BurgerBB

>post a suggestion >a wave of people like it >finish coding the suggestion without posting the code >a wave of people dislike it pls

There are no stuns in the proposed changes.

I think it's fine. I'll look into Increasing the duration for blurriness.

I'm not hammering it into it's old spot.

You should've brought up those points before flash was nerfed. Unless you want me to bring back stun, I can't do anything about it.

too late the code is actually better than what it currently is now I've made flashes modular. You can switch out the lense for a more powerful/burnt resistant lense. Budget flashes are shitty and are given to non-sec. Normal flashes are given to sec. Advanced flashes are given to research which they can unlock for high technology points. Flashes now also use cells as batteries. Budget flashes get a shitty 5 use battery while normal flashes get a 50 use battery.

I do not like how the flash works currently. It's only useful against cyborgs, and is just ridiculously silly against humans because of how weak it is. On humans, it's a 2 second laughable screenblocker with no additional effects. The code is a mess as well. I want to just scrap everything and make a new flash with HRP worthy effects. Current plans: Don't implement stun. Add an actual battery charge to flashes. Battery charge determines how many times a flash can be used before the flash needs to be recharged. A flash can have an upgraded battery, if desired. The bulb of a flash can still burn out if used too frequently. Add different variants of flashes researchable by R&D. Causes temporary blindness for 2 seconds. (ACTUALLY USES THE BLIND SYSTEM INSTEAD OF JUST THE FLASHING SCREEN) Causes blurry eyes for 10 seconds. Causes disorientation (chance to move in a different direction) for 2 seconds. Causes slow (movedelay increase) for 2 seconds. Causes clumsiness (current method of clumsiness will need to be reworked, easy to do) for 2 seconds.

The flash nerf wasn't needed in the first place. That's being proven with the amount of irritation given to security members struggling to arrest kids. I would've been fine with the nerf if there was a buff to security's other tools, but for some reason that remained an afterthought, and as far as I know there have been 0 buffs/reworks to other tools to compensate for this.

You don't need a whitelist to play the antagonist................its in the post.............. I just read the first paragraph and read "antmen" and that was my only concern.

It seems like a gamemode that would be rarely played to the requirement of having an antmen blacklist, however this can be fixed if you just have humans working for antmen.

Care to er... elaborate?

And that's why we need this system. Antag whitelist applications will have a lot of feedback. There is no system that would completely eliminate bad antagonism. There are still regulars who are absolutely garbage when it comes to being an antagonist, and even further, there is a really lax definition on whether or not an antagonist is bad or good according to staff. I recall several situations where I ahelped a shitter antag and staff have replied with "it's okay tbh" including but limited to: - A MALF AI stealth nuking the round, and then while people were actualling roleplaying in the holodeck, locking everyone in and then activating carp which proceeded to put people into crit. It was okay because "well no one died and the AI needed to escalate" - A raider posing as a crewmember, asking to be let into cargo because there are raiders out there I knew oocly they were a raider occly but I let them in anyway to see what would happen. I was then promptly whipped into crit, and had my PDA, ID, and Radio stolen. I would've bled to death if I did not print a radio headset from the autolathe. This was okay because "they didn't kill you and it provided conflict" despite the fact that I was in surgery longer than it would've took to actually kill me and the conflict being jack shit. - A mod, or an admin, can't remember, deciding to choose the wonderful gimmick of going around and cutting everyone's limbs off as ninja. This was deemed acceptable because no one died. - Multiple occasions of shit-tier MALF players throwing their cyborgs under the bus because they were unable to provide an actually interesting gimmick. With a antagonist whitelist it will allow people to give and take feedback when it comes to previous antagonist encounters so that antagonists and hopefully prevent antags from being bad in the future.

It's been about a week since they were introduced and given how many people have messaged me over discord about them, I think a feedback thread is necessary. So the #1 thing I've been getting is that science is garbage and not giving out kinetic accelerator upgrades. If this happens more than half of the time then I will be introducing a "bugfix" that makes it easier to get kinetic accelerators outside of science, such as upping the drop rates in crates + warehouse loot. I will also be talking to arrow about making them purchasable from cargo. #2 thing is balance issues. People are either "THIS IS OP" or "THIS IS TOO WEAK" which depresses me greatly given how there are vastly differing opinions on this. Class E should be weaker than the old kinetic accelerator. Class D should be on par with the old kinetic accelerator. Class C should be on par with a maxed upgraded old kinetic accelerator. B and A should be above that. Current planned changes: - Remove the KA ability to dig holes, perhaps introduce a barrel that can dig sand instead of break rocks. - KA upgrades buyable from cargo. I'll let this thread sit for a week, and then introduce a patch containing changes that I feel is necessary.

It seems like a lot of people are also under the impression that robustness and practice is the #1 issue, which is likely my fault because I keep bringing up "new players who don't know how to play." When I include the word "play" in there, I am referring to actually knowing how to roleplay. Robustness isn't even a top 10 when it comes to why I think antags are garbage. Number one on my list is the fact that antags don't actually do anything to generate a story. You can learn how to actually do this skill by not playing a traitor role, which is why I'm scoffing at all the arguments that "oh it means they get to be traitor less and practice less."

1. Have you read the wiki on traitor roles? 2. How would you rate your ability to roleplay as an antag? 3. Do you have experience as antag in the past? To pass for 1 you'd need to say yes and prove it. To pass for 2 you'd need to be honest and the feedback in the thread will reflect it. To pass for 3 you'd need to be honest and have other people prove it. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that you're going to need to play 10 traitor rounds in order to get a special antag whitelist which isn't the case. All you literally need is one round, and if you're decent, you'll get a pass. It seems like this idea is now dead in the water given how the host literally said "this isn't going to happen" and coalf is still meming. This gives me immense depression because this is another issue that seems like it won't ever be solved.

Inexperience which can be solved by taking the time to bother to read the wiki or play the game for at least a month. I literally cannot give a shit how new of an antag you are, if you haven't bothered to put the effort in to actually know how to play your roll, then don't play at all. For a post complaining about anecdotal evidence this post contains a lot of... absolutely nothing. Purely meaningless hypotheticals that I think severely over exaggerate everything to a silly level.

I'd say lower the contrast a bit and make it slightly darker and it would be gucci.

"Antagban consistently bad antags" Keyword consistently. I've seen so many new players do utter and absolute fucking shit as antag and warnings can't be given "because they're new".

With the summertide rolling in, and the fact that regulars are absolutely still garbage at antag despite being here for 1+ years, I strongly believe that there should be a "Special Antag" whitelist for special antags. Aurorastation is known to have a problem with bad antags, but for some reason this issue is still unsolved because of how political the topic is. The time based-whitelist is an actual joke and doesn't stop anything, hell, when I first played AuroraStation, I played for a round, fucked off for a month or two, and ended up having every time-based thing unlocked just because of that. Special antags being the following antags: - Ninja - Wizard - Merc - Raider - MALF These are all rolls that require an intelligence higher than 2 IQ. More times often than not, rounds like these end up being garbage solely for the reason that the player doesn't have any experience and admins are usually way too forgiving for these players, some way more often than others. I strongly believe that in order to play any of these antag roles, you need a grasp on how to actually play traitor; which includes knowing how to actually drive a story and knowing how to play your damn role. It makes 0 sense that you need a whitelist for a CMO, yet a MALF AI with 0 experience with traitoring can still be a thing. A bad MALF can do a lot more damage to everyone's fun than a bad CMO who doesn't know how to do anything medical or RP related. I've included merc/raider in there as well because there is a serious issue with mercs being REALLY bad when it comes to teamwork, among other things. At the end of every bad merc round, I always see 3 random names I have never seen before, and kyres. Ideal plan: - Code whitelist system. - Implement whitelist system, leave it off for the time being. - Tell everyone who's interested to make a special antag whitelist. - Turn on the system in 3 months. I pray to all the gods in the known universe that this doesn't become just simply a discussion thread that fades into oblivion like 100% of all other threads that deal with the topic of bad antagonists.

The feedback here is i'm tired of seeing you treat people like shit, and I don't want to see you doing it with dev colors. This isn't about your code, it's how you've been treating people in your threads. Assuming you were willing to stop doing that, I would change my feedback. But so far, all i'm seeing is you refusing to budge or alter your behavior whatsoever. Instead, you claim we're the problem for being offended by how you conduct yourself, as you continuously make it a point to mock everyone who posts. The problem is you're conducting yourself more like an internet troll than a developer. Name anyone I've treated like shit and what I've said to give off the impression that I'm treating like shit and I'll attempt to explain why I've said/done those things.

It seems like this meme of not giving a care about feedback has gone long enough. I've chosen to ignore the posts accusing me of ignoring feedback because they lack actual truth and substance and they weren't worth addressing until now. There is a difference between me not listening to feedback and me not following feedback, and as it currently stands, I hear feedback. I read every post people make on feedback. I LISTEN to feedback. Whether or not I follow that feedback or not should not matter at all in the adult world but here we are. If someone leaves feedback I don't agree with, or is feedback of incredibly low quality, I acknowledge its existence in my head and only consider it as "this is what this person believes" as opposed to "this person speaks the truth." It seems like there seems to be a huge misunderstanding when it comes to what feedback means on the forums, and that it actually means something more than just your opinion. I don't have to follow through will anyone's feedback. No matter how right you think you are in saying something is shit or whatever, it is merely your opinion. I only code things that I have a drive to code. I don't have the drive to code something I don't agree with implementing unless it's to selfishly prove a point, such as giving kinetic accelerator upgrades a reliance on science. I'll say this again: Feedback are opinions, they're not facts. They can be based on facts but given how everyone seems to believe that they have a degree in game design and only post theories and conjecture, nothing in the feedback forums is based on fact which depresses me as a developer. When I think of the perfect feedback, I think of a post that gives a point, with evidence, and gives a suggestion. For example, the perfect feedback would be: "This kinetic accelerator is likely OP for this level, in the master branch, you would get a kinetic accelerator of this type after spending 4000 mining points but for this one, you only need 2200 mining points. I suggest making it weaker, perhaps reducing the damage by 25%-50% or increasing the cost. I calculated the DPS for it, and they both have roughly the same (20 old 23.333 new)" > isn't hasty to give a +1/-1; is reasonable > acknowledges that their opinion is an opinion through word choice > actually knows what the fuck they're talking about > uses facts/statistics > gives a suggestion to a solution > suggestions given are presented as suggestions, as opposed to orders The feedback I see here is: "-1. No, just NO. I'm tired of this constant power creep to mining, these kinetic accelerators are too strong, and it completely just invalidates any other way of mining such as C4 or the plasma cutter. I just cannot support this. Mining doesn't deserve any more additions, how about you buff science instead?" > -1 based on one issue > comes off as whiny > comes off as entitled > 0 evidence or statistics provided > no solutions provided > no attempt to actually convince me of anything > worthy of being laughed at There is a reason why -1s aren't actually counted for anything when it comes to non-devs leaving feedback, and this is one of them.

I'm ashamed to admit that I'm doing a bit of an experiment with this PR. People wanted mining to rely on science. I thought this was a shitty idea since science is unreliable, but a lot of people are claiming everything will go fine. If by the end of the week I am seeing science not giving a shit about mining,, I will move most kinetic accelerator upgrades back to the machine and remove the reliance on mining.

it is truly a wicked day when I discuss the feature dismissal system and not mention my actual thoughts regarding whether or not feedback matters or not (it does)

tbh for you nerds out there if someone other than me said that I said something It's likely wrong, this also goes for out of context screenshots -1 means nothing. it's the fact that whether or not if your -1 contains anything actually substantial, such as proper feedback and whatnot. A non-dev leaving a -1 means practically nothing compared to when a dev leaves a -1, as the -1 actually counts towards locking the thread. By extension, anyone, including devs, leaving a +1 means nothing. also by extension life means nothing

I'm not sure whether Burger does care for feedback or not but, well, yeah. It's kind of the impression I see here. He has said before that he'd rather see "+1 i like this" rather than a few paragraphs of a negative response. Don't know where on earth you're getting that from. tbh for you nerds out there if someone other than me said that I said something It's likely wrong