Joey

Honestly you're right, wish I could lock the thread here

I'm not going to do my normal post format for the sole reason that I don't feel like it. However, How would you feel about a 2TC item that could remove all round start sec lethals with the click of the button, including the disabler. It could also kill multiple IPC sec officers(or officers/crew with cybernetic organs) with the same amount of ease while doubling as an easy method to aid in an AI steal, also shutting off nearby comms. I want to point out that the EMP kit is an implant with two uses and two grenades that the fulfill all of these purposes multiple times over. I love the kit, but it literally has more uses than it's TC worth. Two grenades one use each and an implant which isn't even detectable with two uses. It's time to raise the price or just remove the implant from the box and leave the two grenades for two TC so it actually makes sense for it to be under the grenade tab in the uplink.

The responses to defend this PR keep getting more nuanced when again, it still doesn't address how un-problematic this really is. To put it frankly, locker gameplay is not, there are more gameplay options to deal with locker gameplay than there are with this Nerf. This didn't force new utility for science or other jobs to use, they just push the lockers instead of pulling them because of how inconvenient it is. You've gone from stating you feel you need a lethal to deal with a locker, which again, has not been represented in the gameplay at all prior to this nerf, you're worried about people using the locker to shoot out of, which is solved by disengaging. None of this has been addressed by people that support the PR, rather than just digging and reaching deeper for more arguments that don't exist in the gameplay. I'm sorry Matt but I can't imagine sec ever using a lethal because someone started dragging a locker, I don't think this is realistic. I said this on the PR, I'll say again. This PR isn't nerfing what lockers were, it's nerfing an idea of what they were.

While you may feel forced to get a lethal, I'm confident this is nowhere near sec or community sentiment nor is it found in the gameplay. If you wanted to be able to stop them right then and there in the moment, that instant, sure. I haven't seen someone constantly dragging a locker also simultaneously in single-tile halls throughout the round invulnerable to every encounter. This is defending a nerf a majority of players don't have an issue with(unless I'm wrong, again battle of anecdotes), telling the same players to adapt, when the solution to this status quo is to adapt. There's no point in punishing players for what is slowly becoming a more niche and extreme topic not even representative of what we see. The effect of this nerf is far greater than an officer's feeling to grab a lethal for a locker, although that's something I can't be sure happens in the first place.

I think this general narrative that because the community disagrees with a PR therefore it should be ignored is unhealthy if applied in all instances. I won't give my comments on the PR itself because they've largely been noted. The limitation is not innovation. While I definitely joked about the tool PR I also unironically do believe it was good for the game. Locker gaming limits things that are good for the game more than it provides a net positive. Lockers aren't as difficult to deal with as they're set out to be, they simply cause for adaptation that players aren't willing to recognize. Disengagement. It can't be countered in a fight, because it punishes running in a straight line. This doesn't warrant lockers being removed from the equation for a multitude of reasons. Lockers aren't purely an offensive strategy, again, as stated, the anecdote, I can't even recall it's been used offensively outside of times Sec hasn't realized they can just back off and regroup. I think there are degrees of loud antagging, you don't have to be rolling over Sec to need the use of a locker, maybe to avoid a search. It's not black and white, as we know context matters. You don't need to be "FULL LOUD UNGA" to warrant using a locker to evade a disabler with zero anti-stun. Additionally, 'You are a terrorist on a NT-Owned station' as a counter-argument to lockers being in combat can literally apply to a majority of mechanics used in combat. It's SS13. Locker gameplay IS the opportunity for gameplay. This is a change that puts a cap on what antags can do and what sec could reasonably afford to deal with, as if flanks don't exist or backing off.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this reply strikes me as not even addressing the topic suggested. Especially your last sentence, you're essentially suggesting an antag run away from a laser gun for what, having shot a disabler. Typically, a disabler and running away have to go hand in hand, if you want some nonlethal solution. This isn't about making the game "fair", I think a large part of the reaction suggests some massive change, this is raising the bar just a tad, where many circumstances would STILL warrant lethals. Point is, this is ALSO decreasing lethality for people not going for a lethal option. So many replies are fixated on, if I don't use a laser gun, then I'll die because of a disabler. You are on equal gear footing, and at ADVANTAGE if you use numbers.

I'm honestly wondering if the better solution is that the lethals authorized tab, everything under it means lethals authorized but you're not to kill them, then, and scrap the revival part. If you kill them, maybe in crit, it's a charge against the officer. This also doesn't account for harm battonning to hell, but maybe it's a step towards a middle ground.

I think there's a negative bias against raising the standard for Security, and I don't think that ought to be the case. Security has to fall slightly in line with a more team based style and use discretion before encounters. This is an incredibly dangerous, unwritten line that relies solely on player judgement and nothing in writing. I couldn't agree with leaving things so open ended and up to interpretation that leaves to "technicality" arguments that permit either option without question.

So my response to this is twofold. Simply, in regard to stun weapons, you have the SAME tools as the antag regarding prods, disablers, and batons. Secondly, if you're in a position where you're alone, that's on you. This would emphasize number based Security gameplay rather than egoing it down maints. I have a third response but I'll group it with the next quote. I'd like to point out that if you have to stun an antag and kill them while doing so, or at the very least put them in crit, self defense clause still exists right there and protects Security Officers in this situation if their life was threatened. I think Security should 100% have to consider their options before approaching an antag better than what we see right now. I think I stated this before, but the bar has to be raised higher for Security, and as Norwest mentioned, keep consequences better managed and stop falling on this "technically." I don't think I have a fix-all solution, but I know it starts when you stop giving players excuses and raising the standard a tad. Also apparently it's just outdated, at least armed and dangerous as we're not in the, one hit stun meta. Also crit probably should be included pretty much, but I'd have to think about that. As a blanket response to implants, at this point I'd just take freedoms off lethals authorized and leave the rest. Armed and dangerous needs help.

I'm noticing a common trend along some of the replies and I want to point out, that if you use stun weapons to kill, that would count you as dangerous, and as such authorized per what I defined. However, if they're used to rob and what not, non-lethally, then that's a different story. I'm not advocating that the usage of stun weapons is a free pass in every instance. Simply narrowing the parameters. All it takes for one confirmed crew murder and we're back to the status quo. The antag gets to choose that escalation, however according to their style and approach.

The general opinion seems to be that Security has become too liberal with the use of lethals lately, however as we all know, many of the circumstances are "technically"(The holy word) permitted under Space Law. I think some small, but maybe impactful changes to the content of the wiki can lead to more defined game experience with a clearer line on what lines to abide by. I write this post to make a few comments on certain sections, provide some better phrasing or changes, followed by my intended impact and open discussion that may actually change something. https://www.paradisestation.org/wiki/index.php/Space_Law# (Space Law link for those unaware.) If you have that link open, scroll down to the use of deadly force section, where I’ll be spending most of my time for the remainder of the post. I’ll begin with analysis of the lethal-warrant categories and end touching on the first paragraph of the section. LETHALS AUTHORIZED Often times, this sentence can be seen as KOS because of the vague nature of some of the categories below, additionally because of the golden word “technicality.”. Two are most in question. Since interpretation is key here, I think it’s best to narrow the scope. Armed and Dangerous(Stun weapons, Lethals, etc.) Firstly I would like to point out “stun weapons”. If you are say, a traitor and have stolen a disabler, that alone, per space law provision, warrants a disproportionate response of opening the armory for a baton or disabler being stolen. I have seen this as justification to use lethals because it is “technically” allowed. From a gameplay standpoint, say you’re traitor, you’ve stolen a baton or disabler, do you think it’s reasonable to be considered armed and “dangerous?” Which leads me to my second comment. Proposed Solution: Remove stun weapons from lethals authorized, and place “lethals” under the recommended, heavily armed tab. I’d remind you, that on the Paradise Sec Wiki, Security serves as a DEFENSE force. We should be reactive, meeting where the antags are rather than beating them to the next level of escalation. If stun weapons are combined with my definition of dangerous(defined in my second critique), then sure, authorization. However, in gameplay, in RP, either one, meeting stun weapons with a laser gun, when stun weapons alone can largely be stam damage is an out-of-touch portion. Impact: You’re not met with a laser gun because you stole a disabler from an officer. These are two disproportionate responses, and many antags try to AVOID round removal or killing, however it tends to be encouraged given the famed “armed and dangerous” section. “Dangerous.” Now what does dangerous mean in this context? You’ve robbed an officer? Killed an Officer? I have no more comments under than being up to interpretation, which has lead to very rigid gameplay, which then leads me to my proposed solution. Proposed Solution: Define dangerous as one confirmed crew kill or more. If those stun weapons were used by an individual that killed a crew or Security Officer, then it should warrant an “eye for an eye” clause. The antag made the move to kill someone? Then they brought it to that level and the force should be reciprocated as such. Impact: This rewards non-murderbone antag gameplay and the players that suffer when lethals are authorized and they have actively killed nobody, while preserving the loud antag style. This also encourages Security to be more engaged with who they’re targeting, as if they make a mistake, it could be considered manslaughter. Antag punishments tend to be admin only, however Security consequences remain up to the HOS or Magistrate, almost entirely IC, and this by in part raises the standard. Enhanced Individuals(Stims, Implants, Bio-Chips) I was once of the position that meth and implants warranted lethals, but after some thought I can’t find a justification as to why that is so. They’re not inherently dangerous on their own, only typically in combination with a weapon that would land you as heavily armed. They’re limited resources that doesn’t pose a threat, and shouldn’t warrant an open armory because they alone can’t kill crew, save for maybe an EMP implant. I’ve seen officers kill individuals in crit because of adrenals, or freedoms ,or maim them for those reasons. Proposed Solution: Remove this from the lethals tab all together as they’re not a weapon or life threatening, besides possibly EMP implant. They can be caught without lethals, and back to my central point that Security should likely be meeting antags where they escalate, not beating them to the punch. If they’re heavily armed, or considered dangerous on my definition, then armory will be open under those reasons, not simply because of adrenals. Impact: Players aren’t beat to death when already down(something I admittedly have done), having their legs broken because they used freedoms, or simply over the top responses. Concluding Thoughts I’ll leave you with a few questions. “As a member of the station's Security force, you are one of the best armed and protected people on the station and equipped with the latest in non-lethal weaponry. Situations that warrant the use of Deadly Force are few and far between. In the vast majority of cases, you will be expected to use your non-lethal tools which are many times more effective than lethal options to defuse a situation. In general, if it is possible to capture personnel non-lethally you should. If you do not, expect to have to justify yourself to Internal Affairs to not get fired and to Administrators to not be Jobbanned.” How reliable of a paragraph do you believe this to be given the WIDE variety of circumstances lethals “technically” can be utilized? Leaving it up to interpretation has left for the backdoor argument, of authorized, therefore just, and relying on the player to make that choice leads to a very slippery slope. Given what is allowed, imagine for a moment if a majority of security chose to maximize the opportunities in the status quo because they “technically” can. Personally, I see Sec gameplay headed in that direction, and it’s simply optimal to narrow the scope and create better parameters that reward a softer approach for all players involved. Are you happy with the status quo? Also multiple assailants would move up to recommended given these changes(I'm not adding another section that's self explanatory given arguments provided.)