/tg/Station 13

With the all of the recent discussion about the playability of heads of staff as actual authority figures, I think it's a good time to bring this proposal back up - making heads of staff protected roles that can't be antagonists.

Part of the problem with command that isn't the captain or HoS having any real authority is the underlying meta consideration that the RD, CMO and CE and HoP can all be antagonists looking to fuck the station over, which undermines what little authority heads are actually able to exert. Security walking into R&D to see the Research Director dragging one of their scientists on the ground who's screaming for help to be demoted can't actually, on a meta level, assume that the reason they're dragging a cuffed person away is legitimately to demote them and leave the Director be. With how powerful most traitor head roles are (With full access to the role locked traitor items of their subordinates, plus the heavy access and useful gear of their head status) it's not even a good idea to trust that the heads are working to the station's benefit, of all possible antags on the station they're the most well equipped to screw you over.

This is to say nothing of the absolute clusterfuck that is an acting captain traitor, and how little fun it is to play with in a scenario with a traitor having full access to literally every part of the station.

Hopefully having heads of staff be reliably, if not competent, at least not trying to actively murder everyone, would help promote the heads having some form of tangible authority over their departments.

Hop traitor is probably the worst offender by far

Firstly, pretty sure this is a code change.
Secondly, we already have problems with heads of staff not being played much and I think that removing them from antag positions won't help
It also adds another role that can just act as a semi sec officer that you can always meta-trust which is already lame with prisoners

Fikou wrote:we already have problems with heads of staff not being played much and I think that removing them from antag positions won't help

This

Have you considered that for things like demotions to include/inform security through one of the many direct lines to the department so when you do silently stun/cuff/drag someone its not actually silent because you informed them previously, saving yourself from needless drama?

Heck even better shout it to the station in your personalized super-speaker.

You as a player cant do something really sketchy then complain about being viewed as sketchy.

Fikou wrote:Firstly, pretty sure this is a code change.
Secondly, we already have problems with heads of staff not being played much and I think that removing them from antag positions won't help
It also adds another role that can just act as a semi sec officer that you can always meta-trust which is already lame with prisoners

This isn't technically true, but it would involve editing the dynamic config, and also be a silly idea. Sec needs to be non antag for our current antag vs security dynamic to work, heads do not. Positions of authority don't necessarily need to be totally trustworthy in order to have control/respect.

Why would heads not getting antag stop people playing heads. I've said this a few times already but it bears repeating. That's not why people choose not to be heads. It's the same reason people argue for being assistants. Nobody consistently wants to be in a position of responsibility.

That said, I much prefer heads being protected now that their potential to be the captain is hardcoded and not player handled. We should not be just giving all access to traitors roundstart due to a dice roll. That defeats the purpose of the captain being a protected position entirely, and the HoP being able to do that has been a long standing issue.

Antag selection happens before job selection, if you get antag the game will just put you in a different role, so it shouldn't affect people choosing to play heads at all.

SkeletalElite wrote:Antag selection happens before job selection, if you get antag the game will just put you in a different role, so it shouldn't affect people choosing to play heads at all.

This, it's the same reason I dropped a previous idea that this might stop heads from calling the shuttle because they're not antag.

Also re: code changes, this is configurable through Dynamic, but is sort of annoying to do (you'd have to go through every ruleset). As per usual my preferred route is if the head admins agree on something different to the current values, then we just update the code, so it's more easily aligned on every server and the codebase stays up to date. Especially in this case where we'd need to update it for every new antag.

Yes oh my god this change is very necessary.

Acting cap traitor is just insane. Why would the CAPTAIN of the station be a traitor? It's really silly... Maybe before the ID changes, heads being traitors made some sense. But now it's way too common for there to be an acting cap over a shiftstart captain (easily >50% of the time).

Considering that if you ready as a protected job and roll antag, you just get put into a non-protected job, I would be interested in TRYING these changes for a bit, to see how much it affects rounds.

I’m not convinced this will lead to less people playing head, as a head role with more authority and trust placed into it is a different and possibly more enticing experience than one with the possibility of being antag.

That being said, I don’t know.... I do like the possible benefits this could bring about, but at the same time this is a game of paranoia, and I find the trust dynamic interesting with heads of staff. It seems lame and maybe even snowflakey to me to add more jobs to the never antag list. This would be a big change that would alter how rounds play out a lot, and I’m not sure anyone is really ready for that or even wants it. I’m not aware of heads capability to be antags on other servers, but having less trustworthy heads seems like an important part of the tg experience.

HoP is the only problem right now, imo. Like c'mon it's just a Captain with antag roll available. A potential antag shouldn't have the ID Console at hand so they can go, get the spare and have everything served in a silver plate.

Just protect HoP, maybe make them also spawn mindshielded. Really, the rest are fine.

I believe that making heads protected roles would bo honestly a turn for worse because, as Fikou said, it would pretty much make a safe role to trust from the start of the game. It would encourage them to perhaps validhunt even because everyone will know that they are a safe person, "crewmate" you could say even. Doing stuff like arresting HoP because he went into armory would be useless because his job would be protected and most of the time you could fully trust him unless he is known for being a shitter.

Now about the Acting Captain bit, I think it just shows nanotrasen for what it was meant to be, a company that constantly cuts corners where it can. If they couldn't get an actual captain, they would just appoint a next head in the ladder as the acting captain, not caring whatever happens there.

Now how to solve it? I believe there should be a serverside config for that, if you want the fun chaos that can happen from having a dangerous head with AA you could play on LRP. If you want to pretend that Nanotrasen actually cares about their employees and ensures they aren't intermingling with their enemies, you could enable that config on your "space office with a hitman" simulator

Best wishes,
Sparkezel

Sparkezel wrote:I believe that making heads protected roles would bo honestly a turn for worse because, as Fikou said, it would pretty much make a safe role to trust from the start of the game. It would encourage them to perhaps validhunt even because everyone will know that they are a safe person, "crewmate" you could say even. Doing stuff like arresting HoP because he went into armory would be useless because his job would be protected and most of the time you could fully trust him unless he is known for being a shitter.

Now about the Acting Captain bit, I think it just shows nanotrasen for what it was meant to be, a company that constantly cuts corners where it can. If they couldn't get an actual captain, they would just appoint a next head in the ladder as the acting captain, not caring whatever happens there.

Now how to solve it? I believe there should be a serverside config for that, if you want the fun chaos that can happen from having a dangerous head with AA you could play on LRP. If you want to pretend that Nanotrasen actually cares about their employees and ensures they aren't intermingling with their enemies, you could enable that config on your "space office with a hitman" simulator

Best wishes,
Sparkezel

I don't really see how protected heads connects with validhunting... I mean, nonantag HoPs/RDs/CEs that want to valid hunt can do so with or without protection. Also, losing the ability to arrest HoP for breaking into the armory, doesn't really seem like a big loss to me. The guy starts with an egun anyways.

Just seems like acting cap antag has way too much power for what is the same threat as, say, a janitor antag.

sinfulbliss wrote:

Sparkezel wrote:I believe that making heads protected roles would bo honestly a turn for worse because, as Fikou said, it would pretty much make a safe role to trust from the start of the game. It would encourage them to perhaps validhunt even because everyone will know that they are a safe person, "crewmate" you could say even. Doing stuff like arresting HoP because he went into armory would be useless because his job would be protected and most of the time you could fully trust him unless he is known for being a shitter.

Now about the Acting Captain bit, I think it just shows nanotrasen for what it was meant to be, a company that constantly cuts corners where it can. If they couldn't get an actual captain, they would just appoint a next head in the ladder as the acting captain, not caring whatever happens there.

Now how to solve it? I believe there should be a serverside config for that, if you want the fun chaos that can happen from having a dangerous head with AA you could play on LRP. If you want to pretend that Nanotrasen actually cares about their employees and ensures they aren't intermingling with their enemies, you could enable that config on your "space office with a hitman" simulator

Best wishes,
Sparkezel

I don't really see how protected heads connects with validhunting... I mean, nonantag HoPs/RDs/CEs that want to valid hunt can do so with or without protection. Also, losing the ability to arrest HoP for breaking into the armory, doesn't really seem like a big loss to me. The guy starts with an egun anyways.

