/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Steelpoint wrote:I tried to make the pistols a SIDE GRADE to tasers, not a objective better weapon.

This game is all about having the right tools for a job. Even if pistols and tasers are equally powerful overall, having the ability to choose between them is a huge buff in that you can select the better one for any given situation.

lumipharon wrote:

Steelpoint wrote:The reason I placed these ammo restrictions on the pistol was due to people complaining that officers originally had to many magazines on offer, thus they could (try and) carry a lot of mags on them.

So I introduced some ammo restrictions.

I'll tell you all now that if I made ammo far more liberally available that people would be complaining about its prevalence and that I should nerf the amount of mags available.

That is literally my point. If it's like every other ballistic, it's far too easy to abuse via shitloads of ammo.
If you snowflake it to be more similar to a energy weapon (rearming and range limitations) then why even make it a ballistic, when it's only that in name?

You can carry around multiple guns and achieve the same effect.

You still get fucked by a single stun. It's hardly "abuse".

God you're pessimistic as fuck.

Steelpoint wrote:Seems I can't win.

It's the same fucking people making the same fucking points while completely disregarding counter arguments.

I'd ignore that kind of shit tbh.

So this is what it boils down to? really?

You went to this effort because you're a self serving gun fetishist and the gameplay comes secondary to you being able to hold something that looks like a real gun?

Gun nuts, everybody. They make all 2nd Amendment supporters look bad.

I believe that was sarcasm, Gameplay wasn't affected by this at all during the test. Not a single credible report beyond something that was found to be a pre-existing bug.

So yeah fuck off with that shit unless you have some credible example of a balance break.

Arete wrote:

Steelpoint wrote:I tried to make the pistols a SIDE GRADE to tasers, not a objective better weapon.

This game is all about having the right tools for a job. Even if pistols and tasers are equally powerful overall, having the ability to choose between them is a huge buff in that you can select the better one for any given situation.

Oh so like how Traitors can select different items for the situation or the plan they want to have?

Neat.

Why not standardize equipment choice for ops then in the name of fairness and balance?

Hey why not remove guns from ID, god forbid you have access to something situational.

Literally cannot change a single thing that doesnt make someone cry. RIP new content

Tornadium wrote:
You can carry around multiple guns and achieve the same effect.

You still get fucked by a single stun. It's hardly "abuse".

God you're pessimistic as fuck.

It's not pessimistic when it a proven example from every murderboner with a revolver or SMG ever.

Sec officers do not have access to multiple guns unless they can access the armoury.
But anyone can go to an autolathe with a stack of metal and print out a few hundred bullets that can easily be carried and stored.

Where are your counter arguments? Hell, what is the original argument?

Changing up something so significant to balance based off "I like ballistic guns" is utterly absurd.
Thinking e-shields and dual swords are OP against the weapon they are explicitly designed to counter is also absurd, but could still easily be addressed by specifically changing how reflect works etc.

I will say again.

What is this change trying to achieve?
Why is this change the best way to achive it?

lumipharon wrote:
What is this change trying to achieve?
Why is this change the best way to achive it?

To use those gun sprites that are objectively good and it's a pity to let them go to waste.
Because it's better to use those sprites for new stuff instead of a simple reskin.

Another approach would be to make the pistols R&D only, maybe with research requirement on par with stun revolvers, easy to make relatively early in the round, so officers can just hop by science and get their own pistols if they want it.

We don't need new sprites for sec guns urgently enough that we should make the game shittier in that interest.

What amuses me most about the defense of the pistols is tornadium shouting about "It's only the same handful of people who dislike this and attack it everywhere to make it look like everyone hates it!!!" - while responding to every post made by everyone and filling the entire thread with long rants defending it.

