Post by veneke on Aug 13, 2014 2:55:19 GMT
duck: Look, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make my points. The arguments you're presenting are fine, and I'm sure quite well researched, but the fact of the matter remains that what you want to achieve - better and more interesting antags - is something that happens already under the existing system. Are they outnumbered by bad antags? Sure.
So what's the difference? Antags, both good and bad, are given objectives. Where they differ is that, one set (the bad ones), consider the objective listing to be the be all and end all of their role. The other set (the better antags), are aware of the fact that an antag is more than the sum of his objectives.
The problem isn't the objectives. If it was, then we'd have no good antags, which simply isn't the case. The problem is how the majority of players interpret the antag role. That's something that needs a more root and branch evaluation of the concept and how it's handled rather than this knee-jerk reaction against a mechanic that isn't at fault.
Edit: I do think you're right though. I've more than said my piece on this subject. So, I'll leave my contributions to it end here.
farcry11: We could have all of these things already under the existing system. There's nothing stopping a traitor from setting up a drug ring, blackmailing a target, setting up a fight club (I've seen this one done actually, and on this server to boot), hostage takings has been done, as has torture and bombings.
There's this really strange working assumption that removing objectives from antagonists will somehow free their shackles and turn them all into amazing antagonists that we'll be talking about for hours afterwards. This is crazy. What matters is how players approach the role of antag, and we don't need to remove objectives to change that.
So what's the difference? Antags, both good and bad, are given objectives. Where they differ is that, one set (the bad ones), consider the objective listing to be the be all and end all of their role. The other set (the better antags), are aware of the fact that an antag is more than the sum of his objectives.
The problem isn't the objectives. If it was, then we'd have no good antags, which simply isn't the case. The problem is how the majority of players interpret the antag role. That's something that needs a more root and branch evaluation of the concept and how it's handled rather than this knee-jerk reaction against a mechanic that isn't at fault.
Edit: I do think you're right though. I've more than said my piece on this subject. So, I'll leave my contributions to it end here.
farcry11: We could have all of these things already under the existing system. There's nothing stopping a traitor from setting up a drug ring, blackmailing a target, setting up a fight club (I've seen this one done actually, and on this server to boot), hostage takings has been done, as has torture and bombings.
There's this really strange working assumption that removing objectives from antagonists will somehow free their shackles and turn them all into amazing antagonists that we'll be talking about for hours afterwards. This is crazy. What matters is how players approach the role of antag, and we don't need to remove objectives to change that.