"Dissection will now give XP instead of research points."

[Shikarego]

I was wondering what the reasoning for this change was?

To my eye, this removes a cooperative link between Science and Medical which I found rather positive. R&D would get surgeries early on if they thought doctors would do some dissections. You invest a bulk of points early but get back more points in the long run. Some shifts I would rush surgeries first because the CMO said they were doing dissections.
I really liked how another department could help out with R&D, and as a doctor I liked making myself more useful to the station as a whole.

I guess I'm trying to articulate: I thought dissections were great! I'd really like to know what the rationale was in this change.

[Eskjjlj]

It's written in the PR

[Shikarego]

It's written in the PR

Word, thanks, just looked it up.

I might lack contextual understanding, but my reading of this is that the dissections change is in preparation for a big R&D change.
But then my question is still kinda unanswered. If the R&D change hasn't happened yet, why is this change being made now? Why not keep it as it was until it makes sense to change it?

Unless this is just meant to balance the current techweb system? If so, I don't see an argument (on the PR page) for why dissections presented an imbalance. I'd be curious to hear that argument. Would I find it in the design doc they mention? If so, where would I find that?

[CPTANT]

It is a change in line with the "design document"

But it still makes dissection just not worth the time.

[Super Aggro Crag]

fuck interdepartmental relations, science uber ALLES

[cacogen]

>If the R&D change hasn't happened yet, why is this change being made now?
not the first time this has happened (e.g. moving genetics to science, moving the research console to the bridge). i wish the people contributing to the game weren't like this

[Cobby]

The active point generation was deemed bad by oranges per the design document (you can read it for explicit reasons) so I removed it. It wasn't in prep for any specific rework or would I have mentioned that in the PR. The only item that was mentioned in the PR that might be changed in the future was what leveling the surgery skill would do.

[PKPenguin321]

too bad, it prompted the most interdepartmental cooperation i would have in entire rounds as MD

[Shikarego]

The active point generation was deemed bad by oranges per the design document (you can read it for explicit reasons) so I removed it. It wasn't in prep for any specific rework or would I have mentioned that in the PR. The only item that was mentioned in the PR that might be changed in the future was what leveling the surgery skill would do.

I'm not well-versed on the structure of the decision-making by the coders. Is this something the new head would consider revisiting?

[Shikarego]

too bad, it prompted the most interdepartmental cooperation i would have in entire rounds as MD

For real. I enjoyed actually having to work with another department.

[wesoda25]

Why the blanket policy against active point generation? I understand why you wouldn't want it in things that scale in their generation (and thus can be abused), but experimental surgery required effort and was usually done by 1 person tops. It encouraged interdepartmental cooperation like the others said. Over all it was pretty harmless, what is so bad about it?

[Cobby]

The active point generation was deemed bad by oranges per the design document (you can read it for explicit reasons) so I removed it. It wasn't in prep for any specific rework or would I have mentioned that in the PR. The only item that was mentioned in the PR that might be changed in the future was what leveling the surgery skill would do.

I'm not well-versed on the structure of the decision-making by the coders. Is this something the new head would consider revisiting?

CAN they, yes.

WILL they, not sure I have not bothered to ask them. Generally my focus is medical/chem and things that touch those.

Why the blanket policy against active point generation? I understand why you wouldn't want it in things that scale in their generation (and thus can be abused), but experimental surgery required effort and was usually done by 1 person tops. It encouraged interdepartmental cooperation like the others said. Over all it was pretty harmless, what is so bad about it?

I did not make the policy, you should probably ask in a sep thread rather than one intended for the PR specifically.

[cacogen]

we have to take a voyage to mecca and offer tribute to allah to get a misguided pr reverted. how do you feel about it personally, cobby?

[Cobby]

Not misguided, removing active point gems is explicitly called out in a design doc. You simply disagree with the design doc.

Personally I’m not terribly bothered by it. I’d like to see it used to unlock tech but surgeries need to be “fixed” to support more general mobs even though dissection already accounts for it.

If you’re asking me my thoughts on the active point design, I have seen how the rounds go and I can see how they came to that conclusion in wanting these pointgens gone. I would disagree if someone had said dissection was the biggest offender, and I hope someone culls the actual ones like 50k bomb rush.

[CPTANT]

Not misguided, removing active point gems is explicitly called out in a design doc. You simply disagree with the design doc.

Personally I’m not terribly bothered by it. I’d like to see it used to unlock tech but surgeries need to be “fixed” to support more general mobs even though dissection already accounts for it.

If you’re asking me my thoughts on the active point design, I have seen how the rounds go and I can see how they came to that conclusion in wanting these pointgens gone. I would disagree if someone had said dissection was the biggest offender, and I hope someone culls the actual ones like 50k bomb rush.

This is a really weird way to do a debate.

"we think it is a bad change"

"well its in the design doc"

How is that even an answer? It is just a way to circumvent discussion about the subject, the weird decisions of this design doc are what we are discussing.

[trollbreeder]

Not misguided, removing active point gems is explicitly called out in a design doc. You simply disagree with the design doc.

Personally I’m not terribly bothered by it. I’d like to see it used to unlock tech but surgeries need to be “fixed” to support more general mobs even though dissection already accounts for it.

If you’re asking me my thoughts on the active point design, I have seen how the rounds go and I can see how they came to that conclusion in wanting these pointgens gone. I would disagree if someone had said dissection was the biggest offender, and I hope someone culls the actual ones like 50k bomb rush.

This is a really weird way to do a debate.

"we think it is a bad change"

"well its in the design doc"

How is that even an answer? It is just a way to circumvent discussion about the subject, the weird decisions of this design doc are what we are discussing.

Headcoders will it. It's forced into existance eventually by discarding anything that goes against the will of the headcoders. Repeat until game becomes better.

[Cobby]

This is a really weird way to do a debate.

"we think it is a bad change"

"well its in the design doc"

How is that even an answer? It is just a way to circumvent discussion about the subject, the weird decisions of this design doc are what we are discussing.

That is the point of the design doc so we don't have this back/forth on the PR end, It was decided to be the better decision by the headcoder so it is now an enforced design choice.

If you want to argue the design doc (fair) you should make a thread about it rather than trying to force that discussion in a thread that is specific to an interaction that now complies with said design doc, as some people who might be interested in having that discussion may not care to participate in this thread. For the purpose of this thread, It doesn't need a justification beyond that.

[PKPenguin321]

going with the design doc, once we've got a system in place for nodes having to be unlocked by departmental progress, dissections can probably unlock some nodes in addition to giving XP and bring back departmental interaction. it'll be a zero sum thing where effectively not much will change for the doctor which is alright

[Vekter]

going with the design doc, once we've got a system in place for nodes having to be unlocked by departmental progress, dissections can probably unlock some nodes in addition to giving XP and bring back departmental interaction. it'll be a zero sum thing where effectively not much will change for the doctor which is alright

This.

Example: Surgeries that were unlocked by deconstructing an alien tool would need you to dissect an alien or abductor instead.

[cacogen]

Not misguided, removing active point gems is explicitly called out in a design doc. You simply disagree with the design doc.

Personally I’m not terribly bothered by it. I’d like to see it used to unlock tech but surgeries need to be “fixed” to support more general mobs even though dissection already accounts for it.

If you’re asking me my thoughts on the active point design, I have seen how the rounds go and I can see how they came to that conclusion in wanting these pointgens gone. I would disagree if someone had said dissection was the biggest offender, and I hope someone culls the actual ones like 50k bomb rush.

it is misguided to generalise this to all active point generation. it's also misguided to treat this design doc thing like the incontrovertible word of god. i don't quite understand what you're doing here or why you're doing it but i think kafka would have had some things to say about it

[Cobby]

show me what line i have misinterpreted https://hackmd.io/@tgstation/Sy8W0nvv8# ... nt-oranges

oranges even said he approved it in the PR so assuming there is a misreading, we should correct it so it states more clearly we are discontinuing the use of active gens.

Yes, it is "word of god". that is the point, to force a design direction. make a thread explaining your gripes with it in general so people who are interested, particularly people who would be willing to change it, will be more likely to participate. I'm not sure how asking you to do this has somehow provoked "what could be his motives, what is his master plan???"

I'm unfamiliar with the kafka reference, sorry.

[wesoda25]

I would compare you to the officer in “in the penal colony”

Edit: actually kinda funny, since oranges would perfectly take the role of the first commandant. ‘course incase anyone actually knows what I’m talking about I’ll clarify to say that I don’t agree with this interpretation, just find it funny