Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
10-26-2011, 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakaishin
As a Tac Gal-X, I don't care about broadside DPS. Pathetic and worthless to me.

I can do far more carnage with 3x dual beams up front.

Reason being is after using this ship for so long, I know how to get my nose on my target. I have allies who assist me as well. I don't have to worry about turn rates or spreading my arcs around.

I'm able to concentrate on my ability to destroy my enemies as effectively as possible.

This plays into my favor as well and tempts stupid morons into wanting to hang around on my rear, thinking it's vulnerable.

It's not. Eject Warp Plasma 3 and they wish they never bothered. They become sitting ducks, and I can do whatever I want to them.

This will allow me to easily get my devastating forward arc on just about any enemy I want, whenever I want.

Playstyle preference I suppose. If you have crap allies who can't work together, or if you'd rather not find ways of bringing your nose on your target, single beams might be better for you.

Non factor for me.
I totally agree in regards to the broadside vs dbb frontal. I feel that beam broadsides drain energy way too much for t to be usefull to me. Theres times where in Fed v Fed I was definately safer attacking the sides of a ship than the aft or fore because the individual shots damage were too weak to really hurt my ship. I see nothing wrong with having three beam arrays on the aft and sides, but six or eight? It doesnt mathematically make sence to me.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
10-26-2011, 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer View Post
I totally agree in regards to the broadside vs dbb frontal. I feel that beam broadsides drain energy way too much for t to be usefull to me. Theres times where in Fed v Fed I was definately safer attacking the sides of a ship than the aft or fore because the individual shots damage were too weak to really hurt my ship. I see nothing wrong with having three beam arrays on the aft and sides, but six or eight? It doesnt mathematically make sence to me.
I tried single beams on rear for a while, but didn't suit my play style.

I am a Tac, not an Engineer. The entire purpose surrounding my using the ship is my ability to shovel out an incredible amount of damage on an unsuspecting or otherwise vulnerable target faster than they can recover from it, then heal/support/tank until I'm ready to do it again.

Beams in the rear might give a very, very miniscule increase in broad/aft DPS, but takes away from my devastating forward arc. I want as much forward-facing brutality as I can possibly muster.

The only reason I don't use cannons actually is Beam Overload. Following my Alpha (15 second difference), 3x DBB is devastating, and allows me some freedom in my 3 Tactical BOFF slots.

Personal preference I suppose.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
10-26-2011, 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-A-T-H-F-I-N-D-E-R
That's because you don't feel right in anything but a KDF uniform and ship.
.
True. It feeds my KISS fetish and allows me to blend at the heavy metal events quite well, not to mention being a Klingon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer View Post
I can respect that, but the discussion was about the Gal-X (a cruiser chasis) and some treating it like an escort.
I know I was leaving a simple response to your former statement and a statement of prefered vessel type.

The fact that so many remember the Gal-X from the AGT episodes and how it was portrayed is a big reason why many think it is a over-sized Escort.
Of course its not. Its a Dreadnaught vessel designed to be a machine of war but not an escort for other vessels in a fleet.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
10-26-2011, 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakaishin
I tried single beams on rear for a while, but didn't suit my play style.

I am a Tac, not an Engineer. The entire purpose surrounding my using the ship is my ability to shovel out an incredible amount of damage on an unsuspecting or otherwise vulnerable target faster than they can recover from it, then heal/support/tank until I'm ready to do it again.

Beams in the rear might give a very, very miniscule increase in broad/aft DPS, but takes away from my devastating forward arc. I want as much forward-facing brutality as I can possibly muster.

The only reason I don't use cannons actually is Beam Overload. Following my Alpha (15 second difference), 3x DBB is devastating, and allows me some freedom in my 3 Tactical BOFF slots.

Personal preference I suppose.
By "cannons" and skills, I mean that turrets are on the "cannon" skill tree. I I like you use 3x DBB and a torp.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
10-26-2011, 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
True. It feeds my KISS fetish and allows me to blend at the heavy metal events quite well, not to mention being a Klingon.

I just had this odd notion you would be discoing to "The New York Groove".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
I know I was leaving a simple response to your former statement and a statement of prefered vessel type.

The fact that so many remember the Gal-X from the AGT episodes and how it was portrayed is a big reason why many think it is a over-sized Escort.
Of course its not. Its a Dreadnaught vessel designed to be a machine of war but not an escort for other vessels in a fleet.
I have no clue to why anyone would see that episode and have that misguided notion, but I'm sure there are some L.C.D.'s that do
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
10-26-2011, 07:46 PM
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer View Post
I just had this odd notion you would be discoing to "The New York Groove".
The classic of all disco music - Staying Alive by the Bee Gees
http://youtu.be/W_bPwi3pwAY is how I remember disoco actually.

Kiss Is not disco by any means. imo.
http://youtu.be/M9Y1mFTNU2c
http://youtu.be/zgkLhfiGIqY
Sadly I never made it to a concert and still lament missing Destroyer especially.

Though Iove these guys as well. (saw them front row years ago)
http://youtu.be/zgkLhfiGIqY
Ozzy is forever close to the front of the line thanks to one cool old baptist lady at the weekly church dinner who happened to be an Ozzy fan
http://youtu.be/_aIhh9nFYv4

Music to work out aggression by.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer View Post
I have no clue to why anyone would see that episode and have that misguided notion, but I'm sure there are some L.C.D.'s that do
mmmmmmm maybe PlotArmor? ( sorry had this wierd Church lady vibe)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
10-26-2011, 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakaishin
Bad idea.

Galaxy-X due to maneuverability impediment depends on Eject Warp Plasma to keep things off their vulnerable rear. Ensign Engineer you deprive yourself that, 2x Emergency Power to Shields (which ALL Cruisers, NO exceptions, should be running at ALL times in ALL builds), and the Directed Energy Modulation that helps make the Lance stronger.

This is not an Escort. Stop treating it like one.

If you do that you would find much more pleasure in using the Galaxy-X.

Besides, this is not an exploration ship. It is a war ship. Lance wasn't put on the ship for mining ore samples for study. Cloak wasn't added so the ship could orbit a planet for observation.

They are there for no other reason than to cause destruction and mayhem.

Just swap the LT Tactical with LTC Engineer. That's all the ship needs as far as BOFFs are concerned.

Everything else is perfect.
Swapping the LtCm to Tactical would make it better, but also identical to the layout of the Excelsior (IIRC). Not that its a bad thing by any means, but it seems Cryptic is very hesitant to put the same BOFF layout in two different ships (for whatever reason). That's why I suggested other layouts that would be unique and focus on its warship status.

Besides, I don't remember stating anywhere about switching the Cm Engineer from Engineering anywhere, so I don't get the idea of why one couldn't equip Eject Warp Plasma with any of the layouts I suggested..

Point is, everybody knows it should be a bit beefier in the tactical department because it's a clearly a warship and not just a 'typical' cruiser.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
10-26-2011, 10:17 PM
[quote=Roach;3832252]
Quote:
The classic of all disco music - Staying Alive by the Bee Gees
http://youtu.be/W_bPwi3pwAY is how I remember disoco actually.
Thanks, I then had that song going through my head.

I had to climb into my bird-of-prey, queue up for a solar winds PvP match, andjoin another B-o-P Lt. Gen. in a two to four match where we ran all four from the field before the match could great past 7 victories.

Very nice ship when used right.

THAT got that song back out of my head.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled thread.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
10-27-2011, 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destinii
Swapping the LtCm to Tactical would make it better, but also identical to the layout of the Excelsior (IIRC). Not that its a bad thing by any means, but it seems Cryptic is very hesitant to put the same BOFF layout in two different ships (for whatever reason). That's why I suggested other layouts that would be unique and focus on its warship status.

