Station AI Removal

[Scrambledking]

I challenge those who wish to argue against this:

Advocate for AI as if it were not already in the game

Advocate for AI without mentioning Space Station 13 or other servers

Advocate based on how AI currently is, not what it could be

Refer to the funky design principals in your argument https://docs.funkystation.org/design/design-principles.html

[mikethememer]

He did it... Holy shit
Oh and yeah I guess as a fellow station AI hater I got things to say.
First, I don't think it should be removed completely, or well atleast temporary until a fitting rework is made.
Currently station AI is very lackluster in terms of content and round impact. It's largely, due to its nature, is unseen by the common crew and really is just a door opener for sec most of the time.
For antagonists or anyone acting antagonistic, station AI can become extremely frustrating and unfun to deal with for multi reasons.
1: No reliable counter to its ability to spot you, or bolt you dosn
2: No visual representation of AI seeing you. You will never know unless you have comma which AI reports you through
This alone makes an AI that enagges in active validhunting because it's bored (Which is often because the role doesn't have much to do) or because it's given a validhunting lawset (Which pretty much forces it to)
So yeah, for what station AI currently provides I believe it's largely inferior to the frustration it causes to the antagonists completely ruining runs and make rounds actively worse.

[pirakaplant]

Holy shit he did it

[A-Loose-Goose]

A lot of these argumemts I quite frankly feel like it’s just a case of looking at the AI in a wrong light, gonna tackle each reason and my opinions on it 1 by 1

1. Doesn’t satisfy the design philosophy. I don’t see how it doesn’t. If you don’t try to RP as an AI and just exist to validhunt, that’s on you as a player and you’re playing wrong. So many interesting interactions can come from both the crew and the AI. Sure, other arguements can be made and I can’t think of much else to say about this one
2. It’s a glorified tool. Yeah, it us. But why’s removing the AI as a whole the automatic solution to it? Adding more interactions and things that the AI could do can avoid this. I once saw a concept to turn the AI into an RTS esque character where it can command the bots and other creations to do tasks that it wants to do, not just other people. I also had the idea of giving it a body similar to an IPC that it can control for short periods of time but I can see how this can be flawed
3. It takes other people’s jobs, and it’s boring. Okay yeah, it does other peoples jobs. That’s the point of the AI existing. To help every department on the station. One of the reasons it has all comms, and the access to the consoles it has. If it’s boring, again, why is the automatic solution to remove it? Why not add features or rework it to be less boring?
4. AI is buggy. Nothing to say about this one since it’s not wrong lmao. But it might get fixed for Forky. We’re obviously quite behind in our current state, but Wizden likely fixed many of the issues that existed with the AI as a whole. This is a what if, yes, but still.
5. AI creates frequent conflicts in metashield. This is a fact of the AI being dumb. If the AI gets an Ion Law to where it’d be allowed to do that, yeah sure, I don’t see the problem there. But especially in the current state we’re in now with NT Default being the default lawset, it shouldnt go out of it’s way to reveal stuff command has told it as a secret. All of this is purely a matter of either the AI needing to be Ahelped for not following it’s laws or Command slipping up and then that’s commands fault. Not the AI. And with interactions such as a Changeling…C’mon, if a guys arm turned into a sword all of a sudden, of course you’d say something. That’s blatant crew harm potential. All the arguements here could have the same said for borgs.

I know I didn’t advocate for it as you intended, but advocating for it in it’s current state and if it weren’t in the game isn’t a good idea in my eyes because it had such potential for rework and additions to make it feel less bland.

[Scrambledking]

@A-Loose-Goose the reason I ask that it be advocated with in that fashion is for 2 reasons. Firstly it is because I truly believe if someone had PRed the AI in its current state it would never have made it into funky, and secondly is to know that the person is willing to argue from within a similar playing field.

Any argument that says "someone will surely fix this in the future" or "there is a rework that could happen" do not interface with the core of the argument which is about the AI itself. I could argue that someone could figure out how to make a balanced IPC and there are reworks floating around, but that doesn't mean we should have kept IPCs in the state they existed in previously. AI already needs a ground-up re-code to fix it's interaction system and remove just the 3 bugs that allow it to, say, bolt the entire nukie shuttle that is in the fog of war. Keeping the AI in its current state will not help in any way in getting this done, as the mechanisms that cause it to happen are already understood. I informed the AI developer of these bugs on release and was responded to with "eh".

To answer the rest of your points:

1. Then argue how it achieves the existing design philosophy in it's current state. Being able to tell the god-eye in the sky to open a door because you want to get in is not good design, and it bypasses the existing system that NT has of opening doors, called ID cards and access, for seemingly no logical reason.

2. As above "someone will fix it" is not a valid argument, if you want this to function make your own design document on how you will re-code AI and re-design it to be in a state where it supports Funky's design principals. Get someone to help if you if you so wish. Writing one of these takes all of 3 minuets and doesn't even require that you code.

3. Saying "yea it is supposed to replace work that crew or borgs can do" does not make it a better argument. It is a violation of keeping things slow and maximizing RP. Letting it do MORE jobs does not fix this, but if you think it would then give me an example how, why, and how it interacts with funky's design principals. Personaly I do not feel like giving the AI the ability to replace lights, fix borgs, and seal breaches helped in any way past "oh neat".

4. Again, its not fixed, and it requires a ground-up re-code to work. Feel free to do this, it is not a reason to keep it in the game till its done.

5. The AI is the reason you cannot talk about metashielded topics in command chat. There is no other reason. This makes stealing command coms or obtaining them otherwise only as impactful, maybe even less, as stealing security coms, when its supposed to be much harder and more significant to get.

Here I will even re-link you the design principals so you can more easily respond to this properly https://docs.funkystation.org/design/design-principles.html

[ThatOneMoon]

If we started to remove content from the game because its not up to par than the only jobs that we would have would be the Janitor and Clown.

This is not a design doccument, its just a preloaded argument where you restrict in what way people can argue against you.
Scrams, please stop giving your horse narcotic substances.

[ParadoxPrime]

This is a mald PR

[TrixxedHeart]

This isn’t a design document. It’s a preloaded argument with the burden of proof shoved onto everyone else.

Opening with “I challenge those who wish to argue against this” and then restricting how people are allowed to respond is not design work, it’s rhetorical gatekeeping. You’re deliberately narrowing the conversation so no one can meaningfully defend the system, instead of doing the actual job of a design doc: justifying your own proposal.

You don’t get to demand others “advocate for AI as if it weren’t already in the game” while also refusing to explore what the system could be. That’s fundamentally disingenuous. You’re stripping away both context and future design space, then acting like whatever remains is a fair evaluation.

It isn’t.

And then you lean on “doesn’t follow funky’s design philosophy” without even explaining how. That’s a citation, not an argument. You don’t point to specific principles, you don’t break down where AI fails them, and you don’t explore how it could be brought into alignment. You just invoke the philosophy as a vague authority and move on.

A real design document takes responsibility. It identifies problems and then proposes solutions, tradeoffs, or at the very least a path forward. This does none of that. It lists issues and jumps straight to deletion, as if iteration isn’t even worth considering.

If AI has problems, redesign it. If its gameplay loop is weak, rework it. If it overlaps with other roles, define its boundaries. That’s what design looks like. Skipping all of that and going straight to removal is not design, it’s avoiding doing the work and putting the burden on everyone else because you can't be assed to put in the actual work.

This reads less like a serious proposal and more like “I don’t like this system, so I’m constructing rules that make it impossible to argue otherwise.” You are malding.

If you want this to be taken seriously, stop trying to control how others respond and actually do the work of supporting your own argument.

[resetium]

>pr in docs to delete an entire role
>does not provide evidence or reasoning in favor of the pr, assumes arguments will self-stand without anyone pushing against them
>demands everyone not in favor of the pr argue against it
thank you scrams very cool

[Scrambledking]

@ThatOneMoon and @TrixxedHeart I did not restrict what people can answer with in any way, the challenge is intended to provide people direction in how they answer, because as I stated before,

the reason I ask that it be advocated with in that fashion is for 2 reasons. Firstly it is because I truly believe if someone had PRed the AI in its current state it would never have made it into funky, and secondly is to know that the person is willing to argue from within a similar playing field.

I have not put restrictions on how things have argued, and saying I have is disingenuous. I have responded to arguments against this that do not match with the challenge.

To respond to the rest of what you have said Trixx

Removing the Existing AI does not restrict future design space, this PR is not suggesting we restrict the concept of silicone life, or station AIs in their entirety, or anything else like this. This PR simply removes of the current AI system due to the listed issues.

If you want me to expand on point one you can suggest that with far less words, but here you go:
It does nothing with seriously silly
It has fails a Winning or Losing as the AI hampers antagonist activity on a coin flip with no interesting interactions.
It fails to maintain authenticity, at worst its a glorified door opener that NT payed (insert value here) to purchase, at best it does simple jobs that are normally done by people. I cannot give any reason why NT would create this. NT has an access card system for a reason.
It fails to take things slow, skipping needing to request for assistance, and shortening outcomes significantly for no gameplay reason.
It fails to maximize roleplay potential, skipping over interactions with entire departments, and trivializing events such as greytide, spacings, animal spawns, security chases, stealth antagonists, and more on top.
It cheapens the Dynamic environments by failing to improve the station experience with so many parts into "ask AI".

I can specify the trade off if you wish, its that we don't have the current implementation of the AI. The problems are defined in the document.

I honestly do not believe that anyone has proposed a system that makes the AI better align with the theming or design of Funky. I personally think that the ideal AI gameplay space does not exist in a way that is satisfactory. If you think it can be either argue on the merits of the case as it exists or as I have said myself already:

"someone will fix it" is not a valid argument, if you want this to function make your own design document on how you will re-code AI and re-design it to be in a state where it supports Funky's design principals. Get someone to help if you if you so wish. Writing one of these takes all of 3 minuets and doesn't even require that you code.

Again, a challenge is not a rule, stating that it is so again does not change this.

and to @resetium this is not constructive in anyway and just goes to show me you didn't read the PR.

[ParadoxPrime]

Prefacing your document and this thread with "Advocate for AI as if it were not already in the game,Advocate for AI without mentioning Space Station 13 or other servers,Advocate based on how AI currently is, not what it could be" pre-frames any argument or discussion that will be had in this thread through that lens. A lens which is disingenuous at best, which makes a BOLD (to say the least) claim and offers nothing to back it up.

You essentially declared your document as Truth and ""challenged"" any who disagree to make an argument framed in unfair parameters and places the entire burden of truth for that claim upon the "challenger". It's the exact same scenario as that meme with the conservative and his sign "Here's a ridiculous claim, Prove Me Wrong"

[Scrambledking]

If I thought the document wasn't true why would I even post it? Have you people been posting design docs you don't believe in???

[ParadoxPrime]

Evading the entire point of my message to nitpick a minor detail. Lol, thats a classic tactic

[Scrambledking]

No that's the key point I have taken from your message, that me believing what I have said in my PR is true is a bad thing. Please specify what else I should be responding to, because I have provided my logic and reasoning within the PR itself and the responses so far.

[ParadoxPrime]

You seem to confuse your opinion for the unvarnished objective truth.
Even now you're acting as if your document and your statements are objectively true, instead of what it actually is; your opinion.
Maybe the capitalization on "Truth" in my prior message was insufficient to highlight the sarcasm.

Either way, it's evident that this argument is a waste of time.

[Scrambledking]

Nothing is an objective truth, as far as I can tell you are just here to argue philosophical pedantry. I am unsure what your goal was at this point besides wasting time.

[TrixxedHeart]

This is not a good-faith design document, whether you believe it is or not. Even setting that aside, it fails at the most basic level of what a design document is supposed to be. This is not design you're trying to pass off "remove this because I don’t like it," aa design.

A proper design document identifies problems and then does the work of proposing solutions. It explores tradeoffs, iteration paths, or at the very least attempts to reconcile the system with the stated design philosophy. "Remove the entire system" is not a solution, it’s an admission that you’re unwilling to engage with the design space at all.

The tone doesn’t help either. The way this is framed, especially with the opening "challenge" and restrictions on how people can respond, comes off as smug and dismissive rather than constructive. It reads like you’re trying to shut down disagreement instead of inviting actual design discussion.

At that point, it’s not surprising people aren’t engaging. You didn’t present something to engage with, you presented a conclusion with no substance and tried to control the terms of disagreement.

I feel like I'm back on fucking Reddit.

[Scrambledking]

@TrixxedHeart I created a document here to have an extended serious discussion on the topic because, based off of the conversations I have had previously on the topic, this is what I believe would be best for game design. Not every system is a benefit and not every system needs a replacement if removed.

Even on systems that are actively being worked on, such as genetics, we do not keep them implemented in a state that is not conducive to the design principals, we take them off the servers to be further worked on and created. Additionally there have been systems in the past that were implemented in a way that do not agree with our design principals and were thusly removed, such as IPCs and atmos techs.

