EvadableMoxie

Members
  • Content count

    233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

EvadableMoxie last won the day on April 4

EvadableMoxie had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

146 Excellent

About EvadableMoxie

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think there is a general problem with the "PvE" aspects of the gateway in general, not just wild west. 1. PvE challenges in this type of game need to be fun and challenging not just the first time you complete them, but the 100th and the 1000th time you complete them. As it currently stands, that isn't the case and making this the case is something that's going to require a ton of work. 2. Roleplay considerations. How does someone know where they are, once they step through? How do they know the exact layout and what is waiting for them, as if they've done it 100 times before? It's kind of hard to have immersive RP with that giant elephant in the room. At the same time forbidding meta-knowledge like Colonial Marines is probably even worse. 3. I don't think antag status should be a reward. That is just silly to me, it makes no sense from an in character perspective that being a traitor or not is some kind of internal flag that the characters are aware of. It makes no sense for a character to say "Gee, I'd like to murder everyone on the station, but the magical switch in my head to let me do that isn't on, so let me go through this gateway to a place I've been 100 times before and then I can get the switch flicked and murder everyone, yay!" How does this even approach making any sense? 4. The admins. Look, I don't want to get into a debate about what the admins should or should not do, I'm just telling it like it is from the perspective of a player. We know cheesy tactics have to be done to beat this type of content. And every now and then an admin will see someone in the gateway or syndicate outpost, see they are using cheesy tactics, and then decide to end that player's round. Oh sure, they'll say it's throwing a curve ball at the player, or creating an additional challenge, or making things unpredictable, but the fact is if an admin so much as spawns an enemy behind you as you are advancing along with your office chair corpse bullet sponge, you're just dead. They might as well have just admin killed you. Everything is so fast and you die so easily that anything you don't predict coming in advance will kill you. And this creates a problem of players being more afraid of the admins than they are of the content, which is just a totally messed up situation. But, that's is the situation and all it does is create animosity between the admins and players that we'd really be better off without. The short of it is this: If there is some type of overhaul, then there needs to be a clear understand between the players and admins about when, why, and how admins are going to intervene so it doesn't feel like an admin just randomly decided to drop a fridge on you that shift, because that's kind of exactly what it feels like right now.
  2. The only time I dislike gimmicks is if the gimmick results in incompetency at your job. I think everyone should play a character that gives them leeway to be both serious or goofy, depending on if the situation calls for it. A long as you can do that on a character, I say go right ahead. I also think in some situations a bit of comdomness can be a good thing. Recently the 'Space Ball!' round was one of the most fun rounds in recent memory, and it all started because the Captain decided to outlaw baseball bats. And I don't know how it shaked out exactly since I wasn't there, but a giant bar brawl where everyone gets arrested actually sounds awesome if the round was on the slow side.
  3. If you take away all of an emagged drones remote access then they're really only useful for combat. So then it feels like it's stepping on the toes of the Holo-parasite. And I'm not sure it's good design to allow a traitor to buy a couple of drones, tell them "Go kill X." and then sit back and wait. I suppose they can do that now with emagged borgs, but at least that risks discovery if the borg rats you out when it's rebuilt. I think it would be more useful to give drones a role that is separate from combat. Let them be useful for getting you into places or scouting things out, but leave the combat support role to holo-paras. But then it's all theory, I'm not against testing anything and seeing how it plays out.
  4. It's not really about punishment, people can do things to you to take you out of a round or change your gameplay, and that's part of SS13. An assistant with a crowbar might kill you as a drone or a diona nymph, but that's just how playing one of those is. So, if it sucks to be emagged, well, that's SS13. Shitty things can happen to you. I'd still prefer drones not be emaggable at all, but I don't think how it is now is much different than other things in SS13. I think making them purchasable traitor items could work, because we can apply a specific TC cost to make them balanced. It wouldn't be infinitely respawnable through no action of the person in the round, and it wouldn't be something that's converted so there'd be no issue with drones trying to be emagged. I think the only thing I'd want addressed at that point is the ability of drones to interface with electronics while inside pipes.
  5. I would agree that it's less fun to be an emagged drone now than it was before. However, the goal is to increase how much fun everyone has. This is similar to the self-antagging and antag-hunting rules. They make the game less fun for some people, but they are necessary to keep the game fun for everyone. We're getting into subjective things here, but I've always felt emagged drones were incredibly unfun to deal with, and that's a sentiment I've seen agreed with by a lot of people. Obviously this is opinion, and if you disagree that's valid, but my impression of it is that we're all better off now not having to deal with them.
  6. I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make any sense. Yea, everything you said about getting emagged and having it be a jarring change of playstyle is true, but it was true both before and after the nerf. If anything, it's a good argument for not having emagged drones in the first place. If the point is that it sucks to get emagged how can you say applying a timer that limits how long you are emagged be a bad change? How can giving traitors less incentive to emag drones and thus having less emagged drones be a bad change? What you're saying is it sucks to be emagged but then saying changes that reduce the frequency and duration of how often drones get emagged are bad. It makes no logical sense.
