Chada1

Hello, Frost, buddy ol' pal ol' long time compadre. Anselm, this is a fellow you've roleplayed with who plays a particularly robotic robo-buddy. I caught you a year or so ago and we kinda learned a bit of the game together. I haven't seen you around much since then, I guess our playing habits just changed and we were never playing at the same time. Regardless I loved playing with Frost when I did and that borgo always went out of his way to teach new players and get some decent roleplay in before doing any gnarly deeds. You'd probably know me by NT-A 486 if you recall. Again, glad to see you around and high praise from what I recall. If i had any advice, it's that you don't become jaded. Try to get back in touch, try to do what Frost did then and teach some newbies how to do the SM/Atmos. I loved that.

As it stands, the gamemode of Revolution has a fair many problems with it. I think the announcements for the Loyalists and Revolutionaries are a good start but there's a massive imbalance between the two Antagonist factions that makes the mode tilted towards one outcome a little too much. I believe the outcome that is most common and problematic is one where the Loyalists subvert a large part of the Crew and shut down the Revolutionaries, I will outline my observations that lead me to this conclusion now. The Loyalists begin play with a Head of Staff as a Head Loyalist and two random Crewmembers as Head Loyalists. The Loyalists are capable of recruiting Loyalty Implanted Crew to their ranks, ensuring that they do not have to fight against the Head of Security and Captain. The Loyalists have a much more inconspicuous title that doesn't raise eyebrows, which enables them to recruit publicly without worrying about being arrested/questioned. In reverse, let's now look at Revolutionaries. The Revolutionaries do not begin play with any Heads of Staff as a given, but do begin play with three random Crewmembers as Head Revolutionaries. The Revolutionaries can only recruit from non-Loyalty implanted Crew, and to take over the Station, they must overthrow the Head of Security and Captain. The Revolutionaries have a very suspicious title, and everybody who they attempt to recruit have reason to be wary of them. Due to this, and their danger to the HoS/Captain, they can only recruit from the shadows, since every failed recruitment is a potential threat. This is why I am absolutely convinced these two are Not on equal footing. My solution is to try to equalize them more, make the Loyalists have to actually fight to control the Station instead of having it handed to them. Here are my ideas. Allow the Loyalists to continue to begin play with a single Head of Staff, this doesn't need to change. Make LI's block Loyalist recruitment the same as Revolutionaries. Maybe change Revolutionaries to be called a Union or something and change Loyalists to be called something else too. To go into detail on what this would change... #1, Loyalists can have a Head to be a little aHead, that's fine. #2, ensuring the Captain and HoS cannot join the Loyalists will make the Loyalists have to either justify their actions to them or stage a coup, which will in turn give the Revolutionaries more room to grow and fight against them, and in some cases the Captain/HoS may find a short common ground with the Revs, if the Loyalists fail their coup. #3, This is one that I am more conflicted on, as it has some dynamic elements to it. I don't know what to change their names to, but I know the Revs could use a less suspicious flavor so they could be given as much leeway as the Loyalists to recruit. Well there's how I think I would fix this problem, how would you fix this problem?

There are two Bio Chemist slots, Bio Chemist and Pharmacist can both be played. So, i you choose Bio Chemist, you could do very basic drugs and allow the Pharmacist if they come aboard to do the rest, could you not?

I'm entirely onboard with altering the ratio. My main opposition is in removing it, because then you are also removing all doubt of an Antagonist. I think that nagging doubt does make a large difference, you can see it through voted roundtypes in general, characters act entirely different, intentional or not. If it were 'Random', as I said, and displayed the round, we would be worse off with it, I'm unfortunately very sure of that. This to a lesser extent by removing the doubt of an Antagonist. But again I'm entirely open to the idea of ratio tweaks to make Extended less common in low pop or in general.

I have some heavy worries about this point, yes it does mean you could be blown up by McGuffin Traitor. Why is that bad? It's not wasting energy, as your conversation is still canon. The only thing that isn't canon is him blowing you up. Secondly, the entire point of Secret is to prevent metagame. By removing Extended, you are then removing all doubt from players mind that there Is an Antag. Currently, that nagging doubt that an Antag might not be in the round acts as a metagame barrier, you don't know an Antag is in the round. What points do you have against these? Because "Literally nothing can stop that." is not a valid argument, because if that were true we wouldn't have 'Secret', we'd have 'Random'.

