Rule Suggestion Prevent camping of 914 outside of Code 1/Code 2

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 20, 2023
71
9
41
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
I think a rule should be added to prevent people from camping 914 for no valid reason, only because they know that this is where dclass go.
i encountered an E11 who just put down a shield and sat by 914 afking there for literally 3 hours and detaining any dclass that came.
He was there even when there was no code called. i called a sit but admin told me there are no rules against that.

I believe its quite unrealistic for someone to camp 914 specifically, they only do so because they know of the disguise mechanic that dclass can use.
914 is a big gameplay part for D-Class. Its positioned in a location thats not too hard for them to reach, behind a CL2 door, and (as Ventz said before) they can go to 914 and use it to get a disguise, even if they dont really have a RP reason to know what 914 is and how to use it.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No i dont believe so

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Removes the unfairness to dclass of 914 being camped
Improves gameplay balance
prevents unrealistic camping of the room

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Will need to be a rule to be added and enforced.

note: this will NOT cause significantly more dclass escapes. gladly not many people are big enough tryhards to camp 914 all the time, and when it isnt camped i believe that dclass escaping is quite balanced. however when someone camps this gives dclass literally NO means of getting a disguise. zero.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I believe that the ability for E11 (or GSD) to camp 914 is completely unbalanced and even not very rp-realistic.
it ruins gameplay for dclass and adds NOTHING in return.



PS: this issue in general seems to be a recent issue, i only encountered it a couple times recently, but even like a month ago and earlier i basically never seen that happen. it seems to be some new tryhard behaviour that they started doing and i believe its not healthy for the game.

PPS: once again, im only arguing for no camping *outside* emergencies. during c1/c2 its completely justified for someone to sit by 914 if they want to. also i have nothing against patrols, as they seem balanced.
With camping just one spot for 3 hours you might aswel just put an AI turret in that place and it wouldn't change anything in practice.
 
Last edited:
while all of that is right, my two major reasons are primarily trying to dispel the whole "e-11 is about staying at one point in the map and never doing anything" attitude that a lot of people seem to have which tbf is a leadership issue, except people still kind of do it even after we tell them not to? i would rather like to constructively stamp this problem out so that e-11 actually interact with the rest of site
issue with E11 leadership still. if you tell them not to do it, and they do it with no consequences they will still do it
 

holymilk

Active member
Nov 12, 2023
28
4
21
okay but this takes away from D-Class gameplay


Surely there can be other ways to give E11 more gameplay in other areas though, maybe write your own suggestion to give E11 something more to do?
D class can just kill the person in the checkpoint? It isnt like they are indestructible.
 

-Support

This is a realistic thing for E-11 and other combative staff to do. It is known IC that this is a common target for D-class and CI, so it should be protected from interference and abuse.

This also isn't unbalanced. You can simply go to an armoury (like the one right around the corner), or anywhere else on the map, to gain things like weapons. Use them to steal keycards from people. If you need to use 914 to do anything when escaping as D-class, that's a skill issue.

It is also my understanding that it was intended for it to be considered metagaming to use 914 without learning of it IC, it's just not enforced because it'd be impossible for staff to police. Protecting 914 completely balances this. If you are going to 914 all the time without learning of it IC, you are already essentially metagaming, staff just don't enforce it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niox
Sep 20, 2023
71
9
41
It is also my understanding that it was intended for it to be considered metagaming to use 914 without learning of it IC, it's just not enforced because it'd be impossible for staff to police. Protecting 914 completely balances this. If you are going to 914 all the time without learning of it IC, you are already essentially metagaming, staff just don't enforce it.
People told me that Ventz said that D-Class know about 914 IC from the moment they spawn, as this is for balance reasons to give them somewhere to go when they escape dblock.
 
i guess i'll elaborate more on my +support

while all of that is right, my two major reasons are primarily trying to dispel the whole "e-11 is about staying at one point in the map and never doing anything" attitude that a lot of people seem to have which tbf is a leadership issue, except people still kind of do it even after we tell them not to? i would rather like to constructively stamp this problem out so that e-11 actually interact with the rest of site

the other reason being that, a core development philosophy is that gameplay balance takes priority over "what makes sense" - additionally i don't think it's unreasonable to justify having holes in security as stuff like changing shifts, etc.

i think some kind of anti-camping rule for F against both D-Class & GOIs would enforce the relevant gameplay loops staying functional
While people don't want to encourage guarding PoIs all the time (as it's boring af and reduces the quality of e.g. E-11 player experience), that should be left to regimental command to decide. If this suggestion was implemented, it could heavily restrict what E-11 and other players can do. If you want to make it so this isn't done all the time, you can already do that, but this shouldn't be enforced as an OOC rule.

Even though it is not our main gameplay loop (or at least shouldn't be), sometimes I want to just turn my brain off and guard a place, or tab out and work on e.g. a document while I guard a PoI. Also sometimes, we have an active reason to do it, and depending on how this rule was worded, it could prevent that.
 
While people don't want to encourage guarding PoIs all the time (as it's boring af and reduces the quality of e.g. E-11 player experience), that should be left to regimental command to decide. If this suggestion was implemented, it could heavily restrict what E-11 and other players can do. If you want to make it so this isn't done all the time, you can already do that, but this shouldn't be enforced as an OOC rule.

Even though it is not our main gameplay loop (or at least shouldn't be), sometimes I want to just turn my brain off and guard a place, or tab out and work on e.g. a document while I guard a PoI. Also sometimes, we have an active reason to do it, and depending on how this rule was worded, it could prevent that.
i disagree - i think an OOC rule to prevent people staying in certain places for excessive periods of time (lets say for 4 or more hours at a time) would prevent stagnation and improve server health by encouraging interaction, as well as the other benefits to D-Class & GOI gameplay loops like i mentioned before.

the idea of it restricting what E-11 and other players can do is a little disconcerting sure, but this is a pretty sensible restriction imo - why would you want for example E-11 leadership to be able to say "yes, your duty is to stand for hours and hours in one place" and purposely ruin the health of a massive chunk of the server? you have to remember that this is also a financial venture for Ventz - and it would make sense from that perspective to not want people being able to run parts of it into the ground.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wojtekpolska
i guess i'll elaborate more on my +support

while all of that is right, my two major reasons are primarily trying to dispel the whole "e-11 is about staying at one point in the map and never doing anything" attitude that a lot of people seem to have which tbf is a leadership issue, except people still kind of do it even after we tell them not to? i would rather like to constructively stamp this problem out so that e-11 actually interact with the rest of site

the other reason being that, a core development philosophy is that gameplay balance takes priority over "what makes sense" - additionally i don't think it's unreasonable to justify having holes in security as stuff like changing shifts, etc.

i think some kind of anti-camping rule for F against both D-Class & GOIs would enforce the relevant gameplay loops staying functional
this +support
 
-support

Talking about "realistic" guarding, technically we'd have cameras constantly operated, guards outside of containment cells, and D-Class not willing to lundge into a SCP that's not consistent with what it does to the things inside.

I understand it's upsetting to have your excape stopped by a A1 watching YouTube on his phone just waiting for that door to open up to blast you, but it happens sometimes.

Besides, after you DO get a clean 914 disguise and matching card, you're basically free to do whatever once you become aware of CI.

I've seen D-Class kidnap 5 people and get away with it, or go on a mass murder of every non D-Class for hours. Hell I've seen D-Class get nearly all of D-Block to 914 and control the facility

So yeah, 914 needs guards.
 
okay but this takes away from D-Class gameplay


Surely there can be other ways to give E11 more gameplay in other areas though, maybe write your own suggestion to give E11 something more to do?
The problem is I can't think of anything to suggest other than IC policies which would enlarge the patrol routes to include all of Delta (which would make Dclass soy more)
 
Sep 20, 2023
71
9
41
While people don't want to encourage guarding PoIs all the time (as it's boring af and reduces the quality of e.g. E-11 player experience), that should be left to regimental command to decide. If this suggestion was implemented, it could heavily restrict what E-11 and other players can do. If you want to make it so this isn't done all the time, you can already do that, but this shouldn't be enforced as an OOC rule.

Even though it is not our main gameplay loop (or at least shouldn't be), sometimes I want to just turn my brain off and guard a place, or tab out and work on e.g. a document while I guard a PoI. Also sometimes, we have an active reason to do it, and depending on how this rule was worded, it could prevent that.
if you dont want to play why even be in the game? also you can always switch jobs
at this point you are just blocking a server slot preventing actual players from joining
 
if you dont want to play why even be in the game? also you can always switch jobs
at this point you are just blocking a server slot preventing actual players from joining
working on an IC document is part of the server... the roleplay server... where you can fight and work on MTF documentation as the MTF
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zen
Sep 20, 2023
71
9
41
-support

Talking about "realistic" guarding, technically we'd have cameras constantly operated, guards outside of containment cells, and D-Class not willing to lundge into a SCP that's not consistent with what it does to the things inside.

I understand it's upsetting to have your excape stopped by a A1 watching YouTube on his phone just waiting for that door to open up to blast you, but it happens sometimes.

Besides, after you DO get a clean 914 disguise and matching card, you're basically free to do whatever once you become aware of CI.

I've seen D-Class kidnap 5 people and get away with it, or go on a mass murder of every non D-Class for hours. Hell I've seen D-Class get nearly all of D-Block to 914 and control the facility

So yeah, 914 needs guards.
okay, but this is meant to be a server with gameplay and stuff to do. its not meant to be 100% realistic. for example why do you think that a facility controlled by one of if not the most powerful organizations on the planet just has a random vent somewhere that is not even secured and allows anyone to just crawl in and appear in a bathroom by EZ.
its for gameplay reasons. if it were realistic that vent would at the very least be covered by iron bars, but that would ruin CI and parawatch gameplay.
you can't have good roleplay if nothing ever goes wrong for foundation.

gameplay>realism
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
okay, but this is meant to be a server with gameplay and stuff to do. its not meant to be 100% realistic. for example why do you think that a facility controlled by one of if not the most powerful organizations on the planet just has a random vent somewhere that is not even secured and allows anyone to just crawl in and appear in a bathroom by EZ.
bad reasoning, just because the SCP foundation exists doesnt mean that humans dont have brain cells
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
gameplay>realism

Nit pick reply tbh.

E11 gameplay is guarding SCPs. NU7 gameplay is maintaining defenses against GOI. GSD gameplay is slaughtering D-Class. D-Class gameplay is finding holes in those areas and exploiting them.

Just cause you got obliterated by a guy with a railgun doesn't mean we should make rules against defending said areas so you can have a easier time. It means you (unironically) should get better.

Literally just try again. Getting into 914 isn't supposed to be easy, because it gives such a massive reward for accomplishing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.