Proper Gunlock vote.

[DrunkenFlyingDemoman]

Due to the inability of a certain individual, it appears that the other vote on gunlocks was completely and totally useless, unnecessary and, in all, completely a waste of time.

As thus, enjoy this semi-official vote, you may add your comments, thoughts, criticism or the like.

[Name Changing Autist]

Other voting system was better.
I still hold the opinion that it's bad.

Removes some of the fun to be had, a single disarm could fuck you over utterly and the feeling that, that could happen at any second was great.

Note that's not my only reason.

[Atheist Sex God]

Personally, I feel.. Weird about this matter. On the one hand, I think it's the greatest thing ever. Stops people from just walking into the armory and turning themselves into walking tanks.

On the other hand, if they have the mind to do that, they probably already have the means/can easily gain the means to do so. It's a nice idea, really, but I believe it should be severely limited, I.E. only on the more rare, hard to get/create weaponry, I.E. Advanced Lasers, Cap's Laser. Though that might just be silly, honestly.

I feel that while it COULD be a good idea, it severely limits traitors and other antagonists while at the same time making it harder on normal players or even griefers. It also fucks over heads to an extent, becuase if they die and get cloned, they have to get reimplanted to even use their weapon.

Tl;dr, Gun Lock has potential, but is bad because of reasons.

[Name Changing Autist]

Oct 12, 2013 5:34:00 GMT -5 Atheist Sex God said:

I believe it should be severely limited, I.E. only on the more rare, hard to get/create weaponry, I.E. Advanced Lasers, Cap's Laser. Though that might just be silly, honestly.

I quite like this idea: lasers, tasers, energy guns are unlocked but the more dangerous and harder to get weaponry requires an implant or a fitting ID. Harder to get and dangerous weaponry being Laser Cannons, Adv. Eguns and Cap's laser, with any others I left out of this due to bad memory that can be obtained and are extremely dangerous.

[austupaio]

In general, I like the Gunlock.

To address a couple point.

-Only lock advanced weapons.
I don't like this, how do you decide which weapons? Even then, players then have to memorize which ones are locked and which aren't, making it even more inconveniant.

-The Gunlock severely limits antagonists.
In what way?

[Nibbles]

I like Gunlocks as well. I play traitor the majority I am on, and people see how I operate, if the gun locks were removed, a robust player could have the best armor in the game and enough weaponry to back that up. I say it levels the playing field quite alot.

[Name Changing Autist]

-Only lock advanced weapons.
I don't like this, how do you decide which weapons? Even then, players then have to memorize which ones are locked and which aren't, making it even more inconveniant.

Deciding weaponry isn't too hard, the advanced ones refers (I believe) to the ones made by Science (Adv. Eguns recharge, Laser Cannons deal very high damage) and are deemed, well more advanced. Memorising isn't too hard which is locked and if you can't bother examining to see whether it's locked or not than you're a lazy twit.

-The Gunlock severely limits antagonists.
In what way?

For limiting Antagonists, I can't honestly think of a point. Weapon Locks tends to dick over regular citizens who lack access to Loyalty Implants or a appropriate ID.

I like Gunlocks as well. I play traitor the majority I am on, and people see how I operate, if the gun locks were removed, a robust player could have the best armor in the game and enough weaponry to back that up. I say it levels the playing field quite alot.

But isn't that saying "Gun locks are good because they prevent robust players who aren't a member of security or have acquired Loyalty Implants/an ID/an unlocked weapon from attacking me as a Traitor and as such making it safer for me."

I understand that more than half of the playerbase we have will immediately form a lynch mob when an Antagonist is spotted and try to hinder them no matter what making his life very difficult, but honestly in my opinion to decide to counter an aspect of this by disabling them unless they pass a certain criteria is poor. Even though I'm ninety-nine percent sure that isn't the reason it's currently in though but that's mainly what it serves to do.

[Nibbles]

I like Gunlocks as well. I play traitor the majority I am on, and people see how I operate, if the gun locks were removed, a robust player could have the best armor in the game and enough weaponry to back that up. I say it levels the playing field quite alot.

But isn't that saying "Gun locks are good because they prevent robust players who aren't a member of security or have acquired Loyalty Implants/an ID/an unlocked weapon from attacking me as a Traitor and as such making it safer for me."

I understand that more than half of the playerbase we have will immediately form a lynch mob when an Antagonist is spotted and try to hinder them no matter what making his life very difficult, but honestly in my opinion to decide to counter an aspect of this by disabling them unless they pass a certain criteria is poor. Even though I'm ninety-nine percent sure that isn't the reason it's currently in though but that's mainly what it serves to do.

