The Galaxy is fine. What is not fine, however, are engineer bridge officer abilities. Solve that issue, and the Galaxy will shine.

Have to throw my 2 cents in here: I'm one of those people that love the Ambassador class; it's the first ship I wanted to own, and, well, obviously it wasn't. But I've looked forward to having it for a long time, and I love the way it came out. Both aesthetically and in terms of functionality, I'm deeply happy with it.

That being said, I will not pay for toon-bound items. I would have gladly paid the full price for the account unlock, Galaxy-style. I might even get one fleet module for an upgraded Fleet version, again, Galaxy-style. I like that system. I don't like the current implementation, and, as a result, I won't even bother buying the Modules off the exchange.

The gesture of the free Ambassador Retrofit was appreciated, but not required, and it doesn't, for me, sweeten the pang of the current situation. I don't mind paying for my stuff, just as I didn't mind paying for the subscription for nearly a year (and I continue paying), or the ships I've purchased, or the uniforms, interiors and so forth. I only barely regret paying for the Master Keys.

I can't speak in the name of any other players, but I, for one, won't support this move. I can live without the Fleet Ambassador, as I can live without the things in the Lobi store, or lockboxes, or all the other Fleet unlocks. And I will manage without any other item you decide to put into these shops.

I really needed to state my disappointment in this move, and hope it won't become "the new rule".

Everything else about the game is pretty great, keep up the good work!

As much as I like the thrust of your idea, I don't think it'll ever happen. Cryptic has no financial incentive to undertake this kind of extensive balance pass.

I bet there is a certain level of turnover in the playerbase and that there are ships that just plain don't sell.

I think that's the core financial incentive right there.

Beyond that, there's a big motivation... and I probably need a kevlar vest and a raincoat for saying it here... PvP needs to be diverse and pretty looking if Cryptic is ever going to start monetizing it.

Diverse and balanced at the same time can be extremely hard to do, especially in a game where you are not only working backwards but also against new items and powers being added.

The most "balanced" thing would be pre-set team comps and pre-set gear load outs on pre-set ships.


But would that even be fun? Would that destroy the ship building aspect (and fun for many) part of the game?

Could you monetize it?




Anyway, I think a lot of this is way far beyond the issue brought up in this thread - the Fed Cruiser vs. KDF Cruiser design, and the lack of a logical or coherent system of Shield Mod vs. Hull vs. Turn Rate .

(We can also add vs. Ship Size vs. Usable weapons to that, but let's keep it simple for now).




So my questions still stand, from a systems balance standpoint why do older, smaller, faster turning ships like the Ambassador and Excelsior get to also have nearly as much or more hull than equivalent level/tier ships that are also thematically more modern?


Why does the systems team continually value 1k to 3k hull (Fed) in the same realm as 2 to 4 points of base turn rate (KDF) - when practically speaking they are no where near each other with regards to actual usefulness, power or performance?

Oh to be sure. But this pairing REALLY highlights the problem when you have one ship that is demonstrably better in every meaningful way.

OK...I'll address something NON-money related. When you consider the disparity between these two ships (Kam/Amby) and the Fleet Excelsior vs. Ambassador..please...increase the Ambassador's turn +1 or UP the inertia....PLEASE!!! - That is all.

Actually, that's not all...IF you +1 the Ambassador turn, I would gladly pay for a 5th module.

Really Bort? I'm surprised you are surprised... what with the (IMO) excessive grind/real money costs of per character unlocks in game, gripes about the cost of anything added to that same pricing scheme should be expected.

Honestly I'm at the point where if it's not in the C-Store for an account wide unlock I'm not gonna put money/time into it.

Performance is a moot point since I don't plan on getting it. Good luck with that.

there is nothing fine about the galaxy. every single stat that maters it has the lowest of, plus the worst station setup of any ship in the game. its bad in every way it is possible for a ship to be bad.

It's kind of a mess looking at Cruisers, eh?

Heavy, Advanced Heavy, Support, Exploration, Dreadnought, Assault, Star

What's the "base" Cruiser?

Is it the Heavy?

Advanced Heavy = more tactical version (this is off then)...?
Support = unfocused mixed bag?
Exploration = er...base with more science? That's not what they did.
Dreadnought = more tactical version of Exploration?
Assault = more tactical than...tactical?
Star = even more sci than the Exploration? Wait, that's the Support, no?

With 5 BOFFs and 12 abilities, there's only going to be so many options. With 10 consoles, there's only going to be so many options.

Perhaps they need to take a look at doing some dual LCdr, eh?

Cmdr (4)
LCdr (3)
LCdr (3)
En (1)
En (1)
or Lt (2)

Maybe it could be addressed by addressing the actual abilities available to BOFFs though - so that something that might have the same BOFF and console layout, because of the rest of the stats - might be able to find more choice - more effective choice - based on actual BOFF abilities.

Otherwise - will it be a case of ship only gimmicks?

Cruiser A is exactly the same as Cruiser B... but A comes with X console only it can use while B comes with Y that only it can use!

I don't know... I just know that I look at that Galaxy in the way I look at the Negh'Var - though I think that Galaxy's worse off than the Negh'Var. At least with the Fleet Negh'Var they made that 3rd Eng En BOFF a Uni. No idea why they didn't do that with the Fleet Galaxy as well...