Bauser

Maybe that's because stealth and execution are boring and against the overarching goal of antagonists. Remember, their foremost charge is to drive roleplay. Winning is completely secondary. That's why we have rules against just silently ganking people with parapens and instakilling them like real murderers and raiders would. Security, being the wing of the station team tasked with confronting antagonists, need to abide by the same standards as antagonists: driving roleplay first and trying to win only second. If the stun baton shuts someone down in one touch, then it's functionally the station team's parapen. And as such, I would subject it to the same rule as the parapen: if you're going to do it, make sure it's done to facilitate roleplay instead of to simply win.

I trust the tactical belt will also be able to instantly load a single magazine-fed weapon? Because that's a great fighting tool as-is, avoiding the hassle of juggling hands mid-combat. Definitely looking forward to this - lower accuracy and more bullets means more collateral damage, and that's always fun.

The new kitchen remap also does not have a requests console

+1 I started to think there might be a problem when I answered a bounty of 3000 credits for 3 plates of carrot fries But an 8000 credit hot dog really takes the show Either make the bounty values much lower (1/10th is a good estimate) or make the bounty items more rare

I'm with Kaed and Tish and Fowl in saying there's a big problem with making the illusion of SSD a tool for antagonist deception. SSD is supposed to be an out-of-character consideration that lets other players know that someone is not present in the round at all. As soon as we give it the function of an in-character label or gameplay mechanic, we've completely muddied the waters as to whether it means something IC or OOC in a given situation. Anybody who loses connection during the round could plausibly be investigated as a victim of antagonist misdirection, and anyone who's a victim of antagonist misdirection could plausibly be written off as someone losing connection. In summary, using an out-of-character tag as an in-character weapon is kind of... "cheating?" Because the way it deceives someone is by making them think that something out-of-character has happened, which is outside the scope of the game world. So it's very destructive from a roleplay perspective.

^Sounds like an invitation to turn antag/security interactions into nothing but boring powergamey asshole tactics. "Counter it better next time" means "use a 357 to kneecap anyone who looks at you funny, because they're going to make your round boring unless you make their round boring first." All these ways that rounds end in one hit are boring bullshit. We should get rid of them and encourage security and antagonists to give each other more lee-way because at the end of the day, they're supposed to be working together to make the round interesting and fun, not plotting the quickest way to shut everything down.

That could just mean no one has any objections.

How would a player act after they've been lobotomized? Would they retain any control at all, or would it be tantamount to death for the player?

regarding 1. Yeah, but he plays cargo, so he probably doesn't like that people can bypass his door. So trying to quietly cut that

I love the idea of letting changeling instantly morph into anyone they can see because having two of a person in front of you is better at creating panic and confusion than just the possibility of a changeling stealthily replacing one without anyone's knowledge. Not to mention, it keeps everyone in on the RP. +1 Is there any interest in giving changelings the ability of mimics like from the most recent Prey? That is, to shapeshift into any item or object they can see, too. I feel as though this would increase the delicious paranoia. And you can imagine the hilarity of a changeling who uses this to sow fear in people before going in for the violence. ... Not to mention the amazing breadth of possibilities if mimics somehow retained the functionality of the item they're copying, as well.

Also, it occurs to me... @ Burger: It takes some kinda nerve to accuse people of overreacting when this change is your personal crusade to start with. If it wasn't such a big deal, you didn't need to do it. When you didn't like the way the game was, you set out to make these changes - and yet, everyone who wants things to stay how they are is "acting like it's the end of the world?" It doesn't make any sense to say the people resisting the change are overreacting unless you acknowledge that the initiation of the change was, itself, an overreaction. Maybe instead of trying to change the way the entire game plays out mechanically, you should have just "stopped acting like it was the end of the world."

I am dedicating myself to only providing constructive feedback from this point forward. My suggestion for how to best improve these features is to completely abandon them.

If it is an acknowledged fact that this elevates the chef to one of the most mechanically important roles, don't you think it would be valuable to know if most chef players want to play a chef like that? So that they are always on a time-crunch, rushing to churn out a volume of food enough to sustain the entire station instead of taking the time to craft what they want to, with the people who actually want to roleplay with them? Because it looks to me like this is a great recipe for increasing the number of interactions for the chef and drastically lowering the quality of those interactions. By making people depend on the chef, they will despise having to do so. They will be in-and-out without consideration. You can "muh inhibiting progress" me all you want, but first you should ask yourself whether changing a role from being roleplay-focused to just a mechanical tool for keeping people's stats up is actually progress at all. It's antithetical to the spirit of the server (taking something that is currently based on voluntary participation and so naturally attracts the interactions of people who enjoy it and want to be there, and turning it into something that's just a grind to keep your spaceman good in combat), and it speaks to a tragic misplacement of priorities.

