Imho, cryptic shoulnt have madeplayers any kind of admiral.
(admirals taggin eppohs anyone lol)
But that boathas sailed, now i just want an option to default my adressed title as whatever i want be it "torpedo target", "stunning", or yes... "captain"
Now what I WOULD support is this:
51-60: Commodore
61-70: Rear Admiral, Lower Half
These two are the same rank, just different names.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
The rank system should reflect the gameplay. Right now, there is literally nothing you do that is beyond the scope of what a Captain is required to do. You have your own ship and use it and your crew to complete missions, but that's it. You're sometimes part of a task force in some missions, STFs and fleet actions, but never really leading them. The most you can do is run your own private fleet. There have been talks of allowing you to assign another ship, commanded by one of your boffs, as backup. This would have been a good, and logical, opportunity to introduce the admiral rank, since you're now commanding multiple ships at the same time, even if it's just two. If they expanded that so you could command your own five-ship task force for single-player missions, that would be even better. Add in episodes where you're required to actually command other ships. That's Admiral gameplay. Right now we're Admirals in name only. They really should have stopped at Captain for the current level cap, but it's something we're stuck with and can't really change.
Restructuring the rank system to reflect the ranks in Starfleet (that we have seen ad know exist):
Tutorial: Ensign (after which they receive a field promotion)
1-10: Lieutenant Junior Grade
11-20: Lieutenant
21-30: Lieutenant Commander
31-40: Commander
41-50: Captain
51-60: Commodore
61-70: Rear Admiral, Lower Half
71-80: Rear Admiral, Upper Half
81-90: Vice Admiral
91-100: Admiral
101-110: Admiral of the Fleet
This would give a more realistic structure for the game and more room to push up the levels and future endgame points.
In a game environment where progression is based on experience levels that are hard-locked to rank, you will still end up with the issue of everyone being the "top rank" (whatever that is) eventually. Using ranks as a marker for player progression in a game like this is an inherently flawed idea.
The solution is to remove ranks from experience levels. Save ranks for the roles we play through the gameplay we can experience. Right now (as from the beginning), STO has been a game about being a ship captain. There is nothing wrong with that. That's what every Star Trek movie and series has ever been about* and that's how the gameplay we have was written. We're not acting as Lieutenants, we're not acting as Admirals, we're acting as Captains, from tutorial completion to "endgame".
Save Flag Officer ranks for a separate gameplay option(s), where Captains above a certain experience level can OPT into (and stand down from), with experience progression that runs parallel to the Captain line. Flag Officers have roles that are completely different from those of ship Captains, most remarkably that they don't command an individual ship (and even when they do decide to claim a flagship to use as a base of operations, that ship is not under their direct command, that's still the Captain's job). They command Fleets and Theaters of Operations; entire regions of space are under their charge. They are the ones that come up with the tactics and strategies for the Captains to employ. In essence they are the "mission givers" to the Captains.
*I would even argue that DS9 should've been written with Sisko as (at least) Captain from the beginning (and then Rear Admiral as he apparently took over fleet operations), otherwise it makes it seem that it takes more experience and knowledge to command even a light cruiser than it does an entire station or outpost; that anyone qualified to be a Department Head on a ship can just as well command an entire station (let alone one that is supposed to be trying to usher a new civilization into the Federation), which is clearly backwards.
In a game environment where progression is based on experience levels that are hard-locked to rank, you will still end up with the issue of everyone being the "top rank" (whatever that is) eventually. Using ranks as a marker for player progression in a game like this is an inherently flawed idea.
The solution is to remove ranks from experience levels. Save ranks for the roles we play through the gameplay we can experience. Right now (as from the beginning), STO has been a game about being a ship captain. There is nothing wrong with that. That's what every Star Trek movie and series has ever been about* and that's how the gameplay we have was written. We're not acting as Lieutenants, we're not acting as Admirals, we're acting as Captains, from tutorial completion to "endgame".
Save Flag Officer ranks for a separate gameplay option(s), where Captains above a certain experience level can OPT into (and stand down from), with experience progression that runs parallel to the Captain line. Flag Officers have roles that are completely different from those of ship Captains, most remarkably that they don't command an individual ship (and even when they do decide to claim a flagship to use as a base of operations, that ship is not under their direct command, that's still the Captain's job). They command Fleets and Theaters of Operations; entire regions of space are under their charge. They are the ones that come up with the tactics and strategies for the Captains to employ. In essence they are the "mission givers" to the Captains.
