Content Suggestion Epsilon-11 QoL Changes [USA stuff included]

[Dusk]

E-11 Structural & Tactical Reforms Proposal​

1. ERT Authorization Transfer

Change:
Transfer the authority to call in ERT from Site Administration+ to E-11 Major+.

Benefit:
This gives the power to those directly involved in breach situations. Relying on staff receiving secondhand reports often causes delays. Allowing Major+ to make the call ensures faster, more informed deployment of ERT when it’s actually needed.

---

2. E-11 Exclusive AA Regulations

Change:
Remove E-11 from global AA restrictions. Introduce E-11-specific AA protocols based on threat levels, number of personnel, and ranking authorizations.

Benefit:
This ensures those actively engaging threats can make real-time decisions. It reduces inefficiencies caused by upper management who aren't on the battlefield. Many breaches could have been contained if E-11 had the authority to escalate when it mattered most.

---

3. Keycard Clearance Override Overhaul

Change:
Shift from job title-based access to level-based access on the keycard itself.

Clearance Breakdown:

• Private – Specialist: No change to clearance access.
• Lance Corporal: Access to HCZ bulkheads and SCP-682’s chamber.
• Corporal – Sergeant: Full access to all doors except Electrical and 008
• Command Sergeant – Commander: Access to SCP-008 and syringe keypad and all other restricted doors.

Benefit:
E-11 activity has always been inconsistent. Without COs present, tasks stall. This change empowers senior members to maintain structure, even during low-command activity periods.

---

4. Containment Beam Utility Overhaul

Change:
Rework the containment beam. Instead of only pacifying, it will now include effects like slowing SCPs, reducing damage output, or disabling abilities. Adding an ability to change the containment beam mode to pacification to impairment modes

Benefit:
Right now, containment beams are underused. They're rarely employed until an SCP is already vulnerable. This change makes them a versatile tool, opening up tactical options in active breach scenarios.

---

5. New E-11 Roles: Pathfinder & Engineer

E-11 Pathfinder SGT+ (1Slot)

Backstory:
The Pathfinder was once a humanoid anomaly discovered deep in the uncharted zones of HCZ. Initially seen as hostile, the entity demonstrated an uncanny ability to detect SCP activity before any alerts were triggered. After capture and study, researchers realized it was not aggressive but instead hyper-sensitive to energy fluctuations tied to breach activity.

Following ethical review, the entity was integrated into E-11 through cybernetic augmentation under Project ECHO. It now operates as a forward scout with a mix of instinct and programming, loyally serving Epsilon-11 as a living detection system. The Pathfinder’s enhanced sensors, combat awareness, and loyalty conditioning allow it to warn of threats before they occur.

Basic Info:

• Role: Reconnaissance and early warning
• Strengths: High mobility and speed
• Weaknesses: Low HP and armor
• Utility:
  
  • Marks and tracks SCPs in real-time
  • Gives vague predictions on breach timing
  • Uses grenades to slow SCPs or corrode SCP armor for increased damage

---

E-11 Engineer CPL+ (1Slot)

Basic Info:

• Role: Combat support and fortification
• Toolset:
  
  • Repair tool for reinforcing doors mid-attack
  • Deployable armor packs that gradually boost teammate survivability
• Combat Profile: Moderate effectiveness in close-quarters situations with a utility-heavy design

Benefit of Both Roles:
These additions expand E-11 functionality beyond standard breach response. They allow for tactical plays, early breach warnings, and supportive combat strategies, giving E-11 the variety it needs to evolve with new threats.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
There have been a few discussions in the past about giving E-11 more autonomy or tools to respond faster during breaches, but this suggestion goes much further. It lays out a full internal restructuring of how E-11 operates giving them clear authority, role-based access, and deeper utility. Instead of vague ideas, this proposal provides a detailed and structured framework that ties into both gameplay balance and realistic field operations.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- ERT and AA calls will be handled by the people directly involved in the fight, making those decisions faster, smarter, and better timed.
- E-11 leadership will have more responsibility, which gives high-ranking members actual purpose beyond just seniority.
- Internal structure becomes less dependent on the presence of COs, reducing downtime and making the faction more self-sufficient.
- The Pathfinder and Engineer roles bring new playstyles and allow for more varied, team-based engagements that go beyond pure combat.
- The containment beam rework gives underused tools a second life, rewarding tactical thinking and creating more interesting SCP interactions.
- This encourages interdepartmental RP through stronger definition of E-11’s role, giving them a distinct identity in facility operations.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- If not managed carefully, there’s a chance that E-11 members could misuse their increased authority, especially without clear SOPs.
- Some departments may feel sidelined or confused by the shift unless communication standards are updated and reinforced.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The positives far outweigh the risks. This suggestion modernizes E-11’s internal systems and gives them tools to succeed without relying on outside approval for every major action. It leads to better containment, more engaging gameplay, and stronger RP opportunities. With proper oversight and clear expectations, this proposal could reshape E-11 into a much more reliable and engaging branch of the Foundation’s response force.​

 

[Langstädtler]

I am unsure if this is a ragebait suggestion or not

Fallen off how exactly? What's changed to have e11 fall off other than SCP changes. If I'm not mistaken UK E11 can call ERT, so what is the underlying issue?

Vague responses with no clear intent behind them are the reason stagnation occurs.

Well, to give you a example of what i say from outside, currently you are doing way to less Recontainment Trainings. or Room clear Trainings.

And -Support to everything except the keycard changes

 

[Doug 'TrippleD']

I think E-11 needs some serious new content as it rather lacks in opportunities for varied roleplay, however I dont believe that some of these changes are the correct way to go for E-11. Imo just give E-11 a perma 10-15% speed boost but 50 less armor points in return. E-11 dont really need armor if they are fighting a big fucking lizard or 106 that can already basically one shot, it would be better for them to have speed over health when fighting these SCP's as they can just run away and keep firing instead of constantly shooting.

Additionally, it would also make more sense IC as E-11 have to run around the entirety of HCZ and should be able to catch up with CI when they get inside of HCZ, without giving them too much of an insane buff.

 

[Dusk]

I am unsure if this is a ragebait suggestion or not

Well, to give you a example of what i say from outside, currently you are doing way to less Recontainment Trainings. or Room clear Trainings.

And -Support to everything except the keycard changes

Yeah none of that is my problem. If leadership refuses to change things that are clearly bad that's not my issue so I'm going to make a suggestion to fix it instead. You asked for rain you got to expect the mud

 

[Aphex]

I have no issue with the job changes or any of the equipment additions, but the ERT authorisation transferral thing I don’t like. The issue currently with SCP breaches on UK at least from my perspective, is their frequency and duration.
ERT will arrive if a breach has lasted too long, so I feel like E-11s “goal” should be the prevention of ERT deployment, and the prevention of the site failsafe being activated, or else what would be the point of E-11 within the servers main functions?

Why do I want this? Well, my belief is that large, very RP detrimental breaches should be rare, perhaps maybe once every 3-5 days. I quantify these types of breaches from the basis of if ERT are needed to resolve the situation.
So if E-11 have the authority to call in ERT, this (at least from my perspective) is a sign of someone giving up, and want to take the easy way out.
If this (ERT auth transferral) was to be made the case, ERT deployments should then have some sort of drawback or downside, like limited deployments, or maybe it uses some warfunds (if that gets added anytime soon), or maybe some other factor I’m not considering.

 

[Dusk]

...You know, when I returned to UK to find E-11 in an awful place, it was kinda the equivalent of coming home to find it ablaze. I'm not really mad about it, I'm more disappointed than anything. And this was after I'd received messages mocking me over my handling of the roster.

I agree that E-11 needs a look at, but I feel that you may have approached this with the incorrect mindset:

Spoiler: No, with caveats

Mechanically? No.
Via IC policy as Spectre said? Yes. All for that. But of course, IC policy change is not something handled by a suggestion, it's brought up to the relevant RP leadership roles.

So for actually allowing MAJ+ to have the functionality of calling ERT that Manager+ does, Major -Support
For reasons already stated.

Spoiler: Yes, with caveats

I originally thought this was about E-11 getting priority during AA auth, but that's an IC policy - The only global restriction I can think of is that AA is only allowed to be authed for 2+ SCPs breached:

If I'm interpreting this right, then firstly the minor nitpick that this would be a Rule change and not a Content change and as such, is not for Content; But also, increasing the ambiguity of how and when AA should be authed, even specifically for E-11...

On one hand, I do agree that increasing the flexibility here could allow certain devastating breach combos to be more appropriately addressed with the requisite force - However, this is massively overshadowed by:

• How confusing the process becomes - Making AA auth more vague means that the involved positions will have to make specific deliberations about how AA auth can be justified in their present situation and whether or not said justification will hold under scrutiny. As a result, you'll get this increased uncertainty and sort of skittishness when it comes to authing AA for smaller breaches. Not every breach with the same SCP is the same and I can see certain ones being trouble were enough skill applied to the SCP in question with a small E-11 presence - And in t hat case, it'd be very situational as to should AA be authed. The problem then being is if Staff would see it the same way if it were taken to a sit.
  
  Say there's only 3 E-11 on during an 049 breach and the 049 is just... The most legendary 049 you've ever seen, they're causing complete havoc all by themselves and are able to readily replenish 049-2s from other departments & D-Class. Completely disproportionate, but still less than 2 SCPs. If things are that out of control and there's not enough people to address the situation, I can see AA auth being necessary. Then when the breach is over, it gets taken to a sit because the 049 felt that the use of AA on a solo 049 breach was overkill. Said staff member potentially (and erroneously in this case, IMO) evaluates the situation as that it was already being handled well by everyone, because 049 was recontained fairly quickly.
  
  Obviously, this example is a bit strange, but it's generally to get across the point of differing perspective more than anything. Introducing increased ambiguity and/or complexity to AA auth means different people will come to different conclusions about when and where it should be authed. This makes things harder for Staff and players both, as Staff would now have to deal with an uptick in unrealistic equipment usage and players would need to develop a sense of auth appropriateness. Meanwhile during this hesitation and uncertainty, SCPs can use the extra time to cause more problems.
  
