You realize you've just pretty much insulted every NCO that plays STO, right? But in the spirit of Xmas, I'm not gonna beef about it tonight. Especially in this silly TRIBBLE thread.
I'm not insulted. Being an NCO is rough: you're oftentimes more experienced than many of the officers you advise but get paid less, even with maxed scores you might not get promoted for years. Life as an NCO or SNCO is hard (though nothing is as rewarding as getting mission accomplishment on your watch).
I'm not insulted. Being an NCO is rough: you're oftentimes more experienced than many of the officers you advise but get paid less, even with maxed scores you might not get promoted for years. Life as an NCO or SNCO is hard (though nothing is as rewarding as getting mission accomplishment on your watch).
Well maybe I'm just feeling a bit grinchy. I've spent the entire month busting my hump to get our mission done for Xmas with a lot of other people, so I am touchy when someone says NCOs are a sub caste. (believe me, none of the officers could have possibly done it. )I apologize for being so grumpy.
NCO's are separated from CO's because of one thing and one thing only: tradition. And it's a bad one. Starfleet would be better off without it.
Just another relic from the time when all officers were nobles. Well, we no longer live in the shackles of feudalism, so why defend a class system where people should be equal?
Because thats not necessarily true today. I didn't grow up wih a silver spoon in my mouth and they offered me a chance to go to OCS long time ago. I preferred to stay enlisted because thats where the real work gets done. I've put officers in the military as a recruiter and they came from a broad range of "classes" if you want to call it like that.
I don't know what kind of seperation your talking about. Its not like enlisted personnel are flogged or put in the stockade at the whims of officers....while it is true that they couldn't function without the enlisted personnel. I don't particularly care for the title sub officer. Its just another way of saying Non Commissioned Officer.
Its late on Xmas Eve so I'm not going to go into the whole NCO corps thing right now...especially since that old chestnut of "its canon" can for once make sense, with O'Brien and all. (and I hate to invoke canon).
Well maybe I'm just feeling a bit grinchy. I've spent the entire month busting my hump to get our mission done for Xmas with a lot of other people, so I am touchy when someone says NCOs are a sub caste. (believe me, none of the officers could have possibly done it. )I apologize for being so grumpy.
No worries. He's not saying they are inherently a sub-caste, just that they are (for all intents) a sub-caste.
Remember that a college education for many people is something they're born into or their parents afford. Before enlisting, I had attended college but dropped out due to finances (I just couldn't get enough hours). Now that I'm a veteran, I'm using the GI Bill to leave the socioeconomic circumstances I grew up in. This is not a complaint though: I'm lucky with my discretionary time and budget, three meals a day, and a roof over head.
That's life: not pretty but it's enough to work with.
He's not saying they are inherently a sub-caste, just that they are (for all intents) a sub-caste.
Precisely. Apologies if I was ambigous. What I was trying to express was that I believe that NCO's aren't being treated as they should, if that makes it sound better.
Consider the differences between NCO's and CO's - how both careers came to be, how one can enter them, and how their responsibilities and duties differ (or are identical) - then see if that would still make sense in the Federation we know from the shows. When it comes down to the basics, the lines between NCO's and officers are so blurred that I simply do not see how this separation could continue to exist in the Starfleet Gene envisioned.
Soldiers are already separated by rank, so (not counting the esprit du corps and sense of tradition) why keep an artificial second barrier between commanders? Like I said, I always thought that to be part of Star Trek's utopian vision.
I'm sorry if I have offended someone with that statement, as that was not my intention. Maybe our viewpoints are simply too different - again.
Starfleet officers generally have academy education, which is how many real-life US military commissioned officers get commissions. The underlying theme seems to be that the Federation is a society based on post-scarcity economics and everyone can achieve their full potential because of it. Egalitarianism is a major theme in Star Trek, so the fact that there was no longer a division between CO and NCO was a big part of that.
However, I don't think rank names are really what STO's devs need to worry about. A part of the problem with the game is that the content is essentially the same from level 1 to cap. You kill ten rats. You beam down to a planet and kill ten rats. You beam back up and kill ten more rats. Virtually every mission in the game is like that, no matter what kind of mission it's classified as.
STO has a lot of eye candy. It looks like Star Trek, but the feel isn't there. The storyline quests don't necessarily feel very much like the Star Trek I grew up with (TNG and DS9 as a child, VOY as a teenager). That is to say that,. for me, the story isn't there.
If the devs focused on not making every sector patrol 6 instances of "Kill 5 ships. Scan 5 objects. Kill 5 more ships. Scan 5 more objects", there would be no problem with making some higher ranks require more skill points than they do.
Give players things to do that aren't monotonous and you'll be surprised at how much they play.
I think DS9 was right to add NCOs. As an ex-officer in the military we learned you could not effectively control more than 5 people. I leaned on my Plt Sgt and squad leaders to disseminate the orders and carry them out. Same as when I was a company commander. I had had my 1st sgt and plt leaders. Sure I was ultimately in command of the whole company and so up the line. Some people don't want to go to the academy like Chief O'Brian said. Instead they specialize in one thing and get good at it. Technically the officers are bosses and not doers. The doing falls to enlisted, NCOs, and warrents while the officers brown-nose the commander.
I think DS9 was right to add NCOs. As an ex-officer in the military we learned you could not effectively control more than 5 people. I leaned on my Plt Sgt and squad leaders to disseminate the orders and carry them out. Same as when I was a company commander. I had had my 1st sgt and plt leaders. Sure I was ultimately in command of the whole company and so up the line. Some people don't want to go to the academy like Chief O'Brian said. Instead they specialize in one thing and get good at it. Technically the officers are bosses and not doers. The doing falls to enlisted, NCOs, and warrents while the officers brown-nose the commander.
This.
Enlisted and Warrant Officers generally represent technical knowledge while officers administrate (as do a select few SNCO billets, like the different emphases between Master Gunnery Sergeant vs. Sergeant Major). Adding those NCOs definitely brought a different perspective to DS(.
For example, when Sisko chews out O'Brien in one of the early episodes for getting in a fight. It reminded me a lot of my experiences in the military.
As an ex-officer in the military we learned you could not effectively control more than 5 people. I leaned on my Plt Sgt and squad leaders to disseminate the orders and carry them out.
Absolutely! But why do you need an artificial difference between squad-level and company-level leaders? You could just as well restructure the hierarchy to use Ensigns (or perhaps, at the lowest level, senior crewmen) to do the job of today's NCO's.
The sheer existence of the "gap" between NCO's and CO's is solely due to the feudal background of modern military structure, back when only aristocrats were allowed to become officers, yet the noble class knew they could not rely solely on their often very inexperienced kin. So they invented the NCO "caste" to promote skilled enlisted men into leadership positions without having to grant them the same privileges reserved for the upper class.
It even says so in the term itself. Non-Commissioned Officers = officers, just without a commission. It's even more obvious in other nations where the ranks have names such as "Unteroffizier" (sub-officer) in the German Armed Forces, for example.
Like I said, this vestige of class division seems counter to the idea of egality and equality, so I don't see why it should continue to exist in the Federation. The only reason why it continues to exist today is pride and tradition - and possibly an unwillingness to pay higher salaries due to the economy and a tight budget.
As for O'Brien: He wore Ensign and Lieutenant rank pips throughout TNG. He was first Tactical Officer aboard the USS Rutledge, which doesn't sound like an NCO position. Him being "busted back" to SCPO in DS9 was completely inexplicable with in-universe reasons and could only be explained by someone in the writing staff thinking that Star Trek and this show needs an NCO in the cast, for whatever reason.
I suspect this was part of the "militarization" that Starfleet experienced throughout DS9, skipping its original design to turn it into a sci-fi copy of today's armed forces with the ultimate purpose of showing a big war with many explosions and thus hopefully catch more viewers.
I don't really blame DS9 for that (as much as they've "borrowed" from B5). The Dominion War was pretty cool and had lots of brilliant episodes (In A Pale Moonlight is one of my all-time favorites), but the redesign was (imho) unnecessary and keeps being a major divisor between Trek fans when it comes to determining Starfleet's mission and organization. Just look at the "families on board" and the "Starfleet = military?" discussion we had recently.
As for O'Brien: He wore Ensign and Lieutenant rank pips throughout TNG. He was first Tactical Officer aboard the USS Rutledge, which doesn't sound like an NCO position. Him being "busted back" to SCPO in DS9 was completely inexplicable with in-universe reasons and could only be explained by someone in the writing staff thinking that Star Trek and this show needs an NCO in the cast, for whatever reason.
I suspect this was part of the "militarization" that Starfleet experienced throughout DS9, skipping its original design to turn it into a sci-fi copy of today's armed forces with the ultimate purpose of showing a big war with many explosions and thus hopefully catch more viewers.
NCOs can occupy billets that you might associate with officers. For example, on MSG duty, my Gunnery Sergeant was Detachment Commander (unit commanders are almost always commissioned officers). As an NCO, I've had responsibilities of SNCO (like Radio Section Head or doing C&C and literally teaching reserve SNCOs operations on satellite comms).
The economic class structure does butt a lot of heads with Trek's egalitarian structure (where merit is alleged to have precedence over social standing) but I think that enlisted positions have a place for those that might be more focused on the technical aspect of the mission. Highly specialized labor. Is it right to have the boots on the ground and the specialized laborers paid less than administrative side? That's probably a whole different discussion but in Star Trek, it seems like the division between an Officer and an Enlisted is more based on job focus. Trek appears to have a more permeable line between classes, something that our society still struggles with in some ways.
NCOs can occupy billets that you might associate with officers.
Aye, I've even heard of some program where NCO's can become officers and after two years can transfer back to NCO status or remain with their new rank (didn't investigate that further though, it was just a comment I've read). However, it also directly contradicts Picard's statement in TNG that "only commissioned officers" are allowed on the bridge, and the sheer fact that O'Brien did wear officer insignia.
I think it's also possible someone from DS9's writing staff simply didn't get the difference between a position like "Chief Science Officer" and a rank like Chief Petty Officer, so that O'Brien's role as Transporter Chief caused them to cast him as an NCO this time.
Mere speculation, of course, but given how he was always addressed in TNG the confusion might be explained.
but I think that enlisted positions have a place for those that might be more focused on the technical aspect of the mission. Highly specialized labor.
There's a truth to that, but given how many versatile skills the crew in the shows had... The progression in knowledge, experience and education seems pretty straightforward - the higher the rank, the more stuff you know. At least when it comes to Engineering.
Maybe this was the thought behind the different divisions within Starfleet? You have Command for management (what modern day officers do) and Operations for the practical stuff (what modern day NCOs do). However, in the utopian Starfleet, both Command and Operations division members have the very same privileges and can achieve equal ranks, with Ops people simply transferring to Cmmd when they get their own ship (see Captain LaForge or Commander Worf).
Or, to put it in perspective:
Today = rank is defined more by theoretical knowledge than practical experience (junior officers superior to senior NCOs)
Star Trek = rank is defined solely by practical experience, your theoretical knowledge determines your division posting
But isn't there more to getting into the Academy then just applying? I seem to recall Picard or someone in The Next Generation saying that a sponsor of some kind was required. I know that when Nog decided he wanted to attend the Academy, it wasn't going to happen without Sisko's recommendation. Wesley Crusher's father was an officer, mother was an officer plus he had the recommendation of one of the most respected Captains in the fleet. Not everyone who wanted to attend the academy would have access to those types of assets.
I know that when Nog decided he wanted to attend the Academy, it wasn't going to happen without Sisko's recommendation.
Aye, that was because the Ferengi weren't members of the Federation, so Nog was essentially a non-citizen trying to apply for the service. Other than that I only know that you've got to pass a test in order to enroll in the Academy.
That said, the workings of Starfleet are a very grey area with lots of speculation and few canon facts - the writers didn't really think everything through, imo.
They know lots of players are unhappy with the rank structure and they don't care. They said they were not going to change it. It's a problem that will never go away either.
The OP has said what has been discussed by many of us a thousand times over.
(and yes I of course agree with him.)
Fleet Admiral
Admiral
Vice Admiral
Rear Admiral
Commodore
Captain
Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant
Lieutenant junior grade
Ensign
Cadet
(
It's not that hard Cryptic! Hopefully one of these days posts like the OP's will get you back in gear. Just re-name the current ones and let's keep going on up.)
Anywas, as a RL Chief Warrant Officer (Army) myself, I find it frustrating when civilians call anyone who's enlisted 'enlisted officers'. It's even more frustrating when non-US miliary members automatically think of us as some type of sub-class in the military.
I blame the old British system for that, as they still have crappy Enlisted ranks; and the old aristocrats/nobility of the past were generally officers automatically or having had purchsed the rank. For some reason 'leadership' is never fully realised to the general population, that is instilled in the Enlisted corps.
Just because a senior NCO doesn't command a ship, doesn't make him/her any less valuable or worse off then a senior Officer. *sigh* Sorry, I'm venting, but I do get very passionate about mis-conceptions people have with Enlisted affairs.
But I won't re-hash the better points my fellows have made here. I started as an E-3 in the Air Force and once I made E-5 I transfered to the Army to attend Warrant Officer school. Best decision I ever made. (Although the Air Force will always have the better bases!) I get the pay of an junior officer with more responsibilty then most 'butter bars' (Second Lieutenant/O-1) ever have. When my Company CO a Colonel (O-6) wants something technical done, he comes directly to me. That's right, he doesn't get a Captain(O-3) to do it, or even get them to ask me, he comes himself, and I work for him directly. More importantly...I use the best resources I have for the tasks...our enlisted personel. Once I have my plan of action, our Senior NCO's know how to implement it, and our enlisted help get it done.
Just remember the basics between Officers and Enlisted: Officers are Generalists, Enlisted are Specialists.
I've met some Master Sergeants with a doctorate in a field of study, who make senior officers shrug helplessly as they attempt to explain something to them. A Commission doesn't always make a better person.
Now what's this have to do with Star Trek? Well, I just wish there was a way to get enlisted affairs into the game, which could have only been done had we all been crewing a starship together, and not this 'everyone's a captain' non-sense.
But I can just hope that the game will expand a bit more with out crews. I'd like to be able to promote more then just my bridge officers after all. I want to know what percentage of my crew is in what department for instance? It's a good thing the Captains in this game don't have to do the 'paperwork'/administration that comes with the job, or else 75% of the playerbase would never be one I'd guess? There's heaps more to it then saying 'Engage' and 'Fire all weapons.'
Right, I'm off tanget again! I think making the ranks full and adding more things to learn with each promotion might help people appreciate that with rank comes responsibility, and not just rewards.
They know lots of players are unhappy with the rank structure and they don't care. They said they were not going to change it. It's a problem that will never go away either.
They know lots of players are quite happy & content with the rank structure.
Although I appreciate the OP's efforts (nice colours too) this is a discussion we were having 13 months ago & it was a 'hot topic' that lasted months. The Cryptic Dev's even contributed if I recall.
As for Commodore I'm firmly in the 'No' camp. If I recall Fleet Captain & Commodore are quite similar in function & each controlled a 'Fleet', certainly more than one ship. So it would be out of place in STO unless we get to command a Fleet (our BO's getting promoted to command their own ships & form a Fleet with the player characters).
I have no objection to it being used as a 'Fleet/Guild' title though, when 'Fleet/Guilds' do 'Fleet/Guild' Activities, just not as a 'Rank'.
As for Commodore I'm firmly in the 'No' camp. If I recall Fleet Captain & Commodore are quite similar in function & each controlled a 'Fleet', certainly more than one ship. So it would be out of place in STO unless we get to command a Fleet (our BO's getting promoted to command their own ships & form a Fleet with the player characters).
Actually, there have been Commodores in TOS who only commanded a single ship, or a starbase. In the real world, too, Commodore originated as a title for squadron commanders, but when it became a rank of its own (situated between Captain and Rear Admiral) it was of course applied more generally.
Besides, why would that be so much worse than all these Admirals in STO with nothing more than a single ship as well?
I very much agree about the idea of promoting our own BOs to Captains with ships of their own, though.
Actually, there have been Commodores in TOS who only commanded a single ship, or a starbase. In the real world, too, Commodore originated as a title for squadron commanders, but when it became a rank of its own (situated between Captain and Rear Admiral) it was of course applied more generally.
Besides, why would that be so much worse than all these Admirals in STO with nothing more than a single ship as well?
I very much agree about the idea of promoting our own BOs to Captains with ships of their own, though.
that's very true althrough we don't need too much Admirals but alot of Captains would be much better
Just to finally stop the moaning, I'd make LT 1-5 LTJG and Capt. 6-10 commodore, Essentially changing nothing and being able to say you got what you wanted.:D:D
Just to finally stop the moaning, I'd make LT 1-5 LTJG and Capt. 6-10 commodore, Essentially changing nothing and being able to say you got what you wanted.:D:D
Go for it devs, it's a freebie.
NO it's not us that's moaning. you're moaning for that suggestion you just posted.
Honestly, Ensign, Lieutenant JG and Commodore should be full 10-part ranks, which would mean extending Rear Admiral to 10 as well. I don't see that as a problem at all. Would give a chance to add more story to the game. My only real fear if that ever happened is that it'd just be some batch of junk thrown together, like certain parts of another game Cryptic used to work on a few years ago...
It's been stated about 40 sextillion times (yes I went that high of a number) that the rank system isn't changing.
However, just to throw my two cents in, I'm one of those in the no camp for commodore. It uses US Naval ranking structure (it's star trek it's been this way since TOS) and this will never change, and for the most part it was phased out to use RALH. Commodore is a title not a rank from 1983 on.
However, just to throw my two cents in, I'm one of those in the no camp for commodore. It uses US Naval ranking structure (it's star trek it's been this way since TOS) and this will never change, and for the most part it was phased out to use RALH. Commodore is a title not a rank from 1983 on.
Actually, Starfleet is not the US Navy - Commodore as a rank was used in TOS, TMP and ENT. The thought that, in the future, Starfleet would retroactively switch to update its rank structure to reflect a change made centuries ago in an entirely different military body is mind-boggling.
The absence of NCOs in everything except one character in DS9 (who used to be an officer in the previous series) is also quite notable, especially concerning Picard's comment in "Encounter at Farpoint" that there are only commissioned officers. I agree that real life naval ranks served as an inspiration for Trek, but to irrevocably chain Starfleet hierarchy to something that doesn't even exist anymore at that time is nonsense.
What are you going to do when the USN suddenly decides to rename Vice Admiral into Lieutenant Admiral? By your logic this would mean Starfleet would have to adopt again, yes?
Honestly, Ensign, Lieutenant JG and Commodore should be full 10-part ranks, which would mean extending Rear Admiral to 10 as well. I don't see that as a problem at all. Would give a chance to add more story to the game. My only real fear if that ever happened is that it'd just be some batch of junk thrown together, like certain parts of another game Cryptic used to work on a few years ago...
Rear Admiral is a ten part rank, unless you're separating upper and lower.
Actually, Starfleet is not the US Navy - Commodore as a rank was used in TOS, TMP and ENT. The thought that, in the future, Starfleet would retroactively switch to update its rank structure to reflect a change made centuries ago in an entirely different military body is mind-boggling.
The absence of NCOs in everything except one character in DS9 (who used to be an officer in the previous series) is also quite notable, especially concerning Picard's comment in "Encounter at Farpoint" that there are only commissioned officers. I agree that real life naval ranks served as an inspiration for Trek, but to irrevocably chain Starfleet hierarchy to something that doesn't even exist anymore at that time is nonsense.
What are you going to do when the USN suddenly decides to rename Vice Admiral into Lieutenant Admiral? By your logic this would mean Starfleet would have to adopt again, yes?
i agree with Valias. here was Commodore in TOS, i have remastered Dvd series of TOS lol
Actually, Starfleet is not the US Navy - Commodore as a rank was used in TOS, TMP and ENT. The thought that, in the future, Starfleet would retroactively switch to update its rank structure to reflect a change made centuries ago in an entirely different military body is mind-boggling.
Commodore was a real rank until 1983. It was used in ToS because that's what the rank was called then IRL. I don't remember it being used in TMP, but since that was in 1979, when Commodore was still in use, it makes sense. It would have been used in Enterprise because it was canon in ToS and prior.
From TNG forward they simply haven't used the rank Commodore. They've never said on screen that it no longer exists, they just haven't used it.
The absence of NCOs in everything except one character in DS9 (who used to be an officer in the previous series) is also quite notable, especially concerning Picard's comment in "Encounter at Farpoint" that there are only commissioned officers. I agree that real life naval ranks served as an inspiration for Trek, but to irrevocably chain Starfleet hierarchy to something that doesn't even exist anymore at that time is nonsense.
Picard saying that is just one more example of the horrible time the Star Trek IP has had with continuity, or canon as it's called by trekkies. People have been called crewman and chief even back in ToS. These would be enlisted ranks, not officers. Starfleet personnel have been called this in every series. Anyone remember Crewman Simon Tarses from "The Drumhead"? Picard specifically asks him why he enlisted instead of going to the academy (to become an officer).
Star Trek is about what the movers and shakers do. In a naval setting that means that you focus on the officers.
Rear Admiral is a ten part rank, unless you're separating upper and lower.
No it really isn't.
IRL Captain is O-6, Rear Admiral (lower half) is O-7 and Rear Admiral (upper half) is O-8. All full, complete and separate ranks.
But in STO Captain is one rank with 10 grades, while Rear Admiral is one rank with 10 grades. Lower Half = 1-5 and Upper Half = 6-10.
But whatever. The rank system in STO has far, far more problems than that minor bit. I'd go into it, but it's been beat to death already and isn't going to change.
It is really too bad you spent all that time cutting and pasting. Cryptic has already said they are not changing the rank system. Nothing you say or any argument you present is going to change that. Picking your battles is a good thing. You should have chosen one you might have had a chance at actually winning.
Comments
I'm not insulted. Being an NCO is rough: you're oftentimes more experienced than many of the officers you advise but get paid less, even with maxed scores you might not get promoted for years. Life as an NCO or SNCO is hard (though nothing is as rewarding as getting mission accomplishment on your watch).
Well maybe I'm just feeling a bit grinchy. I've spent the entire month busting my hump to get our mission done for Xmas with a lot of other people, so I am touchy when someone says NCOs are a sub caste. (believe me, none of the officers could have possibly done it. )I apologize for being so grumpy.
Because thats not necessarily true today. I didn't grow up wih a silver spoon in my mouth and they offered me a chance to go to OCS long time ago. I preferred to stay enlisted because thats where the real work gets done. I've put officers in the military as a recruiter and they came from a broad range of "classes" if you want to call it like that.
I don't know what kind of seperation your talking about. Its not like enlisted personnel are flogged or put in the stockade at the whims of officers....while it is true that they couldn't function without the enlisted personnel. I don't particularly care for the title sub officer. Its just another way of saying Non Commissioned Officer.
Its late on Xmas Eve so I'm not going to go into the whole NCO corps thing right now...especially since that old chestnut of "its canon" can for once make sense, with O'Brien and all. (and I hate to invoke canon).
No worries. He's not saying they are inherently a sub-caste, just that they are (for all intents) a sub-caste.
Remember that a college education for many people is something they're born into or their parents afford. Before enlisting, I had attended college but dropped out due to finances (I just couldn't get enough hours). Now that I'm a veteran, I'm using the GI Bill to leave the socioeconomic circumstances I grew up in. This is not a complaint though: I'm lucky with my discretionary time and budget, three meals a day, and a roof over head.
That's life: not pretty but it's enough to work with.
Consider the differences between NCO's and CO's - how both careers came to be, how one can enter them, and how their responsibilities and duties differ (or are identical) - then see if that would still make sense in the Federation we know from the shows. When it comes down to the basics, the lines between NCO's and officers are so blurred that I simply do not see how this separation could continue to exist in the Starfleet Gene envisioned.
Soldiers are already separated by rank, so (not counting the esprit du corps and sense of tradition) why keep an artificial second barrier between commanders? Like I said, I always thought that to be part of Star Trek's utopian vision.
I'm sorry if I have offended someone with that statement, as that was not my intention. Maybe our viewpoints are simply too different - again.
However, I don't think rank names are really what STO's devs need to worry about. A part of the problem with the game is that the content is essentially the same from level 1 to cap. You kill ten rats. You beam down to a planet and kill ten rats. You beam back up and kill ten more rats. Virtually every mission in the game is like that, no matter what kind of mission it's classified as.
STO has a lot of eye candy. It looks like Star Trek, but the feel isn't there. The storyline quests don't necessarily feel very much like the Star Trek I grew up with (TNG and DS9 as a child, VOY as a teenager). That is to say that,. for me, the story isn't there.
If the devs focused on not making every sector patrol 6 instances of "Kill 5 ships. Scan 5 objects. Kill 5 more ships. Scan 5 more objects", there would be no problem with making some higher ranks require more skill points than they do.
Give players things to do that aren't monotonous and you'll be surprised at how much they play.
Just stick with the Level Number, and give Ranks out as Accolades! And not easy accolades. Admiral Ranks should actually be earned hard.
As for the Fleet Admiral, this rank should be restricted to Fleet-Founders only!
Enlisted and Warrant Officers generally represent technical knowledge while officers administrate (as do a select few SNCO billets, like the different emphases between Master Gunnery Sergeant vs. Sergeant Major). Adding those NCOs definitely brought a different perspective to DS(.
For example, when Sisko chews out O'Brien in one of the early episodes for getting in a fight. It reminded me a lot of my experiences in the military.
The sheer existence of the "gap" between NCO's and CO's is solely due to the feudal background of modern military structure, back when only aristocrats were allowed to become officers, yet the noble class knew they could not rely solely on their often very inexperienced kin. So they invented the NCO "caste" to promote skilled enlisted men into leadership positions without having to grant them the same privileges reserved for the upper class.
It even says so in the term itself. Non-Commissioned Officers = officers, just without a commission. It's even more obvious in other nations where the ranks have names such as "Unteroffizier" (sub-officer) in the German Armed Forces, for example.
Like I said, this vestige of class division seems counter to the idea of egality and equality, so I don't see why it should continue to exist in the Federation. The only reason why it continues to exist today is pride and tradition - and possibly an unwillingness to pay higher salaries due to the economy and a tight budget.
As for O'Brien: He wore Ensign and Lieutenant rank pips throughout TNG. He was first Tactical Officer aboard the USS Rutledge, which doesn't sound like an NCO position. Him being "busted back" to SCPO in DS9 was completely inexplicable with in-universe reasons and could only be explained by someone in the writing staff thinking that Star Trek and this show needs an NCO in the cast, for whatever reason.
I suspect this was part of the "militarization" that Starfleet experienced throughout DS9, skipping its original design to turn it into a sci-fi copy of today's armed forces with the ultimate purpose of showing a big war with many explosions and thus hopefully catch more viewers.
I don't really blame DS9 for that (as much as they've "borrowed" from B5). The Dominion War was pretty cool and had lots of brilliant episodes (In A Pale Moonlight is one of my all-time favorites), but the redesign was (imho) unnecessary and keeps being a major divisor between Trek fans when it comes to determining Starfleet's mission and organization. Just look at the "families on board" and the "Starfleet = military?" discussion we had recently.
The economic class structure does butt a lot of heads with Trek's egalitarian structure (where merit is alleged to have precedence over social standing) but I think that enlisted positions have a place for those that might be more focused on the technical aspect of the mission. Highly specialized labor. Is it right to have the boots on the ground and the specialized laborers paid less than administrative side? That's probably a whole different discussion but in Star Trek, it seems like the division between an Officer and an Enlisted is more based on job focus. Trek appears to have a more permeable line between classes, something that our society still struggles with in some ways.
I think it's also possible someone from DS9's writing staff simply didn't get the difference between a position like "Chief Science Officer" and a rank like Chief Petty Officer, so that O'Brien's role as Transporter Chief caused them to cast him as an NCO this time.
Mere speculation, of course, but given how he was always addressed in TNG the confusion might be explained.
There's a truth to that, but given how many versatile skills the crew in the shows had... The progression in knowledge, experience and education seems pretty straightforward - the higher the rank, the more stuff you know. At least when it comes to Engineering.
Maybe this was the thought behind the different divisions within Starfleet? You have Command for management (what modern day officers do) and Operations for the practical stuff (what modern day NCOs do). However, in the utopian Starfleet, both Command and Operations division members have the very same privileges and can achieve equal ranks, with Ops people simply transferring to Cmmd when they get their own ship (see Captain LaForge or Commander Worf).
Or, to put it in perspective:
Today = rank is defined more by theoretical knowledge than practical experience (junior officers superior to senior NCOs)
Star Trek = rank is defined solely by practical experience, your theoretical knowledge determines your division posting
That said, the workings of Starfleet are a very grey area with lots of speculation and few canon facts - the writers didn't really think everything through, imo.
What exactly was the point behind copying and pasting all of that information that we already know into a thread again?
What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to suggest that something about player ranks be changed in game?
(and yes I of course agree with him.)
Fleet Admiral
Admiral
Vice Admiral
Rear Admiral
Commodore
Captain
Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant
Lieutenant junior grade
Ensign
Cadet
(
It's not that hard Cryptic! Hopefully one of these days posts like the OP's will get you back in gear. Just re-name the current ones and let's keep going on up.)
Anywas, as a RL Chief Warrant Officer (Army) myself, I find it frustrating when civilians call anyone who's enlisted 'enlisted officers'. It's even more frustrating when non-US miliary members automatically think of us as some type of sub-class in the military.
I blame the old British system for that, as they still have crappy Enlisted ranks; and the old aristocrats/nobility of the past were generally officers automatically or having had purchsed the rank. For some reason 'leadership' is never fully realised to the general population, that is instilled in the Enlisted corps.
Just because a senior NCO doesn't command a ship, doesn't make him/her any less valuable or worse off then a senior Officer. *sigh* Sorry, I'm venting, but I do get very passionate about mis-conceptions people have with Enlisted affairs.
But I won't re-hash the better points my fellows have made here. I started as an E-3 in the Air Force and once I made E-5 I transfered to the Army to attend Warrant Officer school. Best decision I ever made. (Although the Air Force will always have the better bases!) I get the pay of an junior officer with more responsibilty then most 'butter bars' (Second Lieutenant/O-1) ever have. When my Company CO a Colonel (O-6) wants something technical done, he comes directly to me. That's right, he doesn't get a Captain(O-3) to do it, or even get them to ask me, he comes himself, and I work for him directly. More importantly...I use the best resources I have for the tasks...our enlisted personel. Once I have my plan of action, our Senior NCO's know how to implement it, and our enlisted help get it done.
