test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
level cap increase and rank
r24681012
Member Posts: 173 Arc User
while i would like a increased level cap i think they should rethink the rank names really as anything After Captain is a desk job as for a suggestion on what they can be changed to i only have one which is make everyone captain and and start from level 1 upwards do you guys have any suggestions and if you want a level cap increase what ranks would they be
Post edited by r24681012 on
0
Comments
For ranks, the admirals still hold as they represent battle group command.
Level 50 - Vice Admiral/Lt. General (3 pips)
Level 75 - Admiral/General (4 Pips)
Level 100 - Fleet Admiral/Dahar Master (5 pips)
I've been on the forums a while, and i know that the Captain/VA and other faction eq ranks have been discussed a lot and i hate beating a dead horse.
HOWEVER, as i did New Romulus dailies for the first time yesterday i saw how the ranks just seem kinda weird (more so then i already do). The beginning tasks on the NR dailies had me collecting rocks, plants and water samples? spraying insects? repairing machinery? tagging and observing wildlife? taking radiation samples? At least there are a few combat type actions to offset the other actions i just listed.
The thing STO did with the rank on release is the same thing SWTOR did with their story quests on their release. Before we even had expacs or content patches we are already running around as VAs and LGs. SWTOR did something similar but with its storylines...before SWTOR even had expacs you were already elevated to such high status. You were the best bounty hunter in the galaxy, or you earned a seat on the dark council, or your Jedi had fought the emperor. When it comes time to continue the story then what happens? in STO you are now level 55 and a VA, you become 60 and are still a VA, you reach the new level caps on 5 times on each of the 5 new expacs and you are still a VA? How does SWTOR continue their story in their first expac? you are the top bounty hunter in the galaxy...and you are killing foot soldiers from the Hutt Cartel, you are going up against mobs that could just as easily kill you as Darth Bacon your previous Sith master.
There is also little point in the OP suggestion of just making everyone "Captain" as lower ranks can command vessels as well.... it happens in the US NAvy and it has happened in ST canon as well:
1. Sisko commanded the Defiant as a Commander prior to being promoted to Captain.
2. Worf commanded the Defiant as a Lieutenant Commander at the battle of Sector 001
3. Data was put in command of the Sutherland as a Lt. Commander
4. Riker was put in command of the Excalibur as a Commander.
5. The Nebula Class USS Prometheus was commanded by a Lieutenant Commander.
Personally, I would like to see the Level divorced from the Rank name. Some Captains have more experience than others. For example Captain Picard's Enterprise would be the Command Cruiser for a sector if war with the Cardassians broke out, so he would be giving orders to other Captains.
Anyways... I am not a huge fan of increasing the Rank names. Really, would 5 Fleet Admirals be beaming down to a planet to fight Borg... With many ships under their command, many officers on each ship... just doesnt make sense.
Star Trek Online, Now with out the Trek....
Yah but video games are a bit different
A lot of video games can be very generic when it comes to rank. For example shooters where you start out as private make your way up the enlisted ranks then you reach the bottom peg of the officers ranks as a First Lieutenant then you progress all the way up to General. I dont know if its because of developer ignorance as to how rank structure actually works in the military or if they want players to feel special or what.
So your argument against my argument against the OP wanting more realistic rank structure in pointing out his argument itself doesn't match realistic rank structure is to disagree with it based upon games not necessarily going on a realistic rank structure? How is that even a "but"?
there needs to be an avalible position open up for that
I would suggest everybody be Captains, and then have Admirals as a VANITY rank avalible for those who top out on somekind of legue table, lets say top 10 percent get VA then 25 percent get varying RA titles
Gameplay wise these could MEAN NOTHING just a VANITY rank, not anything to do with you player Level
This ^
Ranks and Level should be divorced. With the only relationship being 'rank title' unlocks as you level up - not FORCED rank promotions. These rank titles would cap at Captain - except for Fleet (guild) Leaders - who would unlock the Admiral title for running a real fleet (not just a group of NPC pets).
Let the player then chose what title (rank) they want and have the NPCs address them as such.
This would make the end game 'default' rank be the revered and iconic Star Trek 'hero' rank of Captain, as it should be.
For those who would say "You can't demote everyone!", that wouldn't happen - existing characters would keep whatever titles (ranks) they currently hold and only newly made characters would fall under the new system. Attrition would then take care of the riduculous overpopulation of Admirals. (Even then, new characters could still get the Admiral title if they wanted it by simply starting a Fleet).
And for heavens sake, please, PLEASE, whatever happens, never allow players to gain 5 pip ranks. Who's gonna give us orders if we are all the top dog?
arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1203368/pve-content-a-list-of-gamewide-polishing-pass-suggestions
Do you know how often this topic comes up? and yet the devs still havent done it? I'm one of the people who would love for the rank system to be realistic. I'm simply pointing out trends that i've noticed in games that conflict with IRL or movies.
A lot of games go out of their way to make you, the player, feel special. SWTOR and Skyrim for example have you as the 'chosen one'. Other games like FPS that i mentioned and STO throw realistic rank structure out the window and tell you 'congrats' you've beaten the game you're now the General of the universe or Admiral of your very own type-8 shuttle. There are also other players out there who could care less about actual rank structures and they *like* the title of VA.
Another thing is that i think if the game had been released from the start with the max rank as Captain things would be fine. But if you change things now all you are going to do are make some people happy and other people unhappy. IMO thats a terrible way to handle non game breaking issues, making one person happy at the expense of another i mean.
Here's three guesses; I don't know if any of them are correct.
system Lord Baal is dead
I doubt it, particular gear identified rank by name rather than level.... that code would need to be changed too. Could be other areas as well that we don't necessarily know about, as we don't have access to the source code.
if i was cryptic i be to scared to do such a thing and not up all the T5 canon ship think of all the RAGE it would bring
system Lord Baal is dead
I agree with this 100%. If there is a level increase it should be to Fleet Admiral and it should let us use our old ships to build the fleet. This would actually be a huge boon for Cryptic. If you fleet worked like bridge officers in space, then you will of course want to have good ships in your fleet, encouraging c-store ship buying. It will also encourage people to buy ships they otherwise wouldn't. For instance a person who really only likes to play cruisers then might be encouraged to buy escorts and science ships to include in thier fleet. It also would encourage ship slot purchases.
This would also encourage buying bridge officer slots if they set up the system so that you had to assign your bridge officers to each ship in your fleet in order to use it while also giving a nice Roleplay warm fuzzy feeling when you can promote that first office you have had for the past 3 years to captain in your fleet.
Another posted pointed out something that's always bothered me too, in that we do a lot of things that are bascially junior officer work. A tweek to the current system could really help to lessen this. For example, when you go on away missions it should always be you and your 4 bridge officers, even in events like STFs... who brings four ships to assult a borg base and only beams down the four people in command of those ships while everyone else stay on the ship?
In addition it would be nice to not be forced to play your main charactor. I know Kirk went on basically ever away mission, but I personally think that's because he had a hard time not being in the center of all that's going on. It would be nice to have the option to play as some of your bridge officers when doing solo missions. This could add a nice dynamic (not only roleplay wise) but gaming wise if there were reasons for not going yourself.
For example, if you expect a map to be a geological mission scanning rocks, you could receive bonus rewards for building your away team to relfect this. Science officer in charge (you play) would give bonus rewards and then additional science officers help boost that reward. It adds dynamic in that you have to balance between having the officers to max out on the reward (a geological survey with a full away team of science officers) vs having to balance the away team for protection (your 5 science officer team gets ambushed on that geological survey and they might be hard pressed to defend themselves) or utility (after getting ambushed they aren't able to built a makeshift communications array to contact the ship because non of them are engineers and they are focrced to take out the enemy troops to disable the communications jamming device).
This would also encourage bridge officer slots as well as encourage people to gear more than just the 4 bridge officers they always use while also having to chose a little more wisely who they are sending down. This example is of course a best case example, but even being as simple as you can chose which officer to play and you get a bonus for chosing one that reflects the type of mission would add some dynamic. Esepcially if the rewards are very significant.
Being able to chose which charactor you play might be a little too hard to make happen, but adding some decision making to the type of away team might be a bit simplier but still add some dynamics.
I loved when Picard complained that Data never let him go on dangerous away missions.
I have loads of Bridge officers, each with different skil sets and gear, it would be great to have a use for them all, both in the ground and space roles
Personally i have a ground Strike team, and Bridge officers, so 8 ( plus the Orion from diplomacy and the Catian i bought on a whim )
So for players like me the ideas you suggest would be very benificial to us, And the idea of adding more dynamic content is interesting, something i think would make the game fresher and more interesting ( wonder if this would ever get into the foundry in a million years?)
Though i am pretty sure this would be a massive headache for the development team to acomplish, the Fleet commands i have heard talked about, and are probably more likely to happen than the ground stuff you talked about , Additional Ships under my command could give my old vessels some much needed love and use, and yes as a crusier captian i would probably buy a Escort for my fleet just for the flxibilty of it
( though i would argue that ground could use more love than space, but i am in a minority that enjoy ground stuff very much , not so much combat, but the more diplomatic dialogue/explore stuff)
I mean, how many Vice Admirals can there be? LOL We currently have more Vice Admirals than any other rank - it really spoils immersion for me.
That was foreshadowed in the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer".
The computer configured the landing party based on the actual need of the mission - which did not include the captain.