Skull132

Like, full on honesty: I just glanced over your list of specifics and noped away, as it was early in the morning. Although, I'm partially not in favour because it adds a, perhaps an overly nuanced mechanic? If such a thing can exist, I suppose. It just seems slightly silly to assign specific reactions to the majority of chems whenever they come into contact with an IPC. Hence my suggestion of keeping it stupid-simple: stuff that hurts you, like acids, will hurt you. This is personal opinion, though. Also, I need to get back into actually playing this game. You just proved me rusty. Although, I did know of the potass bomb scenario, but I consider it a weakness: you see, every explosive reaction that takes place inside a mob should (I think, I haven't tested recently) stay inside the mob. At least, if it's chemical. So, a two shot of potass and water syringes is actually an effective way to combat an IPC, as they do not metabolize the chemicals away.

A long list of thoughts ahead! I'll also try to poke Scopes and see about doing some of these soon. Also, SS13 uses asymmetric balance, so having 1:1 trade offs, which some of these ideas seem to be going for, aren't always the best. Having key, jutting out features for species is actually positive. Video on the topic: Those are my thoughts.

Second one accomplishes the goals of an antagonist to a tee, where as the first one does it in a half-assed way. The common misconception that you seem to be representing is the fact that everyone believes they should be given an n-count one chances to survive. Not true. In the second scenario, the antagonists created an environment, a setting for others to RP in. And RP they did, by barricading themselves, probably by being all-scared-like for the first few minutes, and then by deciding to do something about it. The threat was clear and known: the threat was present and it created a specific environment. Everyone in that scenario also knows what to expect whenever they face the opponent: simple and outright combat. There is no, "Emote yourself raising your gun" bullscheibe. And ideally, both sides operate off of this knowledge. (Obviously, if people want to, they can create slower scenarios in the middle of that chaos, by holding someone at gunpoint or what have you. So this doesn't even eliminate those.) This type of antagonizing can be referred to as a force of nature approach. (A force of nature antagonist being someone who does not need to interact with their victims 1-on-1, but instead creates an environment of IC fear and conflict around their actions. Thus mimicking what a force of nature can do.) Examples of this are a cult who has developed into the open conflict phase of their operation, or a nuke team that is launching a full on invasion of the station: everyone knows that they're there, open combat is the perfectly acceptable norm, and an environment is created off of that. In my opinion, a force of nature approach to antagging is actually a lot better from a meta perspective, as it enables a small group of antagonists to antagonize an entire station and crew, thus accomplishing their goal of providing RP. Once you're at that point where everyone knows about you, conflict is logical: everyone knows their three choices of resist, submit or run, and will pick one. Now, the better question, in my opinion, is how do you get there?

The way I look at borgs, is that they are tools. Literally applied to situations at the whims of others. In return, you get to forego a good deal of things which can make you into a very clear danger to those who have something to fear. So, it's kind of up to others, antags and crew, to use the borgs properly. The borg may get a slight slap on the wrist for not adminhelping and asking for guidance on a dubious matter, but the person who uploaded the law is the one who's taken the brunt of the responsibility in the past. Again, the thing is, it's never a good idea to just upload a law that states, "Go kill all crew except Sneak McSnakersson" and then calling it a day. It's basically gank at that point, you're just using borgs to conduct it, instead of say, atmos or bombs. There are cases where this is applicable, however. The scenario you describe, it sounds like a full scale assault scenario. So, let's say that the nukeops are committing to a full on assault. People are going to die anyways, and if their intent is to secure the station, then the borgs will be a great resource to help with that. The law may have been worded crudely, sure, but if your new teammates are attacking, then why not go and help them out? Yeah, sure, someone may raise voice about you not RP-ing out your turncoat-ey-ness as you baton them in the back while they're trying to snipe the nuke ops, but the way I see it: the nuke team subverted the AI without their knowledge, so they deserve the baton in the back.

As someone who's toyed with AIs, I imagine you're aware of the fact that they lack surgical weapons? And that the most practical ways they have of controlling people will result in a large number of casualties? There are also cases where the syndicates and station forces engage in large scale warfare. At that point, if you land infront of a muzzle and see a flash, you can't really blame the nuke operatives -- again, this scenario would produce a large amount of casualties. Granted, neither is outright intentful mass murder, but the end result is the same. The trouble is, people don't really distinguish half the time. And mass murder can be done, Garn pulled a great chain of stunts as a traitor AI yesterday. I don't really know what he had in mind to do, but his intent was pretty clear: hurt people en massé. People did complain, but, from a ghost's perspective, it was pretty decent (everyone had a chance to escape with their lives, had they tried). This debate, though, circles back to what we want from antagonists, and what we accept from antagonist, with the unfortunate admission that the force of nature style of antagging is not really appreciated/executed well.

In general. If the mass murder has proper build up, like during a Malf round, then I'd think it's fine? I love me a good mass murder scenario, specially when the AI committing it doesn't get destroyed. But, RP it properly. However, this is not a general situation. From what I can see, you were given a law that literally said: "Go on a rampage." If it was just like that, with no build-up, then you can either adminhelp it, or develop some RP from it before just going onto a stun-harmbaton rampage. There have been cases in the past where a traitor scientist just makes an AI upload console, uploads a law ordering the AI to kill everyone, and calls it a day. In these cases, the traitor uploading the law was dealt with by the admins. ADDENDUM: Also, the only real way to cause mass-death without setting everything ablaze is going to be a slow venting of the station as an AI, or a series of raids as a group of outside antagonists (nuke ops). Both of these are slowburn scenarios, and afford a great opportunity for folks to get the hell out of dodge, or to find ways to band together and fight. Read as: to RP in a setting created by the antagonists.

So, here's my two cents. Tajarans in command are not the issue. Namely because there really aren't that many of them. Removing Tajarans from command will do very little towards actually mending the issue of everyone acting fucktarded over Tajarans. Here is what I've been able to take away from the past few days of "OH MY GOD CATS!". Someone got butthurt (because there really isn't a better way to put it, sorry) over IC, and brought it into OOC. In OOC, the folks who aren't exactly inclined to like Tajarans (because god knows there's a certain group of SS13 players who like to crack fun at the subject, and some are actually very invested in hating the cats) saw this as a great valid target, and the fun times began. Sometime during the funtimes, someone decided to jerk their knee with very stern warnings, massive walls of texts of "Stop being butthurt!" and vague threats coupled with the idea of, "The Tajaran behaviour ICly is broken". (Despite failing to notice that this level of IC conduct has lasted for months on end, probably more than a year. (Seriously. Sassy Tajarans existed back in January. And they existed a year ago. Why is it a big deal now?)) And then folks took that as a threat towards their mode of play, and voila. Here we are. (Or am I wrong? I'd like to know if my summary is wrong.) I ultimately do not care if they have command privileges, as I believe it will do little to actually deal with the issue. I'll remain a fan of the, "Let them dig their own hole" mentality. The sassy ones will get ousted IC, and whenever they come to complain about it OOC (at which point, they have no ground to stand on), one can simply be honest with them and say: "Right. You are crying because of your own actions. Either fix it yourself, or deal with the consequences." (To that end. People keep crying that we're not heavyRP enough, and yet they pull stunts which land them in a very unfavourable position ICly, and all of a sudden, whenever their own actions start encroaching on their enjoyment, they think that someone's being unreasonable. You can't have HeavyRP and RP without consequences at the same time.) Everyone on the complaints threads should slow their roll. Tajaran players should collectively slow their roll. And Sue needs to slow her roll.

It actually already exists and works exactly as intended: http://puu.sh/ki6Qb/4ca6a90b1d.png You need to have a signaler in your hand, right click it, threaten to push it. I do not know why it's not on the object tab, but it is there. And works! For posterity's sake: this feature has been around for literally years. Old Aurora code, and I mean 0.0.6-old, way back in 2013, had it.

LOGIN>I.Corpus PASSWORD>************* ACCESS LEVEL>Network Informant NET ACCESS GRANTED WELCOME As per request, here is the information required. 1. All missing people within the Tau Ceti system documented between the years 2455-2457: http://skullnet.me/names.txt Report counts 1 336 657 entries. 73.15% of the reports were withdrawn shortly after submission. Only a small fraction remain unresolved to this date. Subject Talon Kier is not listed, as he was not reported missing within the Tau Ceti system. 2. Information is not in my purview. Only way to attain accurate information is to contact various cells, however, they may look at the request with suspicion. News reports serve as a secondary source. 3. Multiple studies, mostly private, some funded by large governments. The drug is capable of creating a large amount of fear in the subject, so applications in interrogation or torture are feasible. Officially, it remains outlawed and most governments would like to maintain that they do not use it. Same goes for corporations. Due to the potential for controversy, records and detailed information about these studies is hard to attain. 4. Record printout from NanoTrasen's databanks: "Minor heart arrythmia, pace-maker not warranted. || Lack of muscle atrophee from long term 0-G expousure remarkable." The last comment is in reference to the amount of time the subject appears to have spent in a 0-G environment while lost in space. Minor fractures suffered in the past, at a young age, as is normal. Standard vaccination and disease history, for a citizen of New Marx. Also completed a psychiatric evaluation a day ago, passed with no contentions raised by the doctor conducting.

If it gets down to that point, then I have a feeling you're already screwed. Although a flinch like that can be coded, sort of like what happens when you're disarmed. Specially when you get hit by a taser. So maybe.

I'd agree that they're useless, but not exactly for the reason you've outlined. They're useless because the entire setup takes an immense amount of effort: - You need a secure place to house them. - You need two people per hostage. - You need to have a concrete idea of what you want, simply saying that "I have a hostage! I have one! Uh... What can you give me?" does not work. They're a tool, use them. Give the opponents a door to go through, that doesn't involve raiding you. (There needs to be a visible goal that they can accomplish, that would result in release. Otherwise, they won't try.) - They slow you down. You do not want to get slowed down. With sec not caring about them, I maintain that this can be dealt with if every antag starts properly executing their hostages. And I'm not kidding. Sec gets away with it because they know that in the majority cases, the antagonists do not have proper control over the situation and they are right. However, if you folks start killing hostages whenever sec acts belligerent, then they'll either get the memo, or the people getting shot will make them get the memo.

Which is why I wish the rule could be fluidly applied, but that would create a lot more headaches than it would solve, hence my generalization and idealization. Although, technically, a solution offered and executed by staff on a complaint could be reviewed in a staff complaint. *shrugs*

Except, Xelnaga is right. Everything has a time and place. Closed groups, with an application required for entry -- yeah, you don't need to know, as an outsider, who has been banned, who reprimanded, etcetera. Heck, even as a member, you might not need to know. And he did pitch it from an angle similar to that of a closed group. However, this is another matter entirely, so, we'll move on. In response to the series of SNAFUs with your and Thundy's mod applications, do identify with the fact that the present level of transparency has little to nothing to do with the issue you cite. Even in a closed system, as I hinted at in my previous few sentences, the lines through which this information would flow need to exist and work flawlessly. And if they don't, then that's another matter on its own, and probably something that should be dealt with. However, in the current manner that you raise it, it is literally comparing apples to oranges, as they are rather pried apart from one-another. Fuck it, an example. Closed group setting, I only know what goes on in my purview. As a standard member, my purview consists of the responsibilities given to me. If my teammate gets reprimanded, I don't hear shit about it if it does not concern me. If he tells me -- sure, yeah. But officially, I don't know squat, and I carry on with whatever I am doing. Why? Because it does not concern me. Were it an open/transparent system, I'd hear about it and see the process, the reasoning. These are the apples -- the two possibilities for information that doesn't concern me directly to reach me. The day moves on regardless of which one is used, generally speaking, as both work and have existed from time immemorial. Once again, closed group setting, this time I fuck up. I get reprimanded, I hear about it. Why? Because, guess what, it concerns me specifically. Who do I hear about it from? Administration directly, in a generalized term. These are the oranges (or rather, the singular orange) -- this is the direct line that you are talking about in your last reply and that needs to exist, regardless of which of the two (apples) approaches is used. Without it, fuckall gets done. But, from your original post, we're here to argue about the apples. Onto the present rule then, on which I'm 50/50 split. We have developed a neat little peanut gallery, and some posts most certainly could use that rule being enforced. I've seen a system like this be used to great effect, most notably on GOON, and to very detrimental effect, like on Unbound Travels -- so it is feasible, just a matter of, "Is it right for us?" Here is a question, though -- and perhaps where this discussion should actually start from -- what is the purpose of a complaint? The way I see it, player complaints should have it. They exist as a problem solving tool, primarily. An issue is raised, and the party presenting it wants a solution. Instead of going into massive roundabouts and hijacking discussions (which I have seen happen), why not just get rapid-fire dialogue between the involved parties and a staff member? Done. Staff complaints, however, exist as a tool for review. Greater opinion usually benefits them, as we are no longer simply looking for a passable solution, but are instead looking to review a solution, so that it may affect future solutions.

Your point about robotic limbs is invalid and wrong. That is not how the code works, and the robotic limbs have not changed one bit from the way they were a year ago. All species have variables for brute_mod and burn_mod. This does not apply to specific limbs. Humans with synth limbs gain no bonus nor penalties, regardless of how I touch it. Also, you gave me an idea. A long, long time ago. IPCs had a bug(?) where they took burn damage from electrodes. Basically, probably on the count of the electricity arcing across the two nodes of an electrode. What if we bring that back, and further make them suffer additional burn damage? As a bit of a, very specific niche. It won't be anything that has the capacity to down them, but the compound effect is kind of kek, in my book. I like this idea. Looks like a live thing, taze it. Then again, the issue with it: the entire idea of shells is supposed to be creepy. If they turn out being completely human, then you lose some of the creepy.

Your point about robotic limbs is invalid and wrong. That is not how the code works, and the robotic limbs have not changed one bit from the way they were a year ago. All species have variables for brute_mod and burn_mod. This does not apply to specific limbs. Humans with synth limbs gain no bonus nor penalties, regardless of how I touch it. Also, you gave me an idea. A long, long time ago. IPCs had a bug(?) where they took burn damage from electrodes. Basically, probably on the count of the electricity arcing across the two nodes of an electrode. What if we bring that back, and further make them suffer additional burn damage? As a bit of a, very specific niche. It won't be anything that has the capacity to down them, but the compound effect is kind of kek, in my book. I like this idea. Looks like a live thing, taze it. Then again, the issue with it: the entire idea of shells is supposed to be creepy. If they turn out being completely human, then you lose some of the creepy.

You'd be surprised at how aggressively coders can move if they want to. You linger on a personally fueled argument while glancing over what I proposed, which is neat, but not productive towards a reasonable end goal. The two initial changes that I outlined are super simple to implement, and I'm of mind to do it once I finish some major moving for another code project.

You'd be surprised at how aggressively coders can move if they want to. You linger on a personally fueled argument while glancing over what I proposed, which is neat, but not productive towards a reasonable end goal. The two initial changes that I outlined are super simple to implement, and I'm of mind to do it once I finish some major moving for another code project.

Erik, a little bit too much pointless science-waffle (that doesn't lead anywhere), but overall, amazing performance. You just made my morning.

Erik, a little bit too much pointless science-waffle (that doesn't lead anywhere), but overall, amazing performance. You just made my morning.

The "can't heal themselves" shite is actually a really small drawback, if even one, considering that IPCs have 200 effective hitpoints, where as humans have roughly 100 (the point at which they pass out and are ineffective). Also, throwing an entire species out the window because of compounded balancing issues seems like a silly point to try and push. It is literally a waste of everyone's time (from the coders, to the whitelist applicants, to the whitelist review-staff, to the lore team). Now, if you note the word "compounded". IPCs have immunities, all of which are separate, all of which can be chipped away at one element at a time until a desirable end goal - a balanced race - is reached. Where to start? I have two approaches to propose. Either chip away at the small buffs, such as flash immunity, brute damage modifier, while leaving the major one (halloss immunity) into play. Or we take away the major one, and make them vulnerable to tasers, while leaving the smaller buffs in place. Thoughts?

The "can't heal themselves" shite is actually a really small drawback, if even one, considering that IPCs have 200 effective hitpoints, where as humans have roughly 100 (the point at which they pass out and are ineffective). Also, throwing an entire species out the window because of compounded balancing issues seems like a silly point to try and push. It is literally a waste of everyone's time (from the coders, to the whitelist applicants, to the whitelist review-staff, to the lore team). Now, if you note the word "compounded". IPCs have immunities, all of which are separate, all of which can be chipped away at one element at a time until a desirable end goal - a balanced race - is reached. Where to start? I have two approaches to propose. Either chip away at the small buffs, such as flash immunity, brute damage modifier, while leaving the major one (halloss immunity) into play. Or we take away the major one, and make them vulnerable to tasers, while leaving the smaller buffs in place. Thoughts?

I am mostly here to explain the actions of the administration in retrospect. The decision is with the current administrators. I am mostly apathetic towards you, now.

I am mostly here to explain the actions of the administration in retrospect. The decision is with the current administrators. I am mostly apathetic towards you, now.

The question was personal. I answered from the key required. I meant making your own opinion a personal means to attack you with. I was actually trying to defend your statement. Apologies for my wording. Nono. Here's the play that I pointed out. You posed the question in the key of, "What makes you pissed off?" The question is clear and simple -- and personal. So, I answered in the perceived key. And I kept answering in the perceived key. Delta took issue with the fact that I'm only talking to myself, gleefully overstepping the fact that the thread is posed as it is (which is a silly move, specially when coupled with the strawman he built up on my writing). I then apologized it, momentarily forgetting why I answered as I did. Upon remembering, I added that edit for Delta to read and re-evaluate his stance. You're fine, Hive. And I enjoy the general spirit of this thread.

The question was personal. I answered from the key required. I meant making your own opinion a personal means to attack you with. I was actually trying to defend your statement. Apologies for my wording. Nono. Here's the play that I pointed out. You posed the question in the key of, "What makes you pissed off?" The question is clear and simple -- and personal. So, I answered in the perceived key. And I kept answering in the perceived key. Delta took issue with the fact that I'm only talking to myself, gleefully overstepping the fact that the thread is posed as it is (which is a silly move, specially when coupled with the strawman he built up on my writing). I then apologized it, momentarily forgetting why I answered as I did. Upon remembering, I added that edit for Delta to read and re-evaluate his stance. You're fine, Hive. And I enjoy the general spirit of this thread.