Bottom post of the previous page:
I like summon rounds, though. It's just that I prefer the mistrust and the arguments and the escalation to gunfire rather than the immediate stone-faced boning.Ikarrus wrote:Wizard was removed until coderbus can give us a config option to disable summon survivors.
Which were always terrible imo.
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.
This is exactly how I feel. And the problem with policy varying from admin to admin is personal bias being included in these decisions.Sum Ting Wong wrote:The biggest problem I see coming from this new antagonist policy is drawing the line between "murderboners" and regular antagonist activity. Some antagonists use things like bombs, plasma fires, food poisonings, cyborgs, singulo, kudzu, most of chemistry etc. to cause distractions. These same things end up killing dozens of people.
Antagonists are now going to be looking over their shoulder out of fear of doing something that may or may not be acceptable, which will vary between admin to admin. Part of the fun of being an antagonist was that you got to choose how you approached an objective, but even then these were not mandatory to accomplish. This policy shifts the entire heart of the game.
tusterman11 wrote:Can you stop lying? I just asked you and you are was a piece of shiit on me!!!
EngamerAzari's real number one fangirl <3Kor wrote:I wish Wyzack was still an admin.
Yes, I'll admit I'm slightly worried by this as well. As it comes from Ikarrus, it seems to be a pretty clear-cut anti-murderhobo rule, an extension of rule 1 - but how do we make sure that the admins don't take it too far and extend the policy (a policy which, I say again, I agree with) too far, to cover creative and interesting antagonism that just so happens to involve/require multiple deaths?walket wrote:This is exactly how I feel. And the problem with policy varying from admin to admin is personal bias being included in these decisions.Sum Ting Wong wrote:The biggest problem I see coming from this new antagonist policy is drawing the line between "murderboners" and regular antagonist activity. Some antagonists use things like bombs, plasma fires, food poisonings, cyborgs, singulo, kudzu, most of chemistry etc. to cause distractions. These same things end up killing dozens of people.
Antagonists are now going to be looking over their shoulder out of fear of doing something that may or may not be acceptable, which will vary between admin to admin. Part of the fun of being an antagonist was that you got to choose how you approached an objective, but even then these were not mandatory to accomplish. This policy shifts the entire heart of the game.
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.
Because the limit isn't as far down as you think it is. As SoS stated, this is specifically targeted at certain repeat offenders and extreme cases. Defining that line only means people will toe the shit out of it. However i'd rather just ban those people outright than have the rule be too vague.AnonymousNow wrote:but how do we make sure that the admins don't take it too far and extend the policy (a policy which, I say again, I agree with) too far, to cover creative and interesting antagonism that just so happens to involve/require multiple deaths?
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
You won't get banned for this. You're behaving reasonably in this situation.Raven776 wrote:How do you even do a ban appeal for breaking this rule?
"I'm sorry I killed people as traitor. I killed one person, and then another person saw me and shouted out my name over radio. Then I murdered them and anyone else who came after me, and I had a locker full of bodies in a moment. I only wanted to kill my target."
tusterman11 wrote:Can you stop lying? I just asked you and you are was a piece of shiit on me!!!
EngamerAzari's real number one fangirl <3Kor wrote:I wish Wyzack was still an admin.
It will become an argument of semantics. Refusing to identify where you draw the line out of fear of shitters isn't going to make this any better.Saegrimr wrote: Because the limit isn't as far down as you think it is. As SoS stated, this is specifically targeted at certain repeat offenders and extreme cases.
Because you get the same people stirring the pot of "BUT ITS NOT AGAINST DA RUUUULES", so now it is a rule.Wyzack wrote:And if this really is just for a few people, then why not deal with them as is? Why enact a sweeping new rule that is certainly gonna make antags have to carefully consider every kill because they are scared of getting banned? This is going to stifle antags in a big way and i think it is a poor change.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
I don't get it, you listed a scenario that is literally NOT murderboning to complain about a policy that doesn't affect it. Really m80?Raven776 wrote:How do you even do a ban appeal for breaking this rule?
"I'm sorry I killed people as traitor. I killed one person, and then another person saw me and shouted out my name over radio. Then I murdered them and anyone else who came after me, and I had a locker full of bodies in a moment. I only wanted to kill my target."
That's weak. That's awful. Xbox huge kill counts should be praised and rewarded by all of the deadchat butthurt after you get the shuttle called, not get you banned. What's more, very few (if any) admins have supported this with their in game behavior. I remember NikNakFlak on the old Artyom server going around murderboning the first round the gateway was out, and while there were just as many cries against him as any other antag that dunks numerous other people without them having any say in the matter, he decided since he was wearing a gas mask and lurking n the shadows of the moon base, it was a 'gimmick.'
Maybe me running through the station hulked out and wearing a chicken suit is a gimmick. Maybe me monkeying people and gibbing them is a gimmick. Is it interesting? Mostly for me. The dead people who get stunned and injected/punched/slashed to death aren't nearly as happy with me, no matter how fun their death was.
AdenAbrafo wrote:It should be noted that currently the poll in the feedback forums is 21 in favor and 17 against.
Wyzack wrote:When they came for the ERPers i said nothing, for i do not ERP
When they came for the murderantags i said nothing, ect ect.
This policy just feels wrong
Wyzack wrote:
When they came for the ERPers i said nothing, for i do not ERP
When they came for the murderantags i said nothing, ect ect.
This policy just feels wrong
QuartzCrystal wrote:SoS is our glorious host, and frankly, he's just trying to return the server to it's RP roots which I really appreciate.
How can they enforce it fairly if they can't even describe it clearly? If a headmin is unclear on the new policy after its created, then there is a problem.Sum Ting Wong wrote:That aside, I don't agree with this or trust the admins enough to force this policy change fairly.
>RP rootsQuartzCrystal wrote:Only a small number of folks are going to end up being banned for this. SoS is our glorious host, and frankly, he's just trying to return the server to it's RP roots which I really appreciate.
:):):):)autumn sinnow:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
The downstream stations of us are still going to use those events and spells, so it really should be a config option for their sake.lumipharon wrote:If wizard is disabled until a config to turn off survivor is added, then WHAT IS THE POINT of even having summon spells? If SoS hates it so much then just remove the spells, since there is literally no reason to ever use it.
This is pretty funny, but if we devolve into this kind of circlejerking, its just going to give the admins reason to close the thread and force discussion to singulo (where it won't get touched). Its already started with MP's post above you.InThePooPoo wrote:LITERALLY? DID YOU LITERALLY TELL SOS? LITERALLY? lidərəlē? IN A LITERAL OR EXACT MANNER?QuartzCrystal wrote:literally
FOR REAL? ACTUALLY? PRECISELY? REALLY? TRULY? EXACTLY?
The "survivor" role is exactly the problem.Luke Cox wrote:Maybe remove the survivor role, I always thought that was kind of stupid too.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
The wording of it isn't the best. Its in the same vein of a traitor CMO having to steal his own hypospray, and the best course of action to do so is "lets kill the entirety of medbay".Maccus wrote:That's kind of the point for the survivor spell, isn't it?
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.
Pretty much. Survivor rounds are kill.lumipharon wrote:If wizard is disabled until a config to turn off survivor is added, then WHAT IS THE POINT of even having summon spells? If SoS hates it so much then just remove the spells, since there is literally no reason to ever use it.
Sums up my feelings perfectly.Hibbles wrote:I disagree with this change but hey, it's your server. Let's see how it goes.
AliasTakuto wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
> Are you purposely igoring your objectives to just slaughter the crew?Vekter wrote:About as simple as it gets. Are you purposely igoring your objectives to just slaughter the crew? That's murderboning. Otherwise you are fine. I reiterate that, as with everything, this rule will be handled on a CASE BY CASE BASIS. Odds are most players will not fall under this rule.
For what its worth I think he means if someone deliberately ignores their objectives to murderbone. I still vehemently disagree with this policy and what it represents. If someone wants to ignore their objectives as an antag, then that is their RNGGoddess-given right.Amelius wrote:> Are you purposely igoring your objectives to just slaughter the crew?Vekter wrote:About as simple as it gets. Are you purposely igoring your objectives to just slaughter the crew? That's murderboning. Otherwise you are fine. I reiterate that, as with everything, this rule will be handled on a CASE BY CASE BASIS. Odds are most players will not fall under this rule.
