Role requirement checklist

This is a rewrite and expansion of the comment - Role Time-Requirements and Sec/Command Standards - #17 by Tao7891 - with more thought put in and suggestions taken into account.

Overview:
Most of the time a player can’t do their job is because they didn’t know what they were supposed to know, it’s a non malicious accident that can be resolved by putting a checklist inplace. The checklist is a self assessed set of skills that a player needs to think they posess before they can access relevant roles.

Problem:
Many players are having trouble and getting frustrated with crew members that are incompetent at their given jobs, often being command members. Frequently critique is aimed at the role time requirements system as it works from the assumption that players with a set ammount of playtime in relevant roles will have figured out what is required of them to do. Any time requirement will contend with this problem and plot time required against possible competence.
I think these incompetent crew members usually fall into one of two categories, a majority falling into the first category-
Some good faithed players will begin playing the role, assuming that because they have reached required playtime, they are experienced enough to play the role, in reality they are not prepared for the role and unknowingly fail at their duties.
Some bad faithed players will play the role without any regard for if they can fulfil it or not and can fail at their duties.
When these issues are dealt with by current means, it also increases admin load.
There are even two active discussions open regarding this, prompted by the reduction in some time requirements - Role Time-Requirements and Sec/Command Standards - Revert time requirement changes - so clearly players are finding the current method a problem.

Proposed feature:
Role requirement checklist
In Lobby-
You can open a new tab called ‘checklist’, this tab is also accessable next to roles you are yet to unlock. In this tab you will find a list of tasks/skills that the player self assesses by checking/ticking each skill as they learn them. This list will be quite long as to cover all standard tasks that would be required to do each job. The list is sorted by department as to make it easy to read and understand. Each non-beginner friendly role will have a relevant set of required tasks/skills to be able to unlock said role. Skilled antags such as the Nuclear operative agent would also have relevant requirements like an understanding of chemistry.

In this ^ basic form, it is simple to develop and use while solving the issue of the first category, however there are possible further features that could solve or reduce the second category. High incompetence/risk roles could have their associated skills require recommendation before being eligible to tick/check. Recommendation would require in round access to checklists like by being accessable from the personal records computer, any ID for a job with the relevant skill as a prerequesite can give a recommendation but this would only apply OOC if the player that logged the recommendation actually had the authority to do so. (grandfathering in current players avoid initial crisis ofc)

While not necessary, it would be fun for certain Loadout items to also be tied to this system. Senior equipment could require all boxes within their department to be checked. You could also tie unique trinkets to specific skills, for example if you check ‘can fly and dock shuttles’ you can access the ‘class C shuttle license’ trinket.

Here are some hasty mock ups to help visualise:

(Examples shown are completely provisional)
Annotations: 1 task . . . 2 checkbox . . . 3 selected role
4 required skills for role . . . 5 recommendations . . . 6 ineligible box

For example, to go from engineering assistant to engineer requires - Engineering 1,2,3,4 - and to unlock atmos requires - Engineering 1,2,3,4,5.

In Round-
In round representation is not required for basic functionality, but would give RP and could exist in a couple of forms.
A new default PDA cartridge that shows the checklist of the ID holder would be useful for in round reference of what needs to be learned.
The personal records computer should provide access to the checklists of all crew. This allows staff heads to know what their department is capable of and teach them new skills if necessary. If a recommendation system was desired, it would be accessed from here.

Admin-
It would be a step in the wrong direction to make this as another admin responsibility, so players are expected to self assess.
When a player makes a major fuck up that they cant excuse because they had the relevant box checked, admins being able to see that they checked the box is a useful tool in deciding course of action. In Errants words ‘If they want to eat a ban because they can’t claim inexperience after they fuck up, that’s their business’.

