PDA

View Full Version : More Ships, More Bridges



KidFour-Eyes
06-18-2017, 10:21 PM
Of course, its a no brainer really - we all would like to see more and diverse bridges.
I have no idea whether Ubisoft's license allows for it but my personal faves would be the TMP 1701A bridge and the 1701B/Excelsior bridges.
A 1701E Sovereign class would be another beauty worth trying out.

And that kind of brings me to another point - if there are to be different ships it would make sense for them to have 'slightly' differing capabilities, balanced out with other attributes.

What do I mean?
Just for example, using Aegis as comparison;

Nebula Class: Increased Scanning range/capability - Decreased Max speed/engine output

Akira Class: Increased Max Speed/engine output - Longer repair time on damaged systems

Excelsior class: Increased Max Speed/engine output - Decreased Shield capacity/damage absorption

...and so on.
Before the anoraks attack, let me state these are just to illustrate the concept, not based on any canon data or anything.
First and foremost the game needs to be fun and have variety. Variety that adds to the play experience, not necessarily slave to 50 years of Trek lore ;)

What ships would you add to the line? What attributes would you enhance? And what would you downgrade to balance it?

Ensign_Obvious
06-19-2017, 08:02 AM
Yup, good concept that is sort of already in place with the two ships we have, in that the Enterprise lacks capabilities, but is much more tanky.

But, yes, eventually ship designs utilizing different strategic concepts would be great. I'm sure you'd agree, though, that such things are pretty low on the list of priorities.

Babeline
06-19-2017, 08:31 AM
Hello

Before any new ship. It would take more variety of mission, improve the Aegis, especially the solo maneuvers, the order and review the stellar cards.Then yes to add new ship I would like the Enterprise of J-L Picard ^^

Emexrulsier
06-19-2017, 12:59 PM
Out of every single change that I have heard, and some of them have been excellent ideas and would give orgasm if introduced the one that I want more then others is the introduction of PVP. Klingon vs Starfleet. It should be more than capable bringing 32 player servers onboard. That's 8 ships for a 4v4, you could probably do a lot more which would be great.

Then you introduce PVE 8 v Borg... You could hail individual ship captains or the entire fleet to focus particular systems or engage at will. Just think how epic is could be.

dragon_12dk
06-19-2017, 11:14 PM
I would love to see a ship that can have more than four, but it would be difficult to come up with things to do.

Captain_Summers
06-20-2017, 11:05 AM
Of course, its a no brainer really - we all would like to see more and diverse bridges.
I have no idea whether Ubisoft's license allows for it but my personal faves would be the TMP 1701A bridge and the 1701B/Excelsior bridges.
A 1701E Sovereign class would be another beauty worth trying out.

And that kind of brings me to another point - if there are to be different ships it would make sense for them to have 'slightly' differing capabilities, balanced out with other attributes.

What do I mean?
Just for example, using Aegis as comparison;

Nebula Class: Increased Scanning range/capability - Decreased Max speed/engine output

Akira Class: Increased Max Speed/engine output - Longer repair time on damaged systems

Excelsior class: Increased Max Speed/engine output - Decreased Shield capacity/damage absorption

...and so on.
Before the anoraks attack, let me state these are just to illustrate the concept, not based on any canon data or anything.
First and foremost the game needs to be fun and have variety. Variety that adds to the play experience, not necessarily slave to 50 years of Trek lore ;)

What ships would you add to the line? What attributes would you enhance? And what would you downgrade to balance it?

It's really frustrating when you go to the trouble of doing this:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1653214-Votes-for-DLC-ships-bridges

and people don't use it or search the forums for it, or even look beyond the first page of threads...

WeirdWizardDave
06-20-2017, 11:10 AM
It's really frustrating when you go to the trouble of doing this:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1653214-Votes-for-DLC-ships-bridges

and people don't use it or search the forums for it, or even look beyond the first page of threads...

Easy tiger, you could of just nicely pointed out the thread. Its not like we're overflowing with posters on this forum we can afford to drive folks away.

Captain_Summers
06-20-2017, 11:12 AM
I would love to see a ship that can have more than four, but it would be difficult to come up with things to do.

That just shows a lack of a) knowledge of the star trek universe and the wealth of data about what the different stations can / did do, and what they can bring to the game and b) imagination.

Science and Comms and Ops. These are the three that are fundamentally missing. Ops could be subsumed with Engineering, as unless it's a major firefight, Eng doesn't have a lot to do.

Comms and Science, could be one station, but really to bring either / both to life you need a hell of a lot more in depth and complex mechanics than there currently are.

Helm is seen as the trivial easy station, but I've only flown with 3 good pilots (myself included) and without phaser & shield arcs, and true 3D manoeuvring then helm will always be simplistic.

Tactical needs the ability to be more fluid, and to memorise player configurations.


I'm saying all this because I feel a lot of people are missing the point. Other than 'pretty' graphics, a new bridge or new ship model adds very little to the game. Sure I'd kill to sit on the Enterprise 1701A. But does it really change or improve the gameplay?

No.

So it's a quick / easy thing for the devs to add, but other than the 'wow, isn't this cool' that lasts maybe 60 seconds the first time you're on the bridge, there isn't anything else. The missions, the depth and complexity are still as easy and simple as they ever were.

My request is that the devs don't listen or consider new bridges / ships UNTIL all the stations have a LOT - like a TON - more depth and complexity and the missions are FAR more varied, complex and don't result in shooting klingons and scanning anomalies. We need more CONTENT before we need a pretty new bridge or ship model that we only see on cut scenes.

You can see this by the number of people, all who strongly believe that this game COULD be something truly spectacular just aren't playing it anymore.

When you're losing the core, longterm and profitable parts of your audience because there isn't enough to do and what there is is too easy / simple (let alone the new dumbed down stuff) then you have to realise, pretty bridges aren't the solution.

Captain_Summers
06-20-2017, 11:13 AM
Easy tiger, you could of just nicely pointed out the thread. Its not like we're overflowing with posters on this forum we can afford to drive folks away.

That was nicely.

ulynx
06-20-2017, 12:36 PM
When you're losing the core, longterm and profitable parts of your audience because there isn't enough to do and what there is is too easy / simple (let alone the new dumbed down stuff) then you have to realise, pretty bridges aren't the solution.

That's right but i guess they are not going to do much more than graphics add-ons. If they vastly improve gameplay they'd rather do a Bridge Crew 2.
So at least neat and cheap new bridges would give the few hours "wow, i'm on my beloved Enterprise" feeling and that (sadly) is what makes VR an experice these days. It will take a while until VR gets more mainstream what means the money flows. Maybe then - in correlation with faster hardware - they will be able to include more complex gameplay.

Having multiplayer with ships in a fleet, going to the transporter room, beaming down on planets talking to other species solving puzzles/missions would be just great.

Captain_Summers
06-20-2017, 12:51 PM
I don't think a Star Trek Bridge Crew 2 is even a possibility at the moment.

BUT what they have made, is such a great, strong foundation, and it's patently obvious to everyone just how much love and attention and affection has been poured into this project, that for them NOT to add more complexity, difficulty and depth NOW, and to resort to reskining the bridge etc, would in my mind be incredibly short-sighted and a waste of their money, no matter how much of a nerd-gasm we would all get from being on our favourite ship(s).

IF they have any more money / time to invest in this project, we have to beg and convince them that it's best and most wisely spent on more complexity, difficulty and depth of stations and gameplay. Even if it takes them longer.

It would be nice if they would be able to get permission from Ubi to talk directly to us and what they are actually going to be working on. It would be wonderful (and totally not like Ubi) if we could have that level of interaction with them. They have done it for The Division.Hell, they've paid for and flown 3 groups of fans out to Sweden to meet with and give feedback to the dev team.

If ever there was another Ubi game that needed that level of commitment, it's this one. My passport is valid and I can be packed in less than an hour...

ulynx
06-20-2017, 06:46 PM
I didn't say "at the moment" i meant the near/far future of course.

Take Star Wars Battlefront for example - it seemed to be a strong foundation too that could have improved and expanded more than the season pass dlc offered... and what do we get now? :)
Making a cut and developing a "new" base game is just more profitable and from a programmer pov more efficient. Leaving the "bad and boring" behind, offering something "brand new" is more appealing to the customers anyway. (even if it is the same game in green :D )

I really hope they build up on the actual Star Trek Bridge Crew. It still looks rushed (that's why Red Storm was given more time) and it has a lot of bugs to deal with but even with these limitations it made a lot of fun so far. Because we all have the taste of being beta testers they should keep working on it to deliver the features we hope and wish for. They'll learn a lot doing so and will become a skilled VR multiplayer dev-team. win win :)

Playing with a random crew of "strangers" is just a box of chocolates. Usually it's great fun, sometimes it's like a sleeping pill.
So especially missions that will force the crew to communicate even more (about ingame questions), making the captain ask "any suggestions?", would be essential. Open missions, parallel tasks, different solutions, diplomatic stuff, etc. Star Trek is a social interactive game and that perfectly suits VR.

KidFour-Eyes
06-20-2017, 11:29 PM
It's really frustrating when you go to the trouble of doing this:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-ships-bridges

and people don't use it or search the forums for it, or even look beyond the first page of threads...

Aha, well thank you for that and yes you are quite correct I didn't do any searching through the forms in my haste to share some thoughts from my mobile phone. But in truth it was pretty obvious to me that its a wishlist item for most people - hence the first 6 words of my opening post :)

I got the game on opening day and have played sporadically since then (Don't be fooled by the username, I'm the same age as you and have work, a family and other business commitments), but I've enjoyed every minute so far.
I have just joined the forum and wanted to share some thoughts with fellow crewmen.
I see that you've been on this forum for many months before release, and quite prolific. New folks arriving who haven't searched the boards before posting happens on every board - you don't have to like it, but its going to happen a lot. Hopefully that's a sign of a growing playerbase. In any case Its not worth losing sleep over.

And just to be clear, its not just about adding ships for the sake of it, but possibly adding some additional nuance/challenge to play while we await actual full-fledged new mission content by having those ships' minimum and maximum attributes differ from current ships.
In a similar way to how playing in the Constitution class is a more challenging effort than the Aegis, so might playing a Miranda class or Oberth etc. by Devs simply fiddling the existing ship stats.

As to the Devs priority of work. Thats a whole 'nother discussion.
The teams that work on the game engine, mechanics and design framework are not usually the same guys who work on the CG bridge designs which are actually 'relatively' easy to re-design because it will be overlays for the existing 3D structure, and some work to literally 'fit' new consoles into the pre-defined 3D interaction spaces.

They are also not the same guys who design and script up the missions, set their parameters, conditions and flags, test, validate and QA them. And then, hire in the voice acting, and create any additional CG assets that might be required specifically for the mission. That all takes a long time.

No question, the game needs more mission content - preferably with more depth and variety, but that's not to say the CG and art team have to sit on their hands in the meantime.
Just my 2'pence worth :)

PS. I have to concur, the Galaxy Class is the most boring bridge ever. I've sat on that set and found it twee.

TheRealExadon
06-20-2017, 11:40 PM
PS. I have to concur, the Galaxy Class is the most boring bridge ever. I've sat on set and found it twee.

You just dropped this bomb on us? That you sat on set? Explain this a bit further!

Welcome to the Bridge Crew community! I agree that I would also love to see additional ships. I believe that no matter what direction the dev team takes to add content, if any, there will be some people who are not happy with the results. I myself will be generally happy as long as they continue to support in some way. New ships, missions, a captain's quarters where you can see all of your current achievements and log files. Playing this game and meeting the wonderful community around it has been a blast. I do hope it lives long a prospers.

KidFour-Eyes
06-21-2017, 04:25 PM
You just dropped this bomb on us? That you sat on set? Explain this a bit further!

My bad, I've edited the post to add the omitted word 'that'.
The original Enterprise D set has been on tour a few times.
When it came to London as part of the big Trek exhibition (around the time of the awful Nemesis release as I recall), you could take a walk around and sit at some of the posts. I'm average height at 5'11" and I can tell you ALL the seats, especially helm and navigation seemed tiny to me - and close to the floor. Could barely get behind the consoles!
Its an oft repeated cliche, but really the whole bridge set was MUCH smaller in scale than the impression I always got from TV.
No wonder there were seldom other crew than main cast on bridge most of the time.