Just seems like acting cap antag has way too much power for what is the same threat as, say, a janitor antag.

Now I'm thinking "what if Antag Head was an option in dynamic that had a different weighting to Antag Crewmember so having a head antag is rare but not impossible so you can't 100% rely on it"

Any role should be capable of being an antagonist - maybe make head and security traitors less common, but they should definitely exist.

Fikou wrote:Firstly, pretty sure this is a code change.

it can still be discussed

legality wrote:Any role should be capable of being an antagonist - maybe make head and security traitors less common, but they should definitely exist.

>he has never gotten traitor captain

legality wrote:Any role should be capable of being an antagonist - maybe make head and security traitors less common, but they should definitely exist.

It shouldn't be possible for security to be traitors for as long as they have the meta-protections that they do. It's already pretty powerful to be an antag just dressed as sec.

Jaredfogle wrote:It's already pretty powerful to be an antag just dressed as sec.

sinfulbliss wrote:I don't really see how protected heads connects with validhunting... I mean, nonantag HoPs/RDs/CEs that want to valid hunt can do so with or without protection.

Ain't those the truth.

saprasam wrote:

legality wrote:Any role should be capable of being an antagonist - maybe make head and security traitors less common, but they should definitely exist.

>he has never gotten traitor captain

you fool, i started playing years before the possibility of removing even Traitor AI was conceived of.

Jaredfogle wrote:

legality wrote:Any role should be capable of being an antagonist - maybe make head and security traitors less common, but they should definitely exist.

It shouldn't be possible for security to be traitors for as long as they have the meta-protections that they do. It's already pretty powerful to be an antag just dressed as sec.

I also think the meta protections should be removed. I am nothing if not consistent!

I think the sec metaprotections are a necessary evil but dont think it’s a good idea to give them to more roles

legality wrote:I also think the meta protections should be removed. I am nothing if not consistent!

Sec metaprotections are vital because it provides legitimacy to a department that literally cannot function if people don't trust it. Without that, people immediately default to assuming traitor sec at the slightest misbehavior.

Cimika wrote:Considering that if you ready as a protected job and roll antag, you just get put into a non-protected job, I would be interested in TRYING these changes for a bit, to see how much it affects rounds.

I completely agree with this. It doesn't seem like something so bad that just trying it out will break anything, or turn people away from the game. So why not just try it out, and see how big the impact is?

Also I think having department heads being protected is good based on my personal experiences. If I was playing Scientist and I saw evidence of someone in science being a traitor I'd want to be able to trust the Research Director with that information. As it stands now if I was in that situation, and it turns out the RD is the traitor, they suddenly have a good reason for round removing me in the form of eliminating witnesses.

They revived it because I'd mentioned it in Manuel OOC, quite a few people don't check the forums for policy but still have opinions on whether or not things should be considered. Having people voice their thoughts on discussions is not a negative.

Policy threads lock after a set time of inactivity, meaning that posting in an open policy thread is not "reviving" a dead thread.

I am very against making head of staff protected roles.

The increased access and authority gives the traitor more avenues for traitoring, instead of just "hehe ebow esword funneh". I have seen traitors head of staff pull gimmicks in Manuel, or even just feats that would be ignored/impossible without the authority that comes with the role.
I have seen convicted traitors caught red-handed go free because the RD was very charismatic and convinced the HoS to offer parole.
While, yes, Heads as traitors have increased power when compared to normal staff, their power is not so different that it makes dealing with them impossible, only harder.
A traitor HoP forces the Sec Player to be more aware, as they could be anywhere, and access to guns is easy with their access-changing capabilities.
A traitor RD is tricky for they have all of science AND the tele vest, or whichever other vest they made, plus toxins, if they know how.

To summarize: While I understand that "traitor Heads have unprecedented power and lore-y they shouldn't be able to be indoctrinated" (Heads probably go through more scrutiny NT wise, like the captain and HoS), making them protected roles just takes away a reasonable portion of the chaos, options and possibilities of a round. Where the gameplay is concerned, the game is less without Traitor Heads.

