test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

From ensign to admiral in "real" time?

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I don't mean game time played. Assume that your toon is a real life ensign in Starfleet. Starting with the Borg attack in the tutorial, and then following the missions in the game, what kind of timeline are we looking at to make admiral? Years? Decades? I can't even guess.

This is just something goofy I got to thinking about the other night.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Actually, this isn't goofy at all. I'm shocked I never had this realization myself. I think in my mind I pictured a 1 year voyage on each front plus some months exploring, so I guess it took 5 years to go from Lietenant to Admiral on my scale.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I don't mean game time played. Assume that your toon is a real life ensign in Starfleet. Starting with the Borg attack in the tutorial, and then following the missions in the game, what kind of timeline are we looking at to make admiral? Years? Decades? I can't even guess.

    This is just something goofy I got to thinking about the other night.


    Janeway made Admiral in her early forties, Kirk in his late thirties, averaging them out, and considering their impressive accomplishments compared to the players, a "real world" estimate about a Non-Janeway and Non-Kirk officer would greatly depend on when they joined Starfleet and how impressive their careers were.

    Generally, assuming one left for Starfleet Academy right after High School, and graduated as an ensign after only three years, a realistic estimation of one's progression up the ranks would be between 20 to thirty years.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Katic wrote: »
    and considering their impressive accomplishments compared to the players,

    Actually, every player is like a Picard or Janeway. We pretty much single handedly save the Federation in every episode, and we defeat a ridiculous amount of ships vs our single ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Since the US Navy was used as the basis for Starfleet, it's logical to use the real US military requirements as a basis for minimum time in service:

    O-2 __ Lieutenant (junior grade) __ 18 months
    O-3 __ Lieutenant __ 4 years
    O-4 __ Lieutenant Commander __ 10 years
    O-5 __ Commander __ 16 years
    O-6 __ Captain __ 22 years
    O-7 __ Rear Admiral (lower half) __ 25 years

    So you have to be in the military for a minimum of 22 years before you're even eligible for promotion to the rank of Captain by law. Considering that Starfleet is more wide-spread and far more technically advanced that the US military, which means more things to learn - more equipment and guidelines to become familiar with, it's likely that something like these minimum times is maintained.

    However in a time of war the military can, and does, ignore these minimum requirements when necessary to ensure that they have the people they need in the positions that they need them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    We can assume that we are currently operating under wartime scenarios where promotions are cheap and plentiful so I would say about 5 years.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    We play in 2409. This whole game takes place in 2409.

    Sorry, but it's been less than like a single year. :D Maybe a year if you're lucky.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    If they do have minimum times (which they really should) I wonder if it varies by species. After all, imagine a species like Kes's (I forget their name) They'd never have a chance at getting into Starfleet let alone into a position of power, yet species like the Vulcan's would be able to dominate those positions due to their longevity. Maybe they have an enforced retirement age too.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Kes's species, the Oompa Loompas, presumably as a trade for that crappy short life they learn much faster and mature much faster. They could probably get through Starfleet faster and just take more away from their experiences.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Since the US Navy was used as the basis for Starfleet, it's logical to use the real US military requirements as a basis for minimum time in service:

    O-2 __ Lieutenant (junior grade) __ 18 months
    O-3 __ Lieutenant __ 4 years
    O-4 __ Lieutenant Commander __ 10 years
    O-5 __ Commander __ 16 years
    O-6 __ Captain __ 22 years
    O-7 __ Rear Admiral (lower half) __ 25 years

    So you have to be in the military for a minimum of 22 years before you're even eligible for promotion to the rank of Captain by law. Considering that Starfleet is more wide-spread and far more technically advanced that the US military, which means more things to learn - more equipment and guidelines to become familiar with, it's likely that something like these minimum times is maintained.

    However in a time of war the military can, and does, ignore these minimum requirements when necessary to ensure that they have the people they need in the positions that they need them.

    You have failed to take meritorious promotions into consideration, which can and will shorten that timeframe by up to a fourth. It is rare - though not unheard of, or even truly difficult - to be a ship Captain in fifteen years.

    That being said, the speed at which we're promoted in-game is extremely fast.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Katic wrote: »
    Janeway made Admiral in her early forties, Kirk in his late thirties, averaging them out, and considering their impressive accomplishments compared to the players, a "real world" estimate about a Non-Janeway and Non-Kirk officer would greatly depend on when they joined Starfleet and how impressive their careers were.

    Generally, assuming one left for Starfleet Academy right after High School, and graduated as an ensign after only three years, a realistic estimation of one's progression up the ranks would be between 20 to thirty years.

