Tasers are bad. Stun bullets too.

[Weavel]

how about instead of horridly complicated awful things for guns, the detective has to do this

Browning 1911 (brown grips to suit his jacket yo!!)
8 shots

step 1: put magazine in gun
step 2: click gun to lock slide, as a tradeoff for extra rounds
step 3: oh wow that's it all u have to do ok!!
then you click people to shoot them like other guns


or even better, give him a .357 revolver, because they can also load .38 special rounds entirely fine irl

not every item needs to have a complicated backfire or loading system or anything of the sort, most items are really simple and that's a lot more fun

[DrivetimeMozol]

I think we already suggested that. Magazine + gun --> click gun --> shoot gun.

[Klayboxx]

I really like the new changes to stunning but I think tasers are an integral part of security and with this new change I think they can be allowed to live.

Bring Back Gun Locks

[Cogwerks]

Gun locks? Bahaha. No.

[Convair880]

If the taser/.38 nerf is here to stay in its current implementation, there are two aspects I'd like to mention:

1) In my opinion, it would be a good idea to upgrade the taser's battery to six shots in total for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I've seen numerous instances of laser guns being used as taser replacements recently; presumably some people (SecHoPs in particular) consider the latter to be useless now. [Yes, I am aware such players should be reported, but that's not relevant here.] To a degree, I can understand them - it's basically "one hit slows them down" vs. "one hit merely confuses their movement" and the issue of magazine capacity.

This ties in with my second point: the average sec guard would be hard-pressed to score two hits, let alone three in a row in a ranged firefight. I understand the idea behind the nerf, to reduce the number of "one stun and you're done" situations and all, but I don't think the current way tasers work is enjoyable for officers. It requires a good amount of skill to use guns effectively in this game, there is (due to the small magazine) almost no margin for error and the unpredictability of random movement patterns doesn't make it any easier to follow up with a second shot in an area/room that isn't narrow. Sometimes, the projectiles just lag through the target as well.

There's more to security than plain combat (social interaction etc) and I do believe it's unreasonable to expect expert marksmanship training from every officer. For what is supposed to be their primary ranged, non-lethal weapon, it's severely compromised. And as I said in an earlier post, people already didn't want to pick that job before the nerf. Two extra shots for the taser would at least alleviate the problem somewhat. If Cogwerks is willing to consider further steps, I'd say the first "confuse movement without slowing them down" part should be skipped completely.

2) From what I can tell, the nerf affects everything that fires taser projectiles, i.e. also the AI turrets. For an experienced player, there have always been ways around them, yet they offered at least some deterrence against Joe McAverage. I feel this may not necessarily be the case anymore. To demonstrate what I mean, let's have a look at how turrets work and yes, I timed this stuff with a stopwatch:

- Detect intruder and ready turret = ~5 to 8 seconds.
- Acquire target = ~1.5 seconds.
- Fire at target = every ~1.5 seconds.

Ignoring the various means of teleportation, there are a number of influencing factors:

- Depending on lag and how often the machine loop (I think that's the relevant one) runs, it may take more time for the turrets to react.
- If there are multiple targets in range, the turret will alternate fire between them.
- Turrets retract immediately as soon as all targets leave the protected area. It doesn't matter if they are just one tile outside said area.
- Turrets can be destroyed with one laser or revolver shot, even if they are still retracted.

So, with all of this in mind, you hopefully can see the issue. The protected area between the AI mainframe and the surrounding walls is only one tile wide and it's arguably fair to say that nobody will stay there long enough for at least ~11 seconds to get stunned. Before the nerf, it was potentially possible to score a lucky hit and yell for help. Now, the AI is more or less completely defenceless to everybody - the shutters aren't very helpful, as intruders generally know how to disable APCs. It's not as bad for the upload itself, because there are a couple of windows to slow people down.

[Sundance]

stuff

Yeah gotta agree on this one. I feel that nerfing the taser to this degree and then adding in revolvers to substitute was just asking for trouble. Would I be right in thinking that security is even LESS picked now that this is the case?
IMO the taser should work as such
1st shot) Slows down the target sufficiently as so you can land a second shot easier
2nd shot) Stops the target. The target can still punch,throw,shoot, but he is dead in the water. This means he can be stunned with another taser shot, or you can move in with the stun baton/flash
3rd shot) Downs the target. Target is stunned.
I'd also agree in raising the tasers battery too. A battery of 6 is actually not too bad seen as it takes 3 shots to actually fully stun a target.

I've said before that the AI's turrets are wayyy too weak. It's gotten to the stage where the ai would have to bolt his core at round start and that ain't fun either. It should take 4 laser shots to bust a turret, and even then it shouldn't completely remove them. They should be repairable with a welder.
EMP grenades should obliterate them in one nade.

[zeknife]

The taser guardbuddies are also affected, and their AI doesn't at all take into account that it has to hit multiple times before it can try cuffing someone, making them pretty useless

[Karakoran]

Since revolvers are removed from the SecVats last I checked, tasers should probably get some sort of buff. It's extremely difficult to fight an antagonist without any sort of effective range gear now. The Stun Baton is basically the cornerstone of Security now, but getting up close is very difficult if the enemy is shooting lasers at you, or spitting acid, or shooting magic missiles. Not to mention getting up close too eagerly will get you cluwned, neuro-stung, hit by a microbomb, or one of the million other bad things enemies can do.

The revolver was actually kind of useful. Sadly useful in the, "now security can effectively kill an antag" kind of way and not in any kind of non-lethal way. I think I used it to finish off a wizard once, then never grabbed it ever again. Firing 3 bullets into a dude is kind of ridiculous as any kind of non-lethal apprehension. If anything you'll have to burn half the med supplies in Brig just to keep the guy alive when you could've stunned him and gotten him there unharmed. Not to mention making the next 20 minutes of his round Hell by forcing him to limp to Medical and hope a doctor is there to dig the bullets out.

