Research And Development - Adding A New Research System

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

This is a replacement for the standard research tree. This is a tree that you unlock not by deconstruction, but through a puzzle game of deduction and matching.

 

There is the base 'Knowledge' from which 'fields' branch into specific 'topics'. You unlock different 'topics' in the tech tree. Each field has a randomly rolled relationship with the others in terms of a buff or debuff. If you manage to combine the right knowledge together, You create a research paper with a set value in terms of knowledge.

You put that research paper into a machine that evaluates it and it tells you how insightful your research is, and it rewards you with grant money and 'research points' that the RD can use to unlock the current levels of research instead of deconstruction.

If you need 3 non-repeating topics for a research paper then there are 5814 possible topic combinations. You must pick your main topic from one field of science, and two supporting topics. They cannot be from the same field as your main thesis. They can be from 2 separate fields from each other or the same as each other.

 

For example, using the chart above, Economic policy, diplomacy, and bluespace combined into a research paper would have a value of 4 * 0.5 = research worth 2 points. A low scoring research paper.

If you wrote one about Combat, anatomy, and bluespace, it would be 4 * 2.0 = research worth 8 points. A pretty good research paper.

Each topic would have a random roll to be either 1 or 2 points individually.

Below is the draft of how you would physically make research papers.

 

UPDATE: There will no longer be a time limit other than the possible little sprite of graphs and bars.

Make new paper is what is being shown

Review research lets you see all submitted papers and what Odin had to say about them

The about page is fluff text explaining the system.

Troubleshooting is a joke link that will say it sent a ticket to the IT team and expect a response in [NULL: STACK OVERFLOW] hours.

Withholding the hard data about what made what papers valuable but letting them see WHAT was researched lets players have to use deductive reasoning to try to figure out or guess what fields are dead ends and what have good synergy, which I think is the best way we can reasonably apply the scattershot nature of real research. You just sort of get a "They used these and yielded a result like [x]"

An example of a scoresheet where Odin values your paper would be like,

Quote

0  = "Is this a joke? This paper is being rejected."

1 - 4 = "This research paper is middling. We aren't considering a grant for this."

5 - 9 = "We can probably find an application somewhere. We are sending you a standard grant for your findings."

10 - 14 = "This is a very good thesis and we have already found an application. We are sending you a grant shortly."

15 - 20 = "You have revolutionized this entire field of science. The applications for this knowledge is boundless. We are sending you a large grant and are publishing you immediately."

20+ = "Your discovery is extrodinary. We are building a new science wing dedicated to this new field of study and naming it in your honor. We are sending you the maximum allowance for grant money."

 

And somewhere there would be a visible list of labs named in the scientists' honor if they somehow get lucky and hit a really high point value.

Or they would name a university course and teach people your findings. So we'd have a list like,

• Greg Melon School Of Applied Mathmatics
• Bofa Nuttingham School of Combat Equation
• Long Johnson Laboratory of Electro-Magnetic Economic Policy
•  

It's my argument that it would be great if scientists were egotistical about these things rather than having mad skills in combat mechs. Any feuds between scientists about who has the better university course named after them would be delightful, because they earned their recognition as a scientist through deductive reasoning in genuine research.

Edit:
It is currently being discussed if anything should be done with the points the research papers are worth. The 2 papers in our example would possibly give RnD 10 points that they could invest in unlocking a higher tier of research? So instead of deconstructing the bluespace beacon to get a higher level in bluespace research for building bluespace tech, you must submit enough valuable research papers to be given access to those prototypes.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Marlon Phoenix

[Superiorform]

I like this. I like this very much. Do you have any ideas for any in-game, mechanical stuff, other than the grant money?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Not currently. I believe the grant money and potential for in-universe recognition would be enough of a motivation for people. Ostensibly the grant money could be spent on more supplies for RnD, or generally used by the scientist for whatever purposes they see fit (like being blown on booze and cigarettes). Combined with this being a rewarding way for scientists to spend their otherwise idle time I think the current model of $$$$ and a hall of fame is good without more mechanical rewards.

Of course custom item requests or greater admin/lore shenanigans stemming from something happening is always a possibility, as with anything.

[Conspiir]

I love this idea. I'd love a way for it to be a joint paper thing, like an entire lab working on the paper. Or having your paper stolen by someone else. I'm not sure how it'd work, but I'd love for lab assistants to be used for making-good-papers labor for the reeeeeal scientists.

[Kaed]

Though I hate to be the proverbial pooper of parties, I would like to throw in my two cents here. I can see you are all excited here about this, and while I am largely neutral on this suggestion conceptually, I think it's largely akin to putting some golden nuggets at the bottom of a septic tank

The greater problem here with research is that it is mind-numbingly dull in design. You shove random and assorted objects in an analyzer to have them deconstructed for research levels, then repeat several dozen times with more junk you scavenged from around the station until you have the research levels you want to make stuff. Then, assuming mining actually did something this round, you print random toys and play with them or give them to other departments. Adding a thesis paper minigame at the end of all that tedious junk does not particularly enhance the prospect of working in R&D for me.

I should also point out that even without my opinions on the bad design of Research, this idea feels half-baked and inconsistent with the thematic of the Science department. Namely that every department presents you with tangible rewards you can interact and play with. Research gives you the protolathe, toxins gives you bombs, robotics gives mechs and cyborgs, xenoflora and xenobiology give you mutated plants and slime cores, and xenoarcheology gives you artifacts and strange objects.

This is still a game we are using to roleplay in, and providing a minigame at the end of research that just rewards you with some abstract numbers to spend on.. food? Booze? Random shit from cargo??... is not going to be a particularly consistent experience of time for rewards. You can toot your horn all you like about how "in-universe recognition would be enough of a motivation for people", but that does very little to gratify the actual players who are spending two hours of their day or more to play in this round as a scientist, especially since both the meaningless money and recognition reset to nothing at the end of the round. Perhaps some people can get by on pretend commendations and cash after all that time investment, but I know there are others who would like something more tangible to come out of their work.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Thank you for your response, Kaed! I do agree that Research is not everyone's cup of tea. It is definitely a scavenger hunt. This suggestion is not meant to be an overhaul to Science, but an additional layer that you can dig into and enjoy, or not. I said "unlock these new research methods" but that was a misnomer that I need to go back and edit - this research tree will be able to be explored by scientists at any time. If you don't enjoy the scavenger hunting of science, but still want to play a scientist, you can still contribute to the department and do research.

I do not think it is half-baked. It is a fully fleshed out research tree, which is clearly laid out from beginning to end.

Money as a reward seems the most reasonable reward to give. In a hard realism situation the money would go directly to the Science account but that would be pretty ass for the scientists putting their investment of time into this. Money can also be converted into literally anything - their reward is whatever cargo order, vending machine, or merchant they can give it to.

Money is pretty loosey goosey in terms of importance right now, but that is why the development team and I are working on the consistent economy. A house is built with many pieces, and this would be another piece of drywall.

What sort of rewards do you think we should give scientists who complete a particularly good research paper?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Ron originally took this on, but with his departure from the development team I would like to bump this.

[Bauser]

The whole "sitting in one spot not interacting with anything for five minutes" makes this pretty dubious from a gameplay perspective. Who wouldn't just tab away from BYOND and do something else while their spaceman writes their paper? Completely removes the player from the round, extremely boring. And yeah, I know writing a research paper really is extremely boring, but we don't have to simulate that.

If you want to make an intelligent research-making mini-game, it necessarily can't just be static/random chance. What if instead of using some basic equation with probabilities to determine the result, submitting a research paper relied on staff to gauge its merit and respond? We have this capability already expressed for, say, captains and wardens who can fax CentComm, and for chaplains who can use the "pray" verb. So what if, in order to write a research paper, you actually had to write something plausibly academic?

This makes the process engaging, it allows the entire department to contribute, it gives the scientists something valuable to do that isn't mind-numbingly repetitive like everything else, it would force you to be invested in the process and actually care about what you're submitting, and crucially, it allows the rewards to be freeform and contextualized by the staff responding. So it creates a lot of opportunities for emergent story stuff in addition to the tangible rewards. You could even use a portion of your submission to explain why you've chosen whatever research topic you did, and subtly suggest what rewards would be desirable or help with your continued research.

I know it's not a small thing to ask any more from the staff, but a dedicated system for turning honest creative effort into rewards would represent a massive level-up for the entire science department. In addition, the staff involvement could be as minor (giving grants or sending cool toys on the supply shuttle) or as major (promotions! celebrations honoring the accomplishment!) as desired in the moment.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The whole "sitting in one spot not interacting with anything for five minutes" makes this pretty dubious from a gameplay perspective. Who wouldn't just tab away from BYOND and do something else while their spaceman writes their paper? Completely removes the player from the round, extremely boring. And yeah, I know writing a research paper really is extremely boring, but we don't have to simulate that.

If you want to make an intelligent research-making mini-game, it necessarily can't just be static/random chance. What if instead of using some basic equation with probabilities to determine the result, submitting a research paper relied on staff to gauge its merit and respond? We have this capability already expressed for, say, captains and wardens who can fax CentComm, and for chaplains who can use the "pray" verb. So what if, in order to write a research paper, you actually had to write something plausibly academic?

This makes the process engaging, it allows the entire department to contribute, it gives the scientists something valuable to do that isn't mind-numbingly repetitive like everything else, it would force you to be invested in the process and actually care about what you're submitting, and crucially, it allows the rewards to be freeform and contextualized by the staff responding. So it creates a lot of opportunities for emergent story stuff in addition to the tangible rewards. You could even use a portion of your submission to explain why you've chosen whatever research topic you did, and subtly suggest what rewards would be desirable or help with your continued research.

I know it's not a small thing to ask any more from the staff, but a dedicated system for turning honest creative effort into rewards would represent a massive level-up for the entire science department. In addition, the staff involvement could be as minor (giving grants or sending cool toys on the supply shuttle) or as major (promotions! celebrations honoring the accomplishment!) as desired in the moment.

 

At last, a meaty response after all this time. There is a lot to unpack here, and I appreciate your feedback.

I am going to start by outright rejecting a requirement that staff should be involved. Yes we can already fax CC regarding things but sometimes it takes forever to get a response. As well, during deadhour you can sometimes be effectively entirely cut off from CC because there are no staff to respond. I personally would never want to have to handle such a thing if I received faxes. The benefits of an automated system is that the speed of a response is consistent and reliable.

I can concede that sitting around and waiting can be a pain in the butt. Thank you for helping me conceptualize how the waiting will actually be. I want to try and create a method in which you can't just rapidfire endless papers to 'farm' the rewards.

It is already built like a puzzle game. The value relationships between all of the different options have to be explored to achieve different results. You have to use deductive reasoning to see what topics you can combine for certain results. And if you hit the scientific sweet spot, you can then explore that and get rewarded. I do see it being repetitive, but, I would argue that so is the rest of RnD. having the time it takes to process all this stuff drastically reduced means that scientists can do this on their own time and at their own pace.

[HunterRS]

As someone who knows research really well and loves to play it. I love the idea but I feel like it would get redundant really soon, there needs to be ways to reset it after a certain amount of time so we don't have overload of amount of universities

Maybe have a set time of like 1 month-2 months before it is removed from the list, so people can have fun, and even with 5183 combinations, it can work, but even after time it is going to be repeating. Maybe to add on top of this to help science get more stuff to upgrade/fix for science, so science is actually wanted/needed.

Maybe give us a random actually puzzle to do while we wait so we have a higher chance of getting higher points

[Bauser]

Okay, what if your proposed system was implemented but with the ADDED option of actually writing something for staff to see? That immediately removes the pressure on staff to respond, since there's a prescribed system for automated rewards - but also keeps the opportunity for staff to respond only if they WANT to, and keeping the aspect that it encourages the scientist to be creative and engaging.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

As someone who knows research really well and loves to play it. I love the idea but I feel like it would get redundant really soon, there needs to be ways to reset it after a certain amount of time so we don't have overload of amount of universities

Maybe have a set time of like 1 month-2 months before it is removed from the list, so people can have fun, and even with 5183 combinations, it can work, but even after time it is going to be repeating. Maybe to add on top of this to help science get more stuff to upgrade/fix for science, so science is actually wanted/needed.

Maybe give us a random actually puzzle to do while we wait so we have a higher chance of getting higher points

 

The combinations are randomized each round. Each round you have no idea what combinations combine for how many points. I don't think a hall of fame would be very fun if we deleted it every month...

Having the option for staff responses seems fine, as long as it is optional.

[HunterRS]

The combinations are randomized each round. Each round you have no idea what combinations combine for how many points. I don't think a hall of fame would be very fun if we deleted it every month...

Having the option for staff responses seems fine, as long as it is optional.

 

A hall of fame would be super big after a really long time, and it wouldn't be as cool as it started out with.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Bump.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Bump.

[Conspiir]

I asked about this once in OOC. If it were being implemented. I think it was Arrow that told me adding things to the current research system was notoriously difficult.

[Kaed]

I still maintain that this is a tedious and unfun idea with very little real payout.

[furrycactus]

It's not like it was designed to entirely replace the current R&D system, it's just an optional addition, and personally, I like the sound of it quite a lot. Perhaps it could also be made possible for additional resources to be sent to science if a paper is good, just a little bit of everything. Some parts for robotics, resources for R&D, maybe some randomised seeds for xenobotany, a core or two for xenobiology, or some anomalies for xenoarch, all chosen at random, maybe? Perhaps something that can also help them continue their jobs and reward them for their work?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The central question i have in this bump is if we replace the current grind by starting at level 5 research to do applied research with the puzzle being ancillary

Or require levels to be unlocked with this system itself, completely replacing the need to deconstruct items

Or deconstruction has another benefit like if you deconstruct enough items of a certain level itll buff that field in the tree for one paper

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

A developer has taken interest in this.

[DaTimeSmog]

56 minutes ago, Senpai Jackboot said:

A developer has taken interest in this.

How much did you pay them to take on this task?

[DeadLantern]

There should be a mixture of both deconstruction and this system for the whole R&D experience.

Perhaps, you remove the "review papers" option. Instead, you gain little insights once you deconstruct anything. Once you deconstruct, the machine can spit out something like "NT sees possible opportunities from this" or "This does not seem profitable" and you piece together of what may make a good Research paper. You can make the machine spit out wrong things, or slightly off things, to force the character to think and use strategy.

And then, once you get a good research paper, you unlock new technologies that NT has given you a grant to pursue. Maybe this is how you progress the tech tree. You feed deconstruction machine things, upgrade its creating power, and get insights on if NT sees this as good. You formulate the best research paper you can, send it to Odin, and if it is good, then you get new special things you can make. If it is bad you get worse things or nothing at all.

You could even limit the amount of papers you can send (3 or 4) so people don't just randomly guess.

I think this is a very good idea.