MattAtlas Posted December 24, 2017 Posted December 24, 2017 Just as the title says. Currently it seems like not many people ready up at roundstart in the lowpop part of the day, at all. And not many times do we get 15 players ready, so we just end up having the same gamemodes in lowpop with not much variety. Lowering the Heist playercount down from 15 would solve this a little, giving some variety. It would also encourage the raiders to have a gimmick that isn't just murdering everyone. Furthermore, there is no reason I can see to have Heist need the same players ready as Mercenary, when raiders have worse gear than mercenaries. The other problem would be, "But four raiders against eight crewmembers seems a little unfair". For that, we can also lower the minimum raider count to 3 raiders for 12 players ready. The only other issue I can see is that it would cause more chaos in the lowpop rounds. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
JamOfBoy Posted December 25, 2017 Posted December 25, 2017 Yes please. Heist often involves less murder, too.
Brutishcrab51 Posted December 25, 2017 Posted December 25, 2017 +soup. I have always enjoyed Heist, it opens up a number of gimmicks for the round's antags. This isn't too much of a large change, but may have serious effects during lowpop.
alexpkeaton Posted December 26, 2017 Posted December 26, 2017 The only concern I have is that with a lower player count there is likely to be a lower staff count. Heist introduces vox to the mix and ensuring appropriate RP could be a thing. That said, more always join after round start, including the typical camper or two who don't ready up and wait to see what's available. The count just needs to be enforced on the ready up number. If there were statistics on how many players/ghosts a round ends with during lowpop times, this could reinforce the notion of lowering roundstart requirements for Heist. All in all, +1. It wouldn't hurt to try it out and revert it if an issue is noticed.
Azande Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 -1 This would mean that about four players would be heisters, as there's no point with three or less. Which means there'd be 9 crew. The odds of there being engineering are very low in these rounds, which means no engine, and there might not even be security and command. Group gamemods are better suited for higher populations.
Pratepresidenten Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 -1 This would mean that about four players would be heisters, as there's no point with three or less. Which means there'd be 9 crew. The odds of there being engineering are very low in these rounds, which means no engine, and there might not even be security and command. Group gamemods are better suited for higher populations. But wouldnt this allow for the heisters to act as hired engineers? Im sure theres interesting gimmicks to be had without sec/command sticking their noses in it.
alexpkeaton Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 -1 This would mean that about four players would be heisters, as there's no point with three or less. Which means there'd be 9 crew. Yes. 9 crew ... but that's just at roundstart. Any latejoiners add to that total. And let's face it, engineering is pretty incompetent most rounds even fully staffed, I don't think stealing four randos from the player pool will change that too much. When you think about it, a NT station with a skeleton crew would be the ideal target for heisters. Is giving the crew a raw deal by lowering the player requirement really a bad thing? Space pirates happen, and will pick on the weak.
Azande Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 -1 This would mean that about four players would be heisters, as there's no point with three or less. Which means there'd be 9 crew. The odds of there being engineering are very low in these rounds, which means no engine, and there might not even be security and command. Group gamemods are better suited for higher populations. But wouldnt this allow for the heisters to act as hired engineers? Im sure theres interesting gimmicks to be had without sec/command sticking their noses in it. Only the Captain or a unanimous command vote may permit previously unscheduled visitors to board the facility babe.
Kaed Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 Only the Captain or a unanimous command vote may permit previously unscheduled visitors to board the facility babe. If that is an actual regulation, I have seen it brought up or utilized 0 times ever. No one holds a vote about antags coming on station. they just go with the flow unless they are security, at which point they usually start sniffing around for valids. Either way, I don't see a huge problem with lowering the heist requirement.
Azande Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 Only the Captain or a unanimous command vote may permit previously unscheduled visitors to board the facility babe. If that is an actual regulation, I have seen it brought up or utilized 0 times ever. No one holds a vote about antags coming on station. they just go with the flow unless they are security, at which point they usually start sniffing around for valids. Either way, I don't see a huge problem with lowering the heist requirement. This is because they usually force their way on board regardless, but if there is a Captain 90% of the time they do authorize boarding because otherwise antags would just be stuck outside. The Captain as the head of the facility is de-jure, the only person able to authorize new visitors that aren't pre-authorized, this was said in a fax awhile back. CCIA can feel free to change their minds and state a policy somewhere, but most of station command roll with this.
Skull132 Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 [mention]Azande[/mention] minimum antag count would be lowered to 3. So the same ratio would be maintained.
Recommended Posts