Nerfection

A minor thing, but in the Nanotrasen page, referring to the characters by first-name only dispels the wikipedia-article style which is being aimed for. Rather than: Consider: This will bring the style more in line with real-world articles on successfully businessmen. e.g. the wiki article on Bill Gates' and Paul Allen's relationship: The personalities are full-named in the first instance, and surnamed from then. Love the work, though. I'll keep editing this with more pedantic bullshit! Nerf

Well, we already have genderless, which is synonymous with 'none', but which is not the same thing as being enby. It'd be great to expand the lore of more species and their genders/sexes, but opening things up for people to RP their own gender identity in general seems cool to me too. I'm all for it. Nerf

Here is my Barry (big, bottom) and my Betsy (smol, top). They are stupid.

I very much agree with this sentiment (I'm also one of those nerds who'd prefer cloning to not be a thing; so as to make death even more impactful). My suggestion was for if permadeath objectives are on the way out - as seems to be the growing consensus. More ghost roles would always be appreciated, too!

While this is technically true, it ignores the fact that this is still an improvement on the current way assassination objectives work; whereby if your target dies for any reason it counts as a success, whether or not you had anything to do with their death (or even saw them at any point, dead or alive). The photo method would at least require some level of involvement/awareness of the victim's death. Not all criticisms turn into good ideas, either ;) A more relevant issue with this idea is the potential for victims to die 'offscreen' after an attack, preventing a death-photo being taken at time-of-death. This could result in the somewhat odd scenario of the assassin bursting into medbay like a mad paparazzo, trying to photograph their victim's corpse before it can be revived or cloned. The reason I raised the photo idea was that there seems to be a push towards removing/heavily changing the current assassinate objective, but in the absence of that change I agree it could be interesting to have non-permadeath objectives - perhaps there could even be non-death objectives such as 'XX has upset Don Clownleoni, break his legs and take photo proof', but I suppose this strays into the area of minor-antags, which has been shot down on several occasions for various reasons.

I'm not sure why traitors would revive victims out of kindness, but if permadeath objectives are on their way out anyway, I thought this may be a better system than others I've seen suggested.

It would be unlikely to be 100% incriminating, but certainly would provide some significant evidence to go alongside the other physical evidence sec would gather.

I know many people are dissatisfied with the way assassinate objectives currently work; requiring permadeath by default. I'm aware that solutions like leaving a calling card have been brought up, but I realised we already have a working solution in-game. ..and it's the 'steal station blueprints' objective. This objective doesn't require the station blueprints to be physically stolen, so long as a photograph of them is (as it's the information that the Syndicate want, not the paper it's printed on). We could do the same with killing - either the target is dead at round-end (success), or you kill them and bring a photograph of their body with you at round end (success). This would solve the permadeath issue which many have, while still having the killer vulnerable due to carrying the photo with them. That is the end of my shower thought. Goodbye.

Hi there. You may have missed AA's announcement on the discord, but I reckon it will be very useful for you in combating this issue: Hope this helps! Nerf

I'd just like to weigh in alongside Bmon's point and clarify that it's not resolution that matters with this so much as screen size (and to a lesser extent, aspect ratio). A 1280x720p monitor that's 34 inches isn't going to have a tiny/difficult to read chat box after the widescreen change, but a 13 inch screen running a higher resolution - say 2880x1920 - is. Polling what size monitors people use shouldn't be an issue, as they'd be volunteering that info in said poll. I don't think things like a hardware survey would show monitor size, so a poll would likely be the only way to get this information anyway.

My overall take is while it looks a lot nicer, making the most important area of the screen (the chatbox) smaller means that the improved look just isn't quite worth it for me. On my desktop it's not quite such an issue with a big monitor, but on my laptop it squishes the chatbox into a 6cm wide space, causing almost everything there to loop, and in the verb box only leaving enough room for two columns of verbs. I think with the fact that our playerbase will be playing SS13 on a huge range of screens, from the tiny surface pro of a Nerf, to the gargantuan 55inch TV of a RatNut, we should focus to make it playable on all of them, rather than optimising it for only the bigger ones. Edit: I guess on smaller screens you can drag the chat window larger if you're happy with having black bars, so perhaps it's okay. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

I do think we as admins could sometimes do more to let players know what came of their ahelps. Perhaps knowing that the offending AI was warned/banned/or actually valid would have helped resolve that particular instance for you. (I do agree that a 'You are not sec' text certainly couldn't hurt for silicons. After all, even Robocop only has following the law as it's third priority out of three)

Without addressing your wider point, or touching on balance and things like that, I'm just going to respond to a couple of the rules/admins-based arguments: I'm not sure which admin would have told you that, and my assumption is that this is at least a partial mistranslation of what admins have said. We fairly commonly bwoink bolt-happy AIs who do so too much, and/or without reason. I'd go as far to say that this is far and away the most common thing silicons get bwoinked for. Other than Rule 8 which expressly forbids non-security to hunt antags, Rule 2 would also make using meta-knowledge to effectively powergame as an AI actively looking for antags which it would have no IC reason to believe are there bwoinkable. You are right, though, that this by itself is difficult to see or prove. However, an AI acting upon it would at least get a talking to. As one of the more major roles, AIs get a higher degree of scrutiny, so it's not at all uncommon for admins to do this. In terms of actually stopping validhunting AIs - which I agree is a net positive for the server - there is one woefully underutilised method which can totally undo them: ahelping. If players actually ahelp AIs that go beyond their remit to just hunt antags then those AIs will either have to change their ways or not be allowed to play AI anymore. Admins aren't omniscient, and if we're not pointed to potential rulebreaks, they will often get missed. Good luck with the thread! Nerf

One possible way to do this , while still preserving the big-deal that is the wizard's death, would be to keep these spells and effects permanent until the wizard is killed. Rather than having the round just end at this point (which is something I've never heard anyone actually like) we could have a blip moment where all their spells are broken and the station has to pick up after itself. This would preserve the climatic moment of the wizard's death that we currently have, while doing a lot to unfuck the station from their magical machinations. I also think Sirryan's idea of having the brains remain from the wiz's more gibby spells would solve the issue of permadeath (even though personally I think more permadeath is more gooder).

Are there some players that think that armed and equipped cultists aren't armed and dangerous under Space Law? Seeing as the basic piece of equipment for a cultist is a magic stabby-boi even before they get extra stuff, this is a pretty strange take - especially when Space Law explicitly specifies flag-robed cultists as KOS-able: For all the ways cult balance could be improved, this isn't one. It's a very, very rare situation where sec aren't already covered to KOS cultists. KOS under Space Law != valid for most crew. If the argument is that cult should become valid earlier, then that holds more water.