Rule Suggestion New SCP Rule

[ToasterStrudels]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
SCPs that die during a breach cannot be breached again that same breach.

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

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
It'll make breaches with 6+ SCPs happen less often resulting in more fun breaches with just a few SCPs
It nerfs 035 which is a good thing because its a little annoying when 035 dies all the SCPs that breached can't just camp his CC until they breach him again.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
It'll require more skill for longer breaches? I don't really see any negatives here.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
It should be accepted because as I said above right now it's very frustrating killing an SCP and then just having the SCP's go back to rebreach them. It'll make SCP players think more and coordinate more instead of mindlessly running around without a worry.

 

[wiggy]

-1
Sounds like a rage suggestion tbh
SCPs that can't die can be held before recontaining (which frequently happens if scps are going up or down HCZ checkpoints)
As you said scps arn't allowed to camp, so just report them if they sit in a location for over 5 minutes.

 

[ToasterStrudels]

-1
Sounds like a rage suggestion tbh
SCPs that can't die can be held before recontaining (which frequently happens if scps are going up or down HCZ checkpoints)
As you said scps arn't allowed to camp, so just report them if they sit in a location for over 5 minutes.

Not really the problem for camping I guess considering the breach tool takes less time to use than that but when 6+ SCPs breach regularly and one dies them going back to get that SCP for making mistakes is lame. It makes it less fun for E-11 when it happens almost daily and sometimes even multiple times a day.

 

[wiggy]

Not really the problem for camping I guess considering the breach tool takes less time to use than that but when 6+ SCPs breach regularly and one dies them going back to get that SCP for making mistakes is lame. It makes it less fun for E-11 when it happens almost daily and sometimes even multiple times a day.

There is a timer in between 150 and 300 seconds (not sure which) of whenever a scp spawns. The tool takes atleast a minute or two to use.
There is a priority list of which scps to go for first (035 is almost at the top of that), if 035 breaches and you get a hacking alert your training should teach you to go check 076, 8837, and then the rest.

 

[joeyy]

-1 you saying "It'll require more skill for longer breaches? I don't really see any negatives here." is wrong, breaching scp's again is a vital part of the gameplay loop for scp's. Therefor a -1

 

[Zen]

I do wish there was some form of limit on rebreaching or the same SCP breaching repeatedly for any reason, as it tends to lead to the same SCPs always being the ones breached and others like 082, 9000, 966, etc. getting ignored because they're not "meta"

 

[ToasterStrudels]

-1 you saying "It'll require more skill for longer breaches? I don't really see any negatives here." is wrong, breaching scp's again is a vital part of the gameplay loop for scp's. Therefor a -1

If they made the mistake to get RC'd or killed they don't deserve to be breached again during that breach lol. It's not that vital because as I said above by the time one of them dies there's always around 5-6 SCPs out sometimes even more and it's a Code Black. Don't make mistakes it's that simple.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

kinda get your point, but i feel that this is something that should be enforced mechanically, not with rules; this kind of already is the case with how the breach queue works anyway, as you're put at the bottom of the breach queue, but i'm assuming you mean manually via hack tool/breach tools,

in which case

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

i distinctly recall a previous suggestion that asked for limits on rebreaching SCPs, but that was ultimately denied;

which leads into my next point, which i also believe was part of the denial reason for that suggestion? which is, what if someone flags off an SCP after a breach, then someone else flags on? then they're basically getting their breach unfairly delayed for no reason other than "they picked an SCP which breached recently" which they don't necessarily know is the case, they could have just joined and want to breach or be CI wanting to breach raid, without OOC knowing any details of a prior breach. etc.

and then if you just say to have it be for that same person - ...i mean, i agree, but it's abusable; you could have a small friend group just rotate out on SCP breaches. but even then not only is that already possible, most stuff friend groups do to get funny breaches is against the rules anyway (e.g. someone going to put on 035 so they can get breached as another SCP)

and i think under those circumstances, if it was limited timewise per-person, by their steamID, then i think that has a chance of being explore further.

