/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:34 pm**

Update with people who said they would help:

-LeoZ coding
-Xhuis coding
-XDTM coding
-Kevinz000 coding
-Iamgoofball coding
-Okand37 mapping
-Tofa01 mapping
-MMMiracles mapping
-Steelpoint mapping
-Ausops(?) spriting
-WJ spriting/mapping
-Lexorion spriting
-Haevacht spriting
-danno set up a trello which I haven't used yet because I'm allergic to organization

Here is my almost realistic idea, in bullet points before the autistic paragraphs

-The crew has crashlanded on a planet

-There is a hostile wilderness, and an ancient alien (the ones who built the gateway) structure that crew have built the station/base around, using parts from their ship (everyone spawns here with the base already more or less constructed). There is a larger, fancier gateway in the center of their base.

-The crew has no means of calling an escape shuttle. They either activate their gateway (by powering it up) or they have to accept defeat and detonate the nuke.

-At the very edges of the map there is the lavaland tendril corruption shit. It will spread inwards towards the base as the game progresses. Tendrils will grow (while spitting out stronger monsters depending on their stage). On the last stage, they will reproduce, seeding new weaker tendrils etc. The tendrils will also now produce some sort of alien weed equivalent around them which has negative lighting, so darkness will literally be closing in on the station.

-If the monsters reach and attack the gateway enough times, it becomes corrupted. Game over.

-Periodically there would be waves of monsters or ash lizards sent that attempt to assault the base itself

-There would be alien structures in the base that required an enormous amount of power to activate, which engineering would have to choose to direct power to to use (slowing down powering on the gate).

-The gate power on sequence would be the finale replacing the shuttle, with a final wave of monsters sent to overrun the base as people escape to centcomm. A cooldown between each person escaping could add some tension and infighting and drag it out a bit.

How this map would impact the different jobs

Spoiler:

How this would effect game modes:

Spoiler:

Other map features:

Spoiler:

Biggest challenges/reasons why this won't work:

Spoiler:

Reasons why I think this is worth it:

Spoiler:

Shitty map I drew when I assumed this would be lavaland base, but I dont think lavaland as the base z level would make people happy. Could still have an ocean though, oceans are cool. It's obviously a bit different than I described in this thread, but this was drawn a while ago.

http://i.imgur.com/mD5ff5v.png

I'm most interested to hear from maintainers and the host because none of this matters if nobody wants to work on it or have it available to play.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:40 pm**

This is a cool idea, but I don't think people would accept it as the default map. Make it a map that people can vote for, and I'm on board.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:41 pm**

Is this Creeper World?

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:42 pm**

>Can we just remove cult

Get out, NOW.

This sounds fun as hell though and I'm in.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:43 pm**

Luke Cox wrote:This is a cool idea, but I don't think people would accept it as the default map. Make it a map that people can vote for, and I'm on board.

There is no point going in this direction if focus is still going to be diverted between two maps

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:44 pm**

How did you go from general server direction discussion to something so different from the base flavor and niceness of the game.
"What direction do we want to go?"
"Lets make it pretty much an entire different game!"
When are we going to get back that future retro flavor without all these random sidebrances of content.
I'm so confused, I've never disagreed with something kor wrote more than ever.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:45 pm**

Coders code what they want anyways, having two different map themes won't change that.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:47 pm**

This isn't a sidebranch or alternate map, this is a replacement for the current game concept

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:50 pm**

But...why?
I get that Lavaland is liked by a few people,but LoL exists.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:50 pm**

NikNakFlak wrote:How did you go from general server direction discussion to something so different from the base flavor and niceness of the game.
"What direction do we want to go?"
"Lets make it pretty much an entire different game!"
When are we going to get back that future retro flavor without all these random sidebrances of content.
I'm so confused, I've never disagreed with something kor wrote more than ever.

The paradox of "giving ss13 a direction" is that it has directionless built into it. So yes, you'd basically have to make something related but different.

Or we can keep going on our griff roulette, it's been pretty fun for a decade now so changing it might be an over reaction.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:53 pm**

Cool idea, but better as a separate codebase! It would be way easier to do this by itself than shoving a whole other game inside the original TGstation code.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:53 pm**

Reece wrote:But...why?
I get that Lavaland is liked by a few people

I said why in the OP, if you don't want to read it please don't post. Lavaland is also the most popular job in the history of /tg/, and has been for a year straight now.

People are going to want conflict in their videogames, and since trying to figure out rules for player vs player violence is going down a bottomless rabbit hole, we may as well let players inflict violence on NPCs that don't adminhelp.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:56 pm**

That's what I'm saying. We can have multiple SS13 flavors built into the game, so that people who were really fond of the relaxing SS13 experience don't get thrown out to dry by us completely changing the game and voiding what we used to be.

And as I said, the argument that "having more modes just means that everything will be developed less" is dead wrong because the coders always develop what they want, and if they don't like the new mode they just won't code. It's not their job, after all, they can stop at any time.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:58 pm**

We could simply have the corruption spread faster/slower/not at all depending on how relaxing you want it to be. At that point it'd just be SS13 if you stayed in the walls, with bonus exploration and building outside if not.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:00 pm**

I like this idea a lot independently. But it's not Space Station 13, which is what I am here to play.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:01 pm**

It could be decided at roundstart how voracious the environment is lately on a scale of like 1-5, with 1 being virtually nonexistant and 5 being so hellish that the antags'll die too if they don't lend a hand.

But man I'm just saying, people are fond of SPACE station 13. Completely throwing it out, even for this which is a really good idea, is just gonna get this thrown into debate hell.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:05 pm**

What does being in space add to the game? This is still a sci fi themed station with a hostile outside environment, but it gives a greater direction, purpose to the crew, and additional consistent hazards and problems to deal with, which actually gives several largely worthless jobs a greater purpose

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:08 pm**

ShadowDimentio wrote: is just gonna get this thrown into debate hell.

Yeah, which is why I'd rather have this debate now rather than after I waste 500 hours on this.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:14 pm**

The randomization of how scary the environment would be that round sounds like a good way to keep things fresh though.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:21 pm**

I like the space aspect of the game, if you put it on the ground, a very big part of this game and flavor dies.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:28 pm**

Kor wrote:
Reece wrote:But...why?
I get that Lavaland is liked by a few people
I said why in the OP, if you don't want to read it please don't post. Lavaland is also the most popular job in the history of /tg/, and has been for a year straight now.

People are going to want conflict in their videogames, and since trying to figure out rules for player vs player violence is going down a bottomless rabbit hole, we may as well let players inflict violence on NPCs that don't adminhelp.

No. You made assertions. People don't validhunt because they want to kill monsters,they validhunt because humans are engaging to fight because they can think. TG mobs are about as smart as wet pasta and are as fun to fight, else antags and security and everyone else would already be going to lavaland, or purging space carp.

Lavaland also offers 'phat lewt' as it were, and do you have the player list of those who do mining? Because from what I've seen it's the same 10 people running it every round.

Antags not being the main story in of itself is an odd choice of words. Because the story would be shifted away from a person that can plan ahead, think on their feet and react to changing situations to a story entitled 'What if Lemmings wanted the spessmen dead'. Antags are still going to be the big centre of attention, or we'll just get an influx of friendly antags using their status openly to try and kill monsters as effeciently as possible.

Jobs already have a goal and purpose, the goal is to make the phat lewt, and the purpose is to hand it out. Adding monsters would just mean science is more justified in handing out advanced E guns and Tesla revolvers, or medical has a good need for that optimised cryo mix beyond bombs.

I like the concept of a more focused and goal oriented station, but I think playing Monster Somme is a poor way of doing it. I think the enviroment should play a large part. For example in the case of aquastation Atmos would control ballast tanks that affect the orientation and depth, engineering would need to repair fix corrosion, maintain engine, etc. Greater depth would mean fragile windows would shatter, but in return depth might increase the ore levels in mining areas.

The power consumption of the station would increase as more upgrades are added to machines, and the higher the power the more chance of attracting harmful and non harmful mobs at deeper levels. To avoid just staying in the shallows the station could pollute the water causing radiation in people exposed to water, forcing them deeper. In shallow zones everyone could do a swim past in their O2 mask allowing for greater mobility. But the station can sink away from you leaving you stranded.

Or at supercrush depths even hardsuits cannot save you, and you need genetics with the cold immunity.

I mean those are rough ideas, and I'm not sure how viable they would be. But I do think monster hunter is a bland way to go.

Also
- Kudzu jungle world with hidden temples.
- Tundra world with super chilled lethal air.
- Gas giant station where the layout shifts every so often as the gas currents push department modules are buffeted around.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:36 pm**

I just feel like this is taking the space out of ss13 which tg is one of the main branches where other branches sprout from. Can't this be a side thing with its own includes but not completely take out ss13?

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:38 pm**

kevinz000 wrote:I just feel like this is taking the space out of ss13 which tg is one of the main branches where other branches sprout from. Can't this be a side thing with its own includes but not completely take out ss13?

How would it work as a side system? It woukd essentially cut the game in half, half the support for the side and main system,half the players. Etc.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:41 pm**

Reece wrote:
kevinz000 wrote:I just feel like this is taking the space out of ss13 which tg is one of the main branches where other branches sprout from. Can't this be a side thing with its own includes but not completely take out ss13?
How would it work as a side system? It woukd essentially cut the game in half, half the support for the side and main system,half the players. Etc.

Define all it's in includes in a file that gets includes when it is defined in the code. Basically make it a compile option that compiles the game into this mode.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:42 pm**

I'm not sure how well received this would be, but even just a couple of lines in I'm interested

I think it'll be a cold day in hell before people accept this, considering how bad the response to even a normal station being added is usually, but it's cool nonetheless

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:43 pm**

could put it on the third server.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:44 pm**

Yeah I really like the idea but I just don't want to see classic space station disappear.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:44 pm**

BeeSting12 wrote:could put it on the third server.

this is a good idea, actually

code the stuff on a different branch, run some tests on server 3, see how it plays

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:45 pm**

The thing is if we threw out space this turns us into a main branch of a niche server.
How about we do this by including files in a separate list that is included by compile options and force Travis to make all code compile on all PRS so compatibility is always maintained.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:54 pm**

captain sawrge wrote: There is no point going in this direction if focus is still going to be diverted between two map variations

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:55 pm**

it looks like an interesting idea, but I don't want to see the classic space station disappear as others have said. if you put this on the third server I'd play it tbh

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:56 pm**

Good stuff Kor, sounds fantastic. Prolly should be on the third server though.

We still need a space ship thirteen so the captain can reduce power to weapons while maintaining shields in desperate battles.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:56 pm**

captain sawrge wrote:
captain sawrge wrote: There is no point going in this direction if focus is still going to be diverted between two map variations

That's why you ensure compatibility so neither is tossed out and coders work on whatever they wish.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:59 pm**

yes let's put the primary redesign intended to fix the game's stale repetitive and pointlessness flaw onto a server that no one will ever play on.

it has been shown time and again that "toe-dipping" as i like to call it, wherein you very slowly and carefully try out a feature to gauge our autistic community's screeching volume is a HORRIBLE way to go about getting things implemented permanently.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:01 am**

i thought we hated binary gameplay and restarting the round ASAP?

with this the crews goal will literally always be the same: rush the gateway and escape or... blow up the nuke for some reason?

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:14 am**

Personally I like the idea, and I think space could still be integrated in the form of a small shuttle that could only host one or two people for scavenging the derelict (or it going to random space locations for deep space exploration.)

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:16 am**

Kor wrote:
Reece wrote:But...why?
I get that Lavaland is liked by a few people
I said why in the OP, if you don't want to read it please don't post. Lavaland is also the most popular job in the history of /tg/, and has been for a year straight now.

People are going to want conflict in their videogames, and since trying to figure out rules for player vs player violence is going down a bottomless rabbit hole, we may as well let players inflict violence on NPCs that don't adminhelp.

Is this true? I always thought it was Scientist, or maybe AI. Lavaland was very popular at release and is still cool I guess but it's not exactly the defining ultimate trait of the game, and if it was I'd imagine we'd have more people trying to get into it every round (most rounds it's just the miners that go, provided they exist).

As for the concept itself: I like it and could see it work as it's own map, but I don't like the idea of it taking over what we have how (inb4 sawrge). Fighting NPC monsters is frankly boring as shit (megafauna too, either you die instantly or you know all their patterns and just do that 1000 times until they dispense their phat loot) and making not just a map but the entire game based on something that's just boring doesn't seem wise. (Niknak covered this as well).

This isn't even mentioning round length. With what you propose, rounds will have an arbitrary upper limit to how long they can go for until MONSTERS WIN U DED. Not only that, but you're shifting the goal of the crew from "stop the threat to your crew" to "escape," meaning that the entire goal of the crew is to end the round as early as possible. Good crews will have excruciatingly short rounds, leaving no time for conflict to even build up, while bad crews will just lose every time. The odds of the portal powering up just as the brainless boring monsters arrive will be miniscule.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:17 am**

Kel wrote:i thought we hated binary gameplay and restarting the round ASAP?

with this the crews goal will literally always be the same: rush the gateway and escape or... blow up the nuke for some reason?

The goal of the crew right now is already to escape every round, so its not exactly a step backwards in that regard. Having to work at the problem if you want to be able to escape it eventually rather than just mashing red alert and bailing will be a step forward though. The nuke has to exist so that if the station is basically gone there is a way to end the round short of begging admins. A ten minute timer, but an explosion at the end rather than escaping.

And it'd of course be possible to add other ways to end the round later if any of this exists.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:20 am**

PKPenguin321 wrote:
Kor wrote:
Reece wrote:But...why?
I get that Lavaland is liked by a few people
I said why in the OP, if you don't want to read it please don't post. Lavaland is also the most popular job in the history of /tg/, and has been for a year straight now.

People are going to want conflict in their videogames, and since trying to figure out rules for player vs player violence is going down a bottomless rabbit hole, we may as well let players inflict violence on NPCs that don't adminhelp.
Is this true? I always thought it was Scientist, or maybe AI. Lavaland was very popular at release and is still cool I guess but it's not exactly the defining ultimate trait of the game, and if it was I'd imagine we'd have more people trying to get into it every round (most rounds it's just the miners that go, provided they exist).

As for the concept itself: I like it and could see it work as it's own map, but I don't like the idea of it taking over what we have how (inb4 sawrge). Fighting NPC monsters is frankly boring as shit (megafauna too, either you die instantly or you know all their patterns and just do that 1000 times until they dispense their phat loot) and making not just a map but the entire game based on something that's just boring doesn't seem wise. (Niknak covered this as well).

This isn't even mentioning round length. With what you propose, rounds will have an arbitrary upper limit to how long they can go for until MONSTERS WIN U DED. Not only that, but you're shifting the goal of the crew from "stop the threat to your crew" to "escape," meaning that the entire goal of the crew is to end the round as early as possible. Good crews will have excruciatingly short rounds, leaving no time for conflict to even build up, while bad crews will just lose every time. The odds of the portal powering up just as the brainless boring monsters arrive will be miniscule.

1) Yes its true, at least according to the stats page

2) Not every monster will be brainless, thats what ghost roles are for

3) There is already an upper round limit for 20 minutes for when the captain or admins get bored, I'd have to severely fuck up the rate of expansion for the monsters/rate at which the gate turns on to end it any faster than we end rounds currently

4) I don't have to time the monster arrival perfectly, they can simply arrive en masse when you start the power up sequence.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:22 am**

I'd help coding if you need it.
But I just started making AquaStation again.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH.
Still, if you need me, I'd be glad to help. I'd also write for it if you want because I'm a lore autist.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:24 am**

I'd help coding if you need it.

You already finished one of the key pieces of this by making the power control thing actually so thank you for that.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:24 am**

<3
I don't care about design reasons and such because I don't really have a good understanding of them. I just make stuff I think is cool, so just tell me what and I'll do the thing.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:26 am**

Kor wrote:
Kel wrote:i thought we hated binary gameplay and restarting the round ASAP?

with this the crews goal will literally always be the same: rush the gateway and escape or... blow up the nuke for some reason?
The goal of the crew right now is already to escape every round, so its not exactly a step backwards in that regard. Having to work at the problem if you want to be able to escape it eventually rather than just mashing red alert and bailing will be a step forward though. The nuke has to exist so that if the station is basically gone there is a way to end the round short of begging admins. A ten minute timer, but an explosion at the end rather than escaping.

And it'd of course be possible to add other ways to end the round later if any of this exists.

not exactly
the goal of the crew right now is to live on board ss13 (or at least don't die), we don't call the shuttle at minute 15 for absolutely no reason every round, the antags cause that (or incompetence). while there are varying degrees of how fucked things are and how much a shuttle is actually deserved, it doesn't deviate from the goal you have when you first spawn into the round.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:43 am**

Going towards this direction is a huge mistake.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:47 am**

Why do you say?

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:50 am**

Kor wrote:
PKPenguin321 wrote:
Kor wrote:
Reece wrote:But...why?
I get that Lavaland is liked by a few people
I said why in the OP, if you don't want to read it please don't post. Lavaland is also the most popular job in the history of /tg/, and has been for a year straight now.

People are going to want conflict in their videogames, and since trying to figure out rules for player vs player violence is going down a bottomless rabbit hole, we may as well let players inflict violence on NPCs that don't adminhelp.
Is this true? I always thought it was Scientist, or maybe AI. Lavaland was very popular at release and is still cool I guess but it's not exactly the defining ultimate trait of the game, and if it was I'd imagine we'd have more people trying to get into it every round (most rounds it's just the miners that go, provided they exist).

As for the concept itself: I like it and could see it work as it's own map, but I don't like the idea of it taking over what we have how (inb4 sawrge). Fighting NPC monsters is frankly boring as shit (megafauna too, either you die instantly or you know all their patterns and just do that 1000 times until they dispense their phat loot) and making not just a map but the entire game based on something that's just boring doesn't seem wise. (Niknak covered this as well).

This isn't even mentioning round length. With what you propose, rounds will have an arbitrary upper limit to how long they can go for until MONSTERS WIN U DED. Not only that, but you're shifting the goal of the crew from "stop the threat to your crew" to "escape," meaning that the entire goal of the crew is to end the round as early as possible. Good crews will have excruciatingly short rounds, leaving no time for conflict to even build up, while bad crews will just lose every time. The odds of the portal powering up just as the brainless boring monsters arrive will be miniscule.
1) Yes its true, at least according to the stats page

2) Not every monster will be brainless, thats what ghost roles are for

3) There is already an upper round limit for 20 minutes for when the captain or admins get bored, I'd have to severely fuck up the rate of expansion for the monsters/rate at which the gate turns on to end it any faster than we end rounds currently

4) I don't have to time the monster arrival perfectly, they can simply arrive en masse when you start the power up sequence.

1) okay fair, but still, just because the job is picked the most doesn't mean (at least in my eyes) that lavaland is what the people are coming to our servers for

2) most of them will be brainless i'd imagine, and if the ones with brains are just given spears or whatever so they're just tribal unga bungas they're not really much of a threat either (especially if the station is given straight up turrets like you propose, which for the monsters are even less fun to fight than NPCs are for the crew)

3) using our short rounds as justification for making that the goal of EVERY round is just an awful gap of judgement. we still have rounds that go up to an hour or more that are entertaining enough to stick around throughout. if you disagree, maybe you just need a break because the game's stopped being as fun for you, but that's kind of aside from my point. i don't think the fact that we have some 20 minute rounds is a good enough reason to make that the crew's goal, you need a better reason to implement this.

4) i guess, but i suspect this will fall into the "overdone and stale" trap if you force it to be what the entire game is based around, too. then you'll just be back to square one of trying to redesign everything to make things fresh again.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:52 am**

If this is meant to be a total overhaul, the playerbase will never accept it.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:01 am**

Xhuis wrote:Why do you say?

No more dates with Suki without Chad Lizardcock breaking into genetics and kidnapping her.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:04 am**

Luke Cox wrote:If this is meant to be a total overhaul, the playerbase will never accept it.

hey oracle I'm NEO

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:10 am**

Luke Cox wrote:If this is meant to be a total overhaul, the playerbase will never accept it.

I've long since learned to stop presuming what the playerbase will or will not accept.

/tg/Station 13

Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document