Regular Joe

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Regular Joe last won the day on March 4

Regular Joe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

About Regular Joe

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Byond Account

Recent Profile Visitors

778 profile views
  1. I noted it when it appeared - that's a while ago! - seems reasonable. There would more set in stone thresholds to trigger the crit effect, so that you could, if you got the time and gear, make sure someone falls down, while the random element, as described by Kyet, stays in that kind of combat, in which you get hit, but the opponent does not have the opportunity, time or willing to make sure just you are going to stay down. Which kind of suits the simulation, and deals with the not-going-down issue, which is an issue indeed in the latter situations. You might or might not survive your wounds due to fighting nukies or xenos and such, fighting as a part of a mob - but if an antag needs down you and has the tools and the opportunity for it, they could do it. TDS's patch having certain heart attack at -300 bruteburn would be one way to have that point. Stamina damage, sounds a possibility for me, too. If crit effects gave stamina damage, over time and increasing in severity, that would do the thing aswell. Excessive stamina damage, resulting of the critical state, would prevent healing a crit patient to full health and action in matter of seconds. The oxygen damage though plays that role, too, being that steep, and dealing brain damage - which will make things more interesting to treat, if somebody was critting for long time. So, stamina damage would not be an alternative for oxydamage, but another feature. On soundloss, I've had the habit to me hardly-understandable words or screams if urgently needed to communicate, I wouldn't personally say that as a problem. On the question, I'd prefer TDS's tweak. For the reason, it would give the certain point of damage in which you become disabled, rather in which you die. That said, I agree with the general issue here of people not going down after excessive violence. Otherwise I like newcrit as a feature.
  2. Yeah, I laughed a lot reading that, while writing the medical wikiguide (work still in progress). The bruised state of an organ was 10 to 30 points of damage, if I remember it correct; there were two other states and organdeath for more severe damage.
  3. I had a thought - close to the topic - of having the medscanner to automatically tag triage icons that are visible by the medical HUD. Mimicing irl triage cards, big coloured things applied to the chest, that say usually A, B or C depening on the urgency of the patient in question, as of triaging somebody is a time-consuming task. While scanning is space is quick, the flow of events is such that triaging over and over again, and remembering the queue can be hard. So the space version of triage cards would be automatically applied by the med scanner and visible as HUD icon next to the scanned character. Code-wise that could work with hard thresholds in damage points and virocode effects. To remove the tag, or change the status according to the treatment, you could just scan them again. So in short, a visual aid for doing the triage, when you have to do it continuously whenever medbay gets overcrowded. That could be a quick-to-use, moderately good feature for an upgrade - though, to have the desired effect (better situation awareness for doctors) they all need the HUD upgrade for that. Also the code that would decide the hudstatus on scanning might be hard to do so, that the automatic triagetags were accurate. I was going to try tinkering around this myself, but work got me busy so that I'll have tough time until I can go back learning with the sechud PR I had.
  4. Bleeding! Oh yeah, bleeding! As of now it is usually only a nuisance, if not very prolonged, bleeding could totally be more of an issue. And if it was a real threat, it would be superb to have there the makeshift tools to counter it: as you say it, makeshift rags and burning. I've got the feeling I've talked here about this few times, so count me a fan for it. Also, having bleeding reworked could be one factor to end up unwantedly prolonged fightings. Thoughts: in-real-world bleeding is the usual killer when violence occurs. There are roughly speaking three kinds of bleeding. First the hemorrhage one, "easily" countered, if it was not of the torso or the neck - second, in terms of bloodloss small open wounds, then in third internal bleeding (that could also be a hemorrhage, if due by a huge violence). Out of these, the hemorrhage will pass the victim out in a time ranging from some 15 seconds to two-three minutes, if it was an hemorrhage. Arms and legs are prone to develop it, if subjected to what we'd refer sharp or ballistic weapons. While hemorrhage is deadly, it is also countered easily: apply pressure with a tourniquet and you are fine for up to two hours, and living anyway. Hemorrhage-countering tourniquets are also easy to makeshift: most basic a rag, then a stick to push under it and turn it around for the effect, push it under the tightened rag again. Purpose-made ones are much more reliable and easy enough to use by the victim on themselves, given that they still can react. In terms of bloodloss minor wounds can be at least limited, or completely sealed, by first aid bandage, yet they need medical attention afterwards (as well as, of course, tourniquet-aided hemorrhages). Internal bleedings may or may not be severe, anyhow the victim is not possible to be aided in the field, scratch trying to secure their breathing. Not knowing much on how they treat each of these the hospital side - surgery and hemostat (by the chemical or in primitive, by burning) probably in basic. In spess, limb-specific bleeding could have - as you say - two states (plus the internal bleeding), hemorrhage or bleeding. Effects would be simply rapid loss of blood with hemorrhage, while bleeding in general could be quite as it is now, by the rate. Question is, how many features would be around concerning the treatment? The simplest solution would be a rag, makeshift or purpose-made, and burning, to aid both the hemorrhage and bleeding while aimed to the affected limb, and the first aid would cure the issue completely (I like your initial ideas for the makeshift treatment). Another option to make it more complex could be having the first-aid devices (makeshift including) to work like splinting broken bones, so, that you could effectively first-aid the issue, but you'd need medbay for the permanent fix, and the first aid would have drawbacks similar to splints (not being able to use the arm, speed limited to walking). Advanced brute kits or stryptic/synth patches could then deal with the hemorrhage/bleeding in complete - if not a purpose-made tools or even a surgery. Also, an idea could be to have arms and legs to be rather prone for the hemorrhage, while torso, waist and head could have high resistance for it - while in exchange the latter would be more difficult to first aid (rags not working, for example); slight bleeding would be always treated by the rags.
