ENh, in Star Trek automation is not used for complex tasks and sentient computers(such as androids) are considered anomalies rather than the norm.
Why does "crewmen" need to be used for complex tasks? I am thinking more along the lines of Diagnostic Repair Drones from Farscape or Exocomps.
Because the show's creators wanted ships full of people, not machines.
And most of the crew is used up as filler to make the ship seem bigger than just the main characters. Voyager gave storylines to random crew members unlike TOS, TNG, or Enterprise. Most of the crew members might as well be machines for all the attention they don't receive. Replacing the Red Shirts with machines makes far more sense than letting them die to show how dangerous the scene is.
In TOS, every time they played with AI (except that one Harry Mudd episode), it went badly. That's one reason why they staffed positions with enlisted personnel instead. (Evidence for enlisted personnel: Aside from Yeoman Rand, in "Space Seed", while Kirk is choking on the bridge of the Enterprise because Khan's people had turned off life support, he dictates what he thinks will be his last log entry. He recommends commendations for everyone present, including "Technicians First Class Thule and Harrison".)
Admiral Nelson was aboard the HMS Victory as explained in this line from an account of his death "As Nelson watched from the deck of the HMS Victory the battle soon turned into a confused melee of combat between individual ships." he may have had a flag captain but as Admiral he was in command of the whole fleet including the HMS Victory and there he died as the account continues "a French sharpshooter took aim at a prized target on the deck of the Victory, fired and sent a musket ball into Nelson's left shoulder. Continuing its journey, the bullet tore a path through the Admiral's upper body before smashing into his lower back. It was a mortal wound." therefore he was killed at Trafalgar while commanding HMS Victory as I stated.
the mere fact that he was also commanding other ships in the fleet is not important for this discussion.
By that reasoning, no one below the President is in charge of anything in the US armed forces, because everyone is answerable to someone higher in the chain of command. (During my stint at HQ SAC in the '80s, I'm sure Col. Trent would have been astonished to learn that he was not in command of XOXP, because that was an office of HQ SAC under Gen. Chain. On the other hand, I'm also pretty sure Gen. Chain would have been terribly annoyed if he had been asked to make all of Trent's command decisions for him...)
(Does that mean George Bush is personally resonsible for Abu Ghraib? 'Cause I'm fairly certain he didn't actually give any of the orders there...)
ENh, in Star Trek automation is not used for complex tasks and sentient computers(such as androids) are considered anomalies rather than the norm.
Why does "crewmen" need to be used for complex tasks? I am thinking more along the lines of Diagnostic Repair Drones from Farscape or Exocomps.
Because the show's creators wanted ships full of people, not machines.
And most of the crew is used up as filler to make the ship seem bigger than just the main characters. Voyager gave storylines to random crew members unlike TOS, TNG, or Enterprise. Most of the crew members might as well be machines for all the attention they don't receive. Replacing the Red Shirts with machines makes far more sense than letting them die to show how dangerous the scene is.
Right because replacing people with sentient machines has never gone horribly wrong....
Actually, people in the Federation would be endlessly fascinated by the existence of Terminators as they've never seen AIs like them.
An Exocomp like Holograms don't need to be sapient. Just a few modifications on their adaptive programming to the next generation to remove the possibility of sapience. Pets are sentient since they can sense and react to stimuli while currently only humans are sapient since we can reason. Sentience is a common misunderstanding.
ENh, in Star Trek automation is not used for complex tasks and sentient computers(such as androids) are considered anomalies rather than the norm.
Why does "crewmen" need to be used for complex tasks? I am thinking more along the lines of Diagnostic Repair Drones from Farscape or Exocomps.
Because the show's creators wanted ships full of people, not machines.
And most of the crew is used up as filler to make the ship seem bigger than just the main characters. Voyager gave storylines to random crew members unlike TOS, TNG, or Enterprise. Most of the crew members might as well be machines for all the attention they don't receive. Replacing the Red Shirts with machines makes far more sense than letting them die to show how dangerous the scene is.
Right because replacing people with sentient machines has never gone horribly wrong....
Actually, people in the Federation would be endlessly fascinated by the existence of Terminators as they've never seen AIs like them.
Most of those stories are based on the rogue AI reacting to humanity's fear of the unknown or treating AIs like tools. If you don't give machines the ability to think, then there is no danger of the machine rebellion. Of course, there is the possibility of some crazy human creating a virus to make the machines rebel against humanity, but that is just them being programmed to rebel rather than the machines having a desire to rebel.
An Exocomp like Holograms don't need to be sapient. Just a few modifications on their adaptive programming to the next generation to remove the possibility of sapience. Pets are sentient since they can sense and react to stimuli while currently only humans are sapient since we can reason. Sentience is a common misunderstanding.
ENh, in Star Trek automation is not used for complex tasks and sentient computers(such as androids) are considered anomalies rather than the norm.
Why does "crewmen" need to be used for complex tasks? I am thinking more along the lines of Diagnostic Repair Drones from Farscape or Exocomps.
Because the show's creators wanted ships full of people, not machines.
And most of the crew is used up as filler to make the ship seem bigger than just the main characters. Voyager gave storylines to random crew members unlike TOS, TNG, or Enterprise. Most of the crew members might as well be machines for all the attention they don't receive. Replacing the Red Shirts with machines makes far more sense than letting them die to show how dangerous the scene is.
Right because replacing people with sentient machines has never gone horribly wrong....
Actually, people in the Federation would be endlessly fascinated by the existence of Terminators as they've never seen AIs like them.
Most of those stories are based on the rogue AI reacting to humanity's fear of the unknown or treating AIs like tools. If you don't give machines the ability to think, then there is no danger of the machine rebellion. Of course, there is the possibility of some crazy human creating a virus to make the machines rebel against humanity, but that is just them being programmed to rebel rather than the machines having a desire to rebel.
Ok, but that makes them a LOT less useful. They have a list of things they can do and no more. Which makes human technicians superior at doing maintenance.
ENh, in Star Trek automation is not used for complex tasks and sentient computers(such as androids) are considered anomalies rather than the norm.
Why does "crewmen" need to be used for complex tasks? I am thinking more along the lines of Diagnostic Repair Drones from Farscape or Exocomps.
Because the show's creators wanted ships full of people, not machines.
And most of the crew is used up as filler to make the ship seem bigger than just the main characters. Voyager gave storylines to random crew members unlike TOS, TNG, or Enterprise. Most of the crew members might as well be machines for all the attention they don't receive. Replacing the Red Shirts with machines makes far more sense than letting them die to show how dangerous the scene is.
You don't understand creative fiction at all, do you?
Yes, most of the crew is filler. That's the point. To have a ship filled with people, operated by people. Starfleet could have completely automated ships, that a few bored admirals would command from headquarters like a videogame. But that wouldn't make for interesting stories.
Yes, redshirts died to show how dangerous the scene is. That's the point. To show situation is deadly without killing any the main characters. Because the alternatives are killing main characters or never having dangerous situations at all. Which again wouldn't make for intersting stories.
ENh, in Star Trek automation is not used for complex tasks and sentient computers(such as androids) are considered anomalies rather than the norm.
Why does "crewmen" need to be used for complex tasks? I am thinking more along the lines of Diagnostic Repair Drones from Farscape or Exocomps.
Because the show's creators wanted ships full of people, not machines.
And most of the crew is used up as filler to make the ship seem bigger than just the main characters. Voyager gave storylines to random crew members unlike TOS, TNG, or Enterprise. Most of the crew members might as well be machines for all the attention they don't receive. Replacing the Red Shirts with machines makes far more sense than letting them die to show how dangerous the scene is.
You don't understand creative fiction at all, do you?
Yes, most of the crew is filler. That's the point. To have a ship filled with people, operated by people. Starfleet could have completely automated ships, that a few bored admirals would command from headquarters like a videogame. But that wouldn't make for interesting stories.
Yes, redshirts died to show how dangerous the scene is. That's the point. To show situation is deadly without killing any the main characters. Because the alternatives are killing main characters or never having dangerous situations at all. Which again wouldn't make for intersting stories.
Firefly would beg to differ. They killed off 2 of the main characters. And 'twas the best story told, this end of the 'Verse.
ENh, in Star Trek automation is not used for complex tasks and sentient computers(such as androids) are considered anomalies rather than the norm.
Why does "crewmen" need to be used for complex tasks? I am thinking more along the lines of Diagnostic Repair Drones from Farscape or Exocomps.
Because the show's creators wanted ships full of people, not machines.
And most of the crew is used up as filler to make the ship seem bigger than just the main characters. Voyager gave storylines to random crew members unlike TOS, TNG, or Enterprise. Most of the crew members might as well be machines for all the attention they don't receive. Replacing the Red Shirts with machines makes far more sense than letting them die to show how dangerous the scene is.
You don't understand creative fiction at all, do you?
Yes, most of the crew is filler. That's the point. To have a ship filled with people, operated by people. Starfleet could have completely automated ships, that a few bored admirals would command from headquarters like a videogame. But that wouldn't make for interesting stories.
Yes, redshirts died to show how dangerous the scene is. That's the point. To show situation is deadly without killing any the main characters. Because the alternatives are killing main characters or never having dangerous situations at all. Which again wouldn't make for intersting stories.
Firefly would beg to differ. They killed off 2 of the main characters. And 'twas the best story told, this end of the 'Verse.
Obviously that was referring to "never having dangerous situations at all."
OK, but in a situation like that where officers can quit and rejoin at will, where is the line between officers and civilians?
Not much, really. It goes back to the fact that Starfleet is a civilian organization with some military like structures (like police forces, who use a military style rank structure and some but not all aspects of military organization) and not a full on military. One can imagine that if someone resigns their post it hampers their career at minimum and perhaps ends it, after all like any job you may be free to quit but they are free not to hire you again if you prove yourself unreliable. There are consequences to the actions you are free to take, and thinking you can just come and go as you please will prove to be a bad idea when they tell you don't bother coming back.
I'd guess Starfleet does have service length obligations. Why? Because of how much training goes into becoming a member of Starfleet.
It's been quite a while. You could certainly set up a new poll. But most people only care about DPS and shinies anyway. Hence my proposal to have this earn money for Cryptic and PWE by having us pay for it.
Then no wonder people said no to it.
You are confusing cause and effect.
No I'm not. You ask people to pay for a minor detail nobody else will ever see, of course they're going to say no.
Yes, you are. I am asking Cryptic to make us pay for that feature because so many don't care or say no about the addressing-by-NPC's issue. Cause: People say no. Effect: We need to make it attractive for Cryptic to make it possible for those who say yes, so money.
This whole thread topic is pointless (most don't care) and (most won't pay) to have text appear as Captain rather than Admiral. There are far better things for developers to spend their time on... The NPC's (voice) always skip the text dialog where it mentions rank anyways.
Personally you'd think most people be far more interested in what new winter activities, summer activities, new episodes, missions, starships, enhancements to duty officer missions, or new specializations are coming.
I even tried to change the topic: asking why Obrien was a Lt on TNG, yet appeared as Chief Petty Officer 2nd in DS9. Fleet Admiral is the most senior rank and you should have a way to earn it and you do have a balance of paperwork with Duty Officer & Admiralty aside from missions. Riker was a Vice Admiral when they wanted to decommission the Enterprise but Admirals (All) get to choose their own ship... Even McCoy had an excelsior when he first boarded the Enterprise, and despite his age the crew were likely all senior command officers.
It's been quite a while. You could certainly set up a new poll. But most people only care about DPS and shinies anyway. Hence my proposal to have this earn money for Cryptic and PWE by having us pay for it.
Then no wonder people said no to it.
You are confusing cause and effect.
No I'm not. You ask people to pay for a minor detail nobody else will ever see, of course they're going to say no.
Yes, you are. I am asking Cryptic to make us pay for that feature because so many don't care or say no about the addressing-by-NPC's issue. Cause: People say no. Effect: We need to make it attractive for Cryptic to make it possible for those who say yes, so money.
This whole thread topic is pointless (most don't care) and (most won't pay) to have text appear as Captain rather than Admiral. There are far better things for developers to spend their time on... The NPC's (voice) always skip the text dialog where it mentions rank anyways.
Personally you'd think most people be far more interested in what new winter activities, summer activities, new episodes, missions, starships, enhancements to duty officer missions, or new specializations are coming.
I even tried to change the topic: asking why Obrien was a Lt on TNG, yet appeared as Chief Petty Officer 2nd in DS9. Fleet Admiral is the most senior rank and you should have a way to earn it and you do have a balance of paperwork with Duty Officer & Admiralty aside from missions. Riker was a Vice Admiral when they wanted to decommission the Enterprise but Admirals (All) get to choose their own ship... Even McCoy had an excelsior when he first boarded the Enterprise, and despite his age the crew were likely all senior command officers.
I would say that it depends on is this feature worth the effort spent on it. If it takes a day to implement, then go for it, but it likely would take weeks or months of going through each piece of dialog in the game. It is a nice QoL change for those that appreciate it, but most of us don't want devs to spend an obscene amount of time on it especially with the limited number of devs working on STO. Now if STO had the number of devs working at WoW, then it doesn't matter if a couple of devs are working on this. Therefore, the only possibility in STO of this happening if it is not an easy fix is introducing the changes in new missions and slowly change the other missions to fit the new changes. So for every new mission introduced that has npcs refer to us by how we want, five or less old missions will be changed as well.
I've always wanted the Rank Commodore, especially as I mostly fly Carriers & Dreads. I agree that STO's ranking structure, means in the STO universe, we've ended up with many more Chiefs than Indians. I Think Commodore should be the highest rank.
Still Riker was a Vice Admiral when they wanted to scrap the Enterprise and he choose it for retrofit giving us the 3 warp version that many love 'as an admiral get's to choose their ship' as he claimed.
I'll admit when they decided to increase the max level at the time I would have preferred they caped the rank structure to Vice Admiral. Still the reality is in the senior ranks your position & area of responsibility will more likely determine what command structure is followed; so even a few fleet admiral's is not a problem especially when each is responsible for an admiralty fleet.
What I'd rather like to know is why did Obrien go from Lt on Enterprise to Warrant Officer at DS9?
Why in all episode's of TNG is Data a Lt. Commander but in one episode's he wearing Lt Junior Grade pips, can anyone name the episode where this occurred and why? Was it simply a wardrobe malfunction they missed through the filming of that episode...
Commodore is basically another name for Rear Admiral Lower Half with one pip.
O'Brien was never a warrant officer. There was a TNG episode where Worf's parents came to visit and his father greeted O'Brien as a "Chief Petty Officer".
The problem was they never got around to designing a rank for enlisted crew until DS9, and that wasn't until several seasons in. It may because Roddenberry wanted "everyone to be an officer" which makes no sense.
I would say that it depends on is this feature worth the effort spent on it. If it takes a day to implement, then go for it, but it likely would take weeks or months of going through each piece of dialog in the game. [...]
Search/replace isn't a function at Cryptic's?
That would require every mission uses the same variable for rank. There is also the problem of how many different parts of the game are affected by the rank variable. If equipment is based on rank rather than level, then using the Captain rank could result in all Mk X equipment and above becoming unusable until the Admiral rank is used. Using the Moist rank would make all equipment unusable.
What seems like a simple fix in computer programs can be horrendous nightmares that requires weeks or months to fix. Only some of the devs have a clue about how difficult implementing something like this is. So a day would be required if it is a simple fix that uses something like Search/Replace while weeks or months would be required if someone has to go through every line of dialog.
