Captain
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,259
# 91
09-22-2013, 08:36 PM
Pretty sure CBS said no to the Galaxy getting still further, as they feel it's too old to be effective in the modern Star Trek universe.

Or wait, maybe they said no to FREE improvements of old ships people already bought. And are much more in favor of new ships that people would have to spend new money on to purchase? Yeah, I think that's it. Reskinned, but costs new zen.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 324
# 92
09-22-2013, 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoggymack22 View Post
Pretty sure CBS said no to the Galaxy getting still further, as they feel it's too old to be effective in the modern Star Trek universe.

Or wait, maybe they said no to FREE improvements of old ships people already bought. And are much more in favor of new ships that people would have to spend new money on to purchase? Yeah, I think that's it. Reskinned, but costs new zen.
Oppose to a Cardassian Galor which in TNG the Galaxy have more firepower to, while in this game the Galor is superior to the Galaxy??? how about the Jem'hadar attack ship, the T'varo, the Double D's, the Ferengi Maurader and other lock box ships etc. which these new ships more firepower and have a Universal Boff Station which makes them adaptive in different area's which the Galaxy can't do.

No one asking Cryptic to make new versions or make a huge drastic change, just make the Galaxy/Galaxy-X have the slight ability to fight better which means is adding +1 console to Tac while taking out -1 sci console and also taking out one of the Eng boff stations replacing it with univesal Boff station to be more adaptive for PvP/PvE roles.

the Galaxy is not alone alot of older KDF/Fed C-store/Fleet ships (not 3-pack ships) needs a slight change to atleast complete with the newer Romulan/Lock box ships, just look at their setups and u see nearly all of them have a Unisersal Boff Station while alot of the older Tier 5 KDF/Fed C-Store/Fleet have no such things which will makes them less flexible in combat.

Not saying all older tier 5 ships need changes just the ones with a 3rd Tac and Eng Station setup... Whats the point having a 3rd same Tac/Eng boff station if the shared CD will no doubt effect them... as for 3rd Sci ability, don't have a problem with that since there are alot of Sci abilities to work with unlike the Tac/Eng ones.

Last edited by oakland4life; 09-22-2013 at 09:29 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,051
# 93
09-23-2013, 04:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakland4life View Post
Oppose to a Cardassian Galor which in TNG the Galaxy have more firepower to, while in this game the Galor is superior to the Galaxy??? how about the Jem'hadar attack ship, the T'varo, the Double D's, the Ferengi Maurader and other lock box ships etc. which these new ships more firepower and have a Universal Boff Station which makes them adaptive in different area's which the Galaxy can't do.

No one asking Cryptic to make new versions or make a huge drastic change, just make the Galaxy/Galaxy-X have the slight ability to fight better which means is adding +1 console to Tac while taking out -1 sci console and also taking out one of the Eng boff stations replacing it with univesal Boff station to be more adaptive for PvP/PvE roles.

the Galaxy is not alone alot of older KDF/Fed C-store/Fleet ships (not 3-pack ships) needs a slight change to atleast complete with the newer Romulan/Lock box ships, just look at their setups and u see nearly all of them have a Unisersal Boff Station while alot of the older Tier 5 KDF/Fed C-Store/Fleet have no such things which will makes them less flexible in combat.

Not saying all older tier 5 ships need changes just the ones with a 3rd Tac and Eng Station setup... Whats the point having a 3rd same Tac/Eng boff station if the shared CD will no doubt effect them... as for 3rd Sci ability, don't have a problem with that since there are alot of Sci abilities to work with unlike the Tac/Eng ones.
Very true.

Strangely most GCS haters, tend to forget that other ships in STO are just as old or even older than the GCS, but still very viable.
Even the Sovereign is just 10 years younger than the GCS and is still the top dps starfleet cruisers. I'm not saying the GCS should be able to outgun it, but it shouldn't be the crappiest ship in the game IMO.

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ensign
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 9
# 94
09-23-2013, 05:42 AM
I?m flying Galaxy Retrofit for a long time and I think that it?s one of the most powerfull ships in STO (but not easy to fly).
Without any fleet stuff I can take Tactical Cube on Elite of first Udine ship in Terradome wihout blowing up (although it took half an hour and my hand looked like claw for 2 days ).
The main problem is that STO HAS NO CONTENT FOR CRUISERS AND SCI. There are powerfull ships but they can?t match with escorts in earning rewards and loot.
I don?t understand that, it should be easy: multiple squadrons of enemy fighters can be problem for escort, but will be piece of cake for cruiser with fire at will. Make Borg less resistant for exotic damage and sci ships can earn money as equal.

Regardless of this, You can read on Interview a Dev: CaptainGeko, By PWE_BranFlakes @ September 20, 2013 at 12:00pm ( http://sto.perfectworld.com/news/?p=985761 ):

[Q] Lately it has been my perception that the vast majority of ships being released scream DPS and Tactical. (?)

[CaptainGeko] I don't know if I would agree that the vast majority of ships that are released "scream DPS and Tactical", though it should be no surprise they are popular. (?)

I don?t want to offend anyone, but Sir, either You are treating us like morons and lie or?

Let?s see T5 Fed cruisers:

Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit - more tactical than original
Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit - more tactical than original
Fleet Assault Cruiser - more tactical than original

You are left with Galaxy, Star Cruiser and Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit (which is a little tactical cruiser even as original version)
Don't even mention Bortasq (5 tactical consols on cruiser!!! FIVE!!) and Warbirds.

People buy cruisers because they like them, not because they are the most effective ships in STO.
Once more: I think cruisers (and sci) are great ships and they have no need for change.
BUT THEY CAN'T EARN MONEY AS EFFICIENTLY AS ESCORTS.

I don't know why Cryptic haven't understand this for 3 years.

And to Criptic and [CaptainGeko]: this is not situation "don't like - don't buy it". You scoop from something greater, an extense universe of Star Trek with dozens milions fans. If You can't improve it, You will waste it. If You can't make it wright - don't. Just leave it and go home making Your own bang-bang game.
Here, You are messing with universe that is owned by millions of fans and have it's own unique character and reach, 50-years legacy. Don,t do "DPS or nothing" game.

Ps. sorry for my english - I havn't many occasions to write in it lately
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 324
# 95
09-23-2013, 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordbrowarus View Post
I?m flying Galaxy Retrofit for a long time and I think that it?s one of the most powerfull ships in STO (but not easy to fly).
Without any fleet stuff I can take Tactical Cube on Elite of first Udine ship in Terradome wihout blowing up (although it took half an hour and my hand looked like claw for 2 days ).
The main problem is that STO HAS NO CONTENT FOR CRUISERS AND SCI. There are powerfull ships but they can?t match with escorts in earning rewards and loot.
I don?t understand that, it should be easy: multiple squadrons of enemy fighters can be problem for escort, but will be piece of cake for cruiser with fire at will. Make Borg less resistant for exotic damage and sci ships can earn money as equal.

Regardless of this, You can read on Interview a Dev: CaptainGeko, By PWE_BranFlakes @ September 20, 2013 at 12:00pm ( http://sto.perfectworld.com/news/?p=985761 ):

[Q] Lately it has been my perception that the vast majority of ships being released scream DPS and Tactical. (?)

[CaptainGeko] I don't know if I would agree that the vast majority of ships that are released "scream DPS and Tactical", though it should be no surprise they are popular. (?)

I don?t want to offend anyone, but Sir, either You are treating us like morons and lie or?

Let?s see T5 Fed cruisers:

Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit - more tactical than original
Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit - more tactical than original
Fleet Assault Cruiser - more tactical than original

You are left with Galaxy, Star Cruiser and Fleet Support Cruiser Retrofit (which is a little tactical cruiser even as original version)
Don't even mention Bortasq (5 tactical consols on cruiser!!! FIVE!!) and Warbirds.

People buy cruisers because they like them, not because they are the most effective ships in STO.
Once more: I think cruisers (and sci) are great ships and they have no need for change.
BUT THEY CAN'T EARN MONEY AS EFFICIENTLY AS ESCORTS.

I don't know why Cryptic haven't understand this for 3 years.

And to Criptic and [CaptainGeko]: this is not situation "don't like - don't buy it". You scoop from something greater, an extense universe of Star Trek with dozens milions fans. If You can't improve it, You will waste it. If You can't make it wright - don't. Just leave it and go home making Your own bang-bang game.
Here, You are messing with universe that is owned by millions of fans and have it's own unique character and reach, 50-years legacy. Don,t do "DPS or nothing" game.

Ps. sorry for my english - I havn't many occasions to write in it lately
I highly Disagree about the Galaxy... but i do agree no doubt the Galaxy is a very good defensive ship, but overall it's a terrible poorly laid out ship which in PvP will give it no bite and without a Universal Boff Station it is not at all flexible.

The problem is with the Galaxy is a poorly gun ship while in the TV series it's firepower is average or superior to many ships, but with only 2 tac consoles it's highly underpowered to ships it suppose to equal or outgunned like the B'rel, K't'inga, Galor, Marauder, double D's which have 3 tactical consoles (which the galaxy suppose to have not 3 Sci consoles, it's not a Sci ship) and it's underpowered to the likes of Carriers which also have 2 Tactical but have 2 hangers for either fighter or escorts to outmatch the Galaxy.

the other problem as i mention b4 is the lack of a Universal Boff Station which won't give the Galaxy an ability to increase firepower or use any other abilities to get out of tractor beams, counter sub nukes, use another tac team etc. anything to make the playing style of the ship for unique.

I highly disagree with mutiple Fighters could cause a problem for Escorts, unless the player itself is terrible. the only threats are ones with Tractor Beams, but they can be countered in many ways APO, EtPE for starters

More people buy Lock Box Ships cause they're the most effective ships in STO at this moment, if the Galaxy 3 tac consoles and a Universal Station alot more people would have bought them.

Because how things are so weak right now in PvE queues even Tier 3-4 ships can beat a STF Elite with no problem.

Last edited by oakland4life; 09-23-2013 at 12:24 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,051
# 96
09-25-2013, 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakland4life View Post
I highly Disagree about the Galaxy... but i do agree no doubt the Galaxy is a very good defensive ship, but overall it's a terrible poorly laid out ship which in PvP will give it no bite and without a Universal Boff Station it is not at all flexible.

The problem is with the Galaxy is a poorly gun ship while in the TV series it's firepower is average or superior to many ships, but with only 2 tac consoles it's highly underpowered to ships it suppose to equal or outgunned like the B'rel, K't'inga, Galor, Marauder, double D's which have 3 tactical consoles (which the galaxy suppose to have not 3 Sci consoles, it's not a Sci ship) and it's underpowered to the likes of Carriers which also have 2 Tactical but have 2 hangers for either fighter or escorts to outmatch the Galaxy.

the other problem as i mention b4 is the lack of a Universal Boff Station which won't give the Galaxy an ability to increase firepower or use any other abilities to get out of tractor beams, counter sub nukes, use another tac team etc. anything to make the playing style of the ship for unique.

I highly disagree with mutiple Fighters could cause a problem for Escorts, unless the player itself is terrible. the only threats are ones with Tractor Beams, but they can be countered in many ways APO, EtPE for starters

More people buy Lock Box Ships cause they're the most effective ships in STO at this moment, if the Galaxy 3 tac consoles and a Universal Station alot more people would have bought them.

Because how things are so weak right now in PvE queues even Tier 3-4 ships can beat a STF Elite with no problem.
I fully agree with you.
Flying this ship is not only the most boring experience in STO, as a fan it is just embarrasing IMO.

Literary every other ship is able to outgun it or is otherwise tactical superior.
Not only that, Cryptics initial idea of making it the most Tankish ship is negated by the fact that a ship with more science stations (even with just a sci ensign instead of a engineer) can tank much better than the Gal -R. Not to speak of that the GCS in "real" trek wasn't just a big flying brick with the weakest phasers and torpedoes in all starfleet.
Quite the contrary, the ship was (in its time) the most intimidating force of firepower in all starfleet, outgunning all its predecessors and other ships as well (including the Galor Class).

If Starfleet updates all their ships (which can easily assumed) the GCS should still be able to easily outgun any older ship and especially ships like the Galor Class.

In my opinion Cryptic should rework the GCS completely or release a new version of it, having a much more versatile BOFF/Console Layout and some unique phasers that reflects the ship from TV.
(hey, they made the Akira a Escorts/carrier, just because of some statement of its creator. We have a complete book about the GCS, which is completely ignored by the devs...)

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 597
# 97
09-25-2013, 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoggymack22 View Post
Pretty sure CBS said no to the Galaxy getting still further, as they feel it's too old to be effective in the modern Star Trek universe.

Or wait, maybe they said no to FREE improvements of old ships people already bought. And are much more in favor of new ships that people would have to spend new money on to purchase? Yeah, I think that's it. Reskinned, but costs new zen.
You are not making any sense because the Excelsior and Ambassador are far older ships than the Galaxy, and they are made better in this game. Your argument falls apart, right there.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,556
# 98
09-26-2013, 06:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexindcobra View Post
You are not making any sense because the Excelsior and Ambassador are far older ships than the Galaxy, and they are made better in this game. Your argument falls apart, right there.
they are only better because the game is leaning so much towards the dmg side of gameplay that everything else is secondary (not even)
if tanking would be essential in this game and there were some more engi boff powers to boost dmg, those ships would be gold too.

however, as it is now to call the excelsior and ambassador "better" is fitting, but because the gameplay is so much focused on tac powers.

imagine engi boff powers would be as effective at destroying stuff as tac powers...then those ships would be the best cruisers you can get.
Go pro or go home
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,051
# 99
09-26-2013, 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baudl View Post
they are only better because the game is leaning so much towards the dmg side of gameplay that everything else is secondary (not even)
if tanking would be essential in this game and there were some more engi boff powers to boost dmg, those ships would be gold too.

however, as it is now to call the excelsior and ambassador "better" is fitting, but because the gameplay is so much focused on tac powers.

imagine engi boff powers would be as effective at destroying stuff as tac powers...then those ships would be the best cruisers you can get.
Having a Ambassador, Excelsior or even Galor Class being able to outgun a GCS is just bad game design.
Even if all BOFF abilities would be perfectly balanced, the GCS should still be able to generate more Firepower.

I think Cryptics original idea of Starfleet ships being all about defensive (with the GCS as the most defensive ship of them all) just shows Cryptics superficial view of Star Trek.
Starfleet Cruisers should be the most versatile types of ships in the Game and the GCS should be the most extreme ship of them.

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 115
# 100
09-26-2013, 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinkerstorm View Post
If you wan to play the canon card, the Galaxy class was replaced by the Sovereign class. That is terribly compelling evidence that the Galaxy is in fact obsolete and is not at or anywhere near the top in 2409.

If your going with that arguement then we need to nerf alot of ships. I mean that makes the sovereign not so worthy of its setup since its now replaced too by the Odyssey. Also the older ships like the Ambassador and the Excelsior should be cut down quite a bit and well really mothballed Cause if you cant bring a Galaxy class ship which was highly modular in design and was meant to be upgraded and last 100 years well pass our current ingame time period those ship along with quite a few other federation Romulan and Klingon ships all need to be just taken out of tier 5 and put in the other tiers if not completely mothballed.

I hate how ppl seem to bring up dumb arguments for not improving a ship that deserves it as being one of the most seen and known ships in the star trek lore. If that aint a good enough argument for ya well then how bout its a game and all ships that are said to be the same tier should be competitive with each other and have their own unique advantages and disadvantages and right now with the engineer powers as they are the GCS is just got the Disadvantages and not really anything to make it worth flying besides someone liking the skin.

So either improve it or make boff seating and consoles on ships where i can pick what i want so this ship is worth the money we paid. Also while your at it make some tactical improvements to my G-X and give it a fleet version already.
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 01:35 PM.