Jump to content


Head Admins / Devs
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Skull132

  • Rank
    Head Developer
  • Birthday 14/12/1995

Personal Information

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is actually a very valid point. Perhaps this mode would benefit from an "Overlord" type of player, selected at round start. Sort of like Bay's God gamemode? A single player whose goal is to direct the revenants. Maybe give him a henchman or two to start with at round start. And even powers. If we give him like an objective blurb to fill out, it would also help quickly bringing new revents up to speed on what they're expected to do for the round. It would add structure to each round, but still leave freedom up to the overlord to decide what exactly to do for the round.
  2. So here's my thing. All of the revenants are player controlled. Ergo, the players (on both sides, specially sec) control how the round ends up. If there's complaining that all revenant rounds end up as glorified TDM, then I would like answers to two questions: Why is this so? What other tools can be offered to steer away from this trend? Cuz like. Unlike merc or nuke, where the antags are all clearly armed and some level of "Illegal" or "Bad guy". The revenants are just blu dudes looking to be blue, daba-di daba-do. Meaning, ideally, the players have a lot more freedom to
  3. Could be viewed as a positive. The idea that only extended permits meaningful character development is a questionable trend that was acquired at some playerbase turnover. Low intensity rounds should still permit rp while keeping some sort of interesting shit happening. The super majority requirement will be removed for now. But I'll trail back to it a month or two down the line, once we have data on how people vote without it. And in the future, the selection of pure antags will be complimented by other event roles. So it isn't all about making 2d sprite go horizontal. Though this pl
  4. Predicting who can join as what antag is complicated if not impossible. Going off of the toggles would also introduce a lot of noise, and the selection process would likely steer towards completely random within a closed set. So. Not good. Also. Seeing what antags people have toggled on is already possible by just inspecting the database. So the curiosity is irrelevant - - the information is already there, available to us.
  5. So developers should only PR ideas that they can fully stand behind, instead of working out compromises between their own ideas, and those of the player base? Got it. I chose to modify my PR in light of feedback. How many of those ideas I personally accept seems like a very petty thing to get your knickers in a bunch over, though. Also. Like a well taught engineer does, I did analysis before implementing a solution. I arrived to the conclusions that I outlined in this thread, for the reasons that I outlined. I implemented my initial draft in good faith and nothing else. If you do not
  6. AKA: Democracy. The Nuclear Option. AKA: Skull has 1 week break from school and pretty much all responsibilities and so he's decided to start coding again. Assorted PR: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/11008 Okay so, let's take stock. Our current voting system is "Winner takes all", which means that there is very little point in voting anything other than extended and secret, unless you manage to get on a voting spree. This is not great, and many, many suggestion threads have been made, attempting to propose a fix. Though staff have resolutely not touched any of th
  7. The PR will be modified to only affect the round winners. While my qualms about this approach remain, I suppose it's better than nothing.
  8. Mmmmooossstly so we could test it. I also kind of want to see what kind of reaction such modes would gather from the general audience. Whether it stays in secret or not, or if it'll even be votable, will be discussed Soon:tm:.
  9. But the thing is, you do have a third option here. Don't vote. Again, let those who are willing to play a round regardless of voting outcome to vote. And then determine whether you want to play after that. There are people whose prime time SS13 is what you consider late in the evening. And if they get swamped with passing out people from your timezone voting for extended, then they might be very miffed.
  10. That's just the thing. There are two ways to present this change: As punishment. As attempting to create a more sportsmanship environment in general. If I vote for the winning round, without any malicious intent, why do I specifically deserve to have my freedom of choice limited, while everyone else gets a free pass? If I see 10 players hobble a gamemode I know I won't like, and I join in on voting for the second largest gamemode as a counter vote, why does one of those sides deserve to have their choices limited, while the other does not? Surely they both influenced one a
  11. I was more trying to illustrate that your example of malicious vote bombing isn't the only case: ergo, the act of vote locking shouldn't be viewed as punishment/karmic justice. Upon further consideration, the idea that a vote for a round that didn't win is not necessarily true. Often enough you see people voting in reaction to one mode getting initially dog piled. We're running "Winner takes all", a voting system known for creating 2 majority outcomes: the winner, and the runner up. With proponents of less popular choices hopping onto the "Least bad" option. This means that the system is
  12. That is unfortunately not the only problem we are dealing with. The staff have observed, over a long period of time, that people also tend to silently vote for things like extended, and then observe for the remainder of the round. This is very typical in deadhour. There is no OOC drive attached to those either. The outright malicious mode of conduct you present is not the only thing I am attempting to get at, and is actually pointing out something that I wanted to avoid by making it apply to every voter: finger pointing and general "othering".
  13. If this wasn't done the way it is, then your classification of vote memer would be anyone who votes for the winning mode. Which sounds sort of off: again, no singular person has control over what ends up winning, so why should only those whose choice won be required to participate, if everyone else who voted had just as much effect on the outcome?
  14. https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/11005 PR is up, with some alternations to the original idea. Everyone who voted is going to be locked. Why? Because the ultimate goal here is to develop good sportsmanship in the player base, everyone who tries to alter which game mode gets played (by voting), should be willing to participate in the round. Limiting this only to winners could be seen as punishment for something that's not directly within their control -- which game mode ultimately wins. Those who disconnect after the fact and remain DC-d until the round begins, effec
  • Create New...