Content Suggestion Chemical, Armor and Server integrity changes

Content Suggestions will be reviewed by Content Team weekly, please allow time as not everything can be reviewed at once.
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion creates some fundamental balance changes aimed at immersive roleplay and long-term gameplay viability:


  • A 15% universal debuff is applied to all combat, healing, and passive chemicals. This reduces the overwhelming influence chemical stacking currently has across all combat scenarios.
  • Wall-phasing mechanics are limited: All SCPs and chemicals that allow wall-phasing will be blocked from accessing high-security bulkheads (CL5, biometric, or coded). However, they can still pass through CL3 and linear bulkheads. Excluding SCP106
  • Armor receives a 25% ballistic resistance buff while specific character player health pools are reduced slightly. This promoted a higher need for medical and technical staff possibly including an armor system for ETS instead of dying over and over again. Armor for a length of time has largely been obsolete and replaced with chemical stacking for survivability.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Yes, smaller suggestions have been made to nerf individual chemicals or SCPs. However, this proposal introduces a broad systemic shift that addresses the underlying issue: the increasing dependence on damage-centric metas and chemical stacking. It redirects focus toward existing but underused mechanics like clearance, access control, armor, and hacking. Rather than patching isolated issues, this change realigns the server with its core SCP identity.

Possible Positives of the suggestion:

  1. Encourages in-character methods such as hacking, clearance-based access, and infiltration bringing SCP roleplay back to the forefront.
  2. Reduces burnout from repetitive chemical metas, giving regiments and roles room to thrive through tactics, planning, and teamwork.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
  • Players who rely heavily on chemical combinations or damage-stacking will need time to adjust.
  • Some SCPs may need reevaluation over time to ensure their abilities remain viable and balanced within the new limitations.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The increasing focus on chemicals and high-damage tools has created a hyper-competitive atmosphere that sidelines roleplay. As a result, regiments have lost identity, jobs have been reduced to number comparisons, and countless opportunities for meaningful character interaction have been dismissed in favor of speed and output.

This suggestion offers a chance to shift direction. It creates a space where planning, intelligence, and use of in-game systems are rewarded more than mechanical advantage. Underutilized mechanics such as hacking and access control regain value. Regiments that have become irrelevant due to combat metas can rediscover purpose.

Most importantly, it supports the long-term health of the server. New players will no longer be overwhelmed by chemical-stacking metas. Veterans will rediscover the appeal of character-focused gameplay. Roleplay becomes richer, and player retention improves as experiences grow more memorable.


In short, this is not just a balance update it is a cultural shift. One that puts genre integrity, fairness, and story back at the center of the Civil Networks SCP RP experience.
 
I'd honestly rather combat chems not really be a thing. If a chem gives a combat advantage, it should also give a disadvantage, e.g. potent duloxetine shouldn't just give you a huge speed boost, 682 shouldn't give you perma regen with no disadvantage, etc. An overdose functionality would be great, but even without them, something like making potent make you take damage slowly over time due to overtaxing your muscles, or having 682 eventually start damaging you after X amount of time would be decent balancing changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dusk
I'd honestly rather combat chems not really be a thing. If a chem gives a combat advantage, it should also give a disadvantage, e.g. potent duloxetine shouldn't just give you a huge speed boost, 682 shouldn't give you perma regen with no disadvantage, etc. An overdose functionality would be great, but even without them, something like making potent make you take damage slowly over time due to overtaxing your muscles, or having 682 eventually start damaging you after X amount of time would be decent balancing changes.
I agree with this however with the overwhelming and number of people that have stated that they'll never be removed for multiple reasons I think the best option is somehow alter them where it they're still usable but not completely removed
 
I agree with this however with the overwhelming and number of people that have stated that they'll never be removed for multiple reasons I think the best option is somehow alter them where it they're still usable but not completely removed
I would hope that CT would at least consider it, though either way, I just don't like combat chems. Chems should be roleplay-focused, not "Speed boost. And another. And regen. And healing a huge amount at once. And jump boost. Fuck you."
 
I'd honestly rather combat chems not really be a thing. If a chem gives a combat advantage, it should also give a disadvantage, e.g. potent duloxetine shouldn't just give you a huge speed boost, 682 shouldn't give you perma regen with no disadvantage, etc. An overdose functionality would be great, but even without them, something like making potent make you take damage slowly over time due to overtaxing your muscles, or having 682 eventually start damaging you after X amount of time would be decent balancing changes.
I feel like minor use of it is fine, but if it gets to the point where people are constantly using it for combat, instead of purely just having combat consequences, I feel like it should be dealt with in a more IC way, e.g. too much Immortal Flesh (682 chem) giving you cancer, too much Potent Dulux/Dianabol (Speed) giving you heart or muscle issues, etc.
Alas this is up to the players entirely, and if they want to engage in said RP, which I don't think many do.

Oh +Support btw, i hate chems
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayCee13