Make fingerprint analysis outpot partial matches instead of complete matches

[NerdyVampire]

Right now, an investigator has three main duties:

• Collect & analyse fingerprints
• Conduct interrogations
• Conduct autopsies

My issue is with the fingerprint analysis. Presently it seems to output a singular match on every analysis, ie. a 100% certainty rate.
It seems to shortcut the investigation process, as the first match can cause security to beeline to one specific crewman and it eliminates the need for even talking to witnesses, collecting alibis or anything else that might dissuade the sentencing.

The 100% certainty rate is the issue here. Instead of outputting one guaranteed match, I propose it outputs three possible matches, where one is guaranteed to be true.

Like this:
"Fingerprint analysis complete. Partial matches found on:  Hugh Loritt (Machinst) - Sarah Mildew (Xenobotanist) -and- John Johnson (Engineer)." (it could also match to a command- or security member, which would luckily reduce the number of suspects in most cases)

Now security has multiple venues as alternatives to directly arresting one individual. They can:

• Request witnesses to determine who was actually at/near the scene of the crime (and antags could potentially witness false)
• Collect alibis from each individual before conducting an arrest.
• Collect other fingerprints at the crime scene -or- wait for a new crime scene and collect from there.
• Arrest all three and conduct interrogations to try and determine who is guilty - this would also give sec more of a reason to play nice with their arrestees as they know that only one is truly guilty.

The process becomes more involved when there are partial matches, it makes the roleplay interaction between security and their suspects more nuanced, and it leaves a measure of doubt that is not currently in existence with fingerprints as is.

[Fluffy]

It already does that? Depending on your luck, it can give a partial fingerprint, with more times adding fingerprints more of the fingerprint is revealed during a scan, eg. if you open a door 50 times it'll very likely have a full fingerprint, if you do it once either a partial or none

[NerdyVampire]

 

3 minutes ago, Fluffy said:

It already does that? Depending on your luck, it can give a partial fingerprint, with more times adding fingerprints more of the fingerprint is revealed during a scan, eg. if you open a door 50 times it'll very likely have a full fingerprint, if you do it once either a partial or none

I haven't played investigator before, I just go by what I hear in security comms, but regardless it doesn't give multiple possibilities does it?

Like, it's either nothing, or the actual crewman? No false positives?

Edited August 8, 2024 by NerdyVampire
Removed incomplete line

[Fluffy]

No, it should be a partial, like:

A12*******4*****GF

It's always of someone that exists, but it's not complete

[NothingNew]

I tend to find that while the partial fingerprint system is pretty neat, most fingerprints end up showing the full code, which can very easily be searched to find out whodunnit. Gloves can muster things pretty well, though. Having fingerprint types or partial matches could be interesting, having to pair down suspects depending on their alibi and other supporting evidence would make the process a bit more interactive, since multiple people could potentially be involved in a case.

[Carver]

I’m gonna be plainly honest as someone who played detective for like a year straight back in the day, if I can get a partial I can find out who you are with absolutely no problem on my end. Full only makes it easier for the laziest of detectives, but more or less any partial is a 100% certainty if you know what you’re doing.

[NerdyVampire]

6 hours ago, Fluffy said:

No, it should be a partial, like:

A12*******4*****GF

It's always of someone that exists, but it's not complete

If I understand it correctly the process is currently like this(?)

1. Investigator collect fingerprints from touched objects.
2. Investigator combs through the records manually based on a code such as A12*******4*****GF.
3. If there is only one crewmember with a fingerprint that ends in "GF", then that very partial fingerprint is enough for a complete match
4. Investigator calls out lone suspect, and security responds

This is the way I would suggest instead:

1. Investigator collect fingerprints from touched objects.
2. Investigator analyze each fingerprint sample using a console machine.
3. The machine outputs 1-5 matches to previous- or currently active crewmembers, based on clarity of the fingerprint
4. The investigator now has a list of multiple suspects based on how many samples they could collect and how strong those samples were.
5. The investigator then eliminates from the list based on witness statements, alibis, etc.

It may we require that investigators don't work as directly with the fingerprint codes as before, but I don't see that as a great loss if it also makes it a bit easier for them to get the number of possible matches.

[Carver]

I’m not sure how helpful a list would be in slowing down the process given it’s not hard to use logic to eliminate suspects almost immediately. Fibers, access and the like. I could still be given a list of five people and narrow it down to one or two without having to ask a single soul for a statement or alibi quite reliably.

[NerdyVampire]

2 hours ago, NothingNew said:

I tend to find that while the partial fingerprint system is pretty neat, most fingerprints end up showing the full code, which can very easily be searched to find out whodunnit. Gloves can muster things pretty well, though. Having fingerprint types or partial matches could be interesting, having to pair down suspects depending on their alibi and other supporting evidence would make the process a bit more interactive, since multiple people could potentially be involved in a case.

 

8 minutes ago, Carver said:

I’m gonna be plainly honest as someone who played detective for like a year straight back in the day, if I can get a partial I can find out who you are with absolutely no problem on my end. Full only makes it easier for the laziest of detectives, but more or less any partial is a 100% certainty if you know what you’re doing.

Exactly, though I'm just basing my suggestion on what I hear when I play BUDDY or spy as an antag.

I am not trying to take anything away from investigators, but I feel like certainty is a bit of a roleplay killer. It eliminates their reason to talk to witnesses, and it makes interrogation be very one sided and predetermined in many cases.

[NerdyVampire]

1 minute ago, Carver said:

I’m not sure how helpful a list would be in slowing down the process given it’s not hard to use logic to eliminate suspects almost immediately. Fibers, access and the like. I could still be given a list of five people and narrow it down to one or two without having to ask a single soul for a statement or alibi quite reliably.

Do you have another suggestion? NothingNew suggested that people get 'types' instead. I imagine it could be something like everyone gets type A, B, C, D, or E, and then you only learn what type it is unless the fingerprint sample is perfect, leaving you to compile a list with all those types and eliminate from there?

[Carver]

41 minutes ago, NerdyVampire said:

Do you have another suggestion? NothingNew suggested that people get 'types' instead. I imagine it could be something like everyone gets type A, B, C, D, or E, and then you only learn what type it is unless the fingerprint sample is perfect, leaving you to compile a list with all those types and eliminate from there?

Truthfully I’m not really sure. People trying to avoid fingerprints can do it super trivially (everyone and their mother has gloves, and there’s another loadout item that can entirely erase prints and maybe fibers if you’re a very thorough criminal) so it’s not like the mechanic is overbearing for antags, and it’s already slowed down by having to collect a scene’s worth of forensic materials and process it all through the machines then organizing it and doing your searching.

The rounds just don’t feel long enough to necessitate further obfuscation and slowdown of forensics to me, and stealth isn’t quite as pronounced enough in the average round for it anyways.

[NothingNew]

We could omit fingerprints from people's records requiring them to be collected (if there's a logical reason for doing so) or add some process in the middle that might require interaction with further suspects. It depends a lot from round-to-round just how urgent finding out whodunnit is really, and maybe there's some responsibility on detective players on not outing people too soon or acting up the investigation part (I try to do this by limiting the specialised knowledge of my character in small ways, like asking an engineer what a specialised board might be for or constructing/deconstructing computers).

[Carver]

17 minutes ago, NothingNew said:

We could omit fingerprints from people's records requiring them to be collected (if there's a logical reason for doing so) or add some process in the middle that might require interaction with further suspects. It depends a lot from round-to-round just how urgent finding out whodunnit is really, and maybe there's some responsibility on detective players on not outing people too soon or acting up the investigation part (I try to do this by limiting the specialised knowledge of my character in small ways, like asking an engineer what a specialised board might be for or constructing/deconstructing computers).

This could work but it could also be super annoying if the crew is bigger than 20-ish people. To an extent, if an antag messes with records you already do this via checking the IDs of people (IDs have prints written on their reverse, these can’t really be tampered with via record fuckery so they’re 100% reliable but depend on the person being present with their original ID - it’s somewhat faster than taking prints from the character directly). When I mained detective I made a point of checking the reverse of IDs of anyone I brought in for fingerprint reasons to be certain I had the right guy.

Like I said, I don’t really know if further obfuscation is needed. If an antag or crewman wants to not be found via prints, it’s super duper easy for them to avoid it. Whereas as a detective the rounds aren’t really long enough to thoroughly interrogate more than 1-2 characters as-is after doing your forensic stuff, making that stuff take longer would take away even further from having time to do those longer, engaging interrogations.

[NerdyVampire]

On 08/08/2024 at 14:19, Carver said:

If an antag or crewman wants to not be found via prints, it’s super duper easy for them to avoid it

I wouldn't want to not at least give investigators something to do, I don't mind leaving fingerprints, but I'd rather that leads to a suspicion of my involvement than it being an immediate solid proof of my involvement.

On 08/08/2024 at 14:19, Carver said:

making that stuff take longer would take away even further from having time to do those longer, engaging interrogations.

I'd argue that those interrogations where there is doubt regarding the interviewees guilt is engaging in itself. And I don't think hearing the antags motivations after the fact are much more rewarding than catching a guy in a lie during an interview of suspicion?

[Fluffy]

On 08/08/2024 at 12:58, NerdyVampire said:

This is the way I would suggest instead:

1. Investigator collect fingerprints from touched objects.
2. Investigator analyze each fingerprint sample using a console machine.
3. The machine outputs 1-5 matches to previous- or currently active crewmembers, based on clarity of the fingerprint
4. The investigator now has a list of multiple suspects based on how many samples they could collect and how strong those samples were.
5. The investigator then eliminates from the list based on witness statements, alibis, etc.

It may we require that investigators don't work as directly with the fingerprint codes as before, but I don't see that as a great loss if it also makes it a bit easier for them to get the number of possible matches.

I thought about this, but ontop of not making much sense that partial fingerprints features would be shared in a sample so small, it sounds like pointless tedium on a role that is already near useless if not to handle interrogations (and even then, we'd not need it to do that, an officer or HoS can talk just as well) and for some forensic autopsy (that likewise doesn't amount to much if not to announce on radio that it's ling with "ooooo puncture wound they sucked the brain out" or similar)

On 09/08/2024 at 16:47, NerdyVampire said:

I wouldn't want to not at least give investigators something to do, I don't mind leaving fingerprints, but I'd rather that leads to a suspicion of my involvement than it being an immediate solid proof of my involvement.

Fibers do this, without pinpointing it to only you, at least if you're not the only person with a certain dress in the round

On 09/08/2024 at 16:47, NerdyVampire said:

I'd argue that those interrogations where there is doubt regarding the interviewees guilt is engaging in itself. And I don't think hearing the antags motivations after the fact are much more rewarding than catching a guy in a lie during an interview of suspicion?

This wouldn't work unless you already have the evidence to say that it's a lie, and unless we make the shift last something like 6 hours where you can do something vaguely resembling the Reid technique, with the various iterations on the story, it wouldn't make much sense either to uncover a lie only through talking with the suspect for a whole total of 20 minutes - most ""interrogations"" i see are basically just to collect the suspect's story on the voice recorder, and/or to get the backstory of the character/gimmick in said round, not to secure a conviction through a confession

[NerdyVampire]

Alright, I am satisfied with the various arguements against this suggestion. Thank you all who provides their insights and opinions