/tg/Station 13

I've raised this proposal a couple times in admin channels, and it's generally approved of there, so I'm gonna post it out here to get more feedback on what the wider Manuel audience thinks of it.

Manuel's been having consistent issues for months centred around low energy rounds where nothing really happens, and I think a large part of the reason for this is the massive negative interaction between the murderbone rules as written and any attempt to engage in large-scale station sabotage. Under the current rules as written even a single invalid kill is classified as murderboning, and while I don't think that's a problem in small scale personal conflict (to be frank, valid reasons to kill people as an antagonist are incredibly easy to justify) it DOES basically prohibit any antagonistic action with the potential to kill many people. Something as simple as putting up a shocked grille in maintenance as an antagonist resulting in an assistant dying is technically murderbone, let alone something as cool as interesting as sabotaging the supermatter to release a singularity. (Clarification: to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been bwoinked for setting lethal shocked grilles up as an antag, and I'd personally probably instantly declare rule 0 if I saw it myself, frying assistants is a sacred right)

This has a further negative effect on the quality of actual RP on Manuel - In my recent experience nobody on Manuel cares much at all in character about the possibility of critical station sabotage in areas like atmospherics. The area is specifically listed as highly dangerous in the silicon policy rules but nobody has reason to care because of the OOC consideration that very few antags are ALLOWED to touch the bad times plasma pump. How your character actually acts is just as important to playing a role as what they say, and at this point people are treating massive threats IC as non-threats, because OOC they are.

With that in mind, my proposal is this:

Mass sabotage and indirect antagonist actions that are likely to kill people are allowed across the board so long as the antagonist who set them off does not take direct and specific personal action to maximise the bodycount of those actions.

Examples:
An antagonist who wanted to plasmaflood and then run around opening up air alarms to get the spicey going could do so, but they would be prohibited from taking an axe or esword to kill people escaping the flood.

Another antagonist wants to sabotage the supermatter and release a singularity, having beforehand set up a singulo beacon on the other side of the station such as to drag their new hungry baby through populated areas like medbay, they could do that, but running around stunning players attempting to flee and throwing them into the angry disk would be disallowed.

My hope is that this would result in returning freedom for antagonists to pull off dangerous gimmicks and simple but timeless strategies without resulting in the degeneration of antag play towards "how quickly can I make as many people as possible as dead as possible?"

I think spook's incisive insight that the real thing we want to prevent is this "direct and specific personal action" is the best, simplest solution we will get for the problems on manuel. It's really the only way I've seen us be able to separate out the problem behaviour in a meaningful way without complicating the rules further. It's not absolutely perfectly flawless, but it's simple, concise and solves 95% of the problem leaving the edge cases that will always exist. I think this rule (maybe with a slight tweak "Mass sabotage, destruction and indrect antagonist actions" make the point slightly clearer) is a no brainer and should be implemented immediately.

I like this alot. Would drive up the intensity of manuel rounds without necessarily eliminating the entire station.

Manuel playerbase coordination could lead to interesting events you dont see on LRP. Like cargo suddenly becoming a fire-fighter supplier with sec and atmos teaming up as the unofficial firefighters.

The general outcome of this will tie into what happens vis-a-vis discussions on murderbone rules. Which is to say, I hope that a future set of murderbone rules implicitly allow this kind of sabotage without needing to codify it in policy, because I agree.

Relevant topic for your perusal: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=31115

Enormously important change that, if not in precise letter but in spirit, needs an implementation immediately.

Mass sabotage allows you to force people to certain places to fix it, causes chaos and ties up station resources as people go to medical for help, etc., to let you do nefarious deeds unseen as well as contributing to shuttle calls for antags who want (whether IC or for green text) to escape alive when their deeds are done.

And releasing lord singuloth is a time-honored traitor tradition. Our MRP rules making it even harder to release singuloth than the code does is unconscionable.

I play engineering on Manuel, allowing destructive sabotage would drastically reduce the number of rounds where I end up aimlessly wandering maint for 2 hours, hoping that someone breaks something and I get to fix it.
Please implement.

I'm in full support of it. The main thing I dislike is the stuff that'd stay off (heehoo funny dsword man runs around killing people who don't have anything to defend themselves with), but the exciting stuff ("oh god oh shit the station's falling apart around me how the fuck do I get out") stays in.

Good policy/10

commenting again to say is there any way to see how often tesla/singulo appears on manuel?

If not once a day (even by end-round adminboose) something is seriously wrong!

only if you're not allowed to constantly recall the shuttle after doing massive sabotage

iamgoofball wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:48 pm only if you're not allowed to constantly recall the shuttle after doing massive sabotage

That's covered under rule 1.

I wouldn't mind it being clear that sabotage or non-direct destruction doesn't count as murderbone honestly. One thing I find annoying about the way prog tots work right now is that Romerol is kind of dogshit if the people you infect don't actually die, and you can't really go around killing people to cause that.

Please implement this. I'm an engineering main and currently i tend to just go do atmos gas fuckery because there is never anything to fix. Also PLASMAFLOODS ARE FUN and the only time i ever saw one on Manuel was caused by a lost LRP traitor who didn't realise he was on the MRP server.
Let there be chaos, please.

iamgoofball wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 7:48 pm only if you're not allowed to constantly recall the shuttle after doing massive sabotage

This isn't allowed on LRP either, FWIW.

I love generalized catastrophes. Getting donked by a guy with a double e-sword as he stalks the halls silently isn't fun. Having the station cut in half by explosions or plasma floods or rod nonsense is mayhem that has been sorely missed, in my opinion.

I think massive catastrophes are less fun with every corridor instantly slamming shut with 200 firelocks to stop the fastmos escaping instantly.

not because depressure is fun but because the firelocks make it miserable and annoying to go anywhere forever even if you HAVE scraped together space protection etc

Yeah you kinda gotta powergame crowbars to be able to move around the already damaged and fractured map. Well its an intended annoyance, even if we're annoyed by it.

It does make late-join arrivals a death-trap though. When theres no crowbars to be found.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:57 am I think massive catastrophes are less fun with every corridor instantly slamming shut with 200 firelocks to stop the fastmos escaping instantly.

not because depressure is fun but because the firelocks make it miserable and annoying to go anywhere forever even if you HAVE scraped together space protection etc

If manuel starts to experience firelock hell 24/7 I am certain we will see a PR to fix this plague within a week. TBH firelock hell has been resolved already so not really a concern.

Oh, my dumb ass was so focused on correcting goof that I forgot to weigh in.

Yes, this is good. Sabotage is fun and interesting. I think most admins can pretty easily understand the difference between "venting air out of a few rooms" and "maxcapping the station" as far as what is and isn't okay. Thieves should be able to make trouble as a distraction.

Murderboning rules are there to keep people from grabbing a desword and murdering the fuck out of half the crew. Sabotage shouldn't be included in that.

As manuelmin and player I feel like this is a net benefit. It would add more RP and mechanical action especially for but not limited to engineering, medical and sec.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:57 am I think massive catastrophes are less fun with every corridor instantly slamming shut with 200 firelocks to stop the fastmos escaping instantly.

not because depressure is fun but because the firelocks make it miserable and annoying to go anywhere forever even if you HAVE scraped together space protection etc

Okay this may be a shit take but crowbars are *everywhere*, dirt cheap to manufacture if you can't be assed to search for one, dirt cheap to buy if you can't make or find one, and take up an entire...single space in your internals box or pocket. Firelock hell should not be a major detractor for what appears to me like a good advancement of the rules towards a more interesting direction.

(Also, like 25% of the time you start with a crowbar in your internals box anyway because of the station trait, unless someone plasmafloods five minutes into the round you should have a crowbar at least within arms' reach)

Honestly can we just start everyone's boxes with a crowbar100% of the time until/unless firelocks get a way to open without a crowbar?

how about you walk to cargo and ask for one instead of changing the game to require less movement (movement is good because it means opportunity for antags to do things to you/you to happen upon something you're not meant to see) and less player interaction and just having everything served to you on a silver platter and blown into your ass

Do it please. Sec officers not having a reason to care about someone breaking into atmos because our rules are shit is not a good state of things.

terranaut wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:34 am how about you walk to cargo and ask for one instead of changing the game to require less movement (movement is good because it means opportunity for antags to do things to you/you to happen upon something you're not meant to see) and less player interaction and just having everything served to you on a silver platter and blown into your ass

tl;dr so you can actually get out of arrivals when it's fucked up



Further elaboration at viewtopic.php?p=638705#p638705

there are better ways to solve this like having an emergency dispenser on the shuttle thats accessible when the fire alarm in arrivals is triggered

terranaut wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:34 am how about you walk to cargo and ask for one instead of changing the game to require less movement (movement is good because it means opportunity for antags to do things to you/you to happen upon something you're not meant to see) and less player interaction and just having everything served to you on a silver platter and blown into your ass

Isn't going to cargo to get tools pre-emptively every round "just in case" the kind of behaviour we've been trying to move away from?

keep the thread on topic please

Mothblocks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:44 pm keep the thread on topic please

Unfortunately, "Arrivals loses power" is a thing we have to account for - particularly with plasma fires, which tend to burn the APC off the wall and render it very dangerous to cross.

With the end of the universal maintenance access trial, most jobs cannot make a sprint for a maintenance door, if they can even get to one without encountering a firelock or depowered airlocks stopping them from making it.

Megabrain idea - have "Crowbars on a string" in the arrivals shuttle/arrivals airlocks that snap back if you try to take them too far away from the shuttle like a defib mount

This please so much. MRP has been so stifled in this regard, it's pretty silly.
Don't let any of the random small things like firelocks being a nuisance get in the way of something much more significant.

Yes

Seems unanimous, with the caveat of "arrivals needs better protection/crowbars"

Hopefully this thread is considered by the headministration soon. I believe this would be a very positive addition to help improve gameplay and conflict flow on Manuel.

Huh… rounds are boring and antags aren’t doing anything

Now, I haven’t played in six or so months but when I did play it felt like the rounds progressed and there was danger and tension! Now the rounds are boring? I mean I don’t blame people for not waiting to antagonize, Manny was quite the toxic server for me. Hell, I remember getting flamed out multiple times by different people just for antagonizing and going loud. I can only imagine how berated someone would get for trit mix canister flooding the station.

I am not even touching on the rampant valid hunting that occurs when an antag even dares to go loud, another reason why antags probably aren’t doing anything.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again, Manuel doesn’t know know what means to be MRP. You all now want to allow all antags to mass sabotage the station, something every other MRP server reserves only for round-ending antags. Unsurprisingly, by pushing too hard toward HRP things slowed down and now Manuel is now counteracting and overcompensating by pushing too hard toward LRP.

This isn’t the way to solve Manuel’s antag problems. You need to focus more on what’s making antags not want to antagonize without having to resort to letting them mass sabotage. If I may suggest, look at how other MRP servers deal with their antagonists. I already mentioned what I think is wrong and I can go a bit more in-depth if you want me to.

Bumping this.

I know people are trying to do rules rewrites that might have this written in but until they are in place I feel like I have to operate as if those projects do not exist at all. It honestly feels like these sorts of threads are not getting an answer BECAUSE of this. Things need to be happening until official change comes and we all have to change gear. Sitting on hands means we are all stuck in the mud until that rewrite happens, which may never happen, and no one can say it will until it is actually in place...

I'm somebody that already does this sort of thing.

Like rerouting pipenets to flood specific departments with atmos gas. I've done it with N20 and plasma to do things like cause chaos, knock out a target, get them, and axe them.

This seems like one of those fairly easy to understand things when someone can justify it clearly and concisely.

That being said people I've seen people eat the dirt for plasma flooding departments in the past, but they were not very clear in their intents so it is what it is.

See the attached: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=31827

I do this sort of thing, I encourage others doing it as do some others, but its very clear that everyone isn't on the same page when it comes to this sort of thing.

That is a big problem.

That being said I would rule 0 something like this anyways, because I feel it is far more interesting for it to happen, than it would be for it to not happen. The RP servers have been depressingly void of situations like these that create tension, and give people space play around said tension.

Murderboning rules are there to keep people from grabbing a desword and murdering the fuck out of half the crew. Sabotage shouldn't be included in that.

Also this.

Which I already feel is covered by:

Collateral.
If you for instance bomb your target, it is not considered murderboning if other individuals die in the explosion. This can include self-defense situations where individuals dying from a result of being in a crowd after you would also not be considered murderbone.

Is this part not clear enough for people to understand?

Is this part too vague? Too specific?

To me, it feels very easy to understand.

Does something need to change with it?

I would want it to be altered (or changed in enforcement) such that using X-4 on the shuttle cockpit to go for a hijack, as the immediate example I think of, is considered normal and permissible.

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 6:05 pm I would want it to be altered (or changed in enforcement) such that using X-4 on the shuttle cockpit to go for a hijack, as the immediate example I think of, is considered normal and permissible.

As dangerously hard as it is to includes examples with the express written statement that the list is NOT all-inclusive and all-defining...

Would the inclusion of examples or the intentions of the rules existence be something to consider?

This would be an amazing change to see

I've been thinking about this on and off and the last post reminded me I never replied

I think what I really want from such a thing is that murderboner needs the boner

no hold up come back i swear it's going to make sense

A good definition of murderboner has to be that it's about killing, especially RRing people, for its own sake - killing with nothing to gain from it but the kill itself. "Going for the high score" was another classic term for it.

The problem I have is that people get really upset if they die because someone is doing an antagonistic thing other than their game-chosen objective, which I very VERY much do not like. Creative antagonism should be encouraged. There are now, as far as I'm aware, zero(?) objectives that interact with hijacking, but the idea of someone getting bwoinked, much less punished, for killing people in the course of hijacking the shuttle

Hijacking the shuttle, which by definition means the round is about to end

is absurd to me. It's not murderboning, it's hijacking the shuttle. As I see it, at a definitional level...

Murderboning has to be personal. You can't "murderbone" by cratering the station with mass bombs, or plasma fires, or death viruses, though they can aid in softening people up and getting them vulnerable. If you never clicked someone, it can't be a murderboner.
Murderboning has to be gratuitous and repeated. You can't "murderbone" two people on a thirty person station. If you're boning, you grab your gear of choice and you stop engaging in any activity that is not murder-centric until you are dead (or bwoinked). You typically need to rely on infinitely repeatable methods, like Ebow-Esword, armblade, Ascension, etc. With nerfs to ammo lathing, .357 murderbone is nearly impossible now, simply because it's not really sustainable.
Murderboning has to serve no other purpose. You can't "murderbone" by making fairly reasonable demands (secret documents, gold ID, etc.) and killing one crew member after another until they are met, for instance, as long as you would actually stop if you got what you wanted.
Murderboning has to be at least moderately indiscriminate. You can't "murderbone" if you only kill people who attack you first. You might pass on killing other antags, but if someone who doesn't want to die can survive by just not fighting you, that wasn't murderboning.
Murderboning has to take the initiative. You can't "murderbone" defensively. If sec comes at you and you slip around a corner, make minibombs, guns, whatever, and put them all in the dirt and take all their Gamer Gear, you're not murderboning. You're just surviving. If you gat a random person in front of sec so that they chase you down, THEN you kill them, well, whether you're murderboning is a question of what you do once sec runs out of bodies to throw at you.

The important part is that bombing, mass sabotage, etc., are never murderboning as I see it, because they're not personal. They're attacks on the station itself, and robust players (with crowbars) can take survival into their own hands if they care that much about it.

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 5:23 am Honestly can we just start everyone's boxes with a crowbar100% of the time until/unless firelocks get a way to open without a crowbar?

You can open fire locks by right clicking the alarm/firelock control thingy.

Edit: also this is cool and great

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:36 pm I've been thinking about this on and off and the last post reminded me I never replied

I think what I really want from such a thing is that murderboner needs the boner

no hold up come back i swear it's going to make sense

A good definition of murderboner has to be that it's about killing, especially RRing people, for its own sake - killing with nothing to gain from it but the kill itself. "Going for the high score" was another classic term for it.

The problem I have is that people get really upset if they die because someone is doing an antagonistic thing other than their game-chosen objective, which I very VERY much do not like. Creative antagonism should be encouraged. There are now, as far as I'm aware, zero(?) objectives that interact with hijacking, but the idea of someone getting bwoinked, much less punished, for killing people in the course of hijacking the shuttle

Hijacking the shuttle, which by definition means the round is about to end

is absurd to me. It's not murderboning, it's hijacking the shuttle. As I see it, at a definitional level...

Murderboning has to be personal. You can't "murderbone" by cratering the station with mass bombs, or plasma fires, or death viruses, though they can aid in softening people up and getting them vulnerable. If you never clicked someone, it can't be a murderboner.
Murderboning has to be gratuitous and repeated. You can't "murderbone" two people on a thirty person station. If you're boning, you grab your gear of choice and you stop engaging in any activity that is not murder-centric until you are dead (or bwoinked). You typically need to rely on infinitely repeatable methods, like Ebow-Esword, armblade, Ascension, etc. With nerfs to ammo lathing, .357 murderbone is nearly impossible now, simply because it's not really sustainable.
Murderboning has to serve no other purpose. You can't "murderbone" by making fairly reasonable demands (secret documents, gold ID, etc.) and killing one crew member after another until they are met, for instance, as long as you would actually stop if you got what you wanted.
Murderboning has to be at least moderately indiscriminate. You can't "murderbone" if you only kill people who attack you first. You might pass on killing other antags, but if someone who doesn't want to die can survive by just not fighting you, that wasn't murderboning.
Murderboning has to take the initiative. You can't "murderbone" defensively. If sec comes at you and you slip around a corner, make minibombs, guns, whatever, and put them all in the dirt and take all their Gamer Gear, you're not murderboning. You're just surviving. If you gat a random person in front of sec so that they chase you down, THEN you kill them, well, whether you're murderboning is a question of what you do once sec runs out of bodies to throw at you.

