Accepted Maintenance/Engineering Department

[Zen]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
I would like maintenance/engineering to be a full department, with multiple different roles. Parts of this would need to wait until containment maintenance is added, but other parts can exist independently and add quality content to the server.

The role structure for this theoretical department I had in mind would be as follows:

• Chief Engineer / Head of Engineering / Director of Engineering/E&TS (whatever the name should be, same concept)
  • Department chief, can organise training, roleplay, documents, department policies, etc. for maintenance roles
  • Can job ban people from maintenance roles
  • Can credit other maintenance roles
  • CL4, door repair tool, technician tool, pistol purely for self defence (like consultants have), maybe the SCP maintenance tool, radio, clipboard, able to interact with subsystem boxes, headcam
  • Whitelisted, selected by site administration
• Senior Engineer
  • Support 20 and/or whitelisted, selected by Chief Engineer
  • Trusted engineer, can lead roleplay situations, enter LHCZ and other CL3 areas to repair things
  • EDIT: Can job ban lower E&TS roles, must alert department head and possibly log details/evidence.
  • CL3, door repair tool, technician tool, pistol (self defence, as they will be able to enter LHCZ, etc.), radio, clipboard, able to interact with subsystem boxes, headcam
  • Can credit lower maintenance staff or just engineers/IT techs with approval from maintenance chief/staff
• Containment Engineer
  • Support 20 and/or whitelisted, selected by Chief Engineer
  • Trusted engineer, but based purely around SCP maintenance rather than general site maintenance
  • CL3, SCP maintenance tool, repair tool, pistol (self defence, LHCZ), radio, possibly a containment beam for passifying SCPs if they have to enter a containment chamber (not sure on this one, should probably just be supported by a combatant), clipboard, headcam
  • As is in-progress/planned on the dev tracker here
• Technical Expert - same as it already is, plus radio, clipboard and headcam
• Engineer - same as it already is, plus radio, clipboard and headcam
• IT Technician - same as it already is, plus radio, clipboard and headcam

All but the containment engineer could be added now, though the containment maintenance would obviously be a huge W for maintenance.

As part of this, it would also make sense for the engineering department to have it's own comms channel like other departments do.

I also think the technician tool should do more, and I have ideas for that, but I'll make a separate suggestion for that. EDIT: Here's the suggestion for this.

EDIT: I have just found this thread suggesting some parts of this that was rejected, but that didn't seem to be suggesting a department structure and broader changes like this, but simply having a maintenance head. The reason it was rejected also seems a bit off, considering it claims that changes to it are already coming, but that was back in April and there's still no update or changes (other than the removal of Containment Specialists). I believe the supposedly upcoming changes are likely referring to the addition of containment maintenance, but it has been implied by developers and staff in the Discord that this is likely a while off still even now, and this suggestion can still mostly be implemented right now in about 15 minutes by an admin, and is fully compatible with what is publicly known about the planned maintenance changes. The rejection also suggests that SA alone are enough to manage roles like this, but considering the ongoing minge issue with these roles, that clearly isn't the case.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Various changes to tech experts and maintenance have been suggested, but I don't believe this specifically has. It is also not clear what the upcoming changes to maintenance are or when they will arrive, beyond the addition of containment maintenance, and so when suggestions get denied because of upcoming changes, it's very unhelpful. I understand wanting to keep things under wraps until they are ready, but it would be very helpful to get some more communication on this.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

• Tech experts and the like would likely be much less mingey when there's department chiefs that can job ban them for it and actively are doing so as part of their role
  • EDIT: Just to point out, the only people who can job ban them right now are SA, and it's difficult enough just to get in contact with one most of the time, nevermind trying to get SA to deal with tech experts. I've tried. It doesn't work, or it takes so long they've probably already logged off for the night.
• Much better maintenance RP and interactions with other site staff
• Less annoyance by tech experts that actually play properly, due to less minges bringing their rep down, and the ability to actually get into CL3/4 places to fix things.
• More to do, as there is a whole new department that you can work in and progress through
• Department can then be expanded/changed in the future as needed, with changes informed by people that regularly play on it, which would be difficult right now
• Engineers can make documents and the like for the department and there's actually a role that can accept them - e.g. guides for new players, roleplay documents, etc.
• More organised and active maintenance roles, as it'd be more interesting to play and there's progression possibilities to work towards, so possibly things get fixed quicker when requested
• Active maintenance players can then work out department policies, documentation, etc. to use, and it can be fleshed out organically by players
• Things likely get fixed quicker with there being much more organisation, radios, comms channel
• Potentially a lot of benefits for something that is mostly just job configuration and the like, so likely not too difficult to do
• EDIT: As I have seen in another suggestion thread around Tech Experts that just got denied - there absolutely is a reason for higher clearance maintenance roles. Actually try playing tech expert and getting into electrical centres or LHCZ to fix something - 9/10 times nobody will ever respond or help you, unless you happen to find somebody nearby with the appropriate clearance to open things for you. Actually, for real, try and request somebody to open HCZ electrical centre once, before you reject based on clearance levels.
• EDIT: Just remembered that the credit system exists - having this department structure would also allow people in these roles to be credited easier/at all (I'm not sure anyone can credit maintenance staff, I've certainly never been to my memory, and it definitely doesn't regularly happen). Right now, it's basically impossible to get any XP other than activity XP on these roles outside of the periods shortly after a breach.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

• With there being higher clearance jobs in this area, it is possible that existing minges might try to abuse these. This can be solved using job bans, whitelists and high support level requirements as appropriate
• EDIT: As a few people have pointed out, this could potentially lead to more people being on these roles and detracting from other departments' numbers. I don't personally think this would happen enough to be even really noticeable, but in case this is the case, or content team are concerned about it, Tech Expert and above roles could simply have low slot numbers, e.g. 1 chief, 2 senior, 2 containment, 3 Tech Expert - would lead to likely only like 2 extra people total being away from other departments.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
It adds a lot of RP potential for maintenance roles, would likely improve the situation with minges commonly using these roles, and adds more to do with these roles, including departmental progression and document making.

This also brings structure to the maintenance roles, meaning there's players that content team can talk to about further maintenance changes, and it adds a base for the planned containment changes to be added to.

Also, for the full list of positives above, I think this is mostly just job configuration, so it shouldn't be much work for staff to make these changes while adding all of those benefits. It's also not just a simple change like simply making CL3 tech experts that could potentially make minges worse, but could instead help solve the minge issue with these roles. I'm of the opinion that the minging in these roles is a combination of a lack of oversight (which these changes would solve) and simply a lack of anything to do during long periods of time where nothing is broken (which these changes would also help with).

Even if not all of this is implemented, literally any improvements along these lines to maintenance would be great, as it's currently pretty dead and could really do with some improvements.

EDIT: The SCiPNet terminals seem to refer to such a department as "Foundation Engineering and Technical Service Department", which is something you can find on the SCP Wiki on a page describing different departments. This brief description is given for it. That sounds like a good enough name to me for this, and would fit with existing content on the server. Shorthand is E&TS.

 

[Sam Montgomery]

+ Support

Great ideas, would be good to see more potential for RP within maintenance.

 

[Douglas]

+Support
This would make it a more moderated and enjoyable role. The developers would definitely have to add more things to fix/maintain so the roles don’t get boring.

 

[Broda]

Edit: Changing to +Support. I've seen the RP potential for this and I believe it would benefit the server greatly.

 

[Zen]

I'd like to support this, but I can't.

Player base is already split across a ton of roles and adding this as a dedicated department will just spread population even more thinly. If some other departments or GOIs removed which pulls players together a bit more, then sure. As it is right now though, I have to say -Support

That's valid. I feel like people switch back and forth between jobs enough though that it probably wouldn't be a huge issue, though. I also feel like given maintenance is a completely different type of gameplay to basically everything else that's it's own department/regiment, it's just an additional thing that people do, rather than directly detracting from any one department at any time enough to cause an actual gameplay issue. At peak times, most of the interesting roles are full anyway, so just having a couple extra interesting things to do would hopefully not be a problem.

If this is an actual problem that content team are concerned with, the maintenance roles could simply have low slot numbers to prevent it from interfering too much in role balances.

 

[Kevin Ki]

+support

I think this could cut down on the idea that tech expert is a minge class.

 

[Michael Dzhetnikov]

I'd like to support this, but I can't.

Player base is already split across a ton of roles and adding this as a dedicated department will just spread population even more thinly. If some other departments or GOIs removed which pulls players together a bit more, then sure. As it is right now though, I have to say -Support

most people already main tech expert and hopefully this will filter out the minges, with them assumingly being able to job ban

 

[Painter]

+/- support

Maybe if server could have higher pop, but people already split between MTFs, GOIs, departments, and GSD/D-Class, would create a bigger divide. Maybe if GMOD could handle 200 player servers…….

 

[Zen]

+/- support

Maybe if server could have higher pop, but people already split between MTFs, GOIs, departments, and GSD/D-Class, would create a bigger divide. Maybe if GMOD could handle 200 player servers…….

