Rule Suggestion Big Issue

[Houston Benton]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

Add a rule that forbids CI players from hopping on SCP's during a raid.
Or CI Requesting for SCP's to hop on during a raid with the intent to breach.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

This hasn't been suggested previously

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

Less Long breaches that kill everything activity wise on the server
Less Coordinated-OP SCP's that ignore CI raiding parties

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

None It forces CI to work with whatever SCP's that are onsite at that time rather than hopping on a combo-wombo of Type green's, astronaut, 079 that kill any semblance of roleplay

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

Would make SCP breaches that occur not last that thing as it'll be random players.
​

 

[Jeremy Bennett]

+Support

No matter what, CI SCPs will always team to some extent.

They really can't be trusted anymore to hop on these jobs

 

[Remmy]

Too pussy to fight us CI one on one? U fucking suck dude.

 

[Mirage]

+Support

 

[Joshua Anderson]

+SUPPORT
No more needs to be said

 

[Ryan O'Dállaigh]

notice how nearly everyone - supporting this is CI

 

[Emilia Foddg]

notice how nearly everyone - supporting this is CI

Yeah, it's almost as if we know how CI works internally and what's enforced, meanwhile everyone on the outside seems to just be basing their +Support off of... Idk, the name in tab list? Seems to just be "the fact that the player on the SCP holds a CI position and flagged on during a raid" and nothing more. And from there, there's teaming speculation.

 

[Nukegoboom]

Can I just say. For everyone + or - supporting remember to also click this. TY.

 

[Houston Benton]

As far as CI players hopping on scps i agree that is cringe, but saying they can't ask for them to flag on in ooc is atrocious considering 1. Most people are never constantly flagged on scps that are breached and 2. In RP every scp is on site at all times, so saying they have to pick and choose an scp thats online at that given moment with no chances to remedy that is really lame

They can do it for sampling or such, Asking for a scp to hop on with the sole intent to breach it shouldn't be a thing, work with your timing and whatever scps are on-site.

I'm sorry bro but.. the CI being on SCPs while being in the main TS is something enforced by CI Command and staff,
and with all respect to all E-11, Containment units, or any MTF in fact.. I cannot trust people to not metagame if we ask for a flagup on a SCP in OOC.

With the second Issue, pretty sure in character every SCP is on site at all times, it shouldn't make sense to not be allowed to ask for SCPs to flag on, legit would make breaches non-existent for CI..

Doesn't matter if they are muted or such are not In the TS Bias comes Into play they'll play more In the favor of CI.

They are relocated we got trains, we are asking for rules to be added so SCP's aren't flagged on with the sole intent of breaching you can ask them to flag on for sampling or rp that is fine.

Exceedingly rare Houston L. You hate to see it.

Firstly, this is liable to cause more metagaming the other way around - i.e. Only one or two SCPs are on and CI raid heading to HCZ; The natural instinct in that situation (even though all SCPs are supposed to be onsite at all times in terms of IC knowledge) is to guard those specific SCPs.

Secondly IMO, at least on UK, F is in a decent enough position regarding breach response that this is not that much of a gameplay balance problem.

Finally, despite the disagreements I've had with CI COs in the past, IMO CI on UK is one of the best-run regiments on the server. As far as I've seen, they are particularly strict about this sort of thing and nowadays have even more internal (and staff-enforced) rules about it than I recall them having in the past. They are always cracking down on this sort of thing and as a result, I see no need for SSL intervention on the matter.

I understand your concerns, but quite frankly I feel that this is a kneejerk suggestion made without more than a surface-level analysis of the issue.
Major -Support

Bias plays into it I've seen too many raids that extend for hours upon hours where CI players that hopped on SCP's would ignore a CI walking right in-front of them, this would avoid whatever biases that come into play with CI playing as the scps.
and this issue has existed for ages at this point it isn't a kneejerk reaction, I want to see the normal gameplay loop work where I don't have to delay events / RPs and soo on because there Is a mass-wreck train of SCP Breaches that are mega-coordinated.

 

[conspiracycarl]

-support
Jarvis nerf ci again

 

[Sceptre]

I don't understand how banning CI from playing on SCPs is "nerfing CI"

Are people trying to imply that CI's only stable effect on the server is to breach SCPs regularly?

 

[Nukegoboom]

I don't understand how banning CI from playing on SCPs is "nerfing CI"

Are people trying to imply that CI's only stable effect on the server is to breach SCPs regularly?

Yes, yes it is. That is EXACTLY what they're implying.

 

[Snake]

As an fyi people on scps should also probably move channels even if deafened

 

[Niox]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

Add a rule that forbids CI players from hopping on SCP's during a raid.
Or CI Requesting for SCP's to hop on during a raid with the intent to breach.​

This feels hard to properly enforce. If a CI player is on a Foundation job and flags on, how do you keep track of that? What happens if someone flags on a SCP during the CI raid, knowing CI are going to HCZ? What happens if CI get an SCP to flag on to roleplay with it, then get cornered and breach it as a distraction - Would that still be a SCP flagging on with "Intent to breach"? Sebastian also poses a good question as well.

I love the idea of this, CI having to go to SCP's that are already on site which would diversify the breaches, but this is a bit odd, considering CI would actively need to check the TAB menu to see what SCP's are available (Which is essentially just metagaming).

me when ci mains hop on SCP and they all happen to forget to deafen in TS and know the exact locations of remaining ci and the locations of other SCPs...

Bias plays into it I've seen too many raids that extend for hours upon hours where CI players that hopped on SCP's would ignore a CI walking right in-front of them, this would avoid whatever biases that come into play with CI playing as the scps.

If this ever occurs, feel free to call a metagaming/teaming sit on the individual, and report what has happened to any CI CO. I, or any other of my CO's will deal with it, as it is a direct breakage of the rules (And do make sure to have evidence if you send it to anyone).

+Support

No matter what, CI SCPs will always team to some extent.

100% agree with this statement. Even if you aren't actively working to be biased, there will be at least 1 time where it bleeds through, although this does apply both sides (CI players as SCP actively dodging CI, while F players as SCP actively targeting CI, despite Foundation being closer/engaging with the SCP's).

Nobody wins!

notice how nearly everyone - supporting this is CI

CI... commenting their opinion on a change that actively affects their regiment? Mike! Tear down my house!! Tear down my kids!!

I don't understand how banning CI from playing on SCPs is "nerfing CI"

Are people trying to imply that CI's only stable effect on the server is to breach SCPs regularly?

You are gassing this up far more than it is x_x
No, this isn't CI's only stable effect on the server, and yes this is a CI Nerf because it limits CI's strength in harming the Foundation. Even if it wasn't a CI nerf, what would you call it?

Anywho +Support, I feel like executing it properly would be hard, but I love the idea.

Also a negative would probably be that CI can get metagamed easier if they ask in OOC, but it's only for the first option, and you can normally you can poke other people in TS, so it doesn't just become a public beacon.

 

[Cade Valentine]

I don't understand how banning CI from playing on SCPs is "nerfing CI"

Are people trying to imply that CI's only stable effect on the server is to breach SCPs regularly?

I think we're finally starting to reach critical intelligence....

Sarcasm aside because I know Sceptre saw this and all the OTHER flaws in the responses to this thread; oh my god +support PLEASE.

The main argument that CI have always tried to use whenever someone has argued this before is the staff ruling regarding SCPs that they are "always onsite IC" and thus its fair to ask any singular SCP on to breach them. For starters, is that argument not paradoxical itself? If the SCPs are always on at all times, and yet CI continuously only flag onto SPECIFIC SCPs that they know provide them the best benefit to their raid even if others are not available, is that not also just metagame from them knowing what SCPs are available by essentially looking at the scoreboard just to ensure maximum raid success with no variety whatsoever? The argument literally goes both ways when you think about it like this and it makes you think that it's genuinely more hassle than it's worth to allow them to keep doing this, because god knows how long I've seen people beg for this.

Secondly, the argument that CI Command enforce these rules in order to ensure they don't ruin role-play is hilariously rich, considering that just before everyone reached critical mass with their patience with the faction, I had to make a complaint that two members of CI REGCOM+ were sitting in the CI TS on SCPs that made it to surface, JUST as conveniently, a main gate slaughter of a CI raid appeared! The winning mentality behind all of the logic involved is utterly ridiculous.

Additionally, acting like it's more fair on CI to allow them to flag on, than just focus on punishing people who abuse scoreboard peeking and actually promoting a healthier environment on the server, is insane. Again, as people have pointed out a lot recently, you guys are a secondary faction. Your success rate of raids shouldn't even be anywhere close to 50% and yet on numerous days per week it reaches that and higher.

You have OTHER ways to cause chaos within the Foundation. Pairing two of the main combat loops that on their own are already designed to disrupt Foundation function together, just so that you can get the dopamine of a longer raid and thus a higher K/D, is irrelevant. I know SSL+ are working hard on trying to find more things to do on the surface for you, hell I know for a fact I wouldn't mind a CL5 meeting to also share ideas. But I'm at the end of my tether again with single breaches like 035 managing to somehow snowball consistently into a nuke.

I'm all for you using role-play to do this, if you actually did. For example, if an SCP was ALREADY flagged on such as 7722, stayed on long enough for a DC to find them first and confirm presence, THEN CI raided and breached it. I genuinely would have no ground to stand on, cause that would at least require setup, have counterplay and engage people. The current loop is literally just "kill people near the SCPs likely to give us the best K/D, then issue the flag on, finish the hack and boom, roleplay is ruined.

Begging for staff to consider this one! I think that it's a great idea, and I also think people haven't thought enough about the illogical nature of the IC "they're always here" argument.

 

[James V]

Yeah, it's almost as if we know how CI works internally and what's enforced, meanwhile everyone on the outside seems to just be basing their +Support off of... Idk, the name in tab list? Seems to just be "the fact that the player on the SCP holds a CI position and flagged on during a raid" and nothing more. And from there, there's teaming speculation.

+support
I know how CI works

 

[Sceptre]

because it limits CI's strength in harming the Foundation

You mean.. harming the RP loop with constant breaches? Right..

Regardless, I find no reason to agree in the sense that you shouldn't be picking and choosing the "meta" SCPs to breach - breach what you can, which SCPs are available to breach, and move on

 

[Niox]

You mean.. harming the RP loop with constant breaches? Right..

I have not got any clue what you are getting at.
Yes it harms Foundation's gameplay loop, yes it's a pain in the ass, yes I wish CI had more RP options that were consistently available, but I never said that wasn't the case? I was simple just saying why it's not wrong to call it a CI nerf ._.

 

[fyzar]

god forbid i dont want a plummer on an scp im breaching especially after the box upgrades, not even going to bother mention the metagaming stuff as others have said it before

-support

 

[qShad]

-Support

Sounds like E-11 need to lock in more than complain on the forums

 

[Froggo]

+/- Support
I dont feel like writing paragraphs, niox said it fine. i just dont think this would change anything really. because CI could just hop of CI and onto foundation then onto SCP. which at that point is the same thing. Even if this isnt a thing, the most powerful SCP's will still be called upon to be breached

// SCP 076,8837,7722,682,TG flag up

ever heard that one before, and i know your trying to remove that but there will be ways around it. by just asking SCPs in general to flag up or just doing what i said above. again if you want to do a test of how effective CI actually are. disable auto breaches for 1 day as a test to actually feel their impact.