Network Leadership required The Uncoupling of UK and US Server Content Parity

[Cade Valentine]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Removing one of the longest standing rules regarding content/policy rules in SCP-RP; That the content/rules applied to both servers must be equal for a "fair experience".

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I'll be honest, I don't know. But I have sifted through about 9 months worth of suggestions that use the word "content", and a lot of the same for the Discord, and haven't found any implications of such suggestions being done already.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
A decoupled and tailored content experience to both servers means that various suggestions that are excellent on paper but denied due to cross-server complications can be revisited or added
Content Teams of both servers have a reduced workload in that their focus is now only on the impact of "their" Server respectively
A culture shift regarding combat/roleplay loops can be actually acknowledged by the community, instead of numerous fence sitting remarks about how things are different to an extreme but no solution as to fixing it.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Whilst Content may benefit, staff themselves will probably undergo stress/annoyance - rulesets may become unique per server and that can be frustrating to accomodate.
The above point will also apply to the playerbase and any transfers.
The transitional phase of this suggestion is probably going to be a community-wide headache as we get used to decoupling a lot of processes regarding changes/evaluation of ideas.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Oh boy, the big one! I'm gonna keep the opening part of this suggestion as brief as possible, because I at least want people to read SOME of the important points if they want to skip my yap.

Why? -
In a reflective way, I've been thinking about my ongoing suggestion regarding the major Nu-7 rework. It has been brought to my attention that US CI are quite concerned in some aspects, because it's clear as day their experience is much different. Through research, it's clear to me that their raiding difficulty is MUCH higher than that of UK CI, and so if my suggestion goes through and their Nu-7 is buffed too, CI could be in significant gameplay loop trouble.
So why don't we just unlink the two servers in terms of changes?
Let's first of all go over the first specific mention of WHY content parity exists, going all the way back to 2022 (please don't be goobers about you know who being in the screenshot)
See, this is the general mentality that has prevailed by staff over this since the inception - options to play must be the same, because people who would server switch would never be able to keep up.

Numerous counterpoints to the contrary;

1) The point is moot anyway given how the servers have evolved - Be real, literally NO member of staff could sit down in a conversation with me and say they agree that UK and US play the same in the slightest anymore. CI is a different power level as a faction, mentality on roleplay itself is different, some policies on testing and accessibility of CL info is WAYYYY different and this is a product of one key thing; TIME. Different players and their interpretation of the product that is the server have resulted in mindset shifts on both communities, leading to the fact that the content being the same has actually made this change a nightmare and not a benefit. Imagine, nowadays, the difference in a Researcher going from UK to US to try experiment on the same SCPs theyre used to. Because a shift has occurred, the attempt at content parity hinders the accessibility since there's two "methods" to the same thing. It's effectively only become a rule in name and time-honored tradition than something worthwhile.

2) Reduced workload - Look, summer is approaching, Site-9 is approaching, staff need more time elsewhere before we get the yearly influx of drama, new players and also POTENTIALLY, a new server. Each team being able to focus on their own server instead of having to organise sit-down consultations with players or staff theyre NEVER going to realistically encounter any other time than in discussions over content/rule parity. This will free up time elsewhere that I think these people (as human beings to go do stuff elsewhere) would need.

3) Opinion based, but this just inspires stagnation and a lack of creativity - the lack of acknowledgement officially and instead just casual pointing and laughing over differences (which, admit it, everyone at this point does), means that actual good suggestions get drowned out in the face of this rule which realistically isn't fully adhered to anyway due to policy differentiation. Like, point 2 specifically. I fact checked the RSD policies across servers; the handbooks are over SIXTEEN pages different in length, and for sampling, US has SPECIFIC SCPs that have lower than 3L sampling limits imposed by RSD itself. I didn't even know that was allowed from a rule POV! The experience isn't the same at all, and this is the most minor of examples.

Conclusion
I get that this rule has just been the thing since inception of US, but look, it just doesn't make sense anymore. What started out as two blank templates, has essentially had two different cultures take that template and make their own thing of it. With the hindsight of how damaging my pending acceptance suggestion is to US potentially, if things stay the same, it offered reflective insight into the state of parity policies. I do truly get the POV of how frustrating it'll be to get used to from an SSL/NL POV, but I do think the long-term benefits will be significant and marked for all involved, and should allow for the communities to actually flourish amongst themselves as needed, especially in the face of an exodus divide that may come from Site-9. I'd ask this be seriously thought over, and if desired, reach out to discuss ideas for implementation/thoughts on specific problems.

