AI's Round-start Remote Mech Removal [Feedback]

[Doc]

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/10020

The AI currently has a remote-controlled industrial mech that spawns inside its core at round start, which is hooked up to its network; there is a dedicated button on the AI's UI to enter the mech. It is equipped with a clamp and an integrated tool-set, which was originally added with the intent that the AI be able to perform a few crucial round-start tasks (namely, engine set-up) if there was no capable personnel present to do so. Unfortunately, I have never seen the unit used for this purpose; I have heard other players say they've seen it "once or twice" since it was added, while I alone have personally seen it used for front-lining against antags or rushing random event hazards over a dozen times in the past week.

The primary issue behind "just ahelp it" is that, according to the AI's lawset and due to the fact that the remote controlled mech is, by its nature, remotely controlled, and therefore damage to it or possible destruction of it has no real bearing on the AI itself, means that there's really no IC motivation for the AI not to do this, and there's really no OOC grounding to tell the AI they can't (so long that they aren't blatantly validhunting). So, this is not a rules issue. The concept of a remote mech itself, however, is not really the issue; there's nothing inherent with the actual mech that is a problem, as it is simply a mech like any other, but that the AI can control; even with this removed, the possibility still exists for robotics to make and hook a remote control mech to the AI's network if they decide to invest time and resources into it; and therefore, invest time and resources into the AI's abilities. So, this is not a mechanics issue. It is ultimately a balance issue, in terms of not giving the AI their mech for free at the start of every single round, which decreases the value behind it and fails to discourage the reckless and problematic play we've seen.

All that said, this feedback thread is open to further reasoning as to why this change may not be warranted; I can acknowledge that this was originally spurred by personal distaste with how remote mechs have affected rounds I've been in, and I can respect that there might be points of view I haven't considered, so do please feel free to post them.

[Chada1]

I'm p. satisfied with the reasons given but this also drastically removes the amount of things the AI can do in a round, for instance, the AI can setup the engine in dead hour IIRC, but that could just be seen as an acceptable loss.

I'd v. much like the mech to be officially seen as *part* of the AI as according to law 4, and thus just putting the mech in danger on purpose = inhibited and bwoinkworthy, but if we're not going to put our foot down and do that, removal is the only other option

[NewOriginalSchwann]

Remove it. I'm sick of watching M.E.A.T.B.O.T. body antagonists with its free whacking robot every other round as security wonders why there is a rock 'em sock 'em robot running around.

[Pratepresidenten]

I'd like to see it kept. It has potential.

It would be easy to enforce under law 4, but it should already be covered under law 1.

1. Safeguard and protect NanoTrasen property from damage to the best of your abilities.

The mech is NT property, and therefore they should not be used as a meat shield, or carp hunting.

Fighting carp is not safeguarding the mech from damage to the best of your abilities.

Fighting antags is not safeguarding the mech from damage to the best of your abilities.

Doing any dumb shit that makes the mech a target for damage is not safeguarding the mech from damage to the best of your abilities.

 

Ahelp shit AIs doing this, and punishment will be dished out.

[Doc]

I don't see AI law enforcement as a viable means to curb this issue. There are so many different ways that this specific scenario can be interpreted in order to cause laws 1 and 3 to conflict, and I don't even really think that it's fair to expect AI players to come to that conclusion, because it is a completely legitimate interpretation to believe that the damage of station property will be greater if you don't intervene with the mech.

[Doxxmedearly]

I think the PR is fine as it stands. Putting it under existing laws about protecting property is not a bad idea, though by itself is probably not enough, as I agree with the points Doc has presented. Alternative options would be to couple that with significantly reducing the durability of the remote mech (It's not meant for combat) and disabling its ability to hit mobs (Again, not meant for combat.)

However at this point the PR itself works as a solution. These are just other options if the feedback indicates they prefer it not to be removed.

[Pratepresidenten]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

I don't see AI law enforcement as a viable means to curb this issue. There are so many different ways that this specific scenario can be interpreted in order to cause laws 1 and 3 to conflict, and I don't even really think that it's fair to expect AI players to come to that conclusion, because it is a completely legitimate interpretation to believe that the damage of station property will be greater if you don't intervene with the mech.

Thats the thing though, if you play the AI, you need to understand how the laws work. If you dont, you really shouldnt be shitting about with a remote controlled mech.

There is no interpretation to be had here. If there is a conflict, you do nothing, or you intervene in another way that doesnt cause a conflict, like leaving your mech and using other means.

[Chada1]

4 minutes ago, Doxxmedearly said:

... Stuff

Those are v. good ideas and weakening the mech for combat + maybe removing its ability to attack would probably help yup ?

[Shenaanigans]

I feel like the inability to physically interact with the round except via proxy (through stationbounds) is a good counter to how much sheer power the AI has over the station otherwise. The purpose of the AI is better off as a observational, assisting presence who can interface with some subsystems but can't just stomp around in a remote body and do everything, because then why does the station even have staff?

AKA the PR has my support.

[Lordnesh]

If you get rid of the Mech, then you should give the AI a way to deal with free stationbounds. I had one round where there was a borg that just blitzed its way into my core, and prevented me from defending myself. At the time, I didn't realize I could have used the mech to defend myself against the borg. As it is, I'm not in favor of punishing the good players, for the behaviors of the bad ones. I think the bad ones should be punished with warnings, and if it comes to it, job bans. That's what they're there for.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, Pratepresidenten said:

Thats the thing though, if you play the AI, you need to understand how the laws work. If you dont, you really shouldnt be shitting about with a remote controlled mech.

There is no interpretation to be had here. If there is a conflict, you do nothing, or you intervene in another way that doesnt cause a conflict, like leaving your mech and using other means.

 

This is an extremely unfortunate way of thinking of the situation for AI players and I certainly do not agree with it. Taking actions that do not violate the server rules, that you fully believe are allowed by your laws, and that you can reasonably explain the thought process behind believing such, should not result in being told "shit AI, get synthbanned".

 

Let me restate: I do not think this is a rules issue. Do I think the actions of these particular AI players in these particular events detracted from the round? Yes. Do I think they necessarily violated their laws ICly, or broke server rules OOCly? No. This is a balance issue; that being, that the power to do this kind of thing should be restricted behind effort being put into unlocking it, through robotics' time and material investment, rather than just getting it for free at round start. If gaining this ability and the power behind it requires such investment, it will likely not be thrown away so readily.

[Chada1]

Also the PR being merged until the AI mech (if it happens) can be swapped/changed/etc is also probably fine, and it might make it clear to the AI abusing these mechanics, when/if it comes back, that this won't be tolerated. it also sends any culture that built around abusing it into disarray and fazes it out, so we could see if it helped/is working

10 minutes ago, Lordnesh said:

If you get rid of the Mech, then you should give the AI a way to deal with free stationbounds. I had one round where there was a borg that just blitzed its way into my core, and prevented me from defending myself. At the time, I didn't realize I could have used the mech to defend myself against the borg. As it is, I'm not in favor of punishing the good players, for the behaviors of the bad ones. I think the bad ones should be punished with warnings, and if it comes to it, job bans. That's what they're there for.

Definitely not, if a station bound has gone crazy and you as the AI need help, you need to ask the Crew/other Stationbound for help.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Chada1

[Lordnesh]

Just now, Chada1 said:

Definitely not, if a station bound has gone crazy and you as the AI need help, you need to ask the Crew/other Stationbound for help.

It was working with the crew. They were just conveniently ignoring the order to leave the AI alone, now that it was fixed.

[Chada1]

1 minute ago, Lordnesh said:

It was working with the crew. They were just conveniently ignoring the order to leave the AI alone, now that it was fixed.

The first/last law both apply to the AI too tho to some degree. Make sure to ahelp that if it happens again

[Carver]

3 hours ago, Pratepresidenten said:

I'd like to see it kept. It has potential.

It would be easy to enforce under law 4, but it should already be covered under law 1.

1. Safeguard and protect NanoTrasen property from damage to the best of your abilities.

The mech is NT property, and therefore they should not be used as a meat shield, or carp hunting.

Fighting carp is not safeguarding the mech from damage to the best of your abilities.

Fighting antags is not safeguarding the mech from damage to the best of your abilities.

Doing any dumb shit that makes the mech a target for damage is not safeguarding the mech from damage to the best of your abilities.

 

Ahelp shit AIs doing this, and punishment will be dished out.

Wouldn't this be countered by the logical conclusion that the station itself holds greater priority than the mech, and that by combating, say, Carp - you're successfully prioritizing the more valuable asset.

[geeves]

hello, person who added the mech as a pity kiss to the AIs i kneecapped

AIs have time and again disappointed me, so i would personally not remind just this removal, but also their removal

in short, +1

[Cnaym]

Probably one of the biggest defenders of the AI role and I love the mech, but people be abusing everything they can so all for the removal.

Imho the remote mech concept overall is a bad one, roboticists and officers have done the same with worse mechs. Keep it for IPCs, they get abused but are at least no military combat gear.

Also AIs do get slapped for being shit. The rules are clear, no action on law conflict. I do not know why this is so hard for (seemingly) most AI players. You do not know if someone works for or with your company, just do not fight people as the stations camera and door system, it is that simple.

Just slap a "Do not harm anything considered living"  in the lawset and be done with it.

[Pratepresidenten]

1 hour ago, Carver said:

Wouldn't this be countered by the logical conclusion that the station itself holds greater priority than the mech, and that by combating, say, Carp - you're successfully prioritizing the more valuable asset.

Not really. Laws are laws, there is no greater or lesser priority.

Anywho, considering the overwhelming positive response for removal, there is no point in clarifying any of this as its probably will be swooshed during the next pr merging. A shame :c

[Chada1]

2 minutes ago, Pratepresidenten said:

Not really. Laws are laws, there is no greater or lesser priority.

Anywho, considering the overwhelming positive response for removal, there is no point in clarifying any of this as its probably will be swooshed during the next pr merging. A shame :c

That PR merging doesn't mean it couldn't be readded in a later PR if the feedback here can be used to fix the problem

[Zyrus]

As an AI player, I'm getting completely sick of the mechanical nerfs just because some AI players are ignorant or validhunting. If you want to punish a mindset, do it to the offenders. I use the mech for support as it was intended.

If you want to make the mech combat incapable, then strip it down to the frame or something, but don't remove it. We are already a joke in a round in most respects after the bolting removal. This is just making it worse.

[ThelonTV]

19 minutes ago, Zyrus said:

As an AI player, I'm getting completely sick of the mechanical nerfs just because some AI players are ignorant or validhunting. If you want to punish a mindset, do it to the offenders. I use the mech for support as it was intended.

If you want to make the mech combat incapable, then strip it down to the frame or something, but don't remove it. We are already a joke in a round in most respects after the bolting removal. This is just making it worse.

+1 to that

[Tailson]

I completely agree with Zyrus. I understand that this has been abused, and that it's still very much open to abuse. I'm actually in favour of removing it because I don't feel like it adds much to the AI as a toolset. I'll miss being able to set up the engine on lowpop with no engineers, but it's not like we haven't been dealing with that problem forever before the mech was added, so that's fine.

HOWEVER:

2 hours ago, geeves said:

hello, person who added the mech as a pity kiss to the AIs i kneecapped

AIs have time and again disappointed me, so i would personally not remind just this removal, but also their removal

in short, +1

What I do have an issue with though is this and the mindset behind it. In a classic case of the bad ones ruining it for the class, the AI has been subjected to a continuing array of nerfs in an attempt to 'reel them in' because of a few instances of bad AI play. Malf was basically soft removed, door bolting is gone, now the mech is disappearing. It feels like the goal is to just reduce the appeal of playing AI so much that it can be reasonable to remove it because nobody enjoys it any more. I want to clarify that nobody has said this outright, this is just how it feels to me.

Call me biased, because that's definitely the case. I've been playing AI for literally years on this server at this point and my interest in joining the lore team stemmed from my interest in AIs as a sci fi trope. It's so frustrating to see my favourite role eroded time and again because some people won't play nice. Start handing out warnings and bans for bad AI play, stop penalising everyone for the bad actions of a few.

[Chada1]

It's also worth mentioning that I simplified the AI laws specifically to make the behavior being punished here less possible, if you see a way to adjust the laws further to prevent this, tell me and I'll PR that change.

If the issue is the Mech not being part of the AI, I could make it explicitly stated in the 4th law that any systems you're directly linked to are an extension of yourself or something similar.

PS: Why the hecc are we not whitelisting the AI already?

Edited September 18, 2020 by Chada1

[Scheveningen]

as someone who in fact rolled over entire cults with the remote mech in question I'd rather it be removed from the game if it's getting commonly abused now

[MEDTECH]

The only problem I see with this removal is that the AI will be unable to take part in the start-up of the engine (And various departments on an empty round).

However, why don't we exchange the mech with a lighter drone, like those in the ghost spawner, and with the right tools? That way, no more tanks on legs, and the AI will keep its capabilities.

Edited September 18, 2020 by MEDTECH