Denied Removal of the "Negotiation Guidelines"

[Second]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Stops the Negotiation Guidelines doc from being enforced by staff, rather being used as a "guideline" not a "rule" (i.e Recommended price for a Nu-7 PVT is 5k, but CI can sell for 2.5k). Allows for more negotiation RP instead of "this is price SL demands".

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No, N/A

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
+ Allows for more RP in negotiations
+ Gives SOP leadership of all factions more possibilities for in-character deals and negotiations outside of monetary gain (US CI is currently working with Nu-7 and DEA to make chemicals possible to trade instead of money, which is a good system IMO).

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- CI won't like that DEA won't buy back 2 Nu-7 PVTs that were AFK in garage for 10k (CI also hates the negotiation guidelines on US)

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This may be a US server issue, but all 3 factions on US absolutely hate the negotiation guidelines as it ruins all hostage RP, and instead is just "5k for this guy, 10k for this guy, 20k for this guy" (etc.), which is really boring. Allowing for diverse prices and actual negotiation RP will make the server a lot more fun for all 3 sides.

Note: I am not saying to delete the doc, I am saying to not make it mandated, I think the document should still exist as a recommendation and a baseline to follow, not a must and staff-enforced rule.

 

[Stealth]

- Support

This would have so many negative affects to current negotiations, there is no need to change them and doesn't make sense to change them unless changes with hostage prices needs changing. As stated within the doc negotiations can go outside of the specific amounts. Its up to the negotiators to RP these different terms

 

[Second]

- Support

This would have so many negative affects to current negotiations, there is no need to change them and doesn't make sense to change them unless changes with hostages needs changing. As stated within the doc negotiations can go outside of the specific amounts. Its up to the negotiators to RP these different terms

As it is enforced, the guidelines are a minimum, CI does not like charging 5k for random DEA agent #15389 and random Nu-7 PVT #45843 and DEA/Nu-7 don't like paying 5k for them.

 

[Luft]

-Support

You have completely misinterpreted the meaning and or intention of the Hostage Negotiation Guidelines, what you have suggested is already in effect within the current playerbase.

"The hostage takers are not allowed to differ from the prices set within this document, they may only go down in price."

If they are unwilling to actually negotiate from the set prices, and you make a genuine effort in order to do so then you necessarily wouldn't be forced to pay. Unsure of what the current SSL would think of that, however that's what was intended with it when I recreated the document alongside other SL members.

Essentially, regardless of price necessarily nobody is "forced" to pay. It just looks extremely shit if either side doesn't pay at all, or make an effort to properly RP which then makes it into an SL issue if it's continuous.

 

[Naffen]

You can negotiate for other things as UK CI has done for couple months now. They trade from chemicals, to foundation or goc documents, to SCPs depending on the value of the hostage.
You don't need to remove the guidelines just cause you want an alternative, you can already do everything you suggested that you wanted to do??

 

[Alpha Toon]

-Support
This suggestion is being made simply because the negotiation guidelines are being misinterpreted. It clearly states in the document that you may negotiate for lower and aims to just promote rp of a hostage instead of leaving them for x amount of time.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I Cannot Possibly Overstate How Much I +Support This​

this probably is and probably will be the best suggestion ever made in this subforum. hands down.
the hardest of agrees. like... i can't emphasise how good of a suggestion this is. i was considering suggesting it myself and all the posts above me are probably why i haven't. CI are supposed to be a terror cell. sometimes we should be able to make an outrageously stupid demand for some random afk nu7 pvt that just passed the tryout and is afk in the garage, but no if i do that, it's failrp.

listen. let me be an unreasonable terrorist every once in a while, okay? fuck the high table rules. and yes, i have seen in-game discourse about a price above standard - and witnessed nu7 and dea acting like the prices listed in hostage negotiation doc are like, the be-all end-all, final price that a hostage can be sold for, no exceptions.

 

[Second]

-Support
This suggestion is being made simply because the negotiation guidelines are being misinterpreted. It clearly states in the document that you may negotiate for lower and aims to just promote rp of a hostage instead of leaving them for x amount of time.

-Support

You have completely misinterpreted the meaning and or intention of the Hostage Negotiation Guidelines, what you have suggested is already in effect within the current playerbase.

"The hostage takers are not allowed to differ from the prices set within this document, they may only go down in price."

If they are unwilling to actually negotiate from the set prices, and you make a genuine effort in order to do so then you necessarily wouldn't be forced to pay. Unsure of what the current SSL would think of that, however that's what was intended with it when I recreated the document alongside other SL members.

Essentially, regardless of price necessarily nobody is "forced" to pay. It just looks extremely shit if either side doesn't pay at all, or make an effort to properly RP which then makes it into an SL issue if it's continuous.

I know you are both former Supers, but if this is misinterpreted then it was made poorly and needs to be remade.

 

["Onion"]

i dunno man i hate the minimum prices but ive seen ci try to offer $1 for a hostage or stuff like that having no guidelines could mean that people would be like "$1 take it or leave it"

 

[Kevin Ki]

View attachment 11646

I know you are both former Supers, but if this is misinterpreted then it was made poorly and needs to be remade.

+Insane amounts of support because of this.

Dude, I'm sorry but fuck the dude who got kidnapped being stupid. Do your PAC in ya damn bunks.

 

[Kevin Ki]

i dunno man i hate the minimum prices but ive seen ci try to offer $1 for a hostage or stuff like that having no guidelines could mean that people would be like "$1 take it or leave it"

For a CI-A/B that's a good price.

 

[KingOfCommon]

+Support
Good suggestion

 

[Chad]

+support it was so much better without the document

 

[Mayuri]

+Support would make negotiation a lot better rather than DEA and CI saying 5k or 1 D-Class over and over. This game play loop is very mind numbing and makes surface RP more of a chore than it already is.

 

[Bohemia]

+ Support
Never forget them trying to set up a "war guidelines" doc

 

[Stealth]

This just seems like a US issue

 

[Second]

This just seems like a US issue, as per usual

Making OOC rules for what should be IC is just not it. I would much rather have the freedom to contact GOC and CI command at any time and discuss changes to these policies than have to beg SSL/NL to change them.

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

-support US issue kekw
also if removed nobody would ever pay more than 5k for a COM, i guarantee you this guy begrudgingly paid a bunch of cash for a kidnapped MAJ or something before making this suggestion
what would ruin RP is if nobody was ever bothered to pay anything for hostages because "there's no minimum so we can ask for 2k and you can't do anything about it !!!"

 

[Emilia Foddg]

-support US issue kekw
also if removed nobody would ever pay more than 5k for a COM, i guarantee you this guy begrudgingly paid a bunch of cash for a kidnapped MAJ or something before making this suggestion
what would ruin RP is if nobody was ever bothered to pay anything for hostages because "there's no minimum so we can ask for 2k and you can't do anything about it !!!"

...or... you know, it could be made more relaxed

i feel like everything is either always so one or the other with this community. why does no-one think of more constructive and practical solutions

what's that? i toted this earlier as the best suggestion made in the subforum? i mean yes, i still stand by it - but my point here still stands

 

[Luft]

View attachment 11646

I know you are both former Supers, but if this is misinterpreted then it was made poorly and needs to be remade.

Can't really tell you much outside of that not being changed prior, or mentioned in a changelog from my knowledge. Was the initial intention when we recreated the document and was the general understanding on U.K & U.S.

Regardless, it clearly states "Must oblige, be it through monetary, or D-Class/SCP compensation as stated above".

Below you can see two main points within the document, meaning they should generally aim to reach an agreement and or make an effort to do so. If they are asking for something extremely unreasonable, or do so frequently then you have every right to inform them that you won't be abiding by their terms due to an excess amount of money/d-class being given out.

Remember, people cannot be unreasonable regardless of them getting a hostage. Money is something people either offer VPoints for, and or do quite a lot of grinding to get so requiring any individual to pay ludicrous amounts especially during a period of unreasonable amounts of hostage negotiations.

Was never supposed to be a money printing method, if this guideline were to be removed then it'd make it a lot worse. We tried doing that, and it utterly backfired and actually worsened RP.