Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Locked
User avatar
dessysalta
Joined: Fri May 20, 2022 12:49 am
Byond Username: Dessysalta

Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by dessysalta » #683998

So, this is either going to be a very long discussion or very short discussion--I haven't checked if there's been past policy discussions regarding this same thing, but it feels necessary to revisit if there has been past mentions of it. Without further ado, here's my primer:

Lowpop antagonists playing the game as intended is a disruptive experience that instead of fostering creativity and driving the round, usually brings it to an end. Antagonists, especially individually capable ones like traitors and changelings, are balanced around medium-high population (~30-50 players) and when that number drops to 5, 10, or even just 20, the scales tip in favor of the antagonist 9 times out of 10, especially if they're going out of their way to play their antagonist as intended and utilize their minimal escalation modifier to kill anyone who tries to stop them. Countless times I have been powerless to stop someone from, say, sabotaging the SM, stealing eyes, or bombing the station because more often than not it's just me against the world, which is also more often than not full of antagonists.

It doesn't stop at the balancing of individual antagonists, because one traitor versus ten crewmembers is more than an equal battle, all things considered. The problem really festers when you factor in the dynamic ruleset (and how it can make 1/3 to 1/2+ the station traitors) along with more nuanced playstyles that primarily reside in space or another uninhabitable area that you need protective gear to get to or stay in. In some cases, like heretics and changelings, they have access to hard-stuns, projectile-negation, long-distance teleports or equivalent (mostly in the case of heretics and traitors), or full-on revival even after you've killed them.

I don't think that this is a coding issue. It could be turned into one, in which case I'll do my damndest to further it, but to save on work for both myself and the rest of the codebase, I think it would be easier to delegate this to administration, granted there's already similar cases (what with the existence of Rule 1 entirely).

I don't like playing on low/deadpop and being forced to either sit idly by as a traitor destroys the station or attempt to engage them and risk being round removed. With the choice being to either try and make do and undo the mess that antagonist is causing, or to avoid them and simply try to outlast them before they inevitably get an objective or otherwise make the decision to assassinate me, I'm forced to pick a lesser of two evils and sacrifice whatever interesting gimmick, idea, or just plain work ethic for whatever role I've picked.

So, what do you propose as the solution?
For starters, I think an additional precedent or addendum to Rule 1 entirely could work. It would be a slippery slope, but something along the lines of, "Pursuing your objectives (as a solo antagonist) at all costs when there is a lack of security force or station population to subdue you is frowned upon. Security is inclined to treat prisoners in accordance to the severity of their crimes, and the other half of that precedent is that solo antagonists should not engage in traditional antagonist behavior if it would make the crew's typical conduct overly difficult or bring the round to an end far faster than necessary." I think there are better ways to word what I just did, but I'm here to argue the idea, not the specifics--I'm going to need help with that.

Something that crossed my mind momentarily would be to further the existing escalation rules of antagonists without barring them from their usual "hair-trigger" option. Heavy Roleplay servers like Aurorastation and Baystation do something similar, where although you are an antagonist and allowed to kill whoever stands in your way, you should prioritize creating an interesting narrative (or in this case, thrilling experience) over mindless killing. These servers also benefit from not having the new traitor system (progression traitor/progtot) and instead rely on good ol' fashioned ogtot, albeit with freeform objectives. Aurora in particular gets around this by having "contracts" you can choose to make your goal for the shift that are typically not as destructive.

Another idea could be to implement the old gamemode types again with their original population limits and restrictions. Although this would be a code-focused remedy, I don't foresee it being too awfully difficult considering we (if I have my facts straight) have the standalone gamemodes in the code already, and reverting to however older versions of /TG/ polled modes might be a simple refactor.

And then, of course, there's the least-doable and most aggravating idea, considering it would be entirely focused on coding and would definitely be the result of multiple hands working together: redoing traitor progression entirely, implementing new limits to certain items and objectives (or abilities for things like heretic/changeling depending on how far we wish to go), or even getting rid of progtot entirely, even if its only utilized for lower populations (like how a Wizard can't roll if theres 5 people on shift). This would be an incredibly challenging endeavor, and moreover, here is not the place to discuss that idea.

These are all the ideas I could immediately come up with. It's currently five in the morning at the time of writing, but I'd still like to get this out for the playerbase to give feedback on (if there's any to give, I have to admit the reactions I've seen thus far about a potential policy change about this sort of thing have been mostly one-sided) or throw out their own ideas. It's entirely possible that this could make for an administrative headache if enforced the wrong way (or at all), but I'd like to see where this goes, if anywhere.
Sherrie, mostly. If you need a drink, I can do that.
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Itseasytosee2me
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:14 am
Byond Username: Rectification
Location: Space Station 13

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by Itseasytosee2me » #684001

Disagree entirely with your suggestion to edit the rules entirely. Antags absolutely crushing lowpop is a code issue. Don't come for rule 4.

My suggestion?
Lowpop exclusive antagonists.
- Sincerely itseasytosee
See you later
User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Byond Username: Misdoubtful
Location: Delivering hugs!

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by Misdoubtful » #684003

I have to ask first and foremost, how does this get enforced?

Are people going to be witch hunting each other waiting to see them do some magic number of objectives? Does this only apply to specific objectives?

I said this back in the policy thread about people using his grace on mrp, 'I don't see anything positive coming out of in game options that are practically encouraged turning into ban bait for people to trip over'.

I hate to say it but while you say the number of objectives and doing them isn't a code thing to solve, I currently feel the exact opposite. Objectives could be expanded when it comes to the cap on number of objectives based on population, and the types of objectives available based on population. Or maybe it's a dynamic thing.

But then again rule 4 also exists, not that it excuses someone flushing the quality of a round down the toilet.

Is doing objectives really the problem with this one here, or is it people using antag status to make a round suck for everyone else involved?

This sounds like the classic tale of OSR RPGs where people min&max for their own experience at the expense of the narrative and everyone else to the point where the experience just becomes a railroaded garbage experience.

You mention objectives here, but then talk about people aiming to be an oppressive unstoppable force in the game space. Those aren't the same things, are they?

So what's the guideline to enforcement here if this were to become policy?
Hugs
User avatar
WineAllWine
In-Game Admin Trainer
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:17 pm
Byond Username: Wineallwine
Location: LANDAN

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by WineAllWine » #684013

lowpop murderbone should be dealt with by admins ICly. There are ways to make the round more interesting for the bored ghosts.

I would like to add, your opening post is too long. It didn't need to be that long. Write shorter posts.
SkeletalElite
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:14 pm
Byond Username: SkeletalElite
Github Username: SkeletalElite

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by SkeletalElite » #684021

The game fundamentally does not work on low pop. No amount of policy will fix that. Disagree with this entirely.
User avatar
Vekter
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
Byond Username: Vekter
Location: Fucking around with the engine.

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by Vekter » #684030

The word "murderbone" should be bannable at this point, y'all have completely lost the plot on what this game is about.

If you cannot deal with the fact that your round is going to sometimes be inconvenienced or even ended by an antagonist, you should not be playing this game, full stop. Admins decided a long time ago that we should step in when antags are completely destroying a round, but that does not include one or two people dying.

I think that something could be said for tweaking or even disabling dynamic with a low enough population, but removing an antag's rule 4 protections based on population is just silly. It can't be effectively enforced and it would stifle creativity for pretty much every antag in the game.

My recommendation would be to do one of the following:

1) Play on Manuel, where indiscriminate killing in general is not permitted and antags are more likely to do something interesting than they are to kill you for getting in their way.
2) Not play during low/dead population hours, as there is almost always a server with over 30 people on it, even if that server is Terry.
3) Suck it up and learn to live with the fact that death exists in this game and other players are permitted to harm you in certain situations.
AliasTakuto wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Spoiler:
Reply PM from-REDACTED/(REDACTED): i tried to remove the bruises by changing her gender

PM: Bluespace->Delaron: Nobody wants a mime's asscheeks farting on their brig windows.

PM: REDACTED->HotelBravoLima: Oh come on, knowing that these are hostile aliens is metagaming

[17:43] <Aranclanos> any other question ping me again
[17:43] <Vekter> Aranclanos for nicest coder 2015
[17:44] <Aranclanos> fuck you
User avatar
vect0r
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:37 am
Byond Username: Vect0r
Location: 'Murica 🦅🦅🦅🔥🔥🔥

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by vect0r » #684042

Vekter wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 5:31 pm 1) Play on Manuel, where indiscriminate killing in general is not permitted and antags are more likely to do something interesting than they are to kill you for getting in their way.
Imao
VENDETTA+Cecilia Vujic
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
dessysalta
Joined: Fri May 20, 2022 12:49 am
Byond Username: Dessysalta

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by dessysalta » #684284

Misdoubtful wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 1:30 pm You mention objectives here, but then talk about people aiming to be an oppressive unstoppable force in the game space. Those aren't the same things, are they?

So what's the guideline to enforcement here if this were to become policy?
They aren't the same thing, but they go hand in hand. Relaxed escalation rules and the motivation that is to follow your objectives means that, while you don't have to kill anyone for interfering, you can do so on a hair trigger. Traitors are allowed (for the most part) to kill anyone they think would hinder them or their goals, be that preemptively (killing the HoS because of their title and gear) or just because someone happened to walk by them and they think that person will tattle. When you factor that in with their normal objectives to be mass-bombing, blinding, assassinating, or otherwise making the station uninhabitable or negatively affecting others, it becomes very easy for a traitor to get away with killing or disrupting a good portion of the station so long as it will help them achieve their goals.

The guideline to enforcement would be pretty much entirely at an admin's or player's discretion. If there's 10 people on shift and I/an admeme notice(s) someone is rushing assassination and bombing objectives, then either I can ahelp or they can PM the person and ask about it, if not stop it entirely (depending on how vigilant they were on pursuing their objs).
Vekter wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 5:31 pm If you cannot deal with the fact that your round is going to sometimes be inconvenienced or even ended by an antagonist, you should not be playing this game, full stop. Admins decided a long time ago that we should step in when antags are completely destroying a round, but that does not include one or two people dying.
If that one or two people is a part of a 10 or 15-man shift, then their individual abilities are valued more and thus, are worth more than say, one person on a 60-man shift. An antag killing four secoffs on highpop isn't a big deal because of the inherent difference there is to highpop versus lowpop, with more crew members to back them up (physically, medically, whatever) there's less chances for them to be round removed or otherwise allow the antagonist in question to get away with what they do.
Vekter wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 5:31 pm I think that something could be said for tweaking or even disabling dynamic with a low enough population, but removing an antag's rule 4 protections based on population is just silly. It can't be effectively enforced and it would stifle creativity for pretty much every antag in the game.
I don't agree with this. It could be difficult to enforce, but impossible? No, I can't see that. If there are (admittedly far more slower-paced and relaxed) servers like Bay and Aurora that can get away with that and encourage antagonists to act realistically and create an interesting narrative and experience, then what sets /TG/ apart from the rest? Starbloom (which ran on the /TG/ codebase), for the time it lasted, had a similar ruling iirc, and it worked out mostly fine. The codebase that /TG/ operates off of makes it harder to foster interesting narratives, but I and many others have seen our fair share of roleplay-oriented antagonists and events. If an admin or player can have the restraint or compulsion to keep nonstop bloodshed or murder from happening all while still being an antagonistic or otherwise round-driving force, then who's to say the rest of us/you can't?
Vekter wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 5:31 pm 1) Play on Manuel, where indiscriminate killing in general is not permitted and antags are more likely to do something interesting than they are to kill you for getting in their way.
2) Not play during low/dead population hours, as there is almost always a server with over 30 people on it, even if that server is Terry.
3) Suck it up and learn to live with the fact that death exists in this game and other players are permitted to harm you in certain situations.
1) It's worth mentioning that while the roleplay bar is higher on Manuel, and although antagonists are far more encouraged to be creative and less harmful generally speaking, this doesn't always hold up. I've played on Manuel for over a thousand hours now (I have no idea if that's a lot or a little, but it feels like a decent amount of time to get a feel for it) and I still see antagonists on lowpop rushing their objectives without considering how it affects the 10 other people on shift. When you try and intervene, they, of course, follow the antagonist mindset and try to hide your body, because that makes sense. My reasoning for this policy discussion was because I've had to either kill or be killed by lowpop antags due to their obsession with curb-stomping an empty server, or so it feels like it, more times than I feel is necessary. I wrote this right after a round where I was forced to step in or let the station go up in flames on a shift of I think ~20 people.

2) I want to have an interesting and thrilling but not one-sided experience regardless of population. Lowpop rounds are their own kind of fun, and to say I should play a certain way or on certain servers to get around a problem that I'm not a part of nor do I think should limit me so heavily is kind of insulting. It's no different than saying "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" even if the "somewhere else" in question is a different server of the same set. I don't want something else, not in that regard. I want lowpop to feel like lowpop, and there are ways to be antagonistic without bomb-rushing objectives and ruining the experience for the few other people that might be on at the time. I could also make the argument that lag is a concern, and that I shouldn't be barred from experiencing /TG/ because of that.

3) I've come to terms with this, but again, to be killed or curb-stomped with very little I or the rest of the crew can do isn't fun. I play Space Station because it's one big goofy roleplaying game where people work together, betray each other, and ultimately prosper or fail in one way or another. I don't play Space Station to get round removed 20-30 minutes into the shift with no hope of being discovered because there isn't enough manpower, and even on the off chance I am discovered, the person who did it originally won't be caught. It would be a stretch to say I hate that kind of gameplay or gameplay loop, but I prefer the traditional, "work together or die alone" and "be smart or die trying" that being a non-antag and a normal antag respectively provides. At the end of the day, individual antagonists like this I feel shouldn't be capable of a round-ending force like, say, Nukies or Wizards--because that's the power difference on low population rounds, doubly when you factor in the dynamic ruleset and midrounds/latejoins.
Sherrie, mostly. If you need a drink, I can do that.
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Vekter
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
Byond Username: Vekter
Location: Fucking around with the engine.

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by Vekter » #684305

dessysalta wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 12:06 pm
Vekter wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 5:31 pm If you cannot deal with the fact that your round is going to sometimes be inconvenienced or even ended by an antagonist, you should not be playing this game, full stop. Admins decided a long time ago that we should step in when antags are completely destroying a round, but that does not include one or two people dying.
If that one or two people is a part of a 10 or 15-man shift, then their individual abilities are valued more and thus, are worth more than say, one person on a 60-man shift. An antag killing four secoffs on highpop isn't a big deal because of the inherent difference there is to highpop versus lowpop, with more crew members to back them up (physically, medically, whatever) there's less chances for them to be round removed or otherwise allow the antagonist in question to get away with what they do.
There's merit to this idea, but I'm not willing to say that we should be banning people for one or two murders as an antag. That's just silly and undermines the inherent paranoia of SS13. You should never be in a situation where you feel 100% safe unless you're the one causing problems.
dessysalta wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 12:06 pm
Vekter wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 5:31 pm I think that something could be said for tweaking or even disabling dynamic with a low enough population, but removing an antag's rule 4 protections based on population is just silly. It can't be effectively enforced and it would stifle creativity for pretty much every antag in the game.
I don't agree with this. It could be difficult to enforce, but impossible? No, I can't see that. If there are (admittedly far more slower-paced and relaxed) servers like Bay and Aurora that can get away with that and encourage antagonists to act realistically and create an interesting narrative and experience, then what sets /TG/ apart from the rest? Starbloom (which ran on the /TG/ codebase), for the time it lasted, had a similar ruling iirc, and it worked out mostly fine. The codebase that /TG/ operates off of makes it harder to foster interesting narratives, but I and many others have seen our fair share of roleplay-oriented antagonists and events. If an admin or player can have the restraint or compulsion to keep nonstop bloodshed or murder from happening all while still being an antagonistic or otherwise round-driving force, then who's to say the rest of us/you can't?
I feel like this is a trap that a lot of players get caught up in when we discuss policy. Can Bay and Aurora do something like this? Yes, but this server isn't Bay or Aurora. Both of those servers have significantly higher RP requirements than /tg/ and trying to make one little piece of their policy fit our server isn't going to work the way you want it to. Also, again, I don't think you understand what murderboning means. One or two kills is not "nonstop bloodshed".
dessysalta wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 12:06 pm
Vekter wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 5:31 pm 1) Play on Manuel, where indiscriminate killing in general is not permitted and antags are more likely to do something interesting than they are to kill you for getting in their way.
2) Not play during low/dead population hours, as there is almost always a server with over 30 people on it, even if that server is Terry.
3) Suck it up and learn to live with the fact that death exists in this game and other players are permitted to harm you in certain situations.
1) It's worth mentioning that while the roleplay bar is higher on Manuel, and although antagonists are far more encouraged to be creative and less harmful generally speaking, this doesn't always hold up. I've played on Manuel for over a thousand hours now (I have no idea if that's a lot or a little, but it feels like a decent amount of time to get a feel for it) and I still see antagonists on lowpop rushing their objectives without considering how it affects the 10 other people on shift. When you try and intervene, they, of course, follow the antagonist mindset and try to hide your body, because that makes sense. My reasoning for this policy discussion was because I've had to either kill or be killed by lowpop antags due to their obsession with curb-stomping an empty server, or so it feels like it, more times than I feel is necessary. I wrote this right after a round where I was forced to step in or let the station go up in flames on a shift of I think ~20 people.

2) I want to have an interesting and thrilling but not one-sided experience regardless of population. Lowpop rounds are their own kind of fun, and to say I should play a certain way or on certain servers to get around a problem that I'm not a part of nor do I think should limit me so heavily is kind of insulting. It's no different than saying "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" even if the "somewhere else" in question is a different server of the same set. I don't want something else, not in that regard. I want lowpop to feel like lowpop, and there are ways to be antagonistic without bomb-rushing objectives and ruining the experience for the few other people that might be on at the time. I could also make the argument that lag is a concern, and that I shouldn't be barred from experiencing /TG/ because of that.

3) I've come to terms with this, but again, to be killed or curb-stomped with very little I or the rest of the crew can do isn't fun. I play Space Station because it's one big goofy roleplaying game where people work together, betray each other, and ultimately prosper or fail in one way or another. I don't play Space Station to get round removed 20-30 minutes into the shift with no hope of being discovered because there isn't enough manpower, and even on the off chance I am discovered, the person who did it originally won't be caught. It would be a stretch to say I hate that kind of gameplay or gameplay loop, but I prefer the traditional, "work together or die alone" and "be smart or die trying" that being a non-antag and a normal antag respectively provides. At the end of the day, individual antagonists like this I feel shouldn't be capable of a round-ending force like, say, Nukies or Wizards--because that's the power difference on low population rounds, doubly when you factor in the dynamic ruleset and midrounds/latejoins.
1) I'm going to focus specifically on the part talking about lowpop antags curb-stomping an empty server. You know we have a rule against that, right? People already can't just go killing half the station during lowpop without a valid reason for doing it. I just posted a thread the other day asking about expanding our ability to act on issues like this while reducing the number of situations where 1-2 people die and get real hard mad about it wanting them banned. Is the issue that a few people sometimes die or that people are killing half the server on lowpop rounds? You're not being consistent.

2) "To say I should play a certain way or on certain servers to get around a problem that I'm not a part of nor do I think should limit me so heavily is kind of insulting." This is pretty much exactly what you're saying we should do to antag players. Like you get why that's hypocritical, right? "If it's how I want to play the game, I should be allowed to do it, but if it's how they want to, they can fuck off."

3) I'm just going to quote the rules at you because I don't think you understand the game well enough to make this call.
10. Losing is part of the game.

Your character will frequently die, sometimes without even a possibility of avoiding it. Events will often be out of your control. No matter how good or prepared you are, sometimes you just lose.
I said this in another thread, but newer players really never had to deal with someone with an ebow and an esword murdering 40 people in one round and it honestly shows.
AliasTakuto wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Spoiler:
Reply PM from-REDACTED/(REDACTED): i tried to remove the bruises by changing her gender

PM: Bluespace->Delaron: Nobody wants a mime's asscheeks farting on their brig windows.

PM: REDACTED->HotelBravoLima: Oh come on, knowing that these are hostile aliens is metagaming

[17:43] <Aranclanos> any other question ping me again
[17:43] <Vekter> Aranclanos for nicest coder 2015
[17:44] <Aranclanos> fuck you
User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by Cobby » #684839

lowpop braindead killing (murderbone dot dot dot) is already disallowed (whether anypony exercises that right idk) because it will kill the server pop. If its part of your objective though its just you playing the game.

If there is an issue with an overabundance of murder objectives when the impact of those kills become much higher in lowpop I think that speaks to a gap in code vs. a call for admins to step in for people doing what they were assigned by the game to do.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
kieth4
In-Game Head Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:17 pm
Byond Username: Kieth4

Re: Lowpop antagonists shouldn't follow their objectives at all costs.

Post by kieth4 » #687013

We're not interested at changing this up as we believe too many issues occur when you try to define things like lowpop.

If there is a shift with 5 seccies, 4 crew and 1 antag would the lowpop rules apply?

If we set a hard limit of let's say, 25 and tell people not to kill under it what happens if the number keeps going up and down throughout the round? What if the round starts with 26?

Our ruling that I will be linking after this sentence should help admins deal with lowpop de-population and keep the wheels turning so pop can rise during the day.

The ruling can be found here.
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=34095

We also encourage admins to intervene and dm on rounds with less pop as it makes it more fun and engaging for everyone.
Image
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users