Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Suggest new things or complain about things that suck/are broken. Work with people to better your idea(s), or help each other figure out how to fix something that isn't working as you thought it should. Getting feedback for your characters can also be done here.

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby Wickedtemp » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:54 pm

As someone who's routinely been against nerfing medical in general, here's the post I made on the PR:

TLDR: You're correct, and I agree with you, but enough people feel differently that changes are being made. But, given that this would mean that treatment takes like... literally one to two additional minutes due to bicaridine being a bit slower, it's not that big of a deal.

Long version:
I personally don't think chemistry, aside from alkysine, needed to be changed at all. But that's evidently the minority viewpoint. People were constantly suggesting various nerfs to chemistry without any thought into the fact that if it weren't for chemistry, there would be no healing. There are no other options. There are no alternatives. You'd have brute/burn kits for 49 damage per limb or less, but other than that, chemistry is your only option.

The second part of this PR, brute/burn heal surgeries, will hopefully alleviate that and make the players that are freaking out, not freak out. The only damage type that's actually being affected here is brute. Burn is still healing fast due to KeloDerm. Toxin is unchanged completely. Oxy was actually made slightly easier by slowing Dexalin's metab rate and adjusting the amount healed per unit to keep it the same so it heals for a longer period of time.

I think that this change, while not really all that necessary, isn't major, due to the fact that out of all of the damage types, the one that's easiest to deal with already was the one that was made 30% slower to heal with its chem. If you get to someone with a case of oxy damage, it's likely that oxy damage has a risk of increasing. Same goes for toxin and burn damage. Brute, however, only increases if you're actively being attacked or if you're in a vacuum, in both cases, as soon as you're out of the hostile environment, the damage won't rise. It's static. This makes it easier to treat than the other three damage types, which all have the risk of rising.

Because of this, Vermicetol, which is made with solar grub meat, is going to be a tier 2 version of bicaridine, because frankly, while it's nice, it isn't at all necessary. And if things go according to plan, we'll have a surgery to heal brute/burn from limbs soon-ish anyway to give another, potentially faster means of healing brute damage. Worst case scenario, there's still cryo, which is unchanged and works great for every damage type and can heal them to full health in a matter of seconds.

To clarify:
A full syringe of Dermaline will heal 120 burn damage. A syringe of KeloDerma will heal 90 burn damage, but at a faster speed than straight Dermaline. This is honestly fine.

Bicaridine takes a reduction from healing 90 per syringe to 60 per syringe, but it's a lower priority, less dangerous damage type. The side effects, such as organ damage and bleeding, are the primary causes of concern, so making use of bicaridine, tricord, cryo, trauma kits, this really isn't a big deal either.

And then there's upcoming PR at some point to add in the surgical alternatives which, in the hands of a decent surgeon, would heal a bit faster than bicar would in the same time-frame. Combining these might honestly reduce time spent in medical, simplifying things to "Print report, inject, 4 surgical steps, print report, discharge"

And I know that leaving scenes to handle idiotic injuries is annoying. You know that I know this. Medical is literally the only department I play and I've been playing here for several years. But, the thing is? That's fine, to me. If having to do medical stuff instead of scening really bothered me, I'd...probably go off duty, or at the least, pick a different, less frequently essential department. That was something that was present before this PR, and here's what will change following this PR if it's merged.

Going with a brute damage example, since that's the only reagent that's actually going to be kinda slow-ish at healing. Someone is brought in with 100 brute damage and has a broken leg. Bicaridine, currently, heals at 1.2 per tick, taking about 83 ticks to heal that damage completely, assuming nothing else is used. Add maybe 40 seconds for the broken leg and you'd have left your scene for around 120 seconds - two minutes. Add three minutes for transit, up to five minute interruption.

Assuming the same situation with the PR's value? Roughly 120 ticks for brute to be healed entirely, add forty for the surgery, three minute for transit time, it's roughly a 40 second increase. When brute heal surgeries are in, you can reduce it back again by handling that while you fix any fractures, and until then? It's still not that big of a deal. Using only bicaridine to heal 199 damage, assuming they somehow didn't die, it'd add on an extra 80 seconds. Just over 1 minute of additional healing, assuming you use nothing else, at the max amount of damage possible without dying, in a damage type that will never increase in any meanginful rate as long as the patient is in a safe area and not actively being mauled.
User avatar
Wickedtemp
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:35 am

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby James Holder » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:29 pm

LiquidFirefly wrote:Quoting something from your argument, and pulling a logical conclusion from it is not a strawman or a fallacy.


Quoting something I said, concocting an argument that's easy for you to argue against, and claiming that it is my argument is a strawman, and I flat out told you that wasn't my proposal in my response to it. You framed it as if I'm trying to give SARs special treatment or something, as if I suggested just letting random people not have to worry about reusing syringes. I proposed something to lighten up their loadout and the litter because they can't just grab more needles from a vendor and toss the used ones into the disposal like any other med player.

What if they had a pouch that holds a box's worth of syringes instead so they don't get to "ignore" the change? Would that work better?

Anyway, back to needles being buggy. The proposed 20 sec grace period sort of fixes the double click problem, but Duke pointed out that it isn't really realistic anyway. (Also, ouch. I'm glad mine are really easy to see.) I think syringes still need a rework.
User avatar
James Holder
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby LiquidFirefly » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:05 pm

James Holder wrote:Quoting something I said, concocting an argument that's easy for you to argue against, and claiming that it is my argument is a strawman, and I flat out told you that wasn't my proposal in my response to it. You framed it as if I'm trying to give SARs special treatment or something, as if I suggested just letting random people not have to worry about reusing syringes. I proposed something to lighten up their loadout and the litter because they can't just grab more needles from a vendor and toss the used ones into the disposal like any other med player.

What if they had a pouch that holds a box's worth of syringes instead so they don't get to "ignore" the change? Would that work better?


Your core point supporting the change was "I like it because realism." A point that I'd already previously attacked, and so have several other people in this thread. I'm not becoming an echo. I'm not concocting an argument, that was a standalone statement that you made, entirely unaltered. I do not know why you're taking issue with me, literally taking a quote from your argument, entirely in context. You're essentially just screaming "STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN, GAZER'S BAD AT ARGUING GUYS."

You literally said, "Hey, if we do keep change, let's give xxx group [thing to bypass change], because [logical result of change] really really sucks for them."

I'm not misinterpreting you here, there is no misunderstanding of intent, that is giving a specific group of people (SARS) tools that aren't affected, or alleviate damage to play caused by the syringe change (Hyposprays, syringe bags), in order to avoid consequences of the change (Running out of syringes incessantly, as well as horrible inventory problems) am I wrong? I'm arguing that the fact that we keep proposing to work around this change that does nothing for us is stupid.

The very fact that we have to sit there and propose a million and one different new systems and items, to tiptoe around a FLAVOR BASED CHANGE is so unbelievably stupid. This change was never something that should've affected gameplay, at all, in any meaningful way. Given the fact that we have so many arguments here that consist of, "Well, if we keep this, let's change the syringes in this way." or, "Well, if we keep this, let's do this to keep these people from ripping their hair out." It's very clearly affecting gameplay in a meaningful way. A very negative meaningful way. Whatever RP flavor this change added isn't worth the time and effort we keep having to pour into it. It's not interesting, and it's not fun to work around. It's support comes from "Injecting people multiple times with the same needle on a massive spaceship full of advanced, self cleaning technology is stupid." WHY IS THIS STILL AN ARGUMENT.
I gremlin
User avatar
LiquidFirefly
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:49 pm

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby James Holder » Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:16 pm

LiquidFirefly wrote:
James Holder wrote:Quoting something I said, concocting an argument that's easy for you to argue against, and claiming that it is my argument is a strawman, and I flat out told you that wasn't my proposal in my response to it. You framed it as if I'm trying to give SARs special treatment or something, as if I suggested just letting random people not have to worry about reusing syringes. I proposed something to lighten up their loadout and the litter because they can't just grab more needles from a vendor and toss the used ones into the disposal like any other med player.

What if they had a pouch that holds a box's worth of syringes instead so they don't get to "ignore" the change? Would that work better?


Your core point supporting the change was "I like it because realism." A point that I'd already previously attacked, and so have several other people in this thread. I'm not becoming an echo. I'm not concocting an argument, that was a standalone statement that you made, entirely unaltered. I do not know why you're taking issue with me, literally taking a quote from your argument, entirely in context. You're essentially just screaming "STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN, GAZER'S BAD AT ARGUING GUYS."

You literally said, "Hey, if we do keep change, let's give xxx group [thing to bypass change], because [logical result of change] really really sucks for them."

I'm not misinterpreting you here, there is no misunderstanding of intent, that is giving a specific group of people (SARS) tools that aren't affected, or alleviate damage to play caused by the syringe change (Hyposprays, syringe bags), in order to avoid consequences of the change (Running out of syringes incessantly, as well as horrible inventory problems) am I wrong? I'm arguing that the fact that we keep proposing to work around this change that does nothing for us is stupid.

You posted the whole quote, but then stripped it of context, added your own, and asked me if that was my proposal. I proposed that a role that has to spend more time away from medbay gets a tool to compensate for not having access to medbay's supply of needles, and you twisted that into letting "specific people" ignore the change altogether. I told you no, that isn't my proposal, that's a strawman, because that's what it was.

There's a big difference between offsetting or avoiding a few consequences, and avoiding the change altogether.

LiquidFirefly wrote:You're essentially just screaming "STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN, GAZER'S BAD AT ARGUING GUYS."

Yeah, no. Not even close. If you're going to ask somebody if some twisted parody of what they said is what they actually said, it's not a fallacy fallacy to tell you that's not what I fucking said. :V

LiquidFirefly wrote:The very fact that we have to sit there and propose a million and one different new systems and items, to tiptoe around an FLAVOR BASED CHANGE is so unbelievably stupid. This change was never something that should've affected gameplay, at all, in any meaningful way. Given the fact that we have so many arguments here that consist of, "Well, if we keep this, let's change the syringes in this way." or, "Well, if we keep this, let's do this to keep these people from ripping their hair out." It's very clearly affecting gameplay in a meaningful way. A very negative meaningful way. Whatever RP flavor this change added isn't worth the time and effort we keep having to pour into it. It's not interesting, and it's not fun to work around. It's support comes from "Injecting people multiple times with the same needle on a massive spaceship full of advanced, self cleaning technology is stupid." WHY IS THIS STILL AN ARGUMENT.

Anyway, back on topic, this is still an argument because some people want to keep it as is, some people want to change/fix it, some people want to remove it entirely, and nobody can come to an agreement.

Also, off the top of my head, dog borg bellies are the only thing I can think of that self-cleans, and they do it by digesting everything inside. Everything else needs a spray bottle or a mop.
User avatar
James Holder
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby jemli » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:19 pm

The back up implant is listed as self cleaning, in its examine text.
User avatar
jemli
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 3:23 pm

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby James Holder » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:21 pm

jemli wrote:The back up implant is listed as self cleaning, in its examine text.

Ah, right. I forgot about that.
User avatar
James Holder
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby LiquidFirefly » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:32 pm

James Holder wrote:You posted the whole quote, but then stripped it of context, added your own, and asked me if that was my proposal. I proposed that a role that has to spend more time away from medbay gets a tool to compensate for not having access to medbay's supply of needles, and you twisted that into letting "specific people" ignore the change altogether. I told you no, that isn't my proposal, that's a strawman, because that's what it was.

There's a big difference between offsetting or avoiding a few consequences, and avoiding the change altogether.


WHAT OTHER CONTEXT WAS THERE THAT I MISSED, IN QUOTING "Also, give SARs hyposprays because they have to deal with shitty syringe related things not being in medbay" WHAT EXTRA CONTEXT AM I MISSING TO MAKE THAT SUGGESTION NOT SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT? WHAT CONTEXT AM I ADDING?

James Holder wrote:
LiquidFirefly wrote:You're essentially just screaming "STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN, GAZER'S BAD AT ARGUING GUYS."

Yeah, no. Not even close. If you're going to ask somebody if some twisted parody of what they said is what they actually said, it's not a fallacy fallacy to tell you that's not what I fucking said. :V


What twisted parody? I literally just summed up your statement and said why that line of thinking is wrong. You literally said "That's not what I said" and then proceeded to repeat yourself saying "HEY, I WANNA GIVE SARS THINGS SO THEY CAN WORK AROUND SYRINGES" I'm not even arguing against doing that! I'm arguing that that line of thinking is inferior to just reverting the change!

James Holder wrote:
LiquidFirefly wrote:The very fact that we have to sit there and propose a million and one different new systems and items, to tiptoe around an FLAVOR BASED CHANGE is so unbelievably stupid. This change was never something that should've affected gameplay, at all, in any meaningful way. Given the fact that we have so many arguments here that consist of, "Well, if we keep this, let's change the syringes in this way." or, "Well, if we keep this, let's do this to keep these people from ripping their hair out." It's very clearly affecting gameplay in a meaningful way. A very negative meaningful way. Whatever RP flavor this change added isn't worth the time and effort we keep having to pour into it. It's not interesting, and it's not fun to work around. It's support comes from "Injecting people multiple times with the same needle on a massive spaceship full of advanced, self cleaning technology is stupid." WHY IS THIS STILL AN ARGUMENT.

Anyway, back on topic, this is still an argument because some people want to keep it as is, some people want to change/fix it, some people want to remove it entirely, and nobody can come to an agreement.

Also, off the top of my head, dog borg bellies are the only thing I can think of that self-cleans, and they do it by digesting everything inside. Everything else needs a spray bottle or a mop.


The autoinjectors that we use 50 times a shift for the resleeving implants are self-cleaning, the surgery implements are self-cleaning, the surgery tables are self-cleaning, why are syringes such an unbelievable stretch?
I gremlin
User avatar
LiquidFirefly
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:49 pm

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby James Holder » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:55 pm

LiquidFirefly wrote:
James Holder wrote:You posted the whole quote, but then stripped it of context, added your own, and asked me if that was my proposal. I proposed that a role that has to spend more time away from medbay gets a tool to compensate for not having access to medbay's supply of needles, and you twisted that into letting "specific people" ignore the change altogether. I told you no, that isn't my proposal, that's a strawman, because that's what it was.

There's a big difference between offsetting or avoiding a few consequences, and avoiding the change altogether.


WHAT OTHER CONTEXT WAS THERE THAT I MISSED, IN QUOTING "Also, give SARs hyposprays because they have to deal with shitty syringe related things not being in medbay" WHAT EXTRA CONTEXT AM I MISSING TO MAKE THAT SUGGESTION NOT SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT? WHAT CONTEXT AM I ADDING?

James Holder wrote:
LiquidFirefly wrote:You're essentially just screaming "STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN, GAZER'S BAD AT ARGUING GUYS."

Yeah, no. Not even close. If you're going to ask somebody if some twisted parody of what they said is what they actually said, it's not a fallacy fallacy to tell you that's not what I fucking said. :V


What twisted parody? I literally just summed up your statement and said why that line of thinking is wrong. You literally said "That's not what I said" and then proceeded to repeat yourself saying "HEY, I WANNA GIVE SARS THINGS SO THEY CAN WORK AROUND SYRINGES" I'm not even arguing against doing that! I'm arguing that that line of thinking is inferior to just reverting the change!

Is this thread just going to turn into the two of us arguing about whether your response, "So, your proposition is to make specific people ignore the change altogether to make the change more bearable?" is an accurate representation of "Also, maybe put a couple mk1 hyposprays in the SAR lockers. It's easy to go through 2 syringe cases out there, and needing to carry an entire box and leave a trail of needles in your wake is just silly.", which was a side thought at best?

It sounds like a good way to derail the conversation and accomplish nothing.
User avatar
James Holder
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby LiquidFirefly » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:55 pm

Hr3r9Da.jpg
Hr3r9Da.jpg (112.79 KiB) Viewed 5276 times
I gremlin
User avatar
LiquidFirefly
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:49 pm

Re: Discussion: Reusable/Disposable Syringes

Postby DrYeehaw » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:57 pm

While James's proposal does, yes, make it more bearable, Gazer is also right in that adding such a thing would devalue the whole point in the first place. In lowpop the strategy would be legitimately "Use Hypos to never touch syringes". Because whether or not James's point can be interpreted as such, the logical outcome would be it being used as a workaround to the change, albeit not 100% efficient.


However, having said that, if that's the suggestion, why stop there? Hyposprays actually seem sci-fi oriented enough as is, why not just have enough for us to use normally and just ditch syringes? If we go for realism and believably, it'd only make sense for the station to use up to date tech rather than old crusty needles. I'd accept that as a change.


In seriousness though if we need at least something to mitigate it, it shows that the system is flawed.
Well let me just quote the late-great Colonel Sanders, who said..."I'm too drunk to taste this chicken."
User avatar
DrYeehaw
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 3:42 pm
Location: NOT TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Suggestions, Feedback, and Troubleshooting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests