EvilBrage

Implying there's a problem with furry bashing. In any case, I've always had a huge problem with the players that seem to think that a new species would assimilate into human-dominated industries at the drop of a hat when it's literally taken us centuries to do the same with other humans of different skin colors. Humans have only been exposed to tajarans for a decade or two - I see nothing wrong with getting the ball rolling on a more conflict-centric avenue of play.

I've never had a problem dividing and conquering the ERT; they're still very much vulnerable to the inventive antagonist. Not to mention, you get quite the advance notice that they're coming, so it's literally a piece of cake to set a trap that will utterly cripple the team (if not outright destroy it.) RnD needs more objects that aren't weapons to have "an actual point." The material scanners are a brilliant example - but the scientists who comprise the department generally treat it like a gun factory.

> Login: renard.d@biesel.intel.gov > Password: ***************** > Login Accepted! Biesel Intelligence Services Internal Memo As I assured the regional directors in my previous memo, my investments into the anarchic elements within NanoTrasen have borne fruit. Scant moments ago, at approximately 0300 hours on 12-10-2457, the anarchist movement Volkskampfer has delivered us some intel with which to disseminate a lack of faith in Biesel's corporate opponent. Attached to this memo you will find a dossier complete with the photos proving the risk that NanoTrasen places its employees in on the NSS Arbiter, as well as the lengths that our assets have gone to in order to sabotage NanoTrasen and increase their risk of corporate liability. As it happens, NanoTrasen places its employees at considerable risk on the NSS Arbiter by doubling it as storage for a defunct nuclear warhead. Whether or not this warhead is active or capable of its intended function is unknown, but I suspect that will not matter to the viewer of the image. [bIS1.jpg] To bolster the chance of Operation Red Sun's success, our contact has delivered an unlocked container of NanoTrasen loyalty implants; please direct any further questions on their function and the possibility of subversion to Dr. Earl Howard in Acquired Materials Lab C (howarde@biesel.gov). [bIS2.jpg] Our contact took the liberty of sabotaging the crew's entertainment holodeck in order to increase NanoTrasen's risk of corporate liability due to wrongful death; the corporation lost one of its engineers in a Thunderdome simulation and a holodeck fault was clearly identified as the cause of the accident. [bIS3.jpg] In light of this resounding success, I expect all supplementary staff to capitalize on the information we have obtained; failure is not an option. Warmest Regards, David Renard, BIS District Manager > Logout

Not necessarily; the emag's usefulness is far beyond simply opening doors, not to mention they're inexpensive compared to the sword. If you ask me, using the sword to cut open walls and doors would be a last-resort kind of thing. Tools, on the other hand, are a quick purchase when you've only got one crystal left and are in a bind. Far as the code goes, we do have code for slicing the walls apart with the energy blade, and we have an is(active) variable for the energy sword, so we just need to combine the two - or if we want to be lazy, we can do like thermite does. if( istype(W, /obj/item/weapon/melee/energy/sword) ) is(active) user << "<span class='notice'>You begin slicing through the wall.</span>" playsound(src, "sparks", 50, 1) playsound(src, 'sound/weapons/blade1.ogg', 50, 1) sleep(60) dismantle_wall(1) else user << "<span class='notice'>You should turn your sword on first.</span>" return Or we could just add something onto the deconstruction line. else if( istype(W, /obj/item/weapon/melee/energy/sword) ) if(active) user << "<span class='notice'>You begin slicing through the wall with your energy sword.</span>" playsound(src, 'sound/items/Welder.ogg', 100, 1) sleep(60) if(mineral == "diamond")//Oh look, it's tougher sleep(60) if( !istype(src, /turf/simulated/wall) || !user || !W || !T ) return if( user.loc == T && user.get_active_hand() == W ) user << "<span class='notice'>You cut a man-sized hole into the wall.</span>" dismantle_wall(1) for(var/mob/O in viewers(user, 5)) O.show_message("<span class='warning'>The wall was sliced apart by [user]!</span>", 1, "<span class='warning'>You hear metal being sliced apart.</span>", 2) return I doubt either of these would work on their own because I'm much better at comprehending code than writing it, but it's a little something to work with.

