Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[piecewise]

I really should create some sort of searchable tag for people updating the wiki, so they can easily find posts or parts of posts where things need to be updated or added.

Something like bold red for subtractions, bold green for additions?
lose 2 shotgun ammo
gain 1 laser rifle and 1 spare battery

"Hey, is there something i can do to make this coat work against lasers?".
If that's what the "ablative armour plating" option for the longcoat is, buy it for 2 tokens.

I'm gonna look silly here but where are you getting this "Ablative armor" option from?

It's on the wiki: http://einsteinianroulette.wikia.com/wiki/Armory#Civic_Defender.27s_Longcoat
i actually have no idea what it is, but was going to ask about "maybe you know making it shiny or something" and saw that there was this option.

Anyone know where the "ablative armour plating" option for the longcoat came from and what it does?

Yttra appears from wherever she was hiding and starts wandering about the ship. She occasionally stops and stares at nothing, and at one point pushes on a wall for no apparent reason.

I bet she's looking for secret areas. There's bound to be a BFG or a Chainsaw somewhere around here.

Any minute now she'll find the secret portal to the bonus level.

Nice one with the character index all perfectly lined up in columns.

I was thinking something more along the lines of {WIKI}, something that could be entered into the search feature of the forum and only bring up the posts that matter.

A whole mess of Rank talk.

Alright, I'll bite.

As I see it, you guys are talking about two things: Rank and Designation. Rank being a character's place in the hierarchy of the resistance movement, while designation would be a shorthand way to describe their skills. I think these things should be separate because the frankly are separate. Toaster has a higher con skill then milno, but he's lower in the hierarchy.

The ranks, the hierarchy, would be dependant much more upon the responsibilities of the individual character; the chain of command as it were. This kind of gets complicated, however, when you factor in the fact that milno controls a group which has exactly one permanent member and the rest are on constant rotation in and out of the general populace when, in reality, anyone in Joker group should probably be promoted above the standard soldier because they are being trusted with more difficult, delicate missions. And Milno, really, should probably exist somewhere outside the entire system since he is ultimately responsible only to steve. Applying a rank system to an existing rabble is much harder then squeezing recruits through an existing one. Hm.

Alright so here is the system I slapped together.

 

So steve sits on top, obviously, with the commanders directly under him and the black ops sitting out to the side, responsible to no one but him.
Then there are the subcommanders and special assignments. This includes Simus and technically everyone on Heph, as well as other necessary positions above the standard rank and file but still responsible to the commanders.

Then we have the break down into 4 sections. These sections are the categorization of skills and place within the organization.
Support: These would be your fleshtechs, your medics, your general non-coms and support characters. They don't get into fights directly, if they can help it, they just patch people up, repair damaged things, etc. These are more generalized tech, med, aux mixes designed for nerd work in a lot of fields.

Tech: This has some overlap with support but these are guys that focus on not only repairing things but also on making things and having technically useful skills. Pilots, drivers, people with high level Aux skills, and the like. They tend to have a higher focus on one skill while the support are more even.

Standard: Most people will probably fall under this. Your general soldiers. Weapon types aren't really important though it will more then likely be Con dominated with some uncon and dabbling Exo users. These are multi-talented, more balanced combat characters.

Specialists: Our Glass cannon characters. The ones who dump all their stats and skills towards doing a single thing very well.


Each of these Sections has 5 levels, as you can see. The first master would be chosen by the commanders and then that master would set up the organization of the rest of his section, controlling promotions and rank within the section. The ranks should be decided NOT solely by numerical skill, ie just having a +2 in a skill shouldn't make you an adept. It would be a combination of both numerical skill and player responsibility and usage of that skill. First incarnation Xan would, despite his huge numerical skill, probably still be considered Novice or Apprentice because of his uncontrolled use of it. Meanwhile, someone with a +2/3rds could be a journeyman or Adept simply because they used their skills in a smart, responsible, effective way.

This system has several good points:
1.It allows everyone to be generally categorized and more easily chosen for missions. Once placed into a section the character could be further identified by some sort of additional moniker, such as a "Pilot Tech" or a "Con Standard" for focus or greatest skill.

2.It creates a chain of command that takes the weight of maintaining everyone's rank and promotions and overseeing off any one person's shoulders.

