Frances

am i artist yet

death to cats all hail our new dog overlords

i want it To be honest, even if the game ends up being a failure, I'll have had a lot of fun following the development process. Star Citizen is a perfect example of what a crowdfunded project should be like.

they took our jobs we want our rights back

Well, I believe the general rule is "avoid pain/dying". Another rule which is unspoken (but should be obvious is) "don't break the previous rule to make stupidly heroic characters". Everything else could be left to player (and staff) interpretation. If someone has a good enough reason to put themselves in danger, they could. Duty goes (as sec), but wanting to protect your friends (as anyone) also goes. I think what matters isn't how badly people want to fight terrorist, but that they should roleplay realistically (if you're playing someone who isn't combat trained, but are super robust OOCly, you /should/ make a point to lose to the nuke ops. Using all of your power to beat them sorta falls as powergaming if you'd have no chance of winning a fight usually.

I feel like I'd rather not enforce blanket rules on the combat roles of every department/job, especially if there's no need for it (and I would say in general the combat participation of the server is rather healthy atm). There /are/ some cases where civilians playing heroes can be epic, funny, or simply justified. And I'd also like to see cases of security defecting a lot more ("Terrorists? Fuck this, I'm out")

Well, I wouldn't say tons. Most of the thread at the moment is an argument about which of security and engineering is the biggest sinner.

Okay, the fight between security and engineering is a bit silly. Don't use other people's shitty actions as an excuse to get them to leave you alone - justify your own actions in an appropriate manner, then call out others for their misbehavior as a completely separate debate. That aside, I can agree with Jamini. Militias aren't bad by default, and while engineering arming up at roundstart is unacceptable, no clear evidence of this being a regular issue has been provided thus far.

I'm waiting for release before buying it. What it wants to set out to do seems very impressive (like, if you can really have a spaceship battle, come out of your spaceship, grab a gun, and fly to the other guy's spaceship to shoot them in it, that would be awesome), but it's not the first game to promise a ton of stuff like that and utterly fail to deliver. But if it does succeed, though, I'll be super happy. Space sims as a whole seem to have really died down since the 80s-90s.

You overreacted in LOOC to something not going your way - regardless of the issue, the way you brought up your discontent with immediate aggressiveness and sarcasm was uncalled for. What Tainavaa did was call you out on this behavior, which is what landed you a permaban, and was at the core of the reason for your unban (you promised you'd be nicer to people). What in her remark do you find snide? I'd say it was pretty on point.

The tiles around sec should be of a darker value (the color of the lockers and airlocks, really). Hudglasses could be recolored. What happened to ballistics? That was the main thing I was excited about, but it seems we still have tasers.

That's the crux of the issue. This complaint would appear to show that he hasn't. And it's not because I don't really care about people being douches that I want to live among a community of them.

One question: Why is Italy terrorists?

If this is a major issue involving several players, the best course of action would be to talk to these players and make them understand this kind of behavior isn't okay (because I'm fairly sure it's never *all* of engineering). People shouldn't arm up without valid reason. If you see someone making personal defense weapons "just in case", or "because their character is paranoid", ahelp it?

Here's what I'm not clear about. I guess most of this case is going to rest on the evidence of whatever Tainavaa said to provoke Plahunter and whether it actually warranted Pla's reaction (though Tainavaa claims nothing more was said, so it'd be up to Pla or admins to clear that up). -But- Is Plahunter's response something that can be really justified? Blowing up at someone for not /me'ing while you are yourself shooting a gun, and going as far as to verbally insult someone in LOOC, seems to fall well within the original kind of behavior staff promised they would no longer tolerate from Pla. And people should be responsible not to act like dicks /regardless/ of others' actions (especially if proven these actions were not really reprehensible), so is Pla actually deserving of a free pass here? Edit: Skull posted the logs, all is well.

Maybe stating the obvious, but I don't believe we should have players on a last chance from a perma appeal running around calling others "cunt" in LOOC. Edit: Also, I'm fairly sure the EoR rule specifies not to start any new fights. So executing someone on the shuttle out of the blue would be a no-no.

