Skull132

Ye, so you get past the firewall and other filters just fine. Try clearing your IE (Internet Explorer, yes, trust me, it sounds weird) browser cache. And also maybe delete your BYOND's cache in your documents/BYOND/cache. Just delete that folder. And then try reconnecting again.

The server doesn't require active whitelisting. As stated, you're showing up on a set of connection logs. Which means you're definitely getting past the firewall and all that. Try running ping host.aurorastation.org in your CMD, and see if you get a reply or not.

You show up on the lists, but nowhere on the logs. Which means you're not firewalled. Interesting. Make sure you're using a BYOND version newer than 510 and that your BYOND versions are not in the following two: 512.1407 and 512.1408. Those two versions get instantly dropped, due to them having exploits. So basically. Upgrade BYOND to the latest beta and try again.

Exists as Deity mode. Which is a port away.

Okay, so let's stop spouting memes and actually create plans. So for the past some time I've been thinking of mixing up the standard gamemodes by integrating Deity type modes. Since Deity already exists (and Alb promised to import it at some point), I figured that the Syndicate side of things might also benefit from such a treatment. The general idea is this: a player is made into a Syndicate Commander. They have no direct presence on the map. Instead they have command and control over Syndicate assets on the station. At round start, this would mean having a few traitors with a direct link (headset, PDA) to them. Besides the operators being loyal to the Commander and having to carry out his bidding, the Commander would have resources (tele-crystals, perhaps external assistance) to offer to the operatives. Round structure would roughly go like this: Commander gets acquainted with his subordinates. Commander gives his subordinates their mission(s). Preparation phase for the operation. Action phase. Conclusion phase. With actual exfiltration of operatives being a possibility. The idea is to leave the structure relatively open, thus putting the Commander into a Game Master-like position. Where he's actively directing the round. Now, there's a few things to discuss and think about. First, is there actual interest in a game mode like this. Thus far reaction has been positive, and IMO gamemodes like this are a step in a gooder direction towards freeing up the round format for more shenaniganry and unexpected things. While also giving the players currently in the round a bit more direct control over how a gamemode is played. Second, what tools would be necessary for the Commander? First is obvious, some amount of TeleCrystals to hand out to his subordinates. But there are so many more swanky things to think about: The ability to call a nuke strike team. Dead-drops in both directions (eg: to get larger tools, the operatives would actually have to arrange to meet a dead-drop somewhere. Or to get something off the station for an objective, the operations would have to get it onto a dead-drop.) Fake announcements and rev-like dealies. Next up, recruitment. The station is a claustrophobic combat environment wherein the superiority is granted to the larger side. Security will always be able to overcome a set of antagonists that do not outmatch them in terms of gunfire, by virtue of the station working for the crew. This means that the most effective tactic for a small team boils down to being ultra-violent for a very short period of time. Anything else is tactically unsound. Recruitment would allow for a slower burn approach, wherein accruing resources is possible and will reward you with being able to tank enough damage/casualties to try out alternate tactics. In simpler terms, it'd allow for more dynamics by the Commander: think organic rev mixed with other things. But it can also end up as a crutch. So how should recruitment be handled? Finally, visibility. How the bloody hell should the Commander be able to perceive the game world...? Giving it AI-levels of access might end up being too powerful, though with only having vision and global comms access, it certainly wouldn't be a better situation than the AI is already in. But there are alternatives: like only having access to your subordinates (by virtue of an implant or something) and then giving them the ability to quickly tag others for visibility, or hack camera nets. So on. But this will majorly affect gameplay, depending on how this is handled. Alrightly, consider this the basis for my design doc. All points raised above are open for input and critique in a bid to have them fleshed out further. And as it says on the title, my realistic idea for this to be completed is around July. Maybe early August.

