Community Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,552
Since there is a lot of outpouring over the closing of the last thread, I've decided to remake this thread for the time being. I cannot say if it'll be closed or not later on but for now here AND ONLY HERE is where you can discuss it.

Let me be very very clear - DISCUSSION OF MODERATION, FLAMING PLAYERS/CRYPTIC/PWE/MODS, TROLLING PLAYERS/CRYPTIC/PWE/MODS, OR ANYTHING THAT VIOLATES THE FORUM RULES WILL RESULT IN MODERATION WITHOUT NOTICE.

There will be no further warnings about any rules.

Enjoy.

Original Thread for comparison: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=528931
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment
If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a community support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Contact: Twitter | Line Messenger: askray113
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 2
06-21-2014, 02:26 PM
Quote:
do Not Break Any Rules When Posting In It Or I'll Hit You With A Stick
Hahaha! XD


http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...28931&page=271
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,444
# 3
06-21-2014, 02:36 PM
Thanks for taking the initiative to do this, Askray.

As for my thoughts on the Galaxy-class, they revolve more around the gameplay of STO rather than any direct problem with the ship itself.

If the game rewarded gameplay for ships that have a clear focus on engineering capabilities (such as boff layouts and consoles), in the same way ship designs lately have focused on tactical or tactical-hybrid capabilities, we would not need threads like this.

Instead of providing a robust playtime experience with Engineering-heavy ships (the cruiser commands were a marked improvement, but still falls short of what needs to be done), Cryptic has focused on making cruisers more escort-like (Avenger, Fleet Dreadnought), Science vessels more escort-like (Vesta, Dyson Science Ships), and Escorts more cruiser-like (Tempest).

This leaves Engineering-focused Cruisers out in the rain, because of a trend towards a high damage output gameplay style.

The obvious solutions are to either give Engineering consoles (not universal consoles) more stats/powers/bonuses to make Engineering-skewed ships on par with the latest 'meta'... or provide gameplay experience that is equally as rewarding as something as the high damage output we've come to accept as 'regular gameplay'.

If your latest ship designs from the development team have a very obvious bias towards tactical capabilities, do not be surprised when fans of the Galaxy-class want their piece of the action too.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?u=91851766000&type=sigpic&dateline=13403  39147
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,611
# 4
06-21-2014, 02:37 PM
Fleet Gal-R...

Make the LCdr Eng a LCdr Uni.
Make the Ens Eng an Ens Uni.
Make the Lt Tac a Lt Eng.

X, X, X, X
X, X

X, X
X, X, X
X


Make the 5th Eng Console a 3rd Tac Console.

3 - 4 - 3


"Wheeeee, this is kind of fun. Oopsie...my bad."
Fleet Admiral Geist, Klingon Science Officer
Arcadia, Benthan Assault Cruiser
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,805
# 5
06-21-2014, 02:41 PM
Gotta put my $.02 in before this thread gets too big.

We shouldn't change the Galaxy at all. We should concentrate on making the XX/XXXXX/XXX console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout better. Even if the Galaxy's configuration changes, we should still work towards making the XX/XXXXX/XXX console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout more competitively viable.


Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - Big booty tutorial - Also, follow me on Twitter!
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,444
# 6
06-21-2014, 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeitis View Post
Gotta put my $.02 in before this thread gets too big.

We shouldn't change the Galaxy at all. We should concentrate on making the XX/XXXXX/XXX console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout better. Even if the Galaxy's configuration changes, we should still work towards making the XX/XXXXX/XXX console layout combined with the Lt/Ens/Ltc/Cmdr/Lt BOFF layout more competitively viable.
A 5-piece Engineering Console Set could conceivably do this. Only a few ships like the Fleet Negh'Var, Ha'apax, Operations Odyssey and Galaxy-class could use all 5 set piece bonuses.

You could even offer more than one 5-piece set for various playstyles and even more options. And since they get more powerful as set bonuses stack -- other ships could still benefit from the 3 or 4-piece set bonuses (even if they don't have access to the fifth), thus appealing to a wide demographic of the playerbase.

Therefore Cryptic could make the fifth console set bonus do... well... literally anything they wanted it to in order to make said ships more competetive with the tactical meta. And you wouldn't have to alter the ship itself at all.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?u=91851766000&type=sigpic&dateline=13403  39147

Last edited by iconians; 06-21-2014 at 02:58 PM.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 343
# 7
06-21-2014, 02:45 PM
Ya eng consoles need some rework, the power ones just arent useful any more, diminishing returns formula is pretty steep so to many armor consoles isnt useful either.

New boff powers are needed for all classes at this point, and would go a long way towards taking the strain off the older ships, but would still benfit newer ships just as much.

The D'd layout I think is still the best immediate solution to the galaxy-r. Honestly if you think of eng heavy ship, id think of a heavy cruiser, not an exploration one, that Id expect to be more sci based.

Though I don't want the heavy cruiser turned into g-r layout. Only other fed ship with that layout is the operations oddy, and everyone suggests going with tac or sci oddy so that aught to say something about that specific layout in the current game.
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,805
# 8
06-21-2014, 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iconians View Post
A 5-piece Engineering Console Set could conceivably do this. Only a few ships like the Fleet Negh'Var, Ha'apax, Operations Odyssey and Galaxy-class could use all 5 set piece bonuses.
That... that is brilliant.

I want to have your babies.


Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - Big booty tutorial - Also, follow me on Twitter!
Career Officer
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 36
# 9
06-21-2014, 02:48 PM
The Galaxy-Class is one of my favourite Engineering ships in STO (I've got 3 FED alts & am trying to provide 3 different ships for each & atm the Galaxy, Sovereign & Avenger are my Engineering ships)...

I can't really think off the top of my head (and there were a lot of posts in the old thread) but I was keen on the idea of changing the Bridge Officers round as for the Dreadnought to make it more Tactical Leaning...

However, I think that one of the things that could do with being improved is that the Galaxy should have better states than the Excelsior due to the Galaxy being a newer ship than the Excelsior and being used more often in things than the Excelsior.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,944
# 10
06-21-2014, 02:57 PM
thank you askray, you are a bro.


please consider giving the galaxy R a universal ENS.

-since doffs have been introduced, there are not enough eng station power system cooldowns to have 3 ENS level eng skills on a ship, in most cases

-another cruiser problem is that there are not enough good LTC+ level eng skills, so ships with 3 LTC+ eng power are not considered all that good. not when you take into consideration the opportunity cost of not having access to a LTC level tac or sci skill instead.

-i think you know that, not a single lockbox cruiser comes with a COM/LTC eng.


unfortunately, the galaxy R has both of those problems. 3 ENS level eng powers, and 3 LTC+ level eng powers. this is why the ship is so bad. this is why we say its the worst ship, why its uncompetitive, why its an anomaly in an otherwise fairly balanced system. its so bad, that better builds can be made by writing off completely the 3rd ENS eng skill, then trying to include it. this is why an ENS universal would make such a huge difference.

other then the mirror ships, there hasn't been a ship released without universal stations standard for years. this is a modest modernization that has become necessary for one of the oldest c store ships in the game
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
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 06:33 PM.