Gunther Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 What you want to see? - I realize there is a suggestion already out for something similar, but this is for a different reason. I want to see it to where MTF can not automatically call for Thermals when CI Raid, but only if they notice suspicious things like doors opening by themselves. Why should we add it? - A rule was added some time ago that MTF could not advert Thermals during every SCP breach, only if 966 was confirmed breached, because it made it unfair for 966. Same with CI Infiltrator, it makes the whole stealth part pointless if people can "see" you, even if they don't know you are raiding. This also makes trying to stealth your way around the facility difficult, because for example I break off from the group and I'm last alive, it makes it incredibly unfair when every MTF has "Thermals/Flashlight" on for 20 whole minutes, especially when they don't actually know an Infil is raiding. I understand this is protocol but if you can't advert Thermals during an SCP breach unless 966 is confirmed breached, then what sense does it makes to advert even if an Infiltrator is not confirmed. What are the advantages of having this? - It balances the whole point of being stealthy, and doesn't allow MTF to meta-game and know info they normally wouldn't know. Who is it mainly for? - MTF/CI Links to any content - Former Security Captain | Former RCF Commander | Former Admin of SCP:RP | King Penguin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysticDN Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 -Support CI Infil's shouldn't been doing Stealth during a CI Raid. If they get caught it's their own fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookieblue Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 The instituted rule was the MTF include a valid reason when adverting thermals, and the example given was if they noticed SCP 966 potentially breached. If MTF are aware that CI have breached, and they're aware that CI have cloaking technology (which they are), I think it's completely valid for them to use thermals in that situation. - Support Retired SCP-RP Head of Staff March 3rd, 2019 - December 16th, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susel Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 8 hours ago, MysticDN said: -Support CI Infil's shouldn't been doing Stealth during a CI Raid. If they get caught it's their own fault. 3 hours ago, Rookieblue said: The instituted rule was the MTF include a valid reason when adverting thermals, and the example given was if they noticed SCP 966 potentially breached. If MTF are aware that CI have breached, and they're aware that CI have cloaking technology (which they are), I think it's completely valid for them to use thermals in that situation. - Support Susel - Retired MTF person - "Teamwork makes the dream work" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsro Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 7 hours ago, Rookieblue said: The instituted rule was the MTF include a valid reason when adverting thermals, and the example given was if they noticed SCP 966 potentially breached. If MTF are aware that CI have breached, and they're aware that CI have cloaking technology (which they are), I think it's completely valid for them to use thermals in that situation. - Support SCPRP Head Admin | Ex SCPRP Event Team Leader | Ex CI LTCMDR | O5-13 Catsro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggo0 Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 7 hours ago, Rookieblue said: The instituted rule was the MTF include a valid reason when adverting thermals, and the example given was if they noticed SCP 966 potentially breached. If MTF are aware that CI have breached, and they're aware that CI have cloaking technology (which they are), I think it's completely valid for them to use thermals in that situation. - Support SCPRP Director of Logistics, Event Team | Former Nu7 2LT, Former Senior Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igneous Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 Denied. The SCP-RP SMT has decided against adding this suggestion for performance reasons, the benefit to the server, or another unstated reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts