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

[wojtekpolska]

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.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

sure
+Support

 

[Skittles]

-support

best e11 poi, me when the MTF that guards SCPs guarding an SCP is apparently "not very rp-realistic". Guarding 914 isn't just a preventative measure against d class, but also CI who often use it in raids.

 

[Niox]

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.

that is a reason to camp 914 though? If you knew someone could use it to infiltrate then you would obviously take action to prevent them from doing that.
-Support
-copium

 

[holymilk]

Nah -support, disguised d class are annoying.

Also stationing there isnt only for d class, but helps kill CI raids faster if people are usually there to call them out, too. Its all down to the matter of having people stationed there.

 

[Geronimo]

-Support
This is just a ragepost:

Would you tell Nu-7 to not ID check at EZ?
Would you tell Nu-7 to stay out of compound?
Would you tell E-11 to not guard HCZ CP?
Would you tell GSD to not guard D-Block?

Its their job to protect something. If you escape as a D-Class and go to 914, expect that someone is going to be there or will come once you use it.

 

[Eden "Ratchet" Snyder]

-support

My reasons have already been stated by the others above. It would be more unrealistic not to guard 914 given its importance.

 

[Prplex]

-support
E11s whole job is guarding scps so it makes sense they would be outside one of the most commonly used one. If you wanna be really rp accurate about it technically d class should go on the terminal and lookup the 914 document and read over it beforehand as in rp they shouldn't know what each settings of 914 does nor where it is held exactly every life

 

[Emilia Foddg]

-support

best e11 poi, me when the MTF that guards SCPs guarding an SCP is apparently "not very rp-realistic". Guarding 914 isn't just a preventative measure against d class, but also CI who often use it in raids.

that is a reason to camp 914 though? If you knew someone could use it to infiltrate then you would obviously take action to prevent them from doing that.
-Support
-copium

-Support
This is just a ragepost:

Would you tell Nu-7 to not ID check at EZ?
Would you tell Nu-7 to stay out of compound?
Would you tell E-11 to not guard HCZ CP?
Would you tell GSD to not guard D-Block?

Its their job to protect something. If you escape as a D-Class and go to 914, expect that someone is going to be there or will come once you use it.

-support

My reasons have already been stated by the others above. It would be more unrealistic not to guard 914 given its importance.

-support
E11s whole job is guarding scps so it makes sense they would be outside one of the most commonly used one. If you wanna be really rp accurate about it technically d class should go on the terminal and lookup the 914 document and read over it beforehand as in rp they shouldn't know what each settings of 914 does nor where it is held exactly every life

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

 

[wojtekpolska]

-support
E11s whole job is guarding scps so it makes sense they would be outside one of the most commonly used one. If you wanna be really rp accurate about it technically d class should go on the terminal and lookup the 914 document and read over it beforehand as in rp they shouldn't know what each settings of 914 does nor where it is held exactly every life

didnt ventz specifically say that thats not the case, and that dclass know about 914 from the start for gameplay reasons

 

[Prplex]

that is a reason to camp 914 though? If you knew someone could use it to infiltrate then you would obviously take action to prevent them from doing that.
-Support
-copium

When the CI ltcom thinks camping 914 is fine it's definitely a rage post

 

[Prplex]

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 I definitely take your point it's honestly not super common for there to be E11 sat outside 914, more often its the odd dea or nu7 checking it.

 

[wojtekpolska]

Nah -support, disguised d class are annoying.

Also stationing there isnt only for d class, but helps kill CI raids faster if people are usually there to call them out, too. Its all down to the matter of having people stationed there.

-support

best e11 poi, me when the MTF that guards SCPs guarding an SCP is apparently "not very rp-realistic". Guarding 914 isn't just a preventative measure against d class, but also CI who often use it in raids.

you can do that when there is a Code 1. i have no issue when you actually know CI are on site, then it makes absolute sense to secure 914. thats what Code 1 was made for.


Most of the points all of you guys make only make sense when Code 1 is called.
Scared of CI? ok, if you have a reason to believe CI are on site, sure, sit by 914, just call code 1 (at least silent code 1)
Many dclass escape dblock? call code 2

etc. etc.

 

[holymilk]

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

On the US server every MTF and SU worth their salt always check 914 if they happen to be in delta wing. ISD and E11 a lot more these days since e11 patrol now rather than sit at CP 24/7.

 

[Prplex]

didnt ventz specifically say that thats not the case, and that dclass know about 914 from the start for gameplay reasons

I mean it's not like I've asked ventz himself but im saying in rp if you want to be spot on with it this is what you'd do. That being said no one really cares if d class run back to 914 and I don't think I've ever seen it enforced

 

[holymilk]

you can do that when there is a Code 1. i have no issue when you actually know CI are on site, then it makes absolute sense to secure 914. thats what Code 1 was made for.


Most of the points all of you guys make only make sense when Code 1 is called.
Scared of CI? ok, if you have a reason to believe CI are on site, sure, sit by 914, just call code 1 (at least silent code 1)
Many dclass escaped? call code 2

etc. etc.

D class are just as dangerous since I can trust nu7 or dea to call out CI raids more reliably than Gensec calling out escaped d class.

 

[wojtekpolska]

D class are just as dangerous since I can trust nu7 or dea to call out CI raids more reliably than Gensec calling out escaped d class.

then thats a separate issue, doesnt justify camping 914 the entire time.

On the US server every MTF and SU worth their salt always check 914 if they happen to be in delta wing. ISD and E11 a lot more these days since e11 patrol now rather than sit at CP 24/7.

i have no problem with someone checking 914 if they are passing by. what im talking about is someone just making a checkpoint by 914 and sitting there by the door for an hour not moving.

 

[Joris "Brexit" Bohnson]

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 we do usually agree. This is a point I disagree on.

In my opinion being able to guard 914 is a way for E11 to be able to be out of HCZ, but still able to do their role.

One of the major things which effects E11 is that we are very often forced to stay solely at HCZ primary (which is made worse by the fact that multiple GSD roles can easily take away from our gameplay loop)

I also don't support this due to the fact that it offers no alternative for what E11 could do, just (potentially) gets rid of a part of their loop further confining them to HCZ

 

[wojtekpolska]

While we do usually agree. This is a point I disagree on.

In my opinion being able to guard 914 is a way for E11 to be able to be out of HCZ, but still able to do their role.

One of the major things which effects E11 is that we are very often forced to stay solely at HCZ primary (which is made worse by the fact that multiple GSD roles can easily take away from our gameplay loop)

I also don't support this due to the fact that it offers no alternative for what E11 could do, just (potentially) gets rid of a part of their loop further confining them to HCZ

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?

 

[Emilia Foddg]

In my opinion being able to guard 914 is a way for E11 to be able to be out of HCZ, but still able to do their role.

One of the major things which effects E11 is that we are very often forced to stay solely at HCZ primary (which is made worse by the fact that multiple GSD roles can easily take away from our gameplay loop)

I also don't support this due to the fact that it offers no alternative for what E11 could do, just (potentially) gets rid of a part of their loop further confining them to HCZ

US-specific problem, not an issue on UK.

skill issue with US E-11 leadership