/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Drynwyn wrote:Okay, name proposals I like so far are the H.E.L.P, the Harm Prevention Edgeless Safety Cyborg, and the Mediator.

That said, while I might sneak H.E.L.P or Edgeless Safety Cyborg into a description somewhere, they're too long and don't give a clear enough idea of the borg module's purpose to use as the module's primary name.

Still can't figure out why the compiled code runs fine in my not-a-git-repo folder and dies in my is-a-git-repo folder- presumably there is a file somewhere I failed to copy paste, but I can't imagine what I touched that would be completely preventing the DMB from running while not producing any compiler errors.

EDIT: Fixed the running problem, it was a permissions thing, not an issue with the code. Now I just need to get this onto Git.

Very nice. Give us a link once the PR is up

Remie Richards wrote: As I already said to you above, there's a pink tint to the white, which is what makes it an eggshell white.

Oh, sorry, I just saw the silly and unproductive arguments continue and scrolled past it.

Maybe it's more noticeable ingame, but I can't make out the pint tint, but I will see.

dionysus24779 wrote:

Remie Richards wrote: As I already said to you above, there's a pink tint to the white, which is what makes it an eggshell white.

Oh, sorry, I just saw the silly and unproductive arguments continue and scrolled past it.

Maybe it's more noticeable ingame, but I can't make out the pint tint, but I will see.

It's hard to see, but I can see it. It's used for the egshell effect, if you want a borg that's noticeably pink then that's a different story.
It could probably be doable just like service borg types but, the question is, would Remie the Wonderful bother to make different colors for the sprites, like baby blue or pink?

guys if you just want the skin put it on the service borg

We get it PK, you don't like this. People still want to try this borg out and have put the time and effort into actually making it. Please, try to contain your silicon hate boner. There are actually other valid opinions than yours.

Luke Cox wrote:We get it PK, you don't like this. People still want to try this borg out. Please, try to contain your silicon hate boner

I've pointed out why it was wrong like twice now and you've not responded both times, now you're just shitposting.

It's so clear that you know I'm right. It's time to let this codebaby go, Luke. It will be okay.

oh my god it's not even luke's codebabe, he didn't do the fucking code, if it was anyone's codebaby it would be my codebaby, fuck's sake

can you please hold off on screaming at each other until I get the PR up jesus shit

PK, you're the only one adamantly against this being added. I and several others have explained in great detail why we think your opinion is wrong. You have an almost autistic level of fixation on making sure this doesn't get added. I took your disagreement as constructive feedback before, but now you're just coming across as a pompous dick. Your opinion is not fact, and people are going to want to try features that you don't necessarily agree with. Grow the fuck up and get over it.

Drynwyn wrote:oh my god it's not even luke's codebabe, he didn't do the fucking code, if it was anyone's codebaby it would be my codebaby, fuck's sake

can you please hold off on screaming at each other until I get the PR up jesus shit

Don't mind PK, his autism is acting up again. We all appreciate the work you've put into this.

>he has autism he has autism he has autism ignore him ignoRE HIM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
that is a paprika-tier reaction to negative feedback

I and several others have explained in great detail why we think your opinion is wrong.

except you haven't, as far as i can tell nobody's even read my post

oh my god it's not even luke's codebabe, he didn't do the fucking code, if it was anyone's codebaby it would be my codebaby, fuck's sake

fine, ideababy, whatever. the point is that luke's got some kind of crazy grudge for this even though it's a shit idea in basically all respects and he doesn't even have any reason to back it up anymore other than "PK's autistic"

Luke Cox wrote:PK, you're the only one adamantly against this being added. I and several others have explained in great detail why we think your opinion is wrong. You have an almost autistic level of fixation on making sure this doesn't get added. I took your disagreement as constructive feedback before, but now you're just coming across as a pompous dick. Your opinion is not fact, and people are going to want to try features that you don't necessarily agree with. Grow the fuck up and get over it.

Drynwyn wrote:oh my god it's not even luke's codebabe, he didn't do the fucking code, if it was anyone's codebaby it would be my codebaby, fuck's sake

can you please hold off on screaming at each other until I get the PR up jesus shit

Don't mind PK, his autism is acting up again. We all appreciate the work you've put into this.

He's not the only one, I gave my arguement and you guys don't listen.

Weekly reminder (I missed a few days) that this is still a terrible idea

PKPenguin321 wrote:>he has autism he has autism he has autism ignore him ignoRE HIM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
that is a paprika-tier reaction to negative feedback

I and several others have explained in great detail why we think your opinion is wrong.

except you haven't, as far as i can tell nobody's even read my post

oh my god it's not even luke's codebabe, he didn't do the fucking code, if it was anyone's codebaby it would be my codebaby, fuck's sake

fine, ideababy, whatever. the point is that luke's got some kind of crazy grudge for this even though it's a shit idea in basically all respects and he doesn't even have any reason to back it up anymore other than "PK's autistic"

I've backed this idea up many times, you just ignore it every time. I'll explain it one more time. The design of the secborg encouraged validhunting and law 2 violations in favor of playing mall cop. Removing secborg has eliminated this problem, but it's also left the AI unable to perform its primary function under law 1. Yes, the AI actually has to intervene in conflict whenever it can due to the "through inaction" bit in law 1. If you have a problem with this, the issue is asimov itself, not borgs. To give the AI a means of dealing with conflict without having it play robocop, we should give it a borg with tools to impede violent individuals and help victims escape. If standard borgs don't validhunt with their stun baton, I don't think these borgs would even if they had the physical means to do so. No stuns, no restraints, no sec hud, no anything from the secborg.

yackemflam wrote:

Luke Cox wrote:PK, you're the only one adamantly against this being added. I and several others have explained in great detail why we think your opinion is wrong. You have an almost autistic level of fixation on making sure this doesn't get added. I took your disagreement as constructive feedback before, but now you're just coming across as a pompous dick. Your opinion is not fact, and people are going to want to try features that you don't necessarily agree with. Grow the fuck up and get over it.

Drynwyn wrote:oh my god it's not even luke's codebabe, he didn't do the fucking code, if it was anyone's codebaby it would be my codebaby, fuck's sake

can you please hold off on screaming at each other until I get the PR up jesus shit

Don't mind PK, his autism is acting up again. We all appreciate the work you've put into this.

He's not the only one, I gave my arguement and you guys don't listen.

I'm not saying that PK is the only one who disagrees. It looks like the majority of people vaguely support this at least, but other people have brought up valid points. PK is the only one who throws a tantrum whenever the project makes any kind of progress, however.. I disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. Once the PR is up and we can test this, we can work towards something everybody likes.

Why not poll make a poll?

You know, so that you can back your arguement with that people actually likes this idea.

I don't think the majority of the people who play on the servers give a single shit about the peacekeeper borg. They'll just be told it's a worse secborg and know it's bad because of the recent testing we did with them.

I plan on making a poll once we get a working version of this ready to test.

Luke Cox wrote:I've backed this idea up many times, you just ignore it every time. I'll explain it one more time. The design of the secborg encouraged validhunting and law 2 violations in favor of playing mall cop. Removing secborg has eliminated this problem, but it's also left the AI unable to perform its primary function under law 1. Yes, the AI actually has to intervene in conflict whenever it can due to the "through inaction" bit in law 1. If you have a problem with this, the issue is asimov itself, not borgs. To give the AI a means of dealing with conflict without having it play robocop, we should give it a borg with tools to impede violent individuals and help victims escape. If standard borgs don't validhunt with their stun baton, I don't think these borgs would even if they had the physical means to do so. No stuns, no restraints, no sec hud, no anything from the secborg.

But see, I've talked about this and basically disproved it all, and you haven't actually argued back in any ways besides just restating your argument. I'd like you to go back and really read this post here.

You didn't "prove" jack shit, all you did was state your opinion and complain about people who play silicons

Luke Cox wrote:You didn't "prove" jack shit, all you did was state your opinion and complain about people who play silicons

You have failed to read, friend. Calm down and come back when you've cooled off.

Then would you care to point out the part where you "prove" anything?

Luke Cox wrote:Then would you care to point out the part where you "prove" anything?

>inb4 "this is just analysis you didn't technically prove anything" pedantic memery

i'll try to be really concise since i'm tired:

1. Law 1 obliges you to help humans that are in danger, and hopefully save them. If you try your best and the human still dies, you've still satisfied law 1. AIs do not need the tools to save the human every single time, nor for the sake of the fun of the game should they be given those tools.

2. Standard borgs DO happen a lot more often since secborg removal, contrary to what you claim. This is anecdotal proof at best without some kind of statistic, yes, but I've been around a while, and before secborgs were removed you pretty much only ever played standard borg on accident.

3. Standard borgs are better at preventing harm than the borg module you propose. The proposed borg module is rendered obsolete and inferior by it, leaving one to wonder why they would ever pick the proposed module over standard borg. It is like if the standard borg had a hypospray while the mediborg only had a dropper with 5u of omnizine in it. Because you're so focused on making this borg weak, you're not really able to buff it past the point of standard borg without treading back into secborg territory. Your design in this sense is inherently flawed.

4. Borg specialization as shown by engiborgs/janiborgs/medical borgs is good. They have a purpose outside of their laws (building/repairing, cleaning, healing, respectively). This is very good design, as it makes them engaging to play and helpful/tolerable to other players around them.
Making a borg module that exists to only serve the purpose of validhunting under the excuse of "muh law 1" with no other specialization does the opposite, and is bad design. (Not to mention it's not even as good at it's specialized purpose as the standard borg module.)

tl;dr: Your motives behind the laws versus the purpose of silicons is flawed, the borg module proposed encourages bad gameplay, the borg module proposed is inferior to something already in the game and may as well not exist in the first place.

PKPenguin321 wrote:

Luke Cox wrote:Then would you care to point out the part where you "prove" anything?

>inb4 "this is just analysis you didn't technically prove anything" pedantic memery

i'll try to be really concise since i'm tired:

1. Law 1 obliges you to help humans that are in danger, and hopefully save them. If you try your best and the human still dies, you've still satisfied law 1. AIs do not need the tools to save the human every single time, nor for the sake of the fun of the game should they be given those tools.

2. Standard borgs DO happen a lot more often since secborg removal, contrary to what you claim. This is anecdotal proof at best without some kind of statistic, yes, but I've been around a while, and before secborgs were removed you pretty much only ever played standard borg on accident.

3. Standard borgs are better at preventing harm than the borg module you propose. The proposed borg module is rendered obsolete and inferior by it, leaving one to wonder why they would ever pick the proposed module over standard borg. It is like if the standard borg had a hypospray while the mediborg only had a dropper with 5u of omnizine in it. Because you're so focused on making this borg weak, you're not really able to buff it past the point of standard borg without treading back into secborg territory. Your design in this sense is inherently flawed.

4. Borg specialization as shown by engiborgs/janiborgs/medical borgs is good. They have a purpose outside of their laws (building/repairing, cleaning, healing, respectively). This is very good design, as it makes them engaging to play and helpful/tolerable to other players around them.
Making a borg module that exists to only serve the purpose of validhunting under the excuse of "muh law 1" with no other specialization does the opposite, and is bad design. (Not to mention it's not even as good at it's specialized purpose as the standard borg module.)

tl;dr: Your motives behind the laws versus the purpose of silicons is flawed, the borg module proposed encourages bad gameplay, the borg module proposed is inferior to something already in the game and may as well not exist in the first place.

I would like to add that this would promote more 'antifun' gameplay, way more.

Other borg modules has a purpose other than protect humans.

Standard = jack of all trades stun the offenders, take out fire, check who's hurt and explain why they're hurt, crowbar open depowered doors to let the trapped out, etc (seriously, this module is robust in weird situations)
Engi = maintenance, repair, and the construction of stuff
Medi = Doctor stuff, keeping humans ALIVE rather than just protecting them
Service = Self explanatory
Jani = Self explanatory


Sec = valid hunt any bad guys, ignore orders because the LAW

1. The AI shouldn't be given the power to validhunt anybody, but they still need something to allow them to perform their primary function. Something balanced. The goal with this is to give the AI a less intrusive way to perform its job. Silicons will have some means of dealing with conflict, but unlike secborgs, this borg's design will discourage validhunting and be very easy for antags to fight against. Peacekeepers can help the victim make their getaway, but security will actually have to take the traitor town.

2. They currently appear more because they are the only borg that has any sort of way to deal with human-on-human conflict. My point in bringing the standard borg up constantly is that they are totally capable of validhunting, but don't. If something less combat-capable is added, how can you say that they will validhunt but standard borgs won't? If this does get added, I would like to see the baton removed from the standard borg.

3. Ranged option in the bola launcher, for one. Adrenals do jack shit against bolas as well. Sedative makes it difficult to chase people. Flash works against rogue silicons. If you're comparing this to the sec borg, you're looking at it wrong. The secborg was designed to disable and detain individuals. This borg is designed to disrupt conflicts and aid the victim's escape. I'm not sure how you simultaneously think this borg is too weak, yet that it will validhunt. Plus, as I said, I want the stun baton removed from the standard borg. A jack-of-all-trades module shouldn't have something that effective at a specific application.

4. This borg may have been created in response to the AI presently not having enough tools to prevent harm, but the borg will have a clear purpose no matter what the active lawset or round type is. Two things happen every round: somebody tries to bash somebody else's face in, and 99.9% of the time the lawset will require you do try and stop it. I'm not usually into heavy RP, but I feel like whole safety egg shtick and cookie dispenser could make for fun RP. And again, don't look at this like a secborg. The goal of this borg is to disrupt conflicts, not detain individuals. Between having a ranged slow, an instant disarm, and a sedative, I think this borg will be highly effective at what it's meant to do while not falling into the same pitfalls that the old secborg did.

@yackemflam: The entire purpose of this whole thing is to create a harm-prevention borg that isn't tied to sec. Its main job is to break up fights.

This autism again.

Let's just test that borg.

DemonFiren wrote:This autism again.

Let's just test that borg.

That's part of my point. This borg will work out fine in practice. Worst case scenario, it's service borg level.

Luke Cox wrote:@yackemflam: The entire purpose of this whole thing is to create a harm-prevention borg that isn't tied to sec. Its main job is to break up fights.

The players are going to completely ignore that, and tie themselves to sec anyhow.

The arguments for this borg is to allow the AI to break up fights. Why? Why does it need to stop harm? Does the AI fucking implode if a human gets hurt? No. It doesn't. YOU implode because you can't stop the fun. This game is about chaos and violence. People get hurt, and it's not the AI's job to protect them with a legion of validbots that can stun and fuck with antags.

See, I understand. You play AI, you're a floating camera and you get to see all the fights going on and the traitors killing people. I get that you feel helpless there because you can't do anything but close doors.

There's a really easy solution: Don't play AI. Play a role that EXISTS TO STOP ANTAGS. SECURITY!

"But security can't be unstunnable, easily-revived and spaceproof dickbots and operate outside of space law with a flimsy 'do no harm' law!"

I get it, you want to be able to validhunt one round, and then be a super powerful antag the next. NO ROLE GETS TO DO THAT. SECURITY HAD ITS ANTAG REMOVED FOR THIS EXACT REASON.

yackemflam wrote:

Luke Cox wrote:@yackemflam: The entire purpose of this whole thing is to create a harm-prevention borg that isn't tied to sec. Its main job is to break up fights.

The players are going to completely ignore that, and tie themselves to sec anyhow.

That's my point with bringing up the standard borg. As I said, the standard borg in its present state lends itself much more to sec than this ever will, and you don't see them acting like secborgs. I sincerely doubt that it will happen.

Luke Cox wrote:

yackemflam wrote:

Luke Cox wrote:@yackemflam: The entire purpose of this whole thing is to create a harm-prevention borg that isn't tied to sec. Its main job is to break up fights.

The players are going to completely ignore that, and tie themselves to sec anyhow.

That's my point with bringing up the standard borg. As I said, the standard borg in its present state lends itself much more to sec than this ever will, and you don't see them acting like secborgs. I sincerely doubt that it will happen.

And that brings up two main problems.

1. It'll be stronger than standard borg, and people will complain.

2. It'll be weaker than standard borg, people will completely ignore the module because how weak it is, and complain on how useless it is.

yackemflam wrote:

Luke Cox wrote:

yackemflam wrote:

Luke Cox wrote:@yackemflam: The entire purpose of this whole thing is to create a harm-prevention borg that isn't tied to sec. Its main job is to break up fights.

The players are going to completely ignore that, and tie themselves to sec anyhow.

That's my point with bringing up the standard borg. As I said, the standard borg in its present state lends itself much more to sec than this ever will, and you don't see them acting like secborgs. I sincerely doubt that it will happen.

And that brings up two main problems.

1. It'll be stronger than standard borg, and people will complain.

2. It'll be weaker than standard borg, people will completely ignore the module because how weak it is, and complain on how useless it is.

From the way it sounds, you're fucked on both aspects of the module. I was an avid secborg user. And, I can a test that initially, only the idiots that vaidhunted using sec borg with law 1 as a defense. THat's on them, this is just a H U G B O X borg that's as weak as it sounds. The drug shit is kinda useless, because that just turns the peacekeepers into valid hunters either way. So, let alone the hailer it's basically valid hunting 2.0 but weaker. You have inadvertantly created what you sought to erase . Full fucking circle.

DemonFiren wrote:This autism again.

Let's just test that borg.

Lets take the now standard, test it, then ask for feedback/polls.

There's very little constructive input anyone can make until we see a real working version in the game.

Also I'm waiting on the outcome of this as to whether or not to to let the standard borg keep it's stun baton so I'd rather there be a test so I can make sure I won't forget this shit.
If the borg makes it in, the standard's baton will be getting a downgrade. If not, the stunbaton stays.

Essentially, there are two main sides two the argument here, and I feel like there's a fundamental disagreement that keeps those sides from agreeing with one another ever.

Just remember that laws and function don't necessarily need to be hand-in-hand. If we have AIs to wipe our ass cracks, for example, we would probably still give them silicon laws to make sure they don't tear us secondary or tertiary assholes. So don't use laws as justification for function. Instead, look for function that the station needs and that can be fulfilled efficiently by a silicon. We have to ask ourselves, is reducing the chance of direct harm a function that the station needs? At least from an IC perspective I'd argue yes. But from a gameplay perspective, I can see where the discrepancy is. Thing is, I'm eager to give it a try.

I vote to give it a try, if for no other reason than how far we've gotten with it.

I just want to be a cute little egg borg tbh.

Aliannera wrote:I just want to be a cute little egg borg tbh.

Service Borg resprite :^)

It'd make more sense as a mediborg resprite if you ask me, not like service borgs have to be the only one that have alternate sprites.

Bring back old secborg sprite when?
Bring back secborg when?

bring back secborgs, i don't understand why "LMAO GIT GUD FAGGET" is a valid response when someone complains about a holospriting clowndick killing the entire server but if you tell a tater who tried to go loud and can't figure out how to handle an angry segway with a stun gun to "git gud" you're literally H I T L E R

bring back secborgs and give them spreading taser blasts that fill an entire hallway

How about we just tell zile and PK to stop sperging and test it on the people that dont come to the forums and see if they like it.

TechnoAlchemist wrote:

Aliannera wrote:I just want to be a cute little egg borg tbh.

Service Borg resprite :^)

Yes. The must service us.

If this doesn't work out we could use the sprite, but dumping everything Drynwyn has done into the trash because "muh silicon hate boner" is both pointless and an insult to his work. Also, using the egg as a service borg sprite is dumb.

Redblaze3000 wrote:How about we just tell zile and PK to stop sperging and test it on the people that dont come to the forums and see if they like it.

Absolutely this. We will test this, and few to none of the concerns people have will materialize, mark my words. Nothing about the borg is set in stone. We can tweak modules or even add and remove them based on how things work out.

If this does fail, which it very well could, it should at least stay as a mediborg reskin, as it makes no sense for service borg considering the design inconsistency. At least mediborgs are also cuties, so it'd kinda sorta make sense.

I mean, how is an egg supposed to hold a tray with a nuke disk and five syndie bomb drinks on it?

paprika wrote:The arguments for this borg is to allow the AI to break up fights. Why? Why does it need to stop harm? Does the AI fucking implode if a human gets hurt? No. It doesn't. YOU implode because you can't stop the fun. This game is about chaos and violence. People get hurt, and it's not the AI's job to protect them with a legion of validbots that can stun and fuck with antags.

See, I understand. You play AI, you're a floating camera and you get to see all the fights going on and the traitors killing people. I get that you feel helpless there because you can't do anything but close doors.

