alexpkeaton

Hey, I deal blackjack too some shifts. In fact, I never saw it in 3 months on the server until I started, and now EVERYONE is doing it. My guess is that is coincidence though.

Blackjack has become pretty popular as of late aboard the station. Since we have slot machines, and the trend is going toward a ticketed/more comprehensive/more robust arcade system, why not add video blackjack? I imagine some general code exists (not in SS13) in a similar coding language that would be able to be ported with moderate difficulty that would simulate the game. If not using credits, perhaps an exchange system from credits to tickets could be determined, and then bet tickets. Thoughts?

I was typing my support for this and was going to make a joke like "why don't we give service channel to everyone, then?" And then I realized... that may not be the worst idea ever. So, +1 for the Chap, but see my expanded suggestion here: http://nanotrasen.se/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7044

So, this is a little out there, try to keep an open mind. No one uses the service channel much these days. Part of the reason is that the people who are "served" by the service department are typically different than people on the service channel. But what if we changed that. What if we gave a little love to the service channel. What if the service channel was added to the channels provided to all crew so that they can communicate their janitorial needs directly to the janitor without spamming general comms and having as good a chance to be heard as a PDA message. The bonus: crew can simply toggle the service channel on or off on their headset (let it default to "off") so they don't have to listen to other's requests if they don't want to. This could have additional benefits which I don't even foresee, involving botanists getting requests for some plant or another from the chemist, or some other possibility. I know it's out there, but I think this would be a great way to empower the service department and make them more valuable as a team to the station.

+1 for wheelchairs

Bumping this after 2 months of inactivity.

One thing I wish we had was a calendar date. It would help with RPing faxes and other documents. Also, if the date were coded to increase by one day each round, that would also provide a very simple way of documenting a precise game moment to admins in an after-the-fact communication, e.g. "on 2/14/2560 at 12:35, (IC NAME) did this to me..." Additionally, certain dates could be referred to here in the forums or other places if certain events occur that might be considered to be made canon for a certain species lore, or if there were some other purpose to discussing a specific round. Perhaps also, coders could put in special easter egg items to spawn on specific days like Valentine's Day, Christmas, etc.

Can we add Central Command "SoP" to the list too, to discuss things like faxes, ERT requests, etc.? I get the admins are busy and simply cannot get to everything. I think, however, that there should be certain expectations. For example, if I send a fax, I should be able to ahelp every time and get an answer about whether I can reasonably expect a reply, without being told "You don't need to ahelp every fax" as I was told once. I think I should be allowed to ahelp every fax. I totally understand if I don't get a response but I think it's important to be able to ask if you're going to get one. Also, I think that ERT requests deserve some sort of response, if not a default one, if the following conditions are met: Command has swiped for an ERT AND a fax has been sent clarifying the reasons for one. Not an automatic ERT but rather a time limit expectation for some sort of CC response either activating the ERT or simply saying "NOPE".

A little meta, but I think it would make a lot of sense if the future SoP discussions are broken out into separate threads so that you don't have to sift through pages of discussion to find points on other SoP sections. If this keeps up, at 2 weeks of SoP discussion per section, we'll have 70+ pages of discussion and whole areas will be buried in the middle. Perhaps a special "SoP discussion" folder can be added under "Announcements" on the main page for the duration of this discussion, with this thread moved and renamed to "Science SoP" ... then after it is over, the threads can be locked and moved back for archival purposes.

I'm of the same opinion. Make the Para have something special and not be a nurse without surgery access that drives the buggiest ambulance ever.

I'm for this or some sort of reminder (perhaps even an icon in the HUD where powers go?). Good idea.

This. I like this idea!

All hail! Also, Tastyfish, I think it looks good with one change: "Support" to "Service" - to match headset channel & departmental names.

You know, before I read the replies, I was sitting this morning thinking about this and thought... "wait... 1016 kPa is pressure... not volume... PV=nRT... oh crap, I'm so wrong about this." Consider the suggestion withdrawn with my thanks.

Don't know why I haven't thought to bring this up before. The emergency oxygen tank (fits in a pocket), while they spawn with a limited amount of oxygen to start, can be filled via canister to the same maximum as a full sized oxygen tank that can only fit on a belt/back slot. It makes no sense that two radically different-sized tanks hold equal volumes of gas. Can we reduce the max volume on the emergency tanks to perhaps the amount the tanks spawn with, or maybe slightly more?