    Picard was in his 50's when he took the Enterprise.

    Harry Kim was an Ensign for 7 years

    There doesn't seem to be much sense in the way of promotions, I guess it really only mattered when it was apart of the story...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Yet another example of why I say that "level" and "rank" need to stay separate in this game.

    - Level up the same way we do, using a numerical scale (like pretty much every other MMO does).

    - Gain "ranks" the same way you gain accolades.

    And personally, I think the rank of Admiral should be reserved for Fleet Leaders and people who have surpassed some SERIOUS accolades (or for long-term Vets). There's just too d**mned many Admirals running around in this game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Sanford42 wrote:
    And personally, I think the rank of Admiral should be reserved for Fleet Leaders and people who have surpassed some SERIOUS accolades (or for long-term Vets). There's just too d**mned many Admirals running around in this game.

    Indeed, I would like to see Captain as the highest rank with fleet leaders as Fleet Captains/Commodores (just in title). But if they were to change the names of the ranks, I can see that some people will be upset about the "demotion" even if they stay the same level.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    this is explained in the timeline updates
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    MavrykDH wrote: »
    Indeed, I would like to see Captain as the highest rank with fleet leaders as Fleet Captains/Commodores (just in title). But if they were to change the names of the ranks, I can see that some people will be upset about the "demotion" even if they stay the same level.

    Yeah, it's a bit of a "Cryptic made their bed now they've gotta lay in it" thing with that... but it would be nice to see more Captains and fewer Admirals.

    Or, if they WERE to go this route (separating rank and level), everyone who's currently RA or VA and isn't already a Fleet Leader gets dropped to Captain, they keep all of their current abilities, even the neat little Admiral's Jacket. Everyone under the rank of Captain keeps their current rank title.

    If they want to get the title of Admiral, they should earn it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Sanford42 wrote:
    Yet another example of why I say that "level" and "rank" need to stay separate in this game.

    - Level up the same way we do, using a numerical scale (like pretty much every other MMO does).

    - Gain "ranks" the same way you gain accolades.

    And personally, I think the rank of Admiral should be reserved for Fleet Leaders and people who have surpassed some SERIOUS accolades (or for long-term Vets). There's just too d**mned many Admirals running around in this game.

    Supported/agreed
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    MavrykDH wrote: »
    Picard was in his 50's when he took the Enterprise.

    But was in command of the Stargazer for 22 years before that, Had to face a Court Martial (because he lost the Stargazer), and was probably on a few years leave after that, or at least in another command somewhere, because people of his own senior staff learned about the "Picard Manuver" at the academy.

    He was also promoted directly from Lt. Cmdr to Capt.

    Source: urce: Jean-Luc Picard aboard the Stargazer @ Memory

    Also remember that appearently Picard (Patric Steward) dosen't age at the same rate we do.
    MavrykDH wrote: »
    Harry Kim was an Ensign for 7 years

    Because there were no positions for a Lt. or even Lt. Jr grade aboard voyager.

    You don't just promote people at random. There has to be an opening for a Lt. before anyone gets promoted to Lt.
    I am geussing that if Torres had died we would have seen a Chief engeneer Harry Kim.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Katic wrote: »
    Supported/agreed

    People are agreeing with me on the STO forums? TRIBBLE I need to go buy a lottery ticket or something, this is my lucky day! :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Don't know about Admiral, but Pike does state in the new Star Trek that it's possible to go from Ensign to Captain in about four years; so that would seem like a good average length of time for an outstanding officer to achieve command of their own ship, after graduating from the Academy.

    In b4 "JJverse doesn't count" etc.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Middlemore wrote:
    Don't know about Admiral, but Pike does state in the new Star Trek that it's possible to go from Ensign to Captain in about four years; so that would seem like a good average length of time for an outstanding officer to achieve command of their own ship, after graduating from the Academy.

    In b4 "JJverse doesn't count" etc.

    JJverse or not, Kirk was one of the fastest and youngest captains ever, and in the pre-TOS to late TMP period, it seems that Command officers were not just promoted based on expirience, but more like Command Schools right after the Academy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    This game propels you to the end of the career faster than you can say Brass. It is the beginning that is exciting, not the end.

    Now that it is done, any change ( theoretically speaking, as opposed to realistically) needs to be optional, since that what is given can not be taken away in a MMO.

    But that's certainly a small sacrifice in order to be properly demoted back to the fun times. ;)

    ---
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Sernon wrote:
    This game propels you to the end of the career faster than you can say Brass. It is the beginning that is exciting, not the end.

