I can only say: Well played, Cryptic! A 'reboot' that made the Galaxy-R even more obsolete. :rolleyes:
i think the whole thing is a nefarious plot to get everyone out of galaxy refits and into galaxy dreadnoughts, because fewer people fly the dreadnought. more sales = more money.
or in the coming days they could revamp the Galaxy Retrofit, but tribble suggests otherwise...
i think the whole thing is a nefarious plot to get everyone out of galaxy refits and into galaxy dreadnoughts, because fewer people fly the dreadnought. more sales = more money.
or in the coming days they could revamp the Galaxy Retrofit, but tribble suggests otherwise...
There were not that many people flying around in Galaxy-Rs already, certainly not enough to make this change worth it. And if people are going to spend money on a ship, there are better ones than the Dreadnought even with the changes.
Just wanted to pop in here and say "hello", and a big thank-you to the people who have added the pro-Galaxy signatures as part of their forum appearances.
Since technically we have gotten exactly what we pushed for - a Galaxy-class revamp - I suppose it's a success, even though the consensus is mostly in the negative.
Feel free to continue wearing the signatures if you want; I have no objections to it. Or, if you're like me and want to switch it out for now, go right ahead.
For those of you who want a pro-Galaxy signature, don't hesitate to send me a forum mail. I'll get it done within a week
Again, thanks to everyone who supported this initiative, and I'll see you out there in my Galaxy.
-stardestroyer001
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!
You know one of the reasons I started flying the Independence-D again is because it's a challenge. The Avenger frankly is just to easy in PVE. But the main reason I wanted a fix for the Galaxy was for No Win Scenario, and some of the really Teamwork heavy missions. And yes, in the end, I remember it as the Enterprise I grew up with. Though the Connie refit was my first exposure to Star Trek, and is still probably my all time favorite, the Galaxy was my generations Enterprise. There is plenty of room for new ships, content, so that the Galaxy can be improved without ruining the game or taking away from other ships.
It just somehow feels like something is missing, I admit I don't understand why people dislike the ship so much that they want it pushed to the bottom of the barrel. I watched every season of TNG and yeah, Picard, who ended up being a superb Captain talked to much. So they took a beating on the regular. But by Season 3 they were facing down the Borg, and she held up better than...what was the number? 52 ships? Excelsior sand Ambassadors among them. And yet in Sto she is passed by both, by MORE than just a little bit. It's frustrating. I've see the ship for episode 1 through Generations, and her end in Generations was nothing short of criminal. A movie that disgraced the ship AND Captain Kirk. And now this?
Make her special devs, not so e sub par test target. Make her respected, not some ship you have to make some weird frankenbuild to be on par. Because she won't be better, not the way she so set up now......
If your going to fix engineering and that's going to give her edge back? Great, but what we have right now does not capture the ships spirit, not if you wan to " Make sure history never forgets the name Enterprise"
They did seem to replace "make, sell, profit, make obsolete and sell new thing", with "make obsolete before sale, sell...".
That sure is fine way to make profit in the short term a ferangi might be proud but. The long term viability of this business practice along with profits made, will not be sustainable.
Leave the console layout alone... Its one of the more unique layouts thats only shared by one ship in the fed side the OPs oddy, disregarding the bulkwork dread and now Gal-x.
Ah, okay. I didn't know about that. My apologies.
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Cryptic is a joke how its handling of the Galaxy classes Cruisers, while it did upgraded the Galaxy Dreadnaught (which is needed), they still neglected the Galaxy Retrofit to the same level as before.
If they gonna give the Galaxy-X a Hanger Slot and a Ensign Eng boff Station, they might as well give it to the Galaxy-R as well while reducing the cruiser commands just to Shield and Attract Fire commands since it's a defensive version while the Galaxy-X is a Offensive version in this game.
The final reason really seems to be that those ships have to be bad ingame to make sure ppl keep buying other ships. You come to this game as a new player buy the galaxy and realize it sucks and you go and buy the dread cause dread and lance but thats also lame as hell so you go buy the excelsior and finally have a good cruiser. So instead of getting the gal and be happy with it you keep buying ships and thats what they want.
The final reason really seems to be that those ships have to be bad ingame to make sure ppl keep buying other ships. You come to this game as a new player buy the galaxy and realize it sucks and you go and buy the dread cause dread and lance but thats also lame as hell so you go buy the excelsior and finally have a good cruiser. So instead of getting the gal and be happy with it you keep buying ships and thats what they want.
since new player ask old players about ships, that scenario is not happening.
Plus if a player buys a ship advertised as badass and then notkces how he got shafted, he is only going to get pissed and not going to buy more ships.
All ships should be brought up to curent tech and powercreep regularly. that way you never have to feat making a buy that will turn worthles soon.
Hi, i am y "just for fun" player and mostly rely on simple stats to decide which ship i am going to get.
