Nuke Ops Player Requirement

[Rusty Shackleford]

 

>mfw reading the rage in this thread

[Tenenza]

Once we tried to sell waffles and go peacenuke, but the heads went to code blue and called us liars, then they even threatened to cut common comms so no one could complain. It all ended with explosions, death, chef clothes, and waffle slogans.

...I want Waffle Nuke.

I want it so bad.

That's just, the most brilliant idea.

[LetzShake]

Or you could not circumvent what was voted and actually be a good sport about what was voted, regardless of the round type.

 

It's not cirumventing anything. You're not obligated to join a game you don't want to play, that would be ridiculous. The minimum player requirement is a limit of mechanics. If not many people are on, NUke requires more than a simple majority to be played. That's just how the mode works.

And yeah, Nuke isn't a shitty gankfest one in a hundred times. But most people don't want to play those odds. Good for you if you're a nuke op who uses clever methods. A vast majority aren't.

[Guest]

I'm sorry, I wasn't exactly clear. It was 1138 I was assuming wanted to go on a bomb-happy rampage. Which may or may not be the case, but he certainly sounded quite hostile and that's always a good way to give a bad impression.

 

The intention of my statement was to tell others not to follow the suit of overriding what the gamemode vote is intended for: If it's voted by a majority, even if that majority is +1 over the minority, people are either expected to be a sportsman if they play, or not play at all and respect the voted game mode and not fucking circumvent it and complain in OOC.

Like any game mode. I don't mind if extended is voted, there's a way to make it fun for everyone if you try hard enough.

Same with nuke, but the issue lies in within COLLECTIVE antagonist ability. If one person fucks up badly, it effects the entire team and also effects character opinion on the team.

[Vittorio Giurifiglio]

Or you could not circumvent what was voted and actually be a good sport about what was voted, regardless of the round type.

 

It's not cirumventing anything. You're not obligated to join a game you don't want to play, that would be ridiculous. The minimum player requirement is a limit of mechanics. If not many people are on, NUke requires more than a simple majority to be played. That's just how the mode works.

And yeah, Nuke isn't a shitty gankfest one in a hundred times. But most people don't want to play those odds. Good for you if you're a nuke op who uses clever methods. A vast majority aren't.

Your disgustingly pessimistic viewpoint does not help in stopping nuke from being a shitty gank fest, you see if less of the more experienced players whined about it not being precious extended and actually tried to make nuke better, it would be less shit. Of course some bloody fucking optimism and some faith would be mighty helpful.

[Guest]

Yesterday's nuke was bad and I apologize, the bombing of the brig and the vault weren't my idea, thought. That said, people call nuke ops ganky, but neglect to mention that 2/3 times nuke ops get swarmed by security, usually ganky cyborgs who have complete disregard for their own integrity. Example was yesterday, when one of our ops destroyed two cyborgs in a row, while another Op got captured instantly, despite having a hostage (if I understood right).

It's very hard to actually win as an Op and while it's not actually about winning, players should keep in mind that Ops don't really have a choice but to be ganky, considering that most security can't wait for a chance to arrest/shoot them. I've yet to see a successful infiltration round.

[SgtSammac]

Alright, enough is enough. Can everyone take a step back, chill out and calm down.

Attacking each other will solve nothing.

[Nik]

To point out, Nuke Ops can't even win against full crews, about 80% of the time, simply due to their being too many guns.

The real issue with any mode that involves this sort of thing is that combat is shit, and comes down to clicks. But, whoever has the most people, or the people with the best stun gear, wins. And the crew has the better gear.

Stun batons, Flashbangs, and tasers will still beat the SMG in group combat.

Now, the issue is that with a smaller player pool, we have even less chance to get any Security on the crews side, meaning it becomes a literal cakewalk, where the Nuke ops can just hang out in the bar for a bit before nuking everyone.

I don't think it will help, but maybe just get some kind of code that restarts the vote if a round doesnt start?

[Lady_of_Ravens]

Yesterday's nuke was bad and I apologize, the bombing of the brig and the vault weren't my idea, thought. That said, people call nuke ops ganky, but neglect to mention that 2/3 times nuke ops get swarmed by security, usually ganky cyborgs who have complete disregard for their own integrity. Example was yesterday, when one of our ops destroyed two cyborgs in a row, while another Op got captured instantly, despite having a hostage (if I understood right).

It's very hard to actually win as an Op and while it's not actually about winning, players should keep in mind that Ops don't really have a choice but to be ganky, considering that most security can't wait for a chance to arrest/shoot them. I've yet to see a successful infiltration round.

 

And this is why lots of people don't like nuke ops. Not because nuke ops are bad RPers, but rather because the round-type itself encourages ganking over RP. And people like to win, even if that's not the big-picture objective. So the result is that, unless the nuke ops are very restrained and skillfull, the round goes to shit.

[Skull132]

I don't think lowering the player count would really solve anything. You'd still end up in a similar situation.

I will say, though. I do have the idea of adding a player age limit to the nuke operative antagonist slot. Basically, you need to have played on the server for like a month before it selects you.

[josh1133]

I don't think lowering the player count would really solve anything. You'd still end up in a similar situation.

I will say, though. I do have the idea of adding a player age limit to the nuke operative antagonist slot. Basically, you need to have played on the server for like a month before it selects you.

 

This. Even better then a whitelist. I can imagine it now, a nuke round without all the lag and the blowing up and the bodies. Oh god, It sounds beautiful.

[Jboy2000000]

Now, Im just gonna step back from whats being talked about, because the main problem of this thread became "people fucked nuke by not readying," this may not be the place TO suggist this, but Im just saying it. How about we add another need to certain game modes winning. If a gamemode requires X amount of players to start, then it should require at least X amount of votes, and if it doesn't, it goes to the runner up.

[Vittorio Giurifiglio]

I don't think lowering the player count would really solve anything. You'd still end up in a similar situation.

I will say, though. I do have the idea of adding a player age limit to the nuke operative antagonist slot. Basically, you need to have played on the server for like a month before it selects you.

Skull this is actually brilliant.

[swat43]

But there is but one question that remains unanswered... What about voting in dead hours?

Clearly there will be 15-19% rough chance that everyone will all vote nuke (implying that there are 15 people online and everyone is not afk, tabbed, etc.).

As for this question, i've got a an idea on how to solve this in one way.

Let's make a percentage vote system based on how many players are online, for example if the server has around < or = 20 the server will use percentage system for the game mode. And once the vote ends, and the results end up being like 80% voted nyke and 20% secret, of course it will be nuke, but there will be a silly luck RnGJesus luck that it will pick secret, but on that you can blame on the RnG and not on the people, since it was just pure luck.

Anyway, as for the nuke requirements.. From what i played during in nuke rounds, i enjoyed a hell of a lot of moments. From nearly getting blown up by one of own, to getting kidnapped while sipping coffee in my "safe" lab by intruders. I'd say, no. Since in most dead hours people are gone, there is a huge chance that most important roles will not be filled, and it will end up being a desert op, finding Tom in the hallway and tumbleweed by captains office as the Nuke ops laugh and have a scary expedition on a silent and dull muse- i mean Research station.

But these are my two cents anyway.

[Hackie]

Bleh. How about we try to have faith in our common man to not screw up a round? Instead of taunting the Nuke Ops by polishing their bald, actually help them. Go ghost and tell them about some tips and make up some interesting plans for them to do. Nuke Ops has a lot of potential, and it is fun if you just get the right people. With some hand holding it can be an amazing gamemode.

[Chaznoodles]

Bleh. How about we try to have faith in our common man to not screw up a round? Instead of taunting the Nuke Ops by polishing their bald, actually help them. Go ghost and tell them about some tips and make up some interesting plans for them to do. Nuke Ops has a lot of potential, and it is fun if you just get the right people. With some hand holding it can be an amazing gamemode.

 

Yup. We should be helping people, not restricting them.

[Consgrove]

I agree to lowering it. I came on today for something more than Extended (after playing most roles it gets really boring). We managed to get seven votes for a Nuclear round and we were all set for it. The problem is that we had about 13 players ready and with more than 30 people playing on the server. We waited more than two minutes and we only remained with 13 people ready.

I am not pointing names but a few people were talking in the OOC chat just fine and they were never ready. Once we voted again (we tied for Nuclear and Extended), Extended was selected as the vote this time, and within seconds we had more than 15 people ready. This ready manipulation really ruins the fun for me. I came on this server to play the game, and after being here for quite some time, as well as learning the roles, I am quite tired of playing the Extended mode, time after time after time. I honestly prefer the variation and have began to leave after a single round of Extended.

[Conservatron]

honestly if im not in the mood for extended i just leave and go play colonial marines

[Eliot Clef]

As somebody who doesn't enjoy Nuke, I feel the "population filibuster" should be less viable.

The very first rule we have is: -Don't be a dick. We're all here to have fun, not fight and argue with assholes. Don't ruin the game for everyone else, and use common sense.

This behavior of deliberately declining to ready up in order to force a re-vote is pretty dickish behavior, and in keeping with that, I think it's appropriate for the "round population filibuster" to be harder to accomplish.

[NebulaFlare]

Nuke rounds on this server turn out pretty good, because most people know better than to go rambo. Forcing a revote when the majority wanted nuke, makes the majority vote lose importance - suddenly, it's appealing to the minority of votes.

I'd prefer it if a round goes through, regardless of type, people can just shrug it off and roll with it. If it wins votes, it wins votes. How often have our nuke rounds turned sour? Honestly, most of the time we get OPs that don't even focus on blowing up the station. Heck, they try to take it over. They concoct elaborate ploys for the glory of the syndie. That's fun. And the less people there are, the less likely it'll run into chaos >> more chance for involved RP.

Needing 15 is a game mechanic, so why not just alter it? If there are 12 ready, have 3 nuke ops and 9 crew. make it 1/4th within favor to the crew. Instead of forcing a revote every single time because we can barely scratch together the majority of 14 players who DO want to play.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

Yes, but there's a reason people don't ready up when it's nuke op: because it's such a hated round type. Yes, it's better here than other servers, but it's still a disaster often enough that a lot of people don't like it. The way that certain people in this discussion would fail to ready up for extended if that had a player limit.

[Susan]

You're all being ridiculous.

Seven people voted for a round that requires a fifteen number ready. Seven people, which is obviously nowhere near enough to play nuke voted for nuke with the clear understanding that if running off people who just wanted to play nuke there wouldn't be enough; as such, it is no one's fault but the people who voted nuke. You have no right to force people to play your shitty murderbone gamemode if they don't want to. You knew you didn't have enough people to play nuke in the votes and you voted it anyway without taking into consideration what the rest of the server wanted. And then when a shitty mode was voted in and people didn't want to play it instead of recognizing that the fault lay with you (for voting a mode with insufficient numbers) you decide to blame them for ruining your experience.

A sob story for the ages. I'm crying tears for your misfortune.

There is a required amount of people game mechanic wise because otherwise the favor tips heavily in the balance of the nuke ops; nine people versus three ops is ridiculous. Unless those people have access to weapons or 1/3 of that population is security you might as well call it game over. And, something that regularly happens with nuke, is people constantly join right after it starts. So you will end up with a large amount of crew and 3 ops just so you could scrape by and play your glorious gamemode, then in the process fuck over the antagonists.

It is fine as it is. This is democracy. If you vote for something without enough numbers and then expect it to go through, it is no one's fault but your own.

[Guest]

I think we got a little off-topic and we're discussing something not really relevant to what was in the OP.

Skull stated, for an example, a need for Nuclear Operatives to have to have a player age requirement (30 days) in order to be considered as an operative.

We're not discussing the voting system. If the vote is 7 Nuclear, 6 extended, and 3 secret, don't expect all of those people to play nuclear.

Unless you have a damnably good nuke play and I hear about it extremely frequently, I don't believe you're entitled to say whether people should ready up for the requirement.

[NebulaFlare]

A 30 day age requirement is an awesome idea.

@Susan, jeez girl. We get it, you hate nuke. Others hate nuke. But know what? Some of us like nuke! Your opinions of it being 'murderbone happy' ain't the same as mine being, 'concoct elaborate sneaky ploys'. Meh. Whatevers.

The issue here, is not 'majority democracy'. No. Majority democracy is letting a nuke round go through, because it won majority votes. Nuke is the only round type that can be denied to start. (RP-rev too, but it's less likely). I hate wizard and malf rounds - wouldn't I be a jerk if I found a way to deny the round to start? Force the game into revote by a mechanic so I don't have to put up with 'murderbone AIs and wizards'. I'm just ruinin' other people's fun.

If I don't like it, don't play it. Wait - I can say the same thing for nuke! Don't like it, don't play it! Oh, wait. Don't like it, everyone won't get to play, even those who do like it. Don't like it, stick around because it's got the option to go into revote. Every other roundtype can draft antags in, and ahelp can get them out. Nuke never gets that chance because it can't start.

Maybe someone voted extended, but won't mind nuke as a second option. Or maybe someone wants to be in a nuke round with a specific job. Or they'd rather ghost and watch nuke. You can't slap every single non-ready with, "Oh, they obviously all hate nuke, and 19 unready > 12 ready" It doesn't work like that! You don't know what are people's preference! Sweet mercy.

[Chaznoodles]

Basically, what Neb said. All of it.