Make Assassination Objectives Not Require Permakilling

[Veterankyl]

The current Assassination objective requires that the victim be dead by the time the round ends. It doesn't matter how many times they'd been killed during the round, they just have to be dead the moment the round ends. This tends to lead to two situations, one where the antag rushes down the victim at the last minute so there's no time for revival, and the other being to make the victim unrevivable.

There's a very limited number of ways that a body can be kept unrevivable, which leads to nearly all assassinations going down the same path of ambushing or rushing down the target and then making a break for it with the body before anyone can respond. There's very little, if any room at all for creative means of killing people, since anything that doesn't guarantee their body being unrevivable ends up being wasted time on the antag's part.

Antags are supposed to be a part of the storytelling for the server. They're meant to add tension, drama, and excitement. However, the goal of making sure someone can't continue to participate in a round goes against that philosophy. No longer is it fear that you may be attacked, it's now fear that you won't be able to play the game. It's a reason people late join to avoid being selected as antag targets, or overprepare themselves in case they or someone else is attacked. Granted, an antag doesn't need to green text, but doing anything outside of their goals requires admin permission. but the greentext still encourages antags to go with a method that is safe and most likely to guarantee the victim stays dead, permakilling.

Removing the 'dead at the end of the round' requirement I believe would alleviate a lot of these issues. Requiring the target to only die once would give the antags freedom to get creative with how they kill the person. There are so many cool and interesting traitor items and methods of killing that go unused because they don't give the opportunity to make sure the victim can't be revived. In addition to giving the antags more freedom, it would also mean victims don't have to metagame or valid hunt to make sure they will be able to keep playing the game. Many people say the best interactions with antags are the ones where they actually get to interact with the antags.

If there's worry about this change making things too easy for antags, there could be ways of making sure the kill was at the hands of the antagonist. Some servers have the antagonist put a calling card on the body of the victim as a mark of a successful kill. Other methods could include taking a part of the victims body as a trophy or branding them. It would also create potential for more interesting storytelling or interactions with the victim, as they may be the target of multiple antags, and each antag would get their chance at them. Overall, I feel like no longer requiring assassination to be permenant would be more enjoyable for both antags and victims, plus opening up the opportunities for more interesting interactions between the two parties.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Veterankyl
Revising a statement.

[Mitchs98]

19 minutes ago, Veterankyl said:

but doing anything outside of their goals requires admin permission.

While I absolutely love the suggestion, especially leaving behind a calling card, taking a trophy, or branding them to signify the kill objective has been completed. I feel I must point out that this simply is not true on a blanket level. It's only true in the case of murdering and sabotage/game ending sabotage in virtually every instance, I have never seen an admin state otherwise at any point in my history of time playing here. People just tend to say this because typically they're denied said actions/don't like that they can't freely do said actions.

[Veterankyl]

Looking back at that sentence, I realize now that it got off point from what I intending to discuss. I agree that antag activities need to be moderated to make sure people aren't causing unnecessary death or destruction. So yeah, I agree with you on that opinion.
I was going for something else when I brought up greentext. I feel that, although an antag doesn't need to achieve it, it still encourages antags to 'win', which in turn encourages taking the safe or most meta method of assassination, that being to round remove a person. The need to use the best method give no room for creativity to the antag, and the unlikelihood of surviving without serious metagaming makes it unfun for the victim.

[jatu]

Honestly I am a bit amazed how the calling card/one time, non-perma murder isn't on para yet. There is already the steal person X brain objective. Getting dusted after being killed by the unstunnable antagman for the umpteenth time can get a bit old. 'B-but they will snitch on me if its not permanent!1!1!!1!' There's way enough ways to kill someone disguised.

Point is, please god make the calling card one time assasination a thing.

[Charliminator]

We went over this in the community meeting. Not something any of us are in support of

[maxfromsweden]

On 10/31/2022 at 6:21 AM, Veterankyl said:

I was going for something else when I brought up greentext. I feel that, although an antag doesn't need to achieve it, it still encourages antags to 'win', which in turn encourages taking the safe or most meta method of assassination, that being to round remove a person. The need to use the best method give no room for creativity to the antag, and the unlikelihood of surviving without serious metagaming makes it unfun for the victim.

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.

[Generaldonothing]

2 hours ago, maxfromsweden said:

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.

 

This is not true
Assassination objectives can be used to create very enjoyable situations, provided that the antagonist can be put in a position to do that. Cling specifically struggles to do this, but vamp and traitor have many different options. What matters is more that way that you're killed, not the act of being killed. @henri215is a great example of someone who can make kill objectives fun.
 

2 hours ago, maxfromsweden said:

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.

 

I am fully against this for the following reasons
- If you get this you are encouraged to stop playing the game. Getting a message like this will result in the people who got this instantly going to cryo, or going to security demanding protection.
- This entirely forces antagonists to get things done quickly, if you get "the funny message" that just means you have been given a reason to refuse roleplay with people in fear they will end your round. Antagonists aren't going to "be nice" when they get this, they're gonna be forced to go full on unga mode.

 

2 hours ago, maxfromsweden said:

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?

 

It'll be near fucking impossible if they don't go loud instantly and .357 the person down(or similar). This does not fix the issue presented, it makes it way worse.

2 hours ago, maxfromsweden said:

• 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)

- All victims would get protection or leave the game, and it's not fair to the antagonist
- People who don't get the message won't give a fuck and can simply assume they aren't affected by antagonists. The people who do get it would do the above.
- "It's harder so it's better", this doesn't increase the skill level or anything, just forces people to go loud.

2 hours ago, maxfromsweden said:

Measuring it like this, you have more people benefitting from this change than people not benefitting from it.

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 

[Sadhorizon]

6 hours ago, maxfromsweden said:

"You've been identified as a potential target for assassination by the syndicate. Watch out."

"WetSkrell.sy is a xenophillic website endorsed by Syndicate for the use of soon-to-be retired crewmembers among Nanotrasen's many stations and outposts!"

"Wetskrell.sy only provides the higest quality of entartainment to Nanotrasen Employees and their Families."

"WetSkrell.sy wishes to remind you, running is just another way to enjoy life! Better do it while you can!"

"Wetskrell.sy only provides the higest quality of suffering to Nanotrasen Employees."

"Here, at WetSkrell.sy, we know where you live!"

Edited November 18, 2022 by Sadhorizon

[maxfromsweden]

2 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

This is not true
Assassination objectives can be used to create very enjoyable situations, provided that the antagonist can be put in a position to do that. Cling specifically struggles to do this, but vamp and traitor have many different options. What matters is more that way that you're killed, not the act of being killed. @henri215is a great example of someone who can make kill objectives fun.

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.

 

3 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

I am fully against this for the following reasons
- If you get this you are encouraged to stop playing the game. Getting a message like this will result in the people who got this instantly going to cryo, or going to security demanding protection.
- This entirely forces antagonists to get things done quickly, if you get "the funny message" that just means you have been given a reason to refuse roleplay with people in fear they will end your round. Antagonists aren't going to "be nice" when they get this, they're gonna be forced to go full on unga mode.

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.

 

3 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

It'll be near fucking impossible if they don't go loud instantly and .357 the person down(or similar). This does not fix the issue presented, it makes it way worse.

- 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.

3 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

- All victims would get protection or leave the game, and it's not fair to the antagonist
- People who don't get the message won't give a fuck and can simply assume they aren't affected by antagonists. The people who do get it would do the above.
- "It's harder so it's better", this doesn't increase the skill level or anything, just forces people to go loud.

- 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.

3 hours ago, Generaldonothing 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 

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?

[Generaldonothing]

8 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

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 also don't do this because it's boring for both the antagonist and the person antagonized, fun is the incentive. The most efficient way to do anything is silently, doesn't mean people want to be silent. Also, how else am I supposed to take "To complete their goals, they are not incentiviced do make the victims round "fun" or "interesting". It's just to kill them" as anything but "I don't think they're enjoyable".  

 

12 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

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.

 This game is entirely roleplay focused, the incentive is that it's fun for both people involved. Clicking on the 2D spaceman is boring without anything to back that up, some green text at the end of the game means literally nothing, it's the roleplay that revolves around it that makes it fun.
 

14 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

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 know what you're saying, what I'm saying is that it's going to make the round less fun for everyone who gets it. You're not gonna sit there and do nothing, especially if it's a new player who gets it. Also, you should actually detail implementation first and formost, especially if it deals with a low chance like that.
Also that chance is way too low.
 

17 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

- 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.

Other people certainly will, and what would you do if you got this message? Game mechanics shouldn't be designed specifically for your enjoyment, you need to consider other people.
 

18 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

- 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 read this and the first thing that comes to mind is "You weren't actually expecting feedback, were you?" You need to consider that other people will see the post and think "Ah fuck I'm a target I need self defense!", which is going to end in 30 people with prods because possible antagonists could be out to get them. Or you make the chance so low the feature becomes totally worthless unless you don't get it, and you get the "yay I'm not a target pass" for a round.
 

22 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

-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.

How does an antagonist approach a target if they know someone is coming otherwise? They're certainly not going into another room with you, you could be a antag! The only option you have is to beat them into the dirt unceremoniously, which is a terrible payoff. Not to mention you're not getting any payoff if you're not actually a target.
 

25 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

- 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 going to result in nothing good, 18 people are gonna go get stuff to defend themselves. There are also far more than 2 targets a shift. Either this does nothing or it does too much.
 

27 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

- 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.

The objection you referenced has like a ~1/5 chance of being rolled, the vast majority of objectives will still be kill. Get that stuff set in stone, we can't judge your idea properly otherwise.
 

28 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

- 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.

So, you're arguing in favor of a feature which is supposed to make you tense... by removing tension? Also, you're not the main character, sometimes you die, and die horribly!
 

30 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

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.

 Then tell me what this is supposed to mean, the only way to take it is "If you judge this the way I want you to, it's good." This is a red flag and a half currently and I suggest you elaborate on it
 

31 minutes ago, maxfromsweden said:

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?

So, you found a fun gimmick you use as an antagonist? Great. Don't force that on to other people who might not want to do it. You've also asked if I think it would be more intresting, I say no, this would be absolutely annoying at best, validhunting encouraging at worst.

[maxfromsweden]

Thanks for your thougtful reply!

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

People also don't do this because it's boring for both the antagonist and the person antagonized, fun is the incentive. The most efficient way to do anything is silently, doesn't mean people want to be silent. Also, how else am I supposed to take "To complete their goals, they are not incentiviced do make the victims round "fun" or "interesting". It's just to kill them" as anything but "I don't think they're enjoyable". 

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:

Spoiler

Good example of in game incentive:

Counter strike. All players play it to have fun, but not all behaviours are incentivized. By incentive, I mean an ingame reward of some sort (Public recognition, persistant scoring system, benefits over other players are some examples). In counter strike, you get put on the scoreboard for kills or bomb planting. Certain actions you take (completing the objectives of the game) is incentivized by the scoreboard at the end. This is an ingame incentive to make you engage in behaviours that the game designers deem you will have most fun performing (inside the game).

A player could go and do something that is NOT incentivized, like shooting a wall, jumping in a corner or doing parkour on barrels and they can still experience fun, because it's an external reward. The game gives no incentive to do these actions (and in some cases you will be punished) but your external incentive can still make you do them.

Bad example of in game incentive:

Dungeons and Dragons tabletop RPG (Older editions): The tabletop RPG which is ALL ABOUT ROLEPLAYING! Or is it. Earlier editions (I haven't played the latest) did not have an in-game reward for roleplaying. You got XP for kills. So a game might state that it's about roleplaying but it offers no in game reward for doing so, instead giving reward for killing things. There are ways to give rewards for roleplaying and many modern day tabletop games do it but old DnD did not. In this way a game can claim to be about something (Roleplaying) and people can have fun doing that activity but it offers in game incentives for something different (Killing enemies).

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.

 

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

 This game is entirely roleplay focused, the incentive is that it's fun for both people involved. Clicking on the 2D spaceman is boring without anything to back that up, some green text at the end of the game means literally nothing, it's the roleplay that revolves around it that makes it fun.
 

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.

 

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

I know what you're saying, what I'm saying is that it's going to make the round less fun for everyone who gets it. You're not gonna sit there and do nothing, especially if it's a new player who gets it. Also, you should actually detail implementation first and formost, especially if it deals with a low chance like that.
Also that chance is way too low.

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.

 

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

Other people certainly will, and what would you do if you got this message? Game mechanics shouldn't be designed specifically for your enjoyment, you need to consider other people.

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.

 

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

I read this and the first thing that comes to mind is "You weren't actually expecting feedback, were you?" You need to consider that other people will see the post and think "Ah fuck I'm a target I need self defense!", which is going to end in 30 people with prods because possible antagonists could be out to get them. Or you make the chance so low the feature becomes totally worthless unless you don't get it, and you get the "yay I'm not a target pass" for a round.

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.

 

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

How does an antagonist approach a target if they know someone is coming otherwise? They're certainly not going into another room with you, you could be a antag! The only option you have is to beat them into the dirt unceremoniously, which is a terrible payoff. Not to mention you're not getting any payoff if you're not actually a target.

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.

 

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

This is going to result in nothing good, 18 people are gonna go get stuff to defend themselves. There are also far more than 2 targets a shift. Either this does nothing or it does too much.

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.

 

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

The objection you referenced has like a ~1/5 chance of being rolled, the vast majority of objectives will still be kill. Get that stuff set in stone, we can't judge your idea properly otherwise.
 

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.

 

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

So, you're arguing in favor of a feature which is supposed to make you tense... by removing tension? Also, you're not the main character, sometimes you die, and die horribly!
 

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.

 

15 hours ago, maxfromsweden said:

19 hours ago, Generaldonothing 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 

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.

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

 Then tell me what this is supposed to mean, the only way to take it is "If you judge this the way I want you to, it's good." This is a red flag and a half currently and I suggest you elaborate on it
 

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.

 

14 hours ago, Generaldonothing said:

So, you found a fun gimmick you use as an antagonist? Great. Don't force that on to other people who might not want to do it. You've also asked if I think it would be more intresting, I say no, this would be absolutely annoying at best, validhunting encouraging at worst.

I think we agree to disagree on this point.

[Gatchapod]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:52 PM, maxfromsweden said:

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.

We already have people preparing unreasonable self-defense measures even without that. If someone knows they're a target, they'll immediately turn off their suit sensors, grab stunprods, prepare cable cuffs, put on a mask, hide ID and attack absolutely anyone who as much as pulls a pen out on their screen. If they're part of some clique, now they're absolutely inseparable and a poor antag has to fight probably about 4 people to even touch the target.

Your idea might increase paranoia in theory, but it will not improve quality of the gameplay. It will increase validhunting. It will increase security workload. It will, in fact, remove "assassinations". They'll become more like duels and losing a duel will be a round-ender.

Antagonists are players, too. They don't kill people out of actual malice, but to add drama to the round. I absolutely do not understand why would you want to punish people who actively put effort into making rounds more interesting.

[FloPerfecto]

Very strongly against antag kill objectives giving greentext for temporary kills. A good chunk of the difficulty in kill objectives comes from having to dispose of a body or otherwise hide it in an area that's inaccessible; your proposal would make it so I can get an easy greentext by magdumping on someone in the middle of the hallway, something which has no stakes or consequences for anyone because they'll just get cloned and be back in 4 minutes.

Also against giving any indicator to the mark that they're due to be assassinated because that literally removes all subterfuge from the equation and gives them a meta alarm that they should get a weapon "just in case".

 

No one is entitled to survive a full round of SS13, especially when people are specifically out to kill you.

[maxfromsweden]

On 11/19/2022 at 5:28 PM, Gatchapod said:

We already have people preparing unreasonable self-defense measures even without that. If someone knows they're a target, they'll immediately turn off their suit sensors, grab stunprods, prepare cable cuffs, put on a mask, hide ID and attack absolutely anyone who as much as pulls a pen out on their screen. If they're part of some clique, now they're absolutely inseparable and a poor antag has to fight probably about 4 people to even touch the target.

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.

 

On 11/19/2022 at 5:28 PM, Gatchapod said:

Your idea might increase paranoia in theory, but it will not improve quality of the gameplay. It will increase validhunting. It will increase security workload. It will, in fact, remove "assassinations". They'll become more like duels and losing a duel will be a round-ender.

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.

On 11/19/2022 at 5:28 PM, Gatchapod said:

Antagonists are players, too. They don't kill people out of actual malice, but to add drama to the round. I absolutely do not understand why would you want to punish people who actively put effort into making rounds more interesting.

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.

[Eric6426]

On 11/20/2022 at 2:34 AM, FloPerfecto said:

Very strongly against antag kill objectives giving greentext for temporary kills. A good chunk of the difficulty in kill objectives comes from having to dispose of a body or otherwise hide it in an area that's inaccessible; your proposal would make it so I can get an easy greentext by magdumping on someone in the middle of the hallway, something which has no stakes or consequences for anyone because they'll just get cloned and be back in 4 minutes.

Also against giving any indicator to the mark that they're due to be assassinated because that literally removes all subterfuge from the equation and gives them a meta alarm that they should get a weapon "just in case".

Much like Flo already said, but I'll point the obvious;

Contractors already do half of this. No they don't warn you, but its just a temporary thing, with no stakes. Plenty of people decide to follow or outright accept the contracting for little reason/some TC, despite the fact that being contracted is not something anyone would want at-all, however since it doesn't have any real drawbacks, people do this. Its equivalent to a brig sentence, 3-5 minutes in a small jail, then back to the normal game, with no real issue.

Making assassinations like that would, kid you not, people accepting to be 'killed' and brought to medbay for revival for a greentext trade. Alongside the fact that if you only had to kill them once, you'd also have to log and check the person was their murderer, which sounds like a pain to do - If I slap them for 5 brute, then a terror spider kills them a few seconds later in an unrelated fight, does it still count? Etc etc, it sounds really hard to implement, personally.

If anything, I'd argue contractors would need more of a tweak rather than assassinations, the objective in in of itself is basic, and self-explanatory, whilst being enough to make people distrust eachother due to the chance that they may very well be after them. There's no need to know you are a target, part of the intrigue is not knowing if you are, being told would remove this, and make it 'duels' like Flo said, and only make people prepare themselves excessively or form protection groups. Because, what stops all people who got this message going in groups of 2-3+ as a way to keep eachother defended within and outside of their department? Makes the antag's job incredibly hard, unfun (Fighting 5 people isn't enjoyable when you need to pick one off) and wouldn't really fit for the playerbase I'd say, with how everything goes.

Though as above, contractor might be a better thing to look at to improve, instead of this objective, however I can't really say how since contractor is also one hell of a deep hole to look into. Gimmicks are fun, as someone who's always enjoyed playing them, or nowadays making events with them, they're great, but they have issues - Namely the fact that not everyone enjoys them, not everyone wants them, and forcing them on people certainly wouldn't work.

Also the fact that sleepypen, empty the contents, fill it with a deathmix (I am not going to explain it, gamers know how they work) that kills you in roughly 5-10 seconds at most, and that's an assassination done. The person will just get revived and be slightly annoyed, with no impact on the shift barring medbay having one person with poison in them. Defeats the point of 'assassinating' a target if mister Doctor can revive them in a few minutes at most with no drawbacks. No one would fear getting killed by an antag or being a target.

[Veterankyl]

On 11/19/2022 at 6:34 PM, FloPerfecto said:

Very strongly against antag kill objectives giving greentext for temporary kills. A good chunk of the difficulty in kill objectives comes from having to dispose of a body or otherwise hide it in an area that's inaccessible; your proposal would make it so I can get an easy greentext by magdumping on someone in the middle of the hallway, something which has no stakes or consequences for anyone because they'll just get cloned and be back in 4 minutes.

 

On 11/21/2022 at 7:04 AM, Eric6426 said:

Making assassinations like that would, kid you not, people accepting to be 'killed' and brought to medbay for revival for a greentext trade. Alongside the fact that if you only had to kill them once, you'd also have to log and check the person was their murderer, which sounds like a pain to do - If I slap them for 5 brute, then a terror spider kills them a few seconds later in an unrelated fight, does it still count? Etc etc, it sounds really hard to implement, personally.

In my original post, I made several suggestions as to how these sorts of issues could be addressed. One idea was making it so that the antag has to take parts off the body as a trophy. Whether it be organs or limbs, this could be how kills are tracked, through checking if a body part was removed by the antag while the victim is dead. There is also the idea of a calling card, some sort of brand or mark on the body that can't be removed even when cloned. It'd add to the story for the round (A guy comes into medbay with all of his limbs missing/his kidneys stolen, or has the syndicate logo etched into his arm that not even cloning removes). This would force the antag to be alone with the body for some time as to get what they need to confirm their kill, so magdumping and running won't be viable. As for accepting being killed... I hate to say it, but people already do that. There are people who, if you ask them, are willing to be killed and put into an MMI or simple mob so that they can at least continue participating in the round. I'm not sure there're any changes that would fix that. It's more of a server rules issue.