Revise how flashes work

[Kaed]

I'm probably going to get nowhere with this, but I think flashes are too powerful an item. The allow you to instantly stunlock most player species, and the only way to block it is with a pair of sunglasses. Yes, you can spawn with sunglasses, but that's not really my point. It's not so much their counter that bothers me, it's that they don't really make sense from a logic perspective.

You flash a really bright light at someone, and they collapse... because... that's how the game mechanics work? I don't really understand the precedent for this working this way other than just 'because we wanted a cheap, easy disable'. Really, they should just cause temporary blindness, like they already do (maybe for longer?) but not make people magically get stunned by them. Is everyone on the station born epileptic?

Security has other tools to stun people, like batons and tasers. They don't need yet another that requires almost no effort and can't be dodged or miss, only be blocked with a specific worn item, and is fully effective with a single click. Being able to blind someone who is attacking you for like 5-7 seconds is a perfectly reasonable self defense measure, which is really the intended purpose of the flash anyway - not an aggressive take-down weapon, like it's currently being used.

I still think they should overload borg, though. That is reasonable, and always has been, they're machines and can only process so much with shitty optical sensors or whatever.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The blindness ability that flashes cause when you click the flash itself is so pathetically useless that it's almost a joke. But clicking on a person with the flash instantly stuns them. Removing the instant-stun from flashes (which were the bane of old-code stunsticks) but increasing the length of blindness to a considerably degree effectively disables the person similar to a stun but allows them to run away or even lash out blindly, which is FAR superior to the current model.

I did have fears about balance but the blindness effectively solves the issue without making a flash+cuffs the new genre of oldcode stunstick+cuffs. While flashes are completely useless against sunglasses, they are still super strong.

[ben10083]

Maybe we should remove flashes, but I cannot support such a thing since without it security cyborgs are FUCKED, as the taser and baton would drain their power cell to zero in 5-6 hits. If we would remove flashes, for the love of god make sure to reduce drain for other tools on cyborg.

[Kaed]

I don't think they need to be removed, they just need to be altered so they stop filling the 'powergamer' niche by being usable for stuncuff combos. It's sort of ridiculous that everyone on the station is expected to either wear sunglasses all the time or just eat shit whenever they provoke anyone holding a flash.

[MattAtlas]

Could make them like they work on Bay, aka they blind people for a few seconds and disorient them, so they can run into walls or tables and hurt themselves/trip, while their movement is also random when disoriented.

[Butterrobber202]

Blindness shouldn’t make you dizzy?

Anyways, yeah flashes are a MASSIVE meme and I’d like to see them straight up removed. But removal of the stunlock would also be neat

[Loow]

Hey there. Loow here.

I've seen a world where flashes don't stun. It's not pretty.

The blinding effect on its own does very, very little. Virtually no one stops and goes "Ah I'm blind" in the cases I've seen. The nerfed-flashes do, as some have pointed out, encourage even more erratic and extreme behavior. Rather than putting a threat on the ground for a few moments, the flash would encourage sudden running, firing of weapons, attacks against nearby people.

The stun effect should not be removed from flashes.

In this setting and game, we have laserguns, large mechs, and faster-than-light travel.

I find it incredibly easy to believe that there is a device which stuns people and emits bright light.

Flashes are an integral part of the game, as some have pointed out. Security cyborgs rely on them heavily. They are conversely one of the few effective counters to cyborgs themselves. What's more, they are a relatively accessible tool. Heads get them, science can get a hold of them, etc.

Removing the stun of a flash would mean removing a well known, common, and quite useful tool from the hands of characters across the station. This would not only hinder security and force them to escalate to other tools. Flashes are one of the few tools which can be acquired by antagonists regardless of position. Cargo technicians, scientists, heads, bartenders, and anyone with access to those people has a chance of getting a flash as a tool for their shot at antagonist actions.

This isn't just an action against security, and I feel we should remember that. This is an offence against those who might knock security down a peg. This is an action against players who finally have a chance to play as an antagonist. This is a significant change against a tool which nearly anyone can get a hold of. A change which, I feel, would be for the worse.

[Kaed]

Hey there. Loow here.

I've seen a world where flashes don't stun. It's not pretty.

The blinding effect on its own does very, very little. Virtually no one stops and goes "Ah I'm blind" in the cases I've seen. The nerfed-flashes do, as some have pointed out, encourage even more erratic and extreme behavior. Rather than putting a threat on the ground for a few moments, the flash would encourage sudden running, firing of weapons, attacks against nearby people.

The stun effect should not be removed from flashes.

In this setting and game, we have laserguns, large mechs, and faster-than-light travel.

I find it incredibly easy to believe that there is a device which stuns people and emits bright light.

Flashes are an integral part of the game, as some have pointed out. Security cyborgs rely on them heavily. They are conversely one of the few effective counters to cyborgs themselves. What's more, they are a relatively accessible tool. Heads get them, science can get a hold of them, etc.

Removing the stun of a flash would mean removing a well known, common, and quite useful tool from the hands of characters across the station. This would not only hinder security and force them to escalate to other tools. Flashes are one of the few tools which can be acquired by antagonists regardless of position. Cargo technicians, scientists, heads, bartenders, and anyone with access to those people has a chance of getting a flash as a tool for their shot at antagonist actions.

This isn't just an action against security, and I feel we should remember that. This is an offence against those who might knock security down a peg. This is an action against players who finally have a chance to play as an antagonist. This is a significant change against a tool which nearly anyone can get a hold of. A change which, I feel, would be for the worse.

 

Nope. I haven't forgotten that people besides security have flashes.

And I completely reject your assertion that 'how it is now is how it needs to be'.

I remember a time like Jackboot mentioned when we transitioned from your old code to bay. And instant stun through any armor batons were lost for halloss batons. There was much whining about security being crippled for antag hugboxing.

It's the same situation here. This tool is so iconic and potent that it seems unimaginable to a traditionalist. It's such an iconic part of the game, changing it feels like it would ruin everything.

But I say: why do we need to give people this ability? You say being blinded makes people act more erratically, and yes that makes sense. I don't see the problem with that. Being blind makes people panic.

Is that a less interesting alternative to you then the research director standing over an antagonist flashing them every 5 seconds until security arrives or a nearby engineer can cable cuff them?

Because that's what this item encourages in its state. A free, easy and repeatable stunlock. It's not fun for anyone except the people holding the flash.

I would much rather have a blind gunman firing wildly into the room trying to hit someone, or running into a wall because they just got blinded, then them sitting helplessly on the ground being flashed repeatedly for the next 30 seconds then being carted off to security in cuffs.

As for Borg, they just need some retooling to lessen thier reliance on flashes. Lower the ridiculous energy cost of batons and tasers. And blinding a dangerous threat so they can't shoot crew is very viable.

If people really feel the desperate need to have an instant stun method, stun gloves and makeshift stun prods still exist in the code. They just require knowledge and resources to make, and have sharply limited times they can be used, instead of an infinite use easy to find item that almost every department can get.

[alexpkeaton]

I'm inclined to agree with the OP. Why nerf batons to prevent stunlocking only to let an equally (if not more) ubiquitous item have a stunlock?

The point should be to encourage the cat and mouse, to encourage security to use a variety of tools at their disposal. Having a click-to-win item is only fun for powergamers. When the masses start adopting a singular solution, it is because it is the best one. Why baton when you can flash?

Seriously, if you can give me a valid reason why a baton should be used in lieu of a flash on a generic character not wearing sunglasses, I'll support keeping the flash stunlock.

If you can't, then it's time to nerf the flash.

[Butterrobber202]

Having a click-to-win item is only fun for powergamers. When the masses start adopting a singular solution, it is because it is the best one. Why baton when you can flash?

 

This

[tbear13]

Having a click-to-win item is only fun for powergamers. When the masses start adopting a singular solution, it is because it is the best one. Why baton when you can flash?

 

This

 

This

[Scheveningen]

The flash is not the best stun solution. There is only one 100% "you're dead and can't do anything about it" solution in the game and security doesn't have access to it. Flashes, unfortunately have significant amounts of counterplay and have limitations, something that the best stun measure in the game cannot be counterplayed by and doesn't suffer particular issues in using.

A flash can only be used 5 times a minute, but it recharges 1 use every minute. They can also irreparably break in that timeframe if overused in that minute timeframe, approximately a 10% chance, and usually when that translated to computed RNG it happens more often than you'd think. I prefer pepperspray for this reason, as it overrides glasses protection and has a more effective range that can be used.

I use the AOE flash all of the time to help chain up a directed flash to ensure someone who's trying to run away gets stopped in their tracks. The AOE flash by itself has a chance to break the flash by itself, however, another 10% chance. It's useful in its own way.

The only problem I see with flashes at the moment is they recharge automatically rather than requiring to be recharged in a charger. I otherwise don't see why it's necessary to further enforce the idea that security needs to be using stun batons or pepperspraying people as an initial measure of force. I don't feel that extreme nerf measures are required to handle this issue, either.

Devs aren't fans of outright removing stuff without adding things to compensate. "It's time to nerf something with absolutely no trade-off to still make it useful" is not something that's going to be considered, nor should it be. Calls for nerfs should have more thought than asking for something to be balanced into uselessness.

[Loow]

[mention]Kaed[/mention] got back to me! Right on!

"I remember a time like Jackboot mentioned when we transitioned from your old code to bay. "

I didn't make that code. I will admit that I wish I did.

" There was much whining about security being crippled for antag hugboxing."

That's some strong wording there, Jimbo. It kinda makes it seem like you don't take contrary opinions very well. That's fine, they catch a lot of people off guard. Some people even see them as a personal attack when they're usually anything but. Or maybe you just feel strongly about the pain-tasers. Or maybe Jackboot's been spinning the stories in an exaggerated way, like a showman weaving a yarn.

That said, yeah there were a lot of people who weren't happy with the change. If memory serves at least.

"This tool is so iconic and potent that it seems unimaginable to a traditionalist."

I wouldn't exactly call myself a traditionalist. I have pushed for a new role to be added quite recently (Bio-Physician! Look it up). I wouldn't go as far as to call anyone who may have an issue with a possible change a traditionalist either. Sides are a lot like risque pictures: we could draw them all day and never get anything done.

"Is that a less interesting alternative to you then the research director standing over an antagonist flashing them every 5 seconds until security arrives or a nearby engineer can cable cuff them?"

I'm not particularly worried about interest as much as the viability of the flash as a tool and its usefulness for the average player. I thought my previous post got that across quite well.

For what the tool does (stun), I feel it works well. Changing the flash (a common item) to something which does not carry out its intended purpose (stun) seems like an overreaction. Did something happen recently? Did someone get dragged out of some A+ chair RP by a gang of flash-toting assistants?

Anyway. The stunbaton is essentially a much more effective flash without the blindness or sunglasses-weakness. I don't think taking the flash's stun away is going to get rid of "stunlocks" entirely from the game. Oh, I'm getting sidetracked.

"And I completely reject your assertion that 'how it is now is how it needs to be'. "

I don't believe I said that. I believe what I said was "This is a significant change against a tool which nearly anyone can get a hold of. A change which, I feel, would be for the worse." I'll admit, I like my wording better. I like to think it opened the points I laid out for debate quite nicely, but I don't really see many of my points being addressed here. Maybe I'll have to go back to the drawing board on that one.

It seems like your interpretation follows the analogy of drawing sides all day and not getting anywhere. I do believe I pointed out some of the positives I saw in the current system, but maybe I did so poorly.

I typically suggest looking at an opposing or supporting argument and taking a good look at it. Really wrap your head around the parts of the statement, then respond after you think you understand the points which are being made. I'll admit, I don't always take this advice.

"Nope. I haven't forgotten that people besides security have flashes. "

Wonderful. Let's carry on then. I don't believe I ever said you'd forgotten, nor did I even address you in my response. Strange, it seems I made points about a concept without addressing a single person in the discussion.

I hoped to remind everyone reading about the flash's status as a somewhat commonly accessible tool, and I'm glad you've kept that detail into your heart. Let's remember that, because it's going to come up a lot.

"Because that's what this item encourages in its state. A free, easy and repeatable stunlock. It's not fun for anyone except the people holding the flash."

Keep in mind that flashes do burn out. I'll admit, a good, sturdy flash will probably do its user proud for a good altercation. I believe part of the appeal comes from the items simplicity and, as I've said many times, accessibility.

It seems you didn't think to respond to the how I addressed the bulk of your argument. Let's take a look at it

You'd originally said:

"You flash a really bright light at someone, and they collapse... because... that's how the game mechanics work? I don't really understand the precedent for this working this way other than just 'because we wanted a cheap, easy disable'. Really, they should just cause temporary blindness, like they already do (maybe for longer?) but not make people magically get stunned by them. Is everyone on the station born epileptic? "

That seemed like your big point. Basically saying that this

My response to that was:

"In this setting and game, we have laserguns, large mechs, and faster-than-light travel.

I find it incredibly easy to believe that there is a device which stuns people and emits bright light."

We can circle back to that topic if you like. It seems like you leaned on flashes not making sense scientifically (in a setting with aliens, faster than light travel, and wizards) when what you really meant to say that you didn't like the mechanics. I don't think scientific realism is really a part of your case that you hold onto very tightly, or at least, it shouldn't be.

"I would much rather have a blind gunman firing wildly into the room trying to hit someone, or running into a wall because they just got blinded, then them sitting helplessly on the ground being flashed repeatedly for the next 30 seconds then being carted off to security in cuffs."

This really undoes the whole point of the flash though, doesn't it? It's not strictly meant to escalate the situation, as you assert. it's meant to be a part of deescalation. You mention "why because mechanics say so?" and "magical" stuns. Well then let's look at why it might be like that. Rather than giving every staff member in need of protection a baton or force them to use a firearm, they have access to a non-lethal, easy to produce self-defense tool. It seems to have a very easily defined purpose with no magic involved at all. As to "why does light stun people?" well I feel it worth mentioning that light can be quite shocking. There's plenty of science and pseudoscience which could explain the phenomenon without being much more jarring than "sentient artificial intelligence" or our setting's faster than light travel.

So it seems to be that you don't like that flashes stun because it's boring. That's the only sort of argument you seem to offer in your response. If you have trouble accepting when you botch an antag round, well, that's pretty understandable. It can be frustrating having all that work and careful planning fall apart because of a well-known defense tool. I know this may not be the best thing to say to someone as they grieve over their wasted potential, but the round isn't over yet. You can look forward or backward, but being mentally trapped in that stun is what makes a lot of people so frustrated. Pro-tip: Think forward. How can I, (the victim or antag) make this round work for me? Or think backward. If you're an antag, maybe the plan that got you caught by cautious RD wasn't so great? Maybe you should have guessed that the stranger following you in the maintenance tunnel might be up to something? Maybe avoiding being alone in dark, cramped places is a good idea? Maybe picking a fight with a cadet because he's a catperson isn't a great way to keep yourself from getting robusted?

"If people really feel the desperate need to have an instant stun method, stun gloves and makeshift stun prods still exist in the code. They just require knowledge and resources to make, and have sharply limited times they can be used, instead of an infinite use easy to find item that almost every department can get."

Reminder. Despite your assertions, flashes do burn out. They are not infinite. Maybe the code has changed and my understanding is flawed, but I believe that flashes are not as "infinite" as you've said. I've had flashes fail at key moments, and it's been quite the source of shenanigans. I highly recommend using them. Work or fail, they fill an interesting niche.

Now let's look at a point you had that was pretty good, albeit short lived.

"...why do we need to give people this ability?"

The flash exists to be a cheap-and-easy stun. Less escalation than shooting or prodding someone with what is essentially a cattle-prod. I imagine quite a few people would hesitate to defend themselves with a firearm or beat-stick, but may be less intimidated by a more compact flash device.

It's also painfully simple to counter if you're in a situation where you think you may get flashed (like breaking laws, doing antagonist things, attacking people). Get sunglasses. It's that easy.

What if you're in a situation where you weren't exactly expecting to get flashed? What if you got ganked? Well, gank is one of those things which is typically against the rules. If you're in a situation where you might get flashed and you're not expecting it, then I hope there's been enough telegraphing by the antagonist beforehand so that you don't feel you've been cheated.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel I'm "expected to either wear sunglasses all the time or just eat shit whenever they provoke anyone holding a flash." Most rounds and characters, I go without sunglasses. I just don't powergame that hard, i suppose. In terms of "eating shit", I pretty much accept that if I'm not wearing sunglasses, I'm not prepared to "provoke" someone with a flash. Interestingly enough, I got caught by an antag a while back (flash) and managed to have my character talk his way out of getting killed. Rather than getting supremely frustrated when this sort of thing happens, I suggest trying to figure out what your character would or could do to survive the situation. I'll again admit that I don't always take this advice.

Actually, that quote makes a whole lot of sense. I guess you keep "provoking" people who have flashes. If you're doing it for antag reasons and your character knows a scrap is coming, maybe they should try to come up with a strategy that doesn't involve getting within flash-range. Otherwise, just stop "provoking" people in general.

If your books get ruined every time they get wet, then stop swimming to the library.

Let's change gears now.

"Seriously, if you can give me a valid reason why a baton should be used in lieu of a flash on a generic character not wearing sunglasses, I'll support keeping the flash stunlock."

[mention]alexpkeaton[/mention] If you're serious that it would only take one good reason for you to support the stun, then I hope this one works for you.

Because hitting people with a baton makes you feel like a big, strong man.

I'm serious. People who want to hit someone with a weapon will likely go for the weapon. It depends largely on the person, of course.

If you want another reason:

Because flashes burn out.

That flash in your pocket might be good for what? Ten more flashes? Five? I'm not so sure that there's an easy way to tell. With a stunbaton, you can tell (more or less) exactly how much charge you have. You know that thing's got juice to spare. Flashed burn out. Spamming flashes even makes them burn out faster.

But a baton?

That's your trusty problem solver. You take care of her and keep an eye on that charge, she'll take good care of you.

I've had flashed fail on me at awkward moments, but batons? Those are wicked reliable.

Maybe someone (hoS/Captain/the victim of this harmbaton beating) will get more upset because a baton got used over the much-more-civilized flash, but the truth of the matter is that a baton is as trusty as it is robust.

[Scheveningen]

Not to mention that you do not want the powercreep meta to shift to only making batons useful for detaining people, in which you'll see immediately escalated stunprod beatings happen much more often because frequent forum goers decided that flashes were "too strong" despite being not useful in a majority of situations against most antag types.

[Kaed]

Lotsa stuff

 

If I use strong language at the part about stunlock batons, in is in this case because that was exactly the language that was used in the forum arguments back then. I am paraphrasing, yes, but I distinctly remember the term 'antag hugboxing' coming up, and complaints that security was being crippled in favor of the antags because batons couldn't insta stun. So those are not necessarily my words, they are ancient forum-goers who might not even be on the server anymore. I actually LIKED the change, because I hated the old batons. And I don't know what else you want me to call it. Complaining? Moaning? Whining is as good a term as anything, it was flat out 'noooo they changed it now everything is ruined' mentality that happens in a lot of major patches

Also, when I use the term 'you' in regards to the old server code, I an directing it to the 'you' (multiple) meaning the general server base that you (singular) are part of. I never assumed you (singular) made the code. I understand the english language struggles with differentiation between singular you and group you, which is why sometimes I wish I spoke a language like french, that handles that sort of thing easily.

Anyway.

I admit I might have been a bit aggressive in my previous post in regards to your argument. But I still stand by the point I'm making. Even if we dismiss the part about 'how does it work, magic?" and 'well, you can just handwave it as futuristic psuedoscience, we have ftl and stuff what's the big deal?' part of the debate, because it's feels clear that isn't really going to really go anywhere (I don't mean this in an insulting way, incidentally. I just don't think that we're going to find any common ground on why it could work in canon beyond the two of us digging our heels in over it), let's stick to the gameplay and mechanics side of the argument.

In regards to 'the whole point of the flash being de-escalation', I don't really agree with you there. It is currently being used as a way to shut people down, yes, but I do not think that is what it needs to be. Yes, it burns out, I'm aware. But in the grand scheme of things, the chance flash burning out during an altercation with anything except a borg is almost nil. Two flashes are pretty much all you need to have time to cuff them or have someone else cuff them. Or hell, if you are an antagonist, a couple flashes is probably sufficient to keep someone down while you beat them to death/grab them for succ. It is currently a conflict 'de-escalator' (in that it stops all conflict dead as long as you are able to flash them), but I think it needs to be shifted over to 'combat mitigator' (in that it prevents the target from effectively targeting you or others with harm, but doesn't stop them dead).

The problem, in my eyes, is that you - and Scheveningen, I guess - seem to have this expectation that the game needs to have this item, which completely disables anyone not wearing sunglasses, in order to 'keep the flow of escalation intact'. The only reason, in my opinion, why this is even an issue, is because you are both used to the idea that 'batons come out only when things are serious.' This is like it is now because flashes exist in their current state. There is no need to TRY anything else when you can just flash someone down instantly. Batons cause no actual damage to people if you aren't using harm intent, it's purely a crippling shock that will down someone with a couple applications. Pepperspray can also down someone, but not for long enough to cuff them, and it has only four uses before needing to be refilled. Tasers can be fired after someone who tries to run, and can down them in about 2-3 hits, again without physical harm that needs medical treatment. There is no reason to treat these things as 'serious business for last resort'

These are all just fine tools of the security department. They can use those against someone, and rely on team members to help them. They don't need the ability to singlehandedly down someone and cuff them for not wearing sunglasses. This item is toxic to any sense of danger or conflict in a situation, or any particular display of skill for in game combat, because it just shuts it down and removes it. Wearing sunglasses is not something that requires finesse, or luck, like having a brawl, baton vs metal bat. It is just something you either are or are not doing. It is a binary state. By making the flash a blinding mechanism, it becomes part of the finesse and skill of combat, because tactical blinding gives you an advantage over the opponent, rather than just taking them out instantly.

Flashes, in my opinion, should be something that facilitates your retreat, or helps you win combat (not just wins it the end) by disadvantaging the opponent, I would even advocate that sunglasses should reduce the blind duration to a second or two, rather than completely negating it.

[Scheveningen]

Fair enough. Would you like flashes to blind for a longer time than the current duration while removing the cheap and easy stun, then, so as to not completely make the item unviable in using?

You do need to understand that the argument I am coming from (I honestly don't care what Loow thinks or says because it most likely isn't my opinion most of the time, but I really can't be associated with him either way) is that not everything that is "too strong" at the moment needs to be reduced to a state of unusability. I wouldn't care if flashes got nerfed in the fashion I described, I'd just use pepperspray anyway and guns for cases where pepperspray wouldn't work. There must still be tradeoffs for balance changes to make them reasonably usable, otherwise you'd be better off removing the features from the game outright.

If you plan on nerfing something that is toxic to gameflow, you still need to make the feature usable, right? Arguably, making the flash a blinding utility that temporarily cripples the amount of information the victim can use for a certain amount of time is much better than forcing the blind and the stun where they cannot react to do anything.

I'd make an analogy about replacing the guns on the station with the BANG! flag guns because security is too gung-ho for instance, but I imagine everyone gets the point by now.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Guest

[Kaed]

Fair enough. Would you like flashes to blind for a longer time than the current duration while removing the cheap and easy stun, then, so as to not completely make the item unviable in using?

You do need to understand that the argument I am coming from is that not everything that is "too strong" at the moment needs to be reduced to a state of unusability. There must be tradeoffs for balance changes to make them still usable, otherwise you'd be better off removing the features from the game outright.

 

Really, they should just cause temporary blindness, like they already do (maybe for longer?) but not make people magically get stunned by them. Is everyone on the station born epileptic?

Security has other tools to stun people, like batons and tasers. They don't need yet another that requires almost no effort and can't be dodged or miss, only be blocked with a specific worn item, and is fully effective with a single click. Being able to blind someone who is attacking you for like 5-7 seconds is a perfectly reasonable self defense measure

[Scheveningen]

I'll do some digging in the code and propose some changes if I can get around to it, then.

Note that I'm going to talk to BygoneHero about this as well because bugbeasts have special interactions with flashes.

[Kaed]

Wow, thanks! I honestly didn't expect to turn someone who didn't initially agree around to my way of thinking on this matter.

Maybe I should make that thread about replacing all of sec's gun with cap guns, like you mentioned..

Anyway, yeah. I never so much wanted the flash nerfed into the grave as changed into something that allows counterplay in some format.

[Scheveningen]

I'm mostly just supporting the idea of a change because I think the idea of turning the flash into a different kind of cancerous utility would be better for gameflow, as long as it's still good at something, that is all I really care about when it comes to game balance.

[Scheveningen]

		var/safety = M:eyecheck(TRUE)
	if(safety <= 0)
		M.Weaken(10)
		flick("e_flash", M.flash)

 

Minor roadblock.

the proc flick("e_flash", M.flash) is a fixed animation. The animation lasts for five seconds, it transitions from a blur to standard vision in one more second, then vision is normal.

The issue is that because this is a fixed animation, this isn't a simple variable change to make. The flick("e_flash", M.flash) needs to be changed to last from anywhere from a few more to several more seconds.

Another issue is that the proc flick("e_flash", M.flash) is used for virtually every blinding effect in the game. Meaning unless I did something like create 3 different versions of the E_flash animation with varying durations (which is a bit complicated as I'm not sure where the overlays are stored, though how I know how simple it is to repeat some frames and insert them before the end to make the blind effect seem longer), changing the visual duration of the flash effect is going to be difficult. Without it, it's not exactly visually immersive, either.

I've yet to find the e_flash animation so this might take awhile.

[Kaed]

		var/safety = M:eyecheck(TRUE)
	if(safety <= 0)
		M.Weaken(10)
		flick("e_flash", M.flash)

 

Minor roadblock.

the proc flick("e_flash", M.flash) is a fixed animation. The animation lasts for five seconds, it transitions from a blur to standard vision in one more second, then vision is normal.

The issue is that because this is a fixed animation, this isn't a simple variable change to make. The flick("e_flash", M.flash) needs to be changed to last from anywhere from a few more to several more seconds.

Another issue is that the proc flick("e_flash", M.flash) is used for virth varying durations (which is a bit complicated as I'm not sure where the overlays are stored, though how I know how simple it is to rually every blinding effect in the game. Meaning unless I did something like create 3 different versions of the E_flash animation witepeat some frames and insert them before the end to make the blind effect seem longer), changing the visual duration of the flash effect is going to be difficult. Without it, it's not exactly visually immersive, either.

I've yet to find the e_flash animation so this might take awhile.

 

It might be a bit hacky, but could you chain the flash to happen several times in a row based on circumstances, to make it look like it's longer? I don't really know how that would work, just an idea.

[Scheveningen]

My only concern at the moment is being able to find the e_flash animation in a swath of packaged .dmis all over the place in the icon folder. Extending the animation is as easy as just adding more frames prior to fade-in period.