Reinstate Multisurgery

The place for ideas and feedback for all things community related.

Moderators: Game Moderators, Game Administrator, Developer

InvisiblePinkUnicorn
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:18 am

Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:38 am

On January 21st, a longstanding glitch pertaining to surgery was removed via this PR. https://github.com/PolarisSS13/Polaris/pull/4593

The glitch enabled a surgeon to complete surgical steps on different parts of the body simultaneously, assuming that these steps used the same implement. For example, opening an incision on the head with a scalpel while the timer for opening an incision on the chest was still ticking down.

This was rather challenging, as it required rapidly re-targeting between the body parts that one wished to operate on while also mentally tracking the steps for different surgeries at the same time. It rewarded skilled surgeons with slightly faster operation times on patients with multiple injuries, without decreasing the time required for single operations.

I think that this glitch should be reinstated and the PR reversed, for the following reasons.
  1. It allowed better (faster) outcomes for higher player skill, thus rewarding system mastery. Multisurgery is hard, and the more adept one is at juggling different tasks, the greater its rewards. With the current "fixed" surgery, there is no difference in outcome between the best Medical player of all time and someone who is merely good enough to avoid botching a step. This is bad design.
  2. It reduced patient-side tedium. Surgery is usually boring for the patient, consisting of staring at a black screen for a few minutes. By potentially reducing operation times for people with multiple operations required- that is, those who would be subjected to the most tedium- multisurgery increased player enjoyment for anyone who ended up on the operating table.
  3. Its removal made the Medical meta even more unhealthy. Multiple changes have centralized the department more and more around Chemistry, and multisurgery's removal is no exception. I won't lie and say that surgery was a good alternative to Chemistry when multisurgery existed- with peridaxon, osteodaxon, and myelamine on the table, it has always been the poor man's choice for solving any problem. But the removal of multisurgery made it even worse by comparison.
In summary, while its existence was unintentional, multisurgery's presence improved the game for not only Medical players but anyone unlucky enough to end up on the operating table, and I would like to see it re-added.

atermonera
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 3:03 am

Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:52 am

I kinda sorta agree with your.points although I think it's also worth noting that surgery isn't something you icly rush, each step is deliberate and careful. Furthermore, one hand holding one instrument cannot reach separate body parts simultaneously. You can't start an incision on the thigh while you're halfway through making one on the head.

gameplay > realism, tho, so this extends into balance I'd generally prefer to keep my hands out of.

User avatar
Cerebulon
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 1:58 am

Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:46 am

As a surgeon player, I disagree with adding it back in.
Faster surgery should be achieved by improved tools from R&D, if anything, and I don't feel like the process is particularly slow.
Reliance on chemistry is in my opinion an issue of:
1. People being far too eager to mix up advanced chems. Random, non-chemist doctors are far more likely to break into chemistry and make everything they need than to perform untrained surgery. They should be doing neither of these things. The recent guidelines on what constitutes "easily made" meds should, and in my opinion has helped with this somewhat.
2. Chems being TOO good, and too easily obtained. Again, somewhat touched on by guidelines, but a rebalance may be in order as its a little too straightforward to make mixes like keloderm with no drawbacks or side effects whatsoever. Real meds are a pain in the ass with interactions and unintended effects.
That being said, 2 is definitely a discussion for another time I think.

If you have neither a chemist nor a surgeon on staff, perform what aid you can. Sometimes you can only stabilize a patient, or treat symptoms. Use splints, basic meds, blood transfusions, carbon pills and protein shakes, wheelchairs and canes, glasses, painkillers. You can't always make a patients life perfect. You can't even necessarily save every patient. Do what you can. Medical play and medical RP shouldn't always be about "winning".

I don't feel like multisurgery improved my experience as a surgeon whatsoever. The only application I'd enjoy seeing make a return would be something for autopsies which might be unsuitable for use on living patients.
If you're a "skilled surgeon", simple surgery is a <30 second affair with maybe 20 secs per additional injury. Its already very simple and very quick and intentionally allowing something entirely unrealistic and a little silly to make it even moreso isn't something I support at all.

alabasterTempest
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:47 pm

Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:42 pm

I'm with Cerebulon here on all his points.

Skilled surgeons still do surgeries in under 3 minutes, even with multiple complicated ones. The only one I've performed in my memory that has been longer was repairing someone's lungs+heart, removing shrapnel, then brain. And I still had more than enough time to defib.

The only thing this has impacted that I find annoying is performing autopsies, and that just means that I have to take a bit longer to get the Detective that piece of paper that he'll inevitably ignore anyway.

InvisiblePinkUnicorn
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:18 am

Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:26 pm

Cerebulon wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:46 am
Faster surgery should be achieved by improved tools from R&D, if anything, and I don't feel like the process is particularly slow.
I understand your other objections even if I disagree with them personally. I genuinely don't understand the mindset behind this. Do you think that player skill shouldn't improve outcomes? Imagine if the supermatter engine had binary pass/fail states instead of generating more power with a better/more ambitious engineer, or if Security robustness relied entirely on getting better weapons without permitting personal skill to influence outcomes. Would that be good design too?
Cerebulon wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:46 am
1. People being far too eager to mix up advanced chems.
This is a real problem, but it doesn't address the fact that chemistry is better at nearly everything surgery can do when there's a legitimate chemist around as well. Maybe if there were viable alternatives to Chemistry, people wouldn't feel the need to do this.
Cerebulon wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:46 am
2. Chems being TOO good, and too easily obtained. Again, somewhat touched on by guidelines, but a rebalance may be in order as its a little too straightforward to make mixes like keloderm with no drawbacks or side effects whatsoever. Real meds are a pain in the ass with interactions and unintended effects.
That being said, 2 is definitely a discussion for another time I think.
Please don't nerf Medical further. I'd be entirely okay with removing the recipes for osteodaxon/myelamine or nerfing peridaxon in the name of still giving surgery something to do when Chemistry's lucked out, but weakening basic healing chems is wholly out of line when Medical has literally no other way to treat many injuries.
Not-Entirely-Germane Opinions Corner:Show
Personally, I disagree with the point that it's okay to let a patient preventably die in Medical, too. That is bad for the same reason that allowing the supermatter to delaminate as an Engineer is bad, or locking down synths permanently as RD is bad: it can remove players from the round.

Let a patient leave medical in a wheelchair because you ICly can't reattach limbs? Absolutely. Give them painkillers from a locker instead of breaking into Chemistry to fix their brain damage? Good on you. But letting someone die in Medbay is a violation of an implicit OOC responsibility, and it is bad for the round for the exact same reason that murderboning is.

It's not about "winning", it's about not being a dick.

User avatar
Sabess
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:11 pm

Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:56 pm

I think multisurgery was okay personally, but I don't really have anything particularly deep or insightful to add

atermonera
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 3:03 am

Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:49 pm

It's... kinda hard to make other viable solutions when chemistry is currently "Make chems in advance, fire-and-forget into patients to fix damage". All of the work is done beforehand, whereas with things like surgery all of the work is during the treatment, so it necessarily takes longer. A comparable situation for chemistry would be if chems could only mix in the bloodstream, so you had to inject all of the base chems in the right order in order to actually use it. Which I'm not advocating for, that has other problems (Like with spaceacillin) and is generally significantly less fun than the current system. Just giving an example.
Removing recipes for osteo/myel would do nothing, because they require ingredients that are very rarely available. Removing their availability from cargo would require a surgeon to fix bones and IB, whether that's good or bad.

And yes, I would support a system where chems have side effects, particularly ones that last after the chem's fully metabolized, because that introduces tradeoffs and suddenly surgery, with its magic fix-alls, becomes more viable. (But this is outside the scope of this discussion)

mistyLuminescence
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:38 am
Location: Vox populi, vox dei.

Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:08 pm

Osteodaxon is already unavailable from cargo - you need to grind up space carp for it. Cargo can only supply myelamine (clotting agent), and even then, at a prohibitively high point cost.

I'm not sure multisurgery is the way to go about it, but I definitely agree surgery does need something to bring it in line with chem - that's not "make chem more awkward", that's "make surgery actually relevant". Maybe a speed boost to the progress bar if you use the tools within two seconds of each other or something? Reward fast hands and skilled surgeons.

atermonera
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 3:03 am

Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:29 pm

That's an interesting idea, but it'd be very hard to code.
Surgery is currently done (To my understanding) by taking the attack sequence when you whack someone with a surgerytool, and if the specific conditions are met (On a table, on help intent), it'll try to do a surgery step. To figure out which step it wants to do, it has to reference some vars on the external organ, and then there's 3 separate procs for each actual surgery step, a pre-operation, mid-op, and post-op. To get the time since the last step, we'd have to add a var to either all living things (Mechoid will kill you if you say just humans, because borgs are living/silicon), for when they last did a surgery, or to all organs, for when they were last surgery-ed.
The first option would give me the speed boost for operating on 5 people at once (Which if you can actually do, wow, that's kinda amazing, but also probably not desirable, see above point about operating two places simultaneously).
The second option would give the speed boost to 5 people all operating on me at once. Which may be desirable, but depending on where the do_after() is, could take editing every. single. surgery procedure to give the speed boost (Or not every, if some are supposed to always be slow, like removing organs).

Additionally, this punishes people with poor connections, because they physically cannot hit [X timegate] due to lag.

Anatidaephobic
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:34 pm

Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:03 pm

I don't see a reason to remove multisurgery. It doesn't break balance, it feels artful, and lorewise, I feel like having surgeons have far more mastery than the ones that exist today makes complete sense. Ditto with head reattachment, and this seems like a very similar incident to that one. To be brief, I do think that multisurgery isn't exactly the best way to make surgery not obsolete compared to chemistry- but right now, removing it makes things worse, not better. If it has to happen, decide it after the medical rewrite that people have been talking about.

TL;DR, Surgery doesn't need nerfing, Chemistry does, and you're nerfing Surgery.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests