test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Lower Decks Ships

I’m sure this has been discussed before, but I’d like to see the Lower Decks ships come to STO. We have the four main characters as Duty Officers and Riker’s U.S.S. Titan, so why not a T5U California Class and the T6 Parliament Class ship bundle or something like that for the Zen Store, just for something new, different and interesting? 🖖

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/5/5c/Parliament_class_and_California_class_ships.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20200904205446&path-prefix=en
Tagged:

Comments

  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 54,634 Community Moderator
    Also, the California class wont be coming for awhile. Lower Deck's creator has said it has a special feature we will see in S2, so they are likely waiting to see that.
    ^This^

    The Parliment class might make it in sooner, and technically we already got a ship from Lower Decks if you count the revamp to the Luna, as well as the release of the Titan which has access to Luna parts.
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • strathkinstrathkin Member Posts: 2,296 Bug Hunter
    edited June 14
    I'd strongly consider a Parlimentarian ship.

    And only a little less than 2 months, before Lower Decks starts Season 2.
    Post edited by strathkin on
    R2XG2I3.png
  • hightower#2475 hightower Member Posts: 39 Arc User
    They aren't going to make T5 ships anymore, not even a T5U.

    It was just an idea being floated, I’d love them both to be T6 ships 🙂
  • spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 3,400 Arc User
    We know that devs want to make LD ships they've stated so several times but there's issues with them getting permission to do so (since devs want to keep a consistent art style more or less with the game which a 100% replication of the LD art would break).
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 3,760 Arc User
    edited June 14
    spiritborn wrote: »
    We know that devs want to make LD ships they've stated so several times but there's issues with them getting permission to do so (since devs want to keep a consistent art style more or less with the game which a 100% replication of the LD art would break).

    On a technical level it would be impossible to make the ships look animated anyway unless they put a switch in the game client to turn on the black outlines for everything like Champions Online does. There is simply no way to mix "live action" style with "cartoon" style in the engine, it has to be all or nothing.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 15,267 Arc User
    I'll wager we'll get the California class before a certain other canon ship that has been, and will continue to be, ignored.
  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,132 Arc User
    what about those Pekled Ships from Lower Decks, those seem pretty OP.
  • spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 3,400 Arc User
    what about those Pekled Ships from Lower Decks, those seem pretty OP.

    You mean the ones that got beaten by a single Luna even though they had 3 to 1 advantage (or was 2 to 1), they only seemed OP because the Calis are weak.
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,488 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    I'll wager we'll get the California class before a certain other canon ship that has been, and will continue to be, ignored.

    Normally I'd agree simply because it's from a current TV show, however since CBS is being picky about how LD stuff looks in other media there might be a good chance you're wrong.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • discojer2#5455 discojer2 Member Posts: 34 Arc User
    Yeah, remember when we got the LD doffs, they were originally done in STO style, but had to be redone in LD cartoon style
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 4,905 Arc User
    Lower Deck's creator has said it has a special feature we will see in S2, so they are likely waiting to see that.

    It's called double dipping. They can sell the standard version now and then sell a legendary version later with that special ability :p

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • captaincelestialcaptaincelestial Member Posts: 1,872 Arc User
    They aren't going to make T5 ships anymore, not even a T5U.

    Also, the California class wont be coming for awhile. Lower Deck's creator has said it has a special feature we will see in S2, so they are likely waiting to see that.

    Probably installed when the Cerritos had to go through the major overhaul at the end of S1. :smiley:
  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,132 Arc User
    It's called double dipping. They can sell the standard version now and then sell a legendary version later with that special ability :p

    and here I thought that double dipping was exclusive to food.
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,488 Arc User
    It's called double dipping. They can sell the standard version now and then sell a legendary version later with that special ability :p

    and here I thought that double dipping was exclusive to food.

    double-dip-seinfeld.jpg
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • captaincelestialcaptaincelestial Member Posts: 1,872 Arc User
    There was a soft-serve icecream roadside restaurant that served 'Double-Dipped Ice Cream'. They'd dip the ice cream into the melted chocolate, let it cool down and dip again for a really crunchy chocolate exterior.
  • strathkinstrathkin Member Posts: 2,296 Bug Hunter
    edited June 14
    Yeah, remember when we got the LD doffs, they were originally done in STO style, but had to be redone in LD cartoon style

    Yea, still I think it won't effect the ships.