What will this do/not-do?
It gives good faithed players the responsibilites that roles require, avoiding incompetence
It does not stop idiots from lying, then proceeding to fuck up
It shows newer players what they could learn
It encourages newer players to try new roles
It does not overwrite time requirements
It supplements time requirements
It does not increase admin load
It provides admins a new tool to use
if recommendation system-
It forces players to display the skill to other players inorder to progress
It doesnt stop meta coordination to bypass the system
It does provide an easy tell to detect metacomming
if loadout system-
It makes senior roles actually mean something
It gives fun little items
if inround-
Provides new players a constant reference book on what to ask help with
Provides heads an understanding of their departments capabilities

7 Likes

I particularly like the idea of a recommendation system. If there was someone willing to put the effort into it, I think there’s a lot of potential for behind the scenes complexity that could make the system very effective for assessing competency and as a tool for admins

1 Like

loadout system also adds two more advantages;
It would allow newer players to identify non-command with high level of comptantacy to teach them in the case of no command
It would allow command to assume you have a high level of comptance if trying to premote into a command role to fill a missing command slot.

im very in favour of the recomendation system as it would prevent the Dunning–Kruger of self assessment, prevent bad actors lying to bypass without assistance from a established command player, and helps command feel more earned than hitting a time threshold.

Why competent people doesn t play command that much?

New command death spiral showcase.

  1. player dediced to play a command role after meeting requirements

  2. player atemps his first rounds as command role and experiences following:
    2.1) severe lack of self-preservation skills from crew
    2.2) nobody listening (including sec/command sometimes)
    2.3) getting the blame for somethink you can t do anythink about or not responsible for
    2.4) getting overwhelmed due to sheer amount of issues originating from either station crew or other command members
    2.5) not knowing or being unable to deal with all of the issues present especially if head of departments arent competent enough to even do basics of their job
    2.6) other members of the crew or command bullies/pressures captain for actually doing his job (i have seen only 2 instances where they voted captain to be removed from job because of this)
    2.7) realization: here player realizes its not worth or fun to play as this role and dedices to play low responsibility jobs or to lower stress takes the role less serius whic leads to section 3.

  3. the ones who stay: here are the players that dedice to stay do some changes for their own health and to have fun in the role
    3.1) players stop caring that much whic leads to more problems or incompetency
    3.2) players getting tired faster and calls evac half or 1 hour in round
    3.3) command roles getting filled with people who don t actually know what to do and act as tider with AA

Conclusion: playing as captain sucks so much, crew does not help or listen, you are the one to blame after the end result. (those are based on my own experience, some might not be true or common as stated)

so i belive its just player issue, them making captain role more miserable than it has to be and getting what they deserve in return, i personnaly don t belive changing time requirement or making checkilst will help

Hey, I’ve been noodling around with the same/similar idea ever since the role time change was made a few weeks ago, and I’m glad Tao went through the effort of building a feature request! (And I’m mad at myself for not sharing the idea sooner, since clearly its a good idea and we’re on the same wavelength).

I just wanted to add–this is very similar to qualification card systems used throughout real world jobs. A quick google will give you lots of examples (although mostly from military sources it seems). A similar notion is merit badges from scouting.

I also really like that this has the potential to add more structure to in-character training. The qual cards/merit badges have the common idea of a list of requirements that you have to demonstrate you know to some authority. You maybe learn the requirement by helping someone do that during a shift. Then maybe the same or another shift, you can ask the department head or the old “senior” roll to qualify you, where they do a rudimentary quiz of some of the skills you should know, then if satisfied, they can approve.

With how often shifts descend into chaos, we should make the approval process as frictionless as possible (maybe the department head can sign off using their PDA instead of a terminal). Also, we should probably keep the list of requirements as concise as possible. I think most roles can be reduced to only a handful of core skills, however. From Tao’s mockup, maybe reduce cargo to the key skills: bounties, mail, moving freight (implies buying, selling, operating shuttle), salvage. Maybe we still enumerate the “requirements” in detail, but the qualification happens at the less granular level.

Lastly, your point that this helps good-faithed players know when they’re qualified for a role really resonates with me, and I hadn’t thought of it before, but I think it’s important when considering this idea. I think idiots and shitters will be able to abuse most systems, just like they can role timers now. Despite that, this idea has big benefits for players that are trying to gain confidence playing the game.

2 Likes

THE GODS HAVE SPOKEN! But yeah, I think if there is a recommendation system where another player has to train you and certify that you passed and know how to do your job, then there should be a new role for each department titled “Trainer” that gets the newbies up to speed on their roles.

1 Like

What is your take on implementing this purely client-side first?
Just let people keep track of their own progress locally.
Then a future PR can make it be networked for staff to see too.

As i said in another post, recommendation systems are bad, and will inevitably lead to toxic environments. Even if it has no inherent downside. Other players should not be rating a player’s competence, at all.
It leads to meta-friending, incentivizes to follow server culture/be a people pleaser over actual rules, gates people under arbitrary and impossible to guarantee requirements, gives players a degree of power they should not have over others (an OOC power at that), etc.

I DO like everything else tho.
As a bonus it could also give recommendations as to what roles a player is ready to try based on their current checkmarks. And potentially warn players when a rework of a field has appeared since their last checkmark update. Altho this is potentially a big maintenance hog, but simply having the option would be nice (just store the date of the checkmark, let devs change the date of the latest rework, and use that to confirm if a check is still valid).

1 Like

I dont believe your fears to be well founded. Meta-friending could happen sure. but that is already aganist server rules. the points we’re looking to hit are also pretty well defined, so If a command did meta friend approve it would be both of there necks on the line.

The checks are not a popularity contest.. If someone dislikes you personally and refuses to sign off on something you certainly CAN do after showing them.. Id say thats a dont be a dick rule break. Even if one shitter blocks you, you can always go to Cap rather than Head of department and you can also just wait till next shift, or switch to one of the other 3 servers to have any of those command check off.

I also do like the idea of when things update these systems folks have some kinda notifaction.. in game patch notes would be great.

Those where mostly just extra points from stuff i’ve seen happen FIRST HAND in many servers. Even those who banned the metafriending part (you just can’t reliably prove someone is doing it, like all the other cases mentioned here).

Having to potentially server hop to avoid this issue is not something that should even be considered. That is just prime toxicity that should have no place in an official server.

But the real issue is that this is an OOC thing, which IC players should never have control over. A player should not be able to affect another outside the current round in any shape or form.

At best i could see staff apointing “helpers” that are allowed to supervise players and grant the checkmarks, but absolutely not other players who have no way to know the whole story of said player who could even be faking it.

I don’t think Nancok’s concerns are unfounded. If there is an IC component, we should develop that feature separable from the OOC component, since I agree there are more risks with the IC part. If we deploy both, and the IC thing ends up being shit, we can revert that and keep the worthwhile OOC mechanics.

I do think people will be upset if they have to “re-qualify” every time the game changes–players that are already qualified should keep their qualification, but should be notified that their duties have changed.

2 Likes

Honestly with the black and white fail pass nature of the checks if you ‘refused’ to check something that should be checked or checked something that shouldn’t been checked Ahelp could easily track down either one and if your dishonestly blocking someone out of command roles.. your kinda toxic already.

you are right where generally we’d want folks to be able to one tap these rather than server hop around the Wizden group but if Head of department and Cap are both metagrude refusing to confirm that you did do a thing you need checked off even when you have clear evidence of it. then Hoping to one of the other 3 servers might be your only recourse or waiting till the next shift to prove it. Either way i’d want the ability to Ahelp report them for it as its shitty behaviour.

I also agree with coconutthunder where once your qualified you should stay Qualified however having patch notes if something about your role changed to catch you upto speed would be helpful.

1 Like

I don’t think a 100% client-side/self-reported system would be effective as a sole alternative to role timers, but I do think it’d be an nice improvement to the current state of roles.

Right now, a well intentioned player can very easily over-estimate their abilities, they don’t necessarily know what a role should be able to do. If a role has a list they can look at that says

You should be able to do at least 2 of these things by yourself before playing as this role:

  • Start an AME
  • Start a tesla
  • Start a TEG

then anyone playing that role is either generally going to be able to be relied on to the station’s power, or they ignored the checklist.

A recommendation system would definitely be a bad thing if it led to increased toxicity, but I think a lot of the concerns here can be significantly mitigated with good, thoughtful design.

  • Players should only be able to give positive ratings. Negative ratings have a much higher potential to cause issues and aren’t super beneficial for evaluating competence. Admins are in a much better position to look at a situation where someone is failing in a role to the point of incompetence and determine if there’s something going on that makes that failure reasonable as opposed to one warranting a role ban/lockout or something.
  • Requiring multiple recommendations for each task would reduce the effects of metafriending and other ways to abuse the system. Needing 2-3 “they started an engine” before the requirement is met shouldn’t delay when the role is unlocked by too much, definitely not as much as role times do. These wouldn’t have to all be in a single round, just overall. A weighting system based on who is giving the recommendation would be even more complex but would further reduce metafriending while encouraging accurate recommendations.
  • Removing IC and notification components could be used to further reduce toxicity. At an extreme, the system could be designed in a way that it’s not really possible for people to tell which round they got a recommendation in, which would prevent any sort of retaliation for not getting a recommendation.
  • Unlocking the role before 100% of requirements are met would make it less frustrating for players. An engineer doesn’t need to know how to start every engine to be good enough to play the role. If people are having a hard time getting the last recommendation they need to unlock a role, that might be frustrating, but doing this makes it possible to ensure no player ever experiences that type of situation, you can always have multiple things you could do that’d get you closer to unlocking the role.
  • Role timers could act as a safety net to recommendations failing. A recommendation system could act as a way to unlock a role “early”, but if for any reason you fail to get the recommendations, then it could be setup to unlock the role anyway if the time requirements are met. This wouldn’t necessarily eliminate frustration from being unable to get recommendations, but it would guarantee that no issue with the recommendation system could ever permanently lock someone out of a role.

Incentivizing people to follow server culture isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it depends on if the server has a good or bad culture because it should just be a feedback loop. Either way, a lot of the things I listed above should mitigate this a lot too.

Regarding your concern about arbitrary and impossible to achieve requirements, requirements like that would be a very bad use of the system. I think good requirements are things like the example I listed above with the engine. In that example, each item is pretty objectively measurable, definitely achievable, and doesn’t require the player to know everything

3 Likes

Allright, having a safety net will probably eliminate any possible downsides of possibly stalling. Even tho it kinda makes recommendations a bit redundant? Like, even the old timers are not that high, the chances you both learn the role AND get enough people to recommend you before you fulfill the time requirement is not that high, and at best it will save you 1-4 rounds on average.

But i guess there is no harm to it. I sometimes forget that the moderation here is at least more high effort than other servers i am used to, and maybe the positivity-gate will reduce shitters too.

The two main benefits I imagine there’d be from the system if role timers were kept as a safety net are:

  • Players get a better idea of role expectations. This is the same benefit you’d get from 100% client side checklists.
  • Players familiar with roles have the possibility to unlock roles faster. I think you’re right that this might not help much with some roles, but I think the biggest potential for benefit is in command roles. Someone who is already familiar with most or every role (maybe they played on another fork) could probably get the recommendations needed to unlock every command role a lot faster than they could get the hours for it. Even if a role timer requires 10-20 hours, that’s about 10-20 rounds on wizden LRP and you can definitely demonstrate that you know enough to play CE in way fewer rounds even if you need do do each thing 2-3 times. The main important thing is, like you pointed out earlier, making sure the requirements aren’t arbitrary and are reasonable
2 Likes

honestly Id be fine with a one and done check list. No one needs to see you setup atmos 3 times, or complete 3 artifacts. sure it leaves it open to meta friending, but we already have rules to do with that and the fallback timer exists.