-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Adds a mindshield to the Head of Personnel. #28216
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: adddfff33 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: adddfff33 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: adddfff33 <[email protected]>
You should grab pre-approval for this, as it is a balance change. Also: Note that #28173 does not give all the heads mindshields, just blacklists them from spawning as antag. This would probably be preferable on this PR as well. |
Co-authored-by: CRUNCH <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: adddfff33 <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code is good.
The PR to remove heads from antags is not made because of power scaling, but because of it detracting from people who actually want to roll command and play that role. A large amount of command players do so for the chance to roll antag and it shows. This is not fair on newer players in a department, nor people playing generally. I could not care less about how 'weak' CE antag is compared to RD or HOP antag. At the end of the day, it is not difficult to steal all access. I think the changing of the argument in each of these 'alternative' PRs is intentionally bad faith, and attempting to change the argument surrounding what that original PR is removing antag heads for. |
!wiki_label |
Hey there. As we are approaching the 30 day vote limit on this PR, I regret to inform you that this PR is not currently poised to pass either the balance or design vote. The teams comments on the PR as as follows: [DESIGN OBJECTIOR 1] Approving this only as an alternative to the command antagonist ban. Objecting otherwise, one or other, this is preferred [DESIGN OBJECTIOR 2] Waiting to see the result of the Heads antag restriction PR before I vote on this [DESIGN OBJECTOR 3] Agreeing with [DESIGN OBJECTOR 1] - if this is an alternative to the command antagonist ban then I approve this. [Edit]: objecting since 28173 was merged. [BALANCE APPROVAL 1] believe HoP should be mindshielded regardless of antagonist status stuff, the HoP is technically second in command. If there is no captain, they step up and should be full vetted by CC in the first place. [DESIGN OBJECOTR 4] If #28173 goes then I do not want this. Balance objectors 3 and 4 left no further feedback. If you wish to continue to push for this PRs addition, I would strongly suggest reaching out to the teams over the next few days. Regardless of the outcome, I do want to thank you for your contributions to the codebase. Contributors like you help keep paradise the place we all love. |
What Does This PR Do
This PR adds a mindshield to the Head of Personnel.
Why It's Good For The Game
This PR is a less extreme version of #28173 which removed ALL command from being eligible to roll roundstart. But I don't think that it's fair. Most command antag complaints have been towards HoP antag, which is yeah, antag on easy mode, and RD with the reactive armor, but that's not the scope of this PR. There are barely any complaints about CE, QM, CMO antags. And ICly, to mindshield the next in line for command + AA makes a lot of sense for NT. Most of the command antag fishing is done on HoP.
Images of changes
Testing
Loaded in as HoP. Put on sec huds. Saw that I have a mindshield.
Declaration
I don´t know if THAT counts, but the ´no command antag´ PR was approved. This is just a less extreme version of that.
Changelog
🆑
add: A mindshield to the HoP.
/:cl: