evandorf

That’s my issue, by going from the antique to a sword you are moving from a prop to an actual weapon intended to be carried. I personally do not want any exceptions. We should either remove them all or this should instead be a policy change.

The HoS does not have a helmet. He has an armored hat. The issue is not IC or regulation based, as the item visually makes sense and adheres to regulations, but potentially mechanics based. If there is an issue with the HOS having a helmet that is not actually a helmet then the item or armor values should be removed. The pistol only has five shots and not all of them will hit. To be clear, my issue is not with the idea itself but the fact that it breaks our existing regulations and rules. The antique gun stayed in its case for the most part unless there was an emergency or an antagonist took it. If a Captain starts their round breaking open the case to carry the antique around then they’re getting a talking to. What you seem to be suggesting is replacing the antique with a lethal item that is approved to carry from the start of the round.

https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Security_Officer#Alert_Levels “You can wear the standard vest available in your security locker, but not the armor found in the armory.”

The armor is not an exception though. Vests are allowed and encouraged for all sec officers on green. Helmets are allowed on blue and above. The difference between the scabbard and the holster is that the holster only fits the epistol, from the captain’s current equipment. It has very little lethal potential. The sword has arguably more mileage as a lethal weapon.

The Captain is still bound to regulations. I still have an issue with basically giving him the ability to openly carry a weapon at all times. While the background of the Captain could account for them having a weapon they would not be allowed to bring it to work like this. It’s the same reason weapons aren’t allowed in custom item apps. I would check with @TishinaStalker but I’m fairly certain even Captain characters would have personal weapons denied.

I don’t think the Sabre fits well with the station. It seems like a bit of dated military tradition but NT isn’t military. Also, this would be kind of a dick move to allow the Captain special permission to wear a weapon openly on green. AFAIK other swords, even if the sprite shows a scabbard like the katana, are still considered weapons by sec if worn.

I have to agree with Carver. Most of the time you will likely have merc teams use their own TC to gear themselves rather than pool their TC for one crimson hardsuit. The result would be its use would drop from 75-100 percent of merc rounds to maybe 30% (approximately the same percentages you see a syndie borg get dropped). It would be considered a nerf because the overall effectiveness of the merc team would be statistically reduced across all merc rounds. I think it would be too much to give every merc a crimson hardsuit but maybe if you're concerned with people rushing the existing one you could add it to the uplink so a second could be purchased.

Sorry about the delay on this. I had a small medical/health issue that’s been cleared up. I will be getting with Juani soon on a final decision.

To be fair, if you want to have the patch instead of the glasses it's a sacrifice you'll have to make. Realistically it doesn't make sense for it to provide flash protection. On the other hand, now that flashes won't stun you and just blind it's not as bad as it used to be.

I've started playing medical a bit and thought it would be nice if the Crew Monitoring Console functioned a bit like the Alarm monitors for engineering. Whenever someone on sensors has enough damage to be considered yellow through critical health the sprite would change to alert nearby crew. It would not give specifics but perhaps just the human outline would flash red to indicate there is someone that requires attention. This way medical personnel could do other things, or converse without having to monitor the console constantly.

I appreciate you wanting to improve the game. Don't be disheartened but it might be healthy to set your expectations somewhat. You're dealing with a diverse group of people who all play the game differently from one another. Try to keep an objective perspective on your suggestion and understand that while it may seem obviously good to you there are inevitably those who will see it as bad simply due to their own perspective on what the game should be. Neither side is inherently right and the outcome should be shaped by input from all sides. You're also dealing with a decently longstanding community with well entrenched positions. Change to core elements will always be slow but if you truely think they should be changed then I'd encourage you to keep trying.

I have to -1 this suggestion because I disagree with this premise. I think it's a wide generalization to make that all people vote this way. From my perspective, when I vote secret, I am simply voting for the potential of any round type. Extended is just as valid as merc, vamp, cult, ect. and I don't think it should be relegated to only being available when it's specifically voted for.