 

[Starling6]

please god
+soup

 

[Sceptre]

Despite this suggestion being wholeheartedly logical and something that SHOULD be added, I do not reasonably see this being implemented as it overcomplicates things. I also foresee issues with players who join both servers and have to use different content and rules.

 

[Merrick Travolta]

-Support.

I'm going to do a merrick classic and yap way too much about things and likely lose the plot somewhere in the middle to explain my reasoning.

Speaking purely on my limited understanding of the state of staff at the moment.

USA and UK's content team's are smaller than youd think. USA has 3 members, Holland and Athiaed with hypnos as lead, Whereas on UK we currently have stopheart, Verlocity, Dingle and TrickL with snake as lead.

Decoupling would put pressure on the smaller team causing one of three things, if not more.

1. That servers content slows down due to the team members getting burnt out faster.
2. Those team members get frustrated due to the pressure and resign.
3. the limited opinions cause wild and unfiltered changes to the server effected. This might sound good as it could differentiate the servers in terms of content and rp but the best answer to this is, Could you imagine a scenario where the whole of content team are CI mains, or AO mains. (For UK this is pretty close already as only TrickL isn't an AO player).

And this is just content team. The whole of staff could be effected as if rules are seperated and modified too much, UK and USA staff members would not be able to assist eachother when their respective servers need staff, For example. There's numerous situations where UK will have 10-14 staff members on with a population of around 86, But USA will have 127 with just 2 people, While this isn't a content parity thing, if rules become too dissimilar that it becomes a case of remembering X and Y Clarifications apply on UK but not on USA and different sets of rules, I might cry.

(This response took me like an hour to write because I rewrote it 5 times)

 

[grunger]

Some technical concerns:

1. Staff being split across two servers: do they need to familiarize themselves with two sets of rulings, or will staff numbers be effectively cut in half?
2. Content packs: separate packs for each for every update, or would you have to download UK content that goes unused by the US and vice versa?
3. Development: will suggestions offering new content be catered to and made specifically for one server only? Won't that strain development resources?
4. Unity: less technical, but wouldn't players from separate servers, holding isolated perspectives on gameplay and the state of the server, begin to feel like they're playing entirely different games, opening a rift between the player base?

 

[Betriv]

-support
no clue what im lookin at deadass barely read it but uh yeah

 

[Holland]

A small extension on the beautiful words of Merrick,



- Content will be unbalanced as in updates, changes etc
- Players who come for Combat will choose the server where their faction has the better weapons or loadouts
- There will be zero point in dedicating to 1 server with less content or content that is missing.

- Development will be delayed
- Issue`s will arise where UK or US will say "oh UK has that weapon or have that item in loadout why don't we have it."
- Player gap will increase

In a reflective way, I've been thinking about my ongoing suggestion regarding the major Nu-7 rework. It has been brought to my attention that US CI are quite concerned in some aspects, because it's clear as day their experience is much different. Through research, it's clear to me that their raiding difficulty is MUCH higher than that of UK CI, and so if my suggestion goes through and their Nu-7 is buffed too, CI could be in significant gameplay loop trouble.

This argument in my mind comes as the following: US CI are not the best at attacking, they are lacking strategies or are overwhelmed by the number of men or tactics of the enemy. UK CI is just better/ SOP on Uk is bad vise versa

^ This is pure player skill, leadership and strategies. I don't see how loadouts will changes this in the long run, players adapt.
(TLDR CSGO pro team vs amateur team vise versa)
(Don't take this offensively, dear players)

yapped too much nonsense (5 AM still awake ).

 

[Change Z. "Somebody"]

+support although this would be nice it would most likely get denied for staff complications. This would also make it so content team would have a stupidly complex job.

 

[cityismy]

+Support

 

[Niox]

+Support

 

[Tay]

It won't happen, but it would be nice if it did...

+Support

 

[Jack G]

Coming from an MRP USA perspective in the very short while that lasted, this would just be as respectfully as I can put it - aids. Developers would need to do 2x the work with 2x gitlabs meaning double the issues that there is (issues being the name for each little 'ticket' made on gitlabs).

Unless it was primarily departmental changes where it requires no development time, only the agreement and push from that servers Server Leadership, it's just not realistic in my eyes. Plus, you have the added bonus of let's say, UK has a lack of developers and USA has a LOT, you get that work they do for USA on UK.

As I say, departmental stuff and potentially rules I agree with, dev and overall content I just can't see that ever being a good thing other than it means that USA+UK don't need to come to agreements to get something changed.

That's my view anyway, maybe it could work! Regardless, good luck sirs!

 

[Dusk]

+Support
Why isn't this an ongoing conversation?

I mean, at this point I don't even care anymore because there is no such thing as a "fair" comparison in the first place.

The degree to which Americans get sidelined or reprimanded in comparison to the accommodations on the UK side is absolutely bonkers. And we're meant to pretend it's all "fair." I've had channels and ideas put up for SL review, only to be denied and then immediately the UK gets them implemented with no questions asked .

You have two completely different operations pretending to be one under the same guise trying to operate as one. That's why you have two completely different communities constantly at odds with each other. The distinction isn't subtle, it's systematic.

 

[Broda]

The dev power is just not there for this endeavour. They are already spread thin working on Site-9.

In reality, love this idea. UK and US have different approaches to roleplay and server culture. UK tends to be more serious where as from what I've experienced, the US mixes every 5 seconds.

This is just unachievable as it is but good attempt regardless

 

[Marvin Garden]

Not to mention, the servers are quite literally linked in the vjob setups.

The idea of separation sounds good, but is not realistically achievable with the size of the staff and development team we have.

 

[Cade Valentine]

Okay so this generated a lot of interesting discussion so far, thanks guys. First things first - I'm gonna address a key point of my argument; The two servers are so different that the parity has essentially become a tradition instead of a worthwhile rule. Let's do this from a policy/content POV first;

I'm gonna list every single change I can find regarding differences in accessibility and policy between the two servers. This could take a while. Have fun.

Policy Differences:
General Policy;
US still abides by the unmerged Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics on TOP OF an FLC, whereas UK has used the FLC only and iterated it about 3 times already.
US does not allow for specific AA articles to be authorised; Matadors shouldn't be authed by an Nu-7 LT+ or DEA Special Agent+
US states that the Administrator or their Assistants would operate as the Judge for when a Site Command member is on High Tribunal (uhhh......what.)
If I am reading it right, you actually have to be CL4 on US to have even remotely knowledgable information on Alpha-1 or Omega-1.
The Nuke appears to be declassified to *all* of Site Administration on US.

RSD;
On US, SCP-106 and SCP-096 require prior *authorisation* to test on them before a test can commence.
On US, every single SCP-914 test requires prior *authorisation* from an Executive+
On US, every single SCP-1162 (hole) test requires prior *authorisation* from an Executive+
On US, E-11 must be able to sign a document before allowing RSD into HCZ to perform a test, unlike on UK where it's just a supervision based system.
On US, sampling must involve the supervision of E-11, even if the SCP is not inside of HCZ.
On US, you must have E-11 sign the same document as two points above AGAIN to be allowed to leave HCZ.
On US, crosstests require X amount of E-11 to be present based on anomaly threat level. For example, the test cannot take place without 6 E-11 present if it's on 035 x 106.
On US, giving D-Class weapons requires DoR approval, whereas on UK requires Executive approval.
On US, 008 testing requires DoR + Ethics signature, 12 MTF on-site and an E-11 LT+ and Exec+ on-site to commence.
On US, only 400ml of SCP-008, 2000ml of SCP-457 and 409 can be collected at any given sampling run.

Nu-7;
On US, Nu-7 may technically use OOC info on if a DELCOM is on the server or not to decide if they can patrol inside the Site or not (huh.)
On UK, Nu-7 distinctly integrates subdivisions into their regiment and it could be argued that they are vital for promotion.

E-11;
On US, activity requirements are measured in a monthly system of 28 hours per 30 days (lowkey quite an interesting and not bad idea)
The above points regarding RSD and E-11s necessity and presence to them also apply on the US.

GSD;
On US, GSD are departmentally expected to respond to threats such as Code 1's in some capacity or be fully proactive in patrols, whereas this is nowhere near as prevalent on UK.
On US, if a D-Class has any contraband (any item that shows on a weapon checker that isn't a field kit), they are KOS, whereas if they don't reach in lines on UK, they can be stripped. Even a CLIPBOARD can merit termination in some instances.

