MRP - forbid robotics from making combat mechs FNR

[Bmon]

the title

stop robotics from spamming out combat mechs on mass for no reason

nine times out of ten its robotics hoarding upwards of five mechs so they can kill any threat that challenges them in 0.1 second

this issue is basically the same as gun cargoing on manuel which has been against the rules for a looooong time. see: viewtopic.php?p=600280#p600280 or https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Ru ... RP_Rulings

extend the gun cargo headmin ruling to combat mechs

[TheRex9001]

Relevant, this was recently mentioned in viewtopic.php?t=35074&view=unread#unread. Its allowed but you can't do it every shift.

[GPeckman]

nine times out of ten its robotics hoarding upwards of five mechs so they can kill any threat that challenges them in 0.1 second

Where the hell are the materials to make five combat mechs coming from? Those things are not cheap.

[Higgin]

only if you're willing to admit of a very loose definition of what counts as good enough reason - like, "it's above a green star and there's been at least one callout over the radio" - like it works with guncargo in practice - otherwise no

You should be handling these things on their use, not their possession.

Attacking them on their possession
1. greatly increases the amount of daylight around people having them - the calculus should not be "are they an antag or are they breaking the rules?" if you see people using their designed loops to accumulate power. if you're security and concerned, you've got metaprotection on your side and a real choice to make (do we want a stompy mech around when the blob shows up or not?)
2. punishes people for using their designed loops or spending their time for a meaningful possible gain. I feel a lot better about the tot robo who rocks up on me with a stompy mech knowing they actually did something contingent for it rather than scrolling to the revolver and clicking once. I know it sucks when you make a mech for nothing to happen, even if you give them away rather than hoard them, but it is also a meaningful choice and use of time in the round to do so. It's cool as fuck when it pays off, and there are diminishing returns if you only do it for yourself.
3. strengthens antags which are already potent due to the "barn door" problem. Mechs don't take as much windup to make as some other systems' powerups do, but they lose utility if you have to wait to cross some really arbitrary threshold to make them, have them, etc. Mechs are potent against antags (and crew-based threats for that matter) that rely on their funny on-mob effects outright (free stuns, disarms, on-click CC/debuffs, etc. - heretic funnyhand, xeno facehugger/pounce come to mind) and are prone to going down only to massive damage alone. This is fine. This is cool, actually - it's sort of mechs' deal and something that makes them standout and neat among other powerups. Those things against which mechs are good should not get a free, perfect cakewalk pass. If you disagree on that point, you should open a PR.

The biggest problem here is that currently robotics making stompy mechs fnr is a massive resource drain on the station if they aren't turning them around into bounties or otherwise paying off the crew for them. This is also a problem with guncargo but often less felt because guns are cheaper and the cargo budget isn't shared at the point of use (the lathe.) I think there's a separate discussion to have around ways you might limit or at least let crew more play around that behavior - maybe give departments a "material budget" that they can increase by doing their shit? (bounties, upgrades, keeping power on)atmos alarms clear, etc.?) Different topic.

As long as manny is playing at the level it currently is wrt: antags and what they can do, the fundamental ceiling about what non-antags can do to prep within their systems and departments should not be lowered.

As Timber and others have brought up over in the player's club, we have a real dilemma with progression antags and how they interact with RPR 5. Until that's resolved, this is more of a balance gripe than a policy gripe.

It reads like antag simpery. If you're going to go loud and be a big problem, antags should fuck the ore silo or bomb robotics. The price of waiting longer to go loud is that other people will have had more of an opportunity to prepare against it. The price of you as an antag being free to do so at some point is that the crew have good reason to prepare, and we shouldn't punish them for it.

What's corrosive to RP and gimmicks and security and command being distinctive is not prep. It's validhunting. It's actually deeply cheapening to the roles of both antags and crew to ask the crew to assume the total role of baby buffalo for you to jaunt into robotics anyway, funnyhand and kill them, before dragging them off to sac them if that's literally all you were going to do with your antag roll.

[britgrenadier1]

Nah, no more antag coddling. Robotics make mechs, that's their job.

[Vekter]

Already a thing. We've noted people multiple times in the past for spamming combat mechs without a reason under RPR 7: Do not powergame.

We've generally not been concerned with players making a single combat mech for giggles.

[Itseasytosee2me]

My potential code solution to the proposed problem is: Make some combat mechs require a part that comes from cargo that requires security access. Beepskies are limited in a similar fashion but still get made pretty often.

