Remove Character Age Skewing Job Roll

[Fyni]

I'm not sure if this is even the case, but several people have cited it to me: jobs have a "preferred age", and the closer you are to it, the more likely you are to win roll offs for a slot.

If this is not the case, I am happy to be proven wrong. But I've mentioned it a few time and there seems to be an understanding that this is a thing.

Anyway, if true, it encourages a type of meta gaming, setting ages to win the space for hotly contested rolls, which while mild and not exactly power gaming, I think takes away from the freedom for people to create a wide range of characters. The minimum age for jobs are there to ensure we don't get unbelieveable 18 year old doctors and captain already. I honestly don't see any benefit to this system, and I've been told it's likely just a leftover from old, old code to do with the job roll.

[Susan]

I for one have no issues with this and it sure is believable chars with more seniority and experience would be scheduled more.

[ben10083]

It exists:

To explain the above code, if a human captain that is 61 years old readies up, they have the highest odds of winning the role. The other head positions have ideal ages as well. 

Only heads are involved

Edited March 14 by ben10083
misinformation

[Fyni]

Just now, ben10083 said:

It exists:

To explain the above code, if a human captain that is 59 years old readies up, they have the highest odds of winning the role. The other head positions have ideal ages as well. 

Only heads are involved

Thank you. The point was also brought up in Discord that this code might exsist for other jobs in the server configs too - if anyone with access could check?

[YourDaddy117]

For the sake of transparency I'll preface this by saying my character is right on the minimum age for HoS at 30, but I still felt like I wanted to give some input. If there's going to be some kind of mechanical restriction, even if it's still just modifying rng, there needs to be both IC and OOC information that points this out. If I decide for either character reasons and/or aesthetic that I want a younger character I shouldn't be mechanically punished for doing so without being told. I understand that there should be more older characters in Head positions even if I myself am kind of part of the problem, but that's not really justification for people potentially getting booted from a round because the dice were loaded. I don't think anybody's roll for getting a slot should be screwed with mechanically and if they really must be then it should be something you at least can know before making a character without digging through a bunch of code.

[ben10083]

dont worry, I made a PR so IPCs are more fairly weighted in terms of age

[RustingWithYou]

A PR has been made to remove this mechanic entirely.

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/18660

[Butterrobber202]

I think this should be removed. We have minimum age requirements for command to get people to be in the ball park. Adding incentives in forms of roll weight is unfair to players who make younger, or even older characters. So, big support for that PR.

[Fyni]

There has been a lot of discussion over this matter in Discord now.

It seems:

• Age weighting only effects command
• Age weighting gives straight advantage, even if off.
• This bonus only applies to humans and skrell.

I would ask more investigation maybe be undertaken into all of this - though it might be the case the full facts are already found, I'm no coder.

I want to stress my stance, given some people's support of this newly "in the open" code: Minimum age exsists to create believeable characters. If you think 35 is too young for a Captain (the minimum age), then your answer is not some random system to give them less chance to roll, your answer should be to ask for the minimum age to be increased. Having character age effect if you even get to play a round, possibly even a big event, is crazy to me. You are placing OOC restrictions on people's ability to play the characters they want, all but barging into other people's roleplay space. We all make characters within the lore of the Horizon, and if we didn't we would be sure to get a word from the staff.

Arguements of "older makes sense because it's realistic" give a good point, but realism isn't the point. Things are bent everywhere to allow people to play what they want. The Horizon employs a wide array of peoples who should likely be discriminated again (Guwans. IPCs maybe. Certain Tajara... I mean the list is long.), but as long as that character is believable in their job, I see no reason why a more "desireable" (In universe) character should have an OOC advantage in a roll off to even play.

It seems this suggestion has been accepted while I was typing this, but I will post it anyway since it's an arguement I wish to be out there anyway.

[Ricky_the_banshee]

Agreed with the posts above, and most all else. 

This mechanic so far has only caused alot of confusion and dissary, in particulair in the main discord. Suggestions and implications were made that this mechanic extends to other roles outside command as well. It sounds like there is alot of confusion on what exactly this "age weight" affects. 

Posts above provide screnshot evidence of the lines in coding that showcase that it mainly affects command, (which even then IMO, is still a net negative as it disables player freedom due to mechanical priorities implemented.) 

This has not stopped the debate from spiraling out of control, with fears that this will still somehow end up leaking down the line into other roles. With how obscure of a line this was to, a quite apparent, many people it only seems to serve as a potential fear at how this could diminish people's choice in what character achetypes they would wish to portray in said roles.

Even within the position of command. It is nice to see seasoned, mature and older types of characters in their slots with more gray on their head than healthy hair. Player freedom should still take priority in that matter. If our command staff will consist of a bunch of 30-40 year olds, then that's simply what people are playing.

We have existing restrictions such as whitelists, species limitations and hardcoded minimum ages for command slots already. There is honestly no need for a mechanic like this, other than to cause a needless 'meta' to gain a better chance at a slot.

[OolongCow]

The fact this is a thing is kind of insane. If we're going to give mechanical benefits for playing the "right" age shouldn't it be things like wealth modifiers instead of literally whether you get the slot or not?

[Dreamix]

I feel this is just a very old thing (that maybe even made sense years ago), that no one noticed is a thing in all these years.

Looking at the code, it was last modified almost 2 years ago when adding species specific age restrictions, but it actually was added... 8 years ago, maybe even before that.

 

I'm 100% sure it will just be removed now that there's PRs up. I would be very surprised if it wasn't.

[Lmwevil]

antiquecode that will now be removed, amen 

 

good work finding it though I had no clue

[Fyni]

Great to hear! Hopefully it's gone sooner rather then later - at least before the next event with command roles.

[Fluffy]

This was implemented in https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/18661

Locking and archiving.