THE PERFECT SOLUTION TO FIX GOON 1 RAMPAGES THAT LEAVES EVERYONE HAPPY FOREVER

[Snoid]

hi im snoid and i last played this game around 10 years ago when i was a wee baby in high school. i jusg picked it up again and ive been playin for a couple weeks now and im enjoying myself a lot. i really cant bring myself to rp as much as goon 3 wants, but im not a big fan of the constant goon 1 rampages and short rounds. heres my really shitty inexperienced solution that doesnt require players to adjust to new rule changes

MMR

so first of all i accidentally changed my font and font size and i cant seem to put it back so sorry for that. anyway theres no fucking way actual functional mmr would work in any manner for this game but. lemme explai  what it is first.

in competitive online videogames nowadays, they often use an mmr system, or "matchmaking ranking". based on how often you win or do well, your mmr goes up and you are matched with other players with similar mmr. if you play worse or lose, it goes down and you are matched with worse players.

SO WHAT THE FUCK AM I TALKI G ABOUT well. an issue ive noticed with rampages is that if particularly robust players get antag then it can be bad, but if MULTIPLE robust players get antag, then its simply not a solveable situation for the crew. so the ixea is this and im sorry for how fucking annoying it is: admins manually set certain players to certain mmr values depending on how consistently robust they are, and how often they successfully rampage. using this value, when the game is picking antags then it adds up the value of some players mmr and sets people to antag if all their mmr value total are close enough to what the rounds chosen antag mmr value is. im not good at words sorry. heres example:

if the round is starting and it picks an antag mmr value of 40, then it may pick 4 players with an mmr of 10 to be antag, or it could pick 2 20s or 1 30 and 1 10, etc.

idk how powerful devs are so maybe someone could come up with a way to automate players mmrs, but idk how the fuck u would do that in a game as complex as this. also my font went back to big and idk why sorry i havent posted on forums in years. ok thanks for reading

[Dhaidburt]

I think its an interesting idea, giving players a rating depending on how deadly they can be, but i'm not sure it'd be healthy as written

Say you play alot, and you notice this one guy is able to absolutely tear things up every single time he's an antag. The system is in place, and you notice he's killing people. Because you know he's most likely the lone antag, you can just focus on that one guy without needing to worry about any others. If he's killed, that just leaves sleepers and latejoin antags which can be hit or miss or not even happen.

However, I don't think its entirely a bad idea. Imagine if, instead of limiting the amount of antags, it instead encouraged difficult rounds while letting newer players have more antag opportunities. Same guy as before is antag, but so is 5 other people who have a low rating. You have small events happening here and there, which culminate in the Big Bad wrecking shop with his fellow antags, or picking off those guys in order to strengthen themselves like a backstabbing villain! Not less antags, but more antag player variety.

[Waffleloffle]

I saw "mmr" and got really excited that you had somehow brainstormed a way to make Measles, Mumps, and Rubella a really game-changing mechanic but then I read more and got my heart broken. sigh... one of these days..........

to keep things on topic uuuuuuhhhhb I will state first that I barely ever play classic so take this with a grain of salt if you want. but this would require the admins to basically tier every single classic player somehow for it to work. and I feel like this is gonna end up in a weird state where A. if you're privvy to these general rankings and see a certain "high-tier" player fucking it up, you have the meta-context to trust specific other people NOT to also fuck it up; and/or B. it becomes a new format for pissing contests in the same way that hos job xp was except instead of hos rounds EVERYONE starts rampaging super hard in constant attempts to get to the top of the tierlist. which exacerbates the current issue

no matter how you cut it there's gonna be a weird meta element since this is the sort of game that does not lend itself cleanly to numerical ranking systems. so while in theory something like this seems nice the reality is that there's a lot more problems that could crop up in its shade

[Kotlol]

This game is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too casual for a MMR system.

How do you even meassure MMR? How about smurfing?
I'd say no.... this is just a hard issue to fix.

[valtsu0]

Indirectly making robust people roll antag less is a uh interesting solution for murderboning. (Or making almost every round have a single robust antag)

Yeah, no

[Snoid]

maybe making my own thread for this instead of putting it in the shitty suggestions thread was a mistake.,

anyway overnight i thought of a slightly less idiotic method which is just splitting players into 3 categories, newbee antags, standard skill level antags, and overly robust antags

this is still a bad idea tho for reasons stated above ya. but also i forgot to mention that optimally these values would be completely hidden from the players

[Meggal Bozale]

I think in an ideal world we could calculate the threat level of individual players, but that sounds like something that would be very difficult to implement. Ideally admins shouldn't have to step into the equation??? And what quantifies ones 'robustness?' there's so many factors and edge cases that I can see this being a headache to make happen.

Having antags roll based off the present power of the station security and heads at roundstart sounds like it would be for the best, just ignore WHO gets rolled and count how much security/heads there are. It is undeniably true that the amount of sec/heads changes the difficulty for antags, so basing rolls of that and pop would be a much more possible solution.

I think no matter what though, murderboning will happen. Most robust players are capable of doing it alone, so while I do talk about balancing antags with a sort of 'threat' mechanic, some people are just good, period.

[Lord_earthfire]

Having antags roll based off the present power of the station security and heads at roundstart sounds like it would be for the best, just ignore WHO gets rolled and count how much security/heads there are. It is undeniably true that the amount of sec/heads changes the difficulty for antags, so basing rolls of that and pop would be a much more possible solution.

I would like to see this, nit only on classic, but on RP as well. A differential between antag/security amounts always leads to lopsided situations, and hsving some balancing factor can help.

[PowerfulXtian]

tbh I would love to see MMR (I think that's what antagonist rating in this suggestion is called) used as a funny recreational thing you can brag to your friends about how your antagonist rating is so high, and can be extended to how funny gimmicks you do, that sort of thing.

Also can be used to help admins choose antagonists for maybe RP events too, such as if the admin is looking for most creative over deadly or deadly over creativeness.

Btw just side note, if the original idea gets implemented, imagine the fight to always hold back as an antagonist, while at the same time trying to maximize your fun as to not hinder your chances to get antagonist on some rounds.

[kyle2143]

I thought for sure the body of this post was just gonna say like, "git gud" or "embrace nihilism" or something.