  5. My first actual suggestion! Reading the recent discussion on security and their relations to crew, and the dynamics of sec-antag gameplay, I decided to have a learning take on doing a feature proposal. Idea: Have the Sec SOP include a procedure of perfoming arrests as its own tab. Presently how-to is under the respective jobs. Have this new SOP tab explicate three kinds of warrants to be issued on crew: Armed and dangerous. This person is known to pose a physical threat if apprehended. Arrest with incapaciating force allowed, aka stun cuff. No lethal force, unless needed accordingly to the Space Law. (Thought for known vamps while no KOS is given, armed thralls or cultists and such.) Arrest warrant. This person is known to have violated the space law, or it is most probable they have done so. Arrest to be perfomed as present SOP states. (Known issue of stun cuffing on meeting would be then SOP-wise restricted to the personnel with "Armed and dangerous" warrant, or arrestees attempting to attack and flee.) Search warrant. This person is to be searched or interrogated. (Have "search" interaction described better, present SOP knows it but does not state many guidelines for that.) New Criminal state designations to code: *Armed and dangerous*, *Arrest*, Search. These new warrants would have their own criminal status designations at sec records and respective icons at the Sec HUD. Beepsky will arrest A&D as base level 6 threat, while regular arrest is as-is level 5. Execution status gives base 7 level (which that PR should fix, presently it appears not to be happening.) Beepsky will read the Search status as base level 2 threat, not to be arrested, as of the person with Search is not a known criminal. Extra: A Monitor -status for personnel known to be linked in criminal activity, while no evidence to sentence them are present, to ease watching over them. Aim of this proposal, both the HUD feature and the SOP change, is to help security be better in their jobs. This ideal I've got of the recent threads (Medi's Sec suggestion thread, by foremost). The feature could serve as memory aid for the officers on which kind of treatment they should give of person tagged to the HUD (Arrest tag on a crewmember, records say search. Officer 1: Why is this person arrested, Officer 2: *mute stun cuff*, drags them to brig), and to easen referencing to the SOP on this matter (to make it more easy to learn (and remember) this kind of officer interaction). On the code feature of having new designations to appear at HUD and records, see the PR, hereby: Comments welcome! I didn't ask anybody beforehand, if this kind of feature and SOP change is preffered - so that "no thanks" is an appreciated reply aswell! Did this for learning code contribution as my another own motive, and it did serve it already. I'll write an example of what the SOP could look like with this as soon as I got the time for it. UPDATE 31.7.19 Got more busy with work than I expected to, I'll return to this and the PR soon. Medi's Sec suggestion thread, out of which I got this idea:
  6. I was subjected to renameable food again. This time we had, by HoS's Chad's order (genius, never thought of this before!), a checkpoint at the starboard hallway, with the barriers, due to a bombing event. It was hilariously just like, what it is actually, too. Which is the genius part in it.
  7. After making Jean to dine dirt, glass shards (which tasted sweet) and such culinary inventions, yeah, that indeed was a familiar experience, if anything... Nutella and baguette fits very well that description, especially if served as breakfast, lunch and dinner.
  8. On tweaks to bone breaking, I like it. Maybe bit higher probability, still, just for having breaking opponent's bones a viable combat tactics - viable, not a trump card which it is as of now. On bullets, it would be neat feature that getting shot would give you slightly different outcome in terms of damage, compared to toolboxes ie. brute by melee. I'll have some input on gunshot wounds here, just if it was for any interest. So - the nature of them depends highly on round used, range and possible armor that is worn by the victim, and of course, where the shot lands. We will outright forget the range aspect here. On rounds, there are few types present on the station. So you might want, if to tweak bullets, to make them differ of each other. Generally, rifled guns deal more or less severe hemorrhage on impact, as of the shot penetrates through the victim and destroys soft tissue on their way, creating a hole-like wound on exit. Caliber of the gun roughly speaking will tell you how large is this impact (through ballistic features aren't that straight-forward, but I'll forget these here for simplicity, as well of the types of bullets, which you probably know enough from gaming, fmj/hp/such). Larger round for worse wounds and more grand hemorrhage. On hemorrhage, I wrote something of it at the new crit discussion few months ago. Dying based to blood might not just be good for the game, so probably we'd forget about that. Instead, bullets could do good deal of organ damage depending where they land to, to make some difference. TLDR: Bullets could deal internal damage to the organs of the respective bodypart. On bone breaking as a gunshot wound symptom, it's a matter of (bad) luck, to the best I know. If a bullet hits bone, it might break it, splinter it, or change its course. So it's a factor of whether the shot lands on a bone at all, and if indeed does, is the hit direct enough to break it. You had to have more bad luck with pistol and small rifle calibres. As of, greater the impact energy, greater the likelihood of the bullet of drilling through the hard thing (bone) it hits, instead of changing it's direction a bit. Then again I'm not all certain of these, as of what I know of the subject is from military first aid things, while bone breakage isn't a big deal to worry when somebody is shot. Game-wise, it might be also reasonable for not be an issue to worry ingame, too, to make things different and lessen the amount of bone surgery happening - to give variety. TLDR: Reasonable enough to nerf bone breakage due to bullets, if you'd implement other symptom for them, like internal damage dealing. Shotguns, in other hand, differ to this. Buckshot, hitting a large area with multiple pellets will break them. On penetration and embedding, indeed digging out embedded bullets are more of an Hollywood thing. There's a chance though, depending on the round. More likely is, that a bullet, especially if it's of the that type, splinters in to the body and that is a horror of thing. Or a bullet makes bone to splinter to the tissue around it. With a very small energy they might just stay in a body - or, if gone through armor (being a highly powerful one) it might stay in, because of it has no more enough energy to drill through the back side. Shotguns differ a bit, for what I know pellets would stay inside more probably, not that certain though. Anyhow, if something foreign embeds into you, it isn't a thing to hurry. Effects caused by that should be minor. Minor toxin? Or depending on the area in which it's in, pain messages, bit slower movement, difficulty in expressing oneself? TLDR: Game-wise, there could be a (very) small chance for embedded bullet causing toxin just for a doctoring gimmick. Armor affects gunshot wounds greatly. Ballistic armor, if successful, will prevent the shot to penetrate you, instead causing you damage as of you were hit by something blunt. Greater the round, greater the impact. You'll get knocked down by most, at least. So, being hit while wearing a vest could, by chance, cause a stun or even (almost certain) bone breaking, in trade of greatly reducing the actual brute damage caused, and completely scratching the internal organ damage, if applied. Then again this might just be hard to actually write (you'd need to tinker with the balance of the armors probably). Then again, having bullets do different damage in terms of bone breaking and else, is a possibly neat feature. Possibly.
  9. Though I like Kyet’s referation of ideas to be worked with - especially the processing timer and the harmbaton-alert sound like neat little tools making it more easy to spot and correct the bad stuff - I affirm with this here. While it’s hard to say any reasonable suggestion that would improve this, or, that we knew it would improve this. Making needless antagonizing of security a SoP/law violation - maybe, as of that could scratch some useless negative shit off the seccies. Yet, personally I’m not very concerned of the tideys, but of the flow of events, rather, as discussed earlier. Sec gets too overwhelmed, too often to do it fair, especially so with the HoS and warden, if they do their jobs at all. So I would see tackling this issue a buff to the effectiveness of sec and taking some stress away of it, thus making it bit more fun. (Edit: reading what Allfd says below, tideys are indeed a concern for the more new officers as of surviving as fine-doing sec, not against antags but tideys is a problem indeed, one root of the tase-cuff stuff. This mine from a sec regular viewpoint.) Say, I enjoy HoS a lot, still I seldomly take it, as of playing that role properly will by 60/50 chance be extremely demanding. It should be rough, yes, but then there are the useless bad things which you can’t handle, but exactly you should be the one to take action against those, and you cannot, because of you got too much on your plate. By these I mean by foremost abusive seccies, which the HoS should deal with. They’re hard to spot outside the brig, and if deep shit has hitted the fan (per usual), they are also hard to deal with just by the lack of time, if spotted. Let alone to prevent them. During highpop, you’ll often be too busy with co-ordinaring, sharing information and making decisions that officers expect from you, to do that efficiently. I try to watch over processing usually, can’t do much else of quality control. IAA’s, yes, but they usually need the HoS to perform the sanction they suggest. So I’m advocating some change to sec organization: try to think a new role there, to take something off HoS or Warden in order to make it bit less demanding to them to do it good. I don’t say that the situation is deeply bad in this. It just feels to happen quite often and is so the main concern I could think about. In the other hand, what I described is a part of the game, sec shouln’t be perfect either and the roles mentioned should give the challenge. This is a difficult topic. Agreeing and liking most suggestions hereby, though. Reasonable, less grave things in comparison to any organization tweak.
