Fluffy

I have not looked at the science teleporter (or ever used it) but I doubt it as easy as it sounds, while technically we're on the same areas (you can think of each level, including ships, planets and whatnot as a stack of plates, one on top of each other) there's an overmap that gives the supposed distances, also you AFAIK need to calculate and use various parameters with said teleporter to aim where the portal will open, and that would need to make sense according to the overmap; it also needs to not make the pilot and the other ships (eg. spark, intrepid) completely useless, so it would likely need a more involved look than unlock a Z-level setting and call it a day

I agree with Dreamy on the part of not wanting an endless list of characters that died (which can only inflate overtime) or discussions about which characters get in or get out of the list, I don't care if it's grim or depressing or not or whatever, it's just an annoyance to deal with even assuming we streamline it so that they only stay up to a certain amount of time to combat the list length inflation Commendation reports are there to honor those who died valorously in the defense of the SCC's stock market shares value, and a thread somewhere on the forum can be created to list whoever else We can then put a memorial stone or whatever, and in the description a link to said thread, I would be fine with that

The PR was rejected and closed by maintainers following evaluation of this feedback thread. Locking and archiving.

I concur with Desven, it doesn't really make much sense for the AI to have a wealth of accents, especially as the AI team (for what I understood) wants it used as a tool (as per:) While emulating one accent, the one for where it was manufactured, is fine, a selection of accents seems antithetical to it being just a tool

Sure, why not, telescience is kind of useless as it is now. You have my support for this experiment.

How someone react to it is what can give reason for a complain, this pretty much boils down to it; if someone does something that you don't like, the bare minimum you can do is telling him as such, then depending on the reaction it would make sense to complain about it, eg. in the example you gave, the reaction is what makes sense to be a complain if you don't reach an agreeable solution and there's something that violates the rules OOCly (this of course doesn't apply to griefings or similar, but we're clearly not talking about that kind of things here). You said "I'm not reading all that shit, dog". The framing is once again important, because I spent a good while to explain to you the reasoning, and crapping on my effort alongside using "dog" did not come off as something casual and light-hearted. I did then accepted that you was probably using a distorted version of "dawg", but when there's a pattern of things, it becomes kind of suspicious that using the distorted version of "dawg" was only, just choosing the worst possible moment to use the distorted version of "dawg". I brought it up to illustrate that I'm not talking about something an oopie-daisy sorry, there's a pattern of abrasiveness, the relevant part isn't the specific content or the why, but the aforementioned abrasiveness, which, is not something I might be biased to see there, the last message confirms it and indicates steps to work on it, which is to say, I'm not imagining things and I don't think to be biased in seeing things that aren't there. You was also illustrated on the risks of echo-chambering there, which distorts the perception of things, so it was also relevant in regards to misframing/misinterpreting my words. There's a reason I don't accept "side servers" invites, and that's exactly this, I do not want to be biased as much as I can avoid it. I recall your character telling mine that it was looking to change name, but never mentioned anything other than changing name, and was already calling mine "Dorsh" or the likes, hence the "Do I look like I give a fuck" (aka: why would it care about it, while your character doesn't care about mine's one either). I distinctly remember my character using "Levi" in a sentence and getting back a "Dorsh" in multiple occasions though, even over radio, and I am certain of it because I wanted OOCly to check in if you still found this line of conflict entertaining to continue. I invite the admin to grep the chat logs to confirm that I have indeed used Levi in various occasions, because I am certain I did. Sure, if you don't find this part of our characters conflict entertaining, I have no problem dropping this line of conflict between our characters. It's a game, if something isn't functional to entertaining or, even worse, reduces the entertainment value, it can go.

You will have to excuse my longwinded and fairly irritated post. There's much I can overlook, pass as misunderstandings, issues with me using the English language and not being clear enough, and the likes, but having ill intents assumed, presumed, inferred or vaguely alluded to is not something I will put up with, nor is misrepresenting things. Enough is enough. I barely recall the existence of your character, frankly; the name of which do not have an Italian equivalent and sound masculine in tonality, looks masculine thanks to the sprite, and our encounters usually happen in high adrenaline scenarios (owing to your character being an FR and mine being in Security) where remembering what your character said months prior isn't something I have the time to do, so the interaction boils down to "MEDIC!" and little else. This never happened. I do recall this LOOC, which went on the likes of (and i am paraphrasing): > "hey fluffy did you misgender this character on purpose with yours?" < "no" > "why did you used "he" in the emote?" < "yea sorry, the name does not have an equivalent in italian and sounds masculine, that's probably why" The misframing is in the "told Fluffy in LOOC that I didn't appreciate them going on to misgender my character in emotes", which is not what happened; you asked if it was intentional, I said it wasn't, you then asked why I chose "he", I told you why I chose it. That's it, that's all. I have also clarified repeatedly that I also use the neutral "he", though I do not recall if it was to you specifically, both because it's the default in my language that do not have a neutral, and because it's how I was taught to use the English language, that's how it makes sense to me, it's the most familiar way to translate it. This is another misframing, while it might be due to you not knowing the context, it does not excuse you from misrepresenting this. I will explain this as succintly as possible. My character and NoI4 character have an history of jabbing at each other. Relevant to this particular context, this usually takes the form of his character calling mine "Dorsh" instead of "Deshan", and my character reverting back to use "Lana" instead of "Levi"; this is a fairly common occurrence that is generally always initiated in this manner, the reasoning behind it is quite simple: If your character refuses to use mine's name, mine will do the same to yours. This was never took as an OOC thing, and my character generally uses Levi until prompted with "Dorsh". In the same round you are referencing, the logs will show that he was called "Dorsh", and then, and only then, my character called that character "Lana". You are also vastly overestimating the times I need to inspect anyone that's not an antag, which is, basically never. This was also never brought up to me OOCly either; if anything, the sustained prompt with "Dorsh" as well as the lack of any OOC matter brought up to me is to me indicative that this level of conflict is found entertaining, enjoyable, or otherwise interesting or amusing. I do not claim to read minds, mind you, but I was not given any reason to believe otherwise, so I am just inferring from the information available to me. Three misframings in a single post must amount to some kind of prize; while it's still somehow possible that my point was misunderstood, my goodwill to let it slide is exhausted, so I will proceed to address it as yet another misframing. If you bothered to take a minute to understand the whole post before evicting things from the context in which they are said, you would have noticed that I was talking about what the mechanic is supposed to represent, which I backed up in my next comment from the only decision on the matter present in the forums at the moment. My point was referring to the feature alone, which represents what you can see. At no point I have indicated that what you can infer visually is correct or right, you can clearly be mistaken and misleaded by what your eyes see. You can have reasonable interpretations that are wrong, it happens all the time. I was talking about the feature representing sexual dimorphism, I was asked how then it should be used in that context, and I addressed how it should be used in that context. In fact, in the same comment, I went to explain the difficulties between the mechanical possibilities, the various philosophical positions that exist on the topic, and so on. My point was that the inspection should represent sexual dimorphism as seen by the subsequent quote that I cited on the matter, and not go into the deep weeds and complexities of the topic. No, first of all, noone brought this up to me. Second of all, in virtue of me not being sure I was expressing the point well, I have also consulted with one of our Head Devs before posting the aforementioned reply to make sure I was correctly representing it; neither of us saw anything wrong with it, so I will chalk it up to you and what I presume being your friends going nuclear to an almost single line reply point while ignoring the whole context it was said into. I do not appreciate being taken out of context. I will also note, noone seeked to have any clarification about it either, I can only suppose that the offer of social economy of brownie points from virtue signaling and/or drama spurring was too much of a juicy offer not to take, so reacting was more important than seeking to understand what was being said. You clearly didn't, or this complain would not have existed in the first place, you would have messaged me on Discord with something like "hey I saw this this and this and I think/feel/would like to/whatever [...]" instead. You don't get to take the moral high ground and virtue signal after filing a complain based on hearsay, quotes taken out of context and misrepresented events that you not only did not bother to get the full context of, but didn't care to even see if what you & company understood was what it actually said or happened, especially framing with such slanderous insinuations. You at best called me an ignorant, you literally wrote it; the insinuation is much worse even if you try to backpedal it afterwards. Considering you already called me a dog but some months ago, was unnecessarily abrasive in multiple occasions that can be seen both in Discord and on some PRs, as well as things I cannot even talk about here from staffcord, and your own complain you received, and now this, I don't see a way in which I could not see this as something bad. I might be wrong, of course, but I ran out of goodwill this time around.

It is a solution, if it's sufficient, that we can debate about, the solution is that you need things to defend yourself and others, it might require someone to give or make more for you, and we can discuss if you should have it readily available or not from roundstart, but it is neverthless a solution. Doesn't mean it's the perfect solution, there's rarely perfect solutions. You are working for the SCC, presumably you want to continue working for the SCC, your job includes going down to said planet to do things, that necessitates you being able to defend yourself It's no different than having to defend yourself as a miner or xenoarcheologist from space carps, reavers, sharks and local fauna when you are on an asteroid working, apart that those are rampant IPCs you should not head-tap to not destroy the positronic brain The idea that it's a punishment is also absurd, I can just aswell make an argument that characters that are up to fight would be punished from what you are suggesting, that leads us nowhere as an argument point Going down there if it's your job, is your job, assuming you still wish to remain employed, you would go down to it because you want to remain employed. Doesn't mean you have to enjoy doing it as a character, but that's why it's supposed to be a job and not an holiday, isn't it? You will need to do things that you don't like to keep your job, especially in capitalist dystopia 2466 Yes, this is more or less the story of the current arc: Rampant IPCs, overrunning local security forces and people, planet wide emergency etc. etc. The story isn't "the horizon goes to Konyang for a shore leave and enjoys some months of city shore leave" at the moment, the game is reasonably representing the story as it stands right now; when and if we solve the IPC rampancy problem, you would then be able to go down alone and explore everywhere without any risk In character? No, me as a player? Yes, because it's extremely entertaining; go down with your lasgun, meet the locals, stick with them to help out or hire them to help you, or get someone else to come with me so we can help each other, and so on You know, RP If your argument is that combat is an issue, I do not agree with it in principle, because it isn't If that is all your proposal is about, it contrasts with the current narrative of the planet situation, I also do not think it's too much of a combat arena, and various other people clearly enjoy it being this way (or more, considering the various gang and pirate violence that appears planet-side despite the presence of those IPCs to fight) Ultimately, this boils down to narrative representation, which is perfectly serviceable and would be only damaged by applying what you are proposing I am open to consider other tools to increase the entertainment value of the game, but reducing the threat and kneecapping the narrative representations isn't an acceptable way to do that to me

You kind of did though? Right here: And in the same message here: I have explored or was sent down to Konyang with groups of 3/4 people, I don't think it's a "huge group" by any means Never said it is, do you want to propose something better to defend yourself with? I'm all for it, but that's not what you proposed That can, and I think even should, be changed with some regulations or similar that says along the line of "given the risks of the location, anyone with a clearance and reason to visit those places is allowed to request and receive reasonable equipment for the purpose of self defense", want to propose that too? I would like to Self imposed limitations exist because the player want those self imposed limitations to the character, and rule imposed limitations exist for the gameplay to be enjoyable, both can lead into something interesting only if they aren't thanos snapped the moment they actually become limitations, if any time limitations come into play in any meaningful way we have to change things so that the limitations aren't meaningfully limiting anymore, then nothing really interesting would come out of them A reasonable person that works for The Phoron Company™, on a ship after the most dangerous and precious material of the whole spur, doesn't need to seek violence but should likewise be able to defend himself and the ship if under existential threat, I have at no point said you should play Helldivers Doom Konyang Edition, but if rampant zombie IPCs (or anyone else) comes with the clear intent to kill you, it is perfectly reasonable to fight back to defend yourself and others Also you know a fun fact? You don't need to kill anyone of them! As they are IPCs, you can use EMP weapons (grenades or ion rifles) to discharge their battery, leaving them on the ground unable to move but perfectly alive You can also just destroy their frame without shooting them in their positronic brain, and like on-ship characters, you would not have killed them either No need to play John Sol at all here, just a normal person with the bare minimum ability to pool a spool on an EMP grenade and throw it, or pull a trigger on a rifle; considering entire wars and revolutions have been fought with far more difficult to use front loaded muskets by illiterate peasants, I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to know how to pull a trigger in 2466 as an employee working on the flagship going after the most precious thing known to man, really