Everyone tells me that the Galaxy- and the -X are weak and only perform well if outfittet with Mk XII fleet consoles and weapons. But why is that so? Yes, they only have +5 weapons power compared to the Assault cruisers +10 but the same goes for the Fleed Advanced heavy cruiser, the fleet Support Cruiser and the Fleet star cruiser. The Galaxys have more hull than any other starship, the dreadnought has a cloak, seperation abilities, a hangarbay for shuttles or fighters and the Phaser lance. From all this it should be the strongest of all of them.
And one thing about the Phaser lance. I hear and read a lot about the lance being too weak and missing its target often.
i agree with that.
The Lance is supposed to be a "one shot, one kill" weapon of mass destruction. We have seen it in TNG destroying a Negh'Var with ease. But of course thats impossible to do in a game. I propose a "lance mode" a bit like the guramba but totally different. When the mode is activated the Phaserlance becomes a what it is suposed to be, a weapon that can kill with a few shots.
It fires like a normal Beam bank but only with the narrow firing arc it has. In lance mode the other weapons are deactivated so it doesnt become an "Federation Borg cube" and the turnrate is slightly increased. A cooldown activates just like it does on the science destroyers when sou switch to tactical mode so you can not just switch modes from one to the other and while you can kill targets easily with this weapon you have to decide if you are going to use it against faster targets because you loose all other weapons and thy could outflank you. So like in Elite Taskforce missions the Lance is the weapon of choice against the cubes but not useful against Borgified Vesssels (except the Cruisers) Spheres and probes.
Hi, i am y "just for fun" player and mostly rely on simple stats to decide which ship i am going to get.
Everyone tells me that the Galaxy- and the -X are weak and only perform well if outfittet with Mk XII fleet consoles and weapons. But why is that so? Yes, they only have +5 weapons power compared to the Assault cruisers +10 but the same goes for the Fleed Advanced heavy cruiser, the fleet Support Cruiser and the Fleet star cruiser. The Galaxys have more hull than any other starship, the dreadnought has a cloak, seperation abilities, a hangarbay for shuttles or fighters and the Phaser lance. From all this it should be the strongest of all of them.
And one thing about the Phaser lance. I hear and read a lot about the lance being too weak and missing its target often.
i agree with that.
The Lance is supposed to be a "one shot, one kill" weapon of mass destruction. We have seen it in TNG destroying a Negh'Var with ease. But of course thats impossible to do in a game. I propose a "lance mode" a bit like the guramba but totally different. When the mode is activated the Phaserlance becomes a what it is suposed to be, a weapon that can kill with a few shots.
It fires like a normal Beam bank but only with the narrow firing arc it has. In lance mode the other weapons are deactivated so it doesnt become an "Federation Borg cube" and the turnrate is slightly increased. A cooldown activates just like it does on the science destroyers when sou switch to tactical mode so you can not just switch modes from one to the other and while you can kill targets easily with this weapon you have to decide if you are going to use it against faster targets because you loose all other weapons and thy could outflank you. So like in Elite Taskforce missions the Lance is the weapon of choice against the cubes but not useful against Borgified Vesssels (except the Cruisers) Spheres and probes.
Important stats are boff-layout and whats the commander (tac/sci/eng) and how the rest is distributed as it determines the set of skills you can use. Then its about the console layout as in hoe many tac/sci/eng console slots a ship has. Then we get to special abilities/consoles/hangars and then stats like hull/shield. Turn is somewhere in there depending on whether you do pve or pvp and if you plan on using cannons dbbs or beams.
If you look at bo skills and consoles at least to me eng ones are the least desireable ones. Mostly i use eng console slots for my uni consoles. Also eng skills are okay but the higher lvl ltc or com eng abilities arent that interesting except for survivability which isnt needed most of the time and at least imo when you would need extra tanking / healing its still not enough.
So the gal is bad because it has very little tac bo stations and consoles, bad turn and the slots and abilities it has loads of are less interesting. With the other cruisers having up to 4 tac console slots and a much better tac bo layout as in having at least a ltc tac while still having about the same hull/shields there just is no real argument left stat wise why you would go for gal r/x.
Just posted this in the Galaxy not a reboot thread and thought i'd share
One of the biggest misconceptions of the Galaxy Class is that due to carrying family members onboard she was nothing more than a luxury liner.
In fact there are several misconceptions held against this starship.
1. Families on board
2. Built during peacetime. (Cardassian Wars were going on around this time)
3. The pacifist and victory can be won with words nature of TNG T.V Series.
People also comeback to 2 episodes where she performed poorly and its nearly always these 2 episodes that people argue about the ineffectiveness of the Galaxy
1. Rascals which was a terrible episode in itself
2. The Dominion DS9 Episode where the idea was to show the Dominion as the next uber power so a Galaxy had to die to empathise this. Yes a Galaxy to show how bad TRIBBLE the Dominion were.
By definition no 1 in this list would make DS9 with its Temple, Bar,School, and Shops and civilians on board a space hotel.
Sadly when it comes to the Galaxy class the message TNG sent esp the early TNG where conflict is won with thought and reason has imprinted itself into the minds of those viewers (Need more of that in the real world TBH) and they don't remember the Galaxy as what it was stated all the way through the series up until the end of Voyager as the Federations most powerful ship.
