Skull132

January has ended, so has this trial. Drago is now an official developer. Application accepted and archived.

Can you extrapolate further as to why you "Don't like it"? Here are some considerations: The tesla is, for all intents and purposes, a singularity type engine. Which means you set up containment, blast it up to a reasonable level with the PA, then chuck the PA off to 0, and wait for it to dwindle until you need to hit it again. As I commented in code dungeon, it seems like someone did not clamp a calculation which meant a strict comparison to 0 messed up the dwindling. And just like the singularity engine, once you push it past a certain point, it will break containment and proceed to zap you silly. On the singularity, this criticality was represented with size, with the tesla engine, it is now represented by the count of balls. The tesla is a secondary/test engine. It is not meant to be a full on replacement for the primary engine. And despite this, its power output at maximum level is still almost sufficient to power the station and have a minor amount of headway. Unless you add major sources of extra drain, like shields. However, considering the first sentence, this is good enough. With the previous point in mind, it should be fine to expect that the engine take more maintenance. Since its employment is completely optional and unnecessary.

Stage 1 is merged and now live.

A review was had. Two main points were decided upon. First, and this applies to absolutely everyone involved in this thread, to include Fowl. Report violations of the conduct rules immediately to moderators or admins. Do not launch into tirades; do not take it and then wonder 5 months later why the person has not yet been struck or faced disciplinary action. This is also a reminder that complaints are not the primary means of rule enforcement, and will generally end in more specific arrangements than a warning or a ban. Second point, regarding Fowl specifically. Staff are expected to uphold a higher standard with regards to abiding by the rules, and responding to situations with a modicum of tact. The points listed out before will remain relevant, and we will be looking the entire matter over with him again. We will be generally expecting more tact to be employed by him in situations (generally not launching into tirades against individuals). And failure to comply, if properly reported and found to egregious, will result in further action. Also of note, specifically regarding the smog v fowl thing, is that this apparently wasn't their first encounter. We found some fun stuff from a few months ago.

For reference. My resolution regarding the inter-staff shenanigans remains. I have contacted Arrow regarding the rest of the evidence posted regarding Fowl's conduct towards players and we will be giving it a review before deciding.

Special verb is counter-intuitive. Catch the click on z-mimick and use that. It should just be that you click on something that you see below you, you click on it, and then you begin to fire at it. IIRC the clicks are resolvable.

This is technically impossible to implement at present. At least, in a manner which would fully encompass everyone. There are two ways to speak: via the command bar, and via the prompt. Those who use the superior method, the command bar, can be intercepted and interrupted. Goon had this feature almost a decade ago already. But those who use the simpleton means, the prompt, cannot be. Because BYOND magic and sleeping. Until a uniform platform for input is implemented, which may be a possibility in the future, this cannot be reasonably acted upon. Though I forget if it was snuck in during a baymeme. I know I've seen code similar to this somewhere in the code base. However, once said platform is implemented, I would definitely be in favour of this. At least for say inputs. +1 dismissal.

For reference, lore devs nor contributors cannot vote for dismissal of mechanical suggestions. Also, voting for dismissal because instrument code is horrible, unoptimized (both for client and the server), and because this would cause a major bit of annoyance.

Well, the wiki page didn't answer this, so here goes a question. Are they high-tech high-tech, or high-tech scrappers? The difference would be Skrell versus Unathi in terms of regular technology. Or, if you want to use popular culture, think Stark's Ironman versus that electric whip guy from Ironman 2 (Ivan or some shit, apparently). Why I ask is this: the production of high tech equipment and devices has a lot of prerequisites to it, in terms of social capability and economic capability. I severely doubt that, what amounts to an underground group, would be able to acquire all of those prerequisites when they're being chased after by their brothers, the Hegemony. And no, going off with your migratory fleet doesn't really help either, specially not if you're only now attempting to get talking with other people. The process takes a looong while. This is all to say, they would be, in my opinion, more fit to be seen as high-tech scrappers: making their inventions, though genius they may be, with what they can scavenge, reuse, steal, buy for cheap. Is my conjecture above correct? If yes, how are we reflecting this in mechanics? It'd be pretty cool to see some of their internal organs replaced with half-functioning DIY solutions, like a power cell lodged within a heart or some shit.

