Denied Make turrets not target SCP-966, or nerf NVGs in bright environments

[Zen]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
One or both of the following:

• Make it so turrets don't target SCP-966.
• Make NVGs much more unusable in bright light (e.g. in the site with the lights on)

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

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

• Makes 966 a bit more interesting
  • It can more easily be anywhere in the map, e.g. on surface, so it can attack from anywhere
  • Somewhat unique
• Makes 966 more threatening and scary
  • Can be anywhere on the map, and the turrets won't even warn you it's there
• Slight buff to a pretty weak SCP overall

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

• Balance change - might be considered too strong (is it really though?)

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
At the moment, 966 is very rarely breached because it's both quite weak and its only unique aspect (being invisible) is very easily countered by both NVGs and turrets. When I breach as 966, I want to be able to last a long-ish time and just silently stalk people and scare the shit out of them, but as it is, I can't get to surface at all (the two turrets in lobby absolutely shred 966, and that's if it can even push against the knockback), and it feels like by the time I'm in a position to be able to actually act like 966 and stalk people, ERT have gotten on site and I'm already at half health due to all the people running around with NVGs on in the brightly lit site.

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

+support
ERT turrets should definitely still be able to target him (ERT are meant to be OP by design)
I also think it'd be very cool if facility blackouts were manually done to help fight a 966 breach as it'd make containing him much more unique and a bigger priority (kill 966 fast so you can turn the lights black on), it'd defo make him a more breached SCP as he'd be a great support breach that might even take priority over the person who breached them. As part of this I think it'd make sense to make NVGs more unusable in bright areas so turning the facility lights out is encouraged

 

[Niox]

+Support

 

[Emilia Foddg]

ERT turrets should definitely still be able to target him (ERT are meant to be OP by design)

I agree with this, but I imagine - And this is speculation - That there is a very high likelihood that ERT & facility turret functionality is shared behind-the-scenes, probably not fully, but possibly in a way that making one ignore 966 and not the other would be potentially non-trivial. Yes, there are differences between the facility & ERT turrets aside from the fact that one is moveable and the other is not (iirc, ERT turrets have limited ammo and health? While facility turrets don't have either, while being identical in all other aspects).

And whether or not that's true, which I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't, it's speculation and I have no real source for this other than it's what makes sense to me - One thing I am at least confident about is that turret functionality overall (especially target discrimination) is part of VWar? And, assuming that that assumption is also correct, means that this specific change would likely require a dev with FTP access... So, a Core Dev.

Spoiler: Before you say 'But turrets ignore 096!'

Both types of turret ignore 096. Yes, by the fact that turrets do ignore 096, there is target discrimination that allows turrets to ignore specific jobs - And I'm highly confident about it being job-specific, because while I think being an SCP is a specific flag that is used by turrets (and potentially other things such as teslas) to discriminate between "Is an SCP" and "Is not an SCP" for the purposes of targeting it, I will exercise my incredibly specific 096-main knowledge here and assert that yes, both types of turret specifically ignore 096, despite 096 being an SCP. And I know they do so in some way that is distinct from other systems, because 096 triggers teslas (Despite being invincible. You know, a suggestion idea might be to make teslas very very briefly slow 096, as both a minor buff to 096 and a punishment to Foundation for leaving teslas on when they don't need to be. ...Another time.). If there is a separate ignoring system per turret type, then my assumptions so far have been nonsense and I don't know what I'm talking about, which outside of the 096 experience, I didn't anyway - I would hope there might be and that it's at least configurable by Sr. Admin+, but I don't think any of that's likely to be the case. It's also entirely possible that the target distinction methods between turrets and teslas are separate, distinct systems without any overlap whatsoever outside of "these are the things that this is hostile to," and that I'm drawing a conclusion from nothing. The best takeaway from this is that I'm crazy, which is an objectively accurate assessment.

So then, operating on the worst-case assumption that both my previous assumptions were correct, this is a change to one specific set of turrets that may require a revision of turret functionality to facilitate this, that needs to be made by one of a select trusted few developers, all of whom have other, higher priority things to tend to, compared to what would be a minor buff.

---

I do agree with the premise and think that this is needed - I don't think this is at all an unbalanced, nor unreasonable change for 966. Doing so may even encourage more 966 breaches, which are easily dealt with by players once identified and thus, since an average 966 breach is shorter than most other breaches, this in turn decreases overall breach gameplay, etc. etc., because one way to nerf breaches overall is to make the overall less threatening/damaging breaches more enticing for players. Which manifests as a positive in the form of improved server health.

So given what you've said and what I've said, I think there is a compelling case for this change, however as I also said, I think there may be issues with actually implementing it in the first place. This is also not a pressing or urgent matter and does not necessitate being implemented soon, which is good if anything of what I said regarding implementing it is correct.

It's possible that it may not happen anytime soon, but if at all reasonably possible, I would like to see this happen. Zen has given some good reasons as to why, and I believe that the benefit I have outlined here makes for a further compelling case. Your Honour, I move to end the cross-examination and-
+Support

 

[Archangel]

NVGs are already very uncomfortable in bright light settings.

my eyes cry in both pain and irritation.

 

[Zen]

NVGs are already very uncomfortable in bright light settings.

my eyes cry in both pain and irritation.

I feel like there may be some inconsistency with it. I definitely remember a few times where it has felt eye searingly bright, but most of the time it is very bearable and there doesn't feel like there's any downside to wearing them in the light.

 

[Glovano]

+Support
I used to love playing 966 until I would get merked by every turret
Try using NVG in the anomalous matter dimension (you get flash banged by green)

 

[DeceaseManz]

+Support

 

[Aithaed]

Suggestion Denied

---

Hi Zen,

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

For balance reasons, allowing SCP-966 to be freely able to breach to surface is not on the table. Currently the only barrier preventing the SCP from sprinting directly from HCZ to Surface is the turrets and tesla gates, as the ability to walk through doors and bulkheads means players may not realize the SCP is breached before it enters LCZ.

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​