# Post-Revolutionaries Victory (Mothblocks)

## Abstract

This design doc encompasses discussion points on post-revolutionaries victories (henceforth "post-revs"), an alternative to a revolution winning instantly ending the round. Post-revs exists to give players agency over when the round ends as well as prevent antagonists being converted to revolutionary from essentially ending their entire antag round. As this is a hindsight document, further attention is given as to criticisms against post-revs, primarily by administration.

## Goals
1. Give players agency over when the round ends, rather than the game arbitrarily decide, outside of completely unlivable states (the station is nuked, Nar'Sie is summoned)
2. Give antagonists such as traitor a chance to actually perform antagonistic acts.
3. Preserve the playstyle of round-end revolutions, such that a revolutionary/head of staff plays the round the same way they would have.
4. Provide flavor to security/heads of staff in the form of trying to lay low.

## Non-goals
1. Alter the behavior of heads of staff winning (henceforth known as "head victories"), which does not end the round. This has been the case since Dynamic was a thing, to very little issue.

---

A revolution victory will perform the following:
1. Make all former head of staff unrevivable. This is a holdover from head victories, and helps to give the revolution more weight. This also meets goal #3 in that a round-end revolution would make this a given, anyway.
2. Prevent any new security officers/heads of staff from joining. While funny, sending people guaranteed to their deaths is not fun.
3. Turn all former heads of staff (if alive) and security officers (if not made into revs themselves) into "enemies of the revolution", with an objective to survive.
4. Extra threat is added into the round, to give people something to attack, while not requiring they stay behind.

## Validity
Heads of staff/security can kill former revolutionaries, or anyone who gives enough reason to be suspected as one.

Former revolutionaries can kill heads of staff/security.

Crew should engage in standard escalation among both.

## Enemy of the Revolution

To understand the intention of "enemy of the revolution", you must first understand why it must exist:

First, heads of staff:
1. If a revolution *only* ended when all heads of staff died, then heads of staff could leave the station and prolong the round to a horrible degree.
2. Thus, you must let revolutions still win even if heads of staff leave the station.
3. ...but heads of staff should not be able to leave, come back, and be fine. There was a *revolution*. Thus, they must be valid to *at the least* former revolutionaries. (Fails goal #3, in that heads of staff leaving and coming back is not something that would otherwise be okay)
4. Because they are valid to *at the least* former revolutionaries, this needs to be communicated through gameplay. Thus, heads of staff gain "enemy of the revolution".
5. But this antagonist status can not be completely free, otherwise heads of staff would leave, come back, and have full antag status where they did not before. (Fails goal #3)

Second, security:
1. If a revolution *only* ended when all security died (as well as heads of staff), this would tip the scales too far in the heads' favor, and would be a massive balance change that I'm not willing to make for the only gamemode we have with a 50/50 winrate. Plus, this is simply more people to fuck off and hide, prolonging the round.
2. Thus, you must let revolutions still win even if security is alive.
3. ...but security need an obligation to focus all their attention on protecting heads of staff aside from that just being their team. Security players need to feel in real danger if their side loses. Previously, this was done through the round ending (goal #3). Thus, they must be valid to *at the least* former revolutionaries.
4. Because they are valid to *at the least* former revolutionaries, this needs to be communicated through gameplay. Thus, security gain "enemy of the revolution".
5. But this antagonist status can not be completely free, otherwise we fail #3--they can make a judgement call on whether or not they want full antagonist status or not, thus not requiring they put all their attention on protecting heads of staff.

To recap--"enemy of the revolution" is an attempt to solve the problems that the round ending previously "solved" (again, goal #3).

To make sure that it works as intended, and does not create the behavior in both #5's where players can cheekily decide that they want full antag, enemies of the revolution should not be given full antag status, but instead should be focused on **self defense**--which they would be doing during the revolution anyway. If only revolutionaries can kill security/command, then that means that we can have administrative backing behind "only fight in self defense". If they are valid to *everyone*, then that means that they must effectively have full antag status, since *anyone* can kill them.

## Hindsight and Confusion

It is often argued that post-revs is confusing as to who you can and can't kill. Polling has been done to judge where the confusion lies.

This section will analyze those results.

### Who can kill security/head of staff?
| Answer | Count |
| - | - |
| **The revolutionaries** | 408 |
| The crew | 288 |
| Never thought about it | 77 |
| Nobody | 73 |
| I don't know | 58 |
| Security/head of staff | 31 |

43.64% of all votes give the correct answer, while 51.00% of all votes that gave a confident answer were correct.

With just this data, it is possible that allowing crew to kill security/head of staff will drastically reduce confusion (policy alternative #2), while adding policy.json text can also reasonably help (policy alternative #1).

### Who can kill revolutionaries?
| Answer | Count |
| - | - |
| **Security/head of staff** | 436 |
| Nobody | 203 |
| The crew | 141 |
| I don't know | 51 |
| Never thought about it | 46 |

49.71% of all votes give the correct answer, while 55.90% of all votes that gave a confident answer were correct.

With just this data, the confusion, while a concern, is not strictly problematic, as it is resulting in *less* people killing each other. This can likely be solved through simple policy.json text (policy alternative #1).

### Who finds it understandable?

| Who can kill heads/sec? | Who can kill revs? | Count |
| - | - | - |
| **The revolutionaries** | **Security/head of staff** | 57 |
| The crew | **Security/head of staff** | 39 |
| **The revolutionaries** | Nobody | 35 |
| The crew | The crew | 15 |
| Nobody | Nobody | 9 |
| The crew | Nobody | 9 |
| **The revolutionaries** | The crew | 9 |
| Never thought about it | Never thought about it | 3 |
| Never thought about it | Nobody | 3 |
| Never thought about it | The crew | 3 |
| Security/head of staff | The crew | 3 |
| **The revolutionaries** | I don't know | 3 |

The correct answer is in the lead, though not by a huge margin. However, it appears that people who believe the crew can kill heads/sec are not far behind on what people *expect* the policy to be. This makes policy alternative #2 more appealing.

## Who finds it confusing?

| Who can kill heads/sec? | Who can kill revs? | Count |
| - | - | - |
| **The revolutionaries** | **Security/head of staff** | 78 |
| The crew | **Security/head of staff** | 72 |
| Nobody | Nobody | 36 |
| **The revolutionaries** | The crew | 33 |
| **The revolutionaries** | Nobody | 26 |
| The crew | The crew | 21 |
| The crew | Nobody | 15 |
| I don't know | **Security/head of staff** | 12 |
| **The revolutionaries** | I don't know | 12 |
| **The revolutionaries** | Never thought about it | 12 |
| I don't know | I don't know | | 9 |
| Security/head of staff | **Security/head of staff** | 9 |
| Never thought about it | I don't know | 6 |
| Never thought about it | Never thought about it | 6 |
| Never thought about it | Nobody | 6 |
| I don't know | The crew | 3 |
| Never thought about it | The crew | 3 |
| Nobody | **Security/head of staff** | 3 |

Once again, while the correct answer is in the lead, people who believe the crew can kill heads of staff/security are not far behind, with the combined answers of both being ahead of everything else. Policy alternative #2 continues to be alluring, while confusion in general can be aided by policy alternative #1.

## Who never thought about it?

| Who can kill heads/sec? | Who can kill revs? | Count |
| - | - | - |
| **The revolutionaries** | **Security/head of staff** | 71 |
| The crew| Nobody| 24 |
| The crew| The crew| 24 |
| The crew| **Security/head of staff** | 18 |
| Never thought about it| Never thought about it| 15 |
| **The revolutionaries** | Nobody| 15 |
| **The revolutionaries** | The crew| 15 |
| Never thought about it| **Security/head of staff** | 12 |
| Nobody| Nobody| 12 |
| I don't know| I don't know| 9 |
| Security/head of staff| **Security/head of staff** | 8 |
| The crew| I don't know| 6 |
| I don't know| Never thought about it| 3 |
| I don't know| Nobody| 3 |
| I don't know| **Security/head of staff** | 3 |
| Never thought about it| The crew| 3 |
| Nobody| **Security/head of staff** | 3 |
| The crew| Never thought about it| 3 |

For the first time among the datasets, the correct answer is by far and away in the lead.

## Alternatives

1. A common suggestion is to spawn a CentCom ERT after revs win. This, however, conflicts with goal #3, in that players would potentially over-gear up for the ERT, instead of focusing on just killing heads of staff. This also treads too close to conflicting with goal #1, in that after an ERT is summoned, there's effectively zero way the crew will want to stay behind.
2. Threat is added back into the round as a response to post-revs being seen as boring, due to the major threat of the station being gone. In cases where the station isn't in such disrepair that the shuttle should be called anyway, the extra threat provides the round with some extra action later on. One suggestion is to spend this threat immediately, but this starts to tread too close to conflicting with goal #1, in a best case scenario, and being useless in a worst case scenario. Most of the time, that threat will be spent on something like a sleeper agent, but if that is excluded, you will likely cause the same effect that ERTs do in that they will all but guarantee a shuttle call.
3. Automatically call the shuttle. This conflicts with goal #1. If players often call the shuttle after post-revs, that is a completely valid choice, as at least players are making that choice, and antagonists can more reasonably stop it (goal #2).

## Policy Alternatives

The following are changes that can only be made through policy discussion.

1. Provide explicit text through `policy.json` as to what every side can and cannot do.
2. Presently, the "triangle" forms based on confusion on who can kill head of staff/security. Polling results show that a large amount of people believe the crew are allowed to kill, though the policy so far has said that they cannot. Letting crew kill head of staff/security maps properly on to all current goals, though care must be taken with regards to mindshielded players.
- This can potentially be communicated through gameplay by making everyone a revolutionary (including new arrivals), though this should be done only if further confusions arise, as this breaks goal #4, in that heads of staff/security would no longer be able to blend in with a crowd.