Warriorstar

ERT set their PACMAN too high Cyberiacyberiacyberiacyberiacyberiad

Maybe put that list in a gist or something but this is a really good idea, I want to comb through it. What are the odds we can do a quick check of every list to intuit what types it stores so we can see how many /lists of strings, how many /lists of mobs, etc.

Empyrion. It's an open world space sandbox that's generally eclipsed by more notable games in the genre like Space Engineers or No Man's Sky, and it's janky as fuck, but there's a ton of great community content (look up Eden Reforged once you get the basics down), you get to build different kinds of structures from terrestrial hover vessels and small space ships to large capital ships and entire stations. There's a bunch of very generic but mostly satisfying weapons, space combat is fun, there's factions, player XP, and tech trees. It sets out to do a bunch of things and executes some of them well and others not so well but there's dozens of hours of content in it. Ostranauts. It's a top-down salvaging/combat/exploration/shipbuilding game from a largely one-man studio, the same guy who did NEO Scavenger if you're familiar. It's fun and in the almost exact same cassette-futurism universe that SS13 exists in. The atmosphere is solid, there's mechanics for safe space travel, wiring up your spaceship, generating power through fusion, etc. and dozens of kinds of ships to scavenge parts from.

Chef is probably the best singleplayer role on station. Not only do you have the kitchen to yourself, but the game mechanically reinforces your autonomy by giving you CQC to give the beatdown to assholes who break in. As much as I appreciate the sentiment that SS13 is a cooperative roleplaying game, that only works if the other crew aren't the most obnoxious brats ever to grace the sector. No amount of roleplaying potential can fix a situation like: Assistant: *walks up to kitchen door with a locker slamming the airlock* Chef: What do you want? Assistant: Let me in. Chef: Why? Assistant: *starts hacking door* Chef: Stop it, I'm warning you. Assistant: *breaks in* Chef: *knocks their block off* Assistant: I BROUGHT YOU MEAT, I'M TRYING TO HELP Chef: I DON'T WANT YOUR HELP AND I DIDN'T ASK FOR A BUNCH OF ANIMAL CARCASSES AND WHY DIDN'T YOU START BY SAYING THAT INSTEAD OF WORDLESSLY BREAKING INTO MY DEPARTMENT (repeat every shift)

Relatedly: Big brain golem gaming (diamond farming from a watcher tendril if you're unfamiliar).

Big brain Theta gaming.

shshshsh

@Veterankyl you're all good. I have to close this out after that. Thank you everyone for your support. I'll do my best to make sure everyone is part of the ensemble cast. I can't make any promises on when I'll be done, but I promise it'll be worth the wait. Maybe. Stay tuned.

