. It was an exploration cruiser. It was basically the Love Boat with big phaser arrays, warp nacells, and a deflector dish. The only thing tactical about it was that starfleet gave it phaser arrays that were more powerful than other starships in the fleet. That's it. It was not designed to go into battle, although if pulled into a fight, it's phasers could inflict heavy damage to a target (at least that was the idea). It was Starfleet's "Hey look at our Cool Starship" ("We saved the spacewhales by building them and adding phasers, be amazed.")
Don't mistake plot devices for class capability. If the many of the things in the shows happened to a ship that wasn't named Enterprise, it would have been a very short program. The Enterprise got away with it, not because it was a Galaxy class, but because it was the Enterprise. Plot armor will save any ship from destruction, and plot devices will carry the day vs any difficulty.
I think that they way the Galaxy class was lain out by Cryptic was fine, and in holding with the ship's intent, and with what we saw onscreen. It needs no special tactical ability, nor Lt Commander tactical slot. That is only a player desire, not a need.
The Galaxy-X on the other hand was a one off ship from an alternate timeline that was closed with the destruction of the temporal anomaly seen in All Good Things....
Adding a hangar to the Galaxy-X, in my opinion, is really a bad idea. Other that it being a starship, with normal shuttle capability, it didn't have any special attack craft that were shown. The saucer separation is fine, since the Galaxy class had this ability, and this ship was a modified one. Itwas, again, the Love Boat but with a BFG and cloak.
The only capability we see from it is the ability to cloak, fire a wave moti...er really huge phaser that can punch straight through shielded battlecruisers, travel at warp 13, and has a weird third nacelle. It fires no other weapons, doesn't do any amazing maneuvers, or display any special tactical ability other than "decloak and fire the BFG lots" (Read: Press [spacebar] repeatedly).
The only thing that the Galaxy-X needs is an increase to the spinal phaser's rate of fire bringing, it into line with what was shown onscreen. In fact, that is the only weapon we see it firing, and I can't imagine in a desperate bid to save a ship full of close friends you would hold anything back. That being so, I have to wonder, is the spinal phaser the only weapon mounted forward? With that much firepower, would you need any other forward weapons? If we could get the current spinal phaser on the in game Galaxy-X to behave like the one in the show, it would alleviate some of the complaints, and not be grossly overpowered, as well as keeping the whole mighty ship aspect of being a dreadnaught, I think (you would still have to maneuver to keep your targets in your firing arc). The current status of the spinal phaser is...less than amazing, given it's cooldown, and mediocre accuracy. Missing with that weapon really leaves you thinking "Wow..that sucked":(.
Someone with sense. Now we are 3 already. But beware, every sentence you wrote will be turned around and used against you with hard-believed "Galaxy=Mary Sue" facts and believs.