/tg/Station 13

wesoda25 wrote:I’ve never done it, but I’d think a traitor working with security to help secure their objectives would be a pretty cool gimmick. Whats so taboo about it? They’re creating conflict amongst fellow traitors which could explode violently, which of course provides conflict for the round.

- Antags who do nothing antagonistic and make no attempt at any objective

Anuv wrote:Apply this to every server. Ironic that players on the RP server think the Syndicate would be happy with them giving themselves in. Admin intervention if it's bad enoguh.

PKPenguin321 wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:I’ve never done it, but I’d think a traitor working with security to help secure their objectives would be a pretty cool gimmick. Whats so taboo about it? They’re creating conflict amongst fellow traitors which could explode violently, which of course provides conflict for the round.

"working with security" by tossing them/R&D an uplink and then just being a normal crewmember sucks
i've yet to see it play out in an interesting way

wesoda25 wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:I’ve never done it, but I’d think a traitor working with security to help secure their objectives would be a pretty cool gimmick. Whats so taboo about it? They’re creating conflict amongst fellow traitors which could explode violently, which of course provides conflict for the round.

"working with security" by tossing them/R&D an uplink and then just being a normal crewmember sucks
i've yet to see it play out in an interesting way

I hate to be the guy that checks scrubby but you've literally only played two rounds this past month, obviously you haven't seen it play out in an interesting way (edit: i actually only have two rounds on manuel in the last month too (lot more overall but thats besides the point) - but my point is that if you don't play frequently you can't comment on the frequency of something happening in game, so my playtime really doesn't matter).

cybersaber101 wrote:

- Antags who do nothing antagonistic and make no attempt at any objective

This one would be insanely hard to enforce to the point where you might as well ask if they dont want antag thru bwoinking or a voice in their head my dude. they may be new to being traitor and need a nudge, I'd say it's any admins on the servers fault for not trying to work with them.

In conclusion, just do admin shit instead of weird hard to enforce shit.

NoxVS wrote:what would your opinion on wizard be? I have played many manuel rounds, and friendly wizard is a genuine problem. They show up, do fuck all, and now you have an hour long round without anything happening if an admin isnt on. They ignore all conflict entirely and have even just been handed all access by command and promoted to captain on some occasions.

PKPenguin321 wrote:

NoxVS wrote:what would your opinion on wizard be? I have played many manuel rounds, and friendly wizard is a genuine problem. They show up, do fuck all, and now you have an hour long round without anything happening if an admin isnt on. They ignore all conflict entirely and have even just been handed all access by command and promoted to captain on some occasions.

I think they're godawful. They have the added shittyness of 99% of the time giving the crew magic/guns, ESPECIALLY the staff of healing which is pure garbage. It's extended only medbay has fuckall to do and they can't even commit suicide because of the fucking healing staff. Definitely ban those too. I'd consider a wizard a "directly hostile" antagonist.

Anuv wrote:Apply this to every server. Ironic that players on the RP server think the Syndicate would be happy with them giving themselves in. Admin intervention if it's bad enoguh.

Shadowflame909 wrote:I like it but friendly wizards may need to be the exception. Because even though I find them the worst friendly antag. It's a legitimate survival strat against 60 v 1

PKPenguin321 wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:I’ve never done it, but I’d think a traitor working with security to help secure their objectives would be a pretty cool gimmick. Whats so taboo about it? They’re creating conflict amongst fellow traitors which could explode violently, which of course provides conflict for the round.

"working with security" by tossing them/R&D an uplink and then just being a normal crewmember sucks
i've yet to see it play out in an interesting way

I hate to be the guy that checks scrubby but you've literally only played two rounds this past month, obviously you haven't seen it play out in an interesting way (edit: i actually only have two rounds on manuel in the last month too (lot more overall but thats besides the point) - but my point is that if you don't play frequently you can't comment on the frequency of something happening in game, so my playtime really doesn't matter).

it was shit last time i played and it was shit when i saw it just today. coming back from a hiatus doesnt mean ive been memory wiped.

as for the rest, yes, making compromises with sec for your freedom can be interesting, but immediately siding with sec for the entire round and never intending to do anything antagonistic is shit and should be bannable.

NikNakFlak wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:I’ve never done it, but I’d think a traitor working with security to help secure their objectives would be a pretty cool gimmick. Whats so taboo about it? They’re creating conflict amongst fellow traitors which could explode violently, which of course provides conflict for the round.

"working with security" by tossing them/R&D an uplink and then just being a normal crewmember sucks
i've yet to see it play out in an interesting way

I hate to be the guy that checks scrubby but you've literally only played two rounds this past month, obviously you haven't seen it play out in an interesting way (edit: i actually only have two rounds on manuel in the last month too (lot more overall but thats besides the point) - but my point is that if you don't play frequently you can't comment on the frequency of something happening in game, so my playtime really doesn't matter).

it was shit last time i played and it was shit when i saw it just today. coming back from a hiatus doesnt mean ive been memory wiped.

as for the rest, yes, making compromises with sec for your freedom can be interesting, but immediately siding with sec for the entire round and never intending to do anything antagonistic is shit and should be bannable.

Pretty much agree with wesoda here. you haven't played shit on manual. "my memory hasn't been wiped", gosh by golly guys his like 2 rounds on manual ever sure give him a good picture of the server and how it's antagonists operate.

I play on manual pretty often and admin it even more so. I've seen friendly antags roleplay and be interesting. A notable one was a wizard where I can't really say what his gimmick was other than that the Head of Security roleplayed around him greatly as if he might turn bad at any time and because ghosts were visible. They had a Skub above the bridge being used as a level of wizard evilry. If there was like 4-5 ghosts around, it was skub level 1 and shit was gonna hit the fan.
Friendly antagonists I would say are a little more common than other servers but by hell there doesn't need to be a policy thread for it because it isn't a problem. I hate telling people how to play especially since greatness like the above can happen, and it was more of an effort from everybody, not just the wizard but it allowed the situation to happen none the less. I'm kind of dissapointed in you penguin ngl.

NikNakFlak wrote:-snip-

cybersaber101 wrote:

NikNakFlak wrote:-snip-

you know, as much as I'm not a fan of friendly antags I think overall you're right. it's wrong to force players to play a certain way through policy.

Lone antagonists can do whatever they want

Short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

NoxVS wrote:

cybersaber101 wrote:

NikNakFlak wrote:-snip-

you know, as much as I'm not a fan of friendly antags I think overall you're right. it's wrong to force players to play a certain way through policy.

If players don't want to act out the role they are given then they shouldn't choose to be that role. If you don't want to be antagonistic, opt out of the antag roles.

Ayy Lemoh wrote:If you want to restrict antags on any other server then murderboning SHOULD BE PUNISHED AS WELL. It's either all or nothing otherwise that's double standards bullshit.

Istoprocent1 wrote:post

Lone antagonists can do whatever they want

Short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

Ayy Lemoh wrote:post

NikNakFlak wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:I’ve never done it, but I’d think a traitor working with security to help secure their objectives would be a pretty cool gimmick. Whats so taboo about it? They’re creating conflict amongst fellow traitors which could explode violently, which of course provides conflict for the round.

"working with security" by tossing them/R&D an uplink and then just being a normal crewmember sucks
i've yet to see it play out in an interesting way

I hate to be the guy that checks scrubby but you've literally only played two rounds this past month, obviously you haven't seen it play out in an interesting way (edit: i actually only have two rounds on manuel in the last month too (lot more overall but thats besides the point) - but my point is that if you don't play frequently you can't comment on the frequency of something happening in game, so my playtime really doesn't matter).

it was shit last time i played and it was shit when i saw it just today. coming back from a hiatus doesnt mean ive been memory wiped.

as for the rest, yes, making compromises with sec for your freedom can be interesting, but immediately siding with sec for the entire round and never intending to do anything antagonistic is shit and should be bannable.

Pretty much agree with wesoda here. you haven't played shit on manual. "my memory hasn't been wiped", gosh by golly guys his like 2 rounds on manual ever sure give him a good picture of the server and how it's antagonists operate.

I play on manual pretty often and admin it even more so. I've seen friendly antags roleplay and be interesting. A notable one was a wizard where I can't really say what his gimmick was other than that the Head of Security roleplayed around him greatly as if he might turn bad at any time and because ghosts were visible. They had a Skub above the bridge being used as a level of wizard evilry. If there was like 4-5 ghosts around, it was skub level 1 and shit was gonna hit the fan.
Friendly antagonists I would say are a little more common than other servers but by hell there doesn't need to be a policy thread for it because it isn't a problem. I hate telling people how to play especially since greatness like the above can happen, and it was more of an effort from everybody, not just the wizard but it allowed the situation to happen none the less. I'm kind of dissapointed in you penguin ngl.

PKPenguin321 wrote:- Antags who immediately hand their uplink to R&D/sec and say "yeah I'm a traitor but I think this makes us even" which is SHIT RP, it's SHIT
- Changelings that join sec within the first minute of the round and openly declare that they are a sec-ling
- Blatantly hostile/lethal antags (slaughter demons, space dragons) that opt to antag hunt instead of antagonize

PKPenguin321 wrote:What I really want to ban but find hard to enforce:
- Antags who do nothing antagonistic and make no attempt at any objective

PKPenguin321 wrote:"Friendly" antags who actively hunt other antags are the worst of the bunch imo. They're meant to provide interesting conflict to the overall story of the round, but they steal that interesting conflict for themselves by turning their tools to create this conflict on other creators. What you end up with is not only a person who is NOT providing the conflict they're supposed to, but actively stopping the other conflict creators from doing so. This creates a defacto extended which sucks. People who do this need a harsher antag ban than those who murderbone on Manuel.

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:- Antags who immediately hand their uplink to R&D/sec and say "yeah I'm a traitor but I think this makes us even" which is SHIT RP, it's SHIT
- Changelings that join sec within the first minute of the round and openly declare that they are a sec-ling
- Blatantly hostile/lethal antags (slaughter demons, space dragons) that opt to antag hunt instead of antagonize

While I can agree that in a perfect world this sort of thing would be an RP rule 8 violation and should be tamped down on, frankly with the outstanding issues Manuel has regarding basic RP rules enforcement (several of these are just flat out rarely to never enforced, and some of the ones that are seem continually eroded) this seems like it would be pretty far down the immediate priority list.

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:What I really want to ban but find hard to enforce:
- Antags who do nothing antagonistic and make no attempt at any objective

How about no.
Multiple shifts I've written down my uplink code, then start doing regular job things and 50 minutes later remember I was an antag. Bwoink city?

Our coded in objectives are stale as hell and I don't give a shit about greentexting anyway, I prefer to take my antaggery in the direction of mostly non-violent things that cause confusion and silliness. I have the same chance of getting antag as anyone else, so how about short of murderboning I get to do what the fuck I feel like doing with my round? Sound good?

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:"Friendly" antags who actively hunt other antags are the worst of the bunch imo. They're meant to provide interesting conflict to the overall story of the round, but they steal that interesting conflict for themselves by turning their tools to create this conflict on other creators. What you end up with is not only a person who is NOT providing the conflict they're supposed to, but actively stopping the other conflict creators from doing so. This creates a defacto extended which sucks. People who do this need a harsher antag ban than those who murderbone on Manuel.

A gimmick I was occasionally fond of was buying martial arts, then wearing the justice suit/helmet or the owl costume and being a "superhero" who fights crime. Sometimes sec would hate me and immediately hunt me down and perma me, sometimes they would just be vaguely antagonistic to me, sometimes they would work with me. Should this be banworthy? Was this me ruining the RP experience?

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:It kind of sounds like in summary one of your primary issues with Manuel is that there isn't enough blood and explosions and 40 minute rounds.
I would like to think, that's things functioning as intended.

PKPenguin321 wrote:This is straying dangerously close to the argument of "things are already bad therefore nothing should improve."

PKPenguin321 wrote: Already responded to this higher up. It's not realistically enforceable (I even acknowledge that in text you quoted!) so it's not something I really care to push in this thread.

PKPenguin321 wrote:If you can make it work and provide an engaging experience to to server, you shouldn't be banned, hence "soft ban" on friendly antags. If you're at odds with sec doing this, you're creating conflict, so you're good. I never said a traitor can never kill another traitor, but things like space dragons who will beeline to the nearest antags by bashing down walls then instagib them (this has actually happened on Manuel) should absolutely be ban-worthy.

/datum/antagonist/space_dragon/greet()
	to_chat(owner, "<b>Endless time and space we have moved through.  We do not remember from where we came, we do not know where we will go.  All space belongs to us.\n\
					Space is an empty void, of which our kind is the apex predator, and there was little to rival our claim to this title.\n\
					But now, we find intruders spread out amongst our claim, willing to fight our teeth with magics unimaginable, their dens like lights flicking in the depths of space.\n\
					Today, we will snuff out one of those lights.</b>")
	to_chat(owner, "<span class='boldwarning'>You have five minutes to find a safe location to place down the first rift.  If you take longer than five minutes to place a rift, you will be returned from whence you came.</span>")
	owner.announce_objectives()
	SEND_SOUND(owner.current, sound('sound/magic/demon_attack1.ogg'))

PKPenguin321 wrote:

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:It kind of sounds like in summary one of your primary issues with Manuel is that there isn't enough blood and explosions and 40 minute rounds.
I would like to think, that's things functioning as intended.

Yes and no. I enjoy the less breakneck pace of Manuel, but there are way too many rounds where nothing ever happens. I've had players ahelp to me asking if they were "allowed to kill sec if they got in the way of [them] killing the HoS for [their] objective" because they were worried they would get banned for murderboning (before you ask, yes, you can kill people as antag even on Manuel, #wow #woah). Antags are already way too hesitant to actually antagonize, and friendly antags who do the opposite of antagonize just compound the issue of eventless, conflictless rounds even further.

pkpenguin wrote:I have more than two rounds on Manuel. It has been practically the only server I've played since it debuted. Just today I began playing again after a hiatus hence my low connection count for just this month. And yes, my memory was not wiped, I do have >2000 hours on this game.
A cool gimmick like what you described in your post would be fine. Again, I want a soft ban. As long as you're driving the conflict of the round in an interesting way you're good. On the other hand, giving the crew 5 staffs of healing at roundstart then jacking off for the next two hours is garbage and should be bannable.

NikNakFlak wrote:

pkpenguin wrote:I have more than two rounds on Manuel. It has been practically the only server I've played since it debuted. Just today I began playing again after a hiatus hence my low connection count for just this month. And yes, my memory was not wiped, I do have >2000 hours on this game.
A cool gimmick like what you described in your post would be fine. Again, I want a soft ban. As long as you're driving the conflict of the round in an interesting way you're good. On the other hand, giving the crew 5 staffs of healing at roundstart then jacking off for the next two hours is garbage and should be bannable.

People should always be allowed to do whatever they want as antagonists that isn't ruining the round for a large number of people. If you were online to see that as an admin, just inject more antagonists. If you were playing, then maybe 2 hours of manual isn't for you since many others enjoy that.

PKPenguin321 wrote:

NikNakFlak wrote:

pkpenguin wrote:I have more than two rounds on Manuel. It has been practically the only server I've played since it debuted. Just today I began playing again after a hiatus hence my low connection count for just this month. And yes, my memory was not wiped, I do have >2000 hours on this game.
A cool gimmick like what you described in your post would be fine. Again, I want a soft ban. As long as you're driving the conflict of the round in an interesting way you're good. On the other hand, giving the crew 5 staffs of healing at roundstart then jacking off for the next two hours is garbage and should be bannable.

People should always be allowed to do whatever they want as antagonists that isn't ruining the round for a large number of people. If you were online to see that as an admin, just inject more antagonists. If you were playing, then maybe 2 hours of manual isn't for you since many others enjoy that.

Creating conflict is not "ruining the round for a large number of people" (not to say that it can't be), and saying so is clearly fallacious. Oh no, I had to break into the CE office and kill a guy so I could steal the station blueprints, everyone's round is ruined! I should have been a friendly antag!!!

I have created more antags while adminning Manuel due to friendlies. I fail to see how it is relevant to what I propose in this thread. I do play and enjoy rounds on Manuel, even two hours ones, but I do not enjoy the two hour ones where a wizard has given all of medbay staffs of healing and there are no stakes with nothing to do. The implication that friendlies are required for a quality two hour round is blatantly false, because friendlies like that actively make the round worse (by manner of removing the stakes and making it boring).

Cobby wrote:what does a soft ban mean, and can it be done with the current setup?

NikNakFlak wrote:

PKPenguin321 wrote:

NikNakFlak wrote:

pkpenguin wrote:I have more than two rounds on Manuel. It has been practically the only server I've played since it debuted. Just today I began playing again after a hiatus hence my low connection count for just this month. And yes, my memory was not wiped, I do have >2000 hours on this game.
A cool gimmick like what you described in your post would be fine. Again, I want a soft ban. As long as you're driving the conflict of the round in an interesting way you're good. On the other hand, giving the crew 5 staffs of healing at roundstart then jacking off for the next two hours is garbage and should be bannable.

People should always be allowed to do whatever they want as antagonists that isn't ruining the round for a large number of people. If you were online to see that as an admin, just inject more antagonists. If you were playing, then maybe 2 hours of manual isn't for you since many others enjoy that.

Creating conflict is not "ruining the round for a large number of people" (not to say that it can't be), and saying so is clearly fallacious. Oh no, I had to break into the CE office and kill a guy so I could steal the station blueprints, everyone's round is ruined! I should have been a friendly antag!!!

Absolutely not what I said at all, kind of a bad faith argument you are making here because I didn't imply nor state that in anyway.

NikNakFlak wrote:

I have created more antags while adminning Manuel due to friendlies. I fail to see how it is relevant to what I propose in this thread. I do play and enjoy rounds on Manuel, even two hours ones, but I do not enjoy the two hour ones where a wizard has given all of medbay staffs of healing and there are no stakes with nothing to do. The implication that friendlies are required for a quality two hour round is blatantly false, because friendlies like that actively make the round worse (by manner of removing the stakes and making it boring).

Why is this your one example?

- Antags who immediately hand their uplink to R&D/sec and say "yeah I'm a traitor but I think this makes us even" which is SHIT RP, it's SHIT
- Changelings that join sec within the first minute of the round and openly declare that they are a sec-ling
- Blatantly hostile/lethal antags (slaughter demons, space dragons) that opt to antag hunt instead of antagonize

saprasam wrote:thought: the reason there's so many friendly antags on manuel is because manuel players are afraid of the boink from having to kill multiple people to complete an objective