Proposal Spy vs. Spy -> Internal Affair

Hello again,

Over my past experience, Spy vs. Spy is a very awkward gamemode. From what I can tell, the intended goal is that there are bad people (traitors) doing bad things (traitorous activity), while there are paranoid people (renegades) willing to defend themselves and what they find valuable (the ship, a fellow crew member, whatever). It always seems to me that it turns out that renegades are getting their guns taken while the traitors do nothing (or there are none), or traitors are doing things to/in front of renegades who seemingly forget they are renegades.

So, by default, I have ideasguy-ed a replacement gamemode.

Internal Affair
Good people are doing bad things.​

Synopsis
There are Dissenters, which may come individually or in groups of 2-3, who are in a passionate disagreement over a generated subject (e.g - the Gaia Conflict, the Ascent, Corporations). These people will be given one weapon (likely not a gun, maybe a baseball bat, or a switch knife) in the event they come into physical conflict, similar to renegades. The parties are expected to initiate a conflict in-round over the subject.

That's all, it's pretty simple.

(Suspected) Pros

• More RP from both sides.
• Allows more usage of lore in-game.
• Suspectedly good for smaller population rounds.

(Suspected) Cons

• Dissenters cannot choose the subject.
• Requires knowledge about the subject.
• Less tools availables to dissenters.

Written in 30 minutes, stupidity should be expected.

 

Optimally it'd replace Spy vs. Spy, but having it as just another gamemode would be fine as well. The main reason for replacement is that while reliable, Spy vs. Spy is, as mentioned, either extended with security arguing with a renegade, or just regular traitor.

It'd also optimally be fun enough to have people put it on in their prefs, but hey, can't serve everyone cake.

 

Spy vs. Spy can definitely be improved, and this is a great suggestion.

But this might run into the same problems mutiny ran into in its original form. (there's always a but, isn't there?)
If you're not as ancient as I am, when mutiny was first introduced it relied on command implementing one of 4-5 pre-determined orders that is randomly picked while the mutineers opposed it. Issues varied, like taking away xeno rights, pay cuts for IPCs, no R&R, etc.

Problem is, this never excited real conflict. Mutiny became ignored, up until the current state of removing pre-set objectives which led to the Fascist command meta, which almost always triggers a revolution.

So I think adding pre-set points of argument will grow stale.

 

It is a fair argument that eventually people will go through every argument, however I did indeed think about replayability. Mutiny's original orders were clear-cut orders that you couldn't particularly work around. That's why, when I mentioned the topics-

You'll notice there is no context. You could discuss why we need to murder the Ascent, or whether the Ascent really did the SEV Magnus incident. You could discuss whether or not corporations like NT are exploiting humanity, or what exactly NT is doing on the Torch. You could discuss whether or not we should've engaged in the Gaia Conflict, or who actually won it at all.

Optimally, it relies on players being able to assemble their own context to the subject, and there just being more than 4-5 subjects.

Then again, that's optimally.