Another major problem with removing vending machines and forcing people to rely on the chef is that it mechanically imbalances the game in favor of the station team, further punishing antagonists just for doing what they're supposed to be doing. This would make it so an ousted traitor on the run is doomed to starve, since you've removed any pathway for someone to feed themselves as sufficiently as the chef can. We already suffer from the fact that like only a dozen people play as antagonists. There is no reason to make the game any more hostile towards them other than people's irrational thinking that the game is broken when antagonists win (or because you play as a chef and want to wield more power over people). I mean really, what are you thinking, making even all the game's combat revolve around whether or not they've bought your food this round or not, making hunger cause you to stun easier, AND basing the entire game clock around whether or not you specifically (since, let's recall, you are not making these PRs for the benefit of anyone else) are present at round-start. These ideas are embarrassingly bad. They elevate a civilian role that should be based on fun and fluff into a mechanical juggernaut that every other player depends on to accomplish objectives. I am awestruck by not only the magnitude of how bad these ideas are, but how easy it is to see how bad these ideas are.

In light of recent grievances with the joint-locking system, I suggest replacing joint dislocation with an upgraded form of cable-tie restraint: hog-tying. This would be accomplished by using cable ties on a subject who both 1) already has their hands bound by cable ties and 2) is lying on the ground. This type of restraint would prevent the target from standing, like dislocating their knees does currently. Like other physical restraints, it would be possible to struggle out of a hog-tie, but the timer required to do so would be longer than just cable restraints or handcuffs (to maintain this method's relative potency over other types of restraint). Hog-tying someone should take a similar amount of time as dislocating the knees does currently (again, to make this method a straightforward replacement for dislocating joints). Due to the ubiquity of cable coils, this method would be pretty much universally accessible, like joint-locking and -breaking is. And more importantly, it sidesteps a lot of the headaches associated with dislocations (essentially ending someone's round if they aren't attended to, legal/ethical implications of Security using the method, medical considerations to roleplay, 'should my character know how to do this?', etc.). Removing a joint from its socket without causing permanent damage is a complicated dance of anatomical knowledge and surgical execution; conversely, everybody and their mother knows how to wrap a shitton of rope around somebody. If this suggestion receives popular support, I would like to make a sprite to overlay onto a tied character so that everyone can immediately see that the person is wrapped in a coil of cable.

Can we job-ban Burger from chef for a month or two after these changes go into effect so he can evaluate their impact on other players? I only recommend this because it's public record that he implements changes for the purpose of serving his own in-game interests. Making him experience his own PRs from the other side might be the only way to help him meter their severity.

Okay, if its overt referential nature isn't a problem, what about... How will it be possible to code a weapon that bounces bullets off walls to hit people behind cover? If you can't see the person you want to shoot, how will you select them as the target? Or do you want it to just pick an available target at random after its initial impact?

Why not make future cars look futuristic? This Toyota concept really illustrates what I hope the future of the automobile is like - sleek and trimmed like current trends indicate, but totally visually retooled to suit advancements in the technology onboard, with a lot more automated features, tighter engine/powertrain, electronic displays overtaking the need for windows, and totally fucked up with wireless capabilities we don't even know we want yet. ... and here are some other concepts in the same vein.

Does aiming at someone cause you to fire if your target lies down? If not, that could be a good start.

Antagonists are the primary prescribed drivers of roleplay in any round that includes them; whenever they are present, they are the "event" that security and command sequester away from the rest of the crew. So, pretty obvious that they're a foremost concern regarding the connection between the crew and the round's roleplay content. And in that light, it bears repeating that antagonists (and disasters, danger, etc.) comprise most of the content that security and command keep from the rest of the crew because that's what security and command are tasked with doing: keep the crew away from the danger Events are dangerous Security's job is to protect non-security Therefore, security's job is to keep non-security away from the events Your plan to "just say yes" isn't going to work, because heavy roleplay pretty strictly demands saying "no" to an overwhelming majority of players' requests that would improve those players' interaction with the round. When a cargo technician asks the HoS, "Can I tag along on your team's manhunt, because I got a hold of this weapon through my department?" You can't "just say yes" because it's totally antithetical to your role. Gimmicks aren't the interactions that players are most commonly excluded from. Antags are.

That could be fixed with Burger's proposed kitchen/bar overhaul, so that might make a convenient testing ground for this new mechanic

Regarding antagonists and crew involvement: Security exists to be a wall between antagonists and civilians. It's designed to do that, it makes sense in-universe, and it does it very well. If you want to change that, you should get rid of the security department, so that every crewmember must rise to the challenge of the collective defense. Then, to compensate for the power difference between antagonists and crewmembers, you would want to either nerf antagonists or make it easier for crewmembers to arm and armor themselves in the event of danger. That way, everybody is liable to be included in the action. Unless you're willing to do that (and I totally am), I don't understand any complaint about civilians not getting to experience as much antagonist interaction as security. The game mechanics are doing what they are designed to do.

I'm a huge fan of "useless shit." Seriously, little flavor stuff like this is the workhorse of immersive roleplaying. And more chef mechanics is pretty much always good in my book.

A wonky half-way implementation could be making placeholder instruments that only give occasional TEXT messages describing that someone is playing. John Example plays a haunting refrain on the piano! Anne Example plays an uplifting melody on the violin! ... then repeat like once every ten or twenty seconds or whatever. All the flavor with none of the headache. I don't really like it, but it's feasible.