/tg/Station 13

Because right now it's a shitshow.

Could even assign players a hidden k/d ratio to further balance sec vs. antags. A step further would be recording ratio per role.

the meaning of this post is lost on me because it swings both ways depending on population

As a regular HoS, I think that traitors should become much more powerful if sec is well staffed.

TechnoAlchemist wrote:the meaning of this post is lost on me because it swings both ways depending on population

What are you missing?

as regular sec, I think traitors are way too weak overall currently.

Unless we are going to ensure sec is a coveted and fun position we basically are going to need some sort of scaling off security population for antagonists eventually.

Sure with a decent force they are weak but without anyone to watch them they basically operate with impunity.

Amnestik wrote:Because right now it's a shitshow.

Could even assign players a hidden k/d ratio to further balance sec vs. antags. A step further would be recording ratio per role.

The problem with this hidden K/D ratio is that it punishes players for being good at the game.
If I'm able to kill the entire sec team as an antagonist, I simply won't be picked if there's two officers.
Punishing players for being good is a bad idea

Antagonists have to adapt their strategies with the sec population, of course, these tactics don't work quite as well in some game modes (namely blob, maybe gang)

Security was never meant to be balanced against antags, and people who think it should be need to be banned under rule 0

oranges wrote:Security was never meant to be balanced against antags, and people who think it should be need to be banned under rule 0

Whether you care to admit it or not, security more or less exists to act as the antagonists' primary opposition. Anybody who denies that sec act as antag hunters is denying how the game functions. This isn't BayStation.

You should be banned under rule 0

Luke Cox wrote:

oranges wrote:Security was never meant to be balanced against antags, and people who think it should be need to be banned under rule 0

Whether you care to admit it or not, security more or less exists to act as the antagonists' primary opposition. Anybody who denies that sec act as antag hunters is denying how the game functions. This isn't BayStation.

it's true, but they're not supposed to be in perfect balance
this game was never meant to be balanced
it's okay for security to lose believe it or not

And I enjoy it.
I like losing as sec and being hunted down to the last man by revolutionaries, because I end up dying in a fun way.

From an antag advantage point of view, everything is 500% more enjoyable when comm are down, and/or no AI.

When you don't have to worry about some guy calling out/eye in the sky seeing you, and calling down 5 officer and 20 validhunters, + AI bolting everything around you, it's just so much more enjoyable.

If powersinks didn't give off light they'd basically be awesome.

Helios wrote:And I enjoy it.
I like losing as sec and being hunted down to the last man by revolutionaries, because I end up dying in a fun way.

!!!this!!!
one of my favorite things is being CMO in a rev round. you're the easy target, you're outclassed by every rev and their mother, and the struggle for survival against all odds (AKA when the game is unbalanced and not in your favor) is some of the most fun you can have in the game, even if it does end with me dead in some dark maintenance corner 99 out of 100 times.

what's better is the 1 out of 100 times where i do survive and bring the round back on my own. the fact that the odds are so low just makes it all the sweeter.

an unbalanced game is a good one in this scenario, and a lot of zilenans people on these forums don't seem to understand that.

I don't mine losing as security but being the only officer paroling them streets is pretty sad.

>SS13
>Not a shitshow

Pick one

PKPenguin321 wrote:

Luke Cox wrote:

oranges wrote:Security was never meant to be balanced against antags, and people who think it should be need to be banned under rule 0

Whether you care to admit it or not, security more or less exists to act as the antagonists' primary opposition. Anybody who denies that sec act as antag hunters is denying how the game functions. This isn't BayStation.

it's true, but they're not supposed to be in perfect balance
this game was never meant to be balanced
it's okay for security to lose believe it or not

In my view, the possibility of security losing to antags is an example of balance. A security force that never lost would be a great example of terrible balance. Things will never be perfectly balanced in ss13, and they shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean striving for balance can't make the game much , much better in certain situations. Just like this one.

The biggest problem I'm seeing is more a lack of Security players to begin with, this just leads to inane situations where there's almost no one in a position of authority to counter or offer even a token resistance to antagonists.

Of course failing security population has always been a issue.

Don't sacrifice Fun on the altar of !!BALANCE!!

Steelpoint wrote:The biggest problem I'm seeing is more a lack of Security players to begin with, this just leads to inane situations where there's almost no one in a position of authority to counter or offer even a token resistance to antagonists.

Of course failing security population has always been a issue.

antags have to exist to drive the round (see: shitty stale extended rounds where no admins are on)
security is technically optional

Security are optional but you'll find things go one sided fast when things like the armoury are unbarred and unguarded and there's no one with the tools to not even investigate crimes let alone catch the perps, not when they're carying the armoury.

Maybe we could give Antags more TC if there's more security or a higher population for the round?

Hell, why not replenishing TC based on time alive? After an half an hour real time and you're still alive, you get 10 extra TC, and so on?
It would reward Antags for staying alive longer and give them more chances to make the round interesting.

Kwisatz wrote:Maybe we could give Antags more TC if there's more security or a higher population for the round?

Hell, why not replenishing TC based on time alive? After an half an hour real time and you're still alive, you get 10 extra TC, and so on?
It would reward Antags for staying alive longer and give them more chances to make the round interesting.

Or traitors will be take ages to reveal themselves because the longer they wait, the more TC they have and the less likely it is that people are awake (ie not-braindead) enough to stop them.

I feel like that would encourage hiding and playing it safe to have a chance at more tc/more murderdick shuttle recalling

Allow turning in objectives through bluespace or something for some TC kickbacks and a new objective


The real issue is definitely lack of security though

I get burned out from playing officer after 2-3 rounds at most
Being a lootbag for the first person to buy an ebow isn't really fun tbh, and in lowpop being the ONLY sec is fucking awful and I wouldn't wish that on anyone

NPC NT Private Security at round start when?

But being serious ask anyone playing Sec and it's not uncommon for them to spend several rounds observing after playing the role, and good luck filling up the Sec team mid round when there's no one already in sec. No one wants to deal with the hell of a unguarded brig after 10 or so minutes.

>Allow turning in objectives through bluespace or something for some TC kickbacks and a new objective

I like this a lot. But add more low level objectives to traitors, things that can be done fairly easily alongside the main objective.
Something like "Collect and bluespace transfer a fully charged RCD' or 'Bluespace transfer a toolbelt with a screwdriver, wrench, and crowbar in it'.

If we gave traitors a way to increase the amount of TCs they could get we would HAVE to make it so that murderboning is not allowed. Otherwise they would run around with infinite adrenals and ebows every round and kill everyone, reducing the system to being, "wait a little bit, kill everyone 100% more efficiently later"

As far as sec numbers go, the main reason I never play any sec but detective is because I never feel powerful. I never feel like I have true ease at killing greytiders or antagonists, making the entire thing just a boring chore. With the detective that issue is abated somewhat because you have your revolver that is quite good at killing things. If security had standardized laser pistols (20 burn) with a lot of ammo in mass quantities I'd play them more. This would be fine balance-wise as well since the large majority of antags have ways to negate these laser guns, heal off the damage done, or even steal them for themselves, making armory raids a thing you do not just out of luxury but as a necessity if you want to neuter security.

Steelpoint wrote:NPC NT Private Security at round start when?

But being serious ask anyone playing Sec and it's not uncommon for them to spend several rounds observing after playing the role, and good luck filling up the Sec team mid round when there's no one already in sec. No one wants to deal with the hell of a unguarded brig after 10 or so minutes.

I play low pop sec often and it's not that bad. When shit goes down I just hunker down somewhere and become a neutral nation