Antagonist reputation system
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:53 pm
Bottom post of the previous page:
https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/ ... -369786663Why are we punishing people for playing the job they want to play?
Bottom post of the previous page:
https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/ ... -369786663Ok I think ternary notation is fine and just something people wanting to understand code should learn.cmspano wrote:I learned within a month of working that almost everything my university taught me about coding was pointless outside of the bare basics. Code readability is important, but using a ternary is 100% readable. Readability tanks when you get someone who has to attach interfaces to everything even when there's no reason to and everything turns into a spiderweb of BS. Stuff like that. If value = boolean expression ? val1 : val2; is too complex to read quickly then there's a problem
Hell, my boss would probably send my code back if I wrote:
Code: Select all
IF (Some Boolean Expression) { Value = 1; } Else { Value = 2; }
You are mistaken.CosmicScientist wrote: Correct me if I'm mistaken, didn't the guy who's working on byond try to get if(x = y) accepted by the compiler but got told to fuck off? Maybe that would have been the kind of boilerplate you're looking for too?
Code is there to work, if a piece of code is weird enough to deserve a comment, it gets one. You know what isn't weird? an operator standard in most languages these days.CosmicScientist wrote: Code is there to be readable
Go tell any other large project on github that you want to understand the code, but that you refuse to put in the effort to know the language said code is written in, as that's essentially what you're asking with that quote.CosmicScientist wrote: they then have to ask coderbus what the fuck is wrong with the codebase that you need to be educated in coding before you can begin to understand what's going on.
Comments aren't boilerplate, but they have a time and a place.CosmicScientist wrote: That and the odd thing is that whilst you write what you call boilerplate, comments don't seem to be boilerplate in this codebase or documentation so that's another demerit on your code on top of trying to be sassy with me.
This isn't quite right. The list of languages a person can speak is decided by what tongue organ they have, which is interchangeable in game. It is the tongue that decides what languages it speaks, and thus those definitions are on the tongue object, in the tongue object's file.CosmicScientist wrote: Oh and scattering it across every job file is not moot, unfortunately for you there's a slight problem I encountered right now with languages and that's because without documentation I had to go fishing through old language PRs and thank git there were only a few since the list of languages a person can speak is in the tongue file which would make sense if not for the tongue file being in the surgery module so one wonders why the tongue file didn't call up another file in the language module where languages are supposed to be.
Have you heard of a struct? Structs don't use any of their vars.CosmicScientist wrote: not only do the jobs themselves not use this var
Ok, you have perhaps 3 ways to do this. One of which is so ridiculous I'm going to assume you didn't mean that one.CosmicScientist wrote: but these vars are relative and only mean something when saddled up next to one another
Or a config file is added, and the coder/admin/person simply modifies that.CosmicScientist wrote: and the next coder to come around is going to love you when they have to flip open notepad++ and put each file next to next to know if the QM should have such and such a value relative to the AI and then the maintainers have to look at the PR this is in and ask is this okay relative to all the other values, what were the other values, better go check.
No, but if that person wants to sort a list, I'd expect them to either ask a coder or ask google how that's done, at which point they'll be shown quicksort, bubblesort, timsort, bogosort, etc.CosmicScientist wrote: You dig or are you going to tell me that every volunteer who comes from playing the game to contributing to the game should know quicksort
Again, please make a minimum of effort to understand the language you're going to work in, I and others have repeatedly taught people about things they've asked about, that's all the effort needed, just ask.CosmicScientist wrote: that lists start at 1
What point are you trying to make here? iirc true and false aren't even defined in SS13 anywhere, since it's irrelevant to 90% of contributors that #define TRUE 1 is written in a "secret" .dm file generated automatically by the compiler whenever you make a project. Most contributors won't ever need to see this file.CosmicScientist wrote: and that they need to push their nose into the define files before they think of asking does true = 1 or does true = 0?
Uhh what? It's in a dropdown on the website, it's on the github docs, where else do you want it? The little bar at the top of the forum? sure, why not, MSO did make a site suggestions subforum.CosmicScientist wrote: I would say they have to find coderbus first on the arcane IRC that is referred to in the form only those in the know can access on the home page but now we have discord so at least a quarter of the coders are available to ask questions with joke responses on the technical topics.
this is pretty much how I see itimblyings wrote:Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented
Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.
Ohw come on. Nobody says you can't have fun without being antag. It's just that being antag is MORE fun.Limey wrote:this is pretty much how I see itimblyings wrote:Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented
Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.
you shouldn't need to be antag to have fun with the game, and antags shouldn't be what makes the round fun. should rather encourage players to make the round interesting in other ways than just being antag and breaking the station one c4 at a time
sure, but playing solely for antag shouldn't be rewardedCPTANT wrote:Ohw come on. Nobody says you can't have fun without being antag. It's just that being antag is MORE fun.Limey wrote:this is pretty much how I see itimblyings wrote:Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented
Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.
you shouldn't need to be antag to have fun with the game, and antags shouldn't be what makes the round fun. should rather encourage players to make the round interesting in other ways than just being antag and breaking the station one c4 at a time
I agree that in a perfect game with a less-imperfect playerbase there wouldn't be a number of people who think the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.imblyings wrote:Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented
Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.
yeah okay but the point is you shouldn't just give up and outright encourage the mentality that antag is the only reason to playEagleWiz wrote:I agree that in a perfect game with a less-imperfect playerbase there wouldn't be a number of people who think the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.imblyings wrote:Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented
Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.
This is not a perfect game. Antag IS more desirable then non-antag, and most players agree with this. Saying we shouldn't use antag rolls as an incentive because the game should be equally fun to play without antags is silly, because we are a long way off in both coding and in playerbase from having that be anywhere close to true.
But everyone knows antag is more fun. I get that technically "antag is more fun" isn't a literal fact, but it might as well be. There is a lavalands ruin that has the reward for a critical success be antag. There used to be another lavalands ruin that was a hellish maze full of enemies and one of the rewards for completing it was antag status. Antag is rolled before security because given the choice most people wont play security if it reduces the chance of antag. It's not the only reason to play, but to say that the coders/admins/whoever's in charge of this reputation system is supposed to just not notice that antag is more fun because in an ideal game it wouldn't be is silly.Qbopper wrote: yeah okay but the point is you shouldn't just give up and outright encourage the mentality that antag is the only reason to play
Would you still think this if we removed Rule 4?EagleWiz wrote:But everyone knows antag is more fun.
i don't find antag funEagleWiz wrote:But everyone knows antag is more fun. I get that technically "antag is more fun" isn't a literal fact, but it might as well be. There is a lavalands ruin that has the reward for a critical success be antag. There used to be another lavalands ruin that was a hellish maze full of enemies and one of the rewards for completing it was antag status. Antag is rolled before security because given the choice most people wont play security if it reduces the chance of antag. It's not the only reason to play, but to say that the coders/admins/whoever's in charge of this reputation system is supposed to just not notice that antag is more fun because in an ideal game it wouldn't be is silly.Qbopper wrote: yeah okay but the point is you shouldn't just give up and outright encourage the mentality that antag is the only reason to play
fucking damn dudecedarbridge wrote:Would you still think this if we removed Rule 4?EagleWiz wrote:But everyone knows antag is more fun.
It would still be more fun without rule 4, but even if it wasn't that won't change the fact that we do have rule 4.cedarbridge wrote:Would you still think this if we removed Rule 4?EagleWiz wrote:But everyone knows antag is more fun.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I asked if, all other things being equal, that rolling antag would always be more fun than other rolls without rule 4. The fact that rule 4 does in-fact exist does nothing in a hypothetical where it does not.Nilons wrote:It would still be more fun without rule 4, but even if it wasn't that won't change the fact that we do have rule 4.cedarbridge wrote:Would you still think this if we removed Rule 4?EagleWiz wrote:But everyone knows antag is more fun.
Lets work with your premise. Why should any player have to wait for antag status in order to griff? Shouldn't they just be able to do whatever whenever? If the only thing that sets antags apart from the regular players is that they get TC for weapons and majority rule immunity then there's very little left separating this from DarkRP style deathmatching.Nilons wrote:What is wrong with people liking having a licence to griff besides you not liking that people do.
You might have missed earlier that I don't support this system as I don't like the concept of using antag as a reward because I simply don't like the idea that antag is treated as a more desirable role than merely being on the station in a round doing whatever. That there are currently several things that encourage the idea of treating antag as a reward does bother me, but given that current trends point to a desire to move closer and closer to BattleRoyale style RDM, I suppose I'm in a minority.Nilons wrote:That isn't my premise at all, youre blowing parts of it way out of proportion. Players liking having a licence to griff because it's not constantly there =\= me saying they should always have it because it's fun. There are a lot of reasons not to always have it. There aren't many reasons not to use it as an incentive to fill certain roles on station. Saying people have fun as an antag in the current state is 100% not even close to saying that they would have fun being an antag unconditionally and constantly. Using a role that players find fun as a reward for doing things the administration wants is entirely different from giving them it constantly and you know that.
Obviously nobody wants to get banned for "some stupid shit" but I'm not seeing any meat to that argument. Nobody likes to get banned regardless of context but we ban people who violate rules. That's just how rules work. Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.PKPenguin321 wrote:cedarbridge, obviously antag is more fun in most cases if only because the odds of you getting banned for some stupid shit go way the fuck down
i have a hard time playing sec and silicon roles because there's the constant pressure of having much harsher scrutiny from a policy perspective
it's not that you can't have fun as a non antag but you must see the benefit to having rules not apply to you
As you are an admin, I of course must defer to your superior knowledge of the rules and how they should be enforced. In that regard, which two of Rules 2,3, and 8 am I allowed to break, and which is the one I am expected to follow next time I get antag? I would hate to go around ERPing but get banned because it turns out its only metacoms and complaining about the round in ooc that I'm allowed to do as antag.cedarbridge wrote: Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.
You may consider your chosen hair split.EagleWiz wrote:As you are an admin, I of course must defer to your superior knowledge of the rules and how they should be enforced. In that regard, which two of Rules 2,3, and 8 am I allowed to break, and which is the one I am expected to follow next time I get antag? I would hate to go around ERPing but get banned because it turns out its only metacoms and complaining about the round in ooc that I'm allowed to do as antag.cedarbridge wrote: Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.
why are you like this: the postEagleWiz wrote:As you are an admin, I of course must defer to your superior knowledge of the rules and how they should be enforced. In that regard, which two of Rules 2,3, and 8 am I allowed to break, and which is the one I am expected to follow next time I get antag? I would hate to go around ERPing but get banned because it turns out its only metacoms and complaining about the round in ooc that I'm allowed to do as antag.cedarbridge wrote: Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.
I have the impression that there are plenty of people that support a system that makes it more likely to become antag if you haven't been so in a while.Qbopper wrote:why are you like this: the postEagleWiz wrote:As you are an admin, I of course must defer to your superior knowledge of the rules and how they should be enforced. In that regard, which two of Rules 2,3, and 8 am I allowed to break, and which is the one I am expected to follow next time I get antag? I would hate to go around ERPing but get banned because it turns out its only metacoms and complaining about the round in ooc that I'm allowed to do as antag.cedarbridge wrote: Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.
anyways, is there a significant number of people who think this rep system is a good idea? I don't see what was wrong with having antag being random, frankly
edit: removed shit i should not have posted
Considering how the systems effect tops out at doubling the chance? The guy ignored by the metagamer still has a solid chance of getting ling and eating him. At worst the guys chance is half that of normal, and thats in a case where every other player on the server has their chance at double. Which probably wont happen.Shadowflame909 wrote:I'm for a system that makes it more likely to become antag if you haven't gotten it in a while. But the argument becomes what if a metagamer realizes, "HEY THAT GUY WAS AN ANTAG LAST ROUND. ALRIGHT, IGNORE HIM."
As this never zeros out your antagonist chance, it doesn't really help metagamers metagame individuals. And a security member suddenly becoming not-security after 5 rounds of security is an issue that already exists with the antag system.BUT WHAT IF METAGAMERS
They'll be rolebanned as any other head role would be if they suicided on roundstart. Arguably the only negative effect this rep system would have would be increasing the number of antag rollers who get banned in the first week or two of this being enabled.BUT WHAT IF AFK/SUICIDE HOP
There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to play not-assistant, as assistant was/is the overflow role and if you really want to play assistant then there's no harm to having a slightly slower rep accrual.BUT PENALIZES PLAYING ASSISTANT
I don't see any good reason for regeneration over time vs points for playing rounds (grief lottery, etc) and it doesn't sit well with me to give admins an invisible way to mess with antag rolling, even if we presume it would be absolutely handled responsibly, it would just create paranoia.bandit wrote:I don't know if this is possible or easy to code, but one idea is a system where:
1. There is a hard baseline reputation that antag probability slowly regenerates to over time. (Admins can lower this for people who abuse antag, so that if the baseline is 50 then they can make Rolls-For-Antags regenerate to 10.)
This feels too hamfisted an attempt to fix the murderbone problem, especially since sometimes the traitor gets unlucky and gets outed 3 minutes in and their options are defeat or going loud.2. Every death a traitor directly causes, outside their objectives, decreases their probability temporarily. The idea is to discourage murderboning. (Team antags are of course exempt from this.)
If we're going to reward people for challenge moding, we probably shouldn't penalize them for then not getting the antag-roll. Also depending on the specifics this could end up encouraging boring rounds where the traitors end up falling flat on their face trying to challenge mode, and still get increased antag-probability even though they failed to create conflict.3. Certain actions give a slight boost to antag probability, such as never spending TCs, etc. These of course also revert gradually to baseline.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but we have one already.it doesn't sit well with me to give admins an invisible way to mess with antag rolling
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.sometimes the traitor gets unlucky and gets outed 3 minutes in and their options are defeat or going loud.
If you're referring to antag-bans or forcing an antag/mode then that's not really the same thing and you know it, compared to the capability to give someone the impression their odds are the same as everyone else's but actually they got their chance cut to a fifth of everyone else's because a admin disapproved of their antagonist play but not enough to warn them/apply an antagonist ban.bandit wrote: I'm sorry to break this to you, but we have one already.
Sure, but my point is less the specific example and more that "murder boning"/killing outside your objective is sometimes an emergent aspect of the situation and not a malicious decision to fuck everyone's round "just bcuz i can!!" and that applying a punishment across the board for it is heavy handed.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.
And yet, even being intentionally low effort you would still be better then the empty slot.Shadowflame909 wrote: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.