necaladun

All in all, I think there's some damn solid ideas here that could be implemented. What would be needed before that is a solid basis of the following: Descriptions of the levels. Descriptions of the powers for security/law/sop changes etc. Descriptions of the requirements for these to be established and lifted. Try to aim at a ~15 year old reading level as well, which should get a good mix of young native english speakers but also non-native english speakers. Avoid heavy legal terms, etc.

This is insane and there's no way it would ev.. ...huh. Now I'm interested. Still not sure exactly how it would balance out, it'd really depend on how the leap works. I'd say leap needs limited range, no stun, decent cooldown, nothing more than a basic grab...and which point I'm not seeing it as hugely useful.

@agentCDE Those examples are actually pretty good for what level of threat for each. Having different ones for interior (rogue crew) and exterior (spiders, xenos, etc) threats, would be quite interesting.

Ah my apologies - my fear with the proposed martial law is the latter.

I think this is the real issue, and part of that is because red alert is called so easily. One traitor running past the bridge with an esword is enough for it, but it'd be downright silly to force everyone back into their workplaces with a stunbaton for that. There's a real disconnect between the powers/theme of red alert, and this threads been great for highlighting some of that. Generally ones who do it to the letter are the biggest problem - as in the above example. The spirit is a big part of that too. Honestly, jobbans for sec, while high, really aren't as looming as people think. Bwoinks are common, but I'd say a majority are resolved with "Ah, so he's just whining? Thanks for explaining, carry on.". I think that's a really good idea. If code red had some -cost- to it, with the benefit of increased security powers, that'd be great.

That's what I love about it, but it all depends heavily on how it's interpreted. A captain being able to call martial law for the rest of the round because someone bombed medbay I don't like the idea of. I think an admin-approved call ala ERT would be the best bet here. Even then, I'd like to see a good SoP and the like for what happens, as gamma is pretty...well, incomplete, due to it's rarity.

The reason Gamma is so rarely called is due to the armoury and borg modules. I'd actually love to be able to call it more easily without those.

There's a reason admins are very hesitant to ever allow martial law/gamma/etc, I don't see trusting players with it going down well. Especially because it's hard to determine who is at fault - if the Captain does it for the right reasons, but on information the HoS believed but turned out to be wrong about/tricked, and a sec officer harmbatons/permas the clown for slipping him, who is at fault here? The best I could see would be a form of ERT request - that 2 heads swipe for it with a reason, then the admins can accept/deny it. It'd still need some non-ambiguous, well worded criteria that it can be requested in, and more importantly, when it ends. What force can be used extra then also needs to be well defined.

A soft suit itself would do the job. A unique one with cool patterns wouldbe good for a karma job too!

Fox gives some good experience with goon mining there, and porting it really isn't that easy. Lavaland is a huge work, and slowly being chipped away at, but many changes need to be done before it's anywhere near ready. Sadly that's left us with an in between of people not touching mining in case of lavaland, Honestly, mining is currently more detailed and exciting than it's ever been, and I don't think needs to be that much better. (Back in myyyy dayyy there weren't even hostile mobs or rewards!). However, new cool ideas are always welcome. But a full thing like porting goonmining doesn't seem the best approach.

Sec are always allowed to respond with any force warranted, by definition. Nothing about red alert here changes that. What "screwing with" is would obviously need more definition, and what force is warranted to stop that (Can I lase someone to death to stop them shouting about shitcurity?). This I see as very, very prone to abuse. With no guidelines as to how or when it's meant to be properly used, and the tendency to stay on red alert, this would be a huge problem. Overall, while i'd like some method by which sec can crack down on people being shitty to them 4thelulz, this also has to be balanced with the potentials for abuse.

EVA would be best, as well, it is very much part of their job. Engineering access itself would just be a pain for engineering, resulting in raided tools but no help most of the time.

Seems it could be simply done with a toggle button that we have now, I don't see any reason why not.

Being able to remotely disable IDs is a huge balance concern far outside the scope of IAA, and has very little to do with them. It'll affect nearly every single major antag type, and make things a lot harder for them. Antags don't need this kinda nerfing. I'd like IAAs to be better, but this is not the way for sure.

Re: disabling id's. The issue here is getting the id. If the crewmember is being shit its rare theyll hand it over. If it was somehow able to be done remotely this will be mainly used against antags instead of crew and would have some pretty massive balance changes.

First of all, teaching and encouraging them to learn rather than yelling at them for being idiots would be the most important thing. Expecting heads to know everything is a big ask, especially things that you can only learn as a head - such as how to use the teleporters, etc. This is the biggest thing here, encouraging people to learn rather than making them feel like idiots and insulting them for asking. Insulting someone so much they stop playing as a head only removes 1 bad player from being that head - and likely never makes them get better, instead the just leave the server. It doesn't stop new people. Secondly - setting a good example. If people see shitty heads acting shitty, they will follow the example. If they see hyper-competent heads, they'll be less likely to try to play that if they're not up to it (and get robusted by them). Also, GOOD people playing heads is less bad people able to play them. Thirdly - Jobbanning the ones with too much ego to learn, and encouraging the ones who are willing to learn but havn't yet learnt to play something else for awhile. Overall, nothing can ever really ensure heads are competent, but it can be encouraged and helped. Gating behind playtime in departments itself has numerous problems. I do think upping some of the requirements for overall playtime might be good. Other random ideas I've had include a big pop-up when you try to set the job saying "THIS IS A SUPER HARD AND IMPORTANT ROLE ARE YOU REALLY REALLY SURE YOU"RE ON OF THE BEST OF THE BEST ON THE STATION HUH!?" or the like. I'd love some form of tutorial/questionnaire as well, but not sure how easy that would be to establish and a fair way of doing it. I think at the least some form of method of discouraging anyone who can't be bothered spending 5 minutes on the wiki just once per head role would weed out a lot of the lower hanging fruit.

You can always ahelp for that kinda thing - it's pretty routine to get such ahelps for sec officers, and rarely (if ever?) do we not allow wardens/etc to do that. Hell, you can always ahelp to ask permission for things, unless it's something especially foul or gross, you won't be any trouble. You might get a no, or no answer if we're busy and/or it's a stupid request. But doesn't hurt to ask. Just remember we get a log with big red letters for interactions with SSDs, so always ask permission first. Seeing someone strip a bunch of sec gear from an SSD generally gets our attention. They shouldn't be running in and just taking stuff. A shield using the spare ID to rob the armoury is not ok at all. Asking the Warden for some of the toys is something else entirely, and you shouldn't be jobbanned for asking for HUDglasses and getting them from the warden. As detective, asking for a sec belt is pretty standard. It's all about context. Going at roundstart to arm yourself up with a bunch of sec gear is very different to asking the warden for a laser during a massive terror spider outbreak.

"Except where they are willing to accept such harm/risks themselves" is a good caveat to add to protection laws for the AI. 2. State your intentions before you act. This I see as completely impractical. Stating intentions before every action is wayyy too much effort. (And also, isn't stating intentions an action itself, requiring it to be stated before AHH INFINITE LOOP)

Ideally, I'd love people to have played a heap of the department before playing as the head, and for captains to have played every single department. Practically, this is a lot harder, and I don't see gating behind playtime as a good way to achieve this. Play tracking is only since the start of this year, department tracking would be only since it is turned on - that means people would have to go back and play these roles a heap to unlock stuff they are already qualified for, which would be unnecessary grind. That can be (somewhat) fixed by turning it on for (x) amount of time before turning on the actual gating however. Number of hours played in a department doesn't equal competency, especially as a head. Eg, playing 20 hours as a chemist does not mean you're a good CMO. Hell, 100 hours as a sec officer doesn't guarantee being a good HoS either. While there's correlation, I very much dislike gating based on such an assumption. While it would undoubtedly result in some people who shouldn't be playing as heads not being able to play as them, it certainly wouldn't do enough to fix that while punishing people with having to essentially grind roles that they are already qualified for - especially if they've played heavily before we started tracking, or on other servers.

Weapon permits currently can be for any weapon, rarely firearms. I most often see it for gateway explorers actually.

This could make a good new lawset, however there's a few issues with 1 and 2: For 1 - Rights aren't really defined. NT isn't big on rights, and the crew have little if any. I'd look for something else here more along the lines of "protect the lives of". Dignity is also poorly defined - would the AI be obliged to allow my Unathi to duel those who insult him? - I'd try to avoid such words that aren't well defined. For 2 - I'm not sure how this would exactly function, and might bog down the AI in having to explain why it did everything it did. 3 - Looks good. I like safeguard as a term, although maybe that should be law 1. 4 - Generally good, although "maximize" might be an issue, although with laws 1-3 that'll stop it from borging everyone to "maximize efficiency'. I'd say at the start of the day actually

I do not see this having a positive effect on the server at all. Civilians having guns like this would be terrible for valid hunting among many other reasons.

This'd make being a vox or slime less fun to play as due to the decreased chance of antag, as well as make them much more trusted to not be changlings. I don't see this as particularly inconsistent - NT cloning tech just isn't up to the vast differences of vox and slimes, where as changelings are able to do it.

The problem here is it only takes one person to ignore this - intentionally or not - to fuck it up. Then admins have to jump in, but the damage can already be done. However, cultists losing their memory hasn't caused huge amounts of problems and people have been good with it so i think it's worth a shot. Start small with a minor amnesiac effect for feeding or the like and then move on to the greater ideas of brainwashing and glamours.

There are a staggeringly huge amount of cool ideas for vampires, thanks to white wolf, true blood and twilight. I think an amnesiac power would be great however, it'd have to be done right.