Allfd

Admins
  • Content Count

    868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Allfd last won the day on January 13

Allfd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

169 Excellent

3 Followers

About Allfd

  • Rank
    Server Host
  • Birthday March 24

Personal Information

  • Byond Account
    Alffd

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. If any of you are ghosted and I am on, ahelp. I am more then happy to shove you into a shadow person body and let you roam maint.
  2. Yeah, from my perspective 90% of people who saw this thread thought something was wrong with it. With almost 60 votes at this point, it still is only a small set of the server population, but that is also how polls work. First step could be making it more difficult to acquire. Considering the split, it would probably be in the "Very difficult to acquire" area that would see the most approval.
  3. I am of mixed mind, X-Ray is kinda power gaming, but removing pressure from Antags I don't think will result in more creativity if only done in a few areas. I think ultimately a change in incentives is needed to effect behavior. A focus on RP, which means not just throwing antags into perma and forgetting about them, and a change in objectives would be needed.
  4. -1 X-Ray is fine as is. The server runs on the salt from dead antag players. If we remove X-Ray its going to cause even more lag.
  5. Allfd

    Abductors

    I don't see why they couldn't keep that.
  6. Allfd

    Abductors

    I just want to get a general community sense. How would people feel if we were to remove the "abductor" species, and replace them with grays that only spoke in wingdings? This would require the crew during abduction events, to determine if the gray in question was a crewmember, or one of the crew grays redneck cousins.
  7. I would be for this, Instead of poping out of existence, they just turn into a bunch of fur puffs, this would allow making of gloves, and it already exists in the code.
  8. @ChronarchThat is the one! Essentially its moving the functions of the energy cell to a new organ. The thing that mostly caused the drama was var/obj/item/organ/internal/cell_mount/cell_mount = H.get_int_organ(/obj/item/organ/internal/cell_mount) //IPCs are dependent on batteries if(istype(cell_mount)) if(cell_mount.cell && cell_mount.cell.charge && !(cell_mount.status & ORGAN_DEAD)) return H.adjustFireLoss(5) // No cell or cell charge? Catastrophic system failure H.Paralyse(4) H.adjustBruteLoss(2) I agree, the FireLoss and BruteLoss are not ideal, far from it. A better alternative could have been to just set `stat =2` directly, but due to IPCs unique death mechanics that may not have worked. So the conversation as some (me) predicted, is now again to more nerfs without any upsides buffs. Not out of vindictiveness or spite. But a nerf is way easier to do then write a ton of new features that will pass the maintainer snowflake review process. If something needs fixing, and the solution is removing something and altering a few lines of code that will be an easy, low risk merge. That is way more likely to happen, then a major rework that then gets massive resistance. Don't get me wrong, both would get major push back, but in one you are out a handful of minutes of your time, the other days. It does not take 241 lines of code like in the linked PR to just have IPCs take damage when out of power. Thats easy. Rewriting how IPCs work so that future part changeouts and genetic like modifications can be added, takes that time and effort. So my gut feeling, is more nerfs are a possibility, but I don't see anyone trying to re-code IPC mechanics significantly in the near to mid term. Its mildly ironic that a major reason for that is IPC player concern over nerfs. I think the concerns about taking damage were 100% valid, some other way to kill an IPC instead of sticking them in limbo would have been preferable, allowing them to ghost until placed into a charger would have been ideal. The IPC player victory over that PR probably killed any future work on IPC modifications and genetics. It will not however have taken any more nerfs off the table, such as the handling of blood/oil. I would love a trait system, so each player at character creation could pick traits, like no oil, or EMP immune or whatever. I thing that type of choice and making the balance decisions should be left to each player. But I know I am not going to volunteer to code that after watching the drama. I have interests in modifying IPCs with some neat fun mechanics that I will pursue regardless. I don't consider what I want to do a nerf or a buff as it will be exceptionally situational. It certainly won't be 241 lines of code. I expect some salt, but the memes demand me to make my PR at some point.
  9. A PR to add an organ based capabilities system was shot down by the IPC community recently. It would have been a prerequisite to such a system, allowing for customization of body parts with upgrades.
  10. So yeah, its been said but.. This is just rabid vulpkanin. I mean we could like, give them powers and make it a game mode, sort of an alternative renamed vampire.....
  11. @Breenland SM is set to go, just waiting on a mapper. Current plan is to beg @FreeStylaLT
  12. Would be neat, but our atmospheric system is way older then TGs,. We only support the base 4 gasses.
  13. I don't really know why a station owned by a single corporation would do this, its a bunch of extra work for the transfer of something that does not have value. So I spent some time trying to think of a multiplayer RPG that did not have an economy. I thought the Boulders Gate/Icewind Dale series from late 90s, but they had market places. TG is massively popular and we are talking about a port of their system. Considering every multiplayer RPG I can think of has a persistent economy, and TG has a persistent economy. I just don't see this as an issue.
  14. So the problem, is that as we appear to be defining it, an economy exists to allocate scarce resources. A non-persistent economy, does not do that, effectively all it would do would be to limit how much of a resource someone could get in game. Yes, it would. But in doing so, its not so much a fairer distribution of resources, so much as it is a random distribution. I think any efforts to make an economy without persistence are a waste of time and effort. Without persistence, resources are not scarce except for perhaps immediately scarce for that round. Without any sort of actual (persistent) scarcity, we would have to significantly introduce scarcity by artificially reducing supply of key items for any of the changes to have a meaningful effect. (Station gets two medkits)
  15. We are trying to make more mechanical incentives to roleplay. Or at the very least, not have mechanics that act as a disincentive to roleplay.