  10. I barely play antags, but as sec by usual, I do see them to be very stealthy. Sometimes it feels like sec's only work is to catch the rookies and greyshirts while skilled antags stay undercover. Unless they have the objective to go on rampage and are able to gain the power for it. So, at first, I agree with Azule here, in speak of how to rule antag action against validhunters. But on the rest - I fear that ruling sec valid for antags at code blue/red will end up to strengthen the sec vs crew -attitude, that is one cause for what Azule says and is indeed present at sec - well expressed at Medi's topic here . IMO Davidchan's post puts it together sharply there. In my opinion, as well, the us vs. them -mentality is about the main cause and-or the motivator for both the universal phenomenae, sec/crew validbone and antag murderbone. So that being lenient in either of these will lead to both attitudes taking more ground, which is not preffered. What is preferred, are fun and exciting moments, good stories and interaction, probably. Having antags stealthy - the result of sec/crew validbone and-or possible admin interventions - is contrary to that, too. As well as is security would have to, for their safety, to "tase-cuff-hello-randomsearch" - so solid no from me for that, as I wish the latter could be rooted off somehow. I would see the answer for antags being forced to be either extremely stealthy or very violent to lie in the security department, not in staff policies on antag-against-sec. As of, the roots for the formermost seem to be 1) valids exposing antags to sec and 2) sec acting with "valid" attitude - altogether with 3) the apparently bwoinky nature of decisions to silence the witnesses. So 1) could be fixed with more intense administration against validhunters as @farie82 says, while 2) is a problem that your typical "stun-cuff random search at blue" causes and thus is problem of our seccies. Out of the third I won't say anything as I've got no experiences on it. In short, as asked, I'm satisfied with rather strict policies on antag actions when the violence is not necessarily needed or should not be needed, if sec would act accordingly to SoP and sane MRP manners. I understand though that it's very hard to decide, both for an antag in the situation and probably for an admin who comes to the situation outside it, so it is not an easy matter. On antag actions against valids (and other non-targeted crew), in my view they're very stealthy more often than not, so there could certainly be an issue - I'd see what farie suggests on that reasonable.
  11. Git gud! Or… no. The buffs suggested seem reasonable for me. Low amount of damage dealt, as it is presently is, but more sustainable fire, more than presently. So you could prefer energy, when you need to shoot a LOT, like with a tspider or a xeno case happening. And yes, I'm one of the officers who always takes the shotgun if lethals are to be taken. Mostly because of the feel you could go and print ammo enough prior the battle, without having to retreat because of got to charge it. These would be a pain for a blob, though. The problems with the buff are also reasonably put.
  12. Few months later I did the sinewave test. I heard it to the point of 32-33 sec and then it went off quickly. Listened it with neutral headphones (dt770 80 ohm) but with average sound card of my old laptop. How did the project go, did it went on hiatus?
  13. Speaking of the size of present audio, there were, not too long ago, talks about optimisation of sprite and sound files, @timegrinder's topic hereby: I don't know how it ended up, as of the forum discussion went silent at some point. They had a githup repo of it, which seem closed by now. They had looked around the sound files, saying that they generally would use an optimisation and-or standardization, for having the same stuff in a more compact packet - in general, seem all possible if done well. This just for noting you, if it is of any help. This sounds good, neat that you'd share your skills!
