/tg/Station 13

So I just had the most insane idea on how to fix the lack of security ever.

Make it tied to you choosing to be a traitor.

The game picks slightly more people for the traitors, but a few of them become security officers, if ones from job selection don't fit all slots.

So if you'll want to get your antags, you'll have to occasionally play security.

Insane, eh?

Why not just re-enable sec antag instead of making things convoluted?

bandit wrote:Why not just re-enable sec antag instead of making things convoluted?

Let it go.

Just let it go.

No, considering it could solve literally all the problems and hacky convoluted "fixes" brought up.

Start a bloody poll thread on Sec Antag if you really desperately want it back. I detest Sec Antag for many reasons I won't go into detail since that would be off topic.

On topic. Well, it would essentially be forcing a large section of players to play one of the most high stress rolls in the game, usually against their will.

Honestly I would rather have a system where you can still be selected for a antag slot if you do get selected to be a Officer, but you instead get selected a non-protected roll if you do get picked for a antag.

I already notice sec officers going braindead at the start of the shift, presumably getting the job at random.

Steelpoint wrote:Start a bloody poll thread on Sec Antag if you really desperately want it back. I detest Sec Antag for many reasons I won't go into detail since that would be off topic.

On topic. Well, it would essentially be forcing a large section of players to play one of the most high stress rolls in the game, usually against their will.

Honestly I would rather have a system where you can still be selected for a antag slot if you do get selected to be a Officer, but you instead get selected a non-protected roll if you do get picked for a antag.

The thing is, they're not forced: they can just untick traitor and not worry about it.

If you do want to be a traitor, though, work up for it by being an officer sometimes.

Wicked, but kind of awesome too.

not a terrible idea but would likely be rejected and made security even worse. I would rather sec be chosen from the cream of the crop who CHOOSE to be security, not people who will blame being bad at security on 'i wanna play antag ;('

paprika wrote:not a terrible idea but would likely be rejected and made security even worse. I would rather sec be chosen from the cream of the crop who CHOOSE to be security, not people who will blame being bad at security on 'i wanna play antag ;('

This, basically.
Though I think there might be some merit to just having Sec slots filled first. So if 5 people have Sec to medium and MD set to medium, it tends to put them in Sec first. Nobody's forced to do anything they haven't checked Yes to already.

And if everyone's setting Sec to NEVER then we have a bigger problem on our hands.

I actually like the idea of having Sec roles being prioritized for being filled for players with only MEDIUM selected.

Seems more subtle than outright forcing players to go Sec.

That's a good way to get people to uncheck sec from their job roles.

Steelpoint wrote:I actually like the idea of having Sec roles being prioritized for being filled for players with only MEDIUM selected.

Seems more subtle than outright forcing players to go Sec.

I think they might already be.

License to grif criminals.

I feel this would be forcing sec jobs, honestly if this got forced on me, I would go braindead at start out of spite.

Give sec Disablers so they can deal with petty shittlers easier, without the hassle of brigging?

Forcing people to be a high-stress position, which is at times heavily scrutinized by administration, because they wanted to become an antagonist isn't really a good idea. It will lead to an increase in braindead security officers, which will in turn lead to more security equipment ending up into the hands of general populace.

Or is it?

This is some weird double-edged sword in my opinion. I like it, but I hate it at the same time. The same effect could be achieved by allowing security to be antagonists again, however it seems like people consider that a fate worse than cancer. I personally support antag sec, and feel that it would help alleviate the issue of filling security roles better than the proposed method would.

Anything but the cancer that was Antag Sec.

Although Assistants need to be fixed before Sec is.

This would probably lead to round-start braindead security officers... or if it's being administered right and people will get banned for that, forced officers would just do their work very poorly.
The question here is, is it better to have a full but poorly working security team, than to have an okay but (mostly) minimal security team?

Would much rather have a handful who know the rules and actually want to do it over Greyshirt McGee being forced to be a rentacop

There was a discussion earlier today in coderbus about this issue and it is agreed that it a few things codewise needs to be done. Including having all roundstart antags chosen before job assingment and there was a talk about other things that could be done. One most people may disagree with but wouldn't effect their chances of being a antag but would mean there is a minimum amount of people on all departments.

This is requiring a rewrite of most roundstart job and antag selection to varying degrees though.

Its been brought up for a very long time that antags should be selected before their job is assigned.

I think that alone will encourage more people to come back to Security since they will no longer be surrendering their antag rights. Which is also why I have respect for players who play Security regularly knowing they are forfeiting most of their antag rights.

IMO antags should not just be selected before the job assignments, I believe that in secret antags should be chosen before the roundtype is chosen. And then for every gamemode the game checks if choosing this players for antags would still allow the round to run. This could allow some special restrictions for rounds like rev (requiring certain amount of heads of staff).

Are there any reasons not to select who plays antag before selecting who plays which job?

Arete wrote:Are there any reasons not to select who plays antag before selecting who plays which job?

Of course. If I select only protected jobs, which I often do, and I get antag, I will end up with some random role which I might not like.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Of course. If I select only protected jobs, which I often do, and I get antag, I will end up with some random role which I might not like.

It's not exactly intuitive, but couldn't you solve that by putting protected jobs as medium priority, jobs that you're okay with playing as antag at low priority, and everything else as never?

I'm okay with playing everything. Every round I set everything from scratch, so it's not a very good option. But it's just me. It's why I didn't mention it earlier.