Why isn't the Galaxy on par with other cruisers cryptic?
View Single Post
Join Date: Jun 2012
06-20-2014, 06:00 PM
im not sure how citing canon to prove the ship shouldn't be as bad as it is in game is grounds for thread locking. i suppose its a roundabout way of saying cryptic, you are wrong! and that's a terrible thing for us to do, because its then easy to play the that's not constructive card.
we have only given them ~4000 constructive no brainer posts about a constructive solution to the ship being piss poor at everything. cryptic need only pick one of these solutions, and we will SHUT UP FOREVER ABOUT THE GALAXY CLASS. mods rejoice! you would never again be forced to skim threadnaughts about the ship looking look for things that need moderating.
so dont hate us, its the devs that are drawing this out. until the ship is competitive there will never be an end to the posting about it. and we are not complaining that our favorite ship is not good enough, we are complaining that it is the worst combination of ship stats possible, as if its some kind of joke parity. it is that bad. it makes the aquarius and qin raptor look like a masterpiece.
a uni ENS was good enough for the fleet negvar and dreadnaught, 2 LTC stations were good enough for the d'deridex. am i raking cryptic over the coals pointing this out? if that makes cryptic feel bad to hear, then its because they know they have done wrong, and if not then all it is is a neutral fact.
as for all the constructive solutions, heres all the good ones i recall
-dyson tech station fliping seen on the dysen sci destroyers applied to all saucer sep ships. not COM stations, LTC or LT at most.
-a simple universal ENS, that will unhamstring the build options of the ship tremendously.
-a large number of universal stations
-a relaunch level overhaul, with something like COM eng, LTC uni, LT uni, LT sci, ENS sci
-copy/paste the d'deridex station setup onto it, or a variant of it