/tg/Station 13

"Additionally, reinforcing the armory at round start for no better reason then "code blue", as you seem to think is permissible, is not something we allow." -Arianya

The only policy thread relating to this was from 2014, and our metagame standards have changed since then. I regularly see wardens reinforcing the brig and armory with their barricades and mounted flashers. Where do we draw the line on armory fortification?

Are turrets okay? Barriers? Rearranging the armory to be more easily defensible? Reorganizing the armory? Putting the weapons in locked lockers within the armory?

In the past, the line's been drawn at removing the weapons from the armory and hiding them somewhere. For example, putting them in an unpowered disposals unit or putting them all in a duffelbag on your person. That's not fun for anyone. The armory is already really easy to break into though, taking all of one TC from a traitor uplink for the C4. It gives antagonists more of a challenge before they start their epic murderbone with armory weapons.

It makes IC sense to reinforce the pile of weapons you're sitting on when a code blue alert comes in, and it would be stupid not to once you have reliable information there's a threat to the armory.

Reinforcing the armory is not against the rules. Reinforcing the armory with no good reason, especially near round start, is.

The ruling has been (as long as I've been aware of it) that reinforcing the armory/moving all its contents into a ID-locked anchored locker/etc. near shift start for no good reason (with a code blue not being a good reason since its only a "suspected threat" and is guaranteed to happen in all but one of our roundtypes (non-secret extended)) being bad.

Obviously if you get a war declaration from nuclear ops or you've had reports of a break in to other places via space/etc. these are often good reasons to look to secure the area/contents.

Ultimately this comes down to the same stuff as breaking the ability to inject plasma into the air mix at roundstart. It seems like common sense to do so (what possible legitimate reason would an AI (or anyone else) have to put plasma into the air?) but we disallow it for the sake of game balance and round flow.

Atmos techs don't have a job to keep the plasma valve secure, but the warden has a job to keep the armory secure

Define reinforcing the armoury.

Furthermore. In the past, as HoS, I've done actions such as adding lethal and non-lethal turrets to the armoury, and outside of it. As well as setting up mobile flashers, as well as reorganizing the armoury to make it take more effort to loot items.

Would any of the above examples be against the rules?

Moving weapons into lockers is where we've drawn the line in the past, but as Steelpoint said, are we allowed to add turrets, reorganize to make it more difficult, etc? I regularly see wardens do those two things and in a way, it's sort of a fun project for the warden who has little to do at the beginning of the round anyway.

Is it fine to move the armory when given an alert about pirates?

wiki says armory is a maximum security area, but it only has one securibot in it. I think a warden adding a few turrets is fine as long as they aren't lethals. if a traitor wants weapons they can get them from other areas. protip: emagged holodeck is underused because of it letting you leave with holographic items. the only traitor item in the armory is the reflector vest and while I don't disagree that immediately locking away traitor items is scummy as long as it doesn't move out of the armory because of the warden then a traitor having to do just a tiny bit more effort to get memetext isnt all that bad.

On a semi related note since I don't feel like it's worth its own thread, are we expected to play stupid when obvious traitors lock themselves in dorms at roundstart to spawn their shit

Granted there are better ways to handle it than instantly calling them out (i.e. look for actual evidence in the room after they leave) but where do we draw the line and shouldn't we instead encourage traitors to not be so outrageously predictable

Mickyan wrote:On a semi related note since I don't feel like it's worth its own thread, are we expected to play stupid when obvious traitors lock themselves in dorms at roundstart to spawn their shit

Granted there are better ways to handle it than instantly calling them out (i.e. look for actual evidence in the room after they leave) but where do we draw the line and shouldn't we instead encourage traitors to not be so outrageously predictable

People who search dorms while/after someone was in there are such fucking cunts.

Oh look! This door is locked! I’m certain the person in here is a traitor, better RCD the door down. Whats that? A common human would assume they’re sleeping? But theres a chance I can get traitor gear!

Can’t tell you how many tator rounds ive been forced into a defensive murderbone (although yeah I murderbone regardless) because some faggot welded down a wall and then screeched over comms.

Pulling this shit is meta as fuck.

Arianya wrote:The ruling has been (as long as I've been aware of it) that reinforcing the armory/moving all its contents into a ID-locked anchored locker/etc. near shift start for no good reason

When that ruling was made, we didn't have object damage that allows you to physically smash open a locker or shoot it open.

It's literally obsoleted by new tech improvements to SS13. Come on.

iamgoofball wrote:

Arianya wrote:The ruling has been (as long as I've been aware of it) that reinforcing the armory/moving all its contents into a ID-locked anchored locker/etc. near shift start for no good reason

When that ruling was made, we didn't have object damage that allows you to physically smash open a locker or shoot it open.

Yeah, you're right, however I think the only common object (can be made or found by anyone with maint access without going into space, on lavaland, or an admin) that can damage lockers is the spear being thrown two handed.

Ayy Lemoh wrote:

iamgoofball wrote:

Arianya wrote:The ruling has been (as long as I've been aware of it) that reinforcing the armory/moving all its contents into a ID-locked anchored locker/etc. near shift start for no good reason

When that ruling was made, we didn't have object damage that allows you to physically smash open a locker or shoot it open.

Yeah, you're right, however I think the only common object (can be made or found by anyone with maint access without going into space, on lavaland, or an admin) that can damage lockers is the spear being thrown two handed.

Anything with throwforce or force can damage an object. Anything. Even people.

wesoda25 wrote:

Mickyan wrote:On a semi related note since I don't feel like it's worth its own thread, are we expected to play stupid when obvious traitors lock themselves in dorms at roundstart to spawn their shit

Granted there are better ways to handle it than instantly calling them out (i.e. look for actual evidence in the room after they leave) but where do we draw the line and shouldn't we instead encourage traitors to not be so outrageously predictable

People who search dorms while/after someone was in there are such fucking cunts.

Oh look! This door is locked! I’m certain the person in here is a traitor, better RCD the door down. Whats that? A common human would assume they’re sleeping? But theres a chance I can get traitor gear!

Can’t tell you how many tator rounds ive been forced into a defensive murderbone (although yeah I murderbone regardless) because some faggot welded down a wall and then screeched over comms.

Pulling this shit is meta as fuck.

It is ironic for you of all people to complain about others not behaving like a "common human", I guess it's only bad when it's your tator round getting ruined

Anyway there's a difference between going to the dorms to validhunt breaking down walls and see someone walk out of a room 2 minutes into the round with a crate stashed in a corner, as far as I know it's established policy that players don't need to act oblivious to how antagonists work so the question is where the line is drawn

iamgoofball wrote: Anything with throwforce or force can damage an object. Anything. Even people.

alright. i looked at closet max integrity and it's 250. Still feels like it takes forever I think but eh.

You need a fire axe/mining KA/two handed thrown spear to damage airlocks, though. EDIT: yes unrelated to lockers but i still wish to say this.

Mickyan wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:

Mickyan wrote:On a semi related note since I don't feel like it's worth its own thread, are we expected to play stupid when obvious traitors lock themselves in dorms at roundstart to spawn their shit

Granted there are better ways to handle it than instantly calling them out (i.e. look for actual evidence in the room after they leave) but where do we draw the line and shouldn't we instead encourage traitors to not be so outrageously predictable

People who search dorms while/after someone was in there are such fucking cunts.

Oh look! This door is locked! I’m certain the person in here is a traitor, better RCD the door down. Whats that? A common human would assume they’re sleeping? But theres a chance I can get traitor gear!

Can’t tell you how many tator rounds ive been forced into a defensive murderbone (although yeah I murderbone regardless) because some faggot welded down a wall and then screeched over comms.

Pulling this shit is meta as fuck.

It is ironic for you of all people to complain about others not behaving like a "common human", I guess it's only bad when it's your tator round getting ruined

Anyway there's a difference between going to the dorms to validhunt breaking down walls and see someone walk out of a room 2 minutes into the round with a crate stashed in a corner, as far as I know it's established policy that players don't need to act oblivious to how antagonists work so the question is where the line is drawn

lol the good ol’ “he’s salty because his traitor round was ruined”. No, its shitty behavior, and reinforces a bad playstyle.

And I still think that seeing a crate and instantly assuming traitor is meta. Maybe it can act as cause for the locker to be searched, but definitely not the person themself. Yeah, players know how antags work. But imo this goes too far. Maybe say on comms: “huh, why is there an empty crate in the room so and so just walked out of?” but i think anything more than that would be meta.

wesoda25 wrote:And I still think that seeing a crate and instantly assuming traitor is meta. Yeah, players know how antags work. But imo this goes too far. Maybe say on comms: “huh, why is there an empty crate in the room so and so just walked out of?” but i think anything more than that would be meta.

Who the fuck carries crates into a dorms room in the first place?

EDIT: I can only think of one situation where this is a fucking thing - cargo techs dragging a crate to put shit in while using the export scanner.

They wouldn't bolt themselves in with the fucking crate, though.

Breaking into a dorm room cause someone bolted themselves in and therefore must be an "According to HoyleTM" Brand traitor is beyond shitty.

Seeing someone other than a cargo tech with a crate somewhere and assuming it's a syndie crate is also shit.

Using my smartiness and powers of deduction I deduced that this arab guy with a box in a public place must be an ISIS killer with a bomb, I better kill him.

WarbossLincoln wrote:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Yeah, it's shitty if you break into a dorm room that's bolted just to go 'AHA I KNEW IT HE'S A TRAITOR'

but let's be real who the fuck takes a crate into a dorm room

brb gonna walk into a dorm room with a crate at roundstart and ahelp anyone who breaks in and murders me for it

or are you chucklefucks gonna argue that going into a dorm at roundstart is "acting like an antag"

I think generally reinforcing the armory is always acceptable, hiding the weapons should have justification however.

Justification can be emagger, someone you haven't caught yet tried to break into armory, wizard exists, etc.

Screemonster wrote:brb gonna walk into a dorm room with a crate at roundstart and ahelp anyone who breaks in and murders me for it

or are you chucklefucks gonna argue that going into a dorm at roundstart is "acting like an antag"

Of course if we say 'no one would build a chem lab in a fucking dorm room' or something like that then someone will do it. I imagine someone is doing what we're talking about here right now. That doesn't mean it's a normal action that people often did in the past and will continue doing so 1 or 2 months later from now when we forget about this thread.

The dorms thing should be against the rules, that's really shitty and obvious powergame.

I see reinforcing the armory as a fun little autism project for the warden to a certain point. It adds extra challenge to the game for antagonists without going to the point of complete bullshit. Hiding the armory isn't an extra challenge, that's bullshit. Reinforcing it is an extra challenge.

wesoda25 wrote:lol the good ol’ “he’s salty because his traitor round was ruined”. No, its shitty behavior, and reinforces a bad playstyle.

And I still think that seeing a crate and instantly assuming traitor is meta. Maybe it can act as cause for the locker to be searched, but definitely not the person themself. Yeah, players know how antags work. But imo this goes too far. Maybe say on comms: “huh, why is there an empty crate in the room so and so just walked out of?” but i think anything more than that would be meta.

"players know how antags work but they shouldn't"
yeah no,if you see someone in/leaving a suspicious, secluded place with a crate then you should definitely be allowed to at least search them, rather than going "x is an antag but I can only hint at it so let's all be paranoid around him until we find an excuse to kill him"
camping the door until they leave is garbage though, so is breaking in

somerandomguy wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:lol the good ol’ “he’s salty because his traitor round was ruined”. No, its shitty behavior, and reinforces a bad playstyle.

And I still think that seeing a crate and instantly assuming traitor is meta. Maybe it can act as cause for the locker to be searched, but definitely not the person themself. Yeah, players know how antags work. But imo this goes too far. Maybe say on comms: “huh, why is there an empty crate in the room so and so just walked out of?” but i think anything more than that would be meta.

"players know how antags work but they shouldn't"
yeah no,if you see someone in/leaving a suspicious, secluded place with a crate then you should definitely be allowed to at least search them, rather than going "x is an antag but I can only hint at it so let's all be paranoid around him until we find an excuse to kill him"
camping the door until they leave is garbage though, so is breaking in

Isn’t ss13 advertised as a paranoia laden space game? Course with static names and hard tells we’ve long departed from the beginning, but what’s wrong with being paranoid? Your co worker either did some remodeling of their sleeping quarters or is about to murder you in the name of a rival organization.

Banning players for reinforcing the armoury at roundstart is just another reason people are gonna not play security.

wesoda25 wrote:

somerandomguy wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:lol the good ol’ “he’s salty because his traitor round was ruined”. No, its shitty behavior, and reinforces a bad playstyle.

And I still think that seeing a crate and instantly assuming traitor is meta. Maybe it can act as cause for the locker to be searched, but definitely not the person themself. Yeah, players know how antags work. But imo this goes too far. Maybe say on comms: “huh, why is there an empty crate in the room so and so just walked out of?” but i think anything more than that would be meta.

"players know how antags work but they shouldn't"
yeah no,if you see someone in/leaving a suspicious, secluded place with a crate then you should definitely be allowed to at least search them, rather than going "x is an antag but I can only hint at it so let's all be paranoid around him until we find an excuse to kill him"
camping the door until they leave is garbage though, so is breaking in

Isn’t ss13 advertised as a paranoia laden space game? Course with static names and hard tells we’ve long departed from the beginning, but what’s wrong with being paranoid? Your co worker either did some remodeling of their sleeping quarters or is about to murder you in the name of a rival organization.

Paranoid as in "don't trust them at all, deny all their requests, don't ever stand still next to them, don't give them any leniency if they commit a crime (even a small one like breaking windows), etc"
I should've used a different word, but that seemed ok at the time
>inb4 "but they shouldn't be allowed to do that either"
but they can, and will. It's nigh impossible to detect because people are allowed to do these things normally in moderation

somerandomguy wrote:"players know how antags work but they shouldn't"
yeah no,if you see someone in/leaving a suspicious, secluded place with a crate then you should definitely be allowed to at least search them, rather than going "x is an antag but I can only hint at it so let's all be paranoid around him until we find an excuse to kill him"
camping the door until they leave is garbage though, so is breaking in

Dorms is not a suspicious place unless you willingly break the fourth wall of there not being a mechanical reason for players being in dorms barring logging out, although I'm on the fence about the crates when you can break them and avoid all this trouble.

Cobby wrote:

somerandomguy wrote:"players know how antags work but they shouldn't"
yeah no,if you see someone in/leaving a suspicious, secluded place with a crate then you should definitely be allowed to at least search them, rather than going "x is an antag but I can only hint at it so let's all be paranoid around him until we find an excuse to kill him"
camping the door until they leave is garbage though, so is breaking in

Dorms is not a suspicious place unless you willingly break the fourth wall of there not being a mechanical reason for players being in dorms barring logging out, although I'm on the fence about the crates when you can break them and avoid all this trouble.

Dorms is not a suspicious place in itself but seeing items in places they don't belong should certainly be. I'm not saying it's evidence of someone being a traitor (you could easily make the case it was already there or whatever other excuse you can think of, it's just a regular crate) but in my opinion it's a reasonable cause for a search.

As you say it's very easy to cover your tracks so I don't see why dorms have to be the designated place for traitors to spawn their stuff in complete safety and we're all supposed to act dumb because they can't take a moment to not make it so obvious.
Like you see the same people make a beeline for the dorms within 30 seconds of the round starting every time they're traitors. You can pretend you didn't see anything suspicious all you want but in reality from that point on you know exactly what's going on next time you see them during the round.

Screemonster wrote:brb gonna walk into a dorm room with a crate at roundstart and ahelp anyone who breaks in and murders me for it

or are you chucklefucks gonna argue that going into a dorm at roundstart is "acting like an antag"

That's brilliant. I'm going to do that sometime. Take an empty crate into a dorm room and see if someone attacks me over it.

Dorms is not a suspicious place in itself but seeing items in places they don't belong should certainly be. I'm not saying it's evidence of someone being a traitor (you could easily make the case it was already there or whatever other excuse you can think of, it's just a regular crate) but in my opinion it's a reasonable cause for a search.

I'm not going to search someone because they have a crate, which are all over the place, outside of one of the 150 set spawn locations on [current map]. I know we're low RP but that's 100% a shitty case of using player knowledge just to fuck another player over. As a sec officer I'd rather take the risk of being killed later than to be the no fun police kicking down doors because someone had a metal box that spawns all over the station and "lol there's no in game advantage for him having it there so he must be up to something".

Plus as a sec officer cockblocking a traitor as he's trying to pick up his gear isn't any fun.

the last time this came up as an issue was literal years ago. somebody (i think steelpoint) mapped out an optimal meta-chart on where to best place barriers, flashers, etc to reinforce the armory at roundstart. admins just said not to do it because its shitty and we listened

We did kind of get off track on the thread into general power/metagaming.

I think the rule against reinforcing the armory at round start is just fine. It's a balance thing and despite how it doesn't make sense we don't want to get rid of it. We don't want every single round to have the warden sealing all the armory guns in his locker.

Once you have any reason to think something will get to the armory have at it. I secure the armory/guns at the first sign of a wizard, vent crawling antags, attacks on the brig, any criminals in space, etc.

That was Malkevin who made the 'optimal' Boxstation security layout picture.

Also, to my memory the picture was not to reinforce the armoury at all, but to reinforce the brig in general to make it harder to run around in the brig (for prisoners or intruders) and to make it significantly harder to enter via the alternative entrances.

It was actually on the HoS Wiki page for a while, I just checked. But the dropbox it linked to is long broken.

Depends how far folk go with it. Like people have said it was an issue years ago when people would map out optimal placements every single round etc.

Not so much of an issue now but something to keep an eye on.

Anything goes as long as the guns don't leave the armoury itself is my opinion. Lockers/safes/turrets/bolts/windoors/etc.

After all, it's piss easy to break into anywhere now. That rule existed when airlocks were effectively invulnerable and bolted airlocks couldn't be circumvented with an emag/screwdriver/crowbar/wrench. Lockers can be broken into with every day tools now, that rule about lockers only existed because lockers were Fort Knox in terms of defence for the average person without a valid ID/emag/similar tool.

Dorms is a suspicious place because there is no actual rp or reason to sleep in this game for any reason. The place solely exists for people to go be scummy around and the crew and players all know this. The traitors who continue to use the door with the bolt lights active deserve whatever happens for having zero ability to think outside of the box to avoid this or capitalize on it, i.e. luring in people who watch for dorms being used or to get them seen as the boy who cried wolf.

As for the armory, why not. It's not like bluetext matters or R&D doesn't exist, or that there are ghetto weapons that can be loaded with things from shards of glass to shotgun slugs or rubber shot. The brig is an ugly, shitty hellhole just like the rest of the station and one of the few interesting things left to do is reconstruction to make areas less ugly and a death trap soon as one fucking window breaks to space.

"it's suspicious to take a break because there's no mechanical benefit to taking a break"

well-rested moodlet when

roundstart is probably the only timeframe where you have enough time to do any reinforcing before shits hit the fan, and reinforcing brig is more of a gimmick than actually usefullness

There is a benefit to taking a break
*people can go to dorms to actually take a break from the game*
It aint complex

smh just remove dorms

Anonmare wrote:Anything goes as long as the guns don't leave the armoury itself is my opinion. Lockers/safes/turrets/bolts/windoors/etc.

