Antagonist reputation system

[CPTANT]

Bottom post of the previous page:

https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/ ... -369786663

Why are we punishing people for playing the job they want to play?

[CPTANT]

I learned within a month of working that almost everything my university taught me about coding was pointless outside of the bare basics. Code readability is important, but using a ternary is 100% readable. Readability tanks when you get someone who has to attach interfaces to everything even when there's no reason to and everything turns into a spiderweb of BS. Stuff like that. If value = boolean expression ? val1 : val2; is too complex to read quickly then there's a problem

Hell, my boss would probably send my code back if I wrote:

Code: Select all

IF (Some Boolean Expression)
{
     Value = 1;
}
Else
{
     Value = 2;
}

Ok I think ternary notation is fine and just something people wanting to understand code should learn.

However I do think the overall working of this antag reputation system were rather poorly explained, I think I finally understand how it works. I also had to point it out myself that the stated reputation values didn't even match the ones in the code.

[Remie Richards]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, didn't the guy who's working on byond try to get if(x = y) accepted by the compiler but got told to fuck off? Maybe that would have been the kind of boilerplate you're looking for too?

You are mistaken.
LummoxJR added assignment chaining, which is the act of making an assignment expression, such as X = Y return the value of Y, such that you can do: X = Y =Z, assigning both X and Y to the value of Z in one statement, a use case for this might be defining a square's dimensions, eg: X = Y = 50.
The if(x = y) was actually the opposite, people (MSO included, iirc) complained about the danger of typoing if(x == y) into if(x = y), the solution to this was to require people to be more explicit when they want to use (the entirely valid pattern) of if(x = y), by writing it as if((x = y)).
(Why is it valid? it allows you to run code only when a truth-y value has been assigned to var x, without having to have the assignment and the if needlessly on two separate lines)

Code is there to be readable

Code is there to work, if a piece of code is weird enough to deserve a comment, it gets one. You know what isn't weird? an operator standard in most languages these days.

they then have to ask coderbus what the fuck is wrong with the codebase that you need to be educated in coding before you can begin to understand what's going on.

Go tell any other large project on github that you want to understand the code, but that you refuse to put in the effort to know the language said code is written in, as that's essentially what you're asking with that quote.

That and the odd thing is that whilst you write what you call boilerplate, comments don't seem to be boilerplate in this codebase or documentation so that's another demerit on your code on top of trying to be sassy with me.

Comments aren't boilerplate, but they have a time and a place.
I write comments when they're either funny, necessary, or as part of a larger piece of documentation. (Prime example being the procedural mapping folder, which has a doc attached to try and guide mappers like WJ, who would might make use of the feature but are "scarred" of code, in how to use it.)

As for me writing this boilerplate, either you're misinterpreting my point, you're misinterpreting the code, I had a valid reason to write a full if/else (such as doing more than one thing, you shouldn't try to fit more than one effect in each of the 3 expressions in a ternary) or I simply decided on whim to write it that way, since a ternary has no advantage over an if except for brevity (both will compile to similar/the same assembly/bytecode) and if I happened to write the full thing, I was probably on autopilot and as such perfectly happy to put in the extra (unnecessary) effort to write it out fully.
Let's not make this just about you and me though.

Oh and scattering it across every job file is not moot, unfortunately for you there's a slight problem I encountered right now with languages and that's because without documentation I had to go fishing through old language PRs and thank git there were only a few since the list of languages a person can speak is in the tongue file which would make sense if not for the tongue file being in the surgery module so one wonders why the tongue file didn't call up another file in the language module where languages are supposed to be.

This isn't quite right. The list of languages a person can speak is decided by what tongue organ they have, which is interchangeable in game. It is the tongue that decides what languages it speaks, and thus those definitions are on the tongue object, in the tongue object's file.
I could understand your pov if the language was defined in the tongue file, but correct me if I'm wrong, they usually aren't, and just the tongue itself and its list of definitions is.

not only do the jobs themselves not use this var

Have you heard of a struct? Structs don't use any of their vars.

but these vars are relative and only mean something when saddled up next to one another

Ok, you have perhaps 3 ways to do this. One of which is so ridiculous I'm going to assume you didn't mean that one.
1. A Config file -- Which is what I and others in this thread have suggested
2. Defines, in a single file, with those defines being used in each job file -- Fine, the objects hold their vars as they should, but the values are in a single changeable place, however, why not just use a config?
3. The job's values are variables written within the function/somewhere relative to the function that uses them -- This is 'that one'

and the next coder to come around is going to love you when they have to flip open notepad++ and put each file next to next to know if the QM should have such and such a value relative to the AI and then the maintainers have to look at the PR this is in and ask is this okay relative to all the other values, what were the other values, better go check.

Or a config file is added, and the coder/admin/person simply modifies that.

You dig or are you going to tell me that every volunteer who comes from playing the game to contributing to the game should know quicksort

No, but if that person wants to sort a list, I'd expect them to either ask a coder or ask google how that's done, at which point they'll be shown quicksort, bubblesort, timsort, bogosort, etc.

that lists start at 1

Again, please make a minimum of effort to understand the language you're going to work in, I and others have repeatedly taught people about things they've asked about, that's all the effort needed, just ask.

and that they need to push their nose into the define files before they think of asking does true = 1 or does true = 0?

What point are you trying to make here? iirc true and false aren't even defined in SS13 anywhere, since it's irrelevant to 90% of contributors that #define TRUE 1 is written in a "secret" .dm file generated automatically by the compiler whenever you make a project. Most contributors won't ever need to see this file.

I would say they have to find coderbus first on the arcane IRC that is referred to in the form only those in the know can access on the home page but now we have discord so at least a quarter of the coders are available to ask questions with joke responses on the technical topics.

Uhh what? It's in a dropdown on the website, it's on the github docs, where else do you want it? The little bar at the top of the forum? sure, why not, MSO did make a site suggestions subforum.


The ternary operator is one tool of many that programmers should have in their toolbox.
Do I expect non coders to understand one? No, nobody is advocating for "lets keep it 100% the same as it is now and do nothing to help people who may need to edit it" (and if they are, they're wrong), what's suggested instead is the better advice of making it a config file, something people with remote have shown they're happy to use.

Does this explain it for you? (or atleast start to)

A personal addendum:

Spoiler:

I sometimes write large ternary expressions like this:

Code: Select all

expr
?
    truth-y outcome
:
    false-y outcome

Which helps with embedded/nested ternaries, like:

Code: Select all

expr
?
    (truth-y outcome
    ?
        truth-y outcome
    :
        false-y outcome)
:
    (false-y outcome
    ?
        truth-y outcome
    :
        false-y outcome)

(This is taking it to a bit of an extreme, however)

This is just my personal love of ternary expressions, and my view that the above is quite aesthetically pleasing.
(It's also specifically in an environment without ifs, so ternary is (one of) the only option.)

[oranges]

Guys what the fuck is going on, if you want a description of how the system works I agree it should have a wiki page.

[WarbossLincoln]

I feel like this idea is kind of a solution in search of a problem. If people want to roundstart suicide for antag rolls, they will. It's not an issue unless someone does is every single round and admins already warn people who do it too much. The kind of person who will only ever play assistant to antag roll and never do anything productive aren't the kind of people we want to encourage to play important roles anyway. They're just going to be assistants with better access and starting loot. You get an antag roll regardless of what job you pick, so people who want to play a role and still have a shot at antag already do.

[imblyings]

Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented

Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

make the antag rep system only give you points based on how many antag selections you have set to off

[imblyings]

>only want traitor so I can murderbone
>set all off to farm max points
>lowpop only has tator anyway, so I'm not missing out on anything

[Limey]

Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented

Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.

this is pretty much how I see it

you shouldn't need to be antag to have fun with the game, and antags shouldn't be what makes the round fun. should rather encourage players to make the round interesting in other ways than just being antag and breaking the station one c4 at a time

[CPTANT]

Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented

Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.

this is pretty much how I see it

you shouldn't need to be antag to have fun with the game, and antags shouldn't be what makes the round fun. should rather encourage players to make the round interesting in other ways than just being antag and breaking the station one c4 at a time

Ohw come on. Nobody says you can't have fun without being antag. It's just that being antag is MORE fun.

[Limey]

Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented

Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.

this is pretty much how I see it

you shouldn't need to be antag to have fun with the game, and antags shouldn't be what makes the round fun. should rather encourage players to make the round interesting in other ways than just being antag and breaking the station one c4 at a time

Ohw come on. Nobody says you can't have fun without being antag. It's just that being antag is MORE fun.

sure, but playing solely for antag shouldn't be rewarded

[bandit]

alternatively you can just comment your code instead of flinging shit in policy discussion

[oranges]

who are you talking to?

[cedarbridge]

I like this as a step in the right direction to moving focus away from antags but I think we'll need more focus from development to encourage depth in non-antag gameplay to make it worthwhile. Really, we should probably aim to make non-antag activity interesting enough that players are legitimately upset that an antag could blow it up and ruin it. That would mean less valid hunting for valids sake and more legitimate hunting the bad guy because he did or could do a bad to a thing you want to protect.

[EagleWiz]

Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented

Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.

I agree that in a perfect game with a less-imperfect playerbase there wouldn't be a number of people who think the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.
This is not a perfect game. Antag IS more desirable then non-antag, and most players agree with this. Saying we shouldn't use antag rolls as an incentive because the game should be equally fun to play without antags is silly, because we are a long way off in both coding and in playerbase from having that be anywhere close to true.

[Qbopper]

Its silly and shouldn't have been implemented

Antag roles shouldn't ever be weighted or have a game design culture which tries to legitimize or accept that the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.

I agree that in a perfect game with a less-imperfect playerbase there wouldn't be a number of people who think the game is only worth playing if you roll antag.
This is not a perfect game. Antag IS more desirable then non-antag, and most players agree with this. Saying we shouldn't use antag rolls as an incentive because the game should be equally fun to play without antags is silly, because we are a long way off in both coding and in playerbase from having that be anywhere close to true.

yeah okay but the point is you shouldn't just give up and outright encourage the mentality that antag is the only reason to play

[cedarbridge]

Jobs are interesting when 1) they encourage interesting and fun player interactions 2) have sufficient depth or hidden information to produce discovery.

Players burn out quickly on jobs and systems that fail to provide one of these two things and whatever the job was turns into a cache of themed loot rather than something you would care about doing or protecting. When players start thinking of "jobs" in terms of what loot they get rather than what interesting thing they can do, then you get the validhunting/antagrolling that we have now.

[oranges]

This is only merged because MSO requested it so other than that I'm washing my hands of it

[Bluespace]

As an AI main I absolutely love this.
Thanks for the free malf rounds.

[EagleWiz]

yeah okay but the point is you shouldn't just give up and outright encourage the mentality that antag is the only reason to play

But everyone knows antag is more fun. I get that technically "antag is more fun" isn't a literal fact, but it might as well be. There is a lavalands ruin that has the reward for a critical success be antag. There used to be another lavalands ruin that was a hellish maze full of enemies and one of the rewards for completing it was antag status. Antag is rolled before security because given the choice most people wont play security if it reduces the chance of antag. It's not the only reason to play, but to say that the coders/admins/whoever's in charge of this reputation system is supposed to just not notice that antag is more fun because in an ideal game it wouldn't be is silly.

[cedarbridge]

But everyone knows antag is more fun.

Would you still think this if we removed Rule 4?

[Qbopper]

yeah okay but the point is you shouldn't just give up and outright encourage the mentality that antag is the only reason to play

But everyone knows antag is more fun. I get that technically "antag is more fun" isn't a literal fact, but it might as well be. There is a lavalands ruin that has the reward for a critical success be antag. There used to be another lavalands ruin that was a hellish maze full of enemies and one of the rewards for completing it was antag status. Antag is rolled before security because given the choice most people wont play security if it reduces the chance of antag. It's not the only reason to play, but to say that the coders/admins/whoever's in charge of this reputation system is supposed to just not notice that antag is more fun because in an ideal game it wouldn't be is silly.

i don't find antag fun

i don't find any enjoyment in killing people and that's pretty much all you can get away with as antag nowadays because of how people play

anyways

the point of my post is that if we stop even trying to make the rest of the game remotely attractive then we have failed, because why would you ever bother sticking around if the game isn't fun and the only reason you stay is because you want to roll antag next round? antags are a key part of the game and obviously the majority of people will find more enjoyment out of it, but if we directly encourage the players that antag is the only thing that matters then we may as well just scrap the entire game and make a deathmatch where you can kill anybody anytime

But everyone knows antag is more fun.

Would you still think this if we removed Rule 4?

fucking damn dude

[Nilons]

But everyone knows antag is more fun.

Would you still think this if we removed Rule 4?

It would still be more fun without rule 4, but even if it wasn't that won't change the fact that we do have rule 4.

[cedarbridge]

But everyone knows antag is more fun.

Would you still think this if we removed Rule 4?

It would still be more fun without rule 4, but even if it wasn't that won't change the fact that we do have rule 4.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I asked if, all other things being equal, that rolling antag would always be more fun than other rolls without rule 4. The fact that rule 4 does in-fact exist does nothing in a hypothetical where it does not.

It really just outlines the obvious point. Antag is "more fun" because its a licence to griff enshrined in rules and given special toys for the purpose.

[Nilons]

Literally the first thing I said was, yes it would still be more fun with no rule 4, even in your hypothetical. People who don't like playing antag turn it off. If you have more fun not playing it youre perfectly able to not play it at all. We shouldn't ignore the rest of the game because people have more fun playing one type of role but it's important to acknowledge that a lot of people do have more fun playing it. Your hypothetical doesn't matter until you make a policy thread about removing rule 4. What is wrong with people liking having a licence to griff besides you not liking that people do.

[cedarbridge]

What is wrong with people liking having a licence to griff besides you not liking that people do.

Lets work with your premise. Why should any player have to wait for antag status in order to griff? Shouldn't they just be able to do whatever whenever? If the only thing that sets antags apart from the regular players is that they get TC for weapons and majority rule immunity then there's very little left separating this from DarkRP style deathmatching.

[Nilons]

That isn't my premise at all, youre blowing parts of it way out of proportion. Players liking having a licence to griff because it's not constantly there =\= me saying they should always have it because it's fun. There are a lot of reasons not to always have it. There aren't many reasons not to use it as an incentive to fill certain roles on station. Saying people have fun as an antag in the current state is 100% not even close to saying that they would have fun being an antag unconditionally and constantly. Using a role that players find fun as a reward for doing things the administration wants is entirely different from giving them it constantly and you know that.

[cedarbridge]

That isn't my premise at all, youre blowing parts of it way out of proportion. Players liking having a licence to griff because it's not constantly there =\= me saying they should always have it because it's fun. There are a lot of reasons not to always have it. There aren't many reasons not to use it as an incentive to fill certain roles on station. Saying people have fun as an antag in the current state is 100% not even close to saying that they would have fun being an antag unconditionally and constantly. Using a role that players find fun as a reward for doing things the administration wants is entirely different from giving them it constantly and you know that.

You might have missed earlier that I don't support this system as I don't like the concept of using antag as a reward because I simply don't like the idea that antag is treated as a more desirable role than merely being on the station in a round doing whatever. That there are currently several things that encourage the idea of treating antag as a reward does bother me, but given that current trends point to a desire to move closer and closer to BattleRoyale style RDM, I suppose I'm in a minority.

[PKPenguin321]

cedarbridge, obviously antag is more fun in most cases if only because the odds of you getting banned for some stupid shit go way the fuck down
i have a hard time playing sec and silicon roles because there's the constant pressure of having much harsher scrutiny from a policy perspective
it's not that you can't have fun as a non antag but you must see the benefit to having rules not apply to you

[cedarbridge]

cedarbridge, obviously antag is more fun in most cases if only because the odds of you getting banned for some stupid shit go way the fuck down
i have a hard time playing sec and silicon roles because there's the constant pressure of having much harsher scrutiny from a policy perspective
it's not that you can't have fun as a non antag but you must see the benefit to having rules not apply to you

Obviously nobody wants to get banned for "some stupid shit" but I'm not seeing any meat to that argument. Nobody likes to get banned regardless of context but we ban people who violate rules. That's just how rules work. Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.

I'm not proposing that we create a new special class of rules that do apply to antags or whatever, I just don't see merit in setting up antags in such a way that they're indistinguishable (from a player perspective) from a griffon who ultimately gets banned.

[WarbossLincoln]

Dude, sec is on a pretty long leash these days on tg station. You can get away with questionable murder more easily as an officer than an assistant half the time.

[bandit]

It does, at least, cut down on a lot of the "is it OK to...?" questions about unusual game/character situations. Is it OK to do gun cargo? Help out a traitor in a RP-type situation? Use creative loopholes in your AI laws? If you're antag, the answer is yes.

[EagleWiz]

Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.

As you are an admin, I of course must defer to your superior knowledge of the rules and how they should be enforced. In that regard, which two of Rules 2,3, and 8 am I allowed to break, and which is the one I am expected to follow next time I get antag? I would hate to go around ERPing but get banned because it turns out its only metacoms and complaining about the round in ooc that I'm allowed to do as antag.

[cedarbridge]

Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.

As you are an admin, I of course must defer to your superior knowledge of the rules and how they should be enforced. In that regard, which two of Rules 2,3, and 8 am I allowed to break, and which is the one I am expected to follow next time I get antag? I would hate to go around ERPing but get banned because it turns out its only metacoms and complaining about the round in ooc that I'm allowed to do as antag.

You may consider your chosen hair split.

[Qbopper]

Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.

As you are an admin, I of course must defer to your superior knowledge of the rules and how they should be enforced. In that regard, which two of Rules 2,3, and 8 am I allowed to break, and which is the one I am expected to follow next time I get antag? I would hate to go around ERPing but get banned because it turns out its only metacoms and complaining about the round in ooc that I'm allowed to do as antag.

why are you like this: the post

anyways, is there a significant number of people who think this rep system is a good idea? I don't see what was wrong with having antag being random, frankly

edit: removed shit i should not have posted

[SpaceInaba]

i bet the guy who devised this plays sec to kill people and just wants to up the ante by playing sec to kill people except now with no repercussions

[CPTANT]

Creating a class of player roles that are simply immune to all but one rule while others are expected to follow all but that one rule is weird.

As you are an admin, I of course must defer to your superior knowledge of the rules and how they should be enforced. In that regard, which two of Rules 2,3, and 8 am I allowed to break, and which is the one I am expected to follow next time I get antag? I would hate to go around ERPing but get banned because it turns out its only metacoms and complaining about the round in ooc that I'm allowed to do as antag.

why are you like this: the post

anyways, is there a significant number of people who think this rep system is a good idea? I don't see what was wrong with having antag being random, frankly

edit: removed shit i should not have posted

I have the impression that there are plenty of people that support a system that makes it more likely to become antag if you haven't been so in a while.
The number of people that think tying it to job choice is a good idea seems a lot smaller.

[Shadowflame909]

I'm for a system that makes it more likely to become antag if you haven't gotten it in a while. But the argument becomes what if a metagamer realizes, "HEY THAT GUY WAS AN ANTAG LAST ROUND. ALRIGHT, IGNORE HIM."

[EagleWiz]

I'm for a system that makes it more likely to become antag if you haven't gotten it in a while. But the argument becomes what if a metagamer realizes, "HEY THAT GUY WAS AN ANTAG LAST ROUND. ALRIGHT, IGNORE HIM."

Considering how the systems effect tops out at doubling the chance? The guy ignored by the metagamer still has a solid chance of getting ling and eating him. At worst the guys chance is half that of normal, and thats in a case where every other player on the server has their chance at double. Which probably wont happen.

[Arianya]

I'm not "in support" of this system but I find some of the arguments used against it weird

BUT WHAT IF METAGAMERS

As this never zeros out your antagonist chance, it doesn't really help metagamers metagame individuals. And a security member suddenly becoming not-security after 5 rounds of security is an issue that already exists with the antag system.

BUT WHAT IF AFK/SUICIDE HOP

They'll be rolebanned as any other head role would be if they suicided on roundstart. Arguably the only negative effect this rep system would have would be increasing the number of antag rollers who get banned in the first week or two of this being enabled.

BUT PENALIZES PLAYING ASSISTANT

There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to play not-assistant, as assistant was/is the overflow role and if you really want to play assistant then there's no harm to having a slightly slower rep accrual.

There's another argument to be made about round structure and creating interesting conflict and so on and so forth but its largely irrelevant because when/if someone enables this they may decide to radically change the point values.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with this system and I'd be curious to see how it actually shakes out over a week or two of being enabled, tbh.

[kevinz000]

The issue is now head and ai players have an increased chance of antag IN THOSE ROLES.

[kevinz000]

And I guess because incentivized something with getting to be antag is bad the game isn't about it but whatever.

[bandit]

I don't know if this is possible or easy to code, but one idea is a system where:

1. There is a hard baseline reputation that antag probability slowly regenerates to over time. (Admins can lower this for people who abuse antag, so that if the baseline is 50 then they can make Rolls-For-Antags regenerate to 10.)
2. Every death a traitor directly causes, outside their objectives, decreases their probability temporarily. The idea is to discourage murderboning. (Team antags are of course exempt from this.)
3. Certain actions give a slight boost to antag probability, such as never spending TCs, etc. These of course also revert gradually to baseline.

[Arianya]

I don't know if this is possible or easy to code, but one idea is a system where:

1. There is a hard baseline reputation that antag probability slowly regenerates to over time. (Admins can lower this for people who abuse antag, so that if the baseline is 50 then they can make Rolls-For-Antags regenerate to 10.)

I don't see any good reason for regeneration over time vs points for playing rounds (grief lottery, etc) and it doesn't sit well with me to give admins an invisible way to mess with antag rolling, even if we presume it would be absolutely handled responsibly, it would just create paranoia.

2. Every death a traitor directly causes, outside their objectives, decreases their probability temporarily. The idea is to discourage murderboning. (Team antags are of course exempt from this.)

This feels too hamfisted an attempt to fix the murderbone problem, especially since sometimes the traitor gets unlucky and gets outed 3 minutes in and their options are defeat or going loud.

3. Certain actions give a slight boost to antag probability, such as never spending TCs, etc. These of course also revert gradually to baseline.

If we're going to reward people for challenge moding, we probably shouldn't penalize them for then not getting the antag-roll. Also depending on the specifics this could end up encouraging boring rounds where the traitors end up falling flat on their face trying to challenge mode, and still get increased antag-probability even though they failed to create conflict.

[BeeSting12]

I hate all three of bandits ideas but if youre gonna do #3 he probably meant actually succeeding with no TCs.

[bandit]

I meant actually succeeding, kind of like the "BADASS" icon

it doesn't sit well with me to give admins an invisible way to mess with antag rolling

I'm sorry to break this to you, but we have one already.

sometimes the traitor gets unlucky and gets outed 3 minutes in and their options are defeat or going loud.

That's kind of part of my point. Their options also include going undercover, finding a new identity (there are even TC items that do it for you now), getting backup from other traitors, etc. Traitor is not and never has been murderbone or nothing.

[Arianya]

I'm sorry to break this to you, but we have one already.

If you're referring to antag-bans or forcing an antag/mode then that's not really the same thing and you know it, compared to the capability to give someone the impression their odds are the same as everyone else's but actually they got their chance cut to a fifth of everyone else's because a admin disapproved of their antagonist play but not enough to warn them/apply an antagonist ban.

It just blurs the line unnecessarily and I can't really think of any use case that wouldn't be better served by a note/a warning or an outright antagonist type ban.

That's kind of part of my point. Their options also include going undercover, finding a new identity (there are even TC items that do it for you now), getting backup from other traitors, etc. Traitor is not and never has been murderbone or nothing.

Sure, but my point is less the specific example and more that "murder boning"/killing outside your objective is sometimes an emergent aspect of the situation and not a malicious decision to fuck everyone's round "just bcuz i can!!" and that applying a punishment across the board for it is heavy handed.

To put it within the context of the example again, what if my solution is to kill off the janitor and assume his identity? Why am I being punished (implicitly, since he wasn't my target) for doing so?

[BeeSting12]

On the editting antagonist reputation stuff: Admins can do that by zeroing it or setting it to a certain number, but they'll still get antag reputation normally. The worst we can do is give them a slightly lower antag chance. Doing that would probably go against admin conduct anyway because as you said it should be punished by notes or bans not by invisibly decreasing antag rolls.

[Shadowflame909]

Hello, I am the guy who hates sec and would otherwise never play it. The exact shitter who if this was enabled, would all of a sudden start playing sec and would put the least effort into it as possible. But, whatever. You gotta get those antag points somehow. Pew, whats that you hear? Easy street shitty sec officers for (insert antagonist here) to defeat and powergame? That'd become so much more common. But, could you blame them? There's no fun being on the side of the murdered. So why not half-ass everything that you do, to get a taste of the glory. Y'know what that sounds like? A system where everybody lives half-assed lives and no one actually feels good about what they're doing. It's called COMMUNISM- Yeah, I went off the rails at the end. But I hope you get the point. I at least, think I raise some points.

[Arianya]

Hello, I am the guy who hates sec and would otherwise never play it. The exact shitter who if this was enabled, would all of a sudden start playing sec and would put the least effort into it as possible. But, whatever. You gotta get those antag points somehow. Pew, whats that you hear? Easy street shitty sec officers for (insert antagonist here) to defeat and powergame? That'd become so much more common. But, could you blame them? There's no fun being on the side of the murdered. So why not half-ass everything that you do, to get a taste of the glory. Y'know what that sounds like? A system where everybody lives half-assed lives and no one actually feels good about what they're doing. It's called COMMUNISM- Yeah, I went off the rails at the end. But I hope you get the point. I at least, think I raise some points.

And yet, even being intentionally low effort you would still be better then the empty slot.

It's not like sec tends to be over-filled or capped out on officers, so short of intentionally trying to sabotage sec (the kind of thing that would get you bwoinked pretty fast) you can't actually do more harm then good.

I guess if you rolled for security and then immediately ran into the hallways, stripped and suicided you might, but again, that's the kind of pattern of behaviour that gets caught pretty quickly.

Also I don't buy that people who hate sec but otherwise try to "win" the game would just let themselves get murdered for antag rep.

We have people who play assistant and gear themselves up with the idea to take on nuke ops/changelings/etc. They clearly want to "win" against the antagonist, all antag rep would be doing in this case is incentivize them to put security on their job roster.

[CPTANT]

Is this even turned on now?

[Arianya]

Not as far as I'm aware, the OP was opened on the disabled feature being merged in.