What i would like for it to have the lance as an extra weapon like the kumari wing cannon but very low frequency like 1 shot per 10s and very narrow arc but as in like 15 degrees but very high dmg output to make up for it. If not that, at least an acc + dmg increase and massive cd decrease for the lance in its current version. I dont really get how it would be imba if the lance would have 30s cd, compared to what the scim and other ships do it would still be far less..
That is the best Idea about the Lance i real so far.
If nothing else it could be fixed like that cannons in the Dyson ship... Or effected by cannon and beam abilitys like the proton weapon from the rep.
Actually there is no reason to keep in a click ability IMO
In my own opinion, I do not think the Galaxy X should be allowed to look like the base Galaxy. Why?
Role for one thing. The Galaxy was an exploration vessel that could be pressed into a combat role if needed (IE: The Dominion War). The Galaxy X was nothing less than a ship of war. The current in game representation of the X is anything but.
Aesthetics. If your Galaxy X were to look like the base Galaxy, it would look really weird when your canons and lance fired. Where would the fire from anyways? I would not be opposed to the option to remove the third nacelle though.
Actually they are the same ship, one has modifications, the other one not...
I suppose what you think doesn't matter, either. At least my thoughts are based upon gameplay consistency, not storyline fluff.
Your thoughts are based upon terminology which has no gameplay meaning at all and which, even if you consider story reasoning as "fluff" less meaning than this.
As for the actual question: I bought it for the looks. And that was at a time when I still wanted to own all canon ships and that was a reasonable goal.
For the changes: I like them, and it might cause me to fly the ship again. Also I'm probably the only person who willingly admits liking hangar pets, and having a federation ship more available to launch federation shuttles feels good.
For all that requests for the lt cmdr tac slots:
The problem here remains not the gx being broken. It's the game being broken hard.
As long as everything is about damage and damage only no real cruiser has place in the game. And also it's boring. I miss the old sto where ppl still supported and healed and stuff like that, there ships like this were useful.
CHEAP!!! I can barely get 2 mill without struggling!!!!!!!!
...wat?
Foundry farms: 1 mil
2 hours of tank loot trawling in kerrat: 3-5 mil depending on how many of the objectives you do
collecting and selling daily doff crafted ship parts: 1 mil
2 hours of stfs: at least one mil
selling doff and dilithium mining traces on exchange: .5 mil
recruiting and splitting doffs to put on the exchange: .5 mil at least, more if KDF
daily dil spent on zen to buy a key and sell on the exchange: at least one mil
I mean, theoretically, a week of planned, structured 4-5 hour days of play would probably get you around 10 mil a day, before you went all wolf of wallstreet and just camped the exchange, buying low and selling high.
Before we even open up the massive can of worms that is cruiser commands defining ship types, which has been beaten to death on these forums already, and torpedoes the argument that the GX is a dread as well as it does the Oddy...
Points from my argument to dispute are still being picked and chosen. Sure, semantics are fun, but the most important point, that the GX is and should be inferior to the Bort and Scim for the reasons I listed is still sound.
I'm not disagreeing on the Romulan Scim. That ship is just a pure punisher. From what I saw my Fleet mates do with it in what few STFs I done. The Bort I hadn't really saw in action, just a few flying around. So I can't tell how they perform.
If going by time line, ship build time, and the Galaxy X was really built. Compared to the Odyssey it should be inferior. The Odyssey is like 30-40 years younger on build and tech.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
If you don't own any of the ships it is a pretty good value.
I hope you enjoy it.
I know I will. As I get 2 nice ships to use. Unlike most, I don't mind the heavy Eng layout of the Galaxy-R, the 3 nacelles on the Galaxy-X, or the slow turning on them both. I use and enjoy a KDF Negh'Var with a similar layout as the Galaxy-R, and a Romulan DD with its very slow turning.
I will make good use out of the bundle once I get the zen for it.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
- It needs a Lieutenant Commander slot, otherwise it's useless.
- If doesn't have a Lieutenant Commander/Commander slot I am not going to use it.
- They just tossed on another Hanger. It needed a new Boff layout!
- This is how the ships should be. *Toss in random wish list of Bridge station's.*
- The Lance is not accurate and misses to much.
- This ship isn't anything like in TNG.
- The Galaxy Class is still the same Failboat it always was.
- The Galaxy X needs to be as powerful as a Scimitar Dreadnought.
Then their are a dozen other variation's on these things mentioned a hundred times in to many threads. So, I am going to say this.
1. Why is it that the Galaxy X and the Ambassador Class have the same Tactical layout and everyone complain's about the Galaxy X the most? In Fact everyone who complain's says Galaxy X must/has to have at least a Lieutenant Commander slot. The Ambassador Class is praised by most as being a great ship. In fact, I love it to. When I couldn't have a Fleet Ambassador I ran a Mirror Heavy Cruiser Retrofit for a long time just because the layout is lifted from the ambassador short of the Universal station.
So why must the Galaxy have to have a Lieutenant Commander or Commander Tactical Station?
I run Tactical Team 1 and Attack pattern Beta on my Lieutenant tactical station. Then I equipped Fire at Will 1 on the ensign Tactical for PvE story mission's. I've never had a problem contributing in a fleet action or pushing out enough damage to get the job done with my Tactical Officer. I also haven't just run this on the Galaxy X but two ships prior to it as well.
Instead of trying to make the Galaxy X an Assault Cruise Refit with a Cloak why not just try and make do? The Ambassador does a fine job without a better tactical set up. If you want a Lieutenant Commander station there are plenty of ships with a Lieutenant Commander Tactical/Commander Tactical. Go and fly one of them.
2. What's wrong with a Hanger?
This ship turns slow with or without RCS's console's equipped. Unlike the Vesta, this ship could make good use of a hanger. Yes, the Enterprise D never launched a fighter. Yes, the Dreadnought Enterprise never launched a fighter. That doesn't mean this ship couldn't use one. Just because it's not cannon should not be a viable excuse to not have one.
If you haven't noticed not much of anything in this game is cannon let alone Star Trek at all. Starfleet would not build an Avenger. They also wouldn't be at war with the Klingon's, Borg, Breen, and etc all at one time while pumping out Constitution Class Star Ship's and giving a command to a Lieutenant fresh out of the academy.
3. This ship has a cloak. You cloak, buff your self, de-cloak, and fire said big gun at a target directly ahead of you. I am not saying the Spinal Lance is perfect. Mine's missed one to many times on something so big it shouldn't have. However, think about it, why is Cryptic going to give you a weapon that can one shot a enemy if not bring them down to nothing and never miss every now and then? If you want an I win button go fly a Scimitar Dreadnought.
4. The Galaxy X is never going to be like Riker's ship. Never. Stop wishing for it.
5. The Galaxy class is dated. The Galaxy X is dated. They don't hit as hard as newer ships and they can't solo a mission. You have to work in a group with them. That doesn't mean the Galaxy Refit is a Failboat. It's a tank and a healer. DPS has simply made the point of being an engineer almost obsolete.
Can other ships can do the job better? Yes.
Do you have to use the Galaxy? No.
Are they effective? Yes. However most people, especially now, would rather go left and right and blast everything rather than heal. Don't blame it for a change in game play.
Of the new Galaxy pack I have three complaint's with the change's the made to the new line.
1. The one station they made a Universal in the Galaxy X is the Tactical Ensign station. I would have rather settled for one of the engineering station's or the science one.
2. Why is the cloak not built in? One free'ed up engineering station would help the Galaxy X even a little.
3. While I don't care if the ship has a turn rate of 6, in order to get a turn rate of 7 I have to equip two console's. That is two slots that can be used for something else I need on the Galaxy and Galaxy X.
In closing, I am not a rabid Galaxy Fanboy. I like my Galaxy X but I know when I use it I could do much better in a Regent or Vesta. However, I don't expect it to be a Regent class. So I don't play it like one. I don't want it to be a Regent for that matter either. I also don't think the Galaxy Line needs to be better than it already is. Changing it's boff layout would make it a copy of something else. If they did make it a copy of the Regent/Avenger/Scimitar then a majority of whatever offended group would complain it is ripping off said ship and that Cryptic is unoriginal. I have come to the conclusion that no matter what Crypitic did with the Galaxy Line it was going to draw heat. So, their is only one thing that can be said about the Galaxy line that has always been said about it.
1. Either you love your Galaxy, and use it no matter what.
2. You have a Galaxy Class ship and don't use it because you have a *insert random better ship*.
3. You will never own one.
4. In the worst case your the douche cursing a user of a Galaxy Class before warping out of a Fleet action that hasn't started. ( This has happened sadly.)
It would have ended up one of these four way's no matter what happened with the Galaxy line. So, honestly, I can't figure why Cryptic even bothered to update the Galaxy line at all. People cried for years for any change and now they got it. Except, it's still not good enough. Honestly, no matter what Cryptic had done it would have never been good enough. So, i say this. Use it or don't. Any improvement in the Galaxy line to me is honestly better than Cryptic shoving out another ugly and overpowered solo ship to mess up STO worse than it is.
