Content Suggestion Chemicals and You. Research Department Chemical Weighting System Proposal [SCP-RP]

[Dusk]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
At present, almost anyone can make chemicals, regardless of affiliation with Research or any other department. To preserve the integrity, hierarchy, and scientific governance of the Research Department of the SCPRP server, I’d introduce a chemical weighting formula. Chemicals would be more useful/effective based on the role/departure affiliation of the creator, which not only legitimizes a scientific hierarchy but also renders the department more valuable and lessens unnecessary/unexpected chemical creation.


Chemical Weighting:
Any chemicals created in the SCPRP server will be assigned an "efficacy weight" that will not be shown to the player. This will impact gameplay/testing efficacy. This implies general usefulness and lasting effects as well.
Chemicals created outside of the Research Department will be given a negative weighting for misguided creation/inefficiency. Chemicals created in the Research Department will receive the following weighting relative to rank:
​

Position​	Assigned Weight​
Junior Researcher​	-5% Weight​
Researcher​	Neutral (0%)​
Senior Researcher​	+5% Weight​
Executive Researcher​	+15% Weight​
Director+​	+25% Weight​

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):​

• Limits the effectiveness of chemicals created by unauthorized or underqualified roles, preventing game-breaking exploits or abuse.​
• Maintains equilibrium between departments while still enabling tactical specialization.​
• Clearly defines the Research Department’s control over chemical production, reinforcing in-universe jurisdiction and authority.​
• Reduces the risk of rogue or nonsensical chemical use by non-research roles, which can detract from immersive roleplay​

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:​

• Those who don't play research may find it restrictive and feel that their time and creativity aren't as appreciated.​
• Combat and support classes may feel offended if they're going to get access to weighted chemicals as a bonus from not having to work with others.​
• If chemicals are weighted based on class, then more mods or technical systems will be needed to assess equity and maintain consistency.​
• Higher ranked researchers may refuse to give chemicals to lower ranked researchers; they may keep the chemicals for themselves, or they may choose not to help in combat, which fosters friction between faculties.​
• If everything is going to be weighted equally across the board, new researchers may feel their contributions are pointless, which turns away newer or more casual gamers.​

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This is a happy medium for fixing chemicals without adding independent systems in-game for individuals to manage over the course of multiple directors and command members. With this, the system can be a permanent fixture that RSD can maintain with ingrained rules and regulations to uphold without the need of fixing things through different perspectives from different directors.​

 

[Ogre]

+support

 

[Aceman04]

+SUPPORT

 

[Starling6]

finally, chem monopoly for the research director

 

[Average member podidski]

what about UNGOC R&D and CI R&D since there is only one R&D per each faction, what weight would they get?

also:

Any chemicals created in the SCPRP server will be assigned an "efficacy weight" that will not be shown to the player. This will impact gameplay/testing efficacy. This implies general usefulness and lasting effects as well.
Chemicals created outside of the Research Department will be given a negative weighting for misguided creation/inefficiency. Chemicals created in the Research Department will receive the following weighting relative to rank:
​

Position​	Assigned Weight​
Junior Researcher​	-5% Weight​
Researcher​	Neutral (0%)​
Senior Researcher​	+5% Weight​
Executive Researcher​	+15% Weight​
Director+​	+25% Weight​

so CL3 get the lowest weight possible to be posstive but somehow jr.cl4 get the 10%+ boost (5+10).
do you think that CL4+ people dont have friends in CL3+ people? and dont get me started if director gets friends who are only CL3+ then thats means, lets say a director makes chems with no payment (cuz friends) for those CL3+ people which in turn makes those CL3+ people sell those chems with this "efficact weight" (which is usefulness and lasting effects).

damn can't wait for briding and corruption here yippie!!!

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:​

• Those who don't play research may find it restrictive and feel that their time and creativity aren't as appreciated.​
• Combat and support classes may feel offended if they're going to get access to weighted chemicals as a bonus from not having to work with others.​
• If chemicals are weighted based on class, then more mods or technical systems will be needed to assess equity and maintain consistency.​
• Higher ranked researchers may refuse to give chemicals to lower ranked researchers; they may keep the chemicals for themselves, or they may choose not to help in combat, which fosters friction between faculties.​
• If everything is going to be weighted equally across the board, new researchers may feel their contributions are pointless, which turns away newer or more casual gamers.​

forget a devtime.

no "-, + or =" support, just teling the things that gonna happen if this gets added.

 

[Rito Munro Fraser]

While this is an interesting proposal, there are some aspects that need to be flushed out.
For example, how is it decided who made a chemical?
If 1 researcher spawns a flask, another pours in a chemical, and a third researcher pours in a different chemical to start the reaction, which one of them made the chemical?

There's also the matter of what it means for a chemical to have increased efficiency.
For some chemicals it would be possible to make the effect stronger, but for others the only real option would be to just extend the duration.
And take chemicals that damage the player, would a higher efficiency mean they hurt more or less?

 

[Advil Smith]

this would be kinda cool for you guys but generally I consider making chemicals a OOC thing. So I’m neutral on this I think it would give u guys a monopoly

 

[Dusk]

While this is an interesting proposal, there are some aspects that need to be flushed out.
For example, how is it decided who made a chemical?
If 1 researcher spawns a flask, another pours in a chemical, and a third researcher pours in a different chemical to start the reaction, which one of them made the chemical?

There's also the matter of what it means for a chemical to have increased efficiency.
For some chemicals it would be possible to make the effect stronger, but for others the only real option would be to just extend the duration.
And take chemicals that damage the player, would a higher efficiency mean they hurt more or less?

I'm not a developer, so implementations of how things function would be up to the content team as they always have been. I can't say one way or another as they always change based on what is expected.

I can say the implementation of these changes have been put into consideration based on talks from RSD changes in the past and present. The one completing the configuration of the chemical would be the one that receives the weight of the bonus, it wouldn't be based on who has what flask but who actually creates the chemical itself.

I can explain how I want the changes to be, but at the end of the day its up to the expectations of Content and NL, as I know they want a more strict environment for chemicals and divisions that deal with them.


*EDIT
For everyone's concerns about corruption and considerations based on who has access to what.
We already have these issues, the only difference is, instead of them being contained to just RSD they are across the entirety of the server which makes for a problem of organizing who has what. If things are contained to one group, maintaining a strict standard of quality is easier instead of across the board.

 

[Holy Doggo(Bruno Leopold)]

Would expand this concept to cover other jobs/roles/factions who do chemical synthesis where possible

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I find this concept interesting, but I feel like the effort it will take to implement will outweigh any potential benefits.

I would also echo the points raised about CI & GOC jobs - I think their R&D jobs should get boosts, and their CL4 & 5 jobs boosts, too. In that regard, I feel that CI should have equivalent boosts - But GOC's boosts should be a little stronger. This would align with the intent of them being the smallest present faction with the strongest firepower.

Additionally, I would tag on a potential idea for the future implementation of Warfunds (Assuming it's still happening) - Of something that could increase the efficacy of created chemicals, which would be available to each faction.

Regardless, even though such a thing would encourage further engagement with VCraft, I will also note that obvious combative implications of boosting chem efficacy overall, so I understand why there may be hesitancy wholesale. I feel that your analysis of your own suggestion is somewhat restrained? It feels like you're only thinking about certain use cases and not really about how chems are used on the server as a whole, what kind of things will propagate throughout the server environment were this implemented.

I was going to write a whole diatribe that would help you out, by dissecting an example CI raid to explain how boosting the efficacy of chems would make combat progress faster and thus end a CI raid quicker, meaning return to RP quicker; Albeit this could be considered as a big nerf to CI, as CI do not get to rejoin the raid when they die, balance-wise they effectively have "limited lives" compared to F's "infinite lives" if that makes sense.

So increasing the efficacy of speed chems would allow F combatives that die to rejoin the fight quicker, making it harder for CI to do anything. This may also result in more stalemates. Although it would also balance things out a little given the presence of the Neuro Controller. It's difficult, but I think the balancing here is a little rough. I'm not sure. I imagine CT see more problems with what I've raised, than I do.

Anyway, as I was feeling out the example for that diatribe and trying to work things out, I realised that only certain sampling raids would be further incentivised, as the efficacy boost applies only to created chems - So things like Immortal Flesh wouldn't matter as it's a chem you sample and use.

Then NHU came to mind. If the efficacy bonus applies to all chems created, then you have potentially up to +25% efficacy when creating NHU, dependant on the job creating it. And most likely, it would be created for sale, to be used by someone else. The only way I can think of to increase the efficacy of NHU, is to increase how long it lasts. So you'd basically be allowing buffed NHU to enter the market.

I think for any chance of this going through, you will need to change the efficacy bonus to only apply to select chems. I don't think NHU needs a buff. And even then, I think CT will be skittish about the potential of god chem coming back. I'm honestly still a fan of the idea of applying pharmacological route of administration type things to chems.

Additionally, I think there should be a way it could apply somehow to the type of chems that don't get crafted into anything else, you just sample and then use them, such as Immortal Flesh. Maybe give those things a single, unidirectional recipe that effectively makes itself with no base changes to effect and contextualise it as refinement (which chem cooking basically is to a degree), so then the efficacy bonus can reasonably apply to that.
+/- Neutral

 

[John Ion Wells]

i belive that departments need cons and pros this is pro but at the same time research is the only department with the perms to spawn( and the medicial chemist) the items to make the chems. so it is a double sword , you are doing somthing with this suggestion but at the same time they are the only "offcial" people to make chems which is going to make minor changes with the research department

note( i recomend to comment on this post of what the wegiths will be for the medcial department chemist and the research chemist)

+minor support

 

[Dusk]

I find this concept interesting, but I feel like the effort it will take to implement will outweigh any potential benefits.

I would also echo the points raised about CI & GOC jobs - I think their R&D jobs should get boosts, and their CL4 & 5 jobs boosts, too. In that regard, I feel that CI should have equivalent boosts - But GOC's boosts should be a little stronger. This would align with the intent of them being the smallest present faction with the strongest firepower.

Additionally, I would tag on a potential idea for the future implementation of Warfunds (Assuming it's still happening) - Of something that could increase the efficacy of created chemicals, which would be available to each faction.

Regardless, even though such a thing would encourage further engagement with VCraft, I will also note that obvious combative implications of boosting chem efficacy overall, so I understand why there may be hesitancy wholesale. I feel that your analysis of your own suggestion is somewhat restrained? It feels like you're only thinking about certain use cases and not really about how chems are used on the server as a whole, what kind of things will propagate throughout the server environment were this implemented.

I was going to write a whole diatribe that would help you out, by dissecting an example CI raid to explain how boosting the efficacy of chems would make combat progress faster and thus end a CI raid quicker, meaning return to RP quicker; Albeit this could be considered as a big nerf to CI, as CI do not get to rejoin the raid when they die, balance-wise they effectively have "limited lives" compared to F's "infinite lives" if that makes sense.

So increasing the efficacy of speed chems would allow F combatives that die to rejoin the fight quicker, making it harder for CI to do anything. This may also result in more stalemates. Although it would also balance things out a little given the presence of the Neuro Controller. It's difficult, but I think the balancing here is a little rough. I'm not sure. I imagine CT see more problems with what I've raised, than I do.

Anyway, as I was feeling out the example for that diatribe and trying to work things out, I realised that only certain sampling raids would be further incentivised, as the efficacy boost applies only to created chems - So things like Immortal Flesh wouldn't matter as it's a chem you sample and use.

Then NHU came to mind. If the efficacy bonus applies to all chems created, then you have potentially up to +25% efficacy when creating NHU, dependant on the job creating it. And most likely, it would be created for sale, to be used by someone else. The only way I can think of to increase the efficacy of NHU, is to increase how long it lasts. So you'd basically be allowing buffed NHU to enter the market.

I think for any chance of this going through, you will need to change the efficacy bonus to only apply to select chems. I don't think NHU needs a buff. And even then, I think CT will be skittish about the potential of god chem coming back. I'm honestly still a fan of the idea of applying pharmacological route of administration type things to chems.

Additionally, I think there should be a way it could apply somehow to the type of chems that don't get crafted into anything else, you just sample and then use them, such as Immortal Flesh. Maybe give those things a single, unidirectional recipe that effectively makes itself with no base changes to effect and contextualise it as refinement (which chem cooking basically is to a degree), so then the efficacy bonus can reasonably apply to that.
+/- Neutral

I'll be quite frank with you. I think the entire point of excluding the GOC and CI from Foundation exclusive updates betters those groups as a whole when you take a step back and look at what that means for the groups not directly involved.

1. Exclusivity of better chemicals directly from the Research Department means more impactful kidnappings, possible information into how to make better chemicals, perhaps a system of a temporary boost, like the ones NU7 gets on the surface but for chemical creation once you interrogate someone from the Research Command team.

2. There is now a higher interest in VIPs in groups outside of only Site Command, which improves quality for all groups involved externally wise.


To speak more on, 'how and what' the weight would mean for specific chemicals I wont go into detail about as most changes would be exclusive to Content and their expectations moving forward, should this idea be approved.

Furthermore, alternate options to have a direct hand in controlling chemicals via personnel is almost impossible based on human nature and shift in focus command member to command member, not to mention if it isn't a mandate from staff, things will be abused for someone's 'view' on how things should function. With that being said there has definitely been efforts in the past that failed magically for the stated reason and this to me, seems to be the only viable option without altering the entire game mode or mandating a long list of rules to an already preexisting list of rules. Having chemicals be better for RSD allows them to have the control on their importance in the server's gameplay loop.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I'll be quite frank with you. I think the entire point of excluding the GOC and CI from Foundation exclusive updates betters those groups as a whole when you take a step back and look at what that means for the groups not directly involved.

1. Exclusivity of better chemicals directly from the Research Department means more impactful kidnappings, possible information into how to make better chemicals, perhaps a system of a temporary boost, like the ones NU7 gets on the surface but for chemical creation once you interrogate someone from the Research Command team.

2. There is now a higher interest in VIPs in groups outside of only Site Command, which improves quality for all groups involved externally wise.

I agree with the premise - However I think that this won't reasonably benefit GOC as they need more bargaining chips in trade situations - I get the idea of potentially wanting this from F in a diplomatic scenario, but in that same scenario, GOC would need to be able to reasonably provide something desirable in return. GOC just doesn't have much. But I also recognise that if this were given to GOC and F, then there'd be no reason for GOC to want something they already have from F, nor can they reasonably offer it to F for the same reason; Instead potentially opening this avenue of diplomacy up to CI, who more often than not, would find this easier than just kidnapping researchers, which solves the problem I outline next to an extent, but creates an IMO weird interaction in the process.

I would also like to point out the obvious combative implications of making Execs potential(ly greater) raid targets - If I ask myself "Does encouraging CI to kidnap high-ranking RSD personnel to make them make drugs for them create any meaningful RP?" I find myself conflicted and unable to give a definitive answer. I acknowledge that there are a multitude of situations in which there would be good and fun RP being made between CI & RSD, however I can't help but think about the possibility of an Exec flagging on with the intent of doing some tests and/or RP, but they get caught up in a CI raid specifically targeting them, kidnapped and basically just put to work in the CI chem lab by someone who potentially just wants stronger chems, without any real intent to RP.

To speak more on, 'how and what' the weight would mean for specific chemicals I wont go into detail about as most changes would be exclusive to Content and their expectations moving forward, should this idea be approved.

Yes; But it's not a case of most changes, but more so all changes - This applies to the entire suggestion.

If they so wished, CT could accept this with the intent of applying it to all factions. Here, I think we're reasonably elucidating the nuance on this and in doing so, further demonstrating why things should be one way or the other. That's generally the point of suggestion discussion;

However, CT cannot be reasonably expected to trawl through all suggestion discussion and take it into account, especially given that they aim to process multiple suggestions with varying thread lengths & that suggestions are not the primary focus of CT. I'm aware that it is considered to an extent when discussed - With that being said, I would say that for all intents and purposes, you should consider the OP as the primary focal target of what is to be addressed and the suggestion discussion as feedback specifically for you to adjust the OP accordingly.

Based on prior suggestions, my interpretation is that if you want the idea to be further considered, the onus is mostly on you to try and provide ample reassurances against any of CT's concerns with what you want implemented.