Skull132

ok zoomer

Funnily enough, staff regularly fall into this category. Or you could make it a client preference that has a default value of "show role". That way, people who are bothered enough can change it, but the rest, who don't really care, don't have to touch anything and they'll be shown as fine. Or just look whether the security manifest is empty or not :^). Ultimately tho ye, similar meta can just be done by comparing the manifest vs who list. Or using BOREALIS.

That 20 seconds may be sufficient for an antag to bolt far enough to avoid getting spotted. It'll also make visually hiding/disguising yourself more powerful. Just as a thought.

Reminds me a bit of EVEs soundtrack. Which is neat. Well done.

While I sometimes wish for an active forum, this is perhaps not the best topic to light up. We've basically fallen to repeating arguments and discussing guns. I'll close this for a bit with an ominous, "We'll consider it I guess." Tho don't expect a scramble, because this is definitely not something that merits immediate actions (like, there's not even an accidental swastika to be seen). If a sprite boy wants to PR new sprites in the mean time, that's their prerogative and the PR will be evaluated on its own merits. This is probably about as good a non-answer as I can provide until the head devs and head lore people have a chat.

I should be the one who should be telling you this over your attempt at a retort. Here's the thing. What I did was raise an analogous example. This is a technique in discourse used to establish a baseline on how something should be handled, specifically due to the fact on how the general example is already handled. This does expect a level of logical coherency, though, and the general acceptance that similar ideas and concepts should receive similar treatment. Your post was, "Remove this because it's cringe and associated with nazis" (paraphrased, though the choice of words is yours). However, as I presented, we quite avidly use iconography from other, just as brutal and just as relevant regimes in our lore. Content that is just as "cringe". Ergo, I raise the question, "Why should this go, and not that"? And there is a response to this! Simply disprove the analogy. The soviet and other cringe material (ATLAS as well) is used as a quick and efficient way to communicate certain holds that the faction may possess. Tajarans use Soviet iconography because they are heavily based off of the USSR. Makes sense! Per this point, we see that the requirement for using such iconography is their usage as a tool of creative communication first and foremost. There is also the argument of taste to be made, but considering that there's no swastikas or other explicitly clear icons of the 3rd Reich being used, I'd say this case is far better than that of the red star with sickle and hammer, and Russian naval uniforms. So we have our requirements for use: it must be relevant to the lore if it is indeed a nazi reference. The main question then is: are the requirements met for using such iconography met, or are they going counter to some of them? To extrapolate: are the uniforms nazi symbology and is the use of such symbology befitting the faction? And the reason why I care is because the question of "Why" behind certain decisions is important. Specially since this could well set a precedent for using such symbology in the future.

Can we remove Soviet imagery while we're here? What is the justification for openly presenting Soviet miliary uniforms (it even has the soviet red star with sickle and hammer lmao) on our wiki while asking for a more ambiguous item of nazi imagery to be removed? Openly displaying imagery from one regime that murdered millions and conquered half of Europe under false pretenses is fine, but from another is not? Excuse me, what. Now excuse me for dragging politics into this for a moment, but I do find the entire suggestion as proposed to be political in nature. Since the argument presented in the OP is, "Remove this because nazis, lol". Someone on Discord pointed out that the two regimes should be treated differently because one is more relevant today. My initial response, probably unacceptable, was to tell them to fuck off. But allow me to highlight that this issue is one of locality. Russia continues to maintain the foreign policy of denying the Soviet occupation & annexation of Eastern European states, preferring to use the term "Liberation" instead [1] [2] [3]. While this type of political posturing is largely irrelevant to America, I assure you, it is very relevant to countries that fall within the Russian sphere of influence [1] [2]. And if you want a trip, just go looking around r/Europe for posts regarding the Soviets and the now independent ex-Soviet states. There's a good number of dumbasses who buy into this shit, much like there's a good number of dumbasses who buy into neo-nazism in the US. With this all said. What do I think. Context and application matter. Ultimately the application of specific imagery (basically dog-whistles) in writing is a tool for quickly and effectively conveying certain types of stereotypes and holds. If Necropolis is a crypto-fascist corporation, per: Then a uniform with a red armband is fine? A neo-nazi will find and gush over even generic nazi/fascist imagery regardless of how it's served, and the only way to prevent that is to cut all references to nazism or fascism in our lore. Which is hopefully not where we're going, since it'd be limiting as fuuuck.

A dumb post was hidden that was up for a few hours prior.

Ye, this will happen has it has every year. The stats gathered will be roughly the same as last year.

Compromises are intended behaviour. A lot of coding is cost-benefit analysis, and at present, the CBA showed that this is the best way to go. Thus, intended behaviour. Whether it's ideal behaviour or not is a different debate. Oh and an addendum. This decision is why our ZAS is no longer lagging to fuck or taking 5 minutes to process a single broken window. There are two solutions to this issue. One is a major rewrite of ZAS to run off of delta updates. Something that myself and Lohikar discussed at lengths and in a good amount of detail. Though the theory remains largely untested: I think Lohikar did a small prototype but he didn't get far beyond that. A technically apt coder would have to code this, though. And it's not a small undertaking. The second solution is to do a technically worse compromise, and accept the possibility of megazones inside the station. Basically: make it so that large zones outside still utilize unsimulated turfs, but floor tiles, when removed, create simulated rock. The likelihood of a large enough to be troublesome megazone being created with this method is low: you'd have to destroy the entire station, but it's there. Further, if you want a shit compromise, then this is it from a technical side: it's not-uniform behaviour and technically a risk to server performance. Also, untested.

One form of adrenaline is, norepinephrine. @MattAtlas can clarify, or someone else who's up to speed fully on this.

Anyone replying or planning to reply that we need an alternative, PLEASE READ THIS. Per Matt's words, there exist chemicals which can be used to jump start a heart with CPR - adrenaline. This is similar to how defibs would work/have worked in the past. So if you're planning to reply that "We need an alternative, ala defibs," don't, as it's no longer contributing anything to the discussion. Kthx.

If they all use the same verb at the end, then this shouldn't bypass the timer. Unless the timer is coded wrong, but there should be no difference between the macro calling it and the verb being used directly.

Re: cloning removed from lore or not. Ultimately a detail to be decided when the actual development decisions have been made, and thus irrelevant at present. It could be retconned, though it's far more likely that we'll just either make it unavailable on station or make cloning lose favour due to ISSUES, for example. Anyways, pretty sure Matt has said he wants to address cloning right after brainmed, since they do kinda interact with each other a lot. But my preference is to presently merge brainmed with cloning as it currently stands. Otherwise, we'll simply keep increasing the size of the PR and it'll all turn into a singular monolith from hell. So, that's what we'll be doing this week. A discussion about cloning can be had in another thread. But know that it has certainly been marked as a point to review in the near future.

"High" preference doesn't showcase the final outcome of selection tho. You would have unresolved medium-lows and the fact that antags are yet to be picked. This is to say, it'd be highly speculative.

This is likely horribly impossible due to the order of how round-start allotment is selected. It would also make the round exceedingly rare.

I literally addressed this in my post: Yes it might be a requirement as far as goalposts go, but it doesn't mean that they are up to speed on the required material later on.

To play the devil's advocate. Officer isn't a low requirements job. Or rather, it shouldn't be viewed as a job that anyone and their grandmother can do at a moment's notice. There's a mountain of difference between "You can train any rando to do this job", which is roughly where Sec Officer is as a job, and, "Any rando can do this job at a moment's notice". There's an entire academy and a cadetship period to becoming an officer. So it takes time to get the required skills to become an officer. Furthermore, after passing these trials (which detectives and other auxiliary roles may or may not do), a sec officer would likely need regular training to keep his memory fresh and up to date with new procedures, regulations, etcetera. Due to all of this, the case of a detective or FT becoming a sec officer should not be common, as they likely have more important things than regular sec officer drills and refreshment training to dedicate their time to.

This has been addressed. Thank you Kyres and Lancer! So I have a bit of an odd one here. I need a sprite for personal use and figured we should have competent people here. Backstory: myself and my colleagues are making a competition robot for an international format. The robot has a small OLED display on it, and we figured it'd be cool to have a logo displayed on it. The only issue is, we're all engineers, so our artistic talent is limited to drawing lines in our chosen CAD programs. The art work being requested: the robot is called Mousetrap. So we figured a stylized depiction of a classical mousetrap (like the ones you see in Tom and Jerry) would be cool. Text is also fine to have as an additional element (the display has a large w:h ratio), but then I'd also request a version with just the logo as well. Technicalities: the main restriction is the OLED display itself. It is a MONOCHROME 32x128 (hxw) pixel display. Yellow on black specifically. There is no dimming option, a pixel is either on or off. We'll need an exact sized image file so we can parse it into a bitmap and later a C code array. Black on white is preferred. Deadline: there's no deadline per say. Though our main competition is on Saturday. But there's no guarantee that we'll have enough time to implement the logo by then (but we'll try if it's delivered soonish). The project itself will definitely last 1 more year, so it'll be definitely used then. Compensation: art is work and work is typically compensated in one form or another. I am open to doing this in a full commission manner, but then I also expect a bit more back and forth on the matter. Basically, don't dump a sprite on me and expect payment before confirming that I have accepted being a client if you want compensation. Contact me via Discord in this case. All other details: contact me via discord for questions. If you're willing to do this pro Bono then you can dump your idea here as well. Now, back to my engineering cave I go.

In general, I like this. But. I think that a tagging system for monkeys, slimes, other animals used in science would be necessary. Otherwise, keeping track of your "experiments" becomes 110 times more painful than it really needs to be. Realistically, you can think of it as a collar tag or something.

As someone who uses the, "I'm blunt about shit," line on a few occasions. There is a difference: Between being blunt about things and not knowing when to compromise. Between being blunt about things and not knowing when to back out. Between being blunt about things and being unreasonable to an excess. The general experience from the development team has been that you are all of the items listed above. While yes, "It might all be about opinions [on how to do development, which is rarely objective]," and, "It might only be development," it's an amazing showcase of character none the less. What's more, I do believe that even with those excuses, your attempts to work with other developers have well demonstrated your lack of capacity for basic teamwork.

Can someone remind me why we removed mutiny in the first place? ? Just bringing it back with no change, or at least, without understanding why we removed it, doesn't seem wise. Lest we let history repeat itself. The pits of my memory are saying that one of the reasons why mutiny was removed was because the directives issued to the crew were way too hyperbolic or nonsensical. Also, they were limited in number.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeebut. The entire point of non-NT ERT is to make the situations generated through them being called more dynamic. That doesn't work when we pigeonhole them into being just reskins of ERT. Though I do also understand that if it ends up being that they completely fuck the station 9/10 times, then the player base will, rightfully, simply stop calling them. So some steps should be taken to curb merc-ERT from outright fucking the station if it ends up being a consistent issue. Ultimately it's a balancing act. But knee jerking after a week, at most, of the update being live is something I would rather nooot do. Though I will grant that we should try to differentiate the two merc entities thematically. As to slightly break the correlation the player base might have, and thus allow them more flexibility in how they want to approach dealing with the station.

A quick lesson that I have discovered while studying engineering and working as an engineer. In colloquial English, as far as I've noted, the difference between the professions of "engineer" and "technician" is often disregarded, and the latter is commonly referred to as an "engineer" as well. Which is technically incorrect. An engineer is typically someone who designs and oversees: a white collar job, usually, with minor field work. An engineer typically has a university degree (undergraduate or graduate level), and is very much concerned with knowing the principles of how something works, and how to design things. A technician is someone who is typically subordinate to an engineer, in the grand scheme of things. They are responsible for realizing the plans of an engineer, or maintaining them, or whatever. Depending on the field, technicians might have anything from a vocational education to an graduate degree. They're the blue collars who stick around to make sure everything that is in the plans actually ends up working and running. Both fields do have a lot of variance. Once we get into really specific shit, like nuclear (or super matter) engines, the technicians required to operate these things might be very highly educated. But they would likely still be classed as technicians, since most of their latter training would revolve around specific equipment, and not necessarily the background knowledge required to design new equipment. They both have to know the working principles, and a good chunk of maths. But the angle and nuances of their education would be different. On the Aurora, probably the only engineer in the engineering department would be the CE. Funnily enough though, a good chunk of the science staff would fit the bill of engineers. Addendum. What I posted is still an oversimplification/technically incorrect. Depending on field, engineers need very specific mentorship and certifications before they can be referred to as engineers. However, with the way education and employment has gone over the past few years, a bachelor's or master's in sciences is typically enough for most things. Or at least a prerequisite to certification.