No it was not, i was telling the truth. I can never seem to get over 2 million
Ohhhh. Well killdozer's advice is pretty much spot on. The foundry has loot centric missions, start with those. And then yeah, follow his outline. You may not be able to rock the 4 to 5 hours straight of farming (it's boring), but even just doing one of the foundry missions each day, you'll be over 2 million in a couple of days.
- It needs a Lieutenant Commander slot, otherwise it's useless.
- If doesn't have a Lieutenant Commander/Commander slot I am not going to use it.
- They just tossed on another Hanger. It needed a new Boff layout!
- This is how the ships should be. *Toss in random wish list of Bridge station's.*
- The Lance is not accurate and misses to much.
- This ship isn't anything like in TNG.
- The Galaxy Class is still the same Failboat it always was.
- The Galaxy X needs to be as powerful as a Scimitar Dreadnought.
Then their are a dozen other variation's on these things mentioned a hundred times in to many threads. So, I am going to say this.
1. Why is it that the Galaxy X and the Ambassador Class have the same Tactical layout and everyone complain's about the Galaxy X the most? In Fact everyone who complain's says Galaxy X must/has to have at least a Lieutenant Commander slot. The Ambassador Class is praised by most as being a great ship. In fact, I love it to. When I couldn't have a Fleet Ambassador I ran a Mirror Heavy Cruiser Retrofit for a long time just because the layout is lifted from the ambassador short of the Universal station.
Your listing complaints is not what undermines your posts summary value. It is that you follow that list comparing apples and oranges as the Dreadnought's boff layout is identical to the Assault Cruiser - neither of which have a LTC-Science station providing a substantial difference in functional flexibility.
1. Why is it that the Galaxy X and the Ambassador Class have the same Tactical layout and everyone complain's about the Galaxy X the most? In Fact everyone who complain's says Galaxy X must/has to have at least a Lieutenant Commander slot. The Ambassador Class is praised by most as being a great ship. In fact, I love it to. When I couldn't have a Fleet Ambassador I ran a Mirror Heavy Cruiser Retrofit for a long time just because the layout is lifted from the ambassador short of the Universal station.
(first off, I have a fleet ambassador.. And I love it, it does everything I want.... The galaxy to do)
The Ambassador, being as good as it is, isn't praised for its tactical abilities, it is more so praised for the fact its just a good balanced ship (mainly due to that Lt. Commander sci).. And the Boff layout rather complements the ship.
The Galaxy-X however was specifically made for war (from what I remember), and the galaxy-r to start with was designed near the end of a war.
So idk.. A ship built far combat (as in, destroying other ships.. Why do you think that spinal phaser lance it has was built?) should actually have the boff layout to do so
The Galaxy-X however was specifically made for war (from what I remember), and the galaxy-r to start with was designed near the end of a war.
So idk.. A ship built far combat (as in, destroying other ships.. Why do you think that spinal phaser lance it has was built?) should actually have the boff layout to do so
The Fleet X was given a 4th Tactical Console. Which is specifically one of the things asked for quite a bit in the Galaxy Beef thread.
They gave it a turn rate boost with this reboot. And contrary to what one poster thinks up above (while asking for a turn rate boost of 2, which is insane), the +1 to turn is a significant boost for the ship. There's a bit of a tradeoff, you have to equip the consoles for the bonus, but it's there.
You'd get more bang for your console space w/ a fleet RCS probably instead of the 2 or 3 consoles needed for the set bonus +1. The Scimitar gets a much larger turn bonus for it's console set (if I remember right)
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
Your listing complaints is not what undermines your posts summary value. It is that you follow that list comparing apples and oranges as the Dreadnought's boff layout is identical to the Assault Cruiser - neither of which have a LTC-Science station providing a substantial difference in functional flexibility.
He said the Ambassador, the Support Cruiser. Not the Assault Cruiser.
(first off, I have a fleet ambassador.. And I love it, it does everything I want.... The galaxy to do)
The Ambassador, being as good as it is, isn't praised for its tactical abilities, it is more so praised for the fact its just a good balanced ship (mainly due to that Lt. Commander sci).. And the Boff layout rather complements the ship.
The Galaxy-X however was specifically made for war (from what I remember), and the galaxy-r to start with was designed near the end of a war.
So idk.. A ship built far combat (as in, destroying other ships.. Why do you think that spinal phaser lance it has was built?) should actually have the boff layout to do so
Once again, if your expecting the ship from TNG you have your hope's way to high. If we followed TNG logic all the way through this game would be nothing like it is. The only Escort using Cannon's would be the Defiant. Excelsior's would be sub par to a Galaxy, Sovereign, Nebula, Cheyenne, and anything made in the TNG era. Second, the Ambassador would be second rate to the Galaxy and Galaxy X.
Considering it's even made note of in Yesterday's Enterprise how much a leap their is in Tech from the C to D Enterprise. Even if you filtered in upgrades the Ambassador would fall behind the curve compared to the new Flag ship of the fleet. However, does any of that mean a thing in STO? No. It all means nothing. Cannon Star Trek mean's nothing to Cryptic. The Galaxy X is never going to be that ship. Let it go. Use it for what it is.
Besides, the Galaxy X was a ship released when the game was young and more balanced. In it's time when it first came out it was effective. However, the game isn't the same as it was. However, back then it wasn't as gimped as it is now either.
Second, the so called versatility comes from a Lieutenant Commander Science slot. By losing one single science ability you get the ability to cloak and have a damage bonus when you de-cloak and open fire. So, you short yourself one Viral Matrix for a bonus in damage and quick kill.
My point was, and is, that the Ambassador trades fire power for a Science lean. That makes it effective. The Galaxy X is slow and turn's poorly but makes up for that with a cloak and the ability to fire the Spinal Lance for good damage, if done right and lucky. You drop out of cloak, fire the spinal Lance hitting for a high critical. Either you take out the target or you weaken it to the point you can finish it off with next to no effort. It doesn't need a better Tactical Lay out to finish off a target. It is an Alpha Strike ship. It has a big gun. That is it's Commander Tactical Station.
The problem with the Galaxy X is that everything got better and it stayed the same for a very long time until the Fleet Version has came along.
You don't display any knowledge of what a dreadnought is.
historically- a type of battleship introduced in the early 20th century, larger and faster than its predecessors and equipped entirely with large-caliber guns.
I always put it as a big battle cruiser. Big guns and speed at the expense of armor.
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
5. The Galaxy class is dated. The Galaxy X is dated.
Yes, Galaxy is dated but the Gal-X isn't. Remember the Gal-X was future Riker's flagship from 25 years in the future. So around 2395, that makes it ~14 yrs old. Sure it's not got that "new starship smell" anymore but it's hardly dated for a capital ship.
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
Yes, Galaxy is dated but the Gal-X isn't. Remember the Gal-X was future Riker's flagship from 25 years in the future. So around 2395, that makes it ~14 yrs old. Sure it's not got that "new starship smell" anymore but it's hardly dated for a capital ship.
I am not referring to it in the since of the cannon/story time line. I am saying the Galaxy Line is dated in the since of Star Trek Online's ship line up/release. Power Creep and Game play style has made them less relevant despite the love of them.
I am not referring to it in the since of the cannon/story time line. I am saying the Galaxy Line is dated in the since of Star Trek Online's ship line up/release. Power Creep and Game play style has made them less relevant despite the love of them.
^^ Exactly this.
Which is why I've been saying, that, in order for this to be real reboot, it needs to be brought more-or-less on par with current power creep ships. Otherwise i't's not a reboot, but ere a rollback from a distant past.
So much to the part with a new model had to be created for the Galaxy-X and Saucer separation. It is the same model even the phaser lance is still not aligned, I am sorry Cryptic but your Galaxy Reboot is a total FAIL!
Yes, Galaxy is dated but the Gal-X isn't. Remember the Gal-X was future Riker's flagship from 25 years in the future. So around 2395, that makes it ~14 yrs old. Sure it's not got that "new starship smell" anymore but it's hardly dated for a capital ship.
Actually I think if anything Riker kept this ship for Nostalgia reasons more then anything else.
But I really really HATE that "its dated" talk.
I mean, we life in a time of very fast technological progression right now, but that is not how things can work on the long run.
In Star Trek there has been very very little significant progression between TOS and TNG in 100 years so its obviously not how things work in that time.
Also the Galaxy was build to be used at least 100 years according to tech manuals (yes not canon but is there any proof against it?)
Also "realistically" it would take at least 20 years (if not more about 40 years) from planing a Galaxy sized ship to the first active model, not even speaking of regular production. It should take about 10 years to even build such a ship, even with replicators (although that math probably doesn't apply to STO since we would fight more then 20 years for the Dyson sphere now^^)
Would be sad if it would be dated that soon.
Oh and btw, we know from Enterprise that ships like the Prometheus and the Vor'Cha cruiser are still in use several hundred years later.
A cooldown reduction on the Phaser Lance and/or an accuracy buff on it. Those additions being a 'set bonus' for the Anti-matter spread and cloaking device would be acceptable.
An exclusive Venture dreadnought bridge would also make me want to buy one all over again.
Little known fact: Phaser lance does not have an accuracy problem. The problem is with the players.