That is not what I'm saying in the least, it prevents robust players from getting to the point where no one can stop them. And think of it this way, not too long ago a single NPC alien was spotted and the Captain screamed, "GUNS 4 ERRYBODY." And threw out guns that he had unlocked. Laser weaponry might I add. Not ten minutes later, I received a dozen or so adminhelps because people were shooting each other over small shit, "I broke a table and he shot me to death." "I said that his mother was a bitch and he shot me to death." You get what I mean. I'm saying, whats the use in giving EVERYONE the ability to fight antagonists, and in due course hinder them. When you and I both know that not the entire playerbase will USE the weapons to fight the antagonists.

[Name Changing Autist]

'Course but we just ban and weed them out, the mentally disabled shouldn't be playing anyway and they definitely shouldn't be ruining things for the people who aren't retards.

In most cases though if a robust player has gotten enough weapons and armour so that no one can effectively stop him, whether weapon locks were active at the time is going to be mostly irrelevant as at that point he'd probably have an ID to unlock them.

Some people may hinder themselves when they try fighting Antagonists but others don't and succeed with fighting the antagonist, the weapon locks just seem to add an unnecessary barrier to help prevent grief/nerf picking up weapons lying around and shooting them.

Since we're both on at different times in most occasions I honestly can't be 100% certain with the truth of some of this to you, generally near the late hours where I'm on, most of the people I see don't hinder themselves and others or if they do, they don't matter.

Before weapon locks were introduced, we'd still be dealing with people gunning each other down for the smallest thing and we're still dealing with it albeit not as much. Though in your example nothing really would of changed if weapon locks didn't exist since the Captain unlocked all of the guns and handed them out, all it really shows is that some people are really stupid.

It'd be really good to get the exact reason(s) that Weapon Locks were introduced, I'm still guessing as to the main reason.

[andersonconagher]

SPOILER: Click to show

Weaponlocks has recently made a number of people very angry, including me. However, as anger serves no function in a successful rebuttal, I will simply state objectively that Weaponlocks frequently takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as his own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. The nub of what I intend to say here is that Weaponlocks has allowed himself to become a spokesman for the same point of view shared by subhuman, unpleasant agitators, obnoxious dopeheads, and mentally deficient rapscallions while masquerading as an outspoken radical bucking the system. Others may disagree, but I believe that he likes expositions that mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that his psychotic insults are intended to rot out the minds of all freedom-loving, free-thinking people. Once that's accomplished, Weaponlocks can replace such people with compliant, Weaponlocks-controlled, and, above all, obedient robots who would never think to enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity. These automata will mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is but as Weaponlocks wants you to see it any day now.

Weaponlocks would not hesitate to go to great lengths to conceal his true aims and mislead the public if he felt he could benefit from doing so. We are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which quasi-merciless fiends like Weaponlocks are thoroughly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of defeatism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? If you were to ask Weaponlocks that question, he'd blather on about academicism and incendiarism in some sort of brain-damaged attempt to confuse and bewilder his listeners and thereby avoid ever actually answering the question. All the deals he makes are strictly one-way. Weaponlocks gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations.

To give the devil his due, I'm impressed with how efficiently Weaponlocks manages to eliminate those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny, especially given that he doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Without a doubt, however, I have a plan to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. I call this plan "Operation treat the disease, not the symptoms". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name, but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that Weaponlocks has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of his incandescent belief in nihilism.

I once overheard Weaponlocks say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Weaponlocks said that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. Can you believe that? At least his statement made me realize that he claims that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side, but if so he's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that Weaponlocks claims that people find his unrelenting, over-the-top hostility rather refreshing. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another disorganized attempt to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse.

We can quibble about many of the details but we can't quibble about the fundamental fact that we must pronounce an enlightened and just judgment upon Weaponlocks. Let's start by informing people that I insist that I have a workable strategy for dealing stiffly with mudslinging inconsiderate-types who poison the air, water, and soil. Naturally, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I have already established that Weaponlocks says that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. Whenever I hear such statements from Weaponlocks I reel in disbelief. Does he really believe such self-deluded things? After days of agonized pondering and reflection I finally came to the conclusion that before Weaponlocks initiated a solecism flap to help promote his spiteful tirades, people everywhere were expected to take a strong position on his missives, which, after all, deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that there is a problem here. A large, self-indulgent, whiney problem.

In the past, I've said that Weaponlocks's squibs are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. Were I to make such a generalization today it would contain a few "weasel words"—an escape hatch or that indispensable cliche that I indeed don't want to have to listen to Weaponlocks's flagitious billingsgate. But because it would be downright anal-retentive for Weaponlocks to ignore compromise and focus solely on his personal agenda, I am not ready to retract my conviction or to recant error. He wants to craft propaganda that justifies vandalizing our neighborhoods. But what if the tables were turned? How would Weaponlocks like that?

If you think about it, Weaponlocks would have us believe that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Weaponlocks is surrounded by infantile mobocrats who parrot the same nonsense, which is why his utterances would have more impact if they were more concise and organized. Instead of trying to be as clear as possible to get his point across, Weaponlocks seems to like bandying about all types of fancy terms that no one's ever heard and that completely diminish his point. Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Weaponlocks?

If Weaponlocks honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. Can you believe that he once said that he was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires? I have a collection of similar pearls from Weaponlocks, but rather than recite them all I'll simply point out that Weaponlocks can't possibly believe that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". He's pouty but he's not that pouty.

Weaponlocks's ploys are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. Nonetheless, if Weaponlocks can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Weaponlocks and his myrmidons. He who pays the piper calls the tune. With that in mind, I did a little research to find where he gets his money. It turns out that it comes primarily from bookish recreants, overweening sick-types, and—you guessed it—the most mawkish creeps you'll ever see. This explains why Weaponlocks's flacks genuflect before all of Weaponlocks's capilotades, even the most self-pitying. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world.

To someone whose eyes are open, Weaponlocks's constantly repeated mantra that he values our perspectives is an insanely volage-brained notion. By way of contrast, consider my personal mantra that Weaponlocks has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his little empire loyal to him. His principal myth is that mandarinism is the key to world peace. The truth is that Weaponlocks's policy is to provoke loathsome underachievers into action. Then, he uses their responses in whatever way he sees fit, generally to quote me out of context. Anyhow, I guess I've run out of things to say, so let me just leave you with one parting wish: Together, may we make this world a kinder, gentler place.

I think a better question is why the hell do we even have gunlocks? So that if someone busts into the armory they can't use their stuff?

[HeathclifFlowen]

I'm not a fan if it only exists to punish robust players for being good at the game.

[Atheist Sex God]

The gunlocks honestly do seem a good idea, but I think I'll respond to the questions brought upon my previous statement;

--Only locking the advanced weaponry is to me a good idea, simply because of how sparce and rare most weaponry even is. For traitors, they get the Disabler, Ebow, Esword.. Sec gets, normally, their tasers and batons[which don't require a lock, so they somewhat fit into esword's category], and normal people, without an ID, get.. Batons? Some ghetto weaponry, such as the Fireaxe, of which two exist, or a baton if they're lucky enough to grab one. Maybe the hatchets? I understand that normal civilians obviously shouldn't have access to this kind of material, but in do or die time, when someone with a weapon is closing in, you're kind of fucked.

--As to limiting antags, let's assume they haven't bought an emag. They can get their ebow. An esword and disabler. Parapens, c4. So, while they're not INITIALLY hindered, what happens if they use up their parapens and c4? What if something happens to their initial weaponry? Granted, if they lose it, it's kind of their fault, but it does put them at a slight disadvantage despite starting with a major advantage. Assuming there's ~20 people online, it's usually a 10v1 the minute he gets called out.

Though I don't know what my initial point on why antags were at a disadvantage, since they clearly are not, it does limit the odds even greater against them.

--Honestly, I do believe gunlocks merely inhibit people's playstyles both slightly, for someone who doesn't really rely upon them, and significantly, for a traitor or member of sec. Perhaps the heads and someone during, let's say, a nuke ops round as well. If they die and get cloned? Fucked unless you get another loyalty implant, and their might be none left or not enough to order at the time. In the heat of the moment, when you KNOW people are out there trying to actively kill you, and you're stuck with your stun baton, the odds are highly stacked against you. I'm not saying it makes it impossible, as I've beaten Nuke Ops with a baton before, but it doesn't happen very often. I feel that while it DOES help weed out some of the idiots who just go to the armory as soon as the round starts and amass an armory[literally], it also stops some legitimate players from assisting in the round and potentially changing the entire outcome.

[warnipple]

I like gun locks.

The only reason is because they keep a traitorous QM from arming everyone.

And it also sucks when you can't use the SMGs you build from R&D. Curses. It takes a long time to build it, I should be able to use it.

[austupaio]

In general I find that asking Security for a loyalty implant will get you one.

[Deleted]

I dislike.