After all, it's piss easy to break into anywhere now. That rule existed when airlocks were effectively invulnerable and bolted airlocks couldn't be circumvented with an emag/screwdriver/crowbar/wrench. Lockers can be broken into with every day tools now, that rule about lockers only existed because lockers were Fort Knox in terms of defence for the average person without a valid ID/emag/similar tool.

this is a very important point -- breakins are much easier now than they used to be

I thought the rule about not hiding guns in the lockers was because to someone scoping it out it looks like you emptied the armory entirely (And is also blatantly metagaming).

Fortifying the armory in a sensible way (turrets, barricades, flashers, electric grilles) is 100% fine though, Wardens need something to do since sec officers never let them manage their brig

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:I thought the rule about not hiding guns in the lockers was because to someone scoping it out it looks like you emptied the armory entirely (And is also blatantly metagaming).

Fortifying the armory in a sensible way (turrets, barricades, flashers, electric grilles) is 100% fine though, Wardens need something to do since sec officers never let them manage their brig

No, it was because lockers used to be the most indestructible thing in the game short of bombs.

This may be weird coming from me since I love breaking into the armory (though maybe it's because I have that experience with it), but the default armory as it stands is WAY too easy for any grey-wearing chump to get into and clean out, especially on Meta. Once you find test and bolt wires (about a minute of work including grabbing tools from storage), you only need to hack through 5 doors from the practice range across an area you don't often find officers which take about 5 seconds each. ~30 seconds to get any plethora of weapons and gear you want while there's 3 officers standing even 1 tile below the warden's office completely oblivious to what's happening just off-screen.
I am 100% in support of letting people fortify the armory and brig immediately from roundstart so long as they use the tools provided to them and not do something like RCD'ing reinforced walls in front of any "problem" area. Giving people something to do to customize their department before anything "real" happens in the shift is a good way to keep people engaged and not just sitting and waiting to crack an antag/my skull.

Malkraz wrote:This may be weird coming from me since I love breaking into the armory (though maybe it's because I have that experience with it), but the default armory as it stands is WAY too easy for any grey-wearing chump to get into and clean out, especially on Meta. Once you find test and bolt wires (about a minute of work including grabbing tools from storage), you only need to hack through 5 doors from the practice range across an area you don't often find officers which take about 5 seconds each. ~30 seconds to get any plethora of weapons and gear you want while there's 3 officers standing even 1 tile below the warden's office completely oblivious to what's happening just off-screen.
I am 100% in support of letting people fortify the armory and brig immediately from roundstart so long as they use the tools provided to them and not do something like RCD'ing reinforced walls in front of any "problem" area. Giving people something to do to customize their department before anything "real" happens in the shift is a good way to keep people engaged and not just sitting and waiting to crack an antag/my skull.

If there's no warden I dont see anything wrong with sec taking reasonable precautions to keep greyshirts out of the Gun Room

I unapologetically bolt the armoury+warden+HoS office if the security force is insufficient in my eyes.
It is very easy to break into, Box's especially, and, to be frank, is laughable in its current state.

The trouble with the armoury designs is you need to strike a balance between being too easy to break into versus being too hard to break into.

This has been discussed at fair length, and the ruling is going to be not to reinforce the armoury without good reason, especially at roundstart.

While wanting to keep the guns safe is an understandable desire, the armoury design is as it is not because its an "optimal" way to safely store the guns, but rather because it tries to strike a balance between difficulty and allowing theft.

For the purposes of the game, we're gonna say that stuffing things in lockers, reinforcing the structure (with walls or riot barricades) or building turrets are all examples of things that we don't want people doing without good cause. This isn't an exhaustive list, but the bottom line is that at heart this isn't a team death match game, and sometimes we have to do things in a non-optimal way to leave room for story to develop in the round.

Obviously if you become aware of a threat to the armoury, then you're free to act on that threat. For the purposes of our rules, a code blue alert alone isn't sufficient threat to justify this. The Nanotrasen Station is in a hectic region of outer space and "suspected" threats are only just barely worth raising the alert level over.