Secborg replacement: Peacekeeper Borg [PR now up]

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:16 am #170210

Bottom post of the previous page:

No it isn't.

Super Aggro Crag · Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:27 pm

Who the fuck is Scott? We had like 8 pages of discussion and critique and this literally who noname autardo shows up and starts shitting about that "this idea is bad I am the final arbitrator of station opinion". Piss off jizzmo dungus, if the idea actually sucks it will get reverted quick enough because it doesn't have goofballs name on it.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:51 pm #170241

So I can't assert my opinions because you don't know who I am? I am just someone with an opinion and this is the place to share opinions.

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:12 pm #170247

Jeez, you shitpost more than me, and that's almost an accomplishment.

Topham · Post by **Topham** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:36 pm #170251

Hey now, be nice. Scott, you are indeed free to state your opinions but the thing is that the amount of authority that you're staying those opinions with is pretentious and unsupported. So when you say anything with that much authority with nothing to back it up it just comes across as personally insulting.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:43 pm #170256

I am simply opposing what I think is a terrible design decision (aka a shitty feature), you're just confusing my zeal with "authority". I have no authority.

See you in github.

iamgoofball · Post by **iamgoofball** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:01 pm #170260

Looking forward to shitposting the bee movie script on this PR and then salvaging the useful bits.

Topham · Post by **Topham** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:04 pm #170262

Scott wrote:I am simply opposing what I think is a terrible design decision (aka a shitty feature), you're just perceiving my zeal with "authority". I have no authority.

See you in github.

I suppose there might have also been some projection on our part as well. But I feel like stating anything to be true in any circumstance means that you have to claim to hold some sort of authority, no matter the scenario.
Either way, you seem like the kind of person that I would gladly agree to disagree with. Nevertheless, I firmly believe we should at least give this a try.

iamgoofball wrote:Looking forward to shitposting the bee movie script on this PR and then salvaging the useful bits.

goof pls go

iamgoofball · Post by **iamgoofball** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:09 pm #170264

iamgoofball wrote:Looking forward to shitposting the bee movie script on this PR and then salvaging the useful bits.

Wyzack · Post by **Wyzack** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:12 pm #170265

Why does Oranges get post approval-ed for that and goofball does not?

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:14 pm #170266

The mods fear the singulo.

iamgoofball · Post by **iamgoofball** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:19 pm #170268

Wyzack wrote:Why does Oranges get post approval-ed for that and goofball does not?

I'm shitposting it on the github which isn't the forums.

Also its oranges

Ps. I detest his post approval status

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:02 pm #170278

Scott wrote:So I can't assert my opinions because you don't know who I am?

Yes, fuck off new fag

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:21 pm #170284

Malkevin wrote:
Scott wrote:So I can't assert my opinions because you don't know who I am?
Yes, fuck off new fag

Who even are you, though?

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:29 pm #170291

Malkevin is either JLP lite or halfway reasonable.

Or was that Steelpoin? I forget.

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:56 pm #170300

Delete message
This message was deleted by its author.
by Scott » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:19 pm

One can only wonder what marvelous content this lost message once contained, but scientists believe it was full of colored blocks.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:03 pm #170301

It was merely my post but I PMed accidentally. I am sorry to disappoint you.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 8:13 pm #170343

Back on topic, does anybody want to link me to the secborg spritesheet for convenience so we can get shit done?

TechnoAlchemist · Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:05 pm

Secborg doesn't need a replacement that's an annoyance lmao.

Sec Borg doesn't need a replacement period "harm prevention modules" are just annoying.

Wyzack · Post by **Wyzack** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:08 pm #170423

There seems to be a pretty fundamental disagreement here about the roles silicons should play. The people who support this borg believe that silicons should be intervening to prevent harm whenever possible, and therefore need a tool to do this. The other camp thinks that silicons should not take part in harmful violent conflicts under asimov law, and should only act as a third party helper, the first law preventing them from causing harm or assisting harm causing individuals. I dont really give a shit either way but this dichotomy is going to mean that a large group of people will be unhappy regardless of the outcome

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:27 pm #170427

It's more like some people wanted to remove the secborg but can't actually handle to play the game without the silicons wiping their butt.

