Jump to content

Scheveningen

Members
  • Content Count

    1,887
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Scheveningen

  • Rank
    Cyborg
  • Birthday 21/12/1996

Personal Information

  • Location
    getting wi-fi out of a cornfield

Linked Accounts

  • Byond Key
    oneonethreeeight

Recent Profile Visitors

333 profile views
  1. True enough, but it's still important to respect what boundaries are whose in terms of implementing features. I'll keep what you mentioned in mind.
  2. These values are, of course, subject to change. I might personally go about changing some of these values myself after deferring to some members of the lore team (or just JB, really) in terms of opening a discussion. Since how much crewmembers are being paid is ultimately a lore authority thing, but I agree that some of these hardly make much sense.
  3. Amusingly there are three methods. There are two variations of the prompt plus one method of using say " through the command bar. I personally have a macro keyed to say ". This is because it immediately pops up the prompt regardless of the server's latency so I can type out whatever I want. As opposed to using the hotkey, T, which displays the typing indicator while using that prompt, but it's heavily dependent on the server's present performance, so if the server is having a lagspike you have to wait for the prompt to show up and then type something. The former prompt also has an "X" to immediately terminate a say command without having to tediously backspace out and then press enter, which the latter seems to be absent in possessing. You can probably tell that I very much prefer the ability to Speak quickly, outlander. Frankly I'd rather have the say " function unified to some singular command instead of having 3 different ways of doing something and each of them having their inherent stupidity tied to them.
  4. Scheveningen

    Aurora Comics Project

    👏
  5. Please keep in mind NanoTrasen is an incredibly powerful, affluent and wealthy megacorporation, if not the most of all three categories. 1. They can spend hush money to keep a family satisfied and quiet. 2. They're capable of influencing utilities to mysteriously disappear if a family decides to get antsy and try to 'raise awareness' or spread information about the company that NanoTrasen doesn't want spoken about. 3. NanoTrasen has its own political influencers in the TC government and the media, even. NT behaves a lot like a corporation in a dystopian world that hides their misdeeds very well. Propagandizing is very typical within the company culture and outside of it for advertising and influencing purposes. It's fair to come to the assertion that a big company like NT can consider a cargo technician more disposable in a hostage situation than any other head of staff. And objectively, they are, to the company. NT doesn't necessarily want people to die, but if it comes down to trading one disposable asset for another, then perhaps someone will conveniently die instead of handing over credits worth far more than the life being traded for, is. The importance I levy on this issue is particularly to help people make decisions of actual value and involvement of how the game's story elements function. When decisions are motivated under those principles, then the game suddenly gets so much deeper, interesting and complex to play.
  6. Firstly, let's get some variables out of the way in terms of how the code determines your character's pay. I'll first link how the function works in order to calculate your generated credit amount in your account. var/money_amount = (rand(5,50) + rand(5, 50)) * loyalty * economic_modifier * species_modifier Wow, that's confusing... to the uninitiated, at least. Let's break this down. loyalty This precious variable defines a numerical modifier based on your character's loyalty preference. Yes, disloyal characters are paid less, and loyal characters are paid more. economic_modifier This adorable variable defines a numerical modifier applied to a job. species_modifier This cute little variable defines a numerical modifier applied to a species. __ Loyalty To specify, this is exactly how loyalty modifies your pay. switch(H.client.prefs.nanotrasen_relation) if(COMPANY_LOYAL) loyalty = 1.30 if(COMPANY_SUPPORTATIVE) loyalty = 1.15 if(COMPANY_NEUTRAL) loyalty = 1 if(COMPANY_SKEPTICAL) loyalty = 0.85 if(COMPANY_OPPOSED) loyalty = 0.70 It's significant. Though kind of stupid, yes. __ The Jobs Let's list every occupation and their economic modifier alone, with no other factors involved. Captain: 20 Head of Personnel: 10 Head of Security: 10 Chief Engineer: 10 Chief Medical Officer: 10 Research Director: 15 Internal Affairs Agent: 7 Bartender: 2 Gardener: 2 Chef: 2 Janitor: 2 Librarian: 2 Journalist: 2 Chaplain: 2 Assistant: 1 Quartermaster: 5 Cargo Technician: 2 Shaft Miner: 5 Warden: 5 Detective: 5 Forensic Technician: 5 Security Officer: 4 Security Cadet: 2 Station Engineer: 5 Atmospheric Technician: 5 Engineering Apprentice: 2 Medical Doctor: 7 Psychiatrist: 5 Chemist: 5 Paramedic: 4 Medical Resident/Intern: 2 Scientist: 7 Roboticist: 7 Xenobiologist: 7 Lab Assistant: 2 __ The Species Human: 12 Skrell: 12 Unathi: 7 Tajaran: 7 Diona: 3 IPC: 3 Vaurca: 2 __ In a follow-up post I'll list general averages per economic modifier.
  7. While fair, it's a bit naive to expect the broad abstract of 'the players' to do everything at least close to right. We don't need harsh rules or policies enforcing people to do things one way or another, but in absence of a proper rule we should set simple enough guidelines instead. They are less compulsory but when the situation calls for it and nobody has a better option to suit the situation, a simple guideline like, "1.5x the person's bank account is the most the station should be willing to offer for that hostage" goes quite far. The suggestion I proposed won't necessarily make gameplay better, but hopefully if we build up more noncompulsory guidelines for people to follow if they have no other idea what they should/could be doing, it helps them make a decision in a situation where they're stuck without a good option. Eventually guidelines like these will help shape people into making better decisions.
  8. Let's not worry so much about realistic issues moreso than we should worry about the lack of practical guidelines about this sort of thing. Because there are no practical guidelines on these issues, antagonists have no idea what they should be doing and don't know how much items are worth and thus ask for too much sometimes. Because there are no practical guidelines, newbies and regulars alike are more predisposed to make mistakes and poor decisions. Let us not enable that any further.
  9. The issue identified in the OP seems to stem from a couple problems that don't really relate to how much money is worth in-game right now. 1.) Antagonists don't know or don't care how much people are worth, they just want huge sums of money for minimal effort and risk involved. 2.) Putting a massive price on something you acquired easily means you don't care about the actual value of the person or thing you're holding hostage, it doesn't mean you're actually overvaluing it despite the massive price tag. 3.) There's a difference between being a smart humanitarian that judges case-by-case and an idiot humanitarian who is an impractical bleeding heart that pearl-clutches anytime a plan is set into place that has 'acceptable' risks. Ultimately it has to do with players in general not understanding how much lives are actually worth (their general estimated bank account amount * 1.5, usually works), which is an issue with ignorance. My personal policy that I use as a measure to get what I need done with minimal risk involved is that I won't charge into a hostage situation with priority #1 being getting the hostage out alive and sending the rest of the security team in to clean up the rest of the hostiles, if said hostage takers have been otherwise reasonable and not needlessly torturing people. If the antagonists do break those caveats then I almost always devise a plan to get the hostages free and pick off each of the hostage takers one-by-one. I do factor in bus factor when it comes to riskier assaults on positions of the hostage takers. I.e., "Can we afford to lose any hostages, especially if they're low-priority personnel like assistants?" It's easier to judge this as a HOS whose objectivity influenced by the implant is particularly dangerous from a moral/ethical point of view, but makes still sense in their position from protecting property and personnel perspective. There's been rumors about self-driving car algorithms out there that could potentially kill you if a biometric system determines you of less inherent value than to, say, someone in the very upper class, because they're more 'important' than you. Same kind of logic might apply here, people can die in a hostage situation and security could find that acceptable if the person who died was not very important to the station's operation whatsoever.
  10. Scheveningen

    Aut'akh are coming! feedback here

    A concern to levy, not that anything I have to say is important; the removal of shell IPCs and zero-consequence MMI brained IPCs (largely in combination with each other) was removed less so for its issues of transhumanist themes as much as it was essentially for the issue of the true immortality such comforts provided, as MMIs even now can almost indefinitely preserve a brain, and if the shell is destroyed you just throw the MMI (which is a biological processor essentially, more so now) into a new shell and call it a day. That's gone, thankfully, so only synthetics are technically immortal. Or are they? The wiki does not seem to overtly mention whether or not the Aut'akh will be able to circumvent their own mortality, given the apparent transient nature of replacing the majority of someone's bodily functions into a bio-synthetic body. The wiki also doesn't mention any details about their lifespan being influenced in any way or another. I find these to be particular important details because they add certain levels of nuance to decision-making and consequence. Presently, security is essentially punished for taking acts that endanger themselves or other people if they think they can get away with "We can clone them" as an acceptable 'out' of a hostage-taking scenario. I'd hate to see the pitfall show up regarding this issue, because the effort to hold people accountable for their behavior and also hold people to an understanding that they must play their characters as if they are mortal and generally possess aversions to decisions that would likely kill them was a very painstaking effort to keep rooted in place for as long as it has. Sensible conjecture would indicate this kind of technology likely creates its own problems of maintenance for the new body, but assuming the stars line up and an Aut'akh keeps well-oiled (so to speak), they'd live up to 15 years over what their fleshier compatriots would live up to, but still mortal as their brain would likely contract conditions such as dementia, senility or Alzheimer's due to aging. Exact details would be greatly appreciated in addressing those issues since these are particularly important things to consider given how they will inevitably influence decision-making in the heat of a conflicted round.
  11. Scheveningen

