Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,764
# 41
10-16-2012, 06:48 PM
I'd much rather they remove the Lance ability, combine it with the Cloaking device, and give it some RCS converter stats.

Dreadnought Cruiser Refit Package
+Cloak
+Spinal Phaser Lance if used on the Dreadnought Cruiser or Fleet Dreadnought Cruiser

This console can then be used on other Galaxy-class ships, and mounting the DCRP, AMS, and SSC on one ship will grant set bonuses to Driver Coils, Impulse Thrusters, and Power Recharge rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt. Comm. Pion
What should I wish upon the endless universe;
To be able to smile and forgive everything;
That's right, if we light up the dream in our hearts without averting our eyes;
We should be able to walk whatever tomorrow comes...

I am V. Adm. Kha Yuung, and I approve of this message.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,383
# 42
10-17-2012, 06:40 AM
Just my 0,02 Eurons.
I must confess i am not a big fan of the Galaxy X. I would prefer if we could get a Galaxy -R with the same Hull, BOFF & console layout as the Regent Class.
(rather a Regent with the looks of a Galaxy Class.)

The Galaxy -X variant should get the same BOFF & console Layout, but a bit less hull and turnrate, in exchange for its phaser lance and cloak.



I hope my english is understandable, since most of the time i am actually unable to find the right words in my native language.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

The "TT and/or AtB less builds" - Thread
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 267
# 43
10-18-2012, 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Just my 0,02 Eurons.
I must confess i am not a big fan of the Galaxy X. I would prefer if we could get a Galaxy -R with the same Hull, BOFF & console layout as the Regent Class.
(rather a Regent with the looks of a Galaxy Class.)

The Galaxy -X variant should get the same BOFF & console Layout, but a bit less hull and turnrate, in exchange for its phaser lance and cloak.



I hope my english is understandable, since most of the time i am actually unable to find the right words in my native language.
2 Words:
Ambassador Dreadnought
Career Officer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 57
# 44
10-18-2012, 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon92518 View Post
2 Words:
Ambassador Dreadnought

I've never understood this fascination with the Ambassador. Basically it only existed in 1 episode and for the sole purpose of showing off the Enterprise C. In every Star Trek game I've played otherwise that it was in, it was always one of the most despised Federation chassis types. Not so here *boggle*

The Galaxy X is in a similar boat. It's an alternate universe ship that Q conjures up briefly in the final episode of TNG, that Riker never actually commands because of Picard's choices.

Filler is filler. I'd rather see more pertinent designs added, or more 25th century style ones than the more trivial ships like these two.

At least with the Rhode Island, they made it a low level ship. I think it actually had more screen time than the Ambassador and Galaxy X combined.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,333
# 45
10-18-2012, 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Just my 0,02 Eurons.
I must confess i am not a big fan of the Galaxy X. I would prefer if we could get a Galaxy -R with the same Hull, BOFF & console layout as the Regent Class.
(rather a Regent with the looks of a Galaxy Class.)
[/font]
The main idea is very few people will find value in it. There is no differentiation between the two ships at that point. It makes no sense for a business to have two models that are the same thing. Most people just get the Regent if the other ships specs aren't to their liking. The idea you had a bit back with enhanced science boff stations (two Lt.'s if memory serves) would at least serve to differentiate it from the other ships.

Also, what are you willing to give up to have the ship saucer separable?
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,383
# 46
10-18-2012, 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer1 View Post
The main idea is very few people will find value in it. There is no differentiation between the two ships at that point. It makes no sense for a business to have two models that are the same thing. Most people just get the Regent if the other ships specs aren't to their liking. The idea you had a bit back with enhanced science boff stations (two Lt.'s if memory serves) would at least serve to differentiate it from the other ships.

Also, what are you willing to give up to have the ship saucer separable?
Quite the contrary, i think Cryptic would make a lot of money with it. Especially people who are dissappointed by the Galaxy variants in STO would buy it.
On the other hand the Regent is just a Sovereign variant (ship model), it can be made to have the same appearance as the Sovereign class.

What about the other Mirror ships we have in STO?
They are the same ship model of slapped on another ship.
My suggestion is exactly the same, a Galaxy class with the stats of a Regent. They did the same thing with the Mirror Assault Cruiser, Star Cruiser, RSV and DSSV.

About the saucer seperation, they easily could keep the Galaxy Class slow turn rate as tradeoff.
For all i care the Galaxy Battleship can go without a saucer seperation, but i wouldn't make it science focussed. I would leave that for the prime universe Galaxy Class.

