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.
they're already going to add FA = Fleet Admiral as Number 10
No...don't think we missed your point. Your point was that you think the rank structures are wrong and then bombarded us with pages of copy-and-pasted wiki material.
Think maybe you missed ours (or at least mine) thou.
My point was this has already been talked about. A lot. And the devs have already informed us of their opinion on the subject. So why are we still talking about it when we could be discussing something that hasn't been discussed to death 9 million times?
No...don't think we missed your point. Your point was that you think the rank structures are wrong and then bombarded us with pages of copy-and-pasted wiki material.
Think maybe you missed ours (or at least mine) thou.
My point was this has already been talked about. A lot. And the devs have already informed us of their opinion on the subject. So why are we still talking about it when we could be discussing something that hasn't been discussed to death 9 million times?
My Point was FA, Devs has said at least here will be More Ranks coming soon somewhere in Season 7 or 10, but we're not sure at least.
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.
Right. So why would it have to be un-canon post TMP? This is what I don't get. We know it existed, but where's the logic in an organization switching because of a change made centuries earlier in a different organization? If this would really be the case it's just poor continuity.
It kinda is like with the USSR still existing in Trek. Was that ever retconned? Not that I know of.
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).
Crewmen, yes. I maintain that "chief" meant stuff like "chief engineer", "chief medical officer" and "transporter chief" etc.
Just look at the rank pins O'Brien was wearing in TNG - Ensign first, Lieutenant later. Him being "busted back" to CPO, that is poor continuity, as this was likely done only because someone couldn't get the difference between "transporter chief" and "chief petty officer" - two things that use the same abbreviation when addressed by other people. Or it was done to make DS9 look more gritty and "realistic" in comparison with the modern world instead of a proper sci-fi setting where things actually can be different (*gasp*). But I've already expressed my opinion on why I think that NCOs wouldn't exist in the Federation anymore on page 3.
We didn't even see NCO rank insignia before DS9 - and the ones they came up with for the series (well, the one piece that we've seen) was just horrible. Rank pins are meant to signify a person's rank, so why are the symbols on it so damn tiny and complicated? Imagine everyone having to bend forward and pull the poor guy's neck before talking to him just because you can't identify his rank unless you scrutinize his insignia from a distance of no more than 5 cm. :rolleyes:
It used to be soo easy back in the days. No pin = cadet or crewman, one pin = Ensign, etc.
For the last two weeks the forums have been nothing but the dredging up and rehashing of pointless arguments from 7 months ago.
Unfortunately all forums go through this. It's an inherent flaw in the design.
There are a number of various forums that I've been on for 4 years or more. Without exception, those forums that do not maintain a sticky with an organized list of information, often see new people join the forums and start repeating the same ideas that have already been rehashed a million times.
Why? Because people are stupid? No! Well ok yes, but that's a different subject.
They haven't been on the forums for years so they don't know that all of these arguments have already happened a million times. If your forum maintains a sticky with an organized list (with links to the discussions) of all of the done-to-death-topics then simply say hello to the new people and immediately give them the link to the "Old Subject List" thread. Otherwise your forum is going to have constant new threads by new people about the same old topics.
Also, MMO forums are different than most other forums. People keep bringing up the same subject because they still want the same thing in game added/changed/nerfed. So they keep bringing it up in the official forums over and over again, hoping that maybe this time the devs will finally have an answer they like.
Ah, I don't think this should be seen as a flaw (or rather, doing so sounds needlessly pessimistic). You have new people join in the discussion, or old people finding new arguments they feel are worth debating. As long as things remain civil I do not see any harm in discussing topics that have been discussed before. Even if the debate comes to a dead end again and it boils down to opinions or preferences you can at least be assured that you've made your point instead of living with a potential misunderstanding or outright error.
Really, I've seen way less constructive threads on this forum.
This is an old point, and a legit one. This system is a joke.
We should be spending the majority of our time at LTCDR then CAPT. Admiral shouldn't even be in the picture at this point, since we cannot command multiple ships at one time. If we had ships as pets, give us the RA, LH option. I've got a ton of ships just sitting in the hangars doing nothing.
Comments
I'm ready for new, fresh, original pointless arguments.
guys, you missed the point.
they're already going to add FA = Fleet Admiral as Number 10
No...don't think we missed your point. Your point was that you think the rank structures are wrong and then bombarded us with pages of copy-and-pasted wiki material.
Think maybe you missed ours (or at least mine) thou.
My point was this has already been talked about. A lot. And the devs have already informed us of their opinion on the subject. So why are we still talking about it when we could be discussing something that hasn't been discussed to death 9 million times?
My Point was FA, Devs has said at least here will be More Ranks coming soon somewhere in Season 7 or 10, but we're not sure at least.
Right. So why would it have to be un-canon post TMP? This is what I don't get. We know it existed, but where's the logic in an organization switching because of a change made centuries earlier in a different organization? If this would really be the case it's just poor continuity.
It kinda is like with the USSR still existing in Trek. Was that ever retconned? Not that I know of.
Crewmen, yes. I maintain that "chief" meant stuff like "chief engineer", "chief medical officer" and "transporter chief" etc.
Just look at the rank pins O'Brien was wearing in TNG - Ensign first, Lieutenant later. Him being "busted back" to CPO, that is poor continuity, as this was likely done only because someone couldn't get the difference between "transporter chief" and "chief petty officer" - two things that use the same abbreviation when addressed by other people. Or it was done to make DS9 look more gritty and "realistic" in comparison with the modern world instead of a proper sci-fi setting where things actually can be different (*gasp*). But I've already expressed my opinion on why I think that NCOs wouldn't exist in the Federation anymore on page 3.
We didn't even see NCO rank insignia before DS9 - and the ones they came up with for the series (well, the one piece that we've seen) was just horrible. Rank pins are meant to signify a person's rank, so why are the symbols on it so damn tiny and complicated? Imagine everyone having to bend forward and pull the poor guy's neck before talking to him just because you can't identify his rank unless you scrutinize his insignia from a distance of no more than 5 cm. :rolleyes:
It used to be soo easy back in the days. No pin = cadet or crewman, one pin = Ensign, etc.
There are a number of various forums that I've been on for 4 years or more. Without exception, those forums that do not maintain a sticky with an organized list of information, often see new people join the forums and start repeating the same ideas that have already been rehashed a million times.
Why? Because people are stupid? No! Well ok yes, but that's a different subject.
They haven't been on the forums for years so they don't know that all of these arguments have already happened a million times. If your forum maintains a sticky with an organized list (with links to the discussions) of all of the done-to-death-topics then simply say hello to the new people and immediately give them the link to the "Old Subject List" thread. Otherwise your forum is going to have constant new threads by new people about the same old topics.
Also, MMO forums are different than most other forums. People keep bringing up the same subject because they still want the same thing in game added/changed/nerfed. So they keep bringing it up in the official forums over and over again, hoping that maybe this time the devs will finally have an answer they like.
Really, I've seen way less constructive threads on this forum.
We should be spending the majority of our time at LTCDR then CAPT. Admiral shouldn't even be in the picture at this point, since we cannot command multiple ships at one time. If we had ships as pets, give us the RA, LH option. I've got a ton of ships just sitting in the hangars doing nothing.