Jump to content

Maint Access Changes


Recommended Posts

Posted

This Pull Request reduces the number of people that have access to maint tunnels to:

  • Engineering, because they are trained to perform maintenance.
  • Paramedics, because they regularly need to access airlocks in the maint tunnels.
  • Janitors, because they need to access the crusher.
  • Heads of Staff, because they are the heads.

What this pull request is not changing:

  • The mapped in access departments have to the directly adjacent maint tunnels.
  • Assistant Maint Access, because that is a config option; However that option is likely to be disabled once that pull request is merged.

What is the advantage of that pull request:

  • It makes it easier for antagonists to hide out in maint and escape areas (at the start) as there is not a constant security patrol in there and security officers cant follow them, unless they acquire access to the maint tunnels.
  • It prevents the roundstart rush to maint from security to "clear potentially dangerous items".
  • It might get security to include players from other departments (engineers / paramedics) in whatever is going on due to their initial access (at least until security managed to acquire access on their own)

Potential follow-up PRs:

  • Depending on how this changes the dynamic once its merged, a potential follow up might include automatic maint access for security on elevated alert levels.
  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Not a fan of this in the slightest. What reasoning is there for security to not have maintenance access? Security also has reason to be in the tunnels, considering things like... space carp? A lot of windows are located in... maintenance? Or are we supposed to go let engineers beat them with wrenches and get eaten because something something involving other departments?

Like, I'm not gonna have a paramedic lead me around in maint chasing a man with a gun just so they can get shot. That logic is ridiculous. 

Posted

If the basis for giving Paramedics access is

2 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

because they regularly need to access airlocks in the maint tunnels.

Why does this not apply to Security who too regularly need to access airlocks in the maint tunnels. Ask yourself why Paramedics are entering there, ask yourself why Security are entering there. If Paramedics are entering for the purpose of responding to emergencies, there's likely concern for for Security to be present as well. If they're entering to use better routes, this same tactic is used by security.

2 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

It makes it easier for antagonists to hide out in maint and escape areas (at the start) as there is not a constant security patrol in there and security officers cant follow them, unless they acquire access to the maint tunnels.

There are four officers, and three decks of maintenance, no camera cover, no proper lighting and little incentive to remain in maintenance past a preliminary sweep near the start of the round or cutting corners on patrols. The implication that it's not already easy to hide within maintenance and more so that it's a likelihood that security is the constant in this locale is false. Given you have no evidence to back up the claim that security is a constant in that area, I feel I can in return say that janitors, engineers and technicians are the most likely to rat out antagonists as they make use of the area much more frequently than security. Security responds to the location, rather than Security having a constant presence there.

2 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

It prevents the roundstart rush to maint from security to "clear potentially dangerous items".

These should be removed, this is not an argument to remove Security's access to maintenance when these items do nothing to further antagonist play or RP. They serve the function of enabling non-antag, non-security characters/players to acquire basic combat gear, and nothing more. Some might say it enables 'small crime RP', I'd call that justifying mild powergaming. Wearing a stab vest, tactical mask and having a tactical knife aren't generating any interesting RP.

3 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

It might get security to include players from other departments (engineers / paramedics) in whatever is going on due to their initial access (at least until security managed to acquire access on their own)

The implication that by requiring Security to ask people to open doors for them, effectively making them subservient to Security, is somehow inclusive and can serve to generate meaningful RP interactions is laughable. If Security is entering maintenance it's for a sweep or security situation, likely involving an antagonist. Why then would they require the addition of more people with them if this were to benefit antagonists? Why would Security want more people with them if they were attempting to handle a security situation, making the addition of engineers, paramedics, janitors a safety concern? If Security is responding, it's likely an immediate threat, meaning little talking is going to be done with the doorman who can follow security and watch them handle security things- now is subservient to Security's requests.

 

Posted

Access could be restricted further to janitors by just adding one_access type of access to janitors to the maintenance door by the hallway next to the crusher, so they can't just roam around the rest of maintenance other than what's needed to cross to reach the crusher.

