Donator
Foreword
Suggestion Denied
Hi Emilia,
Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion. The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reason:
We do not accept suggestions for job slot changes, as stated in the FAQ-
Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion. The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reason:
We do not accept suggestions for job slot changes, as stated in the FAQ-
Just hold on a second. I get it.
I am attempting to bring a new argument to the table that may be palatable to staff, as opposed to just the standard, increasingly common clamour of "Increase X role's job slots." Please carefully consider what I am about to suggest. I get that what I am proposing here is basically a solution to a problem that staff see as already being solved. This does not need to be something that can be immediately tended to - I don't mind if you just leave the suggestion for another time. I know it means leaving something that you should probably be immediately throwing out, and instead having it sit for however long it takes to reach a conclusion that satisfies everyone. Fine. I just think there is potential merit to this idea, because people keep asking for it and this idea utilises something that is already implemented - If it really ends up being one of those cases where this is just not necessary and the current everything surrounding this is okay as-is, then fine. I'm just trying to resolve what I notice is recurring and admittedly one-sided concern that the community has. Which is part of the purpose of the suggestions subforum.
Please read the suggestion carefully. And sorry for this suggestion.
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
For X job with additional slot consideration (listed after), create a duplicate job. This duplicate job will differ from the original in three distinct ways:- It will use the one-life system that Foundation Thaumatologists, D-Class Scouts, D-Class Brutes & D-Class Type Blues use (And probably some other jobs that I don't know, I think CI TB also uses it? You get the point); In which if you die while on that job, you are forced off of that job and cannot switch back onto it for a given duration. I'm not going to suggest a duration - If the default isn't enough, then it can be longer. Whatever.
- It will have very few slots. Even if it's just 1 slot. Fine.
- It will have a worse loadout than its original job, if reasonably possible. This is to make people prefer the original job and not just use this as purely extra job slots for that original job.
Consider for the following non-combative jobs:
- Assistant (Both)
- Executive Researcher
- Whatever other non-combative job that you may decide where this may be reasonably applicable & appropriate
Consider for the following semi-combative jobs:
- IA Ambassador
Consider for the following combative jobs:
- MTF Officer (All)
- Maybe DEA Senior Agent?
- Containment Unit???
- Whatever other combative job that you may decide where this may be reasonably applicable & appropriate
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Trust me, I searched.There are a lot.
So many times.
People have made a suggestion.
To increase a given job's slots.
So many times in fact, that this may very well become a constant.
Three things are certain in life: Death, Taxes & Job Slot Increase suggestions.
(each links to a different past suggestion, which asks for a job slot increase to at least one of the roles mentioned in the previous section)
There is also this one that I found for CI marksman (I was thorough as the forum search function would allow me to be), but I consider it less, as CI job slot increases are sadly less justified. Of course, pretty much all of these were denied because of what is stated in the FAQ about job slot increase suggestions. I will elaborate more on my challenging of the prior suggestion closure reasons, in my suggestion justification.
And this suggestion is different because it isn't just "Add more job slots to X job," I am offering what I hope is a more savoury solution to what I am noticing is a extant, distinct schism between staff and the community. This also is effectively re-opening every single one of those suggestions - Except the CI marksman one, sorry CI; I unfortunately just can't reasonably justify this for GOC or CI, as they are supposed to be more limited in manpower. Even though this is not intended as just a "freely usable, full extra job slot without extra considerations," it does still functionally allow at least one extra person to be that job at once - Which, considering GOC and CI, would imo, be considered as enough of an upset to the whole thing of them being supposed to be smaller.
At least that's my conclusion when it comes to a 'Would this suggestion be accepted' train of thought. The case is probably there for applying this to CI or GOC jobs, but I'm probably not the right person to argue it. Hell, I'm probably not the right person to argue this and even though I'm currently in two of the positions I've specified (not counting CU), yet my primary reasoning for this suggestion because I don't want to see any more job slot increase suggestions. Or less of them, at the very least. In my eyes, the benefits to me personally if accepted, are just a bonus.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
-
It's kind of unreasonable to expect someone whose time may already be limited for other reasons, to try and get them to stay active on roles that they are unlikely to be even able to flag onto in the first place by virtue of them being full. This is especially true in the case of Assistants where there are 2 slots each and no limit on the amount of people whitelistable.
-
We have a lot of COs in E-11. It's nice to all be our respective ranks in regimental meetings so we can... I guess give off a better image? I mean right now we kinda just get staff to force-flag us, so this would just be more convenient to staff or entirely removing their need in this circumstance - Which is especially important if we need to hold a regimental meeting, but no staff are available to fulfil this. But I guess more appropriately regarding the function of this suggestion, is about holding our CO meetings beforehand - Sometimes we have them in CL4 areas and if the Officer job's full... Yeah. I mean, we pretty much hold them almost exclusively in TS, so this point is a bit moot in that regard, but . Admittedly, another solution in this case is to just... Not have meetings in CL4 areas or otherwise adjust our meeting plans, but... Eh. It's a minor thing, really. Would be nice if I could just also use this in a non-combative capacity to like, hold a tryout as a CO, but the obvious answer to that problem is "Don't take up an Officer slot to hold a tryout."
-
Obviously, if there's more CL4 walking around at once, then CI or GOC can nab them, their keycard and their info.
-
One thing CL4s, especially non-combatives, are encouraged to do is create roleplay around the site - So obviously, more CL4 at once = More roleplay.
-
I don't remember off the top of my head what the Senior Agent slot count is, so if it's 4, this point is useless - But basically as CI or GOC, you need 4 of any mix of MTF & CL4 DEA currently flagged on to be able to raid Foundation - So like, assuming the current limit is three, let's say there's no MTF and no other CL4 DEA, but there are 4 people that can be a DEA Senior Agent (and assuming all of them would want to be Senior Agent at that time). Like, that is the minimum that is needed, but not all 4 of them can be a Senior Agent. So that means GOC & CI can't raid despite the fact the criteria can be met.
-
This has been brought up in other concerns like with CL4 MTF being able to have their CL4 card on non-officer jobs, which is a planned thing but not yet implemented - But basically, no-one ever closes BDs to HCZ when they're supposed to. Or mans AA. Of course, you can argue that that's a skill issue on the part of the community and we should really just get our act together to when it comes to doing these duties when we're supposed to, but there is also stuff like being preoccupied with other duties - Or even just being in a sit. Like one CL4 person being in a sit or otherwise unavailable for any good reason might make the difference between certain things that are supposed to be done, that would otherwise be done if they could, not being done. So it stands to reason that if more CL4 can do it... Then they can get done.
-
Scenario: You're on the Assistant overflow job, because Assistant is full. You get kidnapped by a raiding GOI, with a good, usable window to cyanide/bleach. Do you do it? This would also create incentive to get any hostages back - But also incentive to like... Just shelter and basically sit around doing almost nothing.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
-
I'm aware you've already found an appropriate medium between all job roles - And that disrupting the balance of available CL4 roles may skew the majority of scenarios and situations in favour of Foundation. I won't deny that this has the potential to impact this in a very bad and undesirable way.
-
Despite the benefits I've already given on the matter, the fact remains that this is also something a lot of people want, without really considering the drawbacks.
-
It goes without reason to say that every additional listing on the job menu would be pretty much unnecessary space taken up - I mean in an ideal world, you'd just be able to fold this into the existing job slots, so when say, Assistant is 2/2 full, you can try and flag onto Assistant and get the overflow job for 3/2; But, ignoring what is probably a technological nightmare of actually fucking with the related systems to make that possible, it would run into the following problem wherein: Someone flags onto Assistant for 3/2, starts doing stuff. One of the other Assistants flags off, so now it's 2/2. Yet that person that flagged on for 3/2 is still on the one-life system, right? So then they die, Assistant becomes 1/2 and then they're on cooldown to flag back on Assistant. So that in itself is probably a nightmare to reconcile. So really, you'd have to facilitate this with extra jobs. Which comes with all the problems that having extra jobs has.
-
I highly doubt this is just a copy & paste task - Even then, you would still have to make the one-life system apply to these jobs and screw with the loadout as I mentioned.
-
Yes. This would be the caveat that comes with having what is basically an extra job slot. The one-life is the risk, the slot is your reward, ala D-Class Scout, Brute & TB.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Sigh.I honestly have a pretty hard time justifying this. I agree that any changes to the balance of how many people can be on what roles at any given time can cause dangerous imbalances in the server ecosystem. A given faction can be too effective compared to another faction - They need to have their limits. That's a big part of why every single person whitelisted to be an Assistant, Ambassador, Exec or MTF Officer can't all be that role at once. It's a good measure to make sure people don't call on every possible person to flag on a role and overpower some other group with sheer numbers, whether it's one side of Site Command trying to run an investigation on the other and getting perfect information as a result, IA... ...I forget why having too many Ambassadors specifically would be bad, outside of general too many CL4s on at once, there's probably a reason - Or MTFs having a bit too much firepower against SCPs/GOIs.
At the same time though, we have use cases for why we need to be on these jobs, as I've stated. Assistants, Ambassadors, Execs & Senior Agents need activity to maintain their whitelists - Sure, we have stuff like LOAs and ROAs, but like in general, people aren't always going to be available all hours of the day to get on a job that people are competing for slots for. I absolutely see the case that it is just not reasonable to expect people to try and get that. Although if you think there's enough Senior Agent slots to not warrant this, then sure, that's fine. Could think about where else in DEA this might apply, such as Special Agent or Agency Manager, but those are also probably fine? Unsure. In every case, the strongest out of all of them is Assistants as they only have 2 slots.
With MTF Officers, yeah, it's a weaker case. We can just flag on any regimental job for activity purposes or for most things we're needed for, so that's pretty much moot - Although I wouldn't mind like a non-combative version of the Officer job to suit the purposes I gave. I practically play E-11 LT like a non-combative anyway, so that'd be kinda fun and interesting.
My weakest case overall here is for Containment Unit - It's balanced with two slots; I mostly only put it in case it would be reasonable for an overflow slot like I mentioned, but CUs have a lot that they are allowed to do already, so I understand that maybe not a whole extra job to facilitate the purpose of giving Containment Unit a one-life slot.
And when you put all that together, the schism I mentioned becomes visible; Why we often get a bunch of job slot increase suggestions lately, despite what it says in the FAQ. There is a genuine need for this. Unfortunately because of the way people are, I can't guarantee that this will eliminate job slot increase suggestions entirely (even though they really should be because of the FAQ). But my hope is that this will just significantly alleviate it. Like, I'm annoyed by them and I'm not even CT. I can't imagine how CT feel about this (among other things). That's not really a good justification for this, as I said with 'people want this =/= we should have it,' but it's probably enough to take a look at how we have things and determine if there is something that can be done, about the reasons why people keep asking for increases to whichever job slots?
Again, if it's just determined that this is not okay, then... Sure. Fine. It sucks, but at least I tried. But if it is, then that's cool. Hooray. The endemic job slots thing can be alleviated - Everyone's happy.. But of course, I don't see it happening.
Whichever way it goes, I'm at peace with it. I have done my part in this argument.
EDIT: I also realised that this would also allow for a potential imbalance to the level of combatives to non-combatives on at once which may skew GOI raids unfairly in their favour - Something I didn't realise with the whole job role balancing point; Because I thought it was more in the sense that more CL4s being active can more reasonably restrict the movement of SCPs, D-Class & GOis via closing blast doors, authing things and giving orders, etc.
Honestly, this is kind of already possible - But if too much of the server pop flag on non-combative roles then, you know what? That's an occupational hazard. I think this might end up regulating itself. I'm not sure.
Last edited:
Junior Developer
Programming Team
Senior Moderator
MilitaryRP Staff
Group Moderator