cap antag numbers to number of active security members

[Coldflame]

having 10 traitors and 4 members of security is retarded

[necaladun]

It's only retarded if you play to "win" by "beating" the antags. Otherwise it's just a tough round for security. But that's ok, balancing the game around "antags vs sec" isn't really needed as the most engaging stories generally come from desperate situations. Play for the story and not to deny greentext and suddenly it turns from retarded to awesome.

[Tayswift]

I'll second Neca on this. It's not like it's a death match between antags and security. Antags aren't always working together or working at the same time. Some will be backstabbing each other, others will be sitting around biding their time. It's not as simple as making it a 1:1 ratio.

[Birdtalon]

Even with 10 traitors. Most of them won't even cause that much trouble, maybe 1 or 2 will go loud. Recruit crew to security or call an ERT.

[Gabe]

2 minutes ago, Birdtalon said:

 Recruit crew to security

I gagged.

 

Having a duo of officers vs. a dozen traitors with uplinks allowing them to access p-p-p-p-POWERFUL WEAPONS isn't very fun for security. People wonder why security mains don't stick around, and also actively balance the game to make playing security as frustrating as possible.

[Coldflame]

18 minutes ago, necaladun said:

It's only retarded if you play to "win" by "beating" the antags. Otherwise it's just a tough round for security. But that's ok, balancing the game around "antags vs sec" isn't really needed as the most engaging stories generally come from desperate situations. Play for the story and not to deny greentext and suddenly it turns from retarded to awesome.

there's nothing engaging about the antags openly being the dominant force on the station and doing exactly as they please with no fear of reprisal, there's a difference between a interesting story where the station is in genuine risk of falling apart and the crew being completely defenceless.

sec are heavily discouraged from using all the tools at their disposal to succeed but also have the odds stacked against them to an absurd degree, any round on highpop is going to play out in the same uninteresting way

13 minutes ago, Birdtalon said:

Even with 10 traitors. Most of them won't even cause that much trouble, maybe 1 or 2 will go loud. Recruit crew to security or call an ERT.

yeah and 2 of the 4 officers are going to be total garbo, recruiting sec from the crew isn't a great proposition when there's a 1:6 chance you're recruiting a literal antag and a chance beyond that you're just going to worsen the situation by creating a loot pinata.

 

the massive buff to syndicate comms and the price staying at 2tc makes it absurdly easy for traitors to collaborate, which quite frankly isn't constructive to the round when the deck is already stacked heavily against the crew; changelings literally get the ability innately.

[necaladun]

You're assuming most of the crew care. It isnt stacked against the chef unless he's a target. 

It's a minority that play for "sec vs antags". If you're outnumbered just accept you're not gonna deny them all their greentext and focus on the real threats. Accept that the blueprints will get stolen. And maybe recruit more sec members, call ert, etc. 

I prefer the odds against me personally. 2 sec vs 10 tators is way more fun than the reverse for me.

[Gabe]

19 minutes ago, necaladun said:

You're assuming most of the crew care. It isnt stacked against the chef unless he's a target.

Well, a round just went by earlier tonight where medical was entirely destroyed, so usually most of the crew are in fact worried about antags.

10 sec vs 2 traitors isn't fun, sec being outnumbered isn't the issue, it's sec being vastly outnumbered, especially considering the current inexperienced sec playerbase. 

[Fox McCloud]

(1) Not really possible, as antag selection happens before job selection now.

(2) Even if it were possible, the "screw antags; they ruin the game" crowd will actively latejoin as sec just to keep antag numbers low or stack things to their advantage.

 

There's far too many problems with this to even remotely be feasible, and that's assuming I agree with this notion to begin with (I don't).

[ZN23X]

I've said this before but the number of antags vs the number of sec doesn't matter. The number of EXPERIENCED antags vs the number of EXPERIENCED sec is what matters more than anything. This is impossible to control by changing the amount of antags or security. You could have 20 traitors/vamps/clings who have no clue what they are doing vs a sec force with 2-3 good players and the antags will be screwed. Or vice verca with more sec and less antags.

The REASON the game feels to lean in favor of antags so much is a mixture of things. There are certain players who are play ALOT, they roll antag ALOT, and they also have worked together with other experienced antags multiple times. You are far more likely to run into a pair or group of experienced antags who have literally antagged together dozens of rounds rather than a security force that works together well.

[Savinien Brassheart]

5 hours ago, ZN23X said:

I've said this before but the number of antags vs the number of sec doesn't matter. The number of EXPERIENCED antags vs the number of EXPERIENCED sec is what matters more than anything. This is impossible to control by changing the amount of antags or security. You could have 20 traitors/vamps/clings who have no clue what they are doing vs a sec force with 2-3 good players and the antags will be screwed. Or vice verca with more sec and less antags.

The REASON the game feels to lean in favor of antags so much is a mixture of things. There are certain players who are play ALOT, they roll antag ALOT, and they also have worked together with other experienced antags multiple times. You are far more likely to run into a pair or group of experienced antags who have literally antagged together dozens of rounds rather than a security force that works together well.

 

ZN23X raises a lot of good point. Just one good antag can tear apart a well geared but inexperienced/uncoordinated security team and I've seen one good security officer catch a round's entire roster of criminals. And when either side starts displaying actual teamwork even in small numbers that is when you see people getting steamrolled.

It's been my personal experience that it is easier to build good lasting partnership as an antag with other antags, than it is to build a good repertoire as a security officer with other officers. There are certain people who I've partnered over my long career here who know I will have their back and in turn I know they have mine, we can count on each other to help one another and save one another if something goes wrong. On the other hand most of my experience with security is everyone doing their own thing scattered across the station and comms being flooded with "why is this guy set to arrest?"

Yes it's painful when security only has two officers and a detective against an army of changelings but I don't think the solution can be found in trying to limit antag numbers based on sec numbers. It's gonna be found in finding ways to encourage more people to make security their main and getting them to build the same kind of teamwork through regular rounds together that the frequent antags have. Which may require doing some work on security itself (which is being covered in another topic.)

[EvadableMoxie]

On 5/15/2018 at 4:39 PM, Tayswift said:

It's not like it's a death match between antags and security.

Tell that to some people who play antag....

Edited May 20, 2018 by EvadableMoxie

[Zciwomad]

Easy. Just don't be robust enough and all I can do is stealth combo with Voice changer and Agent ID. Maybe we should put NT Operative next to "Traitor", or came up with "Stealth Traitor" as a new Antag. Basically a Traitor, but with objective to do everything stealth. That would give those, who want hijack(mourderboing) would set "Traitor" as "yes", and "Stealth agent" as "no".

Besides, it can be 20 traitors vs 5 sec if only traitors don't cooperate(This is why objectives to kill other antags is brilliant). The worst part of it are "Metabuddies". I nearly always play Sec as late-join and I saw few "popular" players/characters doing everything to just fuck up sec: 

"How dare you set Sec role as "high", "medium", or even "low"? How dare you click "Security officer" as late joiner! How dare you arrest my buddy for Tresspasing! How dare you taze him for slipping you and stealing your Stunbatton! How dare you bucklecuff him after he destroyed window and light bulb? I will bust him out of the prison! How dare you chase him to the maintenance! How dare you to use mechanical heart, to stand up before he can cablecuff you? How dare you harmbatton me and my friend when I try to stun you again! Captain says: Hey, Shitcurity officer, how dare you harmbatton that one guy who slip you, took your stunbatton, escaped from cell and tried to cablecuff you? This is unacceptable! Those two friends? Let all their crimes be forggoten, no matter what they did, your harmbattoning is like a word of CentComm." (Forgot to tell they were non-antag)

And all of this happened to me once when I was officer and from that time I learned to never arrest "Server's Cool Kids".

Edited May 25, 2018 by Zciwomad