Scheveningen

It does not, given Jaeger was an antagonist during these two rounds.

It's almost like playing scientist isn't all about the guns. What a travesty, the idea of having to acquire something to even fire a prototype gun.

*chirps

You're basing the entire fun factor of a job on whether it's potent or effective enough as an antagonist. Hearing that from you is unsurprising to hear, but it'd be honestly nice to hear a viewpoint from another science regular whose priorities weren't solely focused around the antagonist experience. You have countless ways to play the game as any job, especially as R&D whose job priorities and overall goals are extremely flexible. It is not the developer's job to make every single position "!fun!" or "easy" so that if you finally roll antagonist you can just waste the whole round doing nothing or just murdering ineffectively anyway. It's on the player themselves to overcome the downsides of their job in order to execute their plans as an antagonist. Assistants start with zero access, do you expect them to be given a free spare ID roundstart so that they can get the gear they want without putting in any effort or respecting consequence for their actions? The antagonist has the most actual freedom in what they want to do in the game, yet some players choose to waste time deliberating and seething over paranoid stuff that doesn't even matter. Just play and do things, that is all we ask antagonists to do. This suggestion adds needed accountability and consequence for R&D should they choose to produce weapons, antag or no. Whether it affects antagonists or not is completely irrelevant as it is the job of an antagonist to overcome the difficulties of their job restrictions to put their plan into action. Every other server's antags has to deal with this, it often results in failed antag runs just because those consequences in combination with misplays and miscalculations of risk ends up in players dying in-game. "Better luck next round", is the general response. /tg/ is a mix between low and medium RP, yet they get along just fine with firing pins. They are on the lower end of the RP spectrum and antags regularly deal with the issue of firing pins either through actually being a sociable person and asking for pins only to turn those guns on crewmembers later, or they're smart and buy the extremely cheap antag pins with 100% assurance that their gun will never be turned on them. Overcoming difficulty is a major defining feature as an antagonist. Adding certain stepping stones to jobs that have a "high risk high reward" to make them reasonably more difficult is not a flaw in design philosophy, multiple games do it in a way that is fun, it is even fun on /tg/. R&D should not be a gun foundry where weapons are easy to print off without consequence. Unhelpful counterpoint, it's easy to be an /I D E A S guy/, not so easy to put those ideas in a coherent presentable manner so developers will be convinced to put those development ideas into practice.

We'll point the two mentioned players in question to this complaint if they pop around on-server.

I think it makes little sense that beneficial drugs kill people harder as an OD effect than toxics like phoron, chlorophoride and lexorin do.

no.

yeah i'd like neb to be reminded not to make untrue or deceptive incident reports that poorly (and inaccurately) represent characters thats all Ignoring the fact that Nebula wrote the incident report as an antagonist, characters are allowed to lie in incident reports, it just so happens that they get punished for doing so when the DOs find out. A character lying ICly in a report is not OOCly actionable. So the only takeaway from this is that Nebula should respect the rules regarding when you can OOCly make an incident report, and that's it. Which was already relayed to them, and I have no mind to reinforce something that was already relayed to someone. Irrespective of whether you think otherwise, considering this resolved and not actionable.

Sounds like you had 13 reasons to not play it, yet you would still play here even if this was added.

;_;

Ask a coder.

that is fucknig shopped

this application was literally from the obama era

What gun safe? It doesn't after that point, but it already adds accountability because cargo among other people become aware of R&D requesting firing pins for the imminent batch of weapons they are bound to produce. It allows for command to track what the intentions of the R&D department are based on what R&D is ordering from cargo, and in turn, inform security what to expect moving onward. Versus the current status quo, where a scientist could stuff a bunch of guns into their bag whether antagonist or not, and go postal without anyone in-game seeing it coming, because of the lack of existing stopgaps. The staff team is largely reactive moderation, not proactive. We punish behavior after the fact when someone takes issue with it and reports it, or something in-game was bad enough that it warranted us stepping in without the need for a report. Firing pins add a stopgap to stall those who cannot be patient enough to wait for a cargo crate like everyone else has to for their own jobs. Sorry to hear that.

I think the IC report was closed, either way. So beyond that, could it be iterated what the goals of this complaint are?

Pretty much an IC issue. It's excessive force and should be treated as such.

It's 1 TC. Force gloves are 8 TC. Energy swords are 12. Revolvers are either 12 or 14. AEGs are arguably more cost-effective than revolvers, even though revolvers can three-shot kill someone if all bullets hit and armor doesn't partially block it. Force gloves add complete and utter close-quarters dominance. Energy swords are incredibly strong in their own right, blocking both melee attacks and ranged attacks, slicing open walls and etc. But the AEG has infinite ammunition. The quad-laser acts like a revolver in close quarters and hits incredibly hard. The x-ray gun is scary due to its rapid rate of fire. Stun revolvers are cheap, have 10 shots and hit harder than tasers do. 1 TC for a single syndie firing pin for any gun you produce certainly isn't unfair, it still allows you to purchase a pair of force gloves and an e-sword, or the gloves and a revolver. Or pretty much anything else. Yes, because you are applying the same logic to a completely different subject, and presuming an outcome without having precedent or proof to even assume it. We're not talking about butterfly knives here, we're talking about guns produced from Research and Development only. The OOC intention is solely to stop situations where non-antagonist researchers crack out weaponry to self-antagonize or validhunt with. With the solution I offered to make this suggestion work, 1 TC is cost effective enough to make printing off the AEG or a railgun worth it. Mining is so easy right now that you can get resources 20-30 minutes into the round when three miners are working, which they normally are, this used to be an issue with R&D before. 12 TC for a revolver is actually ridiculously expensive even for its power. 1 TC + in-round requirements for the resources to even build an AEG is enough for an antagonist. They can spend the remaining 24 TC on a pair of force gloves and an energy sword if they so wanted to. I assume "meaningful interaction" refers to "roleplaying" here. The assumption that because you add a hurdle that is intended to make it harder for non-antagonists to get prototype guns from R&D, it somehow also makes it harder for antagonists to get the same gun even with the provided solution that a very cheap 1 TC firing pin from an uplink that explodes like a lawgiver if a non-antag dares to use it on you, is a rather dubious assumption. The point is that it is far too easy for R&D to print off guns. Even security has to get over the hurdle of persuading cargo to order heavier guns for a combat emergency. Why should R&D be the exception to that rule, especially considering how none of the prototype guns from R&D hold the risk of malfunction? It's too much reward for so little cost, AEGs are not hard to mass-produce.

This should be enough to shut this idea down completely for anyone with a truly deep understanding of the game, in my opinion. Resolution: 1 TC firing pin that only fires when in the hands of antagonists, explodes in anyone else's hands. Could also give head revs uplinks with a smaller amount of TC, around 5-10, to purchase antag pins with. Lings and vamps may be out of luck but they have access to different things that make them more powerful anyway.

A lot of things are ahelp issues. though mechanics generally preventing such behaiviour are better in the long run, less work for the 'mins, and not all things get ahelped. Can't argue with that. Someone who wants to test guns legitimately will take the 5 minutes required to type out a simple conversation for why they need firing pins from cargo.

cool, don't post you're gonna raid other servers then. Leave us out of it.

You mean "fluff mechanics that are optional and otherwise add nothing interesting but pure negatives to the game"? Why would you even add them, even. Isn't it easier to just roleplay these things out?

Okay, so code-wise, when you enter a locker and shut it, your mob is pseudo-removed from the z-level, with an exception added that you are added as part of the contents listing inside the locker. So when someone opens the locker, or you open the locker, or something blows up the locker through damage, you pop straight out. Your location prior to those conditions, however, is (0,0,0), because your mob is contained inside another object and not directly on the map. Naturally anyone can still ghost-follow you or see your suit sensors location since those are tracked with respect to the mechanic. With mechs it works the same way, Viewing Variables of a piloted mech shows that the mech contains a pilot. In order to allow for direct control of the mech, though, the mob is technically located on 0,0,0 because it is not actually anywhere on the map visibly besides contained within another object. The mech, in this case. The problem is that while it is fathomable to allow for objects to move upward or downward, it (mechs, particularly) is old-as-sin code that has not been meaningfully touched for just as long. With RIGs you still hold a lot of mobility and control over your mob, since RIGs just give speshul powertech stuff. Whereas with mechs, you would have to fundamentally add exceptions for z-level traversal that mobs by themselves currently have. This is primarily because when you use Move-Upward or Move-Downward, it is your mob's location that is checking if there is valid terrain above it. Assume you're at 122,122,3 and there's an open space above and you have a jetpack. You can easily make that traversal. With a mech that would likely require a vehicle exception to be written and properly playtested for the inevitable bugs and issues that may arise, because the mech would need checks for itself to see if it can traverse terrain, since checking for the mob's position (which is always 0,0,0 in a mech by default since it is contained in an object) is out of the question. Possible, definitely. There are just likely some complications to it that make it less feasible than how it is for mobs.

i never said quiznos was bad hold your horses

Corporations employ people without disabilities over people with disabilities. It's not powergaming. It's common sense.

I don't think this is worth doing without introducing SDCIWC attributes and several P&P traits on top of that. Only introducing smaller nuance traits doesn't quite add enough interesting depth to roleplay or gameplay mechanics, it merely inconveniences people in certain niche situations. Who would even pick any of these flaws? You'd only pick a flaw in D&D simply to get another beneficial trait. Features should be useful with their own added depth, otherwise we get nowhere better than what Bat People were. I shudder at the thought of them again.