I would say that it depends on is this feature worth the effort spent on it. If it takes a day to implement, then go for it, but it likely would take weeks or months of going through each piece of dialog in the game. [...]
Search/replace isn't a function at Cryptic's?
That would require every mission uses the same variable for rank. There is also the problem of how many different parts of the game are affected by the rank variable. If equipment is based on rank rather than level, then using the Captain rank could result in all Mk X equipment and above becoming unusable until the Admiral rank is used. Using the Moist rank would make all equipment unusable.
What seems like a simple fix in computer programs can be horrendous nightmares that requires weeks or months to fix. Only some of the devs have a clue about how difficult implementing something like this is. So a day would be required if it is a simple fix that uses something like Search/Replace while weeks or months would be required if someone has to go through every line of dialog.
I agree.. I've worked in Technology for over 20 years.
I don't think the poster of this thread understands technology and thinks it's just a simply search/replace. It's new coding that would require addressing character's by a chosen title... Why is this even important? If your rank is Fleet Admiral even if you wear Captain's pip's why do you even care if the text dialog says Admiral? It's certainly not said by any of the voice actor's? Perhaps I need to stop responding to this thread so it just dies...
An Exocomp like Holograms don't need to be sapient. Just a few modifications on their adaptive programming to the next generation to remove the possibility of sapience. Pets are sentient since they can sense and react to stimuli while currently only humans are sapient since we can reason. Sentience is a common misunderstanding.
I am just quoting canon here: exocomps have been declared sapient beings by the federation. Changing their programming thus would seem somewhat unethical.
The time that would be required is a man-day or so, maybe at most a man-week, depending on the implementation chosen. That is the point: A small change that would be a big improvement. There is no serious competition between this and any other thing they could work on. It is just so trivial, and yet would be so useful for the game, that it is just a reasonable request.
I doubt the usefulness. Some people would like it, and I wouldn't be opposed. But in the end it's fluff, which many may not appreciate (after all, you're underselling yourself when you're an dmiral and want to be called captain). And that is not even touching on the subject that some players would not like to be addressed by their title but rank, but not give up on the title. So these things may need to get separated first.
OK, but in a situation like that where officers can quit and rejoin at will, where is the line between officers and civilians?
That never did make sense to me.
It may just be that the whole concept of "officers" vs "enlisted personnel" changed along with the availability of higher level education. So an officer would not necessarily mean higher responsibility and stuff as such, just be a title given to you. Similar to rank inflation in office environments (a "facility manager" ain't a manager at all). Granted though, this is not supported by canon sources.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
They could possibly update it so you're always called by your title as Starship Captain, but why would you not want to be called by the rank you've worked hard to earn. Otherwise they can call you captain from your first training cruise right up to end-game.
An Exocomp like Holograms don't need to be sapient. Just a few modifications on their adaptive programming to the next generation to remove the possibility of sapience. Pets are sentient since they can sense and react to stimuli while currently only humans are sapient since we can reason. Sentience is a common misunderstanding.
I am just quoting canon here: exocomps have been declared sapient beings by the federation. Changing their programming thus would seem somewhat unethical.
Changing the programming of a sapient exocomp is unethical. Changing the programming of any future exocomps before they are even able to develop sapience is not unethical. After all, not every Hologram in the Federation has the same sapient rights that The Doctor has. The Holodeck industry would not be able to survive if they had to give every one of their Holograms a wage and benefits.
This whole thread topic is pointless (most don't care) and (most won't pay) to have text appear as Captain rather than Admiral. There are far better things for developers to spend their time on...[...]
The time that would be required is a man-day or so, maybe at most a man-week, depending on the implementation chosen. That is the point: A small change that would be a big improvement. There is no serious competition between this and any other thing they could work on. It is just so trivial, and yet would be so useful for the game, that it is just a reasonable request.
You say trivial but describe something that isn't.....
Usually in the chair of command people address you by your rank, although sometimes by your title (Captain) in this case; however, it's text only so you never know, they could add a feature to your bio to let people choose their rank or title of Captain. Still I'd think more people be interested in developers or game designers creating new content, gameplay, or fixing & addressing bugs.
But I did want to finish on this note since someone said Obrien was never a Warrant Officer.
Notice the DS9 uniform with a single hallowed out pip? This was near the end of DS9 where he was making plans to be a specialist professor (similar to assistant or associate professor today) at Starfleet Academy, LORE established some senior non commissioned officers assist officers in that role... They are often promoted (honorary or officially) to Warrant Officer and addressed as Sir like Officer's by Officer Cadet's and outrank them.
O'Brien never was a lieutenant. Colm Meaney wore the costume of one, but aside from a single occasion even his "lieutenant" uniform was adressed as "chief" and similiar. The one time Riker called O'Brien a lieutenant has to be dismissed as an error with no in-universe consequences. It was later clearly established that O'Brien never was an officer and he very much liked it this way. Further explanation is given behind-the-scenes:
Ronald D. Moore commented, "O'Brien was originally just a day player on TNG and very little, if any, thought went into his rank or background for quite a while. He officially became a Chief Petty Officer in "Family" when I wanted he and Worf's adoptive father to both be non-coms in contrast to Worf. Making him an enlisted man seemed to give us another color in the show and to open up another window into Starfleet that we hadn't explored before." (AOL chat, 1998)
Meaney didn't have a clear role until much later and O'Brien wasn't a established character either. They pretty much treated him like an extra with some dialogue up until "Family", one shouldn't look for in-universe justifications for clear errors/oversights too closely at this point, it just doesn't make sense.
^ 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
tell that to Admiral Nelson, injured in battle and almost killed on several occasions and finally killed at Trafalgar while commanding HMS Victory, as an Admiral he had a more colourful career at sea then some captains.
he was a true hero.
He did not command HMS Victory. That ship merely flew his flag. He had a FLAG CAPTAIN who actually commanded his ship.
I really wish people would understand what a Fleet commander really does and how ship commands really work.
Example I was part of 11th MEU 2006. I was station aboard USS Peleliu LHA-5 which was the flagship of Expeditionary Strike Group 3. Aboard the Peleliu, was 11th MEU commander which was a Colonel who lead the Marines, the Peleliu's commander who was a full bird Captain, then there was the 1 star marine general who commanded the strike group(it was unusual for a marine general to be incharge instead of an admiral, but it's who we had).
Now having laid all that out, the 1 star general DID NOT command the ship, nor did the MEU commander. THE CAPTAIN DID. The Strike group commander merely told the ship commander his marching orders on where to take the ship then got the hell out of the way while the Captain got on with the business of running HIS SHIP.
Now how does this apply to Nelson? Nelson did NOT command Victory. Samuel Sutton was the ship's commander, Victory was just where Nelson flew his flag and commanded the FLEET, not Victory.
Your welcome on a lesson on how flag officers and flagships work.
Admiral Nelson was aboard the HMS Victory as explained in this line from an account of his death "As Nelson watched from the deck of the HMS Victory the battle soon turned into a confused melee of combat between individual ships." he may have had a flag captain but as Admiral he was in command of the whole fleet including the HMS Victory and there he died as the account continues "a French sharpshooter took aim at a prized target on the deck of the Victory, fired and sent a musket ball into Nelson's left shoulder. Continuing its journey, the bullet tore a path through the Admiral's upper body before smashing into his lower back. It was a mortal wound." therefore he was killed at Trafalgar while commanding HMS Victory as I stated.
the mere fact that he was also commanding other ships in the fleet is not important for this discussion.
and it was not Samuel Sutton who commanded the Victory but Sir Thomas Masterman Hardy as in the quote:
"Vice-Admiral Sir Thomas Masterman Hardy, 1st Baronet GCB served as flag captain to Admiral Lord Nelson, and commanded HMS Victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in October 1805"
so get your facts strait.
but regardless of any of that I stand by my point that being an Admiral does not mean having a desk job.
Your welcome on a lesson on history.
But it does not mean that an Admiral sits in the Hot chair. And yes Nelson still commanded the fleet, even in the middle of the chaos of Trafalgar.
He at no point was CAPTAIN. Victory was simply where he flew his flag. And when not in that battle, guess where he was most of the time. Sitting behind a desk doing a LOT of paperwork in his office aboard ship.
I never said he was captain just that he was commanding that ship as he was the whole fleet and as you are with all the ships you use in the Admiralty feature and the same with the one you are aboard (using) and is your current flag ship and just as Admiral kirk did in the first movie.
many often nit-pick sto for not being canon and yet here we have something that is most definitely canon and players are complaining.
you can also imagine your character is "Sitting behind a desk doing a LOT of paperwork in his office aboard ship" when your not playing.
the point being it was inferred by the "desk job" comment that an Admiral would never be aboard a ship commanding it but in some land based office pen pushing and my example proves this is not always the case.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
tell that to Admiral Nelson, injured in battle and almost killed on several occasions and finally killed at Trafalgar while commanding HMS Victory, as an Admiral he had a more colourful career at sea then some captains.
he was a true hero.
He did not command HMS Victory. That ship merely flew his flag. He had a FLAG CAPTAIN who actually commanded his ship.
I really wish people would understand what a Fleet commander really does and how ship commands really work.
Example I was part of 11th MEU 2006. I was station aboard USS Peleliu LHA-5 which was the flagship of Expeditionary Strike Group 3. Aboard the Peleliu, was 11th MEU commander which was a Colonel who lead the Marines, the Peleliu's commander who was a full bird Captain, then there was the 1 star marine general who commanded the strike group(it was unusual for a marine general to be incharge instead of an admiral, but it's who we had).
Now having laid all that out, the 1 star general DID NOT command the ship, nor did the MEU commander. THE CAPTAIN DID. The Strike group commander merely told the ship commander his marching orders on where to take the ship then got the hell out of the way while the Captain got on with the business of running HIS SHIP.
Now how does this apply to Nelson? Nelson did NOT command Victory. Samuel Sutton was the ship's commander, Victory was just where Nelson flew his flag and commanded the FLEET, not Victory.
Your welcome on a lesson on how flag officers and flagships work.
