Hackie Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 The detective's revolver Basically, the thing is a lethal weapon, that can kill somebody incredibly quickly (also has an awesome sprite). Issues with it Multiple people have shown a complete opposition to the idea of letting a detective carry a lethal ballistic fire arm, opposed to a stun revolver or energy gun type weapon. What the topic is about This topic is mainly about discussing it on the forums and what will be done with it in future updates. What I think of it The revolver is lethal for a reason, it's not meant to be used during a normal shift. The whole point of the weapon is to take control of a situation, the detective doesn't have all the equipment a security officer has. So, the detective needs to pose a threat to the suspect and take control of the situation, and a very convincing weapon is a 38 caliber revolver. Even if the suspect wins in the fight, the bullet will shrapnel, cause bleeding, and potentially put him in critical afterwards. Can this tool be abused? Yes, most definitely, but from a role-playing perspective the detective is mentally sound and will try to refrain from abusing it. The Head of Security needs to take the detective seriously as well, make sure he doesn't go to the bar to get drunk if he has his revolver on him. A detective's job is to be there when a big fish needs to be fried, not to be a fancy security officer.
K0NFL1QT Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 There are many problem points with the revolver. Here are a few that come to mind; - Most detectives will forget to allow movement and item use and shoot the suspect out of reflex when setting a target with 'Aim' mode.- Likewise, few characters treat having a lethal weapon pointed at them with the gravity the situation demands, and will attempt to just run away or attack which leads to them getting shot at least once.- The lack of non-lethal alternatives means the revolver is the detectives only tool for defense, leading to improper escalation of force in most cases. And given the nature of the revolver, unless swift medical attention is administered, the person who's shot will almost always die of it.- Most Detectives that aren't busy show a propensity for alcoholism and thus hang out at the bar and get drunk, while carrying a loaded, lethal firearm. While your character getting drunk doesn't inhibit the judgements of the player controlling them, their judgement should be considered impaired in character. This is why a drunk Detective will almost always get canned if there's a Head of Security worth their salt. What can be done? I don't see any reason for lethal firearms to be issued to a member of the Security force, an investigate member at that. I think if you disarmed them completely you'd remove most of the allure of the role. So, instead, equip them with rubber bullets, a replacement stun revolver, or just a flat out taser.
LetzShake Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 I'm in favor of moving back to the rubber bullets. It was overpowered before, but with the advent of pain crit instead of instant knockdown, I think it should get another look
Carver Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 The issue isn't the Detective getting a lethal sidearm, it's that he's the only person in the Department (Other than the HoS) packing a lethal firearm and this places a greater level of responsibility on him in how to use it. I'd honestly rather just turn this situation around and let the Detective keep his Revolver, whilst giving Security Officers themselves another tool in their arsenal for high-intensity situations. Think of it this way; You're one among several Security Guards being paid by NanoTrasen to guard an extremely valuable asset of theirs, a Research Station. You're given a set of tools to defend the property and keep order. Yet none of your standard tools are actually worth a damn for defending the Station against anything bigger than a donut thief, and noone actually pays any respect to your arsenal. Why don't we both lower the stigma surrounding the Detective, whilst at the same time upping Security with a standardized sidearm that's both intimidating to would-be deviants, and allows an Officer caught off-guard to realistically defend themself from an armed assailant? Once Security is beyond the initial 'Learning/Experimental Phase' of acquiring a new tool (Which would hopefully weed out the 'Good Officers' from the 'Abusive Officers'), over time you'll have it settling down into it's own place. With Security hopefully learning a thing or two about proper escalation of force, and why it's a bad idea to engage a Revolver/SMG/E-Sword armed assailant with non-lethal weaponry meant for dealing with small-time vandals and Rioters. A win for realism, roleplay, and a potentially good lesson in responsibility for Security and the Detective to further themselves from.
Covert0ddity Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 The problem is as follows, with an OOC and IC reason as to why we should not give Security Officers guns, and keep them the way they are, and why we should take away the detective's revolver and replace it with a stun revolver. ICly: -Security Officers in NanoTrasen stations are regarded as something like a 'mall cop' with greater responsibility. They are NOT officers. In order to prevent deaths from widely ocurring, or to stop officers from going on rampages, becuase they are not qualified by Alliance law to wield lethal weaponry unless it is an emergency situation. As for the detective, why? Why is an investigative unit of a Corporate Security program issued a weapon able to incapacitate and even kill people. I can't even think of any justification ICly that would allow this through regulation, so I'll just leave it at that. Why. OOCly: - Security officers have more than enough firepower to take down any antagonist. A stun baton that stuns for something around 15 ticks, handcuffs to get said person. A long-ranged taser gun that can incap anyone and anything, except borgs. A flash that can stun people without glasses and borgs. A flash bang that can take down agroup of people, even with glasses, for 10 ticks. Pepperspray that no one uses but has range and is ubsurdly fun. And, access to the armory in an emergency situation. The problem isn't security's arsenal, it's that people don't RP pain or fear, which is less of a problem, or that the officer in question doesn't know how to utilize his security belt to efficiently take down and cuff a criminal, fast. As for the detective, again, why. While they are entitled to self defense, even a stun revolver is a stretch. But, I will give the reasons why it is preferable. First off, it's holsterable, just like their old one. Quick access. Second, it stuns and is rechargable (i believe). That way no one can possibly die in the situation. And, in the event of miss-fires and people walking in FRONT OF THE LINE OF FIRE there is no wounds that need to be treated by medical. Not just that, but it keeps whatever nostalgia people have on that the detective must have a revolver for whatever reason. It prevents headaches, really. TL;DR: Give Detective a stun revolver. Keep Sec as it is.
Lady_of_Ravens Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 While I totally agree with all the OOC reasoning, and it even makes a certain amount of sense ICly to equip security officers with non-lethal weapons... How the hell are they mall cops? We have mall cop level personell guarding a nuclear device? I'm... scared. As for the detectives, I agree. Stun revolver.
Covert0ddity Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 It was an analogy. By the eyes of the Alliance, they are Corporate Security. Not private mercenaries with weaponry, and not officers of a government entity. They are not there to protect the law, they are there to ensure the Corporate Regulations, which is a branch of the law. Their main priority, however, is to protect corporate assets.
Lady_of_Ravens Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 It was an analogy. By the eyes of the Alliance, they are Corporate Security. Not private mercenaries with weaponry, and not officers of a government entity. They are not there to protect the law, they are there to ensure the Corporate Regulations, which is a branch of the law. Their main priority, however, is to protect corporate assets. I agree with everything about that except how it relates to the standard issue of lethal weapons. Corporate security at secure installations (which a high-end research station certainly would quallify as) generally carry firearms as well as non-lethal alternatives. Some places even have no-shit snipers.
Covert0ddity Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 I agree with everything about that except how it relates to the standard issue of lethal weapons. Corporate security at secure installations (which a high-end research station certainly would quallify as) generally carry firearms as well as non-lethal alternatives. Some places even have no-shit snipers. I do see your point, but I stand by mine. The Aurora isn't a secret, or a super high-security station. It's tiny outpost compared to other large scale ones, and it's not researching anything revolutionary, that NT is funneling a lot of money into.
Lady_of_Ravens Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 I agree with everything about that except how it relates to the standard issue of lethal weapons. Corporate security at secure installations (which a high-end research station certainly would quallify as) generally carry firearms as well as non-lethal alternatives. Some places even have no-shit snipers. I do see your point, but I stand by mine. The Aurora isn't a secret, or a super high-security station. It's tiny outpost compared to other large scale ones, and it's not researching anything revolutionary, that NT is funneling a lot of money into. Fair enough.
Susan Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 It was an analogy. By the eyes of the Alliance, they are Corporate Security. Not private mercenaries with weaponry, and not officers of a government entity. They are not there to protect the law, they are there to ensure the Corporate Regulations, which is a branch of the law. Their main priority, however, is to protect corporate assets. Yes. I mean, who ever gives security guards guns? A pistol? Hah. A shotgun? Never. Never in modern times is a security guard ever armed. Only military security carry guns, obviously. What sort of company would ever give a security guard a weapon? Totally unrealistic. At no point ever is a security guard ever allowed a firearm. And they certainly don't pay bonuses to guards with carry permits. Armed security guards earned average annual salaries of $31,000 as of 2013, according to the job website Indeed. Most have at least high school diplomas or GEDs, and some postsecondary courses in political science and criminal justice. They must also take classroom training for emergency procedures, detention of perpetrators and the use of firearms. And yes, security guards are totally disowned by the government. Any schmuck can just be one, and they have no power. Security personnel are not police officers, unless they are security police, but are often identified as such due to similar uniforms and behaviors, especially on private property. Security personnel in the U.S. derive their powers from state laws, which allow them a contractual arrangement with clients that give them Agent of the Owner powers. This includes a nearly unlimited power to question with the absence of probable cause requirements that frequently dog public law enforcement officers All security guards are unarmed, and it's impossible for them to be armed. You have to defend nukes with a nightstick. Security guards have the same powers of arrest as a private citizen, called a "private person" arrest, "any person" arrest, or "citizen's arrest". Most security officers do not carry weapons. If weapons are carried, additional permits and training are usually required. Armed security personnel are generally employed to protect sensitive sites such as government and military installations, armored money transports, casinos, banks and other financial institutions, and nuclear power plants. However, armed security is quickly becoming a standard for vehicle patrol officers and on many other non-government sites. Similarly, detectives carrying pistols? Never. No detective has ever carried a gun, certainly not in the last century. Not at all.
Guest Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Technically, they arent even Officers, I tried to suggest having their job switched to Security Guard but no one was having that. And technically, they should all have weapons permits considering they are expected to use lethal weaponry when the station is being attacked by hostile forced. And realistically, a Detective is an Officer who does arrest, but focused more on invedtigating and usually only arrests those who are related together their case. As private security operate on the right of citizens arrests, the Detective is legally allowed to detain those breaking the law, as are any other crew members
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 I still giggle endlessly over this matter. I remember when there were huge,huge arguments over the detective's old revolver that fired rubber bullets being too "powerful" and "dangerous". Now we just end up with a lethal firearm. Anyway, stun revolver or rubber bullet would be nice. Maybe give him a safe with the lethal gun and ammo inside that can only be accessed with the Warden or HoS swiping their card on it. Currently the detective has very little means to properly escalate force; if the suspect has sunglasses and is running at you, you have nothing left but a lethal firearm. Having some pepperspray or the option of rubber bullets would do wonders. Leave it up to the detective to decide if he wants lethal force or not, and have IC consequences if he suddenly used lethal bullets when he had rubber ones available the entire time.
Chaznoodles Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Return it to using it's previous rounds. In the case of needing lethal rounds anyway, you can just screwdriver the revolver and print .357 from Cargo.
canon35 Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Here's what I'm saying, give the detective a stun revolver. There, simple, done, no more detectives shooting someone in the head for stealing their drink.
Susan Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Anyway, stun revolver or rubber bullet would be nice. Maybe give him a safe with the lethal gun and ammo inside that can only be accessed with the Warden or HoS swiping their card on it. Currently the detective has very little means to properly escalate force; if the suspect has sunglasses and is running at you, you have nothing left but a lethal firearm. Except what you are literally describing is the proper amount of force to respond to that situation with. Try running at a cop when he has a gun pointed at you and see if you don't get shot; in the situation you described, discharging your weapon would be a logical and reasonable choice, assuming you literally aren't surrounded by security who can non-lethally subdue a suspect.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Anyway, stun revolver or rubber bullet would be nice. Maybe give him a safe with the lethal gun and ammo inside that can only be accessed with the Warden or HoS swiping their card on it. Currently the detective has very little means to properly escalate force; if the suspect has sunglasses and is running at you, you have nothing left but a lethal firearm. Except what you are literally describing is the proper amount of force to respond to that situation with. Try running at a cop when he has a gun pointed at you and see if you don't get shot; in the situation you described, discharging your weapon would be a logical and reasonable choice, assuming you literally aren't surrounded by security who can non-lethally subdue a suspect. Well, when I'm detective, if I can requisition pepperspray (or manage to sneak one from a security belt a security officer going into cyro left behind) I generally don't even have to draw my gun for the rest of the round if it's extended. But this is spiraling off into a larger question of giving security lethal firepower right off the bat. Of this question, I'd be supportive of having a trial run. On Colonial Marines, military police get a lethal pistol as well as their non-lethal stun stick. I can't speak for every MP or round, but generally the escalation of force is proper - especially since the chucklefucks are given automatic weapons as standard. Just narrowing down to the detective's gun, I'd say return rubber bullets with lethals available, and leave it up to the detective to face the consequences of whatever he decides to load it with.
Guest Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Return it to using it's previous rounds. In the case of needing lethal rounds anyway, you can just screwdriver the revolver and print .357 from Cargo. yeah that upgrade from 10 brute to 60 brute is totally necessary
TishinaStalker Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Guys, just do what I do: Code Green: Revolver stays in locker at all times. Flash in backpack. Code Blue: Revolver is in holster in box, on person when needing to check maint tunnels, but more lax on keeping my finger on the H key. Flash in pocket. Code Red: Holster's on person with finger ready on the H key at all suspicious times. If there's even one officer with you, then let them handle it. If they get taken down while you're watching, then aim while not-restricting walking. Because if you don't restrict item-use, then they'll probably pick up the officer's dropped equipment, and use it on you. From an IC standpoint, would you drop down to pick up the officer's taser or stun baton while somebody has a lethal weapon trained on you? If you answer "Yes", then that shows you have no sense of self-preservation, want to continue being a threat, and you fully deserve getting lit up like the night sky in the Fourth of July while losing all rights to complain about Detectives since you gave them no other option. If the perp doesn't do anything until the officer gets up, then lower your aim after the officer stuns/flashes/peppersprays the perp or order them to the floor and then flash or cuff them based on the officer's condition. The gun is to take control. A lethal firearm shows YOU'RE in charge in a situation like this where the officer(s) is(are) down, and the perp has no ranged capability. Even antagonists need to keep in mind their self preservation because everyone wants to live. The only situation I can see this not being the case, is if you know that holding until transfer would end with execution by Sol Gov because even life sentences can be repealed for good behavior, but it would be best to clear up with staff when you're in a quiet, secluded place (to not endanger yourself) so we don't go "wtf who is taking 20 bullets and still robusting officers with batons? ban." If all antags were Tony "YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE ME? YOU NEED A FUCKING ARMY TO TAKE ME!" Montana where they can take 4 bullets to the head and keep charging (detective's gun only does a laughable, but still serious, amount of brute), then that would be bad. Why? Because then we would have to make the same exception for everyone else: Avoiding pain. That would lead to horrendous RP. "You have a bullet lodged in your skull." "Big whoop." "Dude, IN your skull." "Shut the fuck up, and get me some oxycodone and bicaridine, asshole." "-Avoid pain. A sane, well-rounded character would not engage in actions that are overly painful, or put themselves in harm's way without consideration (e.g. going EVA without a suit, stabbing themselves repeatedly, or continue to run at someone after being shot multiple times.)" "-Being an antagonist does not exempt you from any server rules." "Powergaming = Also know as 'playing to win'." Just because a bullet does a laughable amount of damage, does not in any way, shape or form give you the permission to just shrug it off with a laugh. Why? Because it's a bullet. Furthermore, this message ITSELF tells you not to get on the gun pointer's bad side: Talon Keir aims a revolver at Test Dummy! ((Your character is being targeted. They have 2 seconds to stop any click or move actions. While targeted, they may drag and drop items in or into the map, speak, and click on interface buttons. Clicking on the map objects (floors and walls are fine), their items (other than a weapon to de-target), or moving will result in being fired upon. The aggressor may also fire manually, so try not to get on their bad side. )) Fail to follow orders, expect to get shot, and lose all rights to complain in dsay or ahelps. Also, there's really little to no argument behind "give them stun revolvers so they don't shoot someone for taking their drink" because Detectives who do stupid things like that or shooting a restrained prisoner on code green in the brig get job banned. TL;DR: The Detective's Revolver is something to not be made fun of IC'ly, and should be more than enough for any situation. A player that forces you to fire in an uncontrolled environment, is a player that doesn't care about their IC life, and has no right to complain for its use.
Hackie Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Well, the root of the problem is an RP issue. Rambos, power gamers, and Mary Sues will always be an issue. This will always be apparent, it happens even in the smallest cases; a security officer building a table without any trouble in game, to a team of engineers attacking a blob that is extremely dangerous, and etc. It's root in our nature because we don't have a connection with our character, even if he dies there's always next round, building a table is just a click for you. Edited January 3, 2015 by Guest
Farcry11 Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Gonna agree with some of the previous posts. For quite some time I've been of the opinion that officers should be given a low-caliber, standard issue ballistic sidearm. Why? Consider the mentality of your usual dipshit lawbreaker: "I can get away with broken-bottling this sec officer in the chest! Worst case scenario, I get tasered, maybe stunbatoned. I can bounce back from the pretty quick, so why not?" Now, replace the taser with a gun. With bullets. And shrapnel. When your chucklefucking could possibly put you in to crit or even get you killed rather than tased and brigged, you'll be singing a different tune both ICly and OOCly. Couple this with IRL police Rules of Engagement, and you have an effective system here. What if the guns get abused by turrible shitsec? The shitsec will get banned. Problem solved.
Kane Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 I think giving the detective access to rubber and lethal rounds would be useful, the revolver still keeps it's position as one of the few ballistic weapons on station, but with the potential to be used less dangerously, and more so in game-play. It's somewhat dangerous for the detective themselves to use, should their superiors deem it's use unacceptable, they can land themselves brig time, a demotion, and/or have their trusty sidearm confiscated. With the option to use rubber rounds, the target gets a nasty bruise at worse, maybe a shattered bone, or two, but nothing nearly as severe as metal fragments embedded in their skin, or death. Needless to say, I'm a fan of keeping the revolver, and presenting the option for the detective to use either lethal or rubber rounds.
Recommended Posts