The Return of Antagonist Command

[Butterrobber202]

READ THIS

Spoiler

do not reflex respond please, I have taken the time to bring up this topic and argue for it. I will attempt to address as many concerns as I can in the initial posting.

Two years(ish) ago, this removed Command Members from the Antagonist Pool. I believe this PR was done with the best intentions and was partially correct. I fully agree that Command Members should not be changelings, vampires or otherwise supernatural antagonists. These antagonists' playstyles do not mesh with the position Command initially holds in rounds and their social abilities give Command Antagonists an overwhelming advantage. This would often result in feelings of complete helplessness against them, and generally contributed to an unfun experience. I would argue these antagonists specifically have those abilities because they are not expected to be in a position of authority round-start. 

That said, it is acknowledged in the post above that Command members are in excellent positions engage players and further RP in certain gamemodes. Its my belief that the Traitor gamemode is absolutely one of these gamemodes. Reason being, the Traitor is one of our most flexible antagonists in our rosters in regards to gimmicks alongside Merc and Ninja. The Uplink provides a myriad list of methods to influence the round and most of them are not social abilities. Command Members, obviously, are behind a whitelist and are expected to uphold a higher quality of roleplay than the average player, I think by re-introducing these positions into the antagonist loop will produce fresh gimmicks and more nuanced rounds. I think the whitelist process and team is the best it has been since its inception, and we currently have an excellent set of regular command players, even if most of them will not take advantage of this change. If Command Members are already held to a higher standard of conduct, why not allow them greater opportunities to create interesting rounds?

Another point I would like to make is, the role of Command and Antagonist Players is nearly identical.  Both are expected to further the round and provide an engaging experience to the crew, with the best of their ability. (Even if it doesn't always work out.) This strengthens my earlier point about Command Players being more valuable antagonists, because they have more experience directing rounds than anyone else within our playerbase. 

I will say that not all of Command is fit to be traitors though. Captain and the Head of Security, but their nature, are natural exclusions from this. The Captain would've gone through a thousand and one vettings from the SCC, and the Head of Security's role is naturally pre-disposed against being an antagonist themselves. I don't think the few great rounds these roles as antagonists might bring is worth the headache of having your anti-antagonist Command member be one themselves. 

That said, my suggestion is this: 

Spoiler

Enable Traitor for the following Command Roles:

- Executive Officer

- Research Director

- Chief Medical Officer

- Chief Engineer

- Operations Manager

Disable Mid-Round Traitor for Command Roles. I think that if you're going to do Command Antagonist right, you're going to need a full two hours and complete understanding of what has transpired in the round up to that point. I don't believe it is a good idea for a Head to sudden become a turncoat mid-situation, while people have no reason to suspect them. (because there hasn't been any reason to as of that point.)

Only a single Command Traitor can appear in a round. I think this is pretty self-explanatory. I've been pretty clear I believe Command Antagonists are powerful in this post, so I definitely believe only one of them should be around for any given round. Besides, if a Command Antagonist needs an allies, they can always roleplay to acquire them. 

Command Traitors can only appear if there are 20+ readies. Command Staff do have a lot of power in a round, and without sufficient numbers, it could easily become impossible to oppose them if they abused their position. To circumvent this, a basic ready count requirement would do alot to prevent low population rounds from suffering.

Command Traitors can only appear if there is another Command Member. Self-explanatory. A single command member can capitalize on power without a counter balancing character. 
 

 

FAQ

Spoiler

Q. I don't think Command Members should be antagonists because I want to always be able to trust them OOCly 100% of the time.

A. Why? The Command Members (and you as well) work for scummy corporations that would do anything for a credit. Why shouldn't you atleast be alittle suspicious of people promoted by those corporate overlords? A little bit of mistrust may go a long way in creating more interesting roleplay interactions between Command and Crew. 

Q. One of the functions of Command Members is to train new players within the department, if Command Antagonists are re-introduced, this may violate their trust. 

A. Absolutely true. But, I believe if a Command Antagonist is going to do something wacky, they wouldn't target the newbie, or use LOOC to explain themselves right before the action. If all else fails, simply let the new players off the hook that round. Sacrifices can be made in a round to not turn people away from the server, it all resets after the Transfer vote.