Admiral Nelson was aboard the HMS Victory as explained in this line from an account of his death "As Nelson watched from the deck of the HMS Victory the battle soon turned into a confused melee of combat between individual ships." he may have had a flag captain but as Admiral he was in command of the whole fleet including the HMS Victory and there he died as the account continues "a French sharpshooter took aim at a prized target on the deck of the Victory, fired and sent a musket ball into Nelson's left shoulder. Continuing its journey, the bullet tore a path through the Admiral's upper body before smashing into his lower back. It was a mortal wound." therefore he was killed at Trafalgar while commanding HMS Victory as I stated.
the mere fact that he was also commanding other ships in the fleet is not important for this discussion.
and it was not Samuel Sutton who commanded the Victory but Sir Thomas Masterman Hardy as in the quote:
"Vice-Admiral Sir Thomas Masterman Hardy, 1st Baronet GCB served as flag captain to Admiral Lord Nelson, and commanded HMS Victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in October 1805"
so get your facts strait.
but regardless of any of that I stand by my point that being an Admiral does not mean having a desk job.
Your welcome on a lesson on history.
But it does not mean that an Admiral sits in the Hot chair. And yes Nelson still commanded the fleet, even in the middle of the chaos of Trafalgar.
He at no point was CAPTAIN. Victory was simply where he flew his flag. And when not in that battle, guess where he was most of the time. Sitting behind a desk doing a LOT of paperwork in his office aboard ship.
I never said he was captain just that he was commanding that ship as he was the whole fleet and as you are with all the ships you use in the Admiralty feature and the same with the one you are aboard (using) and is your current flag ship and just as Admiral kirk did in the first movie.
many often nit-pick sto for not being canon and yet here we have something that is most definitely canon and players are complaining.
you can also imagine your character is "Sitting behind a desk doing a LOT of paperwork in his office aboard ship" when your not playing.
the point being it was inferred by the "desk job" comment that an Admiral would never be aboard a ship commanding it but in some land based office pen pushing and my example proves this is not always the case.
However in this game we ARE sitting in the Captain's chair. We're making the ship calls, not commanding a fleet. Though I guess the Admiralty system is a lame attempt at doing so.
Though my Own head canon is the fact the person who's my "First Officer" in my DOFF system is actually in command of USS Cyclone(my defiant class ship) and I just happen to ride along from time to time, and where I really fly my flag(and yes this ship also has a "Captain") is USS Ark Royal(jupiter class) which has my flag bridge and I command my squadron from there.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
tell that to Admiral Nelson, injured in battle and almost killed on several occasions and finally killed at Trafalgar while commanding HMS Victory, as an Admiral he had a more colourful career at sea then some captains.
he was a true hero.
He did not command HMS Victory. That ship merely flew his flag. He had a FLAG CAPTAIN who actually commanded his ship.
I really wish people would understand what a Fleet commander really does and how ship commands really work.
Example I was part of 11th MEU 2006. I was station aboard USS Peleliu LHA-5 which was the flagship of Expeditionary Strike Group 3. Aboard the Peleliu, was 11th MEU commander which was a Colonel who lead the Marines, the Peleliu's commander who was a full bird Captain, then there was the 1 star marine general who commanded the strike group(it was unusual for a marine general to be incharge instead of an admiral, but it's who we had).
Now having laid all that out, the 1 star general DID NOT command the ship, nor did the MEU commander. THE CAPTAIN DID. The Strike group commander merely told the ship commander his marching orders on where to take the ship then got the hell out of the way while the Captain got on with the business of running HIS SHIP.
Now how does this apply to Nelson? Nelson did NOT command Victory. Samuel Sutton was the ship's commander, Victory was just where Nelson flew his flag and commanded the FLEET, not Victory.
Your welcome on a lesson on how flag officers and flagships work.
Admiral Nelson was aboard the HMS Victory as explained in this line from an account of his death "As Nelson watched from the deck of the HMS Victory the battle soon turned into a confused melee of combat between individual ships." he may have had a flag captain but as Admiral he was in command of the whole fleet including the HMS Victory and there he died as the account continues "a French sharpshooter took aim at a prized target on the deck of the Victory, fired and sent a musket ball into Nelson's left shoulder. Continuing its journey, the bullet tore a path through the Admiral's upper body before smashing into his lower back. It was a mortal wound." therefore he was killed at Trafalgar while commanding HMS Victory as I stated.
the mere fact that he was also commanding other ships in the fleet is not important for this discussion.
and it was not Samuel Sutton who commanded the Victory but Sir Thomas Masterman Hardy as in the quote:
"Vice-Admiral Sir Thomas Masterman Hardy, 1st Baronet GCB served as flag captain to Admiral Lord Nelson, and commanded HMS Victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in October 1805"
so get your facts strait.
but regardless of any of that I stand by my point that being an Admiral does not mean having a desk job.
Your welcome on a lesson on history.
But it does not mean that an Admiral sits in the Hot chair. And yes Nelson still commanded the fleet, even in the middle of the chaos of Trafalgar.
He at no point was CAPTAIN. Victory was simply where he flew his flag. And when not in that battle, guess where he was most of the time. Sitting behind a desk doing a LOT of paperwork in his office aboard ship.
I never said he was captain just that he was commanding that ship as he was the whole fleet and as you are with all the ships you use in the Admiralty feature and the same with the one you are aboard (using) and is your current flag ship and just as Admiral kirk did in the first movie.
many often nit-pick sto for not being canon and yet here we have something that is most definitely canon and players are complaining.
you can also imagine your character is "Sitting behind a desk doing a LOT of paperwork in his office aboard ship" when your not playing.
the point being it was inferred by the "desk job" comment that an Admiral would never be aboard a ship commanding it but in some land based office pen pushing and my example proves this is not always the case.
However in this game we ARE sitting in the Captain's chair. We're making the ship calls, not commanding a fleet. Though I guess the Admiralty system is a lame attempt at doing so.
Though my Own head canon is the fact the person who's my "First Officer" in my DOFF system is actually in command of USS Cyclone(my defiant class ship) and I just happen to ride along from time to time, and where I really fly my flag(and yes this ship also has a "Captain") is USS Ark Royal(jupiter class) which has my flag bridge and I command my squadron from there.
sigh.
as has been established an Admiral may well be on the bridge quite frequently especially if there is some crises like a battle raging (as was the case with the afore mentioned Admiral Nelson who was killed in battle while doing just that) or while he is giving orders to the crew, and by the by where do you think the captain is when all is quiet, in their office (ready room) doing paper work (aka desk job) as was often seen in TNG with captain Picard and Voyager with captain Janeway.
sorry guys but no matter which way you cut it a star fleet Admiral could just as easily be commanding a starship as a captain could.
you might not like that fact but that's just the way it is, I'm afraid you lost this argument before you started it (before you were born even).
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
Comments
Because the show's creators wanted ships full of people, not machines.
And most of the crew is used up as filler to make the ship seem bigger than just the main characters. Voyager gave storylines to random crew members unlike TOS, TNG, or Enterprise. Most of the crew members might as well be machines for all the attention they don't receive. Replacing the Red Shirts with machines makes far more sense than letting them die to show how dangerous the scene is.
By that reasoning, no one below the President is in charge of anything in the US armed forces, because everyone is answerable to someone higher in the chain of command. (During my stint at HQ SAC in the '80s, I'm sure Col. Trent would have been astonished to learn that he was not in command of XOXP, because that was an office of HQ SAC under Gen. Chain. On the other hand, I'm also pretty sure Gen. Chain would have been terribly annoyed if he had been asked to make all of Trent's command decisions for him...)
(Does that mean George Bush is personally resonsible for Abu Ghraib? 'Cause I'm fairly certain he didn't actually give any of the orders there...)
Actually, people in the Federation would be endlessly fascinated by the existence of Terminators as they've never seen AIs like them.
My character Tsin'xing
However, they really need to sort out the Romulan Ranking system as per the list here - http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Romulan_ranks
An Exocomp like Holograms don't need to be sapient. Just a few modifications on their adaptive programming to the next generation to remove the possibility of sapience. Pets are sentient since they can sense and react to stimuli while currently only humans are sapient since we can reason. Sentience is a common misunderstanding.
Most of those stories are based on the rogue AI reacting to humanity's fear of the unknown or treating AIs like tools. If you don't give machines the ability to think, then there is no danger of the machine rebellion. Of course, there is the possibility of some crazy human creating a virus to make the machines rebel against humanity, but that is just them being programmed to rebel rather than the machines having a desire to rebel.
My character Tsin'xing
Yes, most of the crew is filler. That's the point. To have a ship filled with people, operated by people. Starfleet could have completely automated ships, that a few bored admirals would command from headquarters like a videogame. But that wouldn't make for interesting stories.
Yes, redshirts died to show how dangerous the scene is. That's the point. To show situation is deadly without killing any the main characters. Because the alternatives are killing main characters or never having dangerous situations at all. Which again wouldn't make for intersting stories.
Firefly would beg to differ.
My character Tsin'xing
This whole thread topic is pointless (most don't care) and (most won't pay) to have text appear as Captain rather than Admiral. There are far better things for developers to spend their time on... The NPC's (voice) always skip the text dialog where it mentions rank anyways.
Personally you'd think most people be far more interested in what new winter activities, summer activities, new episodes, missions, starships, enhancements to duty officer missions, or new specializations are coming.
I even tried to change the topic: asking why Obrien was a Lt on TNG, yet appeared as Chief Petty Officer 2nd in DS9. Fleet Admiral is the most senior rank and you should have a way to earn it and you do have a balance of paperwork with Duty Officer & Admiralty aside from missions. Riker was a Vice Admiral when they wanted to decommission the Enterprise but Admirals (All) get to choose their own ship... Even McCoy had an excelsior when he first boarded the Enterprise, and despite his age the crew were likely all senior command officers.
I would say that it depends on is this feature worth the effort spent on it. If it takes a day to implement, then go for it, but it likely would take weeks or months of going through each piece of dialog in the game. It is a nice QoL change for those that appreciate it, but most of us don't want devs to spend an obscene amount of time on it especially with the limited number of devs working on STO. Now if STO had the number of devs working at WoW, then it doesn't matter if a couple of devs are working on this. Therefore, the only possibility in STO of this happening if it is not an easy fix is introducing the changes in new missions and slowly change the other missions to fit the new changes. So for every new mission introduced that has npcs refer to us by how we want, five or less old missions will be changed as well.
O'Brien was never a warrant officer. There was a TNG episode where Worf's parents came to visit and his father greeted O'Brien as a "Chief Petty Officer".
The problem was they never got around to designing a rank for enlisted crew until DS9, and that wasn't until several seasons in. It may because Roddenberry wanted "everyone to be an officer" which makes no sense.