I cannot help if you do not read the points that people have already engaged with in the article. If you think the framing is bad then suggest a better way to frame it, but it would not change the argument already contained within the document.

If people have viable alternatives they would like to propose then that's perfectly fine, but there are currently no design proposals to change it elsewise, and it would not change the fact that the current implementation would need a ground up recode to get rid of the bugs inherent to it.

People have engaged with it (mostly on discord much to my chagrin). Saying that it is not so does not not change this.

[TheBoss913]

Yeah I saw this post come up, too frustrating to argue against.

Station AI isn't perfect. Most things aren't perfect in SS14. This feels exactly like the currently pending PR in WizDen to simply delete all space structures. It takes a part of the game that isn't perfectly aligned with the rest of the game, and removes it.

I think we're better than this, and this is a nuclear option.

Also I literally don't see any benefits to removing Station AI. And I mean that LITERALLY, as in like you forgot to write the Pros?

The closest thing Funky has done to a "removal" of content was just a merging of content. Not sure why it sparked such a large removal frenzy

[TheBoss913]

Did I read your restrictions on arguments? Yes

Did I ignore them coz they were dumb? Yes

[Scrambledking]

@TheBoss913
To answer the first part, I dont realy care what other servers are doing as it is not relevant to the PR, if you have a better option Suggest it, I didnt not write pros to AI in the current state because I struggle to find any past "its more content". More content does not mean better content, we are not Goob.

To answer the second part for what is I think the 5th time, they are not restrictions, no where has that word been used by me, they are challenges that are supposed to emphasize why I am advocating for a removal. Not accepting that challange is your own decision, and reading it as something it is not because you disagree with the PR does not change this.

I would be happy to further converse with you if you wish to give me pros to the AI, other reasons not to remove it, or anything else.

[TheBoss913]

I don't really care about what other servers are doing either. I never referenced them. I only referenced the game of SS14, which Funky is.

Also I don't want more flimsy Conent. Stop arguing as if Station AI is new content, it's old content

Also I thought I was clear when I mentioned "Pros". I mean you forgot to state the "Pros" of removing Station AI. I don't see any section actually listing the Pros of your proposed change, just a list of grievances.

You are supposed to be giving pros. As a wise individual once said 5 hours ago "It’s a preloaded argument with the burden of proof shoved onto everyone else". Unknown source

[Scrambledking]

the currently pending PR in WizDen to simply delete all space structures

Putting that aside and confronting the rest though, atmos techs were old content, IPCs were old content, repair drones were old content, infinite chem dispensors were old content. Something being old does not make it good.

The pros of removing it would be that those grievances no long exist, I can write that directly in the PR if you wish, just say the word.

I have not shoved the argument on anyone else, as I have already stated the reasoning in the PR. If you wish to argue the merit of the AI based on those points or others please do so. I am not going to argue your case for you when I do not believe there is a case to argue. If I felt unsure about this and the way it would effect the game I would not have made the PR in the first place.

[Scrambledking]

Remember, this is a DOC PR to encourage conversation, not a code PR. If you have not already LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT

[TheBoss913]

Look I've argued with you enough to know that your opinion will simply not change. I'm here to express my opposition to this removal, in the belief that it should stay.

Also this is an uninteresting Doc, maybe that's why it took a while for responses to come in

[Scrambledking]

Again the majority of responses haven't been "I like having more content", "why are you restricting my speech", "mald PR", and "this is not an objective Truth". They have just been on discord instead of here.

Those discussions have also given proper reasoned arguments around balance, theming, and game design. I'm honestly quite disappointed at the quality of responses I have gotten here as apposed to there as moving here was intended to bring issues with the logic or things I wasn't considering to confront to the front.

[Scrambledking]

To be clear however, I do think the first two responses here from Mike an Goose were well reasoned, but Mike was agreeing with a temporary removal so I felt no need for rebuttal.

[pirakaplant]

I don't really get why people are getting worked up about the framing, when this is how pre-existing features that harm the game should be scrutinised. It either stands on its own merits in the context of Funky and deserves a rework or it's just 13slop that shouldn't actually exist here.

But yeah half the shit Scrambleking is saying here should just be in the design doc in the first place.

[Scrambledking]

Fair enough, ill add to it once I am home again.