/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

People seem to forget that they can't control everything in this game and then whine when they get killed.

>I'm sorry. I forgot people on this server play to win and not the experience.

>security being less painful for the few that play sec somehow equates to playing to win
>using catchphrases you don't understand
>double paranoia on top of a punishing job is a better experience than an experience involving good teamwork

>People seem to forget that they can't control everything in this game and then whine when they get killed.

it's about not making sec shit again.

imblyings wrote:it's about not making sec shit again.

How will antagonists magically/suddenly make security shit?

Would it not just be the same security force, with the addition of antagonists doing antagonist shit as well? Like literally every other role on the station?

It gives assistants an excuse to grief security.

Additionally, you can't trust your comrades, meaning there's less teamwork.

>Would it not just be the same security force, with the addition of antagonists doing antagonist shit as well? Like literally every other role on the station?
>like literally every other role

>every other role starts with stun gear
>every other role can come up with legitimate excuses to arrest you and then make you disappear
>every other role requires teamwork and communication
>every other role already is a high-risk job frequently targeted by and obliged to come into conflict with dangers

yeah no

just stop

Neerti wrote:It gives assistants an excuse to grief security.

Additionally, you can't trust your comrades, meaning there's less teamwork.

This Is like saying Security will grief assistants because assistants are able to be antag, thus giving security an excuse to do so.


See how stupid that argument is? Ban bad security players and ban the griefer that make good security's jobs hell. Or just let the bad security deal with griefers

imblyings wrote:>Would it not just be the same security force, with the addition of antagonists doing antagonist shit as well? Like literally every other role on the station?
>like literally every other role

>every other role starts with stun gear
>every other role can come up with legitimate excuses to arrest you and then make you disappear
>every other role requires teamwork and communication
>every other role already is a high-risk job frequently targeted by and obliged to come into conflict with dangers

yeah no

just stop

Traitors spawn stun gear lings are shit, yes starting with stun gear is stronger no it doesn't make them indestructible.
Medical staff can disappear critical, dead or parapenned individuals without a single eyelash being batted. Isn't one of the protauth fears people questioning the validity of arrests? Which is contrary to what you claim here? That is still done with "protection"?
Not even sec absolutely requires teamwork, low pop sec is unpleasant but it can function. Teamwork and communication makes any department more efficient though.
Yes they are wow! You have discovered assassination objectives, GOOD JOB!

Neerti wrote:It gives assistants an excuse to grief security.

Additionally, you can't trust your comrades, meaning there's less teamwork.

Antag Sec is terrible for the people who are nominally the only force of law and order.

Brotemis wrote:

Neerti wrote:It gives assistants an excuse to grief security.

Additionally, you can't trust your comrades, meaning there's less teamwork.

This Is like saying Security will grief assistants because assistants are able to be antag, thus giving security an excuse to do so.


See how stupid that argument is? Ban bad security players and ban the griefer that make good security's jobs hell. Or just let the bad security deal with griefers

So what happens when some greytider comes after an antag-sec and has to go through the rest of security? What happens when you get brigged by a non-antag security officer who got dunked shortly afterwords for some bullshit reason given by an antag security officer? What happens when someone takes down security because he thinks they're antags when they really just made a completely justifiable mistake? It's more than just griefers and shitcurity, antag-sec opens up far too many grey areas due to the fact that security's held up to a somewhat higher standard in some ways and that they also have more leeway to do things in others.

imblyings wrote:>I'm sorry. I forgot people on this server play to win and not the experience.

>security being less painful for the few that play sec somehow equates to playing to win
>using catchphrases you don't understand
>double paranoia on top of a punishing job is a better experience than an experience involving good teamwork

>People seem to forget that they can't control everything in this game and then whine when they get killed.

it's about not making sec shit again.

How about you try to make a rational argument without 4chan speak?

>I can't come up with anything to refute his points
>b-better attack his method of delivery

>Medical staff can disappear critical, dead or parapenned individuals without a single eyelash being batted
>same as being able to proactively make people disappear
>disappearing people in a mostly public area v.s. the brig

>Yes they are wow! You have discovered assignation objectives, GOOD JOB!
>missing the point

sec is a high-risk, high-stress job where the only comforts usually are having a decent team you can work with. Why are you so fixated on ruining this for what is very little gain? if at all?

Sec antag would be nice if security department was always as populated as other departments and always worked together.

However, security is at major disadvantage to other departments by having 3 guys when server population is at 60.