*I would even argue that DS9 should've been written with Sisko as (at least) Captain from the beginning (and then Rear Admiral as he apparently took over fleet operations), otherwise it makes it seem that it takes more experience and knowledge to command even a light cruiser than it does an entire station or outpost; that anyone qualified to be a Department Head on a ship can just as well command an entire station (let alone one that is supposed to be trying to usher a new civilization into the Federation), which is clearly backwards.
Well, from what Cryptic has done with the game so far, Cryptic intends to tie rank with levels in the game. Odds are that's where it is going to stay, and yes there will be plenty of players who are going to be the top rank, that's pretty much the fact of the matter.
As far as Star Trek being only 'captains", ever person commanding a ship is a "captain", just not all of them are the martial rank of captain. In addition remember that for the first four movies Kirk was Admiralty.
As far as Sisko, its a toss-up. DS9 was a co-op station and although he was the B.M.O.C. he still had to answer to Bajor as well. Starfleet, in their "infinite wisdom" probably figured that they would be undertaking the outpost in a post-war situation and that having a Captain ranked officer might have been to authoritarian, they are funny that way.
The issue with the Admiral rank is a long-dated issue, but what bothers me is that many missions are written in such a way that subordinate NPCs talk down to you or give you orders (I know the missions are rank neutral, but even the Lieutenant toon is still a ship captain which merits respect).
We will continue to have Admrial ranks... in fact, we will see two more ranks added to game (Admrial (full grade) and Fleet Admiral (a very rare rank in RL)... so get ready for more questions about, "Why do we have Admiral ranks in game progression."
Actually, most uses of the Commodore rank denote a senior standing of Captaincy, not Admiralty. Commodores would typically lead squadrons.
Star Trek frequently made use of Commodores in T.O.S., Commodore Decker of Doomsday Machine fame is just one of the commodores mentioned in the show.
No, any modern usage of Commodore with regards of US Navy is as a Title not a rank. The Rank of Commodore was replaced in the Navy with Rear Admiral Lower Half. So having Commodore in a Rank system is redundant and stupid.
A number of us railed against the leveling system affecting rank during beta for this exact reason but they went with their plan anyway.
The thing is, STO, from start to "endgame" is a CAPTAIN game. There is no Flag Officer gameplay offered here. This game is about the players commanding a single ship (at a time) with a single body of crew to man it.
If anything, the tutorial should start you out as a Commander/First Officer and grant you actual Captain rank and position at the end of the tutorial. Until they add actual Flag Officer gameplay, you should stay as a Captain.
Even with all players being Captains, there is still progress to be made within the same rank. Newly promoted Captains don't just immediately get access to the best ships in the line (unless JJ Abrams is in charge of your storyline*), they have to work their way up, even as Captains. Picard's first command (as Captain) wasn't the Enterprise, it was the Stargazer. Levels should represent security clearance or seniority within rank, where you would have level 1 Captains to level 50 Captains (currently).
This method would also mean that they would not have to make up ridiculous rank names every time they wanted to expand the leveling system to allow progress to grow. Instead, they could simply tack on some more numbers without breaking immersion by having an ever-growing number of players becoming Super Grand Martial Fleet Admiral-General, Upper-Left quadrant, while the gameplay still reflects that of a Captain.
*Even if you take the Roddenberry timeline instead of the JJ Abrams timeline, the original Kirk's Enterprise wasn't supposed to be "the best ship in the fleet", it represented the standard. What distinguished it from the rest of the line was that it had "the best crew in the fleet", but even that was from Kirk's point of view, so there could be some bias there. Kirk made the ship a legendary name through his actions in TOS, it wasn't already a legend or even the biggest, baddest, most advanced ship in the line.
Your wrong about only one ship at a time, you forgot carriers, escort carriers, Vesta, and Flight Deck Cruisers. Plus photonic fleet and that emergency power that summons ships.
Example a Vo'que can launch and control via carrier commands up to 4 Birds of Prey ships and a Kar'fi can launch 4 Frigates. Even say a Corsair can control say Six Orion Slavers, which are basically just tiny ships.
Honestly the idea that Admirals don't command Starships was always silly and at times shown to be false, especially during the Dominion War. Wow could an Admirals run the Fleet and battles from Earth? Space is too vast which means they need ships of thier own.
This doubly true for the KDF, as evidenced by General Martok who commanded ships as a General and even as Chancellor!