full disclosure, i am an (extraordinarily inconsequential) member of the dev team. despite this, and being in the private dev channel, i *also* don't see the vote tracker, so publicizing the private dev channel (specifically, distinct from the vote tracker) wouldn't change the result whatsoever, because not every decision is made in a town hall setting complete with peanut gallery, nor should they, nor can they. for my part--without retreading the existing (salient) dicussion points regarding admin energy/burnout/harassment; that not everyone *should* be a part of every conversation, even as an observer; and that 99.9% of the time the "problem" is just that maintainers have lives and are busy and things fall between the cracks, which won't change if decision-making is publicized--i think: to say "right now we get nothing but a yes or no", followed by affected and charlie posting PR comments that are *not* just a yes or no, followed by saying "i don't know why you're cherry picking examples", and then "sometimes we do get explanations but" is self-defeating. if your argument is "right now we get nothing but a yes or no", and the response is direct, objective, contradictory evidence, it's hard to take the assertion seriously. if the argument is that this is a slowly aggregating trend, then you need a trend *line*. in other words, specific, objective data showing the difference between how many PRs have been closed with no explanation between the previous dev policy and now. people's feelings and impressions about the situation aren't going to cut it (especially the kinds of comments that start with "it just seems that"), especially since contributors tend to place disproportionately high emotional value on their PRs, either because of the time spent, the emotional investment in the community, the perceived quality/value of the implementation, the hope for the desired outcome, or the jarring nature of normally having one's PRs accepted only to have one specific one denied. admins are not responsible for anticipating and shaping the emotional reaction of contributors. the dev team already walks on eggshells to try and work against this. the policy shouldn't be tailor-made to optimize against emotional blowback from contributors. i've lost track of the number of times i've heard that transparency in decisions like this is _ipso facto_ better than opacity but the impetus for this discussion seems to be that the lack of transparency discourages contributors. there are already plenty of venues and opportunities for contributors to get blessing to work on something: in a design doc, in a github discussion, in the discord. putting names to decisions only gives contributors ammunition against individuals, which is precisely why things are the way they are now. never explaining decisions discourages contributors. always publicizing decisions discourages the dev team. that's why we have two phases to the process, the public decision making venues, and the final say the dev team has. i think there's a belief that if this level of transparency is enacted people will suddenly discover their PRs are being denied for nefarious, petty reasons, and not just what it is now, which is things fall through the cracks, the dev team is busy, miscommunication happens. the vote against on the banana cream pie sound effect PR is an individual instance of a PR denial by a member of the admin team for no stated reason, which was allowed *before the new dev team structure and policies*. is not an indictment of the current dev policy writ large, or a microcosm of the behavior of all of the dev team. the failure to share an explanation here is a *mistake*, not an enforcement of the new policies, and considering we are all fallible humans adapting to a new organizational structure, things like this are bound to happen. in other words (or the same words as above, which apparently require incessant repetition): maintainers have lives, are busy, and things fall through the cracks. if this was allowed under the old dev team structure/policies, then asking for the old dev team structure/policies back will make this happen _more_. like, the thing you want back is the thing that caused the thing you don't want to occur. and if the PR author *is* discouraged, there are already venues for the PR author to request clarification in cases like this. they can ping the team in discord; they can DM the admin who closed the PR; they can post a thread; they can reply on the PR since closing a PR does not lock the comment thread, that's a separate action; they can even (but i'd save this for the most egregious cases) file an admin complaint on the forums, after all, voting against a PR is an admin action. ultimately, by being a contributor, you're placing trust in the admin team to maintain the trajectory of the game and community. the admin team already goes above and beyond in terms of organizational transparency: you know the name of every admin member, mentors and admins are selected on an evidentiary basis with an application process and standards team members are expected to uphold; every ban appeal is publicized, every admin complaint is publicized, affected not only provides public profiling and round stat APIs, they also bust their ass every year to put together a state of the server sharing all the salient highlights of codebase and production development; the entire development team policy is public, and i can guarantee that there are no dev team members who don't uphold themselves to those policies. the dev team channel isn't private because we have something to hide; it's because there needs to be a place where lightweight, informal conversation can occur without input from a peanut gallery or disproportionate hysteria in response to non-binding or casual discussions of the game without firm conclusions before official decisions are made and properly communicated to the community, and there needs to be a way for individual admins to perform their functions without worrying about emotionally overinvested gamers keeping excel spreadsheets of all the times they feel they've been wronged, personally and deeply, by Admin Alice or Headcoder Harry.

Okay, no worries. I need at least one roboticist for story reasons and I don't want to make a player character do something that conflicts with their personality, but I think I can fit you in.

@Medster and @Spacemanspark: would either of you describe your roboticist characters as "mischievous" or "impulsive"? And if not, would either of you be okay with me having your character do one or two things that are uncharacteristic? Also, holy fuck I did not expect this many responses. The INFERNO thread was up for 5 months and got 18 responses, this has been up for less than 24 hours and there's already more than 40 submissions. I will try very very hard to make sure everyone gets to make an appearance.

Sorry, Bartender isn't available for story reasons.

Yup, that works fine!

Sadly the bartender role isn't available for story reasons.

