[MRP] Kill gun cargo once and for all

[vkalls]

What is gun cargo?
Gun cargo is when a non antag player mass purchases guns from cargo without any real reason. Sometimes it can include declaring independence or shooting antags or people they generally dislike, but it doesn't have to.
What is wrong with gun cargo?
Cargo mass ordering guns and distributing them throughout the department, or even just one person, makes it a lot harder to do things to cargo as an antag. It also leads to validhunting or cargo personnel "accidentally" coming upon an antag and blasting them. It's also arguably powergaming, as they are prepping for a hypothetical threat they do not know exists yet.
How can these issues be solved?
There are two main ways to solve gun cargo, you can either flat out ban non-antags from mass ordering guns without any real reason or you can force or rely on security in game to solve these issues by arresting cargo who order guns in unwarranted situations. Option 1 may seem like a boring and restrictive solution, but I believe it is a necessary solution, because option two has not worked much of the time to this point. I see plenty of rounds where security does try to arrest cargo for ordering guns, which normally results in a raid and people in cargo self antagging. However, I also see many rounds where security does nothing and cargo runs rampant with guns, sometimes even distributing them to the crew.
What I want from this thread.
Personally, I want to see gun cargo defined as powergaming in the rules. Some admins enforce it under powergaming rules, some don't. I've had admins tell me both that it isn't powergaming until cargo uses the guns and that cargo shouldn't order guns at all. I personally don't agree with having to use security to deal with these issues. About 50% of the time, security won't do anything about it, or they will get shot at and have a whole situation with gun cargo. While conflict does breed RP, I think gun cargo is ultimately harmful to the RP and environment of the round. Antags should drive conflict, not non-antags. I also don't think we should FORCE security to deal with this type of situation. Let me know what you think or if you have any better solutions.

[cacogen]

Code problem, should be made harder to do than it currently is. It was nerfed in a controversial, extreme way a long time ago by making crates far more durable than they were but that only made people rely on emitters (not to mention private orders) instead of the bartender's shotgun and lethal shells or whatever else was used.

[Misdoubtful]

I could swear this was written somewhere (I'll try to find it) that gun cargo is pretty much frowned upon on Manuel, and defined as powergaming. In the sense of gearing up for potential threats and not existent ones. There is a difference between someone making conflict and spurring things on and someone doing something that just negatively impacts the round.

Buying them for others wasn't though, thats something else, for the sake of making that clear. That said if someone buys a gun and sec decides to bonk them with IC consequences for it, its on them.

[Timberpoes]

I have always bwoinked for non-antag guncargo on Manuel unless they have a good IC reason.

What a good IC reason is will always depend on the shift as a whole and the context of the guncargo. Guncargo in reaction to certain station events can both be proportionate and a good IC reason. Gun cargo in preparation for hitherto unknown or possible events is on shakier ground.

FNR, "I'm bored/cargo is boring" or "I've watched BPL Tex" guncargos are restricted to LRP only and I always aimed to shut them down when I was on MRP.

[Edit] - "I want to run guncargo for X OOC reason or X IC reason" when done pre-emptively in ahelps has at times gotten my blessing to run it even when ordinarily it would be against the MRP rules.

[iwishforducks]

Right now I don't feel like gun cargo isn't even that big of a problem, in all honesty.

The issue with gun cargo imo on manuel is/was more that when a single threat shows up, gun cargo will begin for said threat and then suddenly the entire crew is walking around with lethals. It's hard to expect sec to even want to stop people and ask for them to give up their guns, as there's a lot of room for escalation and it's just not worth the time and risk. Luckily, with the death of the mosin (mixed feelings about this one) and the death of the shotgun (again, mixed feelings), it looks like the entire crew running around with guns has mostly calmed down, as you can't exactly carry ammo for energy based weaponry.

[Cobby]

Sec is protected from escalation if they make arrests for having guns. If you are security and get killed because you attempted to arrest someone for having a gun, even post a threat like blob, you have very likely been wronged.

This is true for both MRP and LRP, sec is protected if they make valid arrests, and having a gun when the threat is no longer existent is near 100% valid to arrest for (or at least confiscating the gun).

[vkalls]

Alright, to Timberpoes and Misdoubtful. A lot of admins do agree that it's powergaming, but not all admins that I've spoken to. I'd like to get ordering guns without an actual threat, period, not allowed. It always leads to either cargo self-antaging and getting bwoinked anyway, while maybe killing a few along the way, or, the worse one in my opinion, them running around validhunting after the slightest justification. And again, in my experience around 50% of the time security does nothing to stop this or they even encourage it. Gun cargo hasn't been as common the past few weeks, but I'd like to just get this done so we have a consistent view on it.

[Valorium]

Frankly - and I've already said as much on the Manuel Discord - gun cargo is the LEAST interesting thing one can do as supply. As supply (especially the inevitable supply-with-full-emitter-array-15-minutes-in), you have access to more job content than almost any other job on station - grilling supplies, Ripley crates, mining conscription kits, construction materials, EVA suits - and to then decide "hee hoo ordering guns because cargonia!!" seems like a complete waste of potential. I say this as a frequent Cargo Tech and QM - being helpful or engaging in a way that ISN'T "2nd Amendment baybeeeeeeee" lends itself to a more interesting round for those both within Supply and without.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

IMO guncargo is like a kid bringing gum to class. Did you bring enough for everyone?

[cacogen]

So it's subject to stupid social dogma where it isn't actually the issue presented by the person in authority but that they've been taught not to like it or find it unacceptable or whatever

[oranges]

Code problem, should be made harder to do than it currently is. It was nerfed in a controversial, extreme way a long time ago by making crates far more durable than they were but that only made people rely on emitters (not to mention private orders) instead of the bartender's shotgun and lethal shells or whatever else was used.

This is a policy problem first, not a code one, crates being so indestructible already tests the suspension of disbelief and the only way to fix this behaviour in the code is to make crates immutable and indestructible. This is a poor solution, it would in fact be better to back in the opposite direction and solve it through administrative and policy action.

[Misdoubtful]

Alright, to Timberpoes and Misdoubtful. A lot of admins do agree that it's powergaming, but not all admins that I've spoken to. I'd like to get ordering guns without an actual threat, period, not allowed. It always leads to either cargo self-antaging and getting bwoinked anyway, while maybe killing a few along the way, or, the worse one in my opinion, them running around validhunting after the slightest justification. And again, in my experience around 50% of the time security does nothing to stop this or they even encourage it. Gun cargo hasn't been as common the past few weeks, but I'd like to just get this done so we have a consistent view on it.

To build on me recalling what I could swear was the unofficial ruling and try to tie it into your concerns lets run a hypothetical here through the following few examples of how things could play out:

Cargo:

1. orders and stores guns
2. orders guns out of the blue and gives them to sec
3. orders guns and declares independence
4. orders guns and then hunts the valids
5. orders guns and gives them to anyone and everyone
6. orders guns and gives them to everyone in the department
7. orders guns and hands them out when a threat appears
8. orders guns and fights sec when they come for them
9. orders guns and hands them to sec when they come for them

These could all get a couple different rulings depending on things, right? A 'its okay from one person and a its bad from another' would be understandably frustrating for anyone though — no one likes minefield policy especially when they accidently step on one of those mines. In comes the recalled unofficial approach that there was (is?) on it that was/is easy to navigate and harder to misinterpret while playing.

Gearing up/stocking up/preparing in cargo being cool when there is a credible threat/issue on the station.

Which is actually pretty much the written power gaming rule. Was your intention maybe wanting it to be a clearly written precedent?

Do not powergame. Powergaming is gearing up or preparing in other ways to face an issue that is not related to your job and is not currently a credible threat. Someone going missing on the station, and then you making a stunprod to wield whenever you go into maint is powergaming. However; knowing there have been murders occurring across the station, and grabbing a stunprod while you go to fix wires in maint is fine.

---

Cobby said sec gets the right of way when it comes to this sort of thing by default with escalation if they want to take that route and it shouldn't result in sec getting blasted, but it would be kinda unreasonable to expect them to be perfect crime stoppers and always jump on the case wouldn't it? If they had to be perfect wouldn't everyone else?

... You can't kill or maim security for trying to arrest you for legitimate reasons

Since you brought it up though, I included it in some of my examples, validhunting and self-antagging. They would be a bit of a separate issue, right? They don't really require cargo ordering guns, but cargo doing so can kinda enable it sometimes. In the end thats all choices being made rather than the gear forcing it.

[cacogen]

Code problem, should be made harder to do than it currently is. It was nerfed in a controversial, extreme way a long time ago by making crates far more durable than they were but that only made people rely on emitters (not to mention private orders) instead of the bartender's shotgun and lethal shells or whatever else was used.

This is a policy problem first, not a code one, crates being so indestructible already tests the suspension of disbelief and the only way to fix this behaviour in the code is to make crates immutable and indestructible. This is a poor solution, it would in fact be better to back in the opposite direction and solve it through administrative and policy action.

I don't think agree it challenges the suspension of disbelief. But the solution you suggested isn't the only possible one. Another idea is using the tamperproof mechanic to add a certain probability of crates being destroyed when damaged.

The other problem is that private orders bypass access requirements for crates. They cost more but I don't think it's enough to properly restrict them. Especially if you fund them with the cargo budget.

Making a policy is a band-aid solution that functions as no fun allowed because we say so, no exceptions, when you could just make it rarer by making it more challenging to pull off.

[vkalls]

Alright, I do believe that Cargo gearing up is powergaming, and it seems a lot of admins do as well. However, in practice, I have seen time and time again cargo orders guns for no reason, carries them around, sec does nothing, and then they eventually get into a separate situation where they end up using the gun that they already shouldn't have to screw over another player. When I ahelp it varies from admin to admin on whether or not they believe the act of ordering the guns with no real threat in the first place is powergaming. Sometimes I ahelp it too late after they have already used said gun they shouldn't have, thus giving them a reason to use said gun. That is a failure on my part. I would just like the act of ordering the guns with no real threat clearly defined by all admins as powergaming. It might help admins be more proactive if it is clearly defined, and it would eliminate any shakiness on the act of ordering guns with no real threat.
Edit: To be clear, I think ordering them at all without a confirmed threat whether it be to store them, distribute them, use them, or store outside of the armory/sec until a real emergency comes should be defined as powergaming.

[thehogshotgun]

My friends, you are witnessing a man who got killed as an antag by a cargotech

[Cobby]

Cobby said sec gets the right of way when it comes to this sort of thing by default with escalation if they want to take that route and it shouldn't result in sec getting blasted, but it would be kinda unreasonable to expect them to be perfect crime stoppers and always jump on the case wouldn't it? If they had to be perfect wouldn't everyone else?

The thought process behind "I need to admin because the IC method isnt perfect" is really dangerous. Somethings are ok to IC issue even if you know sec is braindead R* this round and nothing is actually going to get done because you, the admin, are NOT a replacement for sec. It's only "ok" in this instance because you arent getting onto them for the part sec would arrest them for, but rather the OOC purpose behind their IC actions (to gear up to kill le epic antags that might not even exist) and the overall disruption it causes to the game.

Otherwise people wont ever go sec because its more/less easier to do what they want to do as sec as assistant (at least on LRP) and admins will fit the bill.

apart from that i think i agree

[Misdoubtful]

Cobby said sec gets the right of way when it comes to this sort of thing by default with escalation if they want to take that route and it shouldn't result in sec getting blasted, but it would be kinda unreasonable to expect them to be perfect crime stoppers and always jump on the case wouldn't it? If they had to be perfect wouldn't everyone else?

The thought process behind "I need to admin because the IC method isnt perfect" is really dangerous. Somethings are ok to IC issue even if you know sec is braindead R* this round and nothing is actually going to get done because you, the admin, are NOT a replacement for sec. It's only "ok" in this instance because you arent getting onto them for the part sec would arrest them for, but rather the OOC purpose behind their IC actions (to gear up to kill le epic antags that might not even exist) and the overall disruption it causes to the game.

Otherwise people wont ever go sec because its more/less easier to do what they want to do as sec as assistant (at least on LRP) and admins will fit the bill.

apart from that i think i agree

I never did say that admins are a replacement for sec, and at no point said or condoned the thought process of "I need to admin because the IC method isn't perfect". Nor will I ever aim to come off that way honestly. So I'm not sure where thats coming from, or what you mean here? I'd like to clear things up though! That said I do agree with your statement.

• I stated the approach that was being taken by people and said it really is just the current powergaming rule, yeah?
• Then added that while sec has that OOC protection for when guns are being carried that it doesn't mean sec should be expected/required to use it at every opportunity and always catch every cargo tech with a gun in response to a statement about them not always doing something about the guns being around IC. There was nothing about it being something an admin should get involved in because the seccie didn't arrest the cargo tech.
• I then closed saying that while self antagging and validhunting can come with guns coming through cargo, it isn't the active cause of it.

Did something I say not read as intended? Does that clarify?

[Jaredfogle]

What Cobby said--this sounds like a problem that can be solved through security players that do their jobs, and is not necessary to be solved with administration. It gives me pause that nothing in game really discourages you from buying guns compared to anything else, but that you just have to know that the admins won't be okay if you buy it unless under emergency situations (in which case, why is it not locked behind something like red alert? That would encourage roleplay too, with giving mechanical reinforcement to be switching threat levels as command)

Also, because I honestly don't know what else cargo techs do

it doesn't mean sec should be expected/required to use it at every opportunity and always catch every cargo tech with a gun in response to a statement about them not always doing something about the guns being around IC.

If security players crack down on this, I believe it will shift the culture to be have players be more cautious about ordering guns. I imagine one of the reasons behind separate security posts is to encourage security to have tight control over the station as a whole.

[Misdoubtful]

What Cobby said--this sounds like a problem that can be solved through security players that do their jobs, and is not necessary to be solved with administration. It gives me pause that nothing in game really discourages you from buying guns compared to anything else, but that you just have to know that the admins won't be okay if you buy it unless under emergency situations (in which case, why is it not locked behind something like red alert? That would encourage roleplay too, with giving mechanical reinforcement to be switching threat levels as command)

Also, because I honestly don't know what else cargo techs do

it doesn't mean sec should be expected/required to use it at every opportunity and always catch every cargo tech with a gun in response to a statement about them not always doing something about the guns being around IC.

If security players crack down on this, I believe it will shift the culture to be have players be more cautious about ordering guns. I imagine one of the reasons behind separate security posts is to encourage security to have tight control over the station as a whole.

Yeah I'd love to see more little things get cracked down on IC myself, some people use posts and stuff, others don't. But it'd be silly for everyone to expect it to be done all the time really.

The added risk sec adds does just makes things a lot more interesting. Plus I'll always think its funny when cargo gets swatted by sec.

Really, I'd just hate to see it be a minefield that people have to tread through. But, there's a difference between prepping for antags or the station to explode just because (which the powergaming rule explains nicely), doing something that will make a round worse, and a department doing an interesting gimmick. Like making a firing range or something.

[Fikou]

we let people like xenobiologists gear up in instaheals, passive healing, massive speedboosts, proofing themselves from everything just because its their job, i dont see the issue in a cargo tech grabbing a gun from their job place

[Misdoubtful]

we let people like xenobiologists gear up in instaheals, passive healing, massive speedboosts, proofing themselves from everything just because its their job, i dont see the issue in a cargo tech grabbing a gun from their job place

My understanding of whole thing for that was it being job related. That bit about gearing with things from you job in the same powergaming rule. Same as robos makes mech. But then wouldn't that raise the question, they get to use all their toys and cargo doesn't get to use theirs if they only order during threats (see the firing range edit in my last post)?

Just food for thought not any opinions here.

[Jaredfogle]

Yeah I'd love to see more little things get cracked down on IC myself, some people use posts and stuff, others don't.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that I expect people to stick out their posts, I was using to show the mechanics encouraging security to split up and cover separate ground. Ideally, some security officers are handling a given pressing situation (like a confirmed traitor), while others are handling the non-antag keeping-the station

But it'd be silly for everyone to expect it to be done all the time really.

I do truly believe that if security players cracked down on it, it'd happen much less to the point that when it does happen it can be handled on a more manageable level.

Really, I'd just hate to see it be a minefield that people have to tread through. But, there's a difference between prepping for antags or the station to explode just because (which the powergaming rule explains nicely), doing something that will make a round worse, and a department doing an interesting gimmick. Like making a firing range or something.

I agree, I just speak as a designer who disagrees with oranges on where we can help reinforce the behavior we want to achieve through gameplay and not policy.

[Misdoubtful]

Yeah I'd love to see more little things get cracked down on IC myself, some people use posts and stuff, others don't.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that I expect people to stick out their posts, I was using to show the mechanics encouraging security to split up and cover separate ground. Ideally, some security officers are handling a given pressing situation (like a confirmed traitor), while others are handling the non-antag keeping-the station

But it'd be silly for everyone to expect it to be done all the time really.

I do truly believe that if security players cracked down on it, it'd happen much less to the point that when it does happen it can be handled on a more manageable level.

Really, I'd just hate to see it be a minefield that people have to tread through. But, there's a difference between prepping for antags or the station to explode just because (which the powergaming rule explains nicely), doing something that will make a round worse, and a department doing an interesting gimmick. Like making a firing range or something.

I agree, I just speak as a designer who disagrees with oranges on where we can help reinforce the behavior we want to achieve through gameplay and not policy.

I just was pointing at little things like that, the idea of the ever vigilant sec officer that erases crime from the station, and also erases some risky fun potential in the process.

It really makes it feel like the 'is it for antags and just in case' check is the best kind of thing for this, since it would still allow things to be bought for fun and interesting things, and still give sec things to do too. I like the idea of maximizing gameplay.

[Screemonster]

Code problem, should be made harder to do than it currently is. It was nerfed in a controversial, extreme way a long time ago by making crates far more durable than they were but that only made people rely on emitters (not to mention private orders) instead of the bartender's shotgun and lethal shells or whatever else was used.

This is a policy problem first, not a code one, crates being so indestructible already tests the suspension of disbelief and the only way to fix this behaviour in the code is to make crates immutable and indestructible. This is a poor solution, it would in fact be better to back in the opposite direction and solve it through administrative and policy action.

what if certain cargo crates had anti-tamper mechanisms like abandoned crates that destroyed the contents if you try to just shoot them open

less destructive than actual abandoned crates obviously

[cacogen]

we let people like xenobiologists gear up in instaheals, passive healing, massive speedboosts, proofing themselves from everything just because its their job, i dont see the issue in a cargo tech grabbing a gun from their job place

Well, it's a job that unlocks this stuff and it's always gone without saying that the reward is to be able to use it and hand it out to the crew. Should the same be true of cargo crates? I dunno, it's not like ordering a crate and breaking it open with an emitter takes much effort compared to the time involved and tedious repetition of xenobiology. It's also not what the player is intended to do with the job, as unlocking things with xenobiology is.

what if certain cargo crates had anti-tamper mechanisms like abandoned crates that destroyed the contents if you try to just shoot them open

less destructive than actual abandoned crates obviously

I played around with that in response to this thread. Learnt about binomial probabilities (which is something I probably should've learnt in high school) to figure out the right probability to explode when damaged to get the desired overall probability when using an emitter (which does 15 damage to a secure crate per shot and takes about 33 shots to break the lock on one). I arrived at 2% chance to explode per shot, which overall is about 49% chance to explode at 33 shots to break. I'm not sure if it's actually a good solution or not, though. As you said, the explosion (or whether or not to explode) could be different than with abandoned crates (which do a lot of damage).

