Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 11
04-08-2013, 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmym View Post

Her boff layout is plenty workable. People just want her to be a different ship then she is.
is that your answer to every ship bo layout proposal, or you just don't known what your talking about?

ps: sorry for quadruple post thingy again
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,267
# 12
04-08-2013, 12:32 PM
Some people obviously think that the 5 / 2 / 3 layout is "not enough for a tactically oriented cruiser".

Allow me to give a brief refresher: The Galaxy-X is a tactical improvement over the Galaxy-class starship. They slap on a third nacelle, slap on some antennae, a weird box-thing, some 90's fins, and a kick-butt lance.

It does not mean that the ship joins the ranks of the Sovereign-class in having four tactical consoles. That's what we have the Sovereign (and Fleet Excelsior) for. If you want four tactical consoles, go fly one of those ships instead.

In the meantime, for those who understand that under all of those cosmetic changes is a resilient girl, let's continue with 5 Engineering consoles.

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Retired STO Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
PvP: PvP Boot Camp, the best newbie oriented training initiative in STO!
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 13
04-08-2013, 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
Some people obviously think that the 5 / 2 / 3 layout is "not enough for a tactically oriented cruiser".

Allow me to give a brief refresher: The Galaxy-X is a tactical improvement over the Galaxy-class starship. They slap on a third nacelle, slap on some antennae, a weird box-thing, some 90's fins, and a kick-butt lance.

It does not mean that the ship joins the ranks of the Sovereign-class in having four tactical consoles. That's what we have the Sovereign (and Fleet Excelsior) for. If you want four tactical consoles, go fly one of those ships instead.

In the meantime, for those who understand that under all of those cosmetic changes is a resilient girl, let's continue with 5 Engineering consoles.
it have the abilitie to mount DHC, a cloacking device, and a phaser lance, you don't mount that on a ship that is meant for tanking, even if he has the abilitie to tank as well with it current bo layout, this ship is meant for war, it not a luxuary liner.
if you want to tank go on galaxy refit, star cruiser or ambassador, period.

ps: the little antenna that you talking about are the canon btw.
In the meantime, for those who understand that galaxy x and galaxy refit are NOT the same ship, let's continue with 4 tactical consoles proposal.

Last edited by neo1nx; 04-08-2013 at 01:18 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,279
# 14
04-08-2013, 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
Some people obviously think that the 5 / 2 / 3 layout is "not enough for a tactically oriented cruiser".

Allow me to give a brief refresher: The Galaxy-X is a tactical improvement over the Galaxy-class starship. They slap on a third nacelle, slap on some antennae, a weird box-thing, some 90's fins, and a kick-butt lance.

It does not mean that the ship joins the ranks of the Sovereign-class in having four tactical consoles. That's what we have the Sovereign (and Fleet Excelsior) for. If you want four tactical consoles, go fly one of those ships instead.

In the meantime, for those who understand that under all of those cosmetic changes is a resilient girl, let's continue with 5 Engineering consoles.
Its Supposed to be a tactically focused cruiser that's why it can equip cannons. As it is now it simply can't be the powerhouse that its supposed to. And you're suggestion of that console layout would put it up there with the standard galaxy which noone would like. Also what the guy above me said too.
The Emperor

Do not presume to have the capability to understand me for you see, I simply am.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,267
# 15
04-08-2013, 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo1nx View Post
it have the abilitie to mount DHC, a cloacking device, and a phaser lance, you don't mount that on a ship that is meant for tanking, even if he has the abilitie to tank as well with it current bo layout, this ship is meant for war, it not a luxuary liner.
if you want to tank go on galaxy refit, star cruiser or ambassador, period.

ps: the little antenna that you talking about are the canon btw.
In the meantime, for those who understand that galaxy x and galaxy refit are NOT the same ship, let's continue with 4 tactical consoles proposal.


It has the ability to mount cannons, a cloaking device, a phaser lance... Listen to him go!
I'm only going to say this once, since it should be common knowledge...

If you want to fly an escort, fly an escort.

If you want to fly a cruiser, fly a cruiser like the Ambassador, star cruiser, or Odyssey.

