Scheveningen

Reliability has zero factor in RnD right now. It's a variable within RnD code but has next to zero functionality in the code as it stands. Something was changed between now and roughly 4 years ago. Even what Zundy posted is mostly just a mixed bag of misinformation or outdated information. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vZOQyhClbj7ieIWp8_GGC1tGEpkJCN4W97k6dD5I6tA/edit?usp=sharing This is a UTD guide as of today, anyone can comment with suggestions if they find anything more particularly optimized to make the route more streamlined and easier. Hopefully it prevents people from making and then breaking down diamond drills.

Fireman carry should also only make it so that you can only hold an item in your other non-grab hand as well, in combination with it taking up the backpack slot, if any.

+1 supportive of this app, for reasons already mentioned above

Sounds like a shitposting deficiency you got there. Consider seeing a shitpost professional for a prescription.

I'm optimistic, but it's all I can say this early. Someone give the hypothetical Aurora its head back.

The biggest thing as I view it, is that groups additional late-join roles would really help manifest Scarabs into the game's local story a bit more. Given the differing morals of a Scarab who isn't adjusted to a corporate environment, I'd love to see how a party of Scarabs' morals and culture clashes with the rest of the station. They would act antagonistic perhaps from a roleplay point of view in that they're unexpected guests that board but don't necessarily have as dire intentions as the Syndicate, pirates, etc. From the overarching lore point of view, I'd like to highlight how morally grey they tend to behave out in the unaccounted for areas of space, most characters treat them with ambivalence which is honestly a bit boring. In my vision, what they would be is that sometimes they're helpful, sometimes they mess up and create issues, and it would create a scapegoat effect of them being - on occasion - "nothing but trouble" to the most law-abiding characters. And that itself would likely create some interesting situations. Likewise, those who view the law as relativistic would likely sympathize with Scarabs and be more likely to help them out. The fact that the culture of the Coalition isn't really anything but "We're not the Solarian Alliance" is rather what bothers me. I don't want the Coalition to be particularly homogenized culturally or ethnically - god no - it's rather that there's very little history or common points that Coalition members really can speak of apart from disliking the SA. Sandboxes are normally more useful in environments where individual characters act as the leading protagonists of their worlds, in which they can literally shape the "sandbox" with their decision-making and such. Characters can only do that on a local scale for a round-by-round basis, where a character's competence only affects the station. Instead, the reality is that the "sandbox" people talk about is the relative freedom in character creation, depending on the character, their species, their background, etc. While sure, the original intention of the Coalition/Frontier was that anyone could make their own backstory planet within reason and say that is where their character lived, it was ultimately just a means to the actual character's creation and is meant to exemplify how hardened or soft that character particularly is. "Sandbox" means something completely different, as a result. I view the Coalition as very important, as it is a juxtaposition of a freer nation with less strict boundaries as opposed to the authoritarian, imperialistic dominion of the Solarian Alliance. It's a very useful foil and it's an proven concept that the Alliance actually lacks the ability to hold itself together if it were any bigger than it is right now. Sadly, the Coalition and the Alliance both suffer from the same issue: their history is a bit barren compared to the other, more well developed factions. "Who are you, who do not know your history" being an important quote that inspires me in this regard. Likewise some at-present events need to be written to justify some future conflict I have planned should I get this position. It'll play a pretty significant role in what I want to come about, but I don't want to spoil specifics very early. Good question. I imagine even Elyran characters are tired of constantly being on the defensive. They're very tired of getting punked by the Vaurca, the Unathi, and space piracy in general. I'd like to see much more retribution against whom they view are the original perpetrators of terrible crimes against them, and they and Eridani and the Coalition will all play their own major roles in a narrative event I have planned.

Hello Gordon! You're not a war criminal if there's no more military to judge you.

PINK PEE TEE BELT FUCKING BASED

I believe I will be fine. Thank you for your concerns, I will keep them in mind.

agree with the above sentiment, this is far too powerful for necropolis, please nerf at once to ensure the anti-sec agenda continues

Most of this was 3-4 years ago, roughly, I do not remember the exact range of time. It's a pretty long time to be hung up on two incidents within similar time frames in particular. But as I recall, we've both been rather awful to each other. I don't care to dig up examples from 3-4 years ago as I really do not care that much as to what's already interned into its respective drama grave. It's water under the bridge, there's nothing to say about it, if you haven't forgiven it you have a right to not to. Likewise, look at the position I'm applying for. It is definitely not equivalent to the moderator rank, that which was expected to have a degree of its own autonomy so as to be able to deal with various situations. Lore deputies fall under two approval chains, that of the team head and that of the loremaster(s). My only aims are to contribute and help drive the overarching story of the server to help make it more fun. It's your opinion if you think my motivations with applying is some attempt to seize any semblance of power. It's a little bad faith to assume that, but sure. Frankly, there is nothing I can tell you that'll convince you. You'll believe what you want and you're well within your grounds of free will to do so.

Having experienced this more, the antag drafting thing is actually amazing. "Get what you wish for, but not what you want" is kind of SS13 exemplified. Likewise there's a way to 'game' the antag drafting system if you are not personally an antag player: simply don't vote or don't vote for a game mode that includes antagonists. But it's not really 'gaming' the system in a negative way because you're exactly one person, and even if several individuals also did this, well hey, would you rather we go back to the server not being able to load a majority of the various game modes at all? That was a way worse system than what's being done right now. It's probably a good thing if secret voters have a random chance of being an antag than not having antagonists at all. Interest in the game kind of dies anyway if there's nobody to drive conflict once in awhile, even if it isn't the most riveting experience. Some people just need a workout or an occasion to keep them on their toes. Funny enough, though, some people have said this leads to more chaotic rounds as a result of more varied gametypes. Sure, chaotic round /=/ good round, but at least it's interesting. Shitty rounds exist to whine about briefly and then get over, it's part of the SS13 rhythm after all.

Those contracts are incredibly out of the way of things and give no feasible in-round benefits for even completing the objectives, plus the 'completion' of the contracts entirely depends on the person who created the contract in the first place to log into the WI to confirm it's done. Any work in progress being done by a dev right now will probably turn out to be more reasonable - and a bit different than attempting to rework a system (still existing, sure) to work completely differently than the fluff it provides right now.

Was I "banned" from becoming a moderator? As I recall, this was gone over before, and I was never given the impression either officially or unofficially this was the case. I can understand the desire to re-interpret how the past went if it suits you, but don't do that, if you don't mind. I've resigned numerous times from various staff positions, certainly, I've been around the ballpark in that regard. A majority of those resignations were largely tendered with not having enough time to commit to the staff position, and knowing there'd be better persons for the job than I'd be if I were to stick around and do nothing with the position. We've seen numerous times after all, that inactive staff can be a problem, so for a majority of the cases where I did decide to step down from the associated staff positions, that was the case. As for the moderator tenure and how that went, I stepped down when I was doing my work as a staff member very poorly, and I needed to distance myself from the staff position so as to focus on bettering myself and rethinking how I deal with people and other community issues. Was I asked by admin staff to consider resignation at the time, before action was forced if I fucked up again? Yeah, for sure. Garn especially thought it was a good idea, had I not taken action, the entire situation would've been worse off for everybody involved. I was in a pretty bad mental state, and the fact I didn't rein myself in sooner is a major regret of mine. The same could be said of anybody, it's incredibly easy to paint anyone as "combative" especially if they don't agree with the accuser on any given issue. Just the nature of things. I'm a player in good standing. I had prior history many years ago about being an unreliable command whitelistee (and god were people right about how bad I was), and since 2015-16(ish) I haven't had it stripped; one notable figure that I've become less bad, if not better. I've played command roles responsibly for that given time - I apologize in advance to anyone who had a rather mediocre experience, I have hit or miss days. I make it a priority of mine to contribute to the overall enjoyment of the round, whether it is for a backdrop character like an engieborg or for an integral command character. I don't commonly say it - and I also understand that being sappy too often tends to wear thin on people so I generally avoid doing it - but I do care about the community, especially the individuals I've come to call friends here. I care about trying to make the game and the roleplay setting enjoyable for most if not everyone there is. Community, friends, a hobby, all that stuff is pretty important to me. Why would I throw all that away for something petty? I'm definitely committed to writing, it is something that is fun and engaging to think up all kinds of odd ideas and make them part of the server's story. I really didn't have to write this out, but I am pretty motivated to do the job well this time, tie up the loose ends laid around from the last time I was lore for humans, etc.

Thanks Borya. In regards to the former question, the premise I already had going was that companies were able to get on their legs and grow particularly through funding their own puppet proxy PMCs to participate in the earlier skirmishes in the Proxy Cold War. The juxtaposition that was used was essentially how the United States manages to have a permanent war economy and a very profitable/persistent military-industrial complex that fuels a large majority of the supply and demand for various commodities - and in this case, it was heavily privatized, instead of simply half-half as it is today. In this case, as we go off of history, corporations are able to grow, buy out other competitors and consolidate their growing power into major megacorporate entities, as well as brokering agreements with supposedly different megacorporations to essentially have an official cease-fire and to stay out of each other's way. This manifests into a situation where megacorporations become utterly impossible to break up, as even the corporate side of things understands that for accelerationist capitalism to survive, they have to distance themselves away from true monopolization of the entire economic megasphere. Otherwise, in a disaster scenario, there's nothing left to salvage once it all breaks down. To actually answer that question, I want to make it clear through each corporate faction's relative progression where they came from, how they met specific demand in their associated areas, and how their sphere of influence grew and managed to root itself down within the galaxy today. Likewise, I noticed a rather strange lacking of a specific superpower from the lore, something I want to fix... it could be fun, at any rate. The fate of the Scarabs is a fairly tricky question. They're a nomadic entity for the most part, which makes them rather difficult to solidify as relevant power projectors go, even if they have the most significant flotilla and not even the Solarian Alliance would risk trying to police their numbers. But for the most part, I want them to have a lot more gameplay presence, particularly through implemented mechanics. I would also like them to be relevant antagonistically (but not enough to warrant killing a Scarab on-sight, certainly not), as it's pretty clear that nomadic space jihadists would very likely have some cultural differences with corporate employees working on a cozy space station.

As someone who was around when the detective had .45 rubbers, it was bad. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If, statistically, detectives cannot be trusted to use any munitions responsibly, then they probably merit removal.

Not really referring to gameplay quality, but rather being wound up over the perceived "roleplay quality" of antagonists. It really does not matter.

QED: reasons to vote extended. But seriously, why do people care so much about the quality of antagonists? It really doesn't matter. Usually what happens is that they do something stupid enough that they get lynched by the crew anyway or die some other manner. They're so painfully easy to shut down -- not to mention it's also very easy for said inexperienced antags to get themselves killed on their own. So why even stress over it? It's a roleplay server -- it's not really about the antagonist. It's about the group unit of everyone who is playing and interacting with one another. Clearly, the fact that there are any antagonists at all is of the only concern to the admins + devs at large, elsewise we would've been able to see a lot of specific changes to the various antagonist types. Quantity over quality and etc.

I'm not sure how I feel in these cases. I'd rather not see the detective be defenseless, I'd also rather not see them with a shitty clowngun for the most part, and I'd also rather not see them with a firearm with loose cannon destructive potential either. And I'd also rather not see the detective with LTLs either, particularly since this was a thing in the past and detectives wouldn't stop fucking validhunting with those either. It honestly eludes me why detective can end up being more destructive than any of the other four security officers combined in a given round, and I don't think it's the gun. Otherwise it'd be wardens we'd have issues with.