Jump to content

Xyd

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    113

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Xyd

    Opinions on the handling of antags and valids

    in Public Archives

    Posted · Edited by Xyd

    Lotta good opinions here.

    On 6/28/2019 at 10:08 PM, DerpehBoi said:

    I think antags are handled a little too strictly. From what i've heard people are getting bwoinked for killing antags in order to defend themselves or others. 

    Getting a bwoink is normal procedure, and generally admins do this to follow up/investigate what happened.

    On 6/28/2019 at 10:00 PM, Kluys said:

    Are we ok, too lenient, too strict or is there to much grey area and are there any changes you would like to suggest?

    So I've not played in a few months, so maybe the vibe or atmosphere in-game has changed somewhat with the recent influx of tides; but I would say that if you asked 100 peeps if they thought it was too lenient or strict, etc, you would probably not get a consensus on the issue. With my point being that this is an issue deep routed into the game and is nearly nigh on impossible to balance. Improvements can be made, but its sort of like a tug of war; every action taken has a counter-weight to it.

    We play the game in our own little snapshots so my experiences in spess is vastly different to someone else, and even when we observe, we aren't always getting the full picture. Doubly so for admins who only have a set of eyes and a log of information that never tells the full context.

    So I cannot honestly say if you guys are too lenient or strict, because its situational and either answer wouldn't be very fitting.  I can say that there is definitely inconsistency with different admins dealing with things in their own way, but that comes with the territory when you have a grey area in the rules concerning antags. I agree with Kluys that the rules could use further clarification particularly on antag behavior, without falling into the trap of making incredibly strict guidelines and bottle necking antags into a certain behavior while also trying to encourage good play both from them, and the crew.

    Rurik makes a good point in that antags are already under a lot of pressure rule wise, with lack of clarification in certain areas and the way admins might see you play.

    New crit also further puts pressure with the current ruleset because restrained self-defense can now easily turn into homicide. Be it trying to defend yourself from security as an antag or defending from an antag. I always, in self-defense, try to ensure that I don't actually kill the guy attacking me; but that isn't so simple anymore. That's not new crits fault; it's just trying to fit the rules to accommodate that, which I feel they don't. 

    Self-defense is one of the things that I worry most when I'm an antag or not, and I feel the rules could ease up here so you can reliably actually defend yourself from attack, without having to worry about how it might be perceived from an admins pov later down the road. Not an issue I have personally ran into, seen others though get smited for it, and because of how its currently defined in the rules: Self-defense is allowed to the extent of saving your own life. Putting someone into Critical Condition (which happens more often now) is considered self-defense only if they attempted to severely hurt/kill you. Preemptively disabling someone, responding with disproportionate force, or hitting someone while they are already down, is not self-defense.

    In essence; the self-defense rule has a lot of caveats and is often open to interpretation. Considering how fast paced the game is, it's quite easy to earn the scrutiny of an admin during the act of defending yourself because there are several steps you need to pass first:

    1: Did you put him into crit, and was it malice or accidental? Will the logs show that?

    2: The above check is only valid if they attempted to 'severely hurt/kill, and the logs won't always show that, but the perception of the player might be that they did. Cue Player A arguing that they perceived the antag as a high threat to their life; cue Admin A who may argue that the logs tell a different story, this is assuming admin wasn't observing, a set of eyes is always better than log. The scrutiny is even more enforced if you were ahelped.

    Nothing wrong with healthy scrutiny; and all admins should by definition of their role investigate thoroughly so as to provide a fair judgement. Yet I feel self-defense could be eased up a little, but trying to balance that while also making sure scummy valid hunters don't abuse any easing of the ruling would need some careful planning.

    Concerning valid hunters, here's a problematic line that I always found left a big old grey area that I've seen actual valid hunters try to claim:

    Rule 8: Snippet from valid hunting - You may, however, defend yourself or others from Antagonist attack if you happen to witness it.

    This could use further clarification. I've lost count of how many valid hunters be it on their appeals or in discord point to this rule and say they were right to interfere.

    Now,  this ruling  has allowed me to save strangers/friends from time to time, however, I've played on the server long enough to know my limits of that rule. I don't chase after the antag with a hatchet or intent to injure, but merely the intent to rescue the person in distress; nor do I do a merry chase around the station after them. Basically I know not to cross over into valid hunting territory. Unfortunately, the ruling is very vague, and really even mild interference could catch you out with an admin because of how vague and generally unhelpful that rule is from an antag pov. That rule itself hurts both antags and players. Antags because they will get valid hunters who think this singular ruling allows them to go above and beyond to rescue/interfere with you, and players who don't know the limits of such a ruling and might go too far because of it.

    All-in-all, I think the issues raised here have their merits but are the kind of problems that are really difficult to tackle and balance out. Trying to do that in a 2d spess game in a player vs player environment in which anything can usually happen and it's all monitored by fallible people (we are all capable of making mistakes) who only got a pair of eyes and a flimsy robust but often confusing log book to guide them to the right decision.

    Yep. I don't envy you admins, but I do salute you all for putting up with us! 

    • Thanks 1

    Bigger, Better Audio

    in Public Archives

    Posted · Edited by Xyd

    Racial diversity in audio would be nice! Having one scream for one and all has always bothered me (except those filthy toasters get their own scream!). That would be a priority for me personally as in what I would like to see done.

    Maybe different sounds for different types of lasers, etc?

    Associated 'gore' noises during surgery tied to certain medical operations and such might be an idea?

    Some npc/antag noises might be cool.

    But I would stress that performance impact should be priority here, so nothing that will greatly impact the performance of the server.

    Not sure about adding sound to something like a plasma fire, considering those can get very big and not sure how that will have an impact on the performance of the server (or our ears for that manner).

    • Like 1

    Change i'd like to see.

    in Public Archives

    Posted

    I'm not in favour of a voting system, as I feel such a system wouldn't have the consistency to merit it. The idea of it is sound, but making it practical is another thing.

    To echo some of the other sentiments here concerning transparency:

    What is transparency? What does it mean to me?

    Transparency means, to me at least:

    • A clear understanding of staff decisions that greatly impact the server.
    • An understanding of where the server is going, and where it isn't. (I think I have a grasp of this)
    • Sending out feelers to the community in relation to big PR's that can and will largely impact and change the server, and then a clear logical explanation as to why they feel this is needed. Example: New Crit. // New Crit round 2 was certainly presented in a much better fashion because it was communicated better, and ultimately it was received more positively. This ain't asking for a poll or a vote, but it does allow the staff here to better gauge the potential reaction they might get from the PR, which could avoid unnecessary fallout.
    • I'm not interested in taking a peek in staff votes or how they vote. Staff should have a right to anonymity from the rest of the server in regards to what way they vote. I don't really care for that, and knowing it or not, isn't going to make a damn difference to me and I don't think it will to others.
    • People who submit PRs, and are active in the coding community, given greater access and maybe even a section on the forums (not sure if this is the case already) to express ideas and such. Github and discord isn't a great place for cementing your ideas as a lot of context could be lost. It also means if they get their PR turned down, they perhaps may get a greater understanding of why. - I do see the pros/cons in something like this, but it might be worth taking a chance on.

     

    I'm personally not in the boat of "Lets add more features, more code, more everything" - I can definitely understand the reserve nature of the staff in that regard. As much as I love new shiny things (TG pods, oh my!) they must be implemented in respect of whether or not they will be in line with the staff vision of the server. Unfortunately, a large part of the community are not aware of what that vision is, and sometimes it isn't communicated well. That's where the need for greater transparency comes into play. I feel like Paradise wouldn't benefit from a lot of stuff TG has. Paradise is in a nice spot, and too many changes can upset the dynamic of the server. Already I feel part of that dynamic has been upset by the implementation (and in some cases, removal) of recent (period of 6 months) features.

    My greatest concern in all this is that, on present course with how things are now; if the server suffers another major change that might prove unpopular (or suffers growing disent) it might catch the current staff and by extension, the community, by surprise because there is no transparent means for the community to gauge how these changes are coming about, and most importantly: Why.

    Again; it isn't about voting. It's getting a feel for the community, and for the community to get a greater understanding of the management of the server. If they get that clear view and don't like it, then at least they won't be frustrated by sudden changes; they'll see it coming. For the rest, they may stay. And if they stay then at least the staff can rest a little bit easier... (or endure months of roasting on the forums, AAAAAA)

    I understand that this very discussion likely came about as a result of a couple of prominent members leaving recently. One of whom expressed grievances with the very process that is being discussed now. A process that others have concerns about. I'm not one to suggest that two departures within a week of one another is a reason for concern, but it does provide an opportunity for these debates to take place.

     

    • Like 1

    Pet Peeves of Paradise

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    - Blueshields who don't understand the concept that you're there to guard command. Not mingle/socialize for half of the shift with your non-command IC friends. On a slow boring shift with nothing happening, no harm to relax and chill. But I have legit seen Blueshields chilling in maints or away from command areas. Even on slow shifts, you should still be near a command member, watching their ass because things can turn south very quickly on the Cyberiad, and before you know it, command are shouting Blueshit at you!

    - Blueshields who 'powergame' by having AEG's and everything else under the sun on their person, carrying a personal armoury of weapons. And all on Green/Blue alert. I'm sure Tator McGarry will love a good loot pinata Blueshield. Even on red, unless nukies/aliens and other highly visible murderboneish threats are about, it can be excessive.

    - Redshield, enough said.

    - Pod pilots who never use their pod, or use it once and then dump it off to become a regular redshirt.

    - Miners who will wait over an hour if need be to deposit their first batch ores just because the ORM hasn't been upgraded. And in-between that period of waiting, you could have made two or more deposits!

    - People who shout SHITCURITY at the drop of the hat for getting cuffed/arrested. I call these 'sovereign shits'.

    - Those who shout for an IAA over 5/10 minute sentences, screaming down the coms repeatedbly for one as if they're about to be executed or chucked into perma.

    - Being asked to fill out paperwork at cargo for lathe supplies. Recently got asked to fill out a form for a piece of cable wire. There's keeping a papertrail, then there's just being an ass/shitter.

    On Metastation

    in Public Archives

    Posted

    Some funny access issues. Maybe others will spot more.

    Mechanic has access to security podbay, and I've had plenty of opportunities to steal a sec pod (which I didn't, that be a shitter thing to do, but an antag could have fun with this).

    The current layout is an antags wet dream with all the various weak spots into command/security areas.

    Here's just one example for the bridge -

    Untitled.jpg

    • honk 1

    Screenshot thread!

    in General Discussion

    Posted

     

    3 hours ago, Regular Joe said:

    Yeah, I missed the brain at the original scene, thought that the arresting officer searched him and didn’t actually notice when he disappeared from there due some comms mess, my bad. That officer didn’t say anything on the case later, apparently didn’t search Shame on the spot or I don’t know. I then lacked the final evidence on the murder, even if everything said that Shane was the culprit. Implanted and kept in touch, then.

    Shane apparently forced the victim him to play russian roulette - without the chance to win... - if it was true what he said before the end. We were at the spot quite in time, but then the brain slipped through us. I had fun time grilling him the whereabouts of the brain or anything I could deem as the smoking gun, and him vice versa.

    That was most of a noir scene for me for a while, for all the stuff involved, you, victim’s PDA messages, Shane both gambling and denying everything... neat. Too bad for the victim since his brain end up floating somewhere in space.

     

    His brain was in the bartenders safe ?

    Screenshot thread!

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    The amount of internal screaming I was doing, after presenting evidence that was pretty damning against Shane O'Brien. he was let go and even allowed to take the brain of the person that was killed.

    Glad to see justice prevailed in the end!

    • honk 1

    Blueshield Buff

    in Suggestions

    Posted

    Also in favor of this.

    I think there's pros and cons to having a glove form - it means making the Blueshield a possible target for his gloves via traitor objectives, and that adds more variety to traitor goals, not a bad thing.

    On the downside, he may become too much of a target for traitors (to those who don't even have him as a target) and might want his gloves for CQC, and he's already a prime target for the captain's spare that he may or may not have. Blueshields are easier to lure out than Captains.

    I think I would prefer to have the Blueshield inherently know the martial arts rather than a set of gloves for this reason. He's suppose to protect the heads of staff, not walk around with a big bullseye painted on his back because he's a loot pinata and end up becoming a far more tempting target than those he's assigned to protect. 

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use