Posted (edited)

Okay so first of all, Security should have access to maintenance for the exact same reason Paramedics do. Emergency personnel need access to the emergency ladder. Security regularly needs maint access to deal with cavern dwellers. This makes no sense, and is an unapologetic, unfair targeting of the Security department. It's a long, round-about way to say, "I don't want Security to have maintenance access."

3 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

It prevents the roundstart rush to maint from security to "clear potentially dangerous items".

How is this at all a problem? Tons of people have maintenance access, tons of people roundstart 'rush' to get items from maint. This isn't Security exclusive. I see Cargo Techs in there all the time, and either way Maintenance hardly has amazing loot.

3 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

It makes it easier for antagonists to hide out in maint and escape areas (at the start) as there is not a constant security patrol in there and security officers cant follow them, unless they acquire access to the maint tunnels.

Constant security patrol? In what world? Most of Security sticks to the main halls, not maintenance. And the ones who do enjoy maintenance are usually in one specific area. Also it's already pretty easy to hide in maintenance if you're even the least bit clever.

3 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

It might get security to include players from other departments (engineers / paramedics) in whatever is going on due to their initial access (at least until security managed to acquire access on their own)

Being included to be the door opener is about as fun as chewing on glass, ask AI's how much they enjoy being a doorknob. Also it's incredibly lowrp to include people in an armed manhunt as door openers where they could easily be shot for opening said door. 

Edited by Nantei
Posted
12 minutes ago, geeves said:

Moot point when they're losing access as well.

Considering he specifically mentioned Security, it is not a moot point.

Posted

I like the idea of having less security messing up any antag preparations.

Perhaps a middle ground could be granting security access under certain alerts? Blue or red? Although, that would almost necessitate a patrol and any such preparations would be discovered sooner than they might have been..

Posted
51 minutes ago, SynysterSparx said:

I like the idea of having less security messing up any antag preparations.

There are four officers, and three decks of maintenance, no camera cover, no proper lighting and little incentive to remain in maintenance past a preliminary sweep near the start of the round or cutting corners on patrols. The implication that it's not already easy to hide within maintenance and more so that it's a likelihood that security is the constant in this locale is false. Janitors, engineers and technicians are the most likely to rat out antagonists as they make use of the area much more frequently than security. Security responds to the location, rather than Security having a constant presence there.

Guest Marlon Phoenix
Posted

Seems like a great idea. Officers will get more interaction by collaborating with other departments with maint access to get in while antagonists will have breathing room, allowing a maintaining of low intensity cat and mouse games. I know as an antag it was both a blessing and a curse to have officers swarm maint because i couldnt get a reprieve to talk to them or do anything other than obliterate them or keep up a fighting retreat.

Posted

A terrible idea, hard disagree with this.

Security should not need to drag people around to respond to any of the number of small incidents that occur in Maintenance. Cavern dwellers, carp, the literal only non-elevator access to the surface being in maintenance, the fact that they're emergency personnel. Station Security. In a world where lore-staff have made it clear the Aurora is a target. Lii'dra invasions, Sol occupations, terrorist attacks, infiltrators, raiders.

Antagonists already have a LOT of leeway. Amory made his point very well. 4 officers, 3 decks (not including the sublevels which are also super large) and access to equipment or items which place them in the extreme advantage. Even without antagonist items such as traitor kits, I could probably make a Maintenance hideout that Security would never find. Give me five minutes and Primary Tool Storage equipment.

The fact that antagonists only use the primary maintenance level is not a Security problem. It's an antagonist problem. They have access to W, X, Y and Z. They only sit on Y because it's their comfort zone. Then they say "we have no maneuvering room" when they ignore the other 3/4 of the station for maneuvering room.

Maintenance is literally fine as it is. Any failings on the part of antagonists in being cornered by Security in it is due to their lack of knowledge on map layout and ignorance to their options. If you've spent one round as a ghost looking around the map, you'll never be cornered again. This is just a bad idea.

Posted

Terrible idea, Security not having maint access gimps them so much than anything else you could think of, all it takes, is an antag to slip in to maint, and run down in one of the many maint tunnels and bam, he's gone, sec has lost him.  Not just that, but emergency access Via maint tunnels is an important thing, ICly, this makes no sense, and OOCly, this wouldn't improve interaction with anyone. "Hey can you open this door and follow me in? Thanks." That's not fun, for anyone.

