EvilBrage

I've always found the description oddly specific for an autopsy. It'd take hours, if not days of work to figure out the exact weapon used on a victim; why not instead limit our autopsy results to what sorts of variables the weapon has. Does it have an edge? Is it sharp? Was the death due to bludgeoning? Burns from a hot (like a laser) or cold (like a freeze ray) source? Suffocation, toxins, etc? Using general descriptors instead of "hello this was the weapon used" seems like a way to foster more actual detective work, rather than "oh, we know who has access to hatchets, gg case closed."

How's it downgrading security? They're getting their stuns and their damage - just in a different form. They're moving from short-ranged takedowns to long-ranged ones, meaning the best chance for someone to survive is either to run away, or to charge at them and disarm them (not unlike real life.) It's just a tradeoff.

This. By my count, you already need mining to get the plastic and cargo/botany to get the wood and metal - yes, cargo and mining are essentially the same department, and the only individual who would be able to gather everything required without going to anyone else would be a quartermaster. I'd go as far as to add that the crossbow is also the least versatile weapon in the game, requiring excessive maintenance to dish out the damage it does (power cell, reloading a metal rod after each shot, drawing the string back before each shot.) Furthermore, that individual would (in my opinion) also need training in both Construction and Electrical Engineering, as well as Weapon Expertise to even know how to aim and use the thing properly. If they're a non-antag and they robust you with a crossbow the moment you arrive on-station, ahelp it. The only mechanical change I would make to the crossbow is to make it bulky rather than normal-sized; it shouldn't fit in your satchel along with ten other things, and if it does, it shouldn't be able to hold a metal rod large enough to inflict the damage it does. It has a sprite when wielded so there's no excuse for you not to run away the moment you spot someone with a crossbow and make preparations to combat them (see the revolver thread for tips on combating ballistics.)

I was unaware that each department required its own unique color. Cargo and Engineering both use yellow liberally and they're getting along just fine.

Only if we get blue security. A mechanics change doesn't change the mindset of the players - that much is true. However, what this does do is bring us a step closer to Black Mesa, and that's literally the only thing I like about this. Downsides are aplenty, including but not limited to the issue of stray bullets breaking windows (laser window-breakage must be intentional, ballistics can cause them accidentally,) a trial on another server failing (check that hubris at the door, what happened to them can just as easily happen to us,) and a marked shift in balance (security's weakness is that it's primarily short-range, and this is intentional; giving them medium-capacity guns with stun capabilities and 60 agony shots will toss balance to the wind.) If we're absolutely dead-set on giving them guns, I'd say remove flashes and stun batons from their standard loadout to shift their "advantage" from short-range to long-range. And, of course, give them all cool waist holsters or something.

On the contrary, they add everything to roleplay; they open up more options for an enterprising antagonist who wants to do something besides shoot you or bomb you. There's definitely easier ways to kill people than walk up to them and punch/melee them to death - so why fly into a rant about it? "Balance" is not as relevant here as expanding options; to expect the station's equipment to be on par with that of the antagonist is, as I've stated in previous threads, ridiculous. Corny as it sounds, the most powerful weapon in this game is your mind. I'll bring up the example of Janitor vs 2 Nuke Ops again. If pressed, I could probably even find a way to escape from the permabrig without any pre-planning. Equipment doesn't matter half as much as the individual making use of it.

The line itself isn't as important as the squares it occupies; I probably should've stated that earlier.

Maybe? From what I can see, it's not terribly conclusive, but I know I've pulled off corner shots past allies before.

Actually with a vest and a helmet, looks a little more like...

I can concede that I've been the recipient of a few of Tish's snippy a-help responses. I remember one conversation in particular in which a polite attempt to persuade was met with a very curt citation of the "admins are always right" rule along with an ominous "don't do it again, or else," which really did leave a sour taste in my mouth. That said, I would really only describe Tish as "rough around the edges" rather than outright hostile - a descriptor I would assign to Rusty as well. We have two individuals who're a bit rough around the edges, so what do we get? When they brush shoulders, the coefficient of friction is so large that they're getting stuck on the other's perceived lack of sensitivity and professionalism.

No no no no no. No. If something is so bright that it can overload your brain in half a second of exposure (spoiler alert, this isn't a thing in real life,) I doubt that it could be blocked by sunglasses of any translucency. And that is not why deer are caught in headlights. When an eye that has been in the dark long enough to regenerate significant quantities of rhodopsin is suddenly exposed to bright light, a phenomenon of “bleaching,” or oversaturation, occurs, and on a massive scale. The result in humans is temporary, or flash, blindness, not a shutdown of the brain. With deer, remember that their pupils are larger and far more dilated at night than a human eye. Compound this with the greater amount of light that will reach the retina due to their larger lens, as well as their higher concentration of rods (and rhodopsin), and multiply that by two thanks to their tapetum, together this creates a perfect storm of oversaturation. Add to this the fact that, up to the point of blinding light, the deer had been enjoying terrific night sight (thanks also to their UV vision), and the combined effect of sudden blindness must be bewildering and overwhelming – causing the deer to potentially freeze. If anything, a more realistic implementation would be a period of whiteout on the screen (similar to the visual effect now) but with not knockdown effect. I'd even go for an extension of the blindness. But knocking people down? I've always thought that was just silly. That's the very problem I'm trying to address, though; as the head of security, I could prime a flashbang and run into a room full of hostages held by an armed individual, chanting the war cries of my people, and when it pops I'm the first one up and I can waltz on over to the nearest vending machine, sip on some Robust Coffee, then come back and cuff the criminal (based on a true story.) That is ridiculous. Level the playing field for everyone, is what I'm suggesting.

My dream of becoming a secret kung fu agent is one step closer to fruition. Now we just need those wrestling moves added back to the championship belt and I'll be happy for life.

Very true. But on a more serious note, placing too much reliance on one structure or system to perform a job does have potentially disastrous consequences. The obvious example is the Singularity - if anyone screws around with it, it will generally escape, and from there is a 98.5% probability that the escape shuttle will be called. With a mixture of the above chemicals, one could die in a matter of seconds placed in the cryo tube, and they'd never have a chance to scream for help. It's all balanced in a rather strange way.

Don't know if this is possible just based on how projectiles work (that is - you're in the same tile as one, you get hit.) From what I understand, unless your target is directly north, south, east, or west, your "line of fire" will start from the corner of your square closest to your target and extend towards the center of the target's square. Note that walls at the corner of your line of fire do not obstruct your line of fire, meaning you can shoot from behind walls as illustrated below. At least, that's how I think it works, and I've been pretty safe from friendly fire incidents so far.

How about make it a t8r item that looks like a pair of black gloves? Yes plz.

A much more efficient way to deal with the issue is for security to actually enforce one of the directives that we have now: science materials are not to be brought outside R&D, period, without written permission. So if they end up gunning down a t8r, rather than hailing them as a hero, arrest their sorry asses.

Or we cut out cloning completely and just let players respawn after thirty minutes as someone else, or allow their brains to be integrated into a cyborg. With the number of options we have of a player to re-enter the round, I've always been a bit unsure as to why one would want to come back as the same person. It removes the permanence of death which, in turn, causes it to be dealt with in a trivial manner. When someone dies on the station, people aren't even shocked any more - they go on with their lives assuming the deceased is going to be cloned. With the combined fuckery in genetics as well as the strangeness surrounding clone memory disorder, maybe it's just a sub-department that we'd be better off without, or change their purpose entirely. I briefly touched on switching genetics from a player-oriented job to a mob-oriented one in which the geneticists could "program" various lobotomites to perform menial tasks like cleaning the station, dragging SSD people to dorms, et cetera (with the possibility of adding in dangerous commands like attacking particular individuals.) (P.S. Not that I actually expect this to happen, but just tossing the idea out there.)

Correct. The probability does scale in a strange way, but in a nutshell, the aforementioned helmets have a greater chance of blocking a bullet than the revolver exploding if the individual knows how to mitigate the chance of failure. From the way you're talking about it, I could swear you were talking about the energy sword. In fact, the reason the revolver has finite ammunition is because it's a ranged weapon - it's a distinct drawback. And again - if someone decides to engage an individual with a revolver in a shootout at sixty paces without giving tactics a single thought, they deserve to die. And again-again - Security should not automagically outdo antags in terms of technology. From what I understand about laser weaponry, their advantage isn't that they're super advanced weaponry designed to pierce the skulls of all who cross them. They're easy to use (literally "point and trigger pull,") they're rechargable, and they're simpler to construct - not necessarily more capable of murder than ballistics. I'm also not sure where you're getting your "easily concealed" argument from. They're normal-sized items like the energy pistols, and you can't stuff them in your pockets or hide them behind the ears of unsuspecting children like quarters. If they stow the gun away within visual range, you'll get a nice little blue-colored message telling you so. That doesn't strike me as easily concealed.

I'll ignore the whining, moaning, and snark and instead focus on the facts. The detective's revolver can be modified to chamber .357 ammunition, so yes, as I was saying, the detective can receive a potentially infinite number of clips from the autolathe. Furthermore, logic dictates that it also has access to the absurd amounts of damage you're crusading against. This is assuming that the traitor in question works in cargo. "Order some metal for me, then leave me alone with the autolathe for five minutes" is not as effective a tactic as you make it out to be. You're assuming a best-case scenario for your imaginary antagonist in all respects and then droning on and on about it as if it were the norm. Revolvers have never been a problem in the months and months since it's been around - why now, all of a sudden, are they these ridiculous objects that absolutely must be changed? Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that you were killed by one. Let's assume for a moment that the traitor in question isn't the superhuman you're making them out to be - no matter the strength of your weaponry and armor, there are a few vulnerabilities in every individual that can be taken advantage of. One such element is that of surprise - instead of charging headlong in clear view of an individual with a lethal weapon that can and will kill you, why not: Wait in ambush inside a closet? Lay down a bear trap in the dark to hinder their mobility? Throw a gas grenade? Distract them while a second individual circles around to take them from the opposite direction? Use one of those flashbangs you're so fond of? Lure them into a narrow corridor and fire lasers while hiding behind cover? Ballistics take time to reach their target - lasers do not. If I can incapacitate two nuke ops and set them on fire with nothing but a cleaning grenade and a flash, then you can use the authority and equipment of security to deal with one guy with a revolver. I'll even give you another hint free of charge: tables that've been flipped over block movement, but they also provide a substantial chance to absorb incoming ranged projectiles.

Okay, so apparently my point has been lost, so let me restate: I don't want flashbangs to be removed, I want the idiot officer who got caught in his own flashbang to pay a heavy price instead of having arbitrary ear protection from wearing a helmet (and thereby being able to stand closer to it.)

Skull - I thought it was switched over to weakbullet2 a while back? It pumps out 25 without any weaken/stun attributes. Have you ever gone through and read combat logs generated while firing weapons at someone that's not right next to you? Despite what you aim for, you can hit other parts of the body anyways, typically the chest. I'm detecting an attitude that corporate security should have superior firepower to a specially-placed agent of opposing corporate interests, or a terrorist, or whatever your traitor happens to be - and I wholeheartedly disagree. The revolver, like any good weapon, is only a win button if you don't know how to combat it effectively. And just to nip this in the bud, security is not the OOC police of the server; that's an administrator's job, and if someone is "murderboning" then you just toss in an ahelp or save some logs for later. Comparing the traitor revolver to the detective's is also a very poor comparison; the detective spends nothing to acquire his weapon and two clips, and can obtain a potentially infinite number by doing something as simple as visiting an autolathe. If a traitor wishes to acquire more ammunition for his, he has to catch a moment with the autolathe, alone, and hope the enormous amount of materials he has to use to create new bullets isn't missed - a measured risk/reward to consider. Just like selecting the traitor's revolver to begin with as opposed to, say, the energy sword, crossbow, emag, or any object the traitor has access to. No amount of nerfing will cure the fact that when faced with a dangerous situation, people will occasionally do very stupid things. If you're minding your own business on the station and you charge towards the sound of gunshots when they're going off, you deserve to die by virtue of the sheer stupidity, I don't care what your department is. You encountered an individual with a revolver. You died. /client/proc/man_up(mob/T as mob in mob_list) set category = "Fun" set name = "Man Up" set desc = "Tells mob to man up and deal with it." if(!check_rights(R_ADMIN)) return T << "<span class='notice'><b><font size=3>Man up and deal with it.</font></b></span>" T << "<span class='notice'>Move on.</span>" log_admin("[key_name(usr)] told [key_name(T)] to man up and deal with it.") message_admins("\blue [key_name_admin(usr)] told [key_name(T)] to man up and deal with it.", 1)

