Scheveningen

1. this would be worth tying to sub 10-player rounds. It not being summer doesn't affect population that substantially. 2. I'd have ling disabled pending its rework if I had my way. 3. eh no. That'd kill paranoia that even security could have traitors in its midst. 4. Most major events can be handled. Meteors and space carp are a joke, the only threat to the station during low pop is a blob or the lack of shields after 1 hr and 30 minutes into the round. Major events are very predictable in their timing as the event controller is only random in what events get chosen, not their timing. Most people would not enjoy a Randy Random-style event controller, after all, as the survival of the station would literally be dependent on the event controller.

Yeah not that service people don't stuff rags into their back pocket to clean tables with or anything, clearly it's the GAY AGENDA posting once again to tarnish our spotless server.

The suggestions you gave provide little interaction in my experience. Clearly you need to change how you do things in order to achieve a different experience, then, because making code changes to make the community, rather than yourself, adapt to the way the game is played sounds quite suspect. Purposefully designing facets of the game so that other people have to to be forced to play to your playstyle is perhaps going to draw a lot of ire, if it has not already. You're the only 'chef main' I know that complains about this.

BYOND Key: Scheveningen Total Ban Length: Until appealed. Banning staff member's Key: [mention]Skull132[/mention] Reason of Ban: Paraphrased: "Due to continued shenanigans with Burger over Github, despite Garn's clear warning to remain civilized, the maintainers and Skull132 have decided to have myself banned from the Github." Reason for Appeal: I am not presently going to make excuses as to why I said the things I did to Burger for X, Y and Z as I'm understanding no one wishes to hear it. I understand the reason for the ban was due to myself making comments on the repository that were otherwise going below and beyond what ever should be said through the github repository. I understand it is not my place to be such a critic and I will endeavor to avoid repeating the same behavior. If I have an issue, I will speak to a maintainer that has the time and will to take any particular complaints, or otherwise I will man up and get over it in cases that only affect me. I apologize for the stress and inconvenience that I may have created through my conduct. I do wish to continue contributing to the Aurora.3 repository. If the team of maintainers are still not convinced, I'd be fine with appealing at a later date, but I would prefer this appeal be accepted with the caveat of, "Okay, but if you can't keep a cap on it then there is no second appeal," as that is something I would be more motivated to follow and I'd be able to be back with contributing with my own suggested changes again.

There are generally two consensuses I've seen on joint-locking/breaking. Which presently is the last form of stunlock, but unlike other methods of stunlocking that have been eliminated from the codebase in the past, this requires substantial effort and several failed grab-resist rolls to execute properly. Although, not entirely true, as you can knock someone unconscious and then use joint-locking to shut them down without a chance for counterplay. 1. Joint-locking is incredibly powerful shit and is more effective than cuffs, provided you can get a decent grab off and maintain it, you can effectively end someone's round by rendering them unable to fix any of their joints being broken due to how presently effective it is. It's effectively powergaming because it shuts down someone's ability to play, not just roleplay. It doesn't matter what degree of escalation has happened, you literally stop someone from playing once they have their joints broken and there is nobody present to assist them. I.e. when taking prisoners and want to be sure they're unable to escape at all. It's not fair that I got unlucky and my resists failed. When it works, it's incredibly overpowering. 2. Joint-locking is okay because there are certain situations where joint-locking is required to shut down a particularly powerful individual that will resist any step of the way but it's also not appropriate to use lethal force to put them down. This applies especially to crewmember antagonists, as execution of crewmembers is illegal (and heavily debatable in self-defense), but killing pirates/mercenaries in self-defense is not. Joint-locking is especially necessary to shut down greytiders that haven't quite broken the server rules yet or for certain antagonistic types that simply do not relent to other forms of non-lethal force aside from joint-breaking. It is fair because I've failed to joint-lock people and got robusted since RNG was on the opposing side to retaliate, it is not always reliable. When it fails, it feels like wasted effort. One reader may think that I may be the contrarian moderate-thinker but the fact of the matter is that I agree with both of the above statements concurrently, I don't belong in any particular camp. I think both of these camps' opinions should be considered and also combined into a singular policy on what to do against joint-locking and where it is situationally okay to do ICly and OOCly. I am aware of some of the potential inconsistencies/problems that could arise regardless of the policy being meshed into one here. If I knew how to address those in particular, I would have already addressed them with my solutions, of which I do not have. tl;dr! Joint-breaking needs to be looked at in terms of the following questions that all need to be answered with Yes, or else it becomes an increasingly unlawful use of joint-locking in-character and thus an extension of metagaming and powergaming (because it's using a very drastic measure of force, which itself needs to be met against a drastic threat to be justified, or else its just a preemptive shutdown which is metagaming.): 1.) Did prior forms of escalation already get tried against this particular individual? 2.) Did you try to restrain this character before and did they escape it at least once? 3.) Did this character present themselves as a threat that required this degree of force to completely disable their ability to act? 4.) Does this character belong in the camp of an internal antagonist threat, or an external one? 5.) Was this method of joint-lock shutdown appropriate in the given context of the round's story progression? Is it necessary to disable them fully in order to fulfill your character's goals?

My problem with suggestions like these is that they typically just round out to the typical consequence of some people utilizing them to force certain positions in the game to interact with them just by virtue of round-start choosing the ailment. Not always, just typically. If we say that a character has a blood clotting problem that spontaneously exacerbates, the medical department becomes required to respond to it regardless of how the current round state is and what priorities are being weighed. Catch-22 is that if Medical decides, "Oh, we're going to ignore this guy since their condition probably doesn't rank higher than this security officer or head of staff that both got nearly hacked to death by rampaging cultists with claymores", then the player can find an excuse to take issue with medical staff ranking actually round-critical characters higher than that of characters that are deliberately designed to die much easier than anyone else. If we say that someone has blood pressure high enough that they can literally die on the job, the first initial question that gets asked on the OOC side is, "Why is someone with a lethal medical condition triggered by stress working on a NanoTrasen space station where the risks of inhabiting space can be high-stressing?" And this rounds out my problem with this. Sure, I am 100% certain that there will be a couple people who execute this reasonably and still sit in the middle between "boring" and "ridiculous." But is anyone also willing to deal with those kinds of characters that I just mentioned, as well? Because that's the bigger picture that has to be seen here, irrespective of how well the features themselves can be coded. And let's not pretend "it can be moderated" is a proper excuse. It's incredibly difficult to moderate roleplay issues that strictly don't violate the rules unless the staff member themselves is bold enough to make decisions with no earlier precedent, which then creates its own issues about whether or not the staff member was in the right to make such a decision when there's no virtual precedent that would've stated that staff member was in the right to make that decision. To tack onto that, one could determine or personally justify, "Well, there were a lot of conditions surrounding this one issue, so clearly it was 100% Okay, because it was circumstantial and merely judged by the individual case!" Which then throws out the idea of establishing precedent off of that one situation, because its conclusion was only determined off of the circumstances of the one situation. Meaning any lesson you could glean from that situation could be considered meaningless when applied to a different situation. I feel like, just as a tl;dr to everything I said; There's consequences to every proposed system. A suggestion is only ever worth it (by virtue of cost-benefit) if the community would be okay with both the positive and the negative consequences that a suggestion brings about.

A fair concern. Antagonists would have to be considered in regards to how they acquire food and such. I figure mercenaries can have MREs that are absurdly nutritious and give the best utility and in-combat buffs to give them a stronger advantage since the station will always have numbers and the home field over them. Likewise, traitors could get MREs from their uplinks. Vampires won't need to eat, just drink blood, and then wizards could get something magically delicious, lings won't need to eat at all. And so on and so forth. Sadly, it's one of those constantly expanding concepts.

The problem as already implicated is that people can just skip over the chef and go the entire round without really needing to eat as long as they never sprint around and move sparingly. Some roles don't require a lot of sprinting (i.e., non-EMT medical, engineers, service dept., so on), so provided you rolled decently with nutriment at the start of the round, you can go the entire 2 hours without being at red hunger-level. Adding consequence -- both positive and negative -- to actions will have lots of interesting and fun gameplay decisions that may lead to some people collapsing in hunger a lot or some people doing incredibly well in the round because they were well fed.

You're nerfing lunchboxes? That decision is questionable at best. On average, each crewmember is supposed to eat at least two meals before the round's over unless they want massive speed and stamina penalties for a good portion of the round. Want to make the chef an important role? Make the mechanics surrounding being hungry actually significant enough to incentivize people to interact with the chef and eat their food. Intensify the consequence for starving (0 nutriment, chance for a heart attack or some shit, as the worst possible consequence, but everything above that is occasional fainting from being sooo hungry, slowdown benefits, stamina that doesn't regenerate, higher likelihood to be knocked down in combat, etc) but also give buffs to having eaten properly prepared food recently (i.e., small speed buff, slightly higher chance to dodge in combat, faster stamina regeneration rate, slower hunger progression for REALLY good food, etc). Otherwise, the chef won't be terribly important when eating is only optional, rather than critical, for the sake of any one character's personal round progression/survival.

Armor works fine as is. Only in cases where the armor fails to block even half the damage. The damage of a weapon must exceed the amount of remaining health that is on a limb before the limb is supposed to gore, which is why you're capable of immediately removing a hand or a foot with a revolver shot or a shotgun slug. These thresholds are far too low and thus they are changed. Furthermore, also keep in mind that a weapon that damages over 20 brute will more commonly penetrate armor even without the armor penetration flag. Armor coverage works different for hardsuits, which applies the same armor values to cover every part of the body (as the ERT gloves and boots have damage resistance, and cover both). This is the only case in the game where armor coverage works in this way. Health values do not represent mass, nor are they intended to represent mass.

I think the proper way to go about a situation like this is to simply oblige to relatively simple requests, to be courteous and agreeable. I'm not sure how you thought "your way" was the right way. Responding to a legitimate suggestion with drafting up a meme PR that seeks to deride and belittle whatever subject matter is contained below probably won't win you any points in the popularity department. I'm not going to pretend like anything I did was "work" in the slightest. Jackboot requested I draft up my own solution and it's what I did since his proposition wasn't amazingly complex.

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/5175 organ damage-free burritos, also free of incomprehensible rage over how many virtual meatballs should go into a virtual burrito ss13 is serious business

Denied

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/5176 This is to make it much harder to remove someone's limbs as most weaponry should not actually gore people's limbs in so few hits. Looking at you, glass spears. Presently, it's a little too easy to kill people simply because of how easy it is to remove their limbs (the legs and feet in particular), which leads them to be stunned and then finished off incredibly easily. In addition, it is no longer possible to lose a limb through heavy armor in a single blow short of the Anti-Materiel Rifle itself, as a result of these changes. This PR puts a larger emphasis on allowing for more sustained and interesting combat, allowing for participants to still have opportunities to be able to walk away after the first shot is fired or to make concerted efforts to fight back. Certain things that have enough lethality to maim or doesn't rely on lethality at all will not be substantially effected by these changes. However, you can't lose your foot from a point blank slug or revolver bullet unless you have no armor or said armor fails to halfblock.

Bump

Cyborgs are not meant to be as 100% convenient as carbon mobs with hands and feet. Their limitations in regards to interacting with certain things are intentional, as cyborgs are quite strong in their own ways. Service cyborgs can already transport food and coffee. Making another IPC-but-totally-a-cyborg race will simply remove the distinction between carbon mobs and cyborgs. This is power creep, plain and simple. It is unnecessary.

Advertisers have done weirder yet bold things. Zzzzoda now +1

Opposed. I fail to see what this actually aims to change and accomplish.

It's a burrito, not a "meatio." Reduce it to 1 meatball per so that it's relatively sane enough to mass produce burritos.

i agree

I suggest trying a different style for the belt since it sort of looks goofy.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

It sucks to have to relate to 9/11 to make a point about the current state of things to justify lore actions, but this is still an incredibly good point. RE: Redeployments, in regards to Satin+the OP making mention of this: keep in mind not all of the admirals abandoned their posts, they just redistributed fleet power to the other systems. The fleet around Saturn just wasn't enough to defend against a raider attack that was completely unexpected. This was probably already said but yeah. It's a thing. If you've ever played Stellaris before, you often have to make military decisions in positioning your fleets in order to prevent your most valuable systems/worlds being taken. While losing a system full of mining stations is regrettable and costly, it is no more costly than leaving your homeworld up for grabs by hostile xeno forces known for biological terrorism and species extermination. Unless you're really good at that game, it's impossible to be near-psychic of when and how someone is going to attack your territory especially when you don't expect it. Scrambling response fleets are expensive to upkeep and so on. It's worth losing a space station to prevent Earth from getting slagged by bio-terrorism.

The diversion of the Alliance fleet to protect the homeworld is honestly not terribly different how in Halo where the Gravemind of the Flood throws an infested covenant cruiser near New Mombasa. The end result is that due to the contamination/risk of spreading involved, a portion of a continent had to be glassed to save the rest of the planet. Like black k'ois, The Flood fuck shit up when they get planet-side. A single spore can eliminate an entire species. This is not quite the same situation but it's not the first time in science fiction or science fantasy where military movements prioritized the homefront over the frontier worlds and outright neglected the latter due to more formal concerns about the defense of the homeworld. Certain sacrifices had to be made to ensure the risk of a Lii'dra incursion were rendered completely untenable. It was a fluke, in the end, which was both fortunate and unfortunate. The loss of some supplies and a space station because the Alliance got PRANKED BRO, is regrettable but not exactly unthinkable. What would you do in the situation where a Lii'dra ship is supposedly attempting to divebomb through Earth's atmosphere? In the military, command leadership often operate on the standard of, "If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but if I'm right, you don't want me to be right because we can never let the worst case scenario happen." I'm sure the SA looks pretty stupid right now but the Alliance holds a lot of comparisons to the Galactic Republic in Star Wars. Prior to being reformed into a totalitarian regime, it was a bureaucratic organization that was too big and too wide to really make a concentrated difference due to the people participating in membership of the Republic. Everyone has different priorities and ways of handling intergalactic policy. Administrations are huge in number and still not able to handle relatively simple issues due to the culture of bureaucracy and personal liberties being enforced. The Alliance is more of a Roman Republic than it is any kind of democracy, to clarify further. One of the reasons Rome fell was due to the mismanagement of the leadership to handle such a massive government in tandem with the other sub-divisionary governors and prime ministers, and so on. The Alliance lost its Pax Romana about 100 years ago in the lore timeline. They're a stagnant and vulnerable empire despite their size, and no empire is invulnerable. All of the factions have weaknesses and specific kinks to them that make their governance distinct from one another.

those sprites are lit as fuck granted the tajaran one is, as you've said, not as fantastic