alphaJackal

On the on hand, i get it, it sucks to be minding your own business and get a welder to the face as an animal, but on the other hand i cannot count the number of times an animal has come into my workspace for the sole reason of being a disruptive attention hog. If some pet wants to repeatedly push me away from a machine, then i want to be rid of them and at times the threat of harm is all they respect

There's very little I can respond to here that doesn't amount to 'My experience with this game has been vastly different than yours'. Points 1, 2 and 5 count as this. Not much more to say unless someone brings out statistics. 3: You're the second person to fixate on the stetchkin despite it not really being salient to the point made, which is that generally speaking the crew has no reason to hold on to illegal maint loot because of the risks associated. 4: If not being able to immediately whip out the lasers is a cause of frustration, maybe security attracts the wrong kind of players. Sec's job should involve a bit of investigation before the gunplay, in my humble opinion.

Going point by point again. My point in making those possible objectives is to change space law so that certain things which a minor antag could do would no longer be treated as perma offenses. There's meant to be overlap between minor and normal antag objectives to create confusion as to which is which. I can only comment on my own experiences, but the brig is left unused 9/10 rounds for anything but perma prisoners in my experience. Either non-antag players are afraid of doing crime to the point that it's restricted to the worst graytiders, or the level of crime non-antags are comfortable with almost never gets reported. Either way, there is always an extreme level of clarity in who is and is not an EoC, and that's what I want to target. And of course, it seems you and I have very different experiences, because I've not known the average seccie to pass by a chance to random search someone if it means catching an antag. The fact that they're given the latitude to do random searches encourages the use of OOC knowledge to antag hunt. Part of my objective here is to invalidate at least some of that OOC knowledge by creating 'false positives' in the hunt for EoCs. And lastly, I suppose that depends on what you qualify as reasonable. If by reasonable you mean 'allowed', then very little is unreasonable. My problem is that sec very often will push to the furthest extreme of what their position allows in order to get the strongest gear. This is allowed, but I wouldn't call it reasonable. This proposal isn't even aimed to change what they're allowed to lethal, just to slow the process of them escalating force by making it less clear if they're dealing with an EoC. This is also why I want to create more situations where clearly illegal gear is in the hands of non-EoCs, to obfuscate the real EoCs. I think the bulk of the work regarding this is examining space law and balancing what gear minor antags get. The antags themselves would only be altered forms of tots, and I don't think that adding possible spawns to maint loot would be excessively difficult. It would obviously have a massive effect on security to know that there will be times that they will catch an antag and have to release them later, but in my experience at least, SOMETHING needs to change between EoCs and Sec, because imo that dynamic is in a miserable kill-or-be-killed state right now even if your antag objectives are pretty tame. This is my best idea for that.

Perhaps mentioning the stetchkin muddied the waters a bit, but the loot I want added to maints is a smattering of non-lethal S-Class items. I view the Access Tuner as the perfect example of this. Other good examples would be the Agent ID Card and the Chameleon Security HUD. Additionally, now that I'm thinking about it, it might also be a good idea to touch up the Class C list so that players can simply run around with voice changers and modulators freely, and stuff like that. I'm not opposed to adding a new class of contraband to the list, but the thing I'm trying to facilitate here is increasing the amount of contraband non-antag crew wants to carry. In theory, I agree with your first point, but if your ENTIRE interaction with an antag boils down to 'I saw a baton, bring out the lethals', that isn't RP. If there is no meaningful interaction beyond 'identify target, shoot target', that's basically the same level of RP you get playing an online shooter. As for the second, I view it as essential that these minor antags not end up in perma because the primary purpose for them existing is to make it less clear for security what they're dealing with. If you can just shove the minor antags in perma, then they don't serve this purpose, because you're essentially treating them mostly the same as other antags. Security must correctly identify and build a case against the non-obvious, non-minor antags before the use of perma. This is intentional and to make the security-antag interactions less straightforward, and non-violent tots can take advantage of having a smokescreen that separates them from how security treats Chainsaw Man. For your first point, I specifically mentioned that stealing the X0-1 was a bad example of a minor antag objective. This is because it's an item which can directly cause a level of harm and destruction that stealing secret documents cannot. And, if the clown resists arrest, there is already a minor offense for resisting arrest. As for other thefts...well, this ties back into what I said previously, that most forms of crime are considered self-antagging. Honestly, I think that except in extreme cases like the X0-1, thefts should be handled IC unless a given player starts making a habit of constantly being an ass every round and stealing everything not bolted down. Perhaps it's a matter of picking your demons, because I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that the level of roleplay between sec and antagonists is where it should be right now. For the second point, this is a bit harder to answer since I don't really have that kind of under-the-hood perspective, but I think that the possibility of having one or two minor antags in addition to the normal ones would be fine. To be honest, the minor antags fulfill most of their purpose if sec merely knows there is a possibility they exist and have to adjust their behavior accordingly. Addressing the rest: I did already mention that Chainsaw Man still gets treated business as usual. If you're wandering around murdering openly, then it's still open season. The area I'm specifically targeting is when sec deals with the more 'subtle' antags. It's pretty frequent for an officer to see the way an antag is acting, instantly know they're an antag with OOC knowledge, and perform a 'random' search. Additionally, having another class of antag that is specifically NOT EoC should make security more hesitant to pull out lethal force without being sure the antag in question is a lethal threat. Space Law does way too much work in simplifying the process of declaring someone an EoC. I want to make that process muddier. As I mentioned in my first post, as long as using the maximum level of allowed violence is the path of least resistance, it will be taken more often than not.

So Paradise is known as THE MRP server. Action and roleplay. For the most part, this holds up, even...except when Security and Antagonists interact. Theirs is a very binary, LRP connection. Either you're an EoC or you're not an EoC, and if you ARE an EoC, less talky more shooty. People often say they want more RP from antags, but nothing is ever done to address the material conditions which lead to nonstop, speechless combat between security and antags. The biggest and most significant cause of this problem is that the path of least resistance for dealing with antags is violence in every circumstance. There is not a single kind of antag where the ultimate solution isn't some form of combat. Adding to this is that combat isn't even the last resort or the brilliant climax of the interaction, but the first and last step in most instances, even in cases like with Contractors where most of the threat is theoretical rather than immediate(The baton is decidedly nonlethal, but the idea that they MIGHT survive long enough to get a bunch of TC is impetus enough to kill them.) Space law itself is designed in such a manner that it not only facilitates this process, but streamlines it with simple, black and white rules: If EoC, fighting time. If spicy EoC, killing time. There are theoretical rules for dealing with non-antag lawbreakers, but the fact is that most things that could land you in the brig without being an EoC qualify as self-antagging and thus it's relatively rare for non-EoCs to be brigged. All of these things together create a sort of clarity that makes knowing when you're allowed to bring out the guns clear as day, and thus security does so without hesitation the moment escalation is possible. There is NEVER a benefit to talking to an antag for security, at least not before they're tucked away in perma with little to no leverage. And you can argue that role-play is not necessarily about taking the easiest route possible, but when you have a game with victory and defeat conditions, almost every player in this system will prioritize victory. So to address this problem, as well has bring in a few other side benefits, I propose three things: 1) The addition of 'minor' antagonists, who will be restricted from killing except in defense of their own lives, and who will have objectives such as theft and minor acts of sabotage. They will have enough TC to maybe buy one or two tools from a curated list of syndie gear that only includes non-lethal equipment. They will NOT be classified as EoCs. They will otherwise function as traitors with their own uplinks. 2) Moving the designated gear from the minor antagonists out of class S. This is ESSENTIAL for the creation of ambiguity security must face when determining if someone is a minor antagonist or an EoC. 3)Allow some of the gear from the minor antagonist list to spawn in maints. This creates yet more ambiguity and weakens the 'random searches' sec can do on the people that they OOCly recognize antag behavior in. So, breaking it down point by point: 1)Adding minor antags is primarily intended to create a class of antagonist that forces Sec to make use of the non-perma part of the brig, to spend valuable time and energy trying to deduce who is and is not an EoC. Sec would need to figure out who to prioritize and when to let crimes slip because there's something more pressing and dealing with crime is no longer as simple as shoot the crime until it goes away. In essence, minor antagonists are a smokescreen for greater threats, making it more difficult for security to escalate force legally. It also has the side benefit of adding the sort of minor chaos which doesn't fundamentally impede the station from functioning but does provide more roles and entertainment for players. It's important that the objectives the minor antags are not the sort which ruin the station. GOOD minor antag objectives: Steal a hand teleporter, Steal Secret Documents, bring target to a location. BAD minor antag objectives: Subvert a synthetic, sabotage the RnD servers, steal the X-01. The objectives, whatever they may be, should never be something that hinders a station much, but is very clearly a crime that sec must deal with non-lethally and without the use of Perma. Another side benefit of having minor antags is that players who might be intimidated by being antagonist have a lower-pressure environment to practice crimes. 2) The gear I'm aiming for these minor antagonists to have are things such as access tuners, boxed space suits, storage implants, and other similar items which do not have a direct offensive application. It's ESSENTIAL that these be moved off of class S where they are present, to ensure minor antags don't end up in perma and to give more plausible deniability to other antags who might possess such items. Of course, they will still be confiscated when found, but they won't be a perma sentence, nor will they result in a tracker. Security will need to build a stronger case against someone before declaring them an EoC. This potentially gives more relevance to the detective and magistrate. My overarching theory here is that Space Law does too much to facilitate security's activities, and should instead be more of a hindrance, preventing them from taking the 'easy way' of escalating force. Because that IS the easy way. The more sec is able to escalate, the easier it is for them to fall into that mindset of 'Redtext at any cost'. It's important to note that this doesn't in any way affect security's ability to escalate against biohazards, war declarations, or any such things, because it will still be obvious within space law that such are station-wide emergencies which must be dealt with decisively. This really only would create leeway for changelings, traitors, and vampires who might possess things they shouldn't and get hit with the inevitable meta-knowledge fueled 'random search'. 3)Right now, there is loot in maints that is illegal for the crew to hold, and most of the time the crew has no incentive to do anything other than turn it in to sec or science because the alternative is getting searched and thrown in perma for having a stetchkin in their bag. Illegal maint loot should be a precious treasure hoarded even by non-antag crew members, to further create confusion as to who is or is not EoC, and to facilitate this, and to add plausible deniability to the minor and non-minor antags, more illegal loot should be added to maints that won't land anyone in perma. All three of these things together are meant to obfuscate the process of determining who is and is not an EoC. Certain things like being a Chainsaw Man will still land you the KoS without much fuss, but now, if you're just someone with an access tuner who got caught in the vault, you might be a burglar rather than a syndie, so Sec can't just toss you in perma and call it a win. By making it harder for sec to immediately go to the highest level of force possible, I think this will encourage players exploring other options. Interrogations, playing dumb, and all sorts of speech-based interactions can happen when your local antag isn't rightfully assuming they'll be shot mid-sentence. The opportunity to deprive an antag of valuable TC gear still gives sec some sort of win for catching you, but you have a second chance to complete your objectives even if you're an antag forced to convince security you're a lesser threat than you actually are. In closing, as long as security can be sure that you're either an EoC or not an antag at all, there will not be meaningful roleplay between security and antags. By providing a middle ground, a gray option which allows the possibility of being an antag without being an EoC, it opens a dialogue between security and their targets, a chance to de-escalate and force Security to reconsider bringing out lethals.

