Changing the Station Engineer job to Maintenance Technician

[MattAtlas]

Title, reasoning in PR: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/7343

Someone said that there should be a job or alt title that just handles menial tasks. I agree so I need a crowdfunded name before I can implement it. 

[Azande]

Mechanic.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Azande

[Doxxmedearly]

Could do something like a Custodial Technician, and move it to being an alt-title of janitor, with the equivalent of a full toolbelt and maybe mesons. They can clean (menial task) and other responsibilities would be like, replacing lights, fixing haywire vendors, fixing/placing/rearranging furniture and flooring, and maybe small construction things like light fixtures and glass replacement. The upside is they get janitor ease of access. The downside is they don't get the full access to engineering. But they wouldn't be expected to, say, set the engine, destroy blobs, wire powernets, go EVA, and do advanced construction, while still being able to assist in big engineering problems (ie: bombs) by getting the floors and lights in, and the work site clean. 

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

This is so unflattering.

[Brayce]

The alt titles are all meaningless. Unlike Medical which has defined pages for what each alt title does Engineering has never received the same the meaning is up to everyone's different interpretation they are all mechanically the same. They are all played the same just different specializations.  Engine Tech fixes the engine. Electrician focuses on wires. In my mind a Maintenance technician is a less able Station Engineer. I would expect the Engineer to be able to do everything the tech can, and something else. If that be EVA, the engine, SMES, or actual full construction.  In actual gameplay all this is again meaningless since all the alt titles do everything.

Summary: Big -1. Techs maintain. Engineers maintain, and build. Different job expectations different reasons to both exist. The major reasoning for the change is the desire to be 'cooler' is purely subjective. The opinion of which if not evident by this post I vehemently disagree with.

 

[Xelnagahunter]

I'm on the fence here and almost feel like setting Maint tech to the primary title inflicts damage upon what people view the role as. As Brayce mentioned, maint techs tend to be seen as people who do a bit less. Maybe fixing small holes in windows, killing the wall rot, replacing lights, and otherwise assisting other engineering titles in their work without the need for being considered "lesser" role wise like an apprentice. I feel the Station engineer is more suited to full on repair work, independent construction projects, and the like. Station engineer is a role that should be okay at nearly every engineering task, while engine tech and electrician would be specialized, just like the mechanically different atmos tech is. That being said, engineers tend to be the people that invent things and drawn up plans and schematics. And engineer designs a machine, fabrication workers actually build it (albeit usually en mass). My proposal is a rename into something of a construction nature. I don't really have a good title right now but there are enough of us here to think of something. then we have the specialties, Atmos, engines, electrical, construction/general repair, and maintenance/light repair.

 

Just my two cents.

[SynysterSparx]

An engineer is a person who designs, builds, or maintains... 

There is no reason to remove this title. It means different things to different people, and it is only your opinion that another title is cooler.

If you want to add another title, sure. But on a server so focused on role play, it seems detrimental to take away options, especially ones people and their characters may be attached to, for seemingly no reason.

[MattAtlas]

I'm not taking away options though. This is why I'm asking for a substitute name for the new alt title, which would fit what maint tech was used for before.

[Wildkins]

I think you're all sort of underestimating what an actual engineering or maintenance technician IRL would be capable of and in charge of. They aren't janitors who've read a blueprint and know which side of a wrench is which, they're trained, often-times specialized workers that would do the vast majority of the actual grunt work on any given job, often overseen by a (chief) engineer. Making this the default title would also have some nice symmetry with Atmospheric Technician, who would more directly be the other side of the coin so to speak. They'd still also be your "jack of all trades, master of none" in that sense.

That being said, I'm neutral on the whole idea. I've never really liked "Station Engineer" as a term, maybe even stealing "Engineering Technician" might be a better term or something else, I don't know. "Station Engineer" just feels really...I dunno. Odd. But I can also see why some people might want it to stay in some form or another.

[Flamingo]

Huge +1. I've privately voiced my opinion on this change to matt before, and how I've always wanted it to be done. This would remove the lackluster "alternative" title that was essentially "you can't do much" and replace it with a title more congruent with the rest (x technician). Also just because the name is "maintenance" doesn't mean they can't build things, as Wildkins stated. IRL they are highly trained. I would be okay with changing the name to Engineering Technician, but I think that also is a bit redundant and prefer it how it is. Overall, I don't see this affecting things negatively, really. 

To address the other half of the argument (adding another alt title that handles "menial" tasks) - I think it's entirely unnecessary. At least to add an engineer alt title anyways. The janitor could totally use one if we so wished, but honestly, ingame, engineers just completely ignore "minor" calls anyways in favor of fixing important shit like walls (unless it's slow). I'd be much more receptive to adding a janitor alt title than another engineering one. At the end of the day, it will only be ignored how maint tech was before this change (except by a very few select people). 

[Skull132]

A quick lesson that I have discovered while studying engineering and working as an engineer. In colloquial English, as far as I've noted, the difference between the professions of "engineer" and "technician" is often disregarded, and the latter is commonly referred to as an "engineer" as well. Which is technically incorrect. An engineer is typically someone who designs and oversees: a white collar job, usually, with minor field work. An engineer typically has a university degree (undergraduate or graduate level), and is very much concerned with knowing the principles of how something works, and how to design things. A technician is someone who is typically subordinate to an engineer, in the grand scheme of things. They are responsible for realizing the plans of an engineer, or maintaining them, or whatever. Depending on the field, technicians might have anything from a vocational education to an graduate degree. They're the blue collars who stick around to make sure everything that is in the plans actually ends up working and running.

Both fields do have a lot of variance. Once we get into really specific shit, like nuclear (or super matter) engines, the technicians required to operate these things might be very highly educated. But they would likely still be classed as technicians, since most of their latter training would revolve around specific equipment, and not necessarily the background knowledge required to design new equipment. They both have to know the working principles, and a good chunk of maths. But the angle and nuances of their education would be different.

On the Aurora, probably the only engineer in the engineering department would be the CE.

Funnily enough though, a good chunk of the science staff would fit the bill of engineers.

Addendum. What I posted is still an oversimplification/technically incorrect. Depending on field, engineers need very specific mentorship and certifications before they can be referred to as engineers. However, with the way education and employment has gone over the past few years, a bachelor's or master's in sciences is typically enough for most things. Or at least a prerequisite to certification.

[ferner]

Job titles should be clear. Having a role with Engineer in the name, in the engineering department makes sense. People can understand what an engineer does on a space station almost instantly, Due to influences from other games, other science fiction media, etc.

Maintenance technician doesn't lend itself to the same image, it's a vague title that has for years just meant a more unreliable engineer of some kind. Should they know how to turn on the engine? Should they not? Who knows. Its only uses being perhaps as a stepping stone between apprentice and a full on engineer, or perhaps for players who want to play to the archetype of a less educated engineer ,with less responsibilities.

Pointing at real-life examples I find irrelevant, we're neither a milsim-esque server, and we're not all in the know how of how engineers operate in real-life either and we shouldn't be expected to.
Tldr: Big -1.

Edited November 6, 2019 by ferner

[SynysterSparx]

9 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

I'm not taking away options though. This is why I'm asking for a substitute name

If you replace the option to be "Station Engineer" with something else, the total amount of options may remain the same, but you have taken away the option to be "Station Engineer."

[MattAtlas]

I want to address something that has been said a few times in this thread - that, apparently, wanting to change something because you dislike it is "not a valid reason", despite the fact that most feature PRs are born out of personal and subjective motivations.

Yes, I do believe that station engineer sounds worse than maintenance technician. I think the two titles are also redundant. That's why I'm removing station engineer and making maintenance technician the default.

Another thing - maintenance techs and station engineers right now go through the same exact kind of schooling. The idea that maint techs are somehow different from station engineers is a myth made up by some people. It's not true and never has been.

9 hours ago, ferner said:

Maintenance technician doesn't lend itself to the same image, it's a vague title that has for years just meant a more unreliable engineer of some kind. Should they know how to turn on the engine? Should they not? Who knows. Its only uses being perhaps as a stepping stone between apprentice and a full on engineer, or perhaps for players who want to play to the archetype of a less educated engineer ,with less responsibilities.

I don't think this is really a problem? If it's a new player they'll look at the wiki and find out that maint techs are the same as an engineer. If it's an experienced player, they'll either see the changelog or they'll notice that maintenance technician replaces the station engineer. Alternatively, they'll look at the wiki. See above for the "less educated engineer" part. I think you can do that fine as an assistant or as an apprentice. If it's a niche that desperately needs to be fulfilled despite there being a total of 4 people using that alt title, we can add a more fitting job - perhaps a janitor alt title or something similiar. Which would fit more into the "less educated" archetype.

[Chada1]

Instead of Maintenance Technician, I would suggest changing it to 'Station Technician', because Maintenance Technician is p. vague. Still. Electrician can be used by people who want the maint. tech niche still.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

How about wr make maint tech the standars job, make engineer an alt title specialist, and reform the titles and jobs like i did with medical?

[NewOriginalSchwann]

I support this, engineer is more of a white collar role when compared to what we have on the station. The only engineers aboard should be the chief, and some science employees such as mechatronic engineers. Station Technician is a much more fitting title, in all honesty.

[Cnaym]

Big -1

For all intents and purposes they are working on a space station. In space. U know?

Qualifications: At least 25 years of age, applicable Bachelors degree or 7 years experience in engineering-related field.

It's called station engineer because they need to be ready for everything. Breaches and blobs included. Maintenance is more of keeping the place running from how I understand it, while the Station Engineer knows a ton more in order to solve problems through creativity and new solutions that aren't exactly by the book but keep the place running.

I'd love to keep it as is really, so newcommers can learn the engineer job as Maint Tech (someone who worked in that field for a year or two maybe) from someone who has studied that stuff and worked in it for a lot longer.

I found this to make my point ^^ Engineers come from all walks of life and split into really interresting things like medical engineers for prosthetics for example. When I hear Station Engineer I usually get more of this picture in my head:

Those where the guys working in the coal industry, as my dad did for example. They did not get fancy clothing or a clean desk. They where paid to keep everyone secure and alive in a place where help takes days or weeks to arrive if something goes south. A much better comparison to our station than someone working in an office really.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Cnaym

[MattAtlas]

Okay. How about station technician? @Cnaym

Then we can keep maintenance technician as a lower education role with less responsibility and knowledge.

[SatinsPristOTD]

16 hours ago, NewOriginalSchwann said:

I support this, engineer is more of a white collar role when compared to what we have on the station. The only engineers aboard should be the chief, and some science employees such as mechatronic engineers. Station Technician is a much more fitting title, in all honesty.

What?

"Engineering is a broad work category that refers to jobs that use science and mathematics to solve a variety of problems. Engineers work in disciplines that include mechanical, electrical, chemical, civil, and environmental engineering, among others."

Why would the ONLY ENGINEER we have be the Chief Engineer? What would he be CHIEF of if he's the only one?

I ask that you go back and look into the Engineering field, as stating engineering is a "white collar role" and how we only need one Engineer for a station the size of Aurora is ballsey.

Leave the name alone. Some things don't need to change.

Progress for the sake of progress isn't progress at all. It's white noise.

Edited November 7, 2019 by SatinsPristOTD

[Cnaym]

4 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Okay. How about station technician?

I'll side with Satin here. It's no progress, it's not even a change.

Let's get back to important stuff instead.

[MattAtlas]

But it is a change. I've already said why. I'm removing the maint tech alt title, making it the default title and adding a new alt title that actually has different education requirements and different expectations. Right now the "maint techs are less educated" engineers is a big meme that isn't actually true.

[geeves]

2 hours ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

Progress for the sake of progress isn't progress at all. It's white noise.

No need to post this, it is incredibly rude. You should be ashamed.

23 minutes ago, Cnaym said:

Let's get back to important stuff instead.

This is rude and degrading. This PR takes all of two seconds to do.

 

Do not post if you have no constructive feedback.

 

Now, personally, I don't mind the name much. The name "station engineer" never really did make sense to me. Station Technician seems fine. Idk if something like "Engineering Technician" makes sense? Could, maybe.

[Cnaym]

6 minutes ago, geeves said:

This is rude and degrading. This PR takes all of two seconds to do.

That was not meant to be rude nor degrading. The issue I see is that this change will be discussed for days while creative suggestions will get attention for a day and then be ignored. I'd prefere a focus on valuable additions to the game instead of changing minor details that (in my opinion) do not improve the game overall.

As for the title, both can be chosen right now, both should be able to be picked even if the default one is changed. This brings me to the question on whether or not this discussion is required. I am sorry I worded it in a way that can be interpreted as rude.

[Pratepresidenten]

On 05/11/2019 at 22:33, Azande said:

Mechanic.

Field mechanic maybe? For that fancy title flair!

Ive been at this for an hour now, I cannot find any suitable low-rank title that doesnt have maintenance or technician in it :c