Antagonist reputation system

[CPTANT]

Bottom post of the previous page:

https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/ ... -369786663

Why are we punishing people for playing the job they want to play?

[Shadowflame909]

Hello, I am the guy who hates sec and would otherwise never play it. The exact shitter who if this was enabled, would all of a sudden start playing sec and would put the least effort into it as possible. But, whatever. You gotta get those antag points somehow. Pew, whats that you hear? Easy street shitty sec officers for (insert antagonist here) to defeat and powergame? That'd become so much more common. But, could you blame them? There's no fun being on the side of the murdered. So why not half-ass everything that you do, to get a taste of the glory. Y'know what that sounds like? A system where everybody lives half-assed lives and no one actually feels good about what they're doing. It's called COMMUNISM- Yeah, I went off the rails at the end. But I hope you get the point. I at least, think I raise some points.

[Arianya]

Hello, I am the guy who hates sec and would otherwise never play it. The exact shitter who if this was enabled, would all of a sudden start playing sec and would put the least effort into it as possible. But, whatever. You gotta get those antag points somehow. Pew, whats that you hear? Easy street shitty sec officers for (insert antagonist here) to defeat and powergame? That'd become so much more common. But, could you blame them? There's no fun being on the side of the murdered. So why not half-ass everything that you do, to get a taste of the glory. Y'know what that sounds like? A system where everybody lives half-assed lives and no one actually feels good about what they're doing. It's called COMMUNISM- Yeah, I went off the rails at the end. But I hope you get the point. I at least, think I raise some points.

And yet, even being intentionally low effort you would still be better then the empty slot.

It's not like sec tends to be over-filled or capped out on officers, so short of intentionally trying to sabotage sec (the kind of thing that would get you bwoinked pretty fast) you can't actually do more harm then good.

I guess if you rolled for security and then immediately ran into the hallways, stripped and suicided you might, but again, that's the kind of pattern of behaviour that gets caught pretty quickly.

Also I don't buy that people who hate sec but otherwise try to "win" the game would just let themselves get murdered for antag rep.

We have people who play assistant and gear themselves up with the idea to take on nuke ops/changelings/etc. They clearly want to "win" against the antagonist, all antag rep would be doing in this case is incentivize them to put security on their job roster.

[CPTANT]

Is this even turned on now?

[Arianya]

Not as far as I'm aware, the OP was opened on the disabled feature being merged in.

[MaximumOverlizard]

The issue is now head and ai players have an increased chance of antag IN THOSE ROLES.

I think this is a worthwhile issue to bring up, given how annoying Head Antags can be. If anything, I'm almost inclined to say Heads and Assistants should have a marginally reduced antag chance relative to the 'main' station roles...?

sometimes the traitor gets unlucky and gets outed 3 minutes in and their options are defeat or going loud.

That's kind of part of my point. Their options also include going undercover, finding a new identity (there are even TC items that do it for you now), getting backup from other traitors, etc. Traitor is not and never has been murderbone or nothing.

Those TC options only buy you a few minutes at best, though, before sec catches on that your Mulligan identity doesn't exist. And relying on other potatoes is pretty janky.

On the other hand, I'd love to see something where your antag rep is increased if you can successfully codeword with other traitors, but that seems like it'd be a pain to automate.

Hello, I am the guy who hates sec and would otherwise never play it. The exact shitter who if this was enabled, would all of a sudden start playing sec and would put the least effort into it as possible. But, whatever. You gotta get those antag points somehow. Pew, whats that you hear? Easy street shitty sec officers for (insert antagonist here) to defeat and powergame? That'd become so much more common. But, could you blame them? There's no fun being on the side of the murdered. So why not half-ass everything that you do, to get a taste of the glory. Y'know what that sounds like? A system where everybody lives half-assed lives and no one actually feels good about what they're doing. It's called COMMUNISM- Yeah, I went off the rails at the end. But I hope you get the point. I at least, think I raise some points.

And yet, even being intentionally low effort you would still be better then the empty slot.

It's not like sec tends to be over-filled or capped out on officers, so short of intentionally trying to sabotage sec (the kind of thing that would get you bwoinked pretty fast) you can't actually do more harm then good.

I guess if you rolled for security and then immediately ran into the hallways, stripped and suicided you might, but again, that's the kind of pattern of behaviour that gets caught pretty quickly.

Also I don't buy that people who hate sec but otherwise try to "win" the game would just let themselves get murdered for antag rep.

We have people who play assistant and gear themselves up with the idea to take on nuke ops/changelings/etc. They clearly want to "win" against the antagonist, all antag rep would be doing in this case is incentivize them to put security on their job roster.

The logic checks out, honestly. The people who go validboner as assistant would generally be doing exactly the same thing as security, with a small side of having to put up with the Tide and hopefully learning what it's like to be on the other side of it.

[Shadowflame909]

I like this as a step in the right direction to moving focus away from antags but I think we'll need more focus from development to encourage depth in non-antag gameplay to make it worthwhile. Really, we should probably aim to make non-antag activity interesting enough that players are legitimately upset that an antag could blow it up and ruin it. That would mean less valid hunting for valids sake and more legitimate hunting the bad guy because he did or could do a bad to a thing you want to protect.

If people are only playing to be antagonists, that means that the non-antagonist gameplay just isnt very interesting. I'm personally burnt out and feel uninspired repeating the same roles every shift...just nothing else to explore.

The logic checks out, honestly. The people who go validboner as assistant would generally be doing exactly the same thing as security, with a small side of having to put up with the Tide and hopefully learning what it's like to be on the other side of it.

Believe me, the people who go validboner as assistants usually already go validboner as security. Also, a fatal flaw I see is that this system is trying to lump the worst into the roles of the best. Yes, lets make the population of the game that commit suicide at roundstart, vandalize for shitty reasons and all in all get away with the bare minimum of player conduct to avoid a ban into the roles where we expect people to be above all that. You can't change people, so I see no reason forcing people into roles that they don't want to play. Also, yes this is forcing people into those roles. The same people who roundstart suicide are now given the opportunity to take away head roles from people who want to do good with it, and they do the bare minimum to avoid a ban! As a quite popular headmin says, if you remove the hut. The hut goes everywhere else, and everything just becomes quite worse.

[MaximumOverlizard]

Actually, it occurs to me.

... What do people think about increasing reputation based on the number of greentexts of antags of your type, encouraging traitors to help other traitors and lings to help other lings? Other than "It'll encourage team murderboner"?

[Anonmare]

I have no particularly strong feelings about this. Honestly wouldn't have noticed were it not in the Policy Discussion

you get greentext as the traitor, so there's no reason not to pair up with them unless you absolutely hate the thought of helping a silicon to win, like me, because they have the power of friendship built in, especially when they get an autoborger.

Unless I've forgotten since I stopped reading this when I blew up too hard and wound up triggering Remie into spouting nonsense about languages not used by dream maker, you get rep by playing not as an antag.

You don't greentext as a traitor that got borged unless you have an objective to die.

You can succeed on an escape objective by leaving the z-level before the nuke goes off but hijacking absolutely requires going against the malf if it nukes. Plus without a robo console the malf can't spot a rogue cyborg and even if it did, it can't steal it from you.
In addition, there's a way to make it impossible for a malf to spot a rogue cyborg by: First, building a cyborg as normal but before putting the MMI/Posibrain in - disconnect the law sync via multitooling the empty endoskeleton.This'll make a cyborg that'll show up as being connected to it, and can even be hacked, but won't share its lawset.

[WarbossLincoln]

This is apropos of nothing other than a traitor getting borged. Do you keep your objectives when you get borged? You'd still have to follow your laws, but do you still have your objectives from when you were human since you're the same brain?

Like if you had an assassinate objective to kill a lizard and then get borged, could you go kill that lizard assuming no human ordered you to not do it?

[somerandomguy]

This is apropos of nothing other than a traitor getting borged. Do you keep your objectives when you get borged? You'd still have to follow your laws, but do you still have your objectives from when you were human since you're the same brain?

Like if you had an assassinate objective to kill a lizard and then get borged, could you go kill that lizard assuming no human ordered you to not do it?

I don't think you keep antag status unless you get deborged (which almost never happens, especially considering law 3)

[Nilons]

This seems like a good opportunity to introduce more of an expected bare minimum into crucial roles like security and heads considering theyd be getting a reward in exchange for not playing those roles. If you implement this system and up the bar for whats expected of those roles it would remedy people just picking them to get the increased antag chance as well as affecting other players positively due to how much influence they have on the round.

If people who just want to up their chances at getting antag despite that can behave and play the roles properly why should it matter what their motivation is for doing so

[Shadowflame909]

Why would you want such an easily metagameable antagonist system that tells you the best way to game the system for antagonist. Also "that guy who got head roles all day is suddenly an assistant. Hmm, Well I guess it's nothing." Literally everyone will be able to tell who got antag. Also this is way less balanced then the current system. Lastly, getting antagonist won't encourage new people into the roles of head of staff members or security. It'll encourage rounds to end faster so captains can rack up on the antag points
Bad system, fatal flaws and rewards shitty people for doing nothing but calling the shuttle at it's best. Will be ban bait and destroy our server population at it's worst. This isn't high rp, so why pretend like it's gonna bring out the best in people. Sure... They won't greytide with HOP at roundstart and do the bare minimal of there job..we trust our server

[WarbossLincoln]

This feels like a solution in search of a problem. Except during lowpop there rarely seems to be a shortage of most roles, even sec. Anyone who queues assistant solely to antag roll can be encouraged to play more important roles but nothing is going to make them actually try at that role. We don't job ban people from jobs for not being great at it, it takes gross incompetence or an unwillingness to do even the bare minimum to get job banned. I'd rather have a late join captain that wants to play the role than a round start captain who is just there for the points and isn't going to do his job above the bare minimum to not get job banned.

[captain sawrge]

This seems like a good opportunity to introduce more of an expected bare minimum into crucial roles like security and heads considering theyd be getting a reward in exchange for not playing those roles. If you implement this system and up the bar for whats expected of those roles

Who would enforce this and how?

Don't say admins because they do not have the resources to scrutinize the behavior of a relatively large group of players, nor can they investigate every anecdote of "high standard" roles misbehaving.

[Nilons]

This seems like a good opportunity to introduce more of an expected bare minimum into crucial roles like security and heads considering theyd be getting a reward in exchange for not playing those roles. If you implement this system and up the bar for whats expected of those roles

Who would enforce this and how?

Don't say admins because they do not have the resources to scrutinize the behavior of a relatively large group of players, nor can they investigate every anecdote of "high standard" roles misbehaving.

Yes admins do have the resources? If a head suicides you ahelp it. There is no base to the claim that admins couldn't do what admins on other servers do regularly. While admins being unable to enforce something is definitely a reason to not make it a rule this is not the case.

[Arianya]

There is a huge difference between policing suiciding as head/round critical roles and "bare minimum" acceptable behaviour, especially when what that bare minimum is wildly subjective too.

[WarbossLincoln]

A head role suiciding roundstart is a binary condition, either they did or they didn't. There's no way you're going to get an agreement of what's an acceptable standard of bare minimum competency for a head role. The best you're going to get is someone getting job banned if they consistently screw something up in the head role that has station wide implications which is most likely going to be the CE or HOS.

Admins have differing opinions on what's acceptable escalation, silicon law bending, sec behavior, etc. That's how anything objective works. Adding another objective thing to rule on probably isn't a good idea.

[Arianya]

(subjective, not objective)

[Nilons]

Then use objective criteria to determine the bare minimum headmins decide on? Obviously subjective things are going to be an administrative headache, why you jumped immediately to it being impossible that there are more objective standards to hold people to than "Dont kill yourself" is beyond me.

[captain sawrge]

Then use objective criteria to determine the bare minimum headmins decide on? Obviously subjective things are going to be an administrative headache, why you jumped immediately to it being impossible that there are more objective standards to hold people to than "Dont kill yourself" is beyond me.

Such as?

[Nilons]

Such as?

Here are a few examples but overly specific suggestions almost always get ignored in policy

-Not accepting being cloned if you die or taking ghost roles as a head
-Going out into space to explore as a head or security (happens regularly in my experience)
-Heightened escalation rules that don't make it as easy to remove someone from the round as the default ones considering you're in a position of power

The only subjective one there is the last one but if admins can administrate escalation in its current state it shouldn't be a problem

These examples are not suggestions but proof that there is more than one objective criteria for this sort of thing, which for some reason you need spoonfed to you

[BeeSting12]

All but the first one are in place now though? And the first one's pretty unreasonable IMO

[Arianya]

-Not accepting being cloned if you die or taking ghost roles as a head

Unreasonnable in multi-hour rounds, and largely irrelevant, since if a head is dead and not imminently revived you can bet someone stole their ID and goodies.

-Going out into space to explore as a head or security (happens regularly in my experience)

Ahelp this under basically any threat whatsoever and reap the rewards.

-Heightened escalation rules that don't make it as easy to remove someone from the round as the default ones considering you're in a position of power

Considering how much of a bugbear escalation is already, applying a secondary filter to escalation especially to a role that can very often be in mortal peril (revs/antags hungry for your access/etc) is really weird.

These examples are not suggestions but proof that there is more than one objective criteria for this sort of thing, which for some reason you need spoonfed to you

No one's asking to be spoonfed, the issue is that going "hey maybe judge heads on their performance??" without suggesting any kind of criterion is basically as useful a suggestion as "hey maybe ban all the bad people??"

And the reason sawrge was asking was specifically to point out how any criterion you come up with is either already something that is watched for/punishable or is so bugbearish that it would depopulate head roles by the necessity of enforcing it.

[oranges]

This seems like a good opportunity to introduce more of an expected bare minimum into crucial roles like security and heads considering theyd be getting a reward in exchange for not playing those roles. If you implement this system and up the bar for whats expected of those roles

Who would enforce this and how?

Don't say admins because they do not have the resources to scrutinize the behavior of a relatively large group of players, nor can they investigate every anecdote of "high standard" roles misbehaving.

Yes admins do have the resources? If a head suicides you ahelp it. There is no base to the claim that admins couldn't do what admins on other servers do regularly. While admins being unable to enforce something is definitely a reason to not make it a rule this is not the case.

you're ignoring the fact that most admins wouldn't want to enforce it because it's not what they're looking for in the game and it's not why they joined, but by all means try to rotate the community on it's axis.

let me know how well that works out for you

[WarbossLincoln]

(subjective, not objective)

Yeh, replace what I said with this, I absentmindedly switched them as I typed it.

Yes admins do have the resources? If a head suicides you ahelp it. There is no base to the claim that admins couldn't do what admins on other servers do regularly. While admins being unable to enforce something is definitely a reason to not make it a rule this is not the case.

Sure, you can enforce anything, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. A lot of the reason we play here is because admins don't administrate their standards of RP or competence onto the players like a HRP server.

[Nabski]

So this is turned on now.

I've got a variety of feelings about it, but that's not important.

What is important is this:
If you roll head and go afk/ask to be replaced really early on, I'm going to drop your reputation.
If your behavior is somewhere between moving on my way and a note, I might drop your reputation a little.

[Shadowflame909]

I mean, if putting the roundstart suiciders in sec and command roles is what you want...Just don't expect them to do much over the bare minimal. Well, I guess everyone will set there command roles to high. If they want any chance at antagonist at the very least on bagil.

[somerandomguy]

At least I'll get to play malf more often, assuming shitters don't steal the AI slot too

[Saegrimr]

If you roll head and go afk/ask to be replaced really early on, I'm going to drop your reputation.

If your behavior is somewhere between moving on my way and a note, I might drop your reputation a little.

[Nabski]

Blinky Light Bulbs]

Why do you think reducing antag roll rep is a bad punishment for bad actions. I was mostly thinking of using it for cases of bad escalation, heavy greytiding, or aweful security play where they shouldn't be rewarded with extra points for it. That last one is things like beating revolutionaries to death or wordless arrests/executions.

[imblyings]

oh god lmao

[imblyings]

while this lasts though, there could be some sick admin events involving poker or blackjack games that use reps for chips

[onleavedontatme]

Blinky Light Bulbs]

Why do you think reducing antag roll rep is a bad punishment for bad actions. I was mostly thinking of using it for cases of bad escalation, heavy greytiding, or aweful security play where they shouldn't be rewarded with extra points for it. That last one is things like beating revolutionaries to death or wordless arrests/executions.

Please check with headmins before you invent a new form of punishment that is even more subjective than the ones we have now

[Saegrimr]

I can already feel the complaints coming on about "admins steathily fucking with my rep so I never roll antag" whether its true or not, if this can be manually changed on players. Is there logging of this action somewhere?

[imblyings]

yes its logged

[Shadowflame909]

Blinky Light Bulbs]

Snip

The cause of the salem witch trials were mass hysteria. Which caused alot of innocent people to be murdered. Do you really want to make players hysterical that when they go afk to use the bathroom or eat. They're losing out on antag points. At the very least it'll instill a sense of fear in the players!

[Grazyn]

As long as admins don't turn this into "what you did wasn't bad enough for a ban or a note so I'm lowering your antag rep", it can be an interesting way to force people into less played jobs

[onleavedontatme]

As long as admins don't turn this into "what you did wasn't bad enough for a ban or a note so I'm lowering your antag rep", it can be an interesting way to force people into less played jobs

I agree. What is the point of a line if we're going to penalize people who didn't cross it?

Are we gonna have antag rep appeals because someone punched the clown?

[onleavedontatme]

Also for saeg

https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/38040

[Grazyn]

Antag rep reduction should only be used to punish people cheating on their rep, like going AFK on Terry just to farm rep and so on

[Stickymayhem]

Holy fuck can we keep this simple

As it stands, the new system being implemented is this: https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/38042

MSO has decided this is a code decision not a headmin decision, so some form of this is going to be implemented whether we like it or not. I don't think it's necessary but it's happening.

The good news is the initial plan which would have been a disaster has been scrapped and we have a compromise instead. Now everyone gets 10 tickets per round except assistants who get 7. This discourages assistant antag rolling without increasing competition for head roles from shitters.

[CPTANT]

Just remove the assistant role if you are just going to punish people for playing it.

[Grazyn]

Holy fuck can we keep this simple

As it stands, the new system being implemented is this: https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/38042

MSO has decided this is a code decision not a headmin decision, so some form of this is going to be implemented whether we like it or not. I don't think it's necessary but it's happening.

The good news is the initial plan which would have been a disaster has been scrapped and we have a compromise instead. Now everyone gets 10 tickets per round except assistants who get 7. This discourages assistant antag rolling without increasing competition for head roles from shitters.

I think people are worried about this

Blinky Light Bulbs]

Why do you think reducing antag roll rep is a bad punishment for bad actions. I was mostly thinking of using it for cases of bad escalation, heavy greytiding, or aweful security play where they shouldn't be rewarded with extra points for it. That last one is things like beating revolutionaries to death or wordless arrests/executions.

"Bad escalation" is vaguely defined by design, "heavy greytiding" is less subjective but some may be worried that they're gonna be punished for assistant shenanigans on top of earning less points due to their role, "worldless arrests" are normal since officers usually arrest people without warning them first, which had already led to endless pointless policy discussion in the past so let's not go there once again. Also admins already ban/note players who do these things, and I was under the impression that the new system was meant to give players a reason to play unrewarding and stressful jobs like heads and sec, using the system to further punish them when they mess up seems cruel to me

[Nabski]

If you're not getting bonus points to be security, it doesn't make as much sense to remove points for being shitty at security.

[Stickymayhem]

Just remove the assistant role if you are just going to punish people for playing it.

Still valid as a learning/low-effort role. It's a very small disincentive to not play assistant. If you truly find value in the assistant role you'll still play it. If, like I imagine the majority do, you play assistant to antag role and otherwise have no responsibility instead of a small amount of responsibility, then it seems reasonable you get a bit less chance at the fun stuff.

Not contributing to the round is disincentivized now.

[CPTANT]

Just remove the assistant role if you are just going to punish people for playing it.

Still valid as a learning/low-effort role. It's a very small disincentive to not play assistant. If you truly find value in the assistant role you'll still play it. If, like I imagine the majority do, you play assistant to antag role and otherwise have no responsibility instead of a small amount of responsibility, then it seems reasonable you get a bit less chance at the fun stuff.

Not contributing to the round is disincentivized now.

No, you just pick another job and do what you would have done otherwise.

[Shadowflame909]

Yeah pretty much Atmos tech/captain assistant mains. They have the same responsibility

[Cobby]

Gonna be honest I didn’t read this thread much after I posted long ago.

Also why do we have a policy for a feature that’s not even implemented this is the utmost bikeshed bait.

Also pull this out of the code and into config, technically discussing job values is coding feedback lol.

[feem]

why do we have a policy for a feature that’s not even implemented this is the utmost bikeshed bait.

because mso just activated it, or at least stated that it would be activated, in the server config thread

[Cobby]

They’re getting balanced to be equal sans assistant which I think is ok I guess

[Grazyn]

Why is this in policy if it is entirely a coder thing with no config option?

Also as I said in the PR, if the whole point is to disincentivize people from playing assistant, why not just disable their maint access or make the role less appealing in some other way instead of going through such a complex thing with so many potential drawbacks (like admins using rep reduction as a punishment)