Kintsugi

yeah okay

Cya civvie

After some consideration I think I'm going to ask for this thread to be locked - I don't think there's anything necessarily incorrect here, just that I know that there will be an armor rework somewhere down the line. It's better to touch things like this after that's been sorted.

Recently there's been a lot of fuss over the whole "detective gets a gun", thing. My feelings on the matter are quite simple - I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the detective getting a gun. I do think, however, that there is something wrong with ballistics. Which is the root of the issue - I think people are not reacting to the presence of the detective's gun, but the presence of lethal ballistics. Ballistic weapons for security exist due to a result of 2014/15-era Baysec powercreep. Bay thoroughly destroyed station ballistics when they moved to the Torch. I propose we do the same: Ballistics are patently unfair when used against antagonists. Why? Because antagonists cannot heal the damage dealt nearly as easily as security can. Let me present two scenarios: Scenario one: A lone traitor with a gun shoots up the bar. There is a single member of security, who shows up and starts a firefight with them. The member of security was able to get lethal ammo for his .45, which he uses against the traitor. The security officer loses, going into crit, but the traitor is severely injured. He has broken bones and an arterial bleed. The officer is taken to medical, healed, and the traitor struggles to fix his injuries. When the officer comes back, he easily beats the traitor. Scenario two: A lone traitor with a gun shoots up the bar. There is a single member of security, who shows up and starts a firefight with them. The member of security has gotten his hands on an energy carbine, which he uses against the traitor. The security officer loses, going into crit, but the traitor is severely injured. He has severe burn injuries. The officer is taken to medical, healed, and the traitor is able to get a combat first aid kit, which he uses to heal his burns. There is no permanent damage which needs surgery to repair. When the officer comes back, the traitor is not a pushover and is able to hold his own. The difference between these scenarios is that in one case, security has a weapon that does permanent damage and causes bleeding (Ballistics.) In the other case, security has a weapon that a traitor is better equipped to deal with. Ballistics are something that antagonists should use- they can more easily incapacitate than lasers can, and are easier to use in the long term than lasers are. Lasers are something that security should use- they cannot cripple an antagonist quite so easily, and need to be used carefully and need to be recharged. My proposal is this: Remove the security .45s, keep the shotguns (With beanbags only), and port security's miniature energy guns from Bay. The warden, officers, and detective would all get these miniature energy guns, which are locked to stun only - unless the captain or head of security authorizes lethals. These energy guns have a capacity of five shots, and would be like a combination of the .45s and the tasers security gets now. They have sidearms that can be used lethally, but only with authorization.

I disagree as far as mechanical restrictions are concerned. Mindset is the issue - a shitty detective will still be shitty if you take his gun away and give him a taser. In fact, giving him a taser seems like a recipe for validhunting.

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/8634 I have created an alternative to Geeves' PR

Consider me hard in favor of #1. Overhauling armor to be very effective at absorbing hits to start with, and gradually losing effectiveness as damage is taken, has always been something I've wanted in SS13. It would pair very well with more lethal combat - armor would be extremely effective initially, but the longer you fight the less effective it is.

This thread ultimately deals with the same subject as the previous thread: It desires to change how gender functions mechanically.

I concur with Skull's answer in the thread that this is a dupe of.

the point was to foster a dialogue over the very existence of security, whether or not it is a net negative or a net positive, and whether or not Aurora needs it or even should have it moving forwards

This goes without saying, but let's keep this thread civilized friends

I make this thread as a disgruntled sec main, not an antag main, or an anarchist cargonian. I make this thread as someone who is tired of the slippery slope that Aurora is experiencing, where bits and bits of sec are chipped away one at a time in order to not cause so much radical change. I hate being told that sec is a detriment to the server overall. I hate being told that my opinions don't matter because I'm a sec main, or that they should be taken with a grain of salt. Aurora needs to bite the bullet and decide now: Do they want security or not? This is a self-destructive thread for me to make, because knowing myself I'd be unable to adapt and would probably end up quitting, but with so many people saying that sec is bad and is a plague upon the server, I just want to get it over with. With that self-pitying microrant aside, let's get down to the meat of it. I see deptsec as a half-measure. People want to take sec out of the picture, but they don't want to jump straight to cutting out one of the largest departments. Just look at the current iteration of it - it's designed to weaken sec, disorganize them, etc. Remove security as a department. Maybe keep investigations along with a small brig, maybe don't. Maybe add a small exploration department for sec refugees to flock to? Also add a small public armory for command to open up and arm the crew, that'll be fun. Like Bay's emergency armory, in practice. There are those who actually want this to happen, and I encourage them to outline their plans for an alternative. Maybe we should have a week-long test to experience SS13 without security, to get a feel for how play changes.

The .45 was a nerf. They have less ammo overall. Anyway don't do this please, I know I'm a detective main and all but I like the gun, it is very comfy to have. Punish people who misuse it.

The Jotun is not a tankette, it's a MBT. Thing would be huge, logically speaking. Tanks are much larger than the mechs of our setting. Mechs are large, certainly, but they're crewed by a single person and are also designed in a way that's more conducive to moving around in a cramped environment. A tank is designed to navigate open terrain.

Ati's one of my best friends and no doubt an exceptionally competent roleplayer. If you want to read the glowing paragraph +1s I've given him in the past, just look at his previous application for the Unathi. As far as command is concerned, I have absolutely no doubt he'll fit in there. When we played Bay together, he basically wrote the book for engineering on things like the SM. In fact he literally did write the book for it, go check it out. Guy's an engineering and atmos savant, and he'll be a great CE. even if I dislike alien heads of staff on principle. +1

This has been a pretty great April Fools joke so far. The amount of effort and buildup is really impressive. Bravo to everyone involved.

Saying there is no utility for knives beyond cutting food is a statement grounded solely in mechanics. This is a situation where roleplay justification applies- knives are tools with a number of uses. Personally, I don't care either way.

Zombies are completely and utterly broken. They are nearly impossible to kill, and can infect you through armor and voidsuits. They can use tools and equip gear. They are not fun to interact with, be around, fight, be, run away from, etc. If xenomorphs were removed because they were seen as being not conducive to RP (Which I disagree with), and were broken, zombies are like that but miles upon miles worse. Hard no.

Generally speaking I think the reassignment of responsibilities so that there's more on the shoulders of roboticists (Whose scope is somewhat limited) and less on scientists (whose scope is too broad) is a good thing. I still do not condone the break room getting an oven.

I do not think it is wise to include medieval armor in our loadout.

typically main battle tanks do not fix in three meter-wide hallways

Personally as a sec main I'm largely unopposed to the changes as they were laid out here. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. I will say that I am very disappointed that a cadet is being removed in order to keep the manpower status quo - I think we'd be better off nixing the general officer. Alternatively, merging GO and warden - though that might run us into situations where the GO arms themselves. As it is, warden is a bit of a gimp role. Anyway, I view GO as a slot that adds nothing to the game except being a manpower buff to sec (An officer will always be better armed and regarded than a cadet, pure numbers aside.), and as a slot for the antisocial.

I call this one "attack of the clones"