There's a really easy solution: Don't play AI. Play a role that EXISTS TO STOP ANTAGS. SECURITY!

"But security can't be unstunnable, easily-revived and spaceproof dickbots and operate outside of space law with a flimsy 'do no harm' law!"

I get it, you want to be able to validhunt one round, and then be a super powerful antag the next. NO ROLE GETS TO DO THAT. SECURITY HAD ITS ANTAG REMOVED FOR THIS EXACT REASON.

Hard truth right here.

Like I've been saying, you can't win them all, and you shouldn't be able to. The AI having to try and save humans but being ill-equipped to do so is better RP than a "cookie dispensing hug-egg."

If you can convince me (or more importantly the headcoders and maintainers) that this idea is anything more than simply a way to inject the AI back into situations where it has never belonged in the first place, your chances of getting this merged skyrocket. This is what everyone opposed to this idea is looking for, yet you keep replying with the same, stale rhetoric that the AI needs a way to prevent harm to humans. I agree that malf/traitor AI is lackluster without hacked secborgs, but there are MANY ways to buff it without adding to the AI's validhunt arsenal when it's not an antag.

You need to consider traitors with emags, the fact that anyone can subvert them with a cyborg upload, etc etc. This is a lot more than just roleplay and being everyone's best friend, secborg had serious gameplay ramifications that sullied the silicon role for years, just like traitor security did until it was finally removed.

I don't think the sprites should be in the game at all if I'm honest. They don't fit the aesthetic even remotely. It's too clean, not broken, dirty, or dinged up at all, totally not something I'd remotely associate with Nanotrasen "quality".

Luke Cox wrote:

Redblaze3000 wrote:How about we just tell zile and PK to stop sperging and test it on the people that dont come to the forums and see if they like it.

Absolutely this. We will test this, and few to none of the concerns people have will materialize, mark my words. Nothing about the borg is set in stone. We can tweak modules or even add and remove them based on how things work out.

I have literally already said to go ahead and test this
It'll be shit, but you're free to test it

TechnoAlchemist wrote:

Aliannera wrote:I just want to be a cute little egg borg tbh.

Service Borg resprite :^)

Nah, if this doesn't go through give the standard borg different skins like the service ones. Though I would like to see that regardless since it's boring to not have variety.

Zilenan91 wrote:I don't think the sprites should be in the game at all if I'm honest. They don't fit the aesthetic even remotely. It's too clean, not broken, dirty, or dinged up at all, totally not something I'd remotely associate with Nanotrasen "quality".

The game has so many conflicting sprite styles, so this is pretty much a non-issue dude.

Zilenan91 wrote:I don't think the sprites should be in the game at all if I'm honest. They don't fit the aesthetic even remotely. It's too clean, not broken, dirty, or dinged up at all, totally not something I'd remotely associate with Nanotrasen "quality".

Eh, there I'd like to disagree. Yeah, most things in our universe are shitty and dirty but these sprites don't seem to deviate too far. At the very least, the...style?...of the sprites are definitely consistent with the outlines and stuff (i dunno man i'm not a spriter). And yeah, the love egg does seem far to clean and round for the general aesthetic of the world we're playing in but I feel like, considering it's a love-egg, it's appropriate. If a little smudginess on the egg would make more sense then by all means, we can throw that on.

If this borg never gets implemented, I would like to see it be a reskin for mediborgs in a few different soft colors, like a light pink, baby blue, and eggshell white. That way, I can be a pink-haired medical doctor and befriend a pink egg borg and we can straight up be Nurse Joy and Chansey in this bitch.

Gonna have to deal with some merge conflicts since I can't just copypaste files, since some changes got made to files I changed since I started this project. I know I've said this before but hopefully PR this weekend?!

Take your time. The hardest part is done.

paprika wrote:
I get it, you want to be able to validhunt one round, and then be a super powerful antag the next. NO ROLE GETS TO DO THAT. SECURITY HAD ITS ANTAG REMOVED FOR THIS EXACT REASON.

Ahaha what? Antag before job is a thing man literally the hos can be jamming jackboots down your throat one round and be a holocookiecutter the next with no change to preferences.

That was a changeling.