for some, I insist, being ranked as a 'Hazard' is a mark of honor and acknowledgement of their deeds and capabilities.
Does it make sense, in a real military (even one as lose as ours) to make special rank to designate people who are a danger to their teammates and the mission? If they're proud of it, then that's not something we (speaking IC'ly) should encourage or acknowledge. And what realistic commander would take people like that with them willingly? After all, a weapon one can't control isn't an asset as much as disaster waiting to happen.
Well, there are desperadoes, pyromaniacs,
demolition experts...
Think of the sunrise-over-China-9 'dam incident'. Have it not made the rest of the mission cakewalk (at the expense of relatively few casualties, mostly those who couldn't (Nik) or wouldn't (Neil) flee for safety)?
And then, in cases when orbital bombardment is unavailable or not exactly an option, more or less controlled liberal application of extreme power can have its uses. For example, that way we could have tried hunting that gargantuan earth-snake of M6. Or was it not Miyamoto's heatblade that cleared much of opposition during the assault on Hephaestus?
Think of it not as 'a weapon one can't control', but more 'a weapon one can point at so mqny enemies that it cannot miss' while applying large doses of 'duck and cover' on the mission team-scale.
And finally, there is always giving chance for redemption, or at least showing restraint.
the reprimanded guy could have been awarded the Hazard rank, for example.
That'd be like handing out medals to people for killing X teammates.
Exactly. And whether you perceive them as medals (for cheerful homicidal maniacs) or symbols of shame and regret (for saner people and commanders), depends solely on the person. Or how would Ivan's gauss rifle earn such fame other way?
How about if Hazard would be a role/designation rather than rank? This way they could advance ranks normally while retaining their status as a Hazard.
I would support this. Means they still can be labeled, without 'officially' putting it in the structure.
Well, it's a fine way to deal with it, but it probably means that we need another rank, unless you are fine with dumping them in with Regulars. The idea behind Novices is chiefly that they are yet untested or have not 'bloomed' into full 'Corpspeople. This might incorporate people with more than no missions under their belt, it is just that they have not had the chance to act and accomplish, or do so significantly. An example could be Maurice as of after M5 - IIRC it was only on M6 that he had practised medicine on a mission for the first time.
If you wanted to have a certain degree of capability, reliability or something like that, to the Regulars rank, then, with the removal of Hazard ranks it means there is a gap for yet another rank somewhere either directly below or above the Regulars rank (depending on whether to put Hazards there or below). As quite fully tested members of the Movement (other way the wouldn't have earned the designation), they don't qualify for Novices 'unknowns'.
Hmmm. Veterans (above Regulars), perhaps? Given the position and implied broadness, it could well be fine, as would it remain slightly derogatory to those not deemed to be ones solely on their lack of restraint/power/competence - if that is what you want. We could then shift Adepts to Elites and go with the traditional strategy game troop level designations
(descending from as early as the first Civilization, I think)
And besides, nothing really says we can't do both: a dedicated person to oversee it, while squad commanders can make requests (perhaps to one of these overseers, rather than with Miya as is the case now) for their own people/mission.
I agree absolutely.
Author
Topic: Einsteinian Roulette: OOC and NEW PLAYER INFO (Read 2544126 times)