Page 2 of 2

(MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2022 3:54 am
by spookuni

Bottom post of the previous page:

I made a thread about this last headmin term and never received a strict answer as it faded into autolock territory, and current experience makes me believe it's still a point worth pursuing so here we go again.

I believe it would be overall beneficial for the MRP servers at least for the station heads of staff roles to be protected (I.E incompatible with rolling any antagonists except obsessed). Mothblocks likes to remind me that many things beneficial to MRP also apply to LRP, but I'm not confident enough to say that for sure here, and in fact I personally disagree that it would be good for LRP servers the way I believe it would be good for MRP. So for LRP I'll leave it to others to decide if my points apply to all servers or just the Manuel and Campbell.

1. Heads of staff as antagonists tend towards much simpler and less interesting styles of antag play - Heads of staff are empowered with significantly increased access to both station locations and equipment from roundstart, as well as a greatly increased degree of soft power in terms of their authority under the chain of command. This leads towards heads of staff antagonists having a significantly easier time completing their objectives by simply ignoring interaction with the rest of the round in favour of quickly and easily acquiring completed objectives to even further empower themselves.

2. The MRP rules attempt to bolster the oftentimes questionable authority of the heads of staff, with an aim towards improving immersion and having the chain of command carry some IC meaning beyond "big doctor/scientist/engineer with more stuff". The existence of heads of staff antagonists undermines this intent - it's oftentimes very hard to stay in your lane and trust your boss when there's a decent chance they're out to sabotage the station, murder you or steal from you or others. Telling your boss to shove off because they're incompetent is a sacred right, but less conflict between OOC metaknowledge and the IC starting expectation that you want to keep your job would be nice.

3. Acting captain antagonists are terrible to play with, and there exists no current mechanism to dynamically protect head roles based on their position in the captain hierarchy when rounds lack a captain and auto promote a head. This has been the case for as long as I've been playing at least, but has become a significantly greater issue with the advent of the autopromotion announcement often making antagonists into round acknowledged "basically the captain". In the absence of any current method to stop that from happening, and for the other reasons above, I believe it would be an overall benefit to protect head roles and exclude them from antagonists on MRP.

Since I've seen this argument float around before and a couple of counterarguments have already been made, I'll include some pre-rebuttal to the more common counterarguments I see.

Paranoia is an important part of the game and adding more roles to the protected list harms this pillar

In my experience, there is a finite amount of paranoia you can cram into a round before people begin to simply automatically exclude trusting others as a workable option and choose to simply prepare themselves to be able to meet every possible challenge solo as no one else can ever be trusted. That kind of gameplay style runs directly counter to the interaction focused experience we aim for on MRP (to varying degrees of success, sadly), and as such I do not believe that cutting down on this particular source of personal paranoia would be a net negative for the game as a whole, especially given the increased story value of having personal pillars exist to be torn down - rounds where individual heads of staff are trustworthy and competent and then are suddenly disappeared by enemies of the corporation are already potent story generators, shifting increased value onto the chain of command thus further enhances RPR 3 by making heads of staff an increasingly inherently worthwhile target for traitors and other antagonists looking to disrupt the station.

It's hard enough to get people to play heads of staff already why would you want to disincentivise their play further by limiting antag opportunities?

Roundstart job rolling is done in a tiered system where higher priority rolls complete first and after they are assigned lower priority rolls take place. Currently to the best of my knowledge this system rolls Antagonists -> Heads of Staff -> Normal Jobs. As such if head roles were added to the protected list their players would not disadvantage themselves when it comes to standard rolls for antagonist - If they rolled an antag they'd be shunted off to another role other than a head, they would not lose the antag roll.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 12:54 pm
by BrianBackslide
Farquaar wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 2:29 am Have Manuel's anti-murderbone rules really damaged our brains so much that we think antags with a lot of power are a bad thing for the game? Have people forgotten that every (dynamic) round literally ends with the crew boarding an emergency evacuation shuttle for a reason?
Even as a dirty MRP main I'm starting to wonder if the anti murderbone rules are more of a detriment than a benefit. Not in the "spirit" of the rules, per se. Rather, I think it's psychological. I don't want a round where nothing happens because everyone's scared to do stuff, even only for fear of being called out on it and not for any punitive reason, but I also don't want a bagil style 20 minute round. Antags should be engaging in the round, and crew should be engaging with antags. If I'm an antag, I should be doing something that pushes the round forward. Doesn't have to necessarily be murder, but it should have some palpable effect. I think this extends to head being antags as, again, they have much more leverage to do things that move the "story" of the round.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:11 am
by CDranzer
I challenge anyone arguing against protected heads of staff to explain to me why security should be protected without using an argument that could also be applied to heads of staff.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:36 am
by Farquaar
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:11 am I challenge anyone arguing against protected heads of staff to explain to me why security should be protected without using an argument that could also be applied to heads of staff.
Security's job is to hunt antags. CMO, CE, RD, and HoP's job isn't to hunt antags. Security is antag-proofed because if the designated antag-hunters can't be relied on to lay down the law, then no one can.

Frankly I'm not married to the idea of security having antag protections, but to act like your average security officer plays the same role in a round as the CMO or RD is laughable.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:20 am
by CDranzer
Farquaar wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:36 am
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:11 am I challenge anyone arguing against protected heads of staff to explain to me why security should be protected without using an argument that could also be applied to heads of staff.
Security's job is to hunt antags. CMO, CE, RD, and HoP's job isn't to hunt antags. Security is antag-proofed because if the designated antag-hunters can't be relied on to lay down the law, then no one can.

Frankly I'm not married to the idea of security having antag protections, but to act like your average security officer plays the same role in a round as the CMO or RD is laughable.
Why do heads have batons?

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:46 am
by Longestarmlonglaw
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:20 am
Farquaar wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:36 am
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:11 am I challenge anyone arguing against protected heads of staff to explain to me why security should be protected without using an argument that could also be applied to heads of staff.
Security's job is to hunt antags. CMO, CE, RD, and HoP's job isn't to hunt antags. Security is antag-proofed because if the designated antag-hunters can't be relied on to lay down the law, then no one can.

Frankly I'm not married to the idea of security having antag protections, but to act like your average security officer plays the same role in a round as the CMO or RD is laughable.
Why do heads have batons?
So a random greytider cant just apply slip shove grab shove stun combo and net themselves free access

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 12:16 pm
by CDranzer
Longestarmlonglaw wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:46 am
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:20 am Why do heads have batons?
So a random greytider cant just apply slip shove grab shove stun combo and net themselves free access
Leaving aside the issues of a greytider getting the jump on somebody often negating the defensive measures that person has access to in the first place, why isn't this a problem for security?

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 12:49 pm
by Archie700
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 12:16 pm
Longestarmlonglaw wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:46 am
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:20 am Why do heads have batons?
So a random greytider cant just apply slip shove grab shove stun combo and net themselves free access
Leaving aside the issues of a greytider getting the jump on somebody often negating the defensive measures that person has access to in the first place, why isn't this a problem for security?
Security is supposed to deal with more than just a greytider seeking access. I doubt heads are supposed to rise to the occasion to hunt down a murderer in maint when they're supposed to manage their own department.
Which comes back to the point: It is the duty of security to protect the station, not command.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:03 pm
by Tearling
Stickymayhem wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 8:30 am Don't threaten me with a good time security antag is based
Personally I got tired of security antags the third time I got gunned down by a detective in cold-blood last month, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:09 pm
by CDranzer
Archie700 wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 12:49 pm
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 12:16 pm
Longestarmlonglaw wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:46 am
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:20 am Why do heads have batons?
So a random greytider cant just apply slip shove grab shove stun combo and net themselves free access
Leaving aside the issues of a greytider getting the jump on somebody often negating the defensive measures that person has access to in the first place, why isn't this a problem for security?
Security is supposed to deal with more than just a greytider seeking access. I doubt heads are supposed to rise to the occasion to hunt down a murderer in maint when they're supposed to manage their own department.
Which comes back to the point: It is the duty of security to protect the station, not command.
I can see people aren't going to be able to catch on to this without me being explicit about it: A head of staff is expected to maintain order within their own department, in the same way that a security officer is expected to maintain order within the station as a whole. This is why the argument that "heads aren't security" is moot. Heads play a security role within their own department.

Also, am I supposed to believe that a greytider getting access through violence is a greater concern than an antagonist spawning with that access in the first place?

My personal opinion on this topic has always been that authority and antagonism should never intersect except through explicit subversion (i.e. promotion, changelings, etc)

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 3:17 pm
by Archie700
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:09 pm
I can see people aren't going to be able to catch on to this without me being explicit about it: A head of staff is expected to maintain order within their own department, in the same way that a security officer is expected to maintain order within the station as a whole. This is why the argument that "heads aren't security" is moot. Heads play a security role within their own department.

Also, am I supposed to believe that a greytider getting access through violence is a greater concern than an antagonist spawning with that access in the first place?

My personal opinion on this topic has always been that authority and antagonism should never intersect except through explicit subversion (i.e. promotion, changelings, etc)
Heads are there to ensure the department is running properly. They have some pull over kicking out intruders or firing people who are detrimental to the progress. That is what their powers are. This is the extent of what their role as "security" is in MRP.

It falls apart when dealing with ACTUAL antagonists, the ones you would actually call security for. Heads just don't have the equipment to deal with murderous traitors, evil changelings, bloodthirsty heretics, wizards, cultists and so forth, in their department. A telebaton is not going to deal with some bullets to the head, a cryosting, or a juggernaut. And they can't arm up in MRP unless there's a known threat to the station as a whole...by which point everyone is arming up.

Note that if a head kills a lone antagonist in self-defense, they are still expected to report the kill to security or the captain in Manuel. They cannot round-remove them without permission, same as normal crewmembers.

The issue with access...I believe this is quite the exaggeration. The only heads that you should worry with access are the (acting) Captain and the HoP, who can basically just give themselves the access they want to fulfil the objectives. RD, CMO and CE only have access to their own department + some command (RD does have access to AI Upload, but the boards can be printed as long as research is done and if all of mining doesn't suddenly decide to die horribly). They still have to go through cargo to deliver contraband, break into areas to kill pets and steal/receive items (not within their department) and do that without getting suspected. This is more of a problem with Acting Captain and HoP and needs to be dealt with separately. And it should be noted that anyone can get to anywhere with the right equipment - heads just have it a bit easier (except Acting Captain and HoP but but see above).

Ultimately, no, heads are not security. You are not expected to trust them with your lives. They are just your boss, and they can sabotage the station the same way your coworker can sabotage the station. If your idea of a head is someone to be completely trusted in all aspects every time, then....honestly, I want what you are having, because this doesn't work that way in real life.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:03 pm
by Ziiro
I feel like the larger issue here is "Acting Captain" as a mechanically enforced thing. This was not a huge issue because the only roles that got that meta protection were Security and Captain, two roles that could never be antagonist for obvious reasons*

*Except through extreme measures of impersonation or shenanigans, which *is* fine because the meta-protection is the reward.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:43 pm
by BeeSting12
Maybe acting captain can be a nonantagonist role and just calculate who acting captain is after everything else is decided

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 9:49 pm
by terranaut
Just put the spare ID back and stop having a mechanically enforced acting captain

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 5:59 am
by Pandarsenic
terranaut wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 9:49 pm Just put the spare ID back and stop having a mechanically enforced acting captain
Acting captain is whichever assistant breaks in first

Plus every member of the crew they get all-access to before they're physically stopped

NO FEAR

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:51 pm
by Not-Dorsidarf
Pandarsenic wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 5:59 am
terranaut wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 9:49 pm Just put the spare ID back and stop having a mechanically enforced acting captain
Acting captain is whichever assistant breaks in first

Plus every member of the crew they get all-access to before they're physically stopped

NO FEAR
AA isnt viral any more

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:52 pm
by Pandarsenic
Not-Dorsidarf wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:51 pm
Pandarsenic wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 5:59 am
terranaut wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 9:49 pm Just put the spare ID back and stop having a mechanically enforced acting captain
Acting captain is whichever assistant breaks in first

Plus every member of the crew they get all-access to before they're physically stopped

NO FEAR
AA isnt viral any more
Yeah but it should be
Remove trim, bring back universal AA 2022

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 3:03 pm
by Cobby
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:11 am I challenge anyone arguing against protected heads of staff to explain to me why security should be protected without using an argument that could also be applied to heads of staff.
There isn’t one because it’s a compromise.

The quirky part is that there’s a pretty glaring issue with even sec not being antag that flies under everyone’s radar because people are that predisposed into thinking sec can’t ever be antag.

Have you tried larping as a sec officer while antag? I have my antag turned off now but this was the EASIEST I win button I have ever tried.

I remember killing like 15 people long ago as a larping warden with the electric chair and no one batted an eye because “they can’t be antag”. There is zero suspicion and a complete disconnect from how someone would respond to these without that burning ooc knowledge in their mind

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 5:26 pm
by Pandarsenic
Cobby wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 3:03 pm Have you tried larping as a sec officer while antag? I have my antag turned off now but this was the EASIEST I win button I have ever tried.

I remember killing like 15 people long ago as a larping warden with the electric chair and no one batted an eye because “they can’t be antag”. There is zero suspicion and a complete disconnect from how someone would respond to these without that burning ooc knowledge in their mind
This wasn't as much of a problem when sec was expected to actually RP instead of being silent, unthinking, unfeeling death machines.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:14 am
by BlueMemesauce
Even a legit security officer can be an antag if they become obsessed
Its so easy you can just walk up to your target and kill them with 0 effort

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:41 am
by sinfulbliss
Cobby wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 3:03 pm
CDranzer wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:11 am I challenge anyone arguing against protected heads of staff to explain to me why security should be protected without using an argument that could also be applied to heads of staff.
There isn’t one because it’s a compromise.

The quirky part is that there’s a pretty glaring issue with even sec not being antag that flies under everyone’s radar because people are that predisposed into thinking sec can’t ever be antag.

Have you tried larping as a sec officer while antag? I have my antag turned off now but this was the EASIEST I win button I have ever tried.

I remember killing like 15 people long ago as a larping warden with the electric chair and no one batted an eye because “they can’t be antag”. There is zero suspicion and a complete disconnect from how someone would respond to these without that burning ooc knowledge in their mind
I don’t see an issue with sec not being antag despite this. It’s somewhat difficult to just make yourself warden if there’s a full security squad, as a nonmindshielded roundstart antag. Even without full sec it just takes a single officer checking his PDA and seeing that you were actually an assistant, engi, etc., then whacking you for it. All those risks make it something you still have to earn, and it seems rare enough that it’s clearly at least somewhat difficult for the majority of antags to manage.

Contrast this with acting cap who gets this protected status, arguably even higher of a protected status, by simply spawning into the right role on an antag round. It doesn’t take effort so it feels a little cheesy.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:58 pm
by Cobby
I dont mind sec being antag-protected I just am not keen on the obvious problems associated with heads getting the same protection and as you mentioned is even easier to larp as. Even more frustrating is that it feels glossed over in the conversation.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:22 am
by Annihilite111
BrianBackslide wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 12:54 pm
Farquaar wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 2:29 am Have Manuel's anti-murderbone rules really damaged our brains so much that we think antags with a lot of power are a bad thing for the game? Have people forgotten that every (dynamic) round literally ends with the crew boarding an emergency evacuation shuttle for a reason?
Even as a dirty MRP main I'm starting to wonder if the anti murderbone rules are more of a detriment than a benefit. Not in the "spirit" of the rules, per se. Rather, I think it's psychological. I don't want a round where nothing happens because everyone's scared to do stuff, even only for fear of being called out on it and not for any punitive reason, but I also don't want a bagil style 20 minute round. Antags should be engaging in the round, and crew should be engaging with antags. If I'm an antag, I should be doing something that pushes the round forward. Doesn't have to necessarily be murder, but it should have some palpable effect. I think this extends to head being antags as, again, they have much more leverage to do things that move the "story" of the round.
It's as much of an issue with what kind of players the murderbone rules attract as the intimitation effect other players experience when playing antag. I've seen several people admit that they came to manuel only because they heard antags couldnt kill/there is no specism/everyone is nice and those are the sorts of players that are becoming a larger and larger part of the playerbase on MRP.
Then, when these people roll antags, they don't do anything interesting. At most, they might kill someone who was mean to their metafriend, or bring out the antag gear to kill someone attacking them. But if no outside force actively threatens them and their gang, these players who are supposed to BE that active force don't add anything to the round.
A consistent pattern of not playing your antag type should IMO be met with an antag ban. Maybe that will prevent the 3h nothing-ever-happens rounds where not even the fucking crew develop conflicts due to pathological niceness

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:51 pm
by spookuni
Cobby wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:58 pm I dont mind sec being antag-protected I just am not keen on the obvious problems associated with heads getting the same protection and as you mentioned is even easier to larp as. Even more frustrating is that it feels glossed over in the conversation.
I haven't really been saying much, since for the most part my disagreement with the "heads of staff as antagonists are cool and interesting this'd be boring and or bad" is a pretty fundamental "Well I find heads of staff as antagonists to be boring and uninteresting, irrelevant the feels bad factor that sometimes they kill you, so it'd be more interesting to get rid of them" But I would like to mention here that while it's a reasonable concern that people would internalise the OOC consideration that a head of staff could not be an antagonist, that'd be separate from the out and out metaprotections that apply to security. If security arrests you with a valid reason you are rulebound to not push their shit in because they're security, not because they're definitely 100% not an antagonist, the only case where this would apply to heads of staff (valid demotions) is already metaprotected as far as I'm aware, and I'd like to as much as possible dissociate the idea of protected roles from those carrying metaprotections. (example - prisoners, which are protected roles and have no metaprotections, if a prisoner starts shit with you you can be close to 100% certain they're not an antag, but you can still push their shit in)

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:29 pm
by Jonathan Gupta
I find heads of staffs not being antags to be less interesting due to a number of factors, it's boring to say ah no CE can't be a syndicate operative he's a head of staff!

the game is supposed to be paranoia-ridden, I don't want to be like ah yes my fellow head is definitely not a syndicate operative because heads cant! The fact you made it twice is ass please look into the head mirror and see why it's semi-cool.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:09 pm
by iwishforducks
Perhaps the solution is to make heads have a lower chance of being antags in general. So something like:

Jobs have a "security strength" value. Heads would have something like a strength 0.9. Security, who can't have antags, would have a strength of 1.
Roll antag -> roll "infiltration strength" value -> Roll jobs that have a weaker security strength value

Heads are fine as antagonists but it REALLY becomes boring when there's a head as a traitor almost every single round. Doubly moreso when they become acting captain. This would make these circumstances much rarer without making the jobs themselves more "trustworthy".

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:16 pm
by Jonathan Gupta
iwishforducks wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:09 pm Perhaps the solution is to make heads have a lower chance of being antags in general. So something like:

Jobs have a "security strength" value. Heads would have something like a strength 0.9. Security, who can't have antags, would have a strength of 1.
Roll antag -> roll "infiltration strength" value -> Roll jobs that have a weaker security strength value

Heads are fine as antagonists but it REALLY becomes boring when there's a head as a traitor almost every single round. Doubly moreso when they become acting captain. This would make these circumstances much rarer without making the jobs themselves more "trustworthy".
this becomes a code issue instead of a enabling issue entirely.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:22 pm
by iwishforducks
Jonathan Gupta wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:16 pm
iwishforducks wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:09 pm Perhaps the solution is to make heads have a lower chance of being antags in general. So something like:

Jobs have a "security strength" value. Heads would have something like a strength 0.9. Security, who can't have antags, would have a strength of 1.
Roll antag -> roll "infiltration strength" value -> Roll jobs that have a weaker security strength value

Heads are fine as antagonists but it REALLY becomes boring when there's a head as a traitor almost every single round. Doubly moreso when they become acting captain. This would make these circumstances much rarer without making the jobs themselves more "trustworthy".
this becomes a code issue instead of a enabling issue entirely.
it's a grey area because policy dictates that heads are antags

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:17 pm
by Misdoubtful
Tearling wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 6:32 am
Farquaar wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 2:29 am Have Manuel's anti-murderbone rules really damaged our brains so much that we think antags with a lot of power are a bad thing for the game?
You changed my mind. Lets flip it the other way around, not only should heads be antags, security should too. Antags should have more meta authority and power, that way we'll have more reason to call emergency shuttles on dynamic. /s
I remember a period of time on a server, where any crew member could be an antag. Captain, security, assistant, you name it. The server axed captain antag but kept the rest if my memory serves right.

It was the most fun when it came to antags. Not being able to always trust security was huge to have to consider, but that server wasn't entirely concerned with balance, more so with fun.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:10 pm
by terranaut
trying to balance a game thats inherently assymetrical in every conceivable metric you could set up is completely retarded in the first place
on top of that the game never was intended to deliver a balanced combat experience but a whacky story lasting 45 to 75 minutes told through chaos and mayhem

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:22 am
by CMDR_Gungnir
terranaut wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:10 pm trying to balance a game thats inherently assymetrical in every conceivable metric you could set up is completely retarded in the first place
on top of that the game never was intended to deliver a balanced combat experience but a whacky story lasting 45 to 75 minutes told through chaos and mayhem
But what kind of interesting or wacky story do you get from "The Captain uses his authority to have all of his work done for him and nobody can (or will) contest that"?

I've had Acting Captain Antags who actually got pissed off because their authority was questioned for being an Acting Captain. They expect it to just be handed to them for rolling it. They often can and will just have you silently killed for questioning them, and they're the Captain so nobody suspects them.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:34 am
by Misdoubtful
CMDR_Gungnir wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:22 am
terranaut wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:10 pm trying to balance a game thats inherently assymetrical in every conceivable metric you could set up is completely retarded in the first place
on top of that the game never was intended to deliver a balanced combat experience but a whacky story lasting 45 to 75 minutes told through chaos and mayhem
But what kind of interesting or wacky story do you get from "The Captain uses his authority to have all of his work done for him and nobody can (or will) contest that"?

I've had Acting Captain Antags who actually got pissed off because their authority was questioned for being an Acting Captain. They expect it to just be handed to them for rolling it. They often can and will just have you silently killed for questioning them, and they're the Captain so nobody suspects them.
This is where moderating for bad actors that ruin rounds comes into play. Things that add to the round in that instant are greenlit, and those using what they have to make a round suck don't.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:37 am
by CMDR_Gungnir
Misdoubtful wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:34 am
CMDR_Gungnir wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:22 am
terranaut wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:10 pm trying to balance a game thats inherently assymetrical in every conceivable metric you could set up is completely retarded in the first place
on top of that the game never was intended to deliver a balanced combat experience but a whacky story lasting 45 to 75 minutes told through chaos and mayhem
But what kind of interesting or wacky story do you get from "The Captain uses his authority to have all of his work done for him and nobody can (or will) contest that"?

I've had Acting Captain Antags who actually got pissed off because their authority was questioned for being an Acting Captain. They expect it to just be handed to them for rolling it. They often can and will just have you silently killed for questioning them, and they're the Captain so nobody suspects them.
This is where moderating for bad actors that ruin rounds comes into play. Things that add to the round in that instant are greenlit, and those using what they have to make a round suck don't.
Then I'd hope we start soon, because when I HAVE called Acting Captains out for it, they've usually gone "I'M THE CAPTAIN, I CAN'T BE BAD" to try and lean into the metaprotections. They actively USE it as a shield.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:41 am
by BrianBackslide
I don't think the moderation for bad actors in the acting/assumed captain role is necessary. Rather, I think the problem stems from the fear people have in challenging a bad acting captain. Under most circumstances, the captain can't/won't be mutinied against. I think people inadvertently extend this protection to acting captains and fear being bwoinked for actively challenging them.

I generally assume that most acting captains are an antag of some form, but even if they're acting poorly, I probably wouldn't fight them in the off chance I'm wrong.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:46 pm
by Misdoubtful
Yeah I'm not saying that needs to happen, just dumping how some places approached the concept.

Re: (MRP) Prevent head roles from rolling antagonists attempt 2

Posted: Sun May 15, 2022 1:51 pm
by Timberpoes
I'm now fully on the path to recovery from COVID, so the headmin policy train can continue rolling full steam since I'm able to focus my energies and give informed input into things again.

The following was drafted by Mothblocks and is collectively agreed enough to serve as a conclusion, with an additional input from Melbert and myself below.

We're denying this for now.

We discussed this in greater detail at the 10th community meeting, but for posterity, here are the general thoughts.

We believe in the stories of command antagonists being boring in rounds, and not telling good stories. However, we are at present chalking that up to the new traitor objectives being designed around causing chaos for people who don't have easy access. For instance, stealing an item can cause a lot more chance for interactions and conflict between players if you can't just open the door and take the item. In that respect, we want to see something akin to different objectives for heads of staff.

Acting captains are included in that. Having all access and authoriative control is definitely a potential means to telling an interesting, chaotic story, but players are currently not incentivised to do so because of the objectives they receive.

There is some discussion internally on whether or not we'd like to see specific antagonists, such as traitor, being blocked from command roles rather than all of them, but there is not enough solid agreement between us to act on that.

Mothblocks - Reject proposal
MrMelbert - Tentatively reject from blanket preventing antag heads of staff. Personally, I would be interested in blocking heads of staff from Traitor, Thieves, and Blood Brothers only, still allowing them to be Heretics, Cultists, and Changelings. However I'm not sure if dynamic has that fully configurable.
Timberpoes - Reject proposal, would be happy to reopen discussion if Melbert's suggestions ever get code backing but I still err strongly on the side of not restricting head antags in any way. Keeping an open mind though.