/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

I feel like these tests are more turning into a 'Wacky Change of the Week'.

Test, test, test! It is in the crucible of testing that wacky ideas are weeded out and good features emerge. So I say, propose and test away, even if it seems stupid and wacky at first!

Next one should probably be no stuns, there is already a PR for removing one-shot tasers so it would be the best time to test it, before we definitely move away from stun-based combat

Remove knock downs interrupting speaking.

I think one of the main things that makes murderboning easy is that you can silence people simply via murderboning.
Unlike the old days where taking too long to kill someone meant the whole station knew your name, where you are, what you looked like, and your home post code.

Malkevin wrote:Remove knock downs interrupting speaking.

I think one of the main things that makes murderboning easy is that you can silence people simply via murderboning.
Unlike the old days where taking too long to kill someone meant the whole station knew your name, where you are, what you looked like, and your home post code.

But the knock down is hilarious.

"Greytide McStation wide is-GLORF!"

"Shitcurity is-a murd-HEUGH"

"Gas the lig-UGH"

Random starting lawset instead of all-asimov-all-the-time. Pick from a short list.

How about we test no rules for a day to see how players react and the environment that creates

I propose that sec gets a 1911 as a round start weapon instead of a taser.

Adding Bay's hostage system as a test

Smeller wrote:Adding Bay's hostage system as a test

This is something I can actually get behind.

No one will care.

>Implying hostages have any meaning on a station where cloning makes you immune to nearly all forms of death
>Implying people won't kill you AND the hostage and then just revive the hostage
Unless you make holding a gun to the hostage's head and pulling the trigger delete the brain; no one will give a damn you have a hostage

Zilenan91 wrote: - Since power would instantly run out the shuttle would be instantly called due to there being no active comms consoles and every round would be 30 minutes long, so we wouldn't learn anything.

Incorrect. The shuttle will not autocall due to a lack of power. The autocall only kicks in if the screen is smashed or the console deconned.

Actually the console does autocall if there is no power ANYWHERE on the station. Including APCs. And APCs take an eternity to drain completely assuming they're not powering a bluespace freezer/heater.

Double the volume at which you hear sounds play, greatly reduce the volume though.

Right now its VERY LOUD TOOLBOXING, Loud toolboxing, Acceptable volume in one ear, then complete silence the moment its off screen.

Some of the tests have been pretty worthwhile, I thought the lethality one was pretty cool.

Lethal weapons in security would be interesting to see how that affects people fucking with security every round for fun.

Tornadium wrote:Lethal weapons in security would be interesting to see how that affects people fucking with security every round for fun.

yea I fully support this
holoparas and dual eswords are less bullshit
encourages err pee
shitters who wont stand down get blasted

only downside is these ai laws would not support it

how the fuck have you cucks who want lethal security already forgotten
we literally did that test
remember steelrifles?
yeah

PKPenguin321 wrote:how the fuck have you cucks who want lethal security already forgotten
we literally did that test
remember steelrifles?
yeah

Yeah I remember,

I really enjoyed it and the fact that a select few bitched and moaned so hard that it was shut down in like 3 hours gives credibility to carrying the test out for an actual testing period. Besides most people were angry with Rifles, not the Sidearms.

The sidearms weren't lethal, they were a 2-shot-2-stun ballistic disabler. Steelrifles were regularly carried by lots of security officers during the, as I recall, several days they were around, and they did exactly what you'd expect: antagonists got shut down much faster than usual and the majority of antag players hated the change. I know I enjoyed it, but that was because it gave me more power as a security officer.

The pistols also let you turn them into more versatile stechkins which was nice, I think there was even a bunch of lethal mags in the Sectech.

The steelrifles issue was that they were ballistic weapons in a game that was balanced around the concept that station forces used energy weapons.
E-swords and e-shields didn't do shit against them.

Give sec laser rifles that aren't shit and run that test.

After this grabmeme, can we test a few weeks without Goof?

At the time Eshields and Swords blocked projectiles at a 50% rate, now I think its 0% but I can't recall the change Kor did.

The main issue with my Auto Rifles was that there was a group of people who went out of their way to abuse the rifles as much as possible to get them removed.

The Pistols I concede were meh but the Rifles were fine. Especially after the balance changes I effected literally a day before the Rifles were removed and no one got to see the changes I effected.

Edit: Amusingly last I checked the Warden on Metastation still spawns with a Auto Rifle in his personal locker.

How about a test where antags don't spawn until, say, 10 minutes station time?

It'll remove roundstart suiciders and gives security a chance to handle greytide before antags start fucking the station, and gives the crew the chance to do their jobs before the round becomes unplayable within 5 minutes.