Phaser lance is essentially a starship 'high density beam rifle' secondary attack mixed with the kinetic cutting beam. When you fire the thing the beam stays active for a second or so in a straight line delivering the damage. If the target ship is moving then the damage may not be fully deposited on the target. Also, ships BEHIND the target that get caught in the beam also take damage.
Its impressive to see the level of FAIL in dreadnaught captains that can't figure out that you MUST tractor down a target and NAIL IT once your ship's vector is set towards the target (aka you're not moving left/right/up/down during the lasing).
Now, what would sell the dreadnaught to me?
1- Customization option: Remove third nacelle. Its just effing FUGLY in my opinion.
2- Lance ability should be allowed to use beam overload as an additional power-up to the weapon. Essentially change the Lance from an ability to a weapon slot (put it in a 4th forward weapon slot that is locked out).
3- Bridge Officer station... make the two LT stations universal. There is a good reason for this: The ship is still an engineering vessel (cmdr and lt cmdr engineering) but it lacks the versatility to allow tactical and science captains to use it.
A tactical captain using 2x LT tac stations and 1 ensign tactical will use this ship effectively. A sci captain with 2x LT science stations can equip the ship with science abilities to help it tank or attack better. If the player is an engineer he can put 2 more engineering stations in there and make a true dreadnaught monster tank but with limited offensive firepower other than the lance and the ensign tactical.
4- Finally, the Lance should be on a shorter timer. This can be achieved by giving it boff-ability status so that it can be affected by duty officer timer reduction abilities.
I am not referring to it in the since of the cannon/story time line. I am saying the Galaxy Line is dated in the since of Star Trek Online's ship line up/release. Power Creep and Game play style has made them less relevant despite the love of them.
Then that's even more reason to update the stats on it.
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
So much to the part with a new model had to be created for the Galaxy-X and Saucer separation. It is the same model even the phaser lance is still not aligned, I am sorry Cryptic but your Galaxy Reboot is a total FAIL!
From everything I've read, the ship model artists weren't really involved in this reboot. So it's not surprising that you're finding the models weren't updated. I'm not sure anyone at Cryptic ever even hinted that the Galaxy ship models would get touched. The animations, yeah, the models? Not anything I ever read.
From everything I've read, the ship model artists weren't really involved in this reboot.
I'm puzzled as to why they weren't called in, in the first place.
Revamp: (noun)1. an act of improving the form, structure, or appearance of something.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I'm puzzled as to why they weren't called in, in the first place.
Revamp: (noun)1. an act of improving the form, structure, or appearance of something.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the Galaxy already got three separate passes from Logan during his time with the game and so someone higher up in the chain probably thought the models were already tweaked out and didn't think the resources needed to be allocated.
Comments
That is the best Idea about the Lance i real so far.
If nothing else it could be fixed like that cannons in the Dyson ship... Or effected by cannon and beam abilitys like the proton weapon from the rep.
Actually there is no reason to keep in a click ability IMO
Actually they are the same ship, one has modifications, the other one not...
Technically it's the other way around: scimitar and bortas are the answers to the odyssey^^
Your thoughts are based upon terminology which has no gameplay meaning at all and which, even if you consider story reasoning as "fluff" less meaning than this.
As for the actual question: I bought it for the looks. And that was at a time when I still wanted to own all canon ships and that was a reasonable goal.
For the changes: I like them, and it might cause me to fly the ship again. Also I'm probably the only person who willingly admits liking hangar pets, and having a federation ship more available to launch federation shuttles feels good.
For all that requests for the lt cmdr tac slots:
The problem here remains not the gx being broken. It's the game being broken hard.
As long as everything is about damage and damage only no real cruiser has place in the game. And also it's boring. I miss the old sto where ppl still supported and healed and stuff like that, there ships like this were useful.
...I mean, c'mon PWE, it's not really a bundle without that last component, right?
Last I checked on the exchange they were like 7.5 million credits.
They're pretty cheap.
CHEAP!!! I can barely get 2 mill without struggling!!!!!!!!
...wat?
Foundry farms: 1 mil
2 hours of tank loot trawling in kerrat: 3-5 mil depending on how many of the objectives you do
collecting and selling daily doff crafted ship parts: 1 mil
2 hours of stfs: at least one mil
selling doff and dilithium mining traces on exchange: .5 mil
recruiting and splitting doffs to put on the exchange: .5 mil at least, more if KDF
daily dil spent on zen to buy a key and sell on the exchange: at least one mil
I mean, theoretically, a week of planned, structured 4-5 hour days of play would probably get you around 10 mil a day, before you went all wolf of wallstreet and just camped the exchange, buying low and selling high.
