Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- Bruhlicious 1m Deine Mutter stinkt nach Erbrochenem und Bier.
- Sulfurado 21m
- hex 43s
- Pladdicus 5m uh
- whatislove 3m
- SmokePotion 14m Right or wrong, I'm getting high.
- Vanashis 34m
- Sivartas 2h
- zxq 2m Tools: https://ansicolortool.neocities.org
And 20 more hiding and/or disguised
Sindomedome logo
a cyberpunk roleplaying game
banner art by Michal Lisowski
Connect to Sindome @ moo.sindome.org:5555 or just Play Now
  • BgBB
  • Ideas
  • Topside Non-combat PC Caps
  • Make Corps scary again

Topside Non-combat PC Caps
Make Corps scary again

Login to post. Membership required.
Jump To
Newest Post
Historically Sindome hasn't been too heavy handed with imposing caps for factions, and I think this has worked great in the past. However, we are seeing a decrease in certain types of players topside that are, in my opinion, critical to what makes Sindome's theme work - combat players - specifically CorpSec. I think because of this we see stagnation. Topside isn't (imo) intended to be a fast paced, combat all the time everywhere experience and I don't want to break that, but at the same time, I think we are missing something that makes it work.

We have seen some unique ways that non-combat players can work to fight, but I still think topside needs rebalancing. Without Corporate muscle or intimidation represented at all in a Corp, it lands entirely on staff to animate themely responses to topside threats.

I propose that Corporations have a set cap to non-combat players per faction. I dont think the mix factions (from my limited perspective) need this imposition right now, but topside does.
The idea is - For every 1 corpsec at a faction (megacorp), you can have 2 non-combat pcs there. If you have no corpsec at all, a max of 2 non-combat pcs. If the corpsec goes, you have 3? months to recruit a replacement or lay offs are imposed.

The Corporations feel limp and non responsive at times. I do absolutely understand that staff is strained, but I think imposing a cap could help balance this out and that it doesnt have to all land in their lap. Having some mandatory representation of Corporate intimidation would be so helpful redeeming that limp feeling (which gets the blanket "hugbox" accusation thrown at it even if this isnt what non-combat players even want).

This wouldnt require too much extra work on staff to impliment, and would, in my hopes, actually empower them to take more action without accusations of favoritism. It would give some OOC structure and some guidelines for players to roleplay around, guiding roleplay and enhancing it, forcing difficult choices and giving real reason to seek out new people or poach from other factions.

Im writing this from a place of frustration with my perspective of topside theme, seeking answers to hopefully better things for my fellow players down the line. I don't want to be a "this is how it should be" inflexible voice on the forums, so if you have a different view or suggestions, I'd love to hear it but thought I might see what everyone thought. I hope this doesn't offend anyone, and I do really appreciate the effort everyone puts into their characters. I think in the past I would have disagreed with myself here, worried that I was squishing narrative freedom, but my perspective has changed through exposure to other games and different roles.

By Papertiger at Jan 16, 2026, 5:46 PM | 1
I don't agree with this.

For one, it feels like this would basically force some people into playing roles/styles they don't want to, which is never fun. Especially when its due to things beyond their control. "Lost your CorpSec and too many non-Sec players? Too bad, you're forced into being a Mixer now." It just feels bad and would make me not want to play.

And second, even without CorpSec, corps have ways of "flexing that muscle"? Someone causing problems for your department? Hire a solo and expense it.

By Aera at Jan 16, 2026, 5:54 PM | 3
Youre not forced to play a role you don't want to play, you would be forced to find the support to play the role you want to play, with the opportunity to work with others to find that support.
I dont think every role should be open to everyone just because they want to play it. Many players work for a long time and never get the role they want because they fail to secure the means.
Maybe thats just a difference in philosophy.
By Papertiger at Jan 16, 2026, 6:00 PM | 1
I think sanctioning caps on anything will cause more problems than not. Let people do what they want to do. If people want combat they will join combat roles. If they don't, resources should be spent elsewhere offering up plots and things without combat. Combat isn't the be all end all of the game. It helps fuel the economy yes, but i'd rather play a game where people enjoy themselves than a game where we have to impose sanctions on players because there's not enough death happening.
By Terrible_the_duck at Jan 16, 2026, 6:01 PM | 4
I think a better way of going about this would be to try to make being corpsec more attractive, rather than just kicking everyone out of topside. The way I see corpsec right now, adding more people to it wouldn't help at all with corporations not feeling intimidating.

