Security (And other roles) Less Likely to Become Antag

[BurgerBB]

On paper, a security member becoming antag will likely lead to an interesting round. In practice, a security member becoming antag is hell.

I propose an addition where certain rolls have less of a chance to be eligible for antag. The way that it would work is that if you pass all the antag eligibility checks, a final dice roll will occur to actually get antag. A base value is 50%. If you're a security member and you're completely eligible for antag, you have a 50% chance to actually be put on the antag eligibility list unless of course it's revolution.

 

[kyres1]

i'd say no if the only instances i ever saw security antags weren't disastrous and played by awful players with awful intentions. security being antagonists, especially wardens, just completely trashes most rounds because security will be actively working against a situation and suddenly "Ohohoho im tator now" and you get revolver headgibbed or esworded by your buddy. don't get me wrong, i don't think balance is an issue here, but security plays a very strong role in serving as an obstacle against antagonists just doing whatever. turning this obstacle into even more antagonists is always annoying as they're the most well equipped force on the station at any given time with zero effort or even counter play (and rapidly powercreeping to be something even more crazy with the addition of full body bulletproofs/riots/ablatives with stats superior to most any armor in the game).

begone sec antags

[Itanimulli]

I'd not go so far as to just outright nerf the antag chances. Maybe traitor chances; have it select people a tad less. The biggest issue I see with this blanket change is the additional decreasing-ing of off-station antags. No point in this happening.

Basically: Traitor sec is annoying, but it shouldn't mean someone who is security should not also be able to be equally eligible for ninja as everyone else.

[BurgerBB]

Off station antags are completely unaffected. Nowhere in the OP does it state this.

[CampinKiller]

Maybe for autotraitor, but I disagree for everything else. Don't limit people from possibly creating a narrative just because they play Sec.

[Sytic]

Gotta agree with Burger here. As a sec main, it can be real frustrating to deal with other members of Security suddenly deciding to turn on their staff. But I also totally agree with his methods, too- Sec players often are antags too, so they'll often be antags as Sec. Bumping that chance down allows us to see other antags more and sec antags less, without removing the possibility entirely.

[Itanimulli]

38 minutes ago, BurgerBB said:

Off station antags are completely unaffected. Nowhere in the OP does it state this.

Nowhere in the OP does it exclude off-station antags, either.

[ben10083]

7 hours ago, Itanimulli said:

Nowhere in the OP does it exclude off-station antags, either.

The fact it ISNT included makes it excluded tho. He wants security to either have a smaller chance or no chance of being traitor.

 

I agree with this idea for the smaller chance, I feel they should still have a small chance just in case there isn't enough traitors and/or dead hour.  +1

[Doxxmedearly]

Yeah, Kyres sums up my thoughts entirely. In theory sec antags are good, in practice, consistently, they're far too common and just not great. I'd really love if this extended to heads of staff, too.

Reducing the chances without eliminating it entirely seems like a good step forward, and a reasonable one. 

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I like this change. Security antags are incredibly powerful and with an infiltrated sec makes it incredibly awkward  dynamic 

[StationCrab]

I support this. It isn't removing it completely, just making it less common.

[GreenBoi]

I'd say no had I not remembered the plethora of bad Security Antagonist rounds where the person thinks they're good just because they killed the rest of the department. I'd've said no if I'd not have read and seen everyone else's anecdotes of similar incidents that have, causally, caused horrible rounds or completely derail a round from what could have been good, decent, or intriguing to just "Hahahahaha, I have easy access to armory. I emagged my way in now die because I took every. single. e-weapon.", I would say the classic line of Always punish the player, not the mechanics but sometimes that just doesn't work. Sometimes the same people bring about patterns they had in the past or are just awful at changing their playstyle. With nerfed onstation antagonist chances, they'll have time to not care as much about "WILL I GET ANTAG SO I CAN TRY THIS NEW METHOD OF ROBUSTING?!?!?!?" and more of "Maybe I could improve my character as this" but that might only be an effect of being antagonist banned.

 

TL;DR I support this.

[Arrow768]

I also support this suggestion.
Certain Roles (Namely Heads of Staff and Security) should have a lower chance to be selected as On-Station antag.

Call it more extensive background checks if you will.

[Carver]

Yeah I'd definitely extend this to heads as well. Though I'm not sure there are enough antag players for this sort of weight change to really affect much, I consistently see the same people as traitor daily.

[sonicgotnuked]

I do think sec traitor can be pretty bad at times, but I am more on neutral terms with limiting Heads of Staff. Perhaps lower the chance and run a check to see how many heads of staff are on the station? If there is like 3 or 4, then other heads of staff are easily able to step up and combat the traitor one. It is highly complex too, because heads of staff are expected to attempt providing good play when they become antags due to the amount of power they have to swing their entire department around, especially science or the HoP.

 

To summarize: Head of Staff antags is literal easy mode but you got to keep in mind traitor heads of staff are more expected to understand and follow antag rules and provide a better quality. 

 

Sometimes you people need to make a greytide baldi and get them as a traitor because challenge is fun.

[AmoryBlaine]

This is a must. When half of Sec is cult, or traitors, or Rev it's just shit for everyone else. It kills the power dynamic between the crew and antags when the crew's main source of force is the bad guys. 

[Carver]

4 hours ago, AmoryBlaine said:

This is a must. When half of Sec is cult, or traitors, or Rev it's just shit for everyone else. It kills the power dynamic between the crew and antags when the crew's main source of force is the bad guys. 

This change would do absolutely nothing to half of sec becoming cult or revs. If you want to avoid that, remind people that loyalty implants exist during those rounds.

[AmoryBlaine]

28 minutes ago, Carver said:

This change would do absolutely nothing to half of sec becoming cult or revs. If you want to avoid that, remind people that loyalty implants exist during those rounds.

You didn't understand my post. There's a big difference between me walking into the locker room at round start and seeing very clear clues that everyone else is Rev/cult, rather than the team being converted over the round. 

[BurgerBB]

PR is up: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/5809

[geeves]

I AM REVIVING THIS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/7083

 

give opinion

[Roostercat]

As much as I love playing sec antag as Crono, I agree with this due to the fact that I know it pisses everyone else off. there was one round where 3/4 officers were traitors, we just raided the vault and left the cap, cadet, single officer, and HoS deal with it, and that was before I threw a manhack grenade and disabled them for some time. Thye couldn't even attempt an assault from being so undermanned as we had already raided the armory as well. I say don't completely eliminate sectags but do lower the chances.

[Xelnagahunter]

57 minutes ago, geeves said:

I AM REVIVING THIS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/7083

 

give opinion

I don't the Rev should be effected at all.

[geeves]

2 hours ago, Roostercat said:

As much as I love playing sec antag as Crono, I agree with this due to the fact that I know it pisses everyone else off. there was one round where 3/4 officers were traitors, we just raided the vault and left the cap, cadet, single officer, and HoS deal with it, and that was before I threw a manhack grenade and disabled them for some time. Thye couldn't even attempt an assault from being so undermanned as we had already raided the armory as well. I say don't completely eliminate sectags but do lower the chances.

Yep, deffo agreed.

 

1 hour ago, Xelnagahunter said:

I don't the Rev should be effected at all.

I was thinking this as well, I added loys because Sec tends to go the loy route almost every time, but adding it for rev, something sec doesn't go for often, feels a bit off. What do you guys think? There's still time to tweak the PR.

Edited September 28, 2019 by geeves
geeves cannot into grammar

[GreenBoi]

I think Security should have reduced chances for Loyalist, but have their rev chances stay the same. Most security personnel don't have rev enabled and it'd be nice to see the Guys with the Guns not be on the company side all the time

[Snakebittenn]

I think reducing chances for loyalist would be funny, while keeping rev the same. It'd also prevent every rev round from being 'jackbooted thugs enforce the captain's iron fist'