Yes. The point of custom items isn't to provide usable equipment, but unique items that can flesh out a character and help their roleplay. The one valid concern I could see you raising is "she could just take any other screwdriver", to which I'd say that a lot of other custom items (clothes, toys, and variants of existing items) could be denied under that rationale. The screwdriver seems different enough to me. It's a specific, unusual color, has an engraved name (an engineer carrying around an engraved screwdriver seems like a pretty legit request), and if you want to push the app even further, you could have the flavor text say that it's got little stickers of flowers or something. There is a vast difference between having to pick something from the station and pretending it's yours as opposed to having an actual, labeled item, that no one can copy, and that people will actually be able to identify. ((Before somebody brings it up here, smart and observant people might notice that I was actually against another of Nebula's apps for a similar engraved piece of engineering equipment, some time ago (goggles). After hearing what she had to say, I quite honestly changed my mind about that. Plus I do believe this screwdriver is a bit more unique than the regular kind.)

Woah, you actually posted my stuff 0: Anyway, the mansion is done. Next step is all the interiors, and some landscaping.

I also can't see the problem. You used supernatural powers to engage the crew in a very hostile manner, and the crew did their best to restrain you in a manner that was both fair and realistic. People have a responsibility to keep other players in the round to an extent. This extent ends when actions required to keep you into the round (refusing to restrain appropriately a dangerous prisoner) would become outright retarded. When antagging, you get into action, and sometimes, the action, well... ends. Unless you remain undiscovered/uncaptured, at some point, you'll get caught, and either get incarcerated (with good or less good chances to escape), or get killed. And your ability to escape isn't something that should rest on the shoulders of other players - you are responsible for it through your own planning. For example, an antag leaving a spacesuit outside of perma has a guaranteed escape, while an unprepared antag in perma is completely boned unless someone else busts them out. I honestly see this situation as something very similar to that: you had your chances to escape, and you worked yourself into a situation where you were no longer able to act by using your powers at the crew repeatedly and getting caught/taken down. And it's not terrible. People shouldn't let you escape, you should be capable of tricking/foiling them through your own feats. You won't always succeed, and that's fine. Antags aren't always about greentexting/escaping, and some antags won't see roundend. You know, as an antag, if you get into a situation where you're convinced you can't escape (or don't want to bother to), and foresee little to no coming roleplay, it's perfectly acceptable to ghost and ask for a respawn.

You bring up a valid point. I remember a situation early in my time here where a small lady doctor robusted the warden, stole a hardsuit, and proceeded to fight off 3-4 members of security alone using the contents of the armory. It was a rev round, but granted it was not very realistic to see someone breaking character to that extent (people recruited into the rev aren't trained syndie operators afaik.) The thing is I really don't want to take away all chances somebody could have to resist. In some cases, some people can cleverly outsmart an opponent - and I'd hate to see that go. However, you bring up two very important problems: -The player attempting to roleplay is put at a disadvantage, mechanics-wise. Combat is won by ganks, pure and simple. And if you try to play nice and realistic with your hostages, and they decide to fight like crazy bald motherfuckers, more often than not they will beat you simply because you decided to roleplay. -There are situations in which it'd make no sense whatsoever to be robust, yet people will try (random assistant stungloving a nuke op and stealing their gun). These can generally be filed away under bad RP or other existing rules, though. So what do we make of problem number one? Because it seems like the most obvious solution for it would be to have a rule akin to "robusting someone while they're holding a gun at you is bad form". What sort of form would you like that rule to take, exactly?

I gotta say this kind of QoL change is exactly what the code needs. This is absolutely lovely and makes me hate whoever designed that original interface back in 1986.

In real life, hostage situations are effective because the hostage-taker is in a position where they are able to exert force against the hostage, and thus use that threat as a method of coercion. Thus, an antag creating a valid hostage situation should be able to create some sort of believable threat they are able to enforce against their hostage. Why is an additional, hard-OOC measure necessary on top of that? I'm looking for the full explanation here, because I believe debating this issue requires us to analyze the situation in more depth than "resisting against your captors is powergaming".

I believe a fun and satisfying roleplay environment should minimize plot armor as much as possible. Is there anything that we gain from artificially preventing hostages from defending themselves if they so wish?

Frankly, it depends. Some people are put off from roleplaying romances for reasons which are equivalent to RL-ones (such as what you mentioned in your example, I believe), but there are some who are weirded out because it's playing pretend. The former can be treated the same way you would treat it irl, the latter, well, just means pretend-dating isn't your cup of tea. And you're welcome! V vV