Author Topic: Star Trek Online thread  (Read 168825 times)

Offline Tuskin38

  • Posts: 2476
  • Cookies: 111
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4840 on: February 26, 2014, 06:53:39 PM »
The entire Galaxy line-up should be fixed up. Especially in lieu of the addition of Fleet ships. Fleet Galaxy for instance, should've had a Lt Cmdr Universal, and possibly a Lt or Ensign Universal as well, due to the "multi-role" nature of the class.

Thou, I admit I am a bit curious as to what the Galaxy-X news might be.

Well this was posted on Facebook comments for an image of the Gal-X



Plus as said a few days ago Geko said 'exciting news' was coming, and hes the one who has been pushing for the Galaxy 3 Pack and Galaxy-X Saucer Seperation. The 3 pack being the 2409 Venture, the saucer Sep Galaxy and a Gal-X.

The C-Store art for the pack has been in the games files for at least a year maybe more.

Maybe they finally finished it.

Also I hope this means they fixed the ship art, all the Additions are off center.

Offline ACES_HIGH

  • BCC Roleplay Game Narrator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1678
  • Cookies: 54
  • while(!(succeed=try()));
    • BCC Roleplay Games
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4841 on: February 26, 2014, 07:32:28 PM »
Everyone is getting free inventory and Character bank slots

http://community.arcgames.com/en/news/star-trek-online/detail/3035023-storage-slots-increase

Also news involving the Galaxy-X is coming tomorrow.

that, plus the update they recently did to allow more ship slots tells me that they finally fixed the database issues that they claimed were limiting those features before.

Offline Tuskin38

  • Posts: 2476
  • Cookies: 111
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4842 on: February 26, 2014, 08:10:04 PM »

Offline captain_obvious

  • The captain of obvious-ness
  • Posts: 1703
  • Cookies: 54
    • ARmy Rumour SErvice- British Army Unofficial community
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4843 on: February 27, 2014, 12:56:18 PM »
Now that seems interesting indeed!
I miss :bigdance:

Offline Tuskin38

  • Posts: 2476
  • Cookies: 111
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4844 on: February 27, 2014, 03:38:41 PM »
Gal-X dev blog

http://community.arcgames.com/en/news/star-trek-online/detail/3035243

I have to say the STO Arc site is more mobile friendly then the old STO site

Offline BarnesSFC

  • Posts: 60
  • Cookies: 1
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4845 on: February 28, 2014, 08:04:48 AM »
Darkthunder you have foretold this thread's creation:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1037311

Yikes it think this is a bit much

Offline Darkthunder

  • Vice Administrator
  • Posts: 2321
  • Cookies: 1527
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4846 on: February 28, 2014, 08:29:58 AM »
While I have no involvement in that thread's creation (I was banned months ago by F?hrer BranFlakes for what he called "trolling"), I both understand and sympathize with the OP. The "Galaxy Revamp" is nothing more than a minor change to the Dreadnought, and the addition of a Fleet Dreadnought with working saucer separation. Most players complaints revolving the Galaxy Class line-up, is that it's got piss-poor bridge officer seating. The Galaxy is essentially the worst Tier 5 Cruiser in STO at current, and the best they achieved in this so called revamp, is turning an "Ensign Tactical" into an "Ensign Universal" (which most players likely end up using a Tactical officer in anyways).

The whole "pre-defined bridge officer seating" system they have in STO (and have had since launch) is flawed beyond belief. There have been far better solutions suggested, which apparently fall on deaf ears (CaptainGeko). One such suggestion was the addition of a "Computer Core" type item which in turn controls what type of bridge officer stations you have at your disposal. This would allow players to further customize their ships performance, and allow players to play the way they want, not how "Cryptic wants you to play". It would also cut down on any need for "3 variants of the same ship", since the Computer Core would open up the possibility to said variants.

Of the original gang of Cryptic devs who worked on STO, Geko is the only one remaining in the same position. Certain design decisions seem to imply that maybe the OP is correct; it's time for Geko to leave.
Official BCC Discord · https://discord.gg/nJAx4HNQ2G
Ad Astra Per Aspera

Offline Joshmaul

  • Lunatic with a Starship
  • Posts: 727
  • Cookies: 8
  • A Mind Without Purpose Will Walk in Dark Places
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4847 on: February 28, 2014, 01:56:25 PM »
And maybe Cryptic disagrees, seeing as the post is now gone.
"If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." - Dr. Hannibal Lecter

Offline Darkthunder

  • Vice Administrator
  • Posts: 2321
  • Cookies: 1527
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4848 on: February 28, 2014, 03:30:15 PM »
Understandable. Any thread on the forums that criticizes the company or their actions, is a violation of their "rules". I'm surprised the thread lasted as long as it did.
Official BCC Discord · https://discord.gg/nJAx4HNQ2G
Ad Astra Per Aspera

Offline Tuskin38

  • Posts: 2476
  • Cookies: 111
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4849 on: February 28, 2014, 05:30:15 PM »
Interesting they delete threads, but not a lot posts, there are a lot of anti-arc posts in the Arc thread.

