Github changes people should know about

Lol, people should just go to GH and comment there.
Its ridiculous to expect our very few maintainers to waste time by announcing/discussing every single change here.

The forums are a place for discussion, yes. But for actual change you need to use GH.

2 Likes

It’s nice knowing that there’s a vote between mantainers and contributors, and i’m not talking particullary about the xenobio nerf that’s been quoted a lot on this thread but what happens to me on GH is that it feels a little… strange when i visit some pr’s and most of the comments are from people that were contributors once but no longer or barely play in our server and they seem to heavily critize something and that leaves it open as a display of “yah sorry this is not on the agenda”, if those people still have a voice of vote (even thought in the end it lays now on Bacon and… uh the others maintaners) I feel like if they vote, it affects what gets in and what’s get not in a negatively way and i’ve seen that happen on a couple of pr’s.

Ofc i’m talking about PR’s that are good QoL, Innovations or features that people have been asking for or they were very positivy recieved on discord/forum/in game ooc

I obviously understand how they are stuff that are heavily broken that needs to be adressed(xeno, mining, etc) and you can’t simply decide it with X amounts of thumbs ups and thumbs down

On the other hand going back a bit on the word “agenda” i always thought that a little roadmap or some sort of… goals to reach would be nice to encourage more activity and to start getting a feedback on topics early on, while this ultimately is not a democracy on what gets in or not, i’ve seen and participated on a lot of open source projects where they this sort of stuff coming from a head developer

It could even be something as smaller as

"Right so current goal/project is to:

  • Remake economy
  • Scrap kitchen and replace it with a school
  • Introduce cars" and pinpoint the rest to the things we already have available (go here for gh, go here for guide on coding and bounties, go here for ideas) etc.

Edit: as a final thing, Yes, people who are interested in these stuff should visit the GH which is, As Ruko said a couple of posts above, the main place where mantainers will check for feedback and i shouldn’t need to state it but jusr in case: Yes, even thought those contributors might no longer play in our server i’m not in any way making their contributions less, they’ve all helped a lot through different times and i’m grateful that they took their time to contribute here, i just had to mention what i said above and hope that Bacon and the other mantainers are aware of who’s who and their activities and interest on our server.

1 Like

The server does not have a set agenda of any sort (that I’m aware of at least). Each person has their own idea of what is best and the code marches forward on the approvals of one or two maintainers depending on what kind of change it is. Code progression will always be at least somewhat chaotic due to this and if something slips past that sees enough distaste it will then be removed later. Chungus suit is one such change; while it got the approval of the maintainer it needed to merge, it got far more disapproval after the fact.

My personal agenda is:
  • Improve and expand upon necessary player-to-player interactions

  • Slow down the overall pace of the game so that players can’t run out of things to do in thirty minutes when good rounds last an average of 90-120.

  • Reinforce server rules and admin expectations through mechanics instead of expecting players to know they aren’t supposed to pick up easily obtained item #42

I specifically aim to achieve these by:

  • Removing features labeled as QoL which actually just serve to remove interactions between departments, which simultaneously adds opportunities for RP while also slowing down the rush to endgame. These include public autolathes,

  • Reducing the isolation of certain jobs and mechanically tying them to regular trips into the main hallways of the station where normal crew interaction can take place.

  • Reintroduce departmental co-dependance which will give players a reason to care about other departments and work with them instead of ignoring them because they have nothing to mechanically gain from it.

  • Add scarcity back into the game for items which should be reserved to their related departments so that those department specialties have actual weight, which feeds into the above point. This will also make it much harder to “accidentally” powergame by taking items which are publicly/easily available that you are expected not to take by admins.

  • Add intuitive failsafes to ensure that rounds which do not have adequate staffing don’t fall on their face which aren’t abusable when adequate staffing is present.

  • Make door hacking and other forms of breaking and entering substantially more difficult than it is currently, either via scarcity of the required tools or layering a difficult minigame on top that has to be solved more than once at the start of a round. Asking for access and supplies shouldn’t just be the option admins tell you to do, it should mechanically be the easier option than taking it yourself.

  • Make it easier for antagonists to have an effect on rounds in ways that aren’t killing to reinforce that they are, in fact, expected and capable of RP as well. With scarcity and co-dependance, minor sabotage becomes a driving factor in rounds and stealth antags can be more than someone mysteriously vanishing. Co-dependance also means that when someone vanishes they’re more likely to be noticed as missing.

Who else agrees with me on all of these points within the team? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m moving one PR at a time while I have the spare time. Chance are every point won’t be agreed upon, but I want to chip in to pushing Bee into the server it states it is trying to be. A newbie friendly community centered on roleplaying and gradually further and further away from being outdated tg that attracts all the ssethtiders.

I miss Golden, but that ship has long since sailed.

7 Likes

After reading your posts, I have to say that I would find it very hard to not immediately be either terrified or outraged. In fact only my previous experience with you counters this.

I’ll write a small wall about the reasons, but they’re actually really simple, just easy to elaborate on.

A lot of QoL changes cut down on pointless mechanics or eliminate pointless interactions. I’ll repeat what I stated many times before - one organic player interaction is worth more than 100 bland, system-enforced ones. When the majority of forced crew interactions are just asking for a thing or getting let in somewhere, you know they aren’t worth dealing with. Many jobs have these interactions right now and are for the worse of it. There is no RP in asking a scientist for a scanner, for example.

So, when going about dealing with QoL, if you don’t strike precisely, you just end up making gameplay more annoying, potentially even frustrating all-around. You have to hit what’s removing organic interactions instead of hitting what’s removing routine ones. Anyone who threatens to bring so much potential negativity to the game will trigger active players.

