Denied 106 breaches

This suggestion has been denied and will not receive development.
Status
Not open for further replies.

bluedaproto

Civil Gamers Expert
Jun 12, 2023
3
0
51
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
[there should be a timer so 106 isnt contained so fast]

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
[no]

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
[106 being able to do more in breaches and 106 not being instantly contained ruining the fun for the player]

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
[people getting mad that 106 cant be contained fast since hes immortal]

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
[no-one plays 106 cause how easily hes contained there's no way to enjoy playing him if there just happens to be a dclass already coming down to hcz and you get contained in 30 seconds, not being able to enjoy playing as a scp after waiting for 5 hours for a single breach, i feel like even if there was a short like 3-5 min timer people would play him way more]
 

Phill

Trial Game Master
Trial Game Master
Feb 11, 2025
11
0
41
This would effectively provide complete immunity to SCP-106 for a given time, meaning that Epsilon-11 just has to sit around doing nothing to stop an ongoing breach for that period. I think this is silly, and am not in favor of it for that reason.
 

Tykeck

Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
SCP-RP Staff
Content Team
Sep 23, 2024
29
9
41
Suggestion Denied

Hi @bluedaproto,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.
The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reasons.

As of current 106 is quite powerful seeing as they can teleport from their cc to d-block then back again in ordered to counter any potential containment. Along with this 106 may go into their own dimension in ordered to sprint after a target before popping out again.

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
Status
Not open for further replies.