Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LorenLuke

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I didn't say you breathe in external atmospheric air, but just that the pressure that the Life() proc (or whatever handles lung damaging) uses when determining whether to shred someone's insides is based off the maximum of the two. If you have no internals, then that's the maximum of 0 and Atmo. If you have internals, then it's the maximum of the internal pressure and the atmospheric pressure. Having lung damage being from a pressure gradient would be a solution, I just worry about edge cases of having your lungs sucked out through a breath mask when you open a low pressure bottle.
  2. Three code changes- Make it so that lungs rupture with a greater than 90kPa difference between breaths. Make it so that lungs use the max of exterior atmo and internals pressure in use for the pressure calculation. Make an exception for pressure suits.
  3. Worth noting then is that handcuffs (which are not inordinately difficult to obtain) constitute a significant resist time. What happens if someone has handcuffs on and is spiked? Which would you resist out of, first? Would you even have a chance of surviving on your own? This, I'd be okay with.
  4. IIRC, the problem in so doing is that it's an instant kill. One bad disarm against you in the freezer and it's basically death, if that's the case.
  5. I know I am. But my recollection of that is that it's laggy, hence wondering if something like that without lag even possible. That said, it adds the 'run in terror/panic' effect, provides flavor for what's affected (and also affecting non-mobs), and does the same thing (ICly) as the nuke would.
  6. Possible alternative, don't know how lag heavy it might be- Just make an atmosphere-blocking 'bluespace' tile that replaces the tile it's on. This slowly spreads from its tile until it's surrounded by others (on all sides), then winks out into nothing. Make it travel through walls/doors more slowly, and have the weird gibbing/matter destabilization effects only be at random within a tile or two. So you have this relatively quickly (2/3 walking pace) expanding, all-consuming thing. Code wise, each one can just... Look for turf/simulated around it, change it, then when it's surrounded by bluespace turf, change to a different tile with just a space appearance (saves on processing power). Touching the bluespace tiles means instant death. And it eats everything. Suffice to say, if you have a nuke, it's basically doing the same thing as this.
  7. Why not have a set of canned phrases which generate randomly and are assigned to the player? 'The <person> in <the room/department>...' e.g. 'The janitor in Medbay...', 'The detective in Maintenance...', 'The Captain in the Library...', etc. 'There's <a hazard> in <the room/department>!' e.g. 'There's a fire in here!', 'There's a breach in Cargo!', 'There's a blob in Engineering!' Similar stuff to dreams, just generated to be slightly more logical (and obviously, this phrase wouldn't change over the round).
  8. So one is oversight and one is paperwork? The question becomes two-fold: OP appears to levy the issues of 1) Nobody plays it, 2) It interferes with roleplay in the performance of IAA duties. With regards to these issues, why would someone (besides current IAA players) want play a paperwork-heavy role? If this paperwork role is unfilled (presumably having IDs falling to this role as stated), would the responsibilities of the paperpusher fall to the other? What difference would there be between this oversight role picking up slack, and just merging HoP with IAA? Which of the split roles is higher in the CoC? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea as a solution, but there's still a lot questions that I have.
  9. I find it interesting that the occurrence of extended in secret is viewed as some sort of waste or annoying or somesuch, but look at what's happening- You walk into a sandwich shop and tell them 'surprise me'. You become upset by the fact they've given you chicken nuggets in a sandwich shop, paying no nevermind to the fact that you're surprised at such an outcome (and pleased as punch, having got exactly what you asked for), instead of annoyed. I don't understand why this is so negative, really. Sec patrols the whole time, instead of being "guaranteed" nothing will happen (save for spiders or somesuch). Everyone else goes about their business doing jobs and reacting organically to conflict. People roll with IC conflict to extreme degrees more because they have no certainty that the attack isn't antagonist motivated (versus mashing F1 in an extended round and mentally preparing to watch for a changeling in the voted changeling round). Secret extended is, in my opinion, the absolute bread and butter of SS13 mayhem in purest form, as people's paranoia become the antagonistic force to drive the round, all while banking on the surety of the presence of some then-absent antagonist. Nothing else can capture that as much as SExtended. Hard no on removing Secret Extended from me.
  10. Just a point of curiosity regarding this, if there is no need to do so, what then is their responsibility beyond 'develop PRs to custom tailor the game to their wants and needs'? How is there proof, without interaction, that they've not ignored feedback versus having evaluated it fairly and chose to not Incorporate it, especially if they do not reply? If two developers create an unspoken agreement to always merge each other's PRs, what does that do for any feedback, since conditions of merging are met and no discussion is had? In either of the above cases, would it not be negligent of developer staff to not, at least on some level, engage with feedback?
  11. >Small or professional While the former is, barring some sort of cap on membership to any 'kool kids klub', out of one's hands the second one certainly isn't. Is it professional right now? Maybe not. Is there anything preventing staff from treading in that direction? Only hearts and minds. It's there any downside to becoming more professional? Possibly, but none that I fathom that wouldn't be outweighed by the benefits reaped. >will We have situations presently where people will get charged up, and act or speak in ways that end up being in violation of one or more rules. Staff, I would hope, do not allow this fact of a player's emotional involvement coloring their attitude to prevent those actions and words from being moderated. I can invoke mention of several discord and player bans that were applied because cooler heads didn't prevail. And even an incident where no punishment is given, that doesn't mean a lack of action or administrating was had. So, I ask you directly- what does such a policy hurt, and why are your statements indicative of an apologist for staff inaction, when the concern raised can be tied to clearly evidenced issues that would be solved by implementing such a policy? What is the downside but that staff, heaven forbid, might be made to be slightly more accountable for moderation than before?
  12. The biggest issue is there use of language which can be considered a 'value judgement'. If you describe any idea as 'retarded' (or for that matter, 'autistic', 'idiotic', 'asinine', 'stupid') it immediately is interpreted that those who agree with such an idea also are the above for doing so, or at the least, the creator of whatever the concept or idea happens to be. You might say 'How can I express my thoughts when saying so is so clearly fact?' Then describe what the PR or concept does/n't do. Value judgements cannot do this. A PR that is objectively bad at solving some issue that it was designed to solve can't be 'retarded' at doing so, despite it being objectively bad at accomplishing its task. An idea that fails to resolve a conflict does not do so 'stupidly', it just merely doesn't. So if you want to really want to clamp down (possibly excessively so) on preventing being a dick with regards to PR feedback or forum feedback/discussion, remove 'is' statements, as it's impossible to make value judgements without something 'being something'. But one can always express bad (or good) concepts by what they do. 'Giving the detective rubber bullets is a bad idea' vs 'giving the detective rubber bullets will not solve the problem you think it will.' 'Adding a third synth slot is a good idea' vs 'Adding a third synth slot will allow the AI to project greater functional presence into the refund and increase synthetic RP between stationbounds.' Even harsher and more abstract criticism can still be levied: 'this idea is fucking idiotic' vs. 'I don't see any upside to implementing this.' As for administrating such a(n admittedly rather excessive) policy, the line is very clear- no 'is' statements/value judgements.
  13. If people vote for extended, why is there a need to throw in dollar-store antags into the fray? All these 'actors' appear to be are bargain basement antags without license to instigate conflict. Make them an event if you want, but if you need to spice up things in the roleplay-only mode in your roleplaying game on a 'high' (quality and amount of) roleplay server, I dunno if it's being done correctly.
  14. Don't be a dick. We're all here to have fun, not fight and argue with assholes. Don't ruin the game for everyone else, and use common sense. This includes anything from attacking other people, starting arguments over nothing, etcetera. Note that this rule applies primarily to OOC, LOOC, AHELP, and DEADSAY.
  • Create New...