  
• The sheer level of abuse this change would perpetuate - There is already extant abuse with AA items which in my opinion is currently being dealt with appropriately; However I fully understand that increasing the flexibility of AA auth could easily lead to AA misuse, against players who should not have AA used against them, by players that should not have AA in the first place - And would definitely not have AA if access to it wasn't easier. There's additionally also difficulty with resolving this because of the AA sourcing rule in that both AA from 914 and ERT spawns are acceptable to use against humans, but other rules like (M)RDM in particular still also apply.

Plus I generally agree with every other issue raised so far with changing AA auth in this way.

I can see increasing the flexibility of AA auth contributing to more rulebreaks and more headaches for Staff for these reasons. If there's a suitable avenue for creating sensible, clear AA auth that would increase its flexibility to deal with more devastating breaches in a way that doesn't create too much confusion or ambiguity, I would back it.

For that reason and that reason alone, Major +Support
However, I would not expect this to be accepted on account of the sheer scale of the minefield that would have to be successfully navigated to implement this in a non-harmful manner. I believe it's possible, but I can definitely understand it having too many issues because of what has been raised about it. I would not envy whoever would be working out the changes there.

(CC: )

Spoiler: Emphatic yes, with possible disagreement on the method of implementation and raising extremely related past discussion.

In the past, this other suggestion was accepted in which the system of regimental keycard levels that existed on MRP would be implemented on this server (Please give it a read if you haven't, IMO it's probably one of the best past suggestions we've had to date in terms of how compelling it is conceptually and the ways in which it could be plied here), but to my understanding, it was scrapped in favour of the now-existing system of job-based keycard overrides (For example, at least on UK, Tech Experts are able to open the CL4 door leading into LCZ Electrical).

I think this is a topic worth revisiting, especially since this suggestion is virtually asking the same thing to a degree - And in practicality, when it comes to implementing what you're asking for - It wouldn't make sense to just implement regiment rank-based keycard access solely for E-11 when regimental keycard level is a system that has existed in a working manner on the network at some point and it may just be easier to migrate that functionality onto this server. It would be more constructive to justify that migration and find beneficial ways in which regimental keycard access could apply across all regiments (For example, AO's access to CL4 areas on what are technically supposed to be CL3 jobs (From what I've seen since that update, only the operatives have CL3 cards, but I understand they have override in some areas?) and the ever hotly contested debate of Nu7's access to EZ bulks.) for the benefit of both RP and gameplay balance - While also finding ways to address concerns about how those changes may negatively impact gameplay and roleplay both.

This is also something that would not maintain parity between servers, and rightfully so, IMO - Specific access of this granularity seems to be largely based on IC policy. I would not give LCPLs access to bulkheads. I'd put that at SGT+ minimum.

I also somewhat recall that a lot of the pushback on this general idea from CT was to do with CI and them "not having the right keycard to get into an area"? Which... Firstly, is how keycards work in the first place, and secondly is also how encountering people in the site to take keycards from works. You can't just will an O5 to show up to take their keycard from. Who you find is who you find, and where they can access is where they can access.

If anything, the discrete expansion of who can access where is more beneficial to CI than anything, as it increases the chances of them finding a keycard that will let them into more places. Especially if they co-ordinate beforehand to determine and locate key individuals of interest who has the requisite access to somewhere they're interested in. So in this case, I don't particularly get the stance of increasing frustration on their part by virtue of there simply being more sources of higher clearance area access that CI can use.

I'm sure that @Zen remembers that discussion far better than I do and can contribute meaningfully to this topic.
Overwhelming +Support

Spoiler: Yes.

I agree with the idea of them being able to reduce damage output and/or disable certain abilities. I think it'd be funny to be able to beam 096 so no-one can see his face or reducing him to 2-hits. That'd be very funny, imo (But I understand why those specific changes wouldn't happen). It'd need to be reasonably balanced.

I don't understand the statement of making it slow SCPs, considering that this is something they already do.

Plus, as others have said, this seems to be a US-specific problem as on UK, they are used plentifully during breaches, especially from what I have seen recently. The changes you suggest though, I think could be beneficial to curb the severity of breaches. However, it will need to be taken into account that there are a significant number of jobs that spawn with them (Such as E-11 Conspec, SCU, etc.) - Although these jobs that minimal in number. I don't mind there being changes to beams that make them more versatile.
+Support

...Hm... ...Fine.
I also think they naturally should have high Humes to frustrate Kant checks, among any other C1-related drawbacks. A benefit to fighting SCPs should be a deficit when fighting CI/GOC raids.

I think it would also need the kind of one life + cooldown kind of stuff that TB-type jobs have, too. Although I guess that's given since this is essentially E-11 TB.
+Cautious Support

No. I would rather have E&TS reworks and promote collaboration with them. This is additionally a massive & unneeded nerf to 096.
-Support

---

Additional jobs in a whitelisted regiment with a hard cap on how many people can be in it doesn't really change the non-combative to combative ratio of a server with limited population, when the people in question that would be on the combative job, would be on the combative job anyway.

Plus I'm of the opinion that it's a misnomer that the main issue with the non-combative to combative ratio isn't necessarily that the combative jobs exist in the first place (More so now that we have search functionality) - It's the ubiquity of combative scenarios and situations on the server overall, which includes breaches. I would say it's a problem of breadth over depth, but it's not really even that. It's more of a combination of toolkit, presence and skill that leads to drawn-out combative situations. RP is sort of the "default state" of the server and large combative engagements are an abnormality that needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. The faster combat is resolved, the sooner everyone can get back to RP.

Low skill, low combative capability and large presence contributes to longer combat situations. Adjust one side of the triangle and you adjust the triangle overall. While I agree to an extent that combative jobs inherently encourage combative behaviour, they do also have a largely overlooked capacity for RP (Which IMO should definitely be encouraged a bit more - I unfortunately have no idea how ).

---

Overall
+Support-ish
But good luck - I had been contemplating revisiting the regimental keycard access idea for a while, but ultimately decided it wasn't worth it as I don't think Content will budge from their previously stated positions on that topic because even though yes, those discussions are old and there have been several changes of both CT and the way things work both on the server and the Network as a whole, I think a lot of what has been said prior still applies and there's just a lot of prickliness to dive into there.

I'm not really against any change to already existing departments but I'm basing my suggestions off of long standing situations that don't change. So fingers crossed for an ETS overhaul

 

[Dusk]

I have no issue with the job changes or any of the equipment additions, but the ERT authorisation transferral thing I don’t like. The issue currently with SCP breaches on UK at least from my perspective, is their frequency and duration.
ERT will arrive if a breach has lasted too long, so I feel like E-11s “goal” should be the prevention of ERT deployment, and the prevention of the site failsafe being activated, or else what would be the point of E-11 within the servers main functions?

Why do I want this? Well, my belief is that large, very RP detrimental breaches should be rare, perhaps maybe once every 3-5 days. I quantify these types of breaches from the basis of if ERT are needed to resolve the situation.
So if E-11 have the authority to call in ERT, this (at least from my perspective) is a sign of someone giving up, and want to take the easy way out.
If this (ERT auth transferral) was to be made the case, ERT deployments should then have some sort of drawback or downside, like limited deployments, or maybe it uses some warfunds (if that gets added anytime soon), or maybe some other factor I’m not considering.

What normally happens on this server is that changes are not quantified based on other important factors. Instead, things are simply changed without fully considering how those changes affect the wider server. While people like to believe that decisions take all aspects of the server into account, it is clear there is a disconnect between certain rules and the changes that have been implemented.

Let us take E-11 as an example, since that is the topic at hand. As SCPs are updated, whether they become stronger, weaker, or more complex, and as the map evolves, E-11 must adapt along with those changes. If they do not, they eventually become what we see now: a disorganized group of bodies thrown at a problem until it is either resolved or ERT is called in.

I would go as far as to say that, based on some of the opinions I have heard, ERT has effectively become the new E-11 on the USA and UK sides. Unless meaningful changes are made to improve E-11, this will remain the prevailing meta.

 

[Aphex]

What normally happens on this server is that changes are not quantified based on other important factors. Instead, things are simply changed without fully considering how those changes affect the wider server. While people like to believe that decisions take all aspects of the server into account, it is clear there is a disconnect between certain rules and the changes that have been implemented.

Let us take E-11 as an example, since that is the topic at hand. As SCPs are updated, whether they become stronger, weaker, or more complex, and as the map evolves, E-11 must adapt along with those changes. If they do not, they eventually become what we see now: a disorganized group of bodies thrown at a problem until it is either resolved or ERT is called in.

I would go as far as to say that, based on some of the opinions I have heard, ERT has effectively become the new E-11 on the USA and UK sides. Unless meaningful changes are made to improve E-11, this will remain the prevailing meta.

This is very true, and this is exactly one of the reasons E-11 being able to call ERT is a bad idea. If E-11 is being replaced by ERT (which we don’t want), then obviously we wont give them the authority to call them in.

E-11 should recieve more content and be given more ability in actually recontaining a breach. Currently, HCZ is such a shockingly weak area to secure, it feels less secure than LCZ, which is contradictory to their names. The only thing “secure” about HCZ is the primary entrance which is often manned, and is secured by 2 blast doors (1 bottom, 1 top), and a tesla gate. This is any incredibly secure and safe place to hold when it comes to SCP breaches.
But, HCZ has a secondary entrance. This entrance is secured by 1 blast door, and a turret. This is such a weak place to secure in comparison, as a lot of SCPs can avoid the turret by standing directly beneath it, or just avoid it entirely such as the TYPE-GREEN bullet freeze or 8837s TP (this can also avoid teslas).
Perhaps giving E-11 more power to actually secure HCZ could solve this issue, such as more spawns in HCZ that is closer to secondary, a tesla gate by secondary entrance, or maybe some other factors that could be considered that I haven’t thought of.
Currently, there isn’t exactly a downside for SCPs to go to LCZ via the secondary entrance, because the only other 2 options are either stay in HCZ, or take a guaranteed 3000 damage from the tesla gates by primary. This needs to be (at least from my perspective) rectified. Thoughts?