    As long as they stick to offering slightly updated &/or modernized versions; and most won't want cartoon ships, why I'm happy with how they modernized the Titan.

    So I'd be fine for a slightly modernized or refit Parliment class for the 2410 which is easily 20-30 years after Lower Decks.

    Lower Decks is set in the Star Trek universe in the year 2380.
    Post edited by strathkin on
    R2XG2I3.png
  • vetteguy904vetteguy904 Member Posts: 3,277 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    I'll wager we'll get the California class before a certain other canon ship that has been, and will continue to be, ignored.

    the K'Vort? Just kidding, we know
    Spock.jpg

  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,488 Arc User
    strathkin wrote: »
    As long as they stick to offering slightly updated &/or modernized versions; and most won't want cartoon ships, why I'm happy with how they modernized the Titan.

    Thomas explained that with the Luna/Titan they intentionally based the new model on the old, pre-LD design which they had the rights to so that they would avoid any issues with CBS approval. With something like the California class that wouldn't be an option, so they need to work with CBS to see what they will and will not allow for a realistic interpretation of it. And Cryptic aren't the only ones involved in these discussions apparently, as Eaglemoss and the devs for some Trek mobile game are also talking to CBS about how the LD ships should be brought to life in other media, CBS is just being very protective of the branding for LD.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 3,321 Arc User
    edited June 15
    It's called double dipping. They can sell the standard version now and then sell a legendary version later with that special ability :p
    That isn't what that phrase means....

    dou·ble-dip
    /ˌdəb(ə)lˈdip/
    verbINFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
    gerund or present participle: double-dipping
    obtain an income from two different sources, typically in an illicit way.
    "they compared notes and discovered that he was double-dipping"

    imma role with close enough. grand wins!
    meh

  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 3,321 Arc User
    imma role with close enough. grand wins!
    You would still be wrong.

    By this logic Cryptic is triple dipping on ship three packs, and 9 dipping on ship 9 packs.

    but thats not what was presented and replied to about double dipping. now was it?
    meh

  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 3,321 Arc User
    but thats not what was presented and replied to about double dipping. now was it?
    It is.

    Thegrandnagus1's argument was that they could sell a version now, and then sell an improved version later that has other features, and that would be double dipping.

    Ships in 9 packs typically have features/consoles the others don't, in line with whatever TAC/ENG/SCI lean they have. Whats more, many of these ships are T6 versions of T5 ships, and likewise have improved stats/features from the T5 versions.

    If selling a California class now, and then making another one with this new feature, is double dipping, every T6 version of a T5 ship is double dipping, and every ship within a 3/9 pack is multiple dipping, because its the same thing.

    i adore it when you try to rationalize everything for yourself.
    meh

  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 4,905 Arc User
    edited June 15
    It doesn't really matter what we call it, the point is the same: they regularly re-sell us variants of the same ships. So while my comment about selling a 'standard' California class now and selling improved version later was mainly in jest, it's based on the truth of them doing the same thing repeatedly in the past.

    And I'm not blaming Cryptic for this behavior either. If people with free will and money are willing to buy different versions of the same ship over and over, why wouldn't Cryptic take advantage of it?

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 3,321 Arc User
    i adore it when you try to rationalize everything for yourself.
    I adore it when you can't actually respond to the argument, so you try to deflect anyway from it.

    haha....it wasnt deflection, it was observation mate.
    meh

Sign In or Register to comment.