Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
08-18-2011, 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexraptor View Post
Klingon players as usual end up getting shafted by the referral program.

If Cryptic really want to play it fair then the Seige Destroyer should be the KDF side reward.
That was dstahl's stated intent when the ship was on Tribble and the $25 C-store price tag was revealed, but there was a 20+ page backlash against the idea from angry Klingon players who wanted it in-game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
08-18-2011, 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
The Galaxy-X was never one of the best ships, though at least now it's finally on Tier 5 quality.
Care to explain? I always looked at the chart and thought Galaxy X had a slight advantage over other Cruiser-type ships. It has the same boff layout as the Assault Cruiser, as many crew as the Star Cruiser, same amount of hull HP and four device slots. And while many other ships (retrofits etc.) give up a console slot for one new ability, Galaxy X gets two - a phaser lance and a cloak. Additionally it can equip all types of cannons, while other cruisers can't (although I personally don't find it that appealing for a cruiser). The only real downside is a bit slower turn-rate in comparison to other ships of this class.

So why is Galaxy-X considered bad, or at least not that interesting? I know that after it's release the ship had only 7 weapon slots, but now even that has been "fixed".

Oh, and I also wouldn't mind having Galaxy-X available for Emblems. Make it even 850, but just give us the option. I don't think the ship is worth paying real money for (non of them is, for that matter...), while referring 5 people and making them buy the game AND subscribe for at least a month is simply impossible.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
08-18-2011, 04:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suavek View Post
So why is Galaxy-X considered bad, or at least not that interesting? I know that after it's release the ship had only 7 weapon slots, but now even that has been "fixed".
It's turn rate really is abysmal.

I fly one of my tac captains in it and find that it can work reasonably well. It really can pack a mean decloak-alpha strike
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
08-18-2011, 05:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suavek View Post
Care to explain? I always looked at the chart and thought Galaxy X had a slight advantage over other Cruiser-type ships. It has the same boff layout as the Assault Cruiser, as many crew as the Star Cruiser, same amount of hull HP and four device slots. And while many other ships (retrofits etc.) give up a console slot for one new ability, Galaxy X gets two - a phaser lance and a cloak. Additionally it can equip all types of cannons, while other cruisers can't (although I personally don't find it that appealing for a cruiser). The only real downside is a bit slower turn-rate in comparison to other ships of this class.

So why is Galaxy-X considered bad, or at least not that interesting? I know that after it's release the ship had only 7 weapon slots, but now even that has been "fixed".

Oh, and I also wouldn't mind having Galaxy-X available for Emblems. Make it even 850, but just give us the option. I don't think the ship is worth paying real money for (non of them is, for that matter...), while referring 5 people and making them buy the game AND subscribe for at least a month is simply impossible.
Abysmal turn rate is a huge killer. On par with a Carrier, if I'm not mistaken. RCS consoles won't help either, since they're percentage based and the Gal-X already has a low base rate.

It loses a Tac console, which is a significant disadvantage for DPS Cruisers.

While it gets the Phaser Lance, (which is difficult to line up at times) it has horribly accuracy and more or less forces you to use Phasers (since it uses the Phaser skill) unless you want a gimped special.

The ability to use DHCs is a joke, you'll have maybe a second of time where your target is in your arc before it takes you 3 years to turn and get them back in there. While the Assault Cruiser (and most definitely the Excelsior) can use Single Cannons effectively, the Gal-X can't even do that.

Truth be told, when I see a Galaxy-X roll into an Arena, I treat them as one of my first targets. And if they're on my team, I treat them as a liability that's going to be needing more heals than the average Cruiser.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
08-18-2011, 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
That was dstahl's stated intent when the ship was on Tribble and the $25 C-store price tag was revealed, but there was a 20+ page backlash against the idea from angry Klingon players who wanted it in-game.
The players didn't shoot the idea to make it a referral reward down. That was something decided by whoever is behind such decisions at Cryptic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suavek View Post
Care to explain? I always looked at the chart and thought Galaxy X had a slight advantage over other Cruiser-type ships. It has the same boff layout as the Assault Cruiser, as many crew as the Star Cruiser, same amount of hull HP and four device slots. And while many other ships (retrofits etc.) give up a console slot for one new ability, Galaxy X gets two - a phaser lance and a cloak.
Klingon ships get the cloak at no cost. The Galaxy-X lost a weapon slot and a console slot for its features, and the turn rate made its special ability weaker than it could be.

