Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nunzillor]

Basically what Nik said.  I suppose it's the concept, oddly enough— their personal use could become a slippery slope.  We already have Green Storm, where the characters can become enslaved whenever their commander wishes.  Allowing sods to come out of the background will just make slavery even more acceptable, and further allow it to creep into the gameplay.

[Nikitian]

Spoiler: @Syvarris (click to show/hide)

Not to nitpick, but we're currently phasing the manipulators out of use.


But - yeah, I see your point. Still, I strongly believe that there is a difference between employing sods on organisational level and on personal level. (And yeah, at this point I'm speaking rather more IMO than I originally intended. It's your argumentative win, sir! )

First, it's the matter of equality. As you rightly pointed out, we're all slaves to ARM; and so currently are sods, it puts us somewhat on the same level (note: I do not seek enforcing "different but equal" here, or some such, I am merely stating that we are comrades-in-slavery at the moment ). But if we allow sods to be personally owned, then by the same precedent we can probably own other former convicts - and things go to hell from there.

Second, it's a matter of specific ends justifying the means. As black, smothered and baked our ARM/HMRC souls are, I do believe that some small shreds of morality remain - such as, we don't inflict suffering as means of entertainment, we only do it when ordered/when we think our orders entail that. (Mesk's biographers would disagree, but he has honestly regretted ever since M5, and then paid full price for it; also, of course, due orders and cruel entertainment often intersect for us - rarer and rarer since we became ARM - but that's still acting in the line of duty, not for our own sake.) "Governmental" slavery of ARM is impersonal, as is, by large, Steve (even though Dev would strongly disagree with me here) - he does things because humanity needs them, because his programming calls for him to do so - and in that, serving (and belonging to) him is not nearly as troublesome as it would be serving a specific debased human Magister, with personal needs, interests, and so on. If we introduce personal slavery, though... Well, look at the reasons why Comrade P.'s character looks into acquiring sods (NB: female ones, even). Sure, some convicts would use them "in their line of duty" as tools of war or their trade or whatever appropriate. But how many would utilize them in their own gain, or interest, or amusement, etc.?
Unless there were a system which would prevent "undue" use of sods (and remember the point 1) above: what is applicable to sod slavery, is applicable to former convict slavery), such abuses would likely be the norm rather than exception - and I think it could be hard to invent on. (By-mission deployment is one such system; "bill of rights" or some similar stuff might be another, but even I am not mad enough to start giving "rights" to anyone in the ARM . Maybe some kind of "Regulations Manual" which strictly prohibits unintended uses of sods? But then it would need to be enforced... ...By, say, a commissar, which we actually have one. Hmmm, this might work, I guess.)


(Of course, here you can point out that brain-pilots can often be abused for the manip-user's amusement, and there is nothing to prevent that... Well, I don't have any good answer to that except "we also need to monitor their use as well". But I simply know that open, unashamed personal slavery is a line on the sand I'm not ready to cross.)

[syvarris]

Spoiler: @Nun&Nik (click to show/hide)

I honestly do not understand your point of view, which troubles me.  I really want to say you're being illogical, but I'm in the minority, so I'm probably the illogical one.  Hrm.

I'll argue that I don't think allowing sod slaves will lead to allowing player slaves, because the players being enslaved would stop playing, and PW doesn't want that.  One player won't be able to enslave another player, because a real person is being harmed.

If the morality is your argument, well, it isn't out of character for the HMRC/ARM; We've had rape, torture, slavery attempts, etc.  Sure, the majority of characters aren't that bad, but there are some who are.  So, your argument is entirely an OOC one: Whether or not your sense of how the game should be played ought to be forced on other people.

I'm not gonna say that that's an invalid argument.  If a lot of people played rapists and then started to... well, rape characters frequently, I would feel highly uncomfortable with it, and would rather those players are stopped.  But if a lot of people played Elisaz-type characters, who didn't quite commit rape in-game (but were very close to it, and would likely lead to a downward spiral), I wouldn't want their current characters banned--just devolutions of their current characters.  I'd want PW to tell the players "Okay, you're okay doing what you're doing, but start explicitly raping NPCs and I'm kicking you from the game".

So, the question boils down to this: Is sod slavery, in and of itself, unpleasant enough for you to read about that you want to restrict other players from doing it?

Alternatively, dodge the question and say "But I don't think PW will stop the players from doing worse things!", at which point I'll link yourlogicalfallacyis.com and we'll all leave the argument annoyed.  >.>

[Parisbre56]

Don't worry Syv. I agree with you. So that means you're not crazy. Or that we both are. Probably the second one, now that I think about it.

[Egan_BW]

Players shouldn't be allowed to micromanage Sods, as that would just end up as Sods being extra bodies for players. However, Sods should be deployed as team equipment in any case where they would be helpful, which is most of them. In that case Steve can pay Syv some royalties, because he honestly deserves some for growing a clone army. [/opinions]

[syvarris]

Well, thank you.  Both of you.

[Nunzillor]

I guess you're right... Just because I think something is distasteful doesn't mean others should be forced to alter their behavior.  I can just not engage with that, and ignore it, I suppose.

[Radio Controlled]

No syv, as said, we think it isn't a good idea primarily because it would negatively affect gameplay (lowering risk through remote micromanagement being a big issue) and not from some empty 'gut feeling' (though gut feeling does play a role of course, as it always does). As said, the fact that we could always try to ban/balance the most unsavoury parts was acknowledged when coming to a consensus. If we could just play this by ear, it wouldn't take so damn long to get anything done.

As for sod scenery, it's true that up till now they haven't been used in a big primary role on missions (though in Hep defense they did quite a lot). But even staying within the current mission equipment system, that can change. When I asked pw to allow me to use sods on the arbiter mission, I added the 'they won't go into the colony' clause as a way to actually help smooth over the idea. It was a clear compromise between "allow me to do this thing cause it seems cool and makes ic sense" and "I promise it won't affect the mission too much as to make it an npc event". We can now built upon this and, next time we have a mission where sods would make sense, let them play a more involved role. Then if we see it doesn't really work out, we can easily change again how we use them next time, because they'll still be firmly under gm control. But once you sell one, that'll be much harder (and would probably involve some salt from disillusioned buyers). And yes, it's true that mission equipment sods seemed to perform worse than they should, but that's because pw gives special treatment to player characters.

So hey, maybe if we have a trial mission once where every player is given a personal sod to use, with a few limitations, and we see it works and our fears can be assuaged, then we can still reopen the debate with some actual data in hand. But for now, keeping in mind the various arguments pro and contra and possible balancing attempts, the council's advice remains in the negative.

You do realise that a minimally equipped sod would cost around 30 tokens or more?
Edit2: And probably wouldn't be very useful in the kind of missions we'll be going from now on?
Edit: That is directed to both Syv and the council.

True, but that seems more like an argument for a player not to buy one (and waste his tokens on it) and less an argument on if they should be sold at all. If people wanna waste their tokens, that's not council business.


@morality: one thing I wonder is if the claim 'we already engage in amoral act A, B and C, so engaging in the slightly amoral act D is justified' is a good one. You could say "it is hypocritical to oppose allowing amoral D when other more immoral acts are still allowed" but that just makes the opposers a bit hypocritical (if they don't oppose/work to abolish acts B and C as well), but perhaps not wrong on the "is it immoral" front. So, does the fact that greater evil exists and is being done, justify allowing (herefore non existant) new evil?

[AoshimaMichio]

I want personal sods for missions. So let's say it works like this:

1. You buy one time license to deploy single sod on single mission with you. Single one use only, like grenades.
2. It's primary orders are to kill things that try to kill you. In other words, if you want to make best use of it, you must be near danger where it is most useful.
3. You can outfit it with your own weapons/armors if you want.
4. You are not permitted to modify or use it in any other way. All you can do is to give verbal orders to it that don't require it going too far away from you. Like poking its head out of cover to see it the laser turret is still shooting.

So treat them like bodyguards. Your safety is their priority which means they may shoot the medic who mistreats you.

[Nikitian]

Spoiler: @Syvarris (click to show/hide)

Well, if that helps, I don't think you're the illogical one. I know that I occasionally dip there, but I sincerely hope there is some miscommunication here instead.

I could try going point-for-point style, but I'll try to pierce it to the heart of the problem: I don't think we've ever had done any atrocities without "good reason" for them (M5 cases apart) - sure, Elizas implied rape and other stuff, but I don't think (s)he ever did any of that stuff "on-screen", for example. As we are relying more and more on "the ends justifying the means" to reason our actions, it becomes more and more important not to abuse those means for other ends - it's the only way to preserve sanity and morality (whatever little is left of them) as we are forced to descend into greater and greater acts of war crimes (in fact, I think I've been noticing signs of Steve following that attitude for some time now, with slowly shrinking limits of shenanigans allowed to us, seemingly "hypocritical" in the face of atrocities he has to quietly commit in the background). That's why I find that going for unhinged sod slavery so dangerous and troublesome (even if it's a lesser atrocity than some that we have committed).

As for the question - no, it's not. (Not because it isn't that unpleasant, but rather because I'd never willingly wish to impose an OOC ban on other players' fun.) It is unpleasant to the point where I'd grow disillusioned with ARM (for, in my humble opinion, we have still been striving for "good guys" ideal - bad to the bone "good guys", and then some extra bad in the brain, but still "good" ones) and/or start quiet vigilantism against those who cross the line (if you've read the archives, you probably remember that Maurice once almost perma-killed Mesk post-M5, Jim's wrath and consequences be damned - IC retribution ain't no OOC ban). But I could still live with that change introduced into this game.

So - no, I have no real right to deny you the sod slavery option being allowed. I'd be just quite sad and angry if it happened (at least, if it happened without any safeguards against "position abuse" by their owners). YMMV, of course.

[NAV]

Here are pimpknuckles, ready to go in armory.

Spoiler: Exotic Pimpknuckle (click to show/hide)

Skills/stats: Exotic weapons
Cost: 3 tokens
Description: A thick pad of pimpcane metal covering one knuckle that can be formed into whatever shapes you like. It can also be moved with your mind like a pimpcane can.

Spoiler: Swiss Army Pimpknuckle (click to show/hide)

Skills/stats: Strength/Dexterity
Cost: 3 tokens
Description: A thick pad of pimpcane metal covering one knuckle. Instead of shaping it with your mind, it's programmed to switch between 25 different forms including various blades, spikes, drills, saws, and more!

Knuckleduster
Knife blade
Lobotomizing spike
Wolverine claws
Pirate hook
Shovel
Hammer
Prybar
Monkey wrench
Screwdriver

Circular saw
Reciprocating saw
Chainsaw
Straight drill
Mining drill
Jackhammer
Grinding wheel
Jaws of life
Clamp
Bear trap

Man catcher
Syringe
Baseball glove
Tongs
Buckler

We should decide what to replace the kinamps in Assault suits and Multi-function power gauntlet with. I think that the Swiss Army Pimpknuckle is best option because it has no requirements and only uses base stats, meaning almost any build can use it. Also very versatile.

[Nikitian]

First of all, I don't mind using it in the Multi-function power gauntlet. Frankly speaking, at its availability, it's a slightly ridiculous weapon, unlikely to be ever used - in my humble opinion.

Now, with the assaultsuits, it's a more interesting point... And I cannot accept them replacing the kinamp knuckles. (Note: I can totally see them being added, especially the Exotic ones as load-out for "Exo-type Assaultsuit" variant idea that has been around for quite a while, or possibly the Swiss Army ones as general utility upgrade for assaultsuits - just not as the replacement for the kinamps.)

The reasons are as follows: The kinamps ensure that a battlesuit _{(oops, assaultsuit)} punch, already a frightening event, is absolutely terrifying in close combat. They are specifically for the sake of ensuring melee functionality of battlesuits. As such, any direct replacement needs to fulfill the same role - be a great force multiplier (pun not intended) in case of melee, as unlikely as it comes.
Plasma stakes could work, though they are more of directly powerful weapon than a force multiplier (they don't utilize the significant mass of an assaultsuit); same goes for tesla sabers. Forcefield weapons could work (possibly toned down to ensure the destruction wouldn't damage the assaultsuit - which would result in less than monoatomically sharp edge, meaning mass is more put to use), as could regular "advanced" melee weapons (remember that HUGE cleaver melee battlesuits use? Yeah, that one) - or perhaps something else to be invented.
Still, I think, if the risk is bearable, I'd keep the kinamps there (if offline most of the time) - assaultsuits are already quite powerful and expensive weapons, meaning a certain degree of trust from Steve, so I wouldn't find it a big stretch that the same trust could cover the kinamps. Or maybe they would have to be unlocked before use, and regular pilots would refrain from unlocking them unless Steve gave them the permission (of course, they could "ask for forgiveness later", if the situation really required that - I like leaving little possibilites for "unauthorised modifications" like that in equipment ).

As for pimpknuckles - they do have their use, I can absolutely agree with that, but their use is first and foremost in versatility, not direct force multiplication (once again, pun not intended). It should be "marketed" and added to standard load-out as "versatility upgrade", not a "melee one" - which is what the kin-amps are.
(If we could invent (based on recovered artifacts&samples, as usual) and create a cool "melee upgrade" that would surpass kin-amps without being dramatically more expensive, I'd go for that in a heartbeat. For now, I'm afraid that there isn't any such thing yet.)
This made me think. If we are less likely going to deploy assaultsuits against conventional foes from now on, and more likely to use them in the exploration of other universes, should we perhaps develop an "Exploration" type assaultsuit (similar to the older type of a battlesuit, but utilizing all the cool new toys and materials we now have)? Swiss Army Pimpknuckles would look gorgeous on such a "semi-civilian" model. (They'd be useful on any assaultsuit, but only the type intended for non-combat use would get the most of it, I suppose.)

[Egan_BW]

I'd be in favor of replacing battlesuit kinamps with a classic rocket-propelled fist.

[NAV]

Either rocket propelled fists or piledriver fists (or both) are probably the closest we can get to a kinamp.

Are pimpknuckles approved as a standalone item though?

[Nikitian]

Sure. Exotic Pimpknuckles and Swiss Army Pimpknuckles are approved for Armory inclusion.

And, while I'm at it, Valkyrie Combat Transport (I believe that's the official name? Correct me if I'm wrong) is approved for Armory inclusion. The old shuttle model is decreed obsolete and is to be removed from Armory. But I believe Radio Controlled still wants an up-to-date description for the wiki reference.