Kaed

I don't like militias forming in the first place, because the major reason they happen is because mechanically, anyone can pick up a weapon and use it as well as someone who is actually trained. I'd like it so any non-antag who is not in a combat-oriented role should not even be arming up for basically any reason, because it is impossible to moderate proper roleplay of weapon skill during a fight especially for a mob. But since I doubt anyone is going to do that, I'll try and settle for something less. What I would really like is a stronger enforcement on people being defensive-only militia groups. I will give you two examples of an antagonist dying to a militia, and why one was reasonable, and the other two were frustrating. Situation 1 - A bunch of people have barricaded up the cargo department and have a bunch of makeshit weapons. NotLich McNecrofuck walks up with a skeleton after murdering the captain and HoP and telling everyone he's done it. Cargo waves their spears at them and tells him to leave because he's fucking scary and he just starts casting spells at them and advancing with his skeleton entourage. So they mob him and he dies, along with his skeletons, because 9v3 fights suck and he made a bad decision to stick around while so outnumbered. Situation 2 - Evil wizard has appeared on the station and murdered several people in public, claims he wants to take over the station and is iron-fisting it. The captain called an ERT after fooling the wizard into thinking he had surrendered and the wizard is vocally angry at them and expressing a desire to kill them. So the captain walks over to the holodeck and allows the wizard to corner him and at this point, a mob of people from cargo who have discovered (what they think is) a hulk steroid plant rush up from cargo as a pink haired mob and beat the wizard to death. In Situation 1, there was a clear home ground the militia had defended, and they attempted to ward away the antagonist by waving their spears at them, so to speak. In Situation 2, there was a lynch mob for militia. Lynch mobs are the problem here. People are forming militias for the purpose of killing the antagonists, and while they generally tend to hover in the vicinity of cargo, they're not behaving defensively. They're not behaving like scared and confused civilians. They're rushing out and murdering any antagonists that enter their aggro range. And most of the time, they're going to win, because mechanically, many people attacking you at once is not winnable without serious advantages - you can't even attack more than one person at a time with a weapon, while up to 8 people can attack you at once in this combat system. So I came up with an idea to make this an IC regulation. Now this is a draft, and if someone has ideas to revise it, feel free, because it's pretty rough. Maybe it's a directive? I don't know. Emergency Defense Militia Regulation In the event that the station should be placed under sufficient danger that the lives of the crew at large are threatened, permission may be sought from the Heads of Staff to form an Emergency Militia for defense. A common area with viable and preferably numerous escape points must be designated by agreement or command authority as an Emplacement, and non-combat personnel are to congregate in the Emplacement location, and fortify it for defense by whatever means are most available and efficient. Non-combat personnel are to remain in the Emplacement during the emergency situation unless the emplacement itself must be evacuated due to a present danger to everyone inside. Heads of Staff should not grant Emergency Militia status except as a last resort, when all other options for station defense have failed. Crew who form an emergency militia without sufficient cause or permission must dissolve the militia, and all weapons in their possession are to be considered contraband as in normal station operations. So the main points here are that: -Militias become regulated ICly, rather than just something that happens and is tolerated unofficially -Militia being regulated means they have standard operations. Because they have a direction and protocols, lynch mobs stop happening except for people who want to go vigilante, and they can be dealt with separately. -I didn't put in anything about it, because I wasn't sure how to regulate it, but a severe cutback on stack-manufactured weaponry needs to happen. What we should be seeing is people armed with stuff they picked up around like kitchen knives and toolboxes. What we are seeing instead is SHIELDS and PIKES and SPEARS because someone thought it would be fun to include them (it is) but now they are being abused by everyone the moment danger shows up. This should not turn into medieval castle simulator the moment cargo is in danger. In actual medieval times these items were difficult to make and were shite if they weren't done right. A forge and stuff was required. Adding them in as something you can magically fold by hand is the only way to do it mechanically, I'm sure, but it's incredibly immersion breaking and abusable. Ideally, restricting their creation to antagonists only.

Sorry, I assumed you were directly involved because you were attesting to it's validity. If you aren't sure what happened why are you claiming it was valid? That a goal, and a lofty one, not a solution.

Really? You put down all your weapons and stopped lunging out at any antagonist who came by because an ERT showed up? Because that was the problem. You killed two cultists who were pursuing the CMO in a chainsaw and pike mob. Your behavior was not one of fending off threats and holding ground, but of pursuing and destroying them once they got in range. You did the same thing with the juggernaut that showed up. There was one person walking around in the halls with a shotgun that had to be told to put it down when they came across the ERT. None of this speaks of any particular restraint, and is behavior that caused me to make this thread.

I mean, that's reasonable. But they're being formed the moment people notice danger and being allowed by admins under a vague 'they were scared' blanket. Even when they chase them down for a kill the moment they appear. Was this related to the cult round earlier today by any chance? And a wizard round I was in a week or so ago.

I mean, that's reasonable. But they're being formed the moment people notice danger and being allowed by admins under a vague 'they were scared' blanket. Even when they chase them down for a kill the moment they appear.

I've been seeing an increasing trend of late on the server of people arming up with chainsaws, spears, crossbows, and whatever else they can get their hands on and forming what amounts to crew militia during code red situations, then mobbing antagonists like like a disorganized hoard of savages. Naturally, being 8 on 1 against anyone in this game, even when they are armed with makeshift weapons, means that the antagonist is probably going to lose, regardless of their armaments, unless they are ridiculously good at combat or flee (sometimes, it's impossible for them TO flee due to some mechanic, and they just die) This is the sort of tactics I used to see on old lowrp servers the moment a wizard or other major antagonist appeared. Why is it starting to happen now? Sometimes people are just walking the halls with their militia gear when they are supposed to be in their department. Usually ahelping this just gets the answer 'they were scared, it was reasonable'. Was it reasonable for them to all develop weapon skills out of nowhere, and berserker like bloodthirst? Being in danger shouldn't mean people self arm en masse with their mysteriously sudden knowledge of basic weapon use and creation, and utter lack of fear for death. Being cornered is one thing, but these people are never cornered. They proactively attack the antagonist as a mob at the first chance. Should an human female assistant know how to operate a chainsaw without hurting themselves? How did they get their hands on one, and why were they allowed to keep it? Should a cargo technician be going around carrying a pike in a two handed battle stance to deal maximum damage while juking an opponent perfectly? These are things I have seen. Why even have a security department and ERT if cargo can just manufacture a militia team and mob the bad guys. Possibly while screaming about 'combat lactate', like it makes the situation funnier and therefore okay. We should be enforcing some sort of order or it's just powergame and mob memes.

This change would cut out the ability for command to choose to change the AI lawset by consensus, which I do not think should be a thing we should do. I understand there are certain players who billow entire clouds of salt if their laws are changed, but you are effectively taking power to choose away from the command staff and walling it off behind red tape. This is not fun for anyone but antagonists, and problems with law changes should be addressed in a per-situation basis rather than this kind of knee-jerk regulation change. Frankly, it should be less the AI's choice or the decision of an overly restrictive regulation whether it's laws are changed and more the command staffs. It doesn't bother me as much that you clarify who can go down into the core as much as this whole 'no changing the laws for any reason except an emergency'.

I'm not asking to remove the emergency lights, I'm asking for a way to turn them off manually if you want to. the dionea thing was just an example.

Two things related to lights: -Make it so using night-light settings on lights actually lowers the power usage. It's really weird that it consumes the same amount of power to dim the lights -Have a way to actually turn off the lights entirely. As things are now, the red-power save lights turn on when they have no power, and there is no way to disable that feature. When you're trying to actually make the area dark (like, say, because there is a diona fuckwit wizard around) it kind of forces you to go around breaking lights.

Hmm, I see. So you want to make modifying the AI be blocked by a wall of bureaucracy that prevents anyone but antagonists from ever reasonably changing the AI laws except as a reactionary measure, and also designates who is qualified to do it irregardless of the choices or backstories of the characters involved. Nah, let's not.

Ah, sorry. I think it will depend on the chemical in question. All of the chemicals will come in special bottles (which are just wizardy children of normal bottles), but some of them have to be injested, while others can be breathed... I think the basic set might include some sorta wizard spray bottle, or at least a free bottle you can mix things in and pour them on stuff. The battle set may include a box of.. er... wizard grenades you can fill with a liquid you want before throwing it. As for what they do: Azoth - (supposed to be) a powerful healing liquid (though my last test of it indicated it did about jack shit, presumably it will be fixed at some point) Liquid light - A liquid that gives off light. Shapesand - Can be used to create useless duplicates of objects, I think they crumble to sand when you try to use them Unstable black matter - Make a wormhole, is basically blink in a bottle Sovereign glue - Put it on an item, and it can't be taken off once it is worn or picked up. Similar to the old horsehead mask, but for anything. Universal solvent - Fixes sovereign glue nonsense. Liquid fire - ... Sets things on fire Love Potion - Did you know there's a love trauma in the game and it can kill you if the person you fall in love with isn't around you all the time? Bottled lightning - Apparently, makes a tiny tesla ball Undead ichor - apparently a poison for living creatures, healing juice for undead. All of these are hidden chemicals. That's the idea. But having bottles of these chemicals does not tell you how they are made.

Thinking of spriting and adding a couple of wizard items available to (any?) wizard spellbook for their spell slot purchasing power. I'm thinking 1-2 spell slots, depending on the spellbook you buy it from, and consists of a special belt that contains six bottles of Magical Liquids. This is the rough draft of the two variants: Beginner's Alchemy Belt: Azoth, liquid light,, shapesand, unstable black matter, Sovereign Glue, universal solvent Battle Alchemist Belt: Liquid Fire , love potion, Bottled Lightning, Azoth, Unstable Black Matter, Undead Ichor How do you all feel about these? I'm on the fence whether to make these bottles have a low capacity and slowly refill themselves, or be single use only but have a lot in them, or some combination of the two.

I'm not opposed to a Nerf on the damage, but like other people are saying just don't get in melee range if you don't want to get owned by an energy sword. That's the counter play. Even without the buff of damage the sword is pretty strong.

oh my god is that the fucking bad dragon logo I mean wow what a weird unathi themed themed tank haha hahah ah h ah ...

It does, but it covers enough to still warrant the "Unknown" tag. It only shows the upper face, and the eyes. It's mostly to make a more modern looking mask as opposed to the WWII masks the station still uses. Let's be honest though, who even uses the shitty gas masks for identity concealment when there are a lot of alternatives in maint and the chameleon mask. Lots of people. It's one of the main reasons people use gas masks.

Alright, then let me posit this: You claim here we have to make the regulations as clear as possible, and yet, from these regulations, I am already seeing two things that are being extrapolated even though absolutely no where are they actually spelled out -Non-security members are held to these regulations that specifically indicate only security members (Why are captains and HoP held to these rules that only indicate security members?) -Non-security members are not permitted to have weapons at all unless it is code blue. On that note. Multiple roles start with items in their default equipment they're not suppposed to be using since round-start. We expect command to be better than the average player. Using =/= having in possession. Show me where this is listed as a regulation literally anywhere, that default self-defense equipment cannot be carried on your person. Because I've never seen it, and it sounds like you're just sort of making this up as a personal opinion? Maybe, even if you don't want to consider my ideas at this point, you should consider making the in-game regulations more clear, instead of making up extra shit on top of them that is just assumed to be there but not actually enforceable in any sense. Though I guess I would grant that weapons are easier to disarm just sitting on your belt.

Yes, it's harder to disarm an officer, that's the whole point of the fucking item what next we're going to remove the jog because it's faster than a walk? You know what the detective locker starts with? A holster to put your gun in. Also you skipped the part where I said "without suspicion". A Captain or a HoP are perfectly valid to grab a weapon once they suspect they might be in danger. Then why did you make this thread in the first place if it doesn't matter where you carry it. Fair, I'd attribute the reason why people seem to ahelp the second issue more to the fact that question WHY captain is somewhere is much harder than seeing them breaking regulations for no other reason than to look cool. It is boggling my mind that you have managed to interpret my statement intended to espouse that it shouldn't be an issue to carry guns on your waist as a statement against carrying guns on your waist and question why I made this thread. I made it because people continue to act like waist gun is more unacceptable than a gun an holsters and backpacks. So let me point something out to you about the system we have set up that is actually what is irritating me. Have you ever seen a cop's belt? Or an actual holster? When there is a gun in it, you can see it. It's there, in the holster. Sometimes there is a special clasp that discourages them from drawing it instantly or it being grabbed from them, but for the most part, no one on the station is ever actually carrying a concealed weapon except when they have it in their backpack. The only reason that people TREAT it as an out of sight weapon is because MECHANICALLY, you can't see what is inside an officer's belt container, or whether a holster is occupied. If there was a special belt slot item you could get that could hold a gun, I could put my gun in my belt slot every round and no one would pitch a fuss, even though, IC, the gun is there, on the belt (and maybe even some bullets, and grenades, if I'm an antag). People would see it. (Have you seen how big and clunky our taser gun is? There is no way that thing isn't visible on the sec belt, but people will scream bloody murder if you wear it outside of a belt) So the real problem here is not that weapon visibility is ICly SCARY or ALARMING to the crew by being on your belt, it's because you have set up the rules as such that people are encouraged to point and squeal, or ahelp, the moment they see a weapon on any slot of your body on examine, if the code is currently green. Because they can mechanically PROVE you have weapon on your person, in a position that it shows up when you examine click on them, it is now a violation of weapon codes. If I was searched for some reason, as a HoP, and they found the laser pistol in my bag on code green, no one would bat an eye. It would not be confiscated from me as contraband. Because it's basic equipment for that role. Conversely, if you see a civilian walking around with a holster on, it is entirely reasonable for you to question whether they have a gun in there, even though you can't see it. Hostlers might not be illegal to own, but guns are for the general crew. Shouldn't it be more important to determine who is authorized to actually carry a weapon, and whether this person is brandishing the weapon in an inappropriate and threatening way, than playing this insipid examine-visible gun gotcha game? You know, some actual internal logic to regulations? Imagine for a moment someone took the time to make it so you could view on examine any gun objects inside someone's holsters or belts, as people would actually be able to see if this was The Real World. Would you force everyone to inconveniently carry all guns in their backpack just to maintain this flawed code green image you built? Holstering guns is illegal unless there's danger about, guys! Gotta be code blue to use em! And we should NEVER be having situations where people are accused of powergaming because they pick up the basic equipment available in their job locker. It shouldn't matter if there are no threats active on the station whether you bring a sidearm you are issued as part of your JOB. Roles are issued those sidearms because they are potentially high profile targets carrying dangerous items and ID access, and forcing everyone except security members to act like they would never hold a gun on their person they were given as self-defense gear unless there was an active danger to their life is utterly arbitrary and frankly, a coddling antagonists sort of mentality, which is a statement I can honestly say I have never before uttered because usually I think people coddle the crew. Powergaming should be defined as going out of your way to collect powerful shit from your department or others, like filling your hypospray with chloral, or grabbing a laser rifle from the armory 'just in case', or breaking the captain's antique out the moment the round starts. None of these things are basic equipment like a standard issue self defense weapon is. So what I propose is this: Green: Weapons should not be drawn unless there is some active threat in the area, and lethal arms are forbidden. Blue/Yellow: Weapons can drawn while responding to known threat, lethals restricted (except for dealing with code Yellow stuff) Red: Lethals allowed, weapons may be drawn at all times.

By this explanation, it's more powergamey to put a gun in your pack or holster than it is to put on your waist, though, because you have time to get up before they can retrieve the weapon. Further, while you can make an argument that the captain's antique shouldn't be grabbed immediately, sure, both they, the warden, HoP, and the HoS are issued a weapon in their locker as basic equipment. As a personal self defense weapon. Similar to how detectives start with one. No one gets on the detective for having his self defense weapon, and almost all of them carry the damn thing around, except unlike the laser pistols the other four get, it doesn't have a nonlethal setting. It's not really powergaming to be a high profile target capable of defending themselves, it's freaking common sense. It shouldn't matter where the gun on your person is if it's very existence serves a purpose, i.e. self defense. And if a captain is going to an active reported threat, the complaint people should be making should be 'why is the captain responding to it' not 'why is the captain not obeying the arbitrary gun visibility rules on our current code level'. Because if you're going somewhere where there is a reported threat, it's completely normal to bring a weapon. 0 people ever have ahelped seeing guns on belts because they felt it alarms them and is REAL SCARY, GUYS, no they ahelp because 'it's against the current rules that exist so gotta report em to the admins for le powergame'

In most legal systems, it is harder to get a concealed weapon permit than an open weapon permit. Concealed weapons are more dangerous, and offer tactical advantages over it being visible. For some weird reason, though, the security team here has to keep their weapons hidden at all times until there is an emergency on hand. Everyone knows they have them, they're security. So why exactly is it a bad to have a weapon on your belt, but not in a hostler. There is 0 mechanical difference between these two things other than 'you can see the weapon'. It's one click to put them into your hand. Hell, if you have your backpack open at all times like most people, it's still 1 click to pull the gun out. And yet, there is a sort of powergaming accusation vibe to people who carry guns on their waist, like it is somehow an intense tactical advantage to have your weapon clearly visible on your waist. Can we like, revise this to make some actual bloody sense. Open to ideas here.

It's not that I don't understand the suggestion, I just think it's utterly pointless and not really worth adding. They add no content, they encourage nothing new, they are just busywork for the sake of suggesting something to do. Greentext was the same way. Adding not-really-greentext-because-it's-optional-and-not-tracked is not different from asking for greentext back as far as I'm concerned. Sorry.

