Revert Slowdown on Pulling (Balance)

[Octus]

Hi, I believe that the Slowdown on Pulling PR  should be reverted as I find it its argument rather poor and weak, and lowers the skill ceiling of the game by removing a technique people have used that rewarded being aware of their surroundings and made fights more engaging. This PR despite being controversial and having some opposing and agreeing parties on the balance team was not given any sort of testing or focus before its complete merge into the codebase. I have listed a few points that explain my reasoning why I believe this PR should be reverted and hope to see further discussion before the revert is made, thank you.
 

• I do not agree that pulling a crate or locker behind is a quote "gamer move". The word gamer moves is a generalization or buzzword that is slapped on things people do not like or agree with. There was nothing gamer about using objects in the world as cover to avoid taking hits or damage from engagements. Pulling a locker wouldn't 100% secure you a victory or disengagement, it would however help in extending a chase or allowing people to escape if used properly with map awareness and positioning. This entire tech has been gutted and has lowered the skill ceiling of the game despite it not being a one and done solution to all your problems.
   
• I believe this PR needed more input and testing before being completely merged into the codebase. Like I've said previously, this was a PR that had both balance team objections and approvals, with a majority community feedback of negative reception, in essence it was rather divisive in the community. It is also a massively change to the general gameplay of the server as pulling things not even related to combat are now affected by this change. I believe this was too broad of a change and that this has more negative effects on the server then what the PR aimed to accomplish.
   
• Lastly, I believe that instead of nerfing an entire mechanic in the game and affecting the entire server with a proxy nerf, there are other more constructive methods that can be used to handle these problems. Locker pulling or dragging is a majority antagonist mechanic when evading security to avoid projectiles. Use of teamwork like flanking, communication, and better positioning can solve the issues of being able to catch someone dragging cover behind them, its not rocket science its just general teamwork. A crate being dragged behind someone does not completely cover them, they are still prone to getting shot from certain angles, having their cover destroyed from excessive damage to the structure, or accidently boxing themselves in from poor movement. Skillful players can easily beat this and its all a matter of improving against it.

[Rurik]

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.

 

[Contra]

Flanking was a good way to deal with this problem before the slowdown PR (and frankly still is, if anyone dare use it).

I think an alternative should be considered, revert the PR so theres no slowdown, and have projectiles go over crates, and unlocked lockers be able to be opened with 4-5 shots from any gun, and the locker is forced open for a bit (similar to stamina (yes basically adding the stamina system for lockers, don't @ me)). If you manage to pull a locked locker you should be able to get away with it since those arent very easily found in places like maint, where most often (if at all) locker pulling takes place.

EDIT:

Also people push lockers a lot more now, and it looks so janky because pushing stuff isn't smooth. It feels so immersion breaking sometimes.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Contra

[MattTheFicus]

Right, Ill put my reasonings for approving of the original PR here:

- Giving dragable structures slowdown gives some upgrades/tools some actual use for their actual job. RND can make Bluespace Lockers (I dont know if these have slowdown, but I'd be fine with removing it from these these are confirmed to have no slowdown) or they can just put mats in a duffle bag. Cargo has an RCS and you have a few options (Disposals Delivery/MULEs) other than dragging crates to their destination of you so desire. If Paramedics need to mass-body-retrieve, they have an ambulance (which can get VTEC) to drag without slowdown.

- For the second point, this was the exact same argument for nearly every combat balance change ever and frankly, it holds negative water especially on Paradise. Change is hated and I would rather see changes done and maybe reverted than not trying them in fear of "community backlash". I dont want to be the guy saying "players are bad at balance" but players in Para are VERY bad at balance sometimes, hence why we arent ruled by "community input" for changes (see Combat Rework, NewCrit, and any semi-controversial change ever).

- The only people who used locker dragging in combat were already robust players. If used in lowpop, you basically forced 1v1s which you could use to systematically take out anyone chasing you. 357/Ebow + locker was quite literally the most unfun shit to fight to the point where I would just make grenades to fight it cause fuck that. As always, if you dont want to deal with disablers, use stealth more. You are a terrorist on a NT-owned Station. You are not supposed to be able to Benny Hill your way around the halls because "haha funny locker/crate goes brrrrt".

