LordFowl

The feedback thread is for feedback regarding the PR. If you think the PR author's motivations are purposefully malicious, I encourage you to express that idea in the appropriate channels, aka a staff/player complaint. A feedback thread assumes that a PR is being made with benign motivations.

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/6103 This PR has two main components. 1) Females and gender-neutral individuals receive 80% the per-shift wage of male employees. 2) Marginalized species and females are less likely to be selected for certain jobs. This PR is intended to represent a form of prejudice that is implied but never touched upon in the lore, despite the heavy focus on species and national prejudices. To prebake a few arguments: 1) No, this is not a shitpost/joke/meme/dramapost/cry for attention. No, it doesn't matter what reddit thinks. 2) "We play this game to escape from reality". Tell that to the past 20 lore arcs that have painstakingly traced the trade value of the sol credit and its economic impact on the price of grain. Our game is grounded in reality, and uninvasive features such as this that make the game more "realistic" (I prefer more granular/simulated) can't be dismissed on those grounds. 3) "If it's not fun, why bother?" I don't really know why this would be considered unfun. That's something you have to prove. As far as I am concerned, this PR is fairly low-impact and uninvasive. Wages aren't hugely relevant and 80% of 0 is the same as 100% of 0. The mechanics of job selection are so arcane that people already have a plethora of variables to blame. 4) "If it's unimpactful, why bother?" Why not? Furthermore, the second chunk of the PR was created after the first chunk. I am considering canning the first chunk in favor of focusing on the second (ie instead of outright reducing wages imply that the wage gap exists because marginalized groups are less likely to be hired to high ranking positions consistently)

Energy weapons requiring direct charge as opposed to ammunition feeding is a conscientious choice to make the distinction between the weapons more impactful. What this thread screams out to me is not that energy weapons are too weak, but due to years of gun-nut powercreep ballistics have become too powerful and widespread. Voting for dismissal, although the problem of ballistic powercreep may be looked into independently.

Voting for dismissal. I don’t really see how this makes “cloning more complex”. Cloning still requires the exact same number of steps, you just need a sleeve to bd intact now instead of a brain. Indeed, I’m inclined to think it makes cloning even easier as all you need now is a single organ from the deceased, and you can keep bodies in reserve.

Yes, but obviously it is constantly updated ie it is damaged when the brain is also damaged because elsewise when you get cloned via neural lace your memories are wiped for the entire round + foreseeable past.

Speaking of traumas, it seems reasonable to me that brain trauma would also damage the neural lace, ie roboticists will also be necessary alongside psychologists/chemists in repairing brain traumas, provided that the subject wants to be cloned in the near future.

PR implementing this here; https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/6084/files

I think I've already been over that, too.

I think I've already been over that.

I would also like to say that Skull's analysis of bloat ignores a third of the ratio - gameplay bloat. Codewise I personally have ideas where it being a "disability" would actually not be that bloatful, lorewise I've long ago given up on, and gameplay wise having it be a species is bloat. Don't believe me? Let's walk through it. 1) The most obvious repercussion is that it creates another entry on our species selection screen. Not terrible but certainly not great, especially since IPCs (who in many ways define bloat) already occupy a large chunk of this real estate. 2) Applying it to nonhumans amplifies this bloat, and so we create an arbitrary limit specifically in an attempt to cost-optimize our bloat. 3) It's a subspecies, which on their own tend to be just replications of the major species with a few wrinkles. This is alleviated greatly in the fact that all species are practically (although not technically) children of the human species, but it still can create wrinkles if we try to create further mechanics regarding subspecies. You can see this in action with code currently attempting to handle IPCs. Everything mechanical for an IPC needs to be consider about 5 extra times because of the five subspecies and the minor but distinct differences between them. I disagree with skulls depth to purpose ratio analysis. I don't think the mechanics of this species are deep enough to justify creating another subspecies. I do however think that making it a "disability" represents an interesting scenario that should be investigated. Skull is write in that this would require some additional back-end bloating (because while the "disability" datums are not currently designed to do this I think I can figure a few ways to replicate a lot of these features using them.), I think that the code minor bloating there can be cost-optimized a lot better than the major gameplay bloating here. Some advantages of it being disability based: 1) The species selection screen remains uncluttered and obvious. 2) We remove a child species (Children species can cause some unexpected inheritance behaviors). We should really only be creating children species if they have very deep mechanical impacts. Really I would say only if we need to insert things into spawning or life(). Minor variable coefficient changes can be done in a plethora of better ways imo. 3) "Disabilities" are not inherently attached to any given species, meaning that we can create a disability for "space adapted" and it is a template that can be applied to any species. I think this is one of the biggest points in favor of disability, because it removes the arbitrary cost-optimization I mentioned above. I disagree with the idea that this cannot be implemented via "disability". I can already think of a few easy ways to replicate half of this using code that already exists. The only problem that requires serious consideration imo is incorporating the RIGsuit limitations into disability. Analyzing gameplay bloat is a complex and tricky substances. IPC subspecies represent the worst bloating pretty much imaginable. Each one is pretty much just an icon change and a few changed variable coefficients. It's even worse because we already have a prosthetics system that can handle this. Aut'akh, for all their flaws, represent something that pretty much can only be done via subspecies, because they have so many unique organs compared to baseline Unathi.

You can join Coalf in reading my post where I asked and answered that same question.

*the rig itself and an entire fucking species No spacer has been alive for 300 years. Space adaptation is not inherited. Artificial gravity is becoming more and more common. I wouldn't exactly call it lore friendly, although some not unreasonable changes have been made to account for questions that previously were not simply answered. Bold of you to presume that any of us who don't like this supported the Aut'akh either.

I appreciate taking the 22 minutes and 33 seconds to find the thesaurus, but now I see you're a bit of an asshole. I'm glad it took you three replies to reach the conclusion I already drew in my original post, so you can go back and read what my thoughts on this alternative are (Protip! Start at "If it is because artificial gravity is so uncommon as to allow a significant population of spacers to be available to the Aurora..." and read onwards! You'll find it eventually bud!) And new gameplay is being introduced - its an entire new species, in fact. Species are one of the most visible aspect of gameplay, and are very sensitive to bloat. I agree that some PRs need to be more bloat proactive. If only our staff were not so bloat-prone.

A feature of your reading miscomprehension - simply because the sentence contains the same words does not mean it contains the same meaning. English 101, folks (Although even this does not excuse the misinterpretation because my exact question was why are there so many being born now, but I'm sure you just glossed over that minor context). In this case you misinterpreted my question as "why do they exist on station all of the sudden", which presupposes that this is both canonically a new addition as well as mechanically, when in truth I've made it quite clear that I don't care about that - in fact a precept of my argument is that spacers have always existed, just not been mechanically represented. Your answer however does not connect with the justification Jackboot gave - it doesn't matter how long there have been spacers because space-adaption is not an inherited trait, as Jackboot has said - it is the result of being born and raised without gravity. So those past 300 years without artificial gravity matter exactly zilch, all we care about is these current 50 years with it. You are incorrect if you assume "bloat" refers explicitly to what exists in the codebase. While that is true, the loredevs are not responsible for what exists in the codebase but is not available in game. This change is bloating what is available in game, not what exists in the codebase. Codebase bloat is still a problem, but it's mostly just a maintenance issue. Gameplay bloat is something more complex, and can't be justified as "Well, it already existed in code but just wasn't available, so we good now."

If you read what I wrote instead of just looking at it you’d know I never asked why so many now (as in all of the sudden), but why so many at all. I find it amusing that we consider xeno spacers bloat but not human spacers. My comments regarding mechanics is not a desire for more but an intuition that there is not enough to represent and justify.

Then why are more spacers being born now that there is artificial gravity? If it is because artificial gravity is so uncommon as to allow a significant population of spacers to be available to the Aurora, why aren’t there any xeno spacers, as all xenos have had access to space long enough for there to be a generation able to be born in space, and xenos are even less likely to have access to artificial gravity than a significant population of humanity. Answering this question was unnecessary when space-adaption was purely roleplay, and I don’t think this species mechanically represents enough to justify creating such a divide, nor that there is enough to mechanically represent.

Zero-grav adaption is not genetic, so the idea that "They have been conditioned by centuries of living without gravity; more than any of the alien species." is spurious considering that the current generation of "human spacers" experience the same exact problems as all other xeno spacers, thus this idea does not nullify the complaint that you would see xeno zero grav adapted as well. This was not a problem back when being a spacer was not a mechanical issue.

The term "Space-Adapted Human" seemed quite precise to me. Not sure why it was changed to "Offworlder". Offworlder doesn't even sound like a good species name in general. Some variant such as "spacer" is still as vague but sounds better. Also why are only humans space adapted? Surely all species have members who are adapted to space? Back when this was just a feature of a person's background and possibly roleplay the fact that everyone was identical mechanically was acceptable because everyone was identical mechanically. Now only space-adapted humans exist mechanically but everyone else doesn't. Tbh I don't think space-adapted humans should be a subspecies at all on that grounds alone. Their cultural items could still exist.

Adding new subspecies to humans of all things definitely is very much bloat, by the way.

Democracy was god's mistake.

Why shouldn't having an FLB be a death sentence?

It would indeed be pretty difficult to incorporate a whitelist without a whitelist.

This PR is a poor solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. RIGs are meant to be versatile - this should be obvious by the fact that they replace your backpack. Arbitrarily restricting RIGs to a certain catalog of pre-approved modules is utter nonsense. A more suitable restriction to RIGs would simply be adding a limit to how many modules they can have, without restricting what kind of modules those are.

If you don't want to or are unsure if you're able to teleport larger objects, then just don't?

Wearing a jacket over a spacesuit would look pretty dumb.