Just remember the basics between Officers and Enlisted: Officers are Generalists, Enlisted are Specialists.
I've met some Master Sergeants with a doctorate in a field of study, who make senior officers shrug helplessly as they attempt to explain something to them. A Commission doesn't always make a better person.
Now what's this have to do with Star Trek? Well, I just wish there was a way to get enlisted affairs into the game, which could have only been done had we all been crewing a starship together, and not this 'everyone's a captain' non-sense.
But I can just hope that the game will expand a bit more with out crews. I'd like to be able to promote more then just my bridge officers after all. I want to know what percentage of my crew is in what department for instance? It's a good thing the Captains in this game don't have to do the 'paperwork'/administration that comes with the job, or else 75% of the playerbase would never be one I'd guess? There's heaps more to it then saying 'Engage' and 'Fire all weapons.'
Right, I'm off tanget again! I think making the ranks full and adding more things to learn with each promotion might help people appreciate that with rank comes responsibility, and not just rewards.
They know lots of players are quite happy & content with the rank structure.
Although I appreciate the OP's efforts (nice colours too) this is a discussion we were having 13 months ago & it was a 'hot topic' that lasted months. The Cryptic Dev's even contributed if I recall.
As for Commodore I'm firmly in the 'No' camp. If I recall Fleet Captain & Commodore are quite similar in function & each controlled a 'Fleet', certainly more than one ship. So it would be out of place in STO unless we get to command a Fleet (our BO's getting promoted to command their own ships & form a Fleet with the player characters).
I have no objection to it being used as a 'Fleet/Guild' title though, when 'Fleet/Guilds' do 'Fleet/Guild' Activities, just not as a 'Rank'.
Besides, why would that be so much worse than all these Admirals in STO with nothing more than a single ship as well?
I very much agree about the idea of promoting our own BOs to Captains with ships of their own, though.
that's very true althrough we don't need too much Admirals but alot of Captains would be much better
Go for it devs, it's a freebie.
NO it's not us that's moaning. you're moaning for that suggestion you just posted.
It's been stated about 40 sextillion times (yes I went that high of a number) that the rank system isn't changing.
However, just to throw my two cents in, I'm one of those in the no camp for commodore. It uses US Naval ranking structure (it's star trek it's been this way since TOS) and this will never change, and for the most part it was phased out to use RALH. Commodore is a title not a rank from 1983 on.
The absence of NCOs in everything except one character in DS9 (who used to be an officer in the previous series) is also quite notable, especially concerning Picard's comment in "Encounter at Farpoint" that there are only commissioned officers. I agree that real life naval ranks served as an inspiration for Trek, but to irrevocably chain Starfleet hierarchy to something that doesn't even exist anymore at that time is nonsense.
What are you going to do when the USN suddenly decides to rename Vice Admiral into Lieutenant Admiral? By your logic this would mean Starfleet would have to adopt again, yes?
Rear Admiral is a ten part rank, unless you're separating upper and lower.
Well said...
:eek: OP was it really necessary to post all that TRIBBLE thru copy/paste ?
Ranks are fine as is, if they bother you pretend they are as YOU want them.:rolleyes:
i agree with Valias. here was Commodore in TOS, i have remastered Dvd series of TOS lol
From TNG forward they simply haven't used the rank Commodore. They've never said on screen that it no longer exists, they just haven't used it.
Picard saying that is just one more example of the horrible time the Star Trek IP has had with continuity, or canon as it's called by trekkies. People have been called crewman and chief even back in ToS. These would be enlisted ranks, not officers. Starfleet personnel have been called this in every series. Anyone remember Crewman Simon Tarses from "The Drumhead"? Picard specifically asks him why he enlisted instead of going to the academy (to become an officer).
Star Trek is about what the movers and shakers do. In a naval setting that means that you focus on the officers.
No it really isn't.
IRL Captain is O-6, Rear Admiral (lower half) is O-7 and Rear Admiral (upper half) is O-8. All full, complete and separate ranks.
But in STO Captain is one rank with 10 grades, while Rear Admiral is one rank with 10 grades. Lower Half = 1-5 and Upper Half = 6-10.
But whatever. The rank system in STO has far, far more problems than that minor bit. I'd go into it, but it's been beat to death already and isn't going to change.
It is really too bad you spent all that time cutting and pasting. Cryptic has already said they are not changing the rank system. Nothing you say or any argument you present is going to change that. Picking your battles is a good thing. You should have chosen one you might have had a chance at actually winning.