Antag Standards

[Conservatron]

thats a problem with the players, not the game mode.

we're a HRP server, both sides need to actually RP

[Jboy2000000]

How isn't a problem with the gamemode? No one would be so win thirsty if the gamemode wasn't there, it would wouldn't be so fierce if Nuke ops weren't given lethal, automatic weapons, armoured hardsuits, and several atmos bombs rightt at the get go, and 40 telecrystals to spend at their leisure.

[Frances]

Jboy, just give us a play-by-play of how you'd like a good nuke round to go? Like, what would you like to see nuke ops do, from spawning to round end, in order for the round to be considered interesting?

It's shouldn't take that long to write, I just want to see where you're coming from. And no, I don't think it's something that's really been explained by anyone yet.

[Jboy2000000]

Like I said, Im biased, I don't want nuke ops rounds to go.

But, ideally, Id have it go one of two ways. Ops go in, take people hostage, maybe make a public execution or two, make things interesting. When sec fights back, free fire, kill whoever/whatever you need. Alternatively, peaceops, pose as something. I once had an idea and pitched it to OOC about pretending to be escaped slaves who stole their master's/captor's armour and weapons. Fake/Make an injury in your team, get some RP from service staff, medical, and command, and then once and if that dissolves, most people have actually had good, interactive RP.

[Alberyk]

The nuke is rarely used, and most of the times I did see it being used, it was nothing but justified due to reasons. So, as Skull said, removing the weapon and the AI will allow nuke ops to survive more and bring more interaction on the round. Anyway, I would rather subvert the AI, which can be more easy than just bombing it. There is no problem at all with security and nuke ops shooting each other in the hallways, even the other departments can use their tools to defend itself, but nothing like doctors raiding the bombed armory and wielding laser rifles.

Peace ops can be interesting, but, sadly it seems that the crew will always find ways to ruin things, like raiding their ship and etc. But, if I know that my team just wishes to steal the disk stealthy as possible and then arm the nuke without any prior interaction, I will make sure I will have a c4 brick to end their fun.

[Xelnagahunter]

Join the Ops, since if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I've never seen this happen. So really the lack of creativity is on the crew.

 

I've tried this before. They just told me to shut up, punched me, and cuffed me to the chairs in their ship.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Im not demanding anything, where have I said that I demand the rules and nuke ops should change?

 

 

shouldn't they be held to higher standards than what they are? Why is "bomb three places, kill, win" alright? Its not fun, and isn't it insanely metagamey to know instantly how, where and when to bomb these three precise location so you can have the best chances?

 

I asked a question, since when is asking a question demanding anything?

*Edit* Oh, look, Cake asked a question while I was writing this. Jackboot, is he demanding that Nuke ops find a different way to deal with AI's?

 

Yes, you were.

Yes, he did.

You presented your question as a jump-off to your argument that the nuke op game mode needs to be changed. Your question was the discussion, and you answered it with your own stance.

That's what a debate is. Two people taking two difference stances.

"Was Obama the leader of Poland in 1931? I think he was. Here is why I think he was. . ."

That's a question being used as an argument.

It's not that hard.

[jackfractal]

Hmm... to remove the need to kill the AI you'd have to give the nuke ops a way of neutralizing the AI that doesn't involve murder...

The AI is heavily dependent on vision. Oh! Maybe make it so that it's easy to shoot out cameras with guns, or let them buy something that shuts down cameras in a large radius for a period of time, like a cameras only EMP that blankets a quarter of the station.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Hmm... to remove the need to kill the AI you'd have to give the nuke ops a way of neutralizing the AI that doesn't involve murder...

The AI is heavily dependent on vision. Oh! Maybe make it so that it's easy to shoot out cameras with guns, or let them buy something that shuts down cameras in a large radius for a period of time, like a cameras only EMP that blankets a quarter of the station.

 

If it lasted for at least 60 seconds this would be an absolute godsend for both AI survival rates and nuke-op "hey maybe we can save this extra bomb to implant in the janitor's ass" tactics.

[Carver]

Hmm... to remove the need to kill the AI you'd have to give the nuke ops a way of neutralizing the AI that doesn't involve murder...

The AI is heavily dependent on vision. Oh! Maybe make it so that it's easy to shoot out cameras with guns, or let them buy something that shuts down cameras in a large radius for a period of time, like a cameras only EMP that blankets a quarter of the station.

Whilst we're at it, can we get the antag-gear multitool from other codebases that subtly changes colour when an AI is watching you/sees you over cameras?

[PigVomit]

To each his own. Nuke has potential, but as every round it's up to the players themselves. Usually plans are made to raise hell structurally. I find that to be suitable if not necessary. The real threat should be postponed in favor of calculated surgical strikes, which create a sense of eeriness amongst the station. Not being able to communicate efficiently with each other is one of the best parts. People resort to problem solving and investigation. They use teamwork to secure their workplace from an unknown and mysterious threat.

I would recommend to virtually any nuke team: disable telecoms and turn off the power. Let people sweat. Then slowly breach tucked away areas. If you can sustain it, there's a good 2 hours of entertainment. If you can't, well at least the station got to feel like heroes for defeating the redsuits.

[Conservatron]

when im ops I always disable cameras (and cut them from walls so it doesn't even show up on list) but this takes obnoxiously long

I try to do things to minimize collateral damage and deaths while still being hostile idk how succesful it is when the rest of your team isn't on board though

[josh1133]

"I have never seen a nuke op try and roleplay" -Jboy, 2016

Well fuck you too mate. Kidding Jboy.

But I like to point the following out:

I once tried to do peace ops as Stein recruiting for a local trading business and the moment I announced my intentions the crew to "fuck off".

I once stole the nuke and challenged the crew to play a game of DND for it back, the crew accepted then shot my team on sight.

I once tried to take medical hostage, security killed my doctor and killed me.

I tried to recreate Arkham knight by threatening chemical weapons if they didn't surrender and have a meeting with us, I was told "you won't do it you little bitch"

So, you complain about me just taunting over comms (( which I rarely do anymore since I let others do it for me)) and just doing the "standard" mission. Yet every time I try something or another op tries something, certain members of this community refuse because they just won't "stoop to that level" and prefer just bathing in the blood, or simply hate nuke so much they refuse to play along.

Why should I put in any effort in the game mode if every time I try to spice things up, I'm told I'm a idiot, get complaints and get ignored in character? I be willing to try new ideas if people were willing to play along, but after the DND disaster I just have no real reason to trust players.

[TechnoKat]

"I have never seen a nuke op try and roleplay" -Jboy, 2016

Well fuck you too mate. Kidding Jboy.

But I like to point the following out:

I once tried to do peace ops as Stein recruiting for a local trading business and the moment I announced my intentions the crew to "fuck off".

I once stole the nuke and challenged the crew to play a game of DND for it back, the crew accepted then shot my team on sight.

I once tried to take medical hostage, security killed my doctor and killed me.

I tried to recreate Arkham knight by threatening chemical weapons if they didn't surrender and have a meeting with us, I was told "you won't do it you little bitch"

So, you complain about me just taunting over comms (( which I rarely do anymore since I let others do it for me)) and just doing the "standard" mission. Yet every time I try something or another op tries something, certain members of this community refuse because they just won't "stoop to that level" and prefer just bathing in the blood, or simply hate nuke so much they refuse to play along.

Why should I put in any effort in the game mode if every time I try to spice things up, I'm told I'm a idiot, get complaints and get ignored in character? I be willing to try new ideas if people were willing to play along, but after the DND disaster I just have no real reason to trust players.

 

you're shit at nuke, so you should probably stop trying, ok.

no real nukeop trusts players. no antag trusts players.

[Skull132]

Josh just illustrated how circular every single one of these discussions is.

"Sec wants to RP, but get ganked when they try. So, in self-defence, they gank back."

Versus

"Antags want to RP, but get ganked when they try. So they gank in self-defence."

Been on both sides. Also been a fly on the wall. No matter hoe many discussions like this we have, literally fuck all changes.

Sec argues that it's ridiculous to expect them to add blatant and illogical restraints to their MO, just for the sale of giving antags a chance.

Antags will argue that asking them to stop preemptive action and seizing the initiative, the very thing you need for just surviving as an antag, will cut out down on their capabilities to do anything interesting.

And you know what? That's just fine by me. For me, the important thing is intent and the plan. If an antag succeeds in making a round great, what does it matter that one player out of thirty died in an unsatisfactory way? The net total is still a positive number.

A quick note. I am not endorsing gank. But the very blunt fact is that there are no perfect plays. Mistakes will happen, gank will happen. Just as long as it's for a better goal, and not for the sake of ganking.

So, yeah. Does it suck that we're here? Nah, not really. We've been here for a year and more, so same shit different day, really.

Oh, and Techno's right. Whether you're sec, an antag or just a random joe, extending both arms in greeting is a bad idea, and you will be disappointed if you do so. Instead, always keep your finger on the trigger, but also try the extend the other in greeting. Less hurt feelings if someone fucks up, that way.

[PigVomit]

Josh just illustrated how circular every single one of these discussions is.

"Sec wants to RP, but get ganked when they try. So, in self-defence, they gank back."

Versus

"Antags want to RP, but get ganked when they try. So they gank in self-defence."

Been on both sides. Also been a fly on the wall. No matter hoe many discussions like this we have, literally fuck all changes.

Sec argues that it's ridiculous to expect them to add blatant and illogical restraints to their MO, just for the sale of giving antags a chance.

Antags will argue that asking them to stop preemptive action and seizing the initiative, the very thing you need for just surviving as an antag, will cut out down on their capabilities to do anything interesting.

And you know what? That's just fine by me. For me, the important thing is intent and the plan. If an antag succeeds in making a round great, what does it matter that one player out of thirty died in an unsatisfactory way? The net total is still a positive number.

A quick note. I am not endorsing gank. But the very blunt fact is that there are no perfect plays. Mistakes will happen, gank will happen. Just as long as it's for a better goal, and not for the sake of ganking.

So, yeah. Does it suck that we're here? Nah, not really. We've been here for a year and more, so same shit different day, really.

Oh, and Techno's right. Whether you're sec, an antag or just a random joe, extending both arms in greeting is a bad idea, and you will be disappointed if you do so. Instead, always keep your finger on the trigger, but also try the extend the other in greeting. Less hurt feelings if someone fucks up, that way.

 

*Hits the gavel* Court is adjourned.

[TechnoKat]

Josh just illustrated how circular every single one of these discussions is.

"Sec wants to RP, but get ganked when they try. So, in self-defence, they gank back."

Versus

"Antags want to RP, but get ganked when they try. So they gank in self-defence."

Been on both sides. Also been a fly on the wall. No matter hoe many discussions like this we have, literally fuck all changes.

Sec argues that it's ridiculous to expect them to add blatant and illogical restraints to their MO, just for the sale of giving antags a chance.

Antags will argue that asking them to stop preemptive action and seizing the initiative, the very thing you need for just surviving as an antag, will cut out down on their capabilities to do anything interesting.

And you know what? That's just fine by me. For me, the important thing is intent and the plan. If an antag succeeds in making a round great, what does it matter that one player out of thirty died in an unsatisfactory way? The net total is still a positive number.

A quick note. I am not endorsing gank. But the very blunt fact is that there are no perfect plays. Mistakes will happen, gank will happen. Just as long as it's for a better goal, and not for the sake of ganking.

So, yeah. Does it suck that we're here? Nah, not really. We've been here for a year and more, so same shit different day, really.

Oh, and Techno's right. Whether you're sec, an antag or just a random joe, extending both arms in greeting is a bad idea, and you will be disappointed if you do so. Instead, always keep your finger on the trigger, but also try the extend the other in greeting. Less hurt feelings if someone fucks up, that way.

 

Going to comment on another problem, admin interventions.

 

]You try to roleplay with people as an antag, people decide to screw you up as you chat and do /me, they become the "hero of station" instantly.

You decide to be a peaceful antag, people decide to find every reason to screw you up and become the "hero of station".

You find a reason to murderbone the " heroes of station", you get an admin intervention, numerous complaints about yourself, antag ban and permanent ban requests.

And that's in the eyes of how I experienced my antagging. Lovely community, isn't it?

EXTRA: You go AFK, talk about it in OOC, before numerous valid hunting medstaff, researchers and more see you standing still doing nothing, go like "OH SHIT OMFG GET HIM WITB EVERTHNG WE HAEV HOILY SHIT HE SO DANGEROUS IM SO ROBUST LOL"

from one of other threads.

Antagging has a large issue when staff gets involved, I remember Callum wizardbanning me for stunning and fireballing Sue for lasering me with no words spat out, simply just "lol fuck you, kosing you lad". Reason? "GANK AND POWERGAME".

Rules need to be tweaked for antagging and making complaints tbh, I'm in a "thin ice" whilst others are enjoying bombing security and shit flat out. There will always be favouritism to one another, hence' we get problems with players leaving and being fucking dicks to each other.

And that is the biggest problem, people favouriting one another, people metagrudging each other. If some staff members can't man up and punish their favourable snowflake, then it'll grow as an example to others.