test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

11th Anniversary Ship?

245

Comments

  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    varethael wrote: »
    I hope it will be battlecruisier 5/3 with nice turn rate... but its only hope.

    Excellent trolling for whatever reason or perhaps you're ignorant.

    https://sto.gamepedia.com/Khitomer_Alliance_Battlecruiser
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    Probably an alliance escort.. and after that, a science vessel
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • annemarie30annemarie30 Member Posts: 2,584 Arc User
    This years is going to be a Romulan Bug ship with Reman no contact replicator catering services.

    an social distancing holodecks
    awkward.jpg
    We Want Vic Fontaine
  • captaincelestialcaptaincelestial Member Posts: 1,925 Arc User
    This years is going to be a Romulan Bug ship with Reman no contact replicator catering services.

    and social distancing holodecks

    I could go for a holodeck right now. If I can't be with friends, I could recreate them with holograms.

    Not the Barclay way, though. That's just creepy....
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,384 Arc User
    This years is going to be a Romulan Bug ship with Reman no contact replicator catering services.

    and social distancing holodecks

    I could go for a holodeck right now. If I can't be with friends, I could recreate them with holograms.

    Not the Barclay way, though. That's just creepy....

    If there really were holodecks it would not be much of a step to be able to link them so a group could share the same virtual environment from different locations like an MMO.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,659 Arc User
    This years is going to be a Romulan Bug ship with Reman no contact replicator catering services.

    an social distancing holodecks

    I don't do that stuff....so I won't need one.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • stark2kstark2k Member Posts: 1,467 Arc User
    I vote for something huge and BORGish - A Borg sphere or probe be nice xD
    StarTrekIronMan.jpg
  • tigerariestigeraries Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    The devs have already said we are never getting any of the geometric Borg ships, because the PvPers need to know which side of an enemy ship is the front.

    Personally, I'm hoping for an Alliance escort/raider type ship. I'm normally a science fan, but we've gotten a lot of science vessels as the free ships in the last couple years.

    paint... borg sphere/cube but only certain color schemes can be used. really not that difficult. fixed color coded borg cubes. The Rubix line =p of Borg Cubes.
  • eazzieeazzie Member Posts: 3,933 Arc User
    I just hope for selectable bridges

    How many times has it got to be said. No bridges. They cost to much and take to much time to develop. A bridge on average takes 10 weeks to create where as ships and new content take about 6
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,384 Arc User
    > @eazzie said:
    > How many times has it got to be said. No bridges. They cost to much and take to much time to develop. A bridge on average takes 10 weeks to create where as ships and new content take about 6

    Maybe, just maybe, they were referring to how some ships only have one choice. You can't select size or style on many now.
    Even if you own several types, some won't let you use them. Makes me want my money back since I cant use the purchased ones on some of my ships.

    True, it seems logical that linking already existing bridges/interiors to new ships would take less time and effort than creating new ones would (though it could be a database growth issue or something which would be harder to resolve).
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    Ideally, imo, since Cryptic has stated they have no intentions to create new "unique" bridges would be:

    Anytime an already created bridge used in a mission is there & has somthing relatable to a ship use it as an option making it available for that said ship.

    If a player has a ship with a "unique" bridge make it available account-wide as an optional in the Ship Tailor.

    The caveat is if Cryptic has to do tinkering with STO's code to make those "unique" bridges more widely available than just to the initial ship. Tinkering could cause glitches galore.

    Then there's the mind-set of pushing-back against some at Cryptic's "exclusivity" fetish, but having a "unique" bridge become account-wide I think would be good & it might entice more specific ship buying.

    In the end though a ship's bridge is under-utilized in STO which is a shame.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,384 Arc User
    > @phoenixc#0738 said:
    > True, it seems logical that linking already existing bridges/interiors to new ships would take less time and effort than creating new ones would (though it could be a database growth issue or something which would be harder to resolve).

    I don't see it as a data base issue. The bridge is an instance, no? A simple correlation between what you own and what you applied to said ship should not be that difficult. For ones that have the choices it works, as I have a few with the same layouts. So it is possible, it's just why they haven't allowed players to use what they bought.

    It could be a database issue because of having to link the interiors so they appear in the list for any given instance of any particular ship. It does not sound like much until you figure that there are hundreds of thousands of players and each ship of every single person has a copy of the list it can get rather bulky.

    There is also the likelihood that interiors have to be manually linked to a new ship class and they are way behind so they could be cutting corners by only linking one. If that is the case it would be nice if they went back and linked a few at a time when they get less behind.

    That said, if either of those are true there are ways to fix it with newer tools if they can adapt them to the needs of the game, or maybe even just some scripts to automatically link a standard list or whatever. How fast that could be done would be determined by how inundated their coding people are.
  • captaincelestialcaptaincelestial Member Posts: 1,925 Arc User
    Bridge building (no pun intended) is more along the lines of mission map building, such as the Galaxy bridge and ship interior.

    So, for example, the Alliance bridges would have to be part of new mission map. If we want to see more of what the Alliance ships look form the the inside, a mission onboard an Alliance ship would be in the cards.

    I wouldn't doubt they'll probably have just one bridge layout to be used for all Alliance ships.

    I hope it would be a melding of the four factions involved in the Alliance.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,990 Arc User
    A carrier with drone pets would be nice, but we already had a winter carrier. I think escorts would be 'it' again, but they're my least favourite :l
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • strathkinstrathkin Member Posts: 2,666 Bug Hunter
    Well if last year was an indication of the Blog on 01/21, we may learn next week the Anniversary ship. o:)

    Getting excited for this one!
    0zxlclk.png
  • delerouxdeleroux Member Posts: 478 Arc User
    Alliance Science Destroyer pls for thnx
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    deleroux wrote: »
    Alliance Science Destroyer pls for thnx

    Dyson Alliance Science Destroyer!!, that would be awesome!
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    I don't see it as a data base issue. The bridge is an instance, no? A simple correlation between what you own and what you applied to said ship should not be that difficult. For ones that have the choices it works, as I have a few with the same layouts. So it is possible, it's just why they haven't allowed players to use what they bought.
    According to Cryptic, bridge selection has to be manually set for every single ship in the game individually, and Klingon and Fed players technically have separate versions of the same bridge, to account for faction appropriate NPCs.

    This sort of thing is also why many ships couldn't use the ISS prefix for a long time, since that has to be manually set for every ship also.
    > @phoenixc#0738 said:
    > True, it seems logical that linking already existing bridges/interiors to new ships would take less time and effort than creating new ones would (though it could be a database growth issue or something which would be harder to resolve).

    I don't see it as a data base issue. The bridge is an instance, no? A simple correlation between what you own and what you applied to said ship should not be that difficult. For ones that have the choices it works, as I have a few with the same layouts. So it is possible, it's just why they haven't allowed players to use what they bought.

    It could be a database issue because of having to link the interiors so they appear in the list for any given instance of any particular ship. It does not sound like much until you figure that there are hundreds of thousands of players and each ship of every single person has a copy of the list it can get rather bulky.

    There is also the likelihood that interiors have to be manually linked to a new ship class and they are way behind so they could be cutting corners by only linking one. If that is the case it would be nice if they went back and linked a few at a time when they get less behind.

    That said, if either of those are true there are ways to fix it with newer tools if they can adapt them to the needs of the game, or maybe even just some scripts to automatically link a standard list or whatever. How fast that could be done would be determined by how inundated their coding people are.

    ok, i can see your argument defending them, but ive paid for bridges on both factions and now some ships i cant use them. mind you, on one hand it doesnt matter as i dont use my bridge often, but on the other, when i do go there, i get reminded i paid for some and cant use them.

    it would be nice to use the bridges i paid for.

    I echo this. I have bought bridges, can't use them any more on many newer ships. I don't even care if they don't make new ones, just let me use the ones that are already there.

    In all honesty, they should really just disconnect the bridge from the ships entirely. Who cares if my little Maquis raider ship has a Galaxy style bridge? On the bridge, only I know what my ship actually is unless I tell the visitors too. As they've never been able to make missions happen on the bridge, it really doesn't matter.
  • avoozuulavoozuul Member Posts: 3,196 Arc User
    Not really looking forward to another alliance ship honestly, I really didn't care for the design of the previous one.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,384 Arc User
    I don't see it as a data base issue. The bridge is an instance, no? A simple correlation between what you own and what you applied to said ship should not be that difficult. For ones that have the choices it works, as I have a few with the same layouts. So it is possible, it's just why they haven't allowed players to use what they bought.
    According to Cryptic, bridge selection has to be manually set for every single ship in the game individually, and Klingon and Fed players technically have separate versions of the same bridge, to account for faction appropriate NPCs.

    This sort of thing is also why many ships couldn't use the ISS prefix for a long time, since that has to be manually set for every ship also.
    > @phoenixc#0738 said:
    > True, it seems logical that linking already existing bridges/interiors to new ships would take less time and effort than creating new ones would (though it could be a database growth issue or something which would be harder to resolve).

    I don't see it as a data base issue. The bridge is an instance, no? A simple correlation between what you own and what you applied to said ship should not be that difficult. For ones that have the choices it works, as I have a few with the same layouts. So it is possible, it's just why they haven't allowed players to use what they bought.

    It could be a database issue because of having to link the interiors so they appear in the list for any given instance of any particular ship. It does not sound like much until you figure that there are hundreds of thousands of players and each ship of every single person has a copy of the list it can get rather bulky.

    There is also the likelihood that interiors have to be manually linked to a new ship class and they are way behind so they could be cutting corners by only linking one. If that is the case it would be nice if they went back and linked a few at a time when they get less behind.

    That said, if either of those are true there are ways to fix it with newer tools if they can adapt them to the needs of the game, or maybe even just some scripts to automatically link a standard list or whatever. How fast that could be done would be determined by how inundated their coding people are.

    ok, i can see your argument defending them, but ive paid for bridges on both factions and now some ships i cant use them. mind you, on one hand it doesnt matter as i dont use my bridge often, but on the other, when i do go there, i get reminded i paid for some and cant use them.

    it would be nice to use the bridges i paid for.

    I echo this. I have bought bridges, can't use them any more on many newer ships. I don't even care if they don't make new ones, just let me use the ones that are already there.

    In all honesty, they should really just disconnect the bridge from the ships entirely. Who cares if my little Maquis raider ship has a Galaxy style bridge? On the bridge, only I know what my ship actually is unless I tell the visitors too. As they've never been able to make missions happen on the bridge, it really doesn't matter.

    It's not as if ship interior for most 'ships' matches the size or shape of the ship itself. So the whole "That doesn't make sense!" argument doesn't really hold water.

    Very true, especially since going by the 'windows' even the smaller ships are fairly sizable and the larger bridges would still technically fit in almost all of them volume-wise. There is a long, fairly narrow Klingon bridge which would be perfect for the new version of the catfish carrier for instance, but the only one available for the ship seems to be the incredibly fugly Starfleet-in-concrete bridge that most of the new ships have.

    Separating the bridges from the ships and just having a pool at the character (or better yet account) level would be great if they can do it. I don't know how their database is set up so it may not be simple but since the bridges are all instanced it should not cause lag problems, and if it does maybe separating it out so the "go to ship's bridge" button is not available on combat maps might help.

    Also, it would be nice to have the old standard interiors beyond the bridges accessible too for the ones that do not come with their own custom ones, if the newer bridge turbolifts are nothing but the doors they could script the door to pop up the transfer button and it would work just as well as long as the range is kept short. It is all instanced maps so in theory they could string anything together like that.

    Database work is one of the worst pain in the posterior things to change though since they tend to cause bugs and other side effects all over the place (the constant respec thing is a good recent example) so if they do go for something like that suggestion it will likely be a long time in coming.
This discussion has been closed.