Fortunately we already have an easier way; use the way it does shield checks as a template. /obj/item/weapon/melee/energy/sword/IsShield() if(active) return 1 return 0

I would be among those people, frankly. Just the thought of an implant that can modify a person's brain chemistry is ridiculous to me (loyalty implants, I'm looking at you) and I certainly don't think we need any more of those. Not to discard the lore buildup, but there's no problem this solves - by the time you've caught a griefer in time to implant him, you probably have him in restraints and unable to do any serious harm to begin with. Far as antagonists go, we already present them with a scenario in which they have no incentive to remain alive if they're captured - they'll be thrown into a cell and the best RP they'll get is having to respond to a gloating warden. Why would we further reinforce the kamikaze mindset with these? I haven't even gotten into how available they would be, how widespread their use would be, etc etc. I'll be honest - despite the aforementioned lore hint, I think this is a terrible idea mechanically speaking.

But that's not what you said. Hindsight is always 20/20, but your initial response was essentially to blame the individuals pointing out the problem rather than to concede that they may actually have a legitimate concern that needs addressing. Therefore, I don't believe it's a stretch to project that in the course of your administrative duties, you will have a pre-conceived idea about how you want to deal with something before you even approach it, because that's the chief problem I have with what you do. Have you improved? YES, hell yes you have, but I am still of the opinion that you're not right for the position. You may never be. I'm not trying to bash you, but I really want you to think this over. You seem to think the job is easy and you have the magic bullet, if only you'd just get your chance to prove yourself - but trust me when I say that it's not so simple. It's not a matter of "ready." It's not a matter of energy, or competence. I'm thoroughly convinced you lack the ability to view a situation from a neutral perspective (ergo the way I pronounced your typically emotional response to threads that don't come close to warranting it,) and despite any other trait you may have, neutrality is the single most valuable quality that a server moderator can bring to the table. Does this make you less of a player? Of course not - just like an accounting major has no business performing surgery. This position will try your patience to the limit, take it from me. Try it if you want, but I can't support your bid in good conscience - and don't say I didn't warn you.

You just broke your own rule, you hypocrite.

They flash red and blue if an area has both a fire alarm and the shuttle has been called.

My characters typically start with weaknesses and work out from there; the most intriguing part of a character isn't their strengths, and if that's all you have, the character will be very boring. Consequently, this makes it easy to determine which players are emulating themselves because they'd certainly like to think that the idealized version of themselves they've created has no flaws (that, and they become the saltiest when they die.) On the other hand, Jaylor and I have very few similarities - personally, I would like to think I'm a honorable individual. I do not steal, and I am very careful about giving out my word because it's my hope that I will never break it. The thing is - when I'm role playing, I don't want to be me. I couldn't even fathom how boring the server would be if I tried to play a character that emulated me, because I already go to work as myself almost every day. Why would I come home and pretend to do the same thing? In fact, the reason I have the most fun with Jaylor is because he's nothing like me, and I'm the sort of individual who can slip into another mindset and act out the role, and that's really what I have fun doing - and as far as making the server more enjoyable for others, I've found one particular theme that's always served me well. Play a supporting character. The problem I see with most players is that they're always trying to be the center of attention when it can be just as gratifying (if not more so) to be a character on the sidelines. If you're an antagonist, that's one thing - you're more or less forced into a main character role if you want anything accomplished at all - but I've always been mystified at how spotlight-hungry other characters seem to be. Try just being the helping hand, or simply being ready for a conflict instead of rushing out to find it - you may be pleasantly surprised with the results. But if you build your main character around yourself, then you'll be tempted to make them the star of the story, and that's not really what you want to go for. Try making a character based on someone you don't like - even if you exaggerate their flaws, you'll still achieve a fine result in that you're creating a very human (or alien, I guess) character.

If we don't have enough lore, we could always throw in Brage's Robusting Tips™ or something.

Wasn't Frances the head admin before, or did I dream that? If so, I'm not sure why this wasn't instantly accepted - anyone with the masochism to handle that can certainly handle moderation.