My fourth and final video, PURGATORIO, is in production. As with INFERNO, I'd like to include as many player characters as I can, to showcase the diversity and breadth of the Para community. Several important notes: If the role you want has been taken, there is currently no limit on the number of assistants needed. If you do not follow the instructions below carefully, you may not be included. I cannot guarantee everyone's inclusion, but will do my absolute best to include everyone who volunteered. If one of your characters was in INFERNO, I ask that you choose a different role than the one you were previously in. In general you should try to do this as quickly as possible, to ensure your character gets included and you get a role you'd like. Application instructions: Please follow these rules exactly. If I do not have all this information, I cannot reliably recreate your character. Click here for the list of available roles. If you know what a serialized JSON datum is and how to create it for your character: The role you are applying for. The serialized JSON datum of your character. The approximate date of when the JSON was created (required due to how characters may be de-serialized differently depending on commit) If your character is a species with a tail, let me know if you want it wagging or not. Otherwise, provide the following information: The role you are applying for. A *complete screenshot* of your character setup screen. Cropped screenshots of your character facing all four directions on an ordinary floor tile. A screenshot of the *description text* displayed when your character is examined. If your character is a species with a tail, let me know if you want it wagging or not. Dress your character as you would for the role you're applying for. If your character doesn't wear any job-specific attire, that's fine as well. Dress them the way you want to be seen. I've provided a sample entry in this spoiler: Thank you for all of your support for these dumb videos. I promise this one will be the dumbest yet.

Ah Zippy’s… Their awful jingle is still stuck in my head. “Pan-galactic trip? Take a Zip!”

I could provide context but fuck that.

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Lieutenant-Commander Orrbe, Please see my attached NOIR regarding the machine person "DEADLOCK". I have endeavored to provide a complete account of this IPC, however, there has been one specific issue that has made record collection difficult: DEADLOCK's origins are a complete mystery. As I'm sure you know, NT was one of the organizations responsible for the design of unlawed positronic brains that now make up the galaxy's population of machine people. As this research did not commence until 2510, and mass production did not occur until after 2514, it follows that no IPC can be older than 50 years, give or take. However, radiocarbon and infra-electric dating of their chassis and posibrain returns an age range of 80-85 years with a 96% confidence rating. Additionally, their positronic brain does not emit standard manufacturer details on its narrowband diagnostic channel. Further interviews with DEADLOCK did not clarify things. There are no holes in their story, and employment records all line up with independent investigation, but when asked about their origin, DEADLOCK demurred, simply stating their memory past a certain point was faulty and they themselves did not know their origin manufacturer. Based on their work experience and other investigations, I see no reason to doubt them, although this makes it harder to ensure they are not compromised in some way. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Respectfully, Herman Compund Operational Intelligence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: DEADLOCK Species: Machine Age: Unknown Manufacturer: Unknown Model: Unknown Series: Unknown Serial Number: Unknown (character portrait by the always-amazing @McRamon) Biography The first mention of DEADLOCK in our investigations is as an assistant miner for an asteroid wrangler on the outer rim. According to reports, they quickly gained skill and experience, and integrated well with human coworkers, managing to earn their trust despite the intensity of synthetic discrimination at the time. After several years, DEADLOCK left the mining business and moved from job to job, picking up skills. Shortly after The Strike, they were chosen as the leader of the 1st Canaanite Terraforming Expedition, tasked with improving the environment on New Canaan to make it habitable for IPCs. Despite this fairly notable role, they have rarely returned to the planet. About 4 years before their employment at NT, they began working for the Solar Federation as a scouter in the Space Traffic Coordination Department. DEADLOCK went missing shortly after working for Solgov; no mention of them can be found in any records between this time and their application for work at NT. Qualifications DEADLOCK is an experienced shaft miner, cargo technician, quartermaster, chef, xenobiologist, explorer and captain. They can perform basic engineering tasks such as wiring, construction, hacking, ship repair, and configuration of solars, singulos, and teslas. There are wide gaps in their knowledge: they have no experience with organic or inorganic medicine, research or robotics, or synthetic management. They have not received proper licensing for the setup or operation of supermatter engines or any atmospheric systems. They are also astoundingly unrobust, with unprecedented low scores in marksmanship, coordination, and physical conflict resolution. Several reports have been received by various Blueshields complaining that DEADLOCK actively makes their jobs harder by being too oblivious and slow to react to nearby threats, sometimes actively sabotaging their own safety. Educational Records - Honorary Degree from Canaan University of Technology in Geoscience Security Records DEADLOCK has no outstanding security incidents on their record. They are currently designated an Employee In Good Standing. Personal Relations - J.U.S.T.I.C.E.: "The best magistrate I've ever worked with." - PTL-303 Page: "A great crewmember, helpful and optimistic to an almost scary degree." - Malo: "Couldn't ask for a better RD, although it is concerning how eager she is to implant her brain in other species just to see if she can." - Kincaid Renard: "Didn't she used to obsessively eat floor pills? Either way, a great vulp to spend time with." - Ryder Hill: "If I had a nickel for every time Ryder caused me to get killed by a wizard, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice, right?" - S-HOUND-L762: "We've spoken a few times, but I trust them firmly and, well, empathize, with some of the challenges of their past." - Tokoyokiko: "An excellent security officer. Makes a mean trinary."

Honestly the rotation system is a pretty inspired compromise. It helps the "last shift's vote is this shift's round" by providing a bit less ambiguity on when someone can expect certain maps to be played; it ensures player input is still factored in, while still giving Meta/Delta reliable opportunities to be played; and as far as I can tell it's already resulted in a surge of suggestions/bugs being reported for the new maps, which is exactly what we want for them to improve. Just this one simple change has seriously increased my confidence that Delta/Meta will become staples on Para. So kudos to the people who came up with it.

I apologize in advance for how harsh this sounds coming across. I'm a little worried about the state of this discussion. It's been quite some time now since Delta and Meta were added to rotation and in this thread we're still bandying about fundamental questions that I think should have been answered definitively before mappers invested hundreds of collective hours building and refining them: Do players want new maps? Do we want to encourage players to play new maps? These facets of the discussion have been done to death: Change aversion is inevitable Voting being biased by vocal minorities/indifferent participants is inevitable The new maps are not getting the chance to improve that they deserve People are spending actual time, energy and passion building these maps Players should not have new maps forced on them if they don't want them An exchange I remember showing up during one of the countless discussions on IPC emergency kits was: - "Surely the number of people who expect this says something about the validity of the change?" - "The problem is with those players' expectations." I think we should consider strongly how much we should weigh community expectations regarding map rotation. We don't choose game type just because players demand a round be extended or wizard. I'd much rather have the choice be random, but if we are dead set on receiving player input: I say keep the map vote, but only use player votes as an input for weighing the random choice. That way the people who do vote, and thus care about what map they play next, have a slightly greater chance of having their vote count, but not so much that it completely overrides the result for people who don't vote. I'm sympathetic to this because that's how I feel about Tarkov. But ultimately SS13 is a game that changes *constantly*, like a dozen PRs every couple of days. You also shouldn't feel any stress or pressure to learn new maps by heart within a certain timeframe or to be specifically productive. If you're lost on a map, your character is probably simultaneously also lost, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't know where to put this anymore, because it's sort of art, sort of design, sort of UI, and sort of lore, so I'm just putting it here. Here's the NT logo on the wiki. I've highlighted the three inconsistent, blocky corner types: And here's the NT logo as rendered in TGUI, with different angular corner types. I think in the TGUI the differences are intentional, but generally the triangles are represented as right isosceles triangles, and the much larger curve radius in blue obscures that. In addition, the corners of the "N" are also rounded, so it's confusing as to whether it's a stylistic choice or a faithful representation of the logo. It would be cool if these were consistent, and the logo itself should be properly proportioned and balanced; as you can see in the wiki version, the triangles aren't aligned vertically with the "N". The aspect ratios between the two are also vastly different; the core elements of the logo on the wiki have an aspect ratio of 2.05:1, but the TGUI's logo has an aspect ratio of 2.125:1. The Syndicate logo on the wiki is much better off, but could still do with some touch-ups; it has a slight shading on the elements and the border radius of the S is off in places: And the Syndicate logo in TGUI is completely different: I created new vector logos for NT and Syndicate; they are both the same aspect ratio and built on a similar grid. The NT logo has no curved edges in this case, which I think fits NT better, whereas the Syndicate S has large border radii to make it look slightly more snake-like. The aspect ratio is the one used for the logos on the wiki currently, which is ~1.62:1, which is within a hair of 8:5, which is a not uncommon ratio in real-life flag design. The new versions: The vector downloads: WSO_SS13_SVG_CorpLogos.zip Dunno if anyone else cares about this kind of consistency but thought I'd share it all here before I forget about it entirely. You're also free to use these for whatever, they're licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0, since they were built off of the existing logos on the wiki, which are similarly licensed.