Nerf The Baton

[IAmCrystalClear]

A single stunbaton prod is an instant K-O.

Nothing melee is viable because of this.

Fix it.

Nerf it. Make it three, like it used to be.

Edit: They also go through hostage-shields. As in, a shield the size of an entire person.

[Brutishcrab51]

Oh, they changed it to one instead of three? That's dumb, that's really dumb. Is Aurora becoming /tg/ now?

[DronzTheWolf]

It's only one if you have no armor and they aim for the head iirc. I never go for insta-stuns, I like to be flashy.

[ShameOnTurtles]

The stunning ability of the baton is based on the armour values of the target and the area targeted, I believe (but that also ties into the first one). Stun batons are not always an instant KO.

I would not support removing/lowering the stun on the baton because it already has drawbacks and is one of the few (if not the only) reliable longer duration stunning tool security has.

[Butterrobber202]

Getting bonked in the head with an electrically charged metal stick without any protection sounds about right for one hit. But with shields and protective measure the amount of hits should increase.

[Scheveningen]

I was gonna say, in what world does a stun baton still 1HKO? I believe if you aim at the head there is a good chance it does, given it's not protected through the siemens_coefficient variable. But otherwise, clothing tends to protect from batonning. There is counterplay to this.

[IAmCrystalClear]

My main concern is the amount of times I've been shut down as traitor, ling, and vampire because of a single baton prod. Even with the ling shield it's still REALLY powerful.

[ShameOnTurtles]

My main concern is the amount of times I've been shut down as traitor, ling, and vampire because of a single baton prod. Even with the ling shield it's still REALLY powerful.

 

If it’s an issue of improper escalation then I don’t think we should nerf the baton for that. That’s an administrative issue. Otherwise, while it sucks to get beaten in a way that’s not that cool, that’s how it is sometimes. I do think it would be a good idea to make shields have an 80% or very high chance to block it though.

[BurgerBB]

Nerfing the baton is an incredibly bad idea considering how nerfed security is already with the stun reworks. The scales in terms of balance are already so tipped towards antags, I couldn't support a baton nerf.

Consider the security borg as well. They get a flash, a baton, and a taser. Flashes are weak and poorly implemented, tasers are weak as shit, batons are their only hope at actually arresting/defending themselves.

[LordFowl]

The stun baton's stun is modified by the siemens_coefficient of the target zone, which is affected by clothing. If stun batons are 1 hit KO'ing you in the head, then start wearing hats+masks.

[IAmCrystalClear]

The stun baton's stun is modified by the siemens_coefficient of the target zone, which is affected by clothing. If stun batons are 1 hit KO'ing you in the head, then start wearing hats+masks.

 

I get the whole armour thing. But I'd hate to have to start walking around in stolen armour every time I role any antag role simply so I can survive more than one baton prod.

If it’s an issue of improper escalation then I don’t think we should nerf the baton for that. That’s an administrative issue.

 

Think of it less of "improper escalation" and more of "improper deescalation". It's the simple fact that entire antag gimmicks, entire rounds can be shut down by a single baton prod. Think about rev; unless the crew actively hunts for armour, security can and will beat their asses without even having to grab a gas mask.

While I appreciate the fact that yes, being prodded with an electrified metal rod does hurt and that we are a HRP server, we also have antags and need to appreciate balance.

I'm worried the meta will become "take a revolver or tommygun and instantly shoot the leg off of anyone who comes within two tiles" for tators, and "only take blinding stings and para-stings" for ling.

[Sytic]

The stun baton's stun is modified by the siemens_coefficient of the target zone, which is affected by clothing. If stun batons are 1 hit KO'ing you in the head, then start wearing hats+masks.

 

I get the whole armour thing. But I'd hate to have to start walking around in stolen armour every time I role any antag role simply so I can survive more than one baton prod.

If it’s an issue of improper escalation then I don’t think we should nerf the baton for that. That’s an administrative issue.

 

Think of it less of "improper escalation" and more of "improper deescalation". It's the simple fact that entire antag gimmicks, entire rounds can be shut down by a single baton prod. Think about rev; unless the crew actively hunts for armour, security can and will beat their asses without even having to grab a gas mask.

While I appreciate the fact that yes, being prodded with an electrified metal rod does hurt and that we are a HRP server, we also have antags and need to appreciate balance.

I'm worried the meta will become "take a revolver or tommygun and instantly shoot the leg off of anyone who comes within two tiles" for tators, and "only take blinding stings and para-stings" for ling.

Right.

Appreciating balance does not mean gimping Security every time you get mad you get got. If you nerf Security's method now, they will adopt a new method. And another one after that. And another one after that.

You are refusing the balance here. You aren't accepting the counter to this threat. You could apply EMP's, clothing, armor, or just get them down before they get up close to you. Getting frustrated and nerfing them won't solve anything.

Security gets the flash nerfed? Moved on to Pepperspray. Security gets the Baton nerfed? Maglight/apply copious amounts of leg breaking. This won't solve your problem. If you want a fix, you've got one or two options.

1. Buff the antag role itself to be able to be on par with Security, despite myself meeting far more robust antagonists who have managed to take on Security with their typical gear and then some.

2.

[Scheveningen]

The flash was nerfed merely to get rid of the last bit of zero-effort stun that left zero trace on the individual and otherwise was an infuriating inconvenience. It was not nerfed to directly cripple security in any fashion. The flash was just irritatingly powerful with zero tradeoff.

The baton is fine as is, as it's rather weak in its current state against traditional combat-oriented antagonists, and rightfully so.

[Munks]

But I'd hate to have to start walking around in stolen armour every time I role any antag role simply so I can survive more than one baton prod.

"I'd hate to have to put in effort and make minimal amounts of preparation as an antagonist in order to succeed". don't you main forensics? You get free armor. Or do you just mean you don't want to change your appearance?

Just remove all the effects from Security's gear at this point and replace it with flavor texts that strongly suggest the antag play along because clearly every time an unrobust antag player gets clowned by Security, whatever weapon was used is detrimental to roleplay and needs to be nerfed. Instead of yet another Sec nerf on a server where antagonists already have it VERY easy why don't you just get good? Your gimmick, apparently, got halted. Thats a round where Security got to have fun, not you. Counter it better next time.

[Bauser]

^Sounds like an invitation to turn antag/security interactions into nothing but boring powergamey asshole tactics. "Counter it better next time" means "use a 357 to kneecap anyone who looks at you funny, because they're going to make your round boring unless you make their round boring first." All these ways that rounds end in one hit are boring bullshit. We should get rid of them and encourage security and antagonists to give each other more lee-way because at the end of the day, they're supposed to be working together to make the round interesting and fun, not plotting the quickest way to shut everything down.

[Ornias]

Appreciating balance does not mean gimping Security every time you get mad you get got.

Getting frustrated and nerfing them won't solve anything.

Just remove all the effects from Security's gear at this point and replace it with flavor texts that strongly suggest the antag play along because clearly every time an unrobust antag player gets clowned by Security, whatever weapon was used is detrimental to roleplay and needs to be nerfed. Instead of yet another Sec nerf on a server where antagonists already have it VERY easy why don't you just get good? Your gimmick, apparently, got halted. Thats a round where Security got to have fun, not you. Counter it better next time.

"hee hee hee, if i act like this is a 'i died pls nerf' suggestion, it will be I who has the biggest Internet Penis!!!!!!!"

if an antag gets taken down by security before they've had time to create a narrative, then yeah, fucking duh it's not an ideal situation. if there are tools that facilitate instant takedowns of people who don't play to the 'meta' at the first sign of trouble, then we're cutting down on the number of narrative options we have. this isn't always bad, but OP thinks this case is. so let's grow up and actually discuss what his issue is instead of making it out that he's unrobust because he dared to ask for a nerf.

also, the proposition that only security or the antagonist can have fun is stupid. we all know antagonists exist to make a round interesting for everyone, themselves included. it doesnt matter if security gets a little feel good because they instastunned a changeling who just got their first succ, because the whole narrative for the round has just been shut down. if there hasn't been an arc, nobody should be striving OOCly to take the antagonist down unless it would be unbelievable for them to not be removed. if we remove the insta-stun from a baton, antagonists have a stronger chance to fight back, and continue developing a story. save powerful takedowns for antagonists, or lethal armory gear, for when the stakes have been raised, and the story's had time to develop.

that said, i don't have a strong opinion on this specific case, so i won't comment on it directly.

[Sytic]

^Sounds like an invitation to turn antag/security interactions into nothing but boring powergamey asshole tactics. "Counter it better next time" means "use a 357 to kneecap anyone who looks at you funny, because they're going to make your round boring unless you make their round boring first." All these ways that rounds end in one hit are boring bullshit. We should get rid of them and encourage security and antagonists to give each other more lee-way because at the end of the day, they're supposed to be working together to make the round interesting and fun, not plotting the quickest way to shut everything down.

 

I'd be inclined to agree. Most of the issues with Security and antagonists is how hostile some can be and how they turn this into a "kill or be killed" style situation more often than not. This is at its core a behavioural one however, and not one that can be just done through nerfing them into the ground until they can do literally nothing. Trust is a two-way street, and more trust needs to be given between Sec and Antagonists. Some of my best rounds have come from, believe it or not, losing. Shoutout to SPACECULT!

Sometimes, you will have a situation in which you have to fight violence with violence, or subdue a threat, or something. Removing the ability to do so is just foul, and in the future more careful steps are required to avoid that. The counters are already readily available for the stun baton. Use them. A stun baton is not the be-all end-all of weapons, and saying it is just so it is nerfed, then getting inevitably frustrated when Security uses something else to counter your lack of preparation, then repeating the cycle, is not addressing the core issue.

The core issue is either:

1. An antagonist is not properly scaled well in a combat scenario, or:

2. The player needs to, simply put, get better. Robustitude comes with time.

This issue of being robust is a behavioural one, but being a powergaming nerd isn't being robust, it's just being rude. Being truly robust is being able to counter another person's ability when they strike, instead of shutting someone down before they can do anything. This should be a discussion of its own, and the mindset it's beginning to cultivate.

EDIT: Maybe this should be a suggestion to add something along the lines of Adrenal Glands that inject something like Hyperzine, ala TG/Hippie. To Ling, of course.

[LordFowl]

Implemented in; https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/5239

[Scheveningen]

/obj/item/clothing/head/collectable/kitty
name = "collectable kitty ears"		name = "collectable kitty ears"
@@ -109,7 +104,7 @@
name = "collectable rabbit ears"		name = "collectable rabbit ears"
desc = "Not as lucky as the feet!"		desc = "Not as lucky as the feet!"
icon_state = "bunny"		icon_state = "bunny"
body_parts_covered = 0		siemens_coefficient = 1.5

 

ZZZZZT hahaha

[Munks]

if an antag gets taken down by security before they've had time to create a narrative, then yeah, fucking duh it's not an ideal situation. if there are tools that facilitate instant takedowns of people who don't play to the 'meta' at the first sign of trouble, then we're cutting down on the number of narrative options we have. this isn't always bad, but OP thinks this case is. so let's grow up and actually discuss what his issue is instead of making it out that he's unrobust because he dared to ask for a nerf.

also, the proposition that only security or the antagonist can have fun is stupid. we all know antagonists exist to make a round interesting for everyone, themselves included. it doesnt matter if security gets a little feel good because they instastunned a changeling who just got their first succ, because the whole narrative for the round has just been shut down. if there hasn't been an arc, nobody should be striving OOCly to take the antagonist down unless it would be unbelievable for them to not be removed. if we remove the insta-stun from a baton, antagonists have a stronger chance to fight back, and continue developing a story. save powerful takedowns for antagonists, or lethal armory gear, for when the stakes have been raised, and the story's had time to develop.

that said, i don't have a strong opinion on this specific case, so i won't comment on it directly.