I can't see a Klingon General as desk jockey, they'd sooner commit Mokto'var.
I am of the opinion that there is only a few Vice Admirals not thousands. All the various events that we do in the game were accomplished by me not other people as well. So I met Q Jr. and the Prophets not anyone else. I repelled the Jem'Hadar Invasion. I discovered the Iconian's influence on the Undine and Tal Shiar. All the actions that I have done have made me a Vice Admiral.
Heh, I've said this same thing multiple times over the years, most of it lost on the old forum. So far as the game is concerned YOU and you alone are the chosen one that does everything. All the other people you see are just background filler, and you are the same thing from each and every other players point of view.
I have one VA, my other va alts are all just Captains under her command. Stick the pips on, and the same way you are pretending you aren't sitting in your room using a mouse, read Captain if that is what you want to see instead of other ranks.
Heh, I've said this same thing multiple times over the years, most of it lost on the old forum. So far as the game is concerned YOU and you alone are the chosen one that does everything. All the other people you see are just background filler, and you are the same thing from each and every other players point of view.
I have one VA, my other va alts are all just Captains under her command. Stick the pips on, and the same way you are pretending you aren't sitting in your room using a mouse, read Captain if that is what you want to see instead of other ranks.
Which is all well and good, but the game goes out of it's way to remind us that everyone else are admirals too. Nearly every NPC we talk to refers to us as "Rear Admiral Lower Half" or "Vice Admiral" each time we talk to them. And by End Game the only thing left to do are grind the Fleet Actions and STF's when we are grouped together with 4 other "Vice Admirals". How often in Star Trek have we seen 5 Admirals, by themselves, running around on a planet or each commanding a single ship?
No, any modern usage of Commodore with regards of US Navy is as a Title not a rank. The Rank of Commodore was replaced in the Navy with Rear Admiral Lower Half. So having Commodore in a Rank system is redundant and stupid.
What is "modern" to you? The rank was used by the U.S. Navy in WWII. There hasn't been a full scale naval war since then. (STO is during a major naval war)
Also, other nations have the rank as well: U.K., Canada, Netherlands (Air Force) etc...
Not to mention that The Original Series of Star Trek had several Commodores in their ranks, so if you want to argue precedent, its their in Star Trek "history". Check this out
What is "modern" to you? The rank was used by the U.S. Navy in WWII. There hasn't been a full scale naval war since then. (STO is during a major naval war)
Also, other nations have the rank as well: U.K., Canada, Netherlands (Air Force) etc...
Not to mention that The Original Series of Star Trek had several Commodores in their ranks, so if you want to argue precedent, its their in Star Trek "history". Check this out
I argue US Naval ranks because that is what Star Trek is based off of, and like with it no longer being used in the US Navy, I assume Gene changed the rank from Commodore to Rear Admiral Lower Half in the TNG era to reflect the real life change.
Did they use it in TOS, yes because most likely it existed at that time (I admit my naval history isn't great) but it isn't used anymore and Star Trek already changed to reflect that, so demanding the rank be instated is effectively going backwards. Which more then a few people oh this very forum have been against.
Adding it in addition to Rear Admiral Lower half is even stupider, as it is redundant and you effectively have two one-star admiral ranks.
I argue US Naval ranks because that is what Star Trek is based off of, and like with it no longer being used in the US Navy, I assume Gene changed the rank from Commodore to Rear Admiral Lower Half in the TNG era to reflect the real life change.
Did they use it in TOS, yes because most likely it existed at that time (I admit my naval history isn't great) but it isn't used anymore and Star Trek already changed to reflect that, so demanding the rank be instated is effectively going backwards. Which more then a few people oh this very forum have been against.
Adding it in addition to Rear Admiral Lower half is even stupider, as it is redundant and you effectively have two one-star admiral ranks.
Having the Ranks Commodore and Rear Admiral rather than Rear Admiral Lower Half and Rear Admiral Upper Half, may be a step backward but it sounds better.
Lieutenant Junior Grade and Lieutenant already take up too much room on the top bar, the two Rear Admiral ranks are just silly.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I argue US Naval ranks because that is what Star Trek is based off of, and like with it no longer being used in the US Navy, I assume Gene changed the rank from Commodore to Rear Admiral Lower Half in the TNG era to reflect the real life change.
Did they use it in TOS, yes because most likely it existed at that time (I admit my naval history isn't great) but it isn't used anymore and Star Trek already changed to reflect that, so demanding the rank be instated is effectively going backwards. Which more then a few people oh this very forum have been against.
Adding it in addition to Rear Admiral Lower half is even stupider, as it is redundant and you effectively have two one-star admiral ranks.
First off, please refrain from calling something "stupid" because you disagree with it, you lose credibility and show hostility. It isn't necessary.
Read the page that I linked, they even mentioned references of Commodores even in TNG.
Also, I never demanded anything, I just made a suggestion. There is a real difference there.
The U.S. Navy hasn't used the rank mostly because there has not been a major naval war since WWII. In 2409 the Federation is at war and most engagements are with space (naval) forces. Just because the U.S. Navy doesn't use a certain rank in 2013 doesn't mean it makes sense for Starfleet to not use the rank in 2409.
The scope of Starfleet is much larger than the scope of the U.S. Navy at its highest point, it is very logical to consider that the scope of Starfleet rank structure is also wider, especially when starships are at war and are not on single patrol but part are task forces and convoys.
Having the Ranks Commodore and Rear Admiral rather than Rear Admiral Lower Half and Rear Admiral Upper Half, may be a step backward but it sounds better.
Lieutenant Junior Grade and Lieutenant already take up too much room on the top bar, the two Rear Admiral ranks are just silly.
I'm not sure that I am following you, its probably just syntax. There is no LT.JG in the game, how can it take up "too much room"?
Also, Starfleet is so large that it could (theoretically) afford to have a Commodore, RALH and RAUH. I would argue that all ranks should be 10 levels though.
Your wrong about only one ship at a time, you forgot carriers, escort carriers, Vesta, and Flight Deck Cruisers. Plus photonic fleet and that emergency power that summons ships.
This doesn't seem that relevant, it isn't as though the US Naval carriers are all crewed by admirals.
First off, please refrain from calling something "stupid" because you disagree with it, you lose credibility and show hostility. It isn't necessary.
.
I never once called you or anyone else stupid. If that is the interpretation you got, I am sorry.
I did however call the idea stupid. You want to effectively have 2 different one star admiral ranks, that isn't going to work. Like it or not the rank structure has 5 admiral ranks. They are Rear Admiral Lower Half, Rear Admiral Upper Half, Vice Admiral, Admiral, and Fleet Admiral. Being at war or not doesn't change that, you aren't going to suddenly add ranks because you need more personnel. It doesn't work that way. Besides, being an admiral is not that easy. The game makes it so because it is a game, but you don't just become an admiral because you have been in the service for XX number of years.
I will admit that my memory of every episode is not the greatest. Some of these episodes I haven't seen in decades, but it doesn't matter. Starfleet is based on the US Navy ranks and Commodore isn't a rank anymore. So I don't see why cryptic should have it just because a few want it, or for that matter why they should add a non-existent rank inbetween Captain and Rear Admiral lower half, just because some people want to be called Commodore.
Using the full rank in communication seems too time consuming. Stop referring to us as Admiral Lower Half and such. Abbreviate it to just Admiral.
I am 100% in favor of this, but it will require them to either change a variable's function, or touch every mission in the game. Changing that variable may be OK, but it'll have to be carefully analyzed first.
I suspect that analysis will find 99.x% of missions will be fine, and that the rest can be fixed later, though. Just make "RANK" give the "short" rank, and make a new "LONGRANK" variable for the odd case where somebody needs that behavior.
This would also be applied to Lieutenant Commander, since it's common to refer to them as "Commander" in conversation.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
I never once called you or anyone else stupid. If that is the interpretation you got, I am sorry.
I did however call the idea stupid.
Here's the problem I have with your use of the "stupid" remarks. There's no reason to call another persons idea (of which you disagree with) stupid. It's not effective in discussing and its borderline (if not already) trolling. Please find a different way to express your point.
You want to effectively have 2 different one star admiral ranks, that isn't going to work. Like it or not the rank structure has 5 admiral ranks. They are Rear Admiral Lower Half, Rear Admiral Upper Half, Vice Admiral, Admiral, and Fleet Admiral.
Last time I saw Star Trek, they didn't use "stars" for ranks. Just because the rank system has familiarity with U.S. Navy (and some other nations navies) doesn't mean that it has to be U.S. Navy 2013 standards down to the last detail.
Being at war or not doesn't change that, you aren't going to suddenly add ranks because you need more personnel. It doesn't work that way. Besides, being an admiral is not that easy. The game makes it so because it is a game, but you don't just become an admiral because you have been in the service for XX number of years.
Your right it doesn't change "suddenly", it would be over hundreds of years and several wars accompanied by a massive expansion of the fleets and territory to cover
I will admit that my memory of every episode is not the greatest. Some of these episodes I haven't seen in decades, but it doesn't matter. Starfleet is based on the US Navy ranks and Commodore isn't a rank anymore.
So because the U.S. Navy, over the last several decades, means that a naval force 400 years in the future won't use it? THat makes no sense.
So I don't see why cryptic should have it just because a few want it, or for that matter why they should add a non-existent rank inbetween Captain and Rear Admiral lower half, just because some people want to be called Commodore.
Because :
-They have had several Commodores in Star Trek, so it is canon
-They can add room for levels to the game easily (along with LT.JG and others)
-Its is only non-existent to you because, at this particular moment the U.S. Navy a water bourne force, doesn't use it, which has zero bearing on what a force that flys spaceships in 400 years would have
The only evidence in the Commodore rank in Star Trek is the Conspiracy episode from TNG, various episodes from TOS, and Maxwell Forrest from Enterprise. Considering that there is no evidence in DS9 and Voyager of a Commodore rank, then it can be concluded that the Commodore rank was discontinued for some reason in the 2360s or future episodes had no reason to add episodes with the Commodore rank past the 2360s. Therefore, it is up to the devs whether to add a Commodore rank, but since the game has been out for almost 3 years, then it is too late to mess with the current leveling scheme. Of course, Cryptic could add a npc with the rank of Commodore to distinguish someone that is in control of some station or responsible for some part of Starfleet like Relief Support for the Romulans, but is not an Admiral.
Here's the problem I have with your use of the "stupid" remarks. There's no reason to call another persons idea (of which you disagree with) stupid. It's not effective in discussing and its borderline (if not already) trolling. Please find a different way to express your point.
Ok, It is redundant and arbitrary. You are repeating the exact same rank, twice simply because you want it, much as you claim I am against it. I have mentioned several times why I think it is not worth doing, and you have yet to give a logical reason why you should have both a Commodore and Rear Admiral Lower Half rank, other then what amounts to "Because I want it."
Last time I saw Star Trek, they didn't use "stars" for ranks. Just because the rank system has familiarity with U.S. Navy (and some other nations navies) doesn't mean that it has to be U.S. Navy 2013 standards down to the last detail.
The term is One star etc, is a commonly excepted miltary term. Just as there are One star Generals int the army. The point is these are attached to specific position,with pay grades, and responsibilities, They are just arbitrary designations thrown out.
So because the U.S. Navy, over the last several decades, means that a naval force 400 years in the future won't use it? THat makes no sense.
Because :
-They have had several Commodores in Star Trek, so it is canon
-They can add room for levels to the game easily (along with LT.JG and others)
-Its is only non-existent to you because, at this particular moment the U.S. Navy a water bourne force, doesn't use it, which has zero bearing on what a force that flys spaceships in 400 years would have
The use of the US Navy ranking system is well established within Star Trek. I am not saying that is has to, but that is what was used and I see no reason to throw it out just because someone wants a Different rank title. By that same logic why stick with establish ranks at all. How about we add a rank called Gooblockt. It is equally arbitrary.
And Star Trek cannon expands over 300 years. And that is just if you stick with the TV series. Whether it was used in the series before, it was never used after the TNG era.
you want evidence:
So by going back to the Commodore rank (assuming you want to replace rear admiral lower half rather then just add Commodore) you are effectively going backwards. Again this has nothing to do with 21st century realities, it is Star Trek lore.
-Its is only non-existent to you because, at this particular moment the U.S. Navy a water bourne force, doesn't use it, which has zero bearing on what a force that flys spaceships in 400 years would have
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for putting the rank into the game however. Just because it was used once, in ToS doesn't mean it needs to be in STO.
So by going back to the Commodore rank (assuming you want to replace rear admiral lower half rather then just add Commodore) you are effectively going backwards. Again this has nothing to do with 21st century realities, it is Star Trek lore.
You're being equally dogmatic about this.
Commodore was a common rank which relatively recently (for us) was replaced with RA-LH. In the established canon of the show, at some point prior to the 23rd century it is reintroduced. At some point in the 24th century it is either removed or rare (or still in use as much as ever, but not shown on screen).
In the game's timeline, at worst it has been introduced and dismissed twice. There's nothing strange about bringing it back.
Whilst I neither support or oppose the addition of Commodore, the main problem with whamhammer1's suggestion of adding more ranks with each level cap is that the system is simply not scaleable.
Let's say after Admiral, the devs decide to raise the level cap AGAIN - at the point, the options for each iteration are:
- Fleet Admiral
- Commandant, Starfleet Command
- President of the UFP
Imagine the hilarity that would ensue when fleet admirals get ordered around by lieutenants!
This is why I'd strongly support decoupling the ranks from levels, and turn ranks into milestone titles that the NPCs would actually address you by. Those like whamhammer who want bigger and fancier titles can do so, whilst I can remain at Captain - everybody's happy.
Laws of thermodynamics as applied to life: 0 - You must play the game. 1 - You can't win. 2 - You can't break even. 3 - You can't quit.
Comments
(admirals taggin eppohs anyone lol)
But that boathas sailed, now i just want an option to default my adressed title as whatever i want be it "torpedo target", "stunning", or yes... "captain"
Interested in Role Playing? Join the 12th Fleet Science division!
Restructuring the rank system to reflect the ranks in Starfleet (that we have seen ad know exist):
Tutorial: Ensign (after which they receive a field promotion)
1-10: Lieutenant Junior Grade
11-20: Lieutenant
21-30: Lieutenant Commander
31-40: Commander
41-50: Captain
51-60: Commodore
61-70: Rear Admiral, Lower Half
71-80: Rear Admiral, Upper Half
81-90: Vice Admiral
91-100: Admiral
101-110: Admiral of the Fleet
This would give a more realistic structure for the game and more room to push up the levels and future endgame points.
These two are the same rank, just different names.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
In a game environment where progression is based on experience levels that are hard-locked to rank, you will still end up with the issue of everyone being the "top rank" (whatever that is) eventually. Using ranks as a marker for player progression in a game like this is an inherently flawed idea.
The solution is to remove ranks from experience levels. Save ranks for the roles we play through the gameplay we can experience. Right now (as from the beginning), STO has been a game about being a ship captain. There is nothing wrong with that. That's what every Star Trek movie and series has ever been about* and that's how the gameplay we have was written. We're not acting as Lieutenants, we're not acting as Admirals, we're acting as Captains, from tutorial completion to "endgame".
Save Flag Officer ranks for a separate gameplay option(s), where Captains above a certain experience level can OPT into (and stand down from), with experience progression that runs parallel to the Captain line. Flag Officers have roles that are completely different from those of ship Captains, most remarkably that they don't command an individual ship (and even when they do decide to claim a flagship to use as a base of operations, that ship is not under their direct command, that's still the Captain's job). They command Fleets and Theaters of Operations; entire regions of space are under their charge. They are the ones that come up with the tactics and strategies for the Captains to employ. In essence they are the "mission givers" to the Captains.
*I would even argue that DS9 should've been written with Sisko as (at least) Captain from the beginning (and then Rear Admiral as he apparently took over fleet operations), otherwise it makes it seem that it takes more experience and knowledge to command even a light cruiser than it does an entire station or outpost; that anyone qualified to be a Department Head on a ship can just as well command an entire station (let alone one that is supposed to be trying to usher a new civilization into the Federation), which is clearly backwards.
Raptr profile
Actually, most uses of the Commodore rank denote a senior standing of Captaincy, not Admiralty. Commodores would typically lead squadrons.
Star Trek frequently made use of Commodores in T.O.S., Commodore Decker of Doomsday Machine fame is just one of the commodores mentioned in the show.
Well, from what Cryptic has done with the game so far, Cryptic intends to tie rank with levels in the game. Odds are that's where it is going to stay, and yes there will be plenty of players who are going to be the top rank, that's pretty much the fact of the matter.
As far as Star Trek being only 'captains", ever person commanding a ship is a "captain", just not all of them are the martial rank of captain. In addition remember that for the first four movies Kirk was Admiralty.
As far as Sisko, its a toss-up. DS9 was a co-op station and although he was the B.M.O.C. he still had to answer to Bajor as well. Starfleet, in their "infinite wisdom" probably figured that they would be undertaking the outpost in a post-war situation and that having a Captain ranked officer might have been to authoritarian, they are funny that way.
We will continue to have Admrial ranks... in fact, we will see two more ranks added to game (Admrial (full grade) and Fleet Admiral (a very rare rank in RL)... so get ready for more questions about, "Why do we have Admiral ranks in game progression."
No, any modern usage of Commodore with regards of US Navy is as a Title not a rank. The Rank of Commodore was replaced in the Navy with Rear Admiral Lower Half. So having Commodore in a Rank system is redundant and stupid.
Your wrong about only one ship at a time, you forgot carriers, escort carriers, Vesta, and Flight Deck Cruisers. Plus photonic fleet and that emergency power that summons ships.
Example a Vo'que can launch and control via carrier commands up to 4 Birds of Prey ships and a Kar'fi can launch 4 Frigates. Even say a Corsair can control say Six Orion Slavers, which are basically just tiny ships.
Honestly the idea that Admirals don't command Starships was always silly and at times shown to be false, especially during the Dominion War. Wow could an Admirals run the Fleet and battles from Earth? Space is too vast which means they need ships of thier own.
This doubly true for the KDF, as evidenced by General Martok who commanded ships as a General and even as Chancellor!
I can't see a Klingon General as desk jockey, they'd sooner commit Mokto'var.
Heh, I've said this same thing multiple times over the years, most of it lost on the old forum. So far as the game is concerned YOU and you alone are the chosen one that does everything. All the other people you see are just background filler, and you are the same thing from each and every other players point of view.
I have one VA, my other va alts are all just Captains under her command. Stick the pips on, and the same way you are pretending you aren't sitting in your room using a mouse, read Captain if that is what you want to see instead of other ranks.
Dec/2008
Which is all well and good, but the game goes out of it's way to remind us that everyone else are admirals too. Nearly every NPC we talk to refers to us as "Rear Admiral Lower Half" or "Vice Admiral" each time we talk to them. And by End Game the only thing left to do are grind the Fleet Actions and STF's when we are grouped together with 4 other "Vice Admirals". How often in Star Trek have we seen 5 Admirals, by themselves, running around on a planet or each commanding a single ship?
What is "modern" to you? The rank was used by the U.S. Navy in WWII. There hasn't been a full scale naval war since then. (STO is during a major naval war)
Also, other nations have the rank as well: U.K., Canada, Netherlands (Air Force) etc...
Not to mention that The Original Series of Star Trek had several Commodores in their ranks, so if you want to argue precedent, its their in Star Trek "history". Check this out
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Commodore
I argue US Naval ranks because that is what Star Trek is based off of, and like with it no longer being used in the US Navy, I assume Gene changed the rank from Commodore to Rear Admiral Lower Half in the TNG era to reflect the real life change.
Did they use it in TOS, yes because most likely it existed at that time (I admit my naval history isn't great) but it isn't used anymore and Star Trek already changed to reflect that, so demanding the rank be instated is effectively going backwards. Which more then a few people oh this very forum have been against.
Adding it in addition to Rear Admiral Lower half is even stupider, as it is redundant and you effectively have two one-star admiral ranks.
Having the Ranks Commodore and Rear Admiral rather than Rear Admiral Lower Half and Rear Admiral Upper Half, may be a step backward but it sounds better.
Lieutenant Junior Grade and Lieutenant already take up too much room on the top bar, the two Rear Admiral ranks are just silly.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
First off, please refrain from calling something "stupid" because you disagree with it, you lose credibility and show hostility. It isn't necessary.
Read the page that I linked, they even mentioned references of Commodores even in TNG.
Also, I never demanded anything, I just made a suggestion. There is a real difference there.
The U.S. Navy hasn't used the rank mostly because there has not been a major naval war since WWII. In 2409 the Federation is at war and most engagements are with space (naval) forces. Just because the U.S. Navy doesn't use a certain rank in 2013 doesn't mean it makes sense for Starfleet to not use the rank in 2409.
The scope of Starfleet is much larger than the scope of the U.S. Navy at its highest point, it is very logical to consider that the scope of Starfleet rank structure is also wider, especially when starships are at war and are not on single patrol but part are task forces and convoys.
I'm not sure that I am following you, its probably just syntax. There is no LT.JG in the game, how can it take up "too much room"?
Also, Starfleet is so large that it could (theoretically) afford to have a Commodore, RALH and RAUH. I would argue that all ranks should be 10 levels though.
Now, we have seen a desk-jokey (for intents and purposes) Klingon General, and he didn't commit Mokto'var, just drank a lot.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Korrd
I never once called you or anyone else stupid. If that is the interpretation you got, I am sorry.
I did however call the idea stupid. You want to effectively have 2 different one star admiral ranks, that isn't going to work. Like it or not the rank structure has 5 admiral ranks. They are Rear Admiral Lower Half, Rear Admiral Upper Half, Vice Admiral, Admiral, and Fleet Admiral. Being at war or not doesn't change that, you aren't going to suddenly add ranks because you need more personnel. It doesn't work that way. Besides, being an admiral is not that easy. The game makes it so because it is a game, but you don't just become an admiral because you have been in the service for XX number of years.
I will admit that my memory of every episode is not the greatest. Some of these episodes I haven't seen in decades, but it doesn't matter. Starfleet is based on the US Navy ranks and Commodore isn't a rank anymore. So I don't see why cryptic should have it just because a few want it, or for that matter why they should add a non-existent rank inbetween Captain and Rear Admiral lower half, just because some people want to be called Commodore.
Should be abbreviated to Rear Admiral. Admiral appears to be a future rank when the level cap is increased.
I am 100% in favor of this, but it will require them to either change a variable's function, or touch every mission in the game. Changing that variable may be OK, but it'll have to be carefully analyzed first.
I suspect that analysis will find 99.x% of missions will be fine, and that the rest can be fixed later, though. Just make "RANK" give the "short" rank, and make a new "LONGRANK" variable for the odd case where somebody needs that behavior.
This would also be applied to Lieutenant Commander, since it's common to refer to them as "Commander" in conversation.
Here's the problem I have with your use of the "stupid" remarks. There's no reason to call another persons idea (of which you disagree with) stupid. It's not effective in discussing and its borderline (if not already) trolling. Please find a different way to express your point.
Last time I saw Star Trek, they didn't use "stars" for ranks. Just because the rank system has familiarity with U.S. Navy (and some other nations navies) doesn't mean that it has to be U.S. Navy 2013 standards down to the last detail.
Your right it doesn't change "suddenly", it would be over hundreds of years and several wars accompanied by a massive expansion of the fleets and territory to cover
So because the U.S. Navy, over the last several decades, means that a naval force 400 years in the future won't use it? THat makes no sense.
Because :
-They have had several Commodores in Star Trek, so it is canon
-They can add room for levels to the game easily (along with LT.JG and others)
-Its is only non-existent to you because, at this particular moment the U.S. Navy a water bourne force, doesn't use it, which has zero bearing on what a force that flys spaceships in 400 years would have
Ok, It is redundant and arbitrary. You are repeating the exact same rank, twice simply because you want it, much as you claim I am against it. I have mentioned several times why I think it is not worth doing, and you have yet to give a logical reason why you should have both a Commodore and Rear Admiral Lower Half rank, other then what amounts to "Because I want it."
The term is One star etc, is a commonly excepted miltary term. Just as there are One star Generals int the army. The point is these are attached to specific position,with pay grades, and responsibilities, They are just arbitrary designations thrown out.
The use of the US Navy ranking system is well established within Star Trek. I am not saying that is has to, but that is what was used and I see no reason to throw it out just because someone wants a Different rank title. By that same logic why stick with establish ranks at all. How about we add a rank called Gooblockt. It is equally arbitrary.
And Star Trek cannon expands over 300 years. And that is just if you stick with the TV series. Whether it was used in the series before, it was never used after the TNG era.
you want evidence:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starfleet_ranks#The_24th_century
So by going back to the Commodore rank (assuming you want to replace rear admiral lower half rather then just add Commodore) you are effectively going backwards. Again this has nothing to do with 21st century realities, it is Star Trek lore.
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for putting the rank into the game however. Just because it was used once, in ToS doesn't mean it needs to be in STO.
You're being equally dogmatic about this.
Commodore was a common rank which relatively recently (for us) was replaced with RA-LH. In the established canon of the show, at some point prior to the 23rd century it is reintroduced. At some point in the 24th century it is either removed or rare (or still in use as much as ever, but not shown on screen).
In the game's timeline, at worst it has been introduced and dismissed twice. There's nothing strange about bringing it back.
Let's say after Admiral, the devs decide to raise the level cap AGAIN - at the point, the options for each iteration are:
- Fleet Admiral
- Commandant, Starfleet Command
- President of the UFP
Imagine the hilarity that would ensue when fleet admirals get ordered around by lieutenants!
This is why I'd strongly support decoupling the ranks from levels, and turn ranks into milestone titles that the NPCs would actually address you by. Those like whamhammer who want bigger and fancier titles can do so, whilst I can remain at Captain - everybody's happy.