Kaed

Because adding prebuilt objectives doesn't add anything to the game you can't add yourself. After a while, even if they are sporadic, they would lose much of their value as novelty. It is much better to let players come up with their own ideas.

People can just do these on their own. Why even implement them if nothing tracks them.

Yeah, but what he's wanting is the ability to toggle this manually, so you can fool people into thinking you are afk or SSD

Not a fan, being AFK or offline is supposed to be out of character situation, you don't interact with them unless they're there. Putting some sort of in character tag that says I am currently logged out or AFK is kind of like a meta-game thing?

The Directives still could be more visible to heads, like give them something on their PDA, or just a premade printout in the head's offices laying them out. Also, the AI don't have any way in game to view directives to my knowledge, nor anything in their laws that really even references them. A lot of AI just sort of follow directives as a courtesy because they OOCly know them from the wiki (why do we have to go to the wiki for this..), even though, technically speaking, by the strict definition of their laws, they don't have to pay much attention to them. Please bring AI a little more up to speed with the last 2+ years of aurora command structure development, with either a law revision or something that works similarly, and a way for them to view the directives. Maybe even a separate directive thing similar to the law manager that lets them state directives for the staff members on request.

Seems fine to me. I'm glad this debate is over. Hopefully Delta's future AI play will be er... better... and we won't have issues.

Law 2 is a response-priority rank. You listen to the Captain over a Head, and you listen to a Head over a normal member of the crew. It has nothing to do with Directive 7, which directly covers AI Core access during standard or emergency procedures, and it doesn't override Directive 7. Ripped straight from the wiki. Outside of an agent from Central Command (simply because we don't have explicit rules covering such an unusual circumstance and Directive 7 doesn't cover people over the heads of the Heads of Staff, and the Captain is, for the sake of this discussion, the head of the Command department) you cannot enter the Upload without the explicit approval of everyone else. Another thing, CCIA addendums don't cover the AI, because they've never had to address the AI (to my knowledge) from a CCIA standpoint. Station Directives and other such were written in conjunction with the CCIA (I think), though, so make of that what you will. Aaaanother thing. Captains can still determine who is and isn't a Head, almost without any supervision at all. Directive 7 is mostly there to keep the Research Director from pocketing the AI with "ai tell nobody i'm here", followed by carding it, just as an example. If a Head disagrees with you doing something with the AI core? Tough luck, they don't need to be a Head until after you're done. The real concern here is if that approval was properly communicated, and why, really, you chose to handle the AI the way you did. By all means, a series of commands to it over the Command frequency would work just as well as any AI upload law. It is required to listen to you, after all, and how it communicates with the crew isn't covered by Directives. Still don't see anything erroneous about my behaviour here. Maybe you could quibble I should have brought the HoS with me there, but there was no particular emergency going on, and I previously got his approval. I also don't see a particular difference between ordering the AI to not talk on the common channel anymore or question orders, and lawing them to not do it. In the end, they don't talk on the common channel. The only difference is that one is written into their rules, and the other is an informal order. And I did it this way because I wished to. Much as you can surprise an employee by showing up at their office when giving them a demotion rather than calling them to your office on the public radio, I chose to do this to catch the AI off guard and strongarm them. This is not an illegal action. There is no rules against being mean to people, or AI, ICly. Nor did either of these laws inhibit the AI's ability to function, but rather, attempted to curtail behaviours they had that were deemed problematic.

To be honest, thematically that sounds kinda interesting, but from a gameplay sense I do not think it is a good idea. Having to play a lobotomized amnesiac who is confined to medical is not fun. Fun should be more important in changing game mechanics than added grimdarkness.

Hm, I see. That's interesting, and well thought out, and also is basically wrong, because it contradicts law 2 as written. This complicated explanation about user privilege with the AI doesn't match up with what is actually there. If you want to create a scenario where that works, you have to revise the AI's laws, because there is no one who has a higher rank or role than the captain. Frankly, the idea that the captain isn't allowed to do certain things on station and can also be 'unauthorized personnel' also completely contradicts an entire string of CCIA addendum that say they can do as they wish, and that no one is allowed to question them, only report their actions for later deliberation by Central Command. My character in question also has training in basic IT procedure, this subject was discussed with the mod who originally handled this. And for the record? The other command staff member (also a head of security, incidentally) at the time was questioned about this, and they, having been talked to about this first, and approved it when the AI asked. This complaint has no ground to stand on in any IC fashion. So here's the deal. Everything I've done here was basically within the regulations we actually have on station at this time. If you want to change the regulations, or add new ones as a result, go ahead and do it. But there is no special captain addendum on AI modification at this time, and a full head of staff agreement to do something the captain has proposed is as good as law as you can get, no matter how much Delta felt it ruined their round and made them unhappy. AI have a rough lot in life, and don't get to choose how things go for them all the time. If you feel that this OOCly warrants some sort of warning, fine, then some mod should administer it, but stop trying to come up with contrived extra IC regulations you think should be there (but actually aren't). Can we get a wrap up on this thread from someone, please? I'm not sure we need any more peanut gallery takes, and everything has been said that is going to be, unless Delta has more to say.