Edited June 9, 2023 by MattTheFicus

[Octus]

25 minutes ago, MattTheFicus said:

Right, Ill put my reasonings for approving of the original PR here:

- Giving dragable structures slowdown gives some upgrades/tools some actual use for their actual job. RND can make Bluespace Lockers (I dont know if these have slowdown, but I'd be fine with removing it from these) or they can just put mats in a duffle bag. Cargo has an RCS and you have a few options other than dragging crates to their destination of you so desire. If Paramedics need to mass-body-retrieve, they have an ambulance (which can get VTEC) to drag without slowdown.

- For the second point, this was the exact same argument for nearly every combat balance change ever and frankly, it holds negative water especially on Paradise. Change is hated and I would rather see changes done and maybe reverted than not trying them in fear of "community backlash". I dont want to be the guy saying "players are bad at balance" but players in Para are VERY bad at balance sometimes, hence why we arent ruled by "community input" for changes (see Combat Rework, NewCrit, and any semi-controversial change ever).

- The only people who used locker dragging in combat were already robust players. If used in lowpop, you basically forced 1v1s which you could use to systematically take out anyone chasing you. 357/Ebow + locker was quite literally the most unfun shit to fight to the point where I would just make grenades to fight it cause fuck that. As always, if you dont want to deal with disablers, use stealth more. You are a terrorist on a NT-owned Station. You are not supposed to be able to Benny Hill your way around the halls because "haha funny locker/crate goes brrrrt".

Few points

• The first point seems more like trying to reason why such a change is good for the server despite the main focus of the PR being behind nerfing a combat mechanic. The original PR was not worked around aiming to encourage other forms of moving stuff around the station, this is a side effect, not an original goal that pretty much proves my point that the nerf is too broad. I do not believe that changing the entirety of how people have been used to doing things just to nerf the three robust players who cleverly use lockers as cover is a fair or good trade off. This is essentially using a shotgun to kill a fly when there are other methods that do not hurt the general community. The PR has people discussing other possible ways to handle this, all of which are far better then telling everyone to simply adapt to such a poor change.
   
• While I understand the point, I find it a bit odd that the general d of what I was trying to say is considered "negative water". We've had a similar PR that was controversial that many people found to be too harsh or unfun for such a change, example would be when batons had passive power drain. It had a similar reaction in terms of community opinion and changing how the game worked due to combat (balance). It was decided however that the change was a bit too harsh and testing in-game only proved it further. Which is why I said that it should have been tested first before a full merge to get a general community feedback and reaction. Obviously community input isn't the main factor to changes but it does make people aware of a PR's existence, and encourage better alternatives.
   
• 357 + Ebow is already a pretty strong combo, with or without locker. I think the frustration you felt is being aimed at the wrong place as the locker is probably the smallest offender out of those three items. The balance of the other two isn't relevant here but I can safely say a 12 TC and 13 TC item both paired is going to be strong in nature, and not by the addition of a destroyable locker. The removal of lockers wont actually encourage people to stealth more, nor will it make people avoid fighting disablers. Its just going to encourage more antistuns like meth and adrels since another choice of evading security is now gutted. This feels more anecdotal then a common occurrence with the existence of lockers, which I think is a bit of an extreme and rare case of a locker being used in combat.

[MattTheFicus]

Quote

The first point seems more like trying to reason why such a change is good for the server despite the main focus of the PR being behind nerfing a combat mechanic. The original PR was not worked around aiming to encourage other forms of moving stuff around the station, this is a side effect, not an original goal that pretty much proves my point that the nerf is too broad. I do not believe that changing the entirety of how people have been used to doing things just to nerf the three robust players who cleverly use lockers as cover is a fair or good trade off. This is essentially using a shotgun to kill a fly when there are other methods that do not hurt the general community. The PR has people discussing other possible ways to handle this, all of which are far better then telling everyone to simply adapt to such a poor change.

These "ways of getting around the new system" were discussed by the Balance Team (pushing things, MULEs, Ambulance, etc) and part of the reason people approved of the change. We're not going to point out every one of these reason because players have to LEARN how to deal with downsides on their own. Just like the Belt/Tool PR, people are going to moan about changes and call them poor when in reality it opens up other opportunities for gameplay. Change your behavior and adapt.

Quote

While I understand the point, I find it a bit odd that the general d of what I was trying to say is considered "negative water". We've had a similar PR that was controversial that many people found to be too harsh or unfun for such a change, example would be when batons had passive power drain. It had a similar reaction in terms of community opinion and changing how the game worked due to combat (balance). It was decided however that the change was a bit too harsh and testing in-game only proved it further. Which is why I said that it should have been tested first before a full merge to get a general community feedback and reaction. Obviously community input isn't the main factor to changes but it does make people aware of a PR's existence, and encourage better alternatives.

This PR had minimal approval within the Balance Team if I recall. We wanted it tested because most of us already were teetering on disapproval and simply wanted to confirm that. In comparison, the discussions about the pulling PR led to a bit more of a "well, there's a bunch of other systems that allows/could allow for you to get around this in non-combat situations already so it effects the overall game less so" kind of take. Just like the Belt/Tool PR, people complained about it a bunch but now simply use other ways to get around this limitation. You can do so with this PR as well.

Quote

357 + Ebow is already a pretty strong combo, with or without locker. I think the frustration you felt is being aimed at the wrong place as the locker is probably the smallest offender out of those three items. The balance of the other two isn't relevant here but I can safely say a 12 TC and 13 TC item both paired is going to be strong in nature, and not by the addition of a destroyable locker. The removal of lockers wont actually encourage people to stealth more, nor will it make people avoid fighting disablers. Its just going to encourage more antistuns like meth and adrels since another choice of evading security is now gutted. This feels more anecdotal then a common occurrence with the existence of lockers, which I think is a bit of an extreme and rare case of a locker being used in combat.

A large majority of the locker dragging was coupled with an E-bow (anecdotal, sure). But, as I said above - You are a terrorist on a NT-owned Station. You are not supposed to be able to Benny Hill your way around the halls because "haha funny locker/crate goes brrrrt". There are PLENTY of ways to surgically execute your fights for theft items/assasinations that dont require you to be in all-out combat with Security for the full shift. IMO, the only time you should be FULL LOUD UNGA fighting Security is with Hijack or with Die a Glorious. Anyone who adheres to the "but I HAVE to pay the adrenals/meth tax" needs to reevaluate their playstyle and consider that youre CHOOSING the hard path to play if you want to unga fight Security all shift.

[Rurik]

2 hours ago, MattTheFicus said:

You are a terrorist on a NT-owned Station. You are not supposed to be able to Benny Hill your way around the halls because "haha funny locker/crate goes brrrrt".

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.

1 hour ago, MattTheFicus said:

Just like the Belt/Tool PR, people are going to moan about changes and call them poor when in reality it opens up other opportunities for gameplay. Change your behavior and adapt.

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.

1 hour ago, MattTheFicus said:

Change your behavior and adapt.

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.

[Frank]

Since Rurik said everything I wanted to say I will try to make this short. 

Firstly, changing major aspects of combat based on what lowpop antags are doing is not optimal. I get that para is on lowpop most of the week, but everything else is made for highpop. This includes officer and antag balance, maps, the entire economy, our server capacity etc etc. This leads to inconsistency, which in my humble opinion is very bad.

Secondly, @MattTheFicus I hope you think of this thread as a civilized discussion between gentlemen (and possibly gentlewomen). I don't think anyone here wants to see you castigated over this change. Make no mistake, your work will always be appreciated even if it might be controversial.

EDIT: Wait, it's not even your PR. Disregard everything! 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Frank
Damnit

[Butlerblock]

Mostly everythings said that I want to, but locker pulling is far from gaming, and is a significant but not game breaking tech that helps better players have skill expression without adding “gaming” or unfair advantages.

Additionally, there are many niche antags that may use this to their advantage that are forced to be melee only, such as blobbers or other simple mobs such as terrors(at least before the overall pulldown grrrrr(which should be reverted now that welding tanks and water tanks are bolted))

There are plenty of counter play to lockers, not to mention you usually end up catching up to the antag anyways since they cant close doors behind them. And once you get into close range its a great way of forcing your attacker into engaging in a melee battle, which wouldnt inherently give either side an unfair advantage.

There are many ways to go about this if there are times where it seems people are abusing it a bit, such as lowering the hp required to break open, add a click delay to opening or closing the locker(i dont believe it has one) or as another has mentioned adding a stamina system.

[Joey]

6 hours ago, MattTheFicus said:

This PR had minimal approval within the Balance Team if I recall. We wanted it tested because most of us already were teetering on disapproval and simply wanted to confirm that. In comparison, the discussions about the pulling PR led to a bit more of a "well, there's a bunch of other systems that allows/could allow for you to get around this in non-combat situations already so it effects the overall game less so" kind of take. Just like the Belt/Tool PR, people complained about it a bunch but now simply use other ways to get around this limitation. You can do so with this PR as well.

I think this general narrative that because the community disagrees with a PR therefore it should be ignored is unhealthy if applied in all instances. I won't give my comments on the PR itself because they've largely been noted. The limitation is not innovation. While I definitely joked about the tool PR I also unironically do believe it was good for the game. Locker gaming limits things that are good for the game more than it provides a net positive. Lockers aren't as difficult to deal with as they're set out to be, they simply cause for adaptation that players aren't willing to recognize. Disengagement. It can't be countered in a fight, because it punishes running in a straight line. 

6 hours ago, MattTheFicus said:

A large majority of the locker dragging was coupled with an E-bow (anecdotal, sure). But, as I said above - You are a terrorist on a NT-owned Station. You are not supposed to be able to Benny Hill your way around the halls because "haha funny locker/crate goes brrrrt". There are PLENTY of ways to surgically execute your fights for theft items/assasinations that dont require you to be in all-out combat with Security for the full shift. IMO, the only time you should be FULL LOUD UNGA fighting Security is with Hijack or with Die a Glorious. Anyone who adheres to the "but I HAVE to pay the adrenals/meth tax" needs to reevaluate their playstyle and consider that youre CHOOSING the hard path to play if you want to unga fight Security all shift.

This doesn't warrant lockers being removed from the equation for a multitude of reasons. Lockers aren't purely an offensive strategy, again, as stated, the anecdote, I can't even recall it's been used offensively outside of times Sec hasn't realized they can just back off and regroup. I think there are degrees of loud antagging, you don't have to be rolling over Sec to need the use of a locker, maybe to avoid a search. It's not black and white, as we know context matters. You don't need to be "FULL LOUD UNGA" to warrant using a locker to evade a disabler with zero anti-stun. Additionally, 'You are a terrorist on a NT-Owned station' as a counter-argument to lockers being in combat can literally apply to a majority of mechanics used in combat. It's SS13.

 

Locker gameplay IS the opportunity for gameplay. 

 

This is a change that puts a cap on what antags can do and what sec could reasonably afford to deal with, as if flanks don't exist or backing off.

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Joey

[MattTheFicus]

I can see how a lot of people might see this as a "hitting more skilled players at the detriment of all" but my main issue is the people making that argument seem to BE the people who are more likely to use the tech than not. The average 200h Security player isnt going to flank anyone and if they ARE left alone against this tech theyre gonna get bodied (which was likely either way).

The issue then drops to "well how else can you make the system work?". Well, shooting the locker to open it just means they close it right after. Destroying the locker could work, but then youre going to have a reason to grab lethals for someone literally grabbing a locker - which is bad. Delay on open when dragging would be even worse of a change feel-wise and also doesnt really make sense from a logical standpoint. A "stamina" system will be even more detrimental overall IMO as we dont have it in any other movement system currently.

Quote

Secondly, @MattTheFicus I hope you think of this thread as a civilized discussion between gentlemen (and possibly gentlewomen). I don't think anyone here wants to see you castigated over this change. Make no mistake, your work will always be appreciated even if it might be controversial.

Nah I understand, I came off a bit heated, but its a tad bit disheartening to see people assume that this wasnt discussed at all and just got railroaded through. The PR was up for a month and had comments placed on it and some discussion when it was opened as well. But, as always, if a change is bad it CAN be reverted. I simply just haven't had enough data to prove it IS a bad change yet other than peoples' personal takes being used as "community sentiment".

[Butlerblock]

Don't wanna come off as brash or anything, but if someone can't deal with a simple locker tech, then I'm gonna be honest and go ahead and say it's a major skill issue. It's nothing hard to counter or even use, it's just something that's uncommon(very surprisingly imo). And if for whatever reason if even average or above average players are having issues defeating locker abusers, maybe we shoud look at what people are abusing lockers with and nerf those, such as 357's and ebows, which in my opinion are extremely strong given their tc costs. 

Additionally, it should just cement that security shouldn't expect to defeat a same-skilled antag alone. They should refer to using group tactics and communcation skills with other security officers. And if used correctly, would prevent lockers from being an issue to begin with.

[Kanoyx]

Well so far almost everything that can be said about this topic has already been said, just wanted point out a specific aspect which is locker dragging is a bit pain to counter when it's in capable hands. Even flanking won't work as that can be prevented by moving the locker in the direction of projectiles. But again it's hard to pull off (no pun intended) for the one who's dragging a locker/crate/whatever since it's more than likely to mess up.

 

It indeed shouldn't warrant a lethal firearm just becuase someone dragging a locker, not it's that hard to overcome with but if it deemed the current methods aren't enough maybe there can be some other way to pull that locker off with a disabler instead of a slowdown modifier.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Kanoyx

[MattTheFicus]

Quote

It indeed shouldn't warrant a lethal firearm just becuase someone dragging a locker, not it's that hard to overcome with but if it deemed the current methods aren't enough maybe there can be some other way to pull that locker off with a disabler instead of a slowdown modifier.

This is my main issue with it. If I see a locker dragger, Im FORCED to get a lethal cause I need ANY possible hit to slow them down. That, or I need to shoot the locker open. This just means I'm now escalating for a literal box made of metal. This likely wont matter to the robusto locker dragging, but it WILL effect everyone else.

[Joey]

3 hours ago, MattTheFicus said:

This is my main issue with it. If I see a locker dragger, Im FORCED to get a lethal cause I need ANY possible hit to slow them down. That, or I need to shoot the locker open. This just means I'm now escalating for a literal box made of metal. This likely wont matter to the robusto locker dragging, but it WILL effect everyone else.

While you may feel forced to get a lethal, I'm confident this is nowhere near sec or community sentiment nor is it found in the gameplay. If you wanted to be able to stop them right then and there in the moment, that instant, sure. I haven't seen someone constantly dragging a locker also simultaneously in single-tile halls throughout the round invulnerable to every encounter.  

 

This is defending a nerf a majority of players don't have an issue with(unless I'm wrong, again battle of anecdotes), telling the same players to adapt, when the solution to this status quo is to adapt. There's no point in punishing players for what is slowly becoming a more niche and extreme topic not even representative of what we see. 

 

The effect of this nerf is far greater than an officer's feeling to grab a lethal for a locker, although that's something I can't be sure happens in the first place. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Joey

[Coolrune206]

I personally feel this change has been beneficial to combat. However, if people dislike this PR's effects, I think there could be other options to consider as alternative implementations. For instance, what if dragging a large object like a locker needed your hands to be free to drag it, otherwise it would be slow? That fixes the dragging issue for people using it out of combat, and it also prevents people from comboing it with weapons like the e-bow or 357 as effectively. I'd also argue it makes sense - how the hell are you pulling a supposedly bulky locker or crate with your hands full of guns? 

However, I would like to note the current implementation does not entirely kill the environmental combat bonuses offered by lockers and especially crates. You can still run past a locker or crate, drag it a single tile just to be inbetween you and your target, and then release it so you keep running at full speed and there's now an obstacle inbetween yourself and your pursuer - they'll open it and run through if it's a locker, but it still blocks shots, and if it's a crate they'll have to move it or climb over to pursue.

[Rurik]

6 hours ago, Coolrune206 said:

For instance, what if dragging a large object like a locker needed your hands to be free to drag it, otherwise it would be slow?

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.

[MattTheFicus]

The open hand thing is nice, and would make it better for people who drag things about.

However, I still think making players think of different ways to do their job that might be more "optimal" is good. That, and nothing stops you from getting a holster to quickly drop your weapon into and basically negate the whole "you need open hands" idea.

[Joey]

5 hours ago, MattTheFicus said:

The open hand thing is nice, and would make it better for people who drag things about.

However, I still think making players think of different ways to do their job that might be more "optimal" is good. That, and nothing stops you from getting a holster to quickly drop your weapon into and basically negate the whole "you need open hands" idea.

The responses to defend this PR keep getting more nuanced when again, it still doesn't address how un-problematic this really is. To put it frankly, locker gameplay is not, there are more gameplay options to deal with locker gameplay than there are with this Nerf. This didn't force new utility for science or other jobs to use, they just push the lockers instead of pulling them because of how inconvenient it is.