I second not generally seeing brigbay preferred over medbay, primarily because there generally isn't actually a risk to using medbay. Medbay is tiny compared to the amount of traffic it receives, and if an antag tries anything during treatment it's nearly guaranteed to be seen by someone else.

Regarding RP and antagonists, there are a few problems I've had: Firstly: As an antag, I feel like my options for RP are very limited. If I take any action which potentially reveals me to the crew, I basically have to rely on the fact that I'm going to have security and potentially powergamers hunting me for the rest of the round. As such, the most optimal thing to do in most circumstances is to make sure there are absolutely ZERO witnesses to whatever I need to do. This means either avoiding all RP entirely, or leaving no survivors when I have to be hostile. In return, this reinforces to the crew to treat me as a KoS threat, because essentially I'm pushed into being one. I don't really want to kill if I don't have to, but not doing so often compromises my survival chances greatly. I don't like having to choose between RP and continued participation in the round. I feel like the main solution here is actually to take a look at SOP and Space Law to make it harder for people to kill or even start hunting an antag before a certain threshold is met. More leniency in acting suspiciously without committing crimes is needed, else I will feel forced into sticking with the most optimal routes to victory, because victory and survival are essentially synonymous in many cases. Secondly, this was briefly touched on with the Mech discussion, is that late in the round the crew simply has too many lethal toys to play with. Part of what pushes antags into playing without RP is the fact that if they stall, high tech weapons will start coming out and they'll have almost no chance of survival. In my early days of SS13, one of the biggest sources of enjoyment I had was the paranoia that antags could instill. Now that's gone because I know that antags are the ones who should be terrified of psychotic crew members with high tech guns and nearly indestructible mechs, who will hunt them down using their X-ray implants. It's simply too easy for crew to steamroll the 'normal' threats to a station in the lategame, so all antags who want to live do their best to finish up before lategame comes.Aside from science I've also had multiple rounds where I've seen mining, having had time to loot lavaland and get bored with it, come onto the station, stumble on an antag, and steamroll them into oblivion with weapons security can only drool over. Last thing I want to bring up, is that despite about 600 hours of crew play time, I'm still fundamentally unsure about how straight-laced the admins want players to be. I still see people arguing over how literally to take Crewsimov. Sometimes it seems like AI overriding door timings is just common sense and other times it's powergaming. Sometimes Sec is just throwing people in cells as they see crimes, other times there's a lengthy investigation. Sometimes the admins are meme'ing the heads, sometimes they're bwoinking the heads for meme'ing themselves. There's just this fundamental insecurity about where lines are drawn in how a player is allowed to behave which makes me afraid to exhibit any spontaneity because it seems the only way to learn the boundaries is to get the bwoink after the fact, and it varies admin by admin. This ties in to the whole LRP-MRP-HRP discussion a bit, but it seems like there's no actual definition on what MRP means.

As a frequent mediborg player, the only part of this I agree with is that you shouldn't have to continually cycle your hypospray to refill it, which is just annoying. However, that being said mediborgs are EXTREMELY robust healers, and don't really need buffs else doctors would be entirely useless in comparison. No, mediborgs do not have a direct way of treating suffocatoin, however, they have all of the means to treat the cause of the suffocation, and through creative use of their mini-defib, epi, and surgery can effectively make suffocation damage not matter. If you know your stuff, the list of medical problems you can't deal with on your own basically amounts to transplants, implants, heart death, debridement, and IV placement(though I honestly wouldn't mind if mediborgs could manipulate IVs, creative use of saline and surgery can keep someone alive as long as they are above 20% blood). This is more or less fine, because for their extreme power, cyborgs should also have a more narrow scope than humans.

I think the big disparity between opinions here comes from the fact that against relatively 'minor' threats, such as a traitor or some other non-station-destroying entity, secborgs are extremely robust, having immunity to many environmental hazards and status effects that normal security officers suffer from, but when a threat starts to spiral out of control, they lose relevance fast because a lot of the most major hazards are beastly at melee range or have close-range EMPs(yes, I know tators can get emps too, but with limited TC you don't actually see it universally). So, on the one hand, in the early game you have a mostly unstoppable force in the form of the sec borg, who can charge and stun or fire almost unlimited disabler shots against most humanoid targets, but on the other hand you have a useless hunk of metal that will die the moment it gets anywhere near a blob or savvy cultist or xenomorph. The problem isn't that borgs are overpowered or underpowered, it's that their niche becomes outdated the moment the round starts becoming difficult unless the station gets illegals, which does not consistently happen due to all of the moving, sometimes random parts involved.

So it's probably been suggested before, but a subtype of blob that is kudzu would be pretty neat. Instead of having a central core, kudzu blob would be decentralized, and if even one vine persists the antag persists. Chemical storage would be used to induce mutations within the kudzu, and the primary gameplay of the kudzu would be managing which mutations spread so that weaker vines don't block off your stronger vines as all have some degree of automatic spread. As far as difficulty of implementation, all of the assets are probably already in the game already, but I don't know how difficult it would be to code abilities that mutated vines on command.

My point IS that if there's no mechanical nerf at least there should be some sort of adjustment to SOP/Space Law preventing miners from walking around with killing gear in hand at all times, because no other department can legally do that. As far as making a big deal over nothing, I suppose that depends on what side of the issue you're on, because I've never seen a blob/xeno/tspider round instantly discovered by a scientist or a roboticist or a chemist walking around with dangerous items looking for trouble. Can't say the same for mining, where it's a frequent occurrence.

My entire point in bringing those up is that they have rules that govern them. A miner, once they get back on the station, is just someone loaded up to ERT levels without any governance past the most basic 'don't get caught attacking people without reason' bit. They don't even have to keep their weapons hidden on green.

Or maybe we've just had vastly different experiences. RnD can't start making weapons and taking them out of the department, roboticists need permission from the HoS to even think about combat mechs, and the moment a toxins bomb becomes visible outside of toxins sec starts really buzzing.

My point is that if science or chemistry walks around with almost any of the dangerous stuff they make, people react. Nobody bats an eye at a miner with a meathook...which despite needing to be aimed, has a fast projectile speed, making it pretty easy to aim. A miner can walk around with all of their loot fully visible, and security won't react at all. Whether it be an SOP change or personal lockers or something, something needs to change about them being about to walk around with weapons visible without any consequence when literally nobody else can. Even gateway and space explorers at least need to keep their weapons in their bags.

The big difference is that a guy walking around with a maxcap is far more likely to be stopped by security than a guy walking around with a meathook or hiero staff. The people who talked about there needing to be SoP about it and how there's nothing enforced about mining loot on station are right.