Also steelpoint apparently admitting he just wants to hold a gun sprite but that might have been a mistype or something so benefit of the doubt.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:What amuses me most about the defense of the pistols is tornadium shouting about "It's only the same handful of people who dislike this and attack it everywhere to make it look like everyone hates it!!!" - while responding to every post made by everyone and filling the entire thread with long rants defending it.

Also steelpoint apparently admitting he just wants to hold a gun sprite but that might have been a mistype or something so benefit of the doubt.

Shouting huh, I made a point that it's the same people who made the same arguments in IRC over a period of 6 hours while simply refusing to even read counter arguments or back up anything they said.

Also refusing to back up any of their claims about balance breaking with a credible example of a single imbalance or round being ruined as a result of this change over a 24 hour period.

So cut the ad hominem bullshit and come up with something backed up by fact. Right now it's basically just people saying "I don't like this change" for taste and fluff reasons and throwing out wild claims about balance being broken (Again without a single credible report of this).

Burden of proof is on one making the claim, or in this case, the change, to explain why it is needed, or good, and not going to disrupt balance.

Also I don't think you know what ad hominem means.

lumipharon wrote:
It's not pessimistic when it a proven example from every murderboner with a revolver or SMG ever.

You are pessimistic and no it's fucking not. Traitors routinely get their hands on ballistic weaponry, print ammo and end up getting killed by some shithead with a stunprod.

Sec officers do not have access to multiple guns unless they can access the armoury.
But anyone can go to an autolathe with a stack of metal and print out a few hundred bullets that can easily be carried and stored.

This is irrelevant and out of touch with usual round progression. Multiple tasers do get handed out, officers go braindead and their equipment gets taken and used by other officers.

Simply put an ammo press for the pistol ammunition in the armory.

Where are your counter arguments? Hell, what is the original argument?

We spent 6 hours going over this shit in coderbus, The same shit people posted here was challenged and they refused to back up anything they said. Most of it was just ad hominem attacking of the coder rather than the idea. The common theme was "THIS WILL BREAK EVERYTHING" but that's yet to actually happen. Feedback was semi-positive in OOC. Can you provide a single example of balance being broken? I wasn't able to. If you do want me to go write a wall of text on why what you said before is retarded in the course of a real round I can but I was asked not to turn this into quote wars.

Changing up something so significant to balance based off "I like ballistic guns" is utterly absurd.

It's not significant and was proven to not be significant in the test period. Maybe issues will pop up outside of that but if that shit didn't at least break a single round then there is no way this change is as broken as you're claiming.

That's also not the motivation.

Thinking e-shields and dual swords are OP against the weapon they are explicitly designed to counter is also absurd, but could still easily be addressed by specifically changing how reflect works etc.

This is not why this change was made in the first place, It was purely an example of something that gives sec a situational counter. The balance of sec vs everything is so fucking broken anyway that it all needs a complete overhaul.

I will say again.

What is this change trying to achieve?
Why is this change the best way to achive it?

I can't speak for Steel but the main objectives here are

- Give sec something new, The role fucking sucks as it stands. People are getting burnt out. Some variety and new equipment to switch up how security functions is not a bad thing.

- Ballistics are situationally good against certain antagonists and in certain situations, not so great in others. I like this kind of balance, side grades to suit a situation are a good thing.

- Laser weapons are shit and have been shit for a long time, every change thus far hasn't changed this fact. Sure you could go rebalance them but if you can add new equipment to security to add a bit of depth and choice to it rather than everyone being equipped exactly the same way, every.single.round then I really don't see that as a bad thing. Especially when you consider the wild claims about balance were proven to be utterly retarded

- Give traitors access to ballistics without TCs. Most may disagree but I really like the idea of targetting sec specifically to acquire the ballistic weapons, freeing up TCs for other items and switching the current traitor metagame up.

- I would argue (This isn't something that steel has said but this is my perspective) that starting out security with low-tec ballistics and having RD provide energy weapons as they're developed encourages interaction and round progression that is simply non-existant at the moment.

lumipharon wrote:Burden of proof is on one making the claim, or in this case, the change, to explain why it is needed, or good, and not going to disrupt balance.

Also I don't think you know what ad hominem means.

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"

Most of it was just arguments aimed at Steelpoint rather than talking about the actual change. Yeah I know what the fucking term means.

The test was the proof provided, you are making claims and challenges as to why this change is not needed, not good and examples of how it is going to disrupt balance.

You have failed to provide proof for the challenge you are making.

Christ sake, do you ignore everything posted?
There are clear, objective balance changes this cause - you dont need to actually have a roun to demonstrate this fact.

Adrenal implant/ling power stun break - they don't do shit against stam damage.
1 hit from a 60 stam shot leaves you at a crawl - if you get stunned by 2+ shots of this stamgun, even if you recover from the stun, you literally cannot escape because of the 90+ stam damage on you.
emp's, be they ling powers, implants, nades or whatever, are ineffective on ballistics.
e-shield and dual swords, which have been explicitly designd to counter sec's common weapons are rendered useless.

I have said this shit like 5 fucking times. These are examples of balance disruption.

lumipharon wrote:So you're saying the only benefit of the pistol pr is that sec officers will be able to shoot people with e-swords/shield?

Steelpoint wrote:Have a chance to, and that's pretty much it.

Its more a aesthetic change with some benefits.

This is literally what steelpoint has said. This answers my first question of WHAT is the aim of the change, I am still waiting for an answer to the 2nd question that isn't "change for the sake of change".

Tornadium wrote:Shouting huh, I made a point that it's the same people who made the same arguments in IRC over a period of 6 hours while simply refusing to even read counter arguments or back up anything they said.

I read your counter argument, but it comes across to me as a stream of consciousness without any relation to the point I was actually making. I didn't see any need to correct you, because I think that those in charge of deciding this matter will be able to understand the gist of my post even if you didn't. The other people who haven't replied to you probably feel the same way.

Lumi.

A Adrenal Implant removes all Stamina damage when used, I just tested this in game.

Well fuck, just looked at the code. They actually do neither.
Both adrenals simply reduce stam damage by 75.

Yeah but with the rate that stamina drains its effectivly all gone about one to two seconds after you activate the implant, I know since I checked the stamina on myself afterwards and it showed me having about 3 stamina damage a second after I activated the implant.

lumipharon wrote:Christ sake, do you ignore everything posted?
There are clear, objective balance changes this cause - you dont need to actually have a roun to demonstrate this fact.

Adrenal implant/ling power stun break - they don't do shit against stam damage.

Hey guess what they actually do shit against stam damage.

1 hit from a 60 stam shot leaves you at a crawl - if you get stunned by 2+ shots of this stamgun, even if you recover from the stun, you literally cannot escape because of the 90+ stam damage on you.

If you get hit by one taser you're down, stunned. Even if you recover from the stun you literally cannot escape if the player has eyes or hands.

emp's, be they ling powers, implants, nades or whatever, are ineffective on ballistics.
e-shield and dual swords, which have been explicitly designd to counter sec's common weapons are rendered useless.

Not all officers may use Ballistics, there were suggestions that EMPs break the firing pins on the guns temporarily to give EMPs a use against them.

E-Shield still blocks ballistics with RNG, Dual Swords are laughably ineffective.

I have said this shit like 5 fucking times. These are examples of balance disruption.

Well hey none of this happened ingame, like at all. Nukes still dominated (Abiet there was a bug in play), traitors still bought E-Swords and killed people with them.

This is literally what steelpoint has said. This answers my first question of WHAT is the aim of the change, I am still waiting for an answer to the 2nd question that isn't "change for the sake of change".

He's getting frustrated and has said as much in IRC.

There are multiple reasons for this change as have been stated before.

Arete wrote:

Tornadium wrote:Shouting huh, I made a point that it's the same people who made the same arguments in IRC over a period of 6 hours while simply refusing to even read counter arguments or back up anything they said.

I read your counter argument, but it comes across to me as a stream of consciousness without any relation to the point I was actually making. I didn't see any need to correct you, because I think that those in charge of deciding this matter will be able to understand the gist of my post even if you didn't. The other people who haven't replied to you probably feel the same way.

Probably because you didn't actually make a credible point.

Go ahead, correct me.

My point was that giving sec a wider variety of gear makes them stronger. Your response was something about how antags have a wider variety of gear. The two are unrelated.

Incidentally, the shitty attitude probably plays a part in people not wanting to have a discussion with you.

Arete wrote:My point was that giving sec a wider variety of gear makes them stronger. Your response was something about how antags have a wider variety of gear. The two are unrelated.

Incidentally, the shitty attitude probably plays a part in people not wanting to have a discussion with you.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Shitty attitudes permeate this community, so that's somewhat entirely irrelevant.

You made a point that Security can now choose a tool to fit the situation, I made the point that antagonists can already do that and that giving security a side grade is not a bad thing because it works for Antagonists.

That side grade didn't really make security stronger from what the test showed, it made them worse in some circumstances and better than others.

You say you play sec a lot. Can you honestly tell me you've never had a situation where you've stunned someone and they've been able to escape afterwards?
Not once?
Because I sure have - if someone bumps you while cuffing, if there'e more then 1 person to deal with, if fighting is still going on, all it takes is a moment, and they get a chance to escape.
When you're going at minspeed, that ain't a chance.

emp breaking the firin pin temporarily? Another snowflake feature in attempt to make it more like the taser it's replacing?
Just like the range limit.
Just like the ammo gimmick.

50% block chance is utterly worthless. No one in their right mind is going to waste 16tc on a 50% block, and they're certainly not going to waste 16tc because they 'might' come up against someone with a taser instead of a stamgun. e-shields and dual sword are only useful because they eliminate the rng entirely.

And what do you even mean 'this didn't happen in game'? These are objective facts.
This isn't a hypothesis on player behavior or something, this is a X mechanic functions in this way, as per the code.

Do you want to get it trialled again, and get antag repeatedly so I can personally demonstrate such debatable points as 'you move slow as fuck with 60 damage on you' or 'emp's don't effect ballistics'?

There is nothing else I can say to you. We have utterly irreconcilable view points on this.

lumipharon wrote:You say you play sec a lot. Can you honestly tell me you've never had a situation where you've stunned someone and they've been able to escape afterwards?
Not once?
Because I sure have - if someone bumps you while cuffing, if there'e more then 1 person to deal with, if fighting is still going on, all it takes is a moment, and they get a chance to escape.
When you're going at minspeed, that ain't a chance.

Yeah it happens, Rarely but it happens. I would usually do whatever means I can get the dude I wanted, Be that emptying the taser into anyone getting anywhere near close to flashbanging an entire room after the initial stun.

Adrenals take a tick to kick in so you can time the second taser shot to hit just as they use adrenal implant. Most people do immediately spam it after the first hit to its pretty easy to hit consistently.

emp breaking the firin pin temporarily? Another snowflake feature in attempt to make it more like the taser it's replacing?
Just like the range limit.
Just like the ammo gimmick.

It's meant to be a side grade, not a replacement for the taser.

People made a balancing point around the range limit and around the ammo. Making balance changes to make an item fit in well does not make it a "snowflake change"

50% block chance is utterly worthless. No one in their right mind is going to waste 16tc on a 50% block, and they're certainly not going to waste 16tc because they 'might' come up against someone with a taser instead of a stamgun. e-shields and dual sword are only useful because they eliminate the rng entirely.

So buff it, Nothing should ever have a 100% "I Win" stat line. That's retarded for balance in a multiplayer game.

And what do you even mean 'this didn't happen in game'? These are objective facts.
This isn't a hypothesis on player behavior or something, this is a X mechanic functions in this way, as per the code.

