Jump to content

MoondancerPony

Developers
  • Content Count

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MoondancerPony

  • Rank
    Plasma Researcher
  • Birthday 22/01/2000

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Artifical Intelligence, Robotics, and Machine Learning
  • Occupation
    Student

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey
    moondancerpony

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Definitely. One of the reasons I originally had synth deputy the first time was to have someone on the lore team who could also code. There's not really much to balance on the coder-side, anyway; it's really just something I do for fun in my free time. It doesn't take much time at all.
  2. There's a woeful lack of definition at all. The only attempts were by Muncorn, which made things way too complex and restrictive. Examples of this are the savant-versus-generalist lore, and the fact that most positronic brains actually have a digital as well as positronic component, as well. As am I. Like you said, it would only be for big offenders with multiple warnings; it'd be a discreet, gentle step towards revoking a whitelist if they don't quickly improve. It helps them realise what's on the line and is conducive to opening a dialogue with the person in question. Not particularly. I think it's a benefit; any issues I would have with someone would ideally be filtered through/tempered by you, meaning that people's complaints about my temper would hopefully be fixed as I would mainly be handling lore, not so much the personal/communication aspect. This is essentially exactly what I would like. I expect you to be open to discussion and dialogue on planned changes/ideas. I don't expect any issues with you regarding that. As a deputy, I expect essentially what you said already. Most of what I did before was brainstorming and refining ideas; I'd help improve ideas, or if they were potentially bad, I would try to dissuade people from them. An example of this was a plan to make all IPCs from one central faction, which I felt to be overly restrictive to player choice for no real gain.
  3. No, it treats damage. It doesn't freeze it. The only thing that can freeze damage is stasis bags, and either way my original point still stands. My goal is to make Medical involve thought and deduction and to slightly increase recovery times. My goal has nothing to do with malpractice. I've seen most chemistry mains prepare epinephrine for exactly this purpose. It's like inaprovaline but it also treats, albeit not very well, the highest damage type the patient has. Additionally, this isn't mutually exclusive with Brainmed. We've been planning to add things like defibrillators and a better blood system for a while now.
  4. The scanning is per-limb, so it takes longer and you could still miss something. It's mostly focused around deduction and diagnosis now. That is entirely different than cryo in-game. It's a complete non-sequitur. That works because it cuts off the blood supply and kills the tissue; if full-body cryo did that, it would only be useful for traitors trying to kill people. Cryo doesn't freeze damage at all. In fact, it leads to malpractice because clonexadone does nothing to treat internal bleeding, so patients bleed out and die in cryo. What you want is a stasis bag, which prevents you from accessing patients. The way you handle "patients with critical, extremely time-sensitive injuries" is something called 'triage'. That's fine; I was considering adding one to the sublevel for tough cases. It'd be out of the way to prevent people from jumping to it immediately and to encourage triage and diagnosis. I'd also be all for nerfing it too until it gets upgraded parts. However, I'd still like to do a test-run without body scanners, if possible. I worded it very carefully to make it not a false-positive; it's just an indication that you should check for internal bleeding, i.e. after using an ATK and giving iron/blood, check again and see if they haven't regained enough. If people choose to interpret "massive hematoma, potential internal bleeding" as "definite internal bleeding", that's their fault and not mine, but I'll see what I can do to reword it. Maybe make them give different messages? This is a bad argument in its premise, but I'll humor you. We have plenty of other cool sci-fi things. Sensors, stasis bags, incision management systems, handheld all-in-one vitals scanners, chemicals that aren't clonexadone/cryoxadone, rezadone, pure synthesised epinephrine, etc.. Cryo and advanced scanners prevent most of those from seeing the light of day because they're overshadowed by them. This is removing bad sci-fi mechanics from the sci-fi game to allow the rest of the mechanics to have their time to shine. The ultrasound and vitals scanner part of the scanner are entirely separate. Doctors and nurses can scan with the ultrasound while EMTs scan with the vitals scanner. They shouldn't really be doing more unless they're helping with triage. Overall, I'm considering adding chemical side effects to this PR and slightly un-nerfing things like the advanced scanner. Thoughts? It might make Skull kill me to have it be so unatomic, but I think they need to be together.
  5. They are not objectively worse. It changes Medical from a grindy, repetitive process into something that requires you to think even slightly. Cryo was incredibly broken and multiplied any reagents in it by ten, which some chemistry mains used to multiply hard to get chems exponentially using monkeys or similar. I suggested adding side effects that required brief observation and mitigation if necessary, like warfarin-induced skin necrosis (as a severe example) or indigestion (like thetamycin). I'd also like to add chemicals to avoid these side effects which also have their own side effects; you can give someone an anti-vomiting drug to prevent the nausea caused by thetamycin, but it has a chance of causing drowsiness. You can give them a slight stimulant like caffeine pills to offset it, but that could exacerbate their nausea or cause jitteriness that makes you drop items, etc. Sometimes you'd have to simply decide that the primary side effect isn't bad enough to warrant putting them on a drug cocktail that exponentially increases the number of potential side effects to watch for. I'd also love to add more drug interactions, i.e. mixing stimulants and sedatives amplifies the negative effects of both and nullifies their positive effects. You'd start having difficulty breathing, feel restless, anxious, and jittery, as well as drowsy. Mixing painkillers and alcohol is already a bad idea in-game, and the same goes for alcohol and most mental medications (I actually see them used the least out of all the medical chems, which is unfortunate!). Rest assured, this isn't the last and only PR I'm going to make to try and rebalance Medical.
  6. This has been mentioned previously. It's not like we don't have a wiki or anything, and additionally the changes aren't exactly that difficult. We already had malpractice all over the place because our medical system was similar enough to TG's and other servers' to cause massive confusion when things started to not line up; it was in this weird sort of uncanny valley situation where it was close enough for people to be dangerously comfortable with it when they shouldn't. I agree that six wonder-healing chemicals is way too much. Omnizine, tricordrazine, epinephrine, cryoxadone, clonexadone, and rezadone. That's why this PR removes two of those outright; I'd be fine with nerfing the others more but that would make this already unatomic PR even more unatomic. Cryo was incredibly broken both in terms of gameplay and in code. It was a nightmare to trawl through, and even though I tried to fix it I decided I'd be better off removing it. I and several others feel that these changes are a step towards making Medical more fun and less of a routine. This already shakes up the metagame of what chems to make and use; you can't make and use super powerful cryomixes anymore, so the most you can give in a single dose is 15u in a needle (sure, you can use two, but that's technically two doses). This is already a substantial nerf to Chemistry, but given that it allows you to still detect and reason about injuries with a little bit of thinking I don't feel it's much of a nerf to doctors themselves, especially since I'm adding mechanics like scan printing back.
  7. I wasn't aware that mannitol was temperature-sensitive. I'll probably just make it based on reagent temperature, like tricord is. Calling them IB false positives isn't really correct. It's an indication of excessive trauma that suggests the doctor should investigate possible internal bleeding; if they aren't regenerating blood like they should be, *then* you assume it's internal bleeding and not simply excessive trauma. It's not an indicator of internal bleeding, it's a sign that you should look for it with other methods like oxygen levels, unexplained blood loss, and inability to regain blood. I agree that Medical is not fun to play. However, I feel that this solves the issue, at least for me and several others; I think Prate summed it up pretty accurately. It makes it less of a boring routine and optimization problem and more of actual doctoring, without requiring that you know all sorts of medical terms and stuff. You won't fix everyone 100%. You might have to splint someone instead of do surgery. You might have to use a bicaridine overdose instead of surgery for IB. You might have to observe patients for a minute or two instead of sticking them in cryo and waiting for The Numbers To Go Down while they stare at a black screen and you twiddle your thumbs. I'd probably leave it to another PR, but in my opinion carpotoxin should just be made easier to get. Perhaps if aquaponics ever happens, that'll be how it's obtained.
  8. The PR: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/7287 Removes cryoxadone and clonexadone. Reuses their recipes for two new chems, anadaxon and feredaxon. Anadaxon treats genetic damage. Feredaxon treats genetic damage, slight brain damage, and is a mild painkiller. Cryo cells are entirely removed. More sleepers and patient beds have been added to Medical. Handheld scanners now have a toggleable ultrasound functionality. You can now detect potential internal bleeding as well as foreign bodies by targeting the limb you want to check when scanning. Non-advanced handheld scanners have a chance for false positives for internal bleeding depending on how much brute damage has been done to the limb. Removes body scanners from the map; Research can still build them from essentially roundstart. WIP - Adds the ability to print scans from the ultrasound, similar to autopsy scanners. My goal for this is to make Medical actually require some critical thinking, practice, and time to solve things. It also makes it so that, if you aren't fast or smart enough, you won't be able to save everyone 100%. It prevents routine and challenges Medical players to improve. It's not more punishing for the sake of being punishing. Instead, it adds an element of deduction and analysis as opposed to "scan, print, put in cryo, send to surgery". I'm also hoping that by making everyone on the same footing, it can disrupt the clique-y nature of Medical and help new players integrate into the department better.
  9. I am in fact doing this, for those who are not in the know. (Also bumping this thread.)
  10. I mean. The biggest issue is that Sec players now no longer roll heist due to some tweak or another, I think, and they were the only reason we got heist anyway :agony: I'd be fine with reverting whatever PR caused this or finding the root issue and fixing that instead. One support from me, in my official dev capacity.
  11. It is not overly punishing at all, and I'd say it's proportional. At least in old telescience, they were rather difficult to make; they should now be even more difficult to make unintentionally given that portals use safepick, meaning they should only choose unoccupied turfs adjacent to the portal unless there are none. This is also not true, but even if it were, this seems more like an argument to revert it back to old telescience. You can revert them by constructing walls on all sides of the telepad but one, so that the echo MUST go into the unoccupied turf when it goes back. Additionally, they were even harder to revert in old telescience as you had to wait for them to get on the pad, whereas now they can just go back in through the portal. This is an issue but it is easier to fix than just outright removing them. I believe it was in fact a bug from Fowl's original implementation. An easy method would be to give them a memory of words said within their lifetime. It should be impossible for this to happen to ninjas except when teleporting into restricted areas like the vault. Normally you can only teleport into unoccupied turfs. This is just an argument to revert the bluespace disruptor PR. As I said already, it's definitely possible with portals and easier with old telescience. @ParadoxSpace was writing lore on bluespace with me at one point, and with his permission I'd gladly post the lore that explained not just echoes but also teleportation as a whole. Additionally, it doesn't prove that souls exist unless you believe that bluespace echoes are souls, for which there is no scientific evidence. Body switching is also highly experimental and dangerous and the people who did the original experiment almost got in a lot of trouble ICly for it. I agree. The random teleport powers are bad. They'd function fine without them. This is highly subjective. The biggest issues with them were introduced with portals, anyway.
  12. Yes. One million times yes. Please, God. Personally, I feel as if everything you've done already amounts to a trial, so I'd be fine with you joining immediately, but I'm not in charge of that. +1
  13. First: yes. I acknowledge that I had a problem with my behavior. I got my medication refilled last Thursday and got six new refills prescribed last Friday, so I'm not in danger of running out of my medication any time soon (I lost an entire bottle moving into my dorm, leading to the aforementioned issues. That means that my attitude has drastically improved, and in fact even minutes after these instances (such as with VT and the Eridani rework), as soon as I took my medicine I was much better. Second: As I said on Discord, most of what I did was spitballing with other devs about ideas, providing feedback and criticism, etc. I would provide evidence from the synth chat, but it was deleted. I also was in fact working on lore for drones, and modified it to fit a different server when I was forced to retire. (The only real change made was the first paragraph, anyway.) I would say that being able to talk with others about their work, give feedback and bounce ideas off of people/have ideas bounced off you is more important than simply editing a lot of wiki pages. Most of what I did was provide feedback and criticism on others' ideas, working to improve good ideas and make them fit with the rest of the lore and arguing against things that would be detrimental to players' experience and the cohesivity of the lore as a whole. I feel as if that provides just as important of a service to the lore team and community as directly editing the wiki does. So, to directly answer your question: I was, in fact, active, but even if you believe that my activity was insufficient, I will be more active now (as I'm no longer in a highly-demanding and stressful high school program since I've started university). Regardless, thank you for your consideration and feedback, I'll definitely take it all into account.
  14. Thank you for the interest, Abo. Your questions/comments, especially in PMs, really hit close to home and made me think a lot, and being more self-critical without being overly self-pitying is something I'm trying to develop. This really helped me put things in perspective. This is actually the opposite of my intent. As it stands, the sci-fi lore we operate off of currently (not even science fantasy, mind you) is way too restrictive. We have literal magic in our setting, but some wish to hold IPCs to an untenable, un-fun standard by misusing "believability" to shut down potentially interesting character concepts for not fitting into the current lore developer's current vision. My goal is to instead use the lore as a framework for players to build off of. It shouldn't be restricting anyone's creativity; instead, at most, it'll redirect their creativity to be in line with the lore. In some cases I intend to even go out of my way to incorporate people's ideas into the lore if they're incompatible but well-reasoned. Player choice is my utmost concern, actually; mentions of reducing it were part of why I applied for maintainer instead of waiting for deputy. This actually came up in a conversation in the Aurora general discord, involving Crozarius and others, I believe. The issue in question was a claim that, by sci-fi logic, all IPCs must be inherently rational and perfectly logical. This serves to stifle a lot of interesting character concepts, i.e. a religious