It wasn't until the Sacrifice of Angels DS9 where the class was seen operating in its military designation, A battleship. If the ship was soo poor why did we suddenly see lots of these ships appear in battle scenes when it would cost less to put together a Defiant, Sabre, Excelsior, Akira, Nebula or Miranda. Starfleet did need every ship it could muster but really putting together a 643 metre ship compared to a ship 200-350 metres less would take less construction time and resources.
They should just make a FE about ST7 Generations where we get a promotion for our galaxys tac officer as happened for worf in the beginning of the movie.
Also tbh if we take a look at ryker, in sto terms, he surely would be a tactical officer. So basically the galaxy we saw had a com tac
While picard could be seen as tacical or sci captain depending on whether we look at his earlier years or more at him as seen in tng, data and geordi where both quite obvious engs i'd say and lt com.
So there you have your layout for the true galaxy right there:
- commander tac
- 2 lt com engis
- whatever is left for sci^^
Here's a quote from the episode "Best of Both Worlds: Part 1" - The Borg: Captain Jean-Luc Picard, you lead the strongest ship of the Federation fleet. You speak for your people.
So even the Borg recognize the Enterprise-D as the "strongest ship" of the Federation fleet. Obviously, the Borg haven't encountered a Galaxy in STO. :rolleyes:
Although, there are several examples of the Enterprise performing badly in combat, there are also numerous examples of it performing well. The one I like the mention most in relation to this game is basically every encounter the Enterprise had with the Cardassians.
It would start with the Cardassians refusing to communicate. So the Enterprise would fire one shot from their main phaser array and cause moderate damage to the ship forcing them to talk. This is not an all out offensive barrage this is a single shot. Imagine if the Enterprise had unloaded on any of these Cardassian ships. They would have most likely destroyed them outright and rather quickly. Yet in this game the Galor is an amazing and flexible cruiser while the Galaxy is impotent and useless in comparison.
What I'm tired of seeing is people claiming that its a content issue. That there is no content requiring a tank. Even if there was more content requiring a ship to be tanky. Why would anyone choose a Galaxy-R over say the Excelsior? The Excelsior is obviously much more powerful offensively with its LtCmd Tac station and 4 tactical consoles, but it's also extremely tanky. So in an Excelsior not only can you tank a inordinate amount of damage, but you can also bring the pain as well. So why would you choose the Galaxy over the Excelsior if you needed to tank? Are you telling me that a couple thousand hull hit points matter? Extra engineering station sure don't...not with the diminishing returns.
So not only is the Galaxy useless in the game at the moment, but it would also be useless in the game if there were content that required tanking. All the fed cruisers are excellent tanks. You don't need 8 engineering stations to tank effectively. It's too much with no benefit and in exchange you lose offensive and/or science ability.
I'm just really disappointed by this "reboot". The Dreadnought at least got a bit of an upgrade, and I'm happy for that, but I don't understand why they left the regular Galaxy as gimped as they did. If my favorite ship and it really saddens me to see it so terrible in game.
I pull my Fleet Galaxy out from time to time use it in a few missions and put it away. It's just so weak compared to my other cruisers. My Ambassador is a better support ship, and my Assault Cruiser kicks it's TRIBBLE damage wise. I just feel so limited when I fly it. Bleh...I'm ranting.
They should just make a FE about ST7 Generations where we get a promotion for our galaxys tac officer as happened for worf in the beginning of the movie.
Also tbh if we take a look at riker, in sto terms, he surely would be a tactical officer. So basically the galaxy we saw had a com tac
While picard could be seen as tacical or sci captain depending on whether we look at his earlier years or more at him as seen in tng, data and geordi where both quite obvious engs i'd say and lt com.
So there you have your layout for the true galaxy right there:
- commander tac
- 2 lt com engis
- whatever is left for sci^^
Lol, well played Sir... well played. However, without bringing the boff swtiching dyson tech into things, I'd prefer something like this:
Commander Eng
Lt Comm (Universal?) ---Only one universal, can't decide which. Lt Comm would allow for more science i.e. GW1 etc
Lt Eng (Universal?)
Lt Sci
Ens Sci
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
Just wanted to pop in here and say "hello", and a big thank-you to the people who have added the pro-Galaxy signatures as part of their forum appearances.
Since technically we have gotten exactly what we pushed for - a Galaxy-class revamp - I suppose it's a success, even though the consensus is mostly in the negative.
Feel free to continue wearing the signatures if you want; I have no objections to it. Or, if you're like me and want to switch it out for now, go right ahead.
For those of you who want a pro-Galaxy signature, don't hesitate to send me a forum mail. I'll get it done within a week
Again, thanks to everyone who supported this initiative, and I'll see you out there in my Galaxy.
-stardestroyer001
Hey stardestroyer001!
Thanks for taking the time and effort to make these signatures. Slowly, in time, they have become a much reckognizable sign of our campaign within the STO community.
I will still continue to carry this signature as I personally consider this 'revamp' to be a huge missed opportunity if not a borderline insult to everyone passionate and involved about improving the Galaxy class in any relevant way.
