"Normal" is so subjective. To me normal is creating characters because I'm an altoholic. My only real motivation for leveling up is to get a specific ship to complete a character concept.
When I said "normal", I was referring to levelling and gaming time - playing the missions rather than finding alternative ways of levelling quickly, not spending 24-7 playing. It was not a judgement on any individual, but an impression of how the majority of people play the game...
The character creation process is a great part of STO, and I also spend a bit of time on customising bridge officer characters too...
BTW, I love Sopwith Snipes, Camels and all WWI era planes... Huge Biggles fan as a child and teen...
Talking about alts... It seems to me that since there are so many Episodes, relative to how many it takes to reach level 50, they could have given each specialist (Tactical Officer, Engineer, Science Officer) their own story arc...
This would give more incentive to complete the Episodes, rather than completing so many at level 50.
People really need to stop using terms such as "vast majority of players" without having hard evidence, aka real numbers. Unless you're a dev, or such information is made public, you don't have them, period. That said...
... when I was first promoted to RA ingame I found it a little silly indeed. Even that I made VA, my character is still a Captain in my eyes and as far as his personal story goes he's still Captain. If I decide to involve my fleet in his personal story, where he is an Admiral, then he would be an Admiral. Even so, I'd rather see NPCs calling me Captain instead.
I agree that a solution to that problem, as one of the posters said, would be to define somewhere in your profile, the rank you'd like to be called by. Since everyone would then customize it the way they see fit, it would solve the problem completely. It would be a very nice Quality-of-Life feature.
People really need to stop using terms such as "vast majority of players" without having hard evidence, aka real numbers. Unless you're a dev, or such information is made public, you don't have them, period. That said...
... when I was first promoted to RA ingame I found it a little silly indeed. Even that I made VA, my character is still a Captain in my eyes and as far as his personal story goes he's still Captain. If I decide to involve my fleet in his personal story, where he is an Admiral, then he would be an Admiral. Even so, I'd rather see NPCs calling me Captain instead.
I agree that a solution to that problem, as one of the posters said, would be to define somewhere in your profile, the rank you'd like to be called by. Since everyone would then customize it the way they see fit, it would solve the problem completely. It would be a very nice Quality-of-Life feature.
You kinda can.... when you become a captain you get the ability to set your custom title to "Captain". But NPCs will still use your actual rank.
And it's amazing that so many (i.e. two people) don't understand that STO is a Massive MULTIPLAYER Online game. This ain't no single player title.
this mmo more or less been a single player game only till the last year or so that in a small way has change but server name holodeck also why is mission givers going to have more than one do the same mission did i fail as to why you now have to go and do it? nope because its only about me 95% of this game can be done alone FE alone only small amount of mission need a team and that only because of rep system and fleet take them out and we are back in year one where only time you needed a team was for STF's
when you do a mission does it ever talk about another player or does it talk about as if the mission was for you and only you? keep in mind im not counting any rep or fleet or stf missions
And it's amazing that so many (i.e. two people) don't understand that STO is a Massive MULTIPLAYER Online game. This ain't no single player title.
You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want in-game and go, "La la la la, I can't hear or see all you other people. I'm the only Admiral in the game." The fact is, there are 100000 Admirals in the game. You can pretend those other people you are grouping with aren't, but if you ask them, they'll say they are Admirals. I mean wouldn't you if someone told you you weren't an Admiral in an STF and that he was the only Admiral in the entire game? :rolleyes:
And how do you explain thousands of players saving the same ship, going back in time to help save a half-Klingon Starfleet Officer, discovering the Iconians are responsible for most of the problems, or any other mission? This is not an MMO where we have missions were we need to kill 5 Bandits where it makes sense for numerous players to do the exact same mission. Only one person can do the mission and that is me from my perspective. So the whole idea that there are thousands of Admirals and very few Captains is completely ridiculous. As far as the game is concerned, there is only one Admiral that is flying around on a ship and saving the Galaxy. Might be head canon, but it is the only way to make sense of this game or even most MMOs. That only our player is the chosen one and the rest of the players are only part of the background.
Talking about alts... It seems to me that since there are so many Episodes, relative to how many it takes to reach level 50, they could have given each specialist (Tactical Officer, Engineer, Science Officer) their own story arc...
This would give more incentive to complete the Episodes, rather than completing so many at level 50.
I really like that idea, you oughta make a thread about it. There's some real merit to it.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
Yep. We all know it, having player captains be of Admiral rank is silly, breaking immersion, un-Trek and stupid on many levels.
If I could just voice one wish about STO, it would be to have my toons stay Captain (Starfleet), Captain or HoD (Klingons), or Commander/Riov (Romulans).
Please.
^^^
And you have hard, verifiable statistics to back this up?
(Sorry, but I have issues with players who automatically believe they speak for the 'majority of the community' because they simply believe everyone thinks like they do.)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
I wonder how many people would change their title to M....
Actually, never mind.
Master Chef would be such a cool rank to use. Some of those Titles are just not appropriate to be called by which is why I want a Rank Selector that chooses certain Titles to use as your rank.
Yep. We all know it, having player captains be of Admiral rank is silly, breaking immersion, un-Trek and stupid on many levels.
If I could just voice one wish about STO, it would be to have my toons stay Captain (Starfleet), Captain or HoD (Klingons), or Commander/Riov (Romulans).
Please.
Friendly reminder: You and your 5 buddies are not "the vast majority of players."
^^^
And you have hard, verifiable statistics to back this up?
(Sorry, but I have issues with players who automatically believe they speak for the 'majority of the community' because they simply believe everyone thinks like they do.)
Surely, we all have an idea of what kinds of activities people are engaged-in when playing an MMO? That's why, over the past decade and a bit, terms such as PvE, PvP, RP etc have appeared...
If you read forum threads and if you play the game, you will interact with people and have anecdotal evidence of what is going on.
If I say: "The vast majority of players are human", the issue should not be that I used the phrase "vast majority", but whether players are actually human or not.
Back to question at hand: are there too many Admirals in the game... In my opinion, yes.
So, is the OP justified in making a thread saying that "the vast majority of players thinks that Admiral ranks are cheesy"?
Originally Posted by calbrand
Talking about alts... It seems to me that since there are so many Episodes, relative to how many it takes to reach level 50, they could have given each specialist (Tactical Officer, Engineer, Science Officer) their own story arc...
This would give more incentive to complete the Episodes, rather than completing so many at level 50.
I really like that idea, you oughta make a thread about it. There's some real merit to it.
If tthe episodes were written to mesh together better too.
Tac captain did X
Science did Y
Engineer did Z
And they hear about how they allowed each other to complete their mission specifics.
Because Engineer captain was rescuing the eagle the Tac captain got information to trace the house of korang to a listening post. The science captain's mission to foul that outpost sensors so the tac captain could get close.
Sounds great and makes replay as well as rerolling through different branches more exciting.
Also add in more mesh work between the factions. The Dewitt tested the antiproton prototype so the klingons have one as well. Maybe a KDF mission has you bringing drone fighters to a secret weapons center for ambassador B'Vat?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I can't believe people are arguing about this, a few people want to remove the rank name of a level that has been in place for let's see if my memory is correct, Beta. You know what, maybe they should make it an option to freeze your rank once you reach captain, but you do not speak for me. I am glad my characters are the V.A. rank, and I hope when they increase the cap the new rank will drop the Vice and. Can be a full blown Admiral. Better yet, no I'll take a page from Q, I want to out rank an Admiral. Make me a Marshall!
I can't believe people are arguing about this, a few people want to remove the rank name of a level that has been in place for let's see if my memory is correct, Beta. You know what, maybe they should make it an option to freeze your rank once you reach captain, but you do not speak for me. I am glad my characters are the V.A. rank, and I hope when they increase the cap the new rank will drop the Vice and. Can be a full blown Admiral.
What they need is to take it all the way: all these nattering "vast majority" who want to be Captains get the option to freeze their careers.
Then, those of us who go on to become Admirals of any type get to do what Admirals do to Captains: "No, you're not grinding STFs today, I've got an assignment for you. You get to leave your rustbucket in orbit while you take my flagship to ESD and get it detailed. Then while I entertain the President of Starfleet, you can load those replicators Beta Whatsis needs up and haul them to the delivery point." :P
But if you ask other people in the game about any of those adventures, they'll say, "Yeah, I remember fighting that Vulcan ambassador who was an Undine", or "That Doomsday Device the Klingons got working sure was tough to take down".
What they don't say is, "I heard you stopped the Klingons from using that Doomsday Device, Admiral XYZ - good job!"
In this case, the 'head canon' is they were there too (either really, as part of a group of players with you, OR in some imaginary fashion cooperatively assisting with said mission, though you don't see them).
Again, it's rediculous that we have bunches of Vice Admirals grouping up to slog out hand-to-hand combat with Borg drones, when they should be giving orders to CAPTAINS to go do all the rough HERO work like this.
The only Admirals in the game should be Fleet Leaders (not 'fake' NPC pet fleets - but actual guild fleets with real people) - everyone else should be Captains in true Star Trek HERO fashion.
And again, it's too late to demote all the existing Admirals and Lt. Generals - let those that are stay, but all new characters made should cap at the rank TITLE (NOT LEVEL) of Captain. Attrition will eventually bring down the glut of Flag Officers. (And even then, new characters could get an Admiral title if they absolutely had to have it by simply starting a Fleet themselves). It would make the default end-game rank in this Star Trek game Captain, not Admiral, just as it should be.
Everything the devs have said about the level cap increase points to Admiral content not extended Captain content. Just look up Full Admiral in the Ask Cryptics. The devs want to give meaning to the Admiral rank. From November 2012's Ask Cryptic.
"Q: (cbp4964) Will we ever be able to send out bridge officers off on separate missions, or have them accompany us to battle in ships we assign them from our own selection?
Dstahl: We have some pretty awesome plans for when we increase ranks to Admiral level 60 which make good use of your bridge officers, ships, and crew. We ultimately want full Admirals to command their fleets. You?ll have to wait until at least Season 9 to get more details though"
There is no point to a level cap increase unless there is a good reason for it as proved by the Reputation systems. Admiral content is a good reason for a level cap increase and the devs are planning to do this as far as we know.
Everything the devs have said about the level cap increase points to Admiral content not extended Captain content. Just look up Full Admiral in the Ask Cryptics. The devs want to give meaning to the Admiral rank. From November 2012's Ask Cryptic.
"Q: (cbp4964) Will we ever be able to send out bridge officers off on separate missions, or have them accompany us to battle in ships we assign them from our own selection?
Dstahl: We have some pretty awesome plans for when we increase ranks to Admiral level 60 which make good use of your bridge officers, ships, and crew. We ultimately want full Admirals to command their fleets. You?ll have to wait until at least Season 9 to get more details though"
There is no point to a level cap increase unless there is a good reason for it as proved by the Reputation systems. Admiral content is a good reason for a level cap increase and the devs are planning to do this as far as we know.
That's.... that's just beautiful, put a big smile on my face that you found the text to this.
That's exactly why they need to divorce Rank from Level. What are we gonna be when they raise the Level cap again? Presidents of the Federation?
Sisko as a Captain commanded fleets in the Dominion War. You don't need to be an Admiral to do that (again - especially with nothing more than a small group of NPC 'pets').
Level 60 content is Level 60 content. It should have no connection whatsoever to your Rank. If I want to run a Level 60 character who's titled rank identifies him as "Lt. Commander" well then so be it.
But if you're happy being called 'President' by all the NPCs when the level cap is increased again, hey, more power to ya. I'm waiting for "Ruler of the Universe" content when the level cap reaches 100...because ya know...that is just so Star Trek. :rolleyes:
No one is asking to be President of the Federation, Ruler of the Universe, or any other ridiculous rank. Anyone that thinks otherwise is completely misguided. Fleet Admiral should be the maximum rank in this game.
