Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 11
02-12-2013, 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twg042370 View Post
Oh! An "Only Captains" thread. Has a week passed already?
That depends, how many "Nerf Escorts because I want cruisers to do everything" threads have gone up in the meantime?
Captain
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 543
# 12
02-12-2013, 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
That depends, how many "Nerf Escorts because I want cruisers to do everything" threads have gone up in the meantime?
Please, that argument is as moronic as the "Escorts are the best tanks, Cruisers suck" threads that make my brain hurt reading. *Points at sig if one wants proof of my feelings on the matter*
Cruisers do not suck at DPS and Escorts are not Tanks. If you think this, you need to reread the definition of Tank.
Captain currently of the USS Crash-to-Desktop NCC-18897741

Writer/Author of Lyrical Trek
Captain
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,810
# 13
02-12-2013, 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
The devs have said that "Fleet Admiral" will be the highest possible rank and they will never raise the level cap above that.
Recently? Or was this the reference to the dev post from 2010 that outlined how the level cap was going to 60? That dev left the company a few months later and the topic was dead for a long time.

Quote:
So we're looking at level 70 as the ultimate cap.
I still think we're looking at a level 50 ultimate cap and rep grinds as the alternative for advancement in this game going forward.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 14
02-12-2013, 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventomoe View Post
Please, that argument is as moronic as the "Escorts are the best tanks, Cruisers suck" threads that make my brain hurt reading. *Points at sig if one wants proof of my feelings on the matter*
You really need to get your sarcasmometer checked out if you thought that was a serious quote.
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 476
# 15
02-12-2013, 09:10 AM
I think there's no problem with players reaching the level of Vice Admiral or Admiral. But reaching this rank in a week with less knowledge of the game than a cadet of first year, I think its problematic. Currently the game is design to be a rush to VA in order to make new players feel advanced and let them quickly in the need of buying a C-Store VA ship, or a C-Store "Fleet" Module Ship.
[That's it, Spanish and/or Hispanic Fleet]
L'Ter@lotherus - Alien Sci Officer - Wells/Destroyer
(No quiero mas reputaciones - No more rep!)
Captain
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 543
# 16
02-12-2013, 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
You really need to get your sarcasmometer checked out if you thought that was a serious quote.
Oh, I know it wasn't serious. I was just making clear I felt those threads were idiotic too.

But yeah, trying to insert logic into an online Star Trek game? Yeah...Vulcans would even raise their eyebrows at you for the illogical action you have taken my dear Original Poster.
Cruisers do not suck at DPS and Escorts are not Tanks. If you think this, you need to reread the definition of Tank.
Captain currently of the USS Crash-to-Desktop NCC-18897741

Writer/Author of Lyrical Trek
Commander
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 331
# 17
02-12-2013, 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thestargaze View Post
... 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?
In the actual Navy you can Captain a ship while retaining a low rank. LT's captain small ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 153
# 18
02-12-2013, 10:35 AM
i see it this way i am as the player the admiral and my toons are captains
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,097
# 19
02-12-2013, 11:27 AM
Well practicality wise they have not fixed the exp amounts.. The Last time I made a toon it took me less than 3 weeks casual play to get to VA.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 528
# 20
02-12-2013, 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thestargaze View Post
... 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?
Ah. The age old question. Why indeed are we all Vice Admirals?
Just say no to ARC
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 05:02 AM.