If you want to fly a cruiser that packs a little more firepower but is still a cruiser, fly the Galaxy-X.

Do not fly a ship it is not intended for. Yes, there are specific builds made to increase the Galaxy-X's effectiveness, in terms of offensive abilities and boosting the Lance. But it is still a cruiser. Don't let the antennae fool you.

(And yes, I knew what they were even before I joined STO. Thanks for pointing out the perfectly obvious.)

For those who understand - and not "pretend to understand and rant over several posts, when in fact they don't understand" - that the Galaxy-X is still a cruiser, let's continue with no incorrect and foolish presumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by westx211
Its Supposed to be a tactically focused cruiser that's why it can equip cannons. As it is now it simply can't be the powerhouse that its supposed to. And you're suggestion of that console layout would put it up there with the standard galaxy which noone would like. Also what the guy above me said too.

It's all about the build. If I was interested, I could set up my Galaxy-X so it would deal the most damage possible. But I don't fly cruisers in PVP under inaccurate presumptions that I will obliterate all of my opponents with one of the slowest turning, engineering-focused starships in the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmym
Her boff layout is plenty workable. People just want her to be a different ship then she is.

This is exactly my point - thank you Kimmy. I'm surprised that both of you haven't heeded the words of this intelligent lady.

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Retired STO Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
PvP: PvP Boot Camp, the best newbie oriented training initiative in STO!

Last edited by stardestroyer001; 04-08-2013 at 04:27 PM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 16
04-09-2013, 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post

If you want to fly an escort, fly an escort.
thank you, I could never have come to this conclusion without you

Quote:
If you want to fly a cruiser that packs a little more firepower but is still a cruiser, fly the Galaxy-X.
they are better choice out there, odyssey tactical, galor, regent, exelsior, and you known what? they are still cruiser, unless the definition of a cruiser have change lately.

Quote:
But I don't fly cruisers in PVP under inaccurate presumptions that I will obliterate all of my opponents with one of the slowest turning, engineering-focused starships in the game.
and so do we, galaxy x pilots, hence the multiple proposal to enhance it's tactical abilitie at the expense or survivabilities if neccesary, so we are not stuck with what it current layout force it to be:
a cruiser that packs a LITTLE more firepower.
for now every lover of this ship that whant to fly it in a tactical way are forced to abandoned it in favor of more efficient cruiser like the galor, regent and all the other i already talk about.
i would have been agree with that if we were speaking about the galaxy refit, who we can safely said that it primary role is tanking, but not with the galaxy x, who the design intended is to do damage.

Quote:
For those who understand - and not "pretend to understand and rant over several posts, when in fact they don't understand" - that the Galaxy-X is still a cruiser, let's continue with no incorrect and foolish presumptions.
i think the problem here is not anderstanding, it is bielief.
you bielieve that cruiser should not make significant damage and being stuck in the passive healing/tanking role, i bielieve that some of them could fill the role of a sub damage dealer ( compared to an escort ).
that is already the case in the game, see the galor, but the galaxy x is not part of that group due to it stat that make it a wanabbe of the 2 categorie.

althought it have been given assets that in theorie could allow it to be part of that group they have been undermine from day one to reduced their efficiency to almots zero.
a phaser lance with 45? targetting arc in a 6 base turn rate ship with no accuracy what so ever and 3 minute cooldown ( compared to the 1.30 min of the gurumba ).
DHC on a 6base and 25 inertia turn ship...should i said more?
and the cloaking device who now take a console slot reducing overall efficiency especially when this abilitie is usefull just in the beguining of a fight.

Now, since you apparently know the absolute truth about how cruiser should be played in this game, i suggest you to make the star trek online playersa favor.
make a new thread asking the devs to remove every tactical oriented cruiser in the game because people that want to do damage with them are obviously fooling themselves.
i am sure the devs will figure the wrong way they been going so far by listening to your view on how the game should be played with this type of ship.