This is a great post, a fantastic post, for a Synth player to read. You highlight a very compelling way to roleplay emotions while still being seemingly synthetic. You also address one of my most long standing complaints with the current Synthetic atmosphere. There's a tendency for terms like 'borg' to be thrown around as a catch-all term for all lawed Synthetics, Robots, Androids, Cyborgs, AI, even Drones... All of it. This is not something you can narrow down to the player culture either, as many mechanics are guilty of this as well. For instance, the newscasters will always represent you as a 'Cyborg' irregardless of what your alt-title is. I'm fine with characters doing this, as an in-lore slang, akin to Plasma vs Phoron. I'm not okay with even the tech savvy people and literal station equipment doing it, because that makes it far more than a slang, that makes it actual technical jargon, and why is a Robotic chassis called a Cyborg when Robots existed in Lore for far longer than a Cyborg did? The answer is quite simple; Cyborgs existed in code before Robots did. So, Robots existed first in lore, Cyborgs existed first in code, and the origins of the code is what we see ingame, not the lore persay. I'm in total agreement it should be updated. That was only a peripheral goal of your app, so I should continue, I absolutely love your plans of customization and it targets one of my most problem areas as a 'borg player, the unfortunate truth that it's hard to roleplay a consistent and indepth character when most of the sprites are unique -- Unique meaning, they are only available for one module, not all modules, so your character shifts chassis design shift by shift. This makes it hard for people to develop a sort of personhood, or bond with your specific character, since you lack obvious identifiers. Basically, it makes creating a memorable character more difficult than most other Synthetics. All of this, plus your general conduct which is great, has earned my +1.

I'm a big fan. It's terrible to never have a Virologist, and this gives Chemists something to do when they've already mixed all the Chemicals medical needs. Overall, it's a very fun addition. I agree with this, if I had any advice, it's to have the Biochemist limited to Basic and Standard Chemistry and have Advanced limited to the Pharmacist, and have Pharmacist unable to do Virology as well ICly as the Biochemist. I think that'd be a good compromise, but I don't know how we would enforce it.

That'd make it near impossible for engineering to repair cameras, as they'd never know where it is. An idea I thought of, though, is to make the camera alarm delayed. 5 minutes since it stopped functioning, then it announce it to the AI? I think that'd be good. Edit: Could easily be justified ICly as the cam network pinging the connections and it stopped pinging back. Edit 2: This way it'd also never alarm if you repaired it again within 5 minutes.

If it can be time-based, and track ingame time as X role, I think it'd be a good solution vs a just straight whitelist. My current objection to the 'time-based whitelist' before your input has been based on the idea that it would only serve to prevent absolute new players from playing it, and would do nothing to stop people who logged in once, then left for 7 days. And it would be impossible to set any standard (Knowing X, Y, and Z department) with that, while a direct whitelist would at least have a ton of scrutiny. If it can be setup as you say, then I'd be onboard with a time-based whitelist for sure!

No YOU'RE pretty neat!

Big support. Please do this. +1+1+1+1 Suggestion rules mean I have to go further; Sorry. I can already see a lot of amazing roleplay being setup through this. In a place very similar to Crevus where NT has a reason to be, expeditionary forces would likely be sent for research reasons and to work on behalf of the local governments. Really I just can't express how cool this would be -- in general. I can envision playing my Skrell Xenoarch who was sent on such an expedition, it'd make sense and be fantastic.

Well I disagree with absolutely every point you made and if any of it were true, we shouldn't have a whitelist system at all for anything, not even Heads of Staff. The truth of the matter is we have standards which are represented by this whitelist, VTC said it pretty well; And we should be able to trust the AI to do this. Aaaand *This* is why applying with a character in the head role, to then play the AI is a valid 'solution'. By obtaining the whitelist you become certified and trusted to drive the round and roleplay in more difficult roles. Further; You are not 'Lawyering' your laws by having a bad interpretation, the laws are guidelines more than absolutes and extremely vague. I am a 'borg main, I know what I'm talking about. They can be interpreted in many different ways, and only about a quarter are half decent for roleplay, and the others will shut down literally all conflict in a round. The difference between 'borg and AI in that? The 'borg has to physically be there, the AI doesn't. So, the AI can shut down conflict across the Station, while the 'borg has to be present. Therein lies the massive difference in responsibility which necessitates the whitelist to begin with.