What we are asking for is meaning to being Admirals since not everyone wants to be just a Captain. So that means controlling our own Fleets and before some says that Player Fleets are the same thing, I can't give a mission to the lower ranks to do this. I can set up an event to do Hive Onslaught Elite and maybe I will get enough Fleet Members to run it with me. However, it is completely their choice if they do something like this. Player Fleets are just a bunch of colleagues that might do the same content with each other.
As far as Level 60 content being divorced from Rank, there is absolutely no point to getting to Level 60 unless there is a good reason for increasing the level cap. Getting promoted to Admiral at level 60 and Fleet Admiral at level 70 would make sense since it would completely change the gameplay. Adding more content and equipment is not a reason to have a level cap increase. In fact, the point could be made that there is no reason to go past level 50 and just have an Admiral Reputation. Get to Tier 5 Admiral Reputation and you get the Admiral rank, Fleet Admiral, or whatever with new controllable ship slots added at each Tier. So Tier 1 would give 1 additional ship to fight with you and Tier 5 would give 4 ships in total to fight with you.
There are two methods of level progression, horizontal and vertical. It is a misguided belief in MMOs that vertical level progression is necessary. Vertical level progression is the standards gain levels to get more powerful mechanic while horizontal level progression is using other systems to make a character more powerful like the Reputation system for STO and the Incarnate system for City of Heroes. With horizontal level progression, we get powers and unique equipment that is not available through other means which provides the same things as vertical level progression without worrying about our Mk XII equipments that we worked for months to get become useless with the next expansion.
What they need is to take it all the way: all these nattering "vast majority" who want to be Captains get the option to freeze their careers.
Then, those of us who go on to become Admirals of any type get to do what Admirals do to Captains: "No, you're not grinding STFs today, I've got an assignment for you. You get to leave your rustbucket in orbit while you take my flagship to ESD and get it detailed. Then while I entertain the President of Starfleet, you can load those replicators Beta Whatsis needs up and haul them to the delivery point." :P
And when in the history of Star Trek has a captain ever listened to an admiral if they didn't feel like it? Or have there been consequences for disobedience? Aside from getting demoted. To Captain.
I'm sorry, admiral. We're getting a lot of *kzzzt* gravimetric interference. I'm afraid you'll have to get back to us in six days. Or six months. Hours could seem like days. We're going to go break a few people out of prison, visit a forbidden planet, and break the prime directive. Er. I mean, we're going to focus on repairing our engines.
And don't think about court martialing me because the odds are that you're crazy, possessed, a traitor, or a lousy father who should feel ashamed. Admirals are bad guys. Sorry. I don't make the rules. But Starfleet Command has never taken an admiral's word over a captain's... except for maybe five times. And every time, the admiral followed up by trying to stage a military coupe. So, they aren't keen on doing that again. Write me up. Like that matters.
But if they keep Rank tied to Level, that is exactly what they'll need to do. We should have had ranks cap at Captain and then had Captain 60, Captain 70, Captain 80, ad infinitem. You can't tell me Captain Picard and Captain Sisko wouldn't be considered like Captain 100, with the abilities to command fleets, sway galactic politics at the highest levels, change the course of history through their actions, etc.
How can a person getting to level 100 become President of the Federation? It is an elected position and I am pretty sure there is some law that states that only citizens or former Starfleet Officers can become the President. There are words for military officers that become leader of a country like Emperor and Dictator. Obviously we won't ever become Commander-in-Chief and it is doubtful that Fleet Admiral will be possible either since Fleet Admiral is the most senior flag officer rank of a naval organization, above all the flag admiral grades save for commander-in-chief. So the person in charge of Starfleet Intelligence, Starfleet Operations, Starfleet Corps of Engineers, etc might be Fleet Admirals.
I think the title you are looking for here is "Dictator", not Admiral. A good Admiral (Fleet Leader) has no problem getting folks to help out, go on STFs, etc. And again, if you are really desparate to have an 'Admiral' title, just start your own Fleet with five folks and drop them. Bing! Instant Admiral title. I know it's a little extra work instead of it being automatically assigned to you, but hey fewer people would have it making it that much more special (and rare as it should be). Again - Star Trek game - Captain as end-game default HERO rank.
Completely missed the point. Player Fleets are not actual Fleets so there should not be any connection. Rank should have absolutely nothing to do with being in a Player Fleet. If it was an Actual Fleet, then the Fleet Leaders would determine what the other players in their Fleet do. There might be some Player Fleets like this, but I seriously doubt there are more than 10 Fleets like this.
See the Captain 60, Captain 70, etc. argument above. The reason to increase the level cap is to add new abilities and skills to your character, regardless of what ever rank 'title' he has. Again Level 60 or Level 1000 content is just that. It has no 'prerequisite' title requirement. There is no 'Admiral' content any more than that there is "Ruler of the Universe" content. Level 100 content is level 100 content. Period.
And there is no point to increasing the level cap due to Reputation content. Reputation content serves the need of adding additional content and abilities. So there is no need to go beyond Captain 50 while there are reasons to go to Admiral 60. Levels are an excellent way to gate content behind so if there is a level cap increase, then unique gameplay should be gated behind these levels. For example, at level 60, Admiral STFs are available where it requires 5 fleets composed of 1 player ship and 4 npc ships so 25 ships in total. Without entirely new gameplay content that completely changes the style of the game, then there is absolutely no point for a level cap increase. Also, when the maximum possible rank is achieved, then there should never be another level cap increase. So Admiral 69 or Admiral 70, depending on the dev's aesthetics, should be the highest level in this game since there is absolutely no point to going past Admiral rank, an additional 20 levels should be sufficient for anyone's needs, and Reputation makes further level cap increases pointless.
Comments
When I said "normal", I was referring to levelling and gaming time - playing the missions rather than finding alternative ways of levelling quickly, not spending 24-7 playing. It was not a judgement on any individual, but an impression of how the majority of people play the game...
The character creation process is a great part of STO, and I also spend a bit of time on customising bridge officer characters too...
BTW, I love Sopwith Snipes, Camels and all WWI era planes... Huge Biggles fan as a child and teen...
This would give more incentive to complete the Episodes, rather than completing so many at level 50.
... when I was first promoted to RA ingame I found it a little silly indeed. Even that I made VA, my character is still a Captain in my eyes and as far as his personal story goes he's still Captain. If I decide to involve my fleet in his personal story, where he is an Admiral, then he would be an Admiral. Even so, I'd rather see NPCs calling me Captain instead.
I agree that a solution to that problem, as one of the posters said, would be to define somewhere in your profile, the rank you'd like to be called by. Since everyone would then customize it the way they see fit, it would solve the problem completely. It would be a very nice Quality-of-Life feature.
STO Screenshot Archive
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
this mmo more or less been a single player game only till the last year or so that in a small way has change but server name holodeck also why is mission givers going to have more than one do the same mission did i fail as to why you now have to go and do it? nope because its only about me 95% of this game can be done alone FE alone only small amount of mission need a team and that only because of rep system and fleet take them out and we are back in year one where only time you needed a team was for STF's
when you do a mission does it ever talk about another player or does it talk about as if the mission was for you and only you? keep in mind im not counting any rep or fleet or stf missions
system Lord Baal is dead
And how do you explain thousands of players saving the same ship, going back in time to help save a half-Klingon Starfleet Officer, discovering the Iconians are responsible for most of the problems, or any other mission? This is not an MMO where we have missions were we need to kill 5 Bandits where it makes sense for numerous players to do the exact same mission. Only one person can do the mission and that is me from my perspective. So the whole idea that there are thousands of Admirals and very few Captains is completely ridiculous. As far as the game is concerned, there is only one Admiral that is flying around on a ship and saving the Galaxy. Might be head canon, but it is the only way to make sense of this game or even most MMOs. That only our player is the chosen one and the rest of the players are only part of the background.