The Galaxy-R is basically left the same as it was and the only good thing she got from this 'revamp' is the fact they didn't disgrace her with some FOTM solution like a hangar bay. Until the Galaxy-R gets some real love, whatever it may be, I'll continue to promote/work towards that just like before.
This whole 'revamp' just smells to me as another for some reason rushed release. The very fact that they call in a 'reboot' that is mostly about the dreadnought while not fixing all the prominent design flaws and errors on the hull of the Galaxy-X that date back to her release, and the FOTM easy-peasy Cryptic solution to everything - "the holy hangar" just screams of sloppy, rushed work to me.
Lol, well played Sir... well played. However, without bringing the boff swtiching dyson tech into things, I'd prefer something like this:
Commander Eng
Lt Comm (Universal?) ---Only one universal, can't decide which. Lt Comm would allow for more science i.e. GW1 etc
Lt Eng (Universal?)
Lt Sci
Ens Sci
the main reason i fell in love with my own "lance only" mode idea is cause when you mix it with the rest it will always just be a small addition to the rest that may look okay but doesnt do awesome. But if you switch off all other weapons when in lance-mode it has to be quite heavy punching to make up for the missing other 8 weapons. And as the gal x turn like a whale still and the lance arc is extremely bad it would be an asured first trike thing only as following a target would be extremely difficult if even possible and thus balancing the weapon. Would be good against elite tac cubes and gates and stuff but then you have to switch to normal.
its switching modes not boffs.
In that setup you have the lance with basically build in tac abilities and the usual boff layout for the "normal" mode. You switch between modes with a cd like the dyson mode switch and all would be fine for me at least.
Important stats are boff-layout and whats the commander (tac/sci/eng) and how the rest is distributed as it determines the set of skills you can use. Then its about the console layout as in hoe many tac/sci/eng console slots a ship has. Then we get to special abilities/consoles/hangars and then stats like hull/shield. Turn is somewhere in there depending on whether you do pve or pvp and if you plan on using cannons dbbs or beams.
If you look at bo skills and consoles at least to me eng ones are the least desireable ones. Mostly i use eng console slots for my uni consoles. Also eng skills are okay but the higher lvl ltc or com eng abilities arent that interesting except for survivability which isnt needed most of the time and at least imo when you would need extra tanking / healing its still not enough.
So the gal is bad because it has very little tac bo stations and consoles, bad turn and the slots and abilities it has loads of are less interesting. With the other cruisers having up to 4 tac console slots and a much better tac bo layout as in having at least a ltc tac while still having about the same hull/shields there just is no real argument left stat wise why you would go for gal r/x.
And exactly that is why the Galaxy is said to be bad but isn´t. Because players expect every ship to be DMG oriented and escort style. Even when they play an engineer they act like tactical officers. The Galaxys focus in on survivability. Use the hull healing skills, Enginering Team, Shield penetration bonus for weapons and use the console slots for more hull. Yes it takes longer to kill an enemy but if you use the right consoles and dont waste them on universal stuff the ship is as strong as a fortress and can survive a lot. I have my Assault cruiser and dont use more tac abilities than fire at will and tac team. I have a Hargh`Peng in the Front slot and the Wide angle Quantum in the back but focus un energy weapons so i dont need torpedo skills and science trickery isnt mine either
And exactly that is why the Galaxy is said to be bad but isn´t. Because players expect every ship to be DMG oriented and escort style. Even when they play an engineer they act like tactical officers. The Galaxys focus in on survivability. Use the hull healing skills, Enginering Team, Shield penetration bonus for weapons and use the console slots for more hull. Yes it takes longer to kill an enemy but if you use the right consoles and dont waste them on universal stuff the ship is as strong as a fortress and can survive a lot. I have my Assault cruiser and dont use more tac abilities than fire at will and tac team. I have a Hargh`Peng in the Front slot and the Wide angle Quantum in the back but focus un energy weapons so i dont need torpedo skills and science trickery isnt mine either
But who cares about surviving? The few times you might die in an STF, like from an invisible torp (which still occasionally happens) you just respawn.
Taking longer to kill the enemy is detrimental to the team. My lone KDF character flies a Marauder which has good survivability but doesn't do a lot of DPS, and sometimes people complain about my DPS and post a DPS chart. Yes my DPS is really low compared to scimitars and yes if I was in a DPS ship we would have breezed through the STF. Sometimes you get a STF team with one DPS ship and four tanky ships and the optional is in jeopardy.
But that's also exactly the problem with the game.
Fact is STO is all about DPS. Being able to tank and survive is irrelevant.
It would be a whole different story if there was no respawning. In the reboot thread someone mentioned ESO. In ESO's 4-man dungeons you can't respawn or resurrect during the major encounters. If you die you have to wait until either the rest of the team wins or everyone dies, and if you all die it resets and you have to try again (with checkpoints, the entire dungeon doesn't reset).
That IMO is the only way to make tanking and healing relevant in STO. Does anyone have a better idea?