Besides, I don't remember stating anywhere about switching the Cm Engineer from Engineering anywhere, so I don't get the idea of why one couldn't equip Eject Warp Plasma with any of the layouts I suggested..

Point is, everybody knows it should be a bit beefier in the tactical department because it's a clearly a warship and not just a 'typical' cruiser.
That's not true.

Currently, Excellsior has the following layout:

LTC Tac
ENS Eng
LT Eng
COM Eng
LT Sci

Currently, the Galaxy-X has the following layout:

ENS Tac
LT Tac
LTC Eng
COM Eng
LT Sci

By swapping the Galaxy-X LTC Eng with LT Tac, you end up with the following layout (which NO other ship in the game has):

ENS Tac
LTC Tac
LT Eng
COM Eng
LT Sci

Galaxy-X would actually have 1 more Tactical slot than the Excellsior (which is prudent... the Excellsior is an exploration cruiser, and the Galaxy-X is a pure war ship).

I hope that clarifies.

As for the Eject Warp Plasma comment...

You said ENS Eng + COM Eng. You can get Eject warp plasma in there, but if you read my post, you would see that I mentioned several other things that you'd miss that are vital.

Read it again, a bit more thoroughly, and you'd see what I am trying to say.

We do clearly agree on something, however.

The Galaxy-X is a war ship, and deserves stronger Tactical capabilities.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
10-27-2011, 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer View Post
I totally agree in regards to the broadside vs dbb frontal. I feel that beam broadsides drain energy way too much for t to be usefull to me. Theres times where in Fed v Fed I was definately safer attacking the sides of a ship than the aft or fore because the individual shots damage were too weak to really hurt my ship. I see nothing wrong with having three beam arrays on the aft and sides, but six or eight? It doesnt mathematically make sence to me.
On my Tac/Dreadnaught, I quite comfortably run five beam arrays - four on the rear, one up front, and have absolutely no issues with energy drain. Originally I tried something similar to Hakaishin, and focussed everything on forward firepower. However this meant (at least for me), after the inital Alpha strike on one target, the attack drained a lot of power and ship really wasn't that effective until the next Alpha. Even with EWP and tractor beams - people soon learn your tricks and start attacking from the side or just keep their distance and shoot from the rear. You can occasionally do some damage, but nothing people can't handle.

For example I was in a C&H a few nights back on my Eng/Assault cruiser where a Tac/Dreadnaught was attacking me for most of the match. Their setup included EWP and rear turrets. They were still easy enough to run rings around, and I just laughed the damage off. I only had two small hull heals and no Hazard Emitters - although I did appreciate their ignorable-turrets giving me free Borg procs... never got a chance to thank them for that. lol

So... beams work quite well. Yes I have lost a slight bit of forward firepower, but it's certainly not made much of a difference (in my opinion) in terms of the Alpha strikes lethality. Instead the ship still has a devastating Alpha, and can still offer decent well-rounded DPS support afterwards. I don't really have any 'blind spots' that require use of EWP or careful maneuvering to protect. Generally can keep pressure on no matter where an enemy is.

I agree though that 6-8 beams is a bit silly if you can't keep the power up. Beam boats are more feasable for Engineers thanks to them having EPS Transfer and Nadion Inversion. Probably not on a Dreadnaught though :p


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakaishin
By swapping the Galaxy-X LTC Eng with LT Tac, you end up with the following layout (which NO other ship in the game has):

ENS Tac
LTC Tac
LT Eng
COM Eng
LT Sci
Ooh, now thats a combination I'd like to try! I'd probably want it as an alternate BOff layout, kind of like the Advanced Escort and the MVAM variant, so I could choose. Not sure how much the loss of a Lt Cmdr Eng station would affect the ships survivability (especialy since the ship handles like a barge). But then again... dead things can't shoot back.

Suppose at the very least the ships gained an additional tact console on tribble.
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 04:54 AM.