I'm not disagreeing on the Romulan Scim. That ship is just a pure punisher. From what I saw my Fleet mates do with it in what few STFs I done. The Bort I hadn't really saw in action, just a few flying around. So I can't tell how they perform.
If going by time line, ship build time, and the Galaxy X was really built. Compared to the Odyssey it should be inferior. The Odyssey is like 30-40 years younger on build and tech.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Your in-game finances are your problem. Large sums of EC can be made in-game with very little effort provided you know where to look.
And to be perfectly honest it doesn't get any more "free" than spending EC for a fleet ship.
I know I will. As I get 2 nice ships to use. Unlike most, I don't mind the heavy Eng layout of the Galaxy-R, the 3 nacelles on the Galaxy-X, or the slow turning on them both. I use and enjoy a KDF Negh'Var with a similar layout as the Galaxy-R, and a Romulan DD with its very slow turning.
I will make good use out of the bundle once I get the zen for it.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
- It needs a Lieutenant Commander slot, otherwise it's useless.
- If doesn't have a Lieutenant Commander/Commander slot I am not going to use it.
- They just tossed on another Hanger. It needed a new Boff layout!
- This is how the ships should be. *Toss in random wish list of Bridge station's.*
- The Lance is not accurate and misses to much.
- This ship isn't anything like in TNG.
- The Galaxy Class is still the same Failboat it always was.
- The Galaxy X needs to be as powerful as a Scimitar Dreadnought.
Then their are a dozen other variation's on these things mentioned a hundred times in to many threads. So, I am going to say this.
1. Why is it that the Galaxy X and the Ambassador Class have the same Tactical layout and everyone complain's about the Galaxy X the most? In Fact everyone who complain's says Galaxy X must/has to have at least a Lieutenant Commander slot. The Ambassador Class is praised by most as being a great ship. In fact, I love it to. When I couldn't have a Fleet Ambassador I ran a Mirror Heavy Cruiser Retrofit for a long time just because the layout is lifted from the ambassador short of the Universal station.
So why must the Galaxy have to have a Lieutenant Commander or Commander Tactical Station?
I run Tactical Team 1 and Attack pattern Beta on my Lieutenant tactical station. Then I equipped Fire at Will 1 on the ensign Tactical for PvE story mission's. I've never had a problem contributing in a fleet action or pushing out enough damage to get the job done with my Tactical Officer. I also haven't just run this on the Galaxy X but two ships prior to it as well.
Instead of trying to make the Galaxy X an Assault Cruise Refit with a Cloak why not just try and make do? The Ambassador does a fine job without a better tactical set up. If you want a Lieutenant Commander station there are plenty of ships with a Lieutenant Commander Tactical/Commander Tactical. Go and fly one of them.
2. What's wrong with a Hanger?
This ship turns slow with or without RCS's console's equipped. Unlike the Vesta, this ship could make good use of a hanger. Yes, the Enterprise D never launched a fighter. Yes, the Dreadnought Enterprise never launched a fighter. That doesn't mean this ship couldn't use one. Just because it's not cannon should not be a viable excuse to not have one.
If you haven't noticed not much of anything in this game is cannon let alone Star Trek at all. Starfleet would not build an Avenger. They also wouldn't be at war with the Klingon's, Borg, Breen, and etc all at one time while pumping out Constitution Class Star Ship's and giving a command to a Lieutenant fresh out of the academy.
3. This ship has a cloak. You cloak, buff your self, de-cloak, and fire said big gun at a target directly ahead of you. I am not saying the Spinal Lance is perfect. Mine's missed one to many times on something so big it shouldn't have. However, think about it, why is Cryptic going to give you a weapon that can one shot a enemy if not bring them down to nothing and never miss every now and then? If you want an I win button go fly a Scimitar Dreadnought.
4. The Galaxy X is never going to be like Riker's ship. Never. Stop wishing for it.
5. The Galaxy class is dated. The Galaxy X is dated. They don't hit as hard as newer ships and they can't solo a mission. You have to work in a group with them. That doesn't mean the Galaxy Refit is a Failboat. It's a tank and a healer. DPS has simply made the point of being an engineer almost obsolete.
Can other ships can do the job better? Yes.
Do you have to use the Galaxy? No.
Are they effective? Yes. However most people, especially now, would rather go left and right and blast everything rather than heal. Don't blame it for a change in game play.
Of the new Galaxy pack I have three complaint's with the change's the made to the new line.
1. The one station they made a Universal in the Galaxy X is the Tactical Ensign station. I would have rather settled for one of the engineering station's or the science one.
