MattAtlas

Changed the Tau Ceti question to instead ask about the Spur as a whole and the Horizon. Does not affect current applications.

Ban lifted.

Accepted.

Accepted.

Accepted.

I think in my five years of playing this server I've literally never seen voidsuits be ordered from Ops because it's an immense waste of time (upwards of ten minutes, not counting fumbling for account money if necessary) and effort to get them where they need to be, so I'd much rather see voidsuits added. Ops works for luxuries, stronger items and things you can't get otherwise but are necessary for day-to-day activities, not for more mundane things like voidsuits.

On trial until 21DEC2022.

More voidsuits are only needed in mass emergency situations, wherein operations cannot be used.

Accepted.

Unbanned.

Denied. The attitude you showed on other servers makes us not want anything to do with you.

Here are my thoughts as event organizer: Volunteer equipment needs to be studied better, and specifically made for events. Often we drop whatever's appropriate for lore factions and that's it -- but that equipment can be overtuned. It showed last event that 7.62 might be too powerful for event volunteers. Ship combat is fun and a success, but it needs to be kept for far more realistic scenarios where the Horizon isn't going up against a big threat. Basically, we should be taking on small destroyers or corvettes at most. Cruisers and the like need too much suspension of disbelief. It should be a third party ship thing 99% of the time. The Horizon shouldn't get involved in fights this big in general. Boarding and stuff (unless it's a very small kind of boarding, on a shoddy transport or something) implies too many casualties, too many injuries, and too many things gone wrong. Rules of engagement should probably be written for event volunteers, along with an agreement to sandbag a bit if necessary. On the varediting of people: Nobody was adminhealed and damage was essentially halved. Out of 4 people whose stats I tweaked, 3 of them died. The fourth lived because they had medical supplies and sealed their bleeding far before they went down; everyone else died because they had no blood left in their body, and I didn't touch their blood. On the retconning of some deaths: it's generally agreed that some people may have been pointblanked while downed and that gave the push that was needed for them to die. In the end I think it more just for retcons to be offered if deemed reasonable. One side is going to be unhappy with whatever the outcome is, at the end of the day, so here it's a matter of personal perspective.

Note that this thread will be heavily moderated by myself and any passive aggressiveness or bad behaviour in general will be met with a forum ban. Let's not accuse anyone -- we know some things have gone wrong.

On trial until 16DEC2022.

On trial until 16DEC2022.

This application is denied. I think you need more in game experience before you can proceed to being a head of security -- more importantly, I think you need to play security characters that aren't Trovensky and are different from him in personality. Due to the way your character is (which is, he is almost a robot in most matters), it's hard for anyone to really gain any insight into how you actually think about security matters.

I agree fully here even if I think that the tank for minievents would dry quickly. Nonetheless it's worth trying for the next arc. Although for the next arc in general we should wean off of big ship vs ship stuff. Like Cael said on Discord that's already going to be the case though.

Making things miserable doesn't work because people won't play them, unless it's an inherently interesting survival situation that you can get out of (see the crashed pod on Bay). We did it before when away ships were first mapped in - barely any guns and ammo, and it basically only restricted what you could do. It was boring, to say the least. Most of the away ships we have aren't really actors acting on their own (you could argue the SFA are, but they are in a markedly shitty situation because they get killed on sight by all other offmaps) so they wouldn't be down to 1 gun 1 magazine and some bread tubes either. It's also a bit of a fallacy for someone to determine the state of the setting solely through offships. There's plenty of relevant storytelling in game - phoron cans not being a thing, the phoron tank being more empty than the others, the Supermatter not using phoron anymore, etc.

The issue is that things that happen in game are also missed. Them happening in game only guarantees that the 30-50 or so players would pay attention, but those that don't care (or can't attend) would still miss them. It's possible for us to blast that XYZ happened on the forums and on the wiki... but then that makes it into an article again -- info on a wiki/forum page that you have to read. In short, there is no reasonable way to guarantee that people will read prerequisite info. It won't be read by some no matter what you do. I guess that guaranteeing that those 30-50 players pay attention is a good step in the right direction still, but I think an article gets the same level of engagement anyway.

I'm going to leave comments on the ship to ship weapons part as that's what I directly coded and oversaw. What you expected was completely wrong and not what was communicated at all. I've always been 100% open (in Discord and on the PR) with what we were going to add and it was never any sort of secret. You shouldn't have expected anything because what was to be added never changed. I don't know what's up with the random bolding, but it makes what you said come off as basically an incensed personal attack, which I don't like. Addressing what you've you've put forward: How many flak weapons did you expect to be added? Two? Four? It would've been really unwieldy with how the system is, and there's no real way to make operating several guns at once not unwieldy -- I've said it before that we can't properly model how many armaments ships would have (just look at how many CIWS battleships have, for example) because of the way events work: we have to balance things somewhat. Battleship-sized cannon is something you made up. I never said it for sure. Here's the description of the cannon in game: desc = "A Kumar Arms high-velocity cannon and flagship of <i>\"Chivalry\"</i> weapons line, developed in 2461 as an upgrade to its predecessor, the Ballista. Its upgrades include a bigger payload, a more streamlined loading process, and easier maintenance, making this cannon one of the best armaments in the Spur." Doesn't say "battleship sized" anywhere. As for the energy artillery weapon, it doesn't actually drain the entire ship's energy reserves (it draines 20% power from its own SMES and doesn't touch any other power in the ship). When I told you it can destroy a city, I didn't actually specify what size of city, which should've made it obvious that it isn't entirely set in stone. Even the in game document doesn't say the Leviathan's actual power. It isn't very lopsided when you remember that in the event where the Horizon was held up by an FSF cruiser, it had 40 rail guns aimed at it. I think that gets across how the Horizon's arsenal is pretty much just a self defense one (and what it has on the map is what it actually has on the spec sheet, there are no limitations like I said before in play).

Accepted.

I will unfortunately have to deny this application. This is a mix of: Your notes, warnings and bans, of which you have several and they make me believe that you would not uphold the standards we'd want; The lack of feedback and general writing ability. Reapply no earlier than January with as clean of a sheet as you can manage. I'd also reccomend working on getting feedback next time, and also working on overall grammar/roleplay ability.

On trial until 3DEC2022.

See https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/12440:

Sorry for the delay. The ban has been lifted. Tell me if you get autobanned again.