Carver

While I like this idea I'm unsure how much it will be remembered given people already tend to be rather slow with getting ready to depart for anything. I do like it, but I fear it may be underutilized.

I don't play extended for random events, in fact every time I encounter a random event on extended it's just a chore. The only thing I do like is the possibility of atmos techs preventing a scrubber malfunction, more preventatives for dangerous events (scrubbers/greimorians) so that fast response can prevent annoying events later on would be good. Doubly if said preventatives are done by members of departments other than the ones targeted by the dangerous events (with scrubbers being effectively a medical event, engineers preventing it is good - perhaps janitors or the like can have some manner of preventing infestations and greimorian outbreaks?).

Always a pleasant player to interact with, in or out of the game, and generally expresses a lot of enthusiasm that's disappointingly uncommon these days. I don't have a lot to say, he's just a positive player. +1

We have strap settings, so I don't see why they couldn't be retained there. There are a quite a few outfits I've had they nicely complemented other elements of the outfit, so I'd be very sad to see them gone.

It would be nice to have some proper livestock that can be ordered and butchered for a good stock of lard.

I usually go with a lower movespeed for this and have a macro on-hand for more specific needs (tripping for example).

You may speak for yourself on that, I'd rather have a surgical recovery than have to wait out upwards of 1h30m to play again where I may as well then log out and play another game in the meantime because an antag decided his gimmick is gank - or security smelled a bad air and decided that's good justification to bring out .45s. PEACs being poor vs personnel is something I'd hope remains given you shouldn't have Security bringing out an anti-mech/anti-IPC weapon on every single engagement of note.

This just makes every antag but mercenary non-viable while also making the existence of anyone but antagonists or security utterly miserable in a bad situation. I don't really see what's fun about this, 'man with gun' is already dominant in most cases due to the server's reasonable movespeeds compared to alternatives. You don't need to make 'man with gun' the absolute focal point to where I see a man with a gun and I have to more or less be sure to shoot him first without giving him any chances - lest he do the same and immediately end my round. There's already an inherent problem with security shutting down most antagonists, this isn't going to help unarmoured or melee antagonists whatsoever. Will changeling armblades one-hit decapitate anything short of a hardsuit or riot helmet? Will energy swords one-hit delimb? What of Technomancers who are already glass cannons trivially capable of being ended? The last thing the server needs is either of the two logical conclusions of this: 'Shoot first' or 'Never shoot first in fear of being banned'.

I'll try to address these where I can individually without piecemealing the quote: I agree, I'd actually quite like if we had stricter character requirements for the sake of immersion considering many of these are effectively 'antagonistic factions' in a megacorporate setting. Mindshield implants are, functionally, designed to prevent Skrellian espionage - the janitor doesn't know anything of real value so there's no inherent value in mindshielding them - any other effects it prevents are generally a gameplay mechanic related to non-canon antagonists such as borers, cultists, vampires and so forth. I do agree with you on the small arms front, though it's hard to argue when even security is woefully underequipped (and often undertrained given many of the characters I see) in the context of contesting Solarian Marines, but that's a fine gameplay concession for round-to-round when the Leviathan is almost solely an event tool that antagonists have to choose to bring into a gimmick (and often inform an administrator ahead of time). IPCs are not infallible, in fact they present a massive target for terrorist groups such as the off-shoot of the Trinary that wipe and brainwash them, and render your vessel incredibly vulnerable to EM Pulse weaponry. I'm unsure about design flaws besides the lack of turrets about, this map is inherently a lot more protected than most maps I've seen in regard to crucial areas (which themselves, annoyingly, are often protected by seemingly unspoken rules that new antagonists often run into). How do you intend on the escort vessels keeping up with the experimental BSD that outpaces every other vessel? Security is armed, and should be patrolling quite often even though the players are quite lazy and only take their duties seriously when they seek muh valids on antagonist roles they personally dislike. The rest of the crew I'd argue should have disruptors, but circling back to point one, while I'd like the crew armed I wouldn't trust this ragtag bunch of terrorist sympathizers with even a cap gun - if we had stricter crew requirements then I'd be supportive of this. I don't know about you but the reason we traditionally used primarily energy weaponry in the armoury was because of windows - you are significantly more likely to ventilate your vessel with ballistic firearms, which isn't a problem for Solarian Marines boarding enemy vessels with voidsuits and magnetic boots, but is for the crew - and I've always pushed for a return to a near-solely energy-based armoury with a handful of shotguns since the windows can take buckshot much more safely at a distance. I agree that unauthorized people shouldn't be able to dock, personally I'd suggest docking codes for this, as for automatic turrets let's circle back to the energy argument once more and you'll see my thought on this (AKA, use laser rifle turrets). Circle back to my prior answer. Cruisers have significantly lower logistical overhead (important when you're using phoron) and are decidedly less vulnerable to, for example, meteor showers - a dreadnought may be unable to travel through an asteroid field entirely, for example. The Leviathan is there for one reason, it's there to put Solarian vessels out of commission no matter their size if it absolutely has to (and as a bonus it can scare off anyone else [if it needs to]). The Longbow, Grauwolf and Canary wouldn't do shit to a properly maintained and manned Solarian cruiser (something we have thus far yet to face in an event). No other faction really needs such an answer perhaps barring the Federation (who are never going to attack the Horizon), but Sol and it's Diadochi indeed pose a very real threat to the Horizon and are more than willing to act on this threat. I cannot fathom being willing to work on a vessel that cannot defend itself, especially in the places that the Horizon travels. Include what I said above on the Leviathan to cover my thoughts on the Longbow (and remember that historically, Longbowmen were utilized en masse so the name isn't precisely inspiring by itself) and the other little piddy anti-small pirate tools. The security team is woefully uninspiring and is generally poorly equipped to handle any true Solarian boarding, thus far we've fought the dregs of Diadochi states, a very small Elyran SF Squad (which was fought with the help of the aforementioned Solarian mercenaries) and a piddly shit-sized squad of underarmed DPRA supported by rural villagers armed with pitchforks and perhaps muskets (I didn't look too closely to see if the villagers had firearms). As for PEACing an Adhomian Tank, that was both a light tankette and a bug with the flaps prevented it from killing the PEAC user with a rocket it fired back directly at them that was precisely on target and would have hit. A more proper tank wouldn't have been so nearly as threatened, and tanks by doctrine are generally not designed to act alone but rather in groups which this one had not - it was poorly supported by a total of 3 soldiers and a mob of mountain-dwelling rednecks. It was actually to the Horizon's tactical disadvantage in choosing to retreat instead of fighting back, even if they had incurred great losses in manpower to the Geist. Running away is not exactly feasible, as the BSD spooling up is no instant matter and on the grounds of flight by thruster - the Horizon wins no races there. It only makes sense to have a weapon capable of contesting your faction's greatest enemy, and scaring off any lesser idiots who think it's wise to poke the SCC's prized pig. The Leviathan by itself cannot beat a battlefleet, but it can put the flagship of that battlefleet out of commission before the Horizon itself is destroyed by the myriad of supporting vessels - better odds than being armed with the equivalent of a spear (or I guess if we're being funny, a bow, ha) against an entire military force. Doubly if, perhaps, the destruction of the enemy's flagship causes a break in the enemy's morale and leads to a retreat (or more importantly, an opportunity for the Horizon to flee). When you cannot run away, you stand your ground. Exploration is no safe matter, defer to Star Trek TOS where the Enterprise is armed and willing to wipe out entire planetary civilizations if it so needed to (General Order 24), the very series that so inspired this precise form of Sci Fi media. I would not work on the Horizon myself if it were armed any less than it is. As for antags, I don't think we're remotely lenient with them to begin with and tend to think they're quite underarmed and underpowered (rather than security being too well armed, tho I'd prefer a switch to pure energy weapons like I said before), but this is another subject of debate to be had so I'll leave it in small text.

Prefacing my comment: I have a fairly neutral opinion on the Leviathan - I (on a level of personal taste) dislike it's design, preferring another weapon, but I wouldn't care if said weapon was just as powerful either way. But, I heavily dislike this 'civilian vessel' argument. Why wouldn't a civilian vessel of such important be well-armed, particular the flagship of the SCC - perhaps the single most controversial faction within the greater lore? I can well tell you, in a setting where pirates and/or military deserters are rampant and a plethora of anti-corporate terrorist groups float around, you'd want to be better armed than the Santa María. The prized pig of the SCC shouldn't be defenseless, and for antagonists it can be assumed that the vessels of boarders approached via more stealthy means and ship designs (let's not overlook that the Horizon's loaded with blind spots). I don't feel the ship has been truly militarized by the Leviathan's addition whatsoever, unless one is looking toward Hangar Technicians becoming munitions loaders (something I personally quite dislike), rather it's the same vessel it was before except it's no longer at the complete mercy of any pirate with a half-passable ship. If perhaps one wanted to make the Horizon more vulnerable, then I would argue to increase the costs to fire the Leviathan and truly put a drain on the ship to do so - so it becomes more of a meaningful risk to utilize it, even when it's needed.

I can't say I precisely like the idea of this, as unlike the suggestion to merge Surgeon and Phys, there's a lot less overlap here as you can fairly comfortably play a Pharmacist that doesn't do Physician work - whereas a Surgeon is often obligated to do the work of the Physician. It's a fairly low-stress role, a rarity in it's department, and I'd hate to see that gone by merging it with Physician. Alt-titles wouldn't really solve this either as you'd get the Roboticist 'issue' of people being OOCly upset at you that you can't/won't super-doctor because you picked a particular specialist alt-title, an issue Engineers had prior with their now-removed specialist alt-titles as well.

To the contrary, I adored that round. It was one of the more gripping rounds I've participated in in some time (and not as Security or an Antagonist, mind you), at least until there was some issue with the ninjas just randomly going violent near the very end. I'd quite like to see more of those types of rounds where the crew have to be inventive, work together and be the underdog for once.

Leaving the crew in space isn't really an issue between magboots and the handrails, you're entirely safe chilling out there as-is so long as your boots are left on. As for things getting tossed, it wouldn't be super difficult to map in some windows or the like - perhaps walls/windows and some of those flaps so it's still an easy-access 'airless zone' instead of properly being on the interior.

You could probably cut out a lot (read: nearly all) of the living space to make it better fit. A whole triage section is unusual as well - Miners are neither trained doctors nor first responders, perhaps just one of those emergency medical dispensers on the wall? Making it larger doesn't mean it needs to overall contest the Intrepid in utility; I'd argue to focus on the refinery and mining storage, a token 'rest area' with a cryopod so players can potentially leave if they're expected to be out for longer as well as the usual first aid wall dispenser and perhaps ration crate, and the spare room could be used for more dedicated engine/thruster sections to make it seem more like a realistic industrial shuttle and not a houseboat.

I've never seen a bad character from her in over 9 years, I don't expect that to change any time soon. Has always put an exemplary amount of thought and care into character writing. Biggest +1 I can offer!

I'm not in an ideal state to write as eloquent of a response as I'd like to, so forgive me for that. But, I truly believe this is the anti-thesis of what Aurora should be moving toward. Antagonists should not be forced into being predictable theatre actors following a script - I see no issue with a 'failure to escalate' so long as the antagonist had done something with their time that would be atypical/disallowed for standard crew; whether that be silent manipulations, petty theft, sabotage or whatever. I can't see an antagonist as a failure unless they failed to notice/forgot they had such a role entirely, and only truly if it becomes a recurring issue for the player. Do I dislike end-of-round rushes? Yes, but my solution for that would be to pressure them even less to 'escalate' and instead allow them to continue quietly - or if they hadn't really done anything, admit a fumble and move on. All that forced escalation will result in is subpar/overused gimmicks, gank and a further propensity for unnecessary combat. I cannot blame anyone who chooses subtlety when it's often that the manifest is, without an ounce of overstatement, 30-50% Security on some rounds. I dare say that presently the expectations for antagonists under this mindset seem to exceed those of Command roles, which is quite a miserable state and more than likely to discourage a wider pool of antagonists even moreso if these expectations were furthered.

I'd agree with this but I'd suggest it induce heavy scarring on the body part (in the same mechanical vein of organ scarring) that you choose to perform the procedure on, for a particular reason: It should be considered a 'last resort', and not used to expedite the return of injured Security or similar personnel back into a fight. Scarring would leave the patient decidedly vulnerable to being crippled or outright killed if they choose to use this second chance to unwisely put themselves in harm's way once more.

While I doubt this is going to cut down on the 'mommy' jokes, I do imagine it'd curb some more blatant (though already bwoinkable?) jokes that the term breeder might provoke. If we're going by more classical terminology (where my mind goes whenever I see the term 'gyne'), it's still plenty applicable without being overtly prone to unsavoury jokes. I like it, even if I don't really know what you're concerned of it referencing.

I'm unconcerned on that matter for a simple reason. Loyalists are capable of writing a provoking series of announcements that can develop interest in itself, and from there my thought comes into play: You could, at least historically (I have not tested if this still works), change your traitor preference toggle while in-round and during auto-traitor this would flag you as being able to roll for traitor. Assuming this system hasn't been murdered in the odd years since I last personally used it, this would in theory be able to apply to head-rev/head-loy under the theorized pop-up suggestion.

I'd hope that people who have head rev/head loy enabled aren't all going to click no to such an opportunity. I can't really imagine them doing so unless they're truly not feeling up for it, which is fair, or there's a developing gimmick that they're unsure of their ability to personally further (which I'd say is also fair, but likely uncommon).

Alternate thought: If there are no head revs/loyalists in round (and no normal ones), then let people with that preference enabled get a pop-up 'Do you want to be X?' so late joiners can take up the mantle if need be. In either case it wouldn't be hard for staff to ask for volunteers as usual when an antagonist replacement is needed. Oh, and I almost forgot to reply to this: I hate this idea. The last thing I'd want is a character who doesn't remotely suit a role thematically to be forced into said role because I'd chosen to roll for the polar opposite. This is how you end up with absurdities such as dreg Head Loyalists, or suit Head Revs - and would more than likely potentially kill the pool of candidates more than it'd help the mode. As someone who actually adores Rev and wants to see it more, I don't want it going to shit because people are forced into roles they don't want and ultimately disabling the head roles altogether.

Ideally just unbind it and make the command more openly known so people can macro it to their heart's content.

I think it's the perfect place for Patience. That earlier remapping thread that had an iteration with patience, some grass/shrubbery and a bit of water was perfect. It gives it an open, natural 'atrium' sort of feel that is precisely the place my characters would like to hang around. We have fairly high ceilings anyways due to having Ta and similar aboard. Consider also that the bridge above it has a very raised center floor, and the thought of tall ceilings in that service area isn't quite strange at all.

Mild issue, they have an entire alt-title that isn't a doctor. Dolling up corpses is also something well beyond the expectations of a psychiatrist, and I'd imagine would be more done by Physicians or Surgeons (more likely the latter if it involves any form of surgery). Psychiatrist/Psychologist should likely stay as a minimal expectations RP role with a very clear focus. If a changeling gets implanted with this that'd actually be quite funny. Some more discouragement for lings who spam fake death would go a long way, and anyone who isn't spamming it could choose to 'wake up' before a surgeon handles their body (and would likely have a good grace period anyways given that, hopefully, an autopsy is performed before the body is seen to).

I'm not sure it's r e a l l y needed to have them near the bridge, particularly the Consulars - I'm unfamiliar with Liaison access as I'm still working on a character for the role, but Consulars do not have access to the Bridge directly - only the hallway toward it and the conference room. Apparently a couple of Bridge Crew have gotten bonked for letting my Consular on the bridge now and then without directly asking Command first, even with very fair reasoning (which is perhaps why I never heard about the bonks until the BC players mentioned it themselves) - which leads me to reason that perhaps having the Consular Offices not directly adjacent to the bridge might be something 'culturally' beneficial beyond merely my prior desire to encourage a better spread of traffic around the Deck 3 ring.