Offline Darkthunder

  • Vice Administrator
  • Posts: 2321
  • Cookies: 1527
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4850 on: March 03, 2014, 11:04:30 PM »
New Tribble Notes: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1040711

Good news everyone!

It seems that Cryptic FINALLY fixed the KDF costume slots. AND as an added bonus, the "Team" abilities are no longer on shared cooldown. Maybe I can again use Engineering and Science Team in my builds.
Official BCC Discord · https://discord.gg/nJAx4HNQ2G
Ad Astra Per Aspera

Offline captain_obvious

  • The captain of obvious-ness
  • Posts: 1703
  • Cookies: 54
    • ARmy Rumour SErvice- British Army Unofficial community
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4851 on: March 04, 2014, 12:41:00 PM »
Surely you're joking?
I miss :bigdance:

Offline captain_obvious

  • The captain of obvious-ness
  • Posts: 1703
  • Cookies: 54
    • ARmy Rumour SErvice- British Army Unofficial community
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4852 on: March 04, 2014, 12:46:05 PM »
Btw, here is an image of the fleet Galaxy-X.

And it looks dire :(
I miss :bigdance:

Offline Darkthunder

  • Vice Administrator
  • Posts: 2321
  • Cookies: 1527
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4853 on: March 04, 2014, 02:33:49 PM »
Wow, those are really crappy stats. I realize the Galaxy Dreadnought's "origin" is as a Cruiser, but if your gonna revamp the Galaxy-line (and most especially, the Galaxy Dreadnought), why not make it more like the closest comparison Dreadnought: (used Pink for Universals, as the Purple color looked unreadiable)
________________________________________________________________________________

Fleet Galaxy Dreadnought:
Commander Engineer / Lt Commander Engineer / Lieutenant Tactical / Lieutenant Science / Ensign Universal

Scimitar Dreadnought:
Commander Tactical / Lt Commander Universal / Lieutenant Engineer / Lieutenant Science / Ensign Universal
________________________________________________________________________________

Fleet Galaxy Dreadnought:
Base Hull: 44000
Shield Modifier: 1.1
Base Turn: 6
Hangar Bay: 1
Weapons: 4 forward / 4 aft
Consoles: 4 Engineer / 4 Tactical / 2 Science

Scimitar Dreadnought:
Base Hull: 40000
Shield Modifier: 1.1
Base Turn: 7
Hangar Bay: 1
Weapons: 5 forward / 3 aft
Consoles: 5 Tactical / 2 Engineer / 3 Science
________________________________________________________________________________

The Scimitar looks like a Cruiser, behaves like a Cruiser, but has the offensive capabilities of an Escort. The definition of a Dreadnought is an "Offensive Cruiser". Where do you see the offensive effectiveness of the Galaxy Dreadnought in the stats above?
Official BCC Discord · https://discord.gg/nJAx4HNQ2G
Ad Astra Per Aspera

Offline captain_obvious

  • The captain of obvious-ness
  • Posts: 1703
  • Cookies: 54
    • ARmy Rumour SErvice- British Army Unofficial community
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4854 on: March 04, 2014, 03:06:13 PM »
Well the stats themselves aren't horrible, it's that boff layout. 
I miss :bigdance:

Offline Darkthunder

  • Vice Administrator
  • Posts: 2321
  • Cookies: 1527
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4855 on: March 04, 2014, 03:07:12 PM »
At the very least, it MUST get a Lt Commander Universal.

EDIT: Nvm, apparently Cryptic is going ahead with this "revamp" as is (despite player feedback)
http://community.arcgames.com/en/news/star-trek-online/detail/3036133-season-8-dev-blog-_55
Official BCC Discord · https://discord.gg/nJAx4HNQ2G
Ad Astra Per Aspera

Offline captain_obvious

  • The captain of obvious-ness
  • Posts: 1703
  • Cookies: 54
    • ARmy Rumour SErvice- British Army Unofficial community
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4856 on: March 04, 2014, 04:49:46 PM »
At the very least, it MUST get a Lt Commander Universal.

EDIT: Nvm, apparently Cryptic is going ahead with this "revamp" as is (despite player feedback)
http://community.arcgames.com/en/news/star-trek-online/detail/3036133-season-8-dev-blog-_55

Oh, and only 2 cruiser commands.  Lol.
I miss :bigdance:

Offline Tuskin38

  • Posts: 2476
  • Cookies: 111
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4857 on: March 04, 2014, 05:29:24 PM »
They have not even fixed the off centre art pieces on it.

Offline captain_obvious

  • The captain of obvious-ness
  • Posts: 1703
  • Cookies: 54
    • ARmy Rumour SErvice- British Army Unofficial community
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4858 on: March 04, 2014, 05:46:47 PM »
They have not even fixed the off centre art pieces on it.

Man, you know it's bad when you chime in! :D
I meant no offence KB.
I miss :bigdance:

Offline BarnesSFC

  • Posts: 60
  • Cookies: 1
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #4859 on: March 04, 2014, 06:29:06 PM »
Well it seems pretty offensive to me when I tried it out:



The Wide-Beam is hilarious. It's basically just the Doomsday machine attack, complete with sound.