It is possible that the roles could just have low slot numbers, like 1/2 each, to prevent this from being a big issue.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

okay so,
as the suggestion already is, i'd give a
+Major Support
but i do notice something in particular, and my suggestion regarding that would also properly alleviate broda's (and painter's) comment(s) here (which i do agree may be an issue regarding this):

I'd like to support this, but I can't.

Player base is already split across a ton of roles and adding this as a dedicated department will just spread population even more thinly. If some other departments or GOIs removed which pulls players together a bit more, then sure. As it is right now though, I have to say -Support

let me run you through my thinking - currently as it is, the 'site staff' job group/section consists of (foundation) chef, engineer, tech expert and it technician. compared to the rest of the site, fairly isolated jobs, although 3 are similar with two progressing into the one. additionally, doing all of this - just as is, would leave chef completely isolated.

now let's focus off of site staff for a second and look at IA. IA and DEA are bundled into the 'site affairs' job group/section, which makes sense on first glance, right? they are literally site affairs, one internal, one external - but if you picked them both apart further, you'd realise that them being grouped together kind of only makes sense in name only. departmentally, DEA are their own department that co-operate with Nu-7 and take orders from SA/SC+. IA, while being a department in their own right... are an arm of Ethics. sure, O-1 are the heavy lifters and ultimate enforcers of Ethics, but there is a clear hierarchy that goes "agent/operative -> ambassador -> director -> ECA -> ECM -> ECC" (another interesting thing to note is that in the 'site administration' job group/section, all of the Ethics jobs are in there, despite being site command, not site admin, even though yes, they technically administrate the site, i'm fairly certain that it's more a two sides of the same coin thing with Ethics and O5, where Ethics are the checks and balances to O5, whereas site admin is beneath both hierarchically).

so my immediate thinking regarding all of this, which as i mentioned may alleviate the issue broda brought up - is to reshuffle Ethics, IA and "Site Staff".

am i saying to make them all the same department? no. but i am saying that all of these essentially belong together in grouping.

i don't know exactly how to properly unscramble this mess? since "site staff" is already accountable to both Ethics and IA, my current rough idea is as follows, now coming back to what this thread is about, the idea of a maintenance department:

instead, combine "Chief Engineer" and IA Ambassador into one role, give them all the necessary tools and powers to perform both jobs, call it Senior Site Staff or something (let's be honest, it sounds cool, but what is an "Ambassador"?! it's something literally only IA have (unless you count GOC's Ambassador, but that's a different faction) - usually people think of an ambassador as a kind of representative (although etymologically, it makes sense since it comes from the latin ambactus, which means servant, but that's just going way deeper than we need to)... what exactly is it 'representing'? the site? "HR"?). this role would serve as an overhead to both IA agents/operatives, as well as chefs, tech experts and technicians (and can jobban them), while still being under the DoIA (which might also need to be renamed similarly. maybe something like Director of Site Staff? i don't know). then you could add another senior engineer job above tech expert, but still under what was the IA Ambassador, that is CL3 and more suited to being called to high clearance areas to fix things (such as FL3)

then in the jobs menu, group ethics and IA under site staff with the others, renaming 'Site Affairs' to just 'External Affairs'. this maintains the whole HR thing that both IA and ethics have going (since basically to CL3 and below, Ethics are supposed to look like an HR department without any real power - so why are they in site admin?), and makes more sense for both of them to be there.

TL;DR -
Ethics and IA go in the same job grouping box as site staff, IA Ambassador combined with this suggestion's Chief Engineer idea, renamed and given what's necessary to perform both roles, able to jobban mingy chefs, tech experts, engineers and technicians as well as still overseeing the IA agents/operatives. add senior engineer between tech expert and the revised IA Ambassador.

don't get me wrong, i do love the maintenance department idea, but i think this may be denied because of what broda said about it unnecessarily spreading server population - as well as it potentially leaving chef isolated, as i said

this way, not only is more done with less, but i think this clears up a weird issue i've noticed. i don't know. feel free to take this and iterate on it so that it's better.

 

[Zen]

okay so,
as the suggestion already is, i'd give a
+Major Support
but i do notice something in particular, and my suggestion regarding that would also properly alleviate broda's (and painter's) comment(s) here (which i do agree may be an issue regarding this):


let me run you through my thinking - currently as it is, the 'site staff' job group/section consists of (foundation) chef, engineer, tech expert and it technician. compared to the rest of the site, fairly isolated jobs, although 3 are similar with two progressing into the one. additionally, doing all of this - just as is, would leave chef completely isolated.

now let's focus off of site staff for a second and look at IA. IA and DEA are bundled into the 'site affairs' job group/section, which makes sense on first glance, right? they are literally site affairs, one internal, one external - but if you picked them both apart further, you'd realise that them being grouped together kind of only makes sense in name only. departmentally, DEA are their own department that co-operate with Nu-7 and take orders from SA/SC+. IA, while being a department in their own right... are an arm of Ethics. sure, O-1 are the heavy lifters and ultimate enforcers of Ethics, but there is a clear hierarchy that goes "agent/operative -> ambassador -> director -> ECA -> ECM -> ECC" (another interesting thing to note is that in the 'site administration' job group/section, all of the Ethics jobs are in there, despite being site command, not site admin, even though yes, they technically administrate the site, i'm fairly certain that it's more a two sides of the same coin thing with Ethics and O5, where Ethics are the checks and balances to O5, whereas site admin is beneath both hierarchically).

so my immediate thinking regarding all of this, which as i mentioned may alleviate the issue broda brought up - is to reshuffle Ethics, IA and "Site Staff".

am i saying to make them all the same department? no. but i am saying that all of these essentially belong together in grouping.

i don't know exactly how to properly unscramble this mess? since "site staff" is already accountable to both Ethics and IA, my current rough idea is as follows, now coming back to what this thread is about, the idea of a maintenance department:

instead, combine "Chief Engineer" and IA Ambassador into one role, give them all the necessary tools and powers to perform both jobs, call it Senior Site Staff or something (let's be honest, it sounds cool, but what is an "Ambassador"?! it's something literally only IA have (unless you count GOC's Ambassador, but that's a different faction) - usually people think of an ambassador as a kind of representative (although etymologically, it makes sense since it comes from the latin ambactus, which means servant, but that's just going way deeper than we need to)... what exactly is it 'representing'? the site? "HR"?). this role would serve as an overhead to both IA agents/operatives, as well as chefs, tech experts and technicians (and can jobban them), while still being under the DoIA (which might also need to be renamed similarly. maybe something like Director of Site Staff? i don't know). then you could add another senior engineer job above tech expert, but still under what was the IA Ambassador, that is CL3 and more suited to being called to high clearance areas to fix things (such as FL3)

then in the jobs menu, group ethics and IA under site staff with the others, renaming 'Site Affairs' to just 'External Affairs'. this maintains the whole HR thing that both IA and ethics have going (since basically to CL3 and below, Ethics are supposed to look like an HR department without any real power - so why are they in site admin?), and makes more sense for both of them to be there.

TL;DR -
Ethics and IA go in the same job grouping box as site staff, IA Ambassador combined with this suggestion's Chief Engineer idea, renamed and given what's necessary to perform both roles, able to jobban mingy chefs, tech experts, engineers and technicians as well as still overseeing the IA agents/operatives. add senior engineer between tech expert and the revised IA Ambassador.

don't get me wrong, i do love the maintenance department idea, but i think this may be denied because of what broda said about it unnecessarily spreading server population - as well as it potentially leaving chef isolated, as i said

this way, not only is more done with less, but i think this clears up a weird issue i've noticed. i don't know. feel free to take this and iterate on it so that it's better.

I'm not sure I like the idea of this. One of the points of having a Chief Engineer role would be to lead maintenance roleplay, documents, etc., whereas IA Ambassadors are somewhat like special agents and responsible for training new IA, dealing with CL4 miscreants, etc. - they are very different concepts, and have a lot to do on their own, so I feel like combining them would just dilute the roleplay and action potential of both original roles.

I do like the engagement and brainstorming though, so if there's other ways of improving this suggestion I'm open to them, I just feel like IA and maintenance are so fundamentally different roles that it wouldn't make sense and would just cause problems. That is also directly what was denied in the previous suggestion I linked in the original post, so it'd be potentially less likely to be accepted anyway.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I just feel like IA and maintenance are so fundamentally different roles that it wouldn't make sense and would just cause problems.

honestly yeah, that's the one big hang-up i had when coming up with this as i couldn't reconcile the sheer contrast between IA and engineering. my thinking was that since the site only has a semblance of typical organisational structure (leadership, human resources, specialised departments focusing on areas that the organisation specialises in (research, specialised security forces), general security, maintenance, and i guess catering, too), most probably to strike some balance between - being able to properly portray the foundation organisationally, and not spreading the limited server population too thin between all roles.

the only real way i can think to solve every problem involved is to essentially have some form of general (unspecialised) staff department that in this case would encapsulate both the weirdly isolated maintenance and catering. it's a dilemma for sure

 

[Cerül]

-/+Support
As much as I love the Engineering Core and playing Tech, I think an entire department dedicated to it is a bit overkill.

Every Department on the server plays a major role in some aspects; DEA for surface, IA for internal security, GSD for D-Block and minor internal security, Research for... obvious reasons, Medical for again - obvious reasons, and MTF regiments for more specialized and coordinated security of higher-intensity areas.
Departments like Site Leadership, Ethics, and O5 are in their own league as well.

Engineering... doesn't have much.
We have cameras, doors, computers, and electrical boxes.
Most of which people don't really care about unless it's a CC door or bulkhead, minus some exceptions (like boxes, D-Block airlock, 914 cam, surface gate).
An introduction of an entire department would most likely require more gameplay elements to warrant its addition. Tech Experts already have so little to do that they'd rather run around containing SCPs, stabbing/shooting people, or selling chemical cocktails to people, so what would making an entire department for it do but further add more roles that people will get bored in and not do their job.

The other common (and very valid) argument I see is how it would further split server population. I play on US and while it's nearly always full at normal hours, but the amount of times I've seen the same person in multiple different roles shows that it would only further add a split to what people want to play.

I do very much like this idea as I'd probably aim for Chief of Engineering, but having a CL5 as a Tech is fucking hilarious and getting away with a myriad of things I'm not supposed to is immensely more fun then getting a tribunal because I breathed wrong.

 

[Zen]

Engineering... doesn't have much.

I am making other suggestions to add more to this, which it already kind of needs (like IT tech is useless). There's also a new containment maintenance system planned and in progress which will add a significant aspect to maintenance (as mentioned around the Containment Engineer role in the original post). I feel like there is a lot of potential for roleplay, and the point of the server is supposed to be roleplay around everyday activities on a Foundation site - the breach RP we often get is actually less in tune with that than having a proper maintenance department with lots to do, so it would be more in tune to suggest e.g. that things like Nu-7 be removed than that this not be added - which I don't think is a good idea either.

I don't think adding more varied roleplay with this is going to be an issue, like I've said previously - and it would have people from all different main roles playing it due to it being completely different gameplay to any other roles, so it's unlikely to detract from any one department enough to cause any problems for literally anybody. That there might be e.g. 7 people playing engineering roles at once isn't an issue, and is pretty close to what we already sometimes have at peak times, so that there might be about 2/3 extra people playing it at a time really isn't the huge deal that it is being made out to be in terms of role balance. I'm not asking for this to be a department the size of DEA or RSD or anything, it's literally just a single-slot chief role, a couple of 2-slot roles, maybe Tech Expert can be reduced to 3-slot or something, and engineers/IT techs can remain unlimited as they already are to allow new players to get in - there's never going to be enough slots and players of engineering to cause any problems for any other departments' numbers.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

i'd also like to add to that -

like i think, if you look at SCP from just a breach perspective, the ideal C5 flow should be:
thing breaches -> breach is fought and recontained -> containment chamber is repaired -> other damage is repaired
right now we have most of that, but not all? like, fixing doors after breaches, so even just from a breach perspective, there should be an increased focused on rectification of containment failure. it's literally a third of the acronym, to contain the SCPs (secure containment protocol) so that they stay in there. and part of that should be keeping those systems fixed and running.

which is why i agree that there should be more on the maintenance side of things.

 

[Dalton]

+Major Support

 

[Renolk]

-Support

As what Broda said, it would just spread the playerbase out to a very thin bit of players staying as a role, so no constant switching and etc. To counter the part of mingy tech experts, tech experts can already be job banned.

 

[Cary “Raven”]

= SUPPORT

I love the idea and it sounds amazing. The only thing is, I do have to agree with Broda. The population of the server is already split over too many jobs and the population isn’t the highest. This would also take away more people from my department gensec as the population is already very limited and we can afford to have even less people.

 

[Zen]

I'm currently trying to promote some RP and stuff for maintenance as it is on the UK server. We now have a maintenance directory in SCiPNet and I'm writing some docs about maintenance procedures, etc. that new engineers/technicians can use. I want maintenance to encourage that sort of thing and be a more roleplay-active thing rather than just "flag on for 10 minutes, fix door, flag off". Having a maintenance chief position would provide somebody to approve these sorts of documents rather than needing SA+ approval just for a simple maintenance report.

 

[Juju]

+Support This is the best suggestion ive seen for a while and i love it this would be really worth it.