+1

Here's an issue from the past. There are people who are notorious for constantly wanting, and successfully rolling antagonist. And being bad about it. Not rule-breaking bad, but cringey-and-stupid bad. This system would still allow them to play an antagonist every other round. Forever. Which would compound the issue of no one wanting to ever deal with antagonists properly. Because, really, how many times can you be bothered to arrest the same QM for the same shit. I will say though, I can see slight merit to it. In that, the way antag selection works right now, making a good plan and sticking to it is a bitch. Because you can't control when you get antag, and then either get antag at a very bad time, or never get antag when you want and then you're bummed out about it. But boi does the suggestion as written include a whole lot more negatives than positives. One quick idea would be to remove the "You get an antag round every round as non-antag," bit and implement the vote. Basically, regular antag selection would work. But at the end of every round, the vote is called, and if you get enough votes, you get a token for use whenever afterwards.

I was going to write about how the head of staff responsible for handling personnel and personnel-oriented affairs should be able to sympathize and connect on a human level, but Icuris already managed to do that. They lack the humanity to handle a role which requires, arguably the most of it. Or second most, below le captain.

Just for the sake of clarity. Cloning has nothing to do with them being implemented. They are not there to make cloning harder or more difficult directly. It's an effect of it, yes; but they are meant to be a standing mechanic on their own. The entire idea behind them, as per the PR, was to make brain damage in general more interesting. Without it being just another meter that causes instant-death once it exceeds a nominal value.

Ye making it so you don't have to type the lt bit but having it still as his visible name is probably a good solution. Ayy, those are arguably the same thing.

Would [mention]SovietCyanide[/mention] wish to confirm/deny/enlighten us about his feelings towards the issue being resolved as well? Because I do want to hear both sides.

Mkey, it is Tuesday. When I looked up your activity as you submitted the application, it was quite bad. With only a handful or two connections logged over the past two months. But looking at it now, it has improved. The crux of the application will be that activity, and the relatively short time span in which you've been active again. Basically, you've yet to prove that you won't vanish again over the next, say, two to three weeks from now. So basically, what'll most likely end up happening is that we'll evaluate you as a contributor for, say a month. This means I'll be expecting at least some contribution over Git, and general activity in code_dungeon and some on the server. If those criteria are fulfilled by the end of April, we can move forward. I'll also get some opinions from the devs in the meme time. Please lemme know what you think of the proposition, [mention]MoondancerPony[/mention].

In the interest of actually having tangible feedback. Can you please elaborate on what's wrong with it? And if it were to be redone, or tweaked, what should be changed?

We do have plans to investigate and implement further setting changes. Right now one plan is to do so with a secondary server that's tied to the main one. Though a lot of it will take some time to implement, and probably won't receive active work until summer starts. Regarding minor settings changes to Aurora (which this would be, as the actual mapping and coding effort required would be pretty minimal compared to the rest), I will have to discuss with the Head Admins and see what we think. We may also integrate this with plans to rework the round formula and types a little, as to break up the gameplay flow. But all of these will take some time to put down on paper, get feedback on, and then proceed to work on. But, I suppose, expect some news about this over the coming month?

Also, time for me to post. Unless we end up banning one or all of you involved (specifically the two hunters and Lilium), the frank fact is that you are all going to have to get along after this complaint is over. So I would heavily advise all of you lot to figure out how you can square your stuff away in a manner which allows for you to continue start acting as respectable and normal members of the community. At present, the most prevalent strategy involved in the complaint appears to be, "LOOK! They did bad shit too!" Which will, at most, result in you dragging someone along with you. At the least, it'll involve us adding a note of, "Did not report bad conduct to staff; decided to take matters into his own hands and violated the rules as a result," onto your ban reason. The conduct of others does not excuse yours. It is an absoloutely clear violation to go and rag on about someone's character or rule violation or what have you past a certain point. After a certain point, you should just flag an admin and butt out of the conversation, awaiting the admin to handle the situation. It is toxic to continue. Further of note is the fact that both of you, two hunters, seem to have the mentality of "Me vs you," in the complaint. When I butted into voice right around when Abo pushed his post button, I heard one of you go, "Well, Abo's reply is still in my favour." The other isn't better, considering the opening posts in this thread. Which, while hilarious when viewed through my lens of dark humor, is absoloutely counter productive to any of you actually getting the point of this thread and what issues you have against one another. So. Instead of trying to "win", and getting banned in the process. Try to figure out what the fuck the issues present here and unfuck them for yourself and others.