Anonmare wrote: Unless you make holding a gun to the hostage's head and pulling the trigger delete the brain; no one will give a damn you have a hostage

Even with this in place the only person who will care is the hostage.

Criminals are nonhuman and security has a special assistant processor that only eats assistants (well singulo already loves engineers it can be done) and turns them instantly into delicious burgers so the officer can refuel on his way to catch more assistants. Finally security and the AI are at peace. Hey with all the sec nerf mongering might as well try the opposite!

Soylant Green is people!

Yakumo_Chen wrote:How about a test where antags don't spawn until, say, 10 minutes station time?

It'll remove roundstart suiciders and gives security a chance to handle greytide before antags start fucking the station, and gives the crew the chance to do their jobs before the round becomes unplayable within 5 minutes.

now this i could actually get behind, you've got a good reason for it and it doesn't seem too game-breaking
maybe only apply it to certain antags (like traitors, changelings, shadowlings, revheads, gangs etc) so that nuke ops still get prep time and blob can arrive before science already has xrays

That's been a suggestion for a long time and one I supported.

I think we had some arguments over its implementations but overall I think having a five to ten minute random delay on assigning antag status would be at the very least a interesting test.

I agree with a 10 minute antag delay- Would make a few really nice things happen:

-Reduce "i didnt get antag" HoP line suicides.
-Get people who are running station-critical jobs solo to at least set up and get out some product before skulking off into maint.
-Give sec some time to implement standing orders, hierarchies, and equip themselves before having to worry about traitors.
-Get rid of a lot of the metagaming around things like AI bolting doors, people securing known traitor goals and shit immediately, because for the first 10 minutes there's no chance of an antag speed-rushing those things.
-Gives cargo, RnD, and Assistant traitors time to do some normal stocking-up and dealings before even getting their TCs, which should make them stronger without messing with their traitor items- since they'll likely have already gathered some supplies before buying anything.
-Reduce traitor-incited graytides fueled by early round fluke traitors dropping shit or competent traitors riling them up immediately to lynch a target.


The only issue I can think of is a slight metagame one, in which anything suspicious happening in the first 10 minutes of a round is now KNOWN to either not be traitorous, and therefor perhaps not taken seriously, or to be a gamemode other than traitor. For example any sign of an emag at 9 minutes in confirms Nuke Ops basically. Probably not too serious an issue given that OPs rarely get fluked or caught within 10 minutes, but still worth considering.

Can't think of a good way to delay team antags or away-spawning ones like ops or wizard easily though- short of making people selected for them wait 10 minutes before teleporting or sending their shuttle.

It'd be best if it only applied to antags that didn't 'spawn', like Traitor, Gang, Revhead, Changeling, Shadowling. All the antags that by default start by assigning antag status to a crew member would get delayed.

Ops, Wizard, and Blob still get spawned immediately, for balance and code reasons (hard to delay the spawns without using ghosts). Ops and Blob work best when they're active immediately (as the faster they do stuff, the less time the station has to react to them).
Wizard I don't consider a roundtype worthy of delaying anyway since wizard rounds are ALWAYS a clusterfuck and it is practically guaranteed that it will be impossible to continue the round normally the minute a wizard does absolutely anything are memes and there's no point delaying them.

Bringing back stungloves for a week

Medium Rp. at about cm level of autism would be about right.

Remove cargo inplants test

Remove Asimov Law 1 inaction clause.

Paint Secborg blue.

Call it Peacekeeper Module.

Have a pop up appear on screen once the player chooses a module where he has to wait 5 seconds or tick a box before s/he can click "Ok" and have that pop-up explain that he's NOT part of security and has to follow his laws and not space-law or whatever.

Give it two weeks time to see if borg players then get a better grip on how to Secborg should've always been played in the first place.

Scott wrote:Remove Asimov Law 1 inaction clause.

You really should read Asimov's short stories.

The robot could drop a weight on a human below that it knew it could catch before it injured the potential victim. Upon releasing the weight however, its altered programming would allow it to simply let the weight drop, since it would have played no further active part in the resulting injury.

I literally bring up little lost robot every time someone mentions removing half of law 1

And I would bring up the arm length silicon policy that chops up asimov in so many ways that it no longer resembles the source material.
Removing that pain in the arse second part would not have any extra ramification becauses policy would tell people to not be cunts.

Also goon of all places removed it years ago and hasn't had problems.

Shad0vvs wrote:

Scott wrote:Remove Asimov Law 1 inaction clause.

You really should read Asimov's short stories.

