Feedback Thread: Maximum amount of armor obtainable Change.

[Holland]

With the recent change to the maximum amount of armor you can obtain on certain jobs.​

We would like to get community feedback regarding the changes.​

​

Changelog​

​

Feel free to post your opinion.​

The trial will be for 2 weeks​

​

Our intentions​

This change has been done to encourage non-combatives to stay further away from combat, however still allows certain jobs to have the ability to resist a couple more bullets if they choose to obtain the extra bit of armor from an armory.​

​

Be nice and respectfull​

Content team​

 

[Advil Smith]

I understand the limit on non combatives but why was making ISD have less armor apart of that? I mean I get ISD shouldn’t be the group of people in every combat situation but they still have a separate duty which is usually protecting noncombatives during codes.

 

[Holland]

I understand the limit on non combatives but why was making ISD have less armor apart of that? I mean I get ISD shouldn’t be the group of people in every combat situation but they still have a separate duty which is usually protecting noncombatives during codes.

And you are still able to.

The Content team has been encouraging ISD to shift towards a more roleplay-focused department rather than being solely combat-oriented.

During C1, many players tend to rush towards the CI, GOC, or intruders. This is not the direction we want ISD to take.

In the past, ISD was not perceived as a fully combative unit; instead, it was classified as semi-combative. This meant that while conducting arrests, you could use combative actions, but you were not allowed to actively seek out CI to engage them in combat.

This classification was changed due to frequent rule breaks and the loopholes that players were exploiting.

We hope that small adjustments like these, without strict rule enforcement, can help guide ISD in a new direction.

Remember, you are part of security, but you are not GSD or MTF, and you do not have access to heavy military gear.

 

[Zen]

I like most of it, but the ISD changes make no sense. Even disregarding secondary duties they may pick up, how do you expect them to be able to arrest MTF members, GSD, etc. when you give them no armour to protect themselves against potentially hostile armed forces who have full armour, better weapons and the element of surprise in most circumstances? Anything that involves arresting combatives or even just responding to 914 usage (which may or may not be either CI or a tech expert) just becomes notably more difficult and simply doesn't make any sense.

 

[Adagio]

And you are still able to.

The Content team has been encouraging ISD to shift towards a more roleplay-focused department rather than being solely combat-oriented.

During C1, many players tend to rush towards the CI, GOC, or intruders. This is not the direction we want ISD to take.

In the past, ISD was not perceived as a fully combative unit; instead, it was classified as semi-combative. This meant that while conducting arrests, you could use combative actions, but you were not allowed to actively seek out CI to engage them in combat.

This classification was changed due to frequent rule breaks and the loopholes that players were exploiting.

We hope that small adjustments like these, without strict rule enforcement, can help guide ISD in a new direction.

Remember, you are part of security, but you are not GSD or MTF, and you do not have access to heavy military gear.

ISD is moving more roleplay focused through the Director of ISD's new policies that they have been adding enforcing. We have a new code system that designates what we are supposed to do during situations and we are protocol wise not supposed to just hunt down CI or GOC. We actively are meant to protect non-combatives and enforce the FLC unless things are bad like low staffing, code 5 in LCZ, code 2, or Code Black/AA Level 3 is authed. Those are the times in which we would work more combatively to help secure the issue and secure LCZ for the non-combatives. The issue with the reduction in armor is that it reduces our ability to assist in Code 2s or Code 5s in LCZ. If we lose the ability to protect non-combatives effectively or assist in low staffing situations to help out where needed during situations like Code 5s, it makes us just FLC enforcers.

We got nerfed by having our guns display while we are disguised meaning we can no longer have weapons while disguised as tech experts or other non-combatives (I have already been kidnapped by a researcher and tech experts because of this while trying to make arrests since I had a non-combative disguise and had to store my weapons). This is another nerf which lowers our effectiveness even further for our job. To me, this feels like a push to make us non-combative and to have us sit back rather than a support for who needs it that also enforces the FLC.

I just tried helping in D-Block. The lack of full armor during the active Code 2/5 combo made it near impossible for me to assist since it was understaffed, GSD were just sitting talking, and ISD had lower armor which caused us to have to consistently retreat for more armor after getting shot like 2 times by a D-Class with an assault rifle.

Additionally, how am I supposed to arrest MTF units if they act up knowing full well, they have a MASSIVE combat advantage having full armor while mine is lower. If I had to store my guns to disguise as non-combative, I can't enforce anything if any of them point a gun at me and tell me to drop my bodycam, cuff me, etc. Even if I have guns, I need to basically fight someone who is full power while having far less damage reduction than him. If anything, this makes me need to push more combative exercises on my guys so we have better headshot consistency to defend ourselves if the need arises especially with CI or GOC raids in the areas we are in such as patrolling Delta or helping in D-Block due to low staffing (one of our side jobs).

Overall, this change to ISD armor makes us have heavily reduced combative ability for protecting ourselves, non-combatives, and assisting around site due to low staffing. We are police primarily but secondarily we are a support job to assist where needed to prevent the deaths of non-combatives. The armory helps with storing guns but we still are relatively screwed in defending ourselves and others on all fronts now whether we have combative disguises or not. 25-50 armor may not seem like a lot but the damage reduction it gives is HUGE and makes our job far less effective if we lost that much. I can live without an armory (not saying I don't love having it since it makes me not have to run to SS to keep storing my default guns while I disguise and giving me more time to get a disguise instead of running to try and get armor then a disguise) but that lack of armor severely harms the effectiveness of my job. The change makes no sense for our gameplay loop and hurts it rather than helps it in any way.

(Reference ISD Agent Handbook section 1.1 and 1.2 for our duties)

 

[pinhead]

how do you expect them to be able to arrest MTF members, GSD, etc. when you give them no armour to protect themselves against potentially hostile armed forces who have full armour, better weapons and the element of surprise in most circumstances?

Do most people you guys arrest shoot at you lmao? Or are you saying you have to shoot at CI/d class nearly every time you arrest someone?

The issue with the reduction in armor is that it reduces our ability to assist in Code 2s or Code 5s in LCZ.

Okay, ISD shouldn't be the d-block guards or the SCP-destroyers. I don't see why this is an issue.

We got nerfed by having our guns display while we are disguised meaning we can no longer have weapons while disguised as tech experts or other non-combatives

I do agree that there should be a compromise somewhere with ISD - I feel like their pistols shouldn't show while disguised. That at least gives you something to fearrp with while still shifting away from combat.

Additionally, how am I supposed to arrest MTF units if they act up knowing full well, they have a MASSIVE combat advantage having full armor while mine is lower. If I had to store my guns to disguise as non-combative, I can't enforce anything if any of them point a gun at me and tell me to drop my bodycam, cuff me, etc.

WTF are we feeding these MTF? I play ISD from time to time and I have never had anyone but clear NITRP minges resist arrest to that degree. People shouldn't be fuckin' blasting when faced with a misdemeanor, unless you deal with murder charges all day? Honestly probable now that I think of it...

I'd try having two (2) agents arrest someone for murder so that they can be fear-roleplayed. Also, don't you guys get tranq darts? That's a pretty big combat advantage lmao.

We are police primarily but secondarily we are a support job to assist where needed to prevent the deaths of non-combatives.

I see where you're coming from but I can't help but feel like you're stretching to make your points here. I don't see how the armor difference makes you ineffective as support jobs - less effective, yes, but not every single combative on site needs to be the doom slayer. If you want to shoot green people, orange people or the monsters, there are other jobs that are better, and SHOULD be clearly better, because every group has a specialty. Keeping ISD at full armor is just like having a parade of gensec with disguise cards prance around site waiting for trouble, it's simply not fair for the hostile groups.

 

[Doug]

Stop posting useless stuff on this thread or you’ll lose the ability to post in this thread at all.

 

[JasonTheCheesyGuy]

I appreciate the step this is taking, but at the same time I do have some worries about making ISD weaker as combatatives having a negative impact upon the duration of CI holds, specifically in Chemlab/SA wing where they tend to be the main bulk of forces alongside IE/GSD.

 

[Luigi Fishford]

I like the fact that we are adjusting the armor for noncombatives as it fits a little more into the what would be normal. Im just confused on as to what reason the armor of SA/ECM/O5 is not being adjusted in the same mannor as others. I get the argument that they are a more vital part of our Site and that they need to survive longer but that just seems like a sort of preference compared to others, but that would not make them carry more full kevlar vests with helmets ect. This is by all means meant to critisize onto this Im simply confused on as to why some things need to adjusted and not just made equal with the others, because after all the people with the most protection (Escort Wise) would also have the most armor now.

 

[Adagio]

Do most people you guys arrest shoot at you lmao? Or are you saying you have to shoot at CI/d class nearly every time you arrest someone?


Okay, ISD shouldn't be the d-block guards or the SCP-destroyers. I don't see why this is an issue.


I do agree that there should be a compromise somewhere with ISD - I feel like their pistols shouldn't show while disguised. That at least gives you something to fearrp with while still shifting away from combat.


WTF are we feeding these MTF? I play ISD from time to time and I have never had anyone but clear NITRP minges resist arrest to that degree. People shouldn't be fuckin' blasting when faced with a misdemeanor, unless you deal with murder charges all day? Honestly probable now that I think of it...

I'd try having two (2) agents arrest someone for murder so that they can be fear-roleplayed. Also, don't you guys get tranq darts? That's a pretty big combat advantage lmao.


I see where you're coming from but I can't help but feel like you're stretching to make your points here. I don't see how the armor difference makes you ineffective as support jobs - less effective, yes, but not every single combative on site needs to be the doom slayer. If you want to shoot green people, orange people or the monsters, there are other jobs that are better, and SHOULD be clearly better, because every group has a specialty. Keeping ISD at full armor is just like having a parade of gensec with disguise cards prance around site waiting for trouble, it's simply not fair for the hostile groups.

An example of what is happening is during 120 pop on the server, there are 6 GSD with only 2 in D-Block (This just happened). We are a combative role meant to enforce the FLC first but also to facilitate RP and help where possible as extra combatives. Having 50 or 75 armor while trying to assist in manning D-Block during low GSD pop is a nightmare while being weaker than any other combative on the server. Additionally, we only really fight the SCPs while they are in LCZ where we constantly are.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

CI holds, specifically in Chemlab/SA wing where they tend to be the main bulk of forces alongside IE/GSD.

Why are ISD responding to CI raids?

 

[Skittles]

Having 50 or 75 armor while trying to assist in manning D-Block during low GSD pop is a nightmare while being weaker than any other combative on the server.

Then hop on GSD if you want to be in d block and have full armour?

 

[JasonTheCheesyGuy]

Why are ISD responding to CI raids?

Because CI balancing is based upon them being outnumbered. In that calculation, ISD are considered as an opposing force.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Because CI balancing is based upon them being outnumbered. In that calculation, ISD are considered as an opposing force.

This is true - However I'm pretty sure that ISD shouldn't really be going out of their way to respond to Code 1s, no? At least raid-specific C1s

 

[Zen]

This is true - However I'm pretty sure that ISD shouldn't really be going out of their way to respond to Code 1s, no? At least raid-specific C1s

If it's within PW they should, because CI being there is an active threat to non-combatants, and protecting non-combatants is a high priority for ISD.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

If it's within PW they should, because CI being there is an active threat to non-combatants, and protecting non-combatants is a high priority for ISD.

That makes sense. Sounds extremely disruptive to RSD, too.

 

[Advil Smith]

This is true - However I'm pretty sure that ISD shouldn't really be going out of their way to respond to Code 1s, no? At least raid-specific C1s

Pretty much protecting noncombatives during codes would be what that is for. Or if there is hostages sometimes ISD has to negotiate

 

[Adagio]

Why are ISD responding to CI raids?

This is true - However I'm pretty sure that ISD shouldn't really be going out of their way to respond to Code 1s, no? At least raid-specific C1s

This is a direct quote from the handbook (which is freely available on the Site-65 hub if anyone needs to verify it) that was put into place before I became Director and which has been in place for at minimum 6+ months.

"Our primary mission is to enforce the Legal Codex, Code of Conduct, Code of Ethics, and individual department policies (see ‘Section 3 - Arrests). Our secondary mission is protecting the site and its personnel, along with answering questions and helping others."

Protecting the site and personnel is part of our duties but our main one is to enforce the FLC. If there is an active CI raid or breach in LCZ it disrupts our primary objective heavily. If we have more than enough people to enforce the FLC and there are not enough combatives able to assist with D-Block or the CI/Breach in LCZ we send SOME of our guys as backup to help hold the line until more combatives such as NU-7, E-11 or Containment Units can arrive.

 

[pinhead]

Im just confused on as to what reason the armor of SA/ECM/O5 is not being adjusted in the same mannor as others.

I wonder why they would make it so the overlords of the entire foundation responsible for making world-altering decisions and who are frequent targets of assassination from hostile organizations would have more armor than mall cops?


Also everyone here seems to be arguing that, although ISD's primary role is to enforce the FLC, their secondary responsibilities involve combatting hostiles in some way, whether that be serving as backups in D-block or fighting off raids to protect non-combatives, and therefore that is why they need full armor.

While I understand where you are coming from, the fact that the conflict lies in the secondary objective means that you are admitting that the change does not hinder your primary objective. In addition, there are ways of protecting non-combatives without running directly at the threat and gunning it down, such as ensuring they reach a safe area and protecting that safe area, manning checkpoints, etc. which don't necessarily require a full set of armor, especially if you don't work alone.

As for the specific cases people have named where ISD would be most needed as direct combatives such as in a research wing hold, I will say that at least on the U.S side these are incredibly infrequent and also would not require the sole attention of ISD but rather every combative on site (barring maybe E-11 but lets be honest they'll probably join in too), so your assistance would hardly be crucial to Foundation's success on that end anyways.

Think of the problem from other perspectives as well - I'd argue one of gensec's primary or secondary duties is ensuring order within D-block, however they do not all spawn with handcuffs to arrest all wrongdoers? AO can't jail people even though among their duties is enforcing the FLC/COE? Techies are constantly planted right in the face of death to repair airlocks or bulkheads where hostiles or meat hungry monsters could be around any corner ready to show no mercy, yet they do not spawn with armor or weapons? A breach made it to D-block, but there was no E-11 on! Why don't cadets spawn with beams and cuffs? The point being, not every role needs to have EVERYTHING necessary to complete your job - that is the charm in the department bureaucracy of SCPRP - getting assistance from other people to complete an objective. Not every role needs to be able to do everything. These instances you name where ISD is "necessary," like in D-block when it's undermanned or to deal with a breach or a raid, I say this - you can't win em all. There are departments that are made to be good at those things, and ISD is not one of them.

 

[Luigi Fishford]

I wonder why they would make it so the overlords of the entire foundation responsible for making world-altering decisions and who are frequent targets of assassination from hostile organizations would have more armor than mall cops?


Also everyone here seems to be arguing that, although ISD's primary role is to enforce the FLC, their secondary responsibilities involve combatting hostiles in some way, whether that be serving as backups in D-block or fighting off raids to protect non-combatives, and therefore that is why they need full armor.

While I understand where you are coming from, the fact that the conflict lies in the secondary objective means that you are admitting that the change does not hinder your primary objective. In addition, there are ways of protecting non-combatives without running directly at the threat and gunning it down, such as ensuring they reach a safe area and protecting that safe area, manning checkpoints, etc. which don't necessarily require a full set of armor, especially if you don't work alone.

As for the specific cases people have named where ISD would be most needed as direct combatives such as in a research wing hold, I will say that at least on the U.S side these are incredibly infrequent and also would not require the sole attention of ISD but rather every combative on site (barring maybe E-11 but lets be honest they'll probably join in too), so your assistance would hardly be crucial to Foundation's success on that end anyways.

Think of the problem from other perspectives as well - I'd argue one of gensec's primary or secondary duties is ensuring order within D-block, however they do not all spawn with handcuffs to arrest all wrongdoers? AO can't jail people even though among their duties is enforcing the FLC/COE? Techies are constantly planted right in the face of death to repair airlocks or bulkheads where hostiles or meat hungry monsters could be around any corner ready to show no mercy, yet they do not spawn with armor or weapons? A breach made it to D-block, but there was no E-11 on! Why don't cadets spawn with beams and cuffs? The point being, not every role needs to have EVERYTHING necessary to complete your job - that is the charm in the department bureaucracy of SCPRP - getting assistance from other people to complete an objective. Not every role needs to be able to do everything. These instances you name where ISD is "necessary," like in D-block when it's undermanned or to deal with a breach or a raid, I say this - you can't win em all. There are departments that are made to be good at those things, and ISD is not one of them.

The thing I have with this is simple, does any 05, SA or ECM wear a full kevlar west with a helmet and all? Obviously not. Do I as a consultant wear a full sett of bulletproof equipment? By all means no those things are way to dirty, taking them off is horrid and getting back into a sterile working field is tedious work. If it would be my decision I would take away all armor or lower it to sth like 10 for noncombatives such as myself to keep it realistic. Im very much aware that 05, Ethics and SA are the most frequent targets by Ci however they are also the most guarded. Even when Ethics or 05 walk out of F3 and ECO wing they are guarded and like 75% of all the attemptes fail. Also Ethics and O5 already have disguise cards, which they use a lot to move around site with. Simply arguing well they are the most attacked is also still not a reason an as to why their suit should be fully covering everything from top to top bottom. But thats just my point here if you think differnt, than thats good because this is still just my personel feedback for this change.