Partially Accepted Make SCPs more dynamic for factions

Content that has been partially accepted
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 6, 2023
134
23
61
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Allow the UNGOC & CI to be more dynamic with SCPs.

CI can keep locked away in cells and do RP with them with a set breach queue, until MTF Retrieve them or server restart.

UNGOC can ADB anomalies and make that job locked for a period of time 1 - 2 hours depending on which SCPs.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not that I am aware of.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
SCPs become a more dynamic " resource " that Foundation have to protect.
Makes ADB be able to be noticed by F therefore allowing more Negotiation RP.
Gives CI something to RP with when not raiding as well as introducing a small RP loop to CI.
Creates a reason that Foundation wants to buy SCPs back other than " Do it or staff will kill you " as well as F decide which SCPs they would rather CI keep.




Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Foundation get curb stomped by both GOC & CI during wars which will cause no Research RP.
Mass ADB Raids at Early Morning.
Mass SCP Kidnapping Raids early morning.
Introduces more combat for the server to handle.
May interfere with tests however in a perfect world talks would be done to stop that from happening OOC Wise.


Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
In my humble opinion I think this would allow for GOC & CI have a more intimidating presence as when your fighting CI it's because you are being told to by your higher ups. But when your daily pick up of samples are gonna be stopped by CI doing their thing then you have an actual reason to go after them.

And for GOC it will make Foundation actually decide " We should try and RP with the GOC more to not have them ADB SCPs " & Give them more reasons to be pissed when GOC actually kill one rather than " My RP says I must. "

It will also introduce new players into the factions and generally explain what they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg

Aithaed

Head Moderator
Head Moderator
SCP-RP Staff
Content Team
Aug 5, 2024
37
15
41
I feel like the consequences of this are moreso all the future negatives when CI or GOC do something people consider "unreasonable", and then someone gets stomped in a subsequent war and it becomes an SSL issue.

I like the idea of GOC ADB removing the SCP for a couple hours.
I like the idea of CI containing SCPs and then those SCPs breaching in CI's base. (More surface content and SOP/GOC)
I also like the idea of CI weaponizing SCPs during raids (with added balance/limits, not just fresh breaches)
I also like that raids against CI won't be entirely predictable to "just after an SCP was stolen".

I don't like;
-Weaponized negotiations that interrupt Research RP and annoy the Foundation for many hours.
-Factions feeling hurt because of "mechanical abuse" and perceived unfairness (Ex. lowpop raids).

Overall a +Support, but it'd need a bunch of extra rules and dev work to make it happen.
 
lowpop raids
storing a player-controlled SCP to keep for this mechanic should absolutely need to have a playercount minimum

i say player-controlled because i think it'd be very funny for CI to just steal 178 or 3078 in the dead of night (but if they steal 3078, they should start getting the funny cognito spawns for the duration they have it)

and then the next day foundation just discover that they don't have that specific inanimate SCP anymore
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niox
Apr 6, 2023
134
23
61
I feel like the consequences of this are moreso all the future negatives when CI or GOC do something people consider "unreasonable", and then someone gets stomped in a subsequent war and it becomes an SSL issue.

I like the idea of GOC ADB removing the SCP for a couple hours.
I like the idea of CI containing SCPs and then those SCPs breaching in CI's base. (More surface content and SOP/GOC)
I also like the idea of CI weaponizing SCPs during raids (with added balance/limits, not just fresh breaches)
I also like that raids against CI won't be entirely predictable to "just after an SCP was stolen".

I don't like;
-Weaponized negotiations that interrupt Research RP and annoy the Foundation for many hours.
-Factions feeling hurt because of "mechanical abuse" and perceived unfairness (Ex. lowpop raids).

Overall a +Support, but it'd need a bunch of extra rules and dev work to make it happen.
I feel like there should be a set amount like 008. Like 12 MTF on for CI to kidnap SCPs.
 
Jan 1, 2022
314
2
83
111
19
Suggestion Partially Approved



Hi @Ronin,

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

Content Team like the idea of allowing GOIs to keep SCPs for an extended time. At this moment however, completing this in an automated fashion would require reworking multiple concepts of the server. Content will toy with some similar ideas to allow GOIs more range in SCPs compared to utilising Foundation Only.

Content Also have some Ideas with Job-banning SCPs for x amount of time when ADBed.

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