Jump to content

Boggle08

Lore Writers
  • Posts

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Boggle08

  1. Identity is a pretty big concept in IPC lore, and the avenues for it are skewed strongly towards being humancentric. From a lack of presented options, the self actualization process inevitably skews towards "wanting to be human", which is a narrative beat as old and derivative as Pinocchio or Frankenstein. Ever since the first directive lost narrative importance, this has only grown in prevalence, and the in-setting distinction between IPC's and humans is getting fuzzier. There are some factions that get into "post-human" territory, but they are either unplayable(Purpose, open exclusionists), or are under developed(Purpose again, current golden deep). This might sound like a rephrasing of Deseven's first question, but I'm specifically interested in how the setting itself can reflect the distinction between IPC's and humans, rather than just how you would advise people on it. How would you present contrast?
  2. I have doubts this would improve the science experience. Modular guns foster interest in and of themselves for science players to go off on their own and tinker with them; regardless if security will accept them or not. Modular weapons have their problems firstly out of sheer negligence, long before we consider other factors like their baseline concept. The worst case scenario for these changes, is that security remains accustomed to playing with their own toys, and science loses an activity to do with their endless free time in exchange for a bunch of modules that they have no use for. Security is already terrible at asking for help from Science, and it's more like our players to put their trust in something consistently accessible rather than sporadically available. Maybe these weapon modules and ammo types could do something positive, but I don't want to see modular weapons get sacrificed concurrently when there's barely any mechanics to supplement interest in science, and no guarantee that the weapon modules can fill that particular void.
  3. This is one one of the few roles that gets hardsuits without needing to be a head, or investing time and resources in acquiring them. Not sure about bridge crew, but FR's have the modules to get some immediate use out of them. I like how this role exposes people to Hardsuit use, it makes what the machinist can produce more valued. Most of the problems with medical are cultural, and most of the powercreep they've received are band-aid solutions made as a consequence to the weird fractured nature of medical's interdependencies. I know it's in style to beat down on them right now, but it won't fix anything if we don't think about what we're doing. There are better ways to ego check bad responders.
  4. I would be disappointed if we completely gutted science of its white collar, experimenting nature and turned it into the Nathan Drake department. Having played the role a bunch lately, the biggest strengths of being a scientist is being able to procure unorthodox solutions to problems, and the implicit ability to retain a freakish amount of cross-departmental job knowledge. I've had great moments of cooperation with the crew, except for security. Those guys either assume we're antagonists(at least one of us usually is), or they deliberately exclude us out of fear of admin wrath. The culture surrounding science is just as neglectful as the mechanics are. RND is honestly a chore, even if you're using tech processors, so it'd be better if we just started with it already done. A lot of people have been talking about wanting to remove modular guns, but in absence of other activities, they're a pretty big reason why people occasionally fuck with science at all. I would only feel comfortable seeing them gone if we had something to supplant them, or just heavily nerfed the high end combinations so people would feel comfortable accepting them from science again. Nerfing them would actually buff them. I still agree that science's future is primarily in the overmap, and on planets that aren't exoplanets. The Horizon's stated mission is survey, not just for Phoron, but for potential sites for colonization. A common complaint is that we don't really do our stated mission at often, and most of the described abilities of the Horizon's sensor systems only exist in event announcements, and the sector printout BC's get. I propose we make science not an exploration department, but a survey department. Modular probes and drones, expansion of integrated circuit functionality, planetary survey equipment and beacons; Climatology and Geology. Hell, we could even give them access to the Horizon's mystical sensor equipment, where they can operate and improve it's various functions(whatever they may be). The goal of science should be to help the Horizon complete it's actual mission, while making expedition/survey operations more convenient with probes, enhanced sensor readings, and drones. While still working on their little experimental passion projects. (Oh and xenobotany/xenobio should eventually have an expedition game where they bring in planetary xenofauna/flora for analysis).
  5. My position on this is pretty much this. Rather than continuing to expect antagonists to carry a 50 person server using something like four mercenaries, we instead introduce more roundstart spawns that have neutral or friendly involvement with the horizon that round, and slowly experiment with and tinker the third party spawns. Antagonist rounds have a habitual problem of turning the session into an active shooter simulation. Everyone just sort of stows themselves out of the way, and small talk becomes situationally inappropriate. Right now, our antagonists usually have just one A-plot. Even if you have something like Traitor, with multiple people out with different agendas, it's still one A-plot because security and command are supposed to fuck with them while the rest take radio callouts or keep out of the way. Imagine if we had B or even C plots stacked concurrently on top of the A-plot. The kind of plots which command a level of urgency for people to risk stepping out of lockdown to address them. Ship combat is a really good example of this. Like in the last event, we had boarders on top of ships to shoot at, Two vectors for intrigue running concurrently, involving multiple departments, and requiring people to step out of lockdown and contribute.
  6. I think the core issue is that antagonists and crew are held to different conflicting standards. We expect crew to create characters. They obey fearRP, they interact with a setting beyond a basic level of just a single, self contained round. They have to monitor their behavior in canon interactions, because consequences follow them. Antagonists are the complete and total opposite. They don't have the same tethers that ground them in the setting like crew characters; or at the very least, they aren't "mandatory." They don't have the threat of canonicity to protect what people do to them either. They are not beholden to concepts like fearRP that regulate their behavior, and it is practically a necessity for them to cede such things in order to frag better, carry a gimmick, or just to stay active in the round when everyone's hunting them. FearRP is ultimately the biggest regulator on species related mechanics, and the closer someone is to outright ignoring it, the more of a balance concern it becomes. Every round that doesn't immediately kick up into high escalation when the antag shows up is engaged in a cortisol inducing byzantine OOC trust game, where the antag is expected to spread around engagement while at the same time dealing with people who don't want to or refuse to play along; Even while that's happening, they have to build or retain what little credibility they have with command/security or else they'll escalate when the antag isn't ready yet. And that's all assuming the Antag is going in with the expectations of being a storyteller, because if you're new or acting in bad faith, getting antag just gives you an uplink full of guns and unshackles you from the accountability of HRP to do whatever. The solution as I see it is to bring antagonists under the same HRP standards, and redesigning them to behave like third party ships with different directives. Borging an antagonist is small potatoes. Meanwhile, we haven't even borged a third party actor yet, and it'll likely be a point of contention if we ever get there.
  7. Hey, we like your app so far. Just some questions: 1. With respect to Xrim and without, expand upon your character's sentiments on the Eternal. Do they have strong feelings about the dynamics back home? Are they curious about external interpretations of the Eternal? 2. Since your character likes to travel, where do they hope the Horizon goes? What parts of the wider setting fascinates them? Alternatively, where would they wanna stay the hell away from?
  8. I think the bone chem should be in the medivends. There's no reason for it not to be plentiful when it encourages more GTR work. This could be good for medical.
  9. Hello, DMed Brotendo questions, I will post the responses as well: 1. What are some ways you think lore can improve the immediate setting of the horizon itself? This also includes the sector overmap, and locations characters can access offscreen. 2. How do you think lore can improve character retention?
  10. It's really easy to click the wrong combination of tags, or even just attempt to navigate through item slot categories, and find yourself on a blank screen. The only issue with the previous system was that you sometimes had to scroll to get what you wanted. The categories were self evident in what they offered. With this current interface, I feel like a 1940's telephone operator, where I have to manually program the interface in order to get the categories and lists I want. At least since the last time I've played other servers, every single one has used a system similar or adjacent to the previous interface. This isn't just regulars grumbling over new bad old good, this is something that will confuse the hell out of everyone, if it can't accommodate the old way of searching through categories.
  11. I strongly disagree with this suggestion out of the principle of it being a retraction in what the XO directly presides over. Most of the functions of XO, such as flying the ship or organizing expeditions are meant to be delegated away to their bridge crew. It's a job where you spend all your time sitting around with your hands in your ass, aside from access changes and command functions which every command role is expected to perform. They would become the most redundant and vestigial organ in the command roster, more than they already are, as service generally runs itself. Nothing would really change much with how XO plays with this, but I don't want it to set the precedent that the XO is "complete". It would just become a Bridge QM, and the only reason it would have to hold onto command authority is to make decisions about where the ship goes.
  12. Upon further reflection, I have problems with the idea of us biologically programming strong tendencies towards Industrial consumption and an intrinsic motivation to be part of the eternal. Or the idea of Dionae, as a biological mechanism, having clearly defined and definitively set parameters that motivate and guide them. At an individual character level, this will result in a dichotomy of characters either fully accepting the ontology laid out before them on the wiki, or spitefully rejecting it, which is something that has been seen with so many other backgrounds in different forms(Dominia and the Trinary come to mind). I think it will not bring anything new to the table in terms of interaction. At a macro setting level, however, it will become less ambiguous as to whether or not Dionae are good for the Orion Spur. It will make more sense for most factions not to engage with them, and treat them like an active liability. The writing for the Cravers in ES2 suits that respective setting and gameplay: They are meant to cover the entire board through conquest before the resource depletion mechanics of their systems seriously cripples their war effort. They enslave, then eat, the people they conquer. They do not even get most diplomacy options. If we were to borrow from this direction too closely, we'd have more in common with Hivebots and the Lii'dra by the end of it. At worst, we'd have to start contriving reasons for Dionae to be playable on the ship. For me, one of our species' greatest strengths is their ambiguity. They are insanely long lived, having the potential to have encountered other species not seen within and without the Orion Spur, and a lifespan and memory that reaches far back enough to predate almost every single current power in the spur. My interest in them as a fabricated life form has a more Lovecraftian spin on it, where we don't know to what end they were made for, what they are capable of, whether or not they've lost their purpose, or if that purpose is simply being subconsciously carried out or laying dormant until the conditions are right. I believe this uncertainty is more appealing, as it allows entities external from dionae to come up with their own interpretations and theory about the nature of the species, and for dionae themselves to speculate as well. At the individual character level, it provides our base with an internal struggle with an existential bend. Whether or not you have free will, or if you're just going to disassociate one day into becoming a tendril of The Makers. For now, I still prefer you as a candidate for Lead Dionae Writer, but I have to know if we can consolidate our ideas and work something out once you're in. I do like what you're presenting for the most part, and there are Dionae factions that do and don't exist yet that would benefit immensely from this direction, but I don't think it's to our benefit to use them to define the entire character of the species.
  13. Someone's been paying attention to our dev chat with the Craver/Bioweapon bit, lol. I definitely want to us to lean harder into the species' more monstrous qualities. I was drafting an application myself, but given that I'm under a lot of external time constraints(full time warehouse job + college), I feel more confident with Cael returning back to Dionae lore. For now, I have three inquiries: 1. Improving our character retention is a huge concern for me, and one of the major issues I have with the species right now is that both playable forms on the station have been feature-crept into mechanical obsolescence. I've been theory crafting myself on ways to improve their QoL, while making them balanced and less frustrating to fight, but I wanna hear your thoughts and what you'd be willing to do to improve the state they're in. 2. The Eternal has been a focus of mine, as for a time, they were set up to be a major driving force in Dionae lore. I've quietly been setting the stage for a major rework involving them, but I'd like to hear your direction for them, and how they will compare to the CT-EUM under your tenure. 3. Themes. For a while, I've been trying to establish a thematic center for the species, concentrating on a competitive dynamic between Spiritual Idealism and Amoral Materialism. The proto-cultural bit I published a while ago was a step in that direction. I'd like to hear your overall thoughts on discerning themes for the species, so we can compare them.
  14. You know, It's been talked about before, but losing the Odin and Biesel as external entities has crippled our ability to develop characters autonomously. There are fewer things for characters to pursue in their spare time, and less places to go on outings. Only the residential deck, and variable shore leave options that don't stick around. I think because of this, interest and character growth has become extremely dependent on whatever lore is working on. The last time any of my characters had a major personal change was due to the fallout of an article arc that affected them. There's a lack of external stimuli or incentive to change otherwise. You work, then go back to your cabin. I still want the ship, but, I think we might have to consider ways to replace the extended setting we previously had. Even if it's just a fleet of ships that trails behind us or something.
  15. Really I think a big reason as to why the retention rate is so bad is just because of that mentality. That "I won't play with what I don't recognize" mentality. That's inherently a barrier to entry for new people, and kills investment from people who want to try new shit, or are tired of doing the same thing. Establishing a "regular character" takes like, a month minimum before people start to remember you and treat you as a familiar entity. Less depending on your timezone and how often you're going at it on a weekly basis. I've seen interesting looking concepts come and go, seemingly because of a lack of engagement. Character retention requires investment not just from the player, but their peers.
  16. I think knocking this out of secret is a better incentive for people who want to rework the gamemode to improve it, instead of just keeping in rotation. Getting it back will require action, rather than just brainstorming and theory crafting about how the gamemode could be better.
  17. Eh, it's really something I've only noticed by playing them in the role. If you're bringing just the default mining kit, you're prone to getting rushed down by some of the more dangerous exoplanet spawns, and unable to walk out of the blast radius of your own KA. Lorewise we can say they can build up tension in their arm by forming it into an atlatl-like structure. Throw distance doesn't have to be exceptional, since ideally, they'd be throwing shit around in zero-G, where it don't matter.
  18. I'd rather not further nerf the species I maintain. These guys share a natural environment with space carp, sharks, and eels. This just cuts out options for a playable species that already has few, especially if you're mining.
  19. It's a net nerf to the crew as well, in my view. This makes a matchup between antag vs crew more skewed, which becomes exacerbated when you introduce conditions such as population size or a lack of command/security to act as a buffer. The survival rate of hostages will certainly plummet.
  20. This is going to do weird things to medical, if implemented as is, in the long run. Medical does have enough of a groove now to keep most of their patients stable, even under intense pressure/gaps in specialized staff, but making everything flatly more lethal is just going to raise the skill floor and the expectations from medical over time. Knowing how medical behaves, there'll be a period where more people are declared dead in the sensors console, then the meta will adapt to meet the demands of the additional lethality. On the whole though, I'm very wary of anything that dramatically bumps up the lethality or TTK of combat, because it starts to resemble stun combat that skips over the stun part and just kills you. I'm also not a fan of anything that makes the disparity between regular crew VS. security/antagonists wider. I don't care how true to life it is, no one likes playing as a GTA Bystander NPC. I still think the test is a great idea, though. I disagree with the current implementation as a final product, but something like it could introduce more variation into round outcomes.
  21. Although I've become comfortable being able to do everything, I think differentiation is ultimately the way to go. Implementing the small changes listed by the OP could set the precedent for a new design outline for both roles. I think I'll add onto it by saying that atmospheric technicians should be given more tools to remotely manipulate and analyze the subsystems they preside over, more efficient equipment at regulating the quality of the air, and better tools at combating fires. On the old station, we actually had consoles that could keep tabs on the state of distribution and disposals, and I think we'd also benefit from consoles that can remotely manipulate electronic valves in the place of the manual valves affixed to the phoron supply. Myazaki mapped in atmospheric substations a while ago, I think we can refine the concept further in the long run by remapping these so that there's one on each sublevel, and they feed that particular level they're on. Atmospheric technicians can get their own RCON substation program for these life support reserves, in order to offset cases where high volumes of damage control are depleting distro to critical levels.
  22. I've seen other captains get slapped for putting red up right close to the end. A command whitelist has a lot of OOC expectations that kind of box people into playing a particular way, beyond what could be ICly plausible or acceptable. Knowing how things are, it might be best to include a bolded note on the ship procedures page about it. It'll prevent people from incriminating themselves.
  23. Hey, I'll take that. Fixes half the problem, doesn't have the logistical complications, and it actually got to polling. I feel like any kind of vote or polling about medical's features in the future needs like, a 60% majority or more from the no camp in order to slap it down, because look how productive these threads are.
  24. There isn't any clever or intentional design motivating this behavior. The problem is that people are storming past their crew members in favor of antags regardless of context. It happens too often and too quickly to the point where command can't catch it(often because they're too busy dying to enforce anything). It could be a code red, no-holds-barred situation that concludes in a messy mercenary shootout at 2:30, and the medical team will still play irrational favorites. There's nothing IC or lore friendly about this, it's people who aren't being aware reverting back to their programming. Look at canon events, people don't do this shit because it kills people from sheer negligence. If they play games, their friends get PKed and they might even get hit with an IR. Both OOC incentives and IC policy incentives right there. We could use some of that. Having some kind of policy outline for people to be aware of, and be subject to in egregious cases, is enough to autonomously regulate this behavior. Because no one is calling each other out, or applying the social pressure necessary to keep it to reasonable levels.
×
×
  • Create New...