There's a huge issue with hostage situations right now - namely, that a flashbang can just be tossed into the room while security follows suit and arrests anyone they don't like. A potential solution to this is to make flashbangs less available than they are at present. This might include removing them from the vending machines and the officer's lockers, and simply having them stored in the armory. I don't know a single corporate security force that hands out flashbangs as standard issue self defense articles, so I figure it would be more sensible to keep them in reserve. ICly we could attribute it to a high-profile flashbang accident or something. Also, like the flash objects themselves, I'm not even sure why they cause an individual to slump to the ground, completely helpless for a good ten to fifteen seconds rather than just creating a blinding light and deafening someone like they would in real life. Another solution might be to scale the effect in accordance with the distance of the player from the flashbang and direction they are facing, along with re-evaluating some equipment bonuses; at present, the flashbang arbitrarily provides ear protection to individuals with helmets (which doesn't make sense since our helmet remodel), which means that even if a security officer is caught in his own flashbang, he'll still stand up before his target. All of the above factors make the flashbang a very low-risk weapon to deploy in a hostage scenario, when (I believe) the officer should be at risk if he manages to fumble the flashbang, or it's thrown back at him.

Why? Medical doctor A does an autopsy on victim B. The word "cane sword" shows up on the autopsy. Officers go around checking all of the canes. Fortunately enough I was the doctor the last time it happened, but you really wouldn't be able to tell what a sword was concealed in by looking at the victim's wounds.

From a look at the code, the only way to be decapitated from a single shot with the revolver is if you meet all of the conditions below: They are targeting your head. They are firing point blank and with the harm intent. Your head already has damage that has not been healed. Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion in this thread, firing a revolver on your unharmed head, even while point blank, will not kill you. I'm inclined to suggest leaving the revolver how it is; after all, it's not the traitor weapon with the highest damage you can obtain (that being the energy sword, which deals 10 more damage.) The revolver can also be heard from several rooms away when fired, and once your ammo is gone, it's over. You could order a second clip, but you've just used 9 out of 10 telecrystals there; that's your entire antagonist loadout apart from a toolbox or some soap. The weapon is only as good as its wielder, and like all antagonist objects, objectives, and roles, it's up to the individual who has it in his possession to make the round interesting. It's not "unacceptable" or "ganky" unless the player makes it that way. Just quoting this because it's an important note: armor doesn't function as damage reduction, but rather a percent chance that the shot will do no damage. The armor values against ballistic weaponry are typically laughable unless you're actually wearing the ballistics vest. That said, Sue's acccount doesn't surprise me in the least; a sniper bullet, while powerful, is only one shot (and therefore, there's only one roll to make, albeit at a small chance you'll come out unharmed.) Luck was what saved her that day. On the other hand, you'd be surprised to know that even though it's an ERT hardsuit, it doesn't fare much better against bullets. I'm assuming she was shot with more than one, which would mean multiple percentile checks, which means an exponentially higher rate of failure despite the (slightly) higher armor value. What this also means is that a traitor with an incredible run of bad luck can pump six revolver shots into your head at point blank range and it's possible for your helmet to block every single one. Sure, you only have a 0.001% chance of surviving that, but it's still possible. In a purely numerical sense, unless you're the one daft enough to let a known traitor waltz right up to you and give you two point-blank shots in the head, the ranged weaponry miss-chance coupled with an armor's defensive value gives a security officer a fair chance of surviving a gunshot or two (of which, need I remind you, the traitor typically only has six.) If we're so concerned about realism, we can rename the ammunition ".357 HP" and call it a night, because I wouldn't lower the revolver's damage below 50, if at all.