Accepted Enraged 096 shouldn't be beamable/cuffable

This suggestion has been accepted for future development.
Status
Not open for further replies.

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

When 096 is enraged, make either containment beams and/or cuffs not work on it, whether by outright failing when attempted, or simply by having the cuffs instabreak when cuffing an enraged 096.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

Nope. I've made several 096-related suggestions in the past, but I don't recall myself or anyone else raising issues along this vein.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

  • + No more idiots trying to beam & cuff a very obviously enraged 096 that still has targets

  • + Prevents minges doing the above on purpose to try and make 096's breach worse for F or similar, related abuse of this

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

  • - Misusing attempting to beam/cuff 096 as a way to tell whether or not 096 is enraged, since apparently people need that

  • - Dev work

  • - Potential for undesired bugs where 096 could erroneously be unbeamable/uncuffable

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

Hi, cope suggestion time. Haven't made one of these in a while. I would like to direct your attention to this clip from a breach I had a couple days ago:
This is not the first time I have had someone beam a very obviously enraged 096 - In the past, I recall a few instances where I was either in the middle of breaking down a BD like this, or otherwise trying to get hold of staff to help with a problem while trying to find a target (especially since I said in LOOC that that's what I was doing), and people have just walked up, beamed me, then cuffed me and tried to bring me back to my CC while I was still enraged.

😭I know this seems like such a minor issue, but clearly people are dumb enough about this specific thing that may there could be something done about it? I also wouldn't mind a temporary rule put in place while a content-based solution is worked on, but the problem I see with that is stuff like false positives (people genuinely not knowing 096 is enraged, which definitely seems to be the case) and also potentially a kind of undesired 'chilling effect' type result, where people become hesitant to beam/cuff 096 in general, which I don't think would have a desired effect on the server (and server health), which is generally why I think a content-based solution to this problem would be better.

There's also no gameplay benefit to being able to beam 096 while enraged, since the slowing effect doesn't take effect - However, you can sitill cuff an enraged 096 after beaming it. Since 096 HAS to kill its targets when enraged, I don't see how this can be used for anything other than harm - If you were to theoretically allow someone to bring a still-enraged 096 all the back to its CC, it will just immediately break back out and head for its target. And theoretically, you could just keep beaming and cuffing it and putting it back in its box repeatedly. I highly doubt that that's an intended behaviour.

And yes, if you beam an enraged 096 as it kills its last target, the slowness does take effect. ...Here's the thing. once that last target is dead, 096 has to sit still for long enough that it would wear off anyway by the time 096 can get back up. It's also an extremely cheesy way to deal with it and IMO shouldn't be encouraged. Just learn how to RC the damn thing instead of... Whatever this is. Stop doing this. Stop spam beaming everything you don't understand, please, I'm begging you. My most preferred solution to this would be that someone just straight up explodes when they try to beam an enraged 096. Like just grenade explosion centred on self. Become 096 target may also be kinda funny, but those also have bad gameplay implications.

...And please don't try to tell me "It isn't possible to beam and cuff an enraged 096." For one, I agree that it shouldn't be possible, but I'm absolutely positive that as things are right now, it is. Feel free to test it. I can't imagine it's intended - But I think that this is an oversight more than it is a bug.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.