The important part is that bombing, mass sabotage, etc., are never murderboning as I see it, because they're not personal. They're attacks on the station itself, and robust players (with crowbars) can take survival into their own hands if they care that much about it.

I got banned for accidentally killing people during a hijack as tot because someone destroyed the bridge airlock. The fact that admins look for like any reason to bwoink and ban for murder bone on mrp makes Me not wanna play there.

Was there ever any action taken on this?

It's an ongoing process. Current headmin Spookuni, the thread author from last term, is currently in the process of trying to imagine a set of words where this works without empowering griffons to ruin MRP.

Hope something like this is implemented if it hasn't. Sounds nice if done right.

Yeah no I'm still 100% cool with this. I'm not even concerned with the idea of someone doing a singularity, that's fine on my end. If the goal is to get the shuttle called, by all means, go for it.

We all know what the purpose of the murderboning rule is, and it's not to keep antags from being antags.

But we don’t because despite clear paths that give the player the right to do *this* if it’s in pursuit of their objectives admins twist and turn until they talk themselves into believing it’s trying to “maximize kill count”, when looking at the example for it shows it’s not the same at all.

As the author of the rule itself, you can sabotage if you can make the case for it. IE if you get pressed and you say “because I wanted to” might be a bit sus, but saying “because I wanted to distract the crew while I did my objective” then that’s perfectly in the realm of acceptability.

The rules goal is to defend against the guy systematically picking ppl off, whether that’s one or fifty people.

Cobby wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:48 pm But we don’t because despite clear paths that give the player the right to do *this* if it’s in pursuit of their objectives admins twist and turn until they talk themselves into believing it’s trying to “maximize kill count”, when looking at the example for it shows it’s not the same at all.

As the author of the rule itself, you can sabotage if you can make the case for it. IE if you get pressed and you say “because I wanted to” might be a bit sus, but saying “because I wanted to distract the crew while I did my objective” then that’s perfectly in the realm of acceptability.

The rules goal is to defend against the guy systematically picking ppl off, whether that’s one or fifty people.

The purpose is to stop "Man buys No-Slips + DESword and goes from department to department killing everyone in sight" rather than "I was not perfectly safe at all times except when the game specifically told The Bad Man to kill me", right?

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:49 am

Cobby wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:48 pm But we don’t because despite clear paths that give the player the right to do *this* if it’s in pursuit of their objectives admins twist and turn until they talk themselves into believing it’s trying to “maximize kill count”, when looking at the example for it shows it’s not the same at all.

As the author of the rule itself, you can sabotage if you can make the case for it. IE if you get pressed and you say “because I wanted to” might be a bit sus, but saying “because I wanted to distract the crew while I did my objective” then that’s perfectly in the realm of acceptability.

The rules goal is to defend against the guy systematically picking ppl off, whether that’s one or fifty people.

The purpose is to stop "Man buys No-Slips + DESword and goes from department to department killing everyone in sight" rather than "I was not perfectly safe at all times except when the game specifically told The Bad Man to kill me", right?

well yes, else bystanders and even people who have done no wrong except making the traitors job easier if they were gone (see pursuit of your objectives) would not be fair game for antags per the writing of the rules.

Cobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:29 am

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:49 am

Cobby wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:48 pm But we don’t because despite clear paths that give the player the right to do *this* if it’s in pursuit of their objectives admins twist and turn until they talk themselves into believing it’s trying to “maximize kill count”, when looking at the example for it shows it’s not the same at all.

As the author of the rule itself, you can sabotage if you can make the case for it. IE if you get pressed and you say “because I wanted to” might be a bit sus, but saying “because I wanted to distract the crew while I did my objective” then that’s perfectly in the realm of acceptability.

The rules goal is to defend against the guy systematically picking ppl off, whether that’s one or fifty people.

The purpose is to stop "Man buys No-Slips + DESword and goes from department to department killing everyone in sight" rather than "I was not perfectly safe at all times except when the game specifically told The Bad Man to kill me", right?

well yes, else bystanders and even people who have done no wrong except making the traitors job easier if they were gone (see pursuit of your objectives) would not be fair game for antags per the writing of the rules.

Yeye. I just figured it might be a bit easier for people to parse if it was put in examples you might see in round.