It would be a little too funny if the NPCs started calling me by custom title. Such as... "Torpedo Target".
STO Screenshot Archive
I really like that idea, you oughta make a thread about it. There's some real merit to it.
I wonder how many people would change their title to M....
Actually, never mind.
And you have hard, verifiable statistics to back this up?
(Sorry, but I have issues with players who automatically believe they speak for the 'majority of the community' because they simply believe everyone thinks like they do.)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Master Chef would be such a cool rank to use. Some of those Titles are just not appropriate to be called by which is why I want a Rank Selector that chooses certain Titles to use as your rank.
Friendly reminder: You and your 5 buddies are not "the vast majority of players."
Surely, we all have an idea of what kinds of activities people are engaged-in when playing an MMO? That's why, over the past decade and a bit, terms such as PvE, PvP, RP etc have appeared...
If you read forum threads and if you play the game, you will interact with people and have anecdotal evidence of what is going on.
If I say: "The vast majority of players are human", the issue should not be that I used the phrase "vast majority", but whether players are actually human or not.
Back to question at hand: are there too many Admirals in the game... In my opinion, yes.
So, is the OP justified in making a thread saying that "the vast majority of players thinks that Admiral ranks are cheesy"?
I believe so...
If tthe episodes were written to mesh together better too.
Tac captain did X
Science did Y
Engineer did Z
And they hear about how they allowed each other to complete their mission specifics.
Because Engineer captain was rescuing the eagle the Tac captain got information to trace the house of korang to a listening post. The science captain's mission to foul that outpost sensors so the tac captain could get close.
Sounds great and makes replay as well as rerolling through different branches more exciting.
Also add in more mesh work between the factions. The Dewitt tested the antiproton prototype so the klingons have one as well. Maybe a KDF mission has you bringing drone fighters to a secret weapons center for ambassador B'Vat?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
What they need is to take it all the way: all these nattering "vast majority" who want to be Captains get the option to freeze their careers.
Then, those of us who go on to become Admirals of any type get to do what Admirals do to Captains: "No, you're not grinding STFs today, I've got an assignment for you. You get to leave your rustbucket in orbit while you take my flagship to ESD and get it detailed. Then while I entertain the President of Starfleet, you can load those replicators Beta Whatsis needs up and haul them to the delivery point." :P
As your level increases, the number of missions/xp required to level increases, which means that you feel that you deserve your increased rank more.
However, with STO, it does feel like you get congratulated by Spock just for logging-in...
If the game needs Admirals to give the player a sense of accomplishment, then make it so. But, please make the pips mean something.
Everything the devs have said about the level cap increase points to Admiral content not extended Captain content. Just look up Full Admiral in the Ask Cryptics. The devs want to give meaning to the Admiral rank. From November 2012's Ask Cryptic.
"Q: (cbp4964) Will we ever be able to send out bridge officers off on separate missions, or have them accompany us to battle in ships we assign them from our own selection?
Dstahl: We have some pretty awesome plans for when we increase ranks to Admiral level 60 which make good use of your bridge officers, ships, and crew. We ultimately want full Admirals to command their fleets. You?ll have to wait until at least Season 9 to get more details though"
There is no point to a level cap increase unless there is a good reason for it as proved by the Reputation systems. Admiral content is a good reason for a level cap increase and the devs are planning to do this as far as we know.
That's.... that's just beautiful, put a big smile on my face that you found the text to this.
No one is asking to be President of the Federation, Ruler of the Universe, or any other ridiculous rank. Anyone that thinks otherwise is completely misguided. Fleet Admiral should be the maximum rank in this game.
What we are asking for is meaning to being Admirals since not everyone wants to be just a Captain. So that means controlling our own Fleets and before some says that Player Fleets are the same thing, I can't give a mission to the lower ranks to do this. I can set up an event to do Hive Onslaught Elite and maybe I will get enough Fleet Members to run it with me. However, it is completely their choice if they do something like this. Player Fleets are just a bunch of colleagues that might do the same content with each other.
