Denied Allow Foundation Tactical Tablet for SC, SA, Nu7 Maj +, DEA Manager+

[legionnaires6]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

SCP Foundation Tactical Tablet Features​

1. Containment Breach Protocol (Special Ability):
   Instead of calling in airstrikes, the tablet could deploy specialized containment drones that temporarily incapacitate hostile entities or deploy "containment zones" (areas that slow or debuff enemies). This ties directly to the SCP Foundation's mission of containment rather than outright destruction.
2. Field Research Module:
   The tablet could highlight anomalies or provide situational awareness (like marking high-value targets, detecting hidden players, or displaying weak points of enemy factions). This reinforces the Foundation’s expertise in understanding and controlling threats.
3. Support Crates (Ammo and Utilities):
   Instead of super armor or traditional ammo crates, the tablet could deploy "SCP-Class Utility Crates" containing experimental Foundation tech. Examples:
   • Armor Patches: Temporary shields based on SCP-enhanced materials.
   • Restorative Injectors/Octane Needle-like Apex Legends: A health boost item with a limited duration.
   • EMP Grenades: Devices to disable enemy tech for a brief period.
4. Mobile Communication Interceptor:
   A passive ability where the tablet can disrupt enemy communication within a specific radius, causing delayed responses or disorganized tactics among opposing factions.
5. Lockdown Zones:
   Deploy barriers or blockades temporarily, creating impassable areas and allowing for strategic positioning or retreat opportunities.

How This Stays Balanced:​

• Limited Uses per Round: The tablet abilities could have cooldowns or require specific resources (like power cells) to activate.
• Team Coordination: Abilities could only be fully effective if teammates are nearby or actively supporting.
• Unique Weakness: The tablet could emit a signal that reveals its operator’s location when active, creating risk versus reward. (Similar to a drone tablet, you must be in a certain range to use certain options.)

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Don't think so.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

1. Lore-Friendly: The abilities align with the SCP Foundation’s focus on containment, research, and tactical superiority rather than direct combat dominance.
2. Gameplay Balance: By focusing on support and strategic disruption rather than outright firepower, the tablet becomes a utility tool rather than an overpowered weapon.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
It's not super overpowered; it's not extreme bombardment or firepower, and it's not a cloaking device that gives a one-sided advantage. You are required to use your brain.

 

[Dusk]

+/- Support
Tac Tablet is definitely a decent idea but I think expanding on the long forgotten pieces of content would be more beneficial instead of adding more to combat. Considering 50% of what happens on the server is topside and most of the factions that engage with that content as well. The SCP side of the tablet is very interesting though, feel it would be good on a job instead of a tablet.

I opted in for a monetary system for SA/SC to utilize to fund programs and events.
It would basically be a big bank that would loan these groups large sums of money with interest that could be funded through the facility efforts or themselves. Essentially it would work like warfunds but more for the RP side of things. The system was going to intertwine with another program I thought up, but forgotten it since.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Fun and interesting mechanics should not be denied because "Its promotes overly combative gameplay" when the vast majority of surface is combative. The majority of RP takes place within Site-65 and that RP wont be disrupted except durring raids which RP would already disrupted regardless if this suggestion was implemented or not.

Like it or not, this is an RP server. The state of surface being the way it is currently, does not by itself justify the addition of further combative or combative-adjacent elements, especially when considering that the target for how server behaviour should generally be, is a healthy mix of non-combative and combative play.

This extant skew towards combative gameplay is both known and not desired; And you can see in the GitHub ticket that resulted from everything I linked to, that NL have previously halted Warfunds development because of this. Adding more features for combat will further encourage combative gameplay, at the expense of non-combative roleplay - Especially in terms of optics, if development focus is seen to be favouring the combative facets of the server, then people will tend more towards that and SCP-RP ends up becoming more like MRP; It may seem strange to you, but that is unfortunately the general psychology of this, wherein people will just gravitate towards any kinds of roles in which there are more, interesting and newer things to do. Based on past suggestions, this is something that we know that Staff are hesitant/do not wish to encourage.

This is a known, well-documented and thoroughly explored subject - To my knowledge, everything that has been previously discussed on the topic (again, as I linked) generally still applies here. I highly encourage you to consume all the related subject material, as this will provide the best insight as to what the current problems are with this prospect and the potential solutions that could be ideated to solve it. The ideas presented in this suggestion unfortunately serve to exacerbate present issues.

I thoroughly agree that fun and interesting ideas should be investigated, I am simply attempting to apply the necessary rational and critical thinking to highlight potential problems that may prevent another situations like on the release of D-Block Riots/Dimensions. Hell, my understanding is that Dimensions, while a really neat and interesting idea, was primarily intended as something to provide more RP; But obviously there's unfortunately not really a whole lot you can do with it RP-wise, meanwhile combatively, it has immediate and obvious benefits, such that what ended up happening was that it inadvertently worsened the state of the server by giving combatives a brand new mode of operation, which then even made the perceived quality of combative gameplay worse, because it ended up becoming the thing you have to do in terms of raids for example, otherwise if you didn't and wanted variety by not using it, you'd just get countered yourself by the opponent's use of it; Which made it the prevalent meta.

And this is just me banging rocks together. I genuinely have no idea what I'm doing or saying, this is all just a mostly stream of consciousness type analysis that fumbles at the point, but never quite reaches it. My point is hopefully made? I'm not entirely sure what I just wrote and maybe someone else has a better handle on this than I do, but hopefully I was able to get across the general reasoning as to why this would be the case - And that ideally, we would have more features for both combative gameplay and non-combative roleplay in equal measure.

 

[Ronin]

- Support

I am personally biased ( GOC GEN ) but I would have to say that getting all these buffs would have to be done along with giving GOC something in return. Be it More Artillery & Air Strikes. Paratech call ins. Memetic Artillery.

There would have to be a buff to GOC Tact Tablet items to consider giving F & CI Tactical Tablet items.

 

[legionnaires6]

- Support

I am personally biased ( GOC GEN ) but I would have to say that getting all these buffs would have to be done along with giving GOC something in return. Be it More Artillery & Air Strikes. Paratech call ins. Memetic Artillery.

There would have to be a buff to GOC Tact Tablet items to consider giving F & CI Tactical Tablet items.

I understand your idea, but we need to consider how it will affect the dynamic between factions. If GOC gets significant unnecessary upgrades, it might lead to semi-passive treatment from both sides, which could shift the “role/position setting” balance. My suggestion is aimed at creating more variety in play styles between these long-time rivals while keeping the server’s “role/position setting” balance intact. What you’re proposing might not work out as expected since no one enjoys playing against an overwhelming powerhouse.

Keep in mind, the server rules don’t mandate that one faction must always oppose the UNGOC or that the UNGOC can step into CI-F conflicts without SSL approval. The purpose of the UNGOC was never about PvP anyway—this was clarified by the SSL and the server owner a long time ago. Plus, the GOC already has significant restrictions on its actions.

Instead of making the GOC more PvP-oriented (which is already CI-F’s domain), I think we should lean into their unique role. They could get specialized abilities tailored to SCP engagements, with severely reduced effectiveness in PvP. This would cement their identity as the SCP-fighting frontline, while PvP remains the focus of the CI, better aligning with the current server environment.

Creating a clear borderline for players that seeks certain interests.

 

[Joris Kilotoviz/London]

I understand your idea, but we need to consider how it will affect the dynamic between factions. If GOC gets significant unnecessary upgrades, it might lead to semi-passive treatment from both sides, which could shift the “role/position setting” balance. My suggestion is aimed at creating more variety in play styles between these long-time rivals while keeping the server’s “role/position setting” balance intact. What you’re proposing might not work out as expected since no one enjoys playing against an overwhelming powerhouse.

Keep in mind, the server rules don’t mandate that one faction must always oppose the UNGOC or that the UNGOC can step into CI-F conflicts without SSL approval. The purpose of the UNGOC was never about PvP anyway—this was clarified by the SSL and the server owner a long time ago. Plus, the GOC already has significant restrictions on its actions.

Instead of making the GOC more PvP-oriented (which is already CI-F’s domain), I think we should lean into their unique role. They could get specialized abilities tailored to SCP engagements, with severely reduced effectiveness in PvP. This would cement their identity as the SCP-fighting frontline, while PvP remains the focus of the CI, better aligning with the current server environment.

Creating a clear borderline for players that seeks certain interests.

GOC can step into conflicts without SSL approval? I was under the impression that they still needed approval, as they'd basically be going to war

 

[caramelalpaca]

the reason why this should be accepted:

funny airstrike on CI base every 30 mins go boom boom

 

[legionnaires6]

GOC can step into conflicts without SSL approval? I was under the impression that they still needed approval, as they'd basically be going to war

Mistyped, "nor"

 

[legionnaires6]

the reason why this should be accepted:

funny airstrike on CI base every 30 mins go boom boom

I was warned before that using it inside the courtyard, and CI gate is a violation, as it counts as a faction's partial spawn area.

 

[Ronin]

I understand your idea, but we need to consider how it will affect the dynamic between factions. If GOC gets significant unnecessary upgrades, it might lead to semi-passive treatment from both sides, which could shift the “role/position setting” balance. My suggestion is aimed at creating more variety in play styles between these long-time rivals while keeping the server’s “role/position setting” balance intact. What you’re proposing might not work out as expected since no one enjoys playing against an overwhelming powerhouse.

Keep in mind, the server rules don’t mandate that one faction must always oppose the UNGOC or that the UNGOC can step into CI-F conflicts without SSL approval. The purpose of the UNGOC was never about PvP anyway—this was clarified by the SSL and the server owner a long time ago. Plus, the GOC already has significant restrictions on its actions.

Instead of making the GOC more PvP-oriented (which is already CI-F’s domain), I think we should lean into their unique role. They could get specialized abilities tailored to SCP engagements, with severely reduced effectiveness in PvP. This would cement their identity as the SCP-fighting frontline, while PvP remains the focus of the CI, better aligning with the current server environment.

Creating a clear borderline for players that seeks certain interests.

I think you miss understand GOC's purpose.

The entire point of the GOC is TO BE A POWERHOUSE. They are meant to step into CI & F Conflicts when it gets too one sided.

GOC is a balancing power that in all honesty barely leverages that power.

Additionally, GOC is a military faction that is played by mostly RP Players, Meaning that they do need the buffs to actually get their stuff done. The entire gameplay loop for GOC Originally was to crush both CI & F when they fucked around.

The entire fact that no single faction opposes GOC is good enough reason for them to be a powerhouse. They won't use that power unless it's a massive issue. Foundation & CI are supposed to be scared to draw the ire of the GOC.

 

[Biscuits]

I think you miss understand GOC's purpose.

The entire point of the GOC is TO BE A POWERHOUSE. They are meant to step into CI & F Conflicts when it gets too one sided.

GOC is a balancing power that in all honesty barely leverages that power.

Additionally, GOC is a military faction that is played by mostly RP Players, Meaning that they do need the buffs to actually get their stuff done. The entire gameplay loop for GOC Originally was to crush both CI & F when they fucked around.

The entire fact that no single faction opposes GOC is good enough reason for them to be a powerhouse. They won't use that power unless it's a massive issue. Foundation & CI are supposed to be scared to draw the ire of the GOC.

 

["Fang"]

Like it or not, this is an RP server. The state of surface being the way it is currently, does not by itself justify the addition of further combative or combative-adjacent elements, especially when considering that the target for how server behaviour should generally be, is a healthy mix of non-combative and combative play.

This extant skew towards combative gameplay is both known and not desired; And you can see in the GitHub ticket that resulted from everything I linked to, that NL have previously halted Warfunds development because of this. Adding more features for combat will further encourage combative gameplay, at the expense of non-combative roleplay - Especially in terms of optics, if development focus is seen to be favouring the combative facets of the server, then people will tend more towards that and SCP-RP ends up becoming more like MRP; It may seem strange to you, but that is unfortunately the general psychology of this, wherein people will just gravitate towards any kinds of roles in which there are more, interesting and newer things to do. Based on past suggestions, this is something that we know that Staff are hesitant/do not wish to encourage.

This is a known, well-documented and thoroughly explored subject - To my knowledge, everything that has been previously discussed on the topic (again, as I linked) generally still applies here. I highly encourage you to consume all the related subject material, as this will provide the best insight as to what the current problems are with this prospect and the potential solutions that could be ideated to solve it. The ideas presented in this suggestion unfortunately serve to exacerbate present issues.

I thoroughly agree that fun and interesting ideas should be investigated, I am simply attempting to apply the necessary rational and critical thinking to highlight potential problems that may prevent another situations like on the release of D-Block Riots/Dimensions. Hell, my understanding is that Dimensions, while a really neat and interesting idea, was primarily intended as something to provide more RP; But obviously there's unfortunately not really a whole lot you can do with it RP-wise, meanwhile combatively, it has immediate and obvious benefits, such that what ended up happening was that it inadvertently worsened the state of the server by giving combatives a brand new mode of operation, which then even made the perceived quality of combative gameplay worse, because it ended up becoming the thing you have to do in terms of raids for example, otherwise if you didn't and wanted variety by not using it, you'd just get countered yourself by the opponent's use of it; Which made it the prevalent meta.

And this is just me banging rocks together. I genuinely have no idea what I'm doing or saying, this is all just a mostly stream of consciousness type analysis that fumbles at the point, but never quite reaches it. My point is hopefully made? I'm not entirely sure what I just wrote and maybe someone else has a better handle on this than I do, but hopefully I was able to get across the general reasoning as to why this would be the case - And that ideally, we would have more features for both combative gameplay and non-combative roleplay in equal measure.

I agree with you mostly, even though I still think that staff should take a closer look at surface combat/content because it is very unbalanced in its current state and some of the content updates have made it even worse (like Dimensions) and something like warfunds can make it better. However I disagree with your point thats highlighted. I think that departments/factions not being Interesting is an issue with department/faction leadership rather then its content. All departments have a good amount of base content however its how department/faction leadership uses the content to make their department/faction interesting.

 

[legionnaires6]

I think you miss understand GOC's purpose.

The entire point of the GOC is TO BE A POWERHOUSE. They are meant to step into CI & F Conflicts when it gets too one sided.

GOC is a balancing power that in all honesty barely leverages that power.

Additionally, GOC is a military faction that is played by mostly RP Players, Meaning that they do need the buffs to actually get their stuff done. The entire gameplay loop for GOC Originally was to crush both CI & F when they fucked around.

The entire fact that no single faction opposes GOC is good enough reason for them to be a powerhouse. They won't use that power unless it's a massive issue. Foundation & CI are supposed to be scared to draw the ire of the GOC.

Your argument advocating for the GOC as a “powerhouse” highlights a fundamental
misunderstanding of what makes multiplayer games engaging and sustainable. Not only is view flawed, but it also reflects a shortsighted and entitled view of faction dynamics. Here’s why:

1. Overpowered Factions Are Boring for Everyone

The GOC as an overpowered faction doesn’t inspire fear or respect; it inspires boredom and frustration. Nobody wants to engage with a faction that steamrolls everything without meaningful effort. Your push for the GOC as a “balancing force” may possibly removes the need for strategy, creativity, or fair play, making it the equivalent of playing on “easy mode” with no rewards.

2. Excessive Staff Dependency Highlights GOC’s Weaknesses

Let’s address the elephant in the room: most of the GOC’s gameplay relies on server staff wasting time and resources to create artificial events just so the faction can feel relevant. Without staff interventions, the GOC struggles to justify its existence. This reliance proves that your “powerhouse” vision isn’t sustainable—it’s a crutch that burdens the game’s moderators and stifles organic player interaction.

3. Main Character Syndrome Ruins Multiplayer Dynamics

Your argument reeks of main character syndrome. The idea that the GOC exists to “step in when it gets too one-sided” suggests they’re not even a faction—they’re a glorified plot device. Multiplayer games are about interaction, competition, and unpredictability, not propping up one group as the deus ex machina to dictate when and how others play.

4. Nobody Enjoys Playing Against an OP Faction

Players aren’t “afraid” to engage with the GOC—they just don’t want to waste their time fighting a faction designed to win by default. This isn’t a sign of respect; it’s a sign that probably others already think that engaging with it feels like a chore. A faction that nobody wants to “mess with” isn’t intimidating; it’s boring and alienating.

5. Your Vision Encourages Stagnation, Not Balance

Propping up the GOC as the ultimate authority undermines the creativity and adaptability of other factions. Instead of fostering competition, it creates an environment where the GOC simply acts as a blunt instrument, destroying any momentum or narrative the other factions try to build. This discourages innovation and ruins the dynamic interplay that makes multiplayer games exciting.

Stop Defending a Broken Vision

It’s probably time to stop propping up this broken vision under the guise of lore.


“When a “supposed power” becomes a burden of others in a “multiplayer” video game what is truly a proper vision that a leader needs?

(Just a grain of salt, I have no intention to interfere with in game business, I respect everyone as a player. I care about the community, thus why I suggest.)

 

[Driver]

-support
the server is gonna shit itself if this gets added we don't need more updates that lag the server

 

[Verlocity]

Suggestion Denied

---

Hi @legionnaires6 ,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.
The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reasons.

Reason: We feel this type of suggestion would create imbalance and does not feel necessary in the current gameplay loop.

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​