Content Suggestion Increase inspectors body armour

Content Suggestions will be reviewed by Content Team weekly, please allow time as not everything can be reviewed at once.
absbb8

absbb8

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Advent 2025
Aug 15, 2024
39
6
61
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This is just me suggesting giving more body armour to inspectors, it should be at least 50 and not like 25 like agents or operatives, investigators get like 50
at the bare minimum increase it to 50 or make it 75

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I don't think this has ever been suggested before

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
1.inspectors actually can help in code 1's and 2's without issues.
2. inspectors don't get folded like a omelette every time they get into a high risk situation (which they usually do)

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
1. Ci might have a harder time killing inspectors,
2. maybe a little unfair for d classes

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I mean ill get to the point why do inspectors have a player models with heavy armour if all they get is 25 armour doesn't make sense, I get they also have suit models but in general the low amount of body armour really is a general inconvenient thing that can help ISD, even if its just a little bit
 
Upvote -8 Downvote
Tiffany Lilly said:
-Support
ISD are semi-combative job, they shouldn't need more armor and if they do they can go to a armory to get more
Click to expand...
No they aren't? Never have been, even as IA. That was a stupid made up concept by people who didnt like the department and wanted an excuse to make sits when things didnt go their way and IA used combative means. IA and ISD were and are both listed as combative departments in the servers rules.

As for this suggestion I dont see an issue with this and takes little effort to set up. +support.
 
Cain Morris said:
No they aren't? Never have been, even as IA. That was a stupid made up concept by people who didnt like the department and wanted an excuse to make sits when things didnt go their way and IA used combative means. IA and ISD were and are both listed as combative departments in the servers rules.

As for this suggestion I dont see an issue with this and takes little effort to set up. +support.
Click to expand...
Term was hated, but yes, they were semi-combative.

In terms of the suggestion,

-support. You should only be responding to codes once all non-combatives are safe and when all POIs are manned. Neither of which really need armor. I do get your point, and if you had a limited max armor I'd understand the request for an increase but as it stands I dont see the need
 
The whole idea of the base armour being for balance doesn't make any sense for jobs that can just use an armour. If you can access armouries, not spawning with 100 armour is literally just an inconvenience and doesn't make a difference to anything outside of enemies being pretty much inside your spawn.

Neither does it make sense that they shouldn't need armour because they're just for protecting PoIs and arresting people - if someone's going to attack them, they'd want full armour, regardless of who is doing it. Bullets don't do less damage because they're from your own faction. Other duties like protecting PoIs you'd also definitely want full armour, because you're usually the last line of defence for e.g. an SCP getting into PW and killing all the non-combatives.

+Support
imo all jobs should either spawn with 100 AP or 0AP if they can access armouries - anything in between is just an inconvenience and doesn't actually affect balance. It only makes sense to give 0<AP<100 if the person can't access an armoury, e.g. MC&D, Parawatch, non-combatives, etc. - everyone else can and will access an armoury immediately after spawning, which only wastes time and doesn't help anyone.
 
ISD is currently combative but here’s the thing, isd isn’t the same kind of combative as say SOP which like raids ci and all that.

Regardless of that ISD deals with different things of combat (techie cartels shooting at us) which require us to have more body armor and for some reason content won’t give us an armory. So if you won’t give us an armory atleast give us this as every other combative department isnt like this.

+support
 
Last edited:
Cain Morris said:
No they aren't? Never have been, even as IA. That was a stupid made up concept by people who didnt like the department and wanted an excuse to make sits when things didnt go their way and IA used combative means. IA and ISD were and are both listed as combative departments in the servers rules.

As for this suggestion I dont see an issue with this and takes little effort to set up. +support.
Click to expand...
Not true at all.

At the beginning, IA was always noncombative. Then, IA was made combative only in the means to carry out arrests and investigations. It said that quite clearly in the server rules:
Internal Affairs Department (May not actively seek out combat; May only be combative if it'll assist in arrests and investigations).

They did not become fully combative until ISD, and even now they should be focused on exactly what their job is: arrests and investigations. They are not combative in the sense that any other department is. Server rules dictate if they are considered combat and may realistically enter combat, not their comparison in terms of "combativeness" against other groups.

anyways -support if gensec doesn't get 100 armor then isd shouldn't get it either. killing d class is more deadly than arresting chef jonquavious mustard.
 
+support

Let me say this: ISD had armor batteries for a while - before they all got removed. They are combative, and are expected to assist with codes - sometimes in different ways but still expected to, and it makes no sense to make a combative unit run all the way up Security Sector to grab armor, just to survive a little bit longer when it counts. Especially as the tranq no longer works against CI, which is a bit annoying.
 
I don't normally comment on these suggestions, however I'll throw in my two cents as it were. I can only speak to UK side.
  • ISA/IA are a combative department, this semi combative nonsense, no.
  • I agree, ISA should not be given 100 armour, however content team should look to increase this slightly. (Current is 25)
  • The idea of "no go to the armoury" - Fair enough, lets remove all armour from everyone then since it's not difficult...
  • ISD routinely on UK side are expected to assist with Code 1 and Code 5 calls - This puts them in direct conflict with persons/entities who shreds 25 armour in less than a second. Making ISD more cannon fodder than any realistic defence.
  • ISD routinely interact with personnel who have automatic firearms and more than just an itchy trigger finger with 100 armour. Realistically, unless you have a ISD swat unit (New suggestion 0_O?) ISD can barely deal with the MTF units as it is with their current load out, I don't see how adding another 25 armour is going to effect the site drastically.
  • I don't think this should be limited to just Inspectors either. Maybe some middle ground can be found within this ISD dpt.
On a personal note, I feel people need to separate their feelings from ISD being the department you hate because they arrest you and hence, any ISD suggestion must be against, to actually, is this suggestion, helpful or an hindrance to both ISD and the wider site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: James V and Broda
Originally, I was a bit "meh" on the idea but Jericho and Hersh make a very valid point. We are required now to respond to PW/CS CI incursions which are very frequent and get shredded very quickly due to having such low armor value.

Either pop an armory in the CL3 Arresting NPC area so we have to go do a minor interaction (Like gathering a clipboard anyway) or set the values a bit higher.

+Support
 
Zen said:
The term was hated because it was part of 90% of the server completely misreading the old rules. Everyone claimed they weren't allowed to "seek out combat" regardless of circumstance, which was never true.
Click to expand...
When they were IA semi-combative was a thing since they couldn't seek combat outside of arrests and whatnot
 
Snake said:
When they were IA semi-combative was a thing since they couldn't seek combat outside of arrests and whatnot
Click to expand...
The way it was worded was that they couldn't seek out combat with raids and breaches. They were always allowed to seek out combat in regards to things like D-class and Foundation staff. Unfortunately, many people, including members of SL at the time, were unable to actually read and did not understand this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back