  14. Agreeing highly with davidchan’s. Speaking of HoS, though, during highpop, fulfilling all the necessary duties is at least demanding, and while that is fine, it quickly becomes overwhelming if there is a single or few bad-attitude or outright nonsense officers present for you to spot, correct and process along with the situation at hand. IMO it’s often too much work for one person (when they are to do it), saying as a player who enjoy the role despite that. I have had way, way less stuff to worry about in the same timespan, in a kind of similar roles on missions irl. As of, even a simple inf squad got their job parted to each head, so is the command and control done too. Though it's a game and a disaster simulator so we don't want perfection nor irl stuff, far from it. Either we don't want too set-into-stone ways and job allocation to the departments, as of part of the fun is, that it is a sandbox of roles, which you can play as you see the best, SoP and rules in accordance. But some (more) ways to tackle the work overflow for sec, and the HoS in specific would still do, for the sake of enjoying the game at those roles. So that you don't so often get the feeling that you've got everything at your hands. At least, if something tires me while in sec, they are the situations in which you got too much priority things to do. In example greyshirts, not by they being greyshirts necessarily, but when there is too many of them to interact with, prior to applying the baton if so. What results is annoyance to each side. I think this happens to those sec players who want to care about doing it fine enough. While being overwhelmed is acceptable and a part of the game, a bit less often would do. Overwhelmed with priority stuff: namely with cases that affect significantly to the rounds of the other players - not meaning how sec fares against antags. TLDR; Have the HoS role and their jobs defined better? Make a part of what currently falls for a HoS to do, to be a job of somebody else in sec? Warden/HoS duty sharing? That instructor stuff? Or cadets? Job timers, as suggested here. Yes for them from me, though concern there is that you learn sec by playing it so help of these will be limited. Or something else to make the present good meta to happen more often, to endorse the good attitude in sec and better attitude towards them. As we know sec's much more fun to play, and more fun to interact with, when there is people doing it good present.
  15. On issues with security, the attitude is indeed a problem, and it is so in both fronts as of mentioned above. Attitude, namely, excessive bitterness on failing or misconducting security and then the problem-making attitude in the department. Though, there is an another factor to be considered. Bad stuff happening with security, caused by security, results at least as much because of the sheer amount of work to do, as because of poor quality of action and-or greyshirting customers. Overflow of events is the third factor. It's like a snowball: first there is a large crew and-or good antagging, then there is a failing part in the sec machine, then there is angry greyshirts because of shitcurity, and then sec has too much work to overcome it. And same indegrients with different order lead to the same result, and so on. Making a playtime requirement to sec could snip few potential problems out, namely prevent few "failures in the sec machine" from that snowball. Adminning toxic behaviour towards sec a few more. - - - Another measure could be altering the security department itself. Having my two cents on this subject - the sec instructor suggestion, not too far ago, was initiated by the same issue as this thread I'd say. That was about of having one more person to herd the red-shirted flock as their dedicated job. Reception for that was initially mixed, though, as of that role could be played bad aswell and the job thought for the instructor is already done by experienced officers on their own initiative. Security cadets, as mentioned here, could be an another solution. For, just a playtime limit - while it might root out certain way-too-rookies - has the issue of having played on the server does not guarantee they know how to sec. Having a cadet role, in the other hand, if playtime requirements are considered for the actual officers, could endorse people to play sec and be recognized as what their job title says, a cadet, one who is learning the ropes. And well, each of us starts from the beginning with sec, as with other roles. Learning goes by mistakes. There must be room for mistakes, by, attitude - a cadet system could be helping in that, for it could be a tool to contain some of the effects of the mistakes (loot pinatas as mentioned, and people would probably more easily forgive a cadet). This is one good answer for security doing bad, but the problem is, that while the Space Law and SOP already permits this, the workload for HoS, Warden and-or the officers able to judge it, are often too heavy for them - to even become aware of somebody doing it bad as a sec. Same goes for taking action with the issues. That's the primary reason I like the idea of cadets or-and instructors, while either would not be a perfect system, either would help fellow seccies, busy they are, to note somebody might need guidance (cadets) and have somebody dedicated to give it and work around with issues in action (the instructor). Or something else, something that buffs security - IMO to make something, that should almost always to be done by somebody in sec by their own initiative, to happen more certainly. Be it good conduct, overseeing and helping those in need, sanctionizing bad stuff, having 10-minute timers at processing, anyhow helping to deal with the effects of the overflow of events. Good to have a talk about these! - - - Then again, Ping's post is great. We, both as security and their customers, should remember this. You don't always even need shitcuriting or toxic greyshirts to put the snowball on the move. Even if you do the best that you could figure out to do, out of a situation, it just might lead to more chaos happening. And we should be enjoying it... however it's hard to be enjoyed if you get roasted too much. So I'll conclude mine with quoting this. The attitude could be worse, though. In my opinion it's okay or good usually, but from time to time it's bad. As Landerlow says, the fun thing is that it goes both ways. Many times just speaking reasonably to greyshirts as sec makes them to actually behave reasonably. And being a customer at the red hotel, doing the same to officers might just have the same effect. How could this be endorsed... personal action, foremost, changes regarding to sec, maybe, a maybe just for deciding what might be difficult.