Goonhub
03-03-2024, 02:29 PM
Medical Doctor overall has a problem of being very reactive, and as such it's harder to design shift-long term goals they can accomplish without being frustrating. Given the lack of bigger objectives to work towards, the Pharmacy will always be used as a place to spend 'free' time during a shift. Limiting the pharmacy without addressing the med-sci chem request interaction and lack of proactive goals would make medical doctor less compelling to play.
Agreed, but I think it's a culture problem in part because the systems in place lack encouragement and recognition for someone to actually do the job:
0. No guarantee that your request is seen; the chemical request console does not tell you how many scientists are even on shift.
1. No one in science is directly responsible for the work of making chemicals, bar the Research Director *maybe*. Because "scientist" is a free-form role, you cannot expect a full science team to have a single chemist.
2. No way to mark a chemical request "in-progress", which would at least let you know/check if someone *is* working on it.
3. No way to establish consistent rewards for finishing chemical requests, because the requests are player-created and resolved without verification.
Some ideas to address:
* Scientists can mark requests as "In progress" or "Cancelled", but only the receiver can mark "Accepted".
* Since chemical requests are ID-bound, allow, but not require, people to list how many credits they'll pay when marked "Accepted". (Yes, you can scam people with this. Feature.)
* End-game score of chemical requests "Accepted" to give chemistry recognition at end-game next to other science teams.
* Without reducing ID permissions, split the Scientist role into lab-focused sub-roles: "Chemist", "Physicist", "Archeologist", "Astrophysicist". This gives people more direct ownership over areas of science without changing the "hey help me out here" open interaction within science.
(03-03-2024, 12:33 PM)Cleaverwolf Wrote: It's a culture problem, not a design one.
Agreed, but I think it's a culture problem in part because the systems in place lack encouragement and recognition for someone to actually do the job:
0. No guarantee that your request is seen; the chemical request console does not tell you how many scientists are even on shift.
1. No one in science is directly responsible for the work of making chemicals, bar the Research Director *maybe*. Because "scientist" is a free-form role, you cannot expect a full science team to have a single chemist.
2. No way to mark a chemical request "in-progress", which would at least let you know/check if someone *is* working on it.
3. No way to establish consistent rewards for finishing chemical requests, because the requests are player-created and resolved without verification.
Some ideas to address:
* Scientists can mark requests as "In progress" or "Cancelled", but only the receiver can mark "Accepted".
* Since chemical requests are ID-bound, allow, but not require, people to list how many credits they'll pay when marked "Accepted". (Yes, you can scam people with this. Feature.)
* End-game score of chemical requests "Accepted" to give chemistry recognition at end-game next to other science teams.
* Without reducing ID permissions, split the Scientist role into lab-focused sub-roles: "Chemist", "Physicist", "Archeologist", "Astrophysicist". This gives people more direct ownership over areas of science without changing the "hey help me out here" open interaction within science.