[Discussion] Divisions of TEST - Brainstorm

[WarrenPeace]

Mark my words, for all your theory crafting, this is how TEST will pan out.

Good, but I think that's a little bit restrictive.

 

[Fenrig]

I've been thinking a bit. Here's a further breakdown of what I have in mind for the divisions:

• Combat Division
  Primary Mission Statement: We pew pew things according to TEST Directives...and when we feel like it!
  • Space Combat (Space Combat, Security)
    
  • Marine Combat (Boarding Combat, Bounty Hunters, Security)
    
  • Field Command (Ground-Level Fleet and Squad Command)
• Logistics Division
  Primary Mission Statement: The backbone of TEST - we're made of sturdier stuff than Jell-o!
  • Cargo & Passenger Transport (Import/Export for TEST needs, Passenger Service, Operation of Org Hangars, etc)
    
  • Information Logistics (Data-Running, Spectrum Hacking)
    
  • Exploration (Jump Mapping, Stellar Cartography, Field Recon)
    
  • Engineering (Repair, Maintenance, R&D)
• Economics Division
  Primary Mission Statement: Makin' money, hand over fist! We're Jews.
  • Mining & Salvage (Resource Acquisition)
    
  • Trade (Buy High, Sell Low; production exports)
    
  • Production (Factories, Refining of Ore & Salvage)
• Stand-Alone Multi-Divisional Groups
  • Capital & Carrier Operations (Logistics & Combat)
    This group would be responsible for managing and deciding matters pertaining to persistent capital warships. This would be established as soon as TEST acquires a Persistent Warship. The point of this is to ensure coordination for rearming and defense of the ship(s). Logistics is also going to likely provide personnel for assisting with the maintenance and rearming of combat craft aboard hangar-capable ships.
  • TEST PALS
    The outlaw arm of TEST Squadron, basically. This will be either established as a squad with no formal classification within Org 2.0, or as its own stand-alone organization within an Alliance structure.

One of the most important things about cargo transport is that there will be two types of cargo categories under this divisional system. They are:

• TEST Cargo (Logistics)
  Cargo that TEST members require. Commodities such as ammunition and equipment. These will be procured and sold at-cost to line members, with cost-offset practices in place (similar to nullsec in EVE). Said cost-offset practices may include purchasing rare/region-specific commodities from TEST members at a reasonable price, and exporting it to a good trade hub for selling at a decent markup.
  
  
• Trade Cargo (Economics)
  Cargo that TEST members do not require as end-consumers. These are essentially commodities that can be liquidated for a profit. This falls under the Economics Division. The typical "cycle" of Trade Cargo goes something like this: Econ Guy buys a stock of foodstuffs from Bremen, exports it to Delamar, Nyx, and sells it at a nice markup. Trade Cargo is strategically worthless to TEST Squadron apart from generating an income.

And for the observant, you may have noticed that I added an "Engineering" category under the Logistics Division. This is primarily due to the fact that engineering does not necessarily fit well with either combat or economics, because engineering often involves repairing, upgrading, and maintaining equipment. In a sense, this falls under Logistics, because the job of Logistics is to maintain and support the continued functionality of TEST Squadron. If you disagree with this categorization, please don't hesitate to post and explain why.

It's also possible to break Logistics Division up into two divisions, if the need arises. Information Logistics and Exploration can be spun off into their own division if the situation requires it. However, I do not expect that Information Logistics will be very large on its own, and Engineering will also be fairly small compared to Exploration and Transport.

Any thoughts or comments?

My 1/50th of a buck is that this is spot-on. It's high-level enough that we can expand or contract it as needed once features or functions are announced/changed while being easily expanded from here.

The only suggestion I have is adding "Strategic Combat" to the list. That would be the place for Gladiator, Tali, or BeerG utilization. In-fleet fuel is a strategic concern rather than a tactical one, and while at launch FPS is most likely going to be all inside structures there are eventually going to be open ground combat areas I am sure, and there is a good chance the bombers/minelayers will be supporting them directly (potentially with some form of JTAC). Rather than having them switch between structures (while a lot will be the same within a division, the different commands will undoubtedly operate differently) it'd be nice for those requests to not have to go all the way up and then back down. To boot, Beerfares and Talis are, I suspect, going to wind up being costly systems to operate and replace (if only for the ordinance); as someone who will be frequently found in one or the other I'd prefer to be directed by someone familiar with the capabilities and shortcomings of them. This would also lessen the load on Space/Marine/Field Commanders having to keep track of groups they aren't familiar with (something that in my experience means they don't get used as much regardless of their positive utility in a situation); they would need to do little more. I could easily see strategic command also being responsible for Cap deployment and neutralization.

Again, just my thoughts on it. Excellent work NKato.

 

[that_frog_kurtis]

Good, but I think that's a little bit restrictive.View attachment 733

Yeah that is way better. I will try and be one of the little Cs so that I kind of look like I belong to competence but in fact am just a small part of a little fuck.

 

[Fenrig]

Good, but I think that's a little bit restrictive.View attachment 733

I see no oat soda on that chart.

Confirmed: Chart is dicks.

 

[EpilepticCricket]

Good, but I think that's a little bit restrictive.View attachment 733

There's something fucky going on there, but I just can't quite put my finger on it...

 

[Willem Default]

There's something fucky going on there, but I just can't quite put my finger on it...

 

[maynard]

which is truer to the Test ethos, fuckery or asshattery?

 

[EpilepticCricket]

which is truer to the Test ethos, fuckery or asshattery?

You'll have to be more specific with which division we're talking about here. Some groups are more efficient at serving out plate after plate of asshattery, but have to call in assistance when they need some real fuckery to get done.

 

[Snakey]

https://testsquadron.com/threads/discussion-fleet-movement-formations-organisation-of-said-fleet.4528/

 

[Op4ArcticFox]

Not super convoluted, a nice amount of redundancy . Seems to cover most core and edge case groups. This plan, I like it.. we don't need another. (unless Org grouping is done in a super weird way)

 

[AwesomeDude]

I liked your diagram, i just had to make one adjustment

 

[NKato]

Bumping this because everyone in TEST should review this thing. Just 'cuz.

Relevant links:
https://testsquadron.com/threads/discussion-divisions-of-test-brainstorm.3793/page-5#post-49920
https://testsquadron.com/threads/discussion-divisions-of-test-brainstorm.3793/

 

[NKato]

Putting up this note here: We should stratify our leadership types. I have proposed the following...

Tier 1 Leadership - Top tier leadership, Montoya, Seung, etc.

Tier 2 Leadership - Divisional, comprised of Division Chiefs and their deputies.

Tier 3 Leadership - Group/Squad leadership, people who run groups like Rock Raiders, Yellow Jackets, etc.

Tier 4 Leadership - Ground-Level Leadership, considered the entry level for future leaders; people who help run things, like flight leaders, fireteam leaders, etc.

This kind of structure will make it clear that there is a simple and straightforward hierarchy regarding how the organization is operated on a practical level. I get that TEST is something like "organized anarchy", but even anarchy won't last long without some kind of structure to help keep it alive.

It's like a scarecrow: if you don't prop it up on a cross made of wooden sticks, it's just a pile of hay.

 

[Huegpaynis]

Tier 4 or bust! Middle management is always where it's at.

 

[Pirate-Haz]

 

[NKato]

Tier 4 or bust! Middle management is always where it's at.

Tier 2 is technically middle management. Tier 3 and 4 is where the real magic happens on the ground. :)

I also even color-coded it. Purple for Tier 1, Pink for Tier 2 - because they're the prissy leaders who yell at you from behind their desks, Red for Tier 3 ('cause they spill the most blood for the Squadron), and Orange for Tier 4 'cos it's a danger zone (best be careful around dem Tier 4 leaders, they might accidentally doosh their Aurora into your ship).

 

[LiterallyAlty]

While Tier 4 may just be a label for a person that's happening to lead some random thing, I'm a bit traumatized by the long-term effects of Brave's FC development program.

Please, be careful with formal recognition/definition of leadership positions. At least, until we know how important it is to have formal fireteams and wingleaders.

 

[AwesomeDude]

Bumping this

Stop that! You cheeky bumplord!

on a serious note though i say we dont worty about anything but the tier 1 untill the game or atleast beta is out and we get a feel for what we may need. Depending on how things and operations end up happening in game we may need fewer or more people in certain tiers.

Edit: Also you didn't suggest assigning people to tiers but i'm going to address it incase anyone thinks we should start doing that now. We probably should not start assigning ranks and leadership tiers until launch. Mainly because there are many people in the org that are waiting till launch to really get involved with the community and, I don't think we should throw people among that group, that want to do some leading, under the metaphorical Black and Yellow (Test Colored) Bus.

 

[NKato]

While Tier 4 may just be a label for a person that's happening to lead some random thing, I'm a bit traumatized by the long-term effects of Brave's FC development program.

Please, be careful with formal recognition/definition of leadership positions. At least, until we know how important it is to have formal fireteams and wingleaders.

I perfectly understand. It's more like, Tier 4 is likely to end up being a pool of people who want to volunteer to run those particular roles. Some folks may not want to go to Tier 3 and up.

Stop that! You cheeky bumplord!

on a serious note though i say we dont worty about anything but the tier 1 untill the game or atleast beta is out and we get a feel for what we may need. Depending on how things and operations end up happening in game we may need fewer or more people in certain tiers.

Edit: Also you didn't suggest assigning people to tiers but i'm going to address it incase anyone thinks we should start doing that now. We probably should not start assigning ranks and leadership tiers until launch. Mainly because there are many people in the org that are waiting till launch to really get involved with the community and, I don't think we should throw people among that group, that want to do some leading, under the metaphorical Black and Yellow (Test Colored) Bus.

Yeah, I'm not talking about assigning ranks and leadership, but more like classifying the roles of different types of leadership. That was the point of the Tiering system.

 

[Op4ArcticFox]

Good work, I like the proposed structure for the most part. Things obviously can be changed/tailored to fit once launch approaches/hits.
I also like the idea of holding off on starting things since the community for the most part is..... semi present at best. I know I am pretty burned out on keeping up with SC, but thats probably just a symptom of working all the damn time. I think we might have a real functional plan for the behemoth that is TEST. And anything we can do to keep this ball rolling sounds awesome!