Lethals should do stamina damage

[Angel]

Currently, mostly lethal fire arms only does brute/burn damage, with the exception of the plastic bullets from the clock which deals like 5 stamina.
I believe lethal vs stuns combat would become more balanced if lethal fire arms also did some stamina damage, since currently let's say you are facing a security officer with a predator revolver, you might shot them twice and put them in crit, but if you exchanged bullets and they also hit you twice, you're stunned, your revolver on the floor, and because of how crit works, the officer might be able to pick up the revolver and further stun you with their baton, and call for help over the radio.
If lethals also did stamina damage, in this exchange both parties would be stunned, meaning you would get up and be able to pick up your revolver, if the officer screamed for help over radio, you would have time to run away or finish them off because you wouldn't have been batonned as both you and the officer were on the ground for the same amount of time.

I also believe it would be interesting if lethals did stamina damage because getting shot would make someone lose their footing a little, get some stammer and what not, maybe if not direct stamina damage, some sort of slowdown if you've been shot, or atleast high caliber weapons dealing stamina damage.

[Taylorstar]

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.

[Angel]

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.

[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?

[Agent reburG]

I mean, you aren't really supposed to go toe to toe against armored targets like Security, especially when not having the advantage of surprise. 

I think in general, more silenced weaponry or stealthy in general really fit more the intend of RP. 

While not the topic, it feels like most weaponry doesn't really allow for a healthy middle ground between leaving evidence to solve the crime (Laser Weaponry for example) or being rather for obvious open combat (space-12 etc.).

[GARGATHUGANOKSREVENG]

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. 

Makes sense and I like it

[Honeybadger]

and because of how crit works, the officer might be able to pick up the revolver and further stun you with their baton, and call for help over the radio.

I'd like to point out that this goes both ways. Because of how crit works it's just as likely that they slip into crit at the wrong moment, dropping their baton and being completely at the antag's mercy. Both of these options have happened to me plenty of times.

[Angel]

I mean, you aren't really supposed to go toe to toe against armored targets like Security, especially when not having the advantage of surprise. 

I think in general, more silenced weaponry or stealthy in general really fit more the intend of RP. 

While not the topic, it feels like most weaponry doesn't really allow for a healthy middle ground between leaving evidence to solve the crime (Laser Weaponry for example) or being rather for obvious open combat (space-12 etc.).

Actually, most antags have the upper hand against security in a 1vs1, c-saber, katana, wrestler belt, spes 12 and predator revolver are all items that can somewhat easily take out a lone sec off, changeling stings also are hard counters to solo security, wrestler and werewolf can also easily deal with security.
I am pretty sure the entire point is the other way around, seurity is not supposed to go toe to toe with antagonists by themselves, that is why most shifts you can have like 5 officers 3 assistants 1 HoS yet only 4 traitors, the numbers only really get skewed at ridiculous high populations.
Also for your second point, RP is not the only game mode in the game, and from my experience stealth in general doesn't exactly works well in RP, but this is personal experience and will vary from player to player.

---

and because of how crit works, the officer might be able to pick up the revolver and further stun you with their baton, and call for help over the radio.

I'd like to point out that this goes both ways. Because of how crit works it's just as likely that they slip into crit at the wrong moment, dropping their baton and being completely at the antag's mercy. Both of these options have happened to me plenty of times.

Again this is personal experience and will vary from player to player, but from my experience crit roll seems very merciful, more often than not the officer being up long enough to fully stun antagonists while in crit, I would argue being in crit should be more punishing but this is a conversation for another thread, since this thread is more about lethal weaponry and kinetics.

[Lord_earthfire]

To be honest, i don't think the problem are lethals here.

It's how easy it is to get someone down with the baton.

Nerf the stamina damage from 130 down to 90. So baton stuns would only be guaranteed after 3 hits, 4 if you take stamina buffs and stability. Of course less once you wasted sramina beforehand.

You can dodge tasers, even in melee. You hardly can do that with batons.

[Kotlol]

As much as I like the idea... I prefer earthfires baton nerf more.
I already think batons are too powerful unless you are under meth and such.

But what I think is more IMPORTANT is that stamina damage should be done depending on where you hit someone.

Like hitting someone in the arm might make them drop something.
Shooting them in the legs might cause a miniture stun or lose stamina.
Chest does oxygen damage on the side.
Head does brain damage and the most brute damage.

I have no problem buffing lethals. But only if you aim differently.

[bamlord]

To be honest, i don't think the problem are lethals here.

It's how easy it is to get someone down with the baton.

Nerf the stamina damage from 130 down to 90. So baton stuns would only be guaranteed after 3 hits, 4 if you take stamina buffs and stability. Of course less once you wasted sramina beforehand.

You can dodge tasers, even in melee.  You hardly can do that with batons.

In my opinion (as someone who's most played job is sec) the baton is indeed just too strong. I think 30 seconds is way too long to be stunned from a few baton hits, and in an ideal world arresting someone would be less click with baton and more skill based, using CQC stuff like pins and aggressive grabs etc. It's not fun to lie there for 30 seconds unable to do anything at all, there's no urgency to it.  Either getting someone down on the floor or keeping them down to get them in cuffs should be more difficult.

[Snowy :D]

To be honest, i don't think the problem are lethals here.

It's how easy it is to get someone down with the baton.

Nerf the stamina damage from 130 down to 90. So baton stuns would only be guaranteed after 3 hits, 4 if you take stamina buffs and stability. Of course less once you wasted sramina beforehand.

You can dodge tasers, even in melee.  You hardly can do that with batons.

In my opinion (as someone who's most played job is sec) the baton is indeed just too strong. I think 30 seconds is way too long to be stunned from a few baton hits, and in an ideal world arresting someone would be less click with baton and more skill based, using CQC stuff like pins and aggressive grabs etc. It's not fun to lie there for 30 seconds unable to do anything at all, there's no urgency to it.  Either getting someone down on the floor or keeping them down to get them in cuffs should be more difficult.

I believe there was a tread a few years back about reducing the 30 second stun. It wasn’t particularly well received by everyone if I recall, but personally I’m not against it. 30 seconds feels a bit overkill considering how quickly sec can cuff you.  Changing it to something like 15 wouldn’t harm sec as much as people would think. That being said, I don’t play sec too often so perhaps there’s something I’m missing here.

[SalmonidJester]

To be honest, i don't think the problem are lethals here.

It's how easy it is to get someone down with the baton.

Nerf the stamina damage from 130 down to 90. So baton stuns would only be guaranteed after 3 hits, 4 if you take stamina buffs and stability. Of course less once you wasted sramina beforehand.

You can dodge tasers, even in melee.  You hardly can do that with batons.

In my opinion (as someone who's most played job is sec) the baton is indeed just too strong. I think 30 seconds is way too long to be stunned from a few baton hits, and in an ideal world arresting someone would be less click with baton and more skill based, using CQC stuff like pins and aggressive grabs etc. It's not fun to lie there for 30 seconds unable to do anything at all, there's no urgency to it.  Either getting someone down on the floor or keeping them down to get them in cuffs should be more difficult.

I also have this opinion, I think less stun time but also maybe a quickened cuff time when on the ground or with grabs/pins would help in the feeling that getting stunned isn't basically the end of any fight.

[Angel]

To be honest, i don't think the problem are lethals here.

It's how easy it is to get someone down with the baton.

Nerf the stamina damage from 130 down to 90. So baton stuns would only be guaranteed after 3 hits, 4 if you take stamina buffs and stability. Of course less once you wasted sramina beforehand.

You can dodge tasers, even in melee.  You hardly can do that with batons.

In my opinion (as someone who's most played job is sec) the baton is indeed just too strong. I think 30 seconds is way too long to be stunned from a few baton hits, and in an ideal world arresting someone would be less click with baton and more skill based, using CQC stuff like pins and aggressive grabs etc. It's not fun to lie there for 30 seconds unable to do anything at all, there's no urgency to it.  Either getting someone down on the floor or keeping them down to get them in cuffs should be more difficult.

I believe there was a tread a few years back about reducing the 30 second stun. It wasn’t particularly well received by everyone if I recall, but personally I’m not against it. 30 seconds feels a bit overkill considering how quickly sec can cuff you.  Changing it to something like 15 wouldn’t harm sec as much as people would think. That being said, I don’t play sec too often so perhaps there’s something I’m missing here.

As a sec main, yeah I feel 15 seconds would be more interesting, its long enough to cuff 1 person, but short enough that if you're dealing with a 2vs1 or a larger groups, you most likely wouldn't be able to keep them all down.
With the current 30 seconds, it is not too hard for a single security officer keep 3 people down by themselves.

[Cal]

If you let a security officer come within melee distance of you they are already taking a massive risk in that it can be easily shoved out of their hand and leave them mostly helpless