/tg/Station 13

Y'all notice how everyone says yes when a ghost role pops up? (except for people who press no, but we dont talk about those)
Well some people are completly clueless and just die early because they had no idea what they were doing.
So my idea is to make some system that requires you to pass a role quiz (with answers easily ripable from wiki, because if you read wiki, you wont die to something like not turning your suit on as ninja) before you can say yes to aforementioned role. Because wasting a ghostrole is so lame, and as rules say, ignorance is no excuse.

instead of making a quiz. We can just have antag positions require game time/job time. Like other high-end jobs.

this is genuinely frustrating that people with 1-5 hours gametime get a ghostrole like blob while barely understanding how to swap hands, timegating antags is a good idea please for the love of god

Do we timelock any roundstart antags?

At least as far as I know yes, I think like traitor is 1 day, ling 7 days, malf 14, something like that.

I have not played Revenant yet.

This is very I ded, better luck next time and enjoy the show

problem is, timegating doesnt ensure people will know how to do the role, you dont learn how to do role by playing a utterly different role
And if you are literate, reading the wiki is not hard, simply make quiz with answers literally ripped from wiki, that way you know people will have SOME idea how it works
And as i said, reading the wiki gives you basic knowledge needed to not die right off bat

You don't deserve the ghost role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.

only if we timegate by hours as maintainer

Cobby wrote:only if we timegate by hours as maintainer

make that GBP and you have my vote

oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.

By replacing just a single word, it's easy to see how flat your argument falls.

If we timegate players for head roles, we should timegate players for antagonist roles (whether they're mid-round is irrelevant). Both are equally important to the round--like yin and yang. It doesn't guarantee competence, granted, but it sure helps the odds by filtering out the inexperienced.

Vaina wrote:

oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.

It's easy to see how flat any argument falls when replacing just a single word.

lol

somerandomguy wrote:

Vaina wrote:

oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.

It's easy to see how flat any argument falls when replacing just a single word.

lol

Discrediting that tactic only works if there's false equivalence--which there isn't. Head roles and antagonist roles are the two primary driving forces of conflict (plus security). If you're not going to contribute anything more than a "lol", go away.

ghost roles aren't there to be the main driving force of a round, so your point is invalid

MMMiracles wrote:ghost roles aren't there to be the main driving force of a round, so your point is invalid

Your assertion is patently false.

Instead of painting things in one sweeping stroke, try and consider their purpose. Ghost roles are there to supplement adversity the roundstarters have failed to deliver--this is doubly the case if it's extended, wherein they are the main driving force. Be it abductors, shadowlings, or revenants, if they can't spur conflict, their existence is pointless. It's not unfair to ask for small degree of curation regarding them. Presuming you're a wizard summoning demons, or a traitor injecting holoparasites, you'll want some reassurance that what you're getting is good trade. This extends to the round and its players at large--there's nothing more disappointing as security than capturing an abductor because the scientist couldn't suss out the buttons.

This is coming from me, who often passes on ghost roles. The most I can ask for as an observer is a good show, and this couldn't be truer for everyone that hit 'yes'.

why do you think you're entitled to competent players in a role that isn't a major driving force unless literally no other roundstart threat exists? they exist to give players non-vital positions to be part of the round again, you aren't entitled to a 'good show'.

MMMiracles wrote:why do you think you're entitled to competent players in a role that isn't a major driving force unless literally no other roundstart threat exists? they exist to give players non-vital positions to be part of the round again, you aren't entitled to a 'good show'.

I'm entitled to a good holoparasite because I spent eighteen telecrystals on it. I'm entitled to a good laughter/slaughter demon because I spent magic points on it. We're all entitled to a positive and entertaining experience because that's why we're here and what these threads are for.

Why do you hate the tedious hygiene system so much? Stop being entitled to convenience.
Why do you hate chef CQC outside of the kitchen? Stop being entitled to fair play.
Why do you hate this admin's flagrant misuse of power against you? Stop being entitled to justice.

You can derail any game grievance or suggestion by calling the opposition entitled; it doesn't mean anything. It's counterproductive to any reasonable discourse. People are free to voice their discontent and ways to improve the game.

There's nothing wrong with being entitled to enjoyment when there's room for it, and there's nothing but an objective gain to be had by timegating antagonist (ghost) roles.

thanks for trying to define to me the sweeping purpose of the game, I'll be sure to take your thoughts under advisement, since you are obviously much more knowledgeable about what the ghost roles are for than me.

Ghost roles are mostly to ensure people can get a chance to come back into the round so we can make rounds last longer, not for any other purpose, the fact that some of those roles are direct side event antagonists is a byproduct.

Making new players have less of a chance to return to the round is not something I'm willing to add.

oranges wrote:Ghost roles are mostly to ensure people can get a chance to come back into the round so we can make rounds last longer, not for any other purpose, the fact that some of those roles are direct side event antagonists is a byproduct.

It's not 'some' of them. It's all of them. Every mid-round ghost role is designed expressly to antagonize and cause strife, from harmless-enough abductors and sentient diseases to the extremely lethal blob. It might be a byproduct by intent (I can't contest you on that; my knowledge there is nil), but functionally, they're designed and purposed as antagonists--and they should be treated as such.

Making new players have less of a chance to return to the round is not something I'm willing to add.

It's noble of you, and I can understand this line of reasoning.

But consider how wasted the role will be when the player can't even switch hands. What good is a shadowling that doesn't know lightswitches or APCs are a thing? Or a revenant that can't find the morgue?

In my experience, I've learned a lot more about ghostroles by watching them in action than being shoehorned into the position and dying minutes in. You can glean a multitude of tips and tricks by observing players like Imsxz rock the role--and then have a good basis of what to do when your turn comes. (And yes, they always get the ghostrole meme. I'm using them as an example for their robustness.)

Overall, there's been no compelling argument for why restricting special roles from incompetents is a bad thing. There's been even less argument for why incompetents in special roles is a good thing.

The game lasted for years just fine without any ghost roles at all. So even if the player sucks, it's not like they ruined the round or anything.

Restricting a role does very little, because people still have to learn the mechanics of a role.

The mechanics of the game overall sure,but people who don't figure out how to switch hands barely last past one round, but then outside of that, there's nothing that can prepare you for these roles other than playing them. Pretending like they'll somehow become competent because they played the normal game for 7 days is unrealistic.

oranges wrote:The mechanics of the game overall sure,but people who don't figure out how to switch hands barely last past one round, but then outside of that, there's nothing that can prepare you for these roles other than playing them. Pretending like they'll somehow become competent because they played the normal game for 7 days is unrealistic.

While I would contend by saying it serves as a sort of filter (as it does for head roles and others), you come from a place of soundness. You have solid sense backing your stance. Major credit where credit's due.

MisterPerson wrote:The game lasted for years just fine without any ghost roles at all. So even if the player sucks, it's not like they ruined the round or anything.

No round is technically ruined by a bad antag, you're right, but it's certainly nice to see the Lexias and Dantes of /tg/ make things more interesting by posing a challenge. That's just my perception.

Vaina wrote:What good is a shadowling that doesn't know lightswitches or APCs are a thing? Or a revenant that can't find the morgue?

They're really funny

Vaina wrote:Overall, there's been no compelling argument for why restricting special roles from incompetents is a bad thing. There's been even less argument for why incompetents in special roles is a good thing.

No, see above

Best case yet.

Vaina wrote:

somerandomguy wrote:

Vaina wrote:

oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.

It's easy to see how flat any argument falls when replacing just a single word.

lol

Discrediting that tactic only works if there's false equivalence--which there is. Head roles and antagonist roles are the two primary driving forces of conflict (plus security). If you're not going to contribute anything more than a "lol", go away.

I'm saying that "lol ur argument is bad becuz i can change a word and it falls apart" is really dumb and any (short) argument can have a word changed and change the whole meaning. (Case in point: your quoted posts.) Try re-reading the quote in my "lol" post.

Also heads are not the driving force, security is, and it can be as bad as it likes as long as it doesnt break rule 1. The only head roles that do much in terms of conflict (excluding rev rounds) are the captain and the hos. Why? Because they're part of security.

Just because you use Monopoly money the game gives you doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it. You aren’t entitled to a good holopara when you can buy other items that do not rely on another player, nor are you entitled to a good demon when you can also buy more offensive spells.

You not factoring that possibility is your fault.

somerandomguy wrote:I'm saying that "lol ur argument is bad becuz i can change a word and it falls apart" is really dumb and any (short) argument can have a word changed and change the whole meaning. (Case in point: your quoted posts.) Try re-reading the quote in my "lol" post.

It wasn't the base of my argument nor did it change the meaning of my opponent's (like I indicated and explained previously at length); I used it to illustrate a point. I said as much here:

Vaina wrote:By replacing just a single word, it's easy to see how flat your argument falls.

Misrepresenting the other side reflects poorly on you, as does completely ignoring their points to nitpick a method of framing you think is fallacious (when it isn't). But to reiterate since it wasn't clear: head and antagonist in this context are interchangeable, and that's why it works. Is and isn't are not interchangeable in any context. Do you get the picture?

Also heads are not the driving force, security is, and it can be as bad as it likes as long as it doesnt break rule 1.

Go on.

The only head roles that do much in terms of conflict (excluding rev rounds) are the captain and the hos.

Okay. (You're forgetting the HoP. That makes it half the roles.)

Why? Because they're part of security.

Great! So there's no disagreement. Heads (plus security) are the station-side driving force of conflict--exactly as I specified.

Cobby wrote:You not factoring that possibility is your fault.

Totally. It's my fault for purchasing a costly item put in the game to assist me. How silly of me to expect it to work as intended. You sure got me there, Cobby.
Sarcasm aside, you're confusing entitlement and accountability. You're definitely accountable for the choices you make, but it's not wrong to ask for a better bargain.

Anyway, my time here is done. Props to Oranges, Mister, and PK for keeping it cool.

read rule 10 buddy

The cost of the item is based exactly upon the risk of the item: a good holopara or demon can dominate the playing field and adding other items upon that just tip the scales further.

They are both extremely high risk high reward items and you know that before even purchasing them. If you want a safety net, choose items/spells that don’t have that inherent risk.

Taking the risk away would most certainly mean these items would need to be balanced around more reliably getting good players.

Cobby wrote:The cost of the item is based exactly upon the risk of the item: a good holopara or demon can dominate the playing field and adding other items upon that just tip the scales further.

They are both extremely high risk high reward items and you know that before even purchasing them. If you want a safety net, choose items/spells that don’t have that inherent risk.

Taking the risk away would most certainly mean these items would need to be balanced around more reliably getting good players.

Valid viewpoint. +1

Okay I'm done for real this time.

I agree with time gate on antagonist/ghost roles.
It isn't much but it can prevent someone completely clueless to fuck things up for you.

The cost of the item being "high risk high reward" tend to be diminished, you're already rolling the die by having someone else joining you, having also a chance for them to not even have played in this server for a minimum of five hours is just idiotic.
There's still a chance to get someone incompetent: how many CEs, HoS, HoPs, CMOs and Captains do we get that are absolutely useless at their job? But at least they know how to swap hands and that if there is a flashing red sign that says "!!TOXIN!!" they should probably invest in some internals.
Asking for ghost roles to have "at least you're not a retard" check is really common sense.

>head and antag are interchangeable
No, they aren't. The only non-sec head that participates heavily in conflict (once again excluding rev rounds) is the HoP, and that's just because they might give antags access to something important without knowing and have something really valuable to steal. Security does not have restrictions to join at all. If a new player can sign up for byond and join one side of the conflict (security), they can join the other side too (antags).

Make being able to spawn into the server timegated by time spent on the server because it isn't fair that incompetent people play as the crew and screw up the round.

bad thread, just complain about them in deadchat for entertainment. newbie blunders can be hilarious too, like the ninja that uses his jetpack as internals. only shit i can see worth any gating is primary antagonists that the round is based around (wizard, not really traitor/ling tho) or team antags/team side antags like cult or abductor. even then its not the end of the world if your partner/mates arent pros, get a sliver of patience and teach 'em a thing or two. if they're not accepting of constructive tips then let em die and solo it :^)

I'm not convinced they're worth gating either because the only way to learn these roles is to play them.

somerandomguy wrote:

Vaina wrote:

oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.

It's easy to see how flat any argument falls when replacing just a single word.

lol

Laughed really hard at this

imagine banning incompetence

iksyp wrote:imagine banning incompetence

We would have no players at all.

seriously though watching new players try something then fuck up spectacularly is hilarious and a lot of the time is a lot more fun then powergaming to the max and getting all the valids

in other words: losing is fun!

Qbmax32 wrote:seriously though watching new players try something then fuck up spectacularly is hilarious and a lot of the time is a lot more fun then powergaming to the max and getting all the valids

in other words: losing is fun!

always a good moment when a 1 connection player joins into medbay and the whole thing is just a mass grave 15 minutes in

I get mad when incompetence ruins my round wherein I am a tot or I was doing a big project I.E having all the engines on the station but after the round it doesn't really matter.

Ghost roles are a joke anyway.

So whats wrong with the wiki quiz idea? it could be a gate that literally takes ONLY A FEW MINUTES TO GET PAST! unlike time gating, which as was said, does NOT give you experience to play the role. Simply reading the wiki page on a subject can give you more experience than watching someone, or having to play the normal game for X time. Its not practical experience but the wiki tells you EXACTLY what you need to do to not die in your first minutes

adamkad1 wrote:So whats wrong with the wiki quiz idea?

I'm trying to play videogames, not be in school. Quizzes are a terrible godawful wretched elitist scumbag idea.

If you can accept that once in a while a CMO isn't gonna know how cloning works, then you can accept that once in a while a blob is gonna spawn on the bridge and get merced.

epic



also how the fuck am i supposed to learn how to play a role if i can't play the role without knowing how to play it you retard

OP: Someone else got antag and didnt play it as well as I would have so remove that please.


Differing levels of experience is fun because someone who doesn't know what they're doing has the potential to play or fail in different ways that are more entertaining than someone playing in a "Standard" fashion. The point of the game is fun, and the main draw of such an openended roleplaying game such as ss13 is the high degree to which players can dictate the structure of the game, as opposed to simply following the framework of the game itself. We don't have a points system or a win loss record because the point of the game isn't to strive to win, but to enjoy your time playing it. New players failing at antag roles are often entertaining for deadchat, the player themself, and the people who defeat them. I fail to see what we would gain from timegating antags on the basis of competence when navigating gaps in competence is a good site for novel situations to arise.

Also, how is someone time gating something like Blob help anything? Its control scheme and playstyle is pretty different from anything else we have on station. Other ghost roles are like that too, where you need to take them for a spin to really grasp how they work.

Seriously I feel like some of yall want ss13 to be a competitive team game like fucken League or Overwatch but topdown 2D. People whining about things being a "driving force in the round" are the ones who can't find something to do that isn't centered around left clicking the bad guys.

datorangebottle wrote:epic



also how the fuck am i supposed to learn how to play a role if i can't play the role without knowing how to play it you retard

If you actually were not a retard and read what is said, i kept proposing a quiz with answers being LITERALLY COPYPASTEABLE FROM WIKI (can it even be called quiz then...), therefore you dont really need to know how to play the role, you just need to prove you are literate and applied RTFM (Read the f'ing manual)
I am against time gating and it never was the intent of this suggestion, people only derailed it into it for a reason i cannot fathom. Time gating solves no issue, you dont gain experience in something by doing entirely different things/solely watching others do it.
Simply force people to skim over the wiki, because its not hard. If you are typing in here, that (probally) means you are literate enough to read a wiki page
I also do not have anything against people who play a role bad, as long as they have SOME idea how to play it. People trying but failing are hilarious. People who have no idea what they are doing arent hilarious as often.
And for my own opinion (heresy i know) Losing is !!FUN!!, but only if i atleast knew what i was trying to do

This discriminates against the illiterate. Won't you think of their needs, too?

SaveVatznick wrote:We don't have a points system or a win loss record because the point of the game isn't to strive to win, but to enjoy your time playing it.

Can we get this quote engraved ingame or embedded on the forums somewhere, or something, to permanently mark the moment Leora perfectly described the underlying purpose of SS13?