Skull132

I've never trusted deals like that, personally. But if you're certain it'll serve you as you intend it to, it should be fine. Personally, going to the Tallinn University of Technology and starting this fall, actually.

One note. If you want to have your character be a person qualified in multiple professions, then please, make them actually older than 30. Because, yeah, no.

If we want to utilize the idea of an entertainer, what would they need and what could they do? My general and present stance is: the job is niche enough to not warrant being placed in. Instead, gather yourself some jokes, ask a HoP for a custom job title, and entertain away.

I am curious as to what happened. I trust you have access to means of contacting me, should you wish to elaborate.

Appeal denied. Player will have to wait the ban out. Locking and archiving.

...A mechanic which would be completely unaffected by what you're suggesting, regardless of whether or not we wish to implement it. The "meta" that it would modify is the balance of power. It would give Security more arms, which would lead them to feel more comfortable in situations where they really shouldn't be. A research facility has no need for military grade weaponry. Not even Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works has an armoury filled with military level equipment in it. And that is probably the easiest real life comparison that I can think up.

We're inclined to let the ban stay in place. It's a timed ban provided for constantly failing to read and acknowledge the rules (considering that two warnings were issued for the exact same violation in the span of 7 days). The promise of, "Effective now I will adhere to the rules," sounds a little flat when you consider ignoring the different warnings that were issued prior. Further more, you've attempted a string of sign-ins with an alternate account. Which is not a pleasant sign for us.

Development time can be planned and squared. Lore can be bent over backwards if need be. The gameplay aspect is the one in question.

Similar arguments that were raised by myself, and that should help explain what Brage is bringing up:

Well, just shooting them will. Stop that, that is.

what you're effectively talking about is an event, Plahunter. And you missed EvilBrage's point. If you want to increase armoury loadout, then you need to deal with the fact that it's there every single round like that. Brage is saying that such a thing would negatively affect an already disheartening situation.

And. I'm not seeing an issue with this. If you don't plan ahead, then that's a fault of planning. I repeat: you should not be prepared for every situation from the getgo. It breaks one of the key points of this game, regardless of serer. The highest powered ballistic weaponry is an SMG. It's not available through cargo because NT prefers energy weapons. Here's what I'm still stuck on: you seem to be wanting variety, but this is exactly what variety is about. I'd rather have one group limited to a distinct set of weapons, as opposed to giving everyone the same weapons, just sprited and named differently. Think about it. It's easier, yes. That's actually exactly why I don't want it to be a thing. The armoury is already targeted to the point where a lot of folks complain, and making it the soul source of everything forever will just mean it gets attacked more often. And it literally detracts from the game to give sec all of the weapons, all of the tools, at once. Refer to one of my arguments in my previous reply. My point with the talk about ArmA was missed, apparently. In order for there to be a set of meaningful variances, we need to have more incrimentation. You need more space to work with. We don't have it. The best example I can show you is the energy carbine versus laser rifle. The difference is, without thinking too hard, non-existent beyond the fact that one can stun as well. But codewise, and realistic capability wise? They're effectively the largest contrast you can create, while ensuring both remain effective. Anything between those two is practically worthless.

You missed my point. By "Dropped", I mean never used. Example: I used to play ArmA with a group of 20-40 players, depending on the time of the year. We had, in our modpack, roughly 100+ weapons. Only 15-20 were actively used. That is, basically, a loss of 80%+ of the weapons. If cargo is not working, then you need to find another way to solve the issue. This game is all about solving issues, and your argument basically reads: "I don't want to solve this issue, I just want to avoid it, so it'd be easier for me." About point 3. Audio range is just slightly greater than visual range. And even there, it wouldn't produce a meaningful difference. Just, not something within the capacity of the game's setup, in my opinion. Here is the hard cap for weapon variations in this game: In order for parallel weapons to exist, the time to kill needs to be equal, but the other variables can be different. There are only three variables for us to play with: damage, rate of fire, magazine capacity. The incrementation necessary to produce meaningful sets of variants is not present, unfortunately.

Except. Please put yourself into my position. Understand this: each human has 200 health. Each human has a tolerance for pain. Increasing one variable forces you to decrease another, in order to keep the weapons in line with the with each other. There is no meaningful way, beyond speciality weaponry, to produce variations from here. You could have minor difference, or things like that, but I have a fun little story about that. Basically: introducing a slew of weapons that are of slight variation to each other will result in the objectively best being used, and the rest discarded. And that isn't a cost effective tactic for a small development team. ...All of this can already be simulated with the tools at your disposal. Well, except for the note that Nukes don't have access to energy weaponry, but I'm of mind to amend that easily enough. Now, how is it already possible? Simple: go to cargo, order supplies, voila. There is very little that positively enhances gameplay that can come from providing security with these tools from the getgo. No. Tracer ammunition is not used, and even if tracers were in the game, or multi-coloured lasers, all of it goes belly up once people realize that attempting to identify a terrorist force based on the signature of the weaponry they use is silly. You ID by uniform, and confirm that before you shoot. Also, this can already be simulated ingame with present resources, and it really doesn't change anything. I've been in confrontations where both sides use the identical weaponry (laser rifles, or so forth), and I've never been confused as to who to shoot. You can only shoot the people you see, ergo, any point about second-hand identification is a very small one. I'm just going to drop the lore arguments, my apologies for ever going with them. I am responsible for maintaining aspects of gameplay, and lore can be bent any which way, with ease, to accommodate whichever approach serves gameplay best.

In practice, your concepts don't work. If you scale up the weapons for both sides, then most confrontations will escalate nearly immediately to the lethal stage, and more of than not, the station will be left a giant battleground. You can already witness this is you see ERT deployed against a nuke team. Arming the security staff to be on par with present ERT, even if we increase the combat capacity of the nuke teams, will simply result in that situation becoming a thing. I don't think that's beneficial. Further more, the types of weapons I outlined are limited by very hard ceilings in the game. There are only so few variables ingame that we can modify for a weapon. For shooters like ArmA there are more. But here, it's roughly: ROF, damage, magazine size, method of reload. That is. Amazingly limiting, and the spectrum of weaponry already in place covers it quite aptly. And yes, riot armour doesn't protect against gunshots too well. And gun armour doesn't protect extremities. Which is how these things go: packing kevlar onto extremities is a really bad thing to do. And that groin flap? That's for anti-frag, not for stopping bullets.

There is a reason for the armoury being stocked as it is. And it's not an IC thing either, despite Tau Ceti being relatively stable and not as bad as you make it out to be. The reason is: abundance breeds laziness and a lack of interest. Arming security to the teeth would remove the excitement and crunch of a difficult situation from the game, and diminish greatly the antagonist's abilities. An explanation of the last note: the entire premise of the nuke ops is that they outgun security under normal circumstances. And unless the staff ingame take active measures to counter it, that's how it should be. As for the armour. Riot gear already covers majority of the body, including extremities. And the plate carriers for ERT are designed for operations in confined areas (space stations), which is why they only protect the vital organs. Everything is made for a purpose. And the guns: There aren't many ways to differentiate weapons in SS13. Specially those of the same type. You have your pistols, revolvers, assault rifles, battle rifles and sniper rifles. One or two of each type, and that's about it. Every other weapon is more of a tool, like the freeze gun, rather than a front line weapon.