3.It creates a system of advancement based upon merit, rather then something like skill numbers or missions completed.

4. It creates the possibility for a change in how we handle gear (for instance it could be that gear becomes free, but is restricted by rank and doled out by the Master or the commanders from a set pool)

5.Uniforms, medals, promotions and all that fun stuff becomes possible.

What do you guys think?

Keep in mind that if we establish ranks, it basically means that those in the lower ranks will have to listen to those ranked above them, they will become responsible to orders given by them. A chain of command has to have some weight behind it or it will mean nothing.

[Toaster]

While point 5 does have a good bit of appeal, I'd hate to lose the "motley band of rebellious idiots" feel that we've had going on.  It *does* better reflect the changing nature of the game, though.

[Harry Baldman]

While point 5 does have a good bit of appeal, I'd hate to lose the "motley band of rebellious idiots" feel that we've had going on.  It *does* better reflect the changing nature of the game, though.

Agreed, let's not have actual ranks. That's just silly and not very useful, and also robs players of individual agency. It's more fun if they're in name only, and entail no actual responsibility or gain. Responsibility is the antithesis of ARM.

[Toaster]

Thinking further on that, I would suggest this: no one below Adept has any actual authority over lower ranked characters.  (Sub) Commanders, sure, because they essentially already exist.  Masters, assuming there are only four, I don't see that as a problem, because they'd be the one working the ranks.  Adepts could fill in as team leaders when separate squads are made.  Beyond that, though, I don't see any need for authority.  What good does an Apprentice get for bossing around a Novice?  I just see that as a great opportunity for bad blood to be spread.  I don't see it as a problem for NPC interactions though.  ("Sorry, not giving out nukes to Novices today, not after that last incident!"  "No, you don't need a gravity manip, not after what you did with the mass manip.")

But player-over-player authority should be minimal, at best.

[Pancaek]

Point 5 is my dream. I have a thing for uniforms and medals. Though I suppose I agree with Toaster and harry's points, the motley band of idiots feel is a big part of this. I'm fairly sure that having a hierarchy wouldn't change much about this feeling, however. 

Maybe we should have honorary ranks? Like how our three generals aren't generals in a hierarchy, but they stell have much more power/responsability than another player when it comes to giving orders and deciding things, same as Simus on Heph.  The general could appoint someone as commander, to give orders during a mission in which that particular general is the overseer.

But uniforms and medals need to become a thing, definately.

-fake dit as I was typing-

Thinking further on that, I would suggest this: no one below Adept has any actual authority over lower ranked characters.  (Sub) Commanders, sure, because they essentially already exist.  Masters, assuming there are only four, I don't see that as a problem, because they'd be the one working the ranks.  Adepts could fill in as team leaders when separate squads are made.  Beyond that, though, I don't see any need for authority.  What good does an Apprentice get for bossing around a Novice?  I just see that as a great opportunity for bad blood to be spread.  I don't see it as a problem for NPC interactions though.  ("Sorry, not giving out nukes to Novices today, not after that last incident!"  "No, you don't need a gravity manip, not after what you did with the mass manip.")

But player-over-player authority should be minimal, at best.

Or this, this could certainly work.

[Illgeo]

Well, ranks like journeyman or adept sounds more like competence ranks than authority ranks

[Parisbre56]

Thinking further on that, I would suggest this: no one below Adept has any actual authority over lower ranked characters.  (Sub) Commanders, sure, because they essentially already exist.  Masters, assuming there are only four, I don't see that as a problem, because they'd be the one working the ranks.  Adepts could fill in as team leaders when separate squads are made.  Beyond that, though, I don't see any need for authority.  What good does an Apprentice get for bossing around a Novice?  I just see that as a great opportunity for bad blood to be spread.  I don't see it as a problem for NPC interactions though.  ("Sorry, not giving out nukes to Novices today, not after that last incident!"  "No, you don't need a gravity manip, not after what you did with the mass manip.")

But player-over-player authority should be minimal, at best.

I'd go for a system like that.

I'm certain there wouldn't be a people irrationally ordering other people around, since I don't think anyone here is that kind of person OOC. And if anyone does that kind of thing IC, it's more than likely they'll get a demotion, so again, probably not happening. Unless someone stages a coup or something.

And assuming we still have rewards at the end of each mission, such a system wouldn't prevent someone who wants to roleplay someone completely crazy from acquiring the weapons of mass destruction they require for maximum mayhem. There were similar concerns when the Generals, the funds and the Hephaestus thread was introduced but so far we haven't seen any of them validated. Most of the players who have ever gained any sort of power have said that they don't want to pull rank on someone to force them to stop doing something.

Only problem I have is that feeling that it might either be too complicated or not complicated enough. But we could "Beta test" it for a while and see if it works. If it doesn't we'll just stick with it being a flavour thing.

But hey, whatever the majority says.

[AoshimaMichio]

I'm going along same line as Toaster. Though I think only ranks needed are Master, Adept and The Other Murderers. No actual authority between ranks (except generals, and maybe Masters).

For role designations I would lump Support and Tech together. Those don't have enough inviduality to be separate. Holy Trinity go!

[Parisbre56]

I'm more interested in a clarification for how one becomes a specialist. What if someone has +2 Con and nothing else? Is he soldier or specialist? Or are roles based more on how you act rather than stats? In that case the distinction between tech and support is easier, since a tech drives vehicles around while a support helps others, or something like that.

Now that I think about it, might be better to actually have the superiors pick where one should belong or decide if someone should be transferred to another role, since the definitions are so loose. In conjunction with the player, of course.

[Hapah]

Posted during my lunch break in a hurry.

@Hapah: I thought we were adding ranks more as a flavour. As something we could call ourselves when we want to sound official. I don't think they would have any in game implications. A system where you have perks, votes, orders and other silly stuff like that based on rank would be overly complicating things.

I had it in mind as a flavor thing as well, hence why I formulated it after the basic distribution of player character general authority. It doesn't really change anything, but it certainly is informative and official-sounding.

Then we have had a misunderstanding! If it's all cosmetics and world-building and whatnot, I wouldn't care if someone's rank was "His Most Regal Excellency Baron Von Stud-Muffin". Go nuts!

Then we have the break down into 4 sections. These sections are the categorization of skills and place within the organization. ...

No problem at all with this bit, it's the "Role" item we were kicking around earlier. An easy to to tell, at a glance, what someone's use is. This system adds value simply by being created (I love these kinds of systems)

1.It allows everyone to be generally categorized and more easily chosen for missions. Once placed into a section the character could be further identified by some sort of additional moniker, such as a "Pilot Tech" or a "Con Standard" for focus or greatest skill.

Just the Roles (or Sections as you called them) could probably cover this.

2.It creates a chain of command that takes the weight of maintaining everyone's rank and promotions and overseeing off any one person's shoulders.

I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate?

3.It creates a system of advancement based upon merit, rather then something like skill numbers or missions completed.

Who decides when someone should advance, and who will mediate the inevitable squabbles? Basically the first item here: these questions have answers, but we'd want to figure them out ahead of time.

4. It creates the possibility for a change in how we handle gear (for instance it could be that gear becomes free, but is restricted by rank and doled out by the Master or the commanders from a set pool)

This is an interesting angle that I hadn't given any thought to. Might be hard to implement entirely mid-stream though; we've already got a lot of hardware floating around. Maybe some sort of hybrid system to phase it in?

5.Uniforms, medals, promotions and all that fun stuff becomes possible.

Not really my cup of tea, but I understand that some people go nuts for stuff like this. I'd note that Uniforms and Medals wouldn't necessarily require a ranking system; they could be given out by role/section for the former and for exceptional actions for the latter. Maybe uniforms and item #4 could blend together, if you decide to go that route?

While point 5 does have a good bit of appeal, I'd hate to lose the "motley band of rebellious idiots" feel that we've had going on.  It *does* better reflect the changing nature of the game, though.

Yeah, both parts of this are true. We are Idiots in Space! And making things too strict could take a lot of that out.

Thinking further on that, I would suggest this: no one below Adept has any actual authority over lower ranked characters.  (Sub) Commanders, sure, because they essentially already exist.  Masters, assuming there are only four, I don't see that as a problem, because they'd be the one working the ranks.  Adepts could fill in as team leaders when separate squads are made.  Beyond that, though, I don't see any need for authority.  What good does an Apprentice get for bossing around a Novice?  I just see that as a great opportunity for bad blood to be spread.  I don't see it as a problem for NPC interactions though.  ("Sorry, not giving out nukes to Novices today, not after that last incident!"  "No, you don't need a gravity manip, not after what you did with the mass manip.")

