Denied Rework how Passive Breaches Work

[Langstädtler]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Change our Current Passive Breach System to be as Rewardable as just Combat Breaching.

Give SCP an Sweep which Changes there Breach Timer, between the Normal one, and a Passive Breach Timer, if they passive Breach, there HP could be changed to 1% of there Body Mass and there Breach Timer would be a lot Shorther, like 15 minutes at Maximum.
And an Announcement to E-11 that X SCP wants to passive Breach. And to prepare for it.
When they passive Breach they should be given XP between 1600 to 2000 ( since Crediting them was always denied to far) and they should only be able to be Recontained after an Certain ammount of Time has passed. As to make it worth it that they can have some RP with Research and anyone else they might want to Interact with as an SCP.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
SCPs have the same Encouragement to Passive Breach then as to do a Normal Breach, this would Shorten Code 5s and make them less.
It encourages Roleplay around the Site, SCPs should Walk around, and be interactable. On 1 % Bodymass, they can be put back into there Cells Really easy, in case they want to go out and Kill some People, so even if some People want to absuse the System, Admins and Foundation can put them back super fast back into there Cells, without anyone loosing to much, in the Name of encouraging RP.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
CI cant breach Certain SCPs becuse they are currently Drinking Tea with E-11 and Research.
More D-Block Raids.
More SCP Kidnappings

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Lets be honest, everyone is tired from the ammount of Breaches, the Dimensions enabled due to it removing a Large Chunk of Space MTFs can stop them.
The Nerv, has yet to be seen if they are good or not. I personally like them a lot so far. But this still doesnt fix everyones Desire to Roleplay, so giving SCP the Ability to Breach Harmless with the Intent of Creating Roleplay would be Benefical for everyone. Even if CI has them more often, this shouldnt be really a Negativ, becuse i prefer CI having an SCP then it stopping Roleplay and fighting around.

 

[werta600]

+ Support
I can agree to this, a separate passive breach queue would be a nice gust of fresh air so you dont have to wait that much to passive breach

I would remove all damaging abilities from the SCP while they are passive breached or reduce its damage to 0

 

[Skinner]

It shouldn’t be of « by breaching then… » that they therefore become passive - it should instead be of a human member letting them out without tampering with the containment box so that they can roam around with that « passive » mode enabled.

I feel like this could be a really neat system to up the roleplay between humans and SCPs; think of it as some humanoid SCPs like 049, TG or 912 (cooperating with Foundation to act against massive D-Class riots for example) being able to conduct specialized tests with Foundation Staff, or be entrusted every now and then to perform tasks or expand their own discoveries of the site they are housed in.

I also think this shouldn’t be a breach queue system but instead a containment control system where the SCP can request to be passive-breached, and then a member like NTF CO, Site Admin or Foundation Command can approve it and send up MTF units to retrieve the SCP and let them out with that passive status (lowest bodymass., reduced ability force/strengths)..
+Support

 

[Niox]

+Support

 

[Langstädtler]

+ Support
I can agree to this, a separate passive breach queue would be a nice gust of fresh air so you dont have to wait that much to passive breach

I would remove all damaging abilities from the SCP while they are passive breached or reduce its damage to 0

At first i taught about this to, but then i taught about all the Little Situations, which could not happen if we would at least not let SCPs at least kill a Little bit. As example, take SCP 082, from his Entry you can Read that when ever he is about to Eat someone, he becomes Uneasy, and tries to Hold himself back. This could be Roleplayed were someone has to get a D-class for him to Eat before continung normaly.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

...yeah, ok. this is good. the current method of passive breaching is mostly just revolving around IC policy and such (i can't speak for US as i have no idea how it works there, but i can't imagine it's that much different, plus you could argue that passive breaching is sort of a content thing (literally, SCP, RP.) and should be standardised across both servers anyway) - and there's a lot of hesitancy surrounding passive breaches because of things like codes, auto ERT wave calling and just specifically trust of that SCP or player. as things are IC, there's a lot of reasons not to allow for a passive breach to occur

i think developing an actual mechanic behind passive breaching, rather than having it just purely be an IC thing - might help to alleviate the issues surrounding allowing passive breaches; and as there is an active drive on the part of CT & dev team to rebalance or otherwise nerf breach gameplay in favour of non-combative and more RP-focused actions, this would ideally reasonable incentive, as well as just raising awareness of it, etc.

i don't think we'd be seeing this for a while, but i think this is a positive direction to develop breach mechanics in.
+Major Support

 

[Guts]

 

[Emilia Foddg]

a hangar is where you store clothes and a hanger is where you store aeroplanes

 

[Niox]

a hangar is where you store clothes and a hanger is where you store aeroplanes

I can store clothes on a hanger if I try hard enough

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I can store clothes on a hanger if I try hard enough

i mean anyone can, that is its intended purpose

 

[Playdoughzombie]

+Support

I would love to see more passive breaches on site.

 

[Guts]

a hangar is where you store clothes and a hanger is where you store aeroplanes

and i am going to hang myself

 

[Verlocity]

Suggestion Denied

---

Hi @Langstädtler ,

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

Reasons: We have plans in the works currently to assisst with making passive breaches better overall.

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