Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
I saw the devs have shown an interest in adding consoles or things like the Connie Retrofit phasers.

After speccing, gearing and testing my Galaxy X, IMHO they have done a lot to improve it...

However, to make decent use of cannons, I think what it needs is its own special engines, on the order of the Connie Retrofit phasers.

IMHO, what's needed is:

Combat Impulse Engines [Turn]x2
Scales with level.
Allows travel at Warp 13 in Sector Space.

The lack of engines with multiple turnrate boosts is the big thing keeping this ship from its potential. Speccing into it and using 4 RCS consoles helps and it's a fun little power house once you've optimized the gear/spec/power adjustments but it really needs engines tailored to its role and the lack of Double Turnrate engines in-game is a big drawback. (Meanwhile, Warp 13 in SS would bring it into line with canon and be a fun little boost.)

Otherwise, people will tend to avoid cannons, which is half the point of the ship.

Heck, I might go a step further and suggest that the third nacelle be tied to the engine like the visual item sets we have, since the reason it could go Warp 13 was that third nacelle.

So if you remove the engine, you'd get something more closely approximating the Odyssey and if you put that engine on another ship, you get the nacelle on that ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
they just need to give fed cruiser a klingon cruiser like turn rate and be done with it. currently its pointless to run with less than 8 beams, not just because of FAW, but the turn rate is so bad nothing else is usable.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
they just need to give fed cruiser a klingon cruiser like turn rate and be done with it. currently its pointless to run with less than 8 beams, not just because of FAW, but the turn rate is so bad nothing else is usable.
I think it risks making escorts redundant if you do that unless you also introduce a feature on par with Battle Cloak.

Overall, I just think having engines that specialize more in turnrate would help, particularly if there's some kind of tradeoff with engines that offer more distinct benefits but have less turnrate.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
I think it risks making escorts redundant if you do that unless you also introduce a feature on par with Battle Cloak.

Overall, I just think having engines that specialize more in turnrate would help, particularly if there's some kind of tradeoff with engines that offer more distinct benefits but have less turnrate.
escorts redundant? really? not with that huge lack of tactical stations cruisers have. i'm just asking for something that would make fed cruisers almost as good as klink cruisers. they shouldn't need some item to get to that level ether.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
The Gal-X needs engines like someone said to help with using its phaser lance. Their engine idea i agree with.

A rapid fire quantum torpedo launcher on the assault cruiser would also be nice. Look at First Contact.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
I think it risks making escorts redundant if you do that unless you also introduce a feature on par with Battle Cloak.

Overall, I just think having engines that specialize more in turnrate would help, particularly if there's some kind of tradeoff with engines that offer more distinct benefits but have less turnrate.
My thinking is rather skewed but I wouldn't want my ship to take so long to turn to where it seems like Pluto could complete one full orbit around the sun before you do a simple 360 degree rotation. The way the game is set up it doesn't have the feel or true aspect of a space game. It's more akin to submarines by how the ships maneuver.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
Even as a normal cruiser, without the cloak, spinal lance, and cloaking device, the bridge officer loadout's a good one. When you mix in the fact it can cloak, and has the lance, it looks very good. If we then gave it a boost to manouverability, it'd become OP. I know it can use DHCs, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. And I think it's wrong to assume the ship's broken because not all of it's weapon choices are effective. I don't think anyone'd get very far in an all turret bird of prey for example. But it has one of the highest crew compliments and hull strengths in Starfleet's ship roster, making it manouver like one of the more tactically able yet less durable ships would upset what little balance there is.

There are already many remedies to bad handling (lord knows, I've had my own experiences with the various Galaxy class ships). RCS accelerators help to an extent, speccing up in the appropriate skills also helps. And there are enough BO powers that enhance turnrate, such as Aux2ID, evasive manouvers, and many of the attack patterns. Also, lining up a good first attack with the lance and dual cannons is still possible with the cloak, even if the advantage is lost after (unless it's a really sweet one shot alpha strike, of which I see plenty).

I was always mystified as to why they put cannons on it in the first place, those attatchments added to either side of the bridge module could have been anything as far as I know.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
There are balance issues because they tried to make balance.... at the very least the made a poor attempt trying to make balance.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeneezergoode
Even as a normal cruiser, without the cloak, spinal lance, and cloaking device, the bridge officer loadout's a good one. When you mix in the fact it can cloak, and has the lance, it looks very good. If we then gave it a boost to manouverability, it'd become OP. I know it can use DHCs, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. And I think it's wrong to assume the ship's broken because not all of it's weapon choices are effective. I don't think anyone'd get very far in an all turret bird of prey for example. But it has one of the highest crew compliments and hull strengths in Starfleet's ship roster, making it manouver like one of the more tactically able yet less durable ships would upset what little balance there is.

There are already many remedies to bad handling (lord knows, I've had my own experiences with the various Galaxy class ships). RCS accelerators help to an extent, speccing up in the appropriate skills also helps. And there are enough BO powers that enhance turnrate, such as Aux2ID, evasive manouvers, and many of the attack patterns. Also, lining up a good first attack with the lance and dual cannons is still possible with the cloak, even if the advantage is lost after (unless it's a really sweet one shot alpha strike, of which I see plenty).

I was always mystified as to why they put cannons on it in the first place, those attatchments added to either side of the bridge module could have been anything as far as I know.
giving it a turn rate buff, even as high as 8 or 9, would bring it from the level of 'underpowered gimmicky crap' to 'as good as the klingon cruisers'.

the turn rate of 6 is horrible, and an advantage to anyone trying to drop one of its shield facings. turn rate consoles do almost nothing for ships that start out with a turn rate that bad. put that console on a ship with good maneuverability and it will make a much bigger difference though, they need to do something about that.

compare the negvar to the gal X, they have the same hit points, the same weapons available, and the same cloaking ability. but 1 has a tactical ENS station and the other has a engineering ENS station.

the advantage the gal x has is the spinal phaser, which can be somewhat dangerous if you can luck out and hit bare hull. happened to me the other day, only lost about a third of my hitpoints, seems like it should have been more. it also has 4 accessory slots as opposed to klingon cruisers having 3.

the negvar's advantages are that it has a turn rate of 9 with all the advantages that maneuverability provides, including realistically being able to use dual cannons. also a third tactical console which will allow it to deal more damage with every shot it fires. might as well mention that it has a crew of 2500 too, i know that doesn't seem to make too big a difference.

then there's the vorcha, which has a tactical ENS station, and gives up 3k hull hit points and 1000 crew for an even better turn rate of 10. other than that its the same as the negvar.

giving the gal X, and every other fed cruiser, a turn rate buff of a point or 2 would merely even the odds a bit. the klingon cruisers are clearly better as it stands. they have better turn rates and don't have to give up console slots and station powers on items and abilities that boost turn rate.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
giving it a turn rate buff, even as high as 8 or 9, would bring it from the level of 'underpowered gimmicky crap' to 'as good as the klingon cruisers'.

the turn rate of 6 is horrible, and an advantage to anyone trying to drop one of its shield facings. turn rate consoles do almost nothing for ships that start out with a turn rate that bad. put that console on a ship with good maneuverability and it will make a much bigger difference though, they need to do something about that.

compare the negvar to the gal X, they have the same hit points, the same weapons available, and the same cloaking ability. but 1 has a tactical ENS station and the other has a engineering ENS station.

the advantage the gal x has is the spinal phaser, which can be somewhat dangerous if you can luck out and hit bare hull. happened to me the other day, only lost about a third of my hitpoints, seems like it should have been more. it also has 4 accessory slots as opposed to klingon cruisers having 3.

the negvar's advantages are that it has a turn rate of 9 with all the advantages that maneuverability provides, including realistically being able to use dual cannons. also a third tactical console which will allow it to deal more damage with every shot it fires. might as well mention that it has a crew of 2500 too, i know that doesn't seem to make too big a difference.

then there's the vorcha, which has a tactical ENS station, and gives up 3k hull hit points and 1000 crew for an even better turn rate of 10. other than that its the same as the negvar.

giving the gal X, and every other fed cruiser, a turn rate buff of a point or 2 would merely even the odds a bit. the klingon cruisers are clearly better as it stands. they have better turn rates and don't have to give up console slots and station powers on items and abilities that boost turn rate.
I use the Negh'var, and to keep cannons targeted on anything more nimble than a cruiser as often as is useful (i.e. you do more damage than you would with beams), you really need to run Aux2ID or have an RCS accelerator, otherwise you're still better off with beam banks and arrays in that the extra shots counter their weaker damage. Cannons are useable, but not optimum unless you buff the manouverability further still. Also, if you buff all cruiser turn rates, you'll have the Excelsior becoming almost an escort, but without doing all of them, it'd loose worth compared to the slower heavier ones.

Yes, Galaxy class ships have a harder time keeping shield facings up with a concerted effort from someone, but it's still quite doable with things like tactical team, reverse shield polarity, and the others due to the ammount of engineering slots on hand. I've seen Galaxy pilots of the R and the X tank amazingly well both in Arena/Cap & Hold, and in Ker'rat. Also, this problem won't go away if you make it manouverable enough to use DHCs, since then rather than being forced by your turn rate to present the same shield facing, you'll find yourself volunteering the same shield facing to bring your weapons to bear. A Galaxy X DHC build would be no more viable from a defensive standpoint than it is now, though a "traditional" cruiser build would gain surviveability, but that's one thing the Galaxy already has in abundance.

Again, I feel a lot of this comes down to "it can equip DHCs, so it should be good at using them" which I disagree with personally. I think a smaller buff to 7 to Galaxy turn rates and fixing the spinal lance so it's worthwhile would bring the Galaxy-X up to par. That said, even as it is now, it's capable of one shotting another ship in an ambush. But my point is, rather than trying to make it turn better which it isn't (and hasn't ever been) good at, maybe it should be made better at what it already does well. Lance sometimes, tank lots. But 8 or 9 would just make it a Negh'var with a spinal lance. It should be it's own unique thing.
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 09:34 AM.