But player-over-player authority should be minimal, at best.

This is pretty consistent with my line of thinking. There's a lot of ways for things to go sideways if you've got players bossing players.

I'm certain there wouldn't be a people irrationally ordering other people around, since I don't think anyone here is that kind of person OOC. And if anyone does that kind of thing IC, it's more than likely they'll get a demotion, so again, probably not happening. Unless someone stages a coup or something.

Gotta prepare for the worst, though, and anticipate any future players and future events. What if GWG was still around?

Only problem I have is that feeling that it might either be too complicated or not complicated enough. But we could "Beta test" it for a while and see if it works. If it doesn't we'll just stick with it being a flavour thing.

If it is all "cosmetic", then it doesn't really matter how complex it is. As it stands now, if it's going to be a system with real impacts, it's adding complexity without much value at the moment. There are a few angles that could fix that, though (i.e. Piecewise's #4).

[Radio Controlled]

Personally, I'd go for ranks indicating skill as a commander. In my head, I already have the following 'categories' for people: 
-unproven, people who I best don't leave alone/unsupervised too much (includes newbs) if possible
-proven: people I can trust not to fuck shit up, but not right skill set for leading a team
-squad commander: someone who can command a small group of people
-leaders: bigger ranking, can be trusted to plan and oversee a whole operation of 10+ people. includes people like Simus.

So, for me at least (the one doing most of the bossin' around and planning most of the time) it would just help and streamline things. Make it official. So instead of sitting down and dividing 15+ people into squads and appoint leaders, I can just go: "you, squad leaders, divide that motley crew into 3 units. Here's the plan for them, divide accordingly." After which the people being divided will be expected to follow orders (to a certain degree) from their commanders. Just like how it is now, really (when I appoint a squad leader, I expect people assigned to listen to him/her). People already have power in this game, but usually in a non-official way, except for the generals and Simus mostly. Like hapah said, if Lars asks people to do stuff, they usually will, because he's proven to be good enough to lead a squad of men.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If people want a sort of 'role' system for indicating stuff, sure, But not sure if that should be included into the (chain of command'. Would keep it separated personally, and just set up some general descriptors for certain roles that can be included to the wiki.

As for role... simple names are nice, but really inconsistent.  What do you call Milno?  His 'role' on the wiki is 'Honey Badger', which tells you nothing.  I can't really think of anything better, though.  Gunner?  Flying Brick?  Jack of stats?  All of those leave something out.  Maybe primary weapon/suit/secondary role?  Con/MKIII for Milno, Uncon/Syn/Medic for Faith?  Maybe a lack of role would be better, honestly.

Milno: Flying/Armored/Gunner
Faith: Agile/Melee/medic/manip

Something that includes short 'tag words' for their most important characteristics (from a mission standpoint) perhaps?

There is (obviously) currently no system in place to decide when or how people would rise through the ranks, or even what the ranks are. Does it take one recommendation from someone higher than you? A percentage? What if someone is being ranked down, who decides that? Where should the discussions and votes take place?

I'd say just let the generals decide, who can incorporate outside advice of course. Perhaps with the rule of 'you cannot promote to your own rank, only below' and 'no demotions by people lower than general, though one can put up a request for demotion (both for people above and below your rank).

Who is going to do the book-keeping on it (it won't be PW)?

The wiki is your friend.

How much real power will higher ranks have over lowers (i.e., can higher ranks get Steve to zap lowers? Dock pay?)

I'd say people are just 'supposed to listen' to people above their rank, like what happens now but unofficially. Perhaps certain powers for certain ranks, but not too much (though generals can already zap people, but we restrain from using it).

What person or persons will mediate the inevitable squabbles(again, won't be PW)?

Generals. Means all the hate can be nicely pointed towards a handy scapegoat. Come face me brah!

-There is the very real possibility of someone going on a power trip and cracking down on everyone under him/her, justified or not. That one player might be having a blast playing Dictator for a Day, but it will probably make everyone under them miserable and/or rather pissy. Is this acceptable, and if not, what system would you put in place to stop it?

Then you just flip them the bird, and tell a general/Steve when appropriate. As long as they have no access to your spine shockers, there's little they can do that they couldn't try to do anyways. If the whole team thinks a person is being unreasonable, then they can just decide not to listen as a unit. Hopefully though, no people like that will ever make it high enough for it to really matter. I mean, I often play dictator, but no people have (yet) complained I'm too strict, so  think it can work out if we're careful.

4. It creates the possibility for a change in how we handle gear (for instance it could be that gear becomes free, but is restricted by rank and doled out by the Master or the commanders from a set pool)

Not sure, but isn't that covered by the 'pools and funds' thing?

Agreed, let's not have actual ranks. That's just silly and not very useful, and also robs players of individual agency. It's more fun if they're in name only, and entail no actual responsibility or gain. Responsibility is the antithesis of ARM.

I beg to differ. I have to admit I sometimes struggle with playing the role of commander and bossing people around (and the personal fun coming from organizing a well-oiled machine that handles missions competently) and not restricting people too much or losing that sense of whimsy ER can have. But even so, I do enjoy setting up plans and seeing them work out through coordinated teamwork, more than I enjoy seeing everything go to hell (especially when it's on my mission). I can understand you enjoy the freewheelin' happy-go-lucky aspects of ER more, but don't go 'forcing' that on people or pretend that's what ER is all about.

[Nikitian]

Well, well, well.

Overall, the idea seems thought-out and cool. I also support Toaster's notion. That way we could finally achive the 'hybrid' result we decided upon earlier - keeping some of the Corps-defining freedom, yet institute a bit of 'straight fucking military' going with the formation of the ARM. I have a little trouble feeling the difference between the three lower ranks (as opposed to two: 'skilled' and 'newbie'), but pehaps it could be understood as 'minor veteran', 'survivor' and 'freshman'. Okay.

I don't support the idea of 'black ops' being excluded from hierarchy, however. They still go on other missions sometimes, they still have skills and stats and equipment and progress pretty much as everyone else. Why should they not be judged by their merit like everyone else? Perhaps that means that we'd need another section for 'purer' black ops (now that such builds become possibility).
Another point against exclusion from hierarchy by 'answering only to Steve' is that it would set a very dangerous precedent. For example, why shouldn't be excluded people who don't even answer to Steve most of the time? I am talking about those poor souls 'claimed' by the Doctor, like Renen or Lukas. It has been established so far that Steve doesn't quite count them as his own responsibility any more (rather than the Doc's), after all.

I still think that having 'negative' ranks was a funny and interesting idea. Why don't have 'Hazard' and possibly even 'Immediate Hazard' ranks? Stacy and Xan-1 (may they rest in peace, our valiant brothers in arms) would certainly fit the former and the latter positions as of immediately before M15, I think. Hindsight 20/20, of course.
And such examples exist for all of the sections, I believe.

Finally, there still remains the problem that having any kind of strict-ish hierarchy apart from 'designated men in charge' means there will come envy, avarice, ambition and power greed. It might actually entitle to anything, but having these imaginary ranks and sort of imaginary ladder could provoke a whole set of wrong feelings we have mostly avoided so far.

Oh, and 2 probably won't happen. At best, it would delegate a section of this work to each master whenever the systems needs adjustment. However, thankfully that wouldn't come too often, I agree.

Edit: Much of what RC said.

[AoshimaMichio]

"I have a Microwave amp. I suppose if we do have to heat it for whatever reason the desert sun can't handle, I could do it. Still, we should probably get this done." Jason comments, waiting to hear answers to the questions that the others asked.

This is such a good idea. Go for it!

[Xantalos]

"I have a Microwave amp. I suppose if we do have to heat it for whatever reason the desert sun can't handle, I could do it. Still, we should probably get this done." Jason comments, waiting to hear answers to the questions that the others asked.

This is such a good idea. Go for it!

Hell, I don't see any reason why this can't be solved by indiscriminate use of microwave amp overloads like everything else.

[Hapah]

"I have a Microwave amp. I suppose if we do have to heat it for whatever reason the desert sun can't handle, I could do it. Still, we should probably get this done." Jason comments, waiting to hear answers to the questions that the others asked.

This is such a good idea. Go for it!

Hell, I don't see any reason why this can't be solved by indiscriminate use of microwave amp overloads like everything else.

Except this time we might be basting the enemy with a laser rifle set to "Tanning Bed"