Crew: Improvisation, Innovation & Fortune

[Teasq]

This is part 2 of a 3 part document which seeks to provide overarching changes to the weapons of Funky Station, to bring the areas touched more in line with antagonist-optional design.

This part focuses on crew weaponry. That which can be improvised, made or found.

[ReconPangolin]

I agree with the general sentiment although the document doesn’t really touch on job specific weapons which I find to be more flavourful and adds some distinction between how different departments engage in combat.

If part 1 is sec/command and part 2 is crew I’m assuming part 3 would be antag so this would be the document to explore non-standard crew weapons as a part of combat as a whole. Engineering can condense gas to make certain weapons, logistics can buy guns but also grow dangerous produce, medical can manufacture explosives and toxins etc.

Edit: I missed that part 3 was confirmed to be antags in part 1.

[Teasq]

I agree with the general sentiment although the document doesn’t really touch on job specific weapons which I find to be more flavourful and adds some distinction between how different departments engage in combat.

If part 1 is sec/command and part 2 is crew I’m assuming part 3 would be antag so this would be the document to explore non-standard crew weapons as a part of combat as a whole. Engineering can condense gas to make certain weapons, logistics can buy guns but also grow dangerous produce, medical can manufacture explosives and toxins etc.

The purpose of this document isn't to expand on departmental gameplay, it's to provide a foundation for conventional combat that crew has lacked due to the role's history has a non-aggressor.

However, I'd also like to argue against the fact that departments lack ways of engaging in combat differently. Here's a quick list I made up to show this. It's not exhaustive by any means, but I think it gets my point across:

• Cargo/Logistics has the entirety of the request computer at their disposal as well as botany, which is known to be able to get just about any chemical, including illegal ones and the strongest poisons in the game
• Service has food and miscellaneous slip objects, pies, etc. Arguably the weakest combat-wise, but has diplomatic leverage through the provision of food and drink.
• Medical has chemical weapons as well as a complete monopoly on medicine
• Science has access to their protolathe, artifacts and anomalies
• Engineering has, quite literally, the entire power grid at their disposal, electricity as a general stopgap measure (electrified fences can kill really fast), gas from atmoshperics (frezon, trit, plasma), and canister bombs

All departments currently have very unique ways to engage in unconventional combat. This document establishes that conventional combat options are lacking, as well as that damage as a whole for things that are not conventionally weapons is lacking.

While department-unique weaponry may be more flavourful - which I think is debatable - the purpose of this document is to provide a foundation, or in other words a plate for you to eat your yummy food on.

TLDR; these changes are not meant to expand on departmental differences, but rather establish a foundation for conventional options to crew. I also think that departments are currently differentiated sufficiently with the options that they have unique to them. You just have to be creative.

[ReconPangolin]

I agree with the general sentiment although the document doesn’t really touch on job specific weapons which I find to be more flavourful and adds some distinction between how different departments engage in combat.
If part 1 is sec/command and part 2 is crew I’m assuming part 3 would be antag so this would be the document to explore non-standard crew weapons as a part of combat as a whole. Engineering can condense gas to make certain weapons, logistics can buy guns but also grow dangerous produce, medical can manufacture explosives and toxins etc.

The purpose of this document isn't to expand on departmental gameplay, it's to provide a foundation for conventional combat that crew has lacked due to the role's history has a non-aggressor.

However, I'd also like to argue against the fact that departments lack ways of engaging in combat differently. Here's a quick list I made up to show this. It's not exhaustive by any means, but I think it gets my point across:

• Cargo/Logistics has the entirety of the request computer at their disposal as well as botany, which is known to be able to get just about any chemical, including illegal ones and the strongest poisons in the game
• Service has food and miscellaneous slip objects, pies, etc. Arguably the weakest combat-wise, but has diplomatic leverage through the provision of food and drink.
• Medical has chemical weapons as well as a complete monopoly on medicine
• Science has access to their protolathe, artifacts and anomalies
• Engineering has, quite literally, the entire power grid at their disposal, electricity as a general stopgap measure (electrified fences can kill really fast), gas from atmoshperics (frezon, trit, plasma), and canister bombs

All departments currently have very unique ways to engage in unconventional combat. This document establishes that conventional combat options are lacking, as well as that damage as a whole for things that are not conventionally weapons is lacking.

While department-unique weaponry may be more flavourful - which I think is debatable - the purpose of this document is to provide a foundation, or in other words a plate for you to eat your yummy food on.

TLDR; these changes are not meant to expand on departmental differences, but rather establish a foundation for conventional options to crew. I also think that departments are currently differentiated sufficiently with the options that they have unique to them. You just have to be creative.

Maybe I could have worded it better but what I was trying to say is it’s hard to address crew combat without looking at it holistically with their unique options.

The questions I was mainly wondering are along the lines of:

Where do these weapons fit into the whole ecosystem? Are we aiming for these to be the vast majority of weapons used by the crew against sec or as a backup? Is there any reason for departments to communicate and cooperate when gearing up if they already have basic materials?

[Teasq]

Where do these weapons fit into the whole ecosystem? Are we aiming for these to be the vast majority of weapons used by the crew against sec or as a backup?

They're meant to be the foundation of combat for crew. These are weapons that anyone can grab and use, or anyone can produce with a level of investment. This is why it's aimed at accessibility. Some departments do benefit from these changes more than others, but I think that will deepen the differences between departments anyway. Not every department has to be equally capable of conventional revolt.

Is there any reason for departments to communicate and cooperate when gearing up if they already have basic materials?

Departments already have reasons to do so. Service cannot acquire an autolathe without acquiring it from science, nobody can have materials without cargo, engineering is generally good to have on your side as they are easily the most capable of shutting down entire segments of the station, etc. The level of cooperation will vary, but it is very unlikely for a single department's worth of people to reliably revolt and stand up against security. This is where the agency of players come in. If they see what's happening and decide to join in, they can. Many people have and many people will use their department's unique privileges to gain the upper hand.
Again, this document is not here to deepen departmental gameplay and differences, but rather to set up a foundation for conventional weapons, of which there are very little with very inconsistent damage numbers that aren't intuitive.

If you have suggestions for things to add that happen to favour a specific department, you are more than welcome to comment them and I will add them if it does not creep the scope of the document too much. I am already planning on adding molotovs to the document.