Qualifying for Positions

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
3,412
10,672
2,350
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
The recent release of the Nova had me thinking (rare though it is) that wouldn't it be great to develop a qualification system, where players could apply for training and pass some sort of test that says to others who would hire them, that they know what's involved in any particular position? So for instance, each of the three positions on the Nova could be trained and tested, and TEST could compile and keep a list of players who have qualifications for whatever their expertise is. If you're head of a ground assault group using tanks, wouldn't it be great to have a master list of TESTies who qualify so you know who to contact and how to organize a group? You know it's true, when you challenge everyone you challenge no one. If however, you have a list of players skilled at TONK techniques, that's something you can work with.

What Nautilus owner wouldn't want a master list of TESTis trained in expert minelaying and retrieval?

My guess is there are a LOT of these kinds of positions, that are going to take some special effort to truly master. How many hours will it take to say you are a competent tank commander? Should be a fair few I'd say.

I think this kind of thing would make TEST a more potent force in the future. I'm not suggesting any one person write the qualifications, but rather those who have been training and continue to, are each probably the best players to write qualifications for their individual fields.

So if you've been training on the Nox in order to be ready to put the X1 Force into battle, you're the person to write the qualifying guidelines for the Assault Biker specialty, etc.

A the least, shouldn't we find a way to train people at turret gunning?
 

Bambooza

Grand Admiral
Sep 25, 2017
4,617
14,624
1,250
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
If you can walk away, it is success!

Seriously, I think if there were 30 kinds of positions to qualify for, I'd train in 20 of them. I'm one of the few looking forward to crewing the ships of others. The Jav ain't worth a thing without a good crew.
And here I was thinking it was a failure. If you can walk away then it means it could have been a bigger explosion.
 

Lorddarthvik

Space Marshal
Donor
Feb 22, 2016
1,744
6,045
2,360
RSI Handle
Lorddarthvik
Too much effort. Just lemme crash your Tonk into that aurora there, okay? And hand me that beer, mine's empty again. Thanks.
Btw I thought I already passed qualifications when I got accepted, so...

Seriously though, this will sort itself out naturally. There already is an active core of combat TESTies taking part in the weekly organized stuff (I guess?), they will know who to call for what. The rest probably won't care enough as it is to take part in group ops anyways.

Besides, there's like a million of us TESTies, so good luck keeping notes on everyone, Mr @Shadow Reaper , KGB agent!

(If someone has the time and patience to organise such qualifications things, I'm game, would be fun. But just for fun)
 

Deroth

Grand Admiral
Donor
Sep 28, 2017
1,499
4,996
1,100
RSI Handle
Deroth1
My 'concern' with doing this is whether it would be duplicated effort as CIG has talked about their skills system they want to implement for players and NPCs.
If he person hasn't bothered to do the TEST qualifications for running repairs but has far higher rating in the system CIG implements for running repairs than anyone else in TEST, would anyone really pass on them?
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
8,969
34,152
2,525
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
I remember when we found out about ADI and their qualification system and royally taking the piss out of it because they are squares and they penalized any member of their org who didn't pass the tests.

If it's something you'd like to do no problem that's what you find fun it's all good, just don't do what ADI did and disqualify players from flying their own ships if they don't pass the test!
 

vahadar

Vice Admiral
Donor
Mar 4, 2020
1,382
4,191
500
RSI Handle
vahadar
My 'concern' with doing this is whether it would be duplicated effort as CIG has talked about their skills system they want to implement for players and NPCs.
Skills system for players?
I missed that information, is there a source somewhere so i can dig a bit more into it?
 

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
3,412
10,672
2,350
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
I'm not familiar with the skill system for players either. I do recall there will be three? levels of skill for NPCs you can hire, and you pay more for them depending upon their skill set.

The point behind SC seems to me the characters don't have skills, but rather the players do. You either are or are not good at electronic countermeasures, etc. The trouble is not that players don't teach each other already. They do. The trouble is aside from word of mouth, there's no way to know who to call when you need three skilled Tonk drivers, etc. Maybe once Tonks are a regular part of the game players will take up the gauntlet and teach each other what works naturally (I expect they will) but if you're not running in the same circles you could find it difficult to find skilled players.

I don't recall all the Herc differences. Is it just the C2 that can carry three Tonks at once? I can imagine little merc groups forming around a single Herc and three Tonks, and they'd find it pretty easy to organize a small gorup like that. Thing is, the Tonks are totally vulnerable to shoulder mounted railgun fire, so you really don't want them out there without soldiers in support. So I think ground engagements are going to evolve naturally into larger and larger groups.
 

Bambooza

Grand Admiral
Sep 25, 2017
4,617
14,624
1,250
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
I have never seen a truer statement.

No ship is capable without a decent crew. I don't want my Perseus being manned by a bunch of space fairies, I want soldiers.

"Hail, Emperor, those who are about to die salute you"
How about drunkards and imbeciles? Not saying there is not the possibility of a fairy or two in our ranks, just we have no metric for such things as the only qualification was. Can you crash your ship and submit a join request.
 

Vavrik

Grand Admiral
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
3,631
14,999
1,400
RSI Handle
Vavrik
I don't recall all the Herc differences. Is it just the C2 that can carry three Tonks at once? I can imagine little merc groups forming around a single Herc and three Tonks, and they'd find it pretty easy to organize a small gorup like that. Thing is, the Tonks are totally vulnerable to shoulder mounted railgun fire, so you really don't want them out there without soldiers in support. So I think ground engagements are going to evolve naturally into larger and larger groups.
As a cargo ship, the C2 can deliver Tonks, but the M2 is better suited. The other Herc is the A2 which can only carry 1 Tonk, but has a crap ton of explody and shooty stuff to soften the ground. It would need fighter support if it's role includes lingering.
 

Bambooza

Grand Admiral
Sep 25, 2017
4,617
14,624
1,250
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
As a cargo ship, the C2 can deliver Tonks, but the M2 is better suited. The other Herc is the A2 which can only carry 1 Tonk, but has a crap ton of explody and shooty stuff to soften the ground. It would need fighter support if it's role includes lingering.
I know the popular opinion is that the M2 is better suited to deliver tanks to a battlefield. When I was looking into if I wanted the M2 or C2 I have to say while in theory the M2 would have better survivability on paper my question was how much longer would it last under any sort of fighter or ground AA engagement? Are we talking a few seconds were even if the mayday was answered there would be no way for even an escort to do anything about it beyond taking note of where the wreckage landed. Or would it give enough time for possible evasive action on the Herc pilot and possible return fire from the escort to enable any sort of increase survivability that would not be found in the C2 model.

While it is known that they would like ballistic damage to be mapped to its pentation score and armor would reduce the damage done beyond the surface its not known how much armor the M2 has nor how impactful it would be against protecting critical components. Would energy weapons just overload the components and bypass armor once they brought down the shield (both ships have 2 size L shields) so armor would only have an impact on ballistic damage?

In the end for me being able to carry 33% more cargo seemed to be a better option than the possibility that the M2 variant will be able to take a couple more shots (a few more seconds) before it too became a flaming wreckage. After all these are not ships I would recommend flying into a hot LZ nor would they be good to fly unescorted as they are huge targets of opportunity. So I plan on bringing troops, supplies and tonks to a forward operating base but let the Valkyrie enjoy being shot at.
 

Vavrik

Grand Admiral
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
3,631
14,999
1,400
RSI Handle
Vavrik
I know the popular opinion is that the M2 is better suited to deliver tanks to a battlefield. When I was looking into if I wanted the M2 or C2 I have to say while in theory the M2 would have better survivability on paper my question was how much longer would it last under any sort of fighter or ground AA engagement? Are we talking a few seconds were even if the mayday was answered there would be no way for even an escort to do anything about it beyond taking note of where the wreckage landed. Or would it give enough time for possible evasive action on the Herc pilot and possible return fire from the escort to enable any sort of increase survivability that would not be found in the C2 model.

While it is known that they would like ballistic damage to be mapped to its pentation score and armor would reduce the damage done beyond the surface its not known how much armor the M2 has nor how impactful it would be against protecting critical components. Would energy weapons just overload the components and bypass armor once they brought down the shield (both ships have 2 size L shields) so armor would only have an impact on ballistic damage?

In the end for me being able to carry 33% more cargo seemed to be a better option than the possibility that the M2 variant will be able to take a couple more shots (a few more seconds) before it too became a flaming wreckage. After all these are not ships I would recommend flying into a hot LZ nor would they be good to fly unescorted as they are huge targets of opportunity. So I plan on bringing troops, supplies and tonks to a forward operating base but let the Valkyrie enjoy being shot at.
I think all 3 Hercs need to be looked at differently, because there are differences in their design that speak of different roles. None of them are for small strikes. Anyone who flies them as such is going to take unnecessary and costly damage. The Valkyrie is a far better ship to use in that role, even over the A2.

The C2 is a cargo ship that can deliver vehicles behind the lines.
The M2 is a vehicle and vehicle crew delivery ship, that can also deliver cargo.
The A2 is a forward attack ship with limited vehicle and cargo capacity, but it's primary mission should be to make holes in the enemy's plans. I think it needs to be part of a group of ships, and their support fighters. Not flying alone.
 

Radegast74

Space Marshal
Oct 8, 2016
2,719
9,779
1,900
RSI Handle
Radegast74
I remember when we found out about ADI and their qualification system and royally taking the piss out of it because they are squares and they penalized any member of their org who didn't pass the tests.

If it's something you'd like to do no problem that's what you find fun it's all good, just don't do what ADI did and disqualify players from flying their own ships if they don't pass the test!
That was my first thought...ADI (oh no! LUL)
 
Forgot your password?