Skull132

IF MY MEMORY SERVES, antag and crew selection is done in the following phases: Off-site antag selection. Externals like nukies get selected here. Crew selection. On-site antag selection. This pays respect to job restrictions, ala antags not being able to be heads of staff. This entire system is kind of horribly fragile because it's ancient shit code, badly documented, and can spiral into weird bugs. However, the best way to try to fix this would be by swapping steps 2 and 3. However, this would cause trouble because certain antags (like AI) need to know who gets selected as AI to work. It's kind of a weird catch-22 at play.

Please post your discord user ID as well. You can get this by going to "User Settings" -> "My Account", and clicking the three dots right of your avatar and username, accessible via "Copy ID". Alternatively, follow this tutorial.

???realisBOT 01/17/2018 ACTION: PLACED BAN | Length: -1 | Reason: spammer. AUTHOR: Skull132/84559773487353856 SUBJECT: ArAtSkUll/368546126959345675 It's a vintage one.

Considering your suggestion for a new name was verbatim that of another high ranking gestapo officer's, your "Defence is thin". Appeal denied.

Regarding the claims of plagiarism that are floating around: No one's posted credible evidence yet here, soo those go unjudged for the time being. (Chaz, I actually did try looking at your claim, but maybe I'm just fuckin' stupid, but that PR only contains edits to the marine carbine which isn't involved here...? At least per icondiffbot.) But your time on the server appears to be relatively short thus far: only 3 - 4 days per connection logs. We'd like at least about 1 month of regular activity within the community and on the server, that way we're all a bit more confident that you aren't gonna just drop off. So with that, application denied for the time being, unfortunately.

While we apologize for Garn's outburst, your ban will remain in place. We will ask Garn to better control himself in the future. Participating in a group which is "joking" about swatting and doxxing someone falls well into a category of activities for which we apply cross-server bans. Attempting to shrug it off as a joke, despite the nature of the "joke", is also incredibly poor taste. As such, the leadership of this server wants absolutely nothing further to do with you, as a player, on our server.

Swatting is an illegal activity which has resulted in literal people getting killed. It is not a joking matter. Attempting to defend it as "It's just a joke!" does nothing but undermine the fact that people who participate in, or advocate for swatting are acting in a manner which can lead to real people being killed.

To be clear, any one of the items I listed is something we issue warnings for. Not sure why Shadow didn't hide the post tho, might have forgotten?

Rules relevant to the warning from the suggestions forums: Do not derail the topic. Developers will delete all posts that violate any of these rules or are not contributing to the discussion in a suggestion. Rules relevant to the warning from the general board rules: Don't be a dick. We're all here to have fun, not fight and argue with assholes. Don't ruin the game for everyone else, and use common sense. This includes anything from attacking other people, starting arguments over nothing, etcetera.

I lifted the mirrors. You should be fine to reconnect for now.

A point of consideration. Mercs became "More roleplay friendly" after we removed direct syndicate affiliation from them and removed the availability of nukes. Cult still has the standard "You're absolutely evil" aesthetic plus they have a very clear end goal: which is murdering everyone with or without Nur'sie. If those two could be laxed a bit, without completely removing the cult-y aspect of cult, maybe that'd help? But you'd need something to fill the void with.

Again tho. Mercs and borers are impossible regardless of what gets voted. Cuz the system isn't set up to handle it. ? Mercs are intensity 3. And maximum intensity per round is 3. So 3 + anything is never possible rnow.

Phrasing is difficult to understand. Yes, the things that get voted more have a higher chance of being picked. Suppose it's luck, though it requires a bit of monitoring after impl. In other news, TM currently cancelled due to a major few bugs that I don't have time to fix until the weekend. In other other news. This is how the intensity votes have been for the test merge. I'm not sure how to feel about this.

I'll be making the winning intensity level show on round status in all cases.

Doing this is not always a tactically viable option. And insisting that the only way to get any non-trivial medical treatment is to cooperate with the station would pigeonhole the antagonists way too much. Staying inside medical, or taking a hostage who can treat you, or both, typically opens you up to major tactical vulnurability coming from security and the rest of the station. Along with the AI, you can easily get boxed in, at which point the attempt to get medical treatment has escalated to a siege -- not something you always want. And sieges tend to be won by the station, one way or another. In general, I concur with everything Danse has listed. The availability of medical supplies for antagonists has been something I've pondered on for a bit, and I think we've even discussed it in devchat a few times. I don't think we need really high-powered "instant fixer uppers", that would be a threat if used in combat. Something that would treat you in about 20 - 30 seconds would be fine, specially as a lone antag. This would still be slow enough that, in an active combat situation, you're boned if you use it. But if sec disengages for their own medical trip, you'll be good to apply it chilling out in maint or something. For antags with ships or bases, like merc, more varied options could be introduced

ye except even with my proposed system, this can never happen.

I'm also not too happy with how the rounds are currently composed. The system of 0 - 3 means that there is never, ever a chance of 3 + 1 (merc + traitor, for example) happening. However, the algorithm might be a bit too merrily optimizing towards maximum insanity, so upping the intensities by 1 doesn't sound like a good idea either: they'll get over utilized. In the grand scheme of things, if we end up adding more "non-hostile" event type antags, it may buff out. But a temporary fix would be to add a 25% of a 1 intensity antag being added to any dynamic picking resolution which only contains 1 gamemode if intensity >= 2. This would lead to compliments of large gamemodes (like merc or cult) alongside a "supporting cast" of traitors, for example. Which should be pretty neat. Also. Revenant and other gamemodes that require processing will not work for now. LMAO.

Current state of affairs: Super-majority requirement from extended removed from extended. We'll see how the voting habits play our over a month or so. Antag selection now works. Finally selected antags will not be announced. The TM will remain active for a day or two to spot issues if all goes well.

Hard disagree with making a policy issue out of this. Making things require preemptive administrative approval is really interuptive to game flow and tends to create a situation for antags where they're extremely discouraged from touching these tools. Yes, there are cases where this is used, but consider it a bug -- not a feature to be expanded upon. More reasonable options include: Lodge a player complaint if the comms blackout was somehow really lame. Nerfing comms blackout as Camellia noted. Making comms systems easier to restore (?). Limiting how much of the comms system is directly damageable (and accessible), and giving traitors some other tools to cause either local or global blackouts.

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.

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 run gimmicks with them when it comes to intent and goals. Why is this not being capitalized on? What can be done to amend this? (Also take into consideration today's fixes, where we mostly removed the language barriers ingame.)

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 plan is a long one.

No.

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.

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 believe this, then. Well, there's not much I can do about this level of paranoia.