Personally i think, the Mirror universe Galaxy Class Battleship would be perfectly ok with the Hull HP, BOFF and Console Layout of the Regent Class and maneuverability of a Galaxy Class so it could even keep the saucer sep. but i don't set a high value in it TBH.
It would be a pure fan service ship, thats all i want.



I hope my english is understandable, since most of the time i find it difficult to find the right words in my native language.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

The "TT and/or AtB less builds" - Thread
Career Officer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 57
# 47
10-18-2012, 02:14 PM
When you start comparing c-store with RA ships, it becomes apples and oranges. You're also not making the proper comparisons. The Galaxy and Nebula is more appropriate, both in functionality, their roles and timeline.

If they did a MU galaxy, they'd have to do a MU Nebula in which case the Nebula would become the engineering oriented ship, and the galaxy a more sci focused ship. Somehow, I don't think that's what people would want, the MU Galaxy would be a hybridized sci ship, though with at least a decent turn rate.

I also don't see them making an MU Dreadnaught and allowing people to circumvent the C-Store by getting a cloak for a measely 100k after the first week.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the spinal mount's structure prevented saucer seperation, and that's why the Galaxy-X doesn't have it.


More than likely, they've been looking at the Tor'Kaht and deciding whether to continue using a similar layout and offering it to the Federation. It's pretty much the ultimate cannon cruiser in the game atm and is similar to a Galor in many respects. It wouldn't surprise me if the Vesta uses a similar setup.


The irony is, if it had been made a T5 fleet ship instead of the anniv Oddy, it'd have an extra engineering console and no BOFF change.

My guess is, if they do decide to explore this further, it'll be a new ship class entirely and not a Galaxy-X refit because the latter is decidedly an engineering ship, not a tactical cruiser.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,333
# 48
10-28-2012, 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Quite the contrary, i think Cryptic would make a lot of money with it. Especially people who are dissappointed by the Galaxy variants in STO would buy it.
On the other hand the Regent is just a Sovereign variant (ship model), it can be made to have the same appearance as the Sovereign class.

What about the other Mirror ships we have in STO?
They are the same ship model of slapped on another ship.
My suggestion is exactly the same, a Galaxy class with the stats of a Regent. They did the same thing with the Mirror Assault Cruiser, Star Cruiser, RSV and DSSV.

About the saucer seperation, they easily could keep the Galaxy Class slow turn rate as tradeoff.
For all i care the Galaxy Battleship can go without a saucer seperation, but i wouldn't make it science focussed. I would leave that for the prime universe Galaxy Class.

Personally i think, the Mirror universe Galaxy Class Battleship would be perfectly ok with the Hull HP, BOFF and Console Layout of the Regent Class and maneuverability of a Galaxy Class so it could even keep the saucer sep. but i don't set a high value in it TBH.
It would be a pure fan service ship, thats all i want.



I hope my english is understandable, since most of the time i find it difficult to find the right words in my native language.
Mind you, there's already five iterations of the Galaxy class in the game:

-Captain Level Galaxy
-Venture Class
-Galaxy-R
-Galaxy-X
-Fleet Galaxy

That's more than any other ship in the game, even the Connie and Defiant classes (almost put together even). How many more do you want them to come out with, especially since most of what you desire is in an already existing ship class?
Commander
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 411
# 49
10-29-2012, 02:48 AM
The thing that strikes me the most about the Galaxy-x is the terrible bridge officer layout. If it's suppose to be a dreadnought you would thing it would be more tactical in nature. Because of the lack of tactical skills this ship is reduced to alpha strikes...then it has to limp off until it's tactical skills recharge or remain engaged with the enemy doing sub-par damage. Revamp the bridge officer layout and the ship is instantly fixed.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,333
# 50
10-29-2012, 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikephorus View Post
The thing that strikes me the most about the Galaxy-x is the terrible bridge officer layout. If it's suppose to be a dreadnought you would thing it would be more tactical in nature. Because of the lack of tactical skills this ship is reduced to alpha strikes...then it has to limp off until it's tactical skills recharge or remain engaged with the enemy doing sub-par damage. Revamp the bridge officer layout and the ship is instantly fixed.
Actually, if a Tac runs it, it can shrink the cool-down time, as do many DOFF's. Plus you can use DEM, AB and a few other Engi skills to keep adding damage. I am not saying the ship is perfect (more of an extension of the basic design with a tweak), but isn't all that horrible.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:05 AM.