maxfromsweden

This is a potential outcome and a risk yes. I would call it a very low-rp approach to a pretty interesting situation but I agree that it would happen. The point about cliques is not something I had considered and I agree that it would be bad if a clique bonded together to protect one of their own. I have offered other potential outcomes that I think people that RP more would take rather than setting up defenses in an earlier comment but your point still stands. This is a bit of a slippery slope argument. Whether it will improve the quality of gameplay depens on how you measure it. I have given some suggestions in an earlier post about how it would improve it, but yes it could also be a detriment to gameplay. It could increase validhunting. It may increase security workload. Since most messages would be false positives I wouldn't tell the officers to bother too much if someone is asking them for protection if I was HoS. I don't think it will remove assassination. If a player takes a "make a round more interesting" approach to assassination they might think about how to assassinate someone who has been warned. I don't see how it would make assassination dissapear or make it "less interesting" for the antagonist. Some ideas of the top of my head: Disguising themselves as someone the victim trust to get them alone, building trust with their victim during the round to move in for a final strike later, cause some sort of public event to draw them out. If someone is acting the way you describe, I would (If I had an assassination goal on them) report them to the detective as a missing person. Hopefully they find them, see their greytide-y gear, strip them of it, put them in the brig for a bit, then release them with me waiting nearby. Antags are players. So are the victims of the assassination. Killing someone could be a dramatic event. It certainly is for the antag but it could very well be an anti-climax for the victim. I think being warned would be more interesting and dramatic for the victim, whether they prepare defenses, make it into more fun RP (which I hope most will do), or don't act at all. The antags already receive a LOT of in game tools for having fun. They get unique goals, special mechanics, special allowances in the rules and even an evaluation on their performance at the end as greentext. Consider how much thought and time has gone into improving antags, compared to some jobs on the station and I think it shows who is more likely to have a fun round just based on if they are antag or not. Compare that to the victim of the assassination who has to get by with their job. Getting a warning like this could define the round for them and make it better because it would lead to new situations to RP in, especially if they have a job with lots of free time. I don't want to punish people who actively put an effort into making the rounds more interesting. I don't think all people playing antags make the rounds more interesting. I love a good antag who makes their assassination victims feel special. I believe they would be good enough at RP to roll with this change.

Thanks for your thougtful reply! I think there is a confusion about what incentive means in this case. I agree that all players play this game to have fun and fun is an incentive. But FUN is not something you can reward a player with in game. I'm talking about internal incentives (inside the game) where fun is an external incentive (outside of the game). To give a few examples: So when I state that "To complete their goals, they are not incentivized do make the victims round "fun" or "interesting". It's just to kill them" I mean that there is no in-game incentive for the antags to perform advanced forms of assassinations that are more complex than just silently killing someone. Some people will still find elaborate assassinations more fun (me included) but there is no in-game incentive to perform them. I'm actually glad you bring this up since I'm also unclear about what I mean about the incentive. The incentive for Antags to perform the goal is the greentext. As you say, it's meaningless, which I agree with. However, it is still a scoreboard. People will want to complete their goals and get on it, regardless that you and I find it meaningless. In the same way the scoreboard in CS is fundamentally meaningless, the greentext is also meaningless but both are incentives for a player of the game to perform certain actions. An antag does not get extra greentext for making it fun or interesting for the player. They only get a reward for performing their goals, nothing more. I agree with your points about roleplaying but inside of the game, there is no incentive for an Antag to roleplay. I do have ideas for how this could be done, as I'm sure you do, but that's for another thread. I understand that you feel it won't be as fun. I disagree. I can't predict what everyone will do but as you say, they will do SOMETHING. I'm not sure what it would be. Some, like you say, would probably take actions to protect themselves. Others probably wouldn't. Some might start preparing for the case that they might die suddenly by saying goodbye to friends and family. Someone might start a support group for those that expects they would die. Someone might talk to the chaplain because they fear death. Those are some of the things I would do if I got such a text. This will lead to more interactions which I would say lead to more fun. Regarding the details of this suggestion, it's just an idea, which I doubt will be implemented. But you never know what an idea could lead to. Maybe someone will read it and have their own idea and make something off it in a completely different forms. I doubt my idea will be implemented and that's fine. Like I wrote above, I wouldn't do anyting to protect myself. I know the chance would be low and I would create more interactions out of it. Besides the ideas above I would tell my colleagues in the department that I got the text. If I played one of my more comedic characters I would post over comms like "I've been threatened to death, need bodyguard. Pays well". Would be hilarious if the antag responded and killed me. Or I might devise some inefficient but stupidly funny defense. But that's me. I wrote more regarding how other people may react above. If a lot of people get scared and stop working, they could see the Psychiatrist, IAA could investigate them for not following SOP etc. Someone who's a station tough guy might call out their antag to meet them someplace to fight it out mano-a-mano in a fair fight. These are things that could happen. Also, nothing could happen. Also, everyone could rush for defenses. I don't know. I do think your feedback is really good and I'm happy you've replied. It's given me some good RP ideas if nothing else. As I wrote in the paragraph above, I have considered somethings people could do. Maybe all 30 people would go and defend themselves but I don't think so. I know several people who wouldn't, but use it as a chance to roleplay new situations. I agree that the exact percentage will be a fine balance. I have no idea what percentage would be appropriate either so you're correct in that it could lead to the outcome you describe. Not sure. When I mathed this out using the fun equation in my first post I did note that antags could have less fun. But the antags are FAR fewer than the general crew making it a net positive. I still think an antag could get into a room with someone. Might be harder to earn their trust but it could still work. I'm sure it would work on me since I would enjoy the RP. Dying to someone who put in the effort would be great. Again, it might happen as you say but I don't think so. I don't think it's as binary as you describe. Some people will RP with it. Some will find some way to reduce the risk of dying. Some will do nothing. It will most likely come down to the individual and RP (hopefully) rather than people trying to survive. It's fine, you seem to be able to give me feedback on the idea very well even though I haven't specified it as much. I think it's good that I can modify it based on your feedback. But as I mentioned above, I doubt it will go anywhere. I don't see how this removes tension. In my world, getting a text message saying that you will be assassinated creates more tension within me than receiving no such message. Compound this by a lot of people receiving that message, a lot of people would feel more tension. People would probably get used to it after a while though. Yeah I'm generally fine with dying, as I wrote earlier in this post, I would be happy to die with a roleplaying antag. It just feels unsatisfying to die without any warning which is my opinion of course. This comes out of nowhere and it actually makes me a bit sad. I'm really sorry you feel this way and I don't really understand how you get to the point that I would be "willing to manipulate data". It's just a suggestion, it has no ill intention or even power to change anything. Sure. I put the whole quote ladder in for context. When you said "Don't put something like this in any proposal, the only thing I can take from this is that you're willing to manipulate data if given the opportunity", it made me sad because it felt like a judgement of my character based on my post. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that I'm "willing to manipulate data if given the opportunity" but it sounds like I would act with malicious intent. You might find the idea completely stupid, and that's fine. It's not in the game and I doubt it will be based on your critique. But inferring some sort of malicious intent on my part, only based on this post, made me sad because I'm just trying to help out. It felt too personal for what was just a suggestion I wrote. Maybe that's not want you meant and I misunderstood. If so I apologize. When I wrote "This comes out of nowhere and it actually makes me a bit sad. I'm really sorry you feel this way and I don't really understand how you get to the point that I would be "willing to manipulate data". That made me sorry because I have no plans on manipulating any data and I didn't understand how you reached the conclusion that I would based on the post. Again, it felt like a negative judgement of my character when my intention here is just to provide ideas. I think we agree to disagree on this point.

I think we're on the same side of this. I think you misunderstood what I wrote in my post. I'm not saying assassinations CAN'T be enjoyable and fun for both parties, just that there is no incentive to do so. It's more efficient to just stay under the radar, kill silenty and interact as little as possible with your victim. This is what the current system incentivizes. People may argue that an antagonists role is to make the game fun and interesting (as per the rules) but there is really no ingame incentive to do that. I don't enjoy player elimination as a game mechanic which is what this thread is about. Just to be clear, I want to warn the victims + some other random people that are not victims. So if Pete is the target, Pete, Lisa, Todd, Aleister, Arma, Frank, Rufus, and Josh get the same message, even though only Pete is the target. I figure it should be around 10% likely (example number could be higher or lower) of you actually being the victim if you get the message. - I personally don't like being the target of assassination, but I wouldn't stop playing if I knew the message was most likely untrue. - If most people rp:ed their assassinations, I don't think my suggestion adds anything, but it's my experience that people don't, for reasons I've stated above. If an antag is already planning on killing a person without RP, I don't believe this message will change their approach, because they are already using the most efficient approach. - I disagree that it would make it impossible. - I do belive this takes the edge off the feeling of being "randomly killed" for no reason which is a feeling I've had (and I belive the thread starter) has had many times. When you get assassinated, you received a warning earlier in the game. There was setup for you being targeted, and being attacked is the payoff. - If there are 2 assassination targets, there would be around 20 people getting the warning. I don't see how they can be efficiently protected. Furthermore, I don't think security would waste their time when 90% of the messages are fake anyways. They will most likely have more pressing concerns. - This is a good point, but I think this only goes for assassination targets. Objectives such as "make sure they don't leave the station" wouldn't be affected. Or not all assassination victims have to get the alert. This is just a suggestion, the specifics are not set in stone. - I don't think it's better because it makes it harder for the antags. I think it's better because it takes the edge of being randomly murdered without warning as a (usually) defenseless victim. This comes out of nowhere and it actually makes me a bit sad. I'm really sorry you feel this way and I don't really understand how you get to the point that I would be "willing to manipulate data". It's just a suggestion, it has no ill intention or even power to change anything. If I play antag I actually enjoy stealing someone elses PDA and warning my target of assassination. In my experience they've enjoyed it and it feels a lot better for me than just randomly killing someone. If we circle back to the top of the post, wouldn't this be a way more interesting experience for the victim than just randomly being attacked?