But who cares about surviving? The few times you might die in an STF, like from an invisible torp (which still occasionally happens) you just respawn.
Taking longer to kill the enemy is detrimental to the team. My lone KDF character flies a Marauder which has good survivability but doesn't do a lot of DPS, and sometimes people complain about my DPS and post a DPS chart. Yes my DPS is really low compared to scimitars and yes if I was in a DPS ship we would have breezed through the STF. Sometimes you get a STF team with one DPS ship and four tanky ships and the optional is in jeopardy.
But that's also exactly the problem with the game.
Fact is STO is all about DPS. Being able to tank and survive is irrelevant.
It would be a whole different story if there was no respawning. In the reboot thread someone mentioned ESO. In ESO's 4-man dungeons you can't respawn or resurrect during the major encounters. If you die you have to wait until either the rest of the team wins or everyone dies, and if you all die it resets and you have to try again (with checkpoints, the entire dungeon doesn't reset).
That IMO is the only way to make tanking and healing relevant in STO. Does anyone have a better idea?
Change extend shields into a area effect absorb and redirect, give it 10k range too.
Make some science and engineering AOE healing, with 10k range. Make some taunt abilities.
Make some abilities and consoles that reduce crit severity, so heavy tanking ships can even take a plasma bolt to the face Once with out dieing.
and reduce the Tac does everything abilities like attack pattern omega make delta the defensive ability.
And exactly that is why the Galaxy is said to be bad but isn´t. Because players expect every ship to be DMG oriented and escort style. Even when they play an engineer they act like tactical officers. The Galaxys focus in on survivability. Use the hull healing skills, Enginering Team, Shield penetration bonus for weapons and use the console slots for more hull. Yes it takes longer to kill an enemy but if you use the right consoles and dont waste them on universal stuff the ship is as strong as a fortress and can survive a lot. I have my Assault cruiser and dont use more tac abilities than fire at will and tac team. I have a Hargh`Peng in the Front slot and the Wide angle Quantum in the back but focus un energy weapons so i dont need torpedo skills and science trickery isnt mine either
The other problem with the hyper focus on survivability is that agro is also based on damage. So it doesn't matter how much damage you can take as a tank, unless you can also dish out enough to hold it off the non-tanks, your ability to tank is pretty damned useless.
So tanks do need to do damage, no matter what anyone thinks about hyper-DPS focus.
Area of effect abilities are kind of gimmicky and unreliable in cases where people need to do more than sit in one place.
The other problem with the hyper focus on survivability is that agro is also based on damage.
It's also based on proximity. And there is a threat mechanic. Damage is definitely a key part of aggro, but don't forget proximity. Everyone forgets proximity.
I like the no respawn idea at least for elite content a lot. Would be quite nice to see that happening.
The more I think about the more I wonder if it's feasible. Would it drive people away from elites? Would it also apply to elite ground? Those queues are too long as it is and I don't think even myself would want to play an elite ground with no respawning, and I enjoy elite ground.
I think it should at least be experimented with in elite space and if necessary the rewards increased. It's really the only way I can think of to make the MMO trinity viable in this game without completely revamping everything about this game.
Running a CEE this last weekend, I actually paid attention to the amount of ships that stayed close to the CE when it got to it's 33% and 67% pops... Of course, right when the absorbing energy counter started I headed out toward the 10km limit in my Odyssey... I'd have been the only one left in that queue if we went with the "no respawn" idea... I even watched a few scimitars collapse into black-hole singularities when the second pop went...
I would like to see the awards decrease each time a respawn is needed... but don't get rid of the respawns...
"Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure science." - Edwin Hubble
I like the no respawn idea at least for elite content a lot. Would be quite nice to see that happening.
Is why you see exploding scimitars left and right lol. They spend most of the time with respawn timers for minutes but they still think they are doing the damage their calculators claim to be doing lol.
Yes, the feedback threads have been bookmarked, noted, and passed to the appropriate Devs, and they have also read/considered them.
Please keep in mind that we do listen to all feedback, and take what we can from what is constructive, and try to base future decisions on what we hear from our player community.
However, that does not mean that we can change everything in-game to what all players are asking for. There will always be the plain and simple truth that we cannot change everything to make everyone happy 100% of the time. But that doesn't mean we don't try to do things for the benefit of our players.
When we work on reboots such as the Galaxy reboot, and when we add Fleet versions of desired ships, we have our own internal reasons behind every decision. Sometimes, these decisions don't make sense to our players at the time, but all we ask is for your understanding and your patience in response to these changes, and changes to come.
Angry abusive posts wont get any of us anywhere, so keep in mind, the more pages upon pages of non-constructive posts will only bury constructive feedback posts, making it even harder to hear the things that could affect real change to our decision making process.
The last thing we want is any of you to feel that you are being ignored or that your voices are unheard. That being said, sometimes those voices need to understand that even though you really really want something to change, if we do not change things to accommodate your requests, this is nothing personal.
We will continue to listen to your feedback and take it into consideration.
We sincerely appreciate your support, as well as your passion for STO.
