Skull132

As for ERT kicking ass. That's the point of it. ERT is designed to force a paradigm shift in the round: it is made to force the hunter to become the hunted once more. They exist to introduce new circumstances to the round. It should also be noted that you cannot deal with ERT as you would deal with resistance on the station (security). They require a slightly different approach, if the antagonist actually wishes to engage in combat with them. Though, if you take note, almost every ERT mission follows the same template: arrive and then swarm the areas of reported trouble. This mold makes them easy to avoid, and gives you the capacity to fight against them.

Not really, no. Odin is a command, control, and communications station. I doubt it has a population residing on it. And my point stands. The admin armoury exists for OOC purposes. Its name should make it clear enough: "the admin armoury."

Lore wise, perhaps. But Central Command is a hodgepodge of IC and OOC areas. The surgery and chemistry areas on CC make no sense either: surely you'd have actual medical stations closeby, so you wouldn't need to staff a C3 station with surgeons, and surely chemicals for their medbay would be manufactured off-site. But the areas exist, mainly, for admin convenience.

You mean this table? http://puu.sh/lW4AZ/30fc7410bb.png In the room with no windows? Visible only to ghosts? How on Earth is this an issue? And there's a difference between "having access" and "having direct access". The admin armoury gets opened very rarely: it does not, has never, and will never factor into your regular ERT dispatch. I do not see why having them there for convenience once we do need heavier firepower is an issue. Also, for hiding them out. Again, convenience. There is no way to transport a large amount of items via admincommands. If they were moved to a room detached from CC, then we might as well start spawning shit in.

Okay, done. I didn't even need to change the code or anything to do this. Allow me to show you: http://puu.sh/lW3Mv/961651dbb4.png The only things here that aren't on your list are pistols, erifles (which I still don't know if they work or not! But they're rarely/never used), and ion rifles (which I will say should still remain here). ERT has no direct access to the weapons you are concerned about. The only two ways to acquire these weapons as ERT, while gearing up, are to either breach the admin armoury, at which point you can expect anything from an antagban to a short timeban, or have an admin around to actually open it. And about the admin armoury: having them there is purely for admin convenience. If we're at a point in time and space where we want to open it, but we'd have it removed, then don't you think we'd just spawn the weapons we want in anyways? It just reduces our legwork. Plus, I don't even remember when the last time we opened those darn doors was. SO BASICALLY: the suggestion is already implemented. Show me the laser cannons and rapid fire lasers and pulse weapons that ERT has access to, as you claim they do. Please.

Applicant placed on trial for the next 3 weeks. Please provide feedback as they manage issues that involve you!

Applicant placed on trial for the next 3 weeks. Please provide feedback as they manage issues that involve you!

I'm gonna say this. Hunnewle is someone who's caught my eye for a very long time. Mostly because he's one of those people that doesn't catch much flak, and seems to know how to be cool in a situation. I have never actually even seen him angry ingame.

Application accepted. Welcome back to the team.

Delta, policy is one thing. But there's also some work to be done about helping people understand policy, why it is as it is, and so forth. Which this thread is partly hoping to accomplish.

Okay, so, yesterday there was an antagonist round with a virologist as an antagonist. He created GBS and found ways to infect to infect specific people. It was not airborne and it did not have the capacity to kill the entire station. He infected people through roleplay, for example, he found a character who needed ADHD meds and supplied them with a spiked pill. In the end, roughly 3-5 people died in spectacular fashion. But the station also went to work on finding a cure, to which the antagonist countered. And then, once the station had finally figured out that they had a Trojan horse among their team, he was arrested. This was reported as murderboning during the round. But I dismissed the case. Here is my reasoning for it: The virus release wasn't just an, "Oops, you're all infected now," -- it required a certain amount of finesse and roleplay to find the means with which to infect people without being overly obvious about it (the ADHD meds, for example); There was roleplay for the rest of the station from it. Unlike with station wide plasma floods or bombings, the station actually had a lot of opportunity to create roleplay from the situation, and they did. This is kind of the main goal of an antagonist: to involve the station in something, a story. And a GBS that kills very specific people in a controlled fashion is something on par with killing someone and leaving the corpse on display. Let's expand this a little. This is where the first part of the thread's title comes in as well. GBS is effectively a major end traitor item: it has the capacity to affect a lot of people. Bombs, control over the AI, atmos, etcetera, are similar. A lot of the times, we seem to just think that those items should be off-limits to traitors, the end. And that point of view is valid in certain situations, but in others, I think it's very restrictive. If we don't allow traitors to use powerful tools, then everything devolves into a a cycle of: e-sword -> escape -> get arrested/die -> end of traitor's round. What do we think about this? If the more powerful tools are used properly, then why should we stop anyone from using them simply because of the stigma attached to them? As for how to use them properly, here is what I outlined to JBoy while discussing the same matter over OOC: The second, somewhat tangental point it raised, is the fact that people dying and being removed from the round is frowned upon. But, why? Okay, I do get some of it. Everyone's here to have fun, and we should act respectful towards that fact. That is to say, enjoyment at the expense of others is not something that's a fantastic idea. (*cough*don't be a dick rule*cough*.) But we should also take into consideration and accept the fact that a certain amount of death, even if round-ending death, is often required to tell a story. In the little case-study above, this death was the GBS-driven gibbing of 3-5 people. For all intents and purposes, the player characters were indeed removed from the round. (As being revived from a GBS gibbing, while possible, is such a complicated procedure that the chances of someone knowing it are almost non-existent. Plus, there's a bug that stops you from doing it, full stop.) But since those deaths weren't exactly meaningless, I don't think it's something anyone should get fussed about? Death and failure are a rather big parts of SS13, and this is true for even a HRP server. Am I talking sense, or have I lost it completely, gents?

As the rest of Killerhurtz's trial went on fine, we've concluded that what was posted and discussed was a singular incident. It also looks like they learned from it, which is what being a trial mod is all about. Killerhurtz has been accepted as a full Moderator, effective 12DEC2015.

2 years of PR. Including a slight dip in the competitive arena. Though, a lot's been redone since then. Shit was fun, a lot of fun.

I may go rooting around in my noggin'. Would you be able to handle long-form narrative as a basis? That is to say, multiple events with less depth, or would you prefer a detail account of a single event? Cause, I have something in mind for the long-form narrative, and it spans roughly 3 months of gametime. Dicks, reread original post, need to think. Must think.

Reference and work material, mostly. Like, 4 code files up open (on the bottom two screens), plus one monitor for reference, plus one monitor for skype or testing environment or whatever.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yte06eixmeoxyvl/PIC000236.jpg?dl=0 I spent an entire day setting it up, tidying the cables, etcetera. And this is the net result. 2x2 fullHD 21.5'' monitors. It's amazing.

I don't think forcing screaming would be wise. Specially if, say, the person is roleplaying biting onto something? Something I've seen done IC at least twice. Going under the knife in an awake state already gives the player enough information to roleplay appropriately. I think that the specifics of how they enact on it should be left up to them. Whether they just scream, wail, and cry, or perhaps they'll simply pass out - those specifics should be up to da player to play out according to their character. If they don't: adminhelps are a thing and badRP, which ignoring such huge amounts of pain definitely is, is punishable. As simple as that.

There is no way in heck I'm having any one person or people sift through what could amount to tens of messages a day. Since in all likelyhood, the messages are going to be sent between people who know eachother, they can unfuck the canon between themselves.

Either that, or just let the players roll with it as they choose. Both work, IMHO.

That's a case-by-case thing, Skull. There are times Felix overstepped. Stealing a detective's colt and shooting an officer and the detective with rubber bullets while fleeing as a non-antag is overboard. I will say that I'm generalizing Felix, as there were indeed times when he went overboard. But when your goal is to make an intelligently comical character, that's one of the higher marks to shoot for.

Most usually, something completely arbitrary, pointless/meaningless, and that's executed for the giggles. Also blatant things, or things escalated beyond the point of reason. (Even SS13 has a point of reason on a roleplay server, know it.) A good example of this is a bald character who goes around yelling random obscenities, and, for example, shooting lasertag guns at everyone. They add no value to the roleplay environment, nor are they engaging to interact with (if you can interact with them at all). As for actually good sillyness, intelligent sillyness/humour is where it's at. A good example of that is Felix Solano, who never really went overboard with his shenanigans.

It has been almost a year since the last proper chat like this. But there are matters which require attention. And they require your attention as well. Over the past few months, a certain few people have been discussing and running around with the argument of, "We should be allowed to have fun IC!" And curiously enough, this has been playing havoc with a good few people, and a good few things. Issues relating to this argument were sometimes not dealt with at all, and in other cases, dealt with but too aggressively. Allow me to present my view on this matter, and that of the Staff's, as per a recent discussion: to argue whether or not having fun is allowed IC is pointless. The argument has a very simple answer: having fun is allowed. But it comes with a caveat attached: how are you going about it? Here's the issue. Asking questions like that, that have a binary answer, that set everything in black and white, is wrong and misleading. Asking them solves nothing, and the answers to them are already known. Arguing over them is pointless, and probably all of us are of the same mind. None of us are playing SS13 to simulate full-on spess-workman environments. It's the station where shit goes south, where everything can devolve into chaos in a matter of a few ticks. And that makes the game enjoyable. No, asking whether or not "fun is allowed" is misdirected. The answer will always be "Yes". But what you should look at instead is how we go about doing it. Allow me to pull up two examples. First, we'll look at antagonists. I think that there's a bit of a SNAFU with how the rule is written, but an antagonist is meant to make the round "fun" for everyone. Well, if you die, it's not really "Fun" for you, is it? But it can still be good roleplay. And here is how: by being engaging. And much the same, something that is innately "fun" may not be good roleplay, nor engaging. This is why simply wordlessly killing everyone is punishable. Make sense, right? This is also why being a disruptive bald annoys people: it's not engaging. It's just there for a mocking giggle, and that's it. The issue is not that you're being silly, the issue is with how you're being silly. And I implore people to actually think about the "how", more than the simpler yes-or-no question. So, how about we get off that fucking stone?

As of yet, there is no outright directive issued to admins and mods to provide you with a ckey, at least I don't think so. (Mind, that'll be changing soon.) But even regardless, you could have just submitted the complaint without ckeys attached, and we would have been responsible for providing them. Second, the unfortunate fact is that having an exception of not being beaten to death by chucklefucks is not one that we can live up to. We do not preemptively screen people, and as such, almost all of our administrative actions are responsive in nature. This means that, and to use a hyperbole, someone has to get their face bashed in for us to take action. And even then, we don't always outright ban people for things like that. A good few of our prominent players have joined, bashed people to death, been talked to (and not just permabanned), and then integrated into the community just fine. We are obligated to give them that chance. Third, and this is exactly why you were given time off: It is not wise to enter a situation with this mentality. Riddle me this, what difference does it make if a player is spoken to, warned, tempbanned or permabanned, if their actions stop in the end? To staff, our objective is to solve issues. To make the person randomly bashing your face in cease. If we are able to accomplish this by simply talking to him, why permaban him?

Because I already started on them, Jboy. I have the web interface about 40% written. It's silly to get this deep into a project, and then drop it for another one, of equal scale. Plus, some of the systems are necessary.

Archived.