Removal of Cloaks

[Scheveningen]

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

Lemme pull this a step back. You're arguing nonsense, and here's why. Earlier you were fearing the slippery slope. To which my reply was that we're only intending to touch matters which are more egregious than the rest. Like NT cloaks, we have explained why we believe them to be egregious enough, ergo, off they go. I said this in my last two posts: that, at present, this is a singular removal due to the content being the most egregious under the given circumstance and exceeding what we consider "the line". And now you're again arguing over this specific PR? What sense is there to this?

The premise in which you've made that cloaks somehow cross some line of egregiousness is not something that has been collectively agreed on, though, the very notion that this is still being argued over and brought into question under contentiousness proves that this issue is not as simple as, "This is our position, therefore our justification for throwing it out the door headfirst, must be justified and true."

You have had people who agreed with you in insisting it isn't professional and that they don't like it, sure, but you've had individuals like me and I'm sure plenty of others say they're perfectly fine. How is it fair to decide it's in the best interest of those you disagree with to remove the cloaks that those same people liked as a feature? It's no small number of people that have voiced their opinion on this matter for both sides, as well.

The PR is the only present example of any work done to address the matter of cloaks, and as-is, it's slated to remove them. There is no compromise that has been remotely entertained beyond theory at the moment. And that is the position the PR author and I assume also you are taking.

There isn't a second PR up open on this matter to discuss whether or not one implementation or another is better than the other. It stands to reason that the main OP reflects exactly what is going to be done at this given time until the PR is changed to prove otherwise. There is no "work in progress" tag on it right now, it's the holy trinity of "it's essentially done except for no changelog."

It stands to reason that I can be led to assume that this is final.


 

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

As for compromise. Allow me to give you perspective:

"Just use X instead" is not really an effective compromise (it seems much more like a smug, self-assured backhand rather than a respectful attempt to compromise given the tone you're taking) to pose to someone especially when the existing xenocloaks don't befit human characters in the slightest (you'll get extremely odd looks wearing a Vaurca hivecloak, whereas you won't get much of a second blink wearing the current cloakponchos). The hivecloaks do not seem to share the same item path behavior that the cloaks do presently, because they are essentially attachable ponchos. Case in point, you can either attach them to a uniform or to a coat/jacket/exosuit/whatever else. 

My argument sums up to; "I liked using these and I don't think there's anything wrong with them, why do they need removed at all?"

I'll wait for the sprites JB has to show but I still won't be very happy to see cloaks go given I was a very avid user of them even with human characters.



But I really hope we don't see the above often.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Scheveningen

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Hows this 

[Scheveningen]

It's nice, but I'd prefer cloaks to stay, because fashion options like this are possible currently:



I'll post more after Christmas so I can get snippets of my various characters using the cloaks.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Scheveningen

[SeniorScore]

Cloak's are fine, just rename them to non-departmental shit, like cmon, is this really that hard.

[AmoryBlaine]

Are we considering the long haul here of the BIG NEW THING that has us placed outside the station, working at colonies and places other than spess.

[geeves]

Why do the sprites need to change? I quite like how they look. A lot. Would it not be simpler to just remove the NT affiliation?

[AmoryBlaine]

11 hours ago, geeves said:

Why do the sprites need to change? I quite like how they look. A lot. Would it not be simpler to just remove the NT affiliation?

I agree. They look good as is. Don't change the sprite.

[GreenBoi]

23 hours ago, Senpai Jackboot said:

Hows this 

You know, it might be ironic to say considering this thread, but THIS superhero-cape looking sprite actually looks pretty ridiculous in comparison to the cloaks.

[Kaed]

I mean I would not mind the cloaks being debranded and just being made generic cloaks of the same colors, guys.  But don't just remove them entirely because you don't like them.  At the end of the day, I want my characters to wear cloaks.  If they aren't official departmental gear anymore, fine, whatever, as long as I can wear them.

[AmoryBlaine]

Don't the current cloaks work perfectly for the coming setting of colony building. Like, why would we want to remove them if we're suppose to be working on planets with atmosphere soon enough.

[VTCobaltblood]

Here's a PR removing the department affiliation. https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/5926

[Kaed]

Just letting everyone here know, since it appears to be slipping under the radar of anyone not paying attention to github and as thus far been unannounced in this thread, that the numerous suggestions for keeping cloaks are being ignored and Skull is pushing through his agenda to remove cloaks.

Edited January 28, 2019 by LordFowl
Pruned in compliance with ruling below.

[LordFowl]

There is a rather distinct difference between ignored and declined. The reasons for cloak removal have been presented and expounded in this thread and the PR and have been deliberated upon for the months the PR has been open. It is both disingenuous and a little bit childish to claim that your input has been ignored simply because we disagreed.

[Kaed]

You can flavor it ignored or declined however you want, the point of the matter is that the dev team and skull have chosen to feel that their opinion is more important than me and the others who said otherwise, and we have little power to do anything else but complain.  So complain, I have.

Edited January 28, 2019 by LordFowl
Pruned in compliance with ruling below.

[LordFowl]

Rest assured that you are incorrect, and your perspective is severely distorted if you believe the PR was approved because staff “think they’re more important than you”. Regardless, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the changes as they stand in a neutral manner free of dogma and personal attacks, not to entertain paranoid delusions of staff conspiracy - you are free to do so on your own time. Previous and future instances of this will be pruned. If you have a problem with the way staff have handled this PR or thread you are free to file a staff complaint - this thread is purely for discussing the changes themselves.

Edited January 28, 2019 by LordFowl

[Scheveningen]

left me, my wife has
complain on forums, i must

Frustrating as this outcome is, I'll just open a PR later to address their design fidelity issues and hopefully bring them back, as optional accessories that can be enforced by any head of staff or whatever.

[PoZe]

PR merged and is moved to complete subforum