As a word of advice, the best way to make organic interactions is to make jobs less about power and more about doing interesting things. A job that can perform many unique actions instead of simply providing the same things every round is already more fun. When a job’s basic providence is neutered, the job turns sour, but when the additional, interesting things they can do are locked behind cooperation, players may actually work together for them. While it’s the best way to handle this, it also requires the most unique code and effort which is why you seldom see it.

I will provide 3 example changes for those who need them to understand what I’m going at here.

Example 1 - Doing it right

Botany is very self-sufficient. We will add a plant that normalizes the atmosphere surrounding the tray to botany, but mutating into this plant will require specific chemicals gained from science or engineering (atmos).

(repeat this change for several unique plants and unique methods of getting them without removing what we have)

Expected result: These plants can be very useful in certain scenarios so botanists may ask for cooperation if the round calls for it, or if they want to prepare them just in case.

Example 2 - Doing it wrong

Botany is very self-sufficient. We will remove all mutagen including plant mutagen chemicals and lock them behind chemistry.

Expected result: Botanists have a soulless, routine interaction with chemists every round. Meta eventually shifts to tiding botanists and mutagen factories made by chemists who give a fuck, all for the sake of skipping the pointless and repetitive interaction.

Example 3 - Technically Correct

Xenobiology and Virology are removed.

These jobs do not have any crew interaction beyond ocassionally giving their produce to them. Even ignoring power levels, this makes them bad. We remove the jobs.

Expected result: People have to play other, more active jobs. Several people might be mad over losing their jobs though. (In my opinion, this direct removal hurts less than keeping a “limping” job around)

Actually, the person working on botany right now is removing reliance on chems entirely, though I know this was just an example.

That said, I disagree with the notion of this being a soulless interaction unless one or both players involved are making it so. The point of playing the server isn’t to finish a job as quickly and efficiently as possible, it’s to RP with others. Being outside of your department is where this will happen 90% of the time, but forced bar RP isn’t the right way to do it either. Forcing interactions, reliance on others and the conflicts and interactions that arise from failing to meet the needs of each other is. Naturally occurring conflict without requiring antagonist interaction is what keeps slower times interesting. Currently players feel a need to force this conflict in unnatural ways out of boredom because the natural conflicts have been optimized out.

As long as someone fosters the player mentalities of “I must be able to work alone as efficiently as possible” or “I’ll just push them aside and make what I want myself because this newbie is ruining my round by taking longer than I would” there will never be room for good RP with that person because they view player interaction as nothing but an obstacle to their efficiency instead of the god damn point of an RP server

3 Likes

So we don’t have a super formal agenda but if you go far back into the channel(if you have access you know which one), you can find some changes that we want to bring about. Very few are player facing, and mostly optimizing certain expensive operations, but there are some changes discussed, like singleton species.

But yeah to say we have super coordinated agenda focused on large innovations is flat out untrue. Also our “agenda” is largely unordered/unprioritized. Stuff happens when it does.

Kinda just the nature of open source + unpaid.

2 Likes

oh boy
I wonder where this playerbase came from

2 Likes

(TG Station)
1515151

2 Likes

I must be able to work alone as efficiently as possible

It’s not as simple as that, I’m afraid.

Tie a job’s efficiency behind another job? They can deal with it. In fact, they deal with it already every round. Upgrades exist.

Tie a job’s basic features behind another job, meanwhile? Well, you can consider it ruined in that case.

When you make ties, the disctinction between putrid swamp shit and actual gameplay/rp improvement lies in what you’re gating off. If the job is unable to function, or function at a reasonable pace, without assistance, people WILL disregard the law or even the rules to get there. See: pre-dispenser botany (admittedly the worst case of this that we ever had).

If only certain features of the job are gated off, it might be iffy, but not to the point of causing the average player to act out against it. See: Getting a trashbag as a miner - massively helpful, but completely unecessary to do your job.

If you gate off specific features (and especially if the gated-off features are very notable), no one ever gets mad and the interactions are meaningful. See: giving botany strange seeds and cactus.

Or, in short:

  • Having to put in effort just to get reasonable gameplay = putrid garbage dumb toxic sludge trash fire
  • Having to put in effort to create something actually noteworthy = people will actually bother*

*In an ideal world, these kinds of interactions benefit both jobs. This is rarely seen even with our best examples.

oh no

3 Likes

While we are arguing here coders yet again stealthily push their salt code because they got robusted by a game mechanic

3 Likes

A lot of coders seem to think that crew being as helpless as possible against threats is a great idea.

RP or not, “dying is part of the game” has been a bullshit excuse for bad design from the start. The sooner people stop treating it seriously the better.

I mean, ask yourself. Would you rather have gameplay. Any gameplay. Or would you rather die instantly as soon as you see an antag?

Fun fact btw. The focus on death also kills RP.

Smh…

2 Likes

kate…? do you realise that @Ruko made a post about this and asking for feedback, right…?

1 Like

ignore my clickbait title, point still stands

1 Like

I still think you’re misrepresenting Ruko’s opinion.
Framing the whole discussion this was is very cheap, i don’t agree with how you portrayed them and their argument.
There is a valid reason behind what they are doing, even if i personally disagree with them.
I guess I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say that’s all

I know I make myself sound like an asshole but,
giving an illusion that you are asking for an opinion while actually actively working and pushing the PR and ignoring every opinion is not actually asking for an opinion.

People should be aware about these kind of things and that they are actually being pushed forward

PS: I have nothing against Ruko directly so stop portraying it as a personal attack, please

PPS: Please continue posting new PRs that people should know about

1 Like

Closing at Crossed’s request due to the thread devolving into personal attacks against the author.

2 Likes