Content Suggestion ERT knowledge of breaches upon Deployment

Content Suggestions will be reviewed by Content Team weekly, please allow time as not everything can be reviewed at once.
Sule Goodman

Sule Goodman

Well-known Member
Conversation Starter
Mar 6, 2025
277
45
41
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
- Allow ERT to know what SCPs are breached on site upon deployment
Main point : ERT MANUAL CALL + Auto deployment & Exfil orders
- Someone PHONES ERT, telling them "X number of SCPs are breached." In response, ERT sends 1 team per breach (maximum 3). Realistically, ERT WOULD KNOW what SCPS are breached. As I would argue, the person making said call is giving them a full list. + Arguably, ERT auto deployment would be based on a system recognizes that multiple containment chambers failed , and have remained failed for X amount of time. Also, knowing what SCPs are breached. (This would also validate exfil for being used IC that no other breaches have occurred, and the containment status for ALL scps is set back to normal)

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Probably not

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- ERT knowing what SCPS are on deployment makes the Emergency Response team... an actual response team prepared for any threat
- During low pop hours / breaches, when all foundation members GET ERT , ERT won't have to wonder "What's breached" & risk a metagaming warning for simply assuming what scps are breached.
- Slight build on ERT lore and functions (I know their kept out of hierarchy and lore though I would find it interesting for a SLIGHT showcase of the technology they utilize being able to detect breaches via having a system that detects which SCPs are breached)

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- None really, will explain below.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Personally, I think its a little silly that ERT has to ask "what's breached" despite either being phoned in or having a system recognize a number of breaches that automatically alert them. Very small change though would be decent, giving slightly more lore to ERT and how they function + just giving a slight quality of life change letting ERT just get straight to it and not have to rely on asking whats breached.

They would still have to ask WHERE the breaches are located. So its not some massive powergame or anything.
 
Upvote -4 Downvote
-Support

It is a really simple way of roleplay for people to just interact with SCP's, and them to get knowledge on what SCP's are breached. Getting rid of this just removes a layer of roleplay for no real reason.
Also, how would silent breaches work, or breaches the Foundation itself isn't aware of? (E.G. 079 is out and no one knows, 682 breached 049 but he's been playing sneaky, etc).
 
Niox said:
-Support

It is a really simple way of roleplay for people to just interact with SCP's, and them to get knowledge on what SCP's are breached. Getting rid of this just removes a layer of roleplay for no real reason.
Also, how would silent breaches work, or breaches the Foundation itself isn't aware of? (E.G. 079 is out and no one knows, 682 breached 049 but he's been playing sneaky, etc).
Click to expand...
-support agreed
 
Niox said:
-Support

It is a really simple way of roleplay for people to just interact with SCP's, and them to get knowledge on what SCP's are breached. Getting rid of this just removes a layer of roleplay for no real reason.
Also, how would silent breaches work, or breaches the Foundation itself isn't aware of? (E.G. 079 is out and no one knows, 682 breached 049 but he's been playing sneaky, etc).
Click to expand...
-support agreed
 
Niox said:
-Support

It is a really simple way of roleplay for people to just interact with SCP's, and them to get knowledge on what SCP's are breached. Getting rid of this just removes a layer of roleplay for no real reason.
Also, how would silent breaches work, or breaches the Foundation itself isn't aware of? (E.G. 079 is out and no one knows, 682 breached 049 but he's been playing sneaky, etc).
Click to expand...
What are you on about, There is no such thing as roleplay when scps are breached.
 
  • Like
Reactions: "BloodShed" and Niox
Sule Goodman said:
Site com member : Picks up phone and for some reason doesnt explain the breach at all / ERT realistically knowing whats breached as in theory they can clearly see whats breached as they can send an automatic deployment / detect when breaches are done
Click to expand...
there are 100 people on the server at any given time, every single individual with comms access is not socially inept enough to not respond to the ERT which has been hyped up with a public selection process for the past 10 minutes, hell don't they usually get greeted on the surface anyway after their ENTRANCE CUTSCENE? 😭

imho the suggestion just makes any stealthy breaches exposed which is a little bit of a shame if someone has been recently breached and/or tried very hard to stealthily do their breach e.g. 035 avoiding any humans so noone knows about him
 
+/- Neutral
I've been thinking about this for a little while, and the reason I haven't said anything until now is because I'm conflicted between:
  • The already-raised issue of how it works currently, where the site should be engaging with ERT and informing them about breaches
And
  • The realism angle of ERT showing up with zero information about what's breached, as well as ERT generally being a last-resort force that is intended to be OP and stop breaches
And it's honestly odd to reconcile because having the game tell ERT what's breached feels very metagamey and would definitely suck for stealth breaches.

