Codify minimum requirements for group shuttle expeditions.

[Boggle08]

So picture this: The Horizon finds a derelict, and command greenlights an expedition. You find more than enough willing volunteers, and you've actually been timely about getting your shit together. Everyone's buckled in, when suddenly, all the officers in the shuttle silently get up, and start running for the elevators. Blue alert is called, someone took the spare. Command shitcans your expedition. You sit around while the people relevant to the alert do shit.

Imagine another scenario. The population is tiny, but there's plenty of places to explore. You and maybe a few others would be willing to go, but command/bridge crew decide against it, because there isn't an optimal ratio of surplus personnel to man the intrepid. Or there just isn't medical.

Contrast this all with mining, or even Xenarch. They don't need to consult anyone before going out, they don't even need other people to go out. A miner is theoretically the best man to start up an expedition, because all he's doing is just bringing people along while he does his job. They can go out into the over-map, into asteroid areas that are even more fucking hostile than most derelicts, because they have policy ensuring they can.

 

What I propose is a minimum requirement for group expeditions ran by bridge crew, based upon qualifications rather than being from a specific department. All expeditions must at least have one person competent at first aid(Think about as competent as miners have to be to do their job), and everyone must be EVA certified. These expeditions require a minimum of four people, including the pilot/bridge crew. Expeditions should not have to be outright cancelled on blue alert. Personnel can be recalled before an expedition starts if their department is relevant to an ongoing crisis(think sec or medical), but it shouldn't outright shitcan it, and other personnel should be found to make up for the absence.

To help facilitate this policy on development's end, some changes that would be good would be to introduce a hazard ranking system, or something like it built into the scanning console that allows us to detect how dangerous an away mission is, and make it so the laser shotguns can fit into any suit slot, and can be crank-charged. I think there's also a trend right now of reducing the hostile mobs in derelicts, and it suits the policy I'm proposing by making it so the crew/command doesn't feel like they have to min-max and be ABSOLUTELY 100% PREPARED for expeditions.

I realize there's a thread in policy suggestions right now that is kind of asking for the same thing I am in this thread, but frankly, it did not begin with concrete, goal focused proposal, hence this thread.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Boggle08
grammur/Needed to clarify myself better

[Captain Gecko]

I have nothing against codification of expedition requirement, but finding proper codifications is my main issue... Unless it's more of a model than an actual hard-rule ICly. Personally, I have no issues setting up expeditions as a command member, but between my character and my actual experience playing Anomalist nonstop for two full years that's not a surprise, and I've seen, and even took part in a BUNCH of badly prepared expedition, and no one wants that.

The skill thing IS very good, but I'd go even further and say skill and context over numbers. Obviously yes, members need to be first aid-trained (at the very least one of them) and EVA-trained. I however do not like the idea of having at least 4 members. I spend most of my rounds on lowpop, and it's not rare to not even get 4 on-duty, non-command crewmembers onboard. For instance, today's round wouldn't have had an expedition with such a number if not for the expedition being considered safe enough and Sezrak (me) allowing (asking) off-duty bridge crews to take part in it, and that left the Horizon near-empty, which is absolutely sucidal on any round that is not on extended (which is was in this instance). I guess that where I'm trying to get is that the "at least 4 crewmember" rule (assuming it's a hard rule) will probably prevent most expeditions from happening on lowpop, and I don't agree with that part.

On another note, expeditions can vary in their objective. One can be about discovering an unknown site, another might be just about retrieving a specific item, yet another might be just about landing on a planet and checking if the atmosphere is breathable. The sites explored may be just an empty space station, or a hive-bot infested base. The mission, and site, will dictate the danger level of the mission. On some sites, four will never be enough, on others, it will be too much.

 

I think might best exemple might be the Aurora's Spider Station away site. Back on the Aurora, one of the explorable away site was an abandonned Zeng-Hu station, nothing to crazy about it besides the fact that another player, then, could play an ABSOLUTELY giant spider/greimorian (I believe it was a ghost role? Not sure) that has all the rights in the world to smite you on the spot. At some point we had a good science team, generally the same, good players playing together at the same time. We got to know each other's skill well, and with one of us becoming RD we would generally start expeditions. Once we tried something, a "two-person recon expedition", a very short, small expedition to, as the name suggest, make a quick reckon of the area in order to better know how to prepare the bigger expedition that would follow later on. It was my character and another, and us two ended up in the Spider's lair, and we knew it, OOCly (and obviously AVOIDED METAGAMING of course). The Spider eventually cornered us, and through sheer robustness, some luck, low-level engineering and medical knowledge, we survived and made it back to the shuttle, not only fleeing in one piece but also bringing back documents and materials from the station, all of that in 15 minutes. Months later a local RD makes an expedition and comes with us on a TEN-SOULS LARGE expedition that took us right in there. Two returned on the station, one was left behind, the rest died.

I guess the point is that numbers really have anything to do with how well an expedition can go. Hell, I've seen a couple of miners solo entire sites (don't do it though, unless we're on low-pop, leave the sites for people to explore in expeditions) and come back in one piece! To me what would work would have a sort of check-list of SKILLS required, with crewmembersbeing able to fill out multiple, then, adding extra crewmembers to be extra safe if the Horizon can spare the manpower, or if the site can already prove to not be safe-enough.

[Boggle08]

39 minutes ago, Captain Gecko said:

the "at least 4 crewmember" rule (assuming it's a hard rule) will probably prevent most expeditions from happening on lowpop, and I don't agree with that part.

I'm not clingy to the idea of a crew limit at all. We could just knock down what officiates an expedition into something that command or a BC starts.

About away missions having different objectives, I'm totally okay with that, it's just I'd like our overmap generation algorithm to kick out at least one or two derelicts that can be done with the bare minimum. The Hazard analysis mechanic I've described is already half present in the descriptions provided by printouts from the sensors console. Hell, it could even give recommendations on away-team sizes.

[Faye <3]

I am not opposed to this idea but I would be reluctant to mandate that an expedition has to have a security presence. I play a lot of HoS, and when it's time to send an officer on an expedition, rarely do people ever want to go and I usually end up having to force someone. I think a lot of officers try to shirk expeditions because the antagonists are on-ship, and if they're missing all of the fun because they're escorting an anomalist and shooting simple mobs, well, that's not very fun and I don't really blame them for not wanting to go.

 

I would much prefer the expedition shotguns be buffed, and just allow the expedition members to defend themselves.

[Boggle08]

37 minutes ago, Faye &lt;3 said:

[snip]

I never suggested that security should be mandatory. The opposite, actually. I've seen a lot of expeditions miscarry because "not enough officers or medical." I feel like a lot of expeditions never get off the ground, because the shuttle refuses to move with anything less than a well rounded compliment of specialists. Defining our operational minimums, then setting them as the standard will reduce hesitancy. If medical doesn't want to go, people do their first aid the same way a miner would. If security doesn't want to go, the BC doles out shotguns.

[WickedCybs]

This is probably more semantical than anything, but rather than phrasing it as "requirements" I would say it should just be labelled as expedition "suggestions" or "recommendations" so it appears more flexible and allowing of improvisation. To me, there should be no real hard restrictions. There shouldn't be an absolute requirement to take a medical member, or anyone really. Just advising good picks to round out an expedition, but acknowledging there's also zero problem with just a research team heading out themselves. They can always return for additional help if they want it. That's pretty much how the miners work, and we don't mandate they take anyone extra because the reality is, that's really not even needed.

In general though, I think we should have it so basic knowledge in each area (engineering, medical and so on) can be considered acceptable for even an assistant going on an expedition to know. I don't think the expedition should need to have a medic in order to use the sleeper for an example, that should be considered easy to use and learn so an entire team can utilize it. If desired, there should also be an expectation expeditioners can know how to defend themselves if they want that. Playing someone without that knowledge could still be fine, for those who aren't into it.

[Boggle08]

I think maybe I'm only trying to remedy a symptom of a problem in this thread: Expeditions headed specifically by bridge crew have no precedent in the regs. They don't have any CCIAA announcements about shuttle use, unlike Xenarchs and Miners. They don't have any written policy for anything else. Their wiki is still empty. On paper, it's extremely easy to blow them off from anything away-mission related, because what they are supposed to do is one big inference.

Otherwise, this thread is attempting to address the current culture in bridge crew ran expeditions regarding personnel standards. In that I find them too high, and it often stonewalls expeditions.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Boggle08

[WickedCybs]

2 hours ago, Boggle08 said:

I think maybe I'm only trying to remedy a symptom of a problem in this thread: Expeditions headed specifically by bridge crew have no precedent in the regs. They don't have any CCIAA announcements about shuttle use, unlike Xenarchs and Miners. They don't have any written policy for anything else. Their wiki is still empty. On paper, it's extremely easy to blow them off from anything away-mission related, because what they are supposed to do is one big inference.

Otherwise, this thread is attempting to address the current culture in bridge crew ran expeditions regarding personnel standards. In that I find them too high, and it often stonewalls expeditions.

Some guidelines will certainly help with that, though I think as long as we don't let people do more stuff in general, wanting to drag around the "specialized" personnel is always going to be a constant issue as there is a tendency to overprepare without much reason. Another thing is that from what I've gathered during my conversations with people, some just find it unimaginable a "proper" expedition would leave without having a designated engineer person, a designated medic, a designated security member. Since this is their first real experience with the overmap. Other servers don't really have that problem.

[Sneakyranger]

5 hours ago, Boggle08 said:

I think maybe I'm only trying to remedy a symptom of a problem in this thread: Expeditions headed specifically by bridge crew have no precedent in the regs. They don't have any CCIAA announcements about shuttle use, unlike Xenarchs and Miners. They don't have any written policy for anything else. Their wiki is still empty. On paper, it's extremely easy to blow them off from anything away-mission related, because what they are supposed to do is one big inference.

Otherwise, this thread is attempting to address the current culture in bridge crew ran expeditions regarding personnel standards. In that I find them too high, and it often stonewalls expeditions.

The comment regarding their wiki was 100% true and spurred me to action. I've written up their guide now, which is something I'd been meaning to handle for a little bit. I've gotten tentative CCIA approval, though my fellow wiki maints haven't looked it over yet. 
On a note as an actual player, though, I try to avoid cancelling expeditions unless we're going to Red or the majority of personnel involved are essential for solving the problem, something you mentioned. I believe most Command players should take this stance in general - whether they do or not, I can't say, since most of my rounds are solo or 2 person command given the hours I tend to play.
I am, however, entirely opposed to a minimum requirement for an expedition. As Gecko said, this is going to hurt lowpop trips - a two man survey team is fine, when a skeleton crew is about.
I would instead like to put out for consideration a soft minimum: if a four person team with sufficient skills can be raised from volunteers, then command should be explicitly prevented from inhibiting the mission without very good reason, not just because we raised to blue or whatever, and most importantly they can leave as soon as the command channel is notified the minimum population has been reached and everyone is prepared - they do not have to wait for launch approval, which during busy times feels like half the prep time. It is not an idea I have fully worked out, but I feel like it's worth considering and turning over if nothing else.