/tg/Station 13

The admin divergence on bomb policy at this point is entering "gross negligence" levels. Pretty much every admin has a different opinion on when bombs are bannable. Not just mild difference either, like fundamentally difference understandings of our policy.

First ban was for failing to bomb a blob core, which had already been bombed by another player (i.e. it was a giant space crater with a blob in it), after I yelled for everyone to GTFO for around two minutes. Turns out coders had secretely made blob cores immune to bombs, wew. https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=4959

It was quickly repealed but now I'm banned again for actually successfully bombing a hostile LICH WIZARD because it claimed too many bystanders and the wizard hadn't killed enough people to justify a bomb.

I'm just floored by this shit. Bombing a wizard is already considered pretty standard fare, bombing a LICH is widely understood to be the ONLY way to prevent the immortal jackass from doing whatever he wants. Good liches will ensure their cooldown is always ready when electing to fight the crew, skellies have a slew of benefits that make them immune to other anti-wiz tactics.

I'm just baffled as to what our policy is at this point. Am I supposed to be a psychic bomber who knows the antag's precise bodycount, spell selection, and ultimate goals before detonating? Why the fuck do we even have shit like liches if you're going to ban people for bombing them before they've reached a sufficient kill count? Was I supposed to be able to tell which people had been killed by the wizard versus the slaughter demon?

This utter lack of policy on the station's most potent weapon is really, really inexcusable. Especially after I made a thread months ago trying to ask the same questions and never getting a decisive answer.

You don't have to maxcap bomb everything. A truly robust bomber can make a bomb just large enough to gib, but not to wreck the station infrastructure.

TheNightingale wrote:You don't have to maxcap bomb everything. A truly robust bomber can make a bomb just large enough to gib, but not to wreck the station infrastructure.

With a lich you're better off max'ing the gib range than putting a sizable hole in the station with multiple casualties and just had the wizard revive itself and then you don't even have a good excuse for bombing in the first place. Gib range is the lowest of the 3 bomb variables, you can't get the bomb large enough to reliably gib people at range without going maxcap. I've tested it more than almost anyone on this server.

If you end the round with the explosion it's overlooked because the round is over and so any collateral damage is pretty much irrelevant, but he failed to end the round even though he killed the wizard because there were other antagonists active that kept the round going.

Headmin quote on the bomb policy from my appeal thread.

I got a headache just from reading this.

Why.

Just fucking why.

I understand if you bomb without warning and FAIL to kill the antag, but if you SUCCEED and some unknowable piece of information keeps the round going, THATS WHY YOU BAN THEM?!!

That's literally OOC info, knowing it's going to be round ending or not, which seems pretty unreasonable.

Either way, gotta at least have the response consistant.

Oldman Robustin wrote:I understand if you bomb without warning and FAIL to kill the antag, but if you SUCCEED and some unknowable piece of information keeps the round going, THATS WHY YOU BAN THEM?!!

Gives me a headache too. It's fucking retarded that you have to use metaknowledge that may or may not trigger.

Mulligan is shit for so many reasons, and this is just another to throw on the pile. Why can't we get rid of that steaming piece of garbage?

Amelius, this is not a valid reason to remove mulligan.

Bombing high level antagonists, irrespective of it you kill, hit or miss them, should be permissible and not banable period.

I've always hated the ruling that if you hit a antag with your bomb then your fine, but if you miss your banned. That rule was retarded but it was at least a consistent rule.

Steelpoint wrote:Bombing high level antagonists, irrespective of it you kill, hit or miss them, should be permissible and not banable period.

I've always hated the ruling that if you hit a antag with your bomb then your fine, but if you miss your banned. That rule was retarded but it was at least a consistent rule.

This.

If bomb aimed at wizard/blob/shuttle full of cultists it shouldn't matter what the results are, bomb damage/casualties are unpredictable by nature.

Accept that shit happens and don't go "booohooo I was collateral damage because they tried to kill the wiz".


edit: And fuck mulligan in wiz, blob and malf rounds

Steelpoint wrote:Bombing high level antagonists, irrespective of it you kill, hit or miss them, should be permissible and not banable period.

I've always hated the ruling that if you hit a antag with your bomb then your fine, but if you miss your banned. That rule was retarded but it was at least a consistent rule.

I will agree that bans should be for intent rather than outcome.

Screemonster wrote:

Steelpoint wrote:Bombing high level antagonists, irrespective of it you kill, hit or miss them, should be permissible and not banable period.

I've always hated the ruling that if you hit a antag with your bomb then your fine, but if you miss your banned. That rule was retarded but it was at least a consistent rule.

I will agree that bans should be for intent rather than outcome.

The problem is that "intent" is vague as fuck. "NO I SAY YOU HAD BAD INTENT, BAN"

It should be very clear cut what the difference is between someone attempting to bomb a Wizard versus blowing up in front of the Captain and spouting how he was a Wizard in disguise when it was a Malf round.

Outside of extraordinary circumstances, such as a """""peaceful""""" Wizard that is not harming anyone, or who has not created a situation where people are being harmed, then there's little way to fuck up intent to kill a Wizard.

If you target the Wizard, and detonate a bomb near the Wizard, then you had clear intent and should not be banned. Irrespective of if the Wizard died or not.

Steelpoint wrote:It should be very clear cut what the difference is between someone attempting to bomb a Wizard versus blowing up in front of the Captain and spouting how he was a Wizard in disguise when it was a Malf round.

Outside of extraordinary circumstances, such as a """""peaceful""""" Wizard that is not harming anyone, or who has not created a situation where people are being harmed, then there's little way to fuck up intent to kill a Wizard.

If you target the Wizard, and detonate a bomb near the Wizard, then you had clear intent and should not be banned. Irrespective of if the Wizard died or not.

Wasnt the actual reason behind the "you miss, you ban" policy that scientists were like powderkegs who wizards and nuke ops had to run away from instead of vica versa, because they always had the bomb and always used it?

I never understood this either, if someone goes for a kill with a bomb on a wizard, large group of rev/gangsters/cult I'm not going to get pissy about it and demand bans if I get caught in the blast.

Oh god, no. That policy idea is retarded beyond belief. I can already imagine the shitlers picking thepart of the blob that has the highest concentration of crew around it and going. "I was aiming for the blob, it's valid!!"
Same thing with a bunch if crew fighting a wizard and the scientist bombs, killing them all but the wizard escapes. He just killed almost the whole crew, and the wizard is now free to murder unopposed, but it's all cool! He was aiming for it!

I'd rather get gibbed by an errant bomb that was intended to kill a wizard than to sit through a 2 hour round because the scientists are too afraid of being banned to use one of the only ways to get rid of a lich.

palpatine213 wrote:Oh god, no. That policy idea is retarded beyond belief. I can already imagine the shitlers picking thepart of the blob that has the highest concentration of crew around it and going. "I was aiming for the blob, it's valid!!"
Same thing with a bunch if crew fighting a wizard and the scientist bombs, killing them all but the wizard escapes. He just killed almost the whole crew, and the wizard is now free to murder unopposed, but it's all cool! He was aiming for it!

Yeah but thats where the admin not being an utter retard comes in.

There is a massive difference between

>2 crew members on the ground out of the fight

and

>10 crew next to a blob actively fighting with 0 warning.

Any high damage attack(bombs, pulse rifle spam, deathchem grenades, boh singulos) really should be evaluated on three points.

1. Was the force reasonable compared to the threat?
boh bombing a tator is unreasonable as it is gaurintied to cause far more damage then the traitor them-self, but a blob thats eaten 2 departments is a more resonable target for a boh bomb

2. Could you have effectively dealt with the threat in a less destructive manner?
could you, with the resources easily available to you or that could be acquired with the same amount of effort as the weapon you used, have gotten the same effect without the collateral damage? for example if you break into tox research and make a bomb to blow up tator mcmurderbone, could you have instead broken into medbay to get stun chems and syringe guns instead.

3. could you have given more warning of your attack?
screaming boom 2 seconds before you detonate is not a warning. saying you intend to use bombs on radio 30 seconds before you begin the attack is.

However now we get into the gritty details with certain antags.

There's a big difference between a Traitor who's running around with a Syndi Balloon versus a Traitor who has single handedly killed off 90% of the crew and is toting the armoury around.

Would it not be justified that a bomb might be amongst the only viable methods to stop such a powerful Traitor?

I think the core idea of what Supermichael said is somewhat of a good guide line, but there are time's when more mundane antagonists can become really powerful, powerful enough to possibly warrant the usage of powerful countermeasures.

ITT:

Valid hunters whining about needing bombs to harvest redtext.

Kangaraptor wrote:ITT:

Valid hunters whining about needing bombs to harvest redtext.

Personally the only time I've used a bomb is as a Nuke Op. I'm interested in bomb policy simply because I dislike how one of the only, and more reliable, ways to counter high level antags can get you banned.

So don't barge into threads and make pretentious statements.

It really seems like that if bombing a murderboning wizard is a bannable offense, then toxins and bombs have no legit/valid use for non-antags and should be moved to syndilink.

If the admins ARE saying that bombs have legit uses, they need to be listed and clearly stated with no uncertain terms. Bombings are a very effective way of removing high level antags from play, and while they often get mis-used, bombing a person who has killed multiple crew and is intent on murdering more seems about as valid as it gets.

Will innocent people die? Maybe, if they were fighting or near the antag. But odds are if you are close to such a dangerous foe to warrent a bombing you are risking your life to fight them anyways or already dead.

People get hit with collateral a lot, not just bombs. I've died from being shot to death by a HoS and other security using lasers and confiscated guns. I don't really see why bombing collareral is so different from guns/ranged fire. As long as you aren't gibbed you have a chance to be cloned at least.

Bombs are just big and sudden but you have to be close to the action to actually die. Compare this to shoot outs and I've seen people die from laser fire infront of botany that originated from escape.

If your bomb wasn't targeting a hostile antagonist or other station threat*, and significant structural damage was caused** or friendly parties were knowingly harmed without fair warning***, then ban.

If your bomb was targeting a hostile antagonist or other station threat, and significant structural damage was caused or friendly parties were knowingly harmed without fair warning, then ban unless the bomb ended or would typically end the round, or was the best tactical decision at the time.

So if you set off a bomb that doesn't hurt anyone or damage anything, that's fine. If a tree falls in the woods...
If your bomb hurts someone, but you warned them beforehand "I'm setting off a bomb, skedaddle!" and they don't, that's Darwin at work.
If your bomb hurts innocents/damages the station but ends the round (e.g. bombing a wizard), that's fine.
If your bomb hurts innocents/damages the station and doesn't end the round, but would usually (e.g. bombing a wizard with slaughter demons), that's also fine.
If your bomb explodes and kills five cultists who were about to convert you, but catches an uninvolved non-cultist in the blast, that's also fine.

What do you think?

Jesus it seems like some people want to play a game where no one ever dies or is removed from the round. Remember how losing is fun? Why has so much of our moderation become so overbearing.

Because we've become a kickin' rad place to be. Can't have anyone loosing or getting upset now can we?

Davidchan wrote:
If the admins ARE saying that bombs have legit uses, they need to be listed and clearly stated with no uncertain terms.

Anyone remember when admins were allowed to use their judgement on a situation-by-situation basis?

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

Davidchan wrote:
If the admins ARE saying that bombs have legit uses, they need to be listed and clearly stated with no uncertain terms.

Anyone remember when admins were allowed to use their judgement on a situation-by-situation basis?

Remember when this led to complete rule enforcement arbitrariness?

Certain people just have this big "BOMB, GRIEF, BAD" neurological pathway in their brain and will ban for any attempt to use it by station crew.

CPTANT wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

Davidchan wrote:
If the admins ARE saying that bombs have legit uses, they need to be listed and clearly stated with no uncertain terms.

Anyone remember when admins were allowed to use their judgement on a situation-by-situation basis?

Remember when this led to complete rule enforcement arbitrariness?

Certain people just have this big "BOMB, GRIEF, BAD" neurological pathway in their brain and will ban for any attempt to use it by station crew.

Some people have this big "I HAVE THE BOMB" pathway in the brain and will literally attempt to send anything antagonistic towards them sky-high.

TheNightingale wrote:If your bomb wasn't targeting a hostile antagonist or other station threat*, and significant structural damage was caused** or friendly parties were knowingly harmed without fair warning***, then ban.

If your bomb was targeting a hostile antagonist or other station threat, and significant structural damage was caused or friendly parties were knowingly harmed without fair warning, then ban unless the bomb ended or would typically end the round, or was the best tactical decision at the time.

So if you set off a bomb that doesn't hurt anyone or damage anything, that's fine. If a tree falls in the woods...
If your bomb hurts someone, but you warned them beforehand "I'm setting off a bomb, skedaddle!" and they don't, that's Darwin at work.
If your bomb hurts innocents/damages the station but ends the round (e.g. bombing a wizard), that's fine.
If your bomb hurts innocents/damages the station and doesn't end the round, but would usually (e.g. bombing a wizard with slaughter demons), that's also fine.
If your bomb explodes and kills five cultists who were about to convert you, but catches an uninvolved non-cultist in the blast, that's also fine.

What do you think?

How are they going to 100% know that something is going to end the round? Mulligan is a son of a bitch, collateral damage is part of ss13. Hell, unless you're straight up blasting the fuck out of the Cloner (Which can still be replaced with boards from tech storage & research, mind you) with a maxcap, people can still get back in the round if there's even slightly competent medbay staff, people shouldn't be copping bans for taking out dangerous antags. What's next, do we have to roleplay getting authorization from Centcomm and then emote out turning the valves during a self righteous monologue before using a bomb?

Wyzack wrote:Jesus it seems like some people want to play a game where no one ever dies or is removed from the round. Remember how losing is fun? Why has so much of our moderation become so overbearing.

Somehow we got an influx of aspies in the administration staff who can't bear standing back and letting a round play out. Stop trying to DM this shit like it's a game of Dungeons & Dragons, let silly things happen, encourage fun. Step in when somebody is straight up griefing another person, but outside of that, not every little aspect of a round needs admin intervention.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

CPTANT wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

Davidchan wrote:
If the admins ARE saying that bombs have legit uses, they need to be listed and clearly stated with no uncertain terms.

Anyone remember when admins were allowed to use their judgement on a situation-by-situation basis?

Remember when this led to complete rule enforcement arbitrariness?

Certain people just have this big "BOMB, GRIEF, BAD" neurological pathway in their brain and will ban for any attempt to use it by station crew.

Some people have this big "I HAVE THE BOMB" pathway in the brain and will literally attempt to send anything antagonistic towards them sky-high.

I made a post about this but either I blanked out and forgot to submit or it got deleted, but it related to Shadowlight's statement that any leniency in bomb policy is going to have shitlers bombing the most concentrated groups of non-antags on purpose while claiming they were "aiming" for an antag.

It boils down to not being based in reality. I can count on ONE HAND the number of active players who will use bombs as a non-antag. Even among those, if you assume I'm the biggest non-antag bomber on the server, I've never resorted to bombs as my go-to antag solution. I've bombed a cult once, nukeops twice, and beyond that it's pretty much always been blobs/malfs/wizards which I (until blob cores were secretely made immune to bombs) never failed to hit my target. Bomb use makes up like .1% of my non-antag rounds. Very few people are willing to risk their account on non-antag bomb use but after a bazillion rounds here and being active in policy/feedback discussions (along with, you know, being a professional who interprets rules for a living), I felt that I had a solid understanding of our stance on bombs and could take the risk of maxcap'ing certain station enemies. Then the headmins rotated and we lost Kor/Sticky who were both much more reasonable on bomb use and got the current administration which is producing these bizarre anti-bomb rulings that go farther than anything I've seen here before.

The clearest elucidation we've had so far is "bombs will get you banned if they fail to end the round", which is so absurdly stupid in a world of mulligans, wacky asymmetrical "does the round end?" code, and weird rules for side-antags, that I can only hope this thread compels someone in the administration to actually put together something coherent. Breaking it up by antag targets is a good start.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

Davidchan wrote:
If the admins ARE saying that bombs have legit uses, they need to be listed and clearly stated with no uncertain terms.

Anyone remember when admins were allowed to use their judgement on a situation-by-situation basis?

When all the admins are on the same page and will treat most, if not all, situations in a similar manner, it's fine to use judgement. But for half the admins to say that bombs vs antags are fine, and the other half to say bombs killing innocents is bannu, there is a very huge disconnect. I never bomb but policy being handled this way will creep into other things. Players shouldn't have constantly check the adminwho verb to see what admins are on to guess whether or not a potentially round ending event will get them banned if they trigger.

If the rules are becoming suggestions on whether or not an admin should step in to ban someone then we have a problem, Rule 5 even states Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, which should justify bombing someone running around the station murderboning people or unleashing eldricth horrors upon the crew, certainly when previous attempts have failed due to self-reviving antagonists who heal from otherwise mortal injuries, such as changlings or lich wizards.

I certainly agree that bombs should be used as a last resort, but when other methods have been tried and failed, or will clearly fail in cases where the Antag is burning through the crew and security faster it can be reported, more extreme methods are justifiable IC.

tihs thread is intensely tl;dr but Personally, wizard rounds are destined for chaos and they really should just end when the wizard dies no matter what, and also bombs should be totally fine in them.

most of this shit i dont care about, but i think mulligan is a good thing. what's gonna happen next anywy? shuttle call and we leave? i mean yeah SOME rounds you can rebuild but even then it'd just be extended, which a lot of people seem to hate anyway. all mulligans do is save up to 15 minutes of sitting around with our thumbs up our asses before the round ends on a literal level. why the hate?

How about: just make bombing the equivalent of perma brig or execution, you need a damn good reason and if the chain of command is in place you need captain or HoS approval.

Deitus wrote:most of this shit i dont care about, but i think mulligan is a good thing. what's gonna happen next anywy? shuttle call and we leave? i mean yeah SOME rounds you can rebuild but even then it'd just be extended, which a lot of people seem to hate anyway. all mulligans do is save up to 15 minutes of sitting around with our thumbs up our asses before the round ends on a literal level. why the hate?

Because that is literally not true? Rounds with primary antagonists just end without mulligan. Mulligan ADDS the 15 minutes of evac that nobody cares about. And yes people WILL call the shuttle, it does not matter if you think that is stupid or not, it is what happens >90% of the time.

Not a bad idea in theory (the authorization thing) but the problems are:

1) The Cap/HoS would rarely authorize bombing their own station (its kind of an admission of their failure), you pretty much have to wait for them to die...

2) The idea of bombing the enemy on-station already has an "impromptu/unauthorized" feel to it. The kind of thing NT would never sanction but might solemnly nod its head at the necessity of it.... then again we do have a self-destruct request...

3) Chain of command works better with security because of their paramilitary nature, it feels a bit strange for random scientists to need authorization from another department's head in order to take out a threat

4) Worst case: Cap/HoS is dead and the enemy is using their PDA for access (pretty common), a request like that could give you away and destroy the last chance to save the station.

5) It muddies responsibility. If you're authorized to bomb someone/something and "miss", is that on the captain or the scientist? What if the captain authorizes a bomb that wouldn't be valid otherwise (i.e. there's a gang in engineering, can I go bomb it?)?

Still, our bomb policy is hardly clear as it is, this would provide clearer guidance.

captain sawrge wrote:tihs thread is intensely tl;dr but Personally, wizard rounds are destined for chaos and they really should just end when the wizard dies no matter what, and also bombs should be totally fine in them.

No surprise but I'm 100% behind this. Wizard rounds, whether expert murderboners or novice meme'sters, will invoke all kind of crazy out-of-the-norm shit that break the norms of behavior aboard the station. Only exception is the "Friendly" Wizard who doesn't summon guns/magic/events, but the "Friendly Wizards" usually make such consistently shitty rounds I'd be fine with no-holds-barred for taking out these shitters. Maybe someday a friendly wizard will actually do something entertaining and engaging, but until then "HI IM FRIENDLY JUST GONNA GRAB THIS HAND TELE AND WAIT FOR YOU ALL TO CALL THE SHUTTLE OUT OF BOREDOM, ALSO DONT ATTACK IM FRIENDLY" should get the same treatment as the most aggressive of combat weezards. There's too much policy confusion and hand-wringing over someone who can easily murder the entire station and is a well-known enemy of the station that we have to treat with kid gloves until we meet some secret formula to let us respond with full force.

Players shouldn't have constantly check the adminwho verb to see what admins are on to guess whether or not a potentially round ending event will get them banned if they trigger.

That's precisely my motivation here too. It's not as bad as the Brotemis days (I would seriously adminwho before taking insulated gloves as captain, he warned me about doing that), but there is a pretty clear split on bomb policy. The difference between Kor/Sticky and Loller/Shadow on bomb policy is pretty astounding.

Deitus wrote:most of this shit i dont care about, but i think mulligan is a good thing. what's gonna happen next anywy? shuttle call and we leave? i mean yeah SOME rounds you can rebuild but even then it'd just be extended, which a lot of people seem to hate anyway. all mulligans do is save up to 15 minutes of sitting around with our thumbs up our asses before the round ends on a literal level. why the hate?

Mulligan works fine for traitor/lings/cults and whatnot. Other gamemodes leave the station is so much destruction that what are the 3 or so new traitors even going to do aside from murderbone on the escape shuttle?

The previous policy from like a year-ish ago, "If it ends the round, you're safe" was fine, which gave a pretty clear cut and easy to understand goal.

new bomb policy:

everyone else : bomb in moderation, dont' fuck shit up

oldman robustin: no bombs

oranges wrote:new bomb policy:

everyone else : bomb in moderation, dont' fuck shit up

oldman robustin: no bombs

I like the cut of this one's jib

oranges wrote:new bomb policy:

everyone else : bomb in moderation, dont' fuck shit up

oldman robustin: no bombs

Adopt this now conspiracybus

Watched another would-be Lich bomber get banned last night. This lich was actually hostile with Jaunt/Teleport/Ei Nath, basically the full cancer experience.

The person was a little sloppy and killed like 7 dudes (including me) trying to bomb the wizard after it was stunned (Never do this, a stunned wizard sitting among a group of hostile crew is a wizard that's about half a second from jaunting or teleporting) where the wizard TP'd out about a second before bomb went off.

While I don't completely support their actions, most people don't have that kind of meta-instinct for bombing antags and yet hostile Lichs require that people utilize those kind of tactics regardless. Lich continues to be massive ban bait, with Timestop/Jaunt/Teleport/MM wizards being a close second for "unkilllable god that requires bombs to defeat". Wizard needs to have its bomb rules lightened up as they continue to get harder to kill, the aforementioned failed bomber should have gotten a warning with the understanding that if you lack the connection quality/robustness to consistently bomb antags, then you should abstain... further failure will cop you increasingly harsh bans.

Oldman Robustin wrote:Watched another would-be Lich bomber get banned last night. This lich was actually hostile with Jaunt/Teleport/Ei Nath, basically the full cancer experience.

The person was a little sloppy and killed like 7 dudes (including me) trying to bomb the wizard after it was stunned (Never do this, a stunned wizard sitting among a group of hostile crew is a wizard that's about half a second from jaunting or teleporting) where the wizard TP'd out about a second before bomb went off.

While I don't completely support their actions, most people don't have that kind of meta-instinct for bombing antags and yet hostile Lichs require that people utilize those kind of tactics regardless. Lich continues to be massive ban bait, with Timestop/Jaunt/Teleport/MM wizards being a close second for "unkilllable god that requires bombs to defeat". Wizard needs to have its bomb rules lightened up as they continue to get harder to kill, the aforementioned failed bomber should have gotten a warning with the understanding that if you lack the connection quality/robustness to consistently bomb antags, then you should abstain... further failure will cop you increasingly harsh bans.

I consider that a bullshit ban. I say being collateral damage is part of the game in such situations.

Isn't that the whole point of lich though, to stop yourself from being bursted by a typical cheese tactic [IE bombs]?

I'm not a big fan of bombs because they're uncreative and can be churned out within 5 minutes, turning everything in a viewable range GG [especially when some people consistently have bombs on/in their persona, antag or not] without any actual counter [we removed telesci roundstart for the same reason]. Needless to say, I am not opposed with any policy that curbs bomb usage for antags altogether [outside of blub which damages station integrity anyways].

You should ALWAYS assume the round will continue if you kill an antag [despite my hatred for wiz mulligan]. Not sure why people find this meta but 'KILLING THE WIZ ENDS THE GAME GUYS LEMME MAXCAP HIM' is not.

It seems that every little bit of policy that is borne of the relationship between antagonists and protagonists only ever encourages people to toe the line and leads to further drama. The policy certain players are trying to get here only makes the game worse for everyone but themselves and creates more of the meme-cancer that is killing /tg/station.

Back in my days, the rule was IF you ended the round by initiating a round reset through killing of a solo antagonist (AI/wizard), you were fine. If you failed, you got banned. The IDEA of this rule was that it was about the spirit of what you contributed to the round, not whether or not you killed a 'dangerous' antagonist. If you ruin a round for multiple players and blow them all to bloody gibs, then no, you're adding nothing to the game. I've copped these bans in the past by bombing wizards (and failing) when they were round-enders and the policy worked perfectly fine.

oranges wrote:new bomb policy:

everyone else : bomb in moderation, dont' fuck shit up

oldman robustin: no bombs

I like this policy idea

invisty wrote:It seems that every little bit of policy that is borne of the relationship between antagonists and protagonists only ever encourages people to toe the line and leads to further drama. The policy certain players are trying to get here only makes the game worse for everyone but themselves and creates more of the meme-cancer that is killing /tg/station.

Back in my days, the rule was IF you ended the round by initiating a round reset through killing of a solo antagonist (AI/wizard), you were fine. If you failed, you got banned. The IDEA of this rule was that it was about the spirit of what you contributed to the round, not whether or not you killed a 'dangerous' antagonist. If you ruin a round for multiple players and blow them all to bloody gibs, then no, you're adding nothing to the game. I've copped these bans in the past by bombing wizards (and failing) when they were round-enders and the policy worked perfectly fine.

Being collateral damage of trying to blow up a wizard is not having your round ruined, dying is part of the game. Making everyone too scared to try anything and having OOC intervention everywhere is having your round ruined.

Why must bombing things be the answer to everything tbh

Aloraydrel wrote:Why must bombing things be the answer to everything tbh

Because in this case there is no other possible, feasible, way to kill a Lich aside from a maxcap bomb. Any other method will just have the Wiz revive itself long before it can be gibbed.

Other antagonists also can be difficult to kill, mainly higher level antags like Nuke Ops. But this discussion is mostly involved with Wizards and Lich, where both can be near unkillable, with Lich unkillable sans bombs.

A competent Lich player will never die, and even bombing them is a massive risk because, as shown above, what if they jaunt at the right time or they're just out of reach for gibbing? Then suddenly your throwing the ban dice, a ban dice which is loaded towards you being banned as it seems.

There's a difference between setting ten bombs in maint and blowing the station to shit / charging an antag and nuking yourself but missing/it failing/catching someone in the blast

The purpose of bomb policy is to keep assholes from griefing, but if someone wants to bomb the nops just let them.

There was a round recently where an ei nath lich was playing in the same round that oldman was making bombs. Oldman gave out a few bombs for spess cash. The lich was eventually stunned and surrounded in the meeting room and someone other than oldman detonated a max cap to gib the wizard. They were cucked hard, the lich teleporting out in what must have been less than a second before the bomb actually blew. Around six or seven innocents died including mr robustin.

From a case by case basis, the shuttle was about to arrive soon and it was just spectacularly bad luck on the bombers part. It also gave me a chuckle since they got cucked that hard. The bomber wasn't banned.

Food for thought.

In the other hand, the lich was killed when their phylactery was destroyed and tbh it is quite possible to destroy a lich without bombs, I've seen it happen.