FabianK3

A) What would you say where bluespace goes? B) How would you progress the lore in regards to the artificially made Phoron shortage by big corp in which they enslave whole civilizations and lock them into an ever stalling scientific progression with less and less regard towards the well being of individual sentient life?

I wanted to make that joke. AI jokes aside, they know what they are doing. Glad to see this app!

Hi! Bug reports are open to everyone, all you need to open a new bug report is a free GitHub account. (That also allows you to contribute, how convenient!) The forum isn't ideal for bug reports, we specifically link to our GitHub repository instead of a bug topic board, so we have one place to track issues. Bug reports in the forum easily drown.

@greenjoe @Fenodyree I'm happy to say that this is already being worked on - both, in combination, actually. Both storage and maintenance are pretty big though, there is a lot of balancing involved and a lot of edge cases to be taken care of. I'll share more details on that when there are more defined things for it.

Bats character list might be short, but I think it's pretty clear that they have extensive knowledge all over the ship, mechanical as well as procedure-wise. I can't imagine there is any doubt they'll manage a command position. I think they are well aware of what is expected of the role and how to play that out. No brainer, +1

Well yes! Everything!

Do not throw WHOLE STEEL TABLES into disposals please.

I pretty much agree. The mechanic as-is is a bit lacking. I'm very much against removing it though, it should get a bit more fleshed out instead. Not only the current features of it but as you mentioned other hazards could be integrated into the contamination mechanic as well. @zha everything broken and I spoke about this before and have some ideas for that.

I think this is important to address: We do not have skills now. Skills are very barebones, the framework was finished, almost all individual skills are still work in progress. This isn't only related to powergaming. While breaking into other areas is a good way to start powergaming, there is the issue of doing somebody else's job. Skills, even when finished, won't allow you to do that. There is a very big difference in breaking into the kitchen to steal food and breaking in to play cook, even if you have the skill for that. The latter is no longer just an IC issue. It may not be powergaming, but it is still not okay. The issue with trespassing is, that it usually either falls into doing somebody else's job or the start of powergaming. I can see how that may give the perspective things like it are forbidden. We had IC offenses and consequences like drug dealing, constant insults, slander, stealing or other by IC regulations covered actions. Breaking the law is possible and happens.

I very much agree with @KingOfThePing's post through and through. I don't really see PMCG suited for the engineering department, neither do I really even see the need to add a third. If a third corporation is requested in the engineering department, I find NT a much more viable candidate for it then PMCG. While the rule of three is a good limit, I don't think it's necessary enforce three corporations in each department either.

Four officers together have 72 shots, if they deplete all of that I think it's fair to pause an engagement to organize more or other means. In worst cases there are more lockers with the same loadout to raid if necessary. Additionally, operations can print them on demand. The walk to each locker, operations or as a next step the armory, isn't out of reach. Considering the previous disrupters were rather obsolete in their use, I think that's already a good enough step in the escalation ladder. If more then the current loadout is needed, I think the armory is probably already open by that time as well. Considering they are only a step within the whole escalation ladder, I think the current amount of directly available ammo is fine. With these reasons, I'm against adding more personally.

Technical note; The forum displays me as a dev just like my name is green in OOC. This is because of multiple roles, dev and mod [on trial].

Hi! Thank you for reaching out. First off all here is a screenshot from your ahelp between us two, for reference: My thoughts; As I have already explain in the ticket, I think that a waiver does not warrant somebody to get shot with lethal ammunition and the shooter to get away with it without consequences. The sudden appearance of lethal ammunition in my opinion warrants the access to the armory, it should be noted that security was given non-lethal and lethal gear. From what I remember they attempted to utilize the non-lethal gear first, the resulting confrontation ending up with lethal gear didn't surprise me either. While the response of security was perhaps hasty, I don't think it was unwarranted. From the point of view from security, I wouldn't want to have a discussion about the usage of lethal weapons in the non-ballistic gear either, I can see why they opted for the armory. As you have mentioned, having multiple armed participants in the situation, I think it's another valid reason to raise the strength of the response security opted for. They weren't able to know if a confrontation about the incident of a crew member getting shot could've gone wrong further, leaving them in less then ideal gear. In summary, I think three armed people already warranted additional gear alone. The waiver had no impact on the matter as shooting a crew member with lethal ammunition clearly is not acceptable, resulting in security having to react to it with certain strength. The injuries caused by the first shot displayed enough harm to additionally raise securities concern. With the reasons above, I continue to call the armory access in that round warranted. IC reasoning aside, I would like to add that if I am not mistaken, your ahelp came in after the action already went down, there wasn't much that could've been changed about it mid-round at that point. Addendum: My apologies for saying to not make a player complaint but a player complaint, while cleared up afterwards, I by mistake wrote player twice as seen in the ahelp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