2. Why is the cloak not built in? One free'ed up engineering station would help the Galaxy X even a little.
3. While I don't care if the ship has a turn rate of 6, in order to get a turn rate of 7 I have to equip two console's. That is two slots that can be used for something else I need on the Galaxy and Galaxy X.
In closing, I am not a rabid Galaxy Fanboy. I like my Galaxy X but I know when I use it I could do much better in a Regent or Vesta. However, I don't expect it to be a Regent class. So I don't play it like one. I don't want it to be a Regent for that matter either. I also don't think the Galaxy Line needs to be better than it already is. Changing it's boff layout would make it a copy of something else. If they did make it a copy of the Regent/Avenger/Scimitar then a majority of whatever offended group would complain it is ripping off said ship and that Cryptic is unoriginal. I have come to the conclusion that no matter what Crypitic did with the Galaxy Line it was going to draw heat. So, their is only one thing that can be said about the Galaxy line that has always been said about it.
1. Either you love your Galaxy, and use it no matter what.
2. You have a Galaxy Class ship and don't use it because you have a *insert random better ship*.
3. You will never own one.
4. In the worst case your the douche cursing a user of a Galaxy Class before warping out of a Fleet action that hasn't started. ( This has happened sadly.)
It would have ended up one of these four way's no matter what happened with the Galaxy line. So, honestly, I can't figure why Cryptic even bothered to update the Galaxy line at all. People cried for years for any change and now they got it. Except, it's still not good enough. Honestly, no matter what Cryptic had done it would have never been good enough. So, i say this. Use it or don't. Any improvement in the Galaxy line to me is honestly better than Cryptic shoving out another ugly and overpowered solo ship to mess up STO worse than it is.
I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm.
No it was not, i was telling the truth. I can never seem to get over 2 million
Ohhhh. Well killdozer's advice is pretty much spot on. The foundry has loot centric missions, start with those. And then yeah, follow his outline. You may not be able to rock the 4 to 5 hours straight of farming (it's boring), but even just doing one of the foundry missions each day, you'll be over 2 million in a couple of days.
Your listing complaints is not what undermines your posts summary value. It is that you follow that list comparing apples and oranges as the Dreadnought's boff layout is identical to the Assault Cruiser - neither of which have a LTC-Science station providing a substantial difference in functional flexibility.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
(first off, I have a fleet ambassador.. And I love it, it does everything I want.... The galaxy to do)
The Ambassador, being as good as it is, isn't praised for its tactical abilities, it is more so praised for the fact its just a good balanced ship (mainly due to that Lt. Commander sci).. And the Boff layout rather complements the ship.
The Galaxy-X however was specifically made for war (from what I remember), and the galaxy-r to start with was designed near the end of a war.
So idk.. A ship built far combat (as in, destroying other ships.. Why do you think that spinal phaser lance it has was built?) should actually have the boff layout to do so
The Fleet X was given a 4th Tactical Console. Which is specifically one of the things asked for quite a bit in the Galaxy Beef thread.
Feedback heard, changes approved!
You'd get more bang for your console space w/ a fleet RCS probably instead of the 2 or 3 consoles needed for the set bonus +1. The Scimitar gets a much larger turn bonus for it's console set (if I remember right)
He said the Ambassador, the Support Cruiser. Not the Assault Cruiser.
Learn to read.
Once again, if your expecting the ship from TNG you have your hope's way to high. If we followed TNG logic all the way through this game would be nothing like it is. The only Escort using Cannon's would be the Defiant. Excelsior's would be sub par to a Galaxy, Sovereign, Nebula, Cheyenne, and anything made in the TNG era. Second, the Ambassador would be second rate to the Galaxy and Galaxy X.
Considering it's even made note of in Yesterday's Enterprise how much a leap their is in Tech from the C to D Enterprise. Even if you filtered in upgrades the Ambassador would fall behind the curve compared to the new Flag ship of the fleet. However, does any of that mean a thing in STO? No. It all means nothing. Cannon Star Trek mean's nothing to Cryptic. The Galaxy X is never going to be that ship. Let it go. Use it for what it is.
Besides, the Galaxy X was a ship released when the game was young and more balanced. In it's time when it first came out it was effective. However, the game isn't the same as it was. However, back then it wasn't as gimped as it is now either.
Second, the so called versatility comes from a Lieutenant Commander Science slot. By losing one single science ability you get the ability to cloak and have a damage bonus when you de-cloak and open fire. So, you short yourself one Viral Matrix for a bonus in damage and quick kill.
