Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Alright, I'll skip the usual opening paragraph, and cut right to the chase. Currently, the ranks in STO are as follows:

Ensign: 1
Lieutenant: 2-10
Lieutenant Commander: 11-20
Commander: 21-30
Captain: 31-40
Rear Admiral, Lower half: 41-45
Rear Admiral, Upper Half: 46-50
Vice Admiral: 51

Now, there's two problems with this:
1. The current setup only allows for two more "canon" ranks to be added (Admiral and Fleet Admiral).
2. The current setup skips the rank of Lieutenant, JG.


My proposal is to adjust the ranks to the following:

Cadet: 1
Ensign: 2-10
Lieutenant, Junior Grade: 11-20
Lieutenant: 21-30
Lieutenant Commander: 31-40
Commander: 41-50
Captain: 51 (-60)

Additionally, when the admiral ranks are added, they would be as follows:

Rear Admiral, Lower Half: 61-65
Rear Admiral, Upper Half: 66-70
Vice Admiral: 71-75
Admiral: 76-80
Fleet Admiral: 81


This change would allow for expansions to be a somewhat separate game involving fleet controls and other "admiral-level" abilities. It would also stay truer to canon, in that Captains are the driving force pervading the universe (i.e. the most common ship commanders).

We would also need to re-do the tutorial slightly, but doing the tutorial as a cadet would make more sense (to me at least), and would give new players a fitting introduction. Successful completion of the tutorial would place new players into the role of Ensign, a fitting place for new characters to start.

These changes, coupled with the idea of tier elimination and a new Tutorial, would make STO much more "Star Trek", while still retaining the current STO feel.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-25-2011, 09:27 AM
I'm not opposed to this. Frankly, my opinion is that I would have preferred that admiral ranks be titles for fleets only, with no real game-play difference.

I am curious, however...

I think there would be a mountain of crying about having people's rank "taken away", even though the game play experience would be exactly the same.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-25-2011, 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasGideon
I'm not opposed to this. Frankly, my opinion is that I would have preferred that admiral ranks be titles for fleets only, with no real game-play difference.

I am curious, however...

I think there would be a mountain of crying about having people's rank "taken away", even though the game play experience would be exactly the same.
Yeah, that would be the one drawback to the change. As someone with three Vice Admirals, I can certainly understand where they'd stand. However, I hope the fear of public outcry doesn't stop Cryptic from seriously considering the changes. They've been saying they want to be "more like Trek", and I hope they stick with that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-25-2011, 10:37 AM
The only problem with that is how can they justify giving command of a ship to an ensign? As it stands, lieutenant barely makes sense with the whole battlefield commission and what-not.

I would like commodore to be added above captain, and all the admiral ranks expanded to a full ten levels. Your addition of Lt., J.G. is very good.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
02-25-2011, 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattivo80 View Post
The only problem with that is how can they justify giving command of a ship to an ensign? As it stands, lieutenant barely makes sense with the whole battlefield commission and what-not.

I would like commodore to be added above captain, and all the admiral ranks expanded to a full ten levels. Your addition of Lt., J.G. is very good.
If you follow the traditions of the US Navy, the title of Commodore was changed to Rear Admiral (Lower Half) so it would be somewhat redundant.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
02-25-2011, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattivo80 View Post
The only problem with that is how can they justify giving command of a ship to an ensign? As it stands, lieutenant barely makes sense with the whole battlefield commission and what-not.
That would be a problem as well, but considering the state of the war, it'd be easy enough to explain away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattivo80 View Post
I would like commodore to be added above captain
As Sakarak said, "Commodore" is synonymous with "Rear Admiral, Upper Half". I have no objection to the title being added to the game, but as far as the rank itself goes, it hasn't been seen in canon since TOS. (Coinciding with the change from "Commodore" to "Rear Admiral, Lower Half" in the US Navy).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattivo80 View Post
. . . all the admiral ranks expanded to a full ten levels. Your addition of Lt., J.G. is very good.
I wouldn't mind that either. I only left it at 5-level increments because that's how they're set up now. I'm focusing on the ranks themselves moreso than the actual levels involved.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
02-25-2011, 02:18 PM
I wouldn't mind if Cryptic did the following:

Cadet: Training mission at Starfleet Academy.
Ensign: Command of a type 8 shuttle for small missions.
Lt. J.G.: Command of a Runabout.
Lt.: Command of a Delta Flyer.
Lt. Cmdr.: Command of T1 starships.
Cmdr: T2 ships
Capt. 1-5: Command of T3
Capt. 6-10: Command of T4
Admirals: T5 and up.

However, none of it will probably happen. The only exception that I think would be considered is having ensign and lt. j.g. briefly command shuttles in place of the current training missions at the start of a new character.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
02-25-2011, 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuatela
Alright, I'll skip the usual opening paragraph, and cut right to the chase. Currently, the ranks in STO are as follows:

Ensign: 1
Lieutenant: 2-10
Lieutenant Commander: 11-20
Commander: 21-30
Captain: 31-40
Rear Admiral, Lower half: 41-45
Rear Admiral, Upper Half: 46-50
Vice Admiral: 51

Now, there's two problems with this:
1. The current setup only allows for two more "canon" ranks to be added (Admiral and Fleet Admiral).
2. The current setup skips the rank of Lieutenant, JG.


My proposal is to adjust the ranks to the following:

Cadet: 1
Ensign: 2-10
Lieutenant, Junior Grade: 11-20
Lieutenant: 21-30
Lieutenant Commander: 31-40
Commander: 41-50
Captain: 51 (-60)

Additionally, when the admiral ranks are added, they would be as follows:

Rear Admiral, Lower Half: 61-65
Rear Admiral, Upper Half: 66-70
Vice Admiral: 71-75
Admiral: 76-80
Fleet Admiral: 81


This change would allow for expansions to be a somewhat separate game involving fleet controls and other "admiral-level" abilities. It would also stay truer to canon, in that Captains are the driving force pervading the universe (i.e. the most common ship commanders).

We would also need to re-do the tutorial slightly, but doing the tutorial as a cadet would make more sense (to me at least), and would give new players a fitting introduction. Successful completion of the tutorial would place new players into the role of Ensign, a fitting place for new characters to start.

These changes, coupled with the idea of tier elimination, would make STO much more "Star Trek", while still retaining the current STO feel.
im all for it
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
02-28-2011, 06:22 AM
Only problem I see on this -- having to explain (again and again and again) why a Lt. in command of a ship is still called Captain.

Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
02-28-2011, 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RStoney View Post
Only problem I see on this -- having to explain (again and again and again) why a Lt. in command of a ship is still called Captain.

In the old school maritime tradition anyone that was in command of a ship was called "captain" regardless of any actual rank held

Of course if you are using sarcasm and this has been explained repeatedly before ... I withdraw my comment
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 AM.