General Suggestion - Bring back crossing to negotiations! - Denied

[IgnisNuts]

What are you suggesting? - That crossing negotiations between CI and MTF should be brought back.

How would this change better the server? - As it stands right now negotiations are done in a way where upon meeting the opposing force from a negotiation it's just giving the person the agreed upon item to each other. It was originally removed from my understanding that it caused too many issues at the time it was around, but the server has changed a lot from what it used to be back then, no longer being as toxic as it used to be. If this were to be brought back into the server, it would bring RP back to that moment of the negotiation, but also bring more RP towards the surface as that's where most of the time it happens. In the current moment there is no reason to be worried when confronting the opposing force in the server right now as nothing can happen, but if crossing were to be brought back it would bring back that anxiety of confronting each other worrying about if they are going to strike or not.

Are there any disadvantages of making this change to the server? If so, explain. - Not really as the server has grown to be way more chill than it was before when it was allowed.

Who would this change mostly benefit? - MTF and CI 

Please link any workshop content, screenshots, or anything that you think may be helpful to those who view this suggestion - N/A

[Grеg]

+Support

planning ambushes with snipers used to be so fun and I feel it was one of the best things

[FusionThunder]

+Support

Had no idea this wasn’t a thing already 

[Phillers]

+Support.
However, not for this fully being removed. Rather, I believe this should be left to HCMD to figure out between themselves instead of everything being ruled by MOTD.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Phillers

[Orange 🍊]

-Support
You don't understand the amount of bitching (Best way to put it) that came from CI and MTF every time this happened, regardless of who double crossed first.
However, I do agree that the requirements for MTF to Raid CI should be a little more relaxed. But once a negotiation is set, it should stay set.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Orange 🍊

[Alexxxx]

Just now, Orange said:

-Support
You don't understand the amount of bitching (Best way to put it) that came from CI and MTF every time this happened, regardless of who double crossed first.
However, I do agree that the requirements for MTF to Raid CI should be a little more relaxed. But once a negotiation is set, it should stay set.

 

[Right Twix Bar]

"Oh. Why give up a hostage when I can take the money and kill the MTF?" 

"Oh. Why give up money when I can just shoot the CI and take the hostage."

Why would you ever give up your negotiation piece if you can just shoot and overwhelm the other side? 

Why have role play of negotiations if it'll just become a shootout? 

-Support. 

[Loaff]

-support 

Complaining in OOC from both CI and MTF is still very much of an occurrence. Like Orange said, when crossing was allowed it always gave someone the short end of the stick unless both sides were feeling particularly diplomatic that day or had an absolute equal amount of manpower. 

Twix put it perfectly. Negotiations are one of the only real RP activities MTF has, crossing just makes the whole thing combat focused again, which may seem good to some, but I disagree.

[Piller]

29 minutes ago, Orange said:

-Support
You don't understand the amount of bitching (Best way to put it) that came from CI and MTF every time this happened, regardless of who double crossed first.
However, I do agree that the requirements for MTF to Raid CI should be a little more relaxed. But once a negotiation is set, it should stay set.

 

16 minutes ago, Right Twix Bar said:

"Oh. Why give up a hostage when I can take the money and kill the MTF?" 

"Oh. Why give up money when I can just shoot the CI and take the hostage."

Why would you ever give up your negotiation piece if you can just shoot and overwhelm the other side? 

Why have role play of negotiations if it'll just become a shootout? 

-Support. 

 

10 minutes ago, Loaff said:

-support 

Complaining in OOC from both CI and MTF is still very much of an occurrence. Like Orange said, when crossing was allowed it always gave someone the short end of the stick unless both sides were feeling particularly diplomatic that day or had an absolute equal amount of manpower. 

Twix put it perfectly. Negotiations are one of the only real RP activities MTF has, crossing just makes the whole thing combat focused again, which may seem good to some, but I disagree.

-Support

This would almost always end in a shootout and given the current state of Nu-7 regarding HP/AP, and the fact that CI has a tactical advantage of living on surface and would almost always beat Nu-7 to the area, it would just end with a fairly one sided shootout that would just demotivate them.

[Sgt. Salvador]

If RP is defined as people talking in chat about how much to sell someone for, then meet up for 2 minutes and walking off as RP, then I now understand why RP is lacking compared to combat. Sure, it's 'RP'. There's not much roleplaying going on in handoffs though. Right now, it's more of a rule than a RP reason for 'negotiations' to go well. It's one of the very few times that CI and MTF don't attack each other but I'm positive there's a way to give negotiations more than just

"8k"
"no 10k"
"no 9k"
"ok"
And that's it. Maybe allow crossing only in specific scenarios -- Such as SCPs are the involved hostage, high priority targets are in the negotiation group, stuff like that. I like the idea of crossings being allowed because it'd make full sense to ambush.

Maybe even punishments for a failed ambush and rewards for a successful one. Make it a balanced option. "If we decide to ambush them, we can instead get XXXX and XXXX instead of 10k." Maybe like new guns or a keycard for next raid, or more armor. Stuff like that. Punishments could be longer cooldown for raid timer, you must advert your next raid, etc. MTF could be rewarded with a successful cross with money, XP, new weapons, etc.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Sgt. Salvador

[Nydekore]

-Support

this would also hugely disadvantage Nu7 as other than raiding it’s the only way to recover SCPs, meaning that if a lone Nu-7 were on an SCP could get into CI base and essentially team with them by getting “rc’d” but then never given back to site.

 

However, relaxing our raid requirements could be nice, after all the foundation isn’t exactly known for playing nice with GOIs. I would say let us raid instantly on LVL 4 personnel captured, 2+ other personnel captured, or a keter class SCP captured. This would allow us more say in how we handle things and would give CI more incentive to sell to us as right now MTF are sort of bullied in negotiations a lot of the time.

[a_krew10]

43 minutes ago, Right Twix Bar said:

"Oh. Why give up a hostage when I can take the money and kill the MTF?" 

"Oh. Why give up money when I can just shoot the CI and take the hostage."

Why would you ever give up your negotiation piece if you can just shoot and overwhelm the other side? 

Why have role play of negotiations if it'll just become a shootout? 

-Support. 

 

[Sparkle]

-Support

For this to be possible again, more scenarios need to be met with less bullets and actual communication, roleplay, and strategy. Right now, we are at a state of win at all costs, no matter the costs, with potentially no net benefit. That mentality has hurt us for a long time and has caused countless toxic situations to unfold. This was one of the scenarios that fell because of it. Until we can get back to a state where people don't mind the occasional loss and care enough to not immediately resort to drawing blood the second things go south, then maybe we can return to this. It's not too late to rework the meta where it isn't a one-up battle 24/7.

[Sprink]

2 hours ago, Phillers said:

+Support.
However, not for this fully being removed. Rather, I believe this should be left to HCMD to figure out between themselves instead of everything being ruled by MOTD.

 

[Some Weeb]

+Support I think double crossing should be allowed in certain circumstances. Like huge amounts of money, many SCPs captured and so forth 

[Blueidk]

1 hour ago, Right Twix Bar said:

"Oh. Why give up a hostage when I can take the money and kill the MTF?" 

"Oh. Why give up money when I can just shoot the CI and take the hostage."

Why would you ever give up your negotiation piece if you can just shoot and overwhelm the other side? 

Why have role play of negotiations if it'll just become a shootout? 

-Support. 

 

[Yato Sensei]

3 hours ago, Orange said:

-Support
You don't understand the amount of bitching (Best way to put it) that came from CI and MTF every time this happened, regardless of who double crossed first.
However, I do agree that the requirements for MTF to Raid CI should be a little more relaxed. But once a negotiation is set, it should stay set.

It created so much toxicity back in the day.

- Support

[Coltable]

Players are legit just gonna cry even more in ooc about being crossed :/.

[Bulborb]

4 hours ago, Right Twix Bar said:

"Oh. Why give up a hostage when I can take the money and kill the MTF?" 

"Oh. Why give up money when I can just shoot the CI and take the hostage."

Why would you ever give up your negotiation piece if you can just shoot and overwhelm the other side? 

Why have role play of negotiations if it'll just become a shootout? 

-Support. 

 

[recon]

4 hours ago, Right Twix Bar said:

"Oh. Why give up a hostage when I can take the money and kill the MTF?" 

"Oh. Why give up money when I can just shoot the CI and take the hostage."

Why would you ever give up your negotiation piece if you can just shoot and overwhelm the other side? 

Why have role play of negotiations if it'll just become a shootout? 

-Support. 

 

[Ya Boi Sawrunner]

5 hours ago, Sgt. Salvador said:

If RP is defined as people talking in chat about how much to sell someone for, then meet up for 2 minutes and walking off as RP, then I now understand why RP is lacking compared to combat. Sure, it's 'RP'. There's not much roleplaying going on in handoffs though. Right now, it's more of a rule than a RP reason for 'negotiations' to go well. It's one of the very few times that CI and MTF don't attack each other but I'm positive there's a way to give negotiations more than just

"8k"
"no 10k"
"no 9k"
"ok"
And that's it. Maybe allow crossing only in specific scenarios -- Such as SCPs are the involved hostage, high priority targets are in the negotiation group, stuff like that. I like the idea of crossings being allowed because it'd make full sense to ambush.

Maybe even punishments for a failed ambush and rewards for a successful one. Make it a balanced option. "If we decide to ambush them, we can instead get XXXX and XXXX instead of 10k." Maybe like new guns or a keycard for next raid, or more armor. Stuff like that. Punishments could be longer cooldown for raid timer, you must advert your next raid, etc. MTF could be rewarded with a successful cross with money, XP, new weapons, etc.

I like this in general, but we all know no one would ever trade, it would just be snipers picking people off or full blown assaults to kill hostages and stuff like that. RnD would never get anything out of it. I think if it were only allowed in very specific circumstances it would be fine, but they would have to be ironed way out with costs and benefits to both sides. 

-/+ support rn

[Average Pipebomb enjoyer]

7 hours ago, Grеg said:

+Support

planning ambushes with snipers used to be so fun and I feel it was one of the best things

 

[[GL] funnyfish0]

I would legit do anything to have this to come back, It was actually fun, even though there was toxicity. 
Back then when it was allowed MTF and CI would hide in town and in the forest and when someone shot once it was a all out war after giving the money or not.

Afterwards Whichever side lost would start an argument in ooc and it would go on until they were told to stop.

For now +/- support

[MexicanGuy]

10 hours ago, Right Twix Bar said:

"Oh. Why give up a hostage when I can take the money and kill the MTF?" 

"Oh. Why give up money when I can just shoot the CI and take the hostage."

Why would you ever give up your negotiation piece if you can just shoot and overwhelm the other side? 

Why have role play of negotiations if it'll just become a shootout? 

-Support. 

[DumpTruck]

11 hours ago, Orange said:

-Support
You don't understand the amount of bitching (Best way to put it) that came from CI and MTF every time this happened, regardless of who double crossed first.
However, I do agree that the requirements for MTF to Raid CI should be a little more relaxed. But once a negotiation is set, it should stay set.