I'm using bug and exploit as general terms, but neither the pizza nor the bounties thing qualifies as 'bugs'. They are just unmoderated values that are abusable, so they would fall under 'exploits' You have also missed the point almost entirely in your lecture. The purpose of this thread was not to actually address those three things, it was to address the attitude we have towards using exploits. You say it's hard to address these issues in character. It's not, I've already made plans to shut down bounties from being turned into play money in every round I'm HoP in. But even without that. Then address them OOCly. Ask people not to abuse them while they are being reworked, something, anything that tells the players 'yeah we know this exploitative, pls stop we fixing it'. It is unfathomable to me that whoever traded in a hot dog for 8000 credits never once had an inkling that maybe they were exploiting an oversight. They just didn't care, either because they thought it was hilarious, or because they wanted to look like the cool guy hero for paying a ransom. And they will continue to not care until we start setting boundaries.

I have noticed in the last year or so several instances where new features were added in that had problems, usually related to being able to produce excessive amounts or resources. These sort of things tend to happen, especially in an opensource code format with minimal testing and oversight (I mean, it's there, but playtesting is largely done by the maker and after it's merged). The problem, however, is the communities loose stance on these problems. Three incidents come to mind for me -Being able to spawn infinite plastic by building and disassembling tables made of metal (not sure if this is fixed yet). I saw people doing this a lot when they wanted plastic back in the day. -Finding out that pizza boxes were cheap and could be infinitely spawned, someone decided to buy hundreds of them with mining points and tile the entire cargo department with stacks of pizza -Realizing that they could get exorbitant amounts of cash for minor tasks via the new bounty system, some cargo techs traded a hot dog and bottle of thermite for a whopping 20000 credits to pay off a raider bounty, derailing an entire round's progression by basically pulling an impossible sum out their ass. These last two times, I reported them and suggested they be fixed in a suggestion, but the bigger problem for me here is that I and the occasional other person who bothers to type up a suggestion thread about fixing a feature rather than adding one, are the only ones that seem to care. Even the suggestion threads take days or weeks for anything to happen, and in the meantime, people are just free to abuse these features as much as they like. People have no incentive to care about unbalancing or nonsensical features. In both of these situations, I have been told multiple times 'it's a game feature, so it's okay to use'. Many times, I have seen games punish people for exploiting bugs or oversights, but here, the outlook just seems to be 'it's not an exploit if someone merged it lol'. So why is this allowed here? Why is no one taken to task for doing stupid shit when they are fully aware what they are doing is unbalancing the game or round progression? Even if we do not punish people for using it, why do we never set temporary rules against abusing them before they are fixed? Is it my responsibility to have to go in character every round I am and try to stop them from creating mountains of pizza/plastic/cash/whatever the fuck comes up next? Do I have to be the IC fun police to try and curtail abuse of new features? It should be everyone's responsibility to not abuse things like these, not just a few people who give a fuck.

That's because being afk/ssd is not an in-character consideration, and it should not become one. People don't just decide to stand around and stare blankly into space in a workplace when they are supposed to be on the job. We just sort of suspend when that happens or our disbelief due to the nature of the game. "Hey I need you to patrol the starboard side but I see you're set to 'sleeping' right now so I'll just let that slide, it's okay to take a little nappy on your two hour shift. while there is a dangerous criminal around. " This doesn't need to be in the game, criminal or not. You shouldn't be voluntarily going fake-afk.

Hard pass. The station has enough trouble after a blown supermatter without starting a new stupid round type involving xenomorphs or other random mobs. And there will always be people who try to 'accidentally' blow it up because they are bored and hope to spice up a round. 'Rewards' like this for fucking up the engine are not conductive to a stable game.

The cargo bounties are so preposterously valuable for such trivially stupid things that we have situations where a cargo techie has more money than is collectively in all station department accounts. Reduce it way the fuck down (like to maybe 1/10th what it is now), no one pays 8000 fucking credits for a god damn hot dog. I know we don't have an economy but miners have to earn 1000 points just to get 100 credits from tradein. Merchants don't make this much money, and they basically set the groundline on an economy as it is. It's unbalancing things enormously, we had a cargo member offhandedly pay off a 20000 credit ransom because he claimed the bounty on a hot dog and a bottle of thermite. These are civilian characters, they should not be this rich. Edit: Apparently this is [mention]Arrow768[/mention]'s thing so I'll ping him.