Content Suggestion Allow SCPs to be credited

Content Suggestions will be reviewed by Content Team weekly, please allow time as not everything can be reviewed at once.

AquaWolf

Well-known Member
Feb 11, 2025
13
4
41
What does this suggestion change/add/remove: This allows researchers or those who work with SCPs to credit them as if they were D-Class.


Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?: I don't believe so.


Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
1. Give SCPs a reason to comply with testing and sampling.
2. SCPs have a much easier time getting experience.
3. Less SCPs afking on job.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
1. Possibly less people playing SCP due to experience being easier to get.
2. Possible experience farming between researchers and SCPs.


Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This would make it much easier for SCPs to gain experience instead of having to wait for breach timer, this would be a reason to flag on when requested by researchers. I think this would lead to better rp between researchers and SCPs.
 
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?: I don't believe so.
Unfortunately, this has already been discussed to death.
I retract everything I've ever said about Content responses. At this point, clearly elucidating denial reasons does not deter people from making new suggestions and is just a colossal waste of their time, my apologies. I get now how it's a pretty Sisyphean task to get people to understand that you won't accept something.

There is also the crediting clause from the FAS:
Crediting: We will no longer accept crediting (XP) based suggestions unless there is an exceptional reasoning behind this.
My stance is unchanged from the last time we went over this, see second link for more info. I hope the first is still slated to happen at some point, but I'd understand if it's been scrapped with concerns of chem & XP farming issues.
+/- Neutral
 
  • Like
Reactions: AquaWolf
Unfortunately, this has already been discussed to death.
I retract everything I've ever said about Content responses. At this point, clearly elucidating denial reasons does not deter people from making new suggestions and is just a colossal waste of their time, my apologies. I get now how it's a pretty Sisyphean task to get people to understand that you won't accept something.

There is also the crediting clause from the FAS:

My stance is unchanged from the last time we went over this, see second link for more info. I hope the first is still slated to happen at some point, but I'd understand if it's been scrapped with concerns of chem & XP farming issues.
+/- Neutral
Oh ok, I tried looking it up to see of its been suggested before but I didn't see anything, hopefully since that first one was accepted it'll be implemented eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
I would be nice if there was a list of approved suggestions that havnt been implemented yet so this sort of thing doesn't happen, there could also be one for denied suggestions for the same reason. Having just one folder of resolved makes it a bit cluttered.