Jump to content
Doc

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MEDTECH said:

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.

I like this idea too, but I dunno how hard it'd be to code in.

Link to post
10 hours ago, Pratepresidenten said:

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

I wouldn't say that's correct. The AI above all else should prioritize protecting the nuclear bunker if it's under threat, for instance. If prioritization did not exist, then one could feasibly argue that you best protect NT property in many cases by pure inaction (as say, distributing equipment may pose the risk of damage to said equipment) - something that's rather justifiably likely to get you synthbanned.

Link to post
7 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

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

This mindset is bullshit and wrong. Cult members are protected by Laws, as they are crew members. If you are attacking crew with mechs, you are violating your Laws.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Carver said:
Quote

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

I wouldn't say that's correct. The AI above all else should prioritize protecting the nuclear bunker if it's under threat, for instance. If prioritization did not exist, then one could feasibly argue that you best protect NT property in many cases by pure inaction (as say, distributing equipment may pose the risk of damage to said equipment) - something that's rather justifiably likely to get you synthbanned.

Prate is correct here.
I would recommend to give the wiki (AI page) a read. It explicitly mentions this case:

Quote

YOUR LAWS ARE NOT IN PREFERENCE. NO LAW OVERRIDES ANY OTHER LAW UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED. THIS INCLUDES ANY ION STORM AND UPLOADED LAWS.

As the default law set does not contain any exceptions that would prioritise one law above another all laws within it are equal.

The wiki has that to say regarding law conflicts:

Quote

The default reaction to a Law conflict is to take no action, since going against your Laws is against the rules, and unless otherwise stated in your Lawset, all Laws are equal.


 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Zyrus said:

This mindset is bullshit and wrong. Cult members are protected by Laws, as they are crew members. If you are attacking crew with mechs, you are violating your Laws.

Indeed. You are quite correct as long as they are not constructs, but even in that case the avoid damage law alone would lead to a law conflict, as any engagement with hostile has the potential to damage the mech. We are currently investigating a alternative approach to the AI mech situation.
It should be relatively simple to log crawl and find instances where the AI mech has been used to attack other players.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Arrow768 said:

Prate is correct here.
I would recommend to give the wiki (AI page) a read. It explicitly mentions this case:

As the default law set does not contain any exceptions that would prioritise one law above another all laws within it are equal.

The wiki has that to say regarding law conflicts:


 

And yet, in such a case - as argued here, one can't inherently argue a conflict because the action of protecting X with Y, at the possible expense of Y which is monetarily worth less than X - means that there is a net gain in the case of law fulfillment. Furthered by the possible additional factor of satisfying another law if it's requested that you perform the above.

I don't really care about if the mech gets removed - go ahead and do that, but for the time I'd say no law is being broken by using the mech to protect the greater station per the value of net gain in such an action vs net loss by inaction (and the aforementioned additional factor adding further weight).

Link to post
8 hours ago, Zyrus said:

This mindset is bullshit and wrong. Cult members are protected by Laws, as they are crew members. If you are attacking crew with mechs, you are violating your Laws.

I've never attacked a crewmember with a mech on purpose. You don't have to put the cult in a losing position by killing them. You can also use the mech to obnoxiously bodyblock, guard chokes, push, shove, be incredibly annoying and waste the time of antagonists. And the AI gets one of these tools to physically impact the round (HINT: COMPLETELY AGAINST THE DESIGN OF THE AI) for free? Why?

Link to post

Also want to point out how much of a hilarious conflict of interest it is for someone to open up in the thread with "AS A FREQUENT AI PLAYER" (implication being that person plays everything else even less, and is therefore less likely to have a balanced and fair viewpoint on the whole subject) and then unsurprisingly try to defend the shitty status quo of certain features involved that enable the AI to actively be able to shut down antagonists directly once again.

It would be fantastic if the AI had claws specifically for the malf game mode, whenever it gets re-enabled, but the AI is absolutely not supposed to have any kind of fangs whatsoever to be able to remove antagonists from the round directly. That is the crew's responsibility should it ever boil down to self-preservation. The AI is a support and roleplaying tool.

Link to post
On 19/09/2020 at 00:26, Scheveningen said:

 but the AI is absolutely not supposed to have any kind of fangs whatsoever to be able to remove antagonists from the round directly. That is the crew's responsibility should it ever boil down to self-preservation. The AI is a support and roleplaying tool.

Completely disagree, and have no idea where this mindset comes from.

Just because you like to shoehorn the role into such, doesn't make it the correct approach. Making the AI a glorified observer is the height of hilarity, especially since you just gave a potent argument for keeping the round start exosuit; support. Keeping it allows the AI player to directly support a round.

Link to post

Uh, no. Giving the AI a weapon that crushes people to death is not how the AI should provide support to the round (dare I also point out, that mech is not even good at what it is equipped for? the mounted toolset is actually redundant and useless, its only use is unsurprisingly to kill things with its hard hitting melee attacks). They're an all-encompassing knowledge base that can teach people how to do things or do chemistry with the help of a person to switch beakers around. They can open airlocks in an emergency, disable ID scan to permit ease of access in said emergencies so they don't have to actively wait for someone to say "ai door law 2 or i valid you" to do their job.

The mech is only useful as a weapon and you're defending it. The AI already possesses many means of supporting the round. The mech does not accomplish this aim apart from "directly supporting the round" through killing or impeding the round antagonists.

Considering the AI sits in the most secure and nearly impenetrable area in the game, I'd rather the AI be unable to directly threaten the life of any character at all without breaking its laws.

Link to post

You're laser focused on one potentially abusable aspect so much you're ignoring all the rest, and using that as an excuse to neuter the AI even more. Do we remove the Captain next for having the authority to borg criminals?

Link to post

I would like to point out that the mech is situational but in a recent round, ninjas were attempting to breach the core so I followed my laws and used the mech to crush the ninja, which sent them into a panic and ended up being lasered inside my core. As much as I don’t like to intervene in antags’ play, it helped serve as my protection in cases like these.

I am on the fence for this one but lean to no, keep it for dire situations such as shield set up, supermatter engine set up, and defensive play like this.

Link to post

The mech the AI is given has a description that indicates it is in disrepair. It needs to live up to this. Make it so weak that an antagonist could easily destroy it, its purpose should be performing utilities around the station, not entering combat.

Removing it is a -1 from me. The AI has taken quite a bit of nerfs recently, the mech was supposed to compensate by giving them something engaging to do when not opening doors for the crew. 

As for core defense, the core is so laughably easy to enter unscathed, the mech is probably the only reasonable defense against these commonly used angles of attacks (ones that bypass the turrets entirely btw), those who play CE know what I speak of. I don't think using the mech to defend the core from direct assault is a reason to remove it, if you go to assault the core you should expect a fight. 

Also as an aside, I find myself getting tired of the argument that ahelping can't fix it. It absolutely can, if you break your laws you get bwoinked, I know I did when starting here. The mech is obviously intended to be considered under the laws of the AI, as mentioned by a few others, it is not expendable, it is an extension of the AI.

We can't just keep removing stuff because rule breaking players abuse it, where does that ever end? If the Head of Security abuses his armory access to equip lethals at round start do we just remove the armory, or does he get bwoinked for power gaming? 

There is constant pressure to nerf the AI or even outright remove it, and the excuse is always bad players abusing it. This is a huge slap in the face to the GOOD synth players who respect the role. Losing it would be a huge blow. Honestly I don't know why people are so against whitelisting the AI instead of removing it entirely, but that is a seperate topic I suppose.

 

tldr: mech should be made of paper, possibly not even be able to attack other mobs, and should fall under the AI's lawset as an extension of itself so it is not used as a martyr against antags

 

Edited by StationCrab
Link to post
3 hours ago, StationCrab said:

tldr: mech should be made of paper, possibly not even be able to attack other mobs, and should fall under the AI's lawset as an extension of itself so it is not used as a martyr against antags

Not remotely enforceable without turning its laws into making it incapable of harming a living being.

Link to post
10 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

Not remotely enforceable without turning its laws into making it incapable of harming a living being.

Entering into combat with a heavily armed antagonist with what is supposed to be a maintenance platform is a violation of law four. Now I agree we need to enforce this mechanically, by nerfing the remote mech so it cannot attack effectively, but if it was used in this way in its current form it should be an easy bwoink in my opinion. I hope it will return after some tweaks, and not be removed outright.

Link to post
On 17/09/2020 at 20:28, Doc said:

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

 

Link to post
On 18/09/2020 at 10:09, 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 as well. I feel like I handle the role well, I have fun playing it and I genuinely believe I make the rounds better for people, both antags and non-antags. It is very disheartening to hear talk of people wanting to remove the role entirely, or slicing off game elements because of some problem players, when what they need is to be confronted by admins that explain what they are doing wrong.
 

I don't actually use it much myself, if at all, but I like having the option for those scenarios where it is relevant. It felt like a good addition.

Link to post

The removal has been merged under the caveat that it will be reintroduced with significant nerfs to integrity and damage capability in order to prevent it being used problematically.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...