Now, before getting too far; heretic actually won most popular antagonist to play as. But also, heretic is one of the lowest for antagonist people like the play against. (Ignoring BB's and spies, who didn't get very good polling either in the popularity contest)
Therefore, this is a very polarizing antagonist, which a significant amount of people who like to play it but a very small number who like to face against it.
Now, these stats draw from two different rulesets, but I think the impact of these stats are still felt with MRP because I do believe there are instances where players, and even admins, feel like treating them more harshly is entirely justified simply because they are a proven Heretic, and not merely because of their provable actions in a round justifying a harsher response when captured as a restricted antagonist. (where 'putting them into permabrig' currently serves as the upper limit in these cases. If that matters.)
The specific rule for this is Rule 6, and notably this line here.
Very often, I find that heretics are immediately executed on capture. Their nature will usually urge them towards committing a serious crime. But the rules do not presume that they have, nor do their flavour. Just that they have the capacity. This is why Rule 6 exists; to give players handling antagonists pause to consider alternatives to someone who has yet to act in a malicious manner. Particularly those caught early.. Usually, evidence of serious crimes do not need to surface (people who start reappearing with brain damage and corrupted organs) before heretics start being executed on capture. They're often treated as harshly as changelings, who have a flavour justification for that treatment (this thing eats people and steals their faces, and has done so before), as well as the mechanical one (they can escape extremely easily).6. Deal with the bad guys in proportion to their crime(s). wrote:Only antagonists that have committed the most severe crimes may be met with immediate execution.
Only two paths for heretic are in the latter category, and none exist in the former category. (Let's assume, for the sake of reasonable argument, that our heretic is a proven non-rust/non-lock heretic)
Some of the justifications for harsher treatment that I've seen include:
A) The antagonist is a progression antagonist, therefore they are always going to be an emerging threat. So killing them now stops that.
B) We don't know they haven't done the serious crime they would otherwise be expected to commit, so we should assume they have killed someone because that is how they progress.
C) They are not containable. They will always have their magic. (This is for non-rust/non-lock heretics, as I already said, who cannot force open barriers)
These are arguments that would, given enough generalization, probably equally valid for dealing with practically any threat with equal harshness. Even C, while it mentions magic, could be 'we can't remove their urge directly to do their objectives', which also happens to lean slightly into B. These lines of reasoning feel like, to me, ones that come about from players potentially having been burned on making the decision for lighter approaches to the antagonist and possibly discovering that the antagonist still did what antagonists do; be evil or nefarious and found a way around their concession. Probably from a player who is able to claw their way back from a failure given the chance.
The complicated nature of heretic is very likely what attracts people to the antagonist (God I wish we had a section for people to expand on their thoughts on what they chose the antagonist they did as their favourite/least favourite). The fact that it attracts people who are already proficient at the game and succeed and is a force multiplier for skill (by design) is what makes people frustrated when they deal with it, because they are usually on the losing side and on the losing side of someone who may have a lot of edges and experience to outmatch them or even several opponents.
To get into more code related stuff...
Recently, there has been an increase in overall ascensions. From 5% average to about 12%. Sadly, we lack a similar poll from that period, but not much we can do about that. Though melbert has argued this increase is an indicator of heretic as a whole having grown stronger, I think that's only partially what the graph is saying. Because, given the stats, some of the least touched paths have ended up increasing in ascension rate as well. Cosmos, Ash and Flesh are significant outliers to Rust and Void, who only recently gained additional power.
Spoiler:
This indicates an increase in success for the antagonist as a whole. But one that likely isn't a consequence of just one path improving in power. Instead, it is likely a consequence of heretics gaining access to more of the broader power of heretic at once, which is something that only really occurs when someone knows what to exploit and they're already on a victory lap in the antagonist's power set.
So we have two significant outcomes taking place here; crosspathing enabling already successful heretics to succeed more, and that the role has existed long enough that those able to make use of its power have improved enough and figured out their paths to success enough to reliably succeed. Which likely results in a perception of increased power exponentially for an antagonist which currently filters out, by design, those who aren't up to par (this isn't guesswork, this is literally what heretic was designed to do by the original creator). The most successful mechanically are harming the perception of those who are not up to their level and more likely to be caught, and therefore experience the consequences of the more mechanically successful players.
Therefore, higher successes, higher difficulty dealing with more proficient pilots who dominate the limelight, harsher perception of the antagonist. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that happens as a consequence of several, repeat encounters with the antagonist. And notably means that I don't think code changes are the sole responsible factor this phenomenon. I think it could equally be that those who are already geared towards succeeding are succeeding more, and maybe for reasons beyond just what the state of balance is for the antagonist.
With a harsher perception of the antagonist from the perspective of those who have to encounter and face off against it, this might be contributing to people feeling the need to treat heretics more harshly, even when the heretic has otherwise been caught or beaten, and despite the rules insisting on levity. There is a lower tolerance for roleplay when the mechanical consequences loom larger in peoples minds. Part of this can bleed into administrator enforcement as well. Few admins really want to play policy pingpong with someone who feels very strongly that putting six shells of 12g buckshot into the back of a moth heretic, because they found moth fibers on a toilet seat near a rift. This is hyperbole, please don't take that as a literal example.
I have already unsuccessfully argued for unrestricting heretics in the past. In that time, heretic has changed, but the perception remains the same. Not much is different. Some of the core problems remain about how people treat heretic. Much of the same harsh perception of the antagonist remains. It seems to drive everything towards more mechanical exchanges and more and more all sides care less to give the other more opportunities for roleplay.
So my proposal is thus. We give Manuel a break for a bit and come back, either with the rework that is on the way, or when we feel as there has or has not been a noticeable change in the behaviour of players, both antagonist and security, towards a higher focus on roleplay over mechanics. I don't think this an issue exclusive to heretics either. I do actually think this bleeds into how people perceive the actions and reactions too antagonists generally. And maybe, by eliminating one of the perceived problem children in the roster, we can maybe see what the source of the problem is; heretics, or something deeper.
Putting them to rest for about two months should do the job. Then, we can poll the server again and see how they feel about the ways in which antagonists are treated. With details, hopefully.
TL;DR I think, and it is felt by others, that there is growing disinterest in levity towards antagonists even for minor crimes, and one of the biggest culprits/victims is heretic. I think this is urging players towards mechanical play as a priority, which favours those who are already capable, worsening the perceptions further. To test if it is heretic at fault or if there is some deeper trend that goes beyond heretic by taking out heretic for a time (like, two months, tops), we ca see if things settle if there are absolutely no progression antagonists lingering in the pool for a bit, or see if things stay much the same. Then do a poll to get peoples feelings at the end of it.
DO NOT MAKE CODE CHANGE SUGGESTIONS.
THIS IS POLICY.
THERE IS A REWORK IN THE PIPELINE. GO MAKE CODE SUGGESTIONS HERE.