~CaptainSmirk
"these decisions don't make sense to our players at the time, but all we ask is for your understanding and your patience in response to these changes, and changes to come."
hmm, that mean you are changing the way the game work so that ship like galaxy been more usefull.
that would explain why you didn't change it bo layout.
gecko was speaking about some major change about boff power in a recent podcast.
is this is what it is all about?
do you have plans for heavie engie ship in the furture of sto?
engi power as desirable as tact or sci, would it be the explanation of the universal tact ensin in the galaxy x?
anyway your response is quite intriguing, i will wait and see.
Comments
i think the whole thing is a nefarious plot to get everyone out of galaxy refits and into galaxy dreadnoughts, because fewer people fly the dreadnought. more sales = more money.
or in the coming days they could revamp the Galaxy Retrofit, but tribble suggests otherwise...
I've been giving it some deep thought and have come to the conclusion that when they reboot the Nebula, I won't be buying it.
Just wanted to pop in here and say "hello", and a big thank-you to the people who have added the pro-Galaxy signatures as part of their forum appearances.
Since technically we have gotten exactly what we pushed for - a Galaxy-class revamp - I suppose it's a success, even though the consensus is mostly in the negative.
Feel free to continue wearing the signatures if you want; I have no objections to it. Or, if you're like me and want to switch it out for now, go right ahead.
For those of you who want a pro-Galaxy signature, don't hesitate to send me a forum mail. I'll get it done within a week
Again, thanks to everyone who supported this initiative, and I'll see you out there in my Galaxy.
-stardestroyer001
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
It just somehow feels like something is missing, I admit I don't understand why people dislike the ship so much that they want it pushed to the bottom of the barrel. I watched every season of TNG and yeah, Picard, who ended up being a superb Captain talked to much. So they took a beating on the regular. But by Season 3 they were facing down the Borg, and she held up better than...what was the number? 52 ships? Excelsior sand Ambassadors among them. And yet in Sto she is passed by both, by MORE than just a little bit. It's frustrating. I've see the ship for episode 1 through Generations, and her end in Generations was nothing short of criminal. A movie that disgraced the ship AND Captain Kirk. And now this?
Make her special devs, not so e sub par test target. Make her respected, not some ship you have to make some weird frankenbuild to be on par. Because she won't be better, not the way she so set up now......
If your going to fix engineering and that's going to give her edge back? Great, but what we have right now does not capture the ships spirit, not if you wan to " Make sure history never forgets the name Enterprise"
Ah, okay. I didn't know about that. My apologies.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
If they gonna give the Galaxy-X a Hanger Slot and a Ensign Eng boff Station, they might as well give it to the Galaxy-R as well while reducing the cruiser commands just to Shield and Attract Fire commands since it's a defensive version while the Galaxy-X is a Offensive version in this game.
since new player ask old players about ships, that scenario is not happening.
Plus if a player buys a ship advertised as badass and then notkces how he got shafted, he is only going to get pissed and not going to buy more ships.
All ships should be brought up to curent tech and powercreep regularly. that way you never have to feat making a buy that will turn worthles soon.
Everyone tells me that the Galaxy- and the -X are weak and only perform well if outfittet with Mk XII fleet consoles and weapons. But why is that so? Yes, they only have +5 weapons power compared to the Assault cruisers +10 but the same goes for the Fleed Advanced heavy cruiser, the fleet Support Cruiser and the Fleet star cruiser. The Galaxys have more hull than any other starship, the dreadnought has a cloak, seperation abilities, a hangarbay for shuttles or fighters and the Phaser lance. From all this it should be the strongest of all of them.
And one thing about the Phaser lance. I hear and read a lot about the lance being too weak and missing its target often.
i agree with that.
The Lance is supposed to be a "one shot, one kill" weapon of mass destruction. We have seen it in TNG destroying a Negh'Var with ease. But of course thats impossible to do in a game. I propose a "lance mode" a bit like the guramba but totally different. When the mode is activated the Phaserlance becomes a what it is suposed to be, a weapon that can kill with a few shots.
It fires like a normal Beam bank but only with the narrow firing arc it has. In lance mode the other weapons are deactivated so it doesnt become an "Federation Borg cube" and the turnrate is slightly increased. A cooldown activates just like it does on the science destroyers when sou switch to tactical mode so you can not just switch modes from one to the other and while you can kill targets easily with this weapon you have to decide if you are going to use it against faster targets because you loose all other weapons and thy could outflank you. So like in Elite Taskforce missions the Lance is the weapon of choice against the cubes but not useful against Borgified Vesssels (except the Cruisers) Spheres and probes.
Important stats are boff-layout and whats the commander (tac/sci/eng) and how the rest is distributed as it determines the set of skills you can use. Then its about the console layout as in hoe many tac/sci/eng console slots a ship has. Then we get to special abilities/consoles/hangars and then stats like hull/shield. Turn is somewhere in there depending on whether you do pve or pvp and if you plan on using cannons dbbs or beams.