A lot of this is also true of the Internal Affairs Agent, who has no real authority over the command staff or Crew, and only informs of regulations and violations as well as hears complaints. All of his power is given by other people (Heads). As for the specific AI whitelist, I'm opposed to that because of how limiting it is, noone would have it unless they applied for it directly, so in essence it cuts AI players to 0 or very low. What I'd suggest you do, and I Really hope you do if this goes through, is apply for any head role just to play AI. You sound like a player this is not meant to target at all, and I think you'd be fine. A Synth whitelist is possible (AI/Cyborg Whitelist) but is just as limiting, and Cyborgs were never meant to be hit by this suggestion at all, as their round presence/impact is at an acceptable level compared to AI and isn't a problem, I don't think. Still, if that's considered an acceptable alternative here, I'm onboard.

So, quick and to the point, the AI has more round presence and round impact than any non-whitelisted role in the game, and even some whitelisted ones. You cannot escape them anymore than you can escape the Captain or the Head of Security, and if they roleplay poorly or have a bad interpretation of their laws, they can drive peoples enjoyment of the round into the dirt. And, they can do all of this without breaking any server rules. Ontop of this, it's a unique role, there is only One of them in the round, unless it wipes core. What I suggest to solve this is pretty simple. Put the AI behind the Head of Staff whitelist. This serves to: Apply enforceable base standards to the players who play this role. (The same standards we expect of every Head whitelistee) Increase the quality of AI roleplay and Crew interactions. Shift AI gameplay further towards roleplay rather than mechanics. As for what we'd do when someone violates these expectations? The same thing we've always done. AI/Synth ban. And for Malf AI? either only head whitelisted players are eligible for the role or everyone is, on virtue of being malfunctioning. I'd be open to either one. Feedback is appreciated.

This is great and I'd love to see it in the hall of fame. It's almost as golden as when a guy accidentally got a Posibrain drunk.

I think a bandaid solution while we wait for the overhaul is a good idea, so I support this. Simply increasing the starting levels is a good temp solution, that'd make research less aggrivating for all parties, and can be justified in Lore, too, with the recent opening of the Upsilon.

The main worry with their current gear is that they'll turn around and sell it to avoid stealing at all.

I'm open to any of those solutions potentially, the main goal of this is to get Raiders a way to actually progressively build up in power and a unique spin on the team Antag boarders form -- To give them a non-same'y unique feature. If you have Any more ideas please drop them here. A flavor, more or less, that fits the theme of the gamemode. Currently they only have IC motivations to be stealing scoundrels, and I think it would improve the gamemode to add some mechanical benefits to doing so, too.

Well to that VTC, I'd say it should be fixed if that's the case. The merchant should have to do their job (Trading with the Station) and not be able to just cheese the vendors for anything they ever want. There are a lot of ways to solve this, too, if weakening the merchant is undesirable, such as adding bonus credits to the merchant at round start. What I'd suggest to solve this issue for Raiders/Merchant is to just add a tag to bought items that makes them resell at a reduced rate, if that's code possible. Then they have an incentive to trade/buy/sell/steal from the Crew and it will promote a lot of stealing and roleplay.

This is a simple suggestion! The raider gamemode lacks individuality, and is often called 'Merc but with worse gear', so what I propose is a simple change. Change their starting gear to be a little more bare. Give them access to a merchant console. This should incentivize them heavily to actually raid and plunder the Station, and they'll slowly upgrade their gear by doing so. Raiders now have an incentive to actually raid, and raider now has a distinct personality and playstyle!

Adding a report system would appease me, I'm worried about liberally using my block in my role as Staff because it undermines the expectation of being DMed with issues, so I see the brunt of Discord, negativity, positivity, all of it. I could just do it anyway if that's preferable.

At first, yes I did. Then I re-read.

Look at the context of me saying 'Retarded', which I guarantee has nearly always been in a proper context DENOUNCING ITS USE. The last time I said it in a negative light is literally in 2017!!

My point is exactly this, which LorenLuke orated well. When you apply a slur or other insulting word to a concept, you are provoking a negative reaction from the other party, which will cause them to get defensive, which will cause the conversation to derail into hostility. That's why it's non-constructive to do. I'm not asking for the Staff to become Authoritarian super censorers but to keep an eye on it and for people to realize this is a big role in what has happened and is causing this.

No. Stop throwing slurs at ideas. That's part of the problem and only serves to provoke this problem. When you are provokinh the person you're arguing with and putting them in defense mode. It isn't conducive to conversation or constructive feedback