[Poll] Which priority system do you think was better?

[Nativel]

how about those new rails systems? some times I neer 1,2 and 3 priority, and 3 will became like 5 now.

[Hanro50]

In my personal experience I feel like priority creep happened less when I only have 5 priority levels to deal with.

Basically priority creep happens when you keep bumping up the priority of a select group of tasks till you end up in the situation were 99% of the tasks around your base are now set to priority level 9. The new Job system is also kinda helping to fix this issue since some dupes will always prioritize certain takes based on there profession. 
 

The old system was nice when Dupes only did the highest priority jobs, this often meant you could run out of food when you wanted to rush the construction of a new power complex and your dupes decided that harvesting mealwood was a optional pastime 

 

[The Plum Gate]

8 minutes ago, ScottFree said:

You don't need individual priorities levels with jobs. If jobs aren't getting done, get more dupes. Its really that simple.

Problem I'm having is more or less balancing assigned jobs vs allowed tasks ( checkbox ) without disabling my colony due to low population numbers.

[goboking]

7 minutes ago, ScottFree said:

storage compactor = gofer

farming = farmer

cooking = chef

coal = engineer

toilets = groundskeeper

You don't need individual priorities levels with jobs. If jobs aren't getting done, get more dupes. Its really that simple.

So your rebuttal to the argument that the 1-5* priority system strips players of flexibility is telling those making the argument to embrace the lack of flexibility?  And in a condescending tone, no less.

[The Plum Gate]

I'm also at odds with suggesting that overpopulation is a solution - @ScottFree

[Kasuha]

12 minutes ago, ScottFree said:

You don't need individual priorities levels with jobs. If jobs aren't getting done, get more dupes. Its really that simple.

I can hardly disagree more. Each job is responsible for multitude of tasks, you need a tool to tell them which of them to do first and which to do later. Particularly storage compactors, there are things you need stored ASAP (e.g. slime) and things that can wait. You need to be able to specify how far is a task responsibility of appropriate job and when others are welcome to help. You need to be able to specify that if there's a full toilet and you mark a bunch of spilled water for mopping, which one should the groundskeeper do first and if he should do it alone or if everybody should come helping. You DO need priority levels with jobs. You need to tell how important are individual tasks for their jobs and for unrelated jobs.

[The Plum Gate]

My thoughts exactly @Kasuha, I feel like that's been lost. The issue I'm discovering is that the 1-5 system let the dupes handle things as they see fit according to their jobs, while the absolute priority gave me control over things which I needed to be done absolutely. It made perfect sense to me - while having 14 dupes, this was working fine.

Now I'm having trouble battling the tasks pull up vs jobs when I need to get something done - I want my operator to operate the machines, but I don't want everyone capable of operating to just go and do it, and I don't want him doing a bunch of sweeping chores when this comes up, and so on....But he should be able to help if he sees lower priorities.

It seems like if the duplicants were more job aware - that is, if they prioritized work not related to their field at a lower level - rather I'm saying there should be a +/- 1 relation.

If a common operating task ( such as operating the rock granulator ) is set to 5, then an operator's priorities would be to operate on that machine at a 6, while other tasks not related to operating would be a 4. Duplicants employeed in other fields not related to operating would, would also see this task as a 4.

Delivery agents would see all delivery tasks as a 6, anything else as a 4.

This would bring some sanity back to the jobs board and let duplicants have jobs and be able to do jobs outside their field - no straight jacket.

[goboking]

54 minutes ago, Hanro50 said:

In my personal experience I feel like priority creep happened less when I only have 5 priority levels to deal with.

Basically priority creep happens when you keep bumping up the priority of a select group of tasks till you end up in the situation were 99% of the tasks around your base are now set to priority level 9.

Priority creep is a problem entirely of your own making; it only happens if you allow it to happen.

[ScottFree]

4 hours ago, Kasuha said:

I can hardly disagree more. Each job is responsible for multitude of tasks, you need a tool to tell them which of them to do first and which to do later. Particularly storage compactors, there are things you need stored ASAP (e.g. slime) and things that can wait. You need to be able to specify how far is a task responsibility of appropriate job and when others are welcome to help. You need to be able to specify that if there's a full toilet and you mark a bunch of spilled water for mopping, which one should the groundskeeper do first and if he should do it alone or if everybody should come helping. You DO need priority levels with jobs. You need to tell how important are individual tasks for their jobs and for unrelated jobs.

Where I did say priorities didn't matter? I'm saying 1-5 or 1-9 are have virtually no effect on productivity and are indistinguishable in practice. Likewise,

1 to 2 (old) = 1 (new)
3 to 4 (old) = 2 (new)
5 to 6 (old) = 3 (new)
7 to 8 (old) = 4 (new)
9 (old) = 5 (new)

These are not meaningful distinctions. You are loosing 1 point of resolution at each level.  Explain how this is significant. The only criticism I've seen is 'that's not how I used to do it." 

The job system simply shifts from a global queue fulfilled by all dupes to a decentralized queue based on job. This is what people are arguing against in actuality. So imagine a queue of 10 tasks. Those tasks get filtered to each individual job, preserving their previous priority level, and then completed. There is no loss of priority. The critics of the job system or 1-5 have no complaint about this. The complaints posted are that tasks that were previously on 2 adjacent levels are now on the same level. Whatever problem people have with 1-5 is solved by them combining priority levels. That's it. 

edit: erased long paragraphs no one is going to read

[The Plum Gate]

An entirely different solution that could fit everyone's needs.

 

[vonVile]

1-9 is perfect. You could really fine tune the chores. With 1-5 it was like there was no real difference between priorities. Limiting the numbers to me messed everything up and nothing over 2 would get done because the increments were too close together. This is what it felt like to me:

1 = 1

2 = 5

3-5 = 8

* = 9

If Klei goes back to using a 1-5 system they are going to have to find a way to trick the program to where it still thinks its using the 1-9 system. Something like:

1 = 1

2 = 3

3 = 5

4 = 7

5 = 9

* = Red Alert

[Wedgebert]

33 minutes ago, vonVile said:

1-9 is perfect. You could really fine tune the chores. With 1-5 it was like there was no real difference between priorities. Limiting the numbers to me messed everything up and nothing over 2 would get done because the increments were too close together. This is what it felt like to me:

1 = 1

2 = 5

3-5 = 8

* = 9

If Klei goes back to using a 1-5 system they are going to have to find a way to trick the program to where it still thinks its using the 1-9 system. Something like:

1 = 1

2 = 3

3 = 5

4 = 7

5 = 9

* = Red Alert

Except * didn't actually change the priority so much as change how the dupes viewed it. A 2* task isn't going to be worked on so long as any 3+ or 3*+ jobs exist. And an architect won't do a  5* sweeping job won't be done before a 5 building job.

The 1-5* was incredibly simple. Dupes did their preferred jobs in priority order, then did non-preferred jobs in priority order. A job marked with a * was treated as a preferred job. Nothing more, nothing less.

[IvanX]

I didn't get what last set of posts mean...

@vonVile, how is 1-5 no difference between priorities? The first 5 priorities prioritize tasks within the job as well as overall. Why is * = 9, there are 5 grades of * just to make it possible to use old system.

@The Plum Gate, most of the complaints about 1-5 is that it's not intuitive and it only has one single checkbox added. Adding a whole new overlay interfrace and splitting priorities for different tasks by what, color? is pretty much an interface killer.

 

Gotta add this in addition to all people said tho. I doubt anybody who voted for 1-5 actually cares how many priority levels there will be - 5 or 9. What really matters is that we're given a separate pool for job priorities, allowing you to always have job done, while being able to control entire population by assigning strict priorities when you have to. If it was 1-9/1*-9* i doubt anybody of the 1-5 fans would complain.

[Traveller]

I really loved the 1-5 1-5* system.  It was great for multiple levels of mining tasks, and amazing for making my researchers prioritize research without having to turn off tasks all the time.

Anything that I would use pri-6 on the 1-9 scale for, I'd just put on 4* instead, like farms and the musher in early game.  But there's no replacement for the 1-5 ratings in the 1-9 system, unless I turn digging off for everybody but my miners 90% of the time, then turn it on for everyone when I need some emergency mining.

The only thing I would like better is "make farmers prioritize this at 4, but make everyone else prioritize this at 2".  But that seems waaaay too hard to juggle.

[Konzill]

the 1-9 system makes jobs meaningless. I actually liked the idea that you have to use jobs to level up, instead of level up just happening all the time.  A 1-5* system is much better assuming it works. The last time I played it definitely still had some bugs in it.  

[vonVile]

@IvanX, if it isn't broke, don't fit it.

[The Plum Gate]

45 minutes ago, IvanX said:

Adding a whole new overlay interfrace and splitting priorities for different tasks by what, color? is pretty much an interface killer.

Not exactly what I meant, so let me be a little more clear. In the germs overlay we have filters for selecting the various other other overlays where germs could be, including the plumbing and ventilation. This is the type of filter select we could have for the various tasks. We would be able to select that filter, and set priorities for those tasks specifically. Dig, Tidy, Construct/deconstruct, Deliver, etc

Since I wasn't clear about how a general overview might look - I don't want a color vomit display either, but there are other methods already in use which are just as practical and are already implemented elsewhere. Therefore, this view might include the priority number and include a sub icon which represents the task's category. A broom, or shovel, etc, - some icon which corresponds to the filters. Their display in proximity to the priority number would be similar to [ the farming overlay's sub icon method for displaying the reasons for (the plant) being stifled ].

Now regarding the general overview - the basic color theme could remain intact - the visuals for various priorities would be denoted number and sub icon. While in this view - changing the filters would allow you to directly set said priorities according to the filter selected. Or if no filter is selected, set any sub priorities to all be the same. When there's more than one priority on a machine or a build, then both priorities could be displayed using the same type of crowding iconography displayed when a building lacks multiple resources.

In this regard, delivery priority on a machine could be set differently than operating priority. This could break the job-associated deliveries mechanism. essentially - I want my cook cooking and not fetching ingredients, so I'll set the delivery priorities, and hopefully a gopher will do their job. ( this would mean altering the co-dependent job and associated deliveries, but would make errand runners more useful. This means keeping the cook or operator working while materials are being delivered by non cooks or operators ).

[Kabrute]

Can we have a split 9 priority system, like best of both worlds?

[Keyimin]

5 hours ago, ScottFree said:

storage compactor = gofer

farming = farmer

cooking = chef

coal = engineer

toilets = groundskeeper

You don't need individual priorities levels with jobs. If jobs aren't getting done, get more dupes. Its really that simple.

And that degree of simplification grossly fails to recognize the complex and somewhat convoluted nature of the system. For example, "Farming = farmer" really looks like this:

1. Someone who can farm/harvest (farmer).

2. Someone who can deliver dirt/water to the plants (gofer).

3. Someone who can deliver the product of the harvest to the chef for cooking or to food storage (groundskeeper and/or gofer).

If a farmer could do all of those things just by being a farmer and having "farm" checked in the task list, then your simplification of the dupes required for the task would be correct. However, in reality, you need either: 

1. A farmer who can also tidy and supply, which means said farmer will do ALL OTHER tidy and supply tasks of higher priority or when no farming jobs exist whether you want them to or not;

OR

2. A farmer, a gofer, and a groundskeeper. 

And I don't want to catch my farmer cleaning a toilet either. But guess what? That's exactly what'll happen if I want my farmer to put the harvest away because I have to use "tidy" to get that done. (And "supply" currently, because if you use sweep-only storage, they won't sweep unless both tidy AND supply are assigned, which means my farmer will also run off doing the gofer's job when there's no harvesting to be done. And from what I've seen, they won't water their own darn crops if they can't "supply" either.)

IMO, the reason most people aren't entirely satisfied with either system is because not enough of the essential components of a job are baked into that job and/or the "tasks" are very much all or nothing, not allowing enough control. It was a weakness of the prior system, and it remains a weakness of the new jobs system. You have either a dupe that now does all sorts of things you DON'T want them to do or a dupe that doesn't do enough of what you DO want them to do.

Each system we've seen so far addresses a part of those concerns differently, with the biggest difference being dupes preferring their occupation-related tasks by default. And if there were a poll about that specific aspect of the 1-5* system, I think most would agree that it should be part of ANY priority system going forward. The difference of opinion is on how to handle the rest.

 

2 hours ago, The Plum Gate said:

In this regard, delivery priority on a machine could be set differently than operating priority. This could break the job-associated deliveries mechanism. essentially - I want my cook cooking and not fetching ingredients, so I'll set the delivery priorities, and hopefully a gopher will do their job. ( this would mean altering the co-dependent job and associated deliveries, but would make errand runners more useful. This means keeping the cook or operator working while materials are being delivered by non cooks or operators ).

And this demonstrates how differently people think and play the game. My cook doesn't cook the whole day. And my gofers have loads of other responsibilities. I actually WANT my cook to be able to get his/her own ingredients if necessary rather than stand around waiting for someone else to get around to it. Perhaps that's because I typically play with fewer dupes, or perhaps it's just different approaches to the game. 

And one of my favorite things about ONI is the variety of ways people can play the game. And I think that's why issues like this one can get so "loud" or even a bit heated. The more these systemwide overhauls can allow players flexibility without being overly cumbersome, the better.

[Roxanne4018]

OR with the current state of the game you "max" a farmer only to switch him to being a gofer and allow only him in the building PLUS limit his access to basically farm, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and mess hall. Now you got a farmer with a gofer hat 

but at least after that you don't really have to manage him

[ScottFree]

@Keyimin You raise a good point, its a flaw in the job system that didn't get worked out.

[Keyimin]

48 minutes ago, Roxanne4018 said:

OR with the current state of the game you "max" a farmer only to switch him to being a gofer and allow only him in the building PLUS limit his access to basically farm, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and mess hall. Now you got a farmer with a gofer hat 

but at least after that you don't really have to manage him

I switch my dupes' hats a fair bit

But what about the farming station? You need an actual farmer to operate that (putting aside its questionable benefits atm), so a gofer who can also farm doesn't address the need for an actual farmer. (I didn't think the new carrying over of mastery in skills, as in levels, meant that a farmer could now continue to operate farmer-specific machines without actually having that occupation assigned. Does it? If that's the case, that's pretty ridic lol.) 

There are, of course, many ways to "control" dupes based on movement and base layout later in the game, but movement-restricting aspects of the game shouldn't be so integral to the jobs/tasks system that the system can't run sensibly without it. 

Musical hats and task assignments with artificial movement restrictions just to "force" efficiency out of a system that is inherently inefficient is, let's say, less than ideal lol. 

 

[Roxanne4018]

The thing is now -for the same priority level- dupes would prioritize their job and then do the other tasks. (delivery comes before farming).
I have Farming stations to get the greenhouse bonus and yes once a dupe a reach farmer you can assign him to a station and switch him jobs without and he will stay assign. Plus I get a super fast farmer that does it all.
Besides that I don't switch hats that much except for the artist.

Also, with the 1-5* system I simply wouldn't assign the farmer job to any dupes. I would set farming 4* with door restriction to allow a gofer with high farming skill to go do the job (worked better than a  farmer since dupes couldn't upgrade skills) 

PS:

1. I also allow my cook to go inside the farm but he his not actually allowed to farm (cooking station set to 9 or equivalent)
2. Later in the base I set up my new dupes with a researcher assistant job so that they get the learning bonus even though there's no more research to be done.

 

So yeah maybe the job system itself is flawed but it's manageable.

[PhailRaptor]

Just want to point out another issue that a lot of people seem to be glossing over while talking about this subject.

The original 1-9 system had a hidden layer of task priority.  Tasks were assigned in a specific order per Priority Level.  This hidden priority dimension was 100% out of the player's control.  Based on my observation, THIS is what the Occupation system was meant to solve -- giving players control over the order in which tasks are assigned if Priority is equal.

[The Plum Gate]

3 hours ago, Keyimin said:

You need an actual farmer to operate that....Does it?

My 100% lab assitants and scientists return to the supercomputer. I don't have anyone assigned to that role after they finished it. Just kept their research checkbox checked and now that part of the job tree is all open slots. I wouldn't be surprised if that's also the case with farmers as well.

There's less hat dancing now, unfortunately the higher levels require a while to master before they can move on to other things without having to reassign them.

So I gopher a lot of ex builders and science grads - set them on their alternate interests after that. One of my couriers can carry 1600Kg for some reason - and do it rather fast.