Prioritize security job assignment at roundstart

kevinz000 · Post by **kevinz000** » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:47 am #390330

Bandaid patch for the security issue.
Do to them what we do for heads of staff, try to ensure atleast <x> people are on it scaled to population, by assigning high-medium-low for security first before anything else is check for high-medium-low. Never will still be respected (as they are for head roles).
Thoughts?

NanookoftheNorth · Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:28 pm

Yes please.

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:05 pm #390353

Why do I get the feeling that the only thing this will ever accomplish is to make people set their sec preferences from low to never?

Lumbermancer · Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:05 pm

DemonFiren wrote:Why do I get the feeling that the only thing this will ever accomplish is to make people set their sec preferences from low to never?

That's the argument that was made when I suggested this long time ago.

SpaceInaba · Post by **SpaceInaba** » Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:40 pm #390371

all this will do is make me do what demonfiren said

kevinz000 · Post by **kevinz000** » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:33 pm #390461

so set it.to never if you don't want to play it you're probably not going to be good at it anyways or be willing to try.

NanookoftheNorth · Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:43 pm

kevinz000 wrote:Bandaid patch for the security issue.

Like he said in the beginning, this is a bandaid for the larger problem of a small number of people playing security. At the end of the day, people who are vaguely interested in it would try it unknowingly. If they didn't like it they would set it to never like you said. It'd take a while for people to realize if they didn't want any responsibility to ignore security roles.

Jzoid · Post by **Jzoid** » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:57 pm #390479

So if I'm reading properly all this will do is make sure Security preferences will be on "high" even if they're on low.
The thing is though, if a player wanted to play security they'd already have it on high. I know for one I'll be setting my preference to never if this roll's out.

cedarbridge · Post by **cedarbridge** » Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:07 pm #390484

If putting sec ahead of all of your other lows is sufficient to make you move it to never, you didn't want to play sec in the first place so big deal.

Post by **oranges** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:07 am #390552

That is a silly argument, people can want to play a role but not that often if roles they prefer more are available.

Bluespace · Post by **Bluespace** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:34 am #390560

I mostly roll with AI high and officer low, so this would be a pain.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:09 am #390615

I appreciate the sentiment, but they're just going to kill themselves even more often.

Incomptinence · Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:18 am

Maybe replace be assistant if preferences not available with be assistant or officer if preferences not available.

kevinz000 · Post by **kevinz000** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:42 am #390623

Luke Cox wrote:I appreciate the sentiment, but they're just going to kill themselves even more often.

ahelp if someone is repeatedly killing themselves roundstart then. EDIT: I don't mean suiciding is bannable. It's not under 98% of scenarios. But if someone repeatedly rolls security to kill themselves it's going to be an issue sooner or later, especially if they're doing it to get a higher antag roll rate vs playing rate or whatnot.

For all concerned: my implementation would scale a ""minimum needed"" security officer amount based on a config coefficient and the amount of players.
It would do high priority assignment until it reaches that.
After it reaches that it does normal assignment for all other jobs and the rest of the officer slots.
Personally I'd recommend a value of 1/20 the number of players, as once again, this is intended to try to get a MINIMUM amount of players in security so you don't have a 80-pop lonecurity shitshow.

Qbopper · Post by **Qbopper** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:40 pm #390665

people would get very frustrated and believe any time they get officer that the game denied them a role they had on high or whatever

Regardless of how the system works that's how people would feel

Jzoid · Post by **Jzoid** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:58 pm #390677

oranges wrote:That is a silly argument, people can want to play a role but not that often if roles they prefer more are available.

This, it's not that I don't want to play security, if I wanted to just play security I'd have it on high and nothing else selected in the first place.
I have almost every job selected to low (bar certain jobs like miner) so I get a random chance and move rounds are different. If I can't do that with security selected I won't have security selected.

As for more criticism towards the topic at hand; whilst this is a wrong way to get people to play security, it is something we should think about as security is a needed role. When we look at servers like paradise there's almost always full security yet they have less action than TG. So it's not the role at hand which is necessary the problem. We should focus to give incentive to security to play their role, instead of forcing them to do so

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:45 pm #390759

if i want to play a sec round i usually set it to high and set everything else to never.

Selea · Post by **Selea** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:11 pm #390769

Shitcurity intesifies.

NanookoftheNorth · Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:58 pm

I suppose all I've learned from this topic is that people really don't want to play security, apparently.

I wonder why people don't want to play security.

Qbopper · Post by **Qbopper** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:11 pm #390787

NanookoftheNorth wrote:I suppose all I've learned from this topic is that people really don't want to play security, apparently.

I wonder why people don't want to play security.

not the point

people just don't want playing security to be the only thing they do and considering how relatively fewer people already play sec this change would just alienate people

NanookoftheNorth · Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:27 pm

Qbopper wrote:
NanookoftheNorth wrote:I suppose all I've learned from this topic is that people really don't want to play security, apparently.

I wonder why people don't want to play security.
not the point

people just don't want playing security to be the only thing they do and considering how relatively fewer people already play sec this change would just alienate people

I was being sarcastic, but also a tad serious. Why do so few people play security? I was saying in other topics that a change is necessary for security to be a desirable role to play as. I suggested some changes, and nearly all of them shot down. I've been pushing for some sort of security change for a while now. I think the question "why don't people play security?" is a good question.

Dr_bee · Post by **Dr_bee** » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:05 am #390849

NanookoftheNorth wrote:
Qbopper wrote:
NanookoftheNorth wrote:I suppose all I've learned from this topic is that people really don't want to play security, apparently.

I wonder why people don't want to play security.
not the point

people just don't want playing security to be the only thing they do and considering how relatively fewer people already play sec this change would just alienate people
I was being sarcastic, but also a tad serious. Why do so few people play security? I was saying in other topics that a change is necessary for security to be a desirable role to play as. I suggested some changes, and nearly all of them shot down. I've been pushing for some sort of security change for a while now. I think the question "why don't people play security?" is a good question.

A lot of it is the fact you walk around with a giant target on your back, you dont get any respect from anyone even if you save people, antagonists are balanced around a sec team that uses team work but sec almost never has enough people to use teamwork, and you are going to be outnumbered by assistants who want to kidnap you and steal your gear by at least 10 to 1.

"antag hugbox" is one of the biggest reasons why playing security is shit. Everyone seems to think their antag rounds are sacred and anything stopping them is overpowered. So then you get a bunch of idiotic buffs, like cult having reflector shields or changelings in general. While any buffs to security leads to people screaming their heads off or whining about ruining "the delicate balance between antags and sec" without realizing that that balance is already ruined by the fact that antags have power creeped up to levels that make them just plain unfun to fight.

TL;DR just fucking nerf antags or buff sec's survival ability. Shitcurity is honestly better than No-curity

EagleWiz · Post by **EagleWiz** » Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:30 am #390887

While more sec is a good thing, this will not result in the more sec we need. The players who understand the change will switch sec from low/medium to no (as several of them have already said they would in this thread), while the players with less of a grasp on the SS13 game systems won't notice that there was a change, and will end up as officer more often. This might give us more sec, but its more newbie sec. And newbie sec is mostly just a thing that antags/greyshirts can feel good about robusting/killing.

Qbopper · Post by **Qbopper** » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:56 am #390910

NanookoftheNorth wrote:I think the question "why don't people play security?" is a good question.

-zero recognition when you do your job right/well
-hatred from antag players because sec "ruins their fun"
-hatred from innocent players because omg shitsec ruined my round
-you're immediately a target antags want to eliminate
-you have to be at least somewhat robust if you want to succeed
-you're more likely to put yourself into a situation where you can be banned because of your ability to fuck other people over

NanookoftheNorth · Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:28 pm

I appreciate the answers to my question.

Most of what everyone said I could agree with. The follow up is, what can we do to make security worthwhile in playing despite the setbacks that everyone mentioned?

Jzoid · Post by **Jzoid** » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:52 pm #391214

What Qbopper said sums up half the problems with security.
If you want to fix security, you're going to have to fix players attitude to security. No more of this "ugghhhhhh shitcurity arresting me!!!! AI!!!! STUPID CUNT AAFFUCK GO KILLYOURSELF YOU STUPID BASTARD! RANDOM ARREST AS FUCK!" be the arrest justified or not. No one likes being treated like trash so why would people pick a job that's treated the most like trash?

Yakumo_Chen · Post by **Yakumo_Chen** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:43 am #391423

Hammer down againt tiding and you'll already eliminate half the problem :3

Yakumo_Chen · Post by **Yakumo_Chen** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:48 am #391424

The main problem playing security is that you basically have to be robust, and if you're not robust you have to basically play like an asshole: Stun first, question later, strip and search if you suspect them of literally anything.

Nobody likes that but that's basically the single way you have to survive if you don't want someone to pull out their ebow / kindle /stun hand / ling arm and gg no re you.

As the post above, greytide will always make your life hellish and dealing with them can often fuck over security more then the antags can by wasting their time and stealing their shit and is a regular occurrence that one stupid asshole causes me more grief then all the other antags combined because "lel shove grab gun run away stun you and half the sec force and beat you half to death for trying to arrest" and they will hide away and play chicken the entire shift leading to some dumb antag finally using all the time they got to prepare to blow up the entire station.

and then we have turboshitters like Damous who will gladly give out all access and guncargo and then spam meth so you can't arrest them, then use that as an excuse to kill literally half the sec team and the captain because you're forced to use lethals and he got 20 guns from cargo and still has meth so no detains.

Dealing with these people as security is not fun. And that's not even getting into the antags.

As above, dealing with antags as security is its own nightmare. And on roundend, one of two things will happen:
-You will have died and get called unrobust and shitcurity by the entire playerbase
-You will have not died and the antag will be called unrobust and shit while you get zero glory.

kevinz000 · Post by **kevinz000** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:47 am #391443

ahelp turboshitters then, at a certain point it's an administrative issue instead of a code issue.

also i'm not going to bother since people hate this so much oh well

Qbopper · Post by **Qbopper** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:44 pm #391617

Yakumo_Chen wrote:Hammer down againt tiding and you'll already eliminate half the problem :3

this is extremely unlikely because some admins have differing views on what constitutes consistently being a shitter that should be banned vs ic conflict, and also because nobody ahelps shitters anymore they just also use violence to fight back

in my experience anyways

Dr_bee · Post by **Dr_bee** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:13 pm #391623

The "IC issue" button is the worst shit to ever happen to administration on this server since escalation rules.

Used to be if you fight back with lethal force as a non-antag you were banned for being a shitlord, if you started shit to get people to try to kill you, then you were banned for banbaiting.

Greytiding is shit, and part of the reason why no one wants to play sec. Ask Goonstation's admins how they cracked down on it originally. They also somehow made a culture that discouraged vigilante validhunting as well by some miracle.

Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:25 pm

Qbopper wrote:
Yakumo_Chen wrote:Hammer down againt tiding and you'll already eliminate half the problem :3
this is extremely unlikely because some admins have differing views on what constitutes consistently being a shitter that should be banned vs ic conflict, and also because nobody ahelps shitters anymore they just also use violence to fight back

in my experience anyways

that and "hammer down against tiding" is such a vague phrase considering it doesn't even suggest a real course of action

Yakumo_Chen · Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:16 am

Most of the time if I ahelp shitty behavior I'm told it's an IC issue anyway, so what's the point? At that point I'm usually forced to use violence anyway because putting them down is the only way to get them to stop.

By hammer I mean dole out notes and bans for fucking with security constantly and breaking into high access areas for no reason.

Security is also the only department that is punished for not playing nice with anyone where as most crew can get away with a lot of violence or fuckery, if security does it, it's usually an ahelp or a bwoink incoming and an admin yelling at you.

Also the IC issue button is cancer and most admins will mash it for anything security is expected to 'suck up and deal with' up until it gets them killed, then making it an IC issue anyway.

Yakumo_Chen · Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:26 am

Case and point, I went on sybil one day as HoS, and midround a hulk started bashing down all of security's doors. Ahelped it. Kevin was on and told me "lol just kill them"

Tried to kill them, slip on water. Hulk kills me, then proceeds to kill most of medbay and at least two more security officers who were all trying to get me cloned.

Only after ALL of that grief, after ahelping it a second time and watching all this go down, does kevin FINALLY decide to get off his ass and bans them for non-antag murdering.

It's shit like this why I never feel like ahelping shittery until I die because I now expect the default admin response to be "IC issue, just kill them" and admins don't care about how security suffers until things are gone to shit.

Security terrible reputation won't get any better so long as admins allow grief to go on uncontested, berate security for not just "putting up with it" then berating them again when trying to "deal with it" just gets security slaughtered.

NanookoftheNorth · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:08 pm

Thinking about it, and going through the posts that most people put out about what's wrong with security, or what's wrong with the community, I think I understand.

Security, often, is the guy who has to say "no" to someone who has a gimmick they're doing. They're often unable to actually find and directly stop the antags, and often end up picking the wrong people. They, at times, don't let the people actually affected by an incident settle it themselves, but when they do intervene, sometimes it's not desired.

Valid hunting seems to be one of the most mentioned reasons not to do anything for security. I've not seen this often, or maybe I am misunderstanding it. Valid hunting to me is someone who does everything in their power to find antags and bring them to justice. Is this not right? What do valid hunters do that is exactly wrong? Metagame? Metagaming to me isn't necessarily a bad thing, as most people already do it anyway with our fast paced rounds to get what they want before the round ends.

I am thinking there are two things that are subtle to at least give some more reason to security. Code blue mentions that breaking any space law will have harsher punishment, or code blue mentions random searches. The security breath mask instead of saying "get down dirtbag" and all those (which are fun) consistently says "Halt", "stop in the name of the law" or something less intimidating. If you are saying "get down dirtbag" through your breath mask, that's as if they did something explicitly wrong. Halt or stop is a warning instead of having that mask make a decision for you. If the people or person do not stop, then you have some reason to stop them. It makes security more predictable, which can actually help antags, it would make being a non-antag not get you tasered immediately, and you have a chance to talk yourself out of it.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:01 pm #391871

Yakumo_Chen wrote:Case and point, I went on sybil one day as HoS, and midround a hulk started bashing down all of security's doors. Ahelped it. Kevin was on and told me "lol just kill them"

Tried to kill them, slip on water. Hulk kills me, then proceeds to kill most of medbay and at least two more security officers who were all trying to get me cloned.

Only after ALL of that grief, after ahelping it a second time and watching all this go down, does kevin FINALLY decide to get off his ass and bans them for non-antag murdering.

It's shit like this why I never feel like ahelping shittery until I die because I now expect the default admin response to be "IC issue, just kill them" and admins don't care about how security suffers until things are gone to shit.

Security terrible reputation won't get any better so long as admins allow grief to go on uncontested, berate security for not just "putting up with it" then berating them again when trying to "deal with it" just gets security slaughtered.

Pretty much my experience, except you decide to shoot them next time, then get bwoinked for it. It feels like sec has different rules for every admin

Ayy Lemoh · Post by **Ayy Lemoh** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:54 pm #391919

Yakumo_Chen wrote:Also the IC issue button is cancer and most admins will mash it for anything security is expected to 'suck up and deal with' up until it gets them killed, then making it an IC issue anyway.

This is why I hate the ic issue button. Even if the reason it's pressed is for a legitimate IC issue, it's more likely to be interpreted as an asshole move than anything.

Who calls 'killing sec for trying to do their job' a fucking ic issue? If someone is in a state where stuns are out of the question and they kill sec for using lethals then they should be punished.

Dr_bee · Post by **Dr_bee** » Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:18 am #391929

The fact that someone needs to die half the time before an admin gets off their ass and does something about a shitter is a problem itself. usually by the time someone is dead the damage that has been done is so big that even an admin cant salvage the round.

Yakumo_Chen · Post by **Yakumo_Chen** » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:04 am #391931

Yeah in the example I mentioned above there turned out to be lings so I quick called it, because at that point I had already dealt with too much shittery and wasn't willing to deal with the most aggravating antag to deal with that we have.

People whined but after having to put up with hulk shitter leaving sec a wide open mess, I was done.

kevinz000 · Post by **kevinz000** » Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:29 pm #392050

Hulk got removed for two weeks and from medical for longer iirc but admins have to let security handle some things instead of too much coddling but I did aheal all of you

NanookoftheNorth · Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:03 pm

I think one way to solve the security issue is by metagaming. HoS requires all security personnel to get scanned at the beginning of the round.

I've died within 5 minutes of joining a round as security, not even knowing the threat (sometimes even at arrivals). My round is cut short because I chose a role in the line of fire. Why should I be punished for choosing a job?

Ideally, either security would have their own cloning pod, or security would have their DNA in the system already. It would discourage antags from killing security, but either avoiding security or holding them hostage. At the very least they're in the game still.

Realistically, I think standardizing security getting scanned when they arrive or at the beginning of the round would actually do a lot of good (compared to the bold move of a separate scanner or automatically having DNA in the system). Making sure that everyone knows that all security is able to be cloned, it's also a deterrent. I know this is getting off the original post, but people seem to dislike that too.

kevinz000 · Post by **kevinz000** » Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:07 pm #392076

bad idea people will bumrush the cloners

NanookoftheNorth · Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:17 pm

kevinz000 wrote:bad idea people will bumrush the cloners

I'm gonna give it a try next time I play as HoS and see how successful it is. I'm sure the first time or two it'd be just fine, but when people would catch on they'd, yeah, destroy the cloner.

edit: maybe that on it's own could be a reason to give security their own.
again this is to not punish the players for choosing a job, which seems to be a major reason why people don't play security.