Quote:
So why is Galaxy-X considered bad, or at least not that interesting? I know that after it's release the ship had only 7 weapon slots, but now even that has been "fixed".
That's why it's now en par with Tier 5 ships. It's still not one of the best, and that has more to do with that DPS Cruisers are just not as useful to have as healing-Cruisers. Still, if you fly your Sovereign a a heal cruiser, you might want to try the Galaxy-X instead. The turn rate sucks (and makes healing harder as well, since it's more difficult to get to your ally), but you get a neat extra weapon ability that might occassionally help your team.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
08-18-2011, 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
Klingon ships get the cloak at no cost. The Galaxy-X lost a weapon slot and a console slot for its features, and the turn rate made its special ability weaker than it could be.
It has that extra (standard) eight weapon slot, so the only disadvantage is the lack of one console. As for the turn rate and other parameters, the ship is basically the same as Galaxy-Retrofit, but with different boff layout, ability to equip cannons, and two abilities (lance, cloak) instead of one (saucer separation). Pretty decent if you ask me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
That's why it's now en par with Tier 5 ships.
And isn't that as it is supposed to be? I never liked the idea of having "the best" ship in its class. I'd rather have several classes that I can pick from depending on my style of gameplay. And as it is now, I don't see any _real_ disadvantage of Galaxy-X when compared to other cruisers*.

* - I mean, other than the fact that I can't get it without paying real money... (as I said, making 5 people buying the game and subscribing for at least a month is nearly impossible).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
08-18-2011, 08:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suavek View Post
It has that extra (standard) eight weapon slot,
I know. as I said, it's fine now. I still think that overall the role it plays in the game is not as effective, but I don't fault the ship for that, that is a problem of the metagame and the powers involved in it.

Quote:
And isn't that as it is supposed to be? I never liked the idea of having "the best" ship in its class. I'd rather have several classes that I can pick from depending on my style of gameplay. And as it is now, I don't see any _real_ disadvantage of Galaxy-X when compared to other cruisers*.
I am not saying I am not happy with where the Galaxy-X is now. It's exactly what I want from any ship in this game - be appropriate of its tier. It wasn't, now it is.

Quote:
* - I mean, other than the fact that I can't get it without paying real money... (as I said, making 5 people buying the game and subscribing for at least a month is nearly impossible).
Unfortunately, there are people that think that because something costs money, it must be better what is in the game. I am absolutely opposed to that. Money shouldn't buy power. Options, yes, okay, I can live with that. Power, no. But I think it's also unfair to sell stuf you can't use at its intended tier, so that's why I had issues with the Galaxy-X before.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
08-18-2011, 09:15 AM
Quote:
The players didn't shoot the idea to make it a referral reward down. That was something decided by whoever is behind such decisions at Cryptic.

Yes
they did. There's not enough words in that sentence to link the other four or five threads.

Then there were six or seven like this, where their decision to listen to the feedback and NOT put it on the referral program was cited as, "confidence restored," "they're finally listening to klinks," and "this is good news as it should clear up a lot of bad feeling."
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
08-18-2011, 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post

Yes
they did. There's not enough words in that sentence to link the other four or five threads.

Then there were six or seven like this, where their decision to listen to the feedback and NOT put it on the referral program was cited as, "confidence restored," "they're finally listening to klinks," and "this is good news as it should clear up a lot of bad feeling."
Oh, I think I was missing the point of your post then. Or forgot the original topic of the thread. Actually, the fair solution would have been (for both ships):
  • Referral Bonus
  • Ingame Acquisition via Emblems.
  • C-Store

ANd I thought that was the discussion, but you are right, it was only about Emblems vs Referral.
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 12:05 PM.