Lethals should do stamina damage

[Skotcher]

I think lethals are fine and that theres a few things extra that need to be considered about lethals.

Firstly the more damaged you are, the slower you move, to lump a stamina penalty on that too would be too much. not only that but some cases you get an additional reduced movement debuff for a few seconds though I usually see this from getting hit in melee.

Secondly organ damage is a thing, people might survive getting hit by a SPES 12 or AI lethal turrets with enough time to patch themselves up and heal, but quite often some of your internals are also dead, lose a lung and your stamina regen takes a big hit.

I'm a big fan of play/counter play, action and reaction  mentality when it comes to games, I think if someone opens fire on you, there needs to be a good chance for you to run away/escape as a viable strategy, a hit to stamina might mean instead of making it to the next department to call for help you barely make it out the door and that could be also make lethals too powerful to play against.

I do think the organ damage side of things could do with a bit more tweaking to make robotics a more in demand department but im not sure how it stacks up with the vulnerable organ trait, someone with a better understanding of the inner workings of damage and lethal weapons might have a better picture and knowledge to work from.

The issue with the play/counter play argument is that more often than not security will just tank lethals to ensure you get the 30 seconds stun from a batong, because they can just ask for help. You have to consider the fact that vast majority of the time the person with lethals is an antagonist, and one of the weaknesses of antagonists is being outnumbered by the amount of crew, that is why I believe lethals being more powerful, with the stamina damage effect, would not be too overpowered, yes it would make fleeing/running away from an armed gunman harder, but it would also people would be less likely to just face tank lethals to rely on radioing for the most likely guaranteed help that will come, specially since life alerts and health alerts exists.
Lethals dealing stamina damage would not be a huge advantage in a 2 vs 1 scenario, because even if you manage to land 2 shots on one officer, the other would still be up and able to finish stunning you, even if you were to also land some shots on them, most likely they would still be able to fully stun you and radio for help/cuff you, meaning the current dynamic of antagonists being more powerful in 1 vs 1 scenarios but in a huge disadvantage vs groups would remain.
Also, the stamina damage thing when chasing someone would again be mostly an issue if you're being chased off by an armed gunman by yourself, and generally if you're in such scenario usually either the station is already in high alerts after that person, or you're in an isolated place that you are more than likely to die, stamina damage or not, reason I still believe the lethals dealing stamina would not affect scenarios like this too harshly.
Lastly, I saw some people suggest this in the discord and I heavily agree, making only certain lethals deal stamina damage, and obviously some dealing less than others, like maybe lasers not dealing stamina damage since they just burn right through your skin, and only kinetics dealing stamina damage as they are directly punching you.
Ah, also armor and such lowering the amount of stamina damage you take from the shot.

Given a bit of thought, I think this idea has some merit. It is frustrating to hit an officer with 3 or 4 AP rounds, only for them to just charge you down and baton you - If luck is on their side, they might even get a few shots from your own gun on you before they fall over from being in crit. Still, I think that adding stam damage on top of the generous amounts of brute damage kinetics already do might favor them a bit too much. 

Let me provide an alternative. Instead of armor reducing the stamina damage you take from kinetic bullets, ranged armor protection comes at the cost of stamina damage in place of brute damage. For example: If you would take 22 brute from a .22 round, but are wearing armor, then instead you trade brute damage for stamina damage. (11 brute is prevented, so maybe you take 11 stamina damage) The justification being: the force absorbed by the armor vest knocks the wind out of you. 

This would mean that lethals against unarmored foes are more likely to kill/maim, but lethals against armored foes will have a greater chance at stunning/slowing your opponent. This would also mean that higher damage options for kinetics would have a tangible trade off when utilizing AP vs regular rounds. This would likely need to have a max amount of stamina damage that could be applied from a bullet so very high damage options don't act as a taser+.

I think this could also give some weaker lethal kinetics, such as the Silenced Pistol, a bit more leverage in confrontations against security. If security sprints after an antag relentlessly and is hit with a .22 round, then they take a bit of brute damage and may take enough of a hit to their stamina to cause them to fall down. Not long enough for the antag to pounce on them, but long enough for the antag to get away.  

Thoughts?