Topham · Post by **Topham** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:31 pm #170429

Wyzack wrote:There seems to be a pretty fundamental disagreement here about the roles silicons should play. The people who support this borg believe that silicons should be intervening to prevent harm whenever possible, and therefore need a tool to do this. The other camp thinks that silicons should not take part in harmful violent conflicts under asimov law, and should only act as a third party helper, the first law preventing them from causing harm or assisting harm causing individuals. I dont really give a shit either way but this dichotomy is going to mean that a large group of people will be unhappy regardless of the outcome

Damnit Wyzack stop being reasonable about things I just want my love egg okay

Scott wrote:It's more like some people wanted to remove the secborg but can't actually handle to play the game without the silicons wiping their butt.

This is the future, Scott. Knowing how humans nowadays tend to work, I would be surprised if we didn't have robots that aim our dicks for us so we don't have to use our hands while pissing by the 2200s.

Remie Richards · Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:15 pm

Luke Cox wrote:Back on topic, does anybody want to link me to the secborg spritesheet for convenience so we can get shit done?

I attempted to finish off the Peaceborgs, I don't think I've done *too* bad a job continuing the existing style/themes.

Xhagi · Post by **Xhagi** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:36 pm #170440

While my expectations are low, I somewhat want to see these in action.

Also that eggbot is cute.

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:19 pm #170452

Looks good enough but why are the side sprites 45 degree instead of 90?

Also borgs should prevent harm, they just shouldn't have very good tools at doing so

Remie Richards · Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:22 pm

Malkevin wrote:Looks good enough but why are the side sprites 45 degree instead of 90?

There are other 45 degree sprites in game, and I felt 90 would look odd and lose some of the character of the borg.

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:29 pm #170456

Yeah... but no player mob sprites.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:31 pm #170479

Remie Richards wrote:
Luke Cox wrote:Back on topic, does anybody want to link me to the secborg spritesheet for convenience so we can get shit done?
I attempted to finish off the Peaceborgs, I don't think I've done *too* bad a job continuing the existing style/themes.

Thank you so much for making these. I would suggest making one version of the side sprite at a 90 degree angle just in case.

Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:36 pm

Super Aggro Crag wrote:le-terally who Xd i'm crag i am just right by default right guys lol?

scott's posting basically the same thing that i am (that this is a shit idea) but because he has a lower post count than you you just meme him, quality post super aggro fag (or should i call you "literally who" since you have less posts than i do?)

DemonFiren wrote:Jeez, you shitpost more than me, and that's almost an accomplishment.

not even close babe, also nice shitpost

TechnoAlchemist wrote:Secborg doesn't need a replacement that's an annoyance lmao.

Sec Borg doesn't need a replacement period "harm prevention modules" are just annoying.

^^^ listen to techno

luke cux is literally codebabying over something he didn't even code and you siliconfags are emerging from the woodworks to defend it for almost no other reason than to spite the loss of the secborg

feel free to disagree with me but deep down you know as well as i do that what i say is true

Topham · Post by **Topham** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:41 pm #170486

Remie Richards wrote:I attempted to finish off the Peaceborgs, I don't think I've done *too* bad a job continuing the existing style/themes.

Fuckin' adorable, I love it. Although I do agree with the others that it'd probably feel a bit more consistent to have them at 90 degrees instead of 45, even though I love how the 45 degrees ones look.

PKPenguin321 wrote:
TechnoAlchemist wrote:Secborg doesn't need a replacement that's an annoyance lmao.

Sec Borg doesn't need a replacement period "harm prevention modules" are just annoying.
^^^ listen to techno

luke cux is literally codebabying over something he didn't even code and you siliconfags are emerging from the woodworks to defend it for almost no other reason than to spite the loss of the secborg

feel free to disagree with me but deep down you know as well as i do that what i say is true

I don't support this borg out of spite at the loss of the secborg, as I feel like the game has been improved by the secborg's removal. I support the implementation of this borg because 1. it's fucking adorable and 2. good will come out of testing this, as it'll give us a chance to learn about the community and the role of silicons in our atmos simulator. We'll learn important stuff from this whether it succeeds or fails, but only if we give it a try.

Question though, the secborg is still in the code, right? Because removing full borg modules from the whole game seems silly when you can just disallow borgs from chosing that module by default.

Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:43 pm

yeah secborgs are still in the code they're just gated behind a config option

2. good will come out of testing this, as it'll give us a chance to learn about the community and the role of silicons in our atmos simulator. We'll learn important stuff from this whether it succeeds or fails, but only if we give it a try.

don't we already know this from secborg/literally every other borg module
this just sounds like technobabble

dionysus24779 · Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:53 pm

The sprites are cute, but I feel like they should be a bit more... "rough" if that makes sense. As it is it looks a bit too "clean" and "smooth" when compared to the other borg sprites.

Also everyone should just calm down a bit, everyone should be welcomed to state their opinions no matter how much or little they're known on the forums or in the game or if they're new or older players.

Though I won't be as pretentious as to say that all posts here are of value or relevance, some posts aren't very constructive or helpful and should better be ignored instead of trying to justify the idea ad nauseam or resulting to attacking each other.

And there's no harm in at least giving the eggborg an honest try and it's only fair after silicons being the punchline of every new wave or nerfs.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:59 pm #170493

Topham wrote:2. good will come out of testing this, as it'll give us a chance to learn about the community and the role of silicons in our atmos simulator. We'll learn important stuff from this whether it succeeds or fails, but only if we give it a try.

I'll tell you exactly what is going to happen if this is merged. A test isn't going to be enough to know because it will be a novelty during the first days/weeks.

Scenario A:
Peacekeeper Borg is not good at stopping harm, players will not play this module because they don't want to get killed every time they try to do their job. At the first encounter with an antag capable of destroying the cyborg, the cyborg will die because it is forced to stop harm annoy the antag with its ineffectual tools due to Asimov.

Conclusion, it has no reason to exist, even less than the rarely used existing cyborg modules, for they at least serve their purpose well.

Scenario B:
Peacekeeper Borg is good at stopping harm, it will be secborg drama all over again. You worked to create another cyborg module to replace an existing, functional cyborg module that players had removed because they didn't like it. All you have accomplished is bringing back secborg in full force but with a different coat of paint.

Conclusion, it has no reason to exist, because secborg already exists and we should just use that instead.

Malkevin wrote:Also borgs should prevent harm, they just shouldn't have very good tools at doing so

You are missing the point of cyborgs.

Remie Richards · Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:05 pm

I gave 90 degrees a go, and while this is only a rough, it just looks dumpy, and not in a good way, and I was right it *Really* loses a lot in the 45 degree turn.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:07 pm #170496

Try making the legs wider.

Remie Richards · Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:10 pm

Scott wrote:Try making the legs wider.

Doesn't change much, not to mention I don't really think the tracks are that wide (well, long)

Zilenan91 · Post by **Zilenan91** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:45 pm #170509

Scott wrote: You are missing the point of cyborgs.

What the fuck is the point of cyborgs if it isn't to stop harm

Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:49 pm

Zilenan91 wrote:
Scott wrote: You are missing the point of cyborgs.
What the fuck is the point of cyborgs if it isn't to stop harm

basically? it's to be the crew's bitch
this can and often does include stopping harm but that shouldn't inherently be their primary purpose. their purpose should be repairing breaches as engieborg, cleaning messes as janiborg, serving drinks as a service borg, helping passerby as a medical borg, etc.

however all too often people lose sight of this and then you see validhunting engieborgs roaming for shadowlings in maint or some other bullshit. it really gets on my nerves since borgs are such a good idea but people just play them in such a terrible way. "the main purpose of borgs is to prevent harm" is not true and yet so many people believe it. that belief has pretty much ruined borgs.

Zilenan91 · Post by **Zilenan91** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:50 pm #170518

I mean yeah, but that purpose is so intrinsic to borgs that I'm genuinely surprised it even has to be said.

ThanatosRa · Post by **ThanatosRa** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 12:30 am #170530

Stop being retarded I want the loveeggborg.

Fri Apr 22, 2016 12:37 am

ThanatosRa wrote:Stop being retarded I want the loveeggborg.

the thing is, "loveeggborg" does nothing but encourage the "the main purpose of borgs is to prevent harm" which is what is (or pretty much already has) ruining(/ruined) borgs. if you just like this for the sprite, have it as a service borg skin.

Super Aggro Crag · Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:04 am

if borgs have no way to prevent harm they can't follow their first fucking law

Zilenan91 · Post by **Zilenan91** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:06 am #170546

They can, just ineffectively, as it should be. They're already superior to humans in every way.

Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:18 am

Super Aggro Crag wrote:if borgs have no way to prevent harm they can't follow their first fucking law

your first law says:

1. you cant weld that assistant to death
2. if youre building your austim fort/cleaning the halls/serving drinks/healing dudes or whatever and come across a dying human, you must intervene to aid them as best you can (if you're ill-equipped, you'll often fail, which is perfectly okay as long as you tried (in other words its okay if a human dies on you, you're still following your first law as long as you tried (in other other words since i want to make this super clear, saying that an ill equipped borg that fails to save a human "can't follow their first fucking law" is wrong, otherwise we'd ban borgs every time a human they were pulling to the medbay died while in crit)))
3. thats it

it doesnt say you have to actively patroll the maint corridors with a flash at the ready like certain engieborgs seem to think it does

Topham · Post by **Topham** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:24 am #170553

Super Aggro Crag wrote:if borgs have no way to prevent harm they can't follow their first fucking law

Crag, you know I love you but now that I think about it, maybe we're thinking too much into laws. Laws should be guidelines preventing them from doing something other than their purpose, but their purpose can be totally separate from their laws. Like, laws keep a janiborg from spacing all humans to keep the place clean, but that doesn't mean that their purpose is to uphold their laws. It's not.

Silicons are supposed to make our lives easier, so it makes sense that their purposes would be very specialized.

Now this argument is coming down to how connected a borg's purpose and laws should be, and maybe I kinda think that they should be separated more than what we're doing now. So I should probably be opposed to this borg but god damnit, I want my egg. Besides, having a class of silicon with the primary purpose of decreasing harm would make the jobs of the other silicons easier, better allowing them to make humans' lives easier.
what the fuck did i just type

PKPenguin321 wrote:your first law says stuff

For once, I think I'm starting to agree with PKP. i'm scared pls help

TechnoAlchemist · Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:31 am

@Remie because I'm too lazy to quote, the 45 degrees is stylistically different but it looks good, keep it that way it's nice.

Anonmare · Post by **Anonmare** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:31 am #170557

I'm more interested in plugging up the gap left behind by the Secborg's removal, both legitimately and antagonistically.

Legitimately, it's made Law 1 enforcement between two Human parties almost impossible if even one side has sunglasses or some other flash protection. The Standard module can still sorta do this but I hope to have the Standard borg's stunbaton replaced with a police baton and a more generalised toolset to make them, you know, a standard "Jack-of-all-trades" instead of a hodge-podge mess.

Antagonistically-wise (for both rogue and subverted/poorly-programmed purposes), it's left rogue silicons without a ranged option and borgs are absolute shite in melee range without the element of surprise. All it takes is one guy to get a flash off and it's gg no re, I think a flashlight while targeting the yes might also do a flash but I haven't tested this. Only the Standard borg and the hacked Miner/Engineering borgs have a chance now due to them having stunbatons/stunprods (Incidentally we should look into replacing the Miner's hacked module because overlapping modules is terrible) but stuns eat up a lot of power; especially if they were made by a cyborg converter cus they only get 5K charge (Standard power cell is 7.5K).

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:37 am #170558

Remie Richards wrote:
Scott wrote:Try making the legs wider.
Doesn't change much, not to mention I don't really think the tracks are that wide (well, long)

Absolutely perfect. What do you think we should do for the transformation sequence?

Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:40 am

Anonmare wrote:I'm more interested in plugging up the gap left behind by the Secborg's removal, both legitimately and antagonistically.

Legitimately, it's made Law 1 enforcement between two Human parties almost impossible if even one side has sunglasses or some other flash protection.

And that is perfectly okay. Like I posted above, it is okay to not be able to break up harm. Your first law only asks that you do your best and don't incite the harm directly. You will not always succeed, and often won't succeed, to break up harm. And that is perfeclty okay. Breaking up harm isn't your purpose anyways. You exist to build/repair as an engieborg, heal dudes as a mediborg, clean things as a janiborg, serve dudes as a service borg, mine as a miner borg, etc.

Anonmare wrote:Antagonistically-wise (for both rogue and subverted/poorly-programmed purposes), it's left rogue silicons without a ranged option and borgs are absolute shite in melee range without the element of surprise. All it takes is one guy to get a flash off and it's gg no re, I think a flashlight while targeting the yes might also do a flash but I haven't tested this. Only the Standard borg and the hacked Miner/Engineering borgs have a chance now due to them having stunbatons/stunprods (Incidentally we should look into replacing the Miner's hacked module because overlapping modules is terrible) but stuns eat up a lot of power; especially if they were made by a cyborg converter cus they only get 5K charge (Standard power cell is 7.5K).

I feel like a cleaner solution to this is to just give a ranged weapon as an emag type to one of the existing borg modules (like say a super-ultra-mega-cyborg kinetic accelerator for the mining borg) than to make a completely new borg module.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:56 am #170563

PKPenguin321 wrote:
ThanatosRa wrote:Stop being retarded I want the loveeggborg.
the thing is, "loveeggborg" does nothing but encourage the "the main purpose of borgs is to prevent harm" which is what is (or pretty much already has) ruining(/ruined) borgs. if you just like this for the sprite, have it as a service borg skin.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. The main purpose of this borg is to prevent harm, just like the old secborg was. Laws can be changed, but by default the AI's primary objective is to prevent human harm. Based on the feedback poll and the fairly split opinion between supporting their full removal, wanting them back, and wanting secborgs nerfed, a replacement is an imperative. Presently, the AI has no means to actually intervene in a harmful situation other than bolting stuff. My goal with this is to give the AI a means to resolve violent situations in a way different than security. The old secborg was geared towards capturing the attacker, this borg is meant to buy the victim enough time to escape, possibly at the cost of its own life. Personally, I feel that the secborg issues were policy issues, but I don't see a lot of them coming up with the Peacekeeper.

Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:06 am

Luke Cox wrote:I'm not really sure what you're getting at. The main purpose of this borg is to prevent harm, just like the old secborg was.

That's no good. We don't need a borg like that.

Luke Cox wrote:by default the AI's primary objective is to prevent human harm.

Like I've said in the past few posts, this is the wrong mindset and one we should be moving away from. The AI is obliged to prevent human harm, but that is not it's primary objective. The AI in particular is tasked with following the crew's orders when it comes to manipulating machinery or opening doors. Other silicons exist to build/repair as an engieborg, heal dudes as a mediborg, clean things as a janiborg, serve dudes as a service borg, mine as a miner borg, etc.

Based on the feedback poll and the fairly split opinion between supporting their full removal, wanting them back, and wanting secborgs nerfed, a replacement is an imperative.

Not true; they can live without secborg, and they've already proved it by continuing to play the game in the past few weeks where we haven't had secborg. A replacement is in no way needed, and DEFINITELY not imperative.

Presently, the AI has no means to actually intervene in a harmful situation other than bolting stuff.

And that is okay. See my posts above regarding law 1 and the necessity to try your best to help, but not necessarily succeed every time.

My goal with this is to give the AI a means to resolve violent situations in a way different than security.

This is not needed. The AI does not need a dedicated anti-harm tool, especially since preventing harm is not it's primary purpose (see above where I responded to your claim that an AI's primary goal is preventing harm).