Phillers Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 What you want to see? - Thermals String Binds (/advert THERMALS [CI/966/Invisible Entity]) to not be counted as valid. Why should we add it? - The rule was changed so that reasons need to be stated when adverting thermals, but the issue is, this is completely pointless if everyone has these kinds of binds. So i believe that the rule requiring reasons to be stated needs to either be removed, or these string binds to be invalidated. What are the advantages of having this? - Allows the rules to actualy function as intended. Who is it mainly for? - MTF/CI Links to any content - N/A "Without morals, are we truly any better than the things we've set ourselves to contain?" EX-Site Director | EX-Super Admin | EX-Event Team Lead | Otter Lover | Regardless of what SMT Says, not a furry. | R&D Senior Inspector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAim Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 (edited) The reason people use these is because when they go to actually type in "thermals", the enemy will uncloak and attack them while they type. EDIT: For example MTF: Sees a door open randomly behind them *starts to type thermals* 966: takes half the MTF's HP before he can even react Edited April 16, 2020 by BadAim Retired Imperial RP Super Admin and Grand General Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillers Posted April 16, 2020 Author Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, BadAim said: The reason people use these is because when they go to actually type in "thermals", the enemy will uncloak and attack them while they type. Most of the times Thermals are not engaged during combat, as during combat the person who would be engaging thermals will be shooting. Rarely do people have to type out Thermals while they are in / about to be in combat. "Without morals, are we truly any better than the things we've set ourselves to contain?" EX-Site Director | EX-Super Admin | EX-Event Team Lead | Otter Lover | Regardless of what SMT Says, not a furry. | R&D Senior Inspector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggo0 Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 I just have 2 separate binds, one for CI and one for 966. Not a big deal. SCPRP Director of Logistics, Event Team | Former Nu7 2LT, Former Senior Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 -Support Unnecessary. Former Security Captain | Former RCF Commander | Former Admin of SCP:RP | King Penguin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionicle Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 Just have THERMALS [Possible cloaked assailant] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggo0 Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 4 hours ago, Bionicle said: Just have THERMALS [Possible cloaked assailant] That's the same as just adverting thermals... We know nothing more by you saying [Possible cloaked assailant]. SCPRP Director of Logistics, Event Team | Former Nu7 2LT, Former Senior Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Doggo0 said: That's the same as just adverting thermals... We know nothing more by you saying [Possible cloaked assailant]. 8 hours ago, Bionicle said: Just have THERMALS [Possible cloaked assailant] Guys, the suggestion is asking to make Thermal Binds like "/advert THERMALS [CI/966/Invisible Entity]" automatic void because its not specific. Though if someone was cloaked, you wouldn't know what it is until it uncloaks so I don't see the issue with having a generalized bind. Edited April 17, 2020 by Gunther Former Security Captain | Former RCF Commander | Former Admin of SCP:RP | King Penguin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillers Posted April 17, 2020 Author Share Posted April 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Gunther said: Guys, the suggestion is asking to make Thermal Binds like "/advert THERMALS [CI/966/Invisible Entity]" automatic void because its not specific. Though if someone was cloaked, you wouldn't know what it is until it uncloaks so I don't see the issue with having a generalized bind. But by that logic, having the bind in the first place is pointless, as the reason doesn't matter then. "Without morals, are we truly any better than the things we've set ourselves to contain?" EX-Site Director | EX-Super Admin | EX-Event Team Lead | Otter Lover | Regardless of what SMT Says, not a furry. | R&D Senior Inspector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheeReaper Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 15 hours ago, Gunther said: -Support Unnecessary. No one Remembers me ~ AHOT Reaper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit Posted April 19, 2020 Share Posted April 19, 2020 On 4/16/2020 at 2:37 PM, Doggo0 said: I just have 2 separate binds, one for CI and one for 966. Not a big deal. Easy fix and it would help prevent people power gaming as staff would know exactly why they're putting on thermals. Side note Honestly they shouldn't be calling thermals for CI unless they see an infiltrator. You don't have to be the best, you just got to be better than dip shit over there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakub Posted April 19, 2020 Share Posted April 19, 2020 nah honestly i dont feel like getting attacked by someone who uncloaks as soon as i go to type thermals Ex E11 COL, Ex A1 MAJ, Ex AHOTS, Ex Security 2LT, Ex Admin. Current CI 2LT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igneous Posted April 20, 2020 Share Posted April 20, 2020 Denied. The SCP-RP SMT has decided against adding this suggestion for performance reasons, the benefit to the server, or another unstated reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts