test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Feedback› Builds, Powers, and Game Mechanics

Would pay Zen to be able to install any purchased bridge on any ship.

glumm66glumm66 Member Posts: 38 Arc User
in Builds, Powers, and Game Mechanics
With the unlocking of all ships for all factions, I would love to be able to install a bridge of my choice (from those I've unlocked) on any ship of my choice. For my own personal example, I love the Acheros, but the bridge is not something I love.
A feat such as swapping out a bridge on a starship would be a feat of significant engineering, thus I think requiring Zen to do it would be fully justified.

Thoughts?

Comments

  • telbasta7386telbasta7386 Member Posts: 761 Arc User
    We need cryptic to offer more bridge support in general. It seriously bugs me that so many of the newer bridges don't even have an interior beyond that one room. They put absolutely zero effort into anything we aren't spending massive cash on.

    Like, why the hell is there no interior for the discovery era bridge (walker/gagarin)? Its not like they don't have plenty of onscreen references to make it - but they won't because there's no immediate profit in it.

    I'd love an actual ship interior for my lukari ships. The bridge looks good but that's all there is, and they didn't even bother to put actual textures on any of the consoles, just a generic starmap background.
  • eazzieeazzie Member Posts: 4,386 Arc User
    As already explained Bridges and interiors are no more. They cost too much in time and money to develop. Content on average take 3 to 6 weeks to develop where as bridges and interiors take anything up to 10 weeks to develop and costs way too much money.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,016 Arc User
    I undersrand they abandoned the idea of ship interiors as cost ineffective, just like exploration. Two central things to Star Trek that were scrapped in a Trek game, it's baffling but okay, it is what it is.

    However, I'd really love to swap the existing bridges in my ships. I'd like to use the Kobali bridge on my Vorgon ship, the Oddyssey one on my Galaxy or a real Klingon one on a Fek'Ihri ship instead of the bland generic room. That should be possible, right? With the faction unlock, Klingons could choose Fed bridges on Fed ships. Can't we expand this?
    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
    #TASforSTO
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • glumm66glumm66 Member Posts: 38 Arc User
    eazzie wrote: »
    As already explained Bridges and interiors are no more. They cost too much in time and money to develop. Content on average take 3 to 6 weeks to develop where as bridges and interiors take anything up to 10 weeks to develop and costs way too much money.

    Open the foundry tools for the community to create and submit bridges and interiors. Hundreds of viable bridges would be completed for approval within a month.

  • eazzieeazzie Member Posts: 4,386 Arc User
    glumm66 wrote: »
    eazzie wrote: »
    As already explained Bridges and interiors are no more. They cost too much in time and money to develop. Content on average take 3 to 6 weeks to develop where as bridges and interiors take anything up to 10 weeks to develop and costs way too much money.

    Open the foundry tools for the community to create and submit bridges and interiors. Hundreds of viable bridges would be completed for approval within a month.

    The foundry is gone. Too many bugs and issues raised when maintenance took place. Again it was scrapped as not being cost effective. Too many people were needed to fix the issues.
  • telbasta7386telbasta7386 Member Posts: 761 Arc User
    edited March 2021
    (flame/troll post removed) - darkbladejk
    Post edited by darkbladejk on
  • glumm66glumm66 Member Posts: 38 Arc User
    edited March 2021
    (response to redacted post removed) - darkbladejk

    Post edited by darkbladejk on
Sign In or Register to comment.