Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,091
One of the more famous ships from Trek is the Galaxy Class, and I don't see many people flying them. Occasionally I'll see a Tri-nacelled Galaxy in an STF, but even those are limited. Considering they're suppose to be the Dreadnoughts of Starfleet, their Boff layout should have included a Lt. Cmd Tactical slot (thus reducing the Lt. Cmd Engineering slot to Lieutenant).

Now, the standard Exploration Cruiser comes with a single Commander Boff, along with three Lieutenant Boffs (one per each skill). The Exploration Cruiser Refit adds a 5th Boff slot in the form of an Science Ensign.

Come level #50 and with purchase of the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit, that Science Ensign is replaced with an Engineer, and you're further given a Lt. Cmd slot too. You have, essentially taken away the Science element from the ship.

The Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit has exactly the same Boff positions though, so why not allow the Fleet version to re-re implement that Science Ensign over the Engineer?

Currently (with the Galaxy Retrofit) there is no incentive what-so-ever for me (or any other player) to even think about bothering with the Fleet Variant as it doesn't really give me anything I don't already have. Why not make it that little bit more unique?


Idea #1:
Have a Galaxy Class Pack, or modify the current one to be included in a pack?

Cmd Engineering
Lt. Cmd Universal
Lt. Engineering
Lt. Universal
Ensign Universal

You want Tactical? You get the Dreadnought with the Lt. Cmd Universal as Tactical, the Ensign Universal as Tactical and the Lt Universal as Science. You want Engineering you get the Lt. Cmd as Engineering, the Lt. Universal as Science and the Ensign Universal as Tactical. You want Science, you get the Lt. Cmd as Science, Ensign Universal as Science and Lt. Universal as Tactical.


Idea #2:
Taking into account the Galaxy Turn Rate, I would imagine her better suited for a Tank/Healer than a Tank/Tactical, thus I'd request that the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit be changed (maybe as a dual pack) so that at least one variant of it enables a science role.

Swap the Lt Science for Lt. Engineer
Swap the Ensign Engineer for an Ensign Science
Swap the Lt. Cmd Engineer for a Lt. Cmd Science

...I think I've worked that out right?


I love the Galaxy Class, and if I could make more use of Science Abilities with it, I'd purchase one in a heartbeat. ($$$$$$$) At the moment I'm alternating between the Nebula Retrofit and Galaxy Retrofit (depending on situation). I'd love something that stands in between them for my Engineer (which I'm trying to build as a Tank/Healer).
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,068
# 2
09-15-2013, 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash525 View Post
One of the more famous ships from Trek is the Galaxy Class, and I don't see many people flying them. Occasionally I'll see a Tri-nacelled Galaxy in an STF, but even those are limited. Considering they're suppose to be the Dreadnoughts of Starfleet, their Boff layout should have included a Lt. Cmd Tactical slot (thus reducing the Lt. Cmd Engineering slot to Lieutenant).

Now, the standard Exploration Cruiser comes with a single Commander Boff, along with three Lieutenant Boffs (one per each skill). The Exploration Cruiser Refit adds a 5th Boff slot in the form of an Science Ensign.

Come level #50 and with purchase of the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit, that Science Ensign is replaced with an Engineer, and you're further given a Lt. Cmd slot too. You have, essentially taken away the Science element from the ship.

The Fleet Exploration Cruiser Retrofit has exactly the same Boff positions though, so why not allow the Fleet version to re-re implement that Science Ensign over the Engineer?

Currently (with the Galaxy Retrofit) there is no incentive what-so-ever for me (or any other player) to even think about bothering with the Fleet Variant as it doesn't really give me anything I don't already have. Why not make it that little bit more unique?


Idea #1:
Have a Galaxy Class Pack, or modify the current one to be included in a pack?

Cmd Engineering
Lt. Cmd Universal
Lt. Engineering
Lt. Universal
Ensign Universal

You want Tactical? You get the Dreadnought with the Lt. Cmd Universal as Tactical, the Ensign Universal as Tactical and the Lt Universal as Science. You want Engineering you get the Lt. Cmd as Engineering, the Lt. Universal as Science and the Ensign Universal as Tactical. You want Science, you get the Lt. Cmd as Science, Ensign Universal as Science and Lt. Universal as Tactical.


Idea #2:
Taking into account the Galaxy Turn Rate, I would imagine her better suited for a Tank/Healer than a Tank/Tactical, thus I'd request that the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit be changed (maybe as a dual pack) so that at least one variant of it enables a science role.

Swap the Lt Science for Lt. Engineer
Swap the Ensign Engineer for an Ensign Science
Swap the Lt. Cmd Engineer for a Lt. Cmd Science

...I think I've worked that out right?


I love the Galaxy Class, and if I could make more use of Science Abilities with it, I'd purchase one in a heartbeat. ($$$$$$$) At the moment I'm alternating between the Nebula Retrofit and Galaxy Retrofit (depending on situation). I'd love something that stands in between them for my Engineer (which I'm trying to build as a Tank/Healer).
Good suggestions - it might be worth you re-posting this post in the very long-running existing Galaxy class thread:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...28931&page=319

You're liable to get better feedback, as most of us who would like to see the Galaxy receive some attention frequent that thread.

Although on saying that, 319 pages/3188 posts, and absolutely no acknowledgement from the Dev's isn't encouraging.

STAR TREK BATTLES - HIGH DPS PLAYERS NEED NOT APPY
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 349
# 3
09-15-2013, 05:26 AM
The problem with the Galaxy isn't with the Galaxy itself. The root cause of its ineffectiveness is that Engineering skills are an absolute mess. You want to fix the ship? Here's a solution that's fair and decidedly less convuluted than most:

Auxiliary Power to the Emergency Battery and Auxiliary Power to the Inertial Dampeners lack a third rank. They're only available at Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander, so create a less effective version of these powers for Ensign-level stations and re-name the existing powers to ranks two and three.

Yes, I'm aware that Borticus said it's complicated to re-seed the random Bridge Officer skills after adding new powers. Frankly, I don't care. They should put in the effort. Engineering needs an overhaul, and sitting around doing nothing isn't going to make the Galaxy any better.

They've already intentionally screwed it over once. Its Klingon counterpart, the Negh'Var, received a turn rate boost, greater hull hit points, a better shield modifier, and had its Ensign station converted to universal with its Fleet Refit. Instead of receiving the same treatment, the Fleet Galaxy only received greater base hull hit points and a better shield modifier, and the universal Ensign that was rightfully the Galaxy's by design was given to the Fleet Patrol Escort. If they aren't going to change the stations to bring it in line with the Fleet Negh'Var, then they need to add these skills. Anything less shows pure contempt for the people that bought the ship.

Last edited by starboardnacelle; 09-15-2013 at 05:41 AM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,246
# 4
09-15-2013, 05:50 AM
I understand why you want the bridge officer layout to change. The operations oddy can match this ships layout and improve on it.

The reason why the boff layout is the way it is was because the intrepid and the defiant have the exact same layouts each in their own class. at the time when this ship was first designed it was suppose to be the cruiser with the most engineering abilities. This concept would have worked if sci/eng/tac abilities were balanced. Just like how the defiant has the extra ensign slot that everyone hated (Even refereed to as the Westley Crusher seat) the ensign engineer is suffers a bit as well.

Under the current systems this ship is too much engineering. And now that we have more and more ships with a commander in one class we often prefer the lt cmdr tactical in another class to get the best of both worlds. as ships started doing this like the Assault cruiser refit, Mvam Advanced escort or the Heavy escort carrier it proved that having a pure ship in a class is hard to do unless that class had enough going for it.

On the defiant as long as you had a dbb or a torp you could use the ensign slot and there are more then enough choices for the upp tac abilities like crf, apo, csv, ect to make that much tac to make sense.

On the intrepid if you just speced into flow capacitors, particle gen and gravity gen you have more then enough power drain and mob control skills to choose from like tykens rift, gw, tbr ect. And you can easily find heals that make sense to fill in the gaps.

On the exploration crusier it gets a little more challenging now that aux2bat builds rule cruisers and epte are on the rise. Dem makes less sense since there is lower dps and while it is a very tanky ship it is hard to draw agro from anything even if you are speced into threat. RSP3 will most likely be used on it since boarding party is useless and aceton beam is too weak. Aux2sif3 does not work in aux2bat builds. This ship is just obsolete.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,242
# 5
09-15-2013, 05:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starboardnacelle View Post
The only problem with the Galaxy is that Engineering skills are an absolute mess. You want to fix the ship? Here's a solution that's fair and decidedly less complicated than anything else that's been proposed:

Auxiliary Power to the Emergency Battery and Auxiliary Power to the Inertial Dampeners lack a third rank. They're only available at Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander, so create a less effective version of these powers for Ensign-level stations and re-name the existing powers to ranks two and three.
What should that be good for?
No cruiser suffers from having to little energy, the only reason to use AtB is to reduce CD to a global and thus inceasing a ships tactical stations, for the cost of survivability. But since the GCS only has one single Lt. Tactical it has effectively only one free tactical station since without TT even a GCS is toast in STO. So this ship not only has just TWO tactical consoles, it has only one free tacitcal BOFF station which makes it the least offensive ship in STO. If that's not a insult for every GCS and TNG fan then i don't know.

What should be done is to rework Engineering/Tactical/Science Team to give all of them the same shield distribution ability as Tactical team has. TT should get some other benefit for compensation, like a kinetic damage buff or something.
This would remove the need to use Tactical Team and would create space of a second tactical offensive ability on the GCS amongst other things.


Quote:
Originally Posted by starboardnacelle View Post
They've already intentionally screwed it over once. Its Klingon counterpart, the Negh'Var, received a turn rate boost and had its Ensign station converted to Universal with its Fleet Refit. Instead of receiving the same treatment, the Fleet Galaxy only received greater base hull hit points and a better shield modifier, and the universal Ensign that was rightfully the Galaxy's by design was given to the Fleet Patrol Escort. If they aren't going to change the stations to bring it in line with the Fleet Negh'Var, then they need to add these skills. Anything less shows pure contempt for the people that bought the ship.
That's a mystery only Cryptics devs seem to understand.
They deliberately made the GCS the Starfleet Cruiser having the least Firepower and so punishing all GCS and TNG fans, without reason.
I mean even the Excelsior and the Ambassador are tactical superior to the GCS in STO, who comes up with such a bizarre idea in the first place?
To give the Galaxy -R and fleet Galaxy a universal ensign and the fleet GCS a third tactical console instead of a fifth engineering console should be the least to do for Cryptic.


If the devs find themselves unable to change the already existing Galaxy Class in STO, they should at least release a "mirror universe" version of it, resembling a much more offensive Yesterdays Enterprise parallel universe Galaxy Class.
(they could give that ship the BOFF/Console Layout of the D'Deridex -R with both ensign BOFF Stations merged into one Lt. Engineering)
So fans of that ship wouldn't have to feel punished anymore.


Thanks.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

The "TT and/or AtB less builds" - Thread
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 349
# 6
09-15-2013, 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
What should that be good for?
No cruiser suffers from having to little energy, the only reason to use AtB is to reduce CD to a global and thus inceasing a ships tactical stations, for the cost of survivability. But since the GCS only has one single Lt. Tactical it has effectively only one free tactical station since without TT even a GCS is toast in STO. So this ship not only has just TWO tactical consoles, it has only one free tacitcal BOFF station which makes it the least offensive ship in STO. If that's not a insult for every GCS and TNG fan then i don't know.
Use an Aux2Batt Fire at Will set-up equipped with Plasma arrays and Embassy [+Th] [Pla] consoles. Suddenly, it has teeth. And if you think that reduces survivability, I'd say you're very much mistaken. I can park at point blank against everything in E-STFs and not die.
Captain
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,181
# 7
09-15-2013, 06:44 AM
Galaxy Class should have / Nebula Class has
Commander Engineer / Commander Science
Lt. Commander Science / Lt. Commander Engineer
Lieutenant Tactical / Lieutenant Tactical
Lieutenant Universal / Lieutenant Universal
Ensign Engineer / Ensign Science

I think that would be fine for the Galaxy Class because it would make the Galaxy like its sister class but instead of Science focus it is Engineering focused more.

Last edited by marshalericdavid; 09-15-2013 at 06:49 AM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,420
# 8
09-15-2013, 10:51 AM
the op's suggestion is the same as the odyssey station setup, the galaxy doesn't need to share that. this is what the ship needs

COM eng
LTC uni
LT uni

LT sci
ENS eng


its supposed to be a modular ship, with this station setup you could go without tac, and have pretty much whatever mix of sci and eng you want. or to much tac if you like
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 659
# 9
09-15-2013, 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash525 View Post
The most famous ship from Trek is the Constitution Class, and I don't see many people flying them.
See what I did there?

The antique Galaxy was replaced by the Sovereign. The Sovereign was replaced by the Odyssey. Galaxy is obsolete and its BOff assignments reflect that incredibly simple to grasp fact. It's time for you to move on.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 243
# 10
09-15-2013, 10:58 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. In addition to whatever else, the Galaxy (and possibly some other Fed cruisers) really ought to have at least one hangar. The main shuttlebay is supposed to be rather cavernous, capable of housing several dozen shuttles or other small craft.
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 05:10 AM.