Q. What happens if a Command Member is a consistently bad Antagonist?

A. I think it would be reasonable to empower the Command Whitelist Team to forbid a player from playing Antagonist as command if they constantly abuse the position. But, I think most of our Command Players know better. I think this would only have to be done in a very small amount of cases. I also do not believe monitoring for bad command antagonist player is too terribly different from monitoring for bad Command play in general, due to the similarities the two roles share.

Q. Why shouldn't we limit powergaming like this? Via Mechanics? 

A. I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm saying the original PR was a tiny bit overzealous by axing traitor. I think Command Traitors have too much potential to be left behind iron bars if you weigh it against the threat they represent.

Q. Dear God, this combined with Security Antagonists will literally have the Crew in a stranglehold! 

A. My opinions on Security Antagonists aside. Security is not whitelisted and therefore not a controlled group of players like Command is. Most Command Players (should) have a strong grasp on the dynamics of power between antagonists and the crew. With this in mind, I hope most Command Antagonists would have the good sense not to team up with Security Antagonists if they are posing enough of a threat on their own. Additionally, by allowing Command Antagonists, you loosen their bonds in dealing with threats. The RD may not want to break their morals normally, but their antagonist counterpart may get the offender borged faster than you can blink. That is to say, Command Antagonists may prove greater threats to other antagonists than the crew, if they choose to do so. I would heavily lean into encouraging Command Antagonists to avoid team-ups with already self-sufficient antagonists. Their role is far more useful for boosting struggling antagonists or acting as solo operators.

Summary:

- Command should not be supernatural antagonists.

- Command Roles are in an excellent position to influence rounds by their nature, and are trusted players OOCly. 

- Command Players are whitelisted and expected to be of better quality than normal players and have the valuable experience of directing rounds in their noggins. This gives them great potential as antagonists.

- The role of Antagonists and Command is incredibly similar, to drive a narrative. 

- Captain and Head of Security should not be antagonists.

This summary was provided so you can be refreshed after my long-winded essay! Don't use it to skip reading the post!

THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN UNTIL AFTER NBT TESTING IS COMPLETE, I JUST WANTED TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION
I ALSO DO NOT THINK THIS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED UNLESS THE COMMAND WHITELIST PURGE OCCURS

(If it does not occur, I would bring this up again at a later date, after we know the stock of our oldie command)

I would also beg Head Devs/Admins to hold off on dismissals until we have some discussion in the thread.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Butterrobber202
restriction 4

[geeves]

In an ideal world, I would agree with this. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. A lot of command players generally have no idea how to antagonize well. The time period where they could spawn as antagonists was terrible, and the only fond memories held is there because the memories of the boring or bad ones faded away.

Command players don't need an antagonist role to make the round interesting. If you do, I'm not entirely sure why you're playing command. If you need weapons, you can fax for them. I have in the past single-handedly turned the tide of the round by requesting gear for the station, rather than just asking for an ERT.

Personally, command antags is much the same as malf. Giving a small set of players way too much power over the round.

-1

[Butterrobber202]

2 minutes ago, geeves said:

command players don't need an antagonist role to make the round interesting.

I never made this claim in my post. I said the potential for traitor command is more valuable than the offset they provide.

Additionally, I specify in my post that I only believe traitors could return. Do you have any comments on that or any other specific points made in the thread?

[geeves]

The potential is there, but the chance of them ruining the round is far higher than making it engaging.

I don't really care, most of our antags are just different flavours of traitor anyway. You get weapons and tools to mess with the crew. Still a high risk venture.

I remember in the past, we had an epidemic of HoP traitors where the only difference between them and a cargo tech was that they gave themselves all-access at roundstart rather than stealing the spare.

[Butterrobber202]

4 minutes ago, geeves said:

The potential is there, but the chance of them ruining the round is far higher than making it engaging.

I don't really care, most of our antags are just different flavours of traitor anyway. You get weapons and tools to mess with the crew. Still a high risk venture.

I remember in the past, we had an epidemic of HoP traitors where the only difference between them and a cargo tech was that they gave themselves all-access at roundstart rather than stealing the spare.

I would like to believe (after the proposed purge) that our Command Players would not act like TG Traitors and do bumfuck stuff and order 4000 bolt-action rifles from the cargo console.
I think its worth atleast trying and confirming if the majority of our current players would do that, rather than never knowing at all. 

[Sycmos]

Considering the already small pool of Command players that regularly play and then reduce that number by half to players who are competent enough to guide new players and direct rounds in an engaging and positive manner and you barely have enough of a roster to consider opening them to antagonist roles without severe power imbalances. Antag command prior to its removal was remembered for being grossly unfair to the average player, command tools and access giving them a vast advantage at the gate outside of given antagonist tools. The reality that most current antagonists often rely on usage of the spare ID for access/soft power over the station and command already have much of that soft power tells you that it would be immediately abused in favor of stacking the odds, which only become increasingly unfair when there's little staff to oppose them. It's set up to enable powergaming and a grossly unfair power dynamic that doesn't add anything to a round besides frustration.

We do not need more issues with antag rounds that we already have, especially considering the lax criteria that is required to acquire a command WL, going into the NBT.

-1.

[Butterrobber202]

3 minutes ago, Sycmos said:

snip
-1.

 

31 minutes ago, Butterrobber202 said:

That said, my suggestion is this: 

In the spoiler below this sentence in the original post, ^ I listed some additional requirements for command antagonists, and I think you bring up an excellent point here about lowpop. I will be adding:  

Command Antagonists can only trigger if there are more than 20 readies.

[niennab]

Generally I found the experience of antagonist command to be frustrating and I don't think I can endorse it coming back. One experience I can remember was where in Science nothing could get done because our Research Director went completely silent over radio while running off somewhere in maint. Nothing could be signed off on and when things went sour, there was no one with authority to generally get people to safety. I can only imagine how this would go for medical.

[VisVirific]

From my own experiences with Antag CMOs in Medical, it was rough. Not only because Antag CMOs got Suit Sensors monitoring, but also because of their potential to free range chemistry with their instant injection hypospray. It wasn't as bad for me personally, but that's because I was used to handle myself in medical without a CMO since they were sort of rare and we could coordinate ourselves well for most part. I'm glad I don't remember specific rounds at this point in time, especially since I still have some instinctual negative knee-jerk reaction when I consider them.

The worst experiences I do recall, though, were from Antag Chief Engineers due to their ability to single-handedly take the round hostage, be it through controlling the power grids, to having an easy access and durable RIG, to being able to waltz inside the captain's office for the spare and various other engineering shenanigans of building themselves out of locked rooms, with the general addition of being able to mess around with alert levels when people do try to get them under control and what not.

With all of this in mind, even if it were to require a minimum of 20 readies, it could still be very much one-sided. Only 1 command and they're antag? Station is basically in dire straits without taking in consideration of other normal crew traitors.

Much like what Geeves said, it'd be similar to Malf AI. The chances of one command antag being good is heavily stacked against the much, much higher chances of it going pear shaped.

I'd rather not risk this all over again.

[WaterPumpJohnny]

+1, command and antagonist can DEFINITELY be fun-- if the head of staff player has no space to be antagonistic, then they just turn into stale do-goody types imo. It spices things up. Command characters shouldn't be 100% trustworthy no matter what. Loyalist head of staff, for example, is one of the few ways that Revolutionaries can get a running start. While traitor head of staffs are iffy, power can make antagonism a lot more dangerous and impactful. I don't see why command players aren't to be trusted with it.  Good example was an adminbussed round where I was loyalist Head of Security, and my blatant tyranny allowed the revolutionaries to rally some crew members while placing me under heavier scrutiny. That'd the big downside to being command antagonist- for all your power, you are constantly observed and questioned. Other command argue with you, your subordinates demand orders. 

[CampinKiller]

Similar to the reasons others have said, I have to -1 this. Command antagonists, especially regular traitors, are 100x worse to deal with that security antagonists. I recall that at least a quarter of the rounds would turn into the antag command fucking with alert levels when raised by the non-antag members. There's simply too much power in their hands as command already.

[Butterrobber202]

4 hours ago, CampinKiller said:

Similar to the reasons others have said, I have to -1 this. Command antagonists, especially regular traitors, are 100x worse to deal with that security antagonists. I recall that at least a quarter of the rounds would turn into the antag command fucking with alert levels when raised by the non-antag members. There's simply too much power in their hands as command already.

That sounds like something that should be addressed with admin action, as I mentioned in the above post. Adding this in wouldn't give Command Antagonists free reign to do whatever they want. In the past, when people would constantly recall the shuttle or fuck with the alert level, it was something that was handled by admins. Lowering the Code doesn't actually do anything for you strategically since Security/Crew are going to treat it as an elevated Code regardless, so there's 0 reason to that. A lot of the memey stuff that happened back then wouldn't fly for 5 seconds nowadays.