Denied Merge the DEA into MTF Nu-7

This suggestion has been denied and will not receive development.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
- Merges the DEA jobs seen below into the MTF Nu-7 regiment and removes any left over
Untitled.png

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
- This has not been suggested before

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Will fully resolve the overlap of duties between the DEA and MTF Nu-7
- Will recover the counter-intelligence and Code-1 response RP that Nu-7 had to sacrifice in order for the DEA to exist
- Will create a much more cohesive surface operations unit
- Will unify in-game and teamspeak communications between the two branches of surface operations, giving SOPs the coordination they need to effectively counter GOIs
- Will minimise the potential participants in the hostage negotiations chain of command, saving response time during hostage situations while the Foundation establishes who will be taking priorty in talks
- Will make MTF Nu-7 a much more holistic and authentic surface operations task force
- Will reduce the jobs profile of the DEA, which currently has a four-tier chain of command despite being a specialist department with only one major RP loop

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Some DEA players will undoubtedly disagree with being bought under new leadership they are not familiar with
- MTF Nu-7 will be required to integrate the DEA documentation into their regimental documentation
- There will be CL4 DEA jobs that need to be relegated to CL3 and it is reasonable for the CL4 DEA players to disagree with this
- The VIP Operative job will exist within a regiment, however the CI and GOC regiments hold VIP jobs which see frequent use

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
- The Foundation faction has seen three iterations of departments and regiments designed to work alongside MTF Nu-7 in surface operations; The Department of Intelligence, MTF Beta-1 and currently the Department of External Affairs and in all three cases it was a requirement for MTF Nu-7 to sacrifice parts of their passive RP to accommodate these new departments. I believe the removal of Intel and B-1 was a missed opportunity to fully integrate the spy-type jobs into MTF Nu-7 and create a much more holistic surface operations task force

- The introduction of the UNGOC and their strict diplomacy focus means that the DEA are required to engage in frequent diplomacy with the Coalition, however the DEA requires a final say on any agreements with the Coalition from Site Administration and the O5 Council before they can be signed off. It would be far more practical for Site Administration to be the front-end contact with GOIs instead of the DEA, with MTF Nu-7 providing security to Site Administration during their diplomatic duties.

- The DEA is the only department outside of Site Command and Site Administration that had a staff document drafted for them to secure and preserve the DEA's gameplay and RP from overlap and this inflexibility has marginalised MTFs Nu-7 and A-1 from getting their hands on counter-intelligence and hostage RP, this loss of crucial pieces of RP has mitigated the gameplay of MTFs Nu-7 and A-1 which is unhealthy for those regiments

- The DEA has historically and currently had very strong weapons loadouts that they inhereted from Beta-1 which are comparable and in many ways superior to MTF Nu-7s, this means that DEA jobs have a significant advantage over Nu-7 jobs, as the DEA takes priority on counter intelligence and GOI negotiations over Nu-7 while also having better loadouts than them as well as easier access to CL4 positions. Which causes players to chose to play DEA instead of Nu-7, weakening the Nu-7 regiment.

- Merging the DEA into MTF Nu-7 appears to be the most conclusive way to fully resolve the grey areas and overlap between the DEA and Nu-7, I expect this clarity will vastly improve the coordination of the Foundations counter-goi and hostage negotiation/recovery efforts while also maintaining the current DEA format of peace-time diplomacy with GOIs
 
Oct 8, 2023
278
64
21
Site 54
-support
1. Lore
Department of External Affairs is not the same as Nu-7, especially in lore. Those are two different things
2. Size
I know that this isn't reflected on UK, but on US DEA is ~the largest department CL3 wise so it'd be weird to try and add that many new people to Nu-7, and also features a lot of more casual players who either don't play the server enough to be in a regiment or are already in a different regiment.
Locking surface combat behind joining a certain regiment is also kinda lame.
 
  • reaction_title.7
Reactions: FinnTheBee
i dont think it needs to be this sophisticated, "spymaster"- why? you're basically keeping the two separate chain of commands.

A better alternative would be to simply add a "Deepcover" or a "field op" job to Nu7, and increase the officer/marksman slots.
The Deepcover and marksman jobs would then only be for those in the Daybreakers subunit, which would promote and revive the dead squadron.
The Nu-7 COM will have overall control of SOPs, the Spymaster is just a name I thought of for the title of the person who manages counter-intelligence, but the name does seem appropriate. Diplomacy will be firmly in the hands of Site Administration where it belongs with O5 being able to have their input by utilising SA as their correct proxies and Nu-7 providing security to Site Administration - I remember SA was frequently protected by Nu-7 and their Guardian Angels sub-reg.

As far as combative slots go, the reason the spymaster is seperate COs is for the sake of their disguise card function. The slot numbers are not accurate to what the content team/SL would decide them to be, the image is there to represent the envisionment of the new Nu-7 chain of command and CLs.

I agree Nu-7 may very well decide to fill Daybreakers with the new spy based jobs and I think that would be a brilliant idea, but it is worth noting that Daybreakers exists only in an OOC format and is not actually represented in the in-game jobs roster. The more I look into Nu-7 sub-regiments the more I am convinced that Nu-7 is in an ideal position to absorb the DEA should this suggestion go forward.
 
Feb 27, 2022
68
11
71
23

-SUPPORT


The idea alone of allowing non-regimental players to play on a job labeled as "Nu-7" is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my life. Not only will this void all regimental progress, this will also just create a divider within Nu-7 as a whole between the regimental players and non-regimental players, tearing Nu-7 in half.
 
-support
All of these issues can be fixed with better communication between sop-c. Secondly responding to code 1's is not a sturggle on the U.S server. thirdly personally I believe forcing the only foundation surface group into a MTF will greatly hurt the servers and isnt a good fix to the current problems with surface RP in general.


I also dont believe you have properly thought through how this is going to practically work, were it to be implemented. Overall it dosent fix any of the problems and would only make them worse in my opinion.
 

Otters

Administrator
Administrator
MilitaryRP Staff
Platform Team
Resources Team
Donator
Jul 25, 2022
809
193
41
-Support

As much as I dislike DEA and have gained many many headaches dealing with them when I was a CO in Nu-7, we eventually worked through these issuess (With alot of blood, sweat and tears) but it was doable. Outright removing it and restricting newer players (Dont quote me on this, but I think getting into DEA is easier then Nu7) to the surface area would not be a good idea.
 
May 17, 2023
121
17
21
-support
A: DEA players are mostly either brand new and cannot get into MTF's yet, or people already in regiments who want to use the job as a combative job to play when they dont feel like playing their regiment.
B: This suggestion would destroy all of DEA leadership given I believe between all Directors, Managers, and Special Agents there are 3/50 of them not in an MTF.
C: Other MTFs will 100% start complaining Nu7 gets 10 jobs while they dont.
D: A former Nu7 COM already attempted to double the size of Nu7 and it backfired horribly by ssl shutting it down later to reduce the slots available.
E: Even if this went smoothly, Nu7 would need to 5x their officers, prob have 2-3 coms and 6ish ltcoms in order to manage the ~300 DEA Senior and Special Agents.
 

Billy "Villager" Bob

Trial Game Master
Trial Game Master
Nov 12, 2022
38
7
41
-support
I believe there are over 300 people on US that have been approved on DEA agent so this will be hella chaotic
Also SL will never approve of this tbh since its like the intel & B1 situation and people still want that regiment back :/
 
The Nu-7 COM will have overall control of SOPs, the Spymaster is just a name I thought of for the title of the person who manages counter-intelligence, but the name does seem appropriate. Diplomacy will be firmly in the hands of Site Administration where it belongs with O5 being able to have their input by utilising SA as their correct proxies and Nu-7 providing security to Site Administration - I remember SA was frequently protected by Nu-7 and their Guardian Angels sub-reg.

As far as combative slots go, the reason the spymaster is seperate COs is for the sake of their disguise card function. The slot numbers are not accurate to what the content team/SL would decide them to be, the image is there to represent the envisionment of the new Nu-7 chain of command and CLs.

I agree Nu-7 may very well decide to fill Daybreakers with the new spy based jobs and I think that would be a brilliant idea, but it is worth noting that Daybreakers exists only in an OOC format and is not actually represented in the in-game jobs roster. The more I look into Nu-7 sub-regiments the more I am convinced that Nu-7 is in an ideal position to absorb the DEA should this suggestion go forward.
so your suggestion is based on a sub-regiment only uk has and thats why u want these changes

suggestion invalidated lmao
 
Status
Not open for further replies.