[Higgin]

My potential code solution to the proposed problem is: Make some combat mechs require a part that comes from cargo that requires security access. Beepskies are limited in a similar fashion but still get made pretty often.

Might work well enough. It's sort of odd that cargo can freely order a lot of shit that only requires purchase access alone anyways as long as they use the cargo budget.

I've never been sure if that's not an oversight tbh.

Could make it into a config thing since it mostly interacts with the RP ruleset? Oranges has said elsewhere that we don't design for different servers, and I struggle to imagine a solution like this being felt kindly on LRP (not that it might not be healthier to have the check be "actually ordering something" rather than shaft miners just not putting mats in - idk, but I like your idea.)

[Critawakets]

Already a thing. We've noted people multiple times in the past for spamming combat mechs without a reason under RPR 7: Do not powergame.

We've generally not been concerned with players making a single combat mech for giggles.

While it depends on exactly what the player's motivation for spamming combat mechs is, generally shouldn't it be considered powergaming if they're only making one combat mech for themselves compared to a lot of combat mechs for multiple people?

Making lots of combat mechs isn't powergaming unless you're in very specific scenarios, it's unlikely to help you and will probably just result in some antagonist punching your face off. It's more just a cool thing you can do to show off. You can't pilot more than one mech at a time and most combat mechs are too similar to really require making more than one type.

[Bmon]

imagine writing a full response only for the shitty forums to not post it. i am going to rewrite it in the most half assed fashion ever

Where the hell are the materials to make five combat mechs coming from? Those things are not cheap.

bitrunner+miner+its manuel people do their jobs. the station almost always has enough mats

[snip]

if you could gun cargo for it you should be able to make combat mechs for it. cult, rampant antags, so on, just have a justifiable ic reason

i know rp rule 7 already sort of kind of covers this type of behaviour i just want codified policy written down like we have for gun cargoing. prepping and gearing yourself up for a threat that hasn't happened yet is dumb and against the rules and this happens enough that i think it deserves policy

[BrianBackslide]

I view it like Botany. If you want any capacity to answer a threat, you need to be working on that mech half the shift ago. Mechs are a strong answer to things like blobs or xenos, and take considerable time, material, and research to build. Being stringent on roboticists doing their actual job reduces the plausible deniability for seeing a combat mech and greatly increases the tell that the roboticist is an antag.

Let roboticists say fuck.

[Higgin]

While it depends on exactly what the player's motivation for spamming combat mechs is, generally shouldn't it be considered powergaming if they're only making one combat mech for themselves compared to a lot of combat mechs for multiple people?

This'd be my intuition, and I think it's a great point that you bring it up. If they're sharing the love of stompy mechs, it seems like less powergaming than if they just make the one because it dilutes their ability to pursue an individual win condition.

I don't think the crew pursuing a collective win condition cooperatively should be considered powergaming. "Getting out together alive" is legit.

snap

I think making specific policy for mechs sort of misses the point and goes towards papering over a dynamic under which people have a better and often very reasonable case for having mechs or otherwise prepping on MRP right now.

It should be handled under powergaming or validhunting - as it's also been brought up by Rex, even, the guncargo ruling is already qualified.

[Bmon]

I think making specific policy for mechs sort of misses the point and goes towards papering over a dynamic under which people have a better and often very reasonable case for having mechs or otherwise prepping on MRP right now.

It should be handled under powergaming or validhunting - as it's also been brought up by Rex, even, the guncargo ruling is already qualified.

what I am saying is if there is no threat to you or the station you shouldn't be pregearing to the level of making combat mechs. i think that is a very reasonable request of the players

ideally most headmin rulings should point towards a written rule, most of them are just clarification

[Timberpoes]

Please don't stop roberticists from saying fuck. Their job is making roberts.

Clamp down on how people use roberts, totally fine and within the existing rules. Validhunt McGee having a robert is less of an issue if they have a good IC reason to have requisitioned a robert from robertics. And if roberticists are validhunting in roberts, the issue is less roberts and more validhunting.

[warbluke]

how many borg shells is too many borg shells? I've had some trouble in the past with this and this seems like as good a place as any to ask.

Plus, if I can't make combat mechs and no one wants augs that pretty much leaves this or doing the same thing with medbots, or making an Odysseus swarm.

[Higgin]

what I am saying is if there is no threat to you or the station you shouldn't be pregearing to the level of making combat mechs. i think that is a very reasonable request of the players

ideally most headmin rulings should point towards a written rule, most of them are just clarification

No, it's not reasonable.

Maybe in the imaginary. Not in practice.

Threat reports are unreliable by design. Restriction is unfortunately felt as artificial. A threat that might not be round-ending to the server may be round-ending - world-ending if you really want to try to imagine yourself in your character's shoes - to any one target.

We are not denied knowledge of how antags work or that there are threats in the world

You see a heretic rift on your way to work at robotics. Fifteen minutes later as you make borg shells. You hear "GELP HERTIC MED." Three people die, the heretic's identity is outed, the heretic is not one of them. They have not said a word - on comms or in person as far as you're aware.

You uneasily continue making unused borg shells and offer people augments.

Fifteen minutes later, you hear the distinctive sound of a Mansus hand from inside your department. You find a heretic + minion killing a coworker. You start to call for help, get jumped and killed alongside their target. Let's say they were ash, you get husked in the process, med overfloweth and you are functionally if not intentionally RR'd.

Let's say you were their target. Anecdotally, a lot of people do not like playing with the heretic trauma because it is also functionally RR.

You join dsay to watch them mostly not say so much as a word as they wrap up their remaining business before ascending.

This is entirely valid on MRP. Is it not?

If not, I need to go back and open a few tickets.

If so, why the fuck should the heretic above be given a free pass to not do the bare minimum of homework on looking in through the window, or checking the roundtimer to see, "oh shit they have a Durand, I'd better play around that."

If that Durand doesn't come out to gun down the dude who's doing a slow burn gimmick or being creepy - validhunting or going out of their way to punch down - who benefits?

It is very hard for me to not conclude that specific restrictions like this are cope before code to make MRP soft-play area for the antags people want to see pop off or get more of a free pass when primarily playing to their mechanics.

Unfortunately that cheapens the experience on both ends, unless again, you are just looking to punch down.

[Vekter]

It is very hard for me to not conclude that specific restrictions like this are cope before code to make MRP soft-play area for the antags people want to see pop off or get more of a free pass when primarily playing to their mechanics.

Your scenario is one wherein we would be fine with people making one combat mech. The only instance where OP's scenario comes into play is when roboticists start making them for no reason.

If you hear someone yelling about a Heretic over comms, you can start making one. You should not be spamming them unless there's a massive credible threat to the station, ie nuke ops or aliens. A single Heretic is a problem, but not a valid reason to make a bunch of mechs. More than one ascended is probably justification to make a few.

The only time where we would start asking questions about a single combat mech being built is if it's near roundstart and no threats have exposed themselves, but we would also do this for cases where, say, security starts printing a bunch of guns, or cargo is ordering mindshield crates and riot gear.

There's never going to be a hard-set line where this kind of thing is or isn't acceptable, since we don't want rules where we're just checking boxes, but if you can credibly link the current threat to the destruction of the station, I'm pretty sure you're good to take off the kiddie gloves.

Also I would argue this isn't necessarily telling roboticists they can't say 'fuck', it's telling them they can't say it too much.

E: I somehow completely missed critawaket's question

Already a thing. We've noted people multiple times in the past for spamming combat mechs without a reason under RPR 7: Do not powergame.

We've generally not been concerned with players making a single combat mech for giggles.

While it depends on exactly what the player's motivation for spamming combat mechs is, generally shouldn't it be considered powergaming if they're only making one combat mech for themselves compared to a lot of combat mechs for multiple people?

Making lots of combat mechs isn't powergaming unless you're in very specific scenarios, it's unlikely to help you and will probably just result in some antagonist punching your face off. It's more just a cool thing you can do to show off. You can't pilot more than one mech at a time and most combat mechs are too similar to really require making more than one type.

It completely depends on the scenario. Generally you shouldn't be making a single combat mech without at least some basic justification, but we ideally don't want half the server running around in Durands or Gygaxes unless there's some major fuckshit going on.

[feaster]

There's never going to be a hard-set line where this kind of thing is or isn't acceptable, since we don't want rules where we're just checking boxes, but if you can credibly link the current threat to the destruction of the station, I'm pretty sure you're good to take off the kiddie gloves.

This is the sort of thing that will scare everyone from making mechs ever, short of a war declaration. Look at the do-nothing traitors on Manuel because of these fuzzy rules like this. "Pretty sure" is frightening.

[Vekter]

There's never going to be a hard-set line where this kind of thing is or isn't acceptable, since we don't want rules where we're just checking boxes, but if you can credibly link the current threat to the destruction of the station, I'm pretty sure you're good to take off the kiddie gloves.

This is the sort of thing that will scare everyone from making mechs ever, short of a war declaration. Look at the do-nothing traitors on Manuel because of these fuzzy rules like this. "Pretty sure" is frightening.

There are exactly zero situations where this is going to lead to someone being banned unless they do it a lot. I mean like "Consistently doing it round after round after being asked not to". If the only thing you need to not do something is the fear that an admin might ask you why you're doing it, then there's no help for you.

[conrad]

I echo timber's words. You are already empowered to deal with it if it reaches powergaming levels. The entire point of roboticists is to have fun with our build-a-bears.

Never thought I'd see the SS13 equivalent of "this meeting could've been an e-mail" but this policy thread could've been a bus question.

[Higgin]

There's never going to be a hard-set line where this kind of thing is or isn't acceptable, since we don't want rules where we're just checking boxes, but if you can credibly link the current threat to the destruction of the station, I'm pretty sure you're good to take off the kiddie gloves.

This is the sort of thing that will scare everyone from making mechs ever, short of a war declaration. Look at the do-nothing traitors on Manuel because of these fuzzy rules like this. "Pretty sure" is frightening.

There's never going to be a perfect no-trust solution that is in any way sensitive to what we want. Situations get messy.

The best we can hope for is to be as clear as possible about the principles we're working from and the values we're trying to serve.

My worry is that focusing on stompy mecha and means rather than ends here reflects that there is a conception of the ends that doesn't really care about how the game is experienced for nonantags on MRP. I'm worried that we are smuggling in that idea of whose experience matters and what MRP serves by pointing at robotics and saying "that's the one officer, that's the one that can still reliably inflict bleed wounds with their ballistics on my jaunting/teleporting/stunning/CCing antag."

If there's a balance issue there, it needs to be changed as a matter of balance. Balance is in service of a game being fun for both sides.

My concern is that this is not - even though I take a lot of comfort in Vekter's interpretation and I'd like to see it reaffirmed by headmin opinion,

hey vekter when are you running

I can't count on it to stand in all situations or everybody to be reading from the same prayer book as Vekter.

That's why the normative part of this conversation and the broader rules about validhunting and powergaming are, in my mind, a lot more relevant to keep in focus here.

[Vekter]

There's never going to be a hard-set line where this kind of thing is or isn't acceptable, since we don't want rules where we're just checking boxes, but if you can credibly link the current threat to the destruction of the station, I'm pretty sure you're good to take off the kiddie gloves.

This is the sort of thing that will scare everyone from making mechs ever, short of a war declaration. Look at the do-nothing traitors on Manuel because of these fuzzy rules like this. "Pretty sure" is frightening.

My concern is that this is not - even though I take a lot of comfort in Vekter's interpretation and I'd like to see it reaffirmed by headmin opinion,

hey vekter when are you running

I can't count on it to stand in all situations or everybody to be reading from the same prayer book as Vekter.

1) I'm not.
2) I'm also not advocating to change the rules in any way. We're already empowered to act on issues like this as it is.

[feaster]

Is it ever NOT okay for a roboticist to build 1 durand?

[CMDR_Gungnir]

The only time where we would start asking questions about a single combat mech being built is if it's near roundstart and no threats have exposed themselves, but we would also do this for cases where, say, security starts printing a bunch of guns, or cargo is ordering mindshield crates and riot gear.

It completely depends on the scenario. Generally you shouldn't be making a single combat mech without at least some basic justification, but we ideally don't want half the server running around in Durands or Gygaxes unless there's some major fuckshit going on.

I don't play Roboticist often, because at least back when I used to main it, most of the time my co-workers were window-lickers who wanted to do nothing but build mechs and even then could barely pull that off (Which is a good thing other than the Optics of the department, as imo there are very rarely any situations in which more than one roboticist is needed, but that's neither here nor there and I have a few thoughts on how we could achieve that but they'd require some code changes and that's beyond the scope of here). But despite that, most of my statics have a background in Robotics, and often focus on different parts of it. One of them REALLY does like mechs. It would be fun to be able to build one just for the heck of it because I don't play Robotics often and that character likes mechs.

Would that earn me a bwoink? Would it earn me a note? I'd assume not because of what those people I used to share the department with were like, but that was also a very long time ago.