There has to be some reliable way to kill them, Skull, even if it's not pesticide. I was in a round earlier today where we tried everything from lasers to bullets to weedkiller to grenades full of medical chemicals that are supposed to be deadly to them, to actual explosions, and the diona just walked away from all of it, healing away any wounds we made, partly because it was on fire. This was compounded by it being able to bypass certain limitations wizards have due to not actually having brains to damage when they use the no cooldown swap spell. It was nearly impossible to actually hit them in combat, and what we did hit them with was utterly useless. Their two primary debuffs of 'can't wear clothes' and 'can't run fast' do not by any means make up for how overpoweringly unstoppable they are, especially when antagonist mobility powers are added on top of them.

Apparently, you have to actually inject veinless these plant creatures with plant b gone for it to work. Spraying them with herbicide doesn't work, despite the inherent logic of it. Also, the ancient trait of them healing to the point of being nigh invulnerable while on fire needs to be corrected. These two things would probably curtail some of the most stupid things about them.

Eh. The default laws don't mention that AI have to ask questions, it just mentions serving the crew and preventing unauthorized personnel from tampering with them. The captain is authorized. I threatened the AI because I gave it a direct order several times to turn off its turrets and it just kept going 'but why'. And the reason we changed the laws is because we wished to, after conferring with each other. There isn't a more complicated answer than that. I'm not aware that there are any 'rules of escalation' in dealing with AI. They are station property, not crew members or something. These laws in general were not even really that restrictive. They could still talk to any department they want, and if being unable to argue the validity of every order they are given is what made being an AI fun for them, Delta might need to go into the role with a different mindset. It is possible to play an AI as anal retentive and difficult as you want, frequently giving useless answers to the crew unless they construct entire sentences like they are working with some kind of evil oracle genie. But the crew is under no obligation to respect a deliberately useless AI, or permit an AI that is being a giant noisy doofus to keep doing it. You should strive to coexist with the crew in a way that makes them not have to constantly amend every request or constantly be telling you to quit it.

My answers should imply that I do not agree with you without me needing to outright say it. You are not an AI who is incapable of gathering context in real life. My character is not required to explain themselves to an AI. No crew member, nor especially the captain, answers to an AI. I chose the route of altering your laws rather than having to constantly tell you to stop doing something every time you annoy me with a fresh behavior that fills up the common channel with clutter. That is my right as captain, to make decisions like that, but I took the route of consulting with the other present head, and they agreed with me to do this law change. That's it.

You arrived in the round late, well after the tesla setup had been started, and I permitted the engineer who started the tesla to finish working on it. Yes, I took a laissez faire approach to engineering rather than telling them to stop and do something more efficient, and in the end, they got their shit together and we had power within about 5-7 minutes of you joining. As I told you at the time ICly, that you continue to ignore or misrepresent, I never ordered them to focus on the tesla. I just did not crack down on them for trying to set it up. That's really all there is to say on the matter there. I've said my piece here and have no further interest in arguing with you about this. If one of the mods involved wishes to ask me questions, they let me know.

Okay here we go. As a side note you bring up my captain's hair color like it is somehow relevant to this complaint, but it is not. Let's be clear. You were lawed like this because your behavior was irritating and difficult, and was annoying the two heads present. As a few examples of the behavior in question, I present -Being asked where someone I was trying to locate was, and responding 'On the NSS Aurora, presumably', followed by bickering for several minutes about us not being specific enough in our query -Making a joke about dementia patients being taken off life support by their families in a transparent attempt at black humor, which I don't think I heard anyone laugh at. (this one is subjective, I grant you, but was symptomatic of the larger problem) -Emoting party horn noises over the common radio. -Refusing direct orders from the captain to turn off their core turrets when I got down to their upload room. It was this last part that lead to the 'metagaming' accusation I see here, but which Delta has neglected to include some important context on. What happened when I got down there was a prolonged argument where I told the AI to turn off its turrets, and it refusing to do so until I explained why I was down here. My character, IC - and rightfully so, in this situation - did not feel at this point that it needed to explain its actions to the AI, so she gave the AI an ultimatum - either turn off the turrets, of she would leave and come back with a security force to deal with a malfunctioning AI. Which is what anyone would call an AI that refuses to let the leader of the station, who definitely has the authority to enter their upload chamber. into said upload chamber. This accusation had nothing to do with metagaming a round type, it had to do with the AI's active refusal to follow a valid direct order unless it was given additional information. The AI should not have needed that additional information to open the core. Even if they were trying to follow extra-law protocols, during code green the core is not off limits to the captain for any particular reason that I am aware of. Yes, I was being mean and strongarming the AI by basically twisting their arm, but there is no requirement that I play a sweet and synth-hugging character. So I added these two laws to limit how irritating the AI was being. I designed them specifically to allow the AI to still communicate freely on any department channel they wished (though Delta chose to spend the rest of the round being sulky and not talking on any channel unless asked a question, their choice), and to have them be forced to turn over deliberational authority to security team on questionable orders, because at this point, I felt their ability to determine what was a legal order and what was not was severely skewed.

I support ending this tiresome and divisive debate and letting the actual performance in game determine whether it's bad or good.

I'm baffled that you can tell me we're being mean spirited and such when you have such a negative and slippery slope viewpoint on this. Look. It's food. Eating food makes you feel good, and maybe you perform a little better if you eat something fresh cooked instead of from a vending machine. We don't even HAVE 40 people on the server most of the time, and the number of people that would even need to 'powergame' with these generally very small buffs are security. I've suggested several ways to make it balanced, including slow digestion and overeating being discouraged by debuffs so people don't just shove a boiger down their throat every 5 minutes for sweet buffs, making food alternatives available to antagonists, and all you're giving back is alarmist doomsaying and claiming we're RUINING EVERYTHING by doing this. It's a gosh darn nice meal, Jackboot, not a potion of invulnerability. It shouldn't be this big a deal that people have to eat once and a while instead ignoring the hunger symbol on their HuD the whole round.

Doom and gloom and the end of the world if we change this, cooking will become a grindfest that robs all fun from it and forces people to participate aaaaah~ Tbh what's going to happen at worst is some people will be salty for a little bit then the server will adjust it's culture around the new mechanics, much like they did when any other major chance occured, like firing pins, or adding the tesla, or remapping everything. This is still a game, and 'muh roleplays' intermeshes with it, not supersedes it. People aren't going to be forced to roleplay with the chef if they don't want to. They can just take food and run, like they always have, forever. The food is just going to be more important. And in the end, we'll have a more rich game.

Sorry, I see all your complaints here and just think they make the game feel a little more organic. Food should way more important than it is, and your insistence that the chef HAS to be this 'fun fluff role' is what is inhibiting progress. You are pigeon-holing roles into what they are now and throwing a tantrum about things being different. It's not hard, even if we make not having food be more crippling than it is, for antagonist abilities and tools to be adjusted to reflect this. Give wizards a ring of sustenance or food summoning ability or a cornucopia of endless snacks, let ninjas have a nutrient injector (they already have 'glucose' injections, but it's useless for the most part, just replace it with a nutrient/protein chem injection), let vampires actually gain sustenance from blood instead of just blood points, traitors already have a special donk pocket kit, if you want more, just give them some kind of high tech food fab/prep kit (and if you need antag uses, make the purpose of it to give people drugged/poisoned food). These aren't difficult ideas to come up with, but I admit it does involve sort of a refactor of a lot of things and adding content to the game. But burger seems like he is the sort of person, hopefully, to make a project comprehensive instead of leaving a bunch of dangling loose ends.

I like how new suggestions and feedback are being overlooked so the OP can keep bickering endlessly over things earlier in the thread. This is not helpful to the thread, please stay on topic to the actual suggestion thread, it's 'the state of chef stuff', not about the quality of people's suggestions.

To be perfectly honest I'd really like it if we took the generic nutriment and animal protein thing, and used both of them only in junk food favour of a more complex set up subtypes like 'vegetable', 'fruit', 'grain', 'sugars' and such that show up in prepared food with the chef, with some minor benefits for using them, that are time based, so you have to wait a bit to feel that just ate a good meal vibe. And higher penalties for overeating, to avoid powergaming and abuse. I love complex systems of benefits and detriments and secret combinations that have new benefits, and fie on those people who insist simplicity of design is the more important thing. There's no reason cooking and bartending for that matter HAVE to be a roleplay-only section. It's just how things are right now. Adding more significant mechanics do them doesn't ruin them, it makes them part of the GAME instead of just a playing pretend minigame. It would also be good if there was more enforcement of using the EFPoS. There's a lot of people saying the chef's food is free. It should be more expensive than the vending machines if we also make it do more. (when's the economy patch coming?)

I think the paper airplane thing is silly and doesn't belong anywhere near a cult that's trying to act serious. I would not likely include it in my cult rework, especially since I intend to move away from using paper talismans entirely. However the AOE stun effects does bears some thought, and I had already planned for some sort of ranged stun effects.

No comments on this huh? Is it such an unimportant feature that no one even has opinions on it?

I'm assuming that the ideology somehow is related to balance, which is why a lot of stupid arbitrary things exist in games that make things more complicated than they need to be. I'm not really certain why fire extinguishers needed to be balanced though. Is putting out fires effectively and efficiently power gaming?