    Now that it is done, any change ( theoretically speaking, as opposed to realistically) needs to be optional, since that what is given can not be taken away in a MMO.

    But that's certainly a small sacrifice in order to be properly demoted back to the fun times. ;)

    ---

    Personally, I think they should leave the ending ranks the same since they want us to be Admirals towards the end but when they revamp the tutorial, they should just make us commanders in the tutorial who rise to actual captain rank at the end... and then have us go Captain 1 to Captain 40, followed by Rear Admiral (LH) 41 to 45, Rear Admiral (UH) 46 to 50 and VA 51.

    Maintain the lower ranks as optional titles. Preferably get approval to make RA LH into Commodore if CBS will budge.

    But I think it just works better if we start at Captain rank and spend 50 or so odd hours going from Captain to Vice Admiral.

    Or maybe just rework the level brackets so that 1-20 is Commander, 21-40 is Captain, 41-60 are the admiral progressions.

    I find it very clunky that you have to spend skillpoints to level, personally, and wish they'd just go with a more conventional leveling system.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    You have failed to take meritorious promotions into consideration, which can and will shorten that timeframe by up to a fourth.
    I didn't specifically mention it but that would be covered in the "in a time of war the military can, and does, ignore these minimum requirements when necessary" portion of my post.

    Although actually in a time of war they can promote anyone to whatever rank they want to. The officer who does this had better be prepared to justify that action to his superiors though.

    A perfect example is when the US Army was ramping up for WW2, they blanket promoted hundreds of E-7s to First Lieutenant (O-2) and E-8's and E-9's to Captain and Major. This put the most experienced soldiers into lower officer positions while the incoming draftees then filled out the enlisted ranks with other experienced soldiers as their Sergeants and squad leaders.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    anazonda wrote: »
    But was in command of the Stargazer for 22 years before that, Had to face a Court Martial (because he lost the Stargazer), and was probably on a few years leave after that, or at least in another command somewhere, because people of his own senior staff learned about the "Picard Manuver" at the academy.

    He was also promoted directly from Lt. Cmdr to Capt.

    Source: urce: Jean-Luc Picard aboard the Stargazer @ Memory

    Also remember that appearently Picard (Patric Steward) dosen't age at the same rate we do.

    I realize he had set backs, but I was just using him as an example compared to Kirk/Janeway's age at promotion.

    Because there were no positions for a Lt. or even Lt. Jr grade aboard voyager.

    You don't just promote people at random. There has to be an opening for a Lt. before anyone gets promoted to Lt.
    I am geussing that if Torres had died we would have seen a Chief engeneer Harry Kim.

    I assumed it was based on how they performed, and seeing as he was in a "senior" officer position I am sure they could of given him promotion during some point.
    Middlemore wrote:
    Don't know about Admiral, but Pike does state in the new Star Trek that it's possible to go from Ensign to Captain in about four years; so that would seem like a good average length of time for an outstanding officer to achieve command of their own ship, after graduating from the Academy.

    In b4 "JJverse doesn't count" etc.

    Yeah though the whole Cadet to Captain in a week thing was a bit far fetched you have to admit...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    MavrykDH wrote: »
    I realize he had set backs, but I was just using him as an example compared to Kirk/Janeway's age at promotion.

    Yes, but you have to even so take into consideration the age diffrence. He wasn't promoted to captain when he took command of the Enterprise, but when he took command of the Stargazer. So if he was say... 55 when he took command of Enterprise, he would be 33 when he was promoted to Captain of the Stargazer.

    Add up to that, the what... 1 year for the court martail that would make him 32 tops.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I understand that, but Katic said about when Kirk and Janeway made admiral, yet Picard was still Captain during his 50's (though I think he gave up a promotion at one point...)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    MavrykDH wrote: »
    I understand that, but Katic said about when Kirk and Janeway made admiral, yet Picard was still Captain during his 50's (though I think he gave up a promotion at one point...)

    Ohhh... that thing... Well you have to remember that Janeway did not only get her crew home against all odds from the delta quadrant, along with the fact that she made first contact with more captains than any other captain except for perhaps Jonathan Archer.

    Kirk on the other hand was from a time where they promoted people based on service age rather than skill and dedication.

    Picard... Well... There was that thing in the Briarpatch, that could possibly have kicked him back a few times. That along with the fact that Kirk told him not to let them promote him, may have provoked Picard to be just enough of an A** to not make starfleet think he would be well suited for a admiral position.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Katic wrote: »
    Generally, assuming one left for Starfleet Academy right after High School, and graduated as an ensign after only three years, a realistic estimation of one's progression up the ranks would be between 20 to thirty years.
    Since the US Navy was used as the basis for Starfleet, it's logical to use the real US military requirements as a basis for minimum time in service:

    O-2 __ Lieutenant (junior grade) __ 18 months
    O-3 __ Lieutenant __ 4 years
    O-4 __ Lieutenant Commander __ 10 years
    O-5 __ Commander __ 16 years
    O-6 __ Captain __ 22 years
    O-7 __ Rear Admiral (lower half) __ 25 years

    Let me say good job Katic. Your estimate 20-30 years fits perfectly with established Naval requirements.
    You have failed to take meritorious promotions into consideration, which can and will shorten that timeframe by up to a fourth. It is rare - though not unheard of, or even truly difficult - to be a ship Captain in fifteen years.

    That being said, the speed at which we're promoted in-game is extremely fast.

    According to Memory-Alpha.org, Kirk was the youngest Captain in Starfleet, was a Jr Lt in 2255 and didn't make Cpt until he took over the Enterprise. So we're looking at about 10-11 years from graduation to Captain., and he was considered to have a "meteoric" rise through the ranks.

    So if are characters are supposed to be doing crazy exploits on par with Kirk and Picard then it should be taking us 10 years to make Cpt ... say 12 years to Rear Admiral.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Sanford42 wrote:
    Yet another example of why I say that "level" and "rank" need to stay separate in this game.

    - Level up the same way we do, using a numerical scale (like pretty much every other MMO does).

    - Gain "ranks" the same way you gain accolades.

    And personally, I think the rank of Admiral should be reserved for Fleet Leaders and people who have surpassed some SERIOUS accolades (or for long-term Vets). There's just too d**mned many Admirals running around in this game.
    Why not split the middle between where we are now and what you propose.

    Let rank and level go hand-in-hand until you hit Captain. So levels 1-40 would be as they are now.

    At levels 41 and up you stay a Captain by default, but you can get Lower Rear Admiral (and up) by either accomplishing some tough accolades and / or paying out buku Reputation Points to "buck for promotion."
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Looking at this from my experience in the Navy , people are promoted when there are billets open in that rank and in that particular specialty. For example, one year in the Cryptologic Technician Technical (CTT) rate, they had openings for about 70 E-7's. The next year they only needed 15. So even though there were many CTT1's (E-6) ready for promotion, only 15 were promoted.

    I don't know how many ships Starfleet normally fields, but I am sure it is going to be in the thousands, especially when you consider there are many different classes of ships not normally available in games like STO (supply ships, ammunition ships, troop ships, amphibious ships (I am sure there are ships in Starfleet specifically designed to transport and land large numbers of troops on planets, moons, etc, with mass transporter beams or large shuttles when transporting is not an option). Then there are all the shore / Starbase billets to be considered.

    So yes, there are going to be a lot of command billets available. In wartime there will obviously be more billets available. Also, losses have to be replaced.

    In a game like this there has to be some kind of advancement, and the logical form of that is a promotion in rank. However, you end up with the situation STO has now; hundreds of Admirals filling billets normally held by Captains.

    I guess a solution for this in STO would be to grant Captains additional B/O slots, better equipment and ships without the promotion in rank. I am sure people would object to this, but they could make being an 'officer' in a fleet (i.e., a guild officer) a prerequisite for acquiring the rank of Admiral. The fleet officers would basically be the staff of the fleet commander (guild leader). That is pretty much the way it is today. You have a Fleet Commander, who has a staff. The fleet is divided into squadrons, each of which has a commander with a staff, and so forth.

    Just my 0.02 pieces of latinum
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    First, this is game nor RL.
    Second, ranking system is messed with ship command names.
    At beggining you are acting Captain but your rank is Leitenant.
    You became military ranked Commander, Captain, Admiral... but in ship command chain you are still ship Captain.

    Yes it could be done better, and there is many ideas for this... I like one - you became RALH - you get two small ship pets (frigates) you could use in PvE only (to not mess PvP balance), RAUH - 1 bigger and 2 small ones, VA1 - 2 bigger + 2 small or 3 bigger ones.
    And they are with you permanently until you go to PvP zones (for RP), you coud use your older ships for this, and if you want you could promote some of your BOs to captains and use their skills from those ships.

    Good dream, but will need major game mech change...
Sign In or Register to comment.