What Samuel Hayden said.

Samuel Hayden wrote: A traitor RD is tricky for they have all of science AND the tele vest, or whichever other vest they made, plus toxins, if they know how.

So they're basically... a scientist or roboticist with the Tele Vest and the personal hardsuit? Same as how MDs/Chemists/Viros I thiiiink can all walk into each other's areas if they feel like it?

Samuel Hayden wrote: A traitor HoP forces the Sec Player to be more aware, as they could be anywhere, and access to guns is easy with their access-changing capabilities.

I don't know about Manuel, but sec on Sybil isn't consistently attentive enough to respond to calls for help on radio, much less the HOP taking stuff from the armory and then not using it immediately unless the AI forces them to pay attention to it.

Samuel Hayden wrote: "hehe ebow esword funneh

Is that even still a thing?

Samuel Hayden wrote: I have seen traitors head of staff pull gimmicks in Manuel, or even just feats that would be ignored/impossible without the authority that comes with the role.
I have seen convicted traitors caught red-handed go free because the RD was very charismatic and convinced the HoS to offer parole.

This is the only part I feel like I'll miss, tbh


Would it be possible to confine traitor heads to Manuel...? Sybilites honestly need all the help they can get.

Pandarsenic wrote:

Samuel Hayden wrote: A traitor RD is tricky for they have all of science AND the tele vest, or whichever other vest they made, plus toxins, if they know how.

So they're basically... a scientist or roboticist with the Tele Vest and the personal hardsuit? Same as how MDs/Chemists/Viros I thiiiink can all walk into each other's areas if they feel like it?

Samuel Hayden wrote: A traitor HoP forces the Sec Player to be more aware, as they could be anywhere, and access to guns is easy with their access-changing capabilities.

I don't know about Manuel, but sec on Sybil isn't consistently attentive enough to respond to calls for help on radio, much less the HOP taking stuff from the armory and then not using it immediately unless the AI forces them to pay attention to it.

Samuel Hayden wrote: "hehe ebow esword funneh

Is that even still a thing?

Samuel Hayden wrote: I have seen traitors head of staff pull gimmicks in Manuel, or even just feats that would be ignored/impossible without the authority that comes with the role.
I have seen convicted traitors caught red-handed go free because the RD was very charismatic and convinced the HoS to offer parole.

This is the only part I feel like I'll miss, tbh


Would it be possible to confine traitor heads to Manuel...? Sybilites honestly need all the help they can get.

sybil unrobust, play bagil kid.

Jonathan Gupta wrote:

dunno probably a lot of people wrote: i lkvoee amongus

sybil unrobust, play bagil kid.

bagil is dead

as is i think *something* has to give

currently, being a head grants you complete authority and access to your department, somewhat elevated authority and access over the station as a whole, a large quantity of Gamer Gear and of course Da Batong. this is fine, of course, as it normally carries with it the implication that you have a job to be respectable, knowledgeable, and competent, and that you need to oversee your department and prevent things from going wrong.

When you combine this with being a traitor, you now have someone most people won't question with a significant amount of gear and the ability to do a lot of normally shady stuff without anyone batting an eye, and the baton as a quite powerful weapon you're practically expected to have on you, all without any effort required. Traitor heads can regularly cause tons of problems with relatively little effort or risk to themselves, whereas most crew have to try a significant amount harder. a decent head traitor can easily be as problematic as three or four regular traitors. This is not in itself bad, as this is a game based around chaos, but it can create issues where the station ends up with way bigger problems than it should at a given threat level.

I simply don't think, in their current state, heads should be able to roll traitor. While heads doing gimmicks is nice, of course, for every round where a head has creative and original ideas that make the round better, there are five where they do pretty much the same shit they could as a different job but with gamer gear and everyone else having a significantly harder time stopping them. Additionally, it feels like heads as traitors is inherently design limiting, as nothing can be given that can just be horribly abused by a traitor. That's my take, at least.

Additionally, it feels like heads as traitors is inherently design limiting, as nothing can be given that can just be horribly abused by a traitor. That's my take, at least.

This isn't particularly a design problem since anything we add to the game will be horribly abused by a traitor if they just strip someone for it, or find it in a locker.

Jaredfogle wrote: This isn't particularly a design problem since anything we add to the game will be horribly abused by a traitor if they just strip someone for it, or find it in a locker.

True, but allowing them to do it without having to work for it is a significant difference. How often do you see a poisoned hypo abused by a CMO versus literally anyone else, for example?

They don’t need to because sleepy pens are better hypos for traitors at least, lings get their own “hypo”, etc

Samuel Hayden wrote:-snip-

The problem isn't heads of staff as traitors, IMO. The much bigger problem is Acting Captains as traitors. Unfortunately the two are tied together now. A small solution to this would be reorganizing the acting captain promotion priorities. Bigger solutions might include trying out disabling antag for heads altogether, or changing the "acting captain" mechanic.

Meta-trustworthy roles outside of sec are profoundly bad for the game.

Not knowing who to trust is integral to building paranoia.

Protected heads is just the type of hugbox designed we should try to get away from.

In my experience, mainly from playing CMO. You get plenty of respect if you are competent, confident and actually make an effort to lead your department.

Of course, if you stay silent and make no effort to lead, of course you don't get any respect, because you don't deserve it.

sinfulbliss wrote:

Samuel Hayden wrote:-snip-

The problem isn't heads of staff as traitors, IMO. The much bigger problem is Acting Captains as traitors. Unfortunately the two are tied together now. A small solution to this would be reorganizing the acting captain promotion priorities. Bigger solutions might include trying out disabling antag for heads altogether, or changing the "acting captain" mechanic.

Acting Captain traitors can be deliciously evil, and are a great reason to stir up a good old fashioned mutiny. The game would be lesser for eliminating the possibility of acting captains being traitors.

Farquaar wrote:

sinfulbliss wrote:

Samuel Hayden wrote:-snip-

The problem isn't heads of staff as traitors, IMO. The much bigger problem is Acting Captains as traitors. Unfortunately the two are tied together now. A small solution to this would be reorganizing the acting captain promotion priorities. Bigger solutions might include trying out disabling antag for heads altogether, or changing the "acting captain" mechanic.

Acting Captain traitors can be deliciously evil, and are a great reason to stir up a good old fashioned mutiny. The game would be lesser for eliminating the possibility of acting captains being traitors.

Eh but mutiny against acting captain isn't really a "mutiny." Let's be real here - acting captains are just heads who grab the gold card, maybe stock up on some sec/armory goodies, then go back to their department to do the job they signed up for shiftstart anyway. If they become known to be a traitor it's less of a mutiny and more of just a classic "oh this guy's wanted, better arrest them."

Now if the CAPTAIN, the ROLE PROTECTED bossman is fucking up bad enough to warrant a mutiny, and gets demoted and replaced (something that should almost never happen without absolutely amazing IC justification), then that's a mutiny right there.

Possible solution is to force players to play CAPTAIN when they are promoted to acting cap, and promote one of their department employees to the head of their old job. I mean that'd make more sense since their new job is CAPTAIN, but no one ever does this.

I've changed my mind

I got acting captain CE traitor on TramStation today

I immediately claimed the ID and onehumaned the AI while it was trying to stop my engineers from delaminating the supermatter

I gave it the guiding rule, "Evacuate as many living crew from TramStation as soon as possible by whatever means necessary"

Shortest TramStation round I've ever had, traitor heads are perfect as they are

beestation has protected heads and its incredibly annoying, one time a rd lets a traitor scientist go I ask why the fuck did they let a obv tot go? The response "rd said so"
rd was not a tot, but godamn did I want to say valid and shoot his ass to king kong.

Jonathan Gupta wrote:beestation has protected heads and its incredibly annoying, one time a rd lets a traitor scientist go I ask why the fuck did they let a obv tot go? The response "rd said so"
rd was not a tot, but godamn did I want to say valid and shoot his ass to king kong.

hrnk.. but/// vaLID? but... no kILL???

Screemonster wrote:

Jonathan Gupta wrote:beestation has protected heads and its incredibly annoying, one time a rd lets a traitor scientist go I ask why the fuck did they let a obv tot go? The response "rd said so"
rd was not a tot, but godamn did I want to say valid and shoot his ass to king kong.

hrnk.. but/// vaLID? but... no kILL???

I speak caveman, but I can't fucking understand. Yes, I wanted to valid his ass and shoot him, the guy doesn't like my funny clown pranks!!!!!

I like the idea of providing maximum paranoia. Its an important part of the game. Authority comes down to culture and how people play roles, and the interactions encouraged throughout things.

People taking the head antag roles and making rounds suck is on them, not on the gameplay feature of heads being antags.

I'm also a fan of sec being antags and have had awesome experiences with it but that's something else entirely.

Misdoubtful wrote: People taking the head antag roles and making rounds suck is on them, not on the gameplay feature of heads being antags.

Perhaps on MRP this is true. But on LRP, being antag has an entirely different point. You're not there to roleplay as the "bad guy," although you can, it isn't encouraged or incentivized. The reason is because antags have free reign to do whatever they want on LRP. They can murderbone. They're a serious threat and players have no admin protection against them. As a result, sec is pushed to eliminate them or perma them as opposed to creating a cooperative storyline with them.

Since sec is incentivized to deal with them by perma or round-removal, they aren't afforded the freedom MRP antags get to "make rounds not suck." They are actively encouraged to make rounds chaotic, to make rounds suck, because they are antagonists - bad men - and whether or not they act like it, sec will come down harshly on them for simply being valid, which is also incentivized in LRP.

Tl;dr: Antags on LRP are there to make rounds suck; if they deviate from that goal then they will get caught anyway and round-removed for trying to be clever and friendly. Sec is there to stop them before they make rounds suck. Cap antags have the power to make rounds suck so much that basically no one enjoys them. Therefore cap antags bad.

You have it a bit curvy.

Antags are cool at the start.

Player X chain murderbones which causes Y/Z to start gearing up next shift and just deleting antags on the spot because its not fun to sit out of an hour game.

This means now any other antag is now further encouraged to murderbone because the chain murderboners have ruined the opportunity for everyone else, and the "play to lose" meme becomes less enticing every hour you could just be playing a different server or game.

We love the only playstyle in the game that forces you to join in or just leave (which I imagine most people have done now which only reinforces turbomurdering because those people are the ones who make up a strong amount on LRP now).

sinfulbliss wrote: Perhaps on MRP this is true. But on LRP, being antag has an entirely different point. You're not there to roleplay as the "bad guy,"

This is a roleplaying game. You should play your role. The freedom is to give you the space to do that, but in a perfect world the goal is to make the story of the round better. MRP fails at this too mind, people grow attached to each other's/their own characters, and become afraid of being proper antagonists

spookuni wrote:With the all of the recent discussion about the playability of heads of staff as actual authority figures, I think it's a good time to bring this proposal back up - making heads of staff protected roles that can't be antagonists.

Part of the problem with command that isn't the captain or HoS having any real authority is the underlying meta consideration that the RD, CMO and CE and HoP can all be antagonists looking to fuck the station over, which undermines what little authority heads are actually able to exert. Security walking into R&D to see the Research Director dragging one of their scientists on the ground who's screaming for help to be demoted can't actually, on a meta level, assume that the reason they're dragging a cuffed person away is legitimately to demote them and leave the Director be. With how powerful most traitor head roles are (With full access to the role locked traitor items of their subordinates, plus the heavy access and useful gear of their head status) it's not even a good idea to trust that the heads are working to the station's benefit, of all possible antags on the station they're the most well equipped to screw you over.

This is to say nothing of the absolute clusterfuck that is an acting captain traitor, and how little fun it is to play with in a scenario with a traitor having full access to literally every part of the station.

Hopefully having heads of staff be reliably, if not competent, at least not trying to actively murder everyone, would help promote the heads having some form of tangible authority over their departments.

are you misunderstanding the purpose of this game?
there's supposed to be paranoia and distrust. adding more protected roles goes against the core design idea of the entire game premise.

I have never had any issue getting mobbed while demoting someone, I literally just telebatong them all the way to sec and nobody stops me.