[Tlaltecuhtli]

we let people like xenobiologists gear up in instaheals, passive healing, massive speedboosts, proofing themselves from everything just because its their job, i dont see the issue in a cargo tech grabbing a gun from their job place

Well, it's a job that unlocks this stuff and it's always gone without saying that the reward is to be able to use it and hand it out to the crew. Should the same be true of cargo crates? I dunno, it's not like ordering a crate and breaking it open with an emitter takes much effort compared to the time involved and tedious repetition of xenobiology. It's also not what the player is intended to do with the job, as unlocking things with xenobiology is.

well xenobiology is a failed concept as if they existed or not isnt noticeable in round outside of xenobio spamming gold slimes after being alone for 30 min, if sec wants to shut down cargo smuggling operation they just need to throw a few flashbangs and perma whoever is in cargo and they are done, they cant even shoot back at sec with lethals unless antag. just like if chemistry is giving free bombs, robo giving gygax to clown or botany unloading death nettle that insta kill in halls
there is a officer assigned to cargo department, like if he is being tricked or corrupted by cargo it generates more RP that it would be if cargo only bought corgis

[cacogen]

I understand but guns are powerful in this game and they should be harder to get. Why attack cargo if they're not doing anything against security? It's just shooting yourself in the foot if you need help from loyal crew against antags. Which is who gun cargo fucks the most because they're the only people most of them are allowed to shoot. So it basically amounts to cargo arming itself on the off chance it gets to fight antags.

I agree that guns are funs and it adds conflict for cargo to have them so I'm against policy making it not allowed even on Manuel (which I still play on from time to time) but I don't think it should be as easy as it is now. An idea I had then which may not work in practice and would be a hard sell to the players is making the guns require firing pins like R&D ones do. You'd need firing pins to use them. You could get one from security or you could use a syndicate firing pin from an uplink or you could buy a firing pin from the black market. You could also privately order single guns that might be fingerprint or ID locked or something, which would be expensive enough to be scarce enough.

Even if people don't like the idea it illustrates that it's possible to remove the need for a policy intervention by simply making it harder to do by gating it behind the right things.

[Kassori]

Can I get an idea of what mass-ordering is? Arming the 3 or 4 people in cargo takes like, 2 crates.

[Misdoubtful]

Can I get an idea of what mass-ordering is? Arming the 3 or 4 people in cargo takes like, 2 crates.

Yeah I was thinking about this.

Someone could argue that a person round start getting a gun would be powergamey for example. Or a whole departments worth could be bought up for something like a firing range.

It doesn't really feel quantifiable, rather: some people have said they believe that it should be focused on getting REALLY geared. Not something like a gun, but a backpack of them kind of thing (maybe not a backpack anymore though haha).

The crew for the most part gets stronger as the round goes on, better guns, mechs, implants, miner loot etc. So where would someone pin an exact number there? Growth and gaming the system to be as strong and can be could easily get mixed up in a numbers game, right? But one is done naturally and the other isn't.

Also something to consider is the rounds are long enough for everyone to end up geared in some way.

Someone could order guns, or order guns and fortify cargo to be fort knox. Not really a quantity there, right? More of a quality.

[Kassori]

Yeah, its clear when people have SWAT armor and Mosins 20 minutes in, but cargo techs outside the vault with reflector vests when pirates get called 15 minutes later seems pretty reasonable, until you're the pirate.

[Tlaltecuhtli]

so what? pirates spawn with crappy gear as side antagonist, if its not cargo then its a chemist with methnades, or a botanist with acid nettles or a mech and so on.
gun availability can be easly changed with prices and gun prices being linked to security level (green 2x, blue 1.5x red 1x) can simply solve the problem to powerlevel between 5 antags doing nothing virgin manuel shift and shits fucked blob + dragon + plasmaflooding average ss13 round

[Cobby]

meow

I read the imperfect nature of security as a failing (that requires admins to step in), I couldnt really see how else that statement fell into the discussion or if it was a random blurb.

[cacogen]

I don't think tying prices to alert level would work because there's only three it's nearly always blue it's usually only changed manually to adjust shuttle times and it only changes automatically at the start and when you're fucked and should've ordered guns a long time ago

Also I forget if it needs access to do but I'm imagining QM Brick Carr on the bridge at the still logged in comms console changing alert level for cheaper guns

[Jaredfogle]

it's nearly always blue it's usually only changed manually to adjust shuttle times

Because it's not tied to anything else! Nobody uses it for roleplay as a "we're in danger" or ever even lowers it because the mechanics don't give you any reason to.

Also I forget if it needs access to do but I'm imagining QM Brick Carr on the bridge at the still logged in comms console changing alert level for cheaper guns

Two people with command access for red alert (or one if you're smart with the hand tele), adds a stop gap for people just going it for something trivial. Could even do something like auto emergency access on red alert to provide a mechanical reason to be cautious with it.

Just to clarify, I'm not really suggesting this formally, I'm using it to show how we *could* communicate "don't buy guns with no threat" other than a bullet point in the rules or, marginally better, some bold text on the description.

[Misdoubtful]

it's nearly always blue it's usually only changed manually to adjust shuttle times

Because it's not tied to anything else! Nobody uses it for roleplay as a "we're in danger" or ever even lowers it because the mechanics don't give you any reason to.

Also I forget if it needs access to do but I'm imagining QM Brick Carr on the bridge at the still logged in comms console changing alert level for cheaper guns

Two people with command access for red alert (or one if you're smart with the hand tele), adds a stop gap for people just going it for something trivial. Could even do something like auto emergency access on red alert to provide a mechanical reason to be cautious with it.

Just to clarify, I'm not really suggesting this formally, I'm using it to show how we *could* communicate "don't buy guns with no threat" other than a bullet point in the rules or, marginally better, some bold text on the description.

I saw a server do something somewhat similar to this where weapons had firemodes that would be enabled and disabled according to the security alert level. It was a pretty cool concept to see actualized. Maybe not really the most fitting thing for us though, it was cool to see alert levels have more impact though.

meow

I read the imperfect nature of security as a failing (that requires admins to step in), I couldnt really see how else that statement fell into the discussion or if it was a random blurb.

Oh yeah my bad, I can see how it would have come off that way.

...

Meow.

[vkalls]

Alright a couple things.
On the security thing - Security should be stopping these people, and it's very nice when they do. It would be bearable if security had cracked down on it to the point where only a small amount of gun cargo actually succeeded. However, the fact is that about half the time, security does nothing about it. All you need to ward off a lot of Manuel sec is a couple autorifles handed over to the armory as a bribe. When I play sec, I try to cut down on this and other issues, but it's very hard to stop a gun cargo that orders a bunch of guns and hands them out and hides them. There is also the risk that they will use the gun on you, it may break the rules, but it still happens and still causes damages. Gun cargo happens far far too often for an MRP server. In my view, this is not an issue 100% solvable IC. Telling the players to do something will get you nowhere. There should be some type of policy in place to stop it from happening.
As for what I want to define as strictly powergaming is someone going to cargo, ordering a crate or more of guns for no reason, and then carrying or keeping them for personal use. I don't mind people using personal orders, as that requires cooperation from cargo and your own money, but using the cargo budget to order even a crate of guns should not be allowed. I don't want to have this be a way to spot antags, but we also have the rule to treat prisoners by their crimes on Manuel already. I really really would love if players would try to cut down on it, but unfortunately most of Manuel's security thinks that gun cargo is just a normal thing for cargo to do and not really arrest worthy.
A code solution would honestly be really nice, but until there is a code solution there needs to be some type of control over gun cargo.

[PwntQ]

Lock cargo from ordering guns unless the supply console is emagged or its red alert, problem solved

[cacogen]

I saw a server do something somewhat similar to this where weapons had firemodes that would be enabled and disabled according to the security alert level. It was a pretty cool concept to see actualized. Maybe not really the most fitting thing for us though, it was cool to see alert levels have more impact though.

I don't like this type of thinking around a method of fixing it in code because it's like IC administration. You have to get permission from whatever person to fire your gun instead of it just being harder to get one through cargo.

[Jaredfogle]

"IC administration"...so security and command?

[TheFinalPotato]

This is depressing. Locking to alert levels is maybe a bit much tho, would leave sec officers helpless unless someone presses the button

[Jaredfogle]

Like I said, I'm mostly just using it as example for "here is how you would reinforce the behavior you want through mechanics rather than expecting people to not do it when nothing in the game stops them". I don't know one way or the other if that specific solution is a good one.

[Timberpoes]

As another maintainer, allow me to chip in by stating that a code solution to this is RP agnostic. I do not feel that it is appropriate when a policy discussion is tagged [MRP] to discuss policy-through-code that also impacts LRP.

In order to make it MRP specific, it would need to be in the config. I would also like, if possible, to avoid locking this mechanic behind a config change because once something is in the config, the feature is there pretty much permanently.

While I do not believe guncargo has a place on MRP in a vast majority of scenarios, a blanket code solution is overkill to what is ostensibly admins exercising their discretion to allow or disallow it based on all the variables at play in the shift.

I also do not believe LRP should have the same restrictions as MRP does for guncargo and that guncargo is not an issue on LRP in general.

I would resist a code change on those grounds unless the code change could justify why this was a code issue and not simply a case of some admins allowing guncargo under Rule 0 or allowing guncargo because they feel there's sufficient IC reasoning for it.

Back onto the actual topic of policy:

I re-iterate that I do not believe guncargo has any place on MRP as a standard practice, however I also argue that with sufficient IC reasoning cargo should be granted the RP freedom to buy guns whilst admins should continue to have the discretionary power to allow it too.

It is important that reasons and methods exist for cargo to buy guns outside of the OOC/metagame reason of "well the person who ordered them is an antag" - Cargo has always been a high value location to subvert as an antag, granting you a wide variety of goodies on the station's purse. Any fuzzying between the binary "is antag" and "is not antag" lines is only beneficial to the game, in my opinion.

[Jaredfogle]

LRP shouldn't mean "it's okay to gear up constantly for antags that are or aren't there", and so I don't think it's unreasonable to reinforce against that, but I want to avoid having myself go on a tangent

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Locking to red alert just means people will go red alert to unlock their stuff, since unless the shuttle is called it has no other meaning

[Jaredfogle]

Locking to red alert just means people will go red alert to unlock their stuff, since unless the shuttle is called it has no other meaning

...starting to think I derailed the thread, oops 😳

[cacogen]

It's especially an issue on LRP because those servers attract the types of powergamers who use it. Again though I don't think gun cargo should be removed or blocked by policy just made less common by making it more difficult.

"IC administration"...so security and command?

God no

[Tlaltecuhtli]

It's especially an issue on LRP because those servers attract the types of powergamers who use it.

lol

[Denton]

It's especially an issue on LRP because those servers attract the types of powergamers who use it.

lol

[cacogen]

It's especially an issue on LRP because those servers attract the types of powergamers who use it.

lol

You grow out of these things.

Also you know it's trivial right now and that even made harder you'd still do it. Just less people would.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Played a few cargo rounds today, guns ordered 2/4 rounds (Once classic guncargo, once to make a gunshop). was good fun.