They are not objective facts, Not a single one of the balance breaks that anyone has mentioned occurred.

If it was that big of a deal, rounds would be ruined. People would be bitching moaning and complaining that it did X. People didn't and have not. Ops still won, traitors still murderboned, lings are still shit.

Nothing changed.

Do you want to get it trialled again, and get antag repeatedly so I can personally demonstrate such debatable points as 'you move slow as fuck with 60 damage on you' or 'emp's don't effect ballistics'?

I never use EMPs as a traitor and if you get hit with a pistol you're going to get hit with a taser so that's an entirely moot point.

Sure go for it.

There is nothing else I can say to you. We have utterly irreconcilable view points on this.

Pretty much, except my point of view actually has credible data from a days test to back it up. Whereas you are throwing out points about balance breaks that never happened.

Yeah we're done.

>Nothing should have a 100% "I win" stat line
> Super expensive kit designed to force security to actually close to melee range to get their six second GG NO RE stun should only sometimes do what it's designed to do.

Just a quick note, the sprites aren't objectively better.

Objectively, they're worse, because they no longer show ammo count or ammo type in the loaded weapon.

If the sprite showed the amount of bullets left and the type of magazine inserted, they would objectively be on par. They might *subjectively* be better.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:>Nothing should have a 100% "I win" stat line
> Super expensive kit designed to force security to actually close to melee range to get their six second GG NO RE stun should only sometimes do what it's designed to do.

It shouldn't be super expensive, the concept of the item is utterly shit. Hell make it 8TC for a double blade.

If i tried to sneak any item through QA that had a 100% resist stat line I'd get chewed the fuck out and get told to go rethink the concept and probably get shit from my manager.

That's because you don't like video games.

Scott wrote:That's because you don't like video games.

I like playing video games a hell of a lot more than I like development work and feature testing.

Don't permeate taser bolt range limit it only exists for sec weapons and is probably the most virulent stinking heap of sec hate in the game. Like oh you don't want to be stunned by something outside your vision range but you are okay with harmful projectiles ranging all over the board to do so, oh okay here we are in the strange realm where people would rather die than be stunned. Not to mention it was basically pap going behind the hood to sabotage older options to make disablers look better. There is no need to replicate garbage we have enough already.

Couldn't you implement the damage reduction from distance that the miner plasma cutter has? Do something like a base of 60 stamina damage, and after each 4 tiles cut the damage by 5 or something. When the projectile's damage hits 0 delete the projectile. Also do this for the taser's disabler.

Apply it to all projectiles to make it consistent across the board and you'll be able to differentiate long range and close quarters weapons from each other.

Git Hub Quote

I think what I'm going to do is scale this PR back a bit and make these Pistols a armoury only item, maybe replacing the armoury's tasers or being put in their own corner.

I can scatter some bullets around and make it a bit of a work shop, meaning that is less demand on taking away everyone's tasers and more a optional thing in the corner of the armoury/equipment room that a interested officer can finish up.

Sounds fine to me if it's going to cause that level of butthurt to leave it in with the voucher system.

I'll be asking for one at every round start tbh.

Why are they being added to the armory when there was a vastly negative response to them?

Well, for some of us who like to play sec every so often we'd like atleast the choice of the pistols..

Despite having a negative reaction to the idea of these becoming the standard sec loadout, I also quite like the idea of them being in the armoury (not as extra guns but as a replacement for the spare tasers). After all, there are already ballistics there.

Just imagine if Tornadium ever became a coder.

I mean his collective posts would blot out the fucking sun

It's part of the charm.

I closed the PR a while ago, I might revisit the PR later by making the weapon a alternative skin for officers to pick for their tasers, for the cool factor, or I'll throw one or two in the armoury to replace the current tasers in there.

pistols were fine but smg wrecks most team antags hardcore