 

If an antag gets taken down before they had time to create a narrative then they should have tried a little harder. A changeling shouldn't be getting dogpiled by Security after only getting one absorb, if they do they either got incredibly unlucky which the game shouldn't be balanced around or they tried to do shit they weren't yet ready for, in which case tough shit next time get good. The proposition that everyone is obliged to do everything in their power to give the antagonist a chance to succeed because the only narrative that matters is the antag's is stupid. No one should have to stand around, pretend to be incompetent, and let an antag (especially something like a changeling) openly fuck around and murder people just because poor antag needs to let their story flourish. No one is obligated to dumb their character down just for the sake of an unrobust antag's gimmick. If the antag wins, they get their story. If the station wins, the station gets their story, which include the detective, medbay, research in some cases, everyone who has to come into contact with or otherwise deal with the antag after they've been contained. In that case, the antagonist has still made the round interesting for people, which is why they're there in the first place, to provide conflict and make shit interesting, NOT just to completely define the progression of a round in their own terms as you apparently think.

Stop crying about people not taking their suggestion seriously; not all suggestions are created equal and a blatant "I ded pls nerf" suggestion is not respectable. Too many antagonists on this server have replaced stealth, tactics, planning, and execution with a reliance on people's obligation to give them a freebie for the sake of RP. It deserves ridicule

[Bauser]

Maybe that's because stealth and execution are boring and against the overarching goal of antagonists. Remember, their foremost charge is to drive roleplay. Winning is completely secondary. That's why we have rules against just silently ganking people with parapens and instakilling them like real murderers and raiders would. Security, being the wing of the station team tasked with confronting antagonists, need to abide by the same standards as antagonists: driving roleplay first and trying to win only second.

If the stun baton shuts someone down in one touch, then it's functionally the station team's parapen. And as such, I would subject it to the same rule as the parapen: if you're going to do it, make sure it's done to facilitate roleplay instead of to simply win.

[Ornias]

If an antag gets taken down before they had time to create a narrative then they should have tried a little harder. A changeling shouldn't be getting dogpiled by Security after only getting one absorb, if they do they either got incredibly unlucky which the game shouldn't be balanced around or they tried to do shit they weren't yet ready for, in which case tough shit next time get good.

This would be really good if we weren't a roleplay server. The fact that he should 'get good' doesn't instantly make the round any better for the playerbase. It just means that there's some vague excuse to continue kicking the shit out of antagonists with impunity without worrying about driving a story. And the next time, when they 'get good', the crew won't have any security to act as the defenders, turning the station into chaos. By making it an OOC A vs. B situation, you remove so much variety that the two sides could achieve working cooperatively to build a story with high stakes and tension.

 

The proposition that everyone is obliged to do everything in their power to give the antagonist a chance to succeed because the only narrative that matters is the antag's is stupid. No one should have to stand around, pretend to be incompetent, and let an antag (especially something like a changeling) openly fuck around and murder people just because poor antag needs to let their story flourish. No one is obligated to dumb their character down just for the sake of an unrobust antag's gimmick.

Yeah lmao.

So let's remove tools which instigate this kind of thing so characters don't have to be dumbed down.

That said, if you think that not immediately rushing an antagonist with a stun baton the moment that you see this freakish abomination grow an arm blade is 'doing everything in their power' to let him win, then you're looking at things too much like a game, and not enough like a cooperative story. Freak out, like a believable human being. Run, like a believable human being. Take a breath. Regroup with your team, organize, ensure crew safety. Call science. Negotiate. Emote reaching for your baton so that the antagonist can defend themselves and escape, thus continuing to develop the narrative. Nobody should be playing to win, unless winning would be for the good of the round.

If the antag wins, they get their story. If the station wins, the station gets their story, which include the detective, medbay, research in some cases, everyone who has to come into contact with or otherwise deal with the antag after they've been contained.

If the antag wins, everyone gets the antags story. If the station wins, nobody gets the antags story.

Station-based stories occur all the time, because they're station based. We always have the tools to create them. The only exceptions are changeling, vampire and wizard (and very rarely cult), and even then it's extremely rare that people make it out as anything more than 'MAGIC' or 'CUT THEM UP AND STRAIGHTJACKET THEM WHEN THEY REVIVE'.

 

In that case, the antagonist has still made the round interesting for people, which is why they're there in the first place, to provide conflict and make shit interesting, NOT just to completely define the progression of a round in their own terms as you apparently think.

I do think that.

Because they're the antagonist, the external force. They rock the boat. They get to choose how they rock it, and the players get to find enjoyment in playing in the story they develop. Their response is a cooperative reaction, building a world around them dynamically for everyone's enjoyment. It's cooperative, but the antagonist takes the reins, exactly how it should be.

 

Stop crying about people not taking their suggestion seriously; not all suggestions are created equal and a blatant "I ded pls nerf" suggestion is not respectable. Too many antagonists on this server have replaced stealth, tactics, planning, and execution with a reliance on people's obligation to give them a freebie for the sake of RP. It deserves ridicule

shockingly, respecting things you disagree with is one of the main tenants of being in a community, workplace, or kindergarten

you're only calling it a 'I ded pls nerf' suggestion because it's a nerf in response to being ded. fuck, yeah, dude, he's asking for something that he's experienced negatively to be modified. big fucking whoop. you want him to only make suggestions on things that don't affect him?

but jesus christ this has gotten off topic. i've given it some thought, and i've seen not only counter plays to it, but sufficient counterplays to ensure that we don't shoehorn players into playing into a meta. unlike the flash, where there are only a few direct methods to counter it, there are many ways to stop the baton, and each antagonist has several. that said, i would like to ensure that it stays regulated, for exactly the same reasons previously discussed in this thread.

[Sytic]

snip because this shit was really lengthy

but jesus christ this has gotten off topic. i've given it some thought, and i've seen not only counter plays to it, but sufficient counterplays to ensure that we don't shoehorn players into playing into a meta. unlike the flash, where there are only a few direct methods to counter it, there are many ways to stop the baton, and each antagonist has several. that said, i would like to ensure that it stays regulated, for exactly the same reasons previously discussed in this thread.

 

Big agree. The flash required a nerf due to the hard counter it posed to a lot of antagonists that relied on stealth, and it was freely accessible, and it could take down any antag that did not require stealth should you be able to remove any eye protection. The stun baton is not like this- it is simply the disregarding of counters to the baton of which there are many.

I do believe Ling should get a buff because as of recent I have been able to gimp Ling quite easily based on not the effectiveness of Ling, but because of how their role is designed. They're a square peg in a round hole- your goal is to secretly gank people, yet you're banned for doing exactly that, because it just isn't fun. Because of this, they don't have any sort of easy open-combat option, because that's not what they're built for.

In my opinion, we should add something that allows for players to either be converted ala Genestealers or just ADD HIVEMIND TO SUCC'D PLAYERS TO KEEP THEM IN THE ROUND I KEEP SUGGESTING THIS

[LordFowl]

This thread is about removing the ability for the stun baton to one hit stun. This change has been put into the implementation track. This thread is not about antagonists, shitsec, the flash nerf, changelings, what it means to roleplay, what it means to be, etc.,

If this continues I can only assume that nobody has anything constructive to add on to the original topic, and will just lock the thread for archival purposes.

[ben10083]

[mention]LordFowl[/mention] I am worried about how far this nerf will go, and if we continue the trend of nerfing the sec meta every time it changes we may see more aggressive tactics employed by security to remain effective (more use of grenades, popping out arms/legs, etc.). Perhaps a good middle ground is to have the stun baton take 2-3 hits to knock someone down, even for head.