  7. I don't see how the nerfs hurt normal drone players in any way. I assume you're talking about people who don't want to be emagged. Well, why would someone who doesn't want to be emagged be upset about a time limit on how long they'll be emagged for before they explode and can just respawn? How will providing antags with less incentive to emag drones in the first place, and thus reducing the number of emagged drones hurt players who don't want to be emagged? It seems pretty clear to me that nerfing emagged drone gameplay is going to hurt people who want to play emagged drones. People who don't want to play emagged drones will either not particular care, or be relieved that the 5 minute time limit will let them get back to the type of gameplay they want. I don't see how emagging drones is a newbie trap at all, but okay, let's assume it is. So what? This is a server that wouldn't remove suicide pills from the nukie kit but we shouldn't nerf drones because antags might make a decision to emag them and that decision might hurt them? So, we'll let antags (and everyone else) hurt themselves in 100s of ways, but this specific thing, emagging drones, this crosses some kind of line? I don't follow. I agree with you that in the current state emagged drones are nearly useless. And I think that's a good thing, because they shouldn't exist at all. Saying they are useless now is only an argument against the nerfs if we both agree they shouldn't be useless, and we don't.
  8. Let's say you're at a crossroads, specifically a T intersection. Your destination is straight ahead, but there's no road straight ahead. The only roads that exist will require you to turn left or right here, go a bit past, and then double back. If someone turns left in this situation, you can say "You know, it would be great if we built a road here that went straight so we could get to where we are going faster." And you'd be absolutely right. It certainly would be, and there's no harm in discussing it. What you cannot do is say "The driver was wrong to turn left, because it would have been faster to go straight if someone had built a road there." Yes, it's true that it would have been, but going straight was not an option at the time. Going back to the PR. This idea of improving drones and how they work with emags rather than nerfing them into the ground? It's a good idea. It's much like building that road. We'd all prefer it. But also like the road, at that given point in time, it was not an option. Until someone actually did that, it wasn't an option, so saying that it should have been done instead is an invalid argument. It couldn't have been done instead. It still can't, until someone makes a PR. But, I feel like I have to keep trying to steer you back to the actual conversation. You want to talk about the way the PR was handled and the motivations of the people making the PR. But I haven't actually seen you talk about what was actually changed and how that made the server a worse place. That's what we should be discussing and I feel like you just aren't willing to do that and this is becoming a waste of time as we argue about everything but anything with actual substance.
  9. Suggestions are not options... Let's say you have a feature, we'll call it Y. You have a PR to change that feature to Z. You also have a suggestion to change it to X. What are you options? Well, you're options are: 1. Do nothing and leave it Y 2. Apply the PR and change it to Z. And that's it. Those are your two options. Changing it to X isn't an option here. You could decide you think X is better and maybe that decision leads you to not applying the PR to change it to Y, but that's still picking option 1.
  10. You took what I said out of context, I was responding specifically to the argument that drones should not have been nerfed because improving them would have been better. Obviously it makes sense to discuss future changes, it's just not an argument for what we should have done in the past, because it wasn't an option at that time.
  11. I agree completely that improving systems is generally better than removing them. But you are stating this as if there was a mutually exclusive decision to make between improving it and nerfing it, and nerfing was picked. That isn't the case. There was no improvement PR made and uploaded that could have used as an alternative. If anyone does ever offer such a PR in the future, having drones nerfed now won't prevent the change from being considered. There are a ton of ways drones could be changed so that emagging them would make sense. But until someone offers a PR up, that really isn't relevant.
  12. Making golems requires 30-60 minutes of work depending on the luck and skill of the xenobiologist and can really only be effectively done in one specific area of the station, by one specific role. This means it's easy to stop, monitor, or control. To spawn a drone, a ghost presses a button. To say producing a golem is the same amount of effort as spawning as a drone is just completely ridiculous.
  13. If a cultist makes and converts a golem, they worked for that opportunity. They had to do Xenobio, or break into it, and get the extract and use it. It's something they did, and it's something the crew could have stopped from happening. If a drone pops out of the vents next to an traitor, that's just a gift. The traitor didn't do anything to make it happen, it just did, and there is no counterplay the crew could have done to stop it from happening. I mean, technically they could blow all drones and destroy all fabricators every round with traitors in it, but that really isn't a realistic strategy like simply monitoring Xenobio on a cultist round is. That's the important distinction here. Cult golems are a strategy cultists employ, which requires action and can be countered. Emagged drones just sorta happen. Sure, the traitor has to emag them but getting the opportunity to do so is entirely beyond control of both of the traitor and crew. You can't even really say buying the emag was the strategy since traitors buy emags for so many different reasons completely unrelated to drones.
  14. So... we should ignore motivations and focus on the merits? I've said that twice already, I'm glad we agree now. My half-assed excuses are in my previous posts, if you want to discuss them, feel free to scroll up and read them. Regarding your points, as I said the main issue is mostly about a ghost role that can infinitely respawn itself without any intervention from anyone alive in the round being convertible. Discussing power in SS13 is a really difficult call because it's a game where combat can be decided by a bar of soap. Anything being overpowered or underpowered will be highly subjective. What I hope we can both agree on is that they were effective in combat. And that's really all that matters to me. I don't think an infinitely respawnable ghost role that can spawn itself without any intervention from a player in the round should have the potential to be converted into an effective combat tool.
  15. Golems require a player in game to do something to create them. Drones do not. I think you are correct about the intentions of the people who made the nerf. But it doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant. The entire PR could be, as you put it 'i ded plz nerf' and still be the right call. That's why we don't bring in motivations. Because they don't matter. If you are saying the PR is necessarily wrong due to the motivations of the person who made it, then you're making an Ad Hominem attack and not addressing the subject matter. If you aren't saying the PR is necessarily wrong due to the motivations of the person who made it, then the motivations don't matter anyway. There is no reason to bring them up or discuss them. Discuss the merits of the nerf.