I don't see why the old tasers were so bad, honestly. Maybe you could be stunned for too long or something, but otherwise it was all fine. It was certainly better than having to get shot like four times to fall down. Perhaps one shot could slow you down greatly and then the second knocked you down for a very brief window of time? You wouldn't go down in one hit and still have a chance, but you also couldn't just shake off getting straight up tased. If you get shot twice with a 4-shot taser you deserve the stun, really.

[Embolism]

It certainly seems like Command and Security personnel are now far more prone to using lethal force for situations that don't necessarily warrant it. My suggestion would be to reduce the number of shots required to stun to 2. First shot slows, second shot stuns. The confusion shot is IMO a terrible idea as it doesn't help you land the next shot much, making it a bit of a waste; plus it messes up gunbuddies. And having to use three out of four taser shots makes it too unreliable.

[Clarks]

A traitor is a dangerous guy with license to kill. Taking him on alone is a bad idea that is not guaranteed to succeed.
You want to raise your odds? Get help from bystanders, use flashbangs (try not to stun yourselves, eh). There's more to playing cop that shooting pew pew with a taser.
Traitors, on the other hands, are going to be fighting against a mob most of the time; the last thing they need is a mob with better guns.

Maybe raising the taser's clip won't be catastrophic. But complaining that it isn't efficient at stopping traitors is failing to understand that: A, the taser is not your only weapon. B, if you go alone against a traitor you shouldn't have the upper hand.

On a separate issue, if you think people don't play security because the crew is hostile and the weaponry insufficient; think of all the dull rounds you played when there were no overt traitors, or when the crew mobbed them before you got your chance.
Patrolling the station is a boring occupation compared to most other jobs, and if you want to beat up a traitor you can just go vigilante.

[Marquesas]

I concur with Clarks on this. Tasers shouldn't be a one-shot magic to immediately stop anyone.

[Lantern]

A traitor is a dangerous guy with license to kill. Taking him on alone is a bad idea that is not guaranteed to succeed.
You want to raise your odds? Get help from bystanders, use flashbangs (try not to stun yourselves, eh). There's more to playing cop that shooting pew pew with a taser.
Traitors, on the other hands, are going to be fighting against a mob most of the time; the last thing they need is a mob with better guns.

Maybe raising the taser's clip won't be catastrophic. But complaining that it isn't efficient at stopping traitors is failing to understand that: A, the taser is not your only weapon. B, if you go alone against a traitor you shouldn't have the upper hand.

On a separate issue, if you think people don't play security because the crew is hostile and the weaponry insufficient; think of all the dull rounds you played when there were no overt traitors, or when the crew mobbed them before you got your chance.
Patrolling the station is a boring occupation compared to most other jobs, and if you want to beat up a traitor you can just go vigilante.

I've been playing sec a lot lately, and honestly I have yet to find the changes to stunning to be all that bad. (Now, when i play the AI, thats a different story, and the problem with the AI turrets is a totally different subject.) Clark's is completely right. If you are going into a dangerous situation, you ask for back up, you use other tools that are available to you, and you try and approach the situation tactically. And, I also agree with the fact that patrolling the station at 45 minutes with NOTHING happening, can really convince you to toss yourself into the crusher. But at that point I try and start some shitty ticket giving gimmick or something to entertain myself till the shuttle is called.

[KikiMofo]

But the thing is most of the time it's only one security officer on the station at all. I mean why would anyone pick that if they know all that's going to happen is they are the only thing that has to go after every antag on the station with shitty tasers? Plus I'm not saying I told you so about people turning more to lethal force but I think I told you guys so. You think being stunned and brigged for a couple minutes as traitor is crappy? How about just getting straight up killed all the time? Sure you might lose your fancy items but if you are capable you can always get them back and really you don't need them to do stuff. Maybe you have to work alittle more to do what you want but that's how things go.

[Sundance]

Ugh
Traitor isn't meant to be invulnerable to security. You're not alien, and your not armed to the teeth like an operative.
-->Pre-nerf, 1 traitor vs 1 security guard in a gun standoff, unless the traitor was using stuns himself, chances are the officer will win because he hits once while the traitor with the gun will have to hit many times.
-->Post-nerf, now the odds have completely reversed, and your average sec guard ain't going to be doing too well in a firefight at all against a traitor.

My argument is not reversing it entirely, but making your humble officer with his taser on par with a traitor and a gun, some happy medium between the two above points. Now a traitor has a chance of fighting, 1 on 1, but will find it difficult (albeit not impossible) to fight 2 officers. A 4-shot taser which takes 4 shots to actually stun is not fair whatsoever, and it is understanding that security ditched them and took the revolvers/lasers instead.

[Embolism]

A traitor is a dangerous guy with license to kill...
...if you go alone against a traitor you shouldn't have the upper hand...
...and if you want to beat up a traitor you can just go vigilante.

This seems to show a mentality where traitor = rampager = fun, and anything that can possibly stop rampages = unfun. Very rampager-centric.

IMO the traitor seems to be primarily designed as an assassin and saboteur, not a space rambo. Assassins excel at killing people at unawares, but tend to be disadvantaged in open combat.

While I do think one-shot tasers are too much, 3 shots with the first shot being utterly useless is not the way to go about it. All it is encouraging is for Heads and Security to use lethal force with worrying regularity, and that's not good for anyone.

Again, my suggestion is to make the first shot slow and the second shot stun. That should nerf tasers without encouraging Security to ditch it in favour of lethal weaponry.