AFAIK it was built before the IPC issue started, the megacorporate conglomerate has, unsurprisingly, offices and outposts in the various planets Because people don't disappear overnight, the problem started what, a month ago? They are trying to survive with what they can, and dying otherwise, it's an entire planet and they didn't got the WH40K flesh eating virus bombed, they are being overrun by rampant IPCs, the local police and army is being beaten up and that's why they needed our help You are imagining some extinction level event wasteland scenario that is just not there, you don't cause an extinction level event in a single month, in fact I'm not even sure the rampant IPCs would be interested in the wildlife at all But ultimately, you answered your own question: The area is not overrun and that's why it's not filled to the brim with those zombies, but when they are spawned, it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to always, only, inevitably see them locked into some building that you can pass by and look at them like if it's some animal in a zoo, if you always find them locked inside somewhere where they're not a threat, that creates what is called ludonarrative dissonance, what you experience in gameplay doesn't align with the story Firstly, while it might not be fun to you, it can indeed be fun to others Secondly, and more importantly, the premise is misrepresented: You can explore it, people did explore it You have expedition shotguns, you can request weapons to defend yourself, damn you can even build your own weapons and armors as Science to do that, and so on But that's not the problem is it? The problem is that if one wants to play a "uh no violence bad could never do it" character, then one has to accept the limitations imposed to said character If I make a character that is stupid, then I can't complain that in a future intrigue arc where a high cognitive performance is beneficial, I am limited by the character being stupid That's the point of having a limitation on characters, a limitation the player and maker of the character (generally) chooses, it limits you in what you can or cannot do; it is unfair in my opinion to then want the narrative representation to bend over backwards to accomodate for it so it isn't really a limitation: The player chose it, the player can choose to retcon it, the player can also choose to play another character that doesn't have that specific limitation Do you want to explore something despite the risks it involves? Either be able to defend yourself, bring someone else that is able and willing to, or accept the risk that you might die there All those are valid options to take

I don't think that's a problem, the entire planet is supposed to be almost overrun by rampant IPCs, it wouldn't make sense for them to be always found locked inside buildings If they come for you to kill you and they are faster than you are, you are doing self defense You can bring someone with you to defend, but yes, the planet is supposed to be in a zombie crysis as above, having people waltz around the surface with impunity (outside of the protected city) would contrast with the current situation you'd expect from the planet This would be the IPC equivalent of someone doing a mass shooting according to Konyang law, not only you'd get thanos snapped by the CCIA, it's even possible you'd be thanos snapped from the administrative team in regards to believability and sane characters rules It's a planet supposedly being overrun of zombies but IPCs, outside of safe areas, it would not make sense to "explore with less worry"

Mako Wu theme song: As for me, yours truly: Deshan Baral

Having a glorified narrator seems worse than any other alternative mode extended included, so I don't agree in principle with it being limited to those two things

Maybe the time to un-nerf telescience so they can target nearby visitable planets and whatnot for portals has come? Because as it stands right now, it seems effectively completely useless

If it is a suggestion for an automated shuttle, as per https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/18226 which implemented this, the maintainers deliberation was that [sic]:

A reminder that the discussion/pool/feedback is between the two options indicated above: - Keeping them at the current threat level in terms of per-unit (mob) damage - Lowering the current threat level in terms of per-unit (mob) damage While some ideas have been expressed that are interesting, this thread specifically aims to collect feedbacks between the two options above as outlined in the OP, so other ideas/suggestions should be evaluated/discussed/proposed in (a) different thread(s)

This is a feedback thread for the infected IPCs currently present in Konyang that is being proposed to be altered by https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/18467 The following feedback thread aims to gather information from the community about their balance, with the purpose of evaluating between: Keeping them at the current threat level in terms of per-unit (mob) damage Lowering the current threat level in terms of per-unit (mob) damage Please feel free to express your opinion on the above inquiry indicating: Which option would you prefer The reason you'd prefer said option This feedback thread does not aim to evaluate the values per-se, rather, it aims to evaluate if to reconsider the threat level said mobs pose downward or not, and arguments for either options; as such, details or dissertions on specific details, or things not directly related to the aforementioned, are not in purview of this discussion This thread will be auto-closed in seven days

I have to agree with comrade batman, there seems to be a consistent pattern where realism is said to be relevant or irrelevant depending on whatever option better serves to support the predetermined conclusion the proponent wants to make, if one wants to argue that the lazarus injector is not realistic, there's a plethora of other things that aren't either, including ones purposefully made not realistic for gameplay reasons, or lore reasons, or entertainment reasons, or technical reasons At the end of the day, Aurora (and SS13 in general) is a game, and as any game, its value relies on the entertainment value it can provide - a lot of things can be forgiven about a game that is entertaining, but if a game is not entertaining, no other redeeming quality can absolve it from such failure, this is as much true for roguelikes fantasy games as it is for simulators (where the entertainment value is also often found in facing the technical complexity they represent) I do not think this PR is really relevant in either direction for the entertainment value of the game, however, an harm to it or a technical reason that compels to remove something should be demonstrated before it should be permissible to remove content, and I do not think the lazarus injector have demonstrated such thing to justify its removal It's certainly possible to replace it with something better, ie extending the medical system to animal thus removing it to not have a bypass of said improvement available, but as it stands right now, no improvement would be had from the removal of it, and therefore it should not be removed

Character time is meaningless for this, someone with only-god-knows-how-many-hours-playing-command can make a new character right before an event and outclass a fresh 80-hours-played first command character in any possible conceivable way virtually every time, likewise someone who poured 200 hours into a single captain character and last played 3 years ago and is just coming back would get itself surclassed by the aforementioned 80 hours new command player that spent the last 6 months playing here This is not really feasible as a metric Additionally, I have to concur with Gem et al. that this gives a vibe of elitism that I do not want to see (if anything we should lower the one we already have, not add more on it, unless we want to end up with an highpop of 10 people) Canon events are already on a quadrilateral rail inside a magnetic field lock, we do not need to make them even more predetermined, quite the opposite

The suggestion is for an alternative to HuT, a lobotomy wouldn't be an alternative to becoming a borg, but something in between HuT and it I think that remembering who you are, what you did and why, and having some slim chances to at least escape if you play your hand well is meaningfully different from being a memoryless, hard-lawed borg, and it leaves more RP options open for you too Of course, if you did something hostile enough to warrant it, you can and will end up as a borg, what I was brainstorming was an alternative to HuT, not an alternative to borging

Maybe lobotomies as an alternative? It fits what we already have, borging lobotomizes someone and places it to be controlled by an electronic system, we could go halfway with just the lobotomy (which would translate mechanically to permanent paxazide) + maybe a combined tracking/chemical implant ready to put you to sleep if the password is spoken on the listening radio channel OR you leave the radio range This can be explained as following: Lobotomy gives a paxazide-equivalent effect that prevents you from hurting people with tools/items, so you are not a threat to the crew The tracking implant part allows to know where you are at any given moment, should we want you back The chemical implant part allows to put you to sleep if needed Automatic chemical release on radio loss ensures that if you try to run away, you'd be put to sleep and can be retrieved The SCC has a vested interest in having you working compared to having you relaxing in a cell, so this option is preferable for them Both chemical and tracking implants are already present in the brig as options Borging is already an option that lobotomizes the brain -> Therefore nothing "truly new" is added, it's just a combination of things that are options already in some capacity It would still be a more interesting option over "beep boop i am now a robot, no idea what happened until now", as it allows you to remember what you did and talk about it, in some capacity Borging still remains an option should you wish to cause further troubles verbally -> That also means you don't have to sit in a cell waiting for sec to find all the other antags, you can be released and RP to the general population, as you are not a mechanical threat, they can always swing back to get you later if you continue to cause verbal troubles --> Going to help your antag friends without a way to mechanically fight breaks self-preservation rules, so while you can do that mechanically, you'd get bwoinked for that People sympatetic to you can try to remove said implant, you will still be unable to fight, but you can now try to escape -> So you can RP the sad story and try to gain sympaties of a Surgeon/Machinist or what have you, which is still better than staring at the wall in brig Just off the top of my head Thoughts?

The PR was merged and therefore this suggestion is considered implemented Locking and archiving

Cruel and unusual punishments are the soul of SS13, so I support this idea in the abstract I would like to see specific options discussed, so that they are also actionable

I am not sure if that's allowed by the rules for the relay, but there's a section called "horizon rooms", so one could be created and called something like "residential meeting room #3484241" (or whatever) where you can have an IC meeting similar to what the meeting room in the bridge is for, of course it's not restricted but you can ICly kick out whoever comes knocking Or, you can organize to meet in one of the condominium rooms too, that would also work

Doesn't mean it wouldn't beneficial for them to also have something to retain a general sense of what's going on, they also make decisions just like everyone for their own character's reaction to a situation, as Carver said: You can use the relay channel to have a dialogue ICly ontop of joining as off-duty, that also allows you to talk to people who were there One of the few positives I personally see with having CCIA in its current form is that they make the SOP, which are the IC rulings; it's not up to command players to make them, just to apply them You can certainly disagree on this, and I would not be totally opposed to this being a thing under some conditions, but at the moment, if anything this would be just another reason not to want a channel for this on my end With all that said, and all things considered, I support Trio's reasoning in the general direction for this suggestion Voting for dismissal