It is possible to strike anyone on the public Discord, as long as they are not a mod or an admin, yes. Though it must be noted that this only addresses conduct there, and thus, would fall kinda short of the issues discussed here. As for why he's not been struck, no clue. Probably because no one's bothered to report him. Or the infractions in question weren't deemed severe enough to merit it. He can, of course. But that would mean having him retire of his own accord or removing him from staff. And that would effectively be the most severe form of punishment that we could probably apply, under the given circumstances. This is effectively a warning. Failure to reasonably abide would most likely result in dismissal from staff. Since, as said, maintaining a reasonable atmosphere is a requirement to being on staff. However, as with similar incidents before of this nature, a chance to make amends is provided. Further, the guidelines exist to clearly chart out the issue. So that no one reports him for, say, providing valid criticism, claiming that a term of warning was broken.

I will get back to you, Delta, in some hours. But in the mean time, I would like you to count just how many players we have banned over complaints analogous to this one. It is a fact that being banned for the "don't be a dick" rule is probably the hardest, unless you do something very specific, like PM a mod a "fuck you" in response to a proper warning. And yes, I did clarify these requirements with Fowl.

Complaints are not open discussions. This is basically you asking for a private audience, since no one other than the parties involved and staff can post on this. Complaints are to solve issues with conduct or decisions made. The decision made, in this instance, would have been to forego a feedback or public project or whatever thread by lore team. That is complaint-able. Alternatively, said private audience could have been requested via forum PMs, discord DM, whatever. As regular human beans do.

Well, Christmas is over, so here come the late presents. A general point for consideration is that I cannot make two adults get along. That is ultimately up to jackboot and fowl to square up and get sorted. And there's the general note that any hopes of me banning a staff member are pointless, as I already told Jackboot a month ago. If we reach the point where a staff member is to be banned from anything Aurora member, then we should first reconsider them being a staff member. However, one of my objectives is to ensure that the staff environment remains workable and that staff generally provide a presentable image of staff. To which end, I can take some issue with Fowl's conduct. Therein also lies a slight difference between allowing abrasive people to exist on the server in general, and allowing Fowl to remain onboard as staff. To recap, a considerable amount of staff have commented on Fowl's behaviour as draining and needlessly obstructive. While yes, some people definitely over play the amount of "distress" he can cause, he is not always pleasant to interact with and this can build. Specially when you may be attempting to get some work done. Though this should also not be taken as, "Fowl can't say your idea is stupid." A stupid idea is a stupid idea, but there are more effective and less effective ways to communicate this. And more friction-generating and less friction-generating ways to communicate this. Fowl's request for this complaint was that he be handed a specific set of guidelines to adhere to. So here is the list that we currently agreed upon: Cut the sarcasm and quips, specially when discussing business. Do not ridicule or excessively ridicule the ideas of others, though wrong they may be. Explain yourself in a clear and non-back-handed manner when required to. Again, specially when discussing business. Note that this specifically addresses situations of "when discussing business". Which in essence means, if it's general off-topic banter and we're clear on that, I do not really care: Fowl's as good (or as bad) as anyone on that count, unless someone wishes to protest this assessment. Leaving open for further comments from participants and other head staff. Otherwise, if nothing else comes up, we can do a review after 2 months if necessary, and see if anything's gone better or worse or if there's been no change at all. And it would be wise for the other participants to put some consideration into what they want out of the complaint as well: specifically whether your goal is to actually figure out a way to work with your colleague, or to just see an issue removed. Because, to echo my initial statement, I cannot make two adults get along if they absolutely refuse to.

Locking and archiving as invalid/already done. And because the peanut gallery showed up.

Essentially this: You should also note the good Christian tradition to remove the Christmas decorations around Three Kings Day (today). For which a PR has been put up. So keep your panties on.

I don't really think that your suggestions will have enough of an effect. They're effectively trying to wrangle an issue with the gameplay loop and setup by way of policy. For the task described, I would consider policy to be a very soft power to apply. That is to say, the amount of work put in for this will bring minimal returns. Further, the suggestions proposed do not necessarily solve much. And their scope is limited. Allow me to illustrate: "Command must be transparent about antagonists." This may have the effect of having research and medical more actively pester command/sec for the antag as a test subject or for equipment to deconstruct, true. However, this wouldn't necessarily stop or even change the way that sec locks down any antag related matter at present. There is only so much you can do as a random job to help/disrupt without getting a bwoink for unmotivated sympathy towards an antag. And thus, the antag interaction would still be with security. "Encourage antag gimmicks that interact with the crew. Discourage antag gimmicks that interact with two or less people." This is a hard standard to drive. Due to the way we apply policy, in a passive, report oriented fashion, there is no solid way to "encourage" something. Staff are unable to provide positive feedback ingame regularly, because it would require that they dedicate their entire round to observing the antagonist/the round. Clearly, this is too much to ask of staff, without doing something silly, like doubling our staff count. This means that we are left with reporting peace-antags and eventually getting them job-banned. Which, mind you, we have done. But there's another small devil in your wording. "Discourage antag gimmicks that interact with two or less people." From a roleplay perspective, this is damaging. Or, as an uncut standard, it is damaging, anyways. If you're doing a more intricate story line, then simply involving a few picked individuals, in my opinion, is completely valid. It will lead to more valid roleplay, and it is highly unlikely that you are able to, at the end of the day, keep said roleplay down to just 2 people, unless you are literally going peace antag and doing something dumb, like showing your tools to your friends and never breaking space law. "Encourage Heads of Staff to run mini-events and celebrations while working." We tried this a bit. This is partly the reason why the head of staff forum exists. And I could easily see CCIAA involved in this as well. I've always kinda wanted CCIAA to do more proactive IC things than just file reports. @Elliot *hinthint*. As for changeling. We can, IMO, remove it, rework it however we want to. It may even end up being more roleplay friendly. But this will do little to solve your quandary. Because, IMO, your issue is not really caused by the RP quality of the various single antagonist modes out there. But rather, by the fact that they are single antagonist modes. Rolling on from the last point. In my opinion, the era of singular antag modes is basically over and done with. I would much rather prefer to see modes like Deity/God, which offer players more control over the round and slot someone into the spot of dungeon master. Someone non-admin. This would greatly expand the capacity for "gimmicks", by allocating a large quantity of resources before a singular idea, goal. A more dynamic gameplay setting in general would help as well, this is specifically referring to more advanced random events, which would involve player controlled NPCs. You have a lot more things to do when security and the station are tied up with a third entity, say a crew of lost Vox traders. All of this would allow for more dynamic round make ups, thus, more replayability and stories. Could also investigate the possibility of giving players more control over whether or not they can antag this specific round. The issue with the current way antag selection works, is that you have no clue whether or not you're going to be an antag, and thus, cannot fully invest into preparing for the round. If you had more exact control over this, say antag tokens through player upvotes, then we might have more people executing more intricate ideas. It's a small thing, but it could just pay off well enough. And then there's the question of what to do with security. Though some of the points in said thread are still to be resolved, I believe that spreading out the power of that department will lead to the antagonists being able to do more. Purely because they will no longer be forced to focus their primary effort on evading security. Could also consider heavily gimping the security staff with the present setup, I suppose. You would still lower their operational capacity, which is ultimately what you want to do. Less emphasis on running away from the dudes with the batons from step one should lead to more attention being left over for you to focus on creating roleplay. It worked well enough when we had lower populations: 1 - 2 officers per round, with a crew of roughly 10 - 15 total, was a good enough stomping ground for antags on Exodus, for example. Now we regularly stack 3+ security personnel per round, with a higher crew count. While our antag count is relatively the same. So, summa summarum. I see more practical and code oriented solutions to these issues. And at least one of these is written into the NBT, though all of these can be implemented way earlier (which is roughly a design principle of the NBT anyways).

I mean. By the same token, updating the round event text can be made mandatory policy. There's minimal difference in effort, and the problem of forgetting will exist regardless. Also, certain events benefit from being ran with the backdrop of another game mode. This would destroy such convenience. +1 vote for dismissal because of what was said above.

The problem with this. And with retaining some form of head of staff who governs all of security. Is that the departmental officers will most likely end up being used as regular officers once push comes to shove. Ergo, there will be no change. Ergo, there will be no point in implementing this change.

First of all, there is no fault to be had. This is not an attack, nor punishment, you should not view it as such. This is gameplay design, nothing else. Second of all, no one is suggesting that we hold the antagonist's hand. That is a horribly extreme view to impose upon this thread, and surely an invalid one. All that has been said is that security is too powerful, at present, for the antagonists to further their role ingame to a decent degree of satisfaction. And that the root of the issue is how security is currently represented as a department. Your only two ways of really dealing with security's presence is to do 1 thing and then bugger off, or by committing yourself to running fast and light strikes against the station. Anything that requires you to stand your ground to any degree will result in your losing, since security, once prepped, will only take a few minutes to get to you. You cannot really claim that this is solely the antagonist's issue, if anything but two tactics are invalidated. And the final note is, back to the point of gameplay design, the only other way to fiddle this issue is to severely buff antagonists. To the point where 1 man can easily evade or neutralize the average 3 - 5 security team. But holy shit, that will not work, since such a requirement making said antagonists too powerful. So instead, you disperse the 3 - 5 man security team. Which is what this suggestion aims to do. I would argue that is not necessarily removal, for one. For two, this arbitrary crying of, "No, stop removing things!" is dumb, since following it would stone wall us into a whole load of fucking stupid decisions. Ultimately, you are free to start your own thread with an idea on how to solve the issue of antagonists having to focus too widely on security, but until that thread is made, this present idea is entirely valid.

I mean. If you asked me as a security commander or as someone who was meant to coordinate or plan an active defense against an outside threat, then yes, you're right. The current security set up is good, relatively efficient and flexible. Literally no one is disputing that. In fact, this is the issue. Which leads me to the other side of the debate. Gameplay. Whether you wish to admit this or not, playing antagonist is all about evading or confronting security. The more time you spend on station active, the more you have to deal with this challenge. The entire setting is built up in a fashion which gives the station security an advantage, and if the antagonist does not address this advantage as their primary issue, then they will not have any effect on the round. However, what is the main point of an antagonist? Arguably, with security in its current form requiring this much attention from the antagonists, they are incapable of performing said goal. Literally because a lot of their attention, instead of being put towards how to drive or create a story, is put towards evading capture and security. Which is how the efficiency of the current setup becomes an issue.

Said detachment could maybe be moved to the bridge, and access would be provided by heads of staff. If you have no heads of staff, well, then either break in or get no armoury. Perhaps each security office would also get a couple of small cells to hold people until transfer or until the brig detachment becomes available if it's not (due to the lack of heads). Well, the point was that said detachment is always staffed. Like you have 2 brig officers (not enough to take on most antags alone) to sit in the brig and assist with hauling off baddies whenever the department officers catch them. You can't really maintain a brig with no one in it, so the idea of moving it to the bridge and being used as necessary isn't really going to work.

What would become of the brig and the HoS? Those are the two key points, IMO. At present, the main reason why security is as effective and potent as they are, is because they are centrally coordinated. If we implemented this suggestion while retaining those elements of central coordination, then the only thing that would happen is what Arrow describes: you'd effectively buff security by extending their access. And thus, there would be no point to this suggestion. If, however, we damage security's ability to coordinate, then there might well be merit to this PR, as it would completely shift the antag focus from, "Survive security" to, hopefully, "Do interesting shit". This could easily be done by completely allocating the department officer(s) to the command of the relevant head and removing the security channel from them. Because, really, they're there to guarantee the safety of the department, not keep order in the bar, and they have all of the information necessary for that via the department head set. Now, this comes with two major issues to sort out and unfuck. First, how do we brig? It might be an idea to have a very small "brig detachment" around. They basically fill the role of the wardens and handle jailing, weapons deployment, etcetera. Allocate them under a brig command who listens to command or the captain and voila. You have a decentralized, infinite less effective security department, which now focuses on protecting departments instead of protecting the station. But the second issue is a more interesting one. Da fuck would these departmental security officers do when there's nothing else to do? One major benefit that the centralization of security offers, from a purely gameplay and enjoyment perspective, is the feeling of not being alone. If you want, you can do shit with your fellow officers, or even, at a minimum, talk with them. You're all in the same boat, do the same job, etcetera. Now imagine being in a department where everyone else does something you cannot do. And it might end up being horribly draining on the players. Which is, ultimately, not something we want. However, it might not be all that bad; this is something that, unfortunately, is hard to gauge without testing. Oh and also i hope you are prepared for the shit storm that ensues if this is even considered for PR-ing.

This was implemented why is this still here. aaa.

Arguably the detective would have more lee way on this, since he doesn't get issued a taser.

App is on trial until the end of January.