My point was, and is, that the Ambassador trades fire power for a Science lean. That makes it effective. The Galaxy X is slow and turn's poorly but makes up for that with a cloak and the ability to fire the Spinal Lance for good damage, if done right and lucky. You drop out of cloak, fire the spinal Lance hitting for a high critical. Either you take out the target or you weaken it to the point you can finish it off with next to no effort. It doesn't need a better Tactical Lay out to finish off a target. It is an Alpha Strike ship. It has a big gun. That is it's Commander Tactical Station.
The problem with the Galaxy X is that everything got better and it stayed the same for a very long time until the Fleet Version has came along.
historically- a type of battleship introduced in the early 20th century, larger and faster than its predecessors and equipped entirely with large-caliber guns.
I always put it as a big battle cruiser. Big guns and speed at the expense of armor.
Yes, Galaxy is dated but the Gal-X isn't. Remember the Gal-X was future Riker's flagship from 25 years in the future. So around 2395, that makes it ~14 yrs old. Sure it's not got that "new starship smell" anymore but it's hardly dated for a capital ship.
I am not referring to it in the since of the cannon/story time line. I am saying the Galaxy Line is dated in the since of Star Trek Online's ship line up/release. Power Creep and Game play style has made them less relevant despite the love of them.
^^ Exactly this.
Which is why I've been saying, that, in order for this to be real reboot, it needs to be brought more-or-less on par with current power creep ships. Otherwise i't's not a reboot, but ere a rollback from a distant past.
What do we think about your Galaxy Reboot? This
Actually I think if anything Riker kept this ship for Nostalgia reasons more then anything else.
But I really really HATE that "its dated" talk.
I mean, we life in a time of very fast technological progression right now, but that is not how things can work on the long run.
In Star Trek there has been very very little significant progression between TOS and TNG in 100 years so its obviously not how things work in that time.
Also the Galaxy was build to be used at least 100 years according to tech manuals (yes not canon but is there any proof against it?)
Also "realistically" it would take at least 20 years (if not more about 40 years) from planing a Galaxy sized ship to the first active model, not even speaking of regular production. It should take about 10 years to even build such a ship, even with replicators (although that math probably doesn't apply to STO since we would fight more then 20 years for the Dyson sphere now^^)
Would be sad if it would be dated that soon.
Oh and btw, we know from Enterprise that ships like the Prometheus and the Vor'Cha cruiser are still in use several hundred years later.
Little known fact: Phaser lance does not have an accuracy problem. The problem is with the players.
Phaser lance is essentially a starship 'high density beam rifle' secondary attack mixed with the kinetic cutting beam. When you fire the thing the beam stays active for a second or so in a straight line delivering the damage. If the target ship is moving then the damage may not be fully deposited on the target. Also, ships BEHIND the target that get caught in the beam also take damage.
Its impressive to see the level of FAIL in dreadnaught captains that can't figure out that you MUST tractor down a target and NAIL IT once your ship's vector is set towards the target (aka you're not moving left/right/up/down during the lasing).
Now, what would sell the dreadnaught to me?
1- Customization option: Remove third nacelle. Its just effing FUGLY in my opinion.
2- Lance ability should be allowed to use beam overload as an additional power-up to the weapon. Essentially change the Lance from an ability to a weapon slot (put it in a 4th forward weapon slot that is locked out).
3- Bridge Officer station... make the two LT stations universal. There is a good reason for this: The ship is still an engineering vessel (cmdr and lt cmdr engineering) but it lacks the versatility to allow tactical and science captains to use it.
A tactical captain using 2x LT tac stations and 1 ensign tactical will use this ship effectively. A sci captain with 2x LT science stations can equip the ship with science abilities to help it tank or attack better. If the player is an engineer he can put 2 more engineering stations in there and make a true dreadnaught monster tank but with limited offensive firepower other than the lance and the ensign tactical.
4- Finally, the Lance should be on a shorter timer. This can be achieved by giving it boff-ability status so that it can be affected by duty officer timer reduction abilities.
Then that's even more reason to update the stats on it.
The general consensus among Cryptic's die-hards is that anything shoveled on their plate, whether or not it smells like TRIBBLE, is ambrosia.
It stinks to "high heaven" given how flat it makes Cryptic's "We love Star Trek so much!" claims.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
From everything I've read, the ship model artists weren't really involved in this reboot. So it's not surprising that you're finding the models weren't updated. I'm not sure anyone at Cryptic ever even hinted that the Galaxy ship models would get touched. The animations, yeah, the models? Not anything I ever read.
I'm puzzled as to why they weren't called in, in the first place.
Revamp: (noun)1. an act of improving the form, structure, or appearance of something.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the Galaxy already got three separate passes from Logan during his time with the game and so someone higher up in the chain probably thought the models were already tweaked out and didn't think the resources needed to be allocated.
Seems like a rather plausible scenario.