Dreamix

Map being randomly picked is intentional, same thing as storyteller not being able to pick whether the scenario is canon or not. If maps are votable or whatever, it just means the most popular (and safest and most boring) option will be picked every time. Variety is good and the main strength of Odyssey (imo). Voting or picking maps means less variety.

I see no point in reworking them for horizon use. People don't really play onship antags, I don't think any kind of rework would change that. They're good as is in odyssey, and I think any future antag changes or reworks should be done with odyssey in mind instead. And odyssey currently can have scenarios like Town of Salem or etc. I've seen at least one round like that with ling.

Horizon would still be representing the strongest organization in the spur. I don't see how it would cause offships to attack Horizon more often if Horizon isn't the flagship anymore. I would be fine with that personally, but how I see it is that the general server population doesn't want that. People don't want all these cool origins (that they've been playing for a long while now) forced into boring and unpopular jobs, or otherwise limited in other ways.

# What is this This thread is just an idea, a thought experiment, something I've been thinking about for a while now and wanted to share and discuss. This is not a new-NBT proposition, I am not suggesting we switch to this setting now, and I am not trying to start a new SS13 server. This is very different from my previous thread, it's not an entirely different setting, just a change to the current one. This is something I've seen quite a few other people propose, or agree with, so I don't think it's just my own idea or opinion. # The basic idea Horizon is still a SCC ship, just not the most important flagship of the SCC. It's just a random SCC ship, same as any other in the SCC fleet. It's kinda as simple as that. # The problem I think there is a pretty big disconnect between what Horizon is supposed to be in lore, and what it is actually in game, as well as what different players are expecting it to be. Some people want to play a character that is at peak of their career in the biggest organization in the spur, after many many years of education and work experience, clearly winning in life after overcoming all of their difficulties, with this great opportunity to work on the SCC flagship. But then why is SCC hiring all these criminals and anti-corporates and other "bad" origins, why are people dying on every expedition like they're just disposable cannon fodder, why do we get bad gear or supplies sometimes, why is Horizon not really doing many important tasks and mostly just drifting between random planets? Characters like these would fit on Horizon if it was in game as it is presented in lore. Some people want to play a character on a shitty corporate ship where everything is awful and dystopic, or maybe they've just been dealt a bad hand are in big debt, or running away from the law. But that doesn't really work, cause horizon is the most important flagship, with the most experimental equipment, everything is fresh and clean, it gets the most important tasks, and should be the most prestigious place you could work on. Characters like these don't really fit on Horizon, but we just suspend our disbelief and play them anyways, cause they are fun concepts. So basically. Horizon doesn't feel like the important flagship it should be. (But maybe... it just shouldn't be the flagship?) # The solution One solution is to enforce the important flagship status harder. Ban bad origins, make it so everyone always wears proper uniforms, any kind of insubordination gets you fired, etc; but that'd be bad for a lot of reasons and the majority of players clearly wouldn't want that. So the better solution, that I propose here, is make Horizon just a SCC ship, same as any other ship in the SCC fleet, and not THE flagship. This doesn't really disqualify any character concepts, only makes it so the "bad" origins don't require any suspension of disbelief as to why they are here. And it solves a ton of other small problems that we've always just chosen to ignore. Like why are we sometimes underequipped on expeditions or in normal shifts? Doesn't make much sense if we're the most important flagship, but it's fine if we're just a random ship (more important vessels get better and more gear). Why is Horizon sometimes understaffed? Same thing, it's fine if we're just a random SCC ship - the best crew is transferred to more important ships or stations. One concern with this idea that I see some people mention, is that it would mean there's no logical reason to put horizon in super important lore events. But I very much disagree with that. Horizon would still be a important ship, just not THE most important flagship ever. SCC is powerful, but it still has limited resources, and the explanation of "horizon is the closest available ship capable of doing the job" would always work.

A lot of the discussion above is arguing in circles of "CCIAA bad" and "no actually CCIAA good", that is entirely off-topic to the suggestion of actually improving IRs or CCIAA. A big part of this should be put on the wiki or something, cause it's not written down anywhere. I don't see it anywhere stating that Mel and Campin are CCIAA admin liaisons. DMing random staff should never be the solution to players not being sure about some staff process, for a lot of reasons. As for transparency and oversight. I'm not proposing that CCIAA discussions should be made public, but at least the decisions and actions taken should be, written down in the IR threads for everyone to plainly see. They shouldn't be left in the old and unmaintained web-interface, requiring a command whitelist, still named "DO Actions"... I doubt half of our players even know the webinterface is a thing. I think this would greatly help with transparency, but it wouldn't require a lot of effort at all, and it wouldn't really make any staff secrets or discussions public. As for OOC ahelps, they are not public, no. But there is much more communication between player and admin/mod staff, than there is between player and CCIAA. I can ahelp at any time in the round if I'm not sure about something, and an admin or mod will answer soon. If I ahelp someone doing bad, it will be resolved in the round it happened. Or I can ask in #serious_discussion about rules, if the matter isn't happening right now in game. And if someone says "admins bad", I can look up their staff complaint where they contest that decision, and see that they're not telling the full picture and I agree with the staff ruling, as well as see their reasoning and arguments. There isn't anything like that for CCIAA/IRs, and their process is entirely opaque, and that's bad. I cannot ahelp about an IR that wasn't opened up yet, I cannot ask in #serious_discussion about something I will maybe one day be IRd about (or maybe not). And if someone does open up that IR, I will only know if that is valid a week or two later, after at least one interview. If an IR is taking a long time, I've no idea if it's a scheduling problem, or if there's 20 people to interview, or if everyone just forgot about the IR. I do not know how CCIAA operate, what do they do in the investigations they pick up, if they are a neutral party and operate without bias. I just have to blindly trust that CCIAA are doing all of this, with no way to check it.

Captain or security can give you a fine, or detain you, etc. But that "punishment" only lasts one round. You can join another round and do it again, get another fine or be detained again. There are no consequences that last more than until the end of round. IRs are supposed to handle this kind of thing, and allow consequences that last more than one round. Captain or security do not have that power. You can say it's a OOC issue at that point, and I'm not sure I personally agree, it's debatable and depends on the exact problem.

Group interviews wouldn't work for every type of IR, it was just one of the suggestions. But the idea is that, most of the interviews that I've seen, and the ones I've participated in, are just a series of questions like "did this happen", "yeah", "and what did you do", "I did that", "...". So why not cut that out? Just provide the logs or whatever, and write how your char would say what happened, or what they know. CCIAA need to check logs anyways to see if you're not lying to get someone else in trouble. If you wanted to lie or something, you'd just request a personal interview, or say "my char would actually lie about this" when asked.

Being able to see only the outcomes is exactly the opposite of transparency (well, only worse would be if the outcomes weren't posted either). Someone opens up an IR, and maybe a week later, or two weeks, or a month later, the IR is closed and the resulting actions are posted in the web interface (maybe). There's no insight into how the CCIAA have made their decisions, what arguments they have considered, who they interviewed, if they were biased towards or against someone, if they followed the IR process or rules (I don't think that's public either). The average player has no way to know any of that, and the outcomes may as well be decided by dice rolls. I know they're not just rolling dice and I trust they're doing their jobs properly, but it's the opposite to how admin/moderation staff work, and I put much more trust in admins/mods here. I also very much agree with this, and I've had this exact thought a couple times in the past. Sure, IRs punishments start out small, like a reprimand or a mandatory training course, but it's still forcing someone to waste time on interviews, and putting them in the position of uncertainty wondering just how much in trouble they really are. And if there's multiple of these IRs, it's potentially removing a character, that someone has put many hours into developing. I also agree with the other arguments listed in the thread. CCIAA are a OOC force, giving out OOC punishments, that the player is forced to pretend to engage with in a IC way. I've been in like 2 or 3 IRs, a long while ago, but they've not been a fun experience at all. Being forced to attend the interviews, and "roleplay" (which is basically just reading logs and telling what happened), knowing that I'm trouble and may lose the char (if I lie by accident or say something dumb), is not fun. The IR could maybe help develop a character arc, but the interviews are just plain stressful. I'd rather just talk to an admin about toning down my char or something. I'm sorry if these thoughts read as pretty negative about CCIAA, but like, idk, most of they do is hand out punishments to player characters. I do wish CCIAA could have more positive impact, and more roles beyond just handling IRs. ----------------- So, uh, as this is a suggestion thread, my suggestions are: Remove personal IR interviews entirely (where it's just one CCIAA/HRA agent and one player character). Maybe introduce interviews where both IR parties can talk to each other (the char that opened up the IR, and the other char that is the offender), moderated by the CCIAA/HRA agent. I think that would be fun roleplay, and would make it less about punishing someone and more about resolving issues between two characters. Make the whole process more transparent. Use the IR threads, where CCIAA would write who they interviewed, what were the conclusions from the interviews, what are the results of the IR, etc. There should be IC notes and OOC considerations. Add some meaningful functions to CCIAA/HRA that aren't about punishing characters. Out of ideas for this one atm.

This was merged. Report any issues here or on discord, please.

I like the name "Quark". I think it's fine, it sounds science-y, and the similarity to "Spark" is intentional, cause they're both small shuttles used for exploration. With naming you can never make everyone happy, but also people get used to it quickly, so it's kinda whatever. Expedition weaponry will probably be moved outside of the Intrepid, so it could be brought to either the Intrepid or Quark if anyone wants it. Dunno who will be able to use it, I don't really make these rules. But I doubt there will be any change from current rules. The hangar was unused/broken for a long time now, and currently we don't have any offship shuttles that could even use that hangar. Also the burglar shuttle can use top deck docking ports.

I think a new BC learner role would be alright. idk why the offship argument is used so much. You can do engineering or security or medical work on offships too, but yet we do have learner roles for these jobs on horizon.

Feedback for this PR: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/20127 PR description from github:

As a solution to the "it should only run on phoron" issue: I'd keep the gasses as is, say they're for cooling or as a moderator or something, and also make the drive use phoron sheets to run.

Most of these items should be added to the autolathe, instead of protolathe. Protolathe should contain stuff that requires research levels, stuff that is more "advanced" than most the basic tools or items mentioned here (like toolboxes, fire extinguishers, etc). Machinist workshop has a autolathe too, so they could print them still. But these basic items shouldn't be limited to machinist's protolathe.

Machinist is a weird role that does not fit perfectly in any department, but I think it fits the best in operations. Like the other operations jobs, they provide supplies and resources to the rest of the ship: hangar tech - supplies, gear, equipment, etc; from the warehouse and cargo shuttle mining - ores and materials machinist - mechs, hardsuits, etc Machinists do not fit well in science at all. They do not do any research or science. They don't invent new mech parts, or make experiments with them.