Adds secure energy guns and stun revolvers.

[mustafakalash]

🆑 mkalash
rscadd: Added secure energy guns, which require registration to a user and are locked to stun without additional per-mode authorization. Secure small energy guns replace security's tasers.
rscadd: NTsec now also get a shock mode for their revolvers, which is also locked behind command authorization.
/🆑

[Sunbeamstress]

Previous attempts here:
#19745
#19663

[Minijar]

Just keep trying no matter how many times everyone says not to add it.

[babydoll]

I like this, but would prefer to see a weaker projectile on the lethal mode, maybe /obj/item/projectile/beam/smalllaser

[Hubblenaut]

I still don't see the purpose for this, IMO it can only change things for the worse, as I consider what we have right now as good.

[SparklySheep]

Still just a straight upgrade to security, still bad.

[mustafakalash]

Are you sure there is absolutely no way I can balance these changes in a way that would satisfactory to you? Give the thought an experiment.

[Coderofthecode]

But why? Allowing weapons to be freely seized and moved around leads to Drama and Incidents. For an example, in this case it would prevent most revolution rounds, which tends to be a command and sec vs the world affair, from ever actually arming themselves with things beyond ghetto spears and the like. Because they can't ever get access for weapons and so on. It also makes disarming someone with a e-gun pretty unrewarding.

What is the thought in the first place?

[mustafakalash]

That isn't true, because these do not replace all energy guns. In fact, no energy guns are replaced. These weapons replace security's tasers.

[SparklySheep]

These weapons replace security's tasers.

A taser has 5 shots, these have 10 shots by default. Why does security need such a substantial buff? Why do you believe that security needs to be able to carry lethal weaponry at all times? Do you believe antags to be too powerful? How do you intend to balance the antag gamemodes in response to security becoming much more powerful?

This is effectively doubling the firepower of security and significantly reducing the time it takes to load up with lethals. I just want some justification on why you deem this to be necessary considering the game's current balance.

[mustafakalash]

I disagree with your assessment on the implications these changes will have on game balance, for these reasons:

• More shots does not equal more firepower. Rarely do tasers run dry. If there ever is a situation so hectic that security does not have enough time to recharge between uses, they already have energy guns.
• Normal energy guns are already not much more difficult to receive than it is to enable the lethal functionality in this change.
• Tasers are now a relatively weak tool due to the balance show-down caused by flash changes. A stun baton to the leg is much more effective.

I do not think game balance will significantly tip in either way. This is evident in the fact that several people have also called this a nerf to security. That said, we don't have any data points to actually say one way or the other.

I'm fighting for this feature because I think that the functionality is cool. Would changing them to secured small energy guns be an acceptable compromise?

[LorenLuke]

You remove the capability of an antagonist being able to strip security of their firearm and user it against them, i.e. remove the reward from a high risk/high reward endeavor. Furthermore, it prevents the acquisition of a firearm through normal mean not involving telecrystals or raiding a secure location, the latter of which requires more telecrystals and/or engineering equipment. Therefore, by requiring an antagonist to spend a non-refundable, non-renewable, antag-only resource for the same effect, it tilts an already unfavorable situation for the antags further.

Security are redshirts. Let them behave as such, and let them tilt the balance by using the asset that they often have that anyways very often don't- numbers.

[mustafakalash]

You remove the capability of an antagonist being able to strip security of their firearm and user it against them

This isn't true. The weapon will not refuse to fire because its wielder is not its owner. Swiping your ID on a weapon only serves to label the weapon on the console.

Furthermore, it prevents the acquisition of a firearm through normal mean not involving telecrystals or raiding a secure location, the latter of which requires more telecrystals and/or engineering equipment.

An antag's primary source of armament has never been to steal a security officer's taser. This argument does not make sense.

Despite my attempts, it seems that people continue to make assumptions about what this change does that make it seem like a bad change, when those assumptions are not true at all.

[Aetsuki]

I'm actually massively for this, and was in the process of working on it a few weeks ago. I still fully intend to integrate this functionality into an upcoming PR I'm working on that adds in some networking and hacking options, giving the antag more options to stir trouble.

[LorenLuke]

This isn't true. The weapon will not refuse to fire because its wielder is not its owner. Swiping your ID on a weapon only serves to label the weapon on the console.

rscadd: Added secure energy guns, which require registration to a user and are locked to stun without additional per-mode authorization. These replace security's tasers.

NTsec now also get a shock mode for their revolvers, which is also locked behind command authorization.

Despite my attempts, it seems that people continue to make assumptions about what this change does that make it seem like a bad change, when those assumptions are not true at all.

Perhaps if you didn't have conflicting statements about such things, people might make more accurate assumptions.

An antag's primary source of armament has never been to steal a security officer's taser. This argument does not make sense.

Just because it's not primary doesn't mean it's neither negligible nor something that won't come up commonly, like... oh, I don't know, a gunfight between sec and an antag.

[comma]

Secure part is ok, since it's replacing tasers, you still get taser you'd get before if you wrestle gun away.
Bit iffy on instanteous distribution of lethals to sec when needed, but might as well see how that plays out.
Very nope on doubling their ammo capacity.

[mustafakalash]

Security now get a secured variant of the small energy gun.

[LorenLuke]

Still no contentious tab?

[comma]

You've been arguing against a feature that is not in this PR - locking weapons out of antag hands.
Full disclosure I thought that what it was about from the description.
This PR just doesn't do that. Taser mode is always authorized, shock mode is pre-authorized.
It doesn't lock weapons to guy who swiped ID on it, ID info is purely informational for who owns what gun.
Worst can happen to a tator who wrestles this gun out of sec hands is sec reporting it back to someone with console, who would in turn lock it out of shock or lethal modes.
Since it's replacing tasers, there's no net loss on how much gun would tator get in such situation, as they cannot lock him out of taser function.

[mustafakalash]

Thank you for explaining it in a way that I have seemingly failed to do for months.

[PurpleMartinJCK]

Now that it has the same shot count, I'm also ok with seeing how this plays out.