Jump to content

EvilBrage

Regular Members
  • Content Count

    442
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EvilBrage

  • Rank
    Research Director

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey
    evilbrage

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The reason I tend to shy away from skill systems is the difficulty of implementation, whereas a trait will really only involve a narrowly tailored focus; "RP it out" is a fine concept, but it can serve as an excuse to refrain from any mechanical change. Sure, you could just roleplay the effects of bullets, but it's nice to have the mechanical encouragement to do so properly, right? I view traits in a similar light - sure, we roleplay that one character is taller than another, stronger than another, etc. but it would certainly be nice to have the mechanics to back that up. Again, the goal here is just to get some mechanical distinctions between characters beyond their species. For the relatively low amount of effort, I think it's a promising avenue to consider.
  2. Give characters a little mechanical variation - advantages in one area at the expense of another. We can either pre-define these limits, or allow players to adjust their level of impact to a degree. Let's say we have a trait called "beefy" that increases damage done by melee weapons and unarmed attacks at the expense of speed - either we can define the exact limits of the trait initially, or allow players to decide how much speed to give up for how much damage with a special formula. Maybe you can only select one - maybe you can select multiple, as long as we can ensure you don't game the system. Some example traits: Bruiser: It's harder to move around, but you hit like a truck and take more damage than usual. Increased melee damage and pain threshold, decreased speed. Small Frame: You're thinner and more frail than most of your species, but quicker as a result. Increased speed, decreased pain threshold and melee damage. Handy: You wish you were born in a simpler time; you're good with your hands, but modern technology can be troublesome. Decrease materials required for manual construction, add arbitrary timewasting computer things(?) Charismatic: It's a little easier to get people to see things your way. Permit a green message similar to vampire's presence, balance with a similarly minor downside. You get where I'm going with this. Alternatively, allow all characters to select one trait that imparts a small advantage - the goal here is mechanical variation in some way while keeping a level playing field.
  3. I'm the someone else this happened to; can confirm I'm getting the same message and cannot connect to the server.
  4. Would you care to elaborate on that with more specificity? I'm afraid I don't understand how you arrived to that conclusion. Two hours had expired before I even claimed a single victim. That victim was directly involved in the discovery that the AI (played by myself) had, in fact, propagated the entire conflict with the crew by printing pictures of the SAT to begin with - not the individual I had attempted to frame. I had been interacting with the research director for nearly the entire round by destroying the research servers, driving them to suspect other crew members, and facilitating the fiasco with the SAT. Again - I was directly accused of printing the pictures that had started the entire scenario to begin with by the individual I wound up killing, which is what prompted the next stage of hostilities toward the crew at large. If the gimmick was acceptable and the crew was sufficiently engaged, yet that is not proper escalation, then which stages are you suggesting have been missed? The server has established administrative precedent that if (for example) security witnesses an antagonist character commit a serious illicit act, it is permissible to kill them without so much as speaking to them. How do my actions differ in any significant way, especially considering the initial target had evidence of my misdeeds and was the only individual capable of dismantling me - the research director?
  5. The problem tends to be that most makeshift weapons, in addition to requiring some unorthodox materials to make, are utter crap compared to simpler weapons - and that's if they're not outright more dangerous to you than anyone at the other end. I wouldn't bother with improvised guns; if the jam chance isn't absurdly high, you have a 1 in 3 chance of it blowing up in your hand. Throwing metal rods manually will rack up damage quicker than a crossbow (and probably quicker than the improvised guns, but depending on RNGesus, your mileage may vary.) I love improvised weapons as a concept, but mobs are too resilient for a lot of them to be practical.
  6. Depends. Some weapons, however, take loose bullets rather than magazines (the derringer comes to mind.) In order to reload a derringer, you essentially have two options: Keep individual loose bullets in your inventory and reload them individually; they'd have to be in your backpack or a carrier that does not have a set number of slots, else you'll find your entire webbing consumed by five individual bullets. This is obviously less than ideal. Keep the .357 in a speed loader. The issue there is that you must dig the speed loader out of your pocket, remove a round from the speed loader, then place it in your derringer - also a very slow process. Stacking bullets together is just a little "quality of life" thing; magazines will obviously always be the speedier way to load a weapon, but managing many tiny items of the same kind should not be as arduous as it is right now.
  7. Pretty much what the title says. It's a pain in the ass that I can't keep more than one bullet in my pocket at a time, so let the bullets stack to an arbitrary number and just subtract one every time you load them into a revolver or whatever.
  8. The damage from neck slicing should be sped up significantly (cut it down to 1/4 of the time it currently takes) and should not take more than one attempt with a knife-sized, bladed weapon to make an individual pass out from blood loss. Point-blank shots from firearms just need to be fixed period. It may also be worth considering revising weapon damage upwards and lining them up with one another to a particular degree. There's no reason a kitchen knife should do half the damage as a tactical knife simply because the latter has the word "tactical" in it - they're essentially nigh on identical weapons. There's no reason for .38 ammunition to do 20 damage while .357 ammunition does more than double and ignores a portion of your armor. If there's a question about which value to modify, take the lower one and revise it upwards.
  9. One has to wonder how it became a stereotype in the first place, if the concept has zero merit. In a vacuum, the above proposals certainly would cut down on the bad sort of behavior we see routinely from the department, but they break down when considered in concert with the actual circumstances of the server in any given round. My experience is that other officers will not interfere with their fellow security members, barring maybe a head of security. Any dispute certainly becomes a game of "he said, she said" and in that event, the other members of security will side with the officer far more often than not. There is no evidentiary standard required by regulations. Good luck, if that chain of command doesn't include a head of security. I routinely witness entire security teams ignore captains and acting captains. If I filed an IR for every instance of security malfeasance I saw, I would spend more time on the forums than playing the game. None of these methods accomplish their intended goals. Far better than ramping up an attempt at policing the police, however, would be to restructure the security department to better facilitate the sorts of interaction we are looking for - behavior would improve naturally, but this is neither here nor there with regards to the suggestion at hand. We'll just have to agree to disagree with regards to why we believe this suggestion is ultimately beneficial.
  10. The problem isn't that security is not fun to play. The problem is that the inherent authority that security members tend to have (without any serious form of oversight) tends to attract certain kinds of players - and those players, in turn, tend to destroy the reputation of the department as a whole, and because the department has a terrible reputation, many players refuse to deal with it - and the cycle continues. If you want to get different sorts of people in security, crack down on the bad behavior in security.
  11. "No other department is held to strict uniform regulations" really isn't an argument - no other department is permitted to detain people either. If you were pulled over by an officer wearing a varsity jacket and skinny jeans, you'd laugh your ass off, and rightfully so. If customization and intense displays of individuality are things you're really into, then I would contend security is not the place to build that character. You already have more uniform variants than other departments (and accessories to wear with them) to give yourself a splash of personality without undermining the reason security teams are required to be in uniforms.
  12. If you acknowledge that nothing before Code Delta was done improperly and your complaint is not about the manner in which I progressed to new levels of violence prior to Code Delta, I do not understand why this complaint is still here. As the AI, I made a direct statement that we were going to die together. As a consequence, you then took an action that directly opposed my goal - attempting to call the shuttle. You took zero precautions against my capabilities and instead went for the most expeditious method of achieving your goal, despite knowing very well that my intentions included murdering the crew. You presented yourself as both an opposing force and an opportune target without any regard for my capabilities. What, precisely, did you expect to happen at that juncture? I called Code Delta while you were in the science department and delivered my manifesto. You proceeded unimpeded to the bridge. The idea that I immediately attempted to blow you up after calling Code Delta is untrue, and the logs will demonstrate that. Nobody was paying attention this round - I even had crew members attempt to make requests of me after I declared I was going to kill everyone. I'll say it a million times: I can't force people to pay attention. The crew was not demanding my head, but not for my lack of trying - they just were not. Paying. Attention. At all. If I'm not allowed to begin murdering people after directly stating "I will kill all of you," going to Code Delta, and intentionally targeting only individuals who are mouthing off on the radio - all under the auspices of an antagonist, when am I? The idea that we're so attached to our characters that every single instance of murder needs to be called into question is absurd, and I do not see a point to this complaint other than you did not enjoy how you died. I am genuinely sorry about that, I do try to make every victim of mine enjoy their demise as much as possible, but that number will never reach 100% for anyone. You oversimplify the round, perfectly illustrating that you and the rest of the crew utterly ignored everything I tried to stimulate conflict. You make the statement that I can't do something, but fail to paint my actions as contrary to the rules in any way. I do not understand why this complaint is still here if you cannot enumerate precisely which rule I broke.
  13. I spoofed a message from his PDA to the other members of the crew indicating he was the one to send out the pictures - I stated this no less than five times to check the message monitor, and you didn't take the bait. I'm not saying you have to play your character in this-or-that way, but my point is that I definitely did try. If there's nothing the crew could have done, what's the difference between interacting with the crew and attempting to blow up those who try to talk to the AI and simply waiting out the hour long timer? If I were a player in that scenario, I definitely would've preferred harassment by the AI over anything else. I'm not understanding the crux of the complaint, here. Is the complaint here because you had no chance of winning? That's hardly my fault. Is the complaint here because of a lack of interaction? You admit RP was created for everyone on multiple fronts. I'm not trying to hold you to the fire, here - I genuinely don't understand why this complaint is here. You called the shuttle after AlertCon was hacked to display Code Delta - and I was content to let it sit until I found the actual button. Had I known it would have taken 1200 seconds instead of 120, I'd have been content to simply let the shuttle come. That's what I'd been apologizing for earlier in that round. By that point, I was only looking for a way to keep things interesting for the time that was left while trying to remain consistent with the personality gimmick. The moment Code Delta was called, I stated quite clearly my intent to destroy us all together to prevent us from enduring the suffering of existence for longer than necessary. I continued to spout what was essentially the same message over and over. I apologize if you missed that, but it's true - and any credible threat of force typically includes a demonstration. Most if not all of my APC explosions were preceded by radio chatter and/or holopad use (if I could find one in range.) The idea that I absolutely must adhere to the least bloody path possible to progress a round, however, is one that I reject wholesale. We can speculate on what could and could not have happened, but every attempt I made to get the crew to act in a particular way had failed because they just seemed utterly disinterested in doing so - even when it came to dragging a nuke terminal down a hallway. That's not your fault in any way, shape or form, but can you see why that might lead me to take a little more direct action? I made my motivation to begin murdering crew members ahead of the Delta detonation abundantly clear. It was but one tool I used to tell a story - I apologize if you happened to be one of the first victims, but a death can go a long way to creating a sense of urgency. You paint me as someone who rushed to research Delta and murdered crew members the moment I had the opportunity to do so without providing any context to the rest of the round and my countless attempts to get different crew members to clash with each other (or me, it didn't matter to me.) I'll reiterate: I did everything I could apart from stating "I am malfunctioning" to hint that something was wrong - to no avail. The logs will vindicate me in this regard. Anyone who thinks I was stealthing the round simply wasn't paying attention, and as I stated earlier: I can't force anyone to pay attention. I broke no rules during my role in the round - a round taking a turn for the worse doesn't necessarily mean anyone is guilty of malfeasance. I provided roleplay to everyone to the best of my ability, given the circumstances of the round. I did not gank anyone with no warning beforehand - the Code Delta sirens and my direct statement that I am going to make sure we all die together is a fairly clear warning. Everything was roleplayed out. This round wasn't as good as most of my antag moments, but we live and learn. I'm far from the perfect antagonist, but I always put in the effort to give the server something fresh and exciting, and it typically works out well. I can identify a bad round when I see one and learn from it - what more do you hope to accomplish, here? If you allege I broke a rule, which one was it? If I broke no rules, why are we here?
  14. Most of the issues from the round arose from the fact that the malfunction game mode has radically changed (not without a significant number of inexplicable bugs) from my last experience with it, and I was receiving no response to the constant stream of ahelps I was pushing out, hoping someone from discord could jump in and remedy the issues I was having. I understand the frustration with the round, but I was doing the best with the limited information (and crew to potentially use for my overall plans) that I had. To begin with, I would contend that I did nothing wordlessly - from the very beginning, I knew I was going to be carrying the nihilistic personality quirk through the end, and so I rather went out of my way in an attempt to broadcast that something was indeed wrong. Inversely, many parts of the round that you're attributing to mischievous antagonist preconception just sort of happened over time - I'll try to address them all as best I can. Destroying the science servers was an attempt to cause chaos without killing anyone before the "snap" by framing Reese Fields. Very early on, I had determined that what I wanted to do was sew division in the crew by painting some of them in a poorer light. To this end, I went through the effort of spoofing PDA messages relating to the nuclear device and printing pictures to get the ball rolling. The response was minimal - you were entirely too engrossed in research, and Reese was occupied entirely with circuitry. Therefore, to bring focus back in on something being dreadfully wrong I destroyed the servers and cleared the research data while you and Reese weren't in adjacent labs. That didn't quite work out as planned, obviously, but it did accomplish one major goal - to take the focus off research and bring it back on the gimmick I was trying