I think a change in how corpsec works would do more to benefit. Even when corporations have multiple active corpsec, they work so secretly that no one has any reason to be intimidated of them. I also think that they should work more closely with other employees, rather than just doing their own things.

If you ask me, corpsec in it current state fits very, very few player's play styles, and will likely never be a super popular choice without something changing, either in how players approach it, or how it is set up.

(Edited by Raven at 6:08 pm on 1/16/2026)

By Raven at Jan 16, 2026, 6:06 PM | 2
Ravens got it right. I think Corpsec 'rules' Might need a change of perspective from the GM side. Allow for a little less discretion. Let Corpsec flex a little publically.
By Terrible_the_duck at Jan 16, 2026, 6:08 PM | 1
As someone who spent years playing a character in the realm of CorpSec, I agree that the solution is to improve those positions, not punish everyone else until someone does decide to play it.
By Fogchild1 at Jan 16, 2026, 6:13 PM | 2
How would you go about that Raven? Its a solid viewpoint. Do you have any ideas how it might be made more attractive or the playstyle tweaked/opened for people?
By Papertiger at Jan 16, 2026, 6:13 PM | 0
I've never played the role so I can't give the best ideas honestly, but I think a little bit of encouragement from staff to like, do things loudly and boldly could help, and also giving them more room to make mistakes without as much consequences. Even just like a written memo being put somewhere about new security procedures or something could help with that.

I'm interested in hearing from people with experience in the role on this though.

(Edited by Raven at 6:21 pm on 1/16/2026)

By Raven at Jan 16, 2026, 6:20 PM | 2
More room for mistakes, encouragement to handle issues as loudly as necessary, and a clearer picture of left and right limits covers it beautifully, to be honest.
By Fogchild1 at Jan 16, 2026, 6:22 PM | 2
If nothing else, I agree that the current state of corpsec play needs to be looked into deeper and tweaked if not improved. As it is, from an outside perspective, it feels very stagnant and unattractive which just leads to an imbalance where there's way more non-corpsec players than there are corpsec players topside. Maybe this should be another topic added to the Town Hall discussion.
By baewulf at Jan 16, 2026, 6:23 PM | 1
I feel like the trend of CorpSec being as quiet as it has been is relatively new. That does definitely change player to player, but I also would like to see them more vocal, flexing more with some kind of support behind them. I live for scary Corporate dudes. I dont want to take away from all shadow play, having some seen some absolutely diabolical nonsense in the past that was fantastic to roleplay around. However, I would like to see more flexing too, even if some stuff is hidden away.
I dont know anything about stats and am terrible with all things game balance - should the guards they can boss around be stronger or something? Maybe not all of them, but a couple they can grab if they are actively on patrol?
By Papertiger at Jan 16, 2026, 6:27 PM | 2
In my opinion, the state of CorpSec is just one facet of a bigger problem with player culture. Antagonistic/combative faction roles such as corporate security and gangs in the Mix see barely any players because players want to remain completely unaffiliated without GM supervision/being dragged into antagonistic plots/stick with their IC friends and so on.

I get the impression from OOC discussions a little while back that some players believe having an NPC boss in an antagonistic role exposes you to GMs forcing you to do things that you don't want to ICly and OOCly do/partake in, leading to people just deciding to stick to non-combat/non-antagonistic/non-faction roles with lower stakes and less responsibility that don't require you to enforce theme or be confrontational.

(Edited by Cowbell at 6:45 pm on 1/16/2026)

By Cowbell at Jan 16, 2026, 6:29 PM | 6
I think maybe they should be encouraged to keep things quiet for stuff concerning other corporations, but when it's just mixers involved, be as loud as necessary to keep them in line.
By Raven at Jan 16, 2026, 6:30 PM | 2
It feels like historically, CorpSec has been treated as a way to get educated and build a rep while waiting to eventually come back to the Mix as a trained combat character. It sort of feeds into the general pattern of the Mix being where all the action happens and topside being either a foil or a primary ground for those who want a purely social deception oriented game.

I feel like, insofar as that's a pattern, we should be getting away from it. There's no reason topside shouldn't be as action oriented as the Mix. Sort of echoing Cowbell's post about corps, we should be thinking of corps and syndicates as the same thing. Corpies should be more entitled to abuse their power, not less. Then you won't even need an artificial divide of Mix vs Topside, Mixers will genuinely start to hate topsiders for making their lives miserable with impunity.

By Crooknose at Jan 16, 2026, 6:33 PM | 6
But equally to Cowbell's point, to be able to have antagonistic, loud and/or CorpSec and enemies of CorpSec - whether fellow CorpSec, corporate citizens or Mix antagonists - with presence you have to trust your fellow players to keep that antagonism IC and to be willing to tell a story with you. I've got to wonder if the tendency for recent in-game commentary over the last several months to border on OOC mocking with comments of apartment ninjas, cuboids, do nothings, etc discourages people from engaging. And that isn't limited to only those kind of comments, but general sentiment that bleeds into conversations and gripes.

While some of those could end up passed off as strictly IC comments, I've got to admit what I've seen at best feels coded OOC commentary masked as IC insults. Does it make an engaging experience if you feel you're being attacked by OOC jabs under the pretext of IC conflict? Sindome has no shortage of loud CorpSec past or present, but that all depends on the type of personality someone is playing.

Not every CorpSec will be loud, not all will be quiet. What we can all do though is always look for ways we can encourage others to engage with us and find it a rewarding experience. Because that creates a desire to re-engage in the future.

(Edited by crashdown at 6:41 pm on 1/16/2026)

By crashdown at Jan 16, 2026, 6:39 PM | 5
Yes Crooknose! Rather than punishing being indiscreet, give the mixers a reason to hate topside beyond hating the Judges. Corpsec should be an Antag role and you should be flexing on the mixers because they are animals with no aspiration but to eat rats and hang about the sewers.
By Terrible_the_duck at Jan 16, 2026, 6:39 PM | 2
Right. The scariest players in the game should be topsiders. I think this is essentially what Cowbell has been saying in their post about reforming the corps, but why do we have top tier players controlling the biz of syndicates in the shadows when they could be controlling the biz of the corps, which would allow them to create action both topside and in the Mix.
By Crooknose at Jan 16, 2026, 6:46 PM | 0
I feel like there have been recent opportunities for corpsec to be scary within the past year, but we could be doing a lot more to enforce the theme and make more people aware of it. For instance, PR reps of all the corps could publish victorious press releases about crushing those pesky mixers. The Globe could become more active and actually write about in-game events with a pro-corporate bent.

There are plenty more opportunities than just corpsec waving their guns around to push the theme of corps being scary. However, that doesn't help with the issue of not many people wanting to play corpsec characters in the first place.

By svetlana at Jan 16, 2026, 7:18 PM | 2
As someone pretty darn versed with corpsec, here is the key reason why people do not want to play corpsec: because the player population in the mix doesn't want corpsec players to exist besides as punching bags.

For corpsec to exist, you must have criminals who not just want to "win" but also end up "losing" to, and do so in interesting for everyone ways. Focused on driving actual stories, and making it engaging to everyone involved, and not just "score points" against corporations. And that has been a pattern for a long time now.

People may like this idea of big scary corpsec backdrop, but how many actually want to take the L that requires for creation? You want a loud corpsec punishment - create a situation for it. Most do not, most just want to get away without consequences, or at most get a vat and then act superhuman during interrogations.

And when you cannot get that as a corpsec player, then you are just a villain to everyone, with all the extreme negatives that come from it, for extremely little in return… You end up with very disengaged corpsec players. The issue is mostly of player culture and expectations, not anything mechanical, though having clearer left and right bounds set by staff would help for sure.

(Edited by Froggy at 12:08 am on 1/17/2026)

By Froggy at Jan 16, 2026, 11:54 PM | 4
After some thinking in fact it doesn't just have to do with faction roles but any PCs who try to enforce theme or be antagonistic in general. A very recent example I can give is that there was a PC attempting to toll and mug people. And the response was large groups of players banding together to protect other players against mugging and tolling from said PC, even vatting them in the process.

That kind of play isn't sustainable for most. The same is true for CorpSec in this case.

The play to win mentality and cooperative competition should have its own thread.

By Cowbell at Jan 17, 2026, 1:51 AM | 4
Players should band together when the odds are against them, it's themely. Muggers and gangers should get the tables turned on them occasionally. That's themely.

CorpSec should be more than mouthpieces on public SIC, I agree. I think they should be allowed to go on operations to the Mix when given approval by GMs, and I think when they die horrible deaths in the Mix as a result, those results should be accepted and they shouldn't get backup by NPCs to make up for the loss. CorpSec, Syndicates, I think everyone needs to be given chances to take risks and when they lose, it should be themely for these factions to just write off the loss. They got bigger and better things to worry about in the world than to avenge every embarrassment by their people.

Let people lose more, a mighty syndicate or corporation isn't going to lose face and seem unthemely just because they took a tiny L.

I think people would start having more fun across all the sectors if they were just allowed to compete with each other more directly without fear of lopsided consequences for actually having better RNG not from each other, but from the factions themselves.

By NightHollow at Jan 17, 2026, 2:10 AM | 2
I personally don't think it's very themely for muggers, pickpockets and gangers to be hyperfocused on in the Mix because there's no way to represent the thousands of muggings that happen every single second in the Mix. And there is also no way to enforce that theme on players without players taking on the role themselves: codedly and ICly your character is safe if no PC tries to mug you. Sure, but that doesn't mean you're safe or would be safe. If there was a way to represent the threat of the Mix without putting it in the PC's hands, sure.

Otherwise that's smallworlding in fact and disassociation from what the Mix is, or even Withmore is. It's a cut throat city and a dog eat dog world, not a 'heroes versus villains' story. And there is a difference between someone getting tables turned onto them versus someone getting dogpiled on by someone and all their friends just because.

By Cowbell at Jan 17, 2026, 2:17 AM | 4
It's a dog eat dog world, yes and one of those dogs can eat the dog that's trying to mug them and vice versa.

Muggers, gangers, pickpockets, none of them are entitled to succeed because it's themely for them to be those roles, they get to succeed when they succeed that's the idea of a coded game with stats and dice rolling. That's what I like about this game. I don't want to feel compelled to let people attack me and not hold a grudge or not organize a response just because it was themely for them to do it to me… That's not how you foster conflict, and story.

By NightHollow at Jan 17, 2026, 2:23 AM | 3
Well, then you should not be surprised when the players that try to uphold theme refuse to do so when the response is to reward their themely and risk-taking behavior by gathering a group of people, usually with more UE than them, to shut them down and ensure they can't antagonize you any more.

Making it into a personal grudge and not just a reality of life in the Mix already shows that part of theme of the game is under-represented tbh.

I never said they should get free passes either, but that's talking in extremes. You don't have to let it slide but you also do not need to use overwhelming force to crush them and secure a 'win', or jump to your friends' defense and band together to defeat the mugger that antagonized them, not you.

(Edited by Cowbell at 2:31 am on 1/17/2026)

(Edited by Cowbell at 2:32 am on 1/17/2026)

By Cowbell at Jan 17, 2026, 2:28 AM | 4
I know a thing or two about getting stomped on by people who have way more UE than me and who like to bring a load of friends with them, it's been happening since my first couple of months in the game.

The GMs tell me it's the theme of the game.

This happens at every level of the game that I've seen so far, but it feels the worst when NPCs get dragged along for the ride in the name of defending the theme and faction's strength. Because cooperative competition goes right out the door when the game world starts beating down on you. It's no longer about conflict with your fellow player. It's just being taught that you're not allowed to do certain things or cross certain lines.

I don't know what situation you're referring to about gangers or muggers getting beat down by large groups of high UE people, but I am sure it's not a constant thing at least I have yet to see it be a constant thing, and if it happens to one or two people recently, doesn't necessarily mean it's a systemic problem.

I've interacted with a lot of gangers and others in similar roles in the past year and a lot of them seem to want to go out in a blaze of chaos. I'd say that's kind of the point of picking that role, it doesn't seem like it's meant to be a long term career in mugging people and making everyone dislike you anyway.

By NightHollow at Jan 17, 2026, 2:37 AM | 2
Theme of the game is that, in the end, established big orgs are going to win. You won't be changing that. Yes, you can get a temporary win against them, but eventually status quo will conquer you, and that gets enforced in many ways.

The trick is to make that struggle fun for everyone, and it generally is that you get out what you've put into the system, so if all someone does is just boring vats… That's what you can expect in return, and it's not fun or compelling for anyone involved. And just like people wanting to murder topside players expect topside players to go along with it, the pendulum swings both ways.

Just gotta be also willing to play along in a way that's fun, as "losing" can be very fun.

By Froggy at Jan 17, 2026, 2:45 AM | 3
They win by continuing to exist unimpeded, they don't need to win in every little skirmish that happens in the city.

Honestly, the things that happen in the name of Theme coming from NPCs and such and out of the mouths of some players is the most extreme small worlding I've seen in this game.

If the Corps and Syndicates and all those factions really are as big and strong as people say, I really think people have to stop acting like they should always pay attention to every little slight. They shouldn't have time for it, it shouldn't be cost effective. One Corpsec, or one enforcer, or one whatever, shouldn't suddenly become the thing that awakens people you almost never see otherwise.

No player should be THAT important to their organization. That would be unthemely and small worlding and yet that is what happens, and that's when the world feels it's smallest.

By NightHollow at Jan 17, 2026, 2:54 AM | 4
I would participate in Slither's town hall topic about organizations, their strength and the PCs who are part of them if you believe that theme enforcing roles getting infrastructural support is not cooperative competition. NPCs are always involved in aspects of the game, codedly and narratively.
By Cowbell at Jan 17, 2026, 2:58 AM | 3
Especially with how hard it is to actually get that support, it really mostly exists as a threat, not reality and when that gets deployed is -rare-.
By Froggy at Jan 17, 2026, 3:01 AM | 1
I've already had that discussion ahead of the Town Hall and it's just kind of an agree to disagree type situation.

I think it's healthier to just choose not to roleplay with people in organizations that seem to do more harm than good to the roleplay I am involved in.

By NightHollow at Jan 17, 2026, 3:02 AM | 2
I do agree that there is always some serious smallworlding going on a lot of the time when it comes to organizations deciding to make every problem a single problem one of their members encounters as a personal attack on the entire organization. This makes sense for stuff like gangs, but for corporations, that are intergalactic? For syndicates, that are international? It feels weird.
By AdamBlue9000 at Jan 17, 2026, 3:07 AM | 1
The more powerful the organization, the more risk you face by trying to overpower them. If, on Sindome, you were allowed to amass power through how many people you have in your clique instead of how much narrative sense it actually made for you to have that power, nobody would ever separate from their circles and do things independent of them.

The megacorps are powerful and so are the syndicates. You banding together into a group that consists of a quarter of the active playerbase doesn't change that. Ironically, the action that preceded this "syndicate taking a L," example was only possible because someone broke off from their circle, which is perfectly healthy theme wise, but also something nobody else ever wants to do when it comes down to it being their own people.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

(Edited by Necronex666 at 3:24 am on 1/17/2026)

(Edited by Necronex666 at 3:26 am on 1/17/2026)

By Necronex666 at Jan 17, 2026, 3:23 AM | 4
I personally love RP'ing the mix-corp conflict because I find the long-term consequences and narrative potential to be incredibly engaging. In general when I do something in game it's because I WANT a reaction from the opposing party, I crave a reaction, because the theme of fighting valiantly against an unmovable status quo is a story I love to be a part of.

Nothing is more boring than taking a risk to provoke a reaction, putting out that invitation to engage in themely RP, and having it be ignored. Then again, it's true that any provocation has to be interesting, creative, and worth responding to. I've been putting effort into getting better at this and giving IC opponents the types of conflict I would personally enjoy.

All this to say, it makes me sad that Froggy and others are feeling disengaged due to predictable, repetitive vattings etc. There are a lot of tools nowadays to facilitate kidnappings and other non-vatting RP, but it's essential that those on the other side of the conflict play along and don't no-sell it. Let your characters act afraid!

(Edited by svetlana at 4:22 am on 1/17/2026)

By svetlana at Jan 17, 2026, 4:13 AM | 4
The way Corpsec was always pitched to me was as effectively Player GM. You're not really supposed to get your hands dirty personally except on rare occasions. Every other time you're supposed to be engaging with Mixers as CIs, or as contractors to do the bloody stuff and drive RP through handing out chyen. This is what the majority of your playtime in that role will be even if you -are- a combat character. Also, is it really themely for a ultramodern corporation to be relying on yoked out katana wielding badasses for its security and not an army of technicians and drones, turrets and gun-toting operators?

I think if you want to make corpsec scary part of it is giving them the tools and toys they already should have. Attacking a corporate tower should be a nightmare where you're up against an army of cutting edge soldiers and technological (or biological in VS case) horrors, not four or five guys with batons and maybe one or two with swords and a pistol.

I also think this idea of a 'quota' of corpsec is a bad idea. Firstly, not even all corpsec positions are combat roles, and some are only semi-combat. Would your accounting value a rigger or GDA as much as a regular corpsec agent? Speaking of riggers, another big way to make corpsec scarier would be to beef up Eisenhowers and make them far less expensive. Robots should be expendable shock troops and the sort of detached way of handling dirty work that corpcits should admire.

By Thrillimanjaro at Jan 17, 2026, 5:07 AM | 4
Megacorps are already a nightmare to attack directly because if they can't handle the threat, the WJF can and will get involved. The response just needs to be moved completely in house and they should have the tools to handle it themselves through NPCs if necessary.

Giving all the megacorps and syndicates their own superpowered NPCs that only come out to play once in a blue moon would also add more flavor to the world. As things stand, if you've been around for long enough you know exactly what NPCs are gonna come after you if you cross too many lines.

On the topic of Eisenhowers: I do not think they should be made less expensive, but cost is irrelevant to a megacorp anyway. However, how good an Eisenhower is in a fight should be based on the skill of the rigger and while they shouldn't ever be able to stand up to a fully trained combat character alone, they should be more of a threat than they are now.

Why not as good as a max UE combat character? It's because the rigger themselves is not at risk and they can just recover the bot when combat is over. Eisenhower ability being rigger-skill dependent may mean that a Mixer who can afford one, and afford to equip one, can also use it against corporate citizens, which in of itself would open up more possibilities.

By Necronex666 at Jan 17, 2026, 6:01 AM | 4
I think this has a lot of good discussion that has turned to a theme or even game problems and complaint post. Perhaps someone should also post there, or bump existing threads, about friend groups, realistic expectations, corporate oppression and how Corporate security can antagonize better, etc.

As for the idea I see the merit but I have also noticed a trend in the game where people want to avoid combat or conflict they would perceive as "negative" at all costs. I have said this in regards to other aspects of the game but you can't complain about an aspect that is culture based, you have to get in there and just do it and hope it catches on.

By Mindhunter at Jan 17, 2026, 6:38 AM | 2
I'm back to the game after some years away, but I was close to some CorpSec folks a few years ago. This is what I observed:

- CorpSec operated in the Mix with relative frequency, maybe once every few weeks. Here are some generic (and 3+ years old examples) - CorpSec planting bombs at rival corps' facilities in the Mix, CorpSec injecting Mixers with weird drugs in New Rose cubes, CorpSec going out to the Badlands or Mix to take other corpies on tourist trips, etc.

- It happened often enough that CorpSec drilled regularly on doing Mix jobs, like pilots running routes in and out of the Mix to know them down pat, or security personnel training on radios/poncho switches/tunnel routes/etc if things go wrong.

- When CorpSec went into the Mix on a job, if they got vatted, they could requisition their gear/chrome/etc back, though it usually took a few months to be able to budget everything.

- CorpSec paid Mixers to do solo work all the time, though it was sometimes hard finding people of the appropriate skill level to do contracts. Kidnappings were common, though it was often harder to kidnap someone than vat them, which created some level of issue.

- CorpSec had regular business dealings with syndicates and sometimes gangs, often to enable to above stuff – paying for a kidnapping, or paying a gang to attack a facility of a rival corp on rival gang territory, or whatever.

If anything, corpie players who weren't CorpSec sometimes felt like they didn't have anything to do. If you were in HR or even in a CorpSec-adjacent role like a pilot or (depending on the corp) a rigger, when you tried to run Mix stuff you'd get told 'go talk to your CorpSec'.

By Pavane at Jan 17, 2026, 9:15 AM | 4
Personally I think that if the towers would actually be allowed to be vulnerable then security would quickly find itself having a lot of things to do.

But as it stands now the towers are impenetrable fortresses that nobody can access unless they work there. Heck even if you work there odds are you don't actually have access to anywhere. Only Corpsec really has access to the building at large, and as it stands if you go past a biometric door, the only way you can leave is if someone lets you out.

So the best option for dealing with a hostile ganger who forces their way into the tower is… just let them have their temper tantrum like a toddler. They won't be able to leave, and you just have to wait until they tire and ask to be let out.

There's zero point in attempting to storm the Bastille to save your chummer when the adventure ends at the second verify door. That isn't playing to lose, that is throw yourself against a brick wall for another's amusement. And homie don't play that.

But funny enough when I suggested introducing a chink in this armor being janitors having effectively all access to give options of infiltration through coercion, or even the idea that you can rip a jannie's eyeball out to get through doors, the idea was immediately shot down... because it would give Corpsec more things to do. You want something to do... but not if that something to do allows for someone else to have power?

And honestly, I don't fear Corpsec. They're just the people who hire the thugs that come and vats everyone. It's the solos that are the real problem and the real danger to your average Mixer who mouths off. Corpsec is too busy painting their nails to get off their asses and represent their paycheck. Like the last time I heard of anything even resembling a kill squad rolling deep, it was actually just a convoy dedicated to throwing someone outside of the Dome. And wasn't even responded to in any meaningful way (that I perceived at least).

Sometimes I look at everything from a game design perspective, and I see all the safety guards, buffers and outright blatant protections afforded to combat characters. The game is overwhelmingly slanted towards combat. And I'm still amazed when the combat characters take to the boards to still complain.

By Risikio at Jan 17, 2026, 3:37 PM | 1
I'm seeing some previous posts on this thread that try to paint as if the current crop of corpsec people are these victims who kept being a 'punching bag' and I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous that statement is, when the current state of the game has been leaning more heavily in favor of corporate and corporate-adjacent players and barely any deaths/losses on the corpsec side.

The reason that corpsec play doesn't draw as much attention is because what should be the job/role of corporate management (Player GMing) is instead handed off for corpsec giving other people tasks, when it's supposed to be their job doing these tasks in the first place. And I may not be a long-time player here, but if what Pavane said was true, then I clearly think that the current corpsec play could do to go back to what it was years ago when they saw a lot more action instead of constant 'muh player gming', which surprise surprise, is not that attractive at all, because people would normally associate corporate security with action and not management-esque role.

Maybe send corpsec players into some actual action, and if shit ends up south, their gear and whatnot gets reimbursed by the corporation to help cushion the failures. I think this is how corporate security are supposed to be represented in the eyes of the average Mixer - an endless wave of well-armed bodies that can just keep being outfitted by their rich bosses to go after their enemies.

By baewulf at Jan 17, 2026, 3:56 PM | 1
Jump To Oldest Post