Donator
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion asks for tranquilisers to only take effect if the individual hit by them has 50 armour or less.Optionally also separate the tranq gun into two SWEPs, the "weaker tranq gun" that operates with the above behaviour under all conditions - And a "normal tranq gun" that only has the above behaviour if the hit individual is not of the same faction (May further optionally decide to distinguish D-Class (and/or SCPs in the case of 035) from everyone else) - Or just only do the latter, up to you.
Alternatively, make it chance-based: If the individual has more than 50 armour, the chance of the tranquilising taking effect decreases in proportion to the amount of armour the target has, with 0-50 being 100% chance.
The intention being that the current roles that possess tranqs should ideally have unaffected performance with tranqs when it comes to (assisting in) arrests (ISD, Response Units, Captains, CoS), while limiting their combat capacity in the context of raids.
EDIT:
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
There was this, asking for Security Sergeants to be given tranqs:
Different because I'm not advocating for increased access to tranqs - In fact, this goes more in the opposite direction by limiting tranq capabilities. I otherwise agree with why that in particular was denied.
This is also a direct formalisation of the idea that Aphex raises in that thread and that I further iterate on.
People also keep making ruleplay suggestions asking for it to be banned in combat (most particularly with regards to raids)
Different obviously, because this is a content change, aiming to try and mechanically solve the gripes that players seem to be having with tranqs, and therefore not introducing any new Staff headaches when it comes to rule enforcement.
There is also an active suggestion to nerf tranqs against TBs:
This is different as it is a broader and more sensible scope of nerf, and may be a viable alternative, as this does not outright make tranqs completely ineffective against TBs as that suggestion asks.
There's also an active suggestion to enable the use of tranqs while downed:
And it's different because while these are both about tranqs, this is about changing how tranq works, whereas that suggestion is about tranqs in relation to the downing mechanic. These changes may additionally harmonise in some way.
Different because I'm not advocating for increased access to tranqs - In fact, this goes more in the opposite direction by limiting tranq capabilities. I otherwise agree with why that in particular was denied.
This is also a direct formalisation of the idea that Aphex raises in that thread and that I further iterate on.
People also keep making ruleplay suggestions asking for it to be banned in combat (most particularly with regards to raids)
Different obviously, because this is a content change, aiming to try and mechanically solve the gripes that players seem to be having with tranqs, and therefore not introducing any new Staff headaches when it comes to rule enforcement.
There is also an active suggestion to nerf tranqs against TBs:
This is different as it is a broader and more sensible scope of nerf, and may be a viable alternative, as this does not outright make tranqs completely ineffective against TBs as that suggestion asks.
There's also an active suggestion to enable the use of tranqs while downed:
And it's different because while these are both about tranqs, this is about changing how tranq works, whereas that suggestion is about tranqs in relation to the downing mechanic. These changes may additionally harmonise in some way.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- + May solve perceived community imbalances regarding the use of tranqs in raids, in a sensible way that doesn't make them outright banned rules-wise or otherwise useless for raid defence
- + Makes more general sense that someone wearing a bunch of bulky armour would more resistant to being slowed by a tranq dart - And since non-combatives generally don't wear armour, tranqs would generally continue to affect them as usual
- + A potential balancing method for tranqs that could be adjusted at Content's discretion
- + Disincentivises ISD from seeking combat in relation to raids -Relatively minor, as even though this is against server rules, in my experience, this is something which is sufficiently moderated and taken action against when it happens; Although a little more deincentivisation couldn't hurt
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- - Relatively complex implementation for a considerably minor thing - May not be worth the effort
- - Depending on how it's implemented, may cause issues for D-Class/035 using tranqs
- - Unintended gameplay consequences of changing tranq mechanics - In terms of certain arrest situations; It's not the intention for this to impact normal ISD gameplay, but you can't rule out teething problems at the very least
- - Abuse/Metagame - If the distinction becomes a faction thing, suddenly tranqs become a method to check for disguised CI or maybe even D-Class. The chance-based solution prevents this to an extent
- - (UK) Technically a CI & GOC raid buff
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I kinda have a habit of seeing a regular thing that people bring up in suggestions getting put down, and wondering if there are other solutions to it. This in particular, my impression of what's going on with tranquilisers, is that Staff are not really convinced there's anything to fix here - The community seem to be pretty divided on whether or not there's a problem with tranqs, and I kinda see it both ways:I agree that there's a bit of unfairness when it comes to F just being able to send a GSD with a tranq in to defend against a CI/GOC raid, and tranqs have significant raid stopping power - I can see a need to redress this in some way. I'm not particularly sure that this is the correct way? But I'm trying.
But at the same time... Tranqs I feel are... Fine? The way I see it, it's kind of a really weird grey area. I also get any hesitancy that may be present with regards to this, as it is just this weird mix and doing something may potentially make it worse for your troubles, when it was kind of relatively okay to begin with? I'd also understand an addition to the FAS as a result of the uptick in tranq-related suggestions.
I also recognise that this may complicate things like trying to arrest people with armour, which is often needed - Like maybe you have some GSD, CM, or maybe even an MTF Enlisted that's screwing around, breaking FLC/CoC etc. - Idk the specifics of that exact interaction, I'm aware that things also get punished internally in MTF regiments, but I also acknowledge that there are also some IC situations where action would need to be taken in the moment - And decreased tranq effectiveness in those circumstances would make things harder; This kind of case is why I raised both the ideas of making it into two separate SWEPs for ISD to have an unaffected version, so that they can still arrest anyone with armour; As well as the idea of making it chance-based so that in this context, armour becomes more of a defeatable counterplay, rather than a total shutdown of being able to arrest someone.
There is also the fact that ISD & GSD get regular guns, so the arrest process (and/or assisting) could reasonably be lengthened out from "immediately tranq and cuff" to "lower armour, then tranq and cuff." Even though I have the WL, I'm not particularly experienced enough in ISD gameplay to know whether or not this would be a good or bad thing, although my immediate thoughts there are that it could be a bit more fun for them? I'm unsure.
I don't envy any side of this, really. You've got some players that are fine with it and don't want changes, you've got players that are not fine with it and want changes, you've got players wanting GOIs to have a source of tranqs, which is its own can of worms - And then if you do decide to approach this, there's a chance you make things worse and you've wasted your effort on nothing. Nobody wins, yaaay!
...Do you think I'm reading too deep, or?
Last edited:
are we deadass
Senior Game Master