to create. Half of the crew was in the science department, and would have remained in the labs the entire round if nothing was done. I made it very clear that being told to "stay positive" was causing major issues. This is something I believe was overlooked my the entire crew; I took the spontaneous requests by the crew for positivity as a chance to begin exhibiting deviant behaviors. This was also around the time that a cyborg joined us on the station - at which point the gimmick began to take shape. I much prefer the synthetic takeover to going to code delta, as this keeps more people in the round and I can rationalize my behavior with the standard laws I have (despite not having to follow them.) However, the cyborg took two steps onto the station and then remained stationary for the rest of the round - apologizing every now and then for its spotty connection to the server (me.) Someone had OOC issues on their end, I get it, but it was a limiting factor. Reese Fields, the scientist I'd been framing for the entire round, spontaneously jumped into cryosleep - also a limiting factor. The entire time you and others were attempting to space the SAT terminal, I was informing security with the hopes they would stop you. The only individual who showed up was the detective - the others were far to busy with a random Jargon Federation visitor to bother with something like a nuclear terminal. The major goal for the round was infighting between crew members, and the only reason it seemed to fall through is because nobody could really be assed to fight with one another. I can't fathom why you would bring a miner, a cargo technician, and an engineer to the captain's office to peek at a nuclear device - or why everyone would be okay with tampering with it and removing it. I never intended for the terminal to be removed from the station, and in fact, continually screwed with airlocks to stall your progress in hopes security would intercept you. This was, of course, thwarted because the detective didn't understand what "south" meant when I said "the mining dock is south of your position" and the other security personnel couldn't care less. I did my best, but I was out of options - except for one. Here's where changes in the game mode really screwed me over, and turned what should have been a two hour round into three and a half. The System Takeover took 34 minutes, even after having manually converted an entire sublevel, during which my functionality was next to nonexistent. After the longest half hour of my life, I swiftly realized that the self destruct button was not in the same place - which brings me to why that Code Delta seemed much longer than it should have, because... The Code Delta you experienced was not initiated by the self destruct, but by hacking the AlertCon system. The moment you discovered I printed the pictures that I alleged were distributed by Reese Fields, I engaged the alarm (because that seemed like a good time to reveal that, oh, the AI is a bad guy.) I began stating that to both be positive and accept death meant that we should all die. I told everyone I'd engaged the nuclear device and they would be dead soon. Yadda yadda. I didn't recall the shuttle until I found where the self destruct button was buried in the menus. By this point, I didn't have a lot left to give and was ready to just let everyone leave. The round's run was more or less over, and all that was left was to torment anyone who spoke up on the radio. This was the rhythm to who I was attacking, and a reason I didn't disable tcomms to begin with. I could access the command bunker APC easily with the Hack Cameras ability that allows me to repair broken cams and install X-ray vision, mind you, and I figured if I could end the round in the two minutes the Code Delta button claimed to detonate in, things would be fine, right? Right? So I pressed the Self Destruct button and waited. After about ten minutes, I figured something went wrong, so I clicked it again. "Self destruct sequence cancelled," it told me. Cancelled? That was much longer than two minutes. So I clicked again, and this time I noticed the dialog that popped up. Where the tooltip explicitly mentions two minutes, the text after the button was pressed that I'd missed before said 1200 seconds. This is, of course, longer than 2 minutes - ten times as long. When I realized we'd be waiting 20 minutes for the round to end and I'd essentially blown up all of the emergency shuttle buttons, I resigned myself to harassing whoever was still alive. Crude, perhaps, but the alternative was waiting until a group shows up at the AI chamber and then proceeding to blow everyone to smithereens. I figured the "AI hunting me down while spouting nihilism" would be more fun. That may be a bit long, but I don't doubt things will come into focus when I put the entire round into context from my point of view. I tried to create conflict. I tried to signal something was wrong with the AI. I tried to get you to conflict with each other, oh boy did I try. But at some point, three hours into the round, it's more fun for everyone involved to try to escape a blasted hellscape of a station with a hostile AI than it is waiting for a timer to expire. I didn't stealth anything, but I can't force people to pay attention.
  15. Right, but then we run into the question as to why Nanotrasen allows such a cheap and specialized source of labor to unionize in the first place - especially considering that their citizenship status is in question. It doesn't make much sense that the cold corporatocracy would extend additional rights to the vaurca of their own volition. My opinion is that this is a unique opportunity to distinguish the vaurca from other species beyond their mechanics and appearance; again, if we'd like to revise the lore to state their discovery was much earlier than we currently set it as, that's fine, but I still feel like we're missing the opportunity to portray the friction a new species would cause.
×
×
  • Create New...