... I don't know about you but I did not aspire to be vice admiral when I was watching Star Trek. No, I wanted to be captain or lower ranks like Commander and Lt Commander etc. I don't get the concept of having thousands of Vice Admirals roaming about on STO.
This ranking system does not make any sense to me. What's the fun in this? If I am a starfleet officer, I like to work myself up.. yes .. but I also like to stay being Commander for some time. I don't think leveling up should be connected to your rank. We all level up quickly and never stay in one rank for long. The reason for that is the limitations of the lower ranks (and sometime crappy ships).
Point is, can't we separate the two.. the leveling and the rank?
Also as lower rank of Commander, you are not suppose to be captain or have your own ship, right?
Is there a better system for this? If so,.. what would it be?
Doesn't matter since your rank is merely a level milestone. If rank is a big thing for you, you can always join/make a roleplay fleet that uses their own ranking systems. In-game it's really a non-issue since it's more about your own character progressing and not so much about others.
Yes but won't i be problematic for the game creators when they increase the cap,... which the have done over the years? Soon you might get to full Admiral.. then what? President?
I just hint that there could be a better system.
You can change your pips yes.. but in your info it says Vice Admiral.
They can re-name it so that RA (Lower) becomes Commodore with 10 levels like it should be. Then fill out the 10 each for the next 2. Which would bring the levels up to 60 for VA. Then for the next increase to Admiral with 10 bring it to 70. Then FA to 80. So yes they can keep doing it with ranks if they wanted.