|
Post by yeahchris on Aug 12, 2014 7:43:12 GMT
I think this is a complex issue. This may be a good idea, it may be a mediocre one. I like the idea of giving people more room to be creative.
Do I trust them completely to do awesome things with it? Not really.
I would like to see the affect this has on antag quality in a trial run. I would still ban people who use it as an excuse to flood the station with plasma, so no major change there really.
|
|
|
Post by Dalekfodder on Aug 12, 2014 9:23:36 GMT
Why would someone tell a sleeper agent "DO FUKEVER U WANT M8" is my question. Ofc speaking of Syndicate.
Edit: My post is awesome. Edit2: Didn't read all the walls so it's k.
|
|
|
Post by Skull132 on Aug 12, 2014 9:28:28 GMT
Why would someone tell a sleeper agent "DO FUKEVER U WANT M8" is my question. Ofc speaking of Syndicate. Edit: My post is awesome. Edit2: Didn't read all the walls so it's k. Two notes: First, industrial and general sabotage. Second, and more towards your need for roleplay. There exists a concept that goes along the lines of "developing a situation." Let's say for example, you have a small team and an enemy controlled area. You send the team in during night-time to have a look around. They find cool shit, like a hostile supply route that can be easily sabotaged. Great! Now do you pull them back? Or do you let them develop the situation? They have no demo. Okay, find alternatives. Roadblock, ambush, and effectively block it for other convoys to pass, perhaps? Or find an ammo depot, raid it in hopes of attaining explosives, and use those. Conduct actions, sabotage the target, and then leave. It's a valid tactic, very opportunistic and requires skilled men, but still, valid.
|
|
mrimatool
Lore Developer
Your guy, Toolio <3
Posts: 703
|
Post by mrimatool on Aug 12, 2014 11:06:31 GMT
I have a question, I'm all for this, I was just wondering, would Nuke and Vox still have objectives?
|
|
Chaznoodles
Moderator
Broodhost
Syndicate CEO
Posts: 198
|
Post by Chaznoodles on Aug 12, 2014 11:59:50 GMT
No. God no. Antags have objectives for a reason. That's what they're on the station to accomplish. Giving them no objectives would just make them crewmembers with a different employer.
Plus, players can already create their own objectives. That's the point of RP. Giving objectives already means that players who are unsure of how to roleplay the antag role have guidelines already.
Also, remove the cocking joke poll. It's ridiculous and doesn't give a fair survey.
|
|
Mr. Majestic
Developer
Majestic is the name, majestic is the game.
Posts: 485
|
Post by Mr. Majestic on Aug 12, 2014 12:01:36 GMT
This is a horrible idea. Basically I'm with Francie's first post (I can't say I read every thing. YOU PEOPLE CAN TYPE, DAMN). So yeah. Rather have a message adding that people are free to suggest a custom objective to the admins.
Also, this poll. Worst poll ever.
|
|
|
Post by deatacita on Aug 12, 2014 12:01:38 GMT
I see reasons for both arguments, and while I trust the vast majority of our regulars to be responsible. Our rounds would be fucked if a guy from goon joined as an antag, this would turn into "KILL EVERYONE"
|
|
|
Post by Skull132 on Aug 12, 2014 13:52:55 GMT
The "free" objective can easily be manipulated where it provides guidance, without setting out a direct goal. And that's the entire point of this: to provide guidance, but let the players themselves come up with goals. It opens up things like nothing else. And as for people creating or asking for custom objectives? Rarely, oh so rarely happens. ...That will happen regardless... It's happened before, even with the strict rules. I remember a dude bombing the medical bay because, "I was an antag." The entire bay. Up in smoke. Nothing will stop people from trying to be like that. And need I quote the rules, which will still apply to antags regardless of whether or not we give them objectives:
One of the largest counter-points I see brought up goes along the lines of, "No, they will use this for grief." And? Antags are already capable of that. It's not like we're going to stop enforcing the aforementioned rule because of the shift in objectives. This serves to bring new potential to the generation of conflict within the game. I've had complaints brought up to me, against me, that adding a traitor is a very hueh-tastic way of generating conflict, because they usually have a very aggressive objective. Okay, fair enough, but this would fix it, no? Because whoever the traitor is gets to pick and choose the way he/she wants to. If they're not a fan of killing anyone, they can start a mob ring or something.
As for what I'd like to do with this? I'd like to implement this for a week or two. I don't really care for the effect it'll have on normal traitors, I already have a pretty good idea as to how that will end (disappointment to minor success, but no real grief fest), instead, I'm more interested in the Vox, Nuke and Wizards who get the more general objective. Imagine Nuke ops seizing the station, alerting Syndicate HQ, and then having a clash with a NanoTrasen assault squad? Or a Wizard who came to spread knowledge or some shit?
|
|
duck
Anomalist
Posts: 124
|
Post by duck on Aug 12, 2014 17:23:51 GMT
I want to tell people to read the threads, but at this point, that's kind of unreasonable.
Still. You lot should read the thread. Your concerns have already been addressed. Several times. And addressed again by Skull just now.
But the ones that turn up in every post seem to be: Giving objectives already means that players who are unsure of how to roleplay the antag role have guidelines already.
And: Our rounds would be fucked if a guy from goon joined as an antag, this would turn into "KILL EVERYONE"
I mean. Skull covered the latter pretty nicely. As for the former. They can learn. That's literally what they can do.
Really.
'What if players aren't smart enough to think for themselves? I think people are too dumb to handle this!' Is what I'm hearing again and again. And it's just. Are you really. People who are 'unsure' of how to 'roleplay the antag role' have 'guidelines' that encourage emagging into the captain's office and stealing his underwear. Oh, but I thought creativity is what roleplay is all about!
Your 'guidelines' don't encourage RP whatsoever. They encourage mechanical, methodical, unthinking action. And if you want the rest of the argument for why this is a good idea, may I suggest going to page two.
|
|
susan
Detective
Posts: 30
|
Post by susan on Aug 12, 2014 18:52:54 GMT
After a round of just about nothing happening,
[redacted] was [redacted] (survived) Objective #1: Steal the hypospray. Success! Objective #2: Escape on the shuttle or an escape pod alive and free. Success! The traitor was successful!
OOC: [redacted]: hypospary was EASY OOC: [redacted]: in and out, bam done
This is all I have to say anymore about objectives being bad.
|
|
Mr. Majestic
Developer
Majestic is the name, majestic is the game.
Posts: 485
|
Post by Mr. Majestic on Aug 12, 2014 19:34:31 GMT
Well, people, ASK FOR SOME FUN OBJECTIVES. And so what if the antag was super quiet and no one knew it was even a antag round? Then it just becomes extendie with higher chance of things get fuckerd up. And if you want to be a antag to spice things up in a round, just ask. Then a yes is a yes and a no is a no. But don't just leave it then complain later. If that makes sense. I dunno. Just read my furst sentence. Da.
|
|
duck
Anomalist
Posts: 124
|
Post by duck on Aug 12, 2014 19:55:05 GMT
Should read Skull's post. Latest one. Explained in detail.
|
|
|
Post by veneke on Aug 12, 2014 23:29:37 GMT
So I haven't gone crazy and other people do think this is a bad idea. I must say, I'm a little relieved. The "free" objective can easily be manipulated where it provides guidance, without setting out a direct goal. And that's the entire point of this: to provide guidance, but let the players themselves come up with goals. It opens up things like nothing else. That's fine, but that is not what the OP suggested. The OP wanted objectives removed. If objectives are being changed to provide more guidance then that's a very different proposal. This simply isn't how it works in practice. If it was, killing your target would be breaking the rules. If killing your target or another as antag without RP is against the rules, then boy-howdy do I have some reports to make. No, this won't fix that. An aggressive objective? You think people (non-antags) will be happier with the, undoubtedly more encompassing, objectives antags will now be able to give themselves without oversight and with no guidance? It needs to be made abundantly clear that what the OP wanted is not more guidance, but no objectives. Somehow it's been twisted mid-way to include more guidance. More guidance for antags is far less objectionable than 'no objectives'. That could happen anyway right now. There's nothing stopping it aside from the antag themselves. This is one of the bigger problems I have with this suggestion. It assumes that implementing it will result in antags being cooler, and then points to things like this. Things which can already happen. Friendly wizards and Vox are a possibility. If a Nuke Op team wanted to take and hold the station, I don't see anything stopping them from doing so right now. I feel like a broken record at this point - antags need guidance, not a free hand. All the cool stuff people are saying this will bring can happen already. It just doesn't, and it's not because of greentext, it's because our antags are generally a bit shit. Your 'guidelines' don't encourage RP whatsoever. They encourage mechanical, methodical, unthinking action. And if you want the rest of the argument for why this is a good idea, may I suggest going to page two. This is being a little obtuse man. It's been made pretty clear that the guidelines that have been suggested for antags are related to how to best play antag in terms of how to RP, your options etc - not the base mechanics of how things work.
|
|
|
Post by veneke on Aug 13, 2014 0:14:27 GMT
After a round of just about nothing happening, [redacted] was [redacted] (survived) Objective #1: Steal the hypospray. Success! Objective #2: Escape on the shuttle or an escape pod alive and free. Success! The traitor was successful! OOC: [redacted]: hypospary was EASY OOC: [redacted]: in and out, bam done This is all I have to say anymore about objectives being bad. The objective was fine. He could have messed with the CMO. He could have messed with most of Medical. He could have set off a small explosion to evacuate medical. He didn't do any of those things. That makes him a bad antag. That's all.
|
|
duck
Anomalist
Posts: 124
|
Post by duck on Aug 13, 2014 0:19:04 GMT
Regarding my post? That was to Chaz, who was using an entirely different definition of 'guidelines' because he didn't read any of the actual thread where his issue was discussed like four times. And I'm beginning to feel as broken-record as you on that. Also. First quote and third quotes? That is literally what I suggested, not something that was twisted in. The code already exists and I was talking about splicing in the code, which, as far as I know, includes the whole guidance thing you're pushing for. Of course, it's a bit of an oversight to think other people would know that, I suppose. The OP was done quick because, well. I don't want to put all the reasons for it in the OP.
Lookit how many walls have been posted. That's not an economical amount of information.
As for quote #2 and the other half of quote #3. Are you sure you're not being intentionally obtuse now? The 'objective' the game gives you is to make the game interesting. If you're taking people out of the game -and- failing to do that, theeeen you should probably be antagbanned. If you're going for a grand scale and making the game unfun/uninteresting for a lot of people, guess what I'm going to say next. (It's antagban.)
Aaaand quote #4. The 'That can happen right now anyway' argument. I don't really feel like typing my whole thing again, so instead I'm going to ask you to ask literally any living, not-crazy behavioral psychologist on earth if people do more work than they have to. They can even be animal behaviorists. I guarantee that, while they may give you a lot of buts and ands, when it comes to 'generally speaking,' the answer will pretty much be a flat no. Every time. It is the basic nature of literally almost every mobile animal on a higher order than bacteria. And strictly speaking, bacteria aren't exactly animals. Please don't make me explain why this ties in to the objective system again.
|
|
|
Post by veneke on Aug 13, 2014 0:42:57 GMT
Chaz's comment about guidelines is pretty clearly about the options available to an antagonist. I'm not sure how else you could read it. All he's essentially said on the subject is that objectives currently form the guidelines for what an antag should do during the round. Which is true. I think it should be expanded, and you're suggesting it should be removed.
Reread your OP, it's definitely saying to remove objectives. There's nothing in there about expanding on the guidance given to antags. Most of page two was a back and forth between you and I about how you wanted objectives removed and I wanted them expanded. I mean... if that was all for nothing and you're on board with the idea of providing more guidance to antagonists then that could probably have been mentioned a little earlier. <.<
Why is there even a question mark over antags being able to kill folk now? This is something they can do, and in some cases it's their goal to do so. There are good ways to go about it, and bad ways, but that's it.
On your last paragraph - this is all very well and fine a point to make in academia, but the reality is much simpler. It can happen, it has happened, and I'm pretty sure that it'll happen again. Okay, maybe not the Nuke Ops one, but for most other rounds there remains a possibility of an interesting antag. Hell, if we're taking one-off examples as proof of something or another, just look at the Vampire round from last night (well, last night for me). Hallinder was a fantastic vampire, and everybody got on board with the notion that we shouldn't bum-rush him. It worked out pretty well and interesting things were done.
|
|
susan
Detective
Posts: 30
|
Post by susan on Aug 13, 2014 0:56:10 GMT
You seem to be so focused on the concept of guidance in general. Fine. Here is what antagonists are told when they become an antagonist without objectives with the current system.
How is this not guidance? It instructs the antagonist what to do, gives them a baseline and some suggestions for motivation and asks them to keep both the rules and other player's interests in mind. Hell, it offers a lot more guidance than KILL DICK MCGEE, SCIENTIST, ESCAPE ALIVE ever could.
|
|
|
Post by veneke on Aug 13, 2014 1:46:49 GMT
So. What? You want to turn off objectives to autogenerate that paragraph? o.o
This just seems like a really heavy-handed, and utterly inept manner, to deal with a very real problem of the majority of antags not fully understanding the role. There's nothing wrong with the objectives, there's plenty wrong with how antags are currently understood by the playerbase. The existence of objectives does not prevent the situations described across the thread from occurring, nor is it primarily responsible for the lack of interesting antags.
I'm really not sure how many more ways this can be said - the problem is not with the mechanics, it's with the playerbase's understanding of the role of the antag.
|
|
duck
Anomalist
Posts: 124
|
Post by duck on Aug 13, 2014 1:54:11 GMT
So you say. It just so happens that I have like, all of academia backing me up on the fact that such and such a system leads to so and so a result. Now, I'm not going to be one of those people that actually cites sources in an internet argument, but you can look it up and I'm sure you know what you'll find.
Your claims are unbacked. If you're willing to, y'know, discount basic human behavior and all the research that's been done on it, I don't know what to say.
Suggest maybe reading some things. Anyway. Think we're done here.
|
|
farcry11
Moderator
God Emperor of Pleb Kind
Strictly Platonic
Posts: 1,347
|
Post by farcry11 on Aug 13, 2014 2:14:08 GMT
Here's the thing. Players often feel afraid to try/do things that aren't the "norm". Giving them a "guideline that essentially says "do this, this, and this" essentially reinforces that fear- making the RP, after a time, stagnant and boring. What did the antag do this round? Stole a can of plasma, what a shocker. Last round, he broke someone's hand- how unexpected!
Boring, boring, boring.
Here's what we could have with a more open-ended system:
Drug rings. Blackmail. Fight clubs, heists, kidnappings, serial killings, terrorist bombings, muggings, torture. A dirtier, darker, and overall more entertaining station. Who wouldn't want that?
Yes, a departure from the somewhat quiet norms of a round might interrupt some people's perfect chair RP, or cause some people to cry "gank!" or "grief!" when something unexpected and unpleasant happens to them. But that's a risk I'm personally willing to take.
|
|