So no to sec antag, security needs all the help it can get with making officers work together which is largely founded on trusting each other.

mrpain wrote:I'm sorry. I forgot people on this server play to win and not the experience.

One of my fondest SS13 memories was being a captain on /vg/station. The HoS ended up being a traitor and was trying to arrest me to try to assassinate me. I somehow ended up breaking free, he ran off, and the station and security were essentially divided in two trying to kill off both sides.

It's already a "Sec vs Station" battle most of the time, its just that you know your fellow sec team mates WILL back you up, not just shoot you and leave you for dead when you're already being swamped by a tide of grey.

I think the added "benefits" of giving sec antag will never really out weight the amount of people it'll truly piss off.

I mean look at the voting, its pretty much even (swaying towards no sec antag at time of posting), which to me means that we should consider it either hung or not acceptable. Things really need to be clearly wanted by the community to avoid a split and further making a small playerbase game smaller.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that we (at least on Sibyl) lean towards overpopulation. It has been a problem for a long time now.

I have noticed on Sybil that Security has been getting more solid and consistent population numbers. Usually I can expect there to be a Warden, Detective and at least a single Security Officer in the round a lot of the time. Though low-pop rounds still see few to no Security personnel.

I did some experiments during a 90~ population round on sybil the other day. I removed the limit of officers that can join, reinforced the brig (all windows in the office and permabrig replaced with rwalls, maint entrances removed and replaced with rwalls), spawned many extra gear lockers for the new officers, and changed all maint entrances to security and engineer access only. There was around 10 or so fully equipped officers by the end of the round, and they were actually able to somewhat keep order on the station with those numbers. This is a case of extreme buffs that people would never support, but I'd never seen security actually manage to keep control of such a high pop round before.

We should have security numbers scale to population, like traitors.

Something like 1 officer per 6 crew, with a minimum of 4.

If you force people to become officers, you're going to get a horrible sec team.


Unless you mean increasing the cap, in that case it's a great idea. Too bad we rarely even reach the normal sec officer cap.
Give the HoP the ability to turn off the automatic scaling so he has more subtle ways of sabotaging the station.

Ikarrus wrote:We should have security numbers scale to population, like traitors.

Something like 1 officer per 6 crew, with a minimum of 4.

There is an in game force well placed and fully able to do this. He is called the Head of Personnel. Despite how beleaguered they usually are sec rarely asks for reinforcement or equipment supply, probably because an antag getting into the force and gun cargo make them piss themselves in fear as evidenced here.

HoP needn't invoke either of those things though, he can raise the number of officers slots to 10 in about 20 minutes (wish it was faster) and the arms crates can be swiftly mailed to security so cargo staff have less time being tempted.

elyina wrote:I did some experiments during a 90~ population round on sybil the other day. I removed the limit of officers that can join, reinforced the brig (all windows in the office and permabrig replaced with rwalls, maint entrances removed and replaced with rwalls), spawned many extra gear lockers for the new officers, and changed all maint entrances to security and engineer access only. There was around 10 or so fully equipped officers by the end of the round, and they were actually able to somewhat keep order on the station with those numbers. This is a case of extreme buffs that people would never support, but I'd never seen security actually manage to keep control of such a high pop round before.

Sec being able to maintain order is bad. The metal deathtrap is supposed to go to hell in a handbasket, that's where the most interesting rounds come from.

Someone answer me this. Why are sec antags so bad that they need to be removed, but engineering antags are 100% kosher? Engineering needs to be able to trust each other. Engineering wants a cohesive department. Engineering running smoothly is, in my opinion, FAR more important for the round than security. Engineering antags can release the singulo and use a beacon to kill an assload of people and ruin escape. Why is this ok, but someone bumrushing one player with a taser-baton (vs an ebow and esword) somehow not ok?

The AI or an atmos tech can release plasma and absolutely destroy multiple people with no chance of escape or prevention. Scientists can gib people with no warning or way to prevent it. Sec antag, meanwhile, can only kill you by stunning you and beating you to death, which will get cries for help. We can always cut down on the number of ways security has to dispose of bodies, if that's the major problem. Or make it easier to find bodies, that's also an option. There's ways to solve the problems with sec-antag short of removing them.

In any case, the pure silliness and meta of "OUR loyalty implants don't do anything, but meanwhile CENTCOMM'S somehow prevent people from being traitors" and "security can be trusted because of OOC reasons" is retarded and further reduces any motivation people have to RP and take the game events seriously.

MisterPerson wrote:Someone answer me this. Why are sec antags so bad that they need to be removed, but engineering antags are 100% kosher? Engineering needs to be able to trust each other. Engineering wants a cohesive department. Engineering running smoothly is, in my opinion, FAR more important for the round than security. Engineering antags can release the singulo and use a beacon to kill an assload of people and ruin escape. Why is this ok, but someone bumrushing one player with a taser-baton (vs an ebow and esword) somehow not ok?

The AI or an atmos tech can release plasma and absolutely destroy multiple people with no chance of escape or prevention. Scientists can gib people with no warning or way to prevent it. Sec antag, meanwhile, can only kill you by stunning you and beating you to death, which will get cries for help. We can always cut down on the number of ways security has to dispose of bodies, if that's the major problem. Or make it easier to find bodies, that's also an option. There's ways to solve the problems with sec-antag short of removing them.

In any case, the pure silliness and meta of "OUR loyalty implants don't do anything, but meanwhile CENTCOMM'S somehow prevent people from being traitors" and "security can be trusted because of OOC reasons" is retarded and further reduces any motivation people have to RP and take the game events seriously.

Engineering isn't the department entrusted with protecting the crew, and given the trust of the crew and the authority to imprison/execute people for the round without many people questioning it.

elyina wrote: Engineering isn't the department entrusted with protecting the crew, and given the trust of the crew and the authority to imprison/execute people for the round without many people questioning it.

^

Security's ability to do their job effectively requires them to be able to trust each other, and the crew to be able to trust them. If I know that every sec is a potential traitor? Taking me to the brig for questioning becomes murderspace. Taking me into interrogation becomes harmbaton bodybag. Taking a shortcut through maint because the main hallway got bombed becomes getting absorbed in maint by Officer Changeling.

Being arrested by security, for any reason, becomes a situation potentially resulting in round removal - Much the same as being stuncuffed by any other player, and the average player will act accordingly.

MisterPerson wrote:Someone answer me this. Why are sec antags so bad that they need to be removed, but engineering antags are 100% kosher? Engineering needs to be able to trust each other. Engineering wants a cohesive department. Engineering running smoothly is, in my opinion, FAR more important for the round than security. Engineering antags can release the singulo and use a beacon to kill an assload of people and ruin escape. Why is this ok, but someone bumrushing one player with a taser-baton (vs an ebow and esword) somehow not ok?

The AI or an atmos tech can release plasma and absolutely destroy multiple people with no chance of escape or prevention. Scientists can gib people with no warning or way to prevent it. Sec antag, meanwhile, can only kill you by stunning you and beating you to death, which will get cries for help. We can always cut down on the number of ways security has to dispose of bodies, if that's the major problem. Or make it easier to find bodies, that's also an option. There's ways to solve the problems with sec-antag short of removing them.

In any case, the pure silliness and meta of "OUR loyalty implants don't do anything, but meanwhile CENTCOMM'S somehow prevent people from being traitors" and "security can be trusted because of OOC reasons" is retarded and further reduces any motivation people have to RP and take the game events seriously.

Because Engineers don't get access to free stun weapons.

elyina wrote: Engineering isn't the department entrusted with protecting the crew, and given the trust of the crew and the authority to imprison/execute people for the round without many people questioning it.

So they're too trusted by the crew to have anyone question their behavior? Well that blows the "sec antag = security can't be trusted" argument out of the water, but it does once again bring up the interest value (or lack thereof) of sec antag vs other antags. And I'm simply arguing that they're not really worse than other antags. Other antags can gank you in ways that are just as bad or WAY WORSE. At least when security kills you, they're physically there, it takes awhile, they make a lot of noise while doing so, they can be stopped mid-murder, and they then have to dispose of your body. A scientist can take you from full health to gibbed without doing anything suspicious, without you knowing what's about to happen, with you standing in the middle of a hallway or other public space, and without even fucking being there.

Vekter wrote: Because Engineers don't get access to free stun weapons.

All traitors have access to free stun weapons.

MisterPerson - Antag Security drastically and adversely affects team cohesion and the relationships within and between Security and the station. Antag Captain, however, is Classic SS13™, and should be in.

Skyclad.Observer wrote:

elyina wrote: Engineering isn't the department entrusted with protecting the crew, and given the trust of the crew and the authority to imprison/execute people for the round without many people questioning it.

^

Security's ability to do their job effectively requires them to be able to trust each other, and the crew to be able to trust them. If I know that every sec is a potential traitor? Taking me to the brig for questioning becomes murderspace. Taking me into interrogation becomes harmbaton bodybag. Taking a shortcut through maint because the main hallway got bombed becomes getting absorbed in maint by Officer Changeling, whose buddy set the bomb in the first place.

Being arrested by security, for any reason, becomes a situation potentially resulting in round removal - Much the same as being stuncuffed by any other player, and the average player will act accordingly. This will greatly decrease co-operation with security, greatly increase paranoia and distrust towards security, and greatly increase paranoia within security. I will no longer be able to trust my fellow officer to stand next to me, and the brig is no longer my safe haven.

If you can't see why and how that's bad, then there's no point arguing with you.

MisterPerson wrote:Someone answer me this. Why are sec antags so bad that they need to be removed, but engineering antags are 100% kosher? Engineering needs to be able to trust each other. Engineering wants a cohesive department. Engineering running smoothly is, in my opinion, FAR more important for the round than security. Engineering antags can release the singulo and use a beacon to kill an assload of people and ruin escape. Why is this ok, but someone bumrushing one player with a taser-baton (vs an ebow and esword) somehow not ok?

Also the things that engineering can do, like release the singularity, cut and fuck up power and release gas all over the station are global. They affect everyone and that makes it more fun. No one really gets pissed off when a singularity eats half the station, or all the oxygen is replaced with hellfire, because it's fun, interesting, kills plenty of people so that the round will end more quickly and is a problem that people will team up to overcome. It makes for fun and interesting rounds.

A security antag will, because of their lack of anonymity, generally have to kill people one at a time, and completely remove them from the round to be on the safe side. This is not fun. It affects a single person, who is alone in the experience and will not get to play again in what could be an extremely long round.

So the new people finally understand why we removed sec/captain antag? Sweet.

Incomptinence wrote: He is called the Head of Personnel. Despite how beleaguered they usually are sec rarely asks for reinforcement or equipment supply, probably because an antag getting into the force and gun cargo make them piss themselves in fear as evidenced here.

This mainly because it takes 5mins each time you adjust ANY single job. That means lowering a count or raising a count on ANY job starts a 5min cooldown.

Want to close a medical position and open up 2 extra sec positions? Do that over 15 mins...

It was implemented to avoid situations where the HoP would open 20 Clown positions or something similarly inane.

A scaled Security Officer population might be an interesting idea to explore, however I think the biggest problem would still be actually filling those positions. Also balance and equipment supply would be an issue needing to be addressed.

why can't we order equipment locker crates from centcom yet

no stungun/taser/baton crates aren't the same, they don't come with a full complement of neato things like gas masks, belts, radio headsets ecetera.

make it expensive and strip weapons from it so they have to order taser/baton crates ontop of the equipment lockers if you really want to be anal about it but christ it's about cargo was able to order replacement equipment lockers.

Skyclad.Observer wrote:MisterPerson - Antag Security drastically and adversely affects team cohesion and the relationships within and between Security and the station. Antag Captain, however, is Classic SS13™, and should be in.

How is antag captain somehow more fun and less annoying than antag security? People trust the two more highly than, say, an assistant.

elyina wrote: Engineering isn't the department entrusted with protecting the crew, and given the trust of the crew and the authority to imprison/execute people for the round without many people questioning it.

Until someone can work out which of these two competing arguments is more important, I'm going to disregard the entire issue. I refuse to argue against myself.

Stickymayhem wrote: Also the things that engineering can do, like release the singularity, cut and fuck up power and release gas all over the station are global. They affect everyone and that makes it more fun. No one really gets pissed off when a singularity eats half the station, or all the oxygen is replaced with hellfire, because it's fun, interesting, kills plenty of people so that the round will end more quickly and is a problem that people will team up to overcome. It makes for fun and interesting rounds.

A security antag will, because of their lack of anonymity, generally have to kill people one at a time, and completely remove them from the round to be on the safe side. This is not fun. It affects a single person, who is alone in the experience and will not get to play again in what could be an extremely long round.

A fair point, but I believe these issues can be solved in a way that doesn't involve outright removal of sec antag. For example, complete removal from the round is awful and I'd be 100% in favor of making it easier to get people back into the round, easier to locate hidden bodies, and harder to completely destroy bodies outright. I also would love more warnings that someone is dead/dying, so it's harder for people to just disappear out of the blue. But that's an issue for the Ideas subforum, not so much here. My point is that these issues are not show-stoppers, although they are obviously quite serious.

Traitor captain is less annoying because you will have to deal with on person instead of multiple sec officers.

geilebeer wrote:Traitor captain is less annoying because you will have to deal with on person instead of multiple sec officers.

More often than not, it is obvious that the captain is a traitor, or at least a comdom. On the other hand, a lot of Sec will take security's side, even if it's an antag shitcurity whatever.

Security's ability to do their job effectively requires them to be able to trust each other, and the crew to be able to trust them. If I know that every sec is a potential traitor? Taking me to the brig for questioning becomes murderspace. Taking me into interrogation becomes harmbaton bodybag. Taking a shortcut through maint because the main hallway got bombed becomes getting absorbed in maint by Officer Changeling, whose buddy set the bomb in the first place.

Being arrested by security, for any reason, becomes a situation potentially resulting in round removal - Much the same as being stuncuffed by any other player, and the average player will act accordingly; passively avoiding/distrusting security or actively fleeing from or yelling for help. This will greatly decrease co-operation with security, greatly increase paranoia and distrust towards security, and greatly increase paranoia within security. I will no longer be able to trust my fellow officer to stand next to me, and the brig is no longer my safe haven.

If you can't see why and how that's bad, then there's no point arguing with you.

Skyclad.Observer wrote:On the other hand, a lot of Sec will take security's side, even if it's an antag shitcurity whatever.

... This will greatly decrease co-operation with security, ...

Which one is it?

SKyclad.Observer wrote:Being arrested by security, for any reason, becomes a situation potentially resulting in round removal - Much the same as being stuncuffed by any other player, and the average player will act accordingly; passively avoiding/distrusting security or actively fleeing from or yelling for help. This will greatly decrease co-operation with security, greatly increase paranoia and distrust towards security, and greatly increase paranoia within security. I will no longer be able to trust my fellow officer to stand next to me, and the brig is no longer my safe haven.

People still do this, although it's mitigated quite a bit by restricted antags. I think this can be resolved in a satisfactory manner without banning antag sec though, as I said before.

MisterPerson wrote:

Skyclad.Observer wrote:On the other hand, a lot of Sec will take security's side, even if it's an antag shitcurity whatever.

... This will greatly decrease co-operation with security, ...

Which one is it?

Both - In the former, uninformed security will take security's side, over all else. If a botanist is screaming shitcurity, traitor, et cetera, I'm going to blow him off because we get that when we're doing our job normally, too.

The latter arises as a result of the former, in conjunction with the potential for antags. With antag sec off, each and every player knows that Security can be trusted and will not murderspace them. This is an absolute, set in stone. You can trust Security, we're here to help.
With antag sec, that's simply not true anymore. Especially once you start pushing 40 pop, there's almost guaranteed to be some sort of traitor/ling in Security. If people know that going to the brig has a very real chance of removing them from the round, regardless of their prior actions, they are not going to go to the brig. They're going to kick and scream their way in, and they're going to fight you every step of the way.

I really have not seen any anti sec behaviour stop, why care if you are a traitor when the most feared officer is an incompetent one and everyone is always ready to believe they are incompetent?

Incomptinence wrote:I really have not seen any anti sec behaviour stop, why care if you are a traitor when the most feared officer is an incompetent one and everyone is always ready to believe they are incompetent?

That's a problem with your playerbase, then. Here on <redacted> our sec are pretty good and everyone likes them.

You don't have to redact that, Jesus.

MisterPerson wrote:You don't have to redact that, Jesus.

I have to at least pretend that I'm not a sock puppet for <REDACTED>, that lovable* elitist shitposting dinosaur.

Antag captains are just mutineed more often than not and if it was possible you'd see innocent captains being forced out of their position WAY more than you do now by security or otherwise because the -possibility- of them being a traitor is there.

As it stands now, shit captains are shit captains and they're easier to point out and ahelp because there's no shitty blurred line of 'traitor or just a shitty captain?' that confused people a lot in the past and made captain a shitty job for everyone but the captain.

Now, captains have to actually act responsible or get job banned, god fucking forbid right.

Antag captain wouldn't be too bad, as its basically the same as Antag HoP, although Antag sec just seems like a terrible idea. And for the person saying that all antags have stun weapons, yes, they do, but people are more likely to re-act to someone shooting another person with an ebow then they are with a taser. There are other servers that do have antag-sec on, and their security teams are utterly terrible as a result.

Or maybe their security is awful because their security PLAYERS are awful?
To be honest, the whole no-sec-antag thing seemed like another "I ded, pls change game mechanics" thing even back when it was first implemented.