I support that idea as well, I play as a Captain and just have to overlook the incorrect (from my perspective) title that NPCs refer to me as. Is there anyway of linking the titles on the character page to the NPC text
For example, if I set my title as Chief Engineer then NPCs refer to me as Chief Engineer
"Greetings Chief Engineer, I need 20 shield generators etc etc"
That would be great for rp
The Continuing Voyages of Bridge Commander Captain Lee Drake - USS Sovereign Captain Draxon - IKS RanKuf Commander Torenn - IRW Soryak Captain Gregory MacCray - USS Geronimo
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.
I suppose this is all true. But I just don't see a reason to change it back to Commodore. Doing it just to do it is as I have said, arbitrary and really (to me) makes no sense. I realize it was and still might be (I am not privy to other countries rank systems) common, but that in and of itself doesn't mean it needs to be in the game.
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.
So you support Fleet Admiral, but not Commodore? The death of Nimitz in 1966 was the last time there was a Fleet Admiral. Omar Bradley was the last General of the Army and the last General of the Air Force was "Hap" Arnold. All of which were about 50 years ago or longer.
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.
Robert April
Barstow
Matt Decker (USS Constellation)
Enwright (Starbase 6)
Maxwell Forrest (Earth Starfleet, 2143)
Joshua Jae
Jos? I. Mendez (Starbase 11)
Peter Bryce
Probert
Stocker (Starbase 10)
Stone (Starbase 11)
Travers (Cestus III outpost)
Robert Wesley (USS Lexington)
Also from the same page:
"The rank of commodore was used by Starfleet until at least the year 2364. In 2366, Geordi La Forge insulted Centurion Bochra by calling him commodore, to which Bochra promptly corrected La Forge as to his proper title. (TNG: "Conspiracy", TNG: "The Enemy")"
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.
Just because there was no characters mentioned at that ranks doesn't mean that Commodores were discontinued, it just means that they weren't any mentioned in that show. The first three seasons of DS9 were pretty much a truck stop in outer space and following that I can't speak too much on, there is no reason why Sisco wasn't a Commodore with the roles that he had in that show. There was a big gap in dialogue most of the time jumped from Captain to full Admiral.
Voyager , especially pretty much only involved the crew of the Voyager and extremely few outside Starfleet personnel.
So you support Fleet Admiral, but not Commodore? The death of Nimitz in 1966 was the last time there was a Fleet Admiral. Omar Bradley was the last General of the Army and the last General of the Air Force was "Hap" Arnold. All of which were about 50 years ago or longer.
It is still a valid rank. Just because no one has that rank doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That is totally different then adding in or changing to a Defunct rank for nothing but an arbitrary reason.
Meaning it has no business in the rank structure. Which is what this conversation is about and my point is. Commodore as a rank does not exist within the US navy, and do to the fact that Starfleet ranks mirror US Navy ranks, it is defunct as of the 2360s.
So I stand by my statement that as a Rank Commodore should not exist in the game.
It is still a valid rank. Just because no one has that rank doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That is totally different then adding in or changing to a Defunct rank for nothing but an arbitrary reason.
Actually the ranks of Fleet Adm/ Gen. Army-A.F. are not valid, they have been decommisioned, they can onlyh be recomissioned at a state of war.
Meaning it has no business in the rank structure. Which is what this conversation is about and my point is. Commodore as a rank does not exist within the US navy, and do to the fact that Starfleet ranks mirror US Navy ranks, it is defunct as of the 2360s.
So I stand by my statement that as a Rank Commodore should not exist in the game.
The flaw in your argument is WHEN the U.S. Naval ranks are being used mirror to Star Trek. In the sixites, when the original Star Trek was around, Commodores didnt exist in the U.S. Navy, while Commodores existed in Star Trek. If they were using post-WWII U.S. Navy ranks, Commodores wouldn't exist in Star Trek, but yet they do, and they have different sleeve ranking than Captains of Admiralty ranks that we had seen.
Geordi LaForge also makes reference to the Commodore rank in an Episode of TNG as well, some 80-100 years after TOS Commdores were around. We also don't get mention of Petty Officer ranks as well, a U.S. Navy senior enlisted rank, do they not exist as well?
I suspect some of this is because the rank/level connection is designed for a singleperson Solo game, not an MMO. (after all, how many "Kings" are there in WoW, etc.?)
So, I'd support de-coupling the "Goofy-speed-promotion" (it still IS 2409 in-game, after all...)
and setting the rankings by some other mechanic.
As for the two pages or so about Commodores...
from my own perspective, there are ranks in the U.S. military that have fallen largely out of use-in the Army, specifically, you don't see many Corporals, but you do see Specialist 4's-same pay grade, same general responsibilities, but one is a full NCO and the other...is basically an E-4 private. (at least, as things stood in the early 1990's.)
"Commodore" historically was in a similar place-many of the responsibilities of an Admiral, but more in terms of being the ranking Captain in a squadron-an intermediate rank. With rank-inflation during the Cold War, a lack of a full-on Naval conflict, and a shift to a more administration-than-front-line-tactical-leadership direction at grades at and above O-5, the position was deemed superfluous.
HISTORICALLY (U.S. doctrine now) a Commodore was the SAME PAY GRADE as a Captain-but with added responsibilities.
In terms of Star Trek, I could see the rank being one only trotted out during an active, shooting war-such as the one currently going on in the STO storyline.
It's a position, not a pay-grade.
Spec' 4's had a different pay rate than Corporals did, they also had less authority than Corporals. Go back a bit further and you would note Specialist ranks up to Spec' 7 (E-7). Most Specialist ranked soldiers used specialized equipment or training and weren't "command-level" (NCO). As you might have noticed, the majority of Spec' 4's were M-60/SAW gunners. And then you get to the real fun ranks of Warrant Officers...
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.
I agree your idea how the leveling system should be. It would give sto better and longer game play and at least time for sto creators to update and add more content. I thought about your idea and I typed out leveling system. Hope you like it.
I agree your idea how the leveling system should be. It would give sto better and longer game play and at least time for sto creators to update and add more content. I thought about your idea and I typed out leveling system. Hope you like it.
I agree your idea how the leveling system should be. It would give sto better and longer game play and at least time for sto creators to update and add more content. I thought about your idea and I typed out leveling system. Hope you like it.
That gets you to 100 if you stick with the 10 levels per rank, and that is with the immediate rank up with Ensign to Lieutenant. That is in my opinion plenty of room to grow, since we are only currently at level 50.
My opinion that I have mentioned before is that there aren't thousands of Vice Admirals, there are just a few. As far as the game is concerned, the player is the chosen one so only the chosen one is responsible for the numerous achievements that are obtained like going back in time to stop the comet from destroying the neutral zone and cure the Klingons of flat foreheads.
My opinion that I have mentioned before is that there aren't thousands of Vice Admirals, there are just a few. As far as the game is concerned, the player is the chosen one so only the chosen one is responsible for the numerous achievements that are obtained like going back in time to stop the comet from destroying the neutral zone and cure the Klingons of flat foreheads.
I agree...and I've stated many times...that's not the problem or reason this thread was made.
It's about you...yourself...being an Admiral.
I would love to just be considered a Captain throughout the entire game.
The best case scenario...would be if we could pick our "Rank Title".
Are we forgetting that Admiral Kirk commanded a ship from TMP to TVH. So it's not out of character for Star Fleet to put an admiral in charge of a single ship.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Are we forgetting that Admiral Kirk commanded a ship from TMP to TVH. So it's not out of character for Star Fleet to put an admiral in charge of a single ship.
But he wasn't the official Captain of the ship. Kirk was temporarily overseeing the mission as a more experienced officer, same in the other ST movies. In the different ST series, many times, higher ranking officers took charge of the ships on special missions; that, didn't mean it was their official command though. It was a temporary duty, nothing more.
"Admiral" / "General" should be a title that is earned by way of accolades/achievements, or after STO is updated with Flag Officer gameplay. Players who already have the titles for Rear Admiral / Vice Admiral, or Brigadier / Major / Lieutenant General, would naturally be allowed to keep said titles. New players / characters, would however be blocked from said titles until the aforementioned Flag Officer gameplay is added.
This succinctly sums up my feelings regarding the matter.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
___________________________
Joined April 2008. Lifetime Subscriber. Original member of the original 2nd Fleet.
Expended $1,961 USD on this game - regretting it all. This game and some of its staff disappointed me, time and again, per every single cent spent!!!
Personally I think we should all start as academy cadets, it should be ground only at first and the early story should be stuff that goes wrong on routine training excersises (wrath of khan?) until we are finally assigned to the ship in the tutorial and the the game goes as normal until rank of captain, not admiral, this should also take at least a month of gameplay to reach. Well, maybe not a month, but not 2 days.
Personally I think we should all start as academy cadets, it should be ground only at first and the early story should be stuff that goes wrong on routine training excersises (wrath of khan?) until we are finally assigned to the ship in the tutorial and the the game goes as normal until rank of captain, not admiral, this should also take at least a month of gameplay to reach. Well, maybe not a month, but not 2 days.
A player would have started the game with an "approachable, solo-friendly newbie experience" at Starfleet Academy as a new cadet, attending courses as a tutorial to the game experience. Afterward, the cadet would have been assigned to a training vessel to have an opportunity to try out the content of the departments available to them: Science, Security/Tactical, and Engineering.
Original plans indicated that players would specialize in one of the following professions: Flight control, Engineering/Operations, Science, Tactical/Security, Medical, and Command. However, this was changed to the current three departments to expand the versatility of character development.
The Command division would have been accessed through the Leadership skill set system which every player could access in their development, albeit forgoing some training in their primary department. At the end of the space training, players would have selected a department to specialize in initially. To be a high-ranking officer later on, one would have needed to balance their department and Leadership development. The highest known rank a player was planned to be capable of obtaining was admiral.
Players would have continued their adventure within the relatively safe confines of Federation space.
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
For example, if I set my title as Chief Engineer then NPCs refer to me as Chief Engineer
"Greetings Chief Engineer, I need 20 shield generators etc etc"
That would be great for rp
Captain Lee Drake - USS Sovereign
Captain Draxon - IKS RanKuf
Commander Torenn - IRW Soryak
Captain Gregory MacCray - USS Geronimo
I suppose this is all true. But I just don't see a reason to change it back to Commodore. Doing it just to do it is as I have said, arbitrary and really (to me) makes no sense. I realize it was and still might be (I am not privy to other countries rank systems) common, but that in and of itself doesn't mean it needs to be in the game.
So you support Fleet Admiral, but not Commodore? The death of Nimitz in 1966 was the last time there was a Fleet Admiral. Omar Bradley was the last General of the Army and the last General of the Air Force was "Hap" Arnold. All of which were about 50 years ago or longer.
It was way more than once, per http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Commodore :
Robert April
Barstow
Matt Decker (USS Constellation)
Enwright (Starbase 6)
Maxwell Forrest (Earth Starfleet, 2143)
Joshua Jae
Jos? I. Mendez (Starbase 11)
Peter Bryce
Probert
Stocker (Starbase 10)
Stone (Starbase 11)
Travers (Cestus III outpost)
Robert Wesley (USS Lexington)
Also from the same page:
"The rank of commodore was used by Starfleet until at least the year 2364. In 2366, Geordi La Forge insulted Centurion Bochra by calling him commodore, to which Bochra promptly corrected La Forge as to his proper title. (TNG: "Conspiracy", TNG: "The Enemy")"
Just because there was no characters mentioned at that ranks doesn't mean that Commodores were discontinued, it just means that they weren't any mentioned in that show. The first three seasons of DS9 were pretty much a truck stop in outer space and following that I can't speak too much on, there is no reason why Sisco wasn't a Commodore with the roles that he had in that show. There was a big gap in dialogue most of the time jumped from Captain to full Admiral.
Voyager , especially pretty much only involved the crew of the Voyager and extremely few outside Starfleet personnel.
It is still a valid rank. Just because no one has that rank doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That is totally different then adding in or changing to a Defunct rank for nothing but an arbitrary reason.
Meaning it has no business in the rank structure. Which is what this conversation is about and my point is. Commodore as a rank does not exist within the US navy, and do to the fact that Starfleet ranks mirror US Navy ranks, it is defunct as of the 2360s.
So I stand by my statement that as a Rank Commodore should not exist in the game.
Actually the ranks of Fleet Adm/ Gen. Army-A.F. are not valid, they have been decommisioned, they can onlyh be recomissioned at a state of war.
The flaw in your argument is WHEN the U.S. Naval ranks are being used mirror to Star Trek. In the sixites, when the original Star Trek was around, Commodores didnt exist in the U.S. Navy, while Commodores existed in Star Trek. If they were using post-WWII U.S. Navy ranks, Commodores wouldn't exist in Star Trek, but yet they do, and they have different sleeve ranking than Captains of Admiralty ranks that we had seen.
Geordi LaForge also makes reference to the Commodore rank in an Episode of TNG as well, some 80-100 years after TOS Commdores were around. We also don't get mention of Petty Officer ranks as well, a U.S. Navy senior enlisted rank, do they not exist as well?
Spec' 4's had a different pay rate than Corporals did, they also had less authority than Corporals. Go back a bit further and you would note Specialist ranks up to Spec' 7 (E-7). Most Specialist ranked soldiers used specialized equipment or training and weren't "command-level" (NCO). As you might have noticed, the majority of Spec' 4's were M-60/SAW gunners. And then you get to the real fun ranks of Warrant Officers...
Besides are they not working on something that will allow us to command up to 5 ships using our BOffs?
[
I agree your idea how the leveling system should be. It would give sto better and longer game play and at least time for sto creators to update and add more content. I thought about your idea and I typed out leveling system. Hope you like it.
Cadet Level: 1-50
Ensign level: 1-50
Lieutenant level: 1-50
Lieutenant Commander level: 1-50
Commander level: 1-50
Captian level: 1-50
Rear Admiral level: 1-50
Rear Admiral Upper level: 1-50
Vice Admiral level: 1-50
Admiral Chief of Operations level: 1-50
Fleet Admiral: 1-50
Cadet Level: 1-50
Ensign level: 1-50
Lieutenant level: 1-50
Lieutenant Commander level: 1-50
Commander level: 1-50
Captian level: 1-50
Rear Admiral level: 1-50
Rear Admiral Upper level: 1-50
Vice Admiral level: 1-50
Admiral Chief of Operations level: 1-50
Fleet Admiral: 1-50
Political Level
Diplomatic Council 1-30
Security Council 1-30
Judiciary Council 1-30
Armed Service Council 1-30
Why not just say "all ranks" 1-50? You also forgot LTJG, but becuase all the ranks are 1-50, it doesnt make that much of a difference.
I think going from 1-50 on any given rank is a bit excessive, I mean that would make the max level 550. :eek:
Honestly if you go with
Ensign
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant
Lt Commander
Commander
Captain
Rear Admiral LH
Rear Admiral UH
Vice Admiral
Admiral
Fleet Admiral
That gets you to 100 if you stick with the 10 levels per rank, and that is with the immediate rank up with Ensign to Lieutenant. That is in my opinion plenty of room to grow, since we are only currently at level 50.
I agree...and I've stated many times...that's not the problem or reason this thread was made.
It's about you...yourself...being an Admiral.
I would love to just be considered a Captain throughout the entire game.
The best case scenario...would be if we could pick our "Rank Title".
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
This single change would make a larger % of the population then just about any other single change they could make.
I'd dearly love to be referred to as Captain rather then Vice Admiral.
"We are smart." - Grebnedlog
Member of Alliance Central Command/boq botlhra'ghom
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
But he wasn't the official Captain of the ship. Kirk was temporarily overseeing the mission as a more experienced officer, same in the other ST movies. In the different ST series, many times, higher ranking officers took charge of the ships on special missions; that, didn't mean it was their official command though. It was a temporary duty, nothing more.
This succinctly sums up my feelings regarding the matter.
___________________________
Joined April 2008. Lifetime Subscriber. Original member of the original 2nd Fleet.
Expended $1,961 USD on this game - regretting it all. This game and some of its staff disappointed me, time and again, per every single cent spent!!!