/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

there is not enough players for that

oranges wrote:there is not enough players for that

If you buff them hard enough there is.
Why have strength through numbers when one strong enough man can eat a SAW for breakfast.

Make a training manual purchasable from uplink for enough TC that one might be better off just purchasing a gun, but could still gets its money worth. Id say replace nulls with it but idk....

Keep in mind that any buff to security will be a massive swing in power towards the heads during a revolution. The heads already got a massivr buff with the department ID's and certainly don't need another one

It would also be incredibly boring.

I just want to dab on greytiders with my 5 other security brothers who joined specifically for the robust martial arts.

Pizzatiger wrote:Keep in mind that any buff to security will be a massive swing in power towards the heads during a revolution. The heads already got a massivr buff with the department ID's and certainly don't need another one

It could be balanced by increasing the number of headrevs if it becomes an issue.

Pizzatiger wrote:Keep in mind that any buff to security will be a massive swing in power towards the heads during a revolution. The heads already got a massivr buff with the department ID's and certainly don't need another one

Considering that the slightest bit of incompetence from the station side in a rev round(combined with people not wanting to play security) results in a rev victory, I'd say they could use a buff.

I doubt it will affect much, rev win rate has been 50/50 for ages

deedubya wrote:

Pizzatiger wrote:Keep in mind that any buff to security will be a massive swing in power towards the heads during a revolution. The heads already got a massivr buff with the department ID's and certainly don't need another one

Considering that the slightest bit of incompetence from the station side in a rev round(combined with people not wanting to play security) results in a rev victory, I'd say they could use a buff.

I see the colonial muhreens policy is strong here. Let's not encourage people who play a role to learn the game and git gud, let's just give them ridiculous buffs so they have to be completely incompetent, outnumbered severely of faced by something so similarly overpowered to have a chance of failure. Cause that's good design philosophy.

Davidchan wrote:

deedubya wrote:

Pizzatiger wrote:Keep in mind that any buff to security will be a massive swing in power towards the heads during a revolution. The heads already got a massivr buff with the department ID's and certainly don't need another one

Considering that the slightest bit of incompetence from the station side in a rev round(combined with people not wanting to play security) results in a rev victory, I'd say they could use a buff.

I see the colonial muhreens policy is strong here. Let's not encourage people who play a role to learn the game and git gud, let's just give them ridiculous buffs so they have to be completely incompetent, outnumbered severely of faced by something so similarly overpowered to have a chance of failure. Cause that's good design philosophy.

Or - here's a novel concept - we assume that both sides have an equal amount of robust and unrobust players, and balance according to that?

deedubya wrote:

Davidchan wrote:

deedubya wrote:

Pizzatiger wrote:Keep in mind that any buff to security will be a massive swing in power towards the heads during a revolution. The heads already got a massivr buff with the department ID's and certainly don't need another one

Considering that the slightest bit of incompetence from the station side in a rev round(combined with people not wanting to play security) results in a rev victory, I'd say they could use a buff.

I see the colonial muhreens policy is strong here. Let's not encourage people who play a role to learn the game and git gud, let's just give them ridiculous buffs so they have to be completely incompetent, outnumbered severely of faced by something so similarly overpowered to have a chance of failure. Cause that's good design philosophy.

Or - here's a novel concept - we assume that both sides have an equal amount of robust and unrobust players, and balance according to that?

fallacy, experience shows the most robust players choose jobs with the least amount of responsibility so they can fuck around, i.e. assistants and clowns who are prime targets for head rev

These ideas are fantastic and I will tell you why.

When I play security, I lament the fact I have to play proactive. It runs contrary to engaging, thoughtful play, but I have to do it because right now the meta is basically "you act second, you die".

Giving security a chance if they act in good faith instead of a "shoot first, ask questions later" style is better for the game as a whole.

I can't speak for everyone who plays sec but I know I'll definitely be talking and engaging players more instead of just dropping them and wordlessly dragging them to brig before even telling them why. You have to do this now or some shitter will just drag them away from you or some dumb shit.

As a trade off, I think security escalation policy should be tightened so you can't just "unga me security get rekt" but that's a policy discussion; not code. Good changes, orangea.

Decided against sec buffs because sec players keep peanut posting in FNR like their opinions are meaningful so obviously sec lobby needs to be taken down a peg or two again.