9Jordan

Name : Jordan Rank : SM Start Date : 26 AUG NZT End Date : 9 SEPT NZT Length : 2 weeks Reason : Thought I would be able to get on during my usual thur fri sat sun recently but my car is really eating up my time more than I expected so I need to get GL off my plate atm to get it fixed without worrying about getting on.

I knew I should have clarified this, because it would have been misconstrued, and it has been. Clearly. First, I am not proposing E11 as outright superior from anyone else. I am simply saying their tasks are different to the point that they are not even on-site anymore. E11 has surface points to capture and control now. That's a whole new dynamic with GOI. Secondly, Nu-7 and D5's similarities start and end at the fact that they share and operate underground on site. That might be a small thing, but in execution it's not when you aren't on the surface anymore and you do not interact on the surface. From that perspective, they are more similar to each other than they are to E11. I'm not trying to portray the idea that you are all the same. You aren't. Don't take it the wrong way. Yes, I agree that D5 takes a lot more from SEC than it does other branches. But it's still a thing, the fact that it exists is a thing. This is a suggestion because I personally think it shouldn't be. Activity is a big issue and for all I know this suggestion could do absolutely nothing but I would rather it happen than not for the sake of balance. Evidently we do not see eye to eye. It is what it is. I hope no one is taking offense at the fact that I did not DM somebody first.

I disagree. I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't evaluate the suggestion requirements first. If anything, a suggestion like this is a grey area. Regardless, it's not like a branches high command is particularly open to having their options for recruitment cut off. There's definitely input to be had from other branches which are used as a gateway. That's why it's a suggestion, and not a DM.

What are you suggesting? - D5 is currently able to recruit individuals from both E11 and Nu7 at the rank of CPL+. I believe at the very least that E11 should be excluded from this. E11 should not be considered through D5's recruitment prerequisites a 'gateway branch' to Delta 5. How would this change better the server? - Delta 5's task is entirely different from Epsilon 11. Epsilon 11 is a surface spawning branch, with an SCP recontainment goal. E11 is also the only MTF branch that actively controls surface points against GOC and CI. With this in mind, it is important that E11 is separated from other MTF branches as much as possible and is to be considered its own end goal. What do I mean by that? Well, when Delta 5's requirements are based off of a certain rank in other MTF branches, it poses itself as a branch that is prioritized to go for; think of a social hierarchy. For E11's stability in the range of tasks it faces, it needs a high amount of consistent members it can get who are interested in its mission and goals, and not just an opportunity to get to the next branch over. The way branches recruit from one another can definitely affect this, as it proposes a branch as 'better than' another, and thus more desirable. E11 is a separate branch. It should be treated that way all over. This is only a minor change, sure. But E11 needs to be understood as a very important role in the server for MTF and that needs to be done as much as possible to ensure a healthy level of activity and allow the branch to bring value to the server. Delta 5 should recruit from branches within the same area of goals. That being Nu7 and Security. And at an extreme, it should only recruit from Security so to further separate it from other branches in their task. Yes, I understand Delta 5 does not take a life. But still, D5 should have a more concentrated path of entry than 'CPL in Nu7, E11 or SEC'. Are there any disadvantages of making this change to the server? If so, explain. - I do not believe there is any disadvantage to the server for making this change. E11 already has a donor role requirement which limits the amount of individuals that can get in. Delta 5 has pickings from Nu7, E11 and Security. This, at the very least subconsciously suggests it is an end goal. I do not think that is healthy for the stability of E11. Who would this change mostly benefit? - E11's roster, and potentially Nu-7. This change makes selecting a branch a little more deliberate and hopefully negates excessive branch hopping. Please link any workshop content, screenshots, or anything that you think may be helpful to those who view this suggestion - The recruitment processes are visualized below. Sorry, as they are back to front. There's also some text errors so for the most part ignore what they say.

+support We really been getting raw dogged as a branch that deserves a bit more grunt. Quite like the addition of the SVD on Spotter.

+Support This is an easy yes. Any suggestion that is favouring a faster time to kill is a good suggestion. Fast TTKs are the absolute best way - in my eyes - to bring grit and consequences to combat, and, force MTF & CI to utilize combat tactics.

The hitbox is currently an error sign.

+support

-support immature

What are you suggesting? - E11 Clarification: E11 D-Block Rules Old: Generally, E-11 personnel are prohibited from entering D-Block. E-11 personnel are only allowed into D-Block unless all of the following circumstances are met: Less than two members of GENSEC are online Less than five non-E11 MTF are online There are circumstances beyond standard riots that need to be addressed (Examples: CI inside D-Block, E11 needing to take a D-Class to prevent a SCP breach, etc) New: Generally, E-11 personnel are prohibited from entering D-Block. E-11 personnel are only allowed into D-Block if all of the following circumstances are met: Less than two members of GENSEC are online Less than five non-E11 MTF are online There are circumstances beyond standard riots that need to be addressed (Examples: CI inside D-Block, E11 needing to take a D-Class to prevent a SCP breach, etc) Changes/Removal: Corrected English +Forum post edited again as the last circumstance was not removed E11 D-Block Rules Old: If the above circumstances are met, E11 personnel are permitted to enter D-Block with the following restrictions: Combat Engineers, Coldsilver, Ranger, and Scout classes are not permitted to enter D-Block. No more than three members of E11 are allowed inside D-Block. New: If the above circumstances are met, E11 personnel are permitted to enter D-Block with the following restrictions: Only Enlisted, NCO, Officer and Commander jobs are permitted to enter D-Block. No more than three members of E11 are allowed inside D-Block. Changes/Removal: Removing old specialties/changing clarification to normal jobs SCP Clarification: SCP Broken Cell Recontainment Old: SCPs can not be recontained in broken cells, unless they die via combat or accidental death as consistent with their recontainment procedures. New: SCPs can not be recontained in broken cells, unless they die via combat as consistent with their recontainment procedures, or by accidental death (e.g. SCP falls in acid). Changes/Removal: Rearranging sentence to make it clearer. SCP Breach Prevention Old: Once a SCP begins the breaching process and breaches the first door, they no longer can be interrupted by Foundation personnel fulfilling their need. New: Once an SCP has breached the first door, they no longer can be interrupted by Foundation personnel fulfilling their need. Changes/Removal: Rewording sentence to make it clearer. SCP-527 Ambiguity Old: Allowed to roam the facility, however, must comply with directives from Foundation staff to leave specific areas. This includes being directed to return to the Foundation if found on the surface. SCP-527 is neutral, and may either chose to assist foundation staff or ignore their requests. New (Input Required): If 527 is required to comply with Foundation, what does the second rule mean; what instances is it used in? As 527 is able to be cuffed, does this mean he needs to be FearRP'ed first? Is cuffing 527 how he is made to comply with the foundation? Please clarify these two rules, they seemingly conflict. How would this change better the server? - Clarification to the rules to remove ambiguities, update them, make them clearer to understand. Just makes life easier. Are there any disadvantages of making this change to the server? If so, explain. - No. Who would this change mostly benefit? - Everyone. Please link any workshop content, screenshots, or anything that you think may be helpful to those who view this suggestion - Not applicable.

Ruz is a CI LtCol. Not only did he kill me and instantly leave, a CI member tbags my body. I do not think this is a real excuse. You can tell by the video they all look at me then he decides to kill me, probably because he's on medic.

To clarify, I am not on the KOS list. I have not killed CI on D-Class. Nor am I sure that an OOC comment like the one in the video would even justify my going on the KOS list.

What are you suggesting? - If 8286 encounters a cloaked unit when in alien form, the unit is required to uncloak when engaging with 8286, or when the unit is within visible proximity to 8286. How would this change better the server? - Stop cloaking from being a hard counter to alien-form 8286. Are there any disadvantages of making this change to the server? If so, explain. - I do not think there are any disadvantages here. Who would this change mostly benefit? - 8286 players as it is a buff. This incident is probably very rare, but, I think this is a beneficial QOL change as cloaked units can just cloak when close to 8286 to avoid being taken by him (There is no MOTD justified way for 8286 to take a cloaked unit even if 8286 knows they are right in-front of him.) Cloaked units can just open a door, back up and then shoot 8286 to avoid being skinned. Or, they can wait for 8286 to be down a long corridor before making attacking. They have no risk in engaging with Alien 8286 when using their cloak. edit: Did not see the important detail about the changes to cloaking. It will be interesting to see how it plays out with an SCP like 8286. For the most part I think this suggestion is void, given these upcoming changes.

+Support Long TTK excuses ridiculous movement, bad positioning and lazy combat tactics. It's also devastated snipers. The longbow was considered 'ok' before now it's a complete joke.

Your in game name: Jordan (migg) Your Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:61332134 The player's in game name: Deuce/Ruz (E Boy) The player's steam ID (required): STEAM_0:0:201360601 (ID64 shown in video) Date and Time This Incident Occurred: 11/30/2021 2:30 AM EST What did the player do: Deuce/Ruz pulls out a Golf Club and kills me, then leaves the server. Evidence (required): What do you believe should happen to the player: I'm not sure what the policy is, but I see this as metagaming, RDM and LTAP (it would have been pretty unlikely I could do a proper player report given he left the server before I could use rp_lookup, I also think all staff were AFK) Any extra information: The Alpha operative in the video has an Ethereal, not sure how? This Alpha was Vuit (as shown at end of video). Before the video starts is when I had encountered CI and I did contemplate killing them along with the MTF they were fighting at the time, thus the message I sent in OOC.

+Support 'No need for Rust guns, just balance the ones you have' Anyone who's played Rust will know these guns are very intricate (and reasonably difficult) to use. I do not like the new combat; it sucks. High TTK is awful, and it only provokes cheap movement strategies (And people using golf clubs instead). The Rust guns add a layer of mechanical skill to E11 as a whole. If it were as simple as 'changing the guns E11 have now', I'm sure E11 wouldn't have suggested guns which are iconic for how they handle. If they were to do anything to the M9K guns on the server it should have been to give them some ACTUAL recoil (if possible), so we could do away with these damage nerfs. Those suggesting the same guns everyone has be changed for just a single branch don't really think about the implications for combat and consistency. 'No medic gun' I think the medic gun is fine, like a boost of adrenaline in combat (Doc from R6). I don't think the problem is the addition of a medic gun, it's the lack of intricate sweps for medics on the server (Think ACE3 from ArmA). The complete lack of actual interaction for medics at the moment is pretty damn lame, both in and out of combat. At least a medic gun will make the scenario less annoying. I do agree with combat medics having the gun. 'Don't like the D4 model' If HSU can have multiple models, why can't D4? As for it 'not looking robotic', does it have to? The model looks fine to me, it's rugged, harsh and realistic. It's fully clothed with no exposed skin so it could easily pass off as a robot, if that's what people are concerned about. The ghillie tan/green look is pretty iconic as E11, I don't see myself thinking this model is some other branch. Don't forget that D4 only has one model if you exclude the Alpha unit; It's not like there are a whole bunch of new models coming.

I meant in an order of events. Revert everything then adjust their health by that very small amount if needed. Would not be +10, +20 on top of the +50.

+Support If the creation of D5 eventually became part of the reason to buff CI and nerf the guns, it doesn't make sense to me. The inclusion of D5 does not necessarily mean there will be more MTF than CI on (than before). Just taking a wild guess there though. My thoughts on a better balance: Revert everything. THEN: Adjust CI's health/armour by +10 or at most, +20 (as opposed to the current +50.) CI move in big groups and in my experience I've found that it is an almost equal balance if not biased towards the CI in how many people they encounter while raiding. So, often times they have more firepower against an unsuspecting victim. Where some CI jobs perhaps fell short was on one to one combat where any health/armour discrepancies showed and skill was matched between players. Lower the damage multiplier by a small amount, if not at all. It is complete personal preference that I am not a fan of slow TTK, I find it is frustrating as someone who has played many fast TTK games that revolve first and foremost around skill (Apex, BF4, DayZ). I do not feel the current damage multiplier is suitable. It makes all guns feel pathetically weak, I'd imagine it makes GENSEC want to die even more when dealing with D Class. And, as a favourite of sniper rifles, it has absolutely ruined them for me. There is no satisfaction in using a sniper rifle without its high risk high reward; particularly on the longbow which I have used over the Barrett sometimes, solely for satisfaction from my own mechanical ability. In conclusion, I think these changes were far too drastic for there to be any measurable variable. You have changed two different variables by a large fraction, I don't think it will be very clear as to what you should alter next. What I do know though, is as a result of changing both the HP/Armour and the weapons at the same time, is that for the time that these changes are live it is far more frustrating for the players than it would have been had you made smaller changes to one aspect at a time.

Damn, well, I hope y'all return the longbow to how it was.

Went lazy and stopped playing for a bit mid September. I come back and now I find my headshots doing fuck all damage. Using my longbow on D Class with headshots and getting 130 in 2. Just now shot some d boy in the head with an M82 and it registered as only 140, but other times I get 330 dmg like when doing an RDM arena with E11. What's going on? I used to enjoy using the longbow with its slow ass bolt pull but now I find it's useless. Up until now, I've never had so many hit registration issues. Not only are these damage numbers way off from what they used to be but I also have so many more shots not landing and it seems it isn't just me who has noticed. Anyone else feel something's off?