Bauser

woops it happened

@ climax: I don't think it's true that existing mechanics can achieve what this could. Even if we completely scrap the idea of poisoning it, leaving marks creates some persistence for something that can currently only be conveyed in the moment, to people immediately around you. @ Fortport: Well, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea. @ Tish: There's an acute suggestion that the person applying the lipstick to themselves knows to avoid licking their lips, while the target wouldn't know to make the same consideration. Alternatively, we could reason that the chemical stays trapped within the lipstick material, on yourself, until it is freed by applying it to someone else. Also, I don't think it's supposed to be "going through their cheek," but rather slowly ingested from lingering on their lips. So I guess, in order for both the title suggestion AND this poisoning suggestion to work, we would have to use targeting to draw a distinction between kissing targets - and applying the poison to be ingested would only work if the mouth was targeted, obviously. So, making it so you can target what zone you want to kiss fixes this problem. Though, admittedly, it creates some other problems. Obvious problems.

It didn't even occur to me that poisoning lipstick could be a thing, but I'm completely in love with it. It happens in Firefly that a con woman uses this method to administer a powerful sedative to knock out captain Reynolds. Just make it so that it doesn't happen instantly (requiring a quick progress bar). I assume a syringe would be used to insert a drug into the lipstick, and applying it to yourself would prime some units of it to be applied (E.G. syringe to insert 5 units to lipstick, then use lipstick on self to ready 5 units on your lips, and each kiss delivers 1-5 units randomly)? And of course, it would be mechanically identical to making them INGEST the chemical, not INJECTING it, since it represents the drug being taken by mouth. What we DON'T want to do is make it as effective or (god forbid) more effective than administering a chemical by more direct methods. That wouldn't make sense, and it would be really stupid if kissing people became the new meta for doctors.

I like the concept and don't see any particular drawbacks. I mean, there's a possibility of doing it by mistake if you have the wrong hand activated when you try to simply open the pack, or mean to put a cigarette back in, but the consequences of that seem pretty harmless. +1 Now for the riders. If we're doing a cigarette mechanics update, can we also make it so that 1) used cigarettes don't automatically fall out of your mouth and onto the floor and 2) cigarette packs can hold any tiny item?

Respectfully disagree

It's cute. Sometimes people get kisses. Making it visually apparent is a way to make that lead to other RP interactions.

If it gets implemented, I would much rather it be done by context menu (right click -> dump contents) than needing a specific intent. If it just requires a specific intent, that control is never spoken anywhere, so it's harder for people to figure out intuitively. AND someone clicking on a backpack in their hand while on disarm intent is just as likely trying to open the backpack just to access its contents, not wanting to spill it out. I have had moments where I knew this function would be useful, though, so I'm in favor of it. Again, just hoping it's all done in context menu. +1

A reason not to do it is that it limits the kind of experience that a cadet is "allowed" to be getting (by their title). One of the main reasons intern roles exist is to be a meta way for players to learn the ropes of a department, so drawing a distinction between which role in a department that a cadet (read: security intern) is "allowed" to shadow just makes it so that they won't be exposed to the other half of the work they are eventually signing up to perform. It's like Fowl said. Just tell them you're studying criminology or whatever and so are "supposed" to be tagging along with the CSI or detective.

1) I'm not sure that even an annoying little timer like that would inspire people to call an engineer to fix it, unless it's on an essential door that receives high traffic. Because if it's not a highly trafficked door, they can just start using it less, making sure they take care of everything they need to before leaving again, or finding a new route. 2) Even if they do call someone to come fix it, I'm not sure an engineer will always be available to perform the repair. Since the functionality of moving through the door is technically not broken (just slowed), it's a non-essential repair. Which means it gets put at the very bottom of the priority list for engineers, right down there with repairing vending machines that are launching their contents. And the station is always covered in those broken vending machines. Low-priority fixes just don't get done because engineers have more important things to be doing, typically. 3) Why does it make no sense to have light bulbs in the future?

Surprisingly, this would have actually been circumstantially useful for me at least once in the last couple weeks, when I received a lipstick-coated kiss from someone who was scared that I was dying in medical. It's cute. +1

Pretty much every day on the Aurora sees someone lose an arm or a leg, or get blown up, or shot... or immolated... or stabbed, or gored or strangled or poisoned. As such, we rapidly produce a lot of nasty biological waste. Limbs, organs, severed heads, you name it. So, what if we had a better way to compartmentalize this potentially dangerous rubbish? A biohazard-marked trash bin would serve as a proper outlet for disposing of trash that's liable to be infected or toxic. Used sharps (syringes, autoinjectors) and gloves from the medical bay would also be suitable for these vessels. So let's throw one of these in medical, one in the janitors' closet, and one on the research sub-level. My goal in suggesting this addition is to give a little more depth to the role of janitor. Our main function is mopping up oil and dust, but with more tools like this, we could serve in a more official capacity in response to biological hazards, or at crime scenes. Think Viscera Cleanup Detail. On that note, I really hope it could hold bodies/body bags (as the current trash cart still cannot).

That would be good. It just seems as though it would be valuable to give them some kind of mechanical limit (like all the blood-bound races have) to rune-drawing since the purpose of this system is ostensibly to make blood runes actually based on blood - so having to totally abandon that theme just to mechanically accommodate one race would feel very disjointed. I still think having bruises show up on the cultists is a fair enough price to pay. But maybe, if we reasoned that they only have to open up one cut in order to get all the blood they need, could we make it so that only the first rune they draw damages them? This would fix the problem of eventually covering their entire body in bruises, and as for the one bruise they will get... Well, damage can come from all over the place, so it definitely doesn't give away the fact that they're in the cult. Probably just a vending machine launched a soda can at them. Etc. ... And this way, the benefit of "symbolic" damage would be maintained.

Wouldn't it make more sense if having no blood made them completely incapable of drawing blood runes, by this system?

So by this change, it would cost blood but not cause any physical damage? How's that supposed to work in-character? Could we at least have it do like a tiny/symbolic amount of brute damage (E.G. 1 brute to hand) to represent that they have to slice themselves open to get to the blood? Other than that, I'm very in favor of this. If cult majyyks are supposed to work by blood, then I want them to be raiding medical for blood bags and IVs. Imagine, if someone's hooked up to an IV and has an attendant there to swap out the bags, they could stay in astral projection indefinitely. +1

When you're yelling for security to detain someone because they're supposed to be on a psychiatric hold, I would recommend using a more private channel than the public radio frequency. Maybe a PDA or requests console. It will make you seem much more professional and less like it's a personal grudge or anything.

Reporting Personnel: Korom Bhararaya Rank of Reporting Personnel: Janitor Game ID: bUx-c2fZ Personnel Involved: - Korom Bhararaya, Janitor - Witness - Jesse Armstrong, Security officer - Offender - Gabriel Riker, Chaplain - Witness - Vira Bolivar, Head of Security - Witness Time of Incident: 1230 Real time: 1635 EST, 25 May 2018 Location of Incident: Security wing Nature of Incident: []Workplace Hazard []Accident/Injury []Destruction of Property [x]Neglect of Duty []Harassment [x]Assault [x]Misconduct Overview of the Incident: I was called to clean the brig at approximately the time described above, and I immediately made my way to the security wing to perform the work. While in the security foyer, I was attacked by Gabriel Riker with a blade I later learned is described as an athame, in plain view of at least one security officer. In response, I physically struck Riker with my fist. Gabriel Riker was detained, and security officer Jesse Armstrong informed me that I was under arrest as well, for assault, despite the fact that I clearly acted in defense of self. At least one bystander, though I do not recall who it was, presently informed Armstrong that it would be improper to detain me. Nevertheless, he insisted. So, not humoring his attempt, I fled the scene. Jesse Armstrong pursued me, subdued me with a handheld flasher, and arrested me. He processed me by himself. Somehow, he gave me a twenty-minute-long sentence for this action, though I do not know everything he charged me with. While in my brig cell, I used my PDA to inform Head of Security Vira Bolivar of what had taken place. At this time, she informed me that she had specifically instructed officer Armstrong not to arrest me in response to the earlier incident. Knowing this, I contend that security officer Jesse Armstrong acted with blatant disregard for both corporate regulations and the chain of command. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: Vira Bolivar, Head of Security Actions taken: I informed Head of Security Vira Bolivar of the transgression via PDA, and so I was released shortly before the end of my sentence (after about 15 minutes of it had elapsed). It is my hope in lodging this complaint that further action be taken and officer Armstrong be held accountable under regulation i111 Failure to Execute an Order and i205 Illegal Detention, Arrest, or Holding. Additional Notes: Despite Head of Security Bolivar correcting my imprisonment, I was never informed whether or not the charges against me were stricken from my record, as they should be in the case that my arrest and detention were improper.

Well that's the point of making it only happen based on a relatively slim chance. If a laser only has a 10% chance of splitting, you can still shoot through a window without any problem 9 times out of 10. And that's really significant. Considering how few shots you generally take in a firefight to begin with, I'd say that figure is just enough to keep you on your toes and not so much that it'll force you to adapt your strategy.

If there was a single topic for minor suggestions, I would put this there, but there isn't. I suggest that when a beam weapon is fired through a window, the ray has a chance to split and fire multiple, weaker beams in random directions. I don't know if it should terminate the parent beam (blocking the shot) or simply weaken it (representing that a portion of the laser passes through unhindered). I don't know if it should be a high chance or a low chance - I'm feeling somewhere on the order of 10%? So it's a consideration when firing, but not a constant danger. Presumably, any tile within line-of-sight from the window (or glass airlock, etc.) would be a potential target for the child beams. The rationale for this suggestions is (as was recently brought up in another thread) that laser weapons' ability to fire through an infinite number of transparent barriers uninhibited is sufficiently powerful that other buffs for these weapons would generally render them overpowered. So, instituting a nerf like this could pave the way for later iterations of beam weapons with other buffs, like (as was also discussed in that thread) replaceable "cartridges" like battery packs.

I don't have a strong opinion as to whether these functions should be given to the Detomatrix for remote hacking or if they should be accomplished by manual breaking. But another possible ability would be muting a target PDA so that any messages sent from it don't actually reach the recipient, even though they appear to send. To clarify an ability mentioned earlier: spoofing another person's PDA identifier should, ideally, also make it so that texts sent to that person are rerouted to your PDA instead of theirs. If this seems too powerful (since it totally cuts that person off from PDA communication), a compromise would be to make it so that the texts meant for them are only sent to you if it's in reply to a message that you send. So, if you start a conversation and they hit "reply," they'll be talking to you - but if you start a conversation and they open the messenger to find the actual person's PDA, they'll instead start a new conversation with the actual person, tipping them off that there's a copycat. Of course, in the interest of making these changes as buff as possible, I would just prefer the first option - that it reroutes all their messages to you automatically, cutting the target PDA out of the communication loop entirely.

It kinetically accelerates the photons :^) Of course, it would make sense as just a laser rifle disguised as a kinetic accelerator. Since a crew member having a KA is no big deal, but having a laser rifle is. EDIT: This traitor KA wouldn't only be for miners, right? I don't even know if Aurora uses role-specific traitor items tbh.

Do cyborgs have any function akin to suit sensors that crew members wear? I.E. can their health and location be monitored remotely, the same way? Because if not, it seems like that would also be a feasible way to make sure that they don't just get lost and abandoned for an entire round. I know there's the console that you can use to detonate them, but I don't know what other information is on that console. If it can't already, it would be a good idea to add some telemetry functions to it, treating cyborgs as though they're always on full 'suit sensors.'

I thought even just unbuckling them and buckling them back in canceled the progress bar.

Doesn't just moving a restrained person cancel their escape progress? Like even just pulling them a single tile?

It makes sense that being stunned resets your progress entirely because, in the event that security or whoever is doing that to you, it represents the fact that they're not just stopping you from escaping immediately - they're resetting your binds so that you're properly restrained again. Therefore, you'd rightly have to start over again. This would only make sense in a scenario where somebody accidentally interrupts your escape, such that they don't want to stop you. -1

Why would you not get the body back if, as you claim, medical never fucks up that badly? Furthermore, the situation you envision ALSO perfectly describes the danger to medical personnel and the deceased player. Your comment could just as well read: "The issue is that when you have a dead crewmember and give the body to security you might not get it back ever." There's no forward indication that performing an autopsy will aid in an investigation, and security will be running around trying to prevent deaths regardless. You could even reason that focusing manpower on getting the body and evidence and prioritizing the autopsy would slightly weaken the team's present ability to provide security, since any officer who's helping to orchestrate the postmortem investigation is an officer who isn't out there projecting power or responding to reports. Because it might not have actually been them who killed the guy? The scenario I suggested is one where you're an antagonist and someone of interest to you (for any of the reasons I mentioned: need their stuff, want to frame them, assassination target, etc...) dies from any reason other than you killing them. And people seem to die plenty. And, just as before, your complaint about requisitioning the body from medical as security is doubly true of trying to requisition the body from security as medical. "If the head is preoccupied you're basically fucked" (and who's more likely to be preoccupied, the CMO, or the HoS?) "Medical can refuse to give you back the body" (Security can refuse to give up the body, too, but get this: between security and medical, which department do you think has the access to just storm into the other and take it back anyway?) "And it's depriving the conflict of one of the opposing sides" (The body doesn't stop existing just because you don't have control of it as a security player. There are other players in the game, too; viewing the round as just a conflict between security and the antagonists completely erases the role of everyone else on the crew.)