Antagonist Playtime Requirement Hypothetical

[Cocacolagua]

I remember reading this idea somewhere, forgot where, but I found it really interesting on how it could act with our playerbase.

The concept is simple, all antagonists that are currently locked by a crew playtime requirement would instead be locked under a security department playtime requirement (excluding IAA/brig phys).

I think this certainly will not fix the security vs antagonists arms-race of who can out-game eachother, but I imagine it would help a bit for all antagonists to have a basic understanding on how the security department functions, and what makes a security shift fun. So, what is your opinion on this?

[Sweaterkittens]

I actually really like this idea. The fact that would give antags the security perspective is fantastic, and not at all where I thought you were going with this.

I thought you were going to say that it would give future antags a chance to see each antagonist role up close and personal, meaning they would be potentially be more prepared to then play those roles when they unlock them. I cannot count the amount of times I've seen brand new cultists who have literally no idea what to do because they've never really been that involved in it before, you know?

 

The one major downside I foresee with this is that you really don't want people rolling sec (and potentially taking up crucial slots, on highpop) just to sit around or phone it in so they can get their hours. I would much rather have one robust, dedicated sec officer who actually wants to play the role, than a whole team of people who are just gonna ssd if there isn't an antag in their face, sit around the sec office, and treat prisoners like shit because they don't really care to actually learn or apply SOP/Space Law.

[AzuleUtama]

54 minutes ago, Cocacolagua said:

The concept is simple, all antagonists that are currently locked by a crew playtime requirement would instead be locked under a security department playtime requirement (excluding IAA/brig phys).

Unless this changed somewhere down the line, all antagonists require some amount of crew playtime rather than specific ones.

Regarding the idea itself, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to force players to play security roles in order to unlock a role where in almost all cases they can't actually be an officer in the first place (Blob is the only antag where you can start as a mindshield role IIRC). While it might give them some idea of what to expect from the security team (and thus an idea of how to counter it themselves) should they be a traitor/cling/vamp or maybe early game cultists - it's not really going to do much of anything for when those players roll hijack-level antags such as Nukies, Wiz, Blob and End-game cultists and slings. Space law and Security SOP begin seeing a lot less use in those situations, yet they'd still be locked behind the same requirement.

The only real way players will improve at playing antagonist roles and how they should approach security while antagging is by just... well... playing them. I can guarantee everyone's first few antag rounds were probably a disaster (mine included), but you eventually learn how not to get caught and generally be a better antagonist for everyone the more you do it. Locking it behind security playtime requirements won't make them any better to start with, they'll still have no idea how to play it or make the round more enjoyable for everyone besides maybe knowing more about space law.

[Sonador]

45 minutes ago, AzuleUtama said:

Unless this changed somewhere down the line, all antagonists require some amount of crew playtime rather than specific ones.

Regarding the idea itself, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to force players to play security roles in order to unlock a role where in almost all cases they can't actually be an officer in the first place (Blob is the only antag where you can start as a mindshield role IIRC). While it might give them some idea of what to expect from the security team (and thus an idea of how to counter it themselves) should they be a traitor/cling/vamp or maybe early game cultists - it's not really going to do much of anything for when those players roll hijack-level antags such as Nukies, Wiz, Blob and End-game cultists and slings. Space law and Security SOP begin seeing a lot less use in those situations, yet they'd still be locked behind the same requirement.

The only real way players will improve at playing antagonist roles and how they should approach security while antagging is by just... well... playing them. I can guarantee everyone's first few antag rounds were probably a disaster (mine included), but you eventually learn how not to get caught and generally be a better antagonist for everyone the more you do it. Locking it behind security playtime requirements won't make them any better to start with, they'll still have no idea how to play it or make the round more enjoyable for everyone besides maybe knowing more about space law.

I think you're missing the OP's point. The point was less to make an antag more robust and more to make them *aware* of how their interactions with security feel as a security player - specifically how being a shitty, powergaming antag with no sense of sportsmanship can really make a security player stressed out and fuck up their round. It's kind of a "mile in their shoes" sort of situation so that an antag learns why playing to win isn't all there is to antagging.

I'm all for this suggestion.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Sonador

[Viz]

Very idealistic approach, however people who powergame as antags tend to also powergame as sec. Don't rely on powergamers suddenly developing empathy for their opponents just because they played 10 hours as their job. Reality would destroy this idea.