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.