You know, I was thinking, and as a player I hate employees quitting no matter the mechanic :) I mean, I have built this "corporate machine" (made the decision whom to hire, when, for how much, with which skillset, for what position) and then the game breaks it by make those people leave :) My solution, as a player, would be *always* to quickly track what position was vacant, what kind of person was there (frequently impossible) and hire for this exact position someone similar.

The reason is, I'm lazy and, by some strange twist of fate, I'm always preoccupied with something else when this employee turmoil happens so I just want to make it "be like it was before" as quickly as possible :D

It's just me or do you react similarly as a plyer?

Hi

And yes, it is boring.

I think the reason being, you did not provide any context to the mechanic.

Without any context, it is very difficult to dicuss a mechanic on its own.

It is like asking people what they think about a wrench without telling them what they are gonna use it on.

Just choose any context (could be from a game you played) you wish. I just wanted to discuss this topic :)

In Detroit there were two types of employee , research guys and workers. You weren't setting their wages one by one but as group, when wage is high there was more demand aka more people to hire, when it's low workpool were diminishing and finally if it's really low there was strike.

Or in Game Dev Tycoon, you were hiring people and their salary were raising automatically when they leveled up.

I always quite liked the theme park negotiation mini-game:

It's just me or do you react similarly as a plyer?

Would depend on the structure of the rest of the game. If it is primarily about project or systems management, then the individual 'employees' are little more than cogs to be replaced when they quit/break whatever. While a perfectly reasonable stance for a game to take, if that's going to be the case why even bother having the player manage employees at all? Immersion and mood are well and good, but if a feature does not serve the game's purpose in an entertaining way it should be abandoned or changed.

If the game is trying to be about people management, than having a worker leave suddenly and unexpectedly is one of those problems the game should be focused on. Making up for the lost work, covering caps in schedule/capability on a team, that sort of thing. If I have a team of Workers Abe, Betty, and Carl, and Carl up and quits on me, how do I keep the project or store or whatever from suffering too much until I can hire a suitable replacement - and of course, how does the game make it fun for me to solve this problem? I could bring in a rapidly-hired, lower-wage, but lesser-skilled temp worker to make up some of the shortfall, while also asking Abe and Betty to work extra hours. Asking this of them will probably require something more, overtime pay or the expectation of a bonus at project's end. I as the manager may be a character in my own right and could step in to join the team in Carl's place - but if Carl wasn't the manager, then having me do work "under" one of my own employees could cause friction depending on my skill and personality. And furthermore, while I am busy doing Carl's job my own managerial work isn't getting done. Etc, etc, etc.

I've been thinking about this topic a lot as well, having a management prototype in the design phase. My idea is definitely a "character focused" game, where each employee is a fairly well-fleshed out individual and the player is rewarded for getting to know their team's foibles.