Administrator
SCP-RP Staff
Event Team
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Recently CI Cartographer was changed from using a frankly strange Hazmat Suit model to a COD style army hazmat suit guy. This suggestion is to "revert" that change and change the CI Cartographer model back to the CI R&D model. Pictured below is the model (orange-ish one) that the CI Cartographer model was recently set to and the other obviously CI model is the one I am recommending it be set to instead.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Perhaps the second part of this has been "To set the CI Cartographer model to the CI R&D model", but certainly not the whole suggestion due to it being based off a recent change.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Not fitting the Chaos Insurgency - Simply put, no one looking at that model thinks "Chaos Insurgency" first because it doesn't look like them at all, it's colour scheme, visual language, more professional look, more advanced look, and well frankly everything about it. I don't need to explain this because anyone with eyes should be able to look at it and think something doesn't fit.
Representing MTFs in the past - For those who are aware (at least as far as I am everyone else believes) this model was previously used as a model for E-11, the opposite model for it's current usage and one people 100% will be confused by. This model has also been used (mostly as a base) for multiple Game Master events to represent MTFs (and I'm willing to say never used to represent CI).
Causing Confusion - Within an instant of this change, during CIs first raid with it on UK, I watched someone fail to identify it as CI and then write in OOC afterwards "I saw the E-11 model and thought it was friendly, completely didn't realise it was CI" and I mean of course this person did? My other points obviously stand for this as well but practically no ones immediate thought regarding this model is "CI raiding us!"
Better Uses - To put it simply, this has infinitely better uses as a tool for Game Masters to use in their events and RP enhancements, even if it just as a base hidden behind a PAC (as not everyone has PAC on). I have used this myself and seen it used dozens of times to represent specific or general MTF forces because it represents them so well. By pushing this as a CI model it will no longer be possible for GMs to use it this way without somewhat being mistaken as CI.
R&D Model - Straight up. The Chaos Insurgency R&D model is better. It is cleaner, looks more like CI, fits within the role of a Cartographer, and would actually be a buff for CI as it would mean that their Cartographer could not be picked up on and targeted specially during a raid (similarly to their TB looking like a delta). This is the only situation where I would find it reasonable to buff CI and frankly it is because it makes tons of sense.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
I see no negatives, other than CI maybe not having a "cool new model" but truly (as my positives say) it doesn't really fit them at all.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
As I have hopefully explained, the model should be changed due to the current model (recently changed) having multiple negatives to it:
Recently CI Cartographer was changed from using a frankly strange Hazmat Suit model to a COD style army hazmat suit guy. This suggestion is to "revert" that change and change the CI Cartographer model back to the CI R&D model. Pictured below is the model (orange-ish one) that the CI Cartographer model was recently set to and the other obviously CI model is the one I am recommending it be set to instead.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Perhaps the second part of this has been "To set the CI Cartographer model to the CI R&D model", but certainly not the whole suggestion due to it being based off a recent change.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Not fitting the Chaos Insurgency - Simply put, no one looking at that model thinks "Chaos Insurgency" first because it doesn't look like them at all, it's colour scheme, visual language, more professional look, more advanced look, and well frankly everything about it. I don't need to explain this because anyone with eyes should be able to look at it and think something doesn't fit.
Representing MTFs in the past - For those who are aware (at least as far as I am everyone else believes) this model was previously used as a model for E-11, the opposite model for it's current usage and one people 100% will be confused by. This model has also been used (mostly as a base) for multiple Game Master events to represent MTFs (and I'm willing to say never used to represent CI).
Causing Confusion - Within an instant of this change, during CIs first raid with it on UK, I watched someone fail to identify it as CI and then write in OOC afterwards "I saw the E-11 model and thought it was friendly, completely didn't realise it was CI" and I mean of course this person did? My other points obviously stand for this as well but practically no ones immediate thought regarding this model is "CI raiding us!"
Better Uses - To put it simply, this has infinitely better uses as a tool for Game Masters to use in their events and RP enhancements, even if it just as a base hidden behind a PAC (as not everyone has PAC on). I have used this myself and seen it used dozens of times to represent specific or general MTF forces because it represents them so well. By pushing this as a CI model it will no longer be possible for GMs to use it this way without somewhat being mistaken as CI.
R&D Model - Straight up. The Chaos Insurgency R&D model is better. It is cleaner, looks more like CI, fits within the role of a Cartographer, and would actually be a buff for CI as it would mean that their Cartographer could not be picked up on and targeted specially during a raid (similarly to their TB looking like a delta). This is the only situation where I would find it reasonable to buff CI and frankly it is because it makes tons of sense.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
I see no negatives, other than CI maybe not having a "cool new model" but truly (as my positives say) it doesn't really fit them at all.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
As I have hopefully explained, the model should be changed due to the current model (recently changed) having multiple negatives to it:
- Not fitting CI,
- Representing MTF in the past multiple times,
- Causing confusion,
- Better uses of the model,
- CI R&D model better.
Game Master
