Hey hey this item is really slow to pull! Fix it!

[Ed Venture]

Mordent I was not trying to discredit your post at all. Also the wiki is not set in stone, it is a guideline not a hard fast rule on how to play a job. It's nothing else but to give you a idea on how you should start out on a job. I've been playing security non stop for almost seven years now and my playstyle and the reasons I try and save people were molded by and taught by other HoS players and tips from the administration. I still feel you are wrong and that's okay. I never once said that saving anyone as Security meant playing doctor in fact I said the opposite by saying I would take hurt people to Med-bay and leave it to the doctors. In fact I get non-stop thanks for helping people get to medbay when they can't and thanks for when I help people out as Security when nothing is going on. It's all about positive interaction and even Admins have went on record in saying I am a good HoS/Security player for doing this. I can't protect people from an antag if I just let them die.

If you wish to keep this conversation going you can PM here on the forums or see if I'm in the IRC as I dont want to derail the thread further either. I also apologize for making you think I was trying to discredit you. I just believe you're wrong on that point. Like I said it's all pretty situational which I'm sure you can understand and appreciate.

See on my end I've had nothing by negative experiences with this change as it made the game slower and it makes security waste more time then naught. Even more so if it's one officer by themselves trying the juggle the workload that is supposed to be shared by four other officers. I've had no trouble working with other departments in the past before this change by the way. I've already went into great detail for almost a month on how this change effected my role as a Security officer and rather not go into it again. Please go back into the thread if you must hear them.

---

I'd rather the feature just be reverted entirely, but if a compromise has to be made, consider the following:

What if pulling lockers and crates, and ONLY lockers and crates, rapidly drained your stamina until you became winded, at whuch point the slowdown kicks in? This would permit short distance hauling while encouraging the use of other systems for long distance transport.

I agree with Noah.

[babayetu83]

I'd rather the feature just be reverted entirely, but if a compromise has to be made, consider the following:

What if pulling lockers and crates, and ONLY lockers and crates, rapidly drained your stamina until you became winded, at whuch point the slowdown kicks in? This would permit short distance hauling while encouraging the use of other systems for long distance transport.

This is a great compromise.

it is a good idea but why have a compromise at all when just having the feature axed is on the table

[Musketman12]

I'd rather the feature just be reverted entirely, but if a compromise has to be made, consider the following:

What if pulling lockers and crates, and ONLY lockers and crates, rapidly drained your stamina until you became winded, at whuch point the slowdown kicks in? This would permit short distance hauling while encouraging the use of other systems for long distance transport.

This is a great compromise.

it is a good idea but why have a compromise at all when just having the feature axed is on the table

Yeah I don't see how having crates and lockers nerfed is needed when you can just kill the whole thing.

[Frank_Stein]

I'd rather the feature just be reverted entirely, but if a compromise has to be made, consider the following:

What if pulling lockers and crates, and ONLY lockers and crates, rapidly drained your stamina until you became winded, at whuch point the slowdown kicks in? This would permit short distance hauling while encouraging the use of other systems for long distance transport.

This is a great compromise.

it is a good idea but why have a compromise at all when just having the feature axed is on the table

Yeah I don't see how having crates and lockers nerfed is needed when you can just kill the whole thing.

Because some people actually like and enjoy the new feature, ya dinguses

[Ed Venture]

As long as the votes are tied a compromise is on the table as well. I rather the crates and lockers be affected then everything.

Edit: Were tied at the time I made that post.

[UrsulaMejor]

Why are you saying it's tied when it's 27% remove and 73% keep with varying levels of adjustments?

[Ed Venture]

Why are you saying it's tied when it's 27% remove and 73% keep with varying levels of adjustments?

You should know by now that I go by the two majorities when it comes to voting.

---

Also that's not a fair way to judge it Urs as there is one option to remove and multiple options for changing it.

[Noah Buttes]

Why are you saying it's tied when it's 27% remove and 73% keep with varying levels of adjustments?

That's misconstruing the poll. All the poll options are mutually exclusive so you can't just lump them together like that.

To be fair, a First Past the Post voting system isn't ideal for this situation. Using some kind of preferential cardinal score vote would work better.

[Ed Venture]

Agreed I think the poll is to see what the community wants on all sides of the argument. Another way to get some much needed feedback.

[UrsulaMejor]

Why are you saying it's tied when it's 27% remove and 73% keep with varying levels of adjustments?

That's misconstruing the poll. All the poll options are mutually exclusive so you can't just lump them together like that.

To be fair, a First Past the Post voting system isn't ideal for this situation. Using some kind of preferential cardinal score vote would work better.

I don't think it is. The last few replies have been about reverting the feature entirely, to which ed replied that a compromise is on the table because the poll is tied.

This implies some sort of tie between "revert" and "don't revert", but that's not even close to the case; there's only 1 revert option, and 4 keep options. You can't just compare any two options and say they're tied when they're more of a gradient than standalone responses; they run from "revert entirely" to "keep as is", and the majority of people want to keep the feature with modifications

[Ed Venture]

Currently in order of the most percentage . Remove the big penalties is first. Remove it is second and keep it as is with tweaks are the top 3. Voting and polls are easy to understand. In any case the change is most likely getting reworked in some way.

[Noah Buttes]

Why are you saying it's tied when it's 27% remove and 73% keep with varying levels of adjustments?

That's misconstruing the poll. All the poll options are mutually exclusive so you can't just lump them together like that.

To be fair, a First Past the Post voting system isn't ideal for this situation. Using some kind of preferential cardinal score vote would work better.

I don't think it is. The last few replies have been about reverting the feature entirely, to which ed replied that a compromise is on the table because the poll is tied.

This implies some sort of tie between "revert" and "don't revert", but that's not even close to the case; there's only 1 revert option, and 4 keep options. You can't just compare any two options and say they're tied when they're more of a gradient than standalone responses; they run from "revert entirely" to "keep as is", and the majority of people want to keep the feature with modifications

You can't extrapolate from the poll results because we don't know what the alternative preferences of the voters might be. We can't statistically say that there is, in fact, a gradient as you claim. It's perfectly possible that everyone who couldn't have a feature exactly the way they wanted it would prefer that the feature just be removed outright. Now, while such a scenario is very unlikely, we can't just take the convenience of assuming that it's untrue. Making such an assumption would be both unfair and, in the case that it actually WAS true, grievously counterproductive.

So I made an approval poll instead. http://www.strawpoll.me/12552816

With this poll, everyone votes for the options (intentional plural) that they would be okay with having in the game. Since you can vote for more than one option, you don't have to feel tied to voting for a popular opinion.

In the end, we'll wind up with the least disagreeable option on top.

I'd like to stress how important it is that you vote for ALL your preferred choices. Don't just vote for one unless you can ONLY tolerate one choice. Here's the link again: http://www.strawpoll.me/12552816

[Noah Buttes]

While the sample size of the poll is still too small to make any definite determinations, the results are certainly fascinating from a purely statistical point of view.

Edit: I sent this before I was finished.

I was going to say that the distribution seems somewhat similar to the FPTP poll on the forums with a few notable exceptions that the original poll couldn't account for.

[Noah Buttes]

I just realized that we should probably set a time limit for how long the poll can stay open.

What do you think would be a good cut-off point?

[misto]

to like this sunday i guess? theres been plenty of time

only thing is i bet theres tons of players who never touch the forums, but theres still been useful feedback there