As SoP currently is concerned, it is Captain - HoP - HoS* (*Succeeds only in times of an active security threat to the station). Otherwise all remaining heads, including the HoS when there is no active security threat, have equal standing and should vote for the successor among them. The NT Rep only can become acting Captain in very narrow situations (so narrow that it's misleading to suggest the Rep has any command claim at all) where the heads are dead or other serious problems prevent any one of them from taking command. I wouldn't even think "remaining heads don't want the job" is a good enough reason. In such a case as Rep, I would fax CC and request guidance. The magistrate has zero claim to command and doesn't even start with bridge access.

Logic checks out. Begin the purge.

I'd like a Ronald McDonald inspired costume in game... So would he... He's waiting...

15 strange objects in maintenance

13 sheets of uranium somehow not irradiating the person carrying them

To clarify, I'm from Ohio, the only state that matters in Presidential elections. My vote for Bernie effectively will count for 1,000 Americans. Feel the Bern, Donald!

To sum up this thread:

I actually think the coders are very responsive to ideas. If there's something you want in the game that would make the game more fun, suggest it. Or, better yet, if you know your way around code, put in a PR on Github. I know nothing about coding or programming languages whatsoever, but I'm looking to learn. I get the impression English isn't your first language so I appreciate you taking the time to write a lengthy post and explain your thoughts. I think your comments on the rules regarding responsible antaggery and excessive violence are all matters of having IC justification. Because people are playing this game, there is a small burden on antags to try to not end/ruin rounds without a connection to objectives. Rounds last in upwards of 2 hours on Paradise. Ensuring that people who play antags remember that they can have fun, but to try to stay on point. Your options may be more limited but that doesn't mean your creativity has to be. As long as you can provide connection to your objectives for an action as an antag, you should be fine. As for excessive violence, escalation of combat does exist, and relies heavily on IC justification. Yes, bar fights escalate into gun fights. For example: A guy calls another's mom a name. The other guy gives the first the finger. First guy pushes second guy. Second guy punches first guy. First guy breaks a beer bottle on the bar. Second guy pulls out a knife. First guy drops the bottle and pulls a gun from behind his jacket. Second guy lunges with the knife. First guy fires the gun. That is an albeit quick but conceivable escalation. What doesn't make sense is this: A guy calls another's mom a name. Other guy pulls out a gun and shoots the first guy. As long as the escalation makes sense from the IC point of view, you are typically okay. Regarding listening to admins: I get mistakes can happen. I would put forward that perhaps any stories you might know of situations where admins didn't handle things as nicely as they could are likely examples of rare mistakes rather than the norm. Nobody's perfect. But as a general rule, it just makes sense to listen to the admins. Snowflaking: I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but I allow people their RP and anowflaky backstory if that's what they like. I'm not into playing with much of a backstory, but backstories don't typically interfere with my game. So I'll allow people their deep characters. Mine's unashamedly shallow. Metagrudging: I don't think this is terribly widespread among admins. I don't know, I hope not. Though, there should be a difference between personal metagrudging and making admin decisions based on a player's notes, ban history and known attitude. Someone with extensive notes and ban history for a specific offense might deserve a perma ban for the same offense another might deserve a warning. It might be perceived as a vendetta or metagrudging, but in reality it's making informed decisions. In the end, we have control over how we act, and we can lead by example. By making the server a good environment and being nice on it, IC and OOC, we can inspire others to do the same.

"Disagreement isn't wrong!" Masterstroke of passive-aggression, that one is. Let me explain this by way of a metaphor. Person A: Can I have a cookie? Person B: No. A: Why? B: (Explanation.) A: Ok, can I have a cookie now? B: No. A: Why? B: (Explanation.) A: Ok. How about if I eat it in slow bites? B: No. A: Why? B: (Explanation.) A: What if I give half to you? Can I get a cookie then? B: No. A: Why? B: (Explanation.) A: I'm so frustrated! I just don't understand why you won't give me a cookie! Disagreement isn't wrong. What's wrong is saying you don't understand why the coders won't give you the cookie. They've explained it four different ways.

Fox has provided enough explanation here. Too bad you don't accept it. Enough coder-bashing. This is shameful and unbecoming of members of the Paradise community. If you must have a server your way, run your own. Otherwise you won't get everything you want. Ultimately, we can't customize everything, we have to rely on other good code and the maintenance made to that code by those devs. This thread was resolved 30 posts ago. It's been whining ever since. Locking this thread does a favor for our hard-working coders and common sense.