If you look at bo skills and consoles at least to me eng ones are the least desireable ones. Mostly i use eng console slots for my uni consoles. Also eng skills are okay but the higher lvl ltc or com eng abilities arent that interesting except for survivability which isnt needed most of the time and at least imo when you would need extra tanking / healing its still not enough.
So the gal is bad because it has very little tac bo stations and consoles, bad turn and the slots and abilities it has loads of are less interesting. With the other cruisers having up to 4 tac console slots and a much better tac bo layout as in having at least a ltc tac while still having about the same hull/shields there just is no real argument left stat wise why you would go for gal r/x.
One of the biggest misconceptions of the Galaxy Class is that due to carrying family members onboard she was nothing more than a luxury liner.
In fact there are several misconceptions held against this starship.
1. Families on board
2. Built during peacetime. (Cardassian Wars were going on around this time)
3. The pacifist and victory can be won with words nature of TNG T.V Series.
People also comeback to 2 episodes where she performed poorly and its nearly always these 2 episodes that people argue about the ineffectiveness of the Galaxy
1. Rascals which was a terrible episode in itself
2. The Dominion DS9 Episode where the idea was to show the Dominion as the next uber power so a Galaxy had to die to empathise this. Yes a Galaxy to show how bad TRIBBLE the Dominion were.
By definition no 1 in this list would make DS9 with its Temple, Bar,School, and Shops and civilians on board a space hotel.
Sadly when it comes to the Galaxy class the message TNG sent esp the early TNG where conflict is won with thought and reason has imprinted itself into the minds of those viewers (Need more of that in the real world TBH) and they don't remember the Galaxy as what it was stated all the way through the series up until the end of Voyager as the Federations most powerful ship.
It wasn't until the Sacrifice of Angels DS9 where the class was seen operating in its military designation, A battleship. If the ship was soo poor why did we suddenly see lots of these ships appear in battle scenes when it would cost less to put together a Defiant, Sabre, Excelsior, Akira, Nebula or Miranda. Starfleet did need every ship it could muster but really putting together a 643 metre ship compared to a ship 200-350 metres less would take less construction time and resources.
Also tbh if we take a look at ryker, in sto terms, he surely would be a tactical officer. So basically the galaxy we saw had a com tac
While picard could be seen as tacical or sci captain depending on whether we look at his earlier years or more at him as seen in tng, data and geordi where both quite obvious engs i'd say and lt com.
So there you have your layout for the true galaxy right there:
- commander tac
- 2 lt com engis
- whatever is left for sci^^
So even the Borg recognize the Enterprise-D as the "strongest ship" of the Federation fleet. Obviously, the Borg haven't encountered a Galaxy in STO. :rolleyes:
Although, there are several examples of the Enterprise performing badly in combat, there are also numerous examples of it performing well. The one I like the mention most in relation to this game is basically every encounter the Enterprise had with the Cardassians.
It would start with the Cardassians refusing to communicate. So the Enterprise would fire one shot from their main phaser array and cause moderate damage to the ship forcing them to talk. This is not an all out offensive barrage this is a single shot. Imagine if the Enterprise had unloaded on any of these Cardassian ships. They would have most likely destroyed them outright and rather quickly. Yet in this game the Galor is an amazing and flexible cruiser while the Galaxy is impotent and useless in comparison.
What I'm tired of seeing is people claiming that its a content issue. That there is no content requiring a tank. Even if there was more content requiring a ship to be tanky. Why would anyone choose a Galaxy-R over say the Excelsior? The Excelsior is obviously much more powerful offensively with its LtCmd Tac station and 4 tactical consoles, but it's also extremely tanky. So in an Excelsior not only can you tank a inordinate amount of damage, but you can also bring the pain as well. So why would you choose the Galaxy over the Excelsior if you needed to tank? Are you telling me that a couple thousand hull hit points matter? Extra engineering station sure don't...not with the diminishing returns.
So not only is the Galaxy useless in the game at the moment, but it would also be useless in the game if there were content that required tanking. All the fed cruisers are excellent tanks. You don't need 8 engineering stations to tank effectively. It's too much with no benefit and in exchange you lose offensive and/or science ability.
I'm just really disappointed by this "reboot". The Dreadnought at least got a bit of an upgrade, and I'm happy for that, but I don't understand why they left the regular Galaxy as gimped as they did. If my favorite ship and it really saddens me to see it so terrible in game.
I pull my Fleet Galaxy out from time to time use it in a few missions and put it away. It's just so weak compared to my other cruisers. My Ambassador is a better support ship, and my Assault Cruiser kicks it's TRIBBLE damage wise. I just feel so limited when I fly it. Bleh...I'm ranting.
Lol, well played Sir... well played. However, without bringing the boff swtiching dyson tech into things, I'd prefer something like this:
Commander Eng
Lt Comm (Universal?) ---Only one universal, can't decide which. Lt Comm would allow for more science i.e. GW1 etc
Lt Eng (Universal?)
Lt Sci
Ens Sci
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
Hey stardestroyer001!
Thanks for taking the time and effort to make these signatures.
