Forum E-mail sending is currently offline. Please ping AffectedArc07 in discord if you need your account to be manually verified.
All Activity
- Past hour
-
cabinetboy joined the community - Today
-
knightry changed their profile photo -
HazerLaser changed their profile photo -
Lemiaczek joined the community -
BravoIsMIA changed their profile photo - Yesterday
-
oboma changed their profile photo -
Puffos changed their profile photo -
Malfungus changed their profile photo -
Mahtigwess joined the community -
BeebBeebBoob changed their profile photo -
JonDoe changed their profile photo -
This guide is a lifesaver
-
Redcell121 changed their profile photo -
Marsty changed their profile photo -
May 29th, 2023 @IcyV has retired from being a Game Admin @FoS has retired from being a Game Admin
- Last week
-
Reach the highest number without an admin posting
robveelben replied to Mrs Dobbins's topic in Civilian's Days
six mentors teaching a greytider how to blow up the sm -
-
BBJPZ1 joined the community -
My own opinion on undercover officers: Dont. From OOS perspective ; there is a lot sec vs antag dynamics that change whenever the receiving end of antag is either a random crewman or an officer. Its very underhanded considering a normal crewmember *cannot* interfere with an antagonist much, and surely, cannot end their round by an arrest. they are only permitted to defend themselves and do their best to disengage. This makes antagonists know what to expect when acting (and imo that's a good thing, antagging should be harder than it already is). if you add paranoia of "what if there is an undercover sec here", or even confusion whenever that crazy baldie is trying to valid you. it makes it much harder for antags to act - meaning more boring rounds for everyone. (because sec effectively removed all antags early due to tricks) Not to mention, Antagonists fighting officers will behave differently; as they are permitted to kill pursuing officers, while killing normal crewmen is not desirable. One could even argue how its not "playing your job responsibly" and "valid hunting" but I'm aware most people will find that a stretch. It even makes a lot of sense from IC perspective. Officers are people of the law, and considering they have a very special position within the law (permitted to use weapons, assault on officers has a different charge, allowed to enter restricted areas during emergencies), any would-be officer must be easily identified and probably in uniform. Of course, I don't want to take away people's drips, I don't use stock uniforms either, but I still think the outfit should easily identify you as an officer, and not try to gimmick you into looking like a completely different role. and I agree that it should extend to command roles, as they also hold special place in law and special authority on station. They should be easily identifiable as their position and not roleplaying as a different job entirely. I remember having a round with a HoP who insisted on wearing a skinsuit and there was nothing in law or SoP to enforce proper dress code. I would very much welcome some slight moderation from SoP. Even a simple "should wear easily identifiable attire or uniform of his position" would go a long way - since it would be SOP, it is not law and therefore can be ignored for emergencies or other edge cases(or just ignored so people can wear their drip), and gives the heads and IA departments some hook to help maintain proper dress code among command and officers when these people dress ridiculously.
-
CastieltheOne joined the community -
alolastik joined the community -
Cool
-
[Ven's] "Heavy" Suggestion about SM, issues and solution.
Silverplate replied to Venuska1117's topic in Suggestions
Hi Ven! Thanks for the suggestions, as someone working on expanding engineering content, I love hearing other people perspectives! First, to a address your concerns: Supermatters delaminating early: I know many of us who have hundreds of hours messing with the nacho feel like its child's play to setup. Due to engineering content being in a bit of a limbo right now with the upcoming power rework and a few other things I'm cooking behind the curtain, a total rewrite isn't in the cards just yet, but it is something I plan on doing in the near future. Second, in regards to that image you have attached, that is a screenshot of an RBMK fission reactor, an engine that Burzah and I are currently working towards implementing for future use (it will NOT be available to players right away upon merge). Finally, In my personal opinion, the supermatter is in a very good place as both an engine, and the main source of content for engineering. Most of what you are suggestion would be included in a radiation rework (something I am very open too) and the RBMK reactor that is currently in the works. I will be sure to post a design document of everything I'd like to add in the future to keep you and the community at large in the loop! Thanks again, Silver -
Hello everyone who are interesting in this topic (hello engineers main) This suggestion touch topic about Early round SM explosions, as we know, there are many people who don't know how SM work or how to set it up, there is guide but its not clear enough for new people to comprehend, on top of that there was discussion on discord about SM early game exploding... and someone send very interesting picture... So.. i tough.. hey! why we don't make it like this? (with some adjustements) General: - SM would be contained inside structure and filled with gasses like its now (you will just don't see it) - You will have panel/console with will show how much gass (and with type), radiation and how much power it generate, with addional stuff like emergency N2 injections (needs pipes connected to it with all stuff like fuel and coolant) - If you want to power it up, you need link up special rod with you need shoot with laser, it will power generator igniter and start up generator. Critical overload: - When SM get to critical mass it will enable alarms and special animation of moving cells will play (like in this chernobyl trailers). SM Explosion: - When SM explode it will always create small radius of explosion but in exchange it will emit very strong radiation (range same like normal SM explosion, just only for radiation). - When SM explode and spread radiation it will also create "radioactive dust" around SM, with will be stuck if you try walk/lay or do anything in this dust, it can be picked up by beakers (making beaker radioactive), dust itself its gray and don't glow. Counter Measures: - When talking on discord, someone sugested to use "Diphenhydramine" for cleaning radiation from objects, water is okay, but it only removes "radioactive dust" not "irradiated" issue (like people, not objects). - Diphenhydramine will be used in something similar to janitor water tank sprayer, but renamed and changed color to look like its used for decontamination, you spray it on radiated tiles and on dust to decontaminate them, and you leave "foam" tile (i believe there is texture of like white foamed like tile) - New ERT called... "Decontamination ERT" (someone can make better name for this), this ERT specializes in decontaminating effects of SM explosion, they would be in "Anti-Hazard HardSuit" with equipped "Decontamination" gear to deal with radiation. If you ask me why all of this for, i will say: it make it kinda fool-proof, and calling ERT to repair it... it take too long to repair it, lets be honest, when is fucked up, better just make thermal engine as ERT than repair SM chamber, and bring some "fun" to play as new ERT, just decontaminate stuff. P.S. if someone want, they can change chemical for decontamination, if they think Diphenhydramine is bad option.
-
Use the comments here or discord to discuss design, feature feedback, and discussion of https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/21147 That PR page will be having many commits / review, so this area will work better.
-
HAPPY BIRTH to the unrobust sec, Toby Anderson
- Earlier
-
I am so honored to be in so many of these screenies, love you bro, stay amazing.
-
my favourite funny grey guy....
-
an archive of every single photo which happens to have my character in it (select few are missing because they are not forum friendly ) press the heart button at the bottom of the post or john nanotrasen dies forever (mr bird was my protect objective) thats all for now folks
-
Speaking from experience, from a balance perspective, 'undercover' sec officers are inherently vulnerable out of uniform. They're already relatively weak alone, but without armor and most of their weapons, they're pretty squishy. Security's entire strength is coordinated force in numbers. An undercover sec officer isn't going to be paling around with other conga lines of sec or even responding to calls. When I play undercover sec, I usually have a holobadge with my ID scanned in my pocket, and otherwise dress as a civilian and only carry pepper spray, a baton, and a pair of cuffs. I blend in with the bridge hobos or slum around the halls, and my only major interaction with sec is quietly putting on my huds to set someone or relay information over sec comms about the location of known antags and such. The only active arresting I do is if I spot people being shitheel tiders in my presence or someone calls it in near me, I don't concern myself with being part of the major hunts beyond a support role unless I'm physically dragged into it. I'm basically a mall cop. I can see it being a problem if it starts getting popular and we have a lot of undercover sec players, but aside from myself, I've only ever seen the blueshield pretending to be part of the tide, which I think is honestly really cool and an interesting approach so long as they're still watching over command. All in all I think it adds to the sec/antag dynamic - it takes tidery somewhat off of the main sec team's plate so they can focus on actually working on antags, and that's one of the major reasons I'm taking a break from the server right now. it brings the balance back into what it's more supposed to be: sec vs. antags.
-
Hello! Back in 2016, TullyBBurnalot started a project to centralize and codify SoP, making it so that everything is standardized and listed on a wiki page, instead of bits and pieces of SoP being isolated on individual job pages. I was one of the primary editors and contributors during that time, and while although that doesn't give me any special privileges or powers, I just so happen to really really like SoP and the ideas/contexts behind it. I will be suggesting a few SoP changes that I feel should be included within certain jobs for the betterment of on station gameplay, and to address fringe but 'common' cases in every day job functionality. I'm starting with Chaplain because I played a bunch of chaplain and it is cool. It should be noted that not EVERY SINGLE piece of SoP needs to be interpreted and attacked, and everything should be up to scrutiny long after this thread becomes inactive: nothing about this is official and heads have final say. Suggestion 1: 5. The Chaplain may, however, freely conduct funerals for non-cloneable/revivable personnel. All funerals must be concluded with the use of the Mass Driver or Crematorium. to 5. The Chaplain may freely conduct funerals for non-cloneable/revivable personnel. All funerals may be concluded with the use of the Mass Driver or Crematorium, otherwise funerals are to end with delivery to the station Coroner to be placed in the Morgue. The Coroner should be made aware of funerals, should morguing be intended. Why make these changes?: Expands on funeral policy and offers alternatives to how a funeral should take place. Funerals are uncommon due to lack of engagement, but this should enable a chaplain to have ideas sparked about how a funeral could take place. Sometimes these funerals will happen for dogs or pets or non-crew. Sometimes the funeral will only be attended by the chaplain and one active participant. This is fine: two player roleplay is still roleplay. Suggestion 2: 6. The Chaplain should be ready to aid and assist security with removing dangerous and revivable/immortal hostile entities (IE: Changelings) via cremation in the crematorium. Chaplains actively resisting/getting in the way of security as they attempt to use the Crematorium makes you eligible for 'Aiding an EoC', with perma being the maximum possible charge. Why make these changes?: Loose wording should likely be examined and attacked. However, I do believe that due to how common changelings are during an average spurt of gameplay, and considering that NT knows OF the existence of changelings (even if IC, they are very very very rare), it would be beneficial for the chaplain to have some amount of instruction on what a procedure looks like. An average chaplain with no knowledge of changelings would find a full sec team raiding the chapel for body cremation 'confusing', and often the average sec officer answer of 'changeling' does not do much to answer questions. This main document is up for edits and changes upon replies, and will likely be sitting around for a week until I consider any propositions to any headmins. Questions: - Are SoP points 1-4 still relevant? Should they be reworded due to coding things? Reordered based off of importance? - Should a SoP point be made about holy water distribution? Edit history: Edit 1 (Discord Edit - CodeLyoko): Removed any wording related to 'decapping' changelings as an alternative option to cremation. This is because you can't decap changelings to stop them for reviving.
-
In an idealized world I could imagine a SoP line containing the following: Detectives: Allowed to wear whatever 'drip' they choose to and allowed to be as undercover or non undercover as they'd like, which should be fine since 1. It's only one person going full undercover, 2. It's limited off to a single person doing it during regular gameplay, 3. Detectives tend to be a step down during actual arrest protocols on a good day. Security Officers: Drip is cool, we like drip, but one piece of 'sec gear' should be visible on their sprite. By default, any outfit should work as long as the iconic sechud glasses are visible. If you're wearing a mask, maybe enforce wearing a helmet or red jumpsuit or anything else easily identifiable by a visual look at the sprite and not *JUST* a shift+click. Going any further undercover should be fine with express HoS or Captain permission. Warden and HoS: Keep them easily identifiable. They're command, they're supposed to be easily reachable. No need to ever really go full undercover boss when you can ask IAA's to undercover boss for you. Responses to others comments and points below Carthusia: "As for undercover officers: Its a legitimate tactic", I agree, I think it's a legitimate tactic, and that there SHOULD be some leeway and there SHOULD be incidents where it comes up. That being said, more than one officer at the same time makes antag players more paranoid, and honestly antags and sec should be easily identifiable towards each other on a usual gameplay level. Antags have to account for a lot of things. They shouldn't have to account for more than one undercover officer since that would be mentally draining. I think that trying to trick each other in terms of 'who's an officer, who isn't' might be adding too much of an extra level of thought, especially for our more casual antag players. Landerlow: "I see no reason why this should be prohibited through SOP. If properly RP'd/played, it can add to the round. ", I believe that adding things into SoP enables RP and play, since SoP is usually kept to be an IC, roleplay thing in general. SoP aids roleplay. Other than that, the rest of the response is sort of catered around Landerlows suggestions with a couple compromises. I believe every other response above me in the thread is taken into consideration?
-
Loooove this. I'd be fine with this instead of what I proposed, in fact given the responses emphasizing the purpose of undercover, I'd support this as the best solution for all of us. Making it reconnaissance focus could lead to some very interesting gameplay on both ends. Not sure what we'd do about Command roles, though, but I'm entirely fine focusing on sec. Agreed. Keep all of the drip you want, but at least an ID remains. This can be true with even Landerlow's suggestion, SOP dictating ID is mandatory unless approved otherwise via paperwork for undercover(with no ability to make arrests.) I'd even make the supposed form for the undercover application myself if it works how other forms do.
-
I've had some great experiences playing as an undercover detective. My fellow seccies mistook me for a civilian and arrested me for trespassing into the brig 10/10. (I had a civ ID with detective access, put the sec encryption key in a normal headset, etc etc). But don't overdo it imo. I see no reason why this should be prohibited through SOP. If properly RP'd/played, it can add to the round. Perhaps there should be something in SOP that requires written authorization of the captain/HoS for an officer/detective to go undercover. And also make them NOT allowed to perform arrests. Just reconnaissance. The authorization form should be kept secure in the HOS/captain's office cabinet. Preferably both.
-
I'd definitely like to see mandatory IDs But drip IS important. And default jumpsuits, while they can work, they do not always do that. An alternative I'd like to present - SOME clothing related to the job must be worn. For example, secoff could ditch the jumpsuit but wear a beret, CMO could ditch the jumpsuit but wear the labcoat, captain could ditch everything but wear the sword, detective/blueshield could ditch everything but wear their unique armor. It'd be less intrusive while having a similar effect. Edit: This could also give armbands and badges more usage, for security at least.
-
Honestly, I do think it'd be cool if it was more intentional rather than spontaneous, with certain circumstances allowing for it.
-
I pointed out just making the jumpsuit mandatory, lab coats and whatnot are outside of that. This is a massive generalization that doesn't respond to the reason I said this change should be made. Dragging someone to safety, that makes sense, self defense, that makes sense. Undercover does not(for all reasons I provieded, primarily the IC workplace) and the point you brought up was for "drip" which is still entirely possible with only a sec jumpsuit being required. You can blanket any sec critique as antag entitlement without actually responding to it, and that's coming from someone that says a lot of antags are entitled.
-
Drip is VERY important, id rather wear a nice blue mailman uniform than a red one as sec, and i much perfer to wear a white labcoat as a forensic tech, both choices make me less of a target and look nice. Forced uniforms can be a thing on a HOS by HOS basis just like any other department, but an SOP line MANDATING such an act i feel would work to the detriment of peoples experience. As for undercover officers: Its a legitimate tactic, so i dont see why it would be removed. It seems almost like alot of antags feel entitled to as little resistance as possible during any action they may take, be it a civilian pulling someone to safety, a legitimate act of workplace self defence from co-workers or an officer who hid in a potted plant or locker to jump the bad guy at the right moment or even something as minor as a random civ just being in the wrong place at the wrong time by complete chance, and they just happened to run into them, slowing them down for only a second or 2, but that being all it took for security to catch up and nab them As an antag, expect the unexpected, plan for failure and roll with the punches
-
Ive experienced undercover cop from both sides a had great experience, so i can say it can be very interesting and engaging for all parties if done right. However i can agree that its pretty damn abusable and unfair quite a lot of the times. For sure support going undercover being against sop in normal circumstances. Not a big fan of mandatory uniform, drip is important
-
Undercover sec is something I never want. It has zero upsides other than mechanical advantage, and is overall damaging to damaging to the antag/sec dynamic. Granted, it is rare, but even so it'd be nice to have it disallowed in Space Law/SOP/Whatever instead of an honor rule between command/sec. Perhaps throwing in there that officers have to wear /something/ pertaining to their department, instead of dressing up in all grey to make an antag doubt its an officer at first glance (even a seconds hesitation could make a difference) would be a positive change.
-
Can’t think of a reason this shouldn’t be added, but I’ll throw this up because the Space Law post of old completely changed my view on the game. I believe there is zero reason to not have a line in Command and ESPECIALLY Security SOP stating that they must be showing ID and have a jumpsuit relative to their job that indicates what job they are. I can argue this from two different perspectives, both IC and OOC, which I’ll do in the following paragraphs. IC Warrant for mentioned SOP change: Let’s take a look at the context of Security/Command positions onboard. It’s very much noted that there’s a higher professional standard for these jobs, so let’s imagine showing up to work as a Police Officer or any Politician in an ‘undercover uniform'.’ It’s outlandish to any of us. Sure you can try and say that SS13 isn’t real life, but that’s not the point, the point is that this is supposed to have some semblance of RP, and how are you playing your role when you decide to dress as an Assistant as a Blueshield? Intended impact: Make Command/Security appearances in line with the actual higher standard we’re supposed to have. Reduce the OVERWHELMING amount of “haha this is funny” disguised as “RP” for roles that general players, I’d imagine, don’t enjoy having a low bar for. OOC Warrant for mentioned SOP change: A majority of Antag and even sec players can admit this by far one of the silliest things to run into. MAINLY because it makes zero sense IC in the first place. In my experience, it’s never been done for an RP gimmick. I’d say it’s bad for the balance of antag versus sec, on the same tier of a Captain holding on to high-value items that are the CMO’s. Makes objectives insanely murky for absolutely no foundation. Intended impact: Erase is a baseless tactic used to muddy the waters even Sec mains can’t respect. In a few words, I’m trying to say that this has no grounds to exist. If there’s a good reason that a Security Officer has to hide their ID, wear a costume, and run around with zero identification. Please tell me. Is this a common issue? Absolutely not, but I think it should be ruled out for the above reasons, it's NRP and unfun for most parties involved(from my experience.) I'd be more accepting if I could see the point.