Here's kind of where my understandings my differ. First off, it should be acknowledged that hostages are very difficult to take. A thing I've noted while passively watching TV shows about crime, is that most kidnappings are either very violent, or very planned out. Effectively, if they're a spur of the moment thing, then they are extremely violent (the person gets physically subdued, deprived of any weapon, and then secured). If they're more engineered, then they most likely end in scenarios where the target has no chance of fighting back. I personally have the sense that what people consider as a hostage taking in this game includes walking up to someone, holding a weapon up to them, and magically awaiting compliance. No. Whenever I've taken hostages a nuke operative, I roll in with in a fashion where the violence of my actions completely disarms the opponent. This basically means: I overwhelm them, stun them, cuff them, and now they are hostage who can't do shit to me. In more intricate scenarios, I've made sure that the hostage has no weapons they can use against me (holding someone up with a laser, with glass and space in between me and them: they either destroy the glass, and vent themselves, or they die to lasers). if your intent is to take a hostage, and that hostage is your target, I think the antagonist should use force to subdue their target, and not simply rely on good faith and a pointed weapon to be enough. I do not think that expectation is realistic, roleplay or otherwise. As a hostage captor, there should exist no requirement for you to me, say anything or even give the opponent a chance to retaliate. Instead, the roleplay will come after the fact. The second point is the situation. If you hold a gun up to me in an open hall. I am most likely going to run. I am going to take that chance, and run the fuck away. And I think everyone should have that option. If your objective is to capture someone, then it should be your duty to ensure that they cannot run way or escape, realistically. The situation is yours to engineer. And you should expect the hostage to resist, to plan for it. This is, with regards to running away. About fighting back? Yes, it is extremely easy for security to subdue an antagonist. The stun weaponry is relatively over powered when you compare it to lethals. Namely, let's talk about how quickly you can put someone down. Taser: 2.5 shots average. The C20r: 6 shots to incapacitate, 8 to kill. So, you can see the discrepancy. It is objectively easier for a security officer to nope the fuck away, even if he is placed into an engineered scenario where he should die, to resist and win. The issue isn't even spamclicking, it's just the difference in difficulty. But I still see as being able to fight back as a right most everyone should have in a hostage situation, under the assumption that if they die, they don't complain about it. A side comment. I do enjoy seeing "heroes" die. Specially when they go up against fully geared nuke teams. I once saw a nuke squad dismantle a full security team who was trying to assault them, it was. Amazing. Anyways. What the heck am I trying to say? Because, honestly, I lost my own train of thought as well, and started to ramble. Basically: Hostage takers should acknowledge the fact that hostages will resist, and that they need to rely on their efforts, not on the good will of the opponent, if they wish to actually accomplish their task. In the case of resistance, any security member has a clear advantage over an antagonist armed with lethal arms, due to how tasers and stunbatons work. In my opinion, point one is not an issue. That's how these things go, and should go, lest we start forcing situations and stamp behaviour onto people. Which, I don't think I want to do that. The second one is, though. Ideas on whether or not my assessment is accurate, and proper? ADDENDUM: this is added about folks who shouldn't be able to resist. Basically, if a scientist pulls a weapon from his ruck and blasts an antagonist. As already outlined, fun things like that will be grounds for reprimand regardless of how this debate ends. Because. Instances like that are usually very ridiculous.

Heyo, Head Developer here. Due to my current effective leave, I'm leaving this for Soundscopes to look over. The target branch is development, aye, and we are most certainly up for seeing the NanoUI interface implemented for this. As far as the datum and wire concept from Paradise is concerned, we are certainly interested in seeing it as well. If there are any questions, feel free to PM either of us, or simply reply to the thread!

The ban is indeed lifted. I hope that you abide by your word.

Yes, actually, good catch on the PDAs. Something I've personally done from time to time is keep the PDA panel open while it's on my ID slot.

Here is what the majority of the staff has agreed upon. A probation of 30 days, during which any offences falling in line with the initial ban reason will result in an immediate permanent ban Should you, at any point, be banned for offences falling in line with the initial ban reason, that ban will not be available for appeal (unless the evidence and reasoning is up for debate) That's, basically it. If you are sincere, we won't have any issues.

I cannot emote for the life of me I'd like to think that I'm rather good at carrying a point across with simply using words, sentence structure and punctuation. When it comes to emotes, however, I am terribly stoic and do not use them at all. Or even if I do, I keep it on the minimalist side. I've actually made roughly two characters in an attempt to try and have more animated characters to play, but they've both slinked back to my normal MO.

An alternate solution, that involves maybe less pkaying around. As Inverted said, there's stuff there which should be echoed in other forums. Guides, maybe general discussion, etcetera. But no one has really stopped any of you from doing it. Basically, figure out which topics need to be pushed eslewhere, and push'em. Same thing for taking and looking for input elsewhere: feel free to ask around and gather opinions. It will require an active effort, though.

It's not a rule outright, but it's a biproduct of some of the wording and neuances in question. Which is unfortunate, those things will require addendums soon. Or, rather, already do.

As long as the person is able to function under the circumstances that concern their duties without being hindered by that disability. With that, I have in mind: EMTs, all Security Personnel, probably the command staff as well. Basically, people who rely on communication as a tool for all duties involved. Sound simple enough?