Rurik

https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/21997

I'd be fully alright with them starting with security coms. Better that than they steal one. Plus, if they do catch a EOC/Greytide, it is better they call for sec and sec picks up said EOC/Greytide, rather than the BS wordlessly pulling them to processing. There isn't really an excuse to not give the BS one, especially since the fucking HoP gets one for free to listen in.

we should change the price to 1 tc

I would be satisfied with this compromise. Solves the problem Matt mentioned while still letting it be used in a purely defensive roll I mentioned.

This is true, and its the reason security have a positive win rate and is wins the long game in escalation. It is meant to be an uphill challenge for antags, and for loud antags to eventually lose one way or another, because this is a more appealing design. However, you're not using it defense of security winning a long war, or escalation, but rather in defense of nerfing a roundstart environmental tool to block disabler shots. I'm afraid it loses its meaning. Since this PR nerfs an invaluable tool to antags without antistun, it encourages players to do one of two things: Meth/Adrenals usage every round. I don't think any of us want to see one thing be dominant in every strategy, be it stealth or loud. It gets stale. For both loud and stealth strategies, multiple builds should not only exist but also be viable. Complete stealth, leaving no trace for security to follow, and thus never a need to block disablers. This should also be discouraged. Stealth itself is a good thing, more antags should be stealth than loud on average, however we still want them to be discoverable. We want security to have a chance to catch onto a lead, to random search, to force you into one pitched battle. We don't want stealth strategies that consist of permakilling your target 10 minutes in with a sleepypen, then hiding in space for 2 hours in case you are random searched. Its an extreme example I know, but this is what is encouraged when you make it even more difficult to survive a security chase without antistun. Reminder, 20 shots in a disabler, two hits to slow. The Belt/Tool PR was good despite public bitching because it made sense from a design perspective, and encouraged thoughtful use of your space. Tools are powerful. You must accept sacrifices to be able to store them. This is more than fair. Can anything similar be said for this PR? What opportunities for gameplay does this open up? The ability to win a chase easier as security? A lowering of the skill ceiling? I suppose we could argue that it encourages thoughtful positioning, or more tactical TC buys, or more active dodging of all 20 disabler rounds, but I've a feeling that won't be the result. I'd like to draw attention to these words. Every player on the server will do exactly that, but it won't be in a positive way. That is why I'm against this PR Disclaimer: Like 5 players on this server actively uses combat obstacle dragging and this PR isn't going to be that big of a deal. However, a change with negative consequences, even if small, is still enough to warrant noting and discussing.

Fully agree. My thoughts lie on the pull request for it, but in summary: We should be encouraging no-antistun play, not discouraging it. Locker dragging is one of the few things that keeps you from instantly going down to 20 disabler shots from one officer, only two of which need to connect to slow you down. While a few edge case during lowpop could make combat dragging feel "cheap" that is hardly worth this massive change that effects *everyone* on the server, not just the 20% that play security/antag. Plus, even on lowpop when you don't have an additional officer to cut someone off, it is okay to disengage and flank. Remember, even as an officer, you can pull back and re-position. The only "gamer move" I see here is meth, which is 5 times as effective at getting away than locker dragging, and lets you use it offensively to pick apart officers.

Undercover sec is something I never want. It has zero upsides other than mechanical advantage, and is overall damaging to damaging to the antag/sec dynamic. Granted, it is rare, but even so it'd be nice to have it disallowed in Space Law/SOP/Whatever instead of an honor rule between command/sec. Perhaps throwing in there that officers have to wear /something/ pertaining to their department, instead of dressing up in all grey to make an antag doubt its an officer at first glance (even a seconds hesitation could make a difference) would be a positive change.

There is 0 reason you should be more likely to get the job you want by not readying up, and just late joining 2 seconds after round begins. I shouldn't be fucked out of a security roll cause the extra officer slots are only available to late joins. Late join slots should be composed of what slots are left over, not reserved slots. This feature doesn't help with giving jobs to real late joiners either, as these slots, particularly security officer slots, are taken near instantly after shift start. The exception is lowpop. As it stands this feature only serves to punish those readying up and further reward those who latejoin 1 second after shift start to avoid being an antags target.

I don't like having an advantage over people because of what kind of monitor I have. Either I see more than my opponent, or I have a more readable chatbox than my opponent. A little extra screen space isn't worth the balance implications.

tweets?

Hivemind was perfect back when clings alone were squishy and weak. Now, a single cling with the right loadout and map awareness can give security a run for their money. Two clings working together with moderate skill can defeat the entirety of sec. Three and its pretty much a guaranteed ERT call, especially if they train together, doing each-others objectives. Hivemind needs to be updated to reflect this newfound individual strength, and that update should be outright removal. I am willing to accept it being made into a 2 point genome cost, anything is better than free, but outright removal is still preferable.

is this a trick question? changeling specific objective (genomes and become X) is too easy since genomes can be cheesed without a single absorption via DNA sting (which doesnt even out you as a cling), and the become X usually just becomes transform into X by the end of the round (no real way to fix this one though, if people dont wana become target we cant force them)

why the fuck is this still a thing, if a cling wants tot gear let them earn it by killing a tot, not hogging two roles at once

First of all, I respect the effort post. Nice to see that kind of energy around. I fully agree with your proposed defining of the dangerous clause, as well as removing stunbaton/disabler from armed and dangerous clause. There's really no argument against this. There is never a situation where you need to lethal someone who stole a disabler. Not even lethals to slow them. As for defining dangerous as someone who killed a crewmember, this is also reasonable for reasons stated and would be a positive impact. Its what I've been following personally—the more crew killed and/or permakilled, the higher the equating response. Now for the Stims/Implants/Bio-Chips This is absolutely false. I've killed entire sec teams with 3 roundstart meth pills, because meth is that fucking effective. Now, there is a skill issue of course cause a few good harmbatons will bring me down. However, it is absolutely worth lethalling, and while yes security doesn't *have* to lethal, as charlie said, they were designed for such. When sec doesn't lethal an adrenal/meth user it should be considered a kindness, not a given. Just because its possible doesn't mean it should be expected in this circumstance. I object heavily to meth/adrenals being put off the lethal clause. As a note, I am considering the fact that under your revised definitions, a meth user who kills an officer is now dangerous and able to be lethalled. I, however, support them being able to be lethalled before any such action takes place. In conclusion, I feel there's a compromise that can be had of keeping adrenals/meth/stims clause the same, but changing the prior two points to your redesign.

Good catch, typo. Yes a knockdown specifically was the intention. Thats true. Could make it so the baton *only* knocksdown, instead of applying the (60 I think a baton gives?) stamina damage, thus you still need two more hits to actually stun them. This will nullify any combos.