You hit the nail on the head with this. I've been thinking about this problem quite a bit. I don't think player elimination is a good thing but as it stands it looks as it's not being removed. What you're describing is the best strategy for the antags to play their game. To complete their goals, they are not incentiviced do make the victims round "fun" or "interesting". It's just to kill them. The solution I've come up with is to WARN THE VICTIMS BEFOREHAND. They can get a PDA-Spam message like "You've been identified as a potential target for assassination by the syndicate. Watch out." Obviously, you should send this out to some other non-victims aswell so no one knows if it's true or not. Also the exact wording and source of the message can be figured out. Talk about increasing suspense and paranoia for the victim (and even the non victims that just get it for spam). It will probably be slightly harder for the antags, but their goal is to make a round fun and interesting right? If you measure the net result of this change, I believe it would be a net positive. All victims would be "prepared" to be murdered and it would seem "fairer", since they knew about it beforehand. (Increased fun for victims) Even non victims would be afraid and more paranoid, even though they are not in any more danger than anyone else. (Increased fun for non victims) Antags could get it slightly harder. (Potentially decreased fun for antagonist) Measuring it like this, you have more people benefitting from this change than people not benefitting from it.

I like how you're expanding on the idea! Seems like you're putting a lot of thought into this. Sounds very sound from a game design perspective. Forcing the two players to actually work as a team is great. I like the activation process of Call in/Revengeance, but think the actual effect is a bit strange, considering you earlier stated it wasn't a high impact antagonist. Furthermore, all of these options: Seem to directly contradict: Since you're basically getting a third teammember, although you have to work quite a lot for them. You also get a teammember that is arguably stronger than a regular blood brother. How about just having the activation be the goal in itself? The reward is that you accomplish your objective. You don't need an extra incentive for that.

Can't believe more people haven't commented on one of the most famous people on the station. Autumn is one of my favorite characters to run into! Thank you for rping such an interesting and dramatic character!

While I like the idea of making two antagonists working together, how would you design to make that the most viable strategy? If a noob is paired with a pro, the best way to accomplish your goals would be to let the pro do them while the noob stays under the radar. What mechanical incentive is there to actually work together? Something like a bonus when they are together would be such an incentive. Another option would be that they have a symbiotic relationship like the abductors. Each of the brothers has to perform certain actions to actually accomplish their goals, so one can't remain passive.

Thanks for the responses everyone! I've taken some time to respond to everyone. Thanks for your input! Hopefully I can explain my reasoning a bit more clearer. This is a sentiment that is repeated in several posts and I find it interesting. I don't understand how you're forced to perform this goal. There is zero consequence if you choose not to pursue it. Hence, you're not forced. On the other hand, if this goal is presented to you and you choose to pursue it, you have chosen to be kind. I do understand hating the sentiment of being told what to do. But just like traitor objectives, no one is forcing you to do them. Thank you for your input. I would love departmental objectives. Compared to departmental objectives this feature would be way easier to code and implement. You can take the goals as written, write the code that the goal is displayed for (X numbers) of players per round, and thats it. Departmental objectives would require more coding work (sorting each player by their department) and (figuring out the actual goals which are department specific). This suggestion is a step towards department goals, and qutite a small one. Thanks for your well thought out post! This is not the topic for it, but I do think greentext feature is detrimental to actual roleplaying as it stands now. Considering the amount of creativity people display in this game for no other reward than "I wanted to build/create/rp it" that is lost after the round, I do think there is space for goals without greentexting. If you wanted to make the feature more complicated, you could add a "Goal completed feature" that would poll the target player asking them if the other player completed the goal. But again, it would be extra work for what I would consider be a needless scoreboard. I do agree that the goals could be better. Like all suggestions, this is a first draft. I would argue that a goal such as "Make sure X gets their favorite food" would be an easier objective to accomplish for a new player than most traitor objectives. But some of the written goals can be re-phrased for clarity and more intersting interactions. Yes, some of them would be hard to complete. Some of them are maybe even impossible. As I responded to @Frank, there is no force at all. Just like traitor objectives, you're offered a suggested goal. If you choose to pursue it, great. If not, no problem. I do get your point. Some may not be in the mood and if you are actively annoying them, you're most likely not fulfilling your objective. In your specific example I would personally just ask that character "Hey, what would make this shift the best ever for you?" they may say "You leaving me the hell alone." - Mission accomplished. Or they may offer a constructive path. Or they may not respond at all. As I wrote in the OP "The journey itself is the goal here, not the destination."

At the start of the shift (a handful) people get random goals that are positive and helpful. They get another player as a target and has to do something nice to them. The nice thing is defined in the goal. Could be an Opt in system if people think it would be annoying. Could also be expanded into role specific goals. Why it's good for the game? It creates happiness. When successfully executed as intended, someone will be happy and they will hopefully have a cool memory. It creates interaction. The randomness in assigning the target player leads to interaction between people who may not otherwise interact. This is also a net positive. You may meet someone really cool this way! Also has a chance to break up meta gangs. But people can already do this! They don't need to be told what to do! That's true. Some people will come up with this stuff by themselves. But a lot of other people won't. Some people will have trouble coming up with unique ideas for this. Sometimes, it's just nice to be told what to do so you don't have to think about it. If someone doesn't do their goal, there is no problem with that. Well what if people don't do it? Then we are where we are right now. If someone chooses not to engage with the system, it's not harming the round in any way. Problems with it? Probably impossible to code to check for succesful achievment of the goal. So no greentext. However, getting on the scoreboard isn't the goal here. It's to make someone happy. The journey itself is the goal here, not the destination. Someone needs to code it obviously. Example goals: Make X look like a hero Surprise X with a personal gift Make sure X gets a medal/promotion Make a unique drink for X Build a shrine to player X Make sure X is featured in the newspaper Make sure X gets their favorite food Make sure sees their rival/enemy/frenemy embarrassed Get X their favorite book/item Give X the best compliment. Get X to partake in a scientific experiment. Show X a special part of the station. Make a special joke for X. Make sure X has the best shift ever

A bit late to the dinner here but I'll chime in. From a gameplay design perspective, as others have already mention, why does a support role, not meant for fighting, have a deadly weapon? It makes no sense to me. Sure, it's a reference to Dirty Harry but.. does anyone want Dirty Harry as a detective on Paradise? The role as it's designed on paradise seems to be directly against this since it's about solving crimes, not fighting, like regular security. If they need a gun, how about a simple disabler, or a small laser gun like the HoP:s? I really enjoy playing detective and after not realising the bullets were more deadly, I completely blasted a guy who went into crit and almost died. Now I'm super hesitant to use it even in dangerous situations since I may end someones round. Now, firing it at all is super risky. The anger if you hit a bystander is very real. If the gun needs to remain in the game for some reason, put it in the armory along with the rest of the lethal weapons.

I don't see this as an important feature, but if you wanted to do it more easily, wouldn't it be enough just to create a chess window where both players can move the pieces however they want and display the result to your opponent? I.e no checking that a move is legitimate or not, just an interface where you can move chess pieces. So yes, you could theoretically cheat and move your pieces wherever, but just like in real life, this would be frowned upon. This could also lead to playing interesting chess variants like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_chess

Detective page updated. https://paradisestation.org/wiki/index.php/Detective

Really curious how this went! I also think the idea of organizing an event ahead of time is great, even if you don't know the exact details of the event. So great job Sirryan!

Something so simple can lead to amazing things! Was one of my most fun and memorable rounds. Thank you so much!

Some of the mixed adventures of Todd Rutabaga, the loveable idiot HoP. The one where he accidentally confuses one grey with another, leading to being called racist. A great job interview with a potential miner! A tough interview with a potential Cargo Worker! And the Fax sent to CentComm when he was tricked out of his whole life savings but had a shot at making it big with a clever investment!