[Delimb Chance Issues (Mass Decapitation Hysteria)]

https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/21997

[[BALANCE] blueshield and security comms.]

I'd be fully alright with them starting with security coms. Better that than they steal one.
Plus, if they do catch a EOC/Greytide, it is better they call for sec and sec picks up said EOC/Greytide, rather than the BS wordlessly pulling them to processing.

There isn't really an excuse to not give the BS one, especially since the fucking HoP gets one for free to listen in.

[Underpriced]

we should change the price to 1 tc

[Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)]

6 hours ago, Coolrune206 said:

For instance, what if dragging a large object like a locker needed your hands to be free to drag it, otherwise it would be slow?

I would be satisfied with this compromise. Solves the problem Matt mentioned while still letting it be used in a purely defensive roll I mentioned.

[Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)]

2 hours ago, MattTheFicus said:

You are a terrorist on a NT-owned Station. You are not supposed to be able to Benny Hill your way around the halls because "haha funny locker/crate goes brrrrt".

This is true, and its the reason security have a positive win rate and is wins the long game in escalation. It is meant to be an uphill challenge for antags, and for loud antags to eventually lose one way or another, because this is a more appealing design.

However, you're not using it defense of security winning a long war, or escalation, but rather in defense of nerfing a roundstart environmental tool to block disabler shots. I'm afraid it loses its meaning.

 

Since this PR nerfs an invaluable tool to antags without antistun, it encourages players to do one of two things:

• Meth/Adrenals usage every round.

I don't think any of us want to see one thing be dominant in every strategy, be it stealth or loud. It gets stale. For both loud and stealth strategies, multiple builds should not only exist but also be viable.

• Complete stealth, leaving no trace for security to follow, and thus never a need to block disablers.

This should also be discouraged. Stealth itself is a good thing, more antags should be stealth than loud on average, however we still want them to be discoverable. We want security to have a chance to catch onto a lead, to random search, to force you into one pitched battle. We don't want stealth strategies that consist of permakilling your target 10 minutes in with a sleepypen, then hiding in space for 2 hours in case you are random searched. Its an extreme example I know, but this is what is encouraged when you make it even more difficult to survive a security chase without antistun.

Reminder, 20 shots in a disabler, two hits to slow.

1 hour ago, MattTheFicus said:

Just like the Belt/Tool PR, people are going to moan about changes and call them poor when in reality it opens up other opportunities for gameplay. Change your behavior and adapt.

The Belt/Tool PR was good despite public bitching because it made sense from a design perspective, and encouraged thoughtful use of your space. Tools are powerful. You must accept sacrifices to be able to store them. This is more than fair.

Can anything similar be said for this PR? What opportunities for gameplay does this open up? The ability to win a chase easier as security? A lowering of the skill ceiling? I suppose we could argue that it encourages thoughtful positioning, or more tactical TC buys, or more active dodging of all 20 disabler rounds, but I've a feeling that won't be the result.

I'd like to draw attention to these words.

1 hour ago, MattTheFicus said:

Change your behavior and adapt.

Every player on the server will do exactly that, but it won't be in a positive way. That is why I'm against this PR

Disclaimer: Like 5 players on this server actively uses combat obstacle dragging and this PR isn't going to be that big of a deal. However, a change with negative consequences, even if small, is still enough to warrant noting and discussing.

[Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)]

Fully agree. My thoughts lie on the pull request for it, but in summary:

We should be encouraging no-antistun play, not discouraging it.

Locker dragging is one of the few things that keeps you from instantly going down to 20 disabler shots from one officer, only two of which need to connect to slow you down. While a few edge case during lowpop could make combat dragging feel "cheap" that is hardly worth this massive change that effects *everyone* on the server, not just the 20% that play security/antag. Plus, even on lowpop when you don't have an additional officer to cut someone off, it is okay to disengage and flank. Remember, even as an officer, you can pull back and re-position.

The only "gamer move" I see here is meth, which is 5 times as effective at getting away than locker dragging, and lets you use it offensively to pick apart officers.

 

['Undercover Sec/Command']

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.

[Remove Latejoin Only Slots]

There is 0 reason you should be more likely to get the job you want by not readying up, and just late joining 2 seconds after round begins. I shouldn't be fucked out of a security roll cause the extra officer slots are only available to late joins. Late join slots should be composed of what slots are left over, not reserved slots.

This feature doesn't help with giving jobs to real late joiners either, as these slots, particularly security officer slots, are taken near instantly after shift start. The exception is lowpop.

As it stands this feature only serves to punish those readying up and further reward those who latejoin 1 second after shift start to avoid being an antags target.

[Widescreen Feedback Thread]

I don't like having an advantage over people because of what kind of monitor I have. Either I see more than my opponent, or I have a more readable chatbox than my opponent.

A little extra screen space isn't worth the balance implications.

[Cult balance]

5 hours ago, Charliminator said:

Bro quoting my tweets from a year ago.

tweets?

[Changeling hivemind discussion thread]

Hivemind was perfect back when clings alone were squishy and weak.

Now, a single cling with the right loadout and map awareness can give security a run for their money. Two clings working together with moderate skill can defeat the entirety of sec. Three and its pretty much a guaranteed ERT call, especially if they train together, doing each-others objectives.

Hivemind needs to be updated to reflect this newfound individual strength, and that update should be outright removal. I am willing to accept it being made into a 2 point genome cost, anything is better than free, but outright removal is still preferable.

[Changeling balance feedback survey]

is this a trick question? changeling specific objective (genomes and become X) is too easy since genomes can be cheesed without a single absorption via DNA sting (which doesnt even out you as a cling), and the become X usually just becomes transform into X by the end of the round (no real way to fix this one though, if people dont wana become target we cant force them)

[remove totcling]

why the fuck is this still a thing, if a cling wants tot gear let them earn it by killing a tot, not hogging two roles at once

[Clarification/Request for Review]

I'd like to thank both you and the admin team in general. Although I've said it before, I'd like to say again I hold nothing against PeakPerformance and I hold him in high-esteem. I believe this discussion was a good one to have.

I am satisfied with the conclusion and clarification. Please close at your convenience.

[Clarification/Request for Review]

I appreciate the clarification and added context with the shared ahelp. This helps tremendously, and I believe I now understand what you're asking of me. Before moving forward, I'd like to clarify the following:

5 hours ago, PeakPerformance said:

Another type of example I can bring up from recent memory is the day you got that c-mag/telegun/minibomb/esword surplus, went and asked the CMO for their hypo, and, when they didn't immediately comply, gibbed yourself with the minibomb. Because, from what I gathered in what you said in d-chat, there was no security (two no-name officers), and you had objectives that didn't interest you. I know it can be a little boring when there's little opposition but fighting sec shouldn't be the primary objective of antags, making the round interesting for the crew at large is, and now the station lost a primary actor to that endeavor. I was hesitating to talk to you that shift, but it probably would've been a more appropriate time to, especially since had it been anybody else they would've been told that if they didn't want their roll, they should ahelp or cryo rather than kill themselves.

I remember this round clearly.

Last time I had to cryo, prior to this round you mentioned, I was a changeling inside a brig cell in a similar situation to the one you contacted me in yesterday. I ahelped if I should cryo or have a ghost put inside of my body. Peak himself, if I remember correctly, told me to give sec the satisfaction of the kill instead. I did as requested, suiciding into sec. I assumed because of your lack of interest in telling me to cryo or put a ghost inside my body that the admin team did not care if an antag cryo'd or suicided. Thus, when this shift you've described above rolled around, I suicided assuming the admin team did not care if I cryo'd or not.

I see now this was a mistaken assumption and I apologize. Hopefully you'll forgive me since this felt a fair assumption to make with my last cryo ahelp ending with being told to essentially suicide. I also wish you contacted me then so we could have cleared that up immediately, but I'm glad we got to it here, at least. Regardless, this misunderstanding seems to be a different issue than the crux of what was brought up here.

 

Moving on, I don't wish to draw this out in an argument or try and rules lawyer myself. I don't entirely agree with your characterization of my actions, such as my actions lacking "IC reasoning" or "fighting for the sake fighting" (though of course I do enjoy fighting in this game), nor do I agree with your implication that I, somehow, get away with things that "No-name McBald" couldn't, but that is your judgement of what you've seen and I respect that.

However, I would like to bring up one point with you. I will restate the following is not an attempt to argue or rules lawyer.

7 hours ago, PeakPerformance said:

And there's a reason people regard you highly, because you're a fun player, a veteran, and you generally do a good job at contributing to the rounds you're in, but I think that this behavior in particular is a misguided opportunity at challenging yourself, I'd love to see you attempt more risky maneuvers like hostage taking, proper ransoming, high profile robberies, holding a lair with your targets or, as a cling, trying to replace a crewmember, like a security officer if you're trying to get closer to another seccie, without killing the person you're trying to replace, instead just locking them somewhere for the inevitable reveal and intrigues it'd bring out, without more-often-than-not devolving into simple punching matches with sec, which people in the long run will start to see as just a desire to fight them. 

Regardless of the headmin ruling, I do agree, its been to long since I've put some real effort into a gimmick, or trying to actually succeed with a task more nuanced than simple murder. It should be fun to change things up a little.

However, that should be my choice. It should be the players choice to decide on a hostage situation or toolboxing their target to death in the halls. It should be the players choice to use an armblade that'll land them KOS or their fists that land them an aggravated assault charge. It should be players choice if they go for their target or an officer first, as well as their method of doing so. I have not infringed upon an advanced rule that I am aware of. I have not baited sec with intent to kill them for chasing me, I have not premptively taken out sec "just in case," I do not work to keep people out of the round. I have not powergamed to succeed at objectives nor purposefully failed, denying the point of antagonists in the first place.

I, as I always have, try to walk the line between chasing greentext and harmless gimmicks, trying to do so in a way that is entertaining and fun for both target, security, and me. In every measurement I can think of, I have not stepped outside of playing antagonists responsibly.

In my honest opinion, I feel this is an overstep of admin power, reaching into something that should be in the players control. This is not something that should be under admins jurisdiction when you've adhered to all written rules (that I know of) and have acted in good faith.

That is all. I patiently await headmin ruling and will accept whatever conclusion they come to. Thank you for reading.

[Clarification/Request for Review]

Admin(s) Key: PeakPerformance
Your ckey: Ruriks
Your Discord name: Rurik Varlim #6724

Date(s) of incident: 12 to 1 AM GMT.  7 to 8 PM EST.

ROUND ID: 33600

Nature of complaint: Clarification required, feedback, request for review

Brief description: I was warned for, if I understand correctly, playing antag irresponsibly, not acting like an antag, treating the roll like "greytider+". I am requesting both clarification on the warning, if I understood it correctly, and requesting review on the admin's judgement of my actions.

Full description of events: I will preface this by saying I hold nothing against PeakPerformance. They are a great player and to my knowledge a great admin.

Context:

As a changeling, after unsuccessfully attempting to absorb a fellow changeling and being cuffed/kidnapped by an assistant, an officer set me free. Following punching my kidnapper assistant and being brigged for it, I was called a "Washed up old man" by officer Tokoyokiko. After I said I would beat him for this, (a few minutes later) I beat him for this. I was ultimately caught and put into a cell. After an attempted escape with three uses of Epi OD, I was contacted by PeakPerformance via Admin PM. What follows are both of our logs.

Spoiler

For the record, I do agree with Peak at the end. There is no way he asking me to ruthlessly chase the greentext because he is not that kind of person, hence my confusion. I feel there is a disconnect between what he is asking and what I am understanding.

While I would understand it if I shouldn't have attacked Toko (he was not my target, though I wanted his sec gear) even though I was verbally provoked by him, or that I should have used an obvious cling ability (it can be annoying to deal with someone you know OOCly is a cling but not ICly), it seems I am being warned for neither of those. It feels that I am being punished for being caught too often via intentionally choosing weak methods of murder.

I will be operating under the assumption (until corrected or elaborated on) that me intentionally choosing weak weapons and populated areas to kill is the subject of this warning.

Before moving on I also want to preface that:

1. My intention is never to get caught. While I certainly do get caught often (typically lethalled upon capture), it is never the intention unless I state I am surrendering.
2. I choose weak methods of murder (fists, toolboxes, flyswatter, multitool back when it did damage on hit) in intentionally disadvantageous areas (public halls, bar, populated areas) because I enjoy the challenge, not because I want to "greytide" on sec.
3. I never intentionally play with worse strategies on team antags, or when mindslaved/working with another. I also play with this "challenge" mindset when it doesn't negatively effect a teammate.
4. Most shifts I do this in, I end up beaten to death in cuffs, not caught in brig. I am not sure what Peak meant when he said "that's the kicker, the issue is not that it happens, its that it happens almost every single time, you dig?" Unless he is counting the shifts where I am lethalled on the floor for using stimulants or class S, I don't see how he can arrive at the conclusion that I "greytide+" every single time.

(I would also like to note that, while I have gotten caught in under 20 minutes every vamp shift I've had the last 6 months, I am not intentionally choosing a weak strategy there. I'm actually trying really fucking hard. I just suck with vamp)

The Question:

With that out of the way, I have the following questions:

1. Is my assumption of what Peak is warning me for (intentionally choosing weak weapons and populated areas to kill, leading to often failure) correct? Or am I misunderstanding and my problematic conduct lies elsewhere?
2. Is it fair for an admin to deem your play style to this degree? Since I am neither powergaming to succeed at objectives, nor holding back to the detriment of allies/teammates, it feels like an overeach of power. Should it not be up to the player how cautiously or callously to approach a situation? Should it not be up to the player to decide between using a double-energy-sword that riles all of security, or your fists?
3. I am also operating under the assumption with Peak's comment that "I am not warning you for anything in particular this round" meaning that my actions of targeting an officer with the intent to down/kill for the ID and weapons is *Not* the issue, but rather my playstyle as a whole. If this is wrong, please let me know.
4. Lastly, this playstyle of mine has been the same for the last 3-4 years. Aside from some yawns over going naked with stimulants too often last year, I have never received negative comments or flak from anyone for it, admin or otherwise. Has there been rule change or code of conduct discussion? Of course I'm aware years of doing X cannot be a defense of X, but this adds to the "out of the blue" warning that, if I'm being honest, left me completely shocked. It begs me to ask—Why now?

That is all. Thank you for reading.

[The State of Space Law]

First of all, I respect the effort post. Nice to see that kind of energy around.

I fully agree with your proposed defining of the dangerous clause, as well as removing stunbaton/disabler from armed and dangerous clause. There's really no argument against this. There is never a situation where you need to lethal someone who stole a disabler. Not even lethals to slow them. As for defining dangerous as someone who killed a crewmember, this is also reasonable for reasons stated and would be a positive impact. Its what I've been following personally—the more crew killed and/or permakilled, the higher the equating response.

Now for the Stims/Implants/Bio-Chips

Quote

They’re not inherently dangerous on their own, only typically in combination with a weapon that would land you as heavily armed.

This is absolutely false. I've killed entire sec teams with 3 roundstart meth pills, because meth is that fucking effective. Now, there is a skill issue of course cause a few good harmbatons will bring me down. However, it is absolutely worth lethalling, and while yes security doesn't *have* to lethal, as charlie said, they were designed for such. When sec doesn't lethal an adrenal/meth user it should be considered a kindness, not a given. Just because its possible doesn't mean it should be expected in this circumstance. I object heavily to meth/adrenals being put off the lethal clause.

As a note, I am considering the fact that under your revised definitions, a meth user who kills an officer is now dangerous and able to be lethalled. I, however, support them being able to be lethalled before any such action takes place.

In conclusion, I feel there's a compromise that can be had of keeping adrenals/meth/stims clause the same, but changing the prior two points to your redesign.

[Re-add Baton Stuns on Throw]

10 hours ago, Miraviel said:

The title says stun but your post talks about a knockdown?

Good catch, typo.

Yes a knockdown specifically was the intention.

11 hours ago, Gatchapod said:

Alternatively, you now see secoffs hoarding stunbatons for robust (read: powergame-y) throw into melee hit combos.

Thats true. Could make it so the baton *only* knocksdown, instead of applying the (60 I think a baton gives?) stamina damage, thus you still need two more hits to actually stun them. This will nullify any combos.

[Re-add Baton Stuns on Throw]

50/50 chance to knockdown at the cost of losing your only melee weapon isn't exactly OP anymore, since batons knockdown instead outright stun now.

Its use would be slightly questionable, but not outright useless as to deny having it at all.

Baton throws added a interesting choice of combat before, and it can still do so now with knockdowns. I see little reason not to have it.

If there is still worry it'd be OP, then being made so if the baton is caught no knockdown is applied would be a good compromise. It would relegate any issue against it to a matter of "skill."

 

[Add slowdown to Security Riot/Bulletproof armor]

(MELEE = 50, BULLET = 5, LASER = 5, ENERGY = 5, BOMB = 0, BIO = 0, RAD = 0, FIRE = 200, ACID = 200)

(MELEE = 10, BULLET = 50, LASER = 5, ENERGY = 5, BOMB = 35, BIO = 0, RAD = 0, FIRE = 50, ACID = 50)

These are the armor values for riot and bulletproof armor, respectively. Both of them cover *every* limb, including hands, feet, excluding only the head to leave a use for the helmet.

These two items cost 0 TC, 0 PvE requirement, while also having 0 drawbacks and covers each limb. The moment armory opens security are free to wear them the rest of the shift with absolutely no consequence for half-off a damage type. Because of the additional factor of protecting hands/feet, there is also no counter-play aside from choosing a weapon with armor pen. Or, of course, choose a different weapon, but TC isn't adaptive like that.

Personally I don't think something as powerful as half-off a damage type should be paired with no drawbacks. These should be situational, not choose-your-flavor candies you pick up and wear the rest of the shift cause why not. Dufflebag tier slowdown would solve this issue handedly, although I'm not entirely satisfied with slowdown being the answer to every armor. I'd prefer a different solution, but I don't see one.

[Remove Vulp/Taj Darksight]

Nobody should get a benefit as massive as roundstart NV simply for choosing a specific race. Seeing people first, especially when it comes to antags/sec dynamic, is an absolute massive advantage. Slime people being able to ventcrawl while naked was more fair then this. Vulp/Taj should have their race centered darksight removed. 

Or, re-add darksight to cling "Augmented Vision" so I can at least see the vulp oFFICER BOLA'ING ME FROM PERFECT DARKNESS HOLY FUCK

[Should Paradise Have Silicon (Advanced) Rules?]

4 hours ago, dafrek said:

Should we have written rules that go into detail about what AIs and borgs should and should not do on their various lawsets?

There absolutely should be. AI should not be able to word lawyer its way into acting essentially the same no matter the lawset. Crew should have a good idea what lawset will lead to them being bolted, and what lawset won't. It should never be an OOC guessing game of "hope this AI player is chill and not an ass!" 

[Stunprod Rework]

Stunprods still have a use, but its mostly for a combat opener (hit with stunprod, swap to butcher knife then start stabbing while they cant run). It no longer fits the kidnapping niche it once had.

I fully agree it should be made Bulky (fit on back, not belt) and in compensation make it 2 hits to crit like stunbaton. 

There's no real need for the cell charge changes imo, trading bulky for one less hit is a fair enough trade as it stands. If your worried it'll be op you can throw it in though.

Lastly: It should be noted this yields double benefit of no civilians being able to hide a stunprod in their pack "just in case" as it'd be visible to everyone. This alone makes the change worth it.

[One Final Shadowling Discussion]

I'm too lazy to answer questions or write a word essay but I'll mention the three below points, since I don't see people bringing it up often:

• Having an antag that is dependent upon greytide running into maints is well and dandy, except when having X number of converts = instant win. I cannot stress that enough. It works somewhat okay for cult because cultists still need to perform the ritual that announces their location AND do a sac objective first. As it stands, slings can win a round without ever fighting sec. Just kiting and thralling greytide.
• Looping back to the first point, it is not a coincidence that when slings are announced half the assistants on station rush maint. imo, ahelping is not a valid solution in a long run. Its more work on the admins, they always have plausible deniability of "i ran into maint cause i wanted a multitool sorry xd" and its near impossible to tell if someone is intentionally getting thralled or got nabbed by thralls unless you are observing. 
• With the slings abilities, it is possible for one to stall out a round for the entire shift with effective use of teleports, even if they are alone with no thralls. They can effectively kite for the entire two hour shift. The only reason we don't see it more often is cause usually they get bored and do something ballsy, or accidently teleport via lag into space.

TLDR: Kiting infinitely is lame, and having an antag that is dependent upon lowkey antag fishers is a bad idea.

[How Did You Get Here - Jobs!]

Disregarding my first few rounds figuring out controls (2016ish), it was clown. Lots of clown. Then eventually I stepped from my shell and did Station Engineer. Lots of Station Engineer. Easily a year or two, if not more, of only that role with minor exceptions. However, I played it for the free gloves, tools, freedom from so much downtime, and to greytide security. Never for the actual job.

Eventually a lot of the old name players I knew started leaving (2019/20?), and I got bored without people to greytide with, and I started playing the bad guys, Security. I've never stopped. Unless you count Therapist for the sweet sweet legal meth.

Preference tier list by God Gamer Rurik:

S tier - Security Officer, HoS, Therapist, Clown.

A tier -

B tier -

C tier -

D tier -

E tier - Assistant, HoP, Captain, Paramedic, Blueshield, Detective, Janitor, Mime, NT Rep, Station Engineer, Medical Doctor, Coroner, QM, Cargo Technician, Cyborg, CE, RD, CMO, Warden, Chemist, Roboticist, Explorer, Atmos Tech, Geneticist, Chaplain, Librarian, AI, Virologist, Chef, Bartender, Barber, Botanist, Ghost Roles.

F tier - Shaft Miner, Scientist.