Traitor/agent employer policies

Development Feature Requests
1

I recently came across this forum thread: Put shuttlebombing under the “Not Allowed Things to Do as Antag” rule.

This post aims to propose a potential solution to the concerns raised in the discussion.

I noticed that Space Station 13 had employer policies that outlined the ethical standards and guidelines agents were supposed to follow while carrying out their objectives. These policies established a sense of structure, even for rogue agents working on behalf of rival corporations.

I believe there’s an in-lore way we could address and punish reckless actions (both canonically and mechanically) that would align with the expectations of the SS14 player base.

For example, rival corporations could enforce their own internal accountability systems. These could take the form of disciplinary measures for agents whose actions are deemed excessively reckless or counterproductive to corporate goals.

Canonically, this might involve corporations “reprimanding” their rogue agents by demoting them, blacklisting them, or even marking them as expendable assets in future missions. Mechanically, we could incorporate systems like:

• Corporate Reputation Tracking: A reputation meter that rises or falls based on how closely agents adhere to their objectives versus causing unnecessary destruction. Reckless agents might face debuffs or restrictions in subsequent rounds. Such restrictions could range up to being temporarily blacklisted. (Jobbans already exist, while it may be possible to permanently and automatically blacklist a player, such severe punishments should be done manually. So, for now, this system should use an expiration system)

• Targeted Bounties: Rival corporations could place bounties on rogue agents whose actions disrupt their interests, creating a dynamic incentive for other players to intervene.

• Resource Penalties: Agents who waste corporate resources (e.g., bombing a shuttle without clear strategic value) could start future missions with fewer tools or support.

This approach keeps the chaos and unpredictability of rogue agents intact while introducing a layer of accountability that feels natural to the game’s lore and mechanics.

A more simple explanation would be the karma system used in barotrauma, but it would apply across subsequent rounds.

Additionally, when an agent is reckless, admins should be notified in the same way that explosions are reported. And corporate penalties should be logged in a similar (but different sense) of automated admin remarks, however only applicable for antag rounds.

For positive reinforcement, corporations could introduce systems to reward agents who perform well and align their actions with corporate objectives. These could include promotions, special titles, exclusive contracts, enhanced gear, corporate support (access to reinforcements), and reputation bonuses.

Additionally, an admin COULD play as a representative of a rival, with access to manually edit reputation and such, for admeme events and such.

Reputation COULD also influence antag rolls positively.

By introducing both consequences for reckless behavior and meaningful rewards for skilled and strategic play, we can create a system that improves the player experience, aligns with the game’s lore, and encourages players to explore new ways of fulfilling their role based on the corporation they work with. As each rival corporation could have their own policies. :classic_ninja:

2 Likes
2

Whilst I agree about unnesseary, reckless destruction to an extent (not really sure how that would actually be tracked mechanically but yk), and that shuttlebombing is cringe, agents are allowed to cause damage unrelated to but proportional to their objectives. This is a good thing imo, since it allows syndies to try out interesting gimmicks (see Acorns Puzzler video). Removing that would force syndies to focus on play to win greentexting, which really isnt something we want to encourage imo

1 Like
3

I think you misinterpreted my post.

Nowhere in my first post did I say that this should be prohibited. I never said that:

My original post focuses on setting policies, similar to SS13 for antagonists

Example:

IMG_3707
IMG_3707884×905 159 KB

The systems they have do work and are a great example for Space Station 14 to follow.

Agents with higher reputation can afford to make riskier moves, if they think they will gain more than they will spend. And that, in itself, will make the game more interesting.

These systems create a structure, a canon structure, that will ultimately help guide traitors to act within the rules, and be more cautious.

4

The inevitable problem that needs to be dodged around with these systems is them getting gamed for optimal score or being overly-restrictive to the degree of stifling antagonists from getting up to unrated mischief. I haven’t personally played on a station with bounty/reputation systems myself, so I am not really sure how they actually shake out in practice.

I do agree on this: shuttlebombing or relatively boring uncoordinated mass destruction/killing is lame and should be discouraged or limited in some way, but it is also an appeal of the game that antagonists are allowed to do those things every once in a while. I wouldnt want people to totally stop doing big sabotage because they’ll get an invisible reputation hit nor should that be something they need to constantly worry about on something like LRP.

I myself am never really big on things making sense in accordance with “the lore”. I feel like gameplay mechanics or systems that start to lean too heavily on a made up lore justification to implement them generally lack in other areas.

I do think some kind of system that encourages good play and rewards with things like increases antag roll chance would be good, but figuring out ways to enable that without getting it gamed are difficult. If I were to try and implement it I would go along with something like bolstering your antagonist chance when you play antagonist-inelligible roles (like heads/sec) more often and play them well (however measuring these metrics automatically is a massive challenege in itself. Player input is subject to heavy bias, administration input is not feasible, and some things you just cant numerically measure)

5

Correct. That is human nature.

A lot of players do care about the lore, that’s the fundamental point of roleplay.

I think everyone reading this post would agree with that

Correct, SS13 had faced similar issues, both with coders making dumb choices, and veteran players going absolutely bonkers on the stations whenever they roll antag.

Balance is subjective, I tried to write my post in the most neutral fashion possible. However any developer who takes on the challenge of implementing these features will likely have a bias themselves.

But that doesn’t necessarily matter, because this system can be altered in the future as the game adapts.

NRP, LRP, MRP and HRP can have different variants of these systems, as such, I don’t see this as an issue.

Different servers exist for different types of players for this exact reason.

6

I just usually prefer that a well thought out game mechanic comes first before the lore justification or explanation for it, if it needs one. I think going the other way around ends up with systems being forced to fit despite not having a well thought out effect on the game.

7

These systems do define potential game mechanics, and I’d say my ideas are quite well thought out.

They work for SS13. These systems are tested and proven to work based on that. They had this idea first, and it has worked for SS13 for years with little flaw.

The purpose of my feature request is to hopefully get these systems adapted into SS14. Which should allow developers and administrator’s a more precise way to define what antagonists can, could and cannot do. This defines a structure for antagonist players to follow. Both mechanically and canonically. Such a structure is necessary to help rounds run more smoothly.

8

Ok