 

[Langstädtler]

ow: a disorganized group of bodies thrown at a problem until it is either resolved or ERT is called in.

I would go as far as to say that, based on some of the opinions I have heard, ERT has effectively become the new E-11 on the USA and UK sides. Unless meaningful changes are made to improve E-11, this will remain the prevailing meta.

I would say you already answerd yourself on why these Buffs would do nothing, if you do not Organzie in fighting Breaches and just throw yourself at the SCP you wont be able to fight them.

 

[MrSwatPL]

I do understand these ideas, but I think they will make E-11 too overpowered?
Breaches should last longer and be more deadly/scarier.

Regarding the technician, these tools were added to Nu7s and E11s a year ago for a test and were removed, since TE became obsolete.

SCPRP is kinda a thriller so it can't be all too easy to RC SCPs.

 

[Dusk]

I would say you already answerd yourself on why these Buffs would do nothing, if you do not Organzie in fighting Breaches and just throw yourself at the SCP you wont be able to fight them.

Okay cool, get rid of the AA stuff and calling ERT. It doesn't change the fact utility is needed.

ERT is effective because of their utility, not because of their organization.

As SCPs grow stronger and more complex, the current state of E-11 only becomes weaker by comparison. Our utility consists of cameras, manpower, and Advanced Armory. None of these are particularly effective unless they are used in perfect coordination, which requires full effort and cooperation from everyone involved, not just one person giving orders.

While it is possible to organize E-11 into a firing line, how do you maintain that kind of posture during events where it is not practical? How do we compete when facing surface events, SCPs working together, or a lack of support from other groups? There are countless factors that can go wrong to the point where the only outcome is to immediately call for ERT.

ERT’s utility is so powerful that there is no doubt E-11 will continue to be overshadowed unless E-11 is provided with the necessary tools and support. This will remain the case for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether that change comes from this post or another.

 

[John Apex]

Long Story, Short : Support most of the changes in this content suggestion

1. ERT Authorization Transfer

Change:
Transfer the authority to call in ERT from Site Administration+ to E-11 Major+.

Benefit:
This gives the power to those directly involved in breach situations. Relying on staff receiving secondhand reports often causes delays. Allowing Major+ to make the call ensures faster, more informed deployment of ERT when it’s actually needed.

I can see the pros/cons of this one being ERT being deployed prematurely when its not actually required but I can see where you are coming from having to relay to SA and others regarding the breach but this would be resolved by having SA and others involved in calling ERT watching the breach play out via CCTV (If they do not do so already) / Accessing operatives headcams to assess the situation from the perspective on the ground.

With the new addition of the radios addon this may become less of an issue as instead of having to type out a message detailing the situation they can just connect to the radio freq used by E-11 and be given a rundown of the situation from whoever is leading the breach.

2. E-11 Exclusive AA Regulations

Change:
Remove E-11 from global AA restrictions. Introduce E-11-specific AA protocols based on threat levels, number of personnel, and ranking authorizations.

Benefit:
This ensures those actively engaging threats can make real-time decisions. It reduces inefficiencies caused by upper management who aren't on the battlefield. Many breaches could have been contained if E-11 had the authority to escalate when it mattered most.

Bit iffy on this one as it would depend on what the "E-11 specific AA protocols" would look like and how exactly this would be enforced but I believe if these protocols were detailed enough it might be a good idea.

3. Keycard Clearance Override Overhaul

Change:
Shift from job title-based access to level-based access on the keycard itself.

Clearance Breakdown:

• Private – Specialist: No change to clearance access.
• Lance Corporal: Access to HCZ bulkheads and SCP-682’s chamber.
• Corporal – Sergeant: Full access to all doors except Electrical and 008
• Command Sergeant – Commander: Access to SCP-008 and syringe keypad and all other restricted doors.

Benefit:
E-11 activity has always been inconsistent. Without COs present, tasks stall. This change empowers senior members to maintain structure, even during low-command activity periods.

This was brought up in the past specifically in regards to getting override for 079 which has been denied by content as far as I am aware but it would be something I would actually love to see implemented. I believe E-11 lore wise would have full access to HCZ as they are deployed to the site in order to deal with SCP Breaches instead of being stationed within the site itself. Can't really contain a breach if your having trouble accessing certain areas of the site which house those SCPs. While yes you can request a higher clearance personnel to come assist if its a situation in which the only CL4/s on site is/are in a non-combative department its not gonna be ideal having to risk bring them down from an RP perspective as your putting their life at risk and delays the breach until you can get access to that area.

High Pop - Not really an issue as you usually have a Combative CL4/s on site to allow people access.

Low Pop - If 079 is breached for example, you have to hack 2 CL4 doors and then hack the SCP to recontain it. Good Hackers not really an issue just takes a bit of time but if your decent/bad or just have bad luck you are going have a really bad time dealing with this and if you get killed womp womp time to start again.

E-11 Engineer CPL+ (1Slot)

Basic Info:

• Role: Combat support and fortification
• Toolset:
  • Repair tool for reinforcing doors mid-attack
  • Deployable armor packs that gradually boost teammate survivability
• Combat Profile: Moderate effectiveness in close-quarters situations with a utility-heavy design

Benefit of Both Roles:
These additions expand E-11 functionality beyond standard breach response. They allow for tactical plays, early breach warnings, and supportive combat strategies, giving E-11 the variety it needs to evolve with new threats.

Believe the same has been side for Engineers while an E-11 Engineer personally would be a good addition especially when nobody wants to play as ETS and your stuck with the possibility of doors still being broken by the time the next breach happens which leads to the SCPs speed running to LCZ depending on which doors remain broken but it would also take away from the ETS gameplay as the majority of the time they are needed is to repair doors inside of the Heavy Containment Zone.

Regarding the Pathfinder job I don't believe it would be a good addition while I would like to see a more tactical approach for E-11 being able to deal with SCPs instead of just shooting a hail of bullets at them an example of how this could be done in my option SCP gates like ERT have to try funnel the SCPs a certain direction as yes while the SCPs can break the gate with time they may decide to try find an alternative way to get around it which is the hopeful intention leading them to another hail of bullet but this time it being organized. To prevent SCPs being trapped like they do get when ERT are deployed and melted maybe lower the HP of the gate given to E-11 to allow this to still happen but easier for SCPs to break through in order to not impact SCPs entirely. It could also be something E-11 pick up from AA while not being classed as actual AA and only to be used in the case of multiple SCPs breaching containment. (Rough idea but gives an idea of the possible ways it could be done)

 

[Dusk]

Long Story, Short : Support most of the changes in this content suggestion


I can see the pros/cons of this one being ERT being deployed prematurely when its not actually required but I can see where you are coming from having to relay to SA and others regarding the breach but this would be resolved by having SA and others involved in calling ERT watching the breach play out via CCTV (If they do not do so already) / Accessing operatives headcams to assess the situation from the perspective on the ground.

With the new addition of the radios addon this may become less of an issue as instead of having to type out a message detailing the situation they can just connect to the radio freq used by E-11 and be given a rundown of the situation from whoever is leading the breach.



Bit iffy on this one as it would depend on what the "E-11 specific AA protocols" would look like and how exactly this would be enforced but I believe if these protocols were detailed enough it might be a good idea.


This was brought up in the past specifically in regards to getting override for 079 which has been denied by content as far as I am aware but it would be something I would actually love to see implemented. I believe E-11 lore wise would have full access to HCZ as they are deployed to the site in order to deal with SCP Breaches instead of being stationed within the site itself. Can't really contain a breach if your having trouble accessing certain areas of the site which house those SCPs. While yes you can request a higher clearance personnel to come assist if its a situation in which the only CL4/s on site is/are in a non-combative department its not gonna be ideal having to risk bring them down from an RP perspective as your putting their life at risk and delays the breach until you can get access to that area.

High Pop - Not really an issue as you usually have a Combative CL4/s on site to allow people access.

Low Pop - If 079 is breached for example, you have to hack 2 CL4 doors and then hack the SCP to recontain it. Good Hackers not really an issue just takes a bit of time but if your decent/bad or just have bad luck you are going have a really bad time dealing with this and if you get killed womp womp time to start again.


Believe the same has been side for Engineers while an E-11 Engineer personally would be a good addition especially when nobody wants to play as ETS and your stuck with the possibility of doors still being broken by the time the next breach happens which leads to the SCPs speed running to LCZ depending on which doors remain broken but it would also take away from the ETS gameplay as the majority of the time they are needed is to repair doors inside of the Heavy Containment Zone.

Regarding the Pathfinder job I don't believe it would be a good addition while I would like to see a more tactical approach for E-11 being able to deal with SCPs instead of just shooting a hail of bullets at them an example of how this could be done in my option SCP gates like ERT have to try funnel the SCPs a certain direction as yes while the SCPs can break the gate with time they may decide to try find an alternative way to get around it which is the hopeful intention leading them to another hail of bullet but this time it being organized. To prevent SCPs being trapped like they do get when ERT are deployed and melted maybe lower the HP of the gate given to E-11 to allow this to still happen but easier for SCPs to break through in order to not impact SCPs entirely. It could also be something E-11 pick up from AA while not being classed as actual AA and only to be used in the case of multiple SCPs breaching containment. (Rough idea but gives an idea of the possible ways it could be done)

The biggest issue is lack of proper leadership. Normally all high commanding positions are a pissing contest, so don't expect any rational person to take charge where it counts minus a few very veteranized individuals that I respect deeply.

Bit iffy on this one as it would depend on what the "E-11 specific AA protocols" would look like and how exactly this would be enforced but I believe if these protocols were detailed enough it might be a good idea.

I actually have a document completely outlining what I think would be good authorizations, they follow similar global policies but authorizations by personnel are changed, and what is breached.
AA Auths

• 41 minutes ago
• New
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #31

Long Story, Short : Support most of the changes in this content suggestion

1. ERT Authorization Transfer

Change:
Transfer the authority to call in ERT from Site Administration+ to E-11 Major+.

Benefit:
This gives the power to those directly involved in breach situations. Relying on staff receiving secondhand reports often causes delays. Allowing Major+ to make the call ensures faster, more informed deployment of ERT when it’s actually needed.
Click to expand...

I can see the pros/cons of this one being ERT being deployed prematurely when its not actually required but I can see where you are coming from having to relay to SA and others regarding the breach but this would be resolved by having SA and others involved in calling ERT watching the breach play out via CCTV (If they do not do so already) / Accessing operatives headcams to assess the situation from the perspective on the ground.

With the new addition of the radios addon this may become less of an issue as instead of having to type out a message detailing the situation they can just connect to the radio freq used by E-11 and be given a rundown of the situation from whoever is leading the breach.

2. E-11 Exclusive AA Regulations

Change:
Remove E-11 from global AA restrictions. Introduce E-11-specific AA protocols based on threat levels, number of personnel, and ranking authorizations.

Benefit:
This ensures those actively engaging threats can make real-time decisions. It reduces inefficiencies caused by upper management who aren't on the battlefield. Many breaches could have been contained if E-11 had the authority to escalate when it mattered most.

Bit iffy on this one as it would depend on what the "E-11 specific AA protocols" would look like and how exactly this would be enforced but I believe if these protocols were detailed enough it might be a good idea.

3. Keycard Clearance Override Overhaul

Change:
Shift from job title-based access to level-based access on the keycard itself.

Clearance Breakdown:

• Private – Specialist: No change to clearance access.
• Lance Corporal: Access to HCZ bulkheads and SCP-682’s chamber.
• Corporal – Sergeant: Full access to all doors except Electrical and 008
• Command Sergeant – Commander: Access to SCP-008 and syringe keypad and all other restricted doors.

Benefit:
E-11 activity has always been inconsistent. Without COs present, tasks stall. This change empowers senior members to maintain structure, even during low-command activity periods.
Click to expand...

This was brought up in the past specifically in regards to getting override for 079 which has been denied by content as far as I am aware but it would be something I would actually love to see implemented. I believe E-11 lore wise would have full access to HCZ as they are deployed to the site in order to deal with SCP Breaches instead of being stationed within the site itself. Can't really contain a breach if your having trouble accessing certain areas of the site which house those SCPs. While yes you can request a higher clearance personnel to come assist if its a situation in which the only CL4/s on site is/are in a non-combative department its not gonna be ideal having to risk bring them down from an RP perspective as your putting their life at risk and delays the breach until you can get access to that area.

High Pop - Not really an issue as you usually have a Combative CL4/s on site to allow people access.

Low Pop - If 079 is breached for example, you have to hack 2 CL4 doors and then hack the SCP to recontain it. Good Hackers not really an issue just takes a bit of time but if your decent/bad or just have bad luck you are going have a really bad time dealing with this and if you get killed womp womp time to start again.

High pop or low pop is just a fallacy at this point. If its an issue it needs to be resolved no matter the number of people. The largest issue is lack of CO presence, I can't change that personally, and E-11 has had historically terrible leadership so its a reoccurring issue that wont change unless change is made.

 

['Dutch']

This suggestion seems very USA based and I will give my opinion on this as the current E-11 commander from the UK side.

1. ERT Authorization Transfer

I get the idea behind this, however at the current state for UK this is not viable. It takes away from being a site manager & E-11 REGCOM is usually quite busy with actively combatting the breaches.

2. E-11 Exclusive AA Regulations

This is unneeded. If I need a private to have AA I can request or grant this myself. No need to actively have AA.

3. Keycard Clearance Override Overhaul

This gets my support. My CO team was already talking to the US commander about having the keycard changes set back to having access to ALL CL4 scp's. It's dumb that E-11 don't have extra override, so I agree with this.

4. Containment Beam Utility Overhaul

We on UK already utilise beams quite often, this seems like a US problem.

5. New E-11 Roles: Pathfinder & Engineer

Both these roles will not be added. The reasoning for this is because of how MTF's are build. The build up is: Enlisted job -> Specialist/medic/biohazard -> Some form of LMG job -> CO -> COM. If E-11 were to get this engineer or pathfinder, then it would seem unfair to the other MTF's.

 

[SamPaval]

Override Big + support

everything else? massive negative support, adding all that at once would make playing scps hell. especially that pathfinder engineer and Containment beam change.

the pathfinder job is legit just "i wanna metagame but not be warned for it" as a job. the engineer takes away from the tech role entirely and makes them obsolete, and the containment beam already slows down the scp. but the other 2? fuck no lmao, especially the disabling ability's. that's what Scranton's are for.

this was purely made from an E-11 POV and not considering the other side of the coin which is the SCPs, there would be no point in breaching or becoming a CO even as a CSG you can basically solo a breach yourself if given chems

 

[Emilia Foddg]

The reasoning for this is because of how MTF's are build. The build up is: Enlisted job -> Specialist/medic/biohazard -> Some form of LMG job -> CO -> COM. If E-11 were to get this engineer or pathfinder, then it would seem unfair to the other MTF's.

This is a strange analysis that implies that all four MTFs are intended to be extremely samey - Plus IIRC, it's just patently untrue by virtue of there being some MTFs with more jobs than others.

It's supposed to be that E-11 are "The SCPs MTF," Nu7 are "The SOPs MTF" and AO are "The EC/O5 MTFs", even though it's not their sole focus and they have other duties; Some of which are shared between regiments purpose-wise, for example E-11 patrols as well as guards POIs & checkpoints in HCZ/LCZ and Nu7 patrol as well as guard POIs & checkpoints in EZ/surface.

They're not supposed to be completely symmetrical - They're supposed to be geared for their specific area of what they do. Strong in one particular area, weaker in others.

adding all that at once would make playing scps hell. especially that pathfinder [...]

the pathfinder job is legit just "i wanna metagame but not be warned for it" as a job.

At the strength that the suggestion suggests it at, I agree. TBH, the discussion of an "E-11 TB" type job is not particularly new and still has some interest. I feel like dismissing the idea outright is not constructive.

...I would honestly also not mind a rework of Breacher that shifts it toward the idea of what this suggestion's pathfinder is supposed to be, but not fully.

Containment beam change.
[...]
and the containment beam already slows down the scp. but the other 2? fuck no lmao, especially the disabling ability's. that's what Scranton's are for.

It's been stated that the idea is you would switch between beam modes to produce different effects when beaming. One thing you have to remember is that a big part of the reason people don't like breach gameplay is that for the most part it's literally just, you throw wave of meat at the SCPs and shoot until you die or get it recontained.

Having beams be able to do other things could add a different and refreshing dynamic to engaging SCPs where you could have people doing standard combative engagement and people trying to get a beam on it for its effect, which would make the SCP have to choose between going for the people actively damaging it or the people actively adversely affecting it in other ways.

Of course as has already been stated multiple times, this is already the case on UK because people over here figured out that you could just do this already with the beam being able to slow the SCPs and thus we already have this sort of thing going. This would just add other options.

 

[Dusk]

You can modify any of these jobs. This is a suggestion not a fact sheet, I'm not here to create a finished product for the developers or content team, my goal is to stimulate to keep ideas fresh and progression moving forward.

Engineer could have his repair tool on a charge to prevent abuse.
Pathfinder could have his abilities tied to direct eye contact like 173 and last for 5 seconds and as long as he's alive.

There's plenty of ways to reconfigure this job to have more downsides than positives, its not hard.

 

[Steven]

for the clearance overide make it where every LCPL has acces to every SCP CC like on US

 

[Emilia Foddg]

You can modify any of these jobs. This is a suggestion not a fact sheet, I'm not here to create a finished product for the developers or content team, my goal is to stimulate to keep ideas fresh and progression moving forward.

Engineer could have his repair tool on a charge to prevent abuse.
Pathfinder could have his abilities tied to direct eye contact like 173 and last for 5 seconds and as long as he's alive.

There's plenty of ways to reconfigure this job to have more downsides than positives, its not hard.

I agree - However generally speaking, if you want your idea to have a better chance of passing, the onus is on you to refine its appeal to CT. They're less inclined to take and work with a vague outline of something, than they are with something that has been tweaked according to community feedback.

 

[Dusk]

I agree - However generally speaking, if you want your idea to have a better chance of passing, the onus is on you to refine its appeal to CT. They're less inclined to take and work with a vague outline of something, than they are with something that has been tweaked according to community feedback.

I do not disagree with this point. However, I am a firm believer in creativity. If your approach to suggestions is to choose from a pool based purely on what each can contribute, then ultimately that decision lies with the individuals in charge. You risk diluting the quality of the contributor if the focus becomes solely about how detailed or polished the suggestion is, rather than the potential behind it. This is not to say that suggestions should not be well thought out, but sometimes broad or vague ideas can lead to larger and more impactful outcomes.


At the end of the day, the responsibility of shaping something useful from a suggestion falls to the developers and content team, not just the person proposing the idea. As I have said before, I could easily take this suggestion and turn it into any number of things. However, it is up to the developers and CT to determine what direction they would like to see it go. That is why I try to submit broader suggestions, even if they are not accepted, in order to provide room for future possibilities.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

At the end of the day, the responsibility of shaping something useful from a suggestion falls to the developers and content team, not just the person proposing the idea. As I have said before, I could easily take this suggestion and turn it into any number of things. However, it is up to the developers and CT to determine what direction they would like to see it go. That is why I try to submit broader suggestions, even if they are not accepted, in order to provide room for future possibilities.

I don't necessarily disagree with this rhetoric overall, however I disagree with the idea that what I said is contrary to creativity - To my knowledge, processing suggestions is not the only thing CT do, nor is it their focus, and when they do, they try to get through multiple suggestions at once, for these reasons they can't be reasonably expected to trawl and pick apart the nuances of pages of discussion. IMO, you can still refine while keeping the general idea broad, by piling on some of the good points raised in subsequent discussion in a way that doesn't push them as explicit prescriptions.