Jump to content
ParadoxSpace

Departmental Security

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Juani2400 said:

A minimum level of coordination is still needed, and as such, Security shouldn't lose their frequency, as departmental guards will eventually require backup when dealing with certain people.

The problem with this. And with retaining some form of head of staff who governs all of security. Is that the departmental officers will most likely end up being used as regular officers once push comes to shove. Ergo, there will be no change. Ergo, there will be no point in implementing this change.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Skull132 said:

The problem with this. And with retaining some form of head of staff who governs all of security. Is that the departmental officers will most likely end up being used as regular officers once push comes to shove. Ergo, there will be no change. Ergo, there will be no point in implementing this change.

The only solution I could think of to this would be keeping department security under a separate CoC than "Overall" security. Like, leaving Department security to the head of department, and then head of personnel, where the organized sec would be under the Head of Security. (Though I don't think this is at all necessary)

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Skull132 said:

The problem with this. And with retaining some form of head of staff who governs all of security. Is that the departmental officers will most likely end up being used as regular officers once push comes to shove. Ergo, there will be no change. Ergo, there will be no point in implementing this change.

In a way, though, it’s no different from a cop on a patrol post needing assistance IRL. Until they need assistance the other cops are on their own patrol routes, but if they call out for assistance, they leave those routes to help. I think it would be similar in game - say the Cargo Officer gets into a gunfight, the science/medical officer comes to assist and returns once the situation is resolved

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, CampinKiller said:

In a way, though, it’s no different from a cop on a patrol post needing assistance IRL. Until they need assistance the other cops are on their own patrol routes, but if they call out for assistance, they leave those routes to help. I think it would be similar in game - say the Cargo Officer gets into a gunfight, the science/medical officer comes to assist and returns once the situation is resolved

I mentioned this in my post. QM can just request another officer from the med/sci departments!

Share this post


Link to post

I think the intention of the suggestion is to change how early-game security behaves (largely in an oppressive, crush-all-opposition fashion to a much less aggravating-for-an-antag-at-the-start kind) under code green circumstances.

I don't mind as business as usual when it's code red for the dept. security to inevitably unite. But I'm assuming there's zero purpose for the HOS anymore.

Oh wait, Blueshields! An actually viable concept now! :lol:

Edited by Scheveningen

Share this post


Link to post

It makes zero sense to not have someone supervising these guards when we are talking about a corporate setting with a clear chain of command hierarchy, and even less that at least some form of coordination doesn't exist. If the whole point of this change is simply to disable Security completely by crippling them to the maximum, then we better keep what we have now.

 

Departmental guards should answer to their assigned department's head first, but actually have a supervisor that is in charge of the security of the station, and of the Security staff. We are going to have prisoners, secondary security staff, forensics and an armoury. There needs to be some sort of figure that takes the decisions on when to arm up everyone, on how to conduct an investigation or to deal with the staff after misconduct (as we can't expect a Research Director lecturing an officer on Rules of Engagement). And as I pointed out earlier, the Captain should not be the person for it, because they are the fail-safe of the chain that you can go to if some other head doesn't do something properly, plus they have many other tasks to take care of, other than just the security of the station.

 

If this change is going to make playing Security a pain, as some people are proposing, let's just steer away from it, as much I would like departmetal guards being implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Skull132 said:

 

Quote

>First of all, there is no fault to be had. This is not an attack, nor punishment, you should not view it as such. This is gameplay design, nothing else.

Not exactly what I was trying to say here. And that game 'design' choice is pretty awful. You know what other people do to improve antag-non antag interaction? They add and improve! new mechanics, items, new channels of communication. Ingroups that help new players if they are unfamiliar, events... Even apophis did this shit, and he was a complete dumbass. 

 

Quote

>Second of all, no one is suggesting that we hold the antagonist's hand. That is a horribly extreme view to impose upon this thread, and surely an invalid one. All that has been said is that security is too powerful, at present, for the antagonists to further their role ingame to a decent degree of satisfaction. And that the root of the issue is how security is currently represented as a department. Your only two ways of really dealing with security's presence is to do 1 thing and then bugger off, or by committing yourself to running fast and light strikes against the station. Anything that requires you to stand your ground to any degree will result in your losing, since security, once prepped, will only take a few minutes to get to you. You cannot really claim that this is solely the antagonist's issue, if anything but two tactics are invalidated.

I'm making a point, and obviously its working. I'm "extreme", because I don't want you to devolve a part of the game into shit. I've seen this kind of language and tactics used over and over before. 

You can do a number of things to deal with security. You can disable cameras and other technology, you can empty their vault, you can subvert their members, distract them with devices or accomplices etc, disable power and trap them, stun them, gas them, turn the AI/synths against them, cause riots and uprisings etc maybe even blow them up depending on how you escalate things and what your objective is... If you have reached a point on your server where you cannot do any of these things... You cannot allow the antag to do anything or use anything, and you cannot even think of anything... You've really fucked up. If you're standing around as an antag like a retard and sec is on your trail, you've fucked up. I don't need to claim it is an issue with the antagonist only, it could be any number of issues you're not looking at. 

 

Quote

>And the final note is, back to the point of gameplay design, the only other way to fiddle this issue is to severely buff antagonists. To the point where 1 man can easily evade or neutralize the average 3 - 5 security team. But holy shit, that will not work, since such a requirement making said antagonists too powerful. So instead, you disperse the 3 - 5 man security team. Which is what this suggestion aims to do.

Read the above. This sort of reasoning makes zero sense to me. The point of balancing isn't to increase power of each fighter to match like its some kind of generic Grug fighting game, its to make both parties equipped to outsmart and outmanouver etc the other if they know what to do and get an advantage. If command is competent and security isn't understaffed and all that, but you are completely alone as an antag and you can't use your brain or anything for that matter then of course you are fucked. 

 

Quote

>I would argue that is not necessarily removal, for one. For two, this arbitrary crying of, "No, stop removing things!" is dumb, since following it would stone wall us into a whole load of fucking stupid decisions. Ultimately, you are free to start your own thread with an idea on how to solve the issue of antagonists having to focus too widely on security, but until that thread is made, this present idea is entirely valid.

Again your language and tactics, I have already witnessed it before. I don't see the point of it. It is removal in the sense that you're taking away the structure of the system, and "dispersing" it as you say. If it is not removal then it is deconstructing at the least. But removal is a more accurate word. I still don't see how the positives outweigh the negatives. I am telling you here in this thread, because I care. This is a dumb idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Felkvir said:

>I would argue that is not necessarily removal, for one. For two, this arbitrary crying of, "No, stop removing things!" is dumb, since following it would stone wall us into a whole load of fucking stupid decisions. Ultimately, you are free to start your own thread with an idea on how to solve the issue of antagonists having to focus too widely on security, but until that thread is made, this present idea is entirely valid.

Local head dev commits ad hominem, forum staff nowhere to be found to hold the madman accountable

There is no "right" answer, Skull, your unnecessarily hostile tone and vindictive attitude aside. This is one of those cases where there would likely be just as much value upholding status quo and making smaller changers to give antagonists a reasonable amount of threat provided they have the skill and smarts to pull it off. And that's what we should promote here, rather than making things consistently easier and easier for antagonists because the better players on the security spectrum can't be counterplayed by the inexperienced antagonists.

I'm not saying anyone should be playing to win as I've seen many times to turn out for the worst. But "survival" needs to be on the agenda of antagonists more often, and for players to put more thought into how they're going to survive the round while also promoting narrative story-telling through their acts and scenarios imposed upon the crew.

The biggest concern which has not yet been addressed by you is whether this can be executed sanely in a way that is still fun yet balanced at the same time without causing major power imbalances in who has the advantages, in what situations and when. Everything is a good idea on paper but rarely do 'ideas with good intentions' actually manage to weather what really happens in reality. Largely because when you judge something in theory, the limiting human factor restricts your ability to be able to consider all of the environmental and situational factors before making an objectively sound decision. And that's why it's called a theory because there's no guarantee it will work the way people say it will in consistently applied practice.

Edited by Scheveningen

Share this post


Link to post

To answer the questions about authority, clearly the HoS’s orders would have precedence over the other heads of staff in regards to the officers. 

I think this would be awesome for the HoS role, making them even more of a tactician in role- deciding which departments to pull and add security to. 

If we left brig officers and a warden/detective/ft, the brig issue is solved.

I think this will be awesome. 

Share this post


Link to post

I think the best way to do this would be to start officers as standard, non-department officers and let the HoS decide who goes where. Instead of forcing a different playstyle on people, just give them an opportunity to try it out. Add in the offices, and let people decide what they like more.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, tbear13 said:

I think the best way to do this would be to start officers as standard, non-department officers and let the HoS decide who goes where. Instead of forcing a different playstyle on people, just give them an opportunity to try it out. Add in the offices, and let people decide what they like more.

That's not really the point of the suggestion. If it were optional, it would never be done. 

 

Edit:

Also, this isn't a suggestion to gimp Security. Just to emphasize the Secure part, and make security play a little less orkoid.

Edited by ParadoxSpace

Share this post


Link to post

If you don't think anyone in security would like it enough to do it when given the option, is it really something we want to add in without giving them alternatives?

There wouldn't even need to be a HoS to organize it. Some officers could stay where they want, while others could do what they want outside of department. Everyone's happy that way.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, tbear13 said:

If you don't think anyone in security would like it enough to do it when given the option, is it really something we want to add in without giving them alternatives?

There wouldn't even need to be a HoS to organize it. Some officers could stay where they want, while others could do what they want outside of department. Everyone's happy that way.

It's not about if they like it or not. It's about 'it's a new change and people don't like changing how they normally operate.' I'd rather they see how they like it or not while actually doing it.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I suppose this is an experiment after all, and the changes can be reverted if they end up being bad. It's worth an attempt.

Share this post


Link to post

It's more than an experiment. Is nobody going to answer the question of "where the fuck does the HoS" fit in all of this? Considering this is essentially axing security as a department entirely, I suppose it behooves us to then ask where the CSI and FT are going also, as well as the warden and the brig.

As to the idea of retaining the brig and creating two brig officers, I hope that the realization of that being idiotic is accomplished once you see that it essentially means we have at least 6 security officers running around (one in each department, medical, engineering, cargo, science, two brig officers) in addition to the non officer brig staff who currently float around in the abyss now that we've pulled a krystalnacht and sent the officers on their great exodus.

Share this post


Link to post

The way I would imagine this:

Start of round, Security spawns as normal, HoS makes assignments to departments. This is so any possibly empty, or single-person departments, aren't having an officer thrown into them over a filled Medical department, for example. During standard operation, Security officers are expected to remain in their assigned departments barring a call for assistance from another officer or some other major incident. If, say, there are 4 officers and only 3 active departments (or 1 department is very low staffed, such as a single engineer, or cargo tech), extra officer(s) can perform normal patrol and response duties for the station at-large, but not going on another officer's "turf" (department) unless absolutely necessary. During non-standard operations, the HoS can pull Security officers from assigned departments as necessary, depending on the situation and status of members in that department.

 

In regards to the question of the HoS: his function remains the same, if you do not decentralize Security by taking away their radio network and placing them under their assigned department's head of staff. If you do decentralize them in that manner, then I'm not sure how this would work.

Edited by CampinKiller

Share this post


Link to post

If they're not exclusively under the command of the head of staff, I'd atleast like them to be mostly under the command of the head of staff, or it'd be really weird.

Share this post


Link to post

What sense would it be to have a Chief Engineer in charge of an officer, though? The head of staff should be able to do what they currently do - prevent them from performing searches if not authorized, or their presence in certain areas, but if you have a department's head as their supervisor, the HoS becomes useless, and that head could would be issuing orders for a job they are not trained to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ParadoxSpace said:

It's not about if they like it or not. It's about 'it's a new change and people don't like changing how they normally operate.' I'd rather they see how they like it or not while actually doing it.

They don't like changing how they normally operate because there isn't any need for it. Why dismantle the system that works? 

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I dislike this for the reasons that have already been mentioned. This can already be done simply by the HoS assigning people to certain areas of the station which is litteraly their job, if they require access this can be sorted by a HoP. There is no need to change security currently in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...