Rule Suggestion No raid-involvement post-death.

[JasonTheCheesyGuy]

What does this suggestion add?
A rule that states that any player from a raiding party that died during a raid may not involve themselves in this raid any further. This would include actions such as guarding surface locations against flanking forces, ferrying goods/keycards/SCP's back and forth, or providing healing/chems to the raiding party.

Or just generally stating that players that already died during a raid are not allowed to depart their own compound anymore. That may be easier to rule for staff and provide less unforeseen loopholes.

Has something similar been suggested before?
I could not locate something of this sort while searching.

Possible positives of the suggestion?
Decreases raid-duration by forcing raiding players to extract themselves from the raid if they wish to retrieve goods/keycards/scp's.
Increases raid-fairness by ensuring that players that are out of the raid no longer involve themselves in raid proceedings.
Increases the tactical possibilities during raids by not making flankers face a legion of the dead.

Make keycard-hold raids less common, or at the least put a limit on how long they will last before everyone on the raiding party is already carrying a Keycard.

Possible negatives of the suggestion?
Less easy to extract keycards/Goods/SCP's from hostile bases.
Players that have already died during the raid have less to do to assist in it.

Why should the suggestion be accepted?
This will increase fairness during raid situations and lessen the overall time of RP disruption due to a raid, while also providing an incentive for players to exfil from a raid rather than fighting to the lest.

 

[Runic]

You should never be forced into playing foundation to be able to play the game. Players should be able to play the faction that they want, and adding a post raid involvement lessens that significantly.

woah woah woah buddy
didnt you hear? Big Brother SL doesnt like you "having fun" on any other job besides foundation. Youre supposed to suffer and be cannon fodder so that THEY can have fun. Not the other way around.

 

[UNGOC Starfox / Walter]

if your "engaging and fun" moves is running back and forth between main gate and your base to collect cards or hostages, then I will be 100% honest and say you should look into something more fun to do.

And as a recommendation for that, I'd say to flag onto Foundation - look into doing RP on Foundation while you wait or maybe become a combative and fight the raid that is on-going! It is really that easy.

To be honest, I'm not sure why any raider who would enjoy the combative nature of a raid wouldn't just flag onto Foundation to fight said raid and enjoy combativeness even more?

That's job abuse Btw

 

[Emilia Foddg]

That's job abuse Btw

We should make that an exception

Foundation gonna be out here playing Age of Empires and wololoing all the CI

 

[YandereMuffin]

That's job abuse Btw

This is not job abuse...

It is not job abuse to flag onto Foundation during an on-going raid, and then react to said raid once you find out about it IC (which will be like instantly considering Code 1 + Comms). I am not sure why it would be at all, it doesn't even fit the written rule of it.

1.09 Do not Job Abuse - Do not exploit your job for personal benefits or advantages. Job abuse includes switching roles to gain an unfair advantage within a short period of time, such as changing from Chef to Security to stop a D-Class escape happening right in front of you.

 

[Kevin Ki]

This is not job abuse...

Job abuse as a rule is almost impossible to catch and enforce.

Like. If we read it saying "changing from Chef to Security to stop a D-Class escape happening right in front of you." Then by that description would it not be job abuse to swap onto a scp after dying in a raid with CI, CI want on? Because they're gaining a advantage by switching to a job to help their team.

 

[Evil]

lol good luck enforcing this, guaranteed no one will follow this or make loopholes to ignore it.

 

[Advil Smith]

lol good luck enforcing this, guaranteed no one will follow this or make loopholes to ignore it.

They just made a rule where pretty much you can’t stand near a base for too long with the intent of hostile actions, that’s very hard to enforce yet it didn’t stop them from doing it

 

[Charles "Ze" Whitmee]

You should never be forced into playing foundation to be able to play the game. Players should be able to play the faction that they want,

It's almost as if the server is an SCP RP server with the Foundation as the core faction and CI/GOC as Secondary factions.

 

[Average member podidski]

It's almost as if the server is an SCP RP server with the Foundation as the core faction and CI/GOC as Secondary factions.

CI is second core faction for me after adding of UNGOC due the fact they have big players cap and are enemy number one to foundation.

UNGOC is really a "secondary" faction.

 

[Henrii]

1.07 NLR:

Your character may not re-enter the situation or roleplay that caused you to respawn, ie. you may not go back to a hostage negotiation if you died because of it.

3.02 Chaos Insurgency Raiding Rules:

3.02(a) Chaos Main Raid - CI can raid the facility or UNGOC base when authorized by a CO, once every 45 minutes. A raid starts once CI breaches the fenced off area on both bases or through the foundation vents. Only 8 CI may enter the vents on the foundation base. Once personnel raiding the base die, they cannot return. A raid ends when all CI are dead; timers begin counting down once a raid has ended.

The rules are already in-place. Somone will probably deny this post telling you the same thing and recommend you report anyone violating these rules.

Foundation has the same guidelines. Funnily enough, UNGOC is missing this specific stipulation in their raiding rules.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Your character may not re-enter the situation or roleplay that caused you to respawn

Once personnel raiding the base die, they cannot return.

The rules are already in-place. Somone will probably deny this post telling you the same thing and recommend you report anyone violating these rules.

...Wait a minute. This means the new ruling and its intended purpose are completely redundant, surely? Even before that, if a player that was previous in an MR just flagged onto DC to DC raid, they'd be violating this, no?

 

[Henrii]

...Wait a minute. This means the new ruling and its intended purpose are completely redundant, surely? Even before that, if a player that was previous in an MR just flagged onto DC to DC raid, they'd be violating this, no?

Well, there was recently a change to the rules that say you cannot conduct a DC raid for some time after a MR has ended, and vice versa. A DC player would have an IC reason to raid, but NLR may still be valid since having a new reason to RP in the same area is not technically an exception to NLR (although, it is debatable if the duties of a DC include raiding specifically, therefore tying in with the NLR exception of performing job duties.) However, given the time between one raid and another, NLR would expire anyways for the DC player.

As for the new ruling, OP may push for forbidding dead raid personnel from leaving their compound to reduce the potential of rule-breaks resulting in gains for the compound (i.e. carrying keycards back to base.) However, this is already technically against the rules and does reasonably impact surface RP for those who cannot participate in the raid and other factions.

 

[Kevin Ki]

...Wait a minute. This means the new ruling and its intended purpose are completely redundant, surely? Even before that, if a player that was previous in an MR just flagged onto DC to DC raid, they'd be violating this, no?

Imma be real. The rules are enforced at staff discretion and their independent interpretation of the rules which can and do wildly differ at a moments notice. The best suggestion I can give, get a Super's explanation and run with it like gospel. Then when you cop a warn just use that as explanation.

Example I can give, spawn camping. You can't go into spawns and shoot people... unless they start pulling out a weapon, then you can assume hostile intent and kidnap or shoot as you please.

 

["Hydra"]

+SUPPORT

 

[JasonTheCheesyGuy]

This is not job abuse...

It is not job abuse to flag onto Foundation during an on-going raid, and then react to said raid once you find out about it IC (which will be like instantly considering Code 1 + Comms). I am not sure why it would be at all, it doesn't even fit the written rule of it.

Small reply to this;

Even if staff does not consider this Job Abuse, it seems that UK CI's CO team does as of current, judged by the fact that someone was recently striked with the reason being;

"Switched to Nu-7 Jugg after he died in a raid"

So I do understand hesitance from CI players to do this.

 

[UNGOC Starfox / Walter]

Small reply to this;

Even if staff does not consider this Job Abuse, it seems that UK CI's CO team does as of current, judged by the fact that someone was recently striked with the reason being;

"Switched to Nu-7 Jugg after he died in a raid"

So I do understand hesitance from CI players to do this.

I'm shocked that it isn't job abuse Tbh

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Small reply to this;

Even if staff does not consider this Job Abuse, it seems that UK CI's CO team does as of current, judged by the fact that someone was recently striked with the reason being;

"Switched to Nu-7 Jugg after he died in a raid"

So I do understand hesitance from CI players to do this.

Bruh I really want CI CO's perspective on this, because I kinda get it, but I also kinda don't
@Niox

 

[Henrii]

Even if staff does not consider this Job Abuse, it seems that UK CI's CO team does as of current, judged by the fact that someone was recently striked with the reason being;

"Switched to Nu-7 Jugg after he died in a raid"

I think the fact they switched after dying in a raid is the most significant factor. If I was playing some surface job and swapped to Foundation while a raid was occurring, that is not necessarily job abuse. Raids should have special rules because they are a critical source of RP for some factions and that must be respected. If they were not participating in the raid and swapped to Foundation during it, I would not be confident in declaring that as job abuse.

If I were a researcher, however, and swapped to GSD in response to the Code 1, that would be job abuse because it is directly in benefit to the faction I was already aligned with in my previous job. However, if I were to swap to ETS after someone had called for a Tech to fix some doors over comms, then that technically also falls under job abuse because you're swapping jobs in reaction to IC events.

Job abuse can be just as questionable as it can be evident. In my opinion, you cannot expect a player to not swap jobs just because some other RP is currently going on. You also cannot 100% gauge a player's intentions when they swap jobs. Just because I may swap to GSD while a raid is occurring does not mean I intend to combat that raid.

1.09 Do Not Job Abuse

"...Job abuse includes switching roles to gain an unfair advantage within a short period of time, such as changing from Chef to Security to stop a D-Class escape happening right in front of you."

 

[UNGOC Starfox / Walter]

I think the fact they switched after dying in a raid is the most significant factor. If I was playing some surface job and swapped to Foundation while a raid was occurring, that is not necessarily job abuse. Raids should have special rules because they are a critical source of RP for some factions and that must be respected. If they were not participating in the raid and swapped to Foundation during it, I would not be confident in declaring that as job abuse.

If I were a researcher, however, and swapped to GSD in response to the Code 1, that would be job abuse because it is directly in benefit to the faction I was already aligned with in my previous job. However, if I were to swap to ETS after someone had called for a Tech to fix some doors over comms, then that technically also falls under job abuse because you're swapping jobs in reaction to IC events.

Job abuse can be just as questionable as it can be evident. In my opinion, you cannot expect a player to not swap jobs just because some other RP is currently going on. You also cannot 100% gauge a player's intentions when they swap jobs. Just because I may swap to GSD while a raid is occurring does not mean I intend to combat that raid.

This is not job abuse...

It is not job abuse to flag onto Foundation during an on-going raid, and then react to said raid once you find out about it IC (which will be like instantly considering Code 1 + Comms). I am not sure why it would be at all, it doesn't even fit the written rule of it.

By the logic they're using. If I was on DEA and saw

/SOP Come to garage to prep for a GOC raid

I could immeidately flag onto GOC and swap onto jugg to be wandering around then "finding out" about the raid when it happens