Boggle08

Two things that don't give science any gameplay at all. With modular guns, you poke, prod, experiment, and test them in the range. It's an activity that forms the core of science gameplay, for most scientists. These? You hit the button and then give the officer the toys. Your officer. You don't play science. If a rework of the modular system is on the way I'd rather see it exchange the old system in the same PR, not gut it and leave us waiting.

I’m kind of happy where they’re at. Operations supplies stuff, machinists supply fancy stuff. I would go as far as to say the machinist has potential to become the primary supplier of protolathe/RPED related requests, while the scientist becomes the tertiary supplier, should the latter grow beyond what it currently is.

A large part of the issue is that we can only design events with the mechanics each department has. Those are the tools we use to conceive of activities for events. The problem is that the departments that could enable low stakes, non-combative events are too lacking in mechanics or purpose to have any staying power. Combat has the lion's share of complexity and engagement, medicine follows as a consequence of combat, and the fact that accidents are inevitable (Looking at you, person who drinks themselves to death during party events). Engineering has mechanics that are literally baked into the design of every single map. Command is self-evidently involved. Bridge crew are conditionally important, only if there is ship combat. That leaves cargo, service, and science. Hangar technicians are the weakest link, as their job encompasses three activities that are completely optional in the operation of the ship. You naturally cannot involve service unless you drop a kitchen down or make them cater for something. Science has the most potential on paper to contribute to rounds narratively, but they purposefully designed to contribute nothing but research levels, and lack any way to advise the crew on a given area of expertise. Because that isn't defined. I enjoyed silicon nightmares, but that arc was where we got to see all these design problems hit their absolute zenith. Engineering? Medical? Security? Command? There was plenty of work to go around. Everyone else? Cargo technicians had their shuttle break down on them, their one purpose nullified. Scientists did absolutely nothing to help in the crisis, any intelligence they could have helped acquire was instead fed through to us by Purpose and reports by the Konyang government. They did get the wreckage from the secondary transmitter to... doo... sciencey.... things.... with? But in reality it was just a paperweight. Service? It's not like it makes any narrative sense whatsoever for them to serve the hivebot beacon spaghetti or whatever. Since all we have to work with is combat and its consequences, it naturally followed that each event just ramped up in stakes and violence, until the last event where we gave everyone a gun and had them save the planet. So I agree with you 100%: Lore in the future should consider arcs or events that are less resource intensive and lower stakes. Events getting bigger and more violent are a consequence of regular gameplay in other departments lacking. Operations, Science, and BC's need more attention in order to move away from how we current design major events. The new round structure Matt announced is a colossal step in the right direction.

I concur with butterrobber. XO has always felt like a directionless role that competes with the OM in terms of functionality to me. This new XO feels like it was designed to not disrupt the current chain of command at all, and to minimize OOC administrative headache by putting it in such a confined, non-executive condition. Uselessness begets lack of interest begets lack of feedback begets lack of change.

Identity is a pretty big concept in IPC lore, and the avenues for it are skewed strongly towards being humancentric. From a lack of presented options, the self actualization process inevitably skews towards "wanting to be human", which is a narrative beat as old and derivative as Pinocchio or Frankenstein. Ever since the first directive lost narrative importance, this has only grown in prevalence, and the in-setting distinction between IPC's and humans is getting fuzzier. There are some factions that get into "post-human" territory, but they are either unplayable(Purpose, open exclusionists), or are under developed(Purpose again, current golden deep). This might sound like a rephrasing of Deseven's first question, but I'm specifically interested in how the setting itself can reflect the distinction between IPC's and humans, rather than just how you would advise people on it. How would you present contrast?

I have doubts this would improve the science experience. Modular guns foster interest in and of themselves for science players to go off on their own and tinker with them; regardless if security will accept them or not. Modular weapons have their problems firstly out of sheer negligence, long before we consider other factors like their baseline concept. The worst case scenario for these changes, is that security remains accustomed to playing with their own toys, and science loses an activity to do with their endless free time in exchange for a bunch of modules that they have no use for. Security is already terrible at asking for help from Science, and it's more like our players to put their trust in something consistently accessible rather than sporadically available. Maybe these weapon modules and ammo types could do something positive, but I don't want to see modular weapons get sacrificed concurrently when there's barely any mechanics to supplement interest in science, and no guarantee that the weapon modules can fill that particular void.

This is one one of the few roles that gets hardsuits without needing to be a head, or investing time and resources in acquiring them. Not sure about bridge crew, but FR's have the modules to get some immediate use out of them. I like how this role exposes people to Hardsuit use, it makes what the machinist can produce more valued. Most of the problems with medical are cultural, and most of the powercreep they've received are band-aid solutions made as a consequence to the weird fractured nature of medical's interdependencies. I know it's in style to beat down on them right now, but it won't fix anything if we don't think about what we're doing. There are better ways to ego check bad responders.

I would be disappointed if we completely gutted science of its white collar, experimenting nature and turned it into the Nathan Drake department. Having played the role a bunch lately, the biggest strengths of being a scientist is being able to procure unorthodox solutions to problems, and the implicit ability to retain a freakish amount of cross-departmental job knowledge. I've had great moments of cooperation with the crew, except for security. Those guys either assume we're antagonists(at least one of us usually is), or they deliberately exclude us out of fear of admin wrath. The culture surrounding science is just as neglectful as the mechanics are. RND is honestly a chore, even if you're using tech processors, so it'd be better if we just started with it already done. A lot of people have been talking about wanting to remove modular guns, but in absence of other activities, they're a pretty big reason why people occasionally fuck with science at all. I would only feel comfortable seeing them gone if we had something to supplant them, or just heavily nerfed the high end combinations so people would feel comfortable accepting them from science again. Nerfing them would actually buff them. I still agree that science's future is primarily in the overmap, and on planets that aren't exoplanets. The Horizon's stated mission is survey, not just for Phoron, but for potential sites for colonization. A common complaint is that we don't really do our stated mission at often, and most of the described abilities of the Horizon's sensor systems only exist in event announcements, and the sector printout BC's get. I propose we make science not an exploration department, but a survey department. Modular probes and drones, expansion of integrated circuit functionality, planetary survey equipment and beacons; Climatology and Geology. Hell, we could even give them access to the Horizon's mystical sensor equipment, where they can operate and improve it's various functions(whatever they may be). The goal of science should be to help the Horizon complete it's actual mission, while making expedition/survey operations more convenient with probes, enhanced sensor readings, and drones. While still working on their little experimental passion projects. (Oh and xenobotany/xenobio should eventually have an expedition game where they bring in planetary xenofauna/flora for analysis).

My position on this is pretty much this. Rather than continuing to expect antagonists to carry a 50 person server using something like four mercenaries, we instead introduce more roundstart spawns that have neutral or friendly involvement with the horizon that round, and slowly experiment with and tinker the third party spawns. Antagonist rounds have a habitual problem of turning the session into an active shooter simulation. Everyone just sort of stows themselves out of the way, and small talk becomes situationally inappropriate. Right now, our antagonists usually have just one A-plot. Even if you have something like Traitor, with multiple people out with different agendas, it's still one A-plot because security and command are supposed to fuck with them while the rest take radio callouts or keep out of the way. Imagine if we had B or even C plots stacked concurrently on top of the A-plot. The kind of plots which command a level of urgency for people to risk stepping out of lockdown to address them. Ship combat is a really good example of this. Like in the last event, we had boarders on top of ships to shoot at, Two vectors for intrigue running concurrently, involving multiple departments, and requiring people to step out of lockdown and contribute.

I think the core issue is that antagonists and crew are held to different conflicting standards. We expect crew to create characters. They obey fearRP, they interact with a setting beyond a basic level of just a single, self contained round. They have to monitor their behavior in canon interactions, because consequences follow them. Antagonists are the complete and total opposite. They don't have the same tethers that ground them in the setting like crew characters; or at the very least, they aren't "mandatory." They don't have the threat of canonicity to protect what people do to them either. They are not beholden to concepts like fearRP that regulate their behavior, and it is practically a necessity for them to cede such things in order to frag better, carry a gimmick, or just to stay active in the round when everyone's hunting them. FearRP is ultimately the biggest regulator on species related mechanics, and the closer someone is to outright ignoring it, the more of a balance concern it becomes. Every round that doesn't immediately kick up into high escalation when the antag shows up is engaged in a cortisol inducing byzantine OOC trust game, where the antag is expected to spread around engagement while at the same time dealing with people who don't want to or refuse to play along; Even while that's happening, they have to build or retain what little credibility they have with command/security or else they'll escalate when the antag isn't ready yet. And that's all assuming the Antag is going in with the expectations of being a storyteller, because if you're new or acting in bad faith, getting antag just gives you an uplink full of guns and unshackles you from the accountability of HRP to do whatever. The solution as I see it is to bring antagonists under the same HRP standards, and redesigning them to behave like third party ships with different directives. Borging an antagonist is small potatoes. Meanwhile, we haven't even borged a third party actor yet, and it'll likely be a point of contention if we ever get there.

Hey, we like your app so far. Just some questions: 1. With respect to Xrim and without, expand upon your character's sentiments on the Eternal. Do they have strong feelings about the dynamics back home? Are they curious about external interpretations of the Eternal? 2. Since your character likes to travel, where do they hope the Horizon goes? What parts of the wider setting fascinates them? Alternatively, where would they wanna stay the hell away from?

I think the bone chem should be in the medivends. There's no reason for it not to be plentiful when it encourages more GTR work. This could be good for medical.

Hello, DMed Brotendo questions, I will post the responses as well: 1. What are some ways you think lore can improve the immediate setting of the horizon itself? This also includes the sector overmap, and locations characters can access offscreen. 2. How do you think lore can improve character retention?

It's really easy to click the wrong combination of tags, or even just attempt to navigate through item slot categories, and find yourself on a blank screen. The only issue with the previous system was that you sometimes had to scroll to get what you wanted. The categories were self evident in what they offered. With this current interface, I feel like a 1940's telephone operator, where I have to manually program the interface in order to get the categories and lists I want. At least since the last time I've played other servers, every single one has used a system similar or adjacent to the previous interface. This isn't just regulars grumbling over new bad old good, this is something that will confuse the hell out of everyone, if it can't accommodate the old way of searching through categories.

I strongly disagree with this suggestion out of the principle of it being a retraction in what the XO directly presides over. Most of the functions of XO, such as flying the ship or organizing expeditions are meant to be delegated away to their bridge crew. It's a job where you spend all your time sitting around with your hands in your ass, aside from access changes and command functions which every command role is expected to perform. They would become the most redundant and vestigial organ in the command roster, more than they already are, as service generally runs itself. Nothing would really change much with how XO plays with this, but I don't want it to set the precedent that the XO is "complete". It would just become a Bridge QM, and the only reason it would have to hold onto command authority is to make decisions about where the ship goes.