[POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

For feedback on the game code and design. Feedback on server rules and playstyle belong in Policy Discussion.

re-add trekchems with downsides

yes
35
19%
yes
25
14%
yes
25
14%
no
35
19%
no
30
17%
no
30
17%
 
Total votes: 180

User avatar
iamgoofball
Github User
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm
Byond Username: Iamgoofball
Github Username: Iamgoofball

[POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by iamgoofball » #64928

the 4 flagship trekchems will only come back under these conditions:
they have overdosing effects
they have addiction effects
they have downsides

this puts them in line with the other chems

potential:
maybe locked to a special r&d beaker
Last edited by peoplearestrange on Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: title edit for [poll]
User avatar
Not-Dorsidarf
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday

Re: re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Not-Dorsidarf » #64935

Voted no because "flagship trekchems with overdosing effects, downsides, and addictions" is pretty much just saying "I will make the current chemicals apply on ingestion".
Image
Image
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: โ†‘Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please. ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿ–•
User avatar
AnonymousNow
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:41 pm
Byond Username: AnonymousNow
Location: Neptune

Re: re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by AnonymousNow » #64936

Make them the beginners' chemicals.

Easy to make. Relatively difficult to overdose on. Relatively difficult to get addicted to.

But also weak. Good for surface scratches, or if you have small amounts of damage on multiple limbs, but if you need any significant healing beyond that you'll need either a doctor or a more potent and complicated medicine and/or mixture.

There. Done. Fixed.
Hornygranny wrote:It's not your codebase. It's our codebase. You can imply soft power as much as you want, but you don't have it. Division between the server and project is absolute. I'm not interested in reading dezzmont platitudes for the billionth time and won't be checking back in this thread.
Image

Image
Spoiler:
~Simplified for the sake of Wyzack's delicate feelings~
Fuck anti-roleplay suggestions and fuck Bay.

Xenomorphs a shit.
Alex Crimson
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm
Byond Username: Dazbuzz

Re: re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Alex Crimson » #64940

Dont really see the point. Whats the current issue with healing? I thought it was all fine. If there is a problem, just re-add Bruise Packs and Ointment to Medkits.
User avatar
iamgoofball
Github User
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm
Byond Username: Iamgoofball
Github Username: Iamgoofball

Re: re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by iamgoofball » #64941

Alex Crimson wrote:Dont really see the point. Whats the current issue with healing? I thought it was all fine. If there is a problem, just re-add Bruise Packs and Ointment to Medkits.
paprika has you covered there
Alex Crimson
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm
Byond Username: Dazbuzz

Re: re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Alex Crimson » #64947

iamgoofball wrote:
Alex Crimson wrote:Dont really see the point. Whats the current issue with healing? I thought it was all fine. If there is a problem, just re-add Bruise Packs and Ointment to Medkits.
paprika has you covered there
Yeah, buried in a Bleeding mechanic PR that has over 100 comments and still isnt merged/closed.

But really, has there been any reason to re-add the old chems now?
User avatar
DemonFiren
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:15 pm
Byond Username: DemonFiren

Re: re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by DemonFiren » #65094

Yeah, the overwhelming majority.
Image
Image
Image
ImageImageImageImageImage

non-lizard things:
Spoiler:
Image
Cipher3
In Game PermaBanned
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:17 pm
Byond Username: Cipher3

Re: re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Cipher3 » #65373

DemonFiren wrote:Yeah, the overwhelming majority.
Except not on this poll.
Spoiler:
Nathanael Greene has made a woman of Bryce Pax!

Valerie Sinnet says, "Nathaniel Greene charged the brig with a fucking HONK."

[Common] Assists-the-Crew hisses, "Walker Quinn s-s-s-ss-stole the HoP's-s-s-ss-s door"

OOC: HotelBravoLima: I literally can't be removed from power.


I demand this ban be lifted right now. ~Bibliodewangus

Erin Wake whispers, "You should ready up on Badger and boink with me..."

"I think you guys are just tired of drinking hitler and now you want diet hitler.
I've got all that great hitler flavor but only half the hitler calories." - Anon3

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that PR matters. ~MisterPerson

DEAD: Ichigo Momomiya says, "Coravin's just an ass."

Linus Johnson says, "Hey you know I got this game Skyrim last week"
Linus Johnson says, "I have a level 19 ranger and its so fun"
Weston Zadovsky says, "did he just"
Weston Zadovsky says, "fucking hell"

The emergency shuttle has been called. It will arrive in 10 minutes.
Nature of emergency:
Coravin, just Coravin.

Beryl Nyuphoran says, "Fucking get out."
Coravin Vattes asks, "Please?"
Beryl Nyuphoran says, "Please get the fuck outta my lab."
Coravin Vattes exclaims, "Okay!"
[Common] Beryl Nyuphoran {RD} asks, "WHO GAVE CORAVIN ALL ACCESS?"

Lindsay Donk stammers, "L-Luc-ck w-was-s-s s-s-such-h a beaut-tifu p-p-p-pr-r-rom-m q-q-q-queen"

Ty Andrews curls up in a ball on the floor and purrs.

by oranges ยป Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:15 pm
Get out bluespace, you've not been relevant since you lost the elections

That said, I think there are a shitton of degenerates here and I'd probably gas the lot of you if I had the chance. ~Loonikus


Image
lumipharon
TGMC Administrator
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:40 am
Byond Username: Lumipharon

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by lumipharon » #65374

That's because this poll is
Yes: Bring 4 old chems back, only goonified
or
No: Don't bring them back at all.
soulgamer
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:21 am
Byond Username: Soulgamergod

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by soulgamer » #65379

Voted no because I would rather not have the old chems back then have them back and be fucking useless.
User avatar
Babin
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:47 am
Byond Username: Babin

Re: re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Babin » #65443

Cipher3 wrote:
DemonFiren wrote:Yeah, the overwhelming majority.
Except not on this poll.
This poll is asking for people to choose which poison they want to swallow.
User avatar
paprika
Rarely plays
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
Byond Username: Paprka
Location: in down bad

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by paprika » #65447

It doesn't matter what you name them, honestly, I'd rather not have trekchem if we're stuck with this stupid system.
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.
User avatar
WeeYakk
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:33 am
Byond Username: Yakk

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by WeeYakk » #65451

Where's the bring them back without downsides option?
Image
Raven776
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:51 pm
Byond Username: Raven776

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Raven776 » #65453

One of these days I'll invest the time to learn how the new chem system works. As there's no wiki that I can easily find, it won't be this day.
Bombadil
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:23 am
Byond Username: Kromgar

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Bombadil » #65458

Raven776 wrote:One of these days I'll invest the time to learn how the new chem system works. As there's no wiki that I can easily find, it won't be this day.
Are you fucking retarded? There is a fucking wiki button on the main page of tgstation13.org
Planet Station Best Station

Vote Planetstation and Kor Phaeron 2017
User avatar
Saegrimr
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
Byond Username: Saegrimr

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Saegrimr » #65482

There's like 15 fucking polls about this already that all lead to the same thing.

Stop making polls that aren't going to mean shit because nobody will act on them anyway.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
specyalic
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:41 am
Byond Username: Specyalic

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by specyalic » #65493

if only there was someway we could make people listen
User avatar
Deantwo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:57 pm
Byond Username: Deantwo

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Deantwo » #65508

Bombadil wrote:
Raven776 wrote:One of these days I'll invest the time to learn how the new chem system works. As there's no wiki that I can easily find, it won't be this day.
Are you fucking retarded? There is a fucking wiki button on the main page of tgstation13.org
Yeah I am tired of people using this as an excuse!
There is even a button ingame that opens the freaking wiki.

And clearly no one has even looked at the wiki recently because I (and others) did indeed update it with the new chemicals:
https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Guide_to_medicine
https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Guide_to_chemistry

With that said, this poll is useless.
It can't be answered with just a yes or no.

I can see overdosing is a way to balance the "just pump 1000 units of super chemicals into me and i can't die lol".
But you didn't even mention or hint at that that is the reason you wanna do that.
So many of the polls I see on the chemistry topic are so binary that it's not even funny.
EXPLAIN your reasoning so people that don't follow you all over the internet actually know what your trying to do and why.
lumipharon
TGMC Administrator
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:40 am
Byond Username: Lumipharon

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by lumipharon » #65521

But this is actually an issue where is canbe binary. Many, many people DO NOT WANT goonchem. It is not explicitly one part of it that they would like changed, it is the overall system, which was built for, and designed with goonstation in mind.
User avatar
Deantwo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:57 pm
Byond Username: Deantwo

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Deantwo » #65523

lumipharon wrote:But this is actually an issue where is canbe binary. Many, many people DO NOT WANT goonchem. It is not explicitly one part of it that they would like changed, it is the overall system, which was built for, and designed with goonstation in mind.
Yeah, but no matter rather we keep the GoonChem changes or not, we will still be working on making it our own system.
Question is, how much of the code need to be scraped and how much can be re-used. Which is why I made a poll to try and find the issue.

I am sure that if the work "GoonChem" has never been used, few people would be complaining.
And from my poll it seems that people most of all don't like that the names of the chemicals changed.

Anyway, going to go change my poll a little I think.
User avatar
paprika
Rarely plays
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:20 pm
Byond Username: Paprka
Location: in down bad

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by paprika » #65549

WeeYakk wrote:Where's the bring them back without downsides option?
Oldman Robustin wrote:It's an established meme that coders don't play this game.
dezzmont
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:07 pm
Byond Username: Dezzmont

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by dezzmont » #65590

Deantwo wrote:
lumipharon wrote:But this is actually an issue where is canbe binary. Many, many people DO NOT WANT goonchem. It is not explicitly one part of it that they would like changed, it is the overall system, which was built for, and designed with goonstation in mind.
Yeah, but no matter rather we keep the GoonChem changes or not, we will still be working on making it our own system.
Are you actually saying goonchem will not be reverted no matter what?
User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint
Location: The Armoury

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Steelpoint » #65593

Coderbus has said that they will (from what I've read) not accept a revert of Goon Chem.
Image
User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint
Location: The Armoury

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Steelpoint » #65594

I should say its a very controversial change and "some" headcoders have stated that they don't want it reverted, but some do.

Essentially its a clusterfuck with no one taking leadership of the situation and everyone is essentially just rolling with it.
Image
User avatar
Deantwo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:57 pm
Byond Username: Deantwo

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Deantwo » #65640

dezzmont wrote:
Deantwo wrote:
lumipharon wrote:But this is actually an issue where is canbe binary. Many, many people DO NOT WANT goonchem. It is not explicitly one part of it that they would like changed, it is the overall system, which was built for, and designed with goonstation in mind.
Yeah, but no matter rather we keep the GoonChem changes or not, we will still be working on making it our own system.
Are you actually saying goonchem will not be reverted no matter what?
I don't speak for anyone on coderbus, I just don't want to see the code go to waste.
Guess I fear what Paprka was trying to do, a mega revert PullRequest that breaks more than it fixes.

Some of the changes could be changed back to how it was before maybe, but I don't think we will see a total revert of everything done over the last month.
dezzmont
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:07 pm
Byond Username: Dezzmont

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by dezzmont » #65791

Deantwo wrote: Guess I fear what Paprka was trying to do, a mega revert PullRequest that breaks more than it fixes.
I hope you realize how much this damages coder-player relations.

"We can't revert this! It is too early to see what will happen!" really rings hollow when a month later we get "We can't revert this! It will break things because it has been around too long."

I get that it isn't your primary reason for opposing a revert, I really honestly do, but just as a bit of a tip, this shouldn't even be part of the argument if the primary argument against a revert was "It needs time for people to like it."
Bombadil
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:23 am
Byond Username: Kromgar

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Bombadil » #65799

Coderbase: We'll give you what you want but we will fuck you up the ass with a tree stump. That makes everything better right?
Planet Station Best Station

Vote Planetstation and Kor Phaeron 2017
miggles
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:02 am
Byond Username: Miggles
Contact:

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by miggles » #65833

this isnt even giving us what we want its just a horrible, thinly veiled attempt at making people shut up about reverting goonchem
when paprika already made a pr reverting it before (which was closed to be polled again)
which really is the best option imo, goonchem is a huge mess and its only being backed by two highly biased people
dezzmont wrote:I am one of sawrge's alt accounts
dezzmont wrote:sawrge has it right.
Connor wrote:miggles is correct though
Bombadil
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:23 am
Byond Username: Kromgar

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Bombadil » #65907

I will not be satisfied with this thinly veiled attempt to pacify the playerbase you hsould of just mixed goon chems and regular chems together to add more gameplay elements rather than swiftly and quickly change the game
Planet Station Best Station

Vote Planetstation and Kor Phaeron 2017
Allohsnackbar
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:00 pm

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Allohsnackbar » #65909

Voted No, because there is no "Revert Goonchem entirely option"
miggles
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:02 am
Byond Username: Miggles
Contact:

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by miggles » #66082

how about just bring back tgchem alongside goonchem :^)
like you should have kept in the fucking first place :^^^)))))
dezzmont wrote:I am one of sawrge's alt accounts
dezzmont wrote:sawrge has it right.
Connor wrote:miggles is correct though
User avatar
OliveOil
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:02 pm
Byond Username: VirginiaXl
Location: where the monkeys laugh

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by OliveOil » #68216

I don't understand why goonchem hasn't been reverted yet. There's been massive backlash everywhere and only a handful of people are insistent on it.
As for the poll: if you're gonna bring the chems back, bring them the way they were.
User avatar
Stickymayhem
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
Byond Username: Stickymayhem

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Stickymayhem » #68225

Because coderbus is seperate from tgstation and entirely unaccountable.

Nothing short of direct intervention by scaredy or insane devotion from a headmin will change this relationship and that will likely never happen
Image
Image
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
Super Aggro Crag wrote: โ†‘Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:17 pm Dont engage with sticky he's a subhuman
User avatar
DemonFiren
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:15 pm
Byond Username: DemonFiren

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by DemonFiren » #68227

Another reason for us to switch to Ba...no, nevermind.
Image
Image
Image
ImageImageImageImageImage

non-lizard things:
Spoiler:
Image
User avatar
Saegrimr
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
Byond Username: Saegrimr

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Saegrimr » #68228

Stickymayhem wrote:Because coderbus is seperate from tgstation and entirely unaccountable.
Is this the meme of the week? The code being unrelated to the game?
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
User avatar
Deantwo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:57 pm
Byond Username: Deantwo

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Deantwo » #68231

This thread (and poll) was started very poorly explained.
So this thread should probably just be locked.
User avatar
OliveOil
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:02 pm
Byond Username: VirginiaXl
Location: where the monkeys laugh

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by OliveOil » #68232

Just like goonchem, amirite :^)
User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint
Location: The Armoury

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Steelpoint » #68234

OliveOil wrote:Just like goonchem, amirite :^)
Sick burn.

On topic I think a interesting course of action would be for someone to put up a revert PR and see how the maintainers react, its clear that Goon Chem is one of the most heavily disliked changes to the game in a very long time, I have to wonder if the maintainers are willing aggravate the player base even more by denying it being reverted.
Image
User avatar
Deantwo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:57 pm
Byond Username: Deantwo

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Deantwo » #68238

OliveOil wrote:Just like goonchem, amirite :^)
Let me redirect you.
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2806
Since I don't believe that anyone really hates all of the new chemistry changes.

If you don't want the game to ever change, your playing the wrong game or should just set your own server with an older (and never changing) version.
User avatar
Not-Dorsidarf
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Not-Dorsidarf » #68240

Even the Maintainer's Messiah couldn't revert goonchem.
https://github.com/tgstation/-tg-station/pull/7515
Image
Image
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: โ†‘Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please. ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿ–•
User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint
Location: The Armoury

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Steelpoint » #68241

Deantwo wrote:
OliveOil wrote:Just like goonchem, amirite :^)
Let me redirect you.
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2806
Since I don't believe that anyone really hates all of the new chemistry changes.

If you don't want the game to ever change, your playing the wrong game or should just set your own server with an older (and never changing) version.
That is a worse poll than this threads poll. Always use the ideology of KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Having 13 different poll options, of which you can vote multiple times, is unreliable and ineffective.

Not to mention that the options with the largest votes are against the changes (Removeal of BruisePacks/Ointment, Goon Chem overall, Copying Goon, etc)
Image
User avatar
Not-Dorsidarf
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Not-Dorsidarf » #68244

I reiterate my point - If Paprika, with two landslide pro-removal polls as evidence, couldn't get goonchem removed and prompted a response from hg that "We're not removing goonchem", then it's simply not going to happen.
Image
Image
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: โ†‘Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please. ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿ–•
dezzmont
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:07 pm
Byond Username: Dezzmont

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by dezzmont » #68250

Deantwo wrote:This thread (and poll) was started very poorly explained.
So this thread should probably just be locked.
Or maybe don't lock threads because you are upset people are pointing out this is a false dichotomy.

The feedback in the thread is valid, people don't like either option and are shoving in your face that they think presenting this as an either or issue while deliberately leaving out what they want is a sleazy move. It may be unpleasant but it is a completely valid and fair response to this thread.
User avatar
OliveOil
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:02 pm
Byond Username: VirginiaXl
Location: where the monkeys laugh

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by OliveOil » #68259

Deantwo wrote:
OliveOil wrote:Just like goonchem, amirite :^)
If you don't want the game to ever change, your playing the wrong game or should just set your own server with an older (and never changing) version.
You can do better than this... I never said anything about changes in general.
This change, this particular one, was poorly done.
And adding ole chems (and even then, different) and pretending that it will fix anything is silly.
You can make dozens more polls, but it's not like you don't know why people dislike goonchem and what would be the best course of action.
User avatar
Stickymayhem
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
Byond Username: Stickymayhem

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Stickymayhem » #68262

Saegrimr wrote:
Stickymayhem wrote:Because coderbus is seperate from tgstation and entirely unaccountable.
Is this the meme of the week? The code being unrelated to the game?
This has always been the case. Officially coderbus is unaccountable and separate. I'm not saying it isn't retarded, I'm saying this is what their total power over the game is based in.

As I've said multiple times I'm pretty much apathetic at this point.
Image
Image
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
Super Aggro Crag wrote: โ†‘Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:17 pm Dont engage with sticky he's a subhuman
User avatar
Deantwo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:57 pm
Byond Username: Deantwo

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Deantwo » #68266

OliveOil wrote:And adding ole chems (and even then, different) and pretending that it will fix anything is silly.
I don't care about this poll, as it was never clearly stated what was actually gonna be added and changed.
And I don't see a reason to re-add the chems anyway.
OliveOil wrote:You can make dozens more polls, but it's not like you don't know why people dislike goonchem and what would be the best course of action.
I am slow and dyslexic. That along with the fact people having different opinions about it doesn't make it easy.

Everything I have read suggests that people just don't like change, or the fact that it resembles what is on GoonStation.
I have never played on GoonStation, so I really could care less about that.

A few seemed to say that they miss the task of targeting limbs with healing, and some seem to just miss the instant healing.
Most people seem to just be annoyed with the names of chemicals changes, meaning they don't wanna re-learn it all.

But what is this best course of action you speak of? (Don't say "revert it")
dezzmont
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:07 pm
Byond Username: Dezzmont

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by dezzmont » #68267

Deantwo wrote:
OliveOil wrote:And adding ole chems (and even then, different) and pretending that it will fix anything is silly.
I don't care about this poll, as it was never clearly stated what was actually gonna be added and changed.
And I don't see a reason to re-add the chems anyway.
OliveOil wrote:You can make dozens more polls, but it's not like you don't know why people dislike goonchem and what would be the best course of action.
I am slow and dyslexic. That along with the fact people having different opinions about it doesn't make it easy.

Everything I have read suggests that people just don't like change, or the fact that it resembles what is on GoonStation.
I have never played on GoonStation, so I really could care less about that.

A few seemed to say that they miss the task of targeting limbs with healing, and some seem to just miss the instant healing.

But what is this best course of action you speak of? (Don't say revert it)
You don't care about this poll because people have refused to buy into your false dichotomy.

You don't see a reason to re-add chems? People have given plenty of reasons. And at the end of the day it is super fucked up that you feel your desires trump everyone else's.

I am dyslexic as well but I know that your polls have consistently been deceptive. I managed to read the forums and evaluate the feedback. If you are saying you are slow then you shouldn't be allowed to do what you are doing. If you can't gather data stop trying and hand it off to someone who has taken the time and energy to read through it. If you admit you are incapable playing the sympathy card just makes you look like an idiot.

What you have read is that the change has been nearly universally panned as being really poorly thought out with very unclear design goals that just serves to make everything more frustrating and less intuitive. Pretending the logic hasn't been layed out in front of you doesn't make everyone forget they explained it to you.

The best course of action is to revert it. Sorry. I said it. The fact you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue. And saying that we can't say it even though it has never really been defended as a design choice makes you look like a toolbag.
User avatar
Deantwo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:57 pm
Byond Username: Deantwo

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Deantwo » #68269

dezzmont wrote:You don't see a reason to re-add chems? People have given plenty of reasons. And at the end of the day it is super fucked up that you feel your desires trump everyone else's.
Not really my area to decide on. But yeah, as the poll says, people don't want them anyway, right?
But iamgoodball's opening post didn't clearly state why he wanted to add downsides to the chems, which is why I think people voted no.
Whatever.
dezzmont wrote:What you have read is that the change has been nearly universally panned as being really poorly thought out with very unclear design goals that just serves to make everything more frustrating and less intuitive. Pretending the logic hasn't been layed out in front of you doesn't make everyone forget they explained it to you.
This game doesn't have any design goals, it runs by a "that's seems cool" kinda thing where the headmins have final say, as far as I understand anyway.
So are you still talking to me or to all the coders?
dezzmont wrote:The best course of action is to revert it. Sorry. I said it. The fact you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue. And saying that we can't say it even though it has never really been defended as a design choice makes you look like a toolbag.
It's been said that it won't be reverted. So saying that the best cause of action is to revert it is pointless.
User avatar
OliveOil
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:02 pm
Byond Username: VirginiaXl
Location: where the monkeys laugh

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by OliveOil » #68272

Deantwo wrote: I am slow and dyslexic. That along with the fact people having different opinions about it doesn't make it easy.

Everything I have read suggests that people just don't like change, or the fact that it resembles what is on GoonStation.
I have never played on GoonStation, so I really could care less about that.
Suggests? Well, you haven't been reading the complaints then. It can be summarized as "I don't like it", rather than "I don't like change".
Deantwo wrote:
But what is this best course of action you speak of? (Don't say "revert it")
You just said it :^)
Seriously though, it's something that should have been discussed a lot more before being implanted.
And when it was live, we were told it'd just be for a while, that we could always revert if it was broken or no one liked it.
Yet here we are.
User avatar
Deantwo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:57 pm
Byond Username: Deantwo

Re: [POLL] re-add trekchems with downsides

Post by Deantwo » #68273

OliveOil wrote:Suggests? Well, you haven't been reading the complaints then. It can be summarized as "I don't like it", rather than "I don't like change".
"I don't like it, because it changes stuff"?
OliveOil wrote:You just said it :^)
Seriously though, it's something that should have been discussed a lot more before being implanted.
And when it was live, we were told it'd just be for a while, that we could always revert if it was broken or no one liked it.
Yet here we are.
Deantwo wrote:It's been said that it won't be reverted. So saying that the best cause of action is to revert it is pointless.
That is the reason I said not to say that the best cause of action is to revert it.

Also:

Code: Select all

if(!broken && number_of_people_who_like_it > 0)
    revert = 0
else
    revert = 1
Have to go buy 6 loafs of bread now.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users