...but something is rather strange nontheless, because, i still do not see the best pvper flying the galaxy x in arena,is that they could not find a role where it exel?
that this role is to do damage or being a support ship, whatever.
i have fight hilbert in pvp the other time and he ask me out of curiousity what was my build for the gal x, because he like that ship too, so why did i never saw him flying the things?
note that he was flying the negvar when that happened.
one would figure that one of the best pvper, founder of the pvpbootcamp and the hilbert guide would have found a way to make a ship that he like useful in one way or an other.

ho wait! it just strike me!
i just didn't realize that you are simply an extraordinary guy!
my mistake bud, i wait with great impatience the build your prepared for us, that will ave us all, galaxy pilot out there.
i suggest that when this build came out the devs would make a status of your toon in SFA, and make that day the stardestroyer 's day!
we all, star trek player own you that, at least.
Commander
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 459
# 17
04-09-2013, 04:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by khayuung View Post
In commemmoration of this glorious meeting between two races in 50 years time, I'd propose we get our Fleet Dreadnought retrofit!

HP: 39,000
Shield mod: 1.0
Weapons: 4/4 and Lance, can equip dual cannons
Boffs: Comm Tac, LtComm Eng, LtComm Eng, Lt Sci
Consoles: 4/3/3
Turn: 6
INERTIAL RATING: 60
Crew: 1000

What this means is compared to the original dreadnought, the newer one accelerates faster and doesn't overshoot its target, while still turning like a Galaxy does in this game, allowing this ship to justify its 3rd nacelle for making it slightly more nimble without actually being more nimble.

The Boff layout is special for being the only Tactically-focused cruiser on the Federation side, and yet be still be able to support other lighter-armored ships.

It gives up any Fleet bonuses to hull and shield and gains a weird Sci console instead of Tac, diverting all that extra power into the 3rd nacelle for less inertia and a better boff layout. I see this role as better fitting for the Gal-X, as a Tactically-focused stealth-capable forward command cruiser of the 25th century.

What say you? I think this is a bit more balanced than some proposals out there.
Where is the Fleet Dreadnought? Probably at the Qualor II Surplus Depot awaiting disposal.


U.S.S. Mary Celeste
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,511
# 18
04-09-2013, 04:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmym View Post
I say just add a tac console, buff its shield mod and hull as the rest, and call it a day.

Her boff layout is plenty workable. People just want her to be a different ship then she is.
Agree for the most part, although I do still think a Lt-Cmdr Tac would be of great benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robdmc View Post
Remember, this place [Captain's Table] is so desolate that upon entering the Aenigma Nebula you will be prompted with a warp out box because the game thinks you flew there by mistake.

Last edited by reyan01; 04-09-2013 at 04:38 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,267
# 19
04-09-2013, 05:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo1nx View Post
and so do we, galaxy x pilots, hence the multiple proposal to enhance it's tactical abilitie at the expense or survivabilities if neccesary, so we are not stuck with what it current layout force it to be:
a cruiser that packs a LITTLE more firepower.
for now every lover of this ship that whant to fly it in a tactical way are forced to abandoned it in favor of more efficient cruiser like the galor, regent and all the other i already talk about.
i would have been agree with that if we were speaking about the galaxy refit, who we can safely said that it primary role is tanking, but not with the galaxy x, who the design intended is to do damage.

i think the problem here is not anderstanding, it is bielief.
you bielieve that cruiser should not make significant damage and being stuck in the passive healing/tanking role, i bielieve that some of them could fill the role of a sub damage dealer ( compared to an escort ).
that is already the case in the game, see the galor, but the galaxy x is not part of that group due to it stat that make it a wanabbe of the 2 categorie.

Blah blah blah blah blah.
Well, you go ahead and do that then. I can't be the person to say you are successful in a build - you are. Good luck with your build.


Quote:
Originally Posted by reyan01
Agree for the most part, although I do still think a Lt-Cmdr Tac would be of great benefit.
Perhaps if the LtCmdr Tactical bridge officer seat was a universal instead of an engineering seat, and the existing Lt Tactical turned into an Engineering seat as well...?

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Retired STO Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
PvP: PvP Boot Camp, the best newbie oriented training initiative in STO!
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 20
04-10-2013, 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
Well, you go ahead and do that then. I can't be the person to say you are successful in a build - you are. Good luck with your build.
Do what? I didn't propose anything here.
You didn't even bother to read it.
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 12:47 AM.