Moderators: In-Game Game Master, In-Game Head Admins
Cobby wrote:Get off the game if you find the game boring or code features to make it fun. I'm not going to accommodate people who only enjoy the game by ruining it for others.
As for "but it will just create more escalation problems" I can assess people when having to make escalation calls and start drawing patterns, I can't when they're silently returning to lobby or suiciding across a period of rounds where I may not even be on to see the early-game printout.
Eskjjlj wrote:It's easy to enforce that.
When you spot a player commit suicide when not antag you make a secret note "Suicided as non-antag. Keep an eye on him in the future for antag rolling." And then when they suicide a second time you antag ban them!
Sounds fair, right?
Kenteko wrote:I think antag rolling should be allowed.
This is coming from someone that has no problem with the PVE side and actively encourages people to space explore/do their autism projects/etc. However, I'm not blind to the fact that most of the non antag side is in a terrible place right now on TG.
Most of the jobs are either boring, mindless, or unrewarding. I'm a huge fan of tedium when I need to do something mindless, but at the same time, I also understand that I tend to enjoy having the CHOICE of zoning out versus doing something.TG as a culture seems to revel in being a traitor, all the goodies you get often have no counter, things that make you have a hard time are constantly nerfed, and often the "NPCs" tend to get mostly ignored or rolled over in favor of a murderboner. Attempting to deescalte often ends with you dead in a ditch somewhere because "you should've shot them." This creates a situation of rocket tag where security often goes completely brutal to deal with an alpha strike, which leads to non antags getting shit on harder, which leads to antags wanting to up the ante and so on.
Really, antag rolling would extend rounds as people who don't get it are happy to end up observing and not tiding. Job slots aren't lost (not that HoP bothers with that) and people who are content to do their jobs are more likely to come around. This will lead to lower pop rounds and a complete admission that the game is about antags first (and being an antag) versus having a rich and nuanced system where you are happy to be the NPC or the antag either way.
Side note, don't assume that everyone who is for antag rolling wants to be an antag. I tend to roll either command staff or join in as an assistant when I don't want to deal with the responsibility and just want to autism fort. Even when I do traitor, I almost never spend my TC (either TC trading for devil/meme or letting it sit in my PDA) because I'd rather have to play on an even playing field then blatantly walk around with broken shit.
Kenteko wrote:That you feel antag only exists for people to ruin rounds is either showing your own personal issues or the issues of culture present in TG.
Antags are absolutely not made for people to ruin rounds, they're there to accomplish goals and by extension, create tension and different circumstances with how those goals are accomplished. Two different people using two different kits causes a massive change in how the round itself runs on top of the departments that need to work to fix it. TB gets released? Different then a syndie bomb blowing up then a robust tot.
More importantly, you're thinking in pure black and white. You assume (at least I'm inferring) through your posts that traitor is a "reward" for suffering when it is, in fact, a simple roll of the dice. There are many people that actually do not play traitor at all because they don't find it fun, feel they're not robust, or simply dislike the idea of ruining someone's round. This is part of why I think antag rolling should be allowed: There should be people who strive to be the best antags they possibly can as there are people who strive to be the best (non traitor position) they possibly can be.
As for the whole "leave or code" dilemma, realize that people have differing skills and the like. If you're all but stating that you have some sort of higher position because you can code then that says more about your character than about anything else. People provide to communities in different ways, either from working within the game or community to create something better, to doing math, to mapping, to simply putting code together that choosing to wave a coding dick around just makes you come off worse.
cedarbridge wrote:PKPenguin321 wrote:cedarbridge wrote:NoxVS wrote:Meaningful roleplay requires conflict, otherwise it’s just two people awkwardly doing bar RP. The only reliable source of conflict is from antags considering the only conflict that can be formed between two non antags is shallow or forced.
You what.
I'm starting to think that the whole "TG is norp" thing is really just that people don't have any fucking idea how to roleplay.
To his credit, roleplay that comes about due to conflict is leaps and bounds more interesting than roleplay that doesn't.
To whom
Cobby wrote:Kenteko wrote:That you feel antag only exists for people to ruin rounds is either showing your own personal issues or the issues of culture present in TG.
Antags are absolutely not made for people to ruin rounds, they're there to accomplish goals and by extension, create tension and different circumstances with how those goals are accomplished. Two different people using two different kits causes a massive change in how the round itself runs on top of the departments that need to work to fix it. TB gets released? Different then a syndie bomb blowing up then a robust tot.
More importantly, you're thinking in pure black and white. You assume (at least I'm inferring) through your posts that traitor is a "reward" for suffering when it is, in fact, a simple roll of the dice. There are many people that actually do not play traitor at all because they don't find it fun, feel they're not robust, or simply dislike the idea of ruining someone's round. This is part of why I think antag rolling should be allowed: There should be people who strive to be the best antags they possibly can as there are people who strive to be the best (non traitor position) they possibly can be.
The people who tend to do "interesting" traitor stuff are also those that do interesting stuff when they aren't traitor. As such, the people who antag roll also tend to be murderboners (from the people who we've caught ofc).
You can create unique stories just as much while nonantag as you can antag. If you're legitimately interested in the storytelling aspect, you'd still do *something* in the round rather than just suicide as soon as you realize you haven't won your "golden ticket".
Telling me i'm the crazy one for saying these people treat it like such is absolutely nuts, THEY LITERALLY DO NOT PLAY THE GAME UNLESS THEY GET THIS. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
As for the whole "leave or code" dilemma, realize that people have differing skills and the like. If you're all but stating that you have some sort of higher position because you can code then that says more about your character than about anything else. People provide to communities in different ways, either from working within the game or community to create something better, to doing math, to mapping, to simply putting code together that choosing to wave a coding dick around just makes you come off worse.[/quote}
I've never implied I am better than someone else because I code. I use "code" to mean contribute with a deliverable (that is code, sprites, maps, etc.) rather than being just an ideas guy.
At some point you have to realize that no one has an obligation to code on your behalf or make the game fun for you. If you want epic features or "enjoyable jobs" then the onus is on the person complaining to take the initiative. If you refuse to do that, and see no one is helping you, then you're only non-masochistic option is to play something you DO find enjoyable.
The idea that i'm a bad guy for telling people that is odd.
Cobby wrote:"The thing is, if they're not playing, that's great: Better they not play than negatively contribute to the round."
I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I will ban antag rollers who do nothing but negatively contribute to the round unless they're antag, in which case most times they still typically contribute negatively.
teepeepee wrote:"if you don't let us/them suicide/ghost/space ourselves/themselves roundstart repeatedly we'll/they'll tide really hard instead"
why are these people even being paid attention lmao
just make it so x ammount of consecutive first 10 min self-caused deaths get you flagged
Kenteko wrote:teepeepee wrote:"if you don't let us/them suicide/ghost/space ourselves/themselves roundstart repeatedly we'll/they'll tide really hard instead"
why are these people even being paid attention lmao
just make it so x ammount of consecutive first 10 min self-caused deaths get you flagged
Honestly, that's a non starter. Then people will just afk for 11 minutes and faff about in another window. Once the time has been found out, and it will be found out as soon as the first warning is issued, people will just do the absolute bare minimum to do things.
As it stands, we barely even bother enforcing Rule 5, this isn't on the books and suicide is often even considered to be normal.
cedarbridge wrote:I'm starting to think that the whole "TG is norp" thing is really just that people don't have any fucking idea how to roleplay.
PKPenguin321 wrote:cedarbridge wrote:PKPenguin321 wrote:cedarbridge wrote:NoxVS wrote:Meaningful roleplay requires conflict, otherwise it’s just two people awkwardly doing bar RP. The only reliable source of conflict is from antags considering the only conflict that can be formed between two non antags is shallow or forced.
You what.
I'm starting to think that the whole "TG is norp" thing is really just that people don't have any fucking idea how to roleplay.
To his credit, roleplay that comes about due to conflict is leaps and bounds more interesting than roleplay that doesn't.
To whom
To me, to NoxVS, to pretty much most of our playerbase? A tense and dramatic situation brought on by conflict is way more interesting than "another day at work" or close variants thereof, and I think this is something that can generally be agreed on unless you play on High-RP servers (where they still enjoy conflict-risen RP, mind you, but are more tolerant for RP that isn't) or are a massive contrarian.
Kenteko wrote:teepeepee wrote:"if you don't let us/them suicide/ghost/space ourselves/themselves roundstart repeatedly we'll/they'll tide really hard instead"
why are these people even being paid attention lmao
just make it so x ammount of consecutive first 10 min self-caused deaths get you flagged
Honestly, that's a non starter. Then people will just afk for 11 minutes and faff about in another window. Once the time has been found out, and it will be found out as soon as the first warning is issued, people will just do the absolute bare minimum to do things.
As it stands, we barely even bother enforcing Rule 5, this isn't on the books and suicide is often even considered to be normal.
Secret extended is the best mode
WarbossLincoln wrote:Secret extended is the best mode
It's really not, because after 15 minutes of no antag activity like 25 tiders realize it's probably extended and start rioting and fucking everything up. There's usually more random grief, murder, and destruction on extended than on the non team-deathmatch modes like traitor.
Karp wrote:Also lmaoing @ ur life for saying "Antagonist conflict is the only good kind".
CDranzer wrote:Okay, firstly, if you really want to remove antag rolling just make all antag roles midround so people don't have an easy way of knowing if they're going to be safe to gib themselves in the HoP line or not. I feel like there was some project or attempt at it at some point? But I don't keep up to speed with the coderbus.
Secondly, can we stop pretending that the moment a policy is implemented the admins are going to go full fucking gestapo? Like "have a suicide roll policy" does not mean "IF YOU EVER SUICIDE THE ADMINS ARE GOING TO PERMABAN YOU AND GAS YOUR METAFRIENDS", and the idea of "if we can't define the policy in the most flawless perfect way imaginable then it should never ever be implemented" would obliterate half of regular policy and probably the entirety of silicon policy.
cedarbridge wrote:The policy literally already exists. Its already being enforced. The apocalypse has not happened.
PKPenguin321 wrote:me: doesnt use the word meaningful once, interprets nox's use of it to mean "more interesting"
karp:Spoiler:Karp wrote:Also lmaoing @ ur life for saying "Antagonist conflict is the only good kind".
nobody said this
NoxVS wrote:Meaningful roleplay requires conflict, otherwise it’s just two people awkwardly doing bar RP. The only reliable source of conflict is from antags considering the only conflict that can be formed between two non antags is shallow or forced.
Karp wrote:I'll spoonfeed you because I'm nice.
CDranzer wrote:cedarbridge wrote:The policy literally already exists. Its already being enforced. The apocalypse has not happened.
Is it actually in the rules though? Last I checked it isn't officially stated, it's just one of those things that people sort of take for granted like lynching for daniel.
Cobby wrote:CDranzer wrote:cedarbridge wrote:The policy literally already exists. Its already being enforced. The apocalypse has not happened.
Is it actually in the rules though? Last I checked it isn't officially stated, it's just one of those things that people sort of take for granted like lynching for daniel.
Since when does every policy needs to be in the rules?
Cobby wrote:Right but it doesn't matter when the system is easily overturn-able by the next set of headmins tbh.
Users browsing this forum: Naloac