AmoryBlaine Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 ICly you have no reason to give a singular Detective a .38 when you have four Officers carrying .45s which could just be given FMJ rounds rather than the rubber. This whole "need" for a .38 can be curved simply by requiring an Officer to be present at any interrorgation.
MO_oNyMan Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 ICly you have no reason to give a singular Detective a .38 when you have four Officers carrying .45s which could just be given FMJ rounds rather than the rubber. This whole "need" for a .38 can be curved simply by requiring an Officer to be present at any interrorgation. officers absolutely should have lethal option from an IC standpoint, i never said they shouldn't. Detective is not always talking to cuffed suspects in interrogation under the supervision of an officer. If he was he wouldn't need a gun but he isn't. Job specifics. He can't drag an officer with him everywhere he goes either since there's only four of them. Besides, why have a detective that doesn't an investigation and giving him a personal escort for protection instead of a reliable self-protection tool? No reason at all. I'm against implementing a "detecitve's bodyguard" slot for security
Kaed Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 I'm sorry for the effort it must have taken but the entire post is irrelevant. Detective's job is to directly interact with potential criminals yes? Yes. He needs a mean to protect himself in case they turn violent yes? Yes. Some of those people are impervious to rubber bullets yes? Yes. Sunglasses render the only other tool available completely useless, yes? Yes. Sunglasses are easily acquired and other common means of eye protection exist yes? Yes. Standard e-gun is horrible and will not protect you so it falls into the same pit as rubber bullets. Being a tool of self-protection that doesn't really protect anyone. You have taken the right direction with arguing the OOC side of this issue as from an IC standpoint lethals are undeniably required. However you completely missed the point with trying to spoof powergaming accusations. Nice effort though. If you want to succeed i would suggest arguing for antags being crippled by security having lethals. Cheers P.S. Try to avoid misrepresenting facts in a written discussion in the future. It makes you look bad None of anything that you just said follows the structure of a logical argument. You've agreed with most of my point and then declared that I'm also wrong and what is given to other people for self defense is insufficient for detectives because 'you don't think they're good enough'. I don't know what all this snide stuff is at the end of your post is about regarding me making myself look bad by misrepresenting facts, but here's a non-misrepresentable fact for you to consider: You are the only person in this entire 70+ post thread that thinks this way, or at least in a fashion that stands out this much due to being stubborn and unrelenting in trying to argue it, no matter how many different people disagree with you. Schev said it adds consequence early on, and a few people agreed with it, but I haven't seen much else about that since then, and a lot more about 'adds consequences doesn't actually mean much in gameplay'. I have not seen such case of 'I'll die on a hill for my Internet opinion' for a long time, and it's getting old. It's clear no matter how many reasoned arguments people give you, how many times they ask you to analyze the situation and consider why you need this, the only answer you will ever give is that you are right and everyone else is wrong. From some of your other comments, I gather that a large part of the reason that you don't want detectives downgraded is because you actually feel that the weapons given to security at round start are not sufficiently deadly. There is a point in this thread where you advocate for giving security lethals at round start. This thread is not about reworking the lethality of security to make them more dangerous. This is about refactoring the detective to match everyone else in the round. It doesn't matter in the least how insufficient you feel the basic security tools and heads self defense weapons are. It's what everyone gets, except right now for literally no reason, the detective. That's what we're fixing. If you want to make a suggestion thread about pumping up security's game to have more oomph, make it, and see how well that goes. What I am going to do is take a stab at coding this myself later today. The general consensus I'm getting is that giving detectives a laser pistol is fine. Does anyone have a differing opinion of what should be given to detectives, for which they can give an actual argument?
Doxxmedearly Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 Personally, I would prefer to see them with their current gun + rubbers. The aesthetic of the revolver-toting detective is a good one, and one I would be sad to see go. But that's all it is; an aesthetic choice. (And Jackboot's idea on page 1 about an energy revolver is a pretty neat one). Mechanically, I have no argument against a laser pistol, and I would offer no complaints if this was the agreed-upon solution. As long as lethals are gone, really. I agree it's silly to have them on you on code green.
MO_oNyMan Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 I'm sorry for the effort it must have taken but the entire post is irrelevant. Detective's job is to directly interact with potential criminals yes? Yes. He needs a mean to protect himself in case they turn violent yes? Yes. Some of those people are impervious to rubber bullets yes? Yes. Sunglasses render the only other tool available completely useless, yes? Yes. Sunglasses are easily acquired and other common means of eye protection exist yes? Yes. Standard e-gun is horrible and will not protect you so it falls into the same pit as rubber bullets. Being a tool of self-protection that doesn't really protect anyone. You have taken the right direction with arguing the OOC side of this issue as from an IC standpoint lethals are undeniably required. However you completely missed the point with trying to spoof powergaming accusations. Nice effort though. If you want to succeed i would suggest arguing for antags being crippled by security having lethals. Cheers P.S. Try to avoid misrepresenting facts in a written discussion in the future. It makes you look bad None of anything that you just said follows the structure of a logical argument. You've agreed with most of my point and then declared that I'm also wrong and what is given to other people for self defense is insufficient for detectives because 'you don't think they're good enough'. I don't know what all this snide stuff is at the end of your post is about regarding me making myself look bad by misrepresenting facts, but here's a non-misrepresentable fact for you to consider: You are the only person in this entire 70+ post thread that thinks this way, or at least in a fashion that stands out this much due to being stubborn and unrelenting in trying to argue it, no matter how many different people disagree with you. Schev said it adds consequence early on, and a few people agreed with it, but I haven't seen much else about that since then, and a lot more about 'adds consequences doesn't actually mean much in gameplay'. I have not seen such case of 'I'll die on a hill for my Internet opinion' for a long time, and it's getting old. It's clear no matter how many reasoned arguments people give you, how many times they ask you to analyze the situation and consider why you need this, the only answer you will ever give is that you are right and everyone else is wrong. From some of your other comments, I gather that a large part of the reason that you don't want detectives downgraded is because you actually feel that the weapons given to security at round start are not sufficiently deadly. There is a point in this thread where you advocate for giving security lethals at round start. This thread is not about reworking the lethality of security to make them more dangerous. This is about refactoring the detective to match everyone else in the round. It doesn't matter in the least how insufficient you feel the basic security tools and heads self defense weapons are. It's what everyone gets, except right now for literally no reason, the detective. That's what we're fixing. If you want to make a suggestion thread about pumping up security's game to have more oomph, make it, and see how well that goes. What I am going to do is take a stab at coding this myself later today. The general consensus I'm getting is that giving detectives a laser pistol is fine. Does anyone have a differing opinion of what should be given to detectives, for which they can give an actual argument? I'm sorry but you feeling bad because detective has a sufficient tool for his job and you don't doesn't make for a convincing arguement regardless of how badly you wish it to. I understand your frustration over people disagreeing with you on the internet but contain your righteous fury and try to make up an actual arguement for the sake of productive discussion. If you are looking to shitpost, this is not the board, this is a suggestion forum. And if your professional opinion on me being the only person who disagrees with lethal removal from detective is not a mean than read the rules of the thread. The rule in question being Read the whole thread before you post in it. (Yes, that means all of it) As for replacement of the weapon to the laser based one it was already stated that if it was to become reality it should have better capacity and a new sprite to avoid the problem of rubber revolver. I bid you luck in your coding draft
AmoryBlaine Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 [mention]Kaed[/mention] Stylistically I think a .45 with rubber is better for the Detective- and the Warden. It also allows for easier ammo exchange in emergencies or if someone is downed you can use their ammo if you can't hit the Armory first.
Faris Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 Just a side note. Detectives when we still played on the Exodus use to have a different pistol before the introduction of revolvers. Revolvers were not always there. I cannot comment on why the change was made as it was a long time ago.
Kaed Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 Just a side note. Detectives when we still played on the Exodus use to have a different pistol before the introduction of revolvers. Revolvers were not always there. I cannot comment on why the change was made as it was a long time ago. Probably a bay merge thing.
MO_oNyMan Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 "Have an officer supervising your interview to protect you from the suspects" they said. But who will protect you from the officer himself? Officer who also wears sunglasses almost all the time as a part of his job
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 Removing the gun entirely will make a lot of dead detectives and a lot of antags having more regular security access from absconding with the ID. Giving them a tase revolver would be a decent move if the developers were set on it. We cannot just casually dismiss the Noir aesthetic of the role. It is arguing in bad faith to throw away the primary aesthetic of a job. Stripping away the individuality of a role and replacing it makes everything really bland. It is small, but it is a coalescence of small things that add to individuality in a job. That is why .45's are just .45's while "the detective's revolver" is associated with the detective instead of just being "a revolver". Mechanically, rubber bullets, while dangerous, still pack a big punch. They allow the detective to wind attackers without being inherently lethal. As well, it makes them more or less useless against synthetic enemies as well as nar'sie cultists, carps, etc.... There is always a lot of heat on detectives about the gun, and this 9 pages of moral panic has been repeated before. It has always been a point of contention.
AmoryBlaine Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 Removing the gun entirely will make a lot of dead detectives and a lot of antags having more regular security access from absconding with the ID. Giving them a tase revolver would be a decent move if the developers were set on it. It's much easier to kill the completely unarmed Forensic Technician than it is the Detective. Killing the Technician also eliminates any way of the kill being traced to you. The only reason a Detective is going to be targetted is if you want the gun. We cannot just casually dismiss the Noir aesthetic of the role. It is arguing in bad faith to throw away the primary aesthetic of a job. Stripping away the individuality of a role and replacing it makes everything really bland. It is small, but it is a coalescence of small things that add to individuality in a job. That is why .45's are just .45's while "the detective's revolver" is associated with the detective instead of just being "a revolver". If you're playing Detective, because you want to pretend the setting is actually prop'd up for Noir-eqsue investigative work, I dunno what to say. It doesn't work like that, with the majority of work being placed on the CSI, and the Detective being just an auxiliary that stands by to assist in the documentation of what has happened and why it's legal to do X based on Y and Z. As for the revolver itself, it's 'The detective's revolver', because 'The revolver' is a .357 that removes heads. From my experience with detectives, very few are actually do work. There's a great number that treat the role like Officer but without the need to deal with low-level crimes, uniform, or S.O.P concerning the handling of wanted persons. I think taking that gun from them is a good idea, and giving them a .45 with rubber- or nothing- is a step in the right direction.
MO_oNyMan Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 Removing the gun entirely will make a lot of dead detectives and a lot of antags having more regular security access from absconding with the ID. Giving them a tase revolver would be a decent move if the developers were set on it. Mechanically, rubber bullets, while dangerous, still pack a big punch. They allow the detective to wind attackers without being inherently lethal. As well, it makes them more or less useless against synthetic enemies as well as nar'sie cultists, carps, etc.... The argument is not as much about rubbers being more powerfull or less powerfull than lethals. It's about rubber gun being completely useless against a certain pretty sizeable part of the crew. If Aurora had only humans and tajara we could give the detective a simple taser and i would e completely fine with it. But taking lethals away is basically ignoring a more than plausible encounter with synthetics which can not be ICly justified. l the completely unarmed Forensic Technician than it is the Detective. Killing the Technician also eliminates any way of the kill being traced to you. The only reason a Detective is going to be targetted is if you want the gun. Removing the detective's revolver because it's the only reason antags will target him is not entirely true and also meta knowledge If you're playing Detective, because you want to pretend the setting is actually prop'd up for Noir-eqsue investigative work, I dunno what to say. It doesn't work like that, with the majority of work being placed on the CSI, and the Detective being just an auxiliary that stands by to assist in the documentation of what has happened and why it's legal to do X based on Y and Z. That's not what detectives do. Haven't you been playing detective recently? From my experience with detectives, very few are actually do work. There's a great number that treat the role like Officer but without the need to deal with low-level crimes, uniform, or S.O.P concerning the handling of wanted persons. I think taking that gun from them is a good idea, and giving them a .45 with rubber- or nothing- is a step in the right direction. There are few detectives that are good at their job. However i don't see how taking away an essential tool of theirs and their inherent aesthetics will solve this problem.
AmoryBlaine Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 That's not what detectives do. Haven't you been playing detective recently? Yes, and what I do is interrogations that justify X by linking Y and Z, then put everything in a file that I either fax to the HoS or leave in my Office. The gun has only come out a few times- namely the arrival of a horror form, while helping an Officer during a raider attack, and right outside the brig after leaving Medical and hearing someone being saw'd apart at the IAA Office.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 There is always a lot to do as detective. You can be the eyes and ears of the HoS and continuously poke around to be their eyes. Because your clothes are more "casual" if you opt out of the obvious trenchcoats, then youre a casual counter intel guy. Or you can do a lot of paperwork. Or... anything. Its a freeform role more than officer. And not everyone needs a counter to everything. Rubbers knock organic crew on their butts but is weak against synths. And thats oh well, to me.
LanceLynxx Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 "Have an officer supervising your interview to protect you from the suspects" they said. But who will protect you from the officer himself? Officer who also wears sunglasses almost all the time as a part of his job Why would you even need to think about protecting yourself from an officer?!?!?!?!!? what MENTAL GYMNASTICS is this!?! Imagine if all of Sec had a "protection against fellow officers" mentality Sec would be all in mechs or full riot gear you dont think about protecting yourself from an officer because you are both on the same side, and worrying about it is meta for sec antags.
Garnascus Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 Any eloquent argument i could make has already been said in this thread. I think removing the gun entirely would be super lame. I also think that if we replaced the ammo with rubber bullets it would encourage detectives to act more like officers. Lethal ammunition is for self-defense. As lethal is your ONLY option you shouldn't be detaining people and those that do can and should be punished.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 Any eloquent argument i could make has already been said in this thread. I think removing the gun entirely would be super lame. I also think that if we replaced the ammo with rubber bullets it would encourage detectives to act more like officers. Lethal ammunition is for self-defense. As lethal is your ONLY option you shouldn't be detaining people and those that do can and should be punished. I can agree partially. I want to be able to defend myself without lethals and running away is not always an option. Rubbers coming back and some lethals in the armory or office would be a good combination. That way i can defend myself against someone with sunglasses. I otherwise make it a habit to always ask for pepperspray but i dont always get it.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 "Have an officer supervising your interview to protect you from the suspects" they said. But who will protect you from the officer himself? Officer who also wears sunglasses almost all the time as a part of his job Lol that's metagaming
Sytic Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 Just a reminder, report detectives who act like officers. The problem isn't the Revolver's, the revolver's for self defence as usually the detective isn't in their office like the Forensic Tech (safely in Sec) and his job is not to enforce the law, so he doesn't have any stun weapons. A detective who acts like an officer, especially with a lethal weapon, should be ahelped and potentially either made a complaint about or an IR about them.
MO_oNyMan Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 (edited) "Have an officer supervising your interview to protect you from the suspects" they said. But who will protect you from the officer himself? Officer who also wears sunglasses almost all the time as a part of his job Lol that's metagaming "Have an officer supervising your interview to protect you from the suspects" they said. But who will protect you from the officer himself? Officer who also wears sunglasses almost all the time as a part of his job Why would you even need to think about protecting yourself from an officer?!?!?!?!!? what MENTAL GYMNASTICS is this!?! Imagine if all of Sec had a "protection against fellow officers" mentality Sec would be all in mechs or full riot gear you dont think about protecting yourself from an officer because you are both on the same side, and worrying about it is meta for sec antags. I can't tell if you're meming or actually being serious. Metagaming is using the knowledge player posesses and the character doesn't. The quote on quote MENTAL GYMNASTICS is what i assume to be expecting something extremely improbable So just in case you're being serious here's what's going on https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=2981&start=120. Last report. Reread and then talk to me about metagaming and MENTAL GYMNASTICS Edited April 26, 2018 by Guest
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 I can't tell if you're meming or actually being serious. Metagaming is using the knowledge player posesses and the character doesn't. The quote on quote MENTAL GYMNASTICS is what i assume to be expecting something extremely improbable So just in case you're being serious here's what's going on https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=2981&start=120. Last report. Reread an then talk to me about metagaming and MENTAL GYMNASTICS nothing in that article says the officers were murdering detectives.............. its corporate espionage........ its metagaming to assume you need a gun you might have to use on the officer you are alone with. even if you take that article to its logical end you will just have to worry about them snappin' a pic of your id so they can empty your bank account. lmao
MO_oNyMan Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 I can't tell if you're meming or actually being serious. Metagaming is using the knowledge player posesses and the character doesn't. The quote on quote MENTAL GYMNASTICS is what i assume to be expecting something extremely improbable So just in case you're being serious here's what's going on https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=2981&start=120. Last report. Reread an then talk to me about metagaming and MENTAL GYMNASTICS nothing in that article says the officers were murdering detectives.............. its corporate espionage........ its metagaming to assume you need a gun you might have to use on the officer you are alone with. even if you take that article to its logical end you will just have to worry about them snappin' a pic of your id so they can empty your bank account. lmao Security was infiltrated both in the ranks o fregular officers and loyalty implanted heads of security. Detectives are the first person who would catch up to this. Affiliations with the syndicate are speculated. Last i checked syndicate was not a charity organisation helping crippled children. So it took me 4 sentences to justify being worried about officers being a possible threat to you especially if you're a detective. Does it count as taking an article to a logical end?
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 Security was infiltrated both in the ranks o fregular officers and loyalty implanted heads of security. Detectives are the first person who would catch up to this. Affiliations with the syndicate are speculated. Last i checked syndicate was not a charity organisation helping crippled children. So it took me 4 sentences to justify being worried about officers being a possible threat to you especially if you're a detective. Does it count as taking an article to a logical end? you were not given your gun by the grace of god to purify security from the taint of corruption. dont metagame antag sec without evidence.
Arrow768 Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 As some of you might have noticed, we currently have a server poll going to get a idea for the opinions regarding the revolver. (Since I screwed up the poll options and forgot the "keep the revolver" option, I have reset the votes so you can vote again if you want to)
MO_oNyMan Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 Security was infiltrated both in the ranks o fregular officers and loyalty implanted heads of security. Detectives are the first person who would catch up to this. Affiliations with the syndicate are speculated. Last i checked syndicate was not a charity organisation helping crippled children. So it took me 4 sentences to justify being worried about officers being a possible threat to you especially if you're a detective. Does it count as taking an article to a logical end? you were not given your gun by the grace of god to purify security from the taint of corruption. dont metagame antag sec without evidence. Noone ever said that and reread the article. The reason for not trusting security is all there. An official statement from NT chief released an official statement. Unless you want to say that we shouldn't trust high ranking NT officials i have no idea what you're going for and why
Recommended Posts