That would require every mission uses the same variable for rank. There is also the problem of how many different parts of the game are affected by the rank variable. If equipment is based on rank rather than level, then using the Captain rank could result in all Mk X equipment and above becoming unusable until the Admiral rank is used. Using the Moist rank would make all equipment unusable.
What seems like a simple fix in computer programs can be horrendous nightmares that requires weeks or months to fix. Only some of the devs have a clue about how difficult implementing something like this is. So a day would be required if it is a simple fix that uses something like Search/Replace while weeks or months would be required if someone has to go through every line of dialog.
That never did make sense to me.
I agree.. I've worked in Technology for over 20 years.
I don't think the poster of this thread understands technology and thinks it's just a simply search/replace. It's new coding that would require addressing character's by a chosen title... Why is this even important? If your rank is Fleet Admiral even if you wear Captain's pip's why do you even care if the text dialog says Admiral? It's certainly not said by any of the voice actor's? Perhaps I need to stop responding to this thread so it just dies...
I am just quoting canon here: exocomps have been declared sapient beings by the federation. Changing their programming thus would seem somewhat unethical.
I doubt the usefulness. Some people would like it, and I wouldn't be opposed. But in the end it's fluff, which many may not appreciate (after all, you're underselling yourself when you're an dmiral and want to be called captain). And that is not even touching on the subject that some players would not like to be addressed by their title but rank, but not give up on the title. So these things may need to get separated first.
It may just be that the whole concept of "officers" vs "enlisted personnel" changed along with the availability of higher level education. So an officer would not necessarily mean higher responsibility and stuff as such, just be a title given to you. Similar to rank inflation in office environments (a "facility manager" ain't a manager at all). Granted though, this is not supported by canon sources.
They could possibly update it so you're always called by your title as Starship Captain, but why would you not want to be called by the rank you've worked hard to earn. Otherwise they can call you captain from your first training cruise right up to end-game.
Changing the programming of a sapient exocomp is unethical. Changing the programming of any future exocomps before they are even able to develop sapience is not unethical. After all, not every Hologram in the Federation has the same sapient rights that The Doctor has. The Holodeck industry would not be able to survive if they had to give every one of their Holograms a wage and benefits.
My character Tsin'xing
It's pretty much this hard to keep just one timeline intact. ♪
But I did want to finish on this note since someone said Obrien was never a Warrant Officer.
Notice the DS9 uniform with a single hallowed out pip? This was near the end of DS9 where he was making plans to be a specialist professor (similar to assistant or associate professor today) at Starfleet Academy, LORE established some senior non commissioned officers assist officers in that role... They are often promoted (honorary or officially) to Warrant Officer and addressed as Sir like Officer's by Officer Cadet's and outrank them.
Even here though it's identified with him being a LT on the Enterprise because of the Rank he wore.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Miles_O'Brien
Star Trek website shows him wearing LT but identifies his rank as Chief Petty Officer, then Senior Chief Specialist.
http://www.startrek.com/database_article/obrien-miles
Likely an obvious oversight...
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
O'Brien never was a lieutenant. Colm Meaney wore the costume of one, but aside from a single occasion even his "lieutenant" uniform was adressed as "chief" and similiar. The one time Riker called O'Brien a lieutenant has to be dismissed as an error with no in-universe consequences. It was later clearly established that O'Brien never was an officer and he very much liked it this way. Further explanation is given behind-the-scenes:
Meaney didn't have a clear role until much later and O'Brien wasn't a established character either. They pretty much treated him like an extra with some dialogue up until "Family", one shouldn't look for in-universe justifications for clear errors/oversights too closely at this point, it just doesn't make sense.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I never said he was captain just that he was commanding that ship as he was the whole fleet and as you are with all the ships you use in the Admiralty feature and the same with the one you are aboard (using) and is your current flag ship and just as Admiral kirk did in the first movie.
many often nit-pick sto for not being canon and yet here we have something that is most definitely canon and players are complaining.
you can also imagine your character is "Sitting behind a desk doing a LOT of paperwork in his office aboard ship" when your not playing.
the point being it was inferred by the "desk job" comment that an Admiral would never be aboard a ship commanding it but in some land based office pen pushing and my example proves this is not always the case.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
However in this game we ARE sitting in the Captain's chair. We're making the ship calls, not commanding a fleet. Though I guess the Admiralty system is a lame attempt at doing so.
Though my Own head canon is the fact the person who's my "First Officer" in my DOFF system is actually in command of USS Cyclone(my defiant class ship) and I just happen to ride along from time to time, and where I really fly my flag(and yes this ship also has a "Captain") is USS Ark Royal(jupiter class) which has my flag bridge and I command my squadron from there.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
sigh.
as has been established an Admiral may well be on the bridge quite frequently especially if there is some crises like a battle raging (as was the case with the afore mentioned Admiral Nelson who was killed in battle while doing just that) or while he is giving orders to the crew, and by the by where do you think the captain is when all is quiet, in their office (ready room) doing paper work (aka desk job) as was often seen in TNG with captain Picard and Voyager with captain Janeway.
sorry guys but no matter which way you cut it a star fleet Admiral could just as easily be commanding a starship as a captain could.
you might not like that fact but that's just the way it is, I'm afraid you lost this argument before you started it (before you were born even).
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.