Assistants;
On US, Assistants are not allowed to authorise UNGOC onto the Site unless explicitly *ordered to* by their respective SC.

UNGOC;
On US, the Orange Suit does not have multiple lives, except for during an SCP-008 breach.

DEA;
The most baffling one to me; according to the DEA Handbook of US, if a CI begins a hack on the outermost gate of compound, that does NOT count as raiding.

Okay after like over an hour of deep diving I'm at my limit but you get my point - The servers are not the same in the slightest and this is from a POLICY perspective only. Access to nearly everything is different, abilities to do certain roleplay have either more or less restrictions and regiments are monitored differently. So, we can all agree on that front, so this is where the biggest issue comes in;

The Staff/Dev Issue;
So as people have pointed out, Site-9's imminent arrival means two things - 1) most devs are working on it stretching content pretty thin as it is already and 2) the lack of spare staff in this period means that it'd cause burnout very fast if people have to increase workload on one server instead of cooperation across both.

To me, there are multiple suggestions and fixes, but I am not a fortune teller and not psychic to the inner workings of CN's business operations, so I can only SUGGEST things. My personal opinion based on how I know GMod communities work is that, well, CN is 100% sitting on enough cash to hire a few more devs minimum with no tangible impact to business. Given that devs respond to a bounty system anyway, keeping the core team of Site-9 who are ingratiated into the process of assembling the server, while bringing essentially "support staff" to maintain 65 on UK/US sounds like a simple enough idea to me. Sure it'd take time and certainly significant coding redesigns for vjob related stuff, but the positive AFTER this is done, is why I say it is worth doing in the first place.

Devs could tailor what server they want to work on as well to reduce the 2x gitlab issue - it's not like the two communities would be erecting a wall seperating each other, but work can be focused on one place, and visits or staff crossover still can happen, just with facilitated measures to actually make sure people are on the same page about certain rulings.

- Issue`s will arise where UK or US will say "oh UK has that weapon or have that item in loadout why don't we have it."

That's the point - this would finally become an invalid argument instead of it being used to delay or squander good ideas for both servers - proper decoupling and acknowledgement of the fact the two servers have evolved to be two different entities will actually mean that UK/US combat/roleplay loops can be examined for what they are on their own, instead of having to factor in a third party that doesn't ever bear on the servers themselves.

I'm fully okay with not the full scope of this idea being accepted, but I do think some very basic areas of content at the very least could be decoupled in a very feasible way.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Okay so this generated a lot of interesting discussion so far, thanks guys. First things first - I'm gonna address a key point of my argument; The two servers are so different that the parity has essentially become a tradition instead of a worthwhile rule. Let's do this from a policy/content POV first;

I'm gonna list every single change I can find regarding differences in accessibility and policy between the two servers. This could take a while. Have fun.

It also used to be that the population caps of non-AO MTFs, CI & GOC were different on US to UK (Previously, US were the only ones with a hardcap on GOC) for some reason inherent to US - Then there was a meeting and this somehow resulted in UK's increased restrictions as a result. There's obviously some other examples, especially since I expected this list to be at least thrice as long as it is - But I won't pretend like there isn't a good reason, and although I wasn't present for any discussions on the matter, to me on the outside, it never reflected well that when trying to reconcile changes specific to some US server experience, with the way things are on UK, the result is to curtail the allowances on UK to create 'parity' between the two servers. Those changes never sat well with me.

+/- Neutral

 

[YandereMuffin]

Perhaps Neutral

Even if the staff teams were plentiful and we had tons of dev energy, I would still likely believe this would be a bad idea.


From the rules point of view I certainly don't see it, I do see how staffing is different on each server however that is much less to do with the rules actually being different and just the servers player bases not respecting certain rules.

For example on the US server "Mixing" as a rule is much more commonly broken than it on the UK, however I see no way in which changing this rule to be more lenient on US and harsher (or the same) on UK would really be fixing anything - but rather simply just pushing US further into the Mixing rule break.

And from the point of view of content I feel odd. I think it wouldn't be very good to split the content, however I understand how what is frankly just a skill diff between the factions / groups on each server can mean that changes vastly affect them - I think that overall the changes are for balance reasons and are rightly placed (well when the changes themselves are good, there are obviously some changes that are not) as I do not believe player skill should be taken vastly into consideration when it comes to balance.