Rule Suggestion Change the current raiding requirement

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

Lonix

Well-known Member
May 12, 2025
34
0
41
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion changes the current raid rules by requiring a minimum of 6 active MTF to be online in order for the CI to raid.
OR removing the DEA CL4 alternative from rules
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Maybe.


Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
  1. Creates a more balanced and fair environment for both MTF and CI during raids, preventing overwhelming situations where one side has too few defenders and limiting late night sampling...
  2. Improves server health by ensuring that raids happen during active times, making them more engaging, strategic, and less one-sided.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
  • Could limit CI’s ability to raid during low-pop hours, leading to fewer raid opportunities.
  • Might slightly reduce spontaneous raids, which some players enjoy.
  • Foundation raiding requirement might need to increase also to balance it.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The positives outweigh the negatives because this rule ensures that raids are conducted when both sides are reasonably staffed, leading to more enjoyable, competitive, and immersive roleplay experiences. While it may limit raids at times, it ultimately preserves fairness, prevents frustration, and supports server balance and health.
 
Last edited:
Upvote -2 Downvote
Niox said:
how are CI meant to know when all 6 MTF are active? do i use my psychic mind powers


aware of an issue, and no ammendments to fix it when it could be slotted into the suggestion with the other change

splat
Click to expand...
This is my take on it: If they are on the job they are "Active" (Shouldn't go AFK on MTF)

+support if its balanced out (Seems fucked to increase one limit but leave Foundation raiding CI the same)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niox
Niox said:
how are CI meant to know when all 6 MTF are active? do i use my psychic mind powers
Click to expand...
Yeah - For something like this specification of 'active,' I'd want a way to find out if people are AFK. If having an AFK badge appear on the leaderboard is undesired, maybe a command that just checks the number of applicable non-AFK roles and reports that back. That would also be good for screenshot evidence purposes if needed later.
Lonix said:
Foundation raiding requirement might need to increase also to balance it.
Click to expand...
Niox said:
aware of an issue, and no ammendments to fix it when it could be slotted into the suggestion with the other change
Click to expand...
I mean... You can just quote the rule itself. 90% of the work is done for you:
SCP-RP Rules said:
3.01(a) Raiding Requirements - There must be 4 MTF/UNGOC/CI combat personnel to raid or infiltrate (Including Deep Cover) either bases. Exceptions are made if a member of your faction is kidnapped, in which case you can skip the raid cooldown to retrieve those kidnapped; this will count as a normal raid; you may not purposely abuse this to bypass raid functionality; after a raid fails, you may only negotiate.
Click to expand...
Just say you want the number changed. And if you're insistent on the 'active' part (I highly doubt something like that is happening without more effort to ensure that players have a reasonable way to check and verify that number with that specification), just say 'X active'

IMO, I'd just specify "SOP Combatant," elaborate on it and who counts, then change the rule to specify that. Yes, specifically removing E-11, because if a CI raid is predicated solely on the presence of E-11, then it's entirely possible you could curveball a raid by just breaching 173 or do a keycard raid - More often than not, they're not going to be in a good position to respond, compared to Nu7/AO/DEA. I wouldn't mind E-11 being considerable in addition to Nu7/AO/DEA, but being able to only count E-11 for raid purposes I feel is abusable in certain circumstances.
+Support
 
Lonix said:
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion changes the current raid rules by requiring a minimum of 6 active MTF to be online in order for the CI to raid.
OR removing the DEA CL4 alternative from rules
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Maybe.


Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
  1. Creates a more balanced and fair environment for both MTF and CI during raids, preventing overwhelming situations where one side has too few defenders and limiting late night sampling...
  2. Improves server health by ensuring that raids happen during active times, making them more engaging, strategic, and less one-sided.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
  • Could limit CI’s ability to raid during low-pop hours, leading to fewer raid opportunities.
  • Might slightly reduce spontaneous raids, which some players enjoy.
  • Foundation raiding requirement might need to increase also to balance it.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The positives outweigh the negatives because this rule ensures that raids are conducted when both sides are reasonably staffed, leading to more enjoyable, competitive, and immersive roleplay experiences. While it may limit raids at times, it ultimately preserves fairness, prevents frustration, and supports server balance and health.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is an issue on US... Usually it's like 4 MTF, 12 Gensec, 5 ISD that for some reason go after CI (Advil), 2-4 regular DEA, and 3-6 Combat medics. All of this to defend from what is usually 3 CI who are attempting to get keycards seems pretty fair to me given problematic power classes can just be tranq'd.

Tldr;
I feel like this suggestion ignores all the other combatives on the site and what low pop raids usually target.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niox
Change Z. The Coward said:
I don't think this is an issue on US... Usually it's like 4 MTF, 12 Gensec, 5 ISD that for some reason go after CI (Advil), 2-4 regular DEA, and 3-6 Combat medics. All of this to defend from what is usually 3 CI who are attempting to get keycards seems pretty fair to me given problematic power classes can just be tranq'd.

Tldr;
I feel like this suggestion ignores all the other combatives on the site and what low pop raids usually target.
Click to expand...
Clearly rule parity doesn't work
 
Change Z. The Coward said:
I don't think this is an issue on US... Usually it's like 4 MTF, 12 Gensec, 5 ISD that for some reason go after CI (Advil), 2-4 regular DEA, and 3-6 Combat medics. All of this to defend from what is usually 3 CI who are attempting to get keycards seems pretty fair to me given problematic power classes can just be tranq'd.

Tldr;
I feel like this suggestion ignores all the other combatives on the site and what low pop raids usually target.
Click to expand...
It seems this will make more problems for US than it will fix UK. I may just delete the post and try to get it more detailed to ensure UK and US health.
 
Niox said:
how are CI meant to know when all 6 MTF are active? do i use my psychic mind powers


aware of an issue, and no ammendments to fix it when it could be slotted into the suggestion with the other change

splat
Click to expand...
I really wanted to remove that part but i cant come with an idea to fix the AFK issue but what Emilia said can be not a very bad solution which is the AFK tag like admins have.
 
Emilia Foddg said:
Yeah - For something like this specification of 'active,' I'd want a way to find out if people are AFK. If having an AFK badge appear on the leaderboard is undesired, maybe a command that just checks the number of applicable non-AFK roles and reports that back. That would also be good for screenshot evidence purposes if needed later.


I mean... You can just quote the rule itself. 90% of the work is done for you:

Just say you want the number changed. And if you're insistent on the 'active' part (I highly doubt something like that is happening without more effort to ensure that players have a reasonable way to check and verify that number with that specification), just say 'X active'

IMO, I'd just specify "SOP Combatant," elaborate on it and who counts, then change the rule to specify that. Yes, specifically removing E-11, because if a CI raid is predicated solely on the presence of E-11, then it's entirely possible you could curveball a raid by just breaching 173 or do a keycard raid - More often than not, they're not going to be in a good position to respond, compared to Nu7/AO/DEA. I wouldn't mind E-11 being considerable in addition to Nu7/AO/DEA, but being able to only count E-11 for raid purposes I feel is abusable in certain circumstances.
+Support
Click to expand...
I like those ideas more than mine honestly! Maybe i will change it for 4 SOP. That would make more sense. And change the current rule of 2 DEA CL4 to AO or something close. But i dont think DEA agents should count.
 
fyzar said:
why do you think dea agents shouldnt count? a core part of their gameplay is shooting CI...
Click to expand...
As its not a whitelisted role like Sr agent and above it will cause more issues than what we got now. Thats just my opinion as all mtf are whitelisted and in the current rule there is an exepction where 2 DEA CL4 can be counted as MTF as they are also whitelisted.
 
Lonix said:
As its not a whitelisted role like Sr agent and above it will cause more issues than what we got now. Thats just my opinion as all mtf are whitelisted and in the current rule there is an exepction where 2 DEA CL4 can be counted as MTF as they are also whitelisted.
Click to expand...
oh i misread this i thought u were talking about cl4 dea lol
 
Lonix said:
As its not a whitelisted role like Sr agent and above it will cause more issues than what we got now. Thats just my opinion as all mtf are whitelisted and in the current rule there is an exepction where 2 DEA CL4 can be counted as MTF as they are also whitelisted.
Click to expand...
oh i misread this i thought u were talking about cl4 dea lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back