    Aut'akh are coming! feedback here

    ultimately, the issues I had(have? idk anymore) with Aut'akh were of the 'the promises changed' variety and in all honesty, I was of the 'tentatively pro-transhumanist' crowd roughly a year ago. It was sad to see it go (except for the xeno shells with MMI brains and psuedo immortality, screw that, it sucked), but it was for the better given the severity of shells at the time. I'm all for it, at the end of the day. Some concerns I held were already addressed in a brief discussion with JB and one could consider me utterly convinced that this is fine for the most part.
  12. Scheveningen

    Departmental Security

    It depends on the antagonist type, butter. Some of them will be easily corruptible and can just as easily be turned on the entire department, making them an ideal henchman for a conversion-type antagonist. Other antagonists may struggle in attempting to pull off the perfect crime, but they can finally weigh in a risk involved that doesn't have to end in their definitive shut-down for the round, as the other departmental officers have neither access nor reason to respond to something out of their lane.
  13. Scheveningen

    Staff Complaint - Lordfowl

    Just noticed Skull edited his post with the caveat it seems not to display whether he edited it or not, which is interesting. While it looks like he never said what I quoted, it was indeed part of the original response I was quoting him on as I was typing up a response to him initially. Just putting that out there. Furthermore, I'm not going to facilitate any kind of request from someone who has yet to answer for why they're choosing to so avidly defend and protect someone whose behavior in the cases where he was not solicited for his direct opinion or directly antagonized, was essentially very intentionally gross and needlessly hostile to fellow staff members and players. What's going on there, really? Seems pretty strange. Loren put my concerns brilliantly, as well.
  14. Scheveningen

    Staff Complaint - Lordfowl

    Attributing staffmembers, their ideas and work as 'autistic' isn't targeted harassment to you? Especially when it's done more than once? I don't think this complaint would be here at 3 pages and roughly 50+ posts if this only happened once. The evidence and proofs provided are ultimately not of singular instances (such as you cited with the cloaks) but of several over time. Which proves something is going on there. I'm not the only person holding this banner. Nor am I going to simply drop this because you say so. Check the first two pages of this thread and count how many people were very much not a fan of how Fowl's conduct stood out compared to others, many of them have provided evidence, in fact, and very strong arguments on top of that, plenty of them you've not even chosen to address, how convenient. Whatever basis your evaluation was formed upon, it's clear that it is using a disproportionate measurement of judgement. Your argument's pretty weak if by addressing whether you have a double standard or not, it ends up in you accusing me of being the one with the double standard rather than addressing whether anything in your decision-making was flawed or not. Not exactly the road to self-improvement there. And yet I am not wrong. By rejecting that staff act disproportionately, you assert that staff perform their duties perfectly and without error. Until you code replacements for staff members, so far they are all substituted for by humans. People who think, feel, and do things not always in the best interest of others or themselves. It is recognition of these flaws that we can figure out how to fix those weaknesses and exemplify where we're all individually strong. You did once, actually: You can insist the context was different, but you + one another committed to that decision knowing well of the potential consequence of the matter. And it took you how long to admit that was a mistake? This complaint isn't at all about people who get heated in complaints like that. What people post on the forums often stays on the forums until moderated, and by itself it is super easy to judge alone. The problem being reported, something you seem fit to not make the distinction of, is what happens in real-time dynamic chatrooms regarding discussions on how to do certain things and how to get stuff done without the BS. The issue here is that BS gets into those situations, and scenario by scenario pops up over time, and you will not see all of them. The stuff you are likely to miss the context of while you're out in the real world, and thus not understand with a great deal of brevity as much as the people who are affected by it the most, do understand that. I can probably also understand why you don't have experience in this matter (and thus can't empathize nor give credit to people whose situation you don't understand), because people tend not to screw with folks who can actively remove others from an environment. A case like this but substituted with anyone who is neither a staffmember nor Fowl would likely result in the person's discipline, because it is easier to carry out discipline on a player than a staff member, clearly. Bans are not the only form of punishment that create pressure on an individual to behave better, either.
×