[Replacing the Knuckle-Dusters]

This is what was originally thought of for the High Risk QM item.

However, it comes with the truly massive "WYCI" moment.

[Give the Blueshield some form of Martial Art]

Balance-wise, absolutely not.

You already have the ability to be fairly lethal in your Rules of Engagement. They dont need more things to fight people with.

[Make MODs have retractable helmets]

WYCI :^)

[State of assistants on paradise]

2 hours ago, Landerlow said:

It's because it's generally annoying and is dumb in my opinion from a RP perspective.

Hobo-ing is its own issue. Assistants as a fine are whole.

If Paradise wants to make being a Bridge Hobo a LRP thing and enforce it, then it would need to be brought up as a Rule.

[State of assistants on paradise]

Its a non-issue IMO.

If people have an issue with Bridge Hobos due to it making antagging around the Bridge hard, ahelp to bomb them.

Most Staff love giving permission to bomb the local Station homeless

[Slapping someone should wake them up.]

As always:

When You Code It.

[Being blind should leave you immune to flashes and pepper spray]

I can attest that pepperspray does not require anything but a functional face to hurt like a BITCH. Never want it to happen again. Flashes make sense, but man oh man does pepperspray fuck you up.

[On the Admin Application process and other unsolicited advice]

It turns out locking does not stop the spam-hide/unhiding of posts.

If youre going to call people out for what you suppose is non-transparency and issues, please kindly dont hide the post yourself afterwards and make it look like we could have possibly hid it. It doesnt look good on us and it DEFINITELY doesnt look good on you.

If you want us to be more transparent for issues, lets not hide the replies okay?

[Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)]

Quote

The responses to defend this PR keep getting more nuanced when again, it still doesn't address how un-problematic this really is.

This is because the issue IS nuanced. No balance issue is a simple one-dimensional thing. There's a reason these changes are discussed and voted on for nearly a month before the PR was merged.

Quote

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. 

1. This is anecdotal on both sides. If you don't feel you need a lethal to deal with locker dragging, that's your opinion. Given Balance and Design votes are done off the experienced opinions of its Members, that's just how it is.

2. Disengaging is not the catch-all solution to this "tech". Nor is numbers. Nor are lethals. I see an issue with a mechanic, someone made a PR that "fixes" this issue in my eyes in a realistic and non-intrusive way that has ways for non-combatants to get around the "downsides", and I support the idea. It really aint deeper than that.

Quote

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. 

The new LWAP was literally designed with this in mind. So. That's kinda out the window.

Quote

This PR isn't nerfing what lockers were, it's nerfing an idea of what they were. 

Yes, its nerfing the idea of using a basic Station tool to Benny Hill chase Security around the Station. I dont see that as healthy gameplay and it also happens to encourage other ways of problem solving for roles that DO have to drag stuff around.

The end-all of this also comes down to "if you think this is a bad change, make a PR to revert/change it and see if it passes a vote".

[Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)]

The open hand thing is nice, and would make it better for people who drag things about.

However, I still think making players think of different ways to do their job that might be more "optimal" is good. That, and nothing stops you from getting a holster to quickly drop your weapon into and basically negate the whole "you need open hands" idea.

[Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)]

Quote

It indeed shouldn't warrant a lethal firearm just becuase someone dragging a locker, not it's that hard to overcome with but if it deemed the current methods aren't enough maybe there can be some other way to pull that locker off with a disabler instead of a slowdown modifier.

This is my main issue with it. If I see a locker dragger, Im FORCED to get a lethal cause I need ANY possible hit to slow them down. That, or I need to shoot the locker open. This just means I'm now escalating for a literal box made of metal. This likely wont matter to the robusto locker dragging, but it WILL effect everyone else.

[Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)]

I can see how a lot of people might see this as a "hitting more skilled players at the detriment of all" but my main issue is the people making that argument seem to BE the people who are more likely to use the tech than not. The average 200h Security player isnt going to flank anyone and if they ARE left alone against this tech theyre gonna get bodied (which was likely either way).

The issue then drops to "well how else can you make the system work?". Well, shooting the locker to open it just means they close it right after. Destroying the locker could work, but then youre going to have a reason to grab lethals for someone literally grabbing a locker - which is bad. Delay on open when dragging would be even worse of a change feel-wise and also doesnt really make sense from a logical standpoint. A "stamina" system will be even more detrimental overall IMO as we dont have it in any other movement system currently.

Quote

Secondly, @MattTheFicus I hope you think of this thread as a civilized discussion between gentlemen (and possibly gentlewomen). I don't think anyone here wants to see you castigated over this change. Make no mistake, your work will always be appreciated even if it might be controversial.

Nah I understand, I came off a bit heated, but its a tad bit disheartening to see people assume that this wasnt discussed at all and just got railroaded through. The PR was up for a month and had comments placed on it and some discussion when it was opened as well. But, as always, if a change is bad it CAN be reverted. I simply just haven't had enough data to prove it IS a bad change yet other than peoples' personal takes being used as "community sentiment".

[Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)]

Quote

The first point seems more like trying to reason why such a change is good for the server despite the main focus of the PR being behind nerfing a combat mechanic. The original PR was not worked around aiming to encourage other forms of moving stuff around the station, this is a side effect, not an original goal that pretty much proves my point that the nerf is too broad. I do not believe that changing the entirety of how people have been used to doing things just to nerf the three robust players who cleverly use lockers as cover is a fair or good trade off. This is essentially using a shotgun to kill a fly when there are other methods that do not hurt the general community. The PR has people discussing other possible ways to handle this, all of which are far better then telling everyone to simply adapt to such a poor change.

These "ways of getting around the new system" were discussed by the Balance Team (pushing things, MULEs, Ambulance, etc) and part of the reason people approved of the change. We're not going to point out every one of these reason because players have to LEARN how to deal with downsides on their own. 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.

Quote

While I understand the point, I find it a bit odd that the general d of what I was trying to say is considered "negative water". We've had a similar PR that was controversial that many people found to be too harsh or unfun for such a change, example would be when batons had passive power drain. It had a similar reaction in terms of community opinion and changing how the game worked due to combat (balance). It was decided however that the change was a bit too harsh and testing in-game only proved it further. Which is why I said that it should have been tested first before a full merge to get a general community feedback and reaction. Obviously community input isn't the main factor to changes but it does make people aware of a PR's existence, and encourage better alternatives.

This PR had minimal approval within the Balance Team if I recall. We wanted it tested because most of us already were teetering on disapproval and simply wanted to confirm that. In comparison, the discussions about the pulling PR led to a bit more of a "well, there's a bunch of other systems that allows/could allow for you to get around this in non-combat situations already so it effects the overall game less so" kind of take. Just like the Belt/Tool PR, people complained about it a bunch but now simply use other ways to get around this limitation. You can do so with this PR as well.

Quote

357 + Ebow is already a pretty strong combo, with or without locker. I think the frustration you felt is being aimed at the wrong place as the locker is probably the smallest offender out of those three items. The balance of the other two isn't relevant here but I can safely say a 12 TC and 13 TC item both paired is going to be strong in nature, and not by the addition of a destroyable locker. The removal of lockers wont actually encourage people to stealth more, nor will it make people avoid fighting disablers. Its just going to encourage more antistuns like meth and adrels since another choice of evading security is now gutted. This feels more anecdotal then a common occurrence with the existence of lockers, which I think is a bit of an extreme and rare case of a locker being used in combat.

A large majority of the locker dragging was coupled with an E-bow (anecdotal, sure). But, as I said above - 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". There are PLENTY of ways to surgically execute your fights for theft items/assasinations that dont require you to be in all-out combat with Security for the full shift. IMO, the only time you should be FULL LOUD UNGA fighting Security is with Hijack or with Die a Glorious. Anyone who adheres to the "but I HAVE to pay the adrenals/meth tax" needs to reevaluate their playstyle and consider that youre CHOOSING the hard path to play if you want to unga fight Security all shift.

[Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)]

Right, Ill put my reasonings for approving of the original PR here:

- Giving dragable structures slowdown gives some upgrades/tools some actual use for their actual job. RND can make Bluespace Lockers (I dont know if these have slowdown, but I'd be fine with removing it from these these are confirmed to have no slowdown) or they can just put mats in a duffle bag. Cargo has an RCS and you have a few options (Disposals Delivery/MULEs) other than dragging crates to their destination of you so desire. If Paramedics need to mass-body-retrieve, they have an ambulance (which can get VTEC) to drag without slowdown.

- For the second point, this was the exact same argument for nearly every combat balance change ever and frankly, it holds negative water especially on Paradise. Change is hated and I would rather see changes done and maybe reverted than not trying them in fear of "community backlash". I dont want to be the guy saying "players are bad at balance" but players in Para are VERY bad at balance sometimes, hence why we arent ruled by "community input" for changes (see Combat Rework, NewCrit, and any semi-controversial change ever).

- The only people who used locker dragging in combat were already robust players. If used in lowpop, you basically forced 1v1s which you could use to systematically take out anyone chasing you. 357/Ebow + locker was quite literally the most unfun shit to fight to the point where I would just make grenades to fight it cause fuck that. As always, if you dont want to deal with disablers, use stealth more. 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".

[Proposed Change to Silicon Policy: The AI and Borgs are NOT Security]

If you notice an AI is bolting your fellow Antagonists, simply go kill the AI. Just like you can kill Security Officers/Validhunters as an Antagonist, the AI can be punished for sticking its nose into your crimes.

Enough Iron + Uranium and/or ahelping about using explosives and AIs quickly stop messing with you. That, or they get carded and wiped/lathe'd.

[Make all development channels visible on the discord]

2 hours ago, Bmon said:

You definitely missed a few there.

You are free to put in the time to find them yourself, then.

[Hijacker sop or spacelaw update.]

Hijacking is an action, not really a “crime”.

Most hijackers attempt this by either Murdering people (so Murder under Space Law) or by holding the Shuttle Bridge (Major Trespass) with their various traitor items (Contraband Charge) which would make them an EoC.

This is splitting hairs over a technicality and it’s a main reason why we absolutely loathe people rules/Law lawyering for cases that by the SPIRIT (and frankly, the Letter) of the Law are absolutely and obviously illegal.

[Design Idea: Lavaland Adventuring Overhaul]

DISCORD DISCUSSION: https://discord.com/channels/145533722026967040/145700319819464704/1063239326013599844

For the Original Post: https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/discussions/20164

I AM POSTING THIS HERE AS NOT EVERYONE CHECKS GIT/CODING CHAT, AND WOULD LIKE MORE INPUT FROM PLAYERS. This will only have the base-level ideas and not be fully fleshed out mechanically.
See the Git Discussion for more up-to-date discussions and mechanical specifics.

Currently, Lavaland is in this odd state of power-escalation, speedrunning for loot/tendrils and VERY solo-minded mechanics surrounded by a passive-mining system. There is minimal reason to work together with your fellow Miners/Spelunkers while adventuring, and even DOWNSIDES to working together to fight Megafauna/Tendrils/etc. The idea behind this document is to change Lavaland from a "collect the shiny toys by myself" to a system that encourages players to work together instead of nearly strangling eachother when one player "rushes all the good stuff".

Issues with the Current System

• There is no way to share kills of Megafauna/Fauna between KC and KPA users.
• There is no "reset" mechanic that players can activate when all of a certain Megafauna are dead (think BotW's Blood Moons).
• There is no "progressive" tree for KPA users other than going to Science for upgrades. Likewise, there is no way for ALL KC users to progress at the same rate as not all trophies can be acquired, leading to people "speedrunning".
• There is no defensive progression to go through other than going from [Miner Suit > Drake Armor > HECK Suit].
• KC Trophies are all RNG-based to drop, rather than something you can farm via crafting from killing (mega)faunas.
• There are minimal QoL items on Lavaland's loot table that help on Lavaland, most are "antag/overpowered" items (meat hook, eye of god, cursed heart, inferno, warp cubes, dark blessing, and cult items) or are VERY old designs that are nothing more than shiny trinkets due to how outclassed they are by basic tools (Paradox Bags, diamond pickaxe, KA modkits, lava boat, possessed sword, lifesteal crystal, and the immortality crystal).

Issues with Progression

I personally break this into four issues:
- KPA Progression
- KC Progression
- Defensive Progression
- QoL Progression

KPA Progression

This one is rather simple. I do like the idea of this staying locked behind Science/RND. I would personally want the modkits to be removed from the Mining Vendors and placed solely within RND. This causes there to be a symbiotic relationship between miners playing safe early to ensure Science is given mats and items to ensure they can get their KPAs upgraded.

I would also like to see a more "attachment" based upgrade system, kind of like the KC so that it steps away from the "percentage based" system that is currently in the game as well as moving it from a "spam click" gameplay loop to a semi-reloadable system (think the Adamant Rail gun from Hades, with infinite ammo but a "reload")

Examples could be:
- Bayonet Upgrades (for better close-range melee)
- Fire Rate
- Magazine Size
- Movement Abilities (think the KC's dash trophy)
- AoE Mods
- "Beam" Mods (to allow you to hit 3 layers of rock in front of you)
- Etc Etc Etc

KC Progression

For the KC, I would like to move from an RNG-based full-drop system to a "crafting" system. You are choosing to go melee, a semi-tribal method using technology to assist you. Some of the trophies are VERY neat, and are probably some of the most enjoyable gameplay moments ive had in SS13's minimal PvE environment. But, the fact you need to speedrun to the Blood Drunk Miner to have a chance to get their trophy is rather rough. Below I will list a few ideas to change how the KC goes through its upgrade path:

- KC Trophies are made through the crafting menu from "salvaged" parts of creatures and plants around Lavaland. You can "skin" any killed faunas with the KC for "rare" materials used only in Trophy creation(see below for how skinning becomes a QoL progression). You would then combine these items with other items you collect to make the different Trophies.
(i.e. > [Watcher Sinew x4 + Plant Fibres x2 + Watcher Wings (R) x2 == Watcher Trophy])
This would allow KC and KPA users to work together and trade items theyve "farmed" to encourage teamwork (and hell, you could ask people to pay for 'em)
- KC Trophies should not be locked behind KC-only combat. We should be encouraging players to work together as teams to take down Megas (think melee vs ranged DPS in an MMO).
- KCs should be able to melee-parry, to reduce full dependence on the BDM Eye trophy.

Defensive Progresion

One of the sorriest and most overlooked parts of Lavaland I feel is crafting. You have a whole list of Tribal items that really only have a use to Ashwalkers. I would like to expand this system as the main "goal" of Lavaland. Your survival knife goes from an underused melee attachment to your KPA and becomes a "skinning tool" to collect items and drops from your kills on Lavaland to be used to craft progressively helpful armor. For example, the progression system could look like this:

[Explorer Suit > Reinforced Explorer Suit (via bones/goliath plates > Adventurer's Suit (add Goliath Cloak for Storm Protection with the hood up) > Adventurer's Armor (add Drake Scales for higher defense) > etc etc.]

This entire system would mirror the KC Trophy crafting system and have recipes you'd need to farm to get.

This might seem like a scary thing to balance, but if it incorporates Lavaland items, we can introduce a "brittle" system that "nerfs" Lavaland items on Station to be on-par with Station-found items.

QoL Progression
Things such as healing, ore gathering, scanner upgrades, explorer mesh storage slots, etc can all be feasibly upgradable using Lavaland as a focus instead of locking it behind tendril loot only.

Other QoL ideas are some sort of on-Base Ore Deposit that sends to the ORM along with a stationary Mining Drill that you can place on Lavaland for passive material gain.

[NOTE: I NEED TO THINK MORE ON THIS]

Issues with Tendril Loot

To start, I would like to COMPLETELY remove the "breaking a tendril opens a chasm" mechanic. Instead, you can "salvage/mine" materials needed for crafting from the tendril, causing it to become dormant for a certain amount of time. You can either wait it out, or reinvigorate it with some kind of "restart item" (probably something you can craft with LL plants and a legion core). This prevents full round removal AND gives a reason to have "nests" all over LL that dont TRULY go away.

[NOTE: I WILL EXPAND ON THIS, BUT THINKING AT WORK IS DISRUPTIVE]

Ash Walkers

With a full revamp of defensive/offensive/QoL items being more Lavaland-derived, this would allow for the Ashwalkers to be a good "testing ground" for dead players/observers to spawn in and try to "climb the tech tree" of progression.

Instead of the "Base Armor" being an explorer suit, they can craft the usual "Bone Armor" as their base option.

Spears could be crafted into a tribal version of a KC, using the power of the Necropolis to empower their hits/give special effects. This would also encourage Miners to trade/fight the Ash Walkers for a chance to use a different toy.

[THIS ALSO NEEDS SOME MORE FLESHING OUT, AHHHHHHHHH IDEAS]

[ID Laws]

I tend to follow the rule of "I can REQUEST they show ID, but they dont have to WEAR it". Refusing to show ID at all, however, would be a 200 - Workplace Hazard.

[Update Drug Possession Laws? - 103 Drug Possession - Gap in the law being exploited.]

10 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

we're talking about the charge of Drug Possession being used on someone who is ONLY under the influence, not doing anything else. Its a bit of a non-argument to pretend that everyone who takes drugs in the game for RP or other reasons is going to be a nuisance (thats why specific laws exist for different actions?).

If I was using drugs at my workplace, I'd be fired. If you use drugs on the Station, you get brigged. I personally dont see the need to differentiate between use and possession in regards to Space Law. Both actions should get you brigged. And we do not really need to bloat Space Law to do so. Arguing that having it IN YOUR SYSTEM versus IN YOUR POCKET are different becomes an argument of semantics when at the end of the day NT does not want you doing drugs on their station, period.

OOCly, there is a very easy solution: just dont do meth? If youre a non-antag, there literally no reason to have OR use it. If you ARE using it (outside of Science or Botany) youre likely breaking SoP anyway too. Methheads or crackheads or whatever flavor of RP you can think of are ALSO a thing that we dont really want here. Youre supposed to be RPing as a functional member of the Station who would logically get hired to do a job. I cant think of any Science/Research center that's gonna be regularly employing meth addcits.

[Update Drug Possession Laws? - 103 Drug Possession - Gap in the law being exploited.]

There is an immense difference between being Assaulted (as per Space Law) by getting injected with meth and USING meth to be a nuisance to Crew and Security.

Meth in game has VERY distinct characteristics. Meth use itself can get you lethal’d by Security as per Space Law if you’re committing other crimes. I don’t personally believe it is much of a stretch to Brig someone for Drug Possession when they’re actively using meth openly on the Station.

Also, this is not real life. Of course there is “over-policing”, you work for a company that does not give a single damn about your rights and sees you as a tool to make money. They do not care for crime rates or rehabilitation. They see someone wasting time by running about high on drugs and tosses them into the Brig. The Law is VERY clear that meth counts as one of the drugs prohibited: “To possess space drugs, ambrosia, krokodil, crank, meth, aranesp, bath salts, THC, or other narcotics, by unauthorized personnel.” This case, if I recall, was an ASSISTANT, someone who in no way has permissions to even touch meth, running about on said substance.

Given how much of an absolute pain meth is to deal with ICly, I have no issues with people being brigged for meth use and would, as long as I was not in the round playing, agree as such if a Magistrate faxed us for CC’s opinion. It’s been my understanding that this has always been the case, at least for the past 4ish years.

[The State of Space Law]

I would like to note that, as the person who made the Lethal Force chart, that the intention of the “yellow zone” IS that you can lethal them, but really shouldn’t be shooting them till they husk. If I have to tap the “Lethals != Field Execution” sign more often I’m going to get it tattooed to my forehead and just start slamming my head into a desk.

If people are shooting to husk more often than they are shooting to maim, that’s an issue that can be solved both ICly as well as OOCly. But, and I say this with a large majority of my time in Security recently, that is not something I see happening enough to warrant extreme anger at Security as a whole.
 

There is nothing MAKING a player shoot officers with a 357 or grabbing a desword or using adrenals. You can do every single goal minus the NAD and perhaps Warden’s Gloves completely stealthily with enough prep and disguise work. If you threaten an Officer’s life you should expect just the same threat in return. Winning should be decided off a merit of skill and preparation, not off some odd honor code that most new Officers don’t know of and most antagonists laugh about as they kill the fourth Seccie that shift.

[unreasonable way to deal with rulebreaking [abydos2]]

I would like to note that your throw-away attitude toward Abydos (who’s takes I both fully support and agree with) doesn’t exactly paint the best light over your intentions for this AC.

They did not ignore what you said, they provided the evidence we as three GAs and a TA had used while discussing your removal from the server. You have a poor attitude both in our Community as well as others in the past few years, to the point where contributors, other Staff, and general players had complained. This culminated in you being removed from our Discord and then proceeding to break multiple server Rules and getting banned from the game server as well.

Instead of going on some Abydos-is-a-shitmin crusade, perhaps notice how I had stated exactly what Abydos had said in your appeal (albeit more concisely since I’m not re-diving for logs that he had already pulled) and you seemingly having zero issues at all with them. Had the roles been reversed, you would have been given the exact same punishment and had your appeal denied from myself instead of Abydos. 

[unreasonable way to deal with rulebreaking [abydos2]]

Simply to include all the relevant information, I’ll be adding a few bits of information.

One, I was the one who sent the IC response to (yet another) Cargonia moment. You had, at the time, ordered guns and SWAT gear for no other reason than to “defend Cargo”. This is a playstyle that lost its comedy about 7 years ago. Given it was a lowpop round with Security busy dealing with a HoP Vampire and his now-AA-wielding friends, we decided to deal with the IC issue of Cargo arming itself with a CC-sent Team as to not interrupt every other players’ immersion in the round by wordlessly smiting you.

Two, you had absolutely zero reason to shoot members of Central Command for coming to demote/disarm you and your Cargo Techs. They asked you to come with them for demotion, and to lay down your weapons. You very well could have dropped the guns, seen what you were doing as something problematic, and walked away demoted and with nothing more than a small note about being overzealous about “defending Cargo”. But instead, you chose to self-antag and shoot Central-sent Officers to near death. Imagine if you had done this to normal Security Officers? You cannot with any semblance of good faith tell me this would be acceptable either by our Rules or any semblance of logical RP that we allow on this server.

Three, IC action and OOC punishment are not mutually exclusive. We are fully allowed to deal with issues hand-in-hand. Having IC actions taken against you does NOT give our approval for your actions. There was no ahelp to ask if you could completely ignore the Chain of Command nor did you have a justifiable reason to do so. Instead, you sit here attempting to dictate how us as Admins are allowed to do our jobs when you yourself show zero knowledge of even our simplest of Rules.

 

Given your history both on our server and others over the years, I can only really agree with Abydos’s take that you simply do not care to follow the Rules on the servers you join. Had Aby not been in the round, I would have done exactly the same as they had and banned you afterwards as well. Given three (four perhaps, I don’t recall if Samm was on at the time still) GAs agreed that a ban was justified at the time only cements the idea that we believed you to be a detriment to the server overall.

[The State of Space Law]

14 hours ago, Joey said:

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.

One thing I see a lot around the discussion of lethal-use as Security is a bit of a "rules for we but not for thee" argument. Do note this was not originally my take, but something that @necaladun has pretty much stated every time I've asked questions about lethality in regards to rulings in game: why should Security be expected to roll over and die to any antagonist on Station? The end-outcome of any antagonist stunning you is most likely death. The only reason some people leave Officers alive and dont just toolbox in their face is a sense of community-decided "rules of honor", otherwise Server Rules wise theyre free to do so. Limiting Security's ability to deal with life-threatening weapons (and this includes all stun based ones) turns it into a game of fear over "am I going to get bwoinked for ICly trying not to die?".

14 hours ago, Joey said:

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. 

I actually do like this idea, but again, slamming someone down to -140HP and them surviving due to medical treatment should be considered the same. I can in theory survive getting 357'd, but if a weapon is in play you fall into the same "rules for we but not for thee" issue as I stated above. Security should not be afraid of dealing with antagonists, antagonists should be afraid and having to plan around dealing with Security. You are on THEIR Station, not the other way around.

14 hours ago, Joey said:

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.

Stims/CNS/Adrenals/Meth/etc are all designed around being lethal'd. If you have anti-stun, youre going to get shot/beat to near-crit. This has been the case for years and I doubt will change ever.

14 hours ago, Joey said:

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.

Do note that in theory situations that antags should be mass-murdering Officers and running about openly with uplink gear/full power vamps/changelings in unga mode should ALSO be rare. People SHOULD be doing things stealthily and trying to fly under Security's radar as to not have them escalate on you. But, many people find that playstyle boring. As such, if more people are doing unga-mode lethalable actions, the amount and frequency of lethals will follow suit.

 

Would I like there to be less "unga lethal kill both sides 24/7" when playing Sec and antagonists? Yes. But its a circular issue that works from both ends that wont be solved by just changing Space Law. If only Security is looked at, then nobody will want to deal with playing with their hands tied behind their back while antagonists get to slam 357s into forheads.