I will still continue to carry this signature as I personally consider this 'revamp' to be a huge missed opportunity if not a borderline insult to everyone passionate and involved about improving the Galaxy class in any relevant way.
The Galaxy-R is basically left the same as it was and the only good thing she got from this 'revamp' is the fact they didn't disgrace her with some FOTM solution like a hangar bay. Until the Galaxy-R gets some real love, whatever it may be, I'll continue to promote/work towards that just like before.
This whole 'revamp' just smells to me as another for some reason rushed release. The very fact that they call in a 'reboot' that is mostly about the dreadnought while not fixing all the prominent design flaws and errors on the hull of the Galaxy-X that date back to her release, and the FOTM easy-peasy Cryptic solution to everything - "the holy hangar" just screams of sloppy, rushed work to me.
the main reason i fell in love with my own "lance only" mode idea is cause when you mix it with the rest it will always just be a small addition to the rest that may look okay but doesnt do awesome. But if you switch off all other weapons when in lance-mode it has to be quite heavy punching to make up for the missing other 8 weapons. And as the gal x turn like a whale still and the lance arc is extremely bad it would be an asured first trike thing only as following a target would be extremely difficult if even possible and thus balancing the weapon. Would be good against elite tac cubes and gates and stuff but then you have to switch to normal.
its switching modes not boffs.
In that setup you have the lance with basically build in tac abilities and the usual boff layout for the "normal" mode. You switch between modes with a cd like the dyson mode switch and all would be fine for me at least.
And exactly that is why the Galaxy is said to be bad but isn´t. Because players expect every ship to be DMG oriented and escort style. Even when they play an engineer they act like tactical officers. The Galaxys focus in on survivability. Use the hull healing skills, Enginering Team, Shield penetration bonus for weapons and use the console slots for more hull. Yes it takes longer to kill an enemy but if you use the right consoles and dont waste them on universal stuff the ship is as strong as a fortress and can survive a lot. I have my Assault cruiser and dont use more tac abilities than fire at will and tac team. I have a Hargh`Peng in the Front slot and the Wide angle Quantum in the back but focus un energy weapons so i dont need torpedo skills and science trickery isnt mine either
But who cares about surviving? The few times you might die in an STF, like from an invisible torp (which still occasionally happens) you just respawn.
Taking longer to kill the enemy is detrimental to the team. My lone KDF character flies a Marauder which has good survivability but doesn't do a lot of DPS, and sometimes people complain about my DPS and post a DPS chart. Yes my DPS is really low compared to scimitars and yes if I was in a DPS ship we would have breezed through the STF. Sometimes you get a STF team with one DPS ship and four tanky ships and the optional is in jeopardy.
But that's also exactly the problem with the game.
Fact is STO is all about DPS. Being able to tank and survive is irrelevant.
It would be a whole different story if there was no respawning. In the reboot thread someone mentioned ESO. In ESO's 4-man dungeons you can't respawn or resurrect during the major encounters. If you die you have to wait until either the rest of the team wins or everyone dies, and if you all die it resets and you have to try again (with checkpoints, the entire dungeon doesn't reset).
That IMO is the only way to make tanking and healing relevant in STO. Does anyone have a better idea?
Change extend shields into a area effect absorb and redirect, give it 10k range too.
Make some science and engineering AOE healing, with 10k range. Make some taunt abilities.
Make some abilities and consoles that reduce crit severity, so heavy tanking ships can even take a plasma bolt to the face Once with out dieing.
and reduce the Tac does everything abilities like attack pattern omega make delta the defensive ability.
So tanks do need to do damage, no matter what anyone thinks about hyper-DPS focus.
Area of effect abilities are kind of gimmicky and unreliable in cases where people need to do more than sit in one place.
It's also based on proximity. And there is a threat mechanic. Damage is definitely a key part of aggro, but don't forget proximity. Everyone forgets proximity.
The more I think about the more I wonder if it's feasible. Would it drive people away from elites? Would it also apply to elite ground? Those queues are too long as it is and I don't think even myself would want to play an elite ground with no respawning, and I enjoy elite ground.
I think it should at least be experimented with in elite space and if necessary the rewards increased. It's really the only way I can think of to make the MMO trinity viable in this game without completely revamping everything about this game.
I would like to see the awards decrease each time a respawn is needed... but don't get rid of the respawns...
Is why you see exploding scimitars left and right lol. They spend most of the time with respawn timers for minutes but they still think they are doing the damage their calculators claim to be doing lol.
why? if they do a good job with an hypothetical nebula reboot, why wouldn't you want to get it?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
"these decisions don't make sense to our players at the time, but all we ask is for your understanding and your patience in response to these changes, and changes to come."
hmm, that mean you are changing the way the game work so that ship like galaxy been more usefull.
that would explain why you didn't change it bo layout.
gecko was speaking about some major change about boff power in a recent podcast.
is this is what it is all about?
do you have plans for heavie engie ship in the furture of sto?
engi power as desirable as tact or sci, would it be the explanation of the universal tact ensin in the galaxy x?
anyway your response is quite intriguing, i will wait and see.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271