 

You've gone from stating you feel you need a lethal to deal with a locker, which again, has not been represented in the gameplay at all prior to this nerf, you're worried about people using the locker to shoot out of, which is solved by disengaging. None of this has been addressed by people that support the PR, rather than just digging and reaching deeper for more arguments that don't exist in the gameplay. 

I'm sorry Matt but I can't imagine sec ever using a lethal because someone started dragging a locker, I don't think this is realistic. 

 

I said this on the PR, I'll say again. This PR isn't nerfing what lockers were, it's nerfing an idea of what they were. 

 

[MattTheFicus]

Quote

The responses to defend this PR keep getting more nuanced when again, it still doesn't address how un-problematic this really is.

This is because the issue IS nuanced. No balance issue is a simple one-dimensional thing. There's a reason these changes are discussed and voted on for nearly a month before the PR was merged.

Quote

You've gone from stating you feel you need a lethal to deal with a locker, which again, has not been represented in the gameplay at all prior to this nerf, you're worried about people using the locker to shoot out of, which is solved by disengaging. None of this has been addressed by people that support the PR, rather than just digging and reaching deeper for more arguments that don't exist in the gameplay. 

1. This is anecdotal on both sides. If you don't feel you need a lethal to deal with locker dragging, that's your opinion. Given Balance and Design votes are done off the experienced opinions of its Members, that's just how it is.

2. Disengaging is not the catch-all solution to this "tech". Nor is numbers. Nor are lethals. I see an issue with a mechanic, someone made a PR that "fixes" this issue in my eyes in a realistic and non-intrusive way that has ways for non-combatants to get around the "downsides", and I support the idea. It really aint deeper than that.

Quote

I'm sorry Matt but I can't imagine sec ever using a lethal because someone started dragging a locker, I don't think this is realistic. 

The new LWAP was literally designed with this in mind. So. That's kinda out the window.

Quote

This PR isn't nerfing what lockers were, it's nerfing an idea of what they were. 

Yes, its nerfing the idea of using a basic Station tool to Benny Hill chase Security around the Station. I dont see that as healthy gameplay and it also happens to encourage other ways of problem solving for roles that DO have to drag stuff around.

The end-all of this also comes down to "if you think this is a bad change, make a PR to revert/change it and see if it passes a vote".

[Generaldonothing]

Bit of a thread revival but I've had more time to play with this change, and I'm not sure I like it.

This change does make dealing with locker pullers without backup somewhat easier, but in 1 by 1 hallways on like shepard it's still an effective strategy. I also don't really think it's too much of an issue, when it does become frustrating it's when they use other stuff like meth and an autolathe for ammo with it, which I would argue is significantly more problematic than pulling objects. 

One think this Pr did NOT address is structure pushing by mobs like terrors, which I find to be way more oppressive as you have no way to deal with it in most cases, while they get a much easier push. 

In game this kind of seems to just make normal stuff you were already doing a bit more frustrating and really only affects people who don't realize they can just push objects. it's not too terrible but it's just kinda janky and annoying. 

I've been thinking about putting up a revert that adds a limited piercing upgrade for disablers and lasers at RND, I feel that's a better compromise than making things generally more frustrating to use overall to kill off a pretty niche strat.

[TheBadPerson]

Honestly I’ve never really seen people use locker dragging very consistently. I’ve also never seen someone use it to evade capture in the long term. 
 

Like I get that it’s kinda goofy, but it’s really not that good of a strategy. 
 

I just don’t like that normal crew needing to move crates or lockers now get punished over a niche technique. 
 

Ultimately I’d prefer a revert, but I wouldn’t say I’m seething about the change either. The change definitely makes cargo more tedious though. 

[S34N]

On 6/11/2023 at 5:05 AM, Coolrune206 said:

For instance, what if dragging a large object like a locker needed your hands to be free to drag it, otherwise it would be slow? That fixes the dragging issue for people using it out of combat, and it also prevents people from comboing it with weapons like the e-bow or 357 as effectively. I'd also argue it makes sense - how the hell are you pulling a supposedly bulky locker or crate with your hands full of guns?

I think this is a very legit approach to tackling this issue, and is worth investigating.