What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Rule Suggestion, specifically for the addition of SL Authorisation for major gameplay changes by faction/departmental leads.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Y/N. Many suggestions about individual rulings and specific individuals have been made.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
+Better Regulation of potentially disruptive changes, smoother gameplay-RP transition
+Accountability for one's mistakes.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
-SL being no fun.
-SSL being no fun.
-NL being no fun.
As a serious negative, this can be a genuine problem where staff over-reach can quickly become a problem, and should be heavily watched for misuse.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Read the thread, make your own decision. This got heated.
UNFORMATTED -
This might be confusing at first; but hear me out. As of late, a large majority of CL4/CL5 positions on SCPRP UK have authorised major policy changes that have massively decreased the viability of playing specific sample-related SCPs; and pretty much entirely killed off D-class gameplay - though that's also in part due to an SL change.
e.g; Nowadays? We can't sample SCPs without a document (ANY SCP, INCLUDING CL1s) which- while it may sound good that we're increasing the 'roleplay level' of the server - it has done far more damage to the overall gameplay loop than it has benefitted, in my opinion.
Yes, CL5/4 exist as Leadership positions, yes, they should have some power over their respective faction;
But it's a problem where now outside of events, specific SCPs like 860-2, and SCP-939 are pretty much entirely untested. Like, I'm gonna be for real
Over the course of 4 days, I played SCP-939 for a total of 39 hours.
I was sampled once.
I was fed d-class twice.
This averages a test rate of less than one per day. What the fuck?
How are SCP players supposed to enjoy the game other than breaching now? There's no reason to play SCPs other than safe-classes or 912/457 as they can either very easily grind EXP or are close enough to LCZ/other areas to go on mass killsprees before being gunned down violently.
So; here's the suggestion for a rule
1. Members of a Faction's Command, while they have a large portion of authority, may not make unilaterally gameplay-altering decisions that would majorly affect multiple aspects of the gameplay loop, without first contacting a member of Server Leadership and discussing an implementation plan, the benefits, and the negatives.
As for why it is needed- on UK, guess what.
The people who implemented this weren't even CL5.
They were the CL4 ISD Director and RSD Directors.
It's pretty strange to me how this was allowed through in the first place but w/e
Rule Suggestion, specifically for the addition of SL Authorisation for major gameplay changes by faction/departmental leads.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Y/N. Many suggestions about individual rulings and specific individuals have been made.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
+Better Regulation of potentially disruptive changes, smoother gameplay-RP transition
+Accountability for one's mistakes.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
-SL being no fun.
-SSL being no fun.
-NL being no fun.
As a serious negative, this can be a genuine problem where staff over-reach can quickly become a problem, and should be heavily watched for misuse.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Read the thread, make your own decision. This got heated.
UNFORMATTED -
This might be confusing at first; but hear me out. As of late, a large majority of CL4/CL5 positions on SCPRP UK have authorised major policy changes that have massively decreased the viability of playing specific sample-related SCPs; and pretty much entirely killed off D-class gameplay - though that's also in part due to an SL change.
e.g; Nowadays? We can't sample SCPs without a document (ANY SCP, INCLUDING CL1s) which- while it may sound good that we're increasing the 'roleplay level' of the server - it has done far more damage to the overall gameplay loop than it has benefitted, in my opinion.
Yes, CL5/4 exist as Leadership positions, yes, they should have some power over their respective faction;
But it's a problem where now outside of events, specific SCPs like 860-2, and SCP-939 are pretty much entirely untested. Like, I'm gonna be for real
Over the course of 4 days, I played SCP-939 for a total of 39 hours.
I was sampled once.
I was fed d-class twice.
This averages a test rate of less than one per day. What the fuck?
How are SCP players supposed to enjoy the game other than breaching now? There's no reason to play SCPs other than safe-classes or 912/457 as they can either very easily grind EXP or are close enough to LCZ/other areas to go on mass killsprees before being gunned down violently.
So; here's the suggestion for a rule
1. Members of a Faction's Command, while they have a large portion of authority, may not make unilaterally gameplay-altering decisions that would majorly affect multiple aspects of the gameplay loop, without first contacting a member of Server Leadership and discussing an implementation plan, the benefits, and the negatives.
As for why it is needed- on UK, guess what.
The people who implemented this weren't even CL5.
They were the CL4 ISD Director and RSD Directors.
It's pretty strange to me how this was allowed through in the first place but w/e
Last edited:
Game Master
Donator
