NerdyVampire

This makes me think of my beloved Death Alarm. Why not "implant" the shuttles with one that goes off automatically the first time the navigational consoles become inoperable (due to loss of power, or destruction)? I would suggest it sends to command, engineering and operations. The death alarm, conversely, sends to command, medical and security. I wouldn't be opposed the the pilot having a way of manually triggering the alarm or a similar alarm. Fax machines, I think we should keep off the shuttles, it seems a bit wrong that they can communicate in that manner. One of the exciting things about the shuttle systems is the inability to easily communicate over large distances.

Lazarus injectors to be added to the science catalogue for xenobiological research.

I don't have much of a beef in this, but I wouldn't want vessels to be too fast to be reacted to by other vessels. The time it takes to get a lock and fire at another vessel, should be taken into account. Sure it's nice to be fast, but it isn't fun if it just becomes impossible to actually combat. I do think it makes sense for more people to have access to the Canary, especially hangar techs. I do not entirely agree Atmos techs need access. I think it is more reasonable that they deliver mixes to the hanger crew, to then install as fuel.

Engaged well with a inter-departmental project, communicated and handled staff well, I have faith in their capabilities for roleplay and command +1

Bumping this up. Since the last reply we've gotten more research-relevant equipment to do things off-ship, but the guide to piloting still doesn't list scientists as a viable candidate for expeditions. And I totally agree that it should be "locked" for xenoarcheology use for the first twenty minutes or so, whether a xenoarch is here or not. (https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Guide_to_Piloting)

I've interacted with several of his characters and definitely feel Fabian has a good grasp on everything required to engage in command business, including good roleplay interaction. I also like his answers to the above questions, I can only imagine he'll be well able to handle what will be required of him.

Definitely still in a raw state right now, so there are kinks to work out. The antaggery is mostly addressed by the end-round validation step, that doesn't actually save it to the database if any of the involved parties have been flagged as an antagonist this round. This doesn't stop the antag corp ex from filling it out to show the employee and being a meanie, or the antag employee from going out of their way to embarrass them or the company. You are right though, that it cannot solve "antag influence" on the round, but I would argue that a corporate executive can be expected to make a fair judgement call. I would expect a program like this would need some in-game directives to help the corp ex player do it properly. Regarding the number of items, I only said three to be certain not to ,take up more space than necessary, I don't really have a concept about how much is reasonably available to something like this. If it works, then 5 or 10 items per category would certainly be better than 3.

Made to complement: TL:DR of the above suggestion, is that we should find a way to bolster the authority (or illusion of same) of our corporate executives. The above suggestion is to formally place the corporate executives inbetween department heads and employees, so there is sufficient reason for employees to obey their executives when a relevant situation arises. That made me consider an additional implementation; Corporate RecordsTM --- The best way to support authority without actual authority, is bureaucracy! The Corporate RecordsTM are a program accessible through the corporate executive and department head laptops, ID scanning to ensure only such eyes come upon them. These records are ways for bosses to apply comments to a character's (not corporate executive, not consular, not department head) performance, which gives the impression of a long career, while in actuality only showing the latest three items for each given category (as we don't want to explode in space usage). It works like this: The corporate executive opens the Corporate RecordsTM and finds a relevant character. They click on their name, and are met with a list like so: Each item has been added by a corporate executive through the program in a previous round, and each item has been validated by the ID of the executive and a departmental head (only required in case of performance review, optional in others). At any point, only the three latest items are shown (and the older ones automatically deleted to conserve space). The corporate executive decides that the latest employee interview is rather old, so they contact the employee to schedule a new one. They click the 'Open new Item' and now has the form ready to be filled on their laptop. Once they are done, the program will ask for their ID and that of a department head (optional). Then the corporate executive clicks save, and they receive a small message that it has been submitted for approval. Approval happens at end of round, if these two conditions are met: Each item has been properly validated, with the ID of at least (1) corporate representative and up to (1) head-level command member (exactly 1 for performance reviews). Neither the employee nor any of the validators have been marked as antagonist for this round. If they are, then the item is added to the Corporate RecordsTM of the character, pushing out the oldest item if the new count of items for that category would surpass (3) items. Here are a list of the suggested items that an employee/head/corporate exec might engage in together (or without the department head for anything but performance reviews). Here is a suggestion of an item-format for a merit: What would this do to the rounds: Employees should stay on the good side of corporate executives to keep a clean record. Department heads have more reasons to meet with the corporate executives, and has another aspect to their department leadership. Command can more easily see what corporate executives actually do, and what their role is. Corporate executives can more easily find an excuse to call in and meet with their employees. Potentially, Corporate RecordsTM can be used to adjust an employee's bank account, making the average performance review score add or subtract a percentage from their money, or recent merits be used to argue for bonuses to be paid out to the employee. This was a lot, but if you've read so far, good for you!

I must agree that a checkpoint there seems excessive. I can understand that it would probably be more used than the custodial closet, but that isn't a good enough reason for me. Checkpoints make sense at docks, but we can't expect them to be used until bridge crewmen have a way of controlling/predicting where 3rd party shuttles will dock, so they can request the checkpoints in proper time.

At the very least, this should come with the strict caveat that the suspect should have successfully escaped from imprisonment (not detainment) at least three(?) times, before an execution order is valid. And the measures to keep them imprisoned should have improved with each subsequent imprisonment (+solitary, +guards, +straightjacket, +drugs, etc.). That way command staff can defend themselves against questioning from internal affairs, who can in turn defend the action from Biesel jurisdiction. But I can understand the arguments for and against. Frankly I don't mind a bit more dystopia, but it should come with the bureaucracy we all love.

Not a coder, but I like the idea and hope someone adopts it. Anything that gives people something interesting to do (that can be abused by antags/go wrong) is nice

We could also adjust the minimum time before the event fires, but within the first 20-30 minutes, it should be possible to either prepare weaponry to clear hazards, shoot the comet, or engines to move out of the way.

I would say for the purposes of the event they would need to. I imagine the event triggers, bridge crewmen run to the sensors so they can determine if the ship is in danger or not, and either it is within the Horizons long sensor range from spawn, or they will have to wait a bit for it.

Would definitely be more attracted to ghost roles myself like these And it gives some good stories to tell if the survivor ever get to the Horizon.

That's an important point, but I see a possible solution (though I'm not into the code). When the comet is about to spawn and is assigned a vector, we check through the list of 3rd party vessels' XY grid coordinates. If the course of the comet would hit it, we adjust by some degrees and check again. If it still hits, we adjust by twice the degrees in the opposite direction. Sooner or later we are guaranteed to find a course that cannot collide with 3rd party vessels - unless they move, but then they would be active and presumably be able to check sensors first.

Stellar Corporate Conglomerate Update (low-medium pop only) Rogue Comet Alert Long-range sensors have picked up a large comet entering your sector. Collision with this comet is expected to incur severe hull damage. Evasion is recommended. __________________________________________ Stellar Corporate Conglomerate Update (high pop only) Rogue Comet Swarm Alert Long-range sensors have picked up a swarm of large comets entering your sector. Collisions with these comets are expected to incur severe hull damage. Evasion is recommended. __________________________________________ It would work like this: Event may activate at the earliest ~20 minutes into the round, if bridge crew/OM/XO/Captain/AI are active plus engineering/operation staff (for thrusters OR ship weapons). Comets spawn at the opposite side of the sector from the Horizon Each comet is assigned a random vector towards the Horizon's half (but not necessarily the Horizon itself). Comets can only collide with vessels. Comets has a slow movement speed. It will be the responsibility of a bridge crewman (or similar) to use the sensors to locate and extrapolate a projected course of the comet(s), moving the Horizon out of the way and/or shooting them down as they come within range. Shields can reduce collision damage, but it should not avoid it entirely (otherwise there is no real motivation to evade them). Argument: This will make space a little more dangerous again (who is afraid of hazards / ghost roles these days?) It will provide some more gameplay and responsibility for bridge crewmen It will provide some PvE action for engineering if they actually hit us. It can give ghost-role players an excuse to interact with the Horizon, if they get hit they can request emergency repair/extraction/medical aid.

I wouldn't mind the OM getting this important responsibility, especially as the research director only really had it because they had the roboticist. In practice I agree that the CE will likely carry the brunt of the work for getting in when an AI goes wrong, but I think the operations manager can be argued to be a more logical choice for being responsible for it. But the OM should explicitly be allowed to be more than just a paperpusher, they should be a mech savant and a toolmonkey, much like the CE, so when things do get wrong they don't get shit for knowing how to break in too. It's a bit iffy though tbh, as it really depends on what heads are "there" in practice

Never noticed the suggestion, but a fun little conflict-maker

Alright, I am satisfied with the various arguements against this suggestion. Thank you all who provides their insights and opinions

I wouldn't want to not at least give investigators something to do, I don't mind leaving fingerprints, but I'd rather that leads to a suspicion of my involvement than it being an immediate solid proof of my involvement. I'd argue that those interrogations where there is doubt regarding the interviewees guilt is engaging in itself. And I don't think hearing the antags motivations after the fact are much more rewarding than catching a guy in a lie during an interview of suspicion?

Do you have another suggestion? NothingNew suggested that people get 'types' instead. I imagine it could be something like everyone gets type A, B, C, D, or E, and then you only learn what type it is unless the fingerprint sample is perfect, leaving you to compile a list with all those types and eliminate from there?

Exactly, though I'm just basing my suggestion on what I hear when I play BUDDY or spy as an antag. I am not trying to take anything away from investigators, but I feel like certainty is a bit of a roleplay killer. It eliminates their reason to talk to witnesses, and it makes interrogation be very one sided and predetermined in many cases.

If I understand it correctly the process is currently like this(?) Investigator collect fingerprints from touched objects. Investigator combs through the records manually based on a code such as A12*******4*****GF. If there is only one crewmember with a fingerprint that ends in "GF", then that very partial fingerprint is enough for a complete match Investigator calls out lone suspect, and security responds This is the way I would suggest instead: Investigator collect fingerprints from touched objects. Investigator analyze each fingerprint sample using a console machine. The machine outputs 1-5 matches to previous- or currently active crewmembers, based on clarity of the fingerprint The investigator now has a list of multiple suspects based on how many samples they could collect and how strong those samples were. The investigator then eliminates from the list based on witness statements, alibis, etc. It may we require that investigators don't work as directly with the fingerprint codes as before, but I don't see that as a great loss if it also makes it a bit easier for them to get the number of possible matches.

I haven't played investigator before, I just go by what I hear in security comms, but regardless it doesn't give multiple possibilities does it? Like, it's either nothing, or the actual crewman? No false positives?

Right now, an investigator has three main duties: Collect & analyse fingerprints Conduct interrogations Conduct autopsies My issue is with the fingerprint analysis. Presently it seems to output a singular match on every analysis, ie. a 100% certainty rate. It seems to shortcut the investigation process, as the first match can cause security to beeline to one specific crewman and it eliminates the need for even talking to witnesses, collecting alibis or anything else that might dissuade the sentencing. The 100% certainty rate is the issue here. Instead of outputting one guaranteed match, I propose it outputs three possible matches, where one is guaranteed to be true. Like this: "Fingerprint analysis complete. Partial matches found on: Hugh Loritt (Machinst) - Sarah Mildew (Xenobotanist) -and- John Johnson (Engineer)." (it could also match to a command- or security member, which would luckily reduce the number of suspects in most cases) Now security has multiple venues as alternatives to directly arresting one individual. They can: Request witnesses to determine who was actually at/near the scene of the crime (and antags could potentially witness false) Collect alibis from each individual before conducting an arrest. Collect other fingerprints at the crime scene -or- wait for a new crime scene and collect from there. Arrest all three and conduct interrogations to try and determine who is guilty - this would also give sec more of a reason to play nice with their arrestees as they know that only one is truly guilty. The process becomes more involved when there are partial matches, it makes the roleplay interaction between security and their suspects more nuanced, and it leaves a measure of doubt that is not currently in existence with fingerprints as is.