Unfortunately, acknowledging a mistake is only the first step to actually changing yourself. The manner in which someone responds to criticism from others in their application thread, I've found, is fairly indicative of an individual's style of moderating - and no offense to you, but I couldn't read what you've posted in response and be confident of your ability to carry out an administrative role. Having disagreements with individuals is all well and good (and the current administrative staff can tell you I've had my fair share with them) but to go to the personal lengths you do is inappropriate. It's not infrequent that I even see you fly off the handle and berate individuals for no reason; you respond very emotionally to things that often don't even involve you to begin with, and that is definitely not a quality I would accept in any moderator. Here's an example for some context: And I'm certainly no fan of what your preferred style of moderating seems to be. I don't have much of a say in whether you're accepted or denied, but the crux of my argument is that while your words and actions are fine for a player, you're applying for a position with higher standards. I could stretch back, but this sort of behavior from you is consistent over your entire stay here; can you honestly say you're prepared for the infinitely more stressful situations that you'll be placed in?

The problem isn't busting out of the brig - without 24/7 supervision, that's fairly easy to accomplish. The point I'm trying to make is that if you give people more to do while they're inside, they may not want to instantly take off their shoes and slam them against the window repetitively until someone comes in to flash them - and in that way, we enhance the server's environment. If we have a problem with map space, I wouldn't be all that adverse to having a prison complex set under the station (because theoretically, we don't have to build the entire station on a 2d plane, you know.)

If there were an actual computer network in-game that could be subverted and hacked and whatnot, tha'd be awesome. It'd also be a bitch to code.

From two seconds to build a wall down to one second. The sheer horror. I think you're missing the crux of this suggestion; you can toss out all my traits for all I care, but the trait system is what I'm focused on.

Because heaven forbid an engineer be better at engineering than a random assistant, right? Trust me when I say that while it may seem easy to game the system, SS13 relies quite heavily at times on your ability to improvise. For example, if your officer is stripped of their gear, they are now more useless than an assistant. Run out of cuffs on the job? Tough shit. Bear in mind also that an engineer who wants to be Mr. Fixit will also be an addict, a poor shot, or whatever other negative traits we decide to add. Ideally, the negatives will hurt worse than a positive helps (as you may have noticed.) The point of the suggestion is to add minor variation in mechanics.

You may recognize this post from another forum. The crux of the issue is that there are no mechanical differences between characters at the moment, and a five foot whimpy doctor with a crowbar may very well defeat a seven foot security unathi with muscles bulging out of its eyelids. Well, to combat this without leaving combat purely up to a numbers game, I propose a system of selectable character traits! Fallout-esque traits that come with both advantages and disadvantages. Each could cost a point (-1 to total,) be neutral (0), or give you a point (+1) based on the effect; every character starts with zero and can pick from a list that can give or take points, never going below their starting value of zero points. Also something something arbitrary maximum number of traits. I'll throw down a few examples: Positive Traits (-1 points) Mr. Fixit: You're a handy man! You can construct and deconstruct objects twice as fast. Heavy-Handed: Savage. Your unarmed melee attacks do more damage. Cat-Eyes: You can see further in the dark, and the squares you can see are brighter. Combative: You're especially adept at combat. Your attacks miss less often. Chem Resistant: You've got a unique metabolism. Chemicals (both beneficial and harmful) have a reduced effect on you. Balanced: Like a cat. You recover more quickly after falling down (but not from stuns.) Neutral Traits (0) Dirty Fighter: No trick is beneath you. Your attacks will do critical damage more often, but your wait period between attacks is longer. Fragile: You grew up with a small frame. You move more quickly, but have less total health and your limbs break more easily. Bruiser: You're a head above your peers, and twice as wide. You have a bonus to total health and your limbs don't break as easily, but you move more slowly. Tough Guy/Gal: Pain doesn't phase you. You'll be able to move at normal speed while in pain, but you won't receive notifications about broken limbs/organs. Negative Traits (+1) Uncreative: You never were good at thinking outside the box. You cannot create improvised weapons or cable cuffs. Addict: Your next fix is the most important thing to you now. After 30 minutes without your chem of choice, you start going into withdrawal. Whimp: What's a gym? Your melee attacks do less damage. Cross-Eyed: Why are there two of him? Your ranged and throwing attacks miss more often. Unbalanced: Help, I've fallen and I can't get up! It takes you longer to recover from slips, falls, and stuns. This way, there will be mechanical variations between characters, but not to the point where the outcome of an encounter is a foregone conclusion; some skill will still be involved in the fight. Antagonists will also have the option to change their traits as they're assigned the role - but these are also IC information (if discovered,) and so someone who's typically an addict who removes their traits as a changeling would definitely be suspicious to other crew members.