I know the answer is probably "no, you're fine, just don't make it an all the time thing" but then that needs to be the codified part. It's kinda spooky to just be operating on the unspoken exception when you see something said so often.

[Vekter]

The only time where we would start asking questions about a single combat mech being built is if it's near roundstart and no threats have exposed themselves, but we would also do this for cases where, say, security starts printing a bunch of guns, or cargo is ordering mindshield crates and riot gear.

It completely depends on the scenario. Generally you shouldn't be making a single combat mech without at least some basic justification, but we ideally don't want half the server running around in Durands or Gygaxes unless there's some major fuckshit going on.

I don't play Roboticist often, because at least back when I used to main it, most of the time my co-workers were window-lickers who wanted to do nothing but build mechs and even then could barely pull that off (Which is a good thing other than the Optics of the department, as imo there are very rarely any situations in which more than one roboticist is needed, but that's neither here nor there and I have a few thoughts on how we could achieve that but they'd require some code changes and that's beyond the scope of here). But despite that, most of my statics have a background in Robotics, and often focus on different parts of it. One of them REALLY does like mechs. It would be fun to be able to build one just for the heck of it because I don't play Robotics often and that character likes mechs.

Would that earn me a bwoink? Would it earn me a note? I'd assume not because of what those people I used to share the department with were like, but that was also a very long time ago.

I know the answer is probably "no, you're fine, just don't make it an all the time thing" but then that needs to be the codified part. It's kinda spooky to just be operating on the unspoken exception when you see something said so often.

If there are any credible threats at all that have been shown (ie people know and are discussing the existence of a traitor/BB/Changeling) then I would not bwoink you about it.

Honestly, as long as you're not building one outright near round start, I'd probably not even concern myself with it. We just don't want people building multiples for the sake of handling threats that they don't know about yet.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

The only time where we would start asking questions about a single combat mech being built is if it's near roundstart and no threats have exposed themselves, but we would also do this for cases where, say, security starts printing a bunch of guns, or cargo is ordering mindshield crates and riot gear.

It completely depends on the scenario. Generally you shouldn't be making a single combat mech without at least some basic justification, but we ideally don't want half the server running around in Durands or Gygaxes unless there's some major fuckshit going on.

I don't play Roboticist often, because at least back when I used to main it, most of the time my co-workers were window-lickers who wanted to do nothing but build mechs and even then could barely pull that off (Which is a good thing other than the Optics of the department, as imo there are very rarely any situations in which more than one roboticist is needed, but that's neither here nor there and I have a few thoughts on how we could achieve that but they'd require some code changes and that's beyond the scope of here). But despite that, most of my statics have a background in Robotics, and often focus on different parts of it. One of them REALLY does like mechs. It would be fun to be able to build one just for the heck of it because I don't play Robotics often and that character likes mechs.

Would that earn me a bwoink? Would it earn me a note? I'd assume not because of what those people I used to share the department with were like, but that was also a very long time ago.

I know the answer is probably "no, you're fine, just don't make it an all the time thing" but then that needs to be the codified part. It's kinda spooky to just be operating on the unspoken exception when you see something said so often.

If there are any credible threats at all that have been shown (ie people know and are discussing the existence of a traitor/BB/Changeling) then I would not bwoink you about it.

Honestly, as long as you're not building one outright near round start, I'd probably not even concern myself with it. We just don't want people building multiples for the sake of handling threats that they don't know about yet.

By the time you'd even have the research you would have surely heard of a threat unless it's a greenshift, in which case it's probably fine under Greenshift Projects rules.

But assuming we have the research and materials roundstart for hypothetical example sake, the idea and sentiment behind the question is just "character would go WOAHHHH COOL ROBOT" and it would not be a common occurrence (from me, at least), and certainly not used to validhunt unless it's like, blob/xenos tier threat.

[Vekter]

The only time where we would start asking questions about a single combat mech being built is if it's near roundstart and no threats have exposed themselves, but we would also do this for cases where, say, security starts printing a bunch of guns, or cargo is ordering mindshield crates and riot gear.

It completely depends on the scenario. Generally you shouldn't be making a single combat mech without at least some basic justification, but we ideally don't want half the server running around in Durands or Gygaxes unless there's some major fuckshit going on.

I don't play Roboticist often, because at least back when I used to main it, most of the time my co-workers were window-lickers who wanted to do nothing but build mechs and even then could barely pull that off (Which is a good thing other than the Optics of the department, as imo there are very rarely any situations in which more than one roboticist is needed, but that's neither here nor there and I have a few thoughts on how we could achieve that but they'd require some code changes and that's beyond the scope of here). But despite that, most of my statics have a background in Robotics, and often focus on different parts of it. One of them REALLY does like mechs. It would be fun to be able to build one just for the heck of it because I don't play Robotics often and that character likes mechs.

Would that earn me a bwoink? Would it earn me a note? I'd assume not because of what those people I used to share the department with were like, but that was also a very long time ago.

I know the answer is probably "no, you're fine, just don't make it an all the time thing" but then that needs to be the codified part. It's kinda spooky to just be operating on the unspoken exception when you see something said so often.

If there are any credible threats at all that have been shown (ie people know and are discussing the existence of a traitor/BB/Changeling) then I would not bwoink you about it.

Honestly, as long as you're not building one outright near round start, I'd probably not even concern myself with it. We just don't want people building multiples for the sake of handling threats that they don't know about yet.

By the time you'd even have the research you would have surely heard of a threat unless it's a greenshift, in which case it's probably fine under Greenshift Projects rules.

But assuming we have the research and materials roundstart for hypothetical example sake, the idea and sentiment behind the question is just "character would go WOAHHHH COOL ROBOT" and it would not be a common occurrence (from me, at least), and certainly not used to validhunt unless it's like, blob/xenos tier threat.

It would take some kind of action on the part of the person building it for me to balk at a single combat mech being built. Like the absolute worst case scenario is me going "okay but don't validhunt and don't make more".

[CMDR_Gungnir]

The only time where we would start asking questions about a single combat mech being built is if it's near roundstart and no threats have exposed themselves, but we would also do this for cases where, say, security starts printing a bunch of guns, or cargo is ordering mindshield crates and riot gear.

It completely depends on the scenario. Generally you shouldn't be making a single combat mech without at least some basic justification, but we ideally don't want half the server running around in Durands or Gygaxes unless there's some major fuckshit going on.

I don't play Roboticist often, because at least back when I used to main it, most of the time my co-workers were window-lickers who wanted to do nothing but build mechs and even then could barely pull that off (Which is a good thing other than the Optics of the department, as imo there are very rarely any situations in which more than one roboticist is needed, but that's neither here nor there and I have a few thoughts on how we could achieve that but they'd require some code changes and that's beyond the scope of here). But despite that, most of my statics have a background in Robotics, and often focus on different parts of it. One of them REALLY does like mechs. It would be fun to be able to build one just for the heck of it because I don't play Robotics often and that character likes mechs.

Would that earn me a bwoink? Would it earn me a note? I'd assume not because of what those people I used to share the department with were like, but that was also a very long time ago.

I know the answer is probably "no, you're fine, just don't make it an all the time thing" but then that needs to be the codified part. It's kinda spooky to just be operating on the unspoken exception when you see something said so often.

If there are any credible threats at all that have been shown (ie people know and are discussing the existence of a traitor/BB/Changeling) then I would not bwoink you about it.

Honestly, as long as you're not building one outright near round start, I'd probably not even concern myself with it. We just don't want people building multiples for the sake of handling threats that they don't know about yet.

By the time you'd even have the research you would have surely heard of a threat unless it's a greenshift, in which case it's probably fine under Greenshift Projects rules.

But assuming we have the research and materials roundstart for hypothetical example sake, the idea and sentiment behind the question is just "character would go WOAHHHH COOL ROBOT" and it would not be a common occurrence (from me, at least), and certainly not used to validhunt unless it's like, blob/xenos tier threat.

It would take some kind of action on the part of the person building it for me to balk at a single combat mech being built. Like the absolute worst case scenario is me going "okay but don't validhunt and don't make more".

This is fair, then.

[NecromancerAnne]

Literally not a problem until someone does it enough to make it a problem. It doesn't sit right with me to tell players they can't touch a section of their own role/department or they'll get in trouble by just looking in its direction.

Keep it an IC issue (sec can come bust up your mechs and you can't really do much about it, imo, if you didn't get authorization, I think that falls into the contraband situation), keep it to only when someone misbehaves with the mechs/does it round to round to powergame/validhunt.

[TheBibleMelts]

poor roboticists, getting bullied in policy threads all of the time. i think there's ways to curb specific players being a consistent issue with the way they do their jobs, and it's not in limiting that job for everybody else.

[Redrover1760]

This is basically just dont prep for antags before you catchy any windy of them, a general rule that exists already for stuff like securing brig, proofing atmos against ai, etc.

And considering it'll take at least 20 minutes for tech if you dont grief miners by skipping mining tech 9 times out of 10 an antag will say or whisper fuck by the time, well.

Skill issue for antags. Fuck with robo, get bulldozed by a gygax. Same as, Fuck with Xenobio, get xenobio'd on. Fuck with genetics, dont act surprised if the geneticist has hulk. Fuck with medbay, dont act surprised if you get sawed. Fuck with engineering, get weldered or shocked by an electrified door. Fuck with sec, dont ask surprised they have batons and disablers or maybe lethals. Either prepare emps, scout out your targets, ambush the robo when they are out of their mech (this has happened to me before, its a really good strategy), or otherwise prepare to take on a mech.

Mass producing mechs doesn't seem innately bad to me. Its simply giving security an advantage, by, like doing science. Yeah sure, maybe you shouldn't be patroling in a mech fnr, but its wrong if you were to bwoink a robo for giving security a combat mech or 4 and it being properly stored in armory. Of course, blah blah blah mrp rules dont powergame but still. Also probably dont do it every shift either. Case in point science is a department about improving other departments and as it turns out they can improve other departments by giving mechs, xenobio extracts, weapon upgrade kits, telescopic shields, better surgeries, better tools, the entire tech tree, genetic empowerment, etc to other departments.

Its not fnr, its literally their job. An assistant tiding batons from cargo is powergaming. A robo making a combat mech for sec is doing their job just like making a medical mech for medbay. For himself for self defense is reasonable if there's antagonistic activity.

The point of Science is to advance the crew, its fair they are given leniency to be well armed in their respective departmental technology.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

What's the point of this policy? If it's a blue alert shift, you know there's threats. You don't know if they're traitors or a heretic or changelings, but I fail to see why that would be relevant, since the only difference is whether you get stabbed with an armblade or stabbed with an edagger, or slashed with a heretic blade. So building combat mechs on blue alert is never FNR, you just don't know specifically what way somebody will try to stab you this shift.

So unless Bmon just wants robotics to not build combat mechs on green alert, which I doubt was their intention, what's the point?

[chocolate_bickie]

My potential code solution to the proposed problem is: Make some combat mechs require a part that comes from cargo that requires security access. Beepskies are limited in a similar fashion but still get made pretty often.

We could always move combat mech boards over to the sec lathe

[MooCow12]

My potential code solution to the proposed problem is: Make some combat mechs require a part that comes from cargo that requires security access. Beepskies are limited in a similar fashion but still get made pretty often.

We could always move combat mech boards over to the sec lathe

This, paired with the brig having its own robo-bay now, would just incentivize roboticists asking for brig access and building an exosuit fabricator in the brig where they can play as the security team's technical specialist/powergamer.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I dont get this complaint TBH. The mech bay is likely to have mechs added to it as the round goes on, thats whyits there. Building mechs is like, 50% of the roboticists job. Maybe more, since people dont seem to go get cyborged very much so they usually dont build shells until its far enough into the round for posibrains to start pinging. If you walk into robotics with a stunhand and are surprised when the roboticist bails and dives into a gygax instead of obediently dying for your kill counter you have just had a critical learning experience; namely that as the shift time goes up, so do the chances the roboticist has built big ol deathbots. Antags arent the only group who increase in threat over time, the station are also supposed to do that. Cargo make enough money to order whatever the heads want in response to emergencies, medbay slowly eradicate the very concept of death with healviruses and chemfactories, botany develop the weed that makes you high forever and transplant it with a stinging nettle, and robotics build mechs.

If the roboticists are building tricked-out combat mechs, hopping into them, and wandering the halls looking for valids to gun down, that's already against the rules and covered. But just building them and stocking in the mechbay / replacing sec's PADDY with a durand/ Giving the CMO an oddyseus called DR BEAM is what you expect roboticists to be doing, not some bizarre aberration to be shut down.


One pretty important difference between "Robotics are building a weapon to surpass metal gear" and guncargo is that guncargo aren't doing their job? Theyre supposed to be making money for the enrichment of themself and station, not forming a sec-rival paramilitary run by UPS, but mechs are what roboticists do when the posifish arent biting.