The only compromise I can think of here is to give the phone an additional, small text box where whoever's calling could type in something up to say, 20 characters? Maybe less? As little as possible to give them some information, but not all the information - Plus it wouldn't be perfect information as the caller wouldn't necessarily know about stealth breaches. And then that text is shown to ERT as they deploy to give them some level of information to both make it make sense (and also, pro-server health ERT buffs are always good), but not too much to ensure gameplay balance and maintaining engagement with ERT.

Abuse of something like what I described wouldn't be implausible, but is reasonably walled off behind important, hard-to-get roles and can be pretty easily punished if logged.

And it could also feasibly be leveraged as a GM tool depending on the implementation. The possibility of something like that is the only reason why I'm neutral on this, because even all of that is something that'd be a significant development effort for something that is currently okay?
Otherwise, I'd -Support

But that's the angle I approached this with. Hopefully that insight may be helpful to CT.
 
Last edited:
Emilia Foddg said:
+/- Neutral
I've been thinking about this for a little while, and the reason I haven't said anything until now is because I'm conflicted between:
  • The already-raised issue of how it works currently, where the site should be engaging with ERT and informing them about breaches
And
  • The realism angle of ERT showing up with zero information about what's breached, as well as ERT generally being a last-resort force that is intended to be OP and stop breaches
And it's honestly odd to reconcile because having the game tell ERT what's breached feels very metagamey and would definitely suck for stealth breaches.

The only compromise I can think of here is to give the phone an additional, small text box where whoever's calling could type in something up to say, 20 characters? Maybe less? As little as possible to give them some information, but not all the information - Plus it wouldn't be perfect information as the caller wouldn't necessarily know about stealth breaches. And then that text is shown to ERT as they deploy to give them some level of information to both make it make sense (and also, pro-server health ERT buffs are always good), but not too much to ensure gameplay balance and maintaining engagement with ERT.

Abuse of something like what I described wouldn't be implausible, but is reasonably walled off behind important, hard-to-get roles and can be pretty easily punished if logged.

And it could also feasibly be leveraged as a GM tool depending on the implementation. The possibility of something like that is the only reason why I'm neutral on this, because even all of that is something that'd be a significant development effort for something that is currently okay?
Otherwise, I'd -Support

But that's the angle I approached this with. Hopefully that insight may be helpful to CT.
Click to expand...
Honestly, i don't see any metagaming factor in it. Now this is coming from a guy currently in banland so i cant really talk about any "rules" but
This would actually turn "metagaming" into something explainable by ERT simply just having advanced system access. I'm not saying ERT would KNOW where everything is 24/7, just whats breached. The breach system legit announces "Motion detected / Containment failure detected". All this suggestion would change is that ERT simply has a bigger grasp on whats breached and genuinely be prepared as the Emergency response unit.
 
Sule Goodman said:
Honestly, i don't see any metagaming factor in it. Now this is coming from a guy currently in banland so i cant really talk about any "rules" but
This would actually turn "metagaming" into something explainable by ERT simply just having advanced system access. I'm not saying ERT would KNOW where everything is 24/7, just whats breached. The breach system legit announces "Motion detected / Containment failure detected". All this suggestion would change is that ERT simply has a bigger grasp on whats breached and genuinely be prepared as the Emergency response unit.
Click to expand...
When I said metagaming, I was more meaning in terms of stealth breaches, like 079. And in that case, why would there be 'advanced systems' that can detect the stealth breaches, but only ERT get to see them?
 
Emilia Foddg said:
When I said metagaming, I was more meaning in terms of stealth breaches, like 079. And in that case, why would there be 'advanced systems' that can detect the stealth breaches, but only ERT get to see them?
Click to expand...
you could argue some things (mainly just 079) remains undetected, at least till the 15-20 minutes till his box turns red. Either way you wouldnt get an auto deployment for 079 / 035 solo. Not without other things being breached

Also, "only ERT" would see them strictly for balancing.
Foundation is unaware giving the SCPs time to do whatever till their discovered, by the time ERT is needed / called, the counter to the SCPs being ERT themselves, knows what their going up against, and how to properly utilize their tools at their disposal.

And also, once again, just a small "lore" build on ERT, maybe im just autistic but i genuinely love ERT and i feel like their so not included in any offical lore so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back