Update OTA deployment rules

[Aspect™]

I already know that this thread will get shat on by the OTA Mains, however, I care not, for it is intended for Staff and Community Managers.
I propose the following deployment rules are changed as such:

FROM	TO
- Vortigaunt escapes (Must be overseen by a staff member).	-⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

There is absolutely no need to deploy for a Vortigaunt escape. Civil Protection can handle the situation on their own. What's that? They can't? Send in more units. Still SOMEHOW lose? Let the Vortigaunt win, then. Let them have fun for once. Last time a Vortigaunt escape was attempted, they were found and executed within like three minutes, without even getting a change to fight back. It was bullshit, and the OTA were overpowered.

FROM	TO
- Death of 8 or more CP units within 30 minutes.	- Death of 10 or more CP units within 30 minutes.

OTA should very rarely deploy, if at all. If several units die, then more units can be sent to reinforce them. There is no need for OTA. But, regardless, I understand that there may be situations that CPs cannot handle, thus I only propose to increase the death limit, instead of outright removing this deployment rule alltogether.

FROM	TO
- Hostage situation that cops cannot deal with.	-⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

If there is a hostage situation that CPs cannot handle, how would OTA handle it better? If it's a matter of negotiation skills, I'm sure a proper human can deal with that better. If it's a matter of firepower, just send in more CPs (Unless the victim is the CA or something). I fail to understand how this calls for OTA deployment.

 

[swagile]

We are approaching the point of OTA whitelist being a event whitelist.

I am not against it due to the current state of the server's Resistance, I just know some people will be very upset about this.

 

[Aspect™]

We are approaching the point of OTA whitelist being a event whitelist.

Isn't... isn't that the point? It's supposed to be an event whitelist. 'OTA mains' should not be a thing that exists.

 

[caedes]

OTA mains should not exist and I agree with this thread.

OTA however should be still guarding CA, Overseers and VA just not main their OTA character.
-Ondi, OTA member and EOW.

 

[Robert]

Okay, so as mentioned earlier in another chat, the first one is already a thing technically, except it works in the scenario that the vort, cp and ota leads all agreed on which is:
- CPs deal with Vorts, including vort escapes, this has been the case for about 2-3 weeks now. (We of course noticed that the deployment guide makes this extremely vague by simply saying "Vortigaunt escapes (Must be overseen by a staff member)" which we will edit to its proper description which is
- If CPs go in and take casualties as per the decision made and even comes from the vort leads, then and only then can OTA go in when the vorts start fighting back.

This is a mutual agreement between the leads and since there has been no problem thus far, there has been no change to it and vice versa. So the only thing changing about point 1 regarding vort escapes is the wording. No point fixing something which isn't broken.

Death of 8 or more CPs within 10 minutes. I am okay with bumping that up to 10, no issue there. Though even getting 3-4 deaths is extremely rare anyway, so suffice to say, CPs can handle a lot of situations.

The hostage situation one is more or less circumstantial. Since you could have a hostage situation where you get light-armed conflict > CPs fail but OTA would be too overkill to send in so CPs keep handling it. Even with mid-tier armed targets, CPs can handle. It's only in situations where things start getting out of hand where a hostage situation may in some cases stop being a hostage situation into something more serious in which case OTA will intervene if need be. It is purely circumstantial and sits under one of our guidelines for requiring OTA lead approval due to the fact it is circumstantial.

Basically, 1 is essentially sorted via mutual agreement on a system that doesn't need fixing simply because it's not broken as per a 3 faction agreement. 2 is a yes, and 3 is also basically a yes

 

[Aspect™]

and sits under one of our guidelines for requiring OTA lead approval due to the fact it is circumstantial.

It is actually under the list that says:

You’re allowed to deploy without faction lead’s permission during:

Which completely contradicts what you just said - thus that needs to be reworded or completely removed as well.
The entire OTA guide might be in need of a revision or even a rewrite tbh, to ensure everything is up to date and there is no confusion (another example being the weapons raised at all times rule).

Other than that, I'm very happy to see that you agree with my points - feel free to lock the thread and mark it as accepted if there aren't any further points to be made.

 

[Robert]

It is actually under the list that says:
Which completely contradicts what you just said - thus that needs to be reworded or completely removed as well.

Check again. It was updated a few mins ago.

The entire OTA guide might be in need of a revision or even a rewrite tbh, to ensure everything is up to date and there is no confusion (another example being the weapons raised at all times rule).

That is what Hiros is working on as per announcements which you can see.