Prevent Rev-only/Loyalist-only Revolution Rounds

[Captain Gecko]

What the title says. I got to play two Revolution rounds in the last two weeks, one with no loyalists and me as Head-rev, and one with no revolutionaries (at the start, withot some admins switching things around) as Head-loyalist. Both were more or less boring (though thankfully admins switching some roles in the second case helped), and the fact we don't have people on the other side playing along with the gimmick makes it extremely hard to... Well, make a gimmick work. It leads to underwhelming rounds, both for the non-antag looking to play along and for the antag themselves.

 

So, here's what we can do:

- If the game cannot have at least one rev and one loyalist, move to another game mode (the better option to me)

- Have the game automatically take one of the antags and "auto-balance" the round, putting them in the other role.

[Carver]

Alternate thought: If there are no head revs/loyalists in round (and no normal ones), then let people with that preference enabled get a pop-up 'Do you want to be X?' so late joiners can take up the mantle if need be. In either case it wouldn't be hard for staff to ask for volunteers as usual when an antagonist replacement is needed.

Quote

Have the game automatically take one of the antags and "auto-balance" the round, putting them in the other role.

Oh, and I almost forgot to reply to this: I hate this idea. The last thing I'd want is a character who doesn't remotely suit a role thematically to be forced into said role because I'd chosen to roll for the polar opposite. This is how you end up with absurdities such as dreg Head Loyalists, or suit Head Revs - and would more than likely potentially kill the pool of candidates more than it'd help the mode. As someone who actually adores Rev and wants to see it more, I don't want it going to shit because people are forced into roles they don't want and ultimately disabling the head roles altogether.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Carver

[Captain Gecko]

Yeah the auto-balance sucks, agreed. The pop-up idea is pretty cool though!

[Fluffy]

The problem I see is, if noone clicks yes to the popup, you'd still have the issue

I believe that a round can still work with only revolutionaries, the main issue is a loyalists-only one, no?

[Carver]

6 hours ago, Fluffy said:

The problem I see is, if noone clicks yes to the popup, you'd still have the issue

I'd hope that people who have head rev/head loy enabled aren't all going to click no to such an opportunity. I can't really imagine them doing so unless they're truly not feeling up for it, which is fair, or there's a developing gimmick that they're unsure of their ability to personally further (which I'd say is also fair, but likely uncommon).

[Fluffy]

1 hour ago, Carver said:

I'd hope that people who have head rev/head loy enabled aren't all going to click no to such an opportunity. I can't really imagine them doing so unless they're truly not feeling up for it, which is fair, or there's a developing gimmick that they're unsure of their ability to personally further (which I'd say is also fair, but likely uncommon).

Sure, but we'd still have two issues:

1) What if they do not?
2) What if noone latejoins with them enabled?

So I think that, while a rev gimmick without loyalists would still work (you just have to be extreme with what you want to rile up the crew) and you can in that case (→ the case in which there's no loyalists) have the popup for the latejoiners, the case where you have loyalists but no revs cannot feasibly (→ reliably and consistently) develop an interesting round, and should have another solution that doesn't rely on the possibility that someone might latejoin and accept to save the day

What do you think? (∨) Any proposal in that regard?

Edited May 23, 2023 by Fluffy

[Carver]

On 23/05/2023 at 17:30, Fluffy said:

Sure, but we'd still have two issues:

1) What if they do not?
2) What if noone latejoins with them enabled?

So I think that, while a rev gimmick without loyalists would still work (you just have to be extreme with what you want to rile up the crew) and you can in that case (→ the case in which there's no loyalists) have the popup for the latejoiners, the case where you have loyalists but no revs cannot feasibly (→ reliably and consistently) develop an interesting round, and should have another solution that doesn't rely on the possibility that someone might latejoin and accept to save the day

What do you think? (∨) Any proposal in that regard?

I'm unconcerned on that matter for a simple reason. Loyalists are capable of writing a provoking series of announcements that can develop interest in itself, and from there my thought comes into play: You could, at least historically (I have not tested if this still works), change your traitor preference toggle while in-round and during auto-traitor this would flag you as being able to roll for traitor. Assuming this system hasn't been murdered in the odd years since I last personally used it, this would in theory be able to apply to head-rev/head-loy under the theorized pop-up suggestion.

[Fluffy]

3 hours ago, Carver said:

You could, at least historically (I have not tested if this still works), change your traitor preference toggle while in-round and during auto-traitor this would flag you as being able to roll for traitor.

Indeed, if this still works and it works for rev, and loyalists alone can setup gimmicks, I can see why this would be considered feasible too, i believe however that a loyalists-only story would be rather dull compared to just rolling another gamemode, as an example, we recently got what I suppose to have been a loyalists-only rev round and, apart from strictly enforcing the regulations (Logan was forced to wear an uniform, along with the rest of sec) and people being arrested for smoking, not much really happened for what I recall; the reason that makes me more wary of keeping a loyalists-only option versus a revolutionary-only one can be perhaps summed as following: While I can see both the crew and Security rising up to oppose a revolution that threaten or opposes the SCC, in virtue of both working for and financially depend on them, I believe characters would be quite reluctant to oppose the SCC and the on-ship command (in the form of loyalists), and to a certain extent Security, while non-antagonists in a meaningful way, on the virtue of the characters likely wanting to remain employed or deciding to resign and "go back home" or similar, what do you think?

Another possible option could be to see if any CCIA/staff member is online, and having it act as a loyalist via centcomm faxes/announcements, this could provide a "puppet master" to fight against as the on-ship revs, and this could also be extended to the auto-balancing that Gecko was talking about, if your character do not fit the role thematically, you could OOC also play as a loyalist that sits in some sector post and sends faxes, thus being a proxy loyalist, thoughts?