-/+ Neutral

 

[ToasterStrudels]

which leads into my next point, which i also believe was part of the denial reason for that suggestion? which is, what if someone flags off an SCP after a breach, then someone else flags on? then they're basically getting their breach unfairly delayed for no reason other than "they picked an SCP which breached recently" which they don't necessarily know is the case, they could have just joined and want to breach or be CI wanting to breach raid, without OOC knowing any details of a prior breach. etc.

and then if you just say to have it be for that same person - ...i mean, i agree, but it's abusable; you could have a small friend group just rotate out on SCP breaches. but even then not only is that already possible, most stuff friend groups do to get funny breaches is against the rules anyway (e.g. someone going to put on 035 so they can get breached as another SCP)

and i think under those circumstances, if it was limited timewise per-person, by their steamID, then i think that has a chance of being explore further.

-/+ Neutral

I don't think you understand my point or maybe I misworded it but what I'm saying is if Type-Green-A or SCP-682 gets RC'd then they shouldn't be able to breached during that specific breach since they've already been killed/RC'd. They can be breached again once the breach is over. I'm not asking for a rule that gives them a timer on when they can breach next.

 

[Snake]

I see what you're tryna say but its only mainly a thing with 079 breaches in which case they can be held. Although i do agree with Zens point about other scps being neglected

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I don't think you understand my point or maybe I misworded it but what I'm saying is if Type-Green-A or SCP-682 gets RC'd then they shouldn't be able to breached during that specific breach since they've already been killed/RC'd. They can be breached again once the breach is over. I'm not asking for a rule that gives them a timer on when they can breach next.

ohhhh... honestly, i still think that this should be mechanically done rather than a rule, but otherwise would still potentially severely limit 079 and CI gameplay. but i do otherwise agree with the prospect of giving other SCPs more opportunities to breach over 'the popular ones'.

 

[grunger]

I see the intention, but there exists an accepted suggestion (by yours truly) that is conflicted by this one. The past suggestion calls for less restrictive manners for reducing the potency of rebreaches by having SCPs gradually accumulate health on spawn/recontainment, but this suggestion calls for completely halting the potential for rebreaches. Both incentivize out-of-meta SCPs to be breached, but one directly hinders the gameplay loop for CI.

 

[ToasterStrudels]

I see the intention, but there exists an accepted suggestion (by yours truly) that is conflicted by this one. The past suggestion calls for less restrictive manners for reducing the potency of rebreaches by having SCPs gradually accumulate health on spawn/recontainment, but this suggestion calls for completely halting the potential for rebreaches. Both incentivize out-of-meta SCPs to be breached, but one directly hinders the gameplay loop for CI.

I'm just kinda tired of the breaches that are just the same thing everytime they happen which is 035 gets out and breaches 076 and then 8837 type green 682 etc. it happens so often and most of the time when 035 dies they just go back and camp his CC together and rebreach him and then it's just a Code Black for the next 30-60 minutes. It just isn't very fun going against the same SCPs in the same order everytime.

 

[Kevin Ki]

-/+support

I think it'd be okay for specific super strong SCPs as a type of balance, but not all. If you have a 079 or 966 or 939 get rebreached bro that's SEVERE skill issue.

 

[Steveie]

- / + support
If SCPs are contently getting rebreach then you are killing / reconditioning the wrong SCPs first or MTF / combative just rush at SCP after the firing line dies at airlock

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

-support entirely your fault for not dealing with the problem which is a hostile person/group breaching SCPs

 

[Niox]

-support entirely your fault for not dealing with the problem which is a hostile person/group breaching SCPs

^
-Support

 

[ToasterStrudels]

-support entirely your fault for not dealing with the problem which is a hostile person/group breaching SCPs

This isn't about hostile GOIs. It's about SCPs rebreaching once we kill/RC an SCP. Breach Queues are unavoidable lol.

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

This isn't about hostile GOIs. It's about SCPs rebreaching once we kill/RC an SCP. Breach Queues are unavoidable lol.

nice job skirting around what i said, why are the SCPs being rebreached once they are killed/RCed?
it's still entirely your fault for not dealing with the problem which is a hostile person/group/SCP breaching those SCPs

 

[Jonas Enry]

nice job skirting around what i said, why are the SCPs being rebreached once they are killed/RCed?
it's still entirely your fault for not dealing with the problem which is a hostile person/group/SCP breaching those SCPs

It seems like a prioritisation issue. To my knowledge this is a US issue and the priority list for e-11 in the uk is 079>035>anything with a breach tool unused > anything else