Denied Revert Parawatch Slot back to 3.

This suggestion has been denied and will not receive development.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Giudon

Civil Gamers Expert
Jan 1, 2023
61
15
61
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

It increases the slots of the parawatch job by 1.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

No, But the feature was there for a long time, then it got reverted back to 2 slots. The Reasoning behind this was the event staff forgot to decrease the amount of slots. (At least in UK)

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

I can't really say "More parawatch RP" just because there's an additional slot. But it did have its merits, it made Infiltrations more fun with three individuals.
Furthermore, it made the roleplay of dealing with info breaches (Surface RP aswell) more interesting.


Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

N/A, I don't recall anyone complaining on why there was 3 slots on parawatch, as they thought they increased it due to a gameplay balance.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

Because it was 3 slots. Because no one complained, Three slots for parawatch was the sweet spot, it can't get more higher than that. and Maybe because I like Info breaching, as it it gives SOP/CI/GOC something to do.
 

Betriv

Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
SCP-RP Staff
Content Team
Jul 5, 2022
428
87
111
-support
parawatch rp is literally go in foundation, yap on open comms that no one cares about, get cuffed, waste a dose of class a on then release, then repeat every 15 minutes
 

Dybbuk

Well-known Member
Jun 20, 2024
10
0
41
+Support It was already so INCREADBLY hard to Infobreach SCPS with Three Parawatch and now there's two its almost impossible. What its going to end up doing is giving other Civi's (Medics/Rangers/mayor/etc) to help parawatch out as they are a Private Journalist Its just going to increase Fail RP among Civilians because there are two Parawatch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.