/tg/Station 13

Message from Josiah Lombardi (Detective), "TO LABOR SHUTTLE. DIMITRI IS ABSORBING THE CLOWN" (Reply)

Admin PM from-Sometinyprick: So why did you implant Dmitri Bocharov?
PM to-Admins: New officer.
Admin PM from-Sometinyprick: Ah I see
Admin PM from-Sometinyprick: Why the tracking implant and the chemical implant though?
PM to-Admins: I try to make sure that if someone backstabs my security team, they don't do it more than once.
PM to-Admins: The thing about antags is that they'd love to be granted a taser gun and a stun baton.
PM to-Admins: So they are very, very eager to join sec. You get a reckless HoP, like this one, and we get lings in sec.
[b]Admin PM from-Sometinyprick: That's metagamming and powergaming mate. Just don't okay.[/b]

Alex Crimson wrote:Loyalty Implants are not the "problem". Its the Tracking and Chemical Implants that were called powergaming.

Alex Crimson wrote:Loyalty Implants are not the "problem". Its the Tracking and Chemical Implants that were called powergaming.

AssassinT90 wrote:snip

Stevepelcz wrote:

Alex Crimson wrote:Loyalty Implants are not the "problem". Its the Tracking and Chemical Implants that were called powergaming.

Tracking and Chemical is actually less powergamey and more fun than straight up loyalty implanting people, it gives antags a chance to quietly keep their agenda while loyalty results in basically another officer.

Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".

If your reason for doing anything when I ask about it is "To fuck over antags" then you're metagaming and will be called out on it.

Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".

kosmos wrote:

Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".

How does that change anything? Should've he rephrased it to "My character wants to keep the crew safe and knows that traitors exist on the station and doesn't want them joining the security force"?

cedarbridge wrote:By that same logic, this would only work if the assumption is "traitor exists as a roundtype therefore traitors exist and I need to take precautions against that possible roundtype." There's a reason metagaming looks really retarded in extended rounds.

Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".

411: Enemy of the Corporation

To act as, or knowingly aid, an enemy of Nanotrasen.

Description: Current enemies of Nanotrasen include: The Syndicate (through secret agents, boarding parties, and brainwashing specialists), The Wizard Federation, The Changeling Hivemind, and The Cult of Nar'Sie.
Note that this is one of the few crimes where you may summarily execute someone for if they present a significant risk to detain them.

Cecily wrote:A new officer magically shows up in your force without prior notice from the HoP. The Head of Security is 100% in the right to take measures to ensure officers who enter under suspicious circumstances have a sort of panic button built into them. You are not 'playing to win' by implanting these people. Want IC reasoning? The Head of Security knows what Code Blue means - There are possible subversive elements among the crew, and as a result, that is total validation to taking bonus Security measures when dealing with new officers who join under questionable circumstances. Chemical and tracking implants are underused either way; you have a box of them for a reason, and I hate to see people get bwoinked for actually making sensible use of them in a legitimate situation.

ChrisTheThird wrote:The reason I saw this as metagaming and powergaming was because T90 literally did it to fuck over possible antags. I mean you are only doing this to new security officers because you know they could be antags and not doing it for your other officers as well because you know roundstart security can't be antags.

AssassinT90 wrote:

ChrisTheThird wrote:-snip-

Is that forbidden knowledge? I mean, knowing that authority roles can't be antags. Is it metagaming to know that?

AssassinT90 wrote:

Saegrimr wrote:The problem here is your reasoning was "b-b-but antags".

Space Law, Section Five

411: Enemy of the Corporation

To act as, or knowingly aid, an enemy of Nanotrasen.

Description: Current enemies of Nanotrasen include: The Syndicate (through secret agents, boarding parties, and brainwashing specialists), The Wizard Federation, The Changeling Hivemind, and The Cult of Nar'Sie.
Note that this is one of the few crimes where you may summarily execute someone for if they present a significant risk to detain them.

So... Uhm... The Space Law talks about it, the Centcom message talks about it, and I am supposed to pretend I don't know we may see antags in the round (No, I won't call it a "shift." )?

Last night I had a Shaft Miner calling a malf AI because he saw a hacked APC in the satellite (Page 7). How is that not metagaming? How the fuck is a Shaft Miner supposed to know the difference between a hacked APC and a charging APC? And still, none will take action against him. But you implant a security officer arbitrarily promoted by someone else and that's meta? Yeah.
Roleplayers are just incoherent, I suppose.

PM to-Admins: The thing about antags is that they'd love to be granted a taser gun and a stun baton.

Saegrimr wrote:Fun, we're getting into this debate. I'll just start with

SPACE LAW DOES NOT OVERRIDE SERVER RULES

Now that's out of the way. The entire line you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with the thread whatsoever, or even to do with what I replied with.

As for that shaft miner, he saw a hacked APC on the AI sat and called out about a malf AI? Congrats! He knows more about the server policy regarding antag knowledge than you do!

Now here's the key difference in his situation and yours.

Him.
1. Sees antagonist activity.
2. Reports it.

You.
1. Assumes antagonist activity.
2. Prepares in advance for a threat he doesn't even know exists currently.

Remember how Sticky mentioned fucking with the plasma outlet valves in Atmospherics to fuck over a malf/traitor AI? This isn't quite that, but your reason for it MAKES it that.
I have no problem with implanting new hire sec officers with fucking everything under the sun, your reason for it when asked however...

PM to-Admins: The thing about antags is that they'd love to be granted a taser gun and a stun baton.

You blatantly made it about metagaming, which is why you got called out on metagaming.

Don’t metagame. Do not ever use information, acquired out of character or through patterns or events your character would not be able to know, in game.

AssassinT90 wrote:2.1 There is no conceivable way a miner could have recognized a blue APC as a hacked APC. Much less could he conclude from a blue APC that the AI was malfunctioning.
2.2 He called malf AI anyway, thus he was metagaming.

The miner saw a dark-blue APC and immediately called out a malf AI. His character would not have that information. THAT is metagaming. Get your definitions straight.

AssassinT90 wrote:The miner saw a dark-blue APC and immediately called out a malf AI. His character would not have that information. THAT is metagaming. Get your definitions straight.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:

AssassinT90 wrote:The miner saw a dark-blue APC and immediately called out a malf AI. His character would not have that information. THAT is metagaming. Get your definitions straight.

That's the equivalent of seeing a guy with esword. How's that metagaming?

The point is, you don’t have to accept the metagame paradigm. You don’t have to play the way everyone else insists. You do have to understand why the most popular strategies came to dominate the field, but your next responsibility is to adapt. To invent. To discover. Because the minute you resign yourself to defaulting on a strategy, the minute you leave yourself open to get burned by a random “noob” with a few ideas of his own.

Read the full article: http://www.toptiertactics.com/21319/des ... z3NIx7V5CM

Steelpoint wrote:To be fair, there's a massive difference between seeing someone running around with a sword killing people versus a miner, whom has no engineering experience, seeing a APC and knowing its been hacked by a malfunctioning AI unit. But I digress.

Personally, if anyone is going to receive a bit of leniency, Security of all departments deserve it.

AssassinT90 wrote:In a somewhat unrelated subject, but still maybe related, I think this guy quite nails the discussion about the metagame. Destroying the Metagame is Your Responsibility, Too

Like he said, I think that new strategies and shifting trends are what keeps a game interesting. That ling that got wrecked by my implants? He won't be so eager to join sec anymore. Perhaps the word will spread. At some point, antags might just no longer want to join sec, because they know what may happen if they misbehave. And then HoSes will see that their implants became unecessary, and might just stop implanting people. And then some crazy-ass traitor with adrenal implants and no-slips joins security.

Steelpoint wrote: To be fair, there's a massive difference between seeing someone running around with a sword killing people versus a miner, whom has no engineering experience, seeing a APC and knowing its been hacked by a malfunctioning AI unit.

AssassinT90 wrote:You have convinced me that you have absolutely no idea what "metagaming" means, thus I'll explain it simply for you.

Don’t metagame. Do not ever use information, acquired out of character or through patterns or events your character would not be able to know, in game.

1.1. Space Law recognizes the existence of antagonists.
1.2. As Head of Security, it is my job to read the Space Law.
1.3. After Reading the Space Law, I know about the existence of antagonists.

All the information I have used for my decisions was information available to my character. The fact that so many people called it "metagaming" leaves it clear that many people don't know what that word means.

2.1 There is no conceivable way a miner could have recognized a blue APC as a hacked APC. Much less could he conclude from a blue APC that the AI was malfunctioning.
2.2 He called malf AI anyway, thus he was metagaming.

The miner saw a dark-blue APC and immediately called out a malf AI. His character would not have that information. THAT is metagaming. Get your definitions straight.

mrpain wrote:If you have doubts that a hired sec officer might be an antag you shouldnt hire him in the first place.

I can understand a loyalty implant, but a chem implant just seems pretty meta/power gamey to me.

Somejerk wrote:Implanting someone who you should be able to trust on your security team with harmful chems should be scrutinized heavily. The point of those implants is either to keep repeating offenders in line or for officers to have a trump card in case someone with a proper weapon starts to attack them.

Tracking implant could be beneficial in the sense that if an officer goes down during something and yells out in the radio you could locate that person relatively quickly.