I agree. Though extreme, I would even enjoy a mining setup where the smelters were input from only the outside and miners rarely came back in with the majority of hauling and counting done by cargo.

I'll make an addendum to my post and say that conflict between mining and science isn't necessarily a bad thing. At the end of the day the game exists for RP and story, not for departmental efficiency. If issues spill into OOC channels however then I'd suggest reporting it to staff.

While I can appreciate the goal of the suggestion, I can't say I support it for three reasons. 1. Implementation. Aside from security regulations and ccia directives there isn't really a place for this and I don't see it fitting into either of these two categories either. In fact, issues you describe can already be filed under our existing neglect of duty regulation, it simply requires the appropriate head to file charges. This brings up... 2. Administration. Many of the issues you bring up can be resolved by a competent RD or HoP. If you feel like this is becoming an issue and you don't already have a head whitelist I'd recommend getting one and tackling the issue from a position of authority. 3. Player expectations. This is my primary concern. I am very wary about placing timed constraints on people's gameplay and defining someone's duty for them. Even if there were policies on how quickly mining was to deliver the first load of materials it would likely always need to be handled icly by heads of staff, and if the current issue is not being resolved by the heads I don't see that putting more restrictive IC policies into the universe will solve that.

Directive 11 is basically keeping crew informed right? Having a drone with camera access which could be viewed at newscasters would help a lot, IMO.

As I stated in the ahelp, the paramedic injected sopor in a situation where the officer was having issues dealing with a suspect and then brought a laser rifle to bear on a drunk, unarmed man. This was not a situation of medical power gaming meds to bypass the need for sec at all. And in regards to fear RP, if anyone has a footing to stand on for risking their life to save a patient it would be a paramedic.

Right, the original three injections of five plus the big one of 15 is 30 total.

TheNewOrleans can also speak for themselves but this occurred late in the round and Normandy had been a problem for most of it. When responding to the brain damage call they likely brought the sedative having known he was an issue.

Calling it an active firefight is a little misleading as it was mostly disarms and shoves. The only dangerous weapon present was the officer’s laser rifle which I don’t believe left his hands. However I did miss the fact that the last injection was a full 15 units which would bring them up to the overdose threshold. I can’t say how much damage that would actually do but it should have been taken into consideration.

I suppose it could also be controlled by another player like the mining drones.

Basically a small drone for the journalist with the following possible attributes: Remote piloting available to the journalist via a console in his office or Journalist PDA. Built in jetpack/jumpjets to move up and down zlevels with ease. Video feed similar to merc helmet cameras with the ability to toggle the camera feed to the journalist alone or to a special live feed on newscasters where crew would be able to see live events as they unfold. Access to most drone doors with the exception of high security areas or areas with reasonable privacy concerns; e.g. the bathroom, all dedicated offices, ect. Radio transmitter for remote interviews. Easily damaged so antags or people who feel hassled can incapacitate it. ICly would be very expensive so that meaningless destruction would incur penalties. Replacement or repair possible via robotics or supply. Thoughts? Concerns?

You seem to be missing the point. There is nothing wrong with voicing concerns about the server or other players but there is a limit. Admittedly it’s a very high limit but you seem to be reaching it. This is not about how you deal with individuals but your aggregate behavior.

I'm focusing on these two statements because they are precisely the attitude and subsequent behavior that I'm talking about. OOC, LOOC, Deadchat, and Discord are not open platforms on which you can criticize people without limit. We allow some banter, discussion, jokes and jabs after a round because people need to be able to depressurize and blow off steam. Generally if this devolves into insults or extremely negative behavior we step in and tell people to stop. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that you use acceptable language, the quantity and persistence of your criticisms has an extremely negative quality all its own.

@Scheveningen My intention was just to provide what I consider to be a good example of the pattern of behavior which Burger seems to dispute, either through an inability to see it or in an attempt to obfuscate the issue. DragO and Tish will have to decide what to do with it.