Rule Suggestion Big Issue

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
Houston Benton

Houston Benton

Game Master
Game Master
Two Year Club Three Year Club Case Cracker Foundation Archivist
May 12, 2022
33
17
111
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.
​
 
  • Like
Reactions: elad and helio8
Upvote 6 Downvote
Charles "Ze" Whitmee

Charles "Ze" Whitmee

Civil Gamers Expert
Community Engager
Apr 4, 2023
488
186
111
mfw CI breach the same SCPs over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again because it's their meta build.

Let's have some new raids besides the same generic 079 hold because we want a mass breach at peak pop.

+Support
 
Emilia Foddg

Emilia Foddg

CG Diamond VIP
Donator
One Year Club Community Engager Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Jul 15, 2023
1,846
468
61
UK
Charles Ze Whitmee said:
mfw CI breach the same SCPs over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again because it's their meta build.

Let's have some new raids besides the same generic 079 hold because we want a mass breach at peak pop.
Click to expand...
...You know, why don't we give CI a 'flag on random available (breachable?) SCP' button that staff can tell they've used it via a log and just enforce the usage of that for breach raids?

🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles "Ze" Whitmee
Advil Smith

Advil Smith

Well-known Member
Advent 2024 Conversation Starter
Oct 10, 2024
242
44
41
This also needs to be changed for d class, anytime they die they flag on d class during raid and are treated diffidently than other d class and some times give comms using the Teamspeak they shouldn’t be in as f class as if they are a deep cover.
 
Zen

Zen

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Community Engager Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Sep 16, 2023
989
312
61
Landon said:
-Support

Mods can we nerf ci 5 more times and smite their activity
Click to expand...
Sebastian said:
this is gonna be a juicy suggestion

Anyway a CI player could hop on an SCP before the raid, which happens most of the time anyway. This won't change that much, but still, CI has been nerfed enough already.
Click to expand...
Harry said:
View attachment 22616
Click to expand...
I feel like you are all somewhat proving OP's point by declaring that yes, doing this does explicitly advantage CI.

You can claim that "oh, can't do that, they'd metagame" all you want, but you are aware that you don't have to be specific when asking SCPs to flag on? You can just do e.g. "// SCPs flag on" and then breach the ones that you want to put of the ones available. You can also just PM people that you know are unlikely to meta that aren't on CI, like staff members and people you somewhat trust.

And don't pretend that CI players don't constantly abuse this, because they always have on both servers. Back when I was staff, I would regularly spectate CI breach raids and I'd say it was 50/50 whether the SCP would blatantly break rules to help CI in ways they weren't allowed to, and the only reason that has decreased is because the rules got more lax on teaming. I was even told sometime around then that CI maintained some form of blacklist, where if you refused to just let them go after breaching you, they'd refuse to breach you in future, regardless of server rules, and which is blatantly metagaming based on which player is on an SCP. Even outside of site, once a CI SCP was on surface, 90% of the time, they'd beeline directly to CI base and then mysteriously be captured about two seconds later. This has always been an issue on both servers, and I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest this has changed.

I also disagree with the idea of flagging to breach anyway. If people have been on an SCP waiting to breach and CI turns up, it should be them getting breached, not their pals on CI flagging mid raid to get insta breached for the 10,000th time. I'd support implementing some kind of timer or something where you can't get breached by CI if you flagged on after the raid started and there are SCPs remaining that didn't do that. I don't think it's fair on the people that actually put the time in to wait, and I don't agree that it makes sense that the SCPs magically appear in their containment chambers just in time to breach via CI.

I also think it's boring as fuck the constant min-maxing that CI do where they constantly breach the same SCPs over and over because they're the most powerful ones. It's boring as fuck, breach a different SCP for once. CI also shouldn't be winning raids all the time, that should be the minority of the time - why would CI succeed in breaching an SCP 90% of the times they raid, that balance is stupid as fuck. They also shouldn't be able to just hold the fucking garage all the time because they're taking advantage of the gameplay mechanics that mean nobody can spawn outside, even if in reality SC could easily call in nearby units to pincer them - and sometimes they have to do that via staff/GMs. CI in general does not have a sensible balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sceptre and Emilia Foddg
ionboy64

ionboy64

Game Master
Game Master
Donator
One Year Club Two Year Club Three Year Club Conversation Starter
Jun 3, 2022
361
1
85
111
Just for slight context to the level of this post - Houston holds no in character roles and exists purely through his events and occasionally a gensec officer character.

If the server is at a state were a suggestion of this calibre (which has been voiced several times before) is now being echoed by someone in Houston's position, it's clearly an issue that needs addressed. If you're unable to see that, then you're part of the issue (y)
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: fyzar, Harry and Sceptre
YandereMuffin

YandereMuffin

Administrator
Administrator
SCP-RP Staff
Event Team
One Year Club Chemical Weaponry Conversation Starter Advent 2024
Dec 25, 2023
342
87
61
Breezy said:
thats just projection...
there are rule breakers everywhere on the server, but because CI is a combative regiment everyone has to cherrypick those, and ignore the others. Cool.
Click to expand...

Sometimes things exist, and it is not cherrypicking to state that.


Frankly it's closer to survivorship bias, more CI SCPs so I see more CI SCPs break rules - maybe the rule breaks actually wouldn't go down if CI were blocked from doing this, who knows.

All I know is that 75% of the time I've punished SCPs for teaming with humans, it was with CI (and the other 20% is with D-Class).
 
Average member podidski

Average member podidski

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club
Aug 4, 2023
88
14
61
my only question is: Why now? Why you didnt notice 1 year early? in 2023/2024, the problem was starting there, why didnt you notice there?

Why the CN players now notice the problems in 2025? Why the players want the radical/extreme changes now?

What the hell is going on here now.
 
Holland

Holland

Administrator
Administrator
SCP-RP Staff
Content Team
Donator
One Year Club Two Year Club Conversation Starter Advent 2024
Aug 27, 2022
488
142
111
Did or does Ci abuse this = Yes
Sinds when = always
all CI = no some

is it only ci = No D-class GOC randomplayers .

Is the chance higher for teaming if you are from the same faction that breached the scp = yes
Is the above logic = yes
do i care = no
do i enforce it = Yes

did ci do /c hop on scp xxxx = Yes they did and i screamed at them ( dont dare me imma send some ss lmao )

Removing CI to hop on scps is stupid But we should implement more strict rules/ enforce this way better.

Does the outcome change if a scp is teaming = yes
severity = depends




Yes this is an issu,e but holy i cant be bothered with something this small that takes away 20 min of your life or 1 staff sit there is a lot worse that needs to be adressed im not wasting my brainpower on this.

it is an issue yes, does it require such changes = no, Staff needs to monitor more, Correction CI staff mains should enforce this more when they see it.

As TOLD IN A MEETING KICK CI PLAYERS OUT OF THE CHANNEL IF THEY SWITCH TO A SCP MID RAID

ty

+/- neutral such useful words but not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L.Saint and Emilia Foddg
Aphex

Aphex

Game Master
Game Master
One Year Club Two Year Club Three Year Club Conversation Starter
Jan 27, 2022
664
127
111
Average member podidski said:
my only question is: Why now? Why you didnt notice 1 year early? in 2023/2024, the problem was starting there, why didnt you notice there?

Why the CN players now notice the problems in 2025? Why the players want the radical/extreme changes now?

What the hell is going on here now.
Click to expand...
Better late than never I guess…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom