Kintsugi

Well, it isn’t necessarily a non-serious suggestion. I, personally, don’t believe in it very much. However, time and time again I do see people make the case that security is a net detriment to the server and we’d all be better off removing it. To be frank, I made this thread so those discussions aren’t just kept in the discord. Consider this a brainstorming or a discussion thread.

Legally-sanctioned validhunting militias. Likely the cargo department.

Because the last thread went nowhere. There seems to be this persistent mindset a minority within the community possesses, one which states “Security is bad and ruins everything”, to paraphrase. There is also a more prevalent us vs. them mindset that exists between traditional security players and people who don’t really touch the department. Please discuss and debate the merits of removing security here, so this talk isn’t just relegated to the occasional appearance in the discord. Thanks.

The current sprite is not actually old, believe it or not. It was done mostly from scratch by Amory to replace the much older and much more hideous sprite from Baycode

those .45s are cute, though they kinda remind me of the magnum from halo

I personally prefer the white shotgun to the off-white shotgun. Off-white looks weird and inconsistent

New disruptors good, new laser rifle's fine, new shotgun is okay, new ion is meh, new blasters are good-ish (I don't like wood, but also the grip shading is inconsistent). Is the new gauss rifle still in this? because I like that too.

I think this just shows the biggest problem with vampires as a mode. Instead of being some interesting space monster phenomenon, they're... just vampires? Mythological vampires? It's kinda dumb.

While Sierra certainly has more experience with me on Aurora, I do not feel at all comfortable with someone who has only recently come back to the server after a significant time away being a part of staff in any capacity. We ask that players have at least a few months under their belts when it comes to applying for something like moderator, etc. I don't see why we wouldn't ask the same for a player who has returned from a long absence. I am additionally not very confident in Sierra's conduct, based off of what I've seen on Bay. I'm going to have to offer my ten cents as a -1, as a result.

Pogchamp

Have you considered making a second thread?

Oh, I thought this was just you showing off original work, I recognize the edits now.

I can't help but notice that one of the guns you're using as an example is an edited version of an Aurora sprite? It looks suspiciously similar to our battle rifle, and shares multiple design aspects and features, such as the shading, general coloration, and especially the lights on the barrel.

I don't really see the relevancy of this post? I did not say any action was taken against me. I was saying that the rules regarding revenant are currently ambiguous and there is a lot of confusion coming from the staff team regarding that.

I have probably been bwoinked more times playing as a revenant than I have in the rest of my history of playing an Aurora- admittedly I am a goodie two-shoes, but still. It seems like every administrator, every moderator has a different take on what a revenant can and cannot do. Be it using melee weapons - (One admin said it was kosher, two moderators and one admin says it is not), or using armor, or whether revenants are a continuation of previous revenants, whether revenants are intelligent, whether revenants can use ranged weapons, whether revenants can make melee weapons, whether revenants can use medical supplies, so on and so forth. It is deeply, deeply frustrating, and to be frank I am highly disinclined from playing a revenant again until we clearly outline what a revenant can and cannot do. Personally? I think most things should be on the table. A revenant is an intelligent being, and in my mind is no different than a golem in that regard. Furthermore - why is there no mechanical restrictions, if revenants should not be doing X, Y, or Z? Still - some clarification would be nice. And desperately needed.

You're roleplaying with a few people. Perhaps you're at the bar - you're all talking, when suddenly the bartender is hit by a bottle spat out by a machine. They're knocked out instantly. Suddenly, LOOC explodes with activity - laughing, funny jokes, etc. Meanwhile, the IC reaction is... muted. If you had LOOC disabled and saw this occur, you'd be puzzled by the spectacle - for a few moments, everybody simply sits there, silently. This, I feel, is a problem. Why is it that LOOC is used as a vessel for reactions to IC circumstances, when actual IC reaction should be warranted? Why is it that ghost mains are allowed to make funny quips during the course of roleplay, when they specifically chose to opt out of being involved? In my mind, LOOC should be use for OOC purposes: You need to go AFK. You're helping somebody with mechanics. You're having connection troubles. Etc: it is not a vehicle for banter, for humor, or for responses of any kind to IC situations. Look at this image: Compare the amount of LOOC reaction to a very funny situation to the amount of IC reaction. Now, I've blanked out the names of the people involved, because they did nothing wrong, so it can be hard to follow-- But in essence, the guy who is stabbed with the syringe after getting out of surgery says "Ow" as his sole reaction. A bystander says goddamnit, and the surgeon says... Nothing. Meanwhile, the people involved are all reacting in LOOC, instead of reacting ICly. I'm sure we all see this sort of thing happen - and no examples will be necessary as far as the "funny ghost joke in LOOC" thing is concerned. In any case, I do think this is a problem, and I do think it needs to stop. LOOC is not for idle chatter, and it is not what you want to use as a substitute for actual roleplay. It is for OOC matters, nothing more and nothing less. tl;dr: What I'm proposing, essentially, is to keep IC matters IC, and out of LOOC. Reactions included. I'm not saying ban people, but I am saying politely inform people of the change in policy and treat it as you would any other example of IC in LOOC.

I don't think extended voters are skewing the vote in favor of high intensity. I think this is just a logical representation of the two camps: An extended voter wants extended - and oftentimes if you're voting for an antag round, you're doing that because you want a hectic, chaotic round. Nobody votes secret hoping for a round where a single burglar spawns, or something.

This is a video game - to the people who use this sort of phrase and then turn around and talk about how we used to praise "gimmicks and planning", I will point out that players would have much more time to work on their gimmick if the concern over being ganked by a slug-wielding officer (there has been no shortage of these, recently) wasn't so prevalent. All in all, I think this using this sort of phrase is very poor form. Sparky_hotdog obviously is just quoting someone else, so this isn't directed at him.

Honestly, +1. I don't see the purpose of the mechanical restriction, when most of the time the gamemode is obvious anyway, and you can always join as a ghost role.

I think you need to be careful with having too many antagonists show up. Changelings and mercs and traitors? That's half a calamity round. Too many cooks spoil the soup.

As far as 1. is concerned, I disagree. The lights being broken is an interesting situation that the station has to work around, and helps cultivate a horror atmosphere. One thing the crew can do to easily compensate for the darkness is to make cheap exosuits with floodlights. 2. Is valid, however. I'd recommend making it so revenants spawn within maintenance - right now, the only thing preventing the station from always getting vented is that some revenants are polite enough to create emergency shutter airlocks. This is not always the case.

Let me also point out that this is the best solution. For some reason, people hyperfixate on all the cool guns and stuff antagonists get. The fact of the matter is this: As long as you have a weapon that can consistently deal an okay amount of damage, and you have medical backing you up, you will always win. You could have a pulse rifle, and it would mean absolutely nothing if you get an arterial bleed. Antagonists, more than anything, need very good medical equipment in order to make the playing field level. Until then, security will continue to beat every antagonist without much effort - the gear means nothing, when you have a larger and more capable support network. Combat is based around attrition: And without medical, you will not last long.

Oh and mechanical skills might help, but that's another extremely involved solution.

Aurora faces a problem - a mechanical problem, to be specific. An umbrella of mechanical problems: Combat is unsatisfying and heavily weighted in favor of the station, and against antagonists. Armor, as I mentioned in my thread about porting Bay's armor mechanics, plays a big part of this - but it is not all. Here are some issues: 1. Characters react too little to damage in the short term. Nobody goes down immediately in a fair fight - this means that fights can become mutually exhausting stalemates, because: 2. Characters without medical backing receive a long-term death sentence. In the mutually exhausting format of Aurora's combat, both sides of a fight will inevitably end up dying without medical attention, if the fight is a fair one. This is not a problem for the station: Security is able to easily obtain all-encompassing medical attention. Antagonists-- Especially lone antagonists-- cannot. Ballistics are especially bad for antagonists, as arterial damage, broken bones, and organ damage is nigh impossible for anybody but a well-coordinated (and not exhausted) merc team, changelings, or vampires to repair. 3. Our combat system, ironically, is counter-intuitive to roleplay: You might think, "Well, if combat is so devastating to both sides, perhaps that means people would be less willing to fight!", but that's wrong. Security knows that they will win almost all fights if they're properly working together, by virtue of having better access to medical attention. Antagonists are either reluctant to engage in open combat, which leads to rounds where most time is spent chasing antagonists, or rounds where the antagonists are wiped out or otherwise decimated in the first engagement. This means that antagonists either don't have the time to stop and RP, or they're all dead or in the brig - also not great for roleplay. tl;dr - Aurora's combat is about attrition. Outright victories are rare in a fair fight, and most battles are decided in the long-term, based off of access to medical attention. This skews the balance of power in favor of the station, to an extent where oftentimes fighting the crew as an antagonist is a death sentence. Fixing this, obviously, is not easy. The quickest bandaid is giving antagonists access to extremely powerful, side-effectless drugs. Things that heal arterial bleeds, rapidly regenerate blood, and repair bone fractures. Making combat more lethal and armor more protective, as I outline in my armor thread, would help - but this is a lot of work, and isn't exactly something that will be done out of pure goodwill on a coder's behalf. Other fixes, like nerfing security's armory - is untenable for different reasons. Security does need to be able to adequately respond to threats, and outright removing the worst offenders - the shotgun and the .45 pistol - would gimp security's ability to respond to certain threats. All in all, what do you guys think?

That was a bug and it was fixed.