Guest Marlon Phoenix
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dark1Star said:

Security not having maint access gimps them so much than anything else you could think of, all it takes, is an antag to slip in to maint, and run down in one of the many maint tunnels and bam, he's gone, sec has lost him

Is that a bad thing?

Posted (edited)

I really disagree with this one.

I can already think about so many scenarios where this change would make no sense from both a Roleplay and Gameplay point of view. Bad guy trying to weld his way into the armory or the vault? Gotta wait for someone else to open the door. I get the idea of trying to include other departments, but in a dangerous scenario the last thing you want is bystanders to be clogging the maintenance hallways with you. There's already enough collateral damage happening. We don't need more.

Another reason... Picture this; You're running after a bad guy and all he has to do is go into maintenance and shut the door behind him. By the time you get someone to give you access he could be anywhere on the station.  This is just terrible and will terribly cripple the ability of ISD to respond to calls and threats.

If your goal is to nerf Security why not just say that?

Edited by Uaine
Guest Marlon Phoenix
Posted
Just now, Uaine said:

Picture this; You're running after a bad guy and all he has to do is go into maintenance and shut the door behind him. By the time you get someone to give you access he could be anywhere on the station. 

Is this a bad thing?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Marlon Phoenix said:

Is this a bad thing?

Yes. You are neutralizing, among other things, Security's ability to enter maintenance without someone babysitting them. Why? What's the justification behind that? What's the IC justification behind it? What's the OOC justification behind it?

I for one, did not ask for this PR. No change is a good change. Maintenance access is where it should be.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Marlon Phoenix said:

Is this a bad thing?

Yes. It is. I'm not sure if you play security at all, but getting trapped in maint fucking sucks, because it takes forever for anyone to get to you, and it's piss easy to hide in maint from security WITH them having access if you know what you are doing. So far this just seems like an agenda to nerf sec AGAIN for no reason.

Posted

Probably the worst offence that is yet to be spoken of is this will force the Head of Security to be way more of a frontline trooper.

Its hard enough to resist the temptations of personally overseeing all major incidents as it is but in the event there is a pursuit, the HoS will always now have to be on the scene in case they rush maintenance. This is a gameplay change that has absolutely no positive as antags will now more often than not have to deal with the HoS on their tail instead of bumbling officer #302

Posted

I see no reason to take away maintenance access from a department clearly intended for emergency response. Is it reasonable to remove the paramedic's maintenance access next in order to force medical to interact with engineering more? Moreover, I'm not sure "ENGINEER RESEARCH MAINT NOW" is a very satisfying kind of inclusion.

If security checking maintenance at round start for "dangerous items" is seen as a major problem by many people, then there are solutions to it that don't involve mechanical changes, such as an OOC ruling or an IC policy against it. 

Finally, I think you overestimate security's ability to consistently find antags in maintenance quickly. It's big, messy, and dark. There are multiple levels, each with its own mess of tunnels. When the antag doesn't make a campfire by the crusher, locating them becomes a lot more difficult.

Overall, I think this is both unnecessary and largely detrimental. There is little to no added roleplay value in forcing security to scream for engineering/command/paramedics to let them into maintenance. The interaction you envision will be brief, painful, and probably in all capitals. The antags already have plenty of room to work with multiple levels of tunnels, they can ambush responders, so on. I see no added value in this proposal.

Posted (edited)

This seems like a good change to me. I've seen enough rounds of security mains sweeping through maint at round start with a bodybag and a locker stealing everything. What's the point of contraband being in maintenance if Security immediately takes it all?

 

But really, I think that people are overreacting. If Security doesn't have access to maintenance, then maybe the heads of staff will remember that there's a revoke maintenance access restrictions button and actually press it during emergencies. I can think of a lot of deaths where the heads could have prevented using that button but didn't, and people died from not being able to access the aft escape ladder.

 

Edit: As has been professed to me over and over again by many people: OOC rulings and rules and expectations don't work. We need mechanical enforcement of things like this. 

Edited by Crozarius
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...