Again, so greentexting, the most boring thing to aim for possible, is the litmus test for whether or not you 'go too far'? Don't mind me while I steal magboots 30 seconds after the round starts, then fart around for the next hour or two out of fear of being banned. What is there to progress rounds then? The crew should be calling the shuttle because shit has gone out of control, but if antags feel their hands are tied (which they will be), then we're going to get a lot more of those tedious extended-esque rounds where very little happens for 3 hours then the shuttle is called because boredom.
This new policy is nonsense, and the community has always been, and still is against it. This is the third fucking time that it's been thrown through the works and voted on, and each time the answer has been a resounding 'no'.
It isn't just survivor, the same reasoning applies to any antagonist with easy objectives.Luke Cox wrote:I think what's really sitting wrong with a lot of people is that this is a very extremely harsh solution to a very small problem. Just get rid of the survivor role. Problem solved.
As for wizards and summoning and survivor, I think "removing wiz/survivor" is far more "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" than this. This policy on its own takes care of murderboning survivors -- if a survivor decides to antagonize everyone, he isn't remotely doing the things to help himself survive (even the MOST ROBUSTEST MURDERBONERS get caught eventually) and is ignoring his objective totally.Amelius wrote:Originally, antagonist was carte-blanche to do anything but violating cardinal rules (no rape, etc.), and was seen as a reprieve from being constrained as a non-antagonist. It shouldn't be just another restricted role, where you have to worry if you're going to get banned for doing [x]. Furthermore this will just make changeling rounds even worse - there are few of them, they'll have their hands tied under this policy, so most of the crew will be having fun playing 'extended' every changeling round.
Furthermore, SoS, you call removing people from the round griefing, but the reality is that the job of the antagonist is to remove people from the round and progress it in the process thereof. How they do so has always been up to them, and that it should be. How else do you expect the shuttle to be sent?
You seem to be complaining about a dearth of creativity, but I challenge that and say the problem is that there are few ways to implement creativity in murder effectively. A disposals slide into singuloth takes five seconds to dismantle, and fifteen minutes, at least to assemble, and will kill, at most, a few fools and it will immediately paint you with a gigantic target on your back, either during construction, or after. There are so few interesting, especially job-specific tools for traitors that are effective, while, once you get caught for murder, killing any guard you come across is the most effective and fool-proof strategy that tilts advantage to your side, and you're ordering us to slide efficacy for policy, which is nonsensical from a pragmatic perspective.
Combine this policy change (again, with no community involvement) with the combat changes in the pipeline that will utterly fuck changeling, revolution, and DA rounds especially, while making catching greytiders, traitors, and lings a living nightmare in an already-unpopular job, and it's just another point in favour that the coders and co. are completely out of touch with the userbase and wish for this server to go the way of the Baystation. We had a niche, and we're moving out of it for no apparent reason.
Edit:
I forgot to mention that going for greentext is the exact opposite method of having fun in this game. It takes about twenty seconds to get a pair of magboots as an antagonist. Then what? Killing more people goes 'against your end goals' So why the heck would you bother doing anything but call the shuttle at the very start of the round? Greentext is far too easy to achieve, and so find a different litmus test, at least.
Heres the thing. If an antagonist wants to murder everyone, we already have an entire department dedicated exclusively to stopping them. By enacting policy regarding mass murder, we are essentially putting a basic traitorous activity up there with rape and exploiting bugs, an IC crime so shitty it has to be handled OOC. I know everyone recoils at the term h-u-g-b-o-x but that's exactly what this is. Mass murder has always been an IC problem that has countless IC solutions. If the crew/security is too stupid to take the right actions and they all get murdered, well that's just too fucking bad. If for some reason the crew honestly cannot hope to overcome the murderboner stroking antagonist no matter what they do, than its a balance issue, not a policy issue.Loon, you have no fucking clue what your rambling about. This only stops people from being shitty, unfun murderbonering assholes and that's a good thing.
AliasTakuto wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