Stats? No, please for the love of god no. Like, "Toby's back in the office" no. Now, traits? Those I can get behind. Fallout-esque traits that come with both advantages and disadvantages. Each could cost a point (-1 to total,) be neutral (0), or give you a point (+1) based on the effect; every character starts with zero and can pick from a list that can give or take points, never going below their starting value of zero points. Also something something arbitrary maximum number of traits. I'll throw down a few examples: Positive Traits (-1 points) Mr. Fixit: You're a handy man! You can construct and deconstruct objects twice as fast. Heavy-Handed: Savage. Your unarmed melee attacks do more damage. Cat-Eyes: You can see further in the dark, and the squares you can see are brighter. Combative: You're especially adept at combat. Your attacks miss less often. Chem Resistant: You've got a unique metabolism. Chemicals (both beneficial and harmful) have a reduced effect on you. Balanced: Like a cat. You recover more quickly after falling down (but not from stuns.) Neutral Traits (0) Dirty Fighter: No trick is beneath you. Your attacks will do critical damage more often, but your wait period between attacks is longer. Fragile: You grew up with a small frame. You move more quickly, but have less total health and your limbs break more easily. Bruiser: You're a head above your peers, and twice as wide. You have a bonus to total health and your limbs don't break as easily, but you move more slowly. Tough Guy/Gal: Pain doesn't phase you. You'll be able to move at normal speed while in pain, but you won't receive notifications about broken limbs/organs. Negative Traits (+1) Uncreative: You never were good at thinking outside the box. You cannot create improvised weapons or cable cuffs. Addict: Your next fix is the most important thing to you now. After 30 minutes without your chem of choice, you start going into withdrawal. Whimp: What's a gym? Your melee attacks do less damage. Cross-Eyed: Why are there two of him? Your ranged and throwing attacks miss more often. Unbalanced: Help, I've fallen and I can't get up! It takes you longer to recover from slips, falls, and stuns. This way, there will be mechanical variations between characters, but not to the point where the outcome of an encounter is a foregone conclusion; some skill will still be involved in the fight. Antagonists will also have the option to change their traits as they're assigned the role - but these are also IC information (if discovered,) and so someone who's typically an addict who removes their traits as a changeling would definitely be suspicious to other crew members.

Most things require stamps as well, so if we wanted to bump it up to three TC's, I'd also recommend mimicking stamp functionality.

That's the exact line of thought that leads to powergaming and metagaming. If you refuse to even try to make something a marginally unique experience with its own bits and pieces of fun, however small, then there's really nothing you can say when people simply quit the game when they're being dragged to the brig. You can separate people from the general populace and punish them ICly without punishing them OOCly for having the gall to try to make a round interesting. That's what this suggestion is about, if I'm not mistaken. Again, if we structure the brig more like a prison, it'll be much more fun. Trying to sneak a shank out of the workshop under the watchful eye of the guard from the catwalks? It's got its own appeal.

Ahh, I can see it now. Did You Know That: Oh god please help they're forcing me to do this THEY HAVE MY FAMILY

I'd just like to see more prison/brig RP in general - currently, we throw people into a glass box and let them sit there until their timer's up. The way we have things now is alright, but it could be much better. Maybe we don't even need the mining portion at all, but perhaps a prison regime with a canteen, a workshop, and free time included?

The antag fly. Why do you think he hunts the shit out of them? Anyways, I don't see this working out for a "work credits for release" thing, as a pay dock would essentially be the same thing. Instead, I could see this as a viable alternative to keeping a bunch of people in the brig forever (such as during cult/rev rounds) and simply forcing them to work until the transfer shuttle comes.

The device could be part digital, part mechanical. The digital portion consults the global NanoTrasen employee database (which would have their signed contract, mind you) and steals that signature to place it on another paper. There, mechanics justified.