[Zishy]

oh my let me tell you my story about robotics.

i always loved to make mechs as its kind of the endgame for robotics. i have eaten several notes over it from admins before with less then stellar reasoning behind them aswell. it was stated to me several times that they are too costly for the stations material supply, ok... i just go back to atmos. the next shift i sell off freon and order 50 crates of iron for the roboticist to make him smile and to make a point.
i have seen people spam 20 cyborg shells and not once get talked to by an admin for that even though the cost of cyborgs used to be higher then it is now.

the argument to make mechs only if you know there is a threat is absolutely idiotic. are you seriously contemplating of building a few combat mechs once the blob has eaten tcoms and the engine and spaced half the station? it ties into the problem of dynamic spawning round ending threats around an hour into the shift every single time. blobs, dragons, pirates and it usualy ends by meteors. dynamic is just fancy word for the same things over and over and ive seen chaotic bullshit shifts with a single antag and shifts that felt like green with 10 antags on station.

With the addition of the paddy it seems to me that mechs clearly have a place in the game and if robos arent allowed to make mechs and store them in their mechbay, whats the point of roboticist? i already have to wait for t3 lasers to not strain the stations materials too hard even though cargo can basicaly now spawn infinite amounts of materials which was something i remember admins were vehemently against in the last big community QA session i think 2 months ago when i proposed being able to upgrade the ORM with stockparts to give more materials and/or have a bluespace Miner that spits out materials in exchange for excess power that engineering can produce. Now that cargo has a god damn console that spawns infinite materials the robo should not have to even think about that as a hinderance anymore.

The last time i played robo i made 4 ripleys and turned 2 into paddies while leaving 2 for experiment and then just made 2 of each other mech which were mostly used by the 3 ais we had at shiftspawn

[nukularpower]

For what its worth, I vastly prefer how Paradise handles this, with unapproved combat mechs basically being treated like syndi contraband (at least to the point that having or building one will get you at least demoted and likely brigged too)

Also my inner crotchety old man is showing but the Paddy is probably the worst addition in forever, the last thing TG sec needs is MORE buffs relative to antags

[Pandarsenic]

Don't take away what little content robotics has other than managing the cyborg horde.

[Higgin]

For what its worth, I vastly prefer how Paradise handles this, with unapproved combat mechs basically being treated like syndi contraband (at least to the point that having or building one will get you at least demoted and likely brigged too)

I'm not sure how you explain exactly where that comes from, but it seems like the more natural approach to me too.

I think it's gotta be at least in part a culture thing because here, everyone sort of knows just how dangerous it is, fighting is fun, that sec isn't gonna be there to pick up defending you, that there are global threats, etc.

The whole notion of approval doesn't really exist either, unless it's through sec, who are unaccustomed of being asked for it (and recruiting the crew in general.)

Often you're too busy to go and really scrutinize this stuff. I mostly only take issue with somebody being armed when somebody else takes issue with it sho isn't, and even that's imperfect (protip: ask to search the people who report crimes or issues too if they're trying to make somebody else more vulnerable.)

Sec doesn't really have the horses to go off after all our free-spirited Durand-makers and I wouldn't necessarily ask them to. It's enough to say right now that I wouldn't count on sec as a limiter, the better way to look at this thread is "do robos need a limiter?" and the responses so far are pretty roundly "not like this."

[DrAmazing343]

As someone who built their entire character's base off the one purple-haired roboticist title screen; Robotics is probably okay as-is policy wise. I've never EVER been bothered for producing my >one hour Durand with weapons, admin-wise. In-character? I only really do it when there's a threat, or no oversight. When Sec has bothered me with it on greenshifts, I've agreed to get a Weapons/Mech Permit, but it's really never been an issue.

Does this mean my experience is the norm, or even consistent among many of my colleagues?

I'm not sure! But I do know that acting as I do, not spamming death mechs each round, keeping to one, being A LITTLE discretionary instead of throwing it in Sec/Admin's faces?

You're probably gonna be fine. I understand the want and hope for codification/policies in regards to Roboticist and mechs, but I really think that the basic Roboticist job doesn't need policy as-is.

[Cheshify]

Not everything powerful needs to be regulated on Manuel. Making combat mechs and then getting raided by security or demoted by your RD or Captain is a great example of IC conflict. We have a more roleplay server and we should encourage this issue to be handled via roleplay. If people just do persistent mech spam it can be handled under roleplay rule 10.

Chesh, Fikou, and TBM - +1