The robot could drop a weight on a human below that it knew it could catch before it injured the potential victim. Upon releasing the weight however, its altered programming would allow it to simply let the weight drop, since it would have played no further active part in the resulting injury.

Wyzack wrote:I literally bring up little lost robot every time someone mentions removing half of law 1

If you want a pure Asimov experience, remove silicon policy and let players handle the interpretation of laws as they see fit, giving each AI its own flavor depending on who is playing.
ツ

Scott wrote:If you want a pure Asimov experience, remove silicon policy and let players handle the interpretation of laws as they see fit, giving each AI its own flavor depending on who is playing.
ツ

How is law interpretation related to sillicon policy? Most situations are the AI's interpretation is the final wording on how to interpret the lawset. They each usually go with the same definitions but I've seen some do wacky stuff before.

Scott wrote:If you want a pure Asimov experience, remove silicon policy and let players handle the interpretation of laws as they see fit, giving each AI its own flavor depending on who is playing.

HUMANS ARE HARMFUL TO HUMANS BOLT EVERYBODY IN THEIR DEPARTMENTS. VENT N2O SO THEY SLEEP.

Yeah this totally wont get old after the first time.

Scott wrote:You're acting like the crew doesn't know how to dispose of those AIs.

Saegrimr wrote:Yeah this totally wont get old after the first time.

You're acting like silicon policy doesn't exist because this was a problem before.

The inaction clause is there because the AI is too powerful and players are too assholey to trust them with it.

Also as far as tests go, how about we put Sybil on the hub and lower the rules to see how players change over time.

Shad0vvs wrote:

Scott wrote:Remove Asimov Law 1 inaction clause.

You really should read Asimov's short stories.

The robot could drop a weight on a human below that it knew it could catch before it injured the potential victim. Upon releasing the weight however, its altered programming would allow it to simply let the weight drop, since it would have played no further active part in the resulting injury.

like i've said before, this is a video game being driven by humans with the main goal being fun. if a fag tries to interpret the laws in such a way that he just murders the entire crew, ban him for being a dick.
the asimov story was just the robots using a certain interpretation of the laws that allowed harm. we can use the "correct" interpretation because we're humans and not literal robots. comparing this game to lost little robot is and always has been a strawman.

It's not a strawman. People have and are currently arguing for literal real life weeks about if something is harm or not. There's a thread up right now asking if AI laws were retroactive, and there's admins and players pitching in with their own viewpoints with there being one prevelant, yet not binding, consensus on it, that being "not being a buttbaby."

But that's the thing

You can't stop players from being buttbabies. It's impossible, so these long, drawn out "arguments" on policy just tend to be people attempting to justify shittiness while everyone else inputs their own personal opinions, accomplishing nothing but masking the real issue.

Zilenan91 wrote:It's not a strawman. People have and are currently arguing for literal real life weeks about if something is harm or not. There's a thread up right now asking if AI laws were retroactive, and there's admins and players pitching in with their own viewpoints with no real definitive, yet not binding, consensus on, "not being a buttbaby."

But that's the thing

You can't stop players from being buttbabies. It's impossible, so these long, drawn out "arguments" on policy just tend to be people attempting to justify shittiness while everyone else inputs their own personal opinions, accomplishing nothing but masking the real issue.

It is a strawman.
The real argument:
"If we remove the inaction clause, we can interpret the laws to not have to actively prevent harm unless asked to by law two. We could hypothetically interpret it as "I didn't kill him, my bullet did," and get away with murder, but we won't, because we are humans and we realize that's the wrong interpretation."

The argument being attacked when people mention the Little Lost Robot:
"Robots that can't tell apart the correct interpretation of Asimov without the inaction clause from the incorrect interpretation would just kill everybody. They will do this every time, because they are robots."

The strawman comes from the fact that arguing with Little Lost Robot softly implies that humans are exactly the same as robots, when in reality they are not. It also assumes that silicons in-game wont get banned for killing people, when in reality they would get bwoinked and dunked almost immediately. Because of this, it tries to compare two different arguments that are similar, but not the same (see: a strawman).

Basic English lessons aside, the only real reasons people don't want to get rid of the inaction clause is 1) they are a borg player and wanna get their valids on more easily, and 2) they are a normal player who doesn't like dying and wants the borgs to always always always be forced to save them from danger by default.

I only want to keep it because it'd lead to shitty situations where AIs would actively ignore people who are bleeding or in shitty situations rather than helping them out or even acknowledging them. It would basically be a total waste of the omnipotence that the AI has and relegate it for nothing but valids since they would never want to use it for anything but that.

Welp, better not remove the inaction part because window licking retards like Unloved Rock will crap their pants.