Rule Suggestion Increase sample limit to 4L

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Nosey | Curious

Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
SCP-RP Staff
Platform Team
Jul 20, 2021
82
12
91
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Increase the sample limit from 3L to 4L

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not for this reason, or this specific amount increaase

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Due to the clarification on the current 3L being the mixed samples from many SCPs, it leaves you with 1.5L of useable chemical. This is annoying to store and sort, and overall makes these samplings much less useful. allowing 4L to be sampled would mean that for SCPs with 2 products, an even 2L could be obtained, which fits perfectly in large beakers. This would also somewhat negate the very lacklustre results of current sampling, especially of high level SCPs like 008

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Would make it easier to build up large amounts of chemicals, and would be much more effective on SCPs that only give 1 type of fluid already

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
It may slightly increase chemical farming, but overall makes much more sense for storage, collection and trading
 

The Guardian

Active member
Sep 22, 2023
154
36
21
-/+ Neutral
i think the big problem here is that this would encourage more sampling rp, an overwhelmingly huge portion of rp with scps is just milking them for whatever chems and i don't think further encouragement of this meta is desired

that being said, it is difficult to ideate good rp with scps and this unfortunately does serve as filler for that. it's not good filler. i suppose sampling rp is good for beginners to get into figuring out how to do stuff, but then that gets them used to sampling rp and not rp rp. RsD is struggling as-is. really not sure about this - i get the problem, but i don't think this is the solution
They'll sample either way, getting an extra half liter for better organization won't change that.
 

Glazzing

Active member
May 31, 2023
398
1
86
21
17
Des Moines, Iowa
-/+ Neutral
i think the big problem here is that this would encourage more sampling rp, an overwhelmingly huge portion of rp with scps is just milking them for whatever chems and i don't think further encouragement of this meta is desired

that being said, it is difficult to ideate good rp with scps and this unfortunately does serve as filler for that. it's not good filler. i suppose sampling rp is good for beginners to get into figuring out how to do stuff, but then that gets them used to sampling rp and not rp rp. RsD is struggling as-is. really not sure about this - i get the problem, but i don't think this is the solution
I'm -supporting your -/+ neutral cause I don't like your opinion on this
 

Niox

Active member
Jan 23, 2023
1,986
353
21
-support plenty of chemicals are sampled, not needed update giving even more
-support I feel like this takes away some of the rarity from higher level chems which isn't necessarily a good thing
-/+ Neutral
i think the big problem here is that this would encourage more sampling rp, an overwhelmingly huge portion of rp with scps is just milking them for whatever chems and i don't think further encouragement of this meta is desired

that being said, it is difficult to ideate good rp with scps and this unfortunately does serve as filler for that. it's not good filler. i suppose sampling rp is good for beginners to get into figuring out how to do stuff, but then that gets them used to sampling rp and not rp rp. RsD is struggling as-is. really not sure about this - i get the problem, but i don't think this is the solution
man its only 500ml, this isnt going to break the chemical economy

its just here to fix some peoples OCD and make their brain go yippee since both beakers will be filled, and you can evenly split samples from SCP's like 682 evenly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.