synthetic (due to its creator's beliefs, or its upbringing) who staunchly upholds their beliefs, but is rejected by their own religion. That's a great character concept that I've seen utilised to great ends, but under the sci-fi logic of "all IPCs must be like Data", it wouldn't be allowed. However, looking at it from a realistic perspective, one sees that synthetics don't have to be perfectly rational, and in fact can't be. They're created by flawed organics, after all. While they have the potential to be much more rational and logical than their creators, it's not inherent to synthetics at all; in fact, going off of Conway's Law (also known as "the mirroring hypothesis"), synthetics are as widely varied as their creators, and likely reflect their biases and views as well. My writing is not exactly hard science fiction. Yes, it has a scientific basis, but hard sci-fi typically connotes things like "no FTL" and "realistic physics". A couple years ago, someone might have called hard sci-fi "AI doesn't exist in the future", but I think that's silly. Just like how you don't need a software engineer with you at all times to use a computer, you shouldn't need to be a computer scientist to understand my lore. I've been working with people to ensure that it remains cohesive and can be understood by most people. The idea is that it is essentially a "soft" whitelist strip; in response to your questions about how people would be selected/if there would be pushback, those issues also apply to whitelist strips. If they refuse to comply, or their reapplication is insufficient, then they'll get a normal whitelist strip. I just want to work with players and not have to put them through the humiliation of a whitelist strip and being denied a chance to attempt to improve their characters through playing as well as writing, especially when simply going over the lore again and showing that they understand it now is enough. I would say the precedent is in whitelist strips themselves. This is essentially a deferred whitelist strip. For all intents and purposes, their whitelist is stripped, but it's deferred until they've made an appeal or a certain amount of time has elapsed. Essentially, if push comes to shove, I will strip whitelists. The goal is to add steps between "a stern talking-to" and "strip their whitelist" so it's not zero to 100 with no warning. Intermediate steps serve to give players more time and ways to solve the issue without inciting conflict, embarrassment, or humiliation. Additionally, this is not so much of a "project" as it is "adding alternatives". The goal is that no one will simply have their whitelist outright stripped for improper play, at least not at first. They'll get to keep playing while the application is getting feedback (though they'd also still need to try to play better characters, as well) and being judged, and then judgment will be made. I really, really doubt that anyone would lose their whitelist from this; the goal is to increase players' quality of roleplay and understanding of the lore, not to trim down the IPC playerbase. Honestly, most of the lore I had ever intended to retcon was already retconned long ago. Things like Muncorn's ill-fated positronic brain rework, for example, which I was a very vocal and outspoken critic of at the time. I have to say I definitely regret how strongly I worded my critiques back then, and I hold no ill will towards any other devs, former or current. While I have critiqued the other developers, it's not as if I dislike everything they ever created. Kyres did lots of great things, and in my opinion most of his ideas simply deserve a little bit of TLC and polishing up. NebulaFlare, one of my favorite former synth developers, had some issues with overall cohesiveness and understandability of lore (the AI thought process flowchart being one notorious example) but I really admired their passion, their lore, and most importantly The Clockworks and Purpose. They'll always both have a place in my heart, really. While I love the Spark Theorem and have it as a custom item for one of my characters, I by no means view it as the strongest description of IPC behavior, even if it influenced my early thinking a lot. Most of what I intend to do is just polish up and adjust things that already exist, to be honest. What I'm really focused on is wrapping up loose ends, making the lore more cohesive, and filling in the gaps of things that people have requested lore on but no one was willing to touch. The two steps towards this I've done so far are my Glorsh rework, which solves a large issue with anti-synth powergaming and, of course, the synth powergaming caused by that, as well as my musings in my essay on the nature of the positronic brain. Things like the Savant-versus-Generalist spectrum serve to expand on the lore and give players a framework with which to create and develop their characters without having to make them carbon-copy regurgitations of the lore, or cookie-cutter faction-based characters. There's not really much to say to this besides that I hope my behavior from now on will reflect that I'm both improved and trying to improve more. Most of the underlying causes are gone; I have five refills prescribed for my medication, for example, so I'm not going to be running out of them again any time soon. Additionally, I have a lot of people who are willing to point me in the right direction and help me if things start getting out of hand. I can't thank those people enough, but also they're doing more than just pulling me back when I might go a bit too far. They're also giving me the experience and skills necessary to do the same for myself, so I won't be relying on people to help me be agreeable for all eternity.
×
×
  • Create New...