evandorf

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.

If we are to deal with documented and logged events, I would like to bring up three recent posts that directly involve Burger. In chronological order they are: A player complaint against Burger's Roboticist character, in which Burger readily admits to metagaming. As the Roboticist, he built a durand and two gygaxes during a rev round in anticipation for being recruited by either the REVs or LOYs. He installed beacons in the mechs and a roboticist console in his lab so that he could monitor who was using them and shut them down if necessary. He also states that his intention was to release these mechs and specific times as the pace of the round dictated. He states he was upset that the REVs/LOYs mainly RP'ed with sec and did not involve him. A staff complaint made by Burger regarding a decision I made yesterday. It revolves around the fact that during a rev round Burger began making a Gygax, similar to the REV round from the first post, but was subsequently removed from Research on the RD's orders due to the fact that Burger had earlier given security a half finished Ripley as a joke. The Director then completed the Gygax and handed it to security. When Burger ahelped he stated that what the Director was doing was a clear case of powergaming/metagaming. As evidenced by the existence of the Staff complaint, he was not satisfied. A suggestion thread in which Burger advocates for the reduced capabilities of robotics constructed mechs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion, taken as a whole, it shows that Burger thinks of himself as a sort of arbiter of RP. When he creates mechs in robotics he deems it necessary to have a means to control who is using it based on his metaknowledge of the round. He does not trust security or it's players to do so or command. When others, specifically the RD, distribute mechs in similar fashion he calls it powergaming and metagaming. When it is deemed valid he creates a suggestion thread to nerf what he sees as the problem. This is one of the main reasons, I believe, people have issues with Burger. These three posts are fairly clear but in instances where the round is boring or "the antags were bad" I regularly see Burger in OOC sharing this opinion in harsh, condescending, and often insulting ways. When people respond or retaliate with similar language or tone Burger seems legitimately confused as to where the anger and hate is coming from and reports them to staff. It is also possible that he deliberately uses the anger of others to discredit them when they eventually boil over but I can't speak to how likely this is, only that it is a possibility. I genuinely feel like this is more a failure of Burger's to comprehend the full situation and opinions of others and to change his own behavior but it doesn't excuse his actions or how he treats others.

Here are the full logs of the ahelp.

Alright, this back and forth is not providing anything new to the discussion. Please refrain from posting further unless it's to give new information. I've read through the thread and will be speaking with @Juani2400 soon.

Go in from the roof or go home.

Put legit breachers as a possibility in the stack of RIGs on the right and you can do what you like.

I'm still iffy on it. I think grenades should be more accessible and not available only to people who understand chemistry. It makes sense to be able to have military hardware, like frag grenades, delivered to infiltrators.

What about non-traitor antags like mercs. Shouldn't they have access to frag grenades and manhacks?

How will making people go through the added hassle of creating their own grenades prevent EoR grief from said grenades?

Can you make something equivalent to frag grenades with them?

All you need is metal an igniter and timer, all of which can be gotten at primary tools storage. Why should we have to spend TC on close to useless items when the main issue seems to be rulebreaking from antags?

How is that any different from simply breaking into science and chemistry yourself and making grenades the normal way?

These chemical grenades, will they do damage like a frag grenade? Because I use frag grenades on the regular for things other than EoR grief.

In your example, the person who was not involved and was killed by the crossfire would not be considered gank. If security escalates without first clearing civilians then security would not be doing their job properly. To go back to my previous post in this thread I understand that you think it happens a lot but, without specific examples or more people giving their feedback, simply stating this as fact undermines the ability of the thread to remain factual. EDITED for clarification.

I'd argue that shifting from the AMR to a more close range, high damaging weapon is taking a step backwards towards the .357. I also think that we need to clarify the definition of gank. In a firefight where rounds have been exchanged, or even a standoff where both sides are geard up you already have escalation. You're simply waiting for the spark to ignite. Gank is attacking someone who has no indication that anything dangerous or harmful is about to happen where no RP has been given beforehand.

I can agree with this stance in principle but I rarely see AMRs come into use. Maybe that's just my perspective and all the snipers come on in my off hours. The argument for removal seems to hinge on how common AMR ganking is. I think it would be useful if people responding to the suggestion could recount their own experiences. Burger obviously feels like it ruins many rounds but if the majority of players experience no outstanding issues then I would say its prohibitive cost and low ammunition are enough to keep it in check yet allow for people who want to use it for their gimmick.

What would you define as using an AMR maliciously? As long as sufficient RP and escalation is given it's use to kill someone is as valid as any other weapon.

I've used it in RP situations. Specifically Tokash, when he was an officer and traitorable used it to interrupt a hostage situation with @Rosetango. Plenty of leadup and headway was given so as not to be gank but it was a situation where my traitor security officer thought taking a shot at a hostage taker was better than bargaining. IMO, the main reason to not simply nerf weapons on all sides is because heavy weapons are supposed to be deterrents to people playing the hero and to give clear and present indicators that fear RP should come into play in a particular situation. If the sniper rifle can't backup the threat it presents then people will not take it seriously.