[mention]Scheveningen[/mention][mention]AmoryBlaine[/mention] Curb the peanut gallery, gents. If there is nothing constructive to add, or you are forced to reiterate your point, then just do not post.

I don't see how elitism enters the fray. The claim is tantamount to saying that allowing some players to be superior in combat, by virtue of skill, is elitism. That is an exact, 1-to-1 comparison. There are certain skills and knowledge which is not on the wiki, which should be learned. There is nothing stopping players from cooperating or spreading the chem info ICly. Further. It's not just staff who deal in said chems. There's a set amount of players who are investigating and trying to discover them. And have actually successfully done so. The only admission I'll give is that they're somewhat badly implemented. It'd be nice to have them appear ingame in very rare circumstances, IMO. To integrate them just a bit more, as to make others aware of their existence naturally.

I intended to reply over the weekend but update and family matters got the better of me. I'll do so tomorrow or on Tuesday, whence things are calm.

This is now merged and live. Marking as a completed project.

Latching onto a single piece of a sentence is amazing but not really wise. Rules and regulations are to be read in full, and considered in full. Not doing so is considered quote mining/rule lawyering, as you are willfully ignoring the greater context of whatever piece of quote you wish to use. So two notes. First, due to the nature of Discord VC, you are expected to contact staff. So the excuse of staff not being on to handle a discord case is rarely, if ever, applicable. Second, in the case of OOC issues, and not IC grief, the only acceptable case for a ban request is a violation of actual real life legal laws. And no, this does not fall into this case, because Soviet has yet to actually pursue Lilium beyond the confines of Aurora to a degree where it would constitute the actual legal definition of harassment. Third. Summa summarum: this would get treated as a player complaint regardless of however many technicalities you wish to raise. So by virtue of enforcing the de-facto SOP, this is and will remain a player complaint. And yes I know I lied, there's three notes instead of two. Anyways I'm mostly making noise because apparently, despite there being clear directives now, people are still misunderstanding what the actual hell a ban request is for. You may carry on with the complaint. And you still have to update your format, Hunter.

And [mention]HunterRS[/mention] you might want to update your format to match the subforum.

Is this difficult to read. Moved to the appropriate subforums.

Mirror ban. Check the ban applied to ultimatememeboy. You and the individual banned share the same IP. Though it looks dynamic.

okay hi i read the thread. well, did so diagonally anyways. A few points. First, as pointed out by Fowl, being brought back to life and having your uniqueness retained is by no means a right granted to you. It is also hardly a nerf, seriously. When you consider that the IPCs have some of the most visually unique customization (and mechanically unique customization options) available ingame. This update would, in absoloutely no way, undermine this. These mechanics have apparently been taken for granted to the point where removing them after death, which in this game can be random and will carry with it difficulty is somehow outrageous? I'm sorry: you died. This happens. Some characters, after death and revival, are completely useless due to roleplay requirements. You get to literally sidestep all of that bullshit and still remain active. You are not guaranteed the right that your character will take a full recovery from death. Next, I do not see how these mechanics are a band-aid fix for anything. They are not meant to address IPC powergamers directly, they are not meant to address or fix the way IPCs can die and end up dying. They are meant to add some level of depth to the process of reviving an IPC, by making it more involved and unique from other races. Depth to a process which, at present, is completely overlooked and works only by some miracle of unmaintained code and "Undefined output". Further, making this process the same as the human one, with the same consequences, e.g. brain damage and trauma, is quite a bad suggestion. The entire end goal of all species is to offer variety. To offer variety in the way they play and handle for the player controlling the character, and to also offer variety to the people and the station environment around them. Just copy-pasting mechanics from other species, because they are an accepted norm, is lazy and unfortunately counter-productive. The mechanics proposed are unique to IPCs, make sense mechanically and lore wise, and allow for more interaction between different departments. We will get to see how stuff manages with low count science, but eh. Anywho. Alb added the custom chassis shit. Which we can integrate with trading or science and production as necessary. And even without that, IMO, this is a good PR until something from gameplay proves things different, I guess.

The trouble with this will be the numerous situations of, "I was already setting up to blow the shuttle anyways, and now I can't because someone triggered a transfer vote right as I was doing my thing. :ree:" Like, say during autotater rounds.