EvadableMoxie
-
Posts
461 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by EvadableMoxie
-
-
3 hours ago, Dinarzad said:
So, yes. I decry the removal of game systems when the opportunity to improve them and work them into a more healthy state with minimal effort was right there, and I wasn't the only one decrying it.
I agree completely that improving systems is generally better than removing them. But you are stating this as if there was a mutually exclusive decision to make between improving it and nerfing it, and nerfing was picked. That isn't the case. There was no improvement PR made and uploaded that could have used as an alternative. If anyone does ever offer such a PR in the future, having drones nerfed now won't prevent the change from being considered.
There are a ton of ways drones could be changed so that emagging them would make sense. But until someone offers a PR up, that really isn't relevant.
-
Making golems requires 30-60 minutes of work depending on the luck and skill of the xenobiologist and can really only be effectively done in one specific area of the station, by one specific role. This means it's easy to stop, monitor, or control.
To spawn a drone, a ghost presses a button.
To say producing a golem is the same amount of effort as spawning as a drone is just completely ridiculous.
-
If a cultist makes and converts a golem, they worked for that opportunity. They had to do Xenobio, or break into it, and get the extract and use it. It's something they did, and it's something the crew could have stopped from happening.
If a drone pops out of the vents next to an traitor, that's just a gift. The traitor didn't do anything to make it happen, it just did, and there is no counterplay the crew could have done to stop it from happening. I mean, technically they could blow all drones and destroy all fabricators every round with traitors in it, but that really isn't a realistic strategy like simply monitoring Xenobio on a cultist round is.
That's the important distinction here. Cult golems are a strategy cultists employ, which requires action and can be countered. Emagged drones just sorta happen. Sure, the traitor has to emag them but getting the opportunity to do so is entirely beyond control of both of the traitor and crew. You can't even really say buying the emag was the strategy since traitors buy emags for so many different reasons completely unrelated to drones.
-
56 minutes ago, davidchan said:
If you're going to argue 'you just don't like the PR so you're argument is invalid' you could at least come up with some half ass excuse to why any of this was necessary from the get go.
So... we should ignore motivations and focus on the merits? I've said that twice already, I'm glad we agree now. My half-assed excuses are in my previous posts, if you want to discuss them, feel free to scroll up and read them.
Regarding your points, as I said the main issue is mostly about a ghost role that can infinitely respawn itself without any intervention from anyone alive in the round being convertible. Discussing power in SS13 is a really difficult call because it's a game where combat can be decided by a bar of soap. Anything being overpowered or underpowered will be highly subjective.
What I hope we can both agree on is that they were effective in combat. And that's really all that matters to me. I don't think an infinitely respawnable ghost role that can spawn itself without any intervention from a player in the round should have the potential to be converted into an effective combat tool.
-
1
-
-
Golems require a player in game to do something to create them. Drones do not.
I think you are correct about the intentions of the people who made the nerf. But it doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant. The entire PR could be, as you put it 'i ded plz nerf' and still be the right call. That's why we don't bring in motivations. Because they don't matter.
If you are saying the PR is necessarily wrong due to the motivations of the person who made it, then you're making an Ad Hominem attack and not addressing the subject matter.
If you aren't saying the PR is necessarily wrong due to the motivations of the person who made it, then the motivations don't matter anyway.
There is no reason to bring them up or discuss them. Discuss the merits of the nerf.
-
People who are unable to recognize the proper time and place for things.
Believe me, I have ran through the halls naked on meth firing laser tag guns, but I've never done it with nukies inbound or terror spiders on station. When things are dull and boring, people should be a little crazy to spice them up. But when things have already gone to shit, the last thing one should do is making the overall situation worse.
There are times when even The Gray and The Red must unite against a bigger threat.
-
1 hour ago, Dinarzad said:
I did attack their idea, repeatedly, several times in the PR that brought the changes to begin with. There was never any real rebuttal to those arguments.
I also gave alternative suggestions, I didn't just say "Idea's shit lol" and carry on, I provided thought out suggestions.
Calling someone salty and saying they're letting it make them irrational is not a personal attack, it is absolutely calling into question the motives for WHY they're making their suggestions and motivations can be important to know. It's literally the entire reason that "i ded pls nerf" github tag even exists.
If you disagree withsomeone, attack their idea, don't try to dismiss it out of hand because it was delivered in a way you don't like.I'm talking about 'attack' here in the context of debate. Questioning the motives of one making an argument rather than the argument itself is the literal definition of an Ad Homiem attack, which literally translates to "To the person."
The motives of someone making an argument are entirely irrelevant. Either their arguments have merit or they do not. If they do not, you should be able to logically explain why they do not. And if they do, then the argument should be respected for it's merit, regardless of the motivations of the one making it. This is the very basic bedrock of debate and discussion.
Bringing up the intentions of the other party doesn't mean you're neccessarily wrong, but it is beside the point and a distraction from the actual debate.
Anyway, sorry for the tangent. Let's actually discuss the issue.
The crux of your rebuttal as I understand it is trying to compare borgs to drones by stating both could act to be intentionally subverted, and thus since emagging of borgs is okay, it follows that emagging of drones is also okay. If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize.
It's true that conversion is a major aspect of Space Station 13. It goes even beyond Borgs. A player could want to be mindslaved into an antag, converted into a shadowling thrall, infected by xenos to become a larva... conversion is a major theme, and in all of these cases a player may attempt to intentionally by converted. I will need to demonstrate what makes drones unique in that they should not be convertible while other roles should be. I argue that it comes down to two major differences inherent to drones.
1. Drones are an unlimited resource that can spawn into the round at any time without any action by someone already in the round.
If a Borg is destroyed, they must wait to re-enter the round until repaired. Emagged borgs that are detonated usually have their posibrain destroyed in the process and so are out of the round until someone builds a new borg. If the crew wants to stop building borgs, because they are constantly being subverted or the AI is malf or for whatever reason, they can do that. Borgs are more akin to golems than they are to drones in that they can only enter the round when a player already in the round allows them to. This makes drones unique in that they are the only convertible thing that can be endlessly spawned at will by players with no input from the player already in the round or from the triggering of a specific event.
To give an example of this in fact, it used to be possible to convert simple mobs into cults. There is a well known story of the cultist mouse which occurred when a mouse happened to be on a convert rune and was converted into the cult. While it was a funny event, the result was that a PR was quickly put through to make converting of simple mobs impossible. Despite this, golems were not changed in the same way, and can still be converted into a cult. One could argue it was simply a matter of realism as a golem possesses the necessary intelligence to be converted while a mice does not. However, there is also a strong mechanical reason for the distinction here. Mice can be infinitely spawned without any input from players, whereas golems require a player to create them.
I think it's basic design philosophy that there simply should not be a convertible role that can spawn infinitely without any impact from the players already in the round.
2. It is much harder to establish a pattern of behavior for attempting to be converted with drones than for other roles.
Your assertion that drones have the same level of oversight as a Borg is patently false. You pointed out exactly it's false why when you explained how the drone console works and how it doesn't detect emagged drones or allow remote termination like the Robotics console does. This is beside the point, however.
The argument was not related to player oversight in an ingame sense, but rather the the ability to detect players who are intentionally attempting to be emagged. Drones spawn whenever they want, usually in an isolated or low traffic area. They have generic names with only a number identifier and that number changes every time a drone dies and respawns. A borg, by comparison, has to be created by a player, usually robotics. The AI gets a notification whenever a new borg is created. Borgs have unique names, a selection of module and a selection of sprite. Borgs can interact with the crew, whereas drones are isolated. In short, borgs are distinctive and drones are generic.
Additionally, borgs have specific jobs based on their model that determine where they should be and what they should be doing. Borgs have a boss, the AI, who should be monitoring them and even gets an info panel to help do so. Drones do not, the AI can't even talk to them beyond pinging certain area for repair with the fabricator console. If a borg is doing weird things and not their job the AI is far more likely to notice, as compared to a drone which it might not even be aware exists until it happens to see it on cams.
Even in a situation where a drone's behavior has been recognized as suspicious, it's much harder to prove anything. If a crew member runs into maintenance as soon as people shout cult or shadowlings, it's pretty noticeable. Borgs, like crew, have specific jobs and specific places they should and shouldn't be. Drones not only don't have anywhere specific to be or not be, one could argue that since their laws say not to take a interest in the affairs of any being other than drones that they are required not to consider danger when deciding where to go or not go. Drones have a lot more deniability which makes it easier for them to get away with trying to be emagged, far moreso than borgs.
These things make drones unique among convertible roles, and provides a very real distinction between drones and borgs.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Dinarzad said:
Positronic Brains, mid-round join cyborgs.
Still can't stop 'em from knowingly getting antag'd.
And yet, you still don't give cyborgs a 5 minute lifespan.
The role of Cyborgs, like crew, is to have an impact on the round. They can save lives, chase down antags, or be subverted when the AI's law change. Creating them is a decision the crew makes in order to get the benefits in exchange for the risks. It's part of the design of borgs that you can never really fully trust them. Further, Cyborgs name themselves and have oversight from the AI, making them not anonymous and making it far easier to tell if they are intentionally trying to be emagged.
Maintenance drones on the other hand aren't supposed to normally impact the round, because it's an infinitely respawning ghost role. It's more akin to respawning as a mouse, with just a bit more to do. The two aren't really comparable when it comes to design or function.
QuoteThis was one side's salt overdose hitting lethal quantities and letting it cloud their judgment with irrational thinking.
If you disagree with someone, attack their idea, not the person. If you can't even accept the fact that someone might disagree with you for logical reasons then really there's not much reason to discuss anything with you.
-
So I think the problem here is the admins are kind of on the defensive from what they perceive as an attack on their credibility, which is pretty reasonable given the tone of some of the accusations. I think there is definitely something to the idea that players have a perception that playing security is the short end of the stick and opens you up to intense scrutiny. Where I disagree is that the reason for it is admin bias. I do not think the admins are biased for or against antags or security as a whole. I have seen antag hunters punished, antags punished, and security punished. I don't always agree with all the punishments I'm aware of, and I'm only aware of a small portion of the overall rulings the admins make, but I never got the perception one specific side is being targeted.
That said, the perception that it's shitty to play security is a problem in and of itself, and I think it would be good to explore that and find out why. And if a large potion of the players think it's because admins are biased against security, that as well is a problem in and of itself that should be addressed. Even if it isn't true, it might mean it's a communication issue or a rules issue or something else entirely. I will personally say that I feel the rules for both sec and antags are poorly worded and in the case of antags outright contradictory. That might make people feel like they are being unfairly targeted.
-
1
-
-
For emagged drones to work, we need to know, 100% that people are not specifically becoming drones and allowing themselves to be emagged. If people are doing that, the whole thing breaks down.
And the problem is, there is absolutely zero way to enforce drones not trying to be emagged. Unless the person who plays the drone is dumb enough to do something really egregious or flat out admit they are doing it, they will never be caught. All you need to do to get emagged is be in science maintenance while a traitor with an emag is around and let it happen. Can we prove that a drone was in sci maint specifically to be emagged? No, we cannot. And on top of that drones are anonymous so you can't even establish a clear pattern of behavior.
Forget all of the other arguments, this right here is why emagged drones should not be a thing. Because it relies on rules that are totally unenforceable, and unenforceable rules are not rules. Everything else, from fun for the drones and antag, to their combat power mostly being derived from a bad interface, to the power of an emag, to antag/sec balance is static and doesn't matter because this issue means emagged drones cannot work, no matter how they are implemented. It would be better if we didn't have them at all, but the current crippling nerf of making them basically useless is better than how it was before at least. They should have been removed entirely, but as they say, a good compromise makes everyone upset.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 6/3/2018 at 8:53 PM, TwoCam said:
There's one simple thing we can do with zero code changes: change the rules so that in rev, sec gets a free pass to straight up kill people that they reasonably suspect are revs. If it's supposed to be a fast and violent game mode, let the people who specialize in violence actually engage in some.
And what about before sec knows it's a rev round? What if sec thinks it's a rev round and it isn't?
You can't have different rules for different game modes when the game mode type is secret.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Ty Omaha said:
Just because we are asking questions doesn't mean someone is in trouble.
To offer a rebuttal: Just because someone is not explicitly punished by the admins doesn't mean their round has not been irrevocably damaged by having to stop playing and start defending themselves from admins. Getting bowinked and having to stop playing to discuss what you did and why with an admin is stressful and unfun, and even if a player is never punished. It's an experience that will highly motivate a player to not play security again.
I'm not sure exactly what we do with that information, because I understand that admins are not omnipotent and have to ask questions, but it's something to keep in mind, and we can't just say that it's all good and no harm has taken place just because someone wasn't actually punished.
-
2
-
-
164 available
5 - Barber
5 Brig Phys
30 Mechanic
45 Slime People
15 IPCs
264 Total
I don't agree that command positions should be Karma'd. Instead of asking ourselves "How can we stop incompetent players from being heads of staff?" Ask yourself this "Why do all the competent players not play Heads of Staff?" The second question is a lot more important to address than the first.
-
They're a race of synthetic people.
Just don't tell them that, they're insufferable about it.
-
1 minute ago, Dinarzad said:
A PR was made to do exactly that, and it was shot down.
And to be honest, at this juncture I find it the most preferable option. It's better to justn ot be able to be emagged at all, then to be emagged while you're on some other project an be forced into an Antag's personal all-access ID card for 5 minutes instead of doin somethin like pipe atmosia or somethin'.Isn't that better than being an antag's personal all-access ID for an indeterminate amount of time? At least a timer puts a cap on the amount of time you have to be sidetracked before you can respawn and go back to what you were doing.
-
I don't think it went far enough. An infinitely re-spawning ghost role shouldn't have the option to be converted into an antag at all.
-
2
-
-
On 5/15/2018 at 4:39 PM, Tayswift said:
It's not like it's a death match between antags and security.
Tell that to some people who play antag....
-
2
-
-
There is actually a PR up to adjust the number of job slots based on population. I think added an additional warden when high pop is triggered would be a good idea.
https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/8995
-
51 minutes ago, SkeletalElite said:
I do not believe anyone was given any punishment in the circumstance but the admin announcement seemed to say that in the future, there would be. That is why I made this post, I strongly oppose not hiring ANYONE from the manifest purely due to the fact that they are not mind shielded to be against the rules.
Again, the issue seems to be (as far as I can tell) using when they joined (at the start of shift or after) as the determining factor to if you hire them or not. Choosing to never hire off the manifest is not against the rules. You just shouldn't meta-game it to hire mid-round joiners but not start of round joiners.
That is how I understand it but if an admin wants to chime in to clarify/confirm/deny it would be helpful.
-
It doesn't sound like the problem here is choosing not to hire from the manifest. The specific issue is choosing if they should hire off the manifest based on if the person joined at the start of the round or mid-round. I can understand how that is a problem. The solution, to me, is to simply not hire off the manifest at all. There are RP reasons given for not doing it.
-
On 5/1/2018 at 2:57 AM, Coldflame said:
this takes all the "will i get banned" guesswork out of antag dealings, reduces admin workload, and lets situations go in more directions than the current rules allow
It wouldn't, though.
If an antag is using lethal weaponry against someone, then lethal force is automatically authorized as per space law under the 'armed and dangerous' clause. It is stated that is always preferable to bring them in alive, but it's not required.
Which means the only effect this would have is on those using non-lethal weapons (And even those are technically part of armed and dangerous too), and I don't feel those should automatically be met with lethal force. You just don't know if the clown threw a PDA in front of someone with the intent to fart in their face and run off, or intent to cuff them and drag them to maint to be murdered. Letting sec just adopt a 'kill 'em all' attitude is probably not healthy.
I do agree the rules can be vague, especially for antags and security, but this isn't a good way to adress the issue in my opinion.
-
Sorta... meta-gaming is using information your character would not have, but everyone's characters knows about syndie gear. As such the knowledge that e-daggers exist and are disguised as pens is not meta-gaming. Thinking it's odd the QM has a pen is sort of meta-gaming but if you're getting searched that heavily there's probably a reason why. A lot of times it can seem like security is targeting you randomly when in fact someone privately snitched on you, or the AI saw you do something suspicious on camera.
What I'd recommend is taking the pen out of your PDA and throwing it away, then replacing it with the e-dagger.
-
The problem with revolution is that it just doesn't really fit Paradise. Revs almost always win and a large part of that is because security is more interested in just losing and getting the round over than doing what they'd have to do to win and risking a job ban. For the staff to win, security has to play in a way that would be completely inappropriate in any other type of round.
I think revolution could be made to work with some reasonable changes, but it's very difficult to do that because there's really no way to know what the maintainers would want or if even a consensus among them would be possible.
-
I don't really think what it was intended to be is all that relevant, beyond perhaps illustrating that intentions and outcomes don't always align. Either way, it's far more relevant is what it is and why that's okay, but this wouldn't be.
Can we discuss the emagged maint drone nerf?
in Suggestions
Posted
You took what I said out of context, I was responding specifically to the argument that drones should not have been nerfed because improving them would have been better. Obviously it makes sense to discuss future changes, it's just not an argument for what we should have done in the past, because it wasn't an option at that time.