Denied SCP-966 Rework idea

This suggestion has been denied and will not receive development.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 15, 2022
7
0
111
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Right now SCP-966 is not fun to test on and not fun to play:
> During tests you cannot see/interact with him until he kills the D-Class and thats it.
> During breaches SCP-966 just looks really bad when attacking people.
> No RP could happen with SCP-966 with its breach

My suggestion is to rework SCP-966 by changing the following things:
> Making SCP-966 more of a RP SCP
> SCP-966 Will be whitelisted to ensure players know how to work with him and actually RP
> Maybe adding a new Swep simular to SCP-323 stalking effect. (This ability would make it so SCP-323 Can focus on 1 person and slowly making the subject get more insane/slower/psychotic. To explain more on this my idea would be SCP-966 Chooses 1 subject after he selected the person SCP-966 would be visable to the subject alone (Or if someone is wearing a NVG). After about 30 seconds or 60 seconds SCP-966 would actually be able to kill its subject (Without becoming visable to other people). during the stalking duration the subject will receive debuffs such as Halucinations/Fatigue/Slowness.
> SCP-966 Would become a silent breach that is not in breach queue but would need to be authed by SL or GMs to make sure its not too disruptive
> (This line is kind of a reach but it would be fun so surface RP could also be kind off fun) SCP-966 can be seem with NVG upclose (Maybe around 30 meters) but not damaged yet. If you want to do damage to SCP-966 you would need to use a reality anchor on him. If he gets hit with the reality ancor he would become completely visable for about 2 minutes (Even without NVGs). During him being exposed he can attack anyone freely

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?
I dont think so.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
In my opinion the following posivites of this rework would be:
> SCP-966 would actually get played because if SCP-966 stays as a standard breach SCP its just too weak
> SCP-966 Could be played to actually RP because if 966 would for example decide to stalk a D-class it would create RP because GSD would actually need to report D-classes acting crazy/dying. The same would count for surface (If 966 can get by the turrets undetected)
> Having another SCP that isnt just mouse 1 run in and kill is always better for RP

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
>A Negative side effect for this rework could be very long Code-5s killing research. (This could be negated by making a breach SCP-966 a Cognitohazard. Which it could classify as because the cant just attack anyone freely)
> SCP-966 focusing high clearence people (This could be negated by making it that SCP-966 cannot go into Floor 3)


Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
In my opinion SCP-966 has great RP potential because it can create a kind of spooky RP experience which is heavely under used
 
Suggestion Denied



Hi @Barddon ,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.

The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reason(s):

Content Team do not feel like adding a whitelist to this SCP would have any significant impact on SCP-966's playability, perhaps even turning people away from wanting to play this SCP. We also don't think that making SCP-966 a silent breach would positively benefit server health as this could prolong breaches.

The functionality for SCP-966 to have a similar stalking mechanic to SCP-323 has already previously been accepted and is on the development tracker.

Furthermore, the need to deploy an Scranton Reality Anchor to damage SCP-966 doesn't entirely make sense as their reason for "invisibility" is due to the fact that they can only be seen at specific wave lengths and not tied to any sort of reality bending.

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