As far as Level 60 content being divorced from Rank, there is absolutely no point to getting to Level 60 unless there is a good reason for increasing the level cap. Getting promoted to Admiral at level 60 and Fleet Admiral at level 70 would make sense since it would completely change the gameplay. Adding more content and equipment is not a reason to have a level cap increase. In fact, the point could be made that there is no reason to go past level 50 and just have an Admiral Reputation. Get to Tier 5 Admiral Reputation and you get the Admiral rank, Fleet Admiral, or whatever with new controllable ship slots added at each Tier. So Tier 1 would give 1 additional ship to fight with you and Tier 5 would give 4 ships in total to fight with you.
There are two methods of level progression, horizontal and vertical. It is a misguided belief in MMOs that vertical level progression is necessary. Vertical level progression is the standards gain levels to get more powerful mechanic while horizontal level progression is using other systems to make a character more powerful like the Reputation system for STO and the Incarnate system for City of Heroes. With horizontal level progression, we get powers and unique equipment that is not available through other means which provides the same things as vertical level progression without worrying about our Mk XII equipments that we worked for months to get become useless with the next expansion.
No worse than the OP's bogus claim about a "vast majority," now is it...OP? :P
And when in the history of Star Trek has a captain ever listened to an admiral if they didn't feel like it? Or have there been consequences for disobedience? Aside from getting demoted. To Captain.
I'm sorry, admiral. We're getting a lot of *kzzzt* gravimetric interference. I'm afraid you'll have to get back to us in six days. Or six months. Hours could seem like days. We're going to go break a few people out of prison, visit a forbidden planet, and break the prime directive. Er. I mean, we're going to focus on repairing our engines.
And don't think about court martialing me because the odds are that you're crazy, possessed, a traitor, or a lousy father who should feel ashamed. Admirals are bad guys. Sorry. I don't make the rules. But Starfleet Command has never taken an admiral's word over a captain's... except for maybe five times. And every time, the admiral followed up by trying to stage a military coupe. So, they aren't keen on doing that again. Write me up. Like that matters.
How can a person getting to level 100 become President of the Federation? It is an elected position and I am pretty sure there is some law that states that only citizens or former Starfleet Officers can become the President. There are words for military officers that become leader of a country like Emperor and Dictator. Obviously we won't ever become Commander-in-Chief and it is doubtful that Fleet Admiral will be possible either since Fleet Admiral is the most senior flag officer rank of a naval organization, above all the flag admiral grades save for commander-in-chief. So the person in charge of Starfleet Intelligence, Starfleet Operations, Starfleet Corps of Engineers, etc might be Fleet Admirals.
Completely missed the point. Player Fleets are not actual Fleets so there should not be any connection. Rank should have absolutely nothing to do with being in a Player Fleet. If it was an Actual Fleet, then the Fleet Leaders would determine what the other players in their Fleet do. There might be some Player Fleets like this, but I seriously doubt there are more than 10 Fleets like this.
And there is no point to increasing the level cap due to Reputation content. Reputation content serves the need of adding additional content and abilities. So there is no need to go beyond Captain 50 while there are reasons to go to Admiral 60. Levels are an excellent way to gate content behind so if there is a level cap increase, then unique gameplay should be gated behind these levels. For example, at level 60, Admiral STFs are available where it requires 5 fleets composed of 1 player ship and 4 npc ships so 25 ships in total. Without entirely new gameplay content that completely changes the style of the game, then there is absolutely no point for a level cap increase. Also, when the maximum possible rank is achieved, then there should never be another level cap increase. So Admiral 69 or Admiral 70, depending on the dev's aesthetics, should be the highest level in this game since there is absolutely no point to going past Admiral rank, an additional 20 levels should be sufficient for anyone's needs, and Reputation makes further level cap increases pointless.