Donator
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Make the following changes to the 096 SWEP:- Add a passive effect to 096 that, when enraged, forcibly pushes aside any non-targets who are in front of 096 as it runs into them
- My initial idea included a temporary ragdolling effect similar to how the 8854 SWEP works, but that runs into issues with physics, getting back up inside map geometry, both of them compounding if you do this with a big group of people, etc. etc. If you think it's feasible, great? But if not, then that's fine. Bottom line is, some way to forcibly get people out of the way as enraged 096
- My initial idea included a temporary ragdolling effect similar to how the 8854 SWEP works, but that runs into issues with physics, getting back up inside map geometry, both of them compounding if you do this with a big group of people, etc. etc. If you think it's feasible, great? But if not, then that's fine. Bottom line is, some way to forcibly get people out of the way as enraged 096
- Append an indicator to the 'They Saw' text that allows 096 players to distinguish whether targets were seen directly or via a spawned pic
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
This is a partial re-opening of Shove SWEP, a recent past suggestion by @bruhlord in which they asked for a generalised SWEP with this functionality to be provided to most jobs, and provided a demo video of such functionality which they had presumably developed themselves.It was denied for the following reason:
I agree - I don't know why it slipped my mind in the original thread that this could effectively be used to commit traceless and unpunishable RDM, which poses a disaster for the server. Admittedly, that specific problem could be alleviated by logging instances of shoving for review during an RDM sit, but I understand that even then there are reasonably possible situations where it wouldn't be definitively provable that RDM took place, and reasonable doubt on the RDM claim. This is a valid hole in enforcement to be concerned about and understandably not to be tolerated.
This suggestion differs in the fact that it specifically asks for this capability to be a passive ability of the 096 SWEP, to be active when 096 is enraged.
There is also an active suggestion to highlight 096's closest target, by @Marvin Garden - While that also asks for a change to the 096 SWEP, the idea presented here is neither similar nor incompatible.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- + (Push) Completely erases all bodyblocking issues relating to 096 breaches
- + (Push) It makes general sense that an SCP who cannot be prevented from getting to its target, can't be prevented by someone just standing in front of them
- + (Text) Allows for ease of moderation if a player that saw the pic (or didn't) tries to bring 096 to a sit for trying to purposely show their face to the player
- + (Text) Allows for easy addressing of confusion by players who are confident they "didn't see" 096
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- - (Both) Dev time
- - (Push) Room for abuse by 096 players Or inadvertent edge cases where it shouldn't have applied, but funny server latency etc. ends up causing people to be pushed when they shouldn't be, etc.
- - (Text) Difficulty of implementation compared to benefit
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Hi. It's crashout time.Please look at these clips. I will preface this by saying I did attempt to take action on all three of these and Staff deemed that they were incidental instances in which the involved individuals weren't clearly trying to bodyblock and were obviously trying to get out of the way, etc. and therefore not bodyblocking. I agree that they're not bodyblocking, but in lieu of bodyblocking evidence which I cannot present at this time, I present them as being endemic of a larger issue. Note that these specific occurrences or these specific people are not the problem, this is not about them; It's the myriad of issues which these situations present to 096 gameplay and the current unenforceability of bodyblocking rules in this manner: I will also clarify that the first clip was on US, while the second & third clips were on UK, so that brings connection more into the picture for the first one.
Secondly, let's pretend for a second that all three instances were completely intentional bodyblock - Aside from the third one that can be identified because the individual in question spoke and there was a clear name to go off of, how do you identify the player(s)? Having to rely on there always being something happening during the clip that gives clear identification of the player(s) in question is not reasonable for sit resolution - I'm reminded of the denial reason for the original shove SWEP suggestion where without an explicit logging system, Staff don't have a reliable source of information for finding the player(s) at fault; And in this circumstance, when the violation consists of getting in someone else's way, how do you log that? Are you gonna log all player on player collisions?
What certainly doesn't help is 096's visual filter, which conveniently obscures the above-head names such that they are usually too illegible to get a name from (Being able to clearly see a player's name is important for moderation purposes). We were told a couple years back that this filter would be toned down and/or removed at some point- Either it wasn't toned down enough, or it hasn't happened yet. And that's fine. But you can clearly see the moderation problem posed here and this is steadily reaching a point of untenability.
When it comes to just going by the specific jobs, in the case of the SRU/E-11 CO, you could go through every SRU/E-11 CO then-currently flagged on and if there's more than one, without any clear info on who it was, they can all very easily say "no that wasn't me," and they'd be able to evade that because there's not enough evidence to determine who it was specifically.
Ah, but I hear you say "Why breach as 096 in third-person? Just go into first-person, names will be clearer if you end up clipping bodyblock" Good response. Here's the issue with that; You can sort of see this near the end of the first clip, you see how 096's model is very far forwards compared to the player collision to the point where the face can clip through a normal door (Also PW bulk) if you press right up against it? That's the problem with first person as 096. You of course, need to break doors to get to your target, but you obviously don't want to be clipping 096's face through doors while breaking them, as to my understanding, the face clipping through the doors counts for triggering 096? I remember this being the case a couple years ago, unsure if it's still the case now, but I'm not willing to test and find that out. Third person is really the only way to properly know that you're close enough to break a door without clipping through it. Additionally, it's also good for seeing where targets are over a wider area without risking people seeing the face.
Finally (on the topic of the pushing suggestion, at least), why can you just bring something that is supposed to be as fast and as strong as 096 is to a grinding halt by just jumping in front of it? That is not how that should reasonably work. Even though yes, that's why bodyblocking is a rule because it's abusable that you can stop other people with yourself in ways that you shouldn't be able to, which is the general principle behind the original shove SWEP suggestion, this specifically is an absurd and unfair case that I would argue requires some from of redress. 096 is literally the only SCP with this problem. Every other hostile SCP breach can just kill someone if they are bodyblocking them. For example, 049, 076, 106, 682 & 8837 are some examples of SCPs can very easily deal with bodyblocking during a hostile breach. But unless the person bodyblocking 096 is a target, there's nothing the 096 player can do unless they were either already a target, or they stay facing them for long enough. Granted, if they just face away from 096 and back into them in a way that's clearly on purpose, that can be actionable so long as the player is identifiable. However in the clips I show, there are a few cases where the players either were already facing away or otherwise turn away to presumably try and avoid 096, but you can see in those circumstances that either it's clearly not on purpose or it's not clear whether it was on purpose. So 096 for the most part, just has no recourse for this whatsoever.
This is a massive imbalance and easily my biggest pet peeve with 096 gameplay. And so far my only methods of trying to do something about it is to keep calling bodyblock sits where I can hopefully capture the instance, but it's still subject to the problems I list above - Or try and get a content-based solution implemented. Please please please do something about this. What is currently available to 096 players is not adequate to deal with this problem.
As for the text addition, this would just be decent QoL for any frustrated 096 victims, and a potentially good information point to help with moderation.
Last edited:
Senior Administrator
SCP-RP Staff
Event Team
Group Moderator
