Denied [QoL] Fill Held Receptacle From Chem Vendor

This suggestion has been denied and will not receive development.
Status
Not open for further replies.

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

If possible, allow for the chem vendor UI to fill whatever held receptacle (any flask/beaker/vial/etc, so long as it's empty) with a chemical.

Optionally, you could allow for refills to be at a very slight discount (when compared to getting a normal 1L of X chem) to encourage its use over buying a new 1L flask of X chem, which would enforce the positive effects of this suggestion more - A potential pricing range for chems obtained this way:

Held Receptacle
Price of bought chem (for 1L)
None (Buying a chem normally without having a flask on you)​
100% (Standard 1L price)​
Empty 1L Flask (or small beaker, which is also 1L to my recollection)​
90%​
Empty 2L Large Beaker​
180% (as you are buying 2L)​
Empty 200ml vial (inc. injection vial)​
10% (as you are buying 200ml)​
Not sure why someone would buy just 200ml of a chem from the vendor, but if the option is possible, why not let them have it?

or just Zen's reply if possible.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

There was the favourite chems in chem vendor from Scotsman which was accepted - And a currently active suggestion for quick filling/emptying of centrifuges. Both of these are related, but ultimately serve a similar (in terms of convenience), but otherwise different purpose to this suggestion (although the centrifuge one does overlap a little more in terms of entity count reduction).

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

  • Reduced Entity Count - This is the primary reason for the suggestion; Yes, there's the despawn system w/ the timer but you can still have a bunch of empty flasks just laying around before that kicks in and starts removing them. During sessions when people are making lots of chems, the flasks just pile up because you always get a new one from the vendor for each chem you buy; Which means the count can skyrocket depending on what chems you're making, especially now that we have a new chem lab on the server (Which makes for a total of 4 - RsD, Medbay, CI base, GOC base - All of which could feasibly have a significant amount of people making chems in at the same time, each with dozens upon dozens of flasks on the floor). Encouraging people to use existing flasks with a discounted chem price should, ideally, alleviate any issues relating to having a lot of flask entities spawned.

  • Convenience & Streamlining - Then of course, from a making chems standpoint, you need to put any empty flasks you have down before buying another filled one from the chem vendor (ergo contributing to the first point). This way, you can just have your flask, go to the vendor, fill, continue. If the discount for refilling as an incentive is implemented, then it's additionally cheaper to do it that way instead of buying new flasks each time.

  • Potentially More Chem Lab Locations In Future - As per the first point, if all active chem labs' contribution to entity count becomes significantly reduced as a result of this suggestion, this means more locations could be easily considered to have a chem lab of some description if and where needed (although that means more chem processing entities)

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

  • Underutilisation - Habit's hard to break and it also takes time for new information to get around; It's possible that the standard chem-making practice wouldn't change enough to warrant this - If it's also not doable at a discount, then there would be little reason to, aside from it just being more convenient. Ideally you would just try and let people know, maybe remind them, but they don't always listen.

  • Feasibility - Even though the chem vendor UI is likely to be worked on anyway as a result of a prior suggestion I mentioned, that doesn't mean that this is either easily doable or even possible in the first place, as this also concerns the actual chem container SWEP you have on you and swapping it out conditionally. Either that or the dev work on making this all happen, while retaining existing and planned functionality, would probably not be worth the result. And that's not even considering what bugs or exploits could result from it.

  • Price Imbalance - If you do implement the discount for refill, it could have unintended effects on the server economy. May also not be what SL wants.

  • Possibly A Non-Issue - This might not even be a problem (or at least one worth addressing) and this entire suggestion may just be completely pointless.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

So long as people use this, everything gets simpler & easier, less empty flasks sitting around on the floor waiting to despawn, can maybe consider more chem lab locations if they're needed, etc.
 
Last edited:
+Support
For the large beaker, it could just be it fills up to 1L at a time, so you'd pay 90% and it would fill half of it. That way, if you want to mix two chems, which you probably do, it only fills half with one chem. If you then want to add another chem, you can add it to the same container directly.
i usually like to leave a little space to make sure i'm not losing any chem that might be yielded from the reaction, because i have no idea how the chem system works when it comes to that, and would not put it past it to just truncate whatever extra amount there is more than the container can carry

my primary intention with filling the large beaker with 2L is so you can pour out into another container and mix where necessary. i also imagine it would be easier from an implementation standpoint to either go "fill the held container" or "swap out the current empty container with a full version" rather than a bespoke "if it's specifically this container, then only half-fill it/swap out for a half-filled one"
 
i usually like to leave a little space to make sure i'm not losing any chem that might be yielded from the reaction, because i have no idea how the chem system works when it comes to that, and would not put it past it to just truncate whatever extra amount there is more than the container can carry

my primary intention with filling the large beaker with 2L is so you can pour out into another container and mix where necessary. i also imagine it would be easier from an implementation standpoint to either go "fill the held container" or "swap out the current empty container with a full version" rather than a bespoke "if it's specifically this container, then only half-fill it/swap out for a half-filled one"
What I mean here is that when you buy chems with a fillable container in your hand, it would fill it with up to 1L of the chemical selected at 90% of the price of the actual amount filled.

So if you filled a vial, it would attempt to put in 1L, hit the 200ml limit, and you'd pay for 90% of the price of 200ml. If you tried to fill a beaker that had only 700ml of space, it would fill that remaining 700ml, and you would pay 90% of 700ml price. If you filled a large beaker and it had more than 1L of space remaining, it would fill only 1L and you would pay 90% of 1L.
 
What I mean here is that when you buy chems with a fillable container in your hand, it would fill it with up to 1L of the chemical selected at 90% of the price of the actual amount filled.

So if you filled a vial, it would attempt to put in 1L, hit the 200ml limit, and you'd pay for 90% of the price of 200ml. If you tried to fill a beaker that had only 700ml of space, it would fill that remaining 700ml, and you would pay 90% of 700ml price. If you filled a large beaker and it had more than 1L of space remaining, it would fill only 1L and you would pay 90% of 1L.
sounds good, i guess i prefer this, then
 
+ Support
Amazing QOL feature idea that would make creating chemicals a lot easier and less-hassle.

This would potentially create less lag - if people opt to 'fill up flasks' instead of buying more and leaving them on the floor, then that would reduce the entity count (i'm assuming that's what'd happen, please feel free to correct me if that's not correct)
 

Auburn

Community Supervisor
Community Sup.
Group Moderator
Jan 2, 2023
324
197
61
Suggestion Denied



Hi Emilia,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.
The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reasons.

This really isn't necessary for the VCraft system, it works fine as is, and development on it has/is being taken in a different direction.

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
Status
Not open for further replies.