legitimatespaceperson Posted June 4, 2019 Posted June 4, 2019 There is an issue with antagonists. There's not enough variety to them. It's a simple issue, really. People fail to adopt the responsibility of making fun other for other players, or feel that they don't make a good antag. So they switch antag roles off. When you do get an antag, the antags come from a small pool of people. It's not unheard of to have people roll antag several rounds in a row because of how small the pool is. It's also not unheard of to have voted in roundtypes fail to start - not because of some manner of voting crossfire in when there's 15 people on the server meme, but because there's nobody on the server who actually has merc or heister toggled. Meanwhile, it is impossible to learn what makes a good antag without playing an antag (you don't quit playing engineer forever after screwing up the engine once, do you?) and the small pool of antagonists invites people to meta the characters of people who do play antag. I therefore propose that we remove the opt-out people have in character select and have the game roll all playing characters for antag. If your character has a really good reason not to be an antag, you can ahelp it to get the role removed as you always would; really trash antags are already taken care of with antagbans. There's no reason not to do it, really.
Arrow768 Posted June 4, 2019 Posted June 4, 2019 Some people do not want to play antag because they do not think that they can come up with a good idea to make the round fun for everyone / dont think they can execute it properly. (Aside from that, some people just done want to play antag) If we remove the ability to opt out of antag, that will lead to a number of antags who either do nothing or do something just to have some something without putting much thought into what they want to do. Therefore voting for dismissal
Xelnagahunter Posted June 4, 2019 Posted June 4, 2019 As someone who is opted out of most antag roles, allow me to explain why this is a thing. I'm not robust at all. If I were to roll things such as a team antag like raider or heister, I'd be the one person on the team that couldn't be relied on. In general my mastery of the game's mechanics is low, it's in the lore where I shine, making me perfectly suited to civilian roles and the IAA role that I'm on so often. I play an apprentice/assistant and that's it. I have a few antag roles on and if I'm in a round where I happen to roll an antag role that I feel I'm not ready for, I ask for it's removal so someone else can do it. Otherwise I try to learn how my stuff works and usually do a terrible job of it, making the round not fun for anyone involved. Just some reasoning.
afitz Posted June 5, 2019 Posted June 5, 2019 Being able to choose if you want to antag or not will not change the variety of rounds we will receive. Also, many people prefer to receive deal with the situations instead of create them. It takes a lot of creativity and skills at the game to make a fun round for everyone. I think it should be an opt-in role if any change were to occur: to help people figure out about the game and the antagonist role before deciding they are ready for it. Forcing antags would not solve the problem you say exists, you didn't outline how it would help either. Solid no in my opinion.
Carver Posted June 5, 2019 Posted June 5, 2019 Force me into being an antag in this way and I'd just cryo when I join a round and end up being a changeling/vampire/traitor. Bravo, your system proceeds to have an even worse effect.
Arrow768 Posted June 12, 2019 Posted June 12, 2019 Moving to rejected policy as there have been two votes for dismissal and the archival period has been reached.
Recommended Posts