Research Retool Poll

[Eden Jones]

[sndwurks]

[Madrigus]

[Coco]

A PSA -- Without reading or responding to everything above... In case it wasn't clear, our intention here is merely to offer options to work together on to alleviate frustrations rather than have anyone think we were using these options to comment on how Research has gone in the past on either side of the equation or to create further frustration. Generating conversation and trying to get votes from folks to see where the feelings lie. If the wording of an option is confusing, please continue to ask as people have above.

Thanks, friends.

[Owle Isohos]

I just wish it was possible to vote yes or no on each individual option! I think that would get you a more complete picture of where everyone's feelings lie, but I understand forum polls have certain limitations.

[lackey]

It seems to me that the GMs are trying to reduce the amount of research results that they need to produce. From the questions they asked, it seems that they want to go from giving out 30 partial answers and 1-2 good answers to giving out 5 good answers.

As players, it seems to me that we are frustrated because we try to research things, but don't know when we are wasting points or making any real progress. I know that I can't always tell if an answer given was a "final answer" or a hint saying that I need to spend more points on it. Never mind that I have 1 tiny little point, 4 reasonably urgent things to spend it on, and no way to get more without buying a new header.

I think what would help the most is letting the players see behind the curtain a little. This has already been done with the statement that difficulty levels for research might require 1, 5, or 10 research points. It lets us know that we shouldn't waste time organizing to give 2-3 research points to a dozen things, that we should focus more.

What I suggest is that we keep things the same as they are, except that both players and gms agree that an acceptable answer for research would be: "You have 2 out of 5 points needed to discover something on this topic." That's it. No flavor, no in character description of how you almost learned something. Just basic mechanics that let us know what it will take. Maybe add in that when you get those 5 points, in addition to all of the in-character goodness we are looking for, we also get a message of "You have discovered all you can on this topic" or "There may be more to discover with further research."

This way we know what our goal is, and someone working on their personal plot can slowly put research towards it without needing to try and convince fellow researchers to ignore the fact that everyone is Irradiated, and instead focus on Uncle Henry's missing Toyota. For the writers it should be easy, they just keep a spreadsheet of progress and give a quick OOC message if enough progress hasn't been made. Efficient researchers can put 1 point towards something just to get an idea of how difficult it will be, and then next game rally exactly the support they need to make it happen.

And once every gets used to OOC research responses, then the GMs can start giving us other useful information, such as "No need to research this more, this plotline won't be focused on until 2016" or whatever. Plus the GMs get a running tally of everything that the players have been willing to invest at least 1 research point into.

I think players have expectations in line with what the gms can and will give is the most important thing. And for that we need to see behind the curtain just a little bit.

[kimp]

I am hesitating to vote for the statement “Research will never lead to mods”, though I do appreciate the point that is being made. If the statement was “having research doesn’t give you preference for mods” I would vote right now. But, Never…?

I think I understand why this is being stated – hinging mod targets on Research opens the door for resentment (I’m guessing which has been brought up to the writers enough times that this became a question on the poll). Hypothetical math – say there is only time and NPCs to run 5 mods in a weekend (no actual math here, I’m pulling 5 out of the air). 10 people have invested Research points into 10 different things that could lead to mods. With that 5 mod slot for the weekend thing only 5 of those 10 people – who spent Research – can get a mod. And people without Research or who didn’t spend Research on something that would lead to a mod will not be a target for a mod. Either those who don’t have research never get mods and blame this on not having research – which may not be the case – or someone without research does get a mod hook and people with Research say/think “But I spent Research – I should have gotten a mod. Why did So-and-So get a hook but I didn’t?”

There is a built-in expectation that if you expend resources you will get a reward – by stating implicitly that this is not the case you remove the potential for resentment (at least with this as the trigger).

I think we can all acknowledge mods are the Golden Ticket – the invite into the factory to eat all the candy we want, to find the secret recipe either because we are just interested in it or because we want to sell it to Slugwort, and the chance to be the heir to the factory. We all want mods – and when we don’t get them we start looking for reasons why. Remove the implication that mods can be ‘bought’ with Research and that’s one last person being accused of/or making the accusation of someone being Veruca Salt. Being Special/the Chosen One should not be something you can buy.

If you want somewhere to state you want a mod that’s what the PEL is for. There’s even a section in there that asks if there’s anything else you want to see in the future or are interested in.

I dislike the word Never, but appreciate the sentiment behind this. I’m with other people who’ve said they wish this poll would allow a Yes or No for every option – I do feel strongly that points should be allowed to accumulate over time (not throwing 4 points at something when it needs 15 and then losing those 4 points without knowing how many points are needed – and therefore eliminating ‘wasting your Research’) so I’m hesitating to vote No on this Research Doesn’t Lead to Mods.

Could the poll be changed to allow this or will we only have one option to vote for?

[Nick Sleet]

I think number 6 addresses most if not all of the complaints I've heard from various people. Basically a way to let us know if we're barking up the wrong tree. I like the system as it is other than that, but I'm biased because I've been reliably getting returns on my research.

Also, as someone whose dropped a ton of character points into research, PLEASE not option 5. I've given up on a whole bunch of useful combat skills and am about to sink another 9 points into 1 point of research. No extra limits on the skill please.

[Henry Gondorf]

I apologize if this is brief. Many here have put in earnest effort to make their cases. The best I have to add to proceedings is as follows.

As much as I would enjoy a standing "Hit this mark and you are golden" I would enjoy a common sense heads up more. Nothing is worse than expectation building for a earth shaking revelation only to find out it could be found on Bing or Google.

I also think a declassification of research pools will help over all. Rather than feeling spread too thin you have a wider field of knowledge.

[Wolfman2006]