Doc

Tbh I didn't even like this when vision cones were in, it made sense to be able to look at someone out of the corner of your eyes without turning toward them fully, but I didn't realize this was an explicit change made at some point. Agreed, please fix.

This is effectively irrelevant because I've seen a ninja inform security they even have a self-destruct device a grand total of once, ever, in years- and if they don't do that, it's metagaming for sec to act like they know the ninja's about to put a crater the size of a half-power TTV in the station whenever they die. The main issue is not killing/hurting security. As a sec main, I'm perfectly fine getting gibbed for killing the ninja. The issue is the fuck-huge explosion doesn't magically just hurt the people who attacked the ninja, it kills anyone in a pretty sizable radius around them and vents any room within six or seven tiles, at least- something that happens so often in medical particularly because dying ninjas are carted there, it's practically a meme at this point, which generally instantly ends the round because a good deal of medical are dead or severely wounded, and all the facilities that would be used to rectify it are destroyed or a 15-30 minute repair job away from being able to be used. My suggestion is to change the module to an actual dead-man's switch bomb. Like, the ones we already have, not just "the ninja explodes when they die." Have the ninja be able to activate it, some sort of red-text message comes up saying "x's suit begins whirring and beeping rapidly, and they hold a thumb over a bright red button produced in their hand!" or something equally intimidating, and then they detonate it if they get downed. They should also be able to deactivate it without detonating it, obviously. Optionally, also put it on the ninja uplink for TC, not for free.

...You can, because it currently exists. You're removing it. I'm asking you not to. If that doesn't change, going to have to say -1 on the PR as a whole. Move the other stuff to a different PR and that's fine though, don't have any problems with the other changes.

Personally don't like this. It effectively removes the dark-blue uniform and replaces it with another blue uniform which looks extremely similar to a regular officer's uniform. It's the same issue I have with the white-shirt warden uniform, which is why I used the dark-blue one. I think the fact that it doesn't match the officer's gear is.. kind of, part of the point of making it a distinct uniform from the officers'. I also just dislike the washed-out, de-saturated look of the all-blue uniforms really, but I have no reason to ask for it to be removed so long as there is still a different, visually distinct warden uniform to use instead. For reference: Officer white-shirt vs Warden white-shirt Officer blues vs (proposed) Warden blues Warden dark-blues

Sorry, let me restate. Not necessarily 'mechanics,' but balance. An armor vest, helmet, and gasmask all take up a great deal of space in your backpack/satchel, half or more than half, if I recall correctly. This is by design. You're intended to have to commit your inventory space to carrying all of that protective equipment on you at once. If you want more inventory space, you need to weigh what protection you want to ditch. Allowing security to just put two of those things on their belts in exchange for tiny items like police tape, pepperspray, flash, a tear-gas grenade, or whatever else, effectively makes it so inventory space is not a concern. But it should be, if you want to constantly have access to full protection to gasses and a full armor kit at all times. Some officers do make that exchange, and don't carry their helmets, their masks, and a rare few don't even carry any of those three things until they need to go back and get them. That's a choice that should have to be made. Whups. Thinking of the holsters, not the webbings/pouches. My bad. I wouldn't be opposed to just throwing them into the clothing locker in question, though.

Realistically, belts are where most police/military groups keep their gasmasks in scenarios where they expect to need it, but are not immediately using it. But, realism on the server comes last, after lore, then mechanics. And mechanics say that full gas-based immunity warrants taking up more inventory space than a small item-size slot. Sorry, but it's probably not going to happen. As for 4, there are sets of webbings and drop pouches in the clothing locker in the equipment room. The random gen'd one in your locker isn't really consequential.

@geeves I would really, really, really recommend bumping up the size of the icons at least a little bit, 1.5 to 2 times. They're just so friggen smol. Still, this already looks like a definite improvement- thank you!

Not going to lie; I'd like to revert all of them. Do they look prettier, as individual sprites? Sure. But they're so, so much smaller, less flashy, and all of them readily blend in with the background of the average room. It's far too easy to miss the very important information that the icons are supposed to immediately display until something has already happened, like when you start gasping because your lungs have popped, or you're already burned half to hell as an IPC.

On paper, it makes sense, sounds fine. In practice, it's just annoying. The majority of our rounds are antagonist rounds, and the majority of antagonist rounds are going to end while the station is on heightened alert. Having to then rely on very unreliable RNG for Odin security officers to be spawned or to just get stuck in the evac shuttle for a full minute plus any admin tickets (with a PR on the way to raise that to two), while the actual areas explicitly designed for the crew to RP in during round end are just locked away, is not fun. (I don't know if this applies on both blue and red or just red, but really it doesn't change the argument.) If this is really super duper wanted for 'immersion' for some reason, at least please move the blast doors to the tram and Mendell shuttleport entries to simulate the crew still not being allowed to leave the docking area or something, rather than forcing everyone to sit in the shuttle itself.

This alone tells me you aren't very familar with how IPCs work. To clarify, IPCs 'overheating' has no (at least, in 99.99% of cases) relation to actual atmospheric temperature. IPCs have their own internal temperature mechanics that are managed whenever they move, depending on what equipment they're wearing, and if they choose to run; an IPC can actually hard-incapacitate itself in a few dozen seconds simply by forcing itself to run repeatedly, or by wearing heavy armor without a cooling unit (which are renowned for having laughably short-lived power cells without RnD assistance, last I checked). This is a pretty big part of managing how you deal with combat as an IPC, as you can take just as much if not more damage by mismanaging your heat than by getting attacked. This change would make it so that is a massive, constant concern when engaging anyone with energy weapons, as getting hit will spike your internal heat and force you to disengage entirely to avoid burning up. Committing to the engagement is still possible, but would effectively be suicide. It's really an IPC nerf- and I'm okay with that. Edit: in case it wasn't clear, +1. Ions need to get removed SOMEHOW, and this is the best suggestion I've seen so far for actually making that happen.

Because that technology is not readily available in the 21st century. Defibrillators are used to rectify a number of heart issues, but not a stopped heart. [/firstyearmedstudent] That said, that's no excuse to not add a sci-fi "resuscitator" or something that does do that.

I'm going to go ahead and retract this. I apologized personally.

The removal has been merged under the caveat that it will be reintroduced with significant nerfs to integrity and damage capability in order to prevent it being used problematically.

Agreements or disagreements on staff issues aside, I can definitely understand the concern, and I'd like to apologize for how rude or mean-mannered I've been in the past. Just because I don't agree with your decisions or actions should not have any bearing on being respectful, and I'm sorry I haven't followed that line of thinking in the past; I'd like to say that if I do come back onto the team, I won't act the same way.

Server Moderator Application Basic Information Byond Account: TheDocOct Character Name(s): Bailey Lysithea, Melody Sobol, Nadia Kabiri AI Name(s): (n/a) Discord username + tag: Doc#7025 Age: 20 Timezone: Central US, UTC -6 When are you on Aurora?: Most weekdays, at least for a round or two, 8:00 PM CST or later. Intermittently throughout the weekend, depending on other obligations, usually totaling in five or six rounds each day. Experience How long have you played SS13?: Roughly 6 years now, across several stations. How long have you played on Aurora: Four years? Depending on when exactly I first joined, four or five. How much do you know about SS13 (Baystation build) game mechanics?: Quite a bit; Aurora has been my primary server for the majority of the years since I've began playing it, and I've bounced across most every department throughout my time here. My only weak spot is medical, specifically brainmed, to my knowledge. Do you have any experience moderating for an SS13 server?: Two and a half years, give or take, on this very server. Have you read through the criteria thread; https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4198 - and believe that you mark off all the criteria?: Yes I have, and yes I do. Have you ever been banned, and if so, how long and why?: Not from Aurora (I think I still have a clean note sheet?). I was sec-banned from Paradise for three days for shooting someone I believed to be a changeling, who wasn't, six years ago. Personality Why do you play SS13?: It's an incredibly unique experience as far as games go. For RP or otherwise, there's nothing that quite matches the same complexity and connectivity in its environment that Space does; or at least it doesn't seem like it. The vast majority of my time on SS13 is on HRP servers; the roleplaying experience offered by the game is unmatched, in my opinion, and it's what has brought me back after a breaks of months to up to a year in order to keep playing it. Why do you play on Aurora?: Aurora's the best roleplaying community on SS13, hands down. No intent to put down any other servers, but I've played a number of them, and none of them have been able to sustain or, in my experience, even create the kind of immersive roleplaying stage that Aurora has managed, either through insufficient administration, a lack of attention to the maintenance of their lore and on-server setting, or whatever other reason. What do moderators do?: Moderators are the backbone of the server; sorry, admins, and other staff. The vast majority of adminhelps go through moderators, and as a result they are by far most responsible for maintaining an enjoyable experience for the playerbase on a round-by-round basis; the method of doing so can vary, from investigating mechanical problems or questionable series of events to keep an important facet of the round rolling, to bwoinking and rectifying problem-player behavior that goes against the rules and compromises the enjoyment of other players, to just answering questions on mechanics, lore, or how to complete a certain task. Basically; help people. What does it mean to be a moderator for our server?: Be present, be knowledgeable, and be helpful; three factors which feed into one another, and make sure you're capable of fulfilling the obligations mentioned above. Why do you want to be a moderator?: I want to contribute to the server in the best way I believe I can. I map, I dabble in spriting, I've poked at the code once or twice, but development is not really for me. I've tried to take up the role of CCIA, and found it wasn't for me. After these few years, I've found that moderation is the role I'm best suited for in helping maintain, and improve, the server's environment; and I'd like to be able to contribute my efforts once again. What qualities do you possess that would make you a good moderator?: I believe I'm good at working in a goal-oriented team dynamic; that being, I believe I'm good at working with others to get stuff done. I believe I have the patience and understanding to explain my position, or why I've made a decision to someone who might not understand the rules or a roleplaying setting at all, and I'd like to say that I was a communicative, responsive member of the modmin team when I was on it prior, and I don't believe those qualities have diminished in the near-year I've been away. How well do you handle stress, anger, or insults?: I feel I have a solid grasp on ensuring that anger and personal feelings on a situation won't cloud my judgement or sway any decision I might make as a moderator; I'd like to believe I'm very capable of definitively separating my 'business' and 'personal' interactions with people, and to that extent I don't believe that anger or insults will be an issue. Stress is a problem I had to deal with quite a bit around the time I originally resigned, and based on my prior experiences as a team member I believe I'm fully capable of recognizing my limits and managing my time investment between the server and the rest of my live to ensure reasonable activity and avoid burn-out. Anything Else You Want to Add: I've had my gripes with the server over the years, and even a few since I've been back; but that said, I think it's doing the best it ever has been. I want to try and help maintain that course. Also, I'm gay.

This is an extremely unfortunate way of thinking of the situation for AI players and I certainly do not agree with it. Taking actions that do not violate the server rules, that you fully believe are allowed by your laws, and that you can reasonably explain the thought process behind believing such, should not result in being told "shit AI, get synthbanned". Let me restate: I do not think this is a rules issue. Do I think the actions of these particular AI players in these particular events detracted from the round? Yes. Do I think they necessarily violated their laws ICly, or broke server rules OOCly? No. This is a balance issue; that being, that the power to do this kind of thing should be restricted behind effort being put into unlocking it, through robotics' time and material investment, rather than just getting it for free at round start. If gaining this ability and the power behind it requires such investment, it will likely not be thrown away so readily.

I don't see AI law enforcement as a viable means to curb this issue. There are so many different ways that this specific scenario can be interpreted in order to cause laws 1 and 3 to conflict, and I don't even really think that it's fair to expect AI players to come to that conclusion, because it is a completely legitimate interpretation to believe that the damage of station property will be greater if you don't intervene with the mech.

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/10020 The AI currently has a remote-controlled industrial mech that spawns inside its core at round start, which is hooked up to its network; there is a dedicated button on the AI's UI to enter the mech. It is equipped with a clamp and an integrated tool-set, which was originally added with the intent that the AI be able to perform a few crucial round-start tasks (namely, engine set-up) if there was no capable personnel present to do so. Unfortunately, I have never seen the unit used for this purpose; I have heard other players say they've seen it "once or twice" since it was added, while I alone have personally seen it used for front-lining against antags or rushing random event hazards over a dozen times in the past week. The primary issue behind "just ahelp it" is that, according to the AI's lawset and due to the fact that the remote controlled mech is, by its nature, remotely controlled, and therefore damage to it or possible destruction of it has no real bearing on the AI itself, means that there's really no IC motivation for the AI not to do this, and there's really no OOC grounding to tell the AI they can't (so long that they aren't blatantly validhunting). So, this is not a rules issue. The concept of a remote mech itself, however, is not really the issue; there's nothing inherent with the actual mech that is a problem, as it is simply a mech like any other, but that the AI can control; even with this removed, the possibility still exists for robotics to make and hook a remote control mech to the AI's network if they decide to invest time and resources into it; and therefore, invest time and resources into the AI's abilities. So, this is not a mechanics issue. It is ultimately a balance issue, in terms of not giving the AI their mech for free at the start of every single round, which decreases the value behind it and fails to discourage the reckless and problematic play we've seen. All that said, this feedback thread is open to further reasoning as to why this change may not be warranted; I can acknowledge that this was originally spurred by personal distaste with how remote mechs have affected rounds I've been in, and I can respect that there might be points of view I haven't considered, so do please feel free to post them.

I don't really think there's any meaningful difference between these three options from a player perspective*, frankly; are there other notable years in lore where things happened that it would matter if positronics were invented before or after them? I have no idea. I'm not interested in diving to find out. However, I do think positronics being a """somewhat""" recent invention to the galactic timeline is important to a number of their central facets; the "problems that haven't been solved" regarding synthetic sentience, life, and similar. The longer they've been around, the harder it becomes to reasonably believe that no substantial progress has been made, and will make further developments need to be smaller and slower to avoid being seen as unnecessarily revolutionary; the newer they are to the setting, the more reasonably it can be said that a new development is just "we've figured out how we want to handle this," rather than "we're going to completely uproot how we've already established we want to handle this in favor of something new" (ex. the longer positronics have been around, the less the Sol Alliance's position can be reasonably said to be "we've just never bothered to give them rights once they were invented", and the more rigidly defined it would be as "we definitively decided they do not have rights".) But, maybe, this isn't even enough of a time difference for that to matter at all? I don't know. Ultimately, the affects of this decision in that regard should really be more up to you and how you plan to go forward, rather than a community vote, I think; or if you still want it to be a community vote, I think it should be with the context of the actual tangible affects that the different options might result in, rather than just three different years that, as far as I'm aware, don't really have any meaning. (*I really don't think the literal age of an individual player's unit matters at all. They can be manufactured, 'raised', 'trained', and sent out to work as fast as you can imagine. An IPC on the Aurora can be a week old, or it could be one of the oldest still-functioning units.)

It is surrounded by EMP landmines, to prevent the prisoner-controlled IPC units from escaping and wreaking havoc. Makes sense to me. No comment on how much sense the crystal agitators make. As for regs, this kind of thing should be mechanically enforced to ensure security doesn't just ignore it. The best way I can think of would be to have a similar setup to mining where each prisoner miner can claim points from the materials they've gathered, which is converted to time off on their sentence. HuT should not be affected, imo.

Extreme position here, but I really just don't think wristbounds should have an on-mob sprite at all. It has been expressly stated by the dev team that wristbounds are intended to eventually replace PDAs altogether, and they will then become the primary ID slot item in the game. I have no real way to justify it making "sense," but I don't think they should mar the cosmetic appearance of your sprite just because you want to make use of an important utility item that you could always use without a big black blob on your wrist before now. I'm less attached to the coloration of the wristbounds themselves, but I personally preferred the older ones, though I can understand the problems with those sprites as well. Maybe a middle ground between "just varying shades of white with a dot of color on them" and "the entire thing is department-colored"? Make the whole bump on the left side colored instead of just a dot on it? Change the colors of the blue buttons? Not sure, specifically, but I'm sure there's a happy medium.

Sorry, but no. This is a compromise that the development team has mandated and reinforced multiple times over the server's life as a result of us being a HRP server that is not extended only, and that is explicitly designed to include and utilize an antagonist vs crew dynamic to augment our roleplaying experience; gameplay balance is, necessarily, a primary development concern as a result.

I'm sorry but coloring the wood furnishings blue straight up just looks bad. Between the two options, please keep the wood sprites. As for the actual 'fittingness' of the sprites, I can understand both sides of the argument- even though, in a lore context, wood furnishings probably wouldn't be a "cheap" thing anymore, the visual composition of a wood-furnished weapon compared to a sleek black weapon like the rifles mercs use will generally immediately impress "civilian vs military", or "shitty vs professional". And for the blue polymer-.. it honestly makes the weapon look like a toy. It's not a good look any which way you cut it, imo. The new assault rifle sprite looks great. The new SMG sprite looks... weird, to me. I preferred the old one, but that might just be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, because I can't really point out any specific issues, so no real complaint I suppose. Altering magazine capacity is only something that we'll truly be able to evaluate once it goes live and begins to affect gameplay, but I just want to throw out there that your on-doc written explanation of "X would never have Y round magazines realistically" is simply a misguided way to think about changing these things; magazine capacity, damage types and amounts, accuracy and similar aspects of weaponry is all a gameplay balance concern, and regardless of how much "realistic" sense it may or may not make, must fit in with the server's established gameplay balance before worrying about the lore behind it. Gameplay > lore. Period.