Content Suggestion SCP-966 Update/Rework

Content Suggestions will be reviewed by Content Team weekly, please allow time as not everything can be reviewed at once.
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion alters SCP-966 in multiple ways. It:
>Adds 2 or 3 966s, similar to how 939 functions.
>Reduces 966s HP to anywhere from 1500-2500 (I'll give you 5k in game money if you can tell me his current HP)
>Decrease 966s damage partially, as it currently sits around 60~ (Varies, however as of current 966 will always 4 shot someone with max health/armour)
>Make the ambiance/screech noises of 966 quieter, or occur at a less frequent rate.
>Remove 966s breach tool.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?
Probably have been suggestions to alter 966 in the past, however I don't believe one's have been made with these specific changes (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Makes sense in lore or something idk.
Makes 966 stand out more. 966 isn't really played due to how generally weak is, however allowing more 966 slots could mean more people play him (As if 1 is to breach, all 3 would).
More well thought out coordination, as the extreme frailty of 966 would mean they have to play in a pack, and/or pick off people silently.
Potential for more RP, as a more silent 966 would mean more chances for jumpscares!


Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Dev Time (Unsure how much it would take up, doesn't seem like the longest thing ever but I could be wrong)
A double/triple breach could be filled with purely 966s.
Having 3 966's to handle could be quite chaotic due to their sneakiness, however the lowered HP would help to mitigate this.


Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I was playing as 939, doing a fun RP breach and was thinking about other SCP's which could also do breaches, that although not passive, could supply some fear, and lore accuracy to them. Thought about 966, however the noise he emits make it extremely hard to act hidden, and then I just decided to go wild with an entire update to the guy. There's also a stalking mechanic planned for 966, so this could compliment it in some way.
Anywho, I think 966 is quite lame. He's very weak, and he can just be extremely unfun to play due to his low speed, and lack of an ability to do anything major, rather than picking off individuals, and just running. Making there be more 966s would mean more aggressiveness if they decide to stick as a pack, and more potential for jumpscares.

t
 
I do agree with a lot of this, but I'd rather the reduced damage thing be replaced by a stalking mechanic similar to what's currently on the dev tracker. 966 instances should be able to stalk people, lure them to sleep, and then cause harm once they're asleep (maybe something like the dimensions where the player drops a ragdoll where they currently are in the "real world" but both them and 966 are brought to a "dream realm" type thing where 966 can harm them or whatever - maybe the victim can only see the dream realm, but 966 can see both at the same time?).
 
+support (his HP is 8k)
if his HP goes to 2.5k he needs a buff where you cant see him at all even with NVGs or something bc 2.5k is very little and would most likely cause him to get breach even less then he does right now (on US atleast).
 
7.5k last i check
WRONG!

+support (his HP is 8k)
correct :D

For the HP change, my idea for it was that there being more SCP's makes them harder to kill individually, easier for them to hide, and able to output more damage, however I can see why people think 2500 is too low, especially considering the combined total is only 7500 (meanwhile 076 gets 12,000!)
 
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion alters SCP-966 in multiple ways. It:
>Adds 2 or 3 966s, similar to how 939 functions.
>Reduces 966s HP to anywhere from 1500-2500 (I'll give you 5k in game money if you can tell me his current HP)
>Decrease 966s damage partially, as it currently sits around 60~ (Varies, however as of current 966 will always 4 shot someone with max health/armour)
>Make the ambiance/screech noises of 966 quieter, or occur at a less frequent rate.
>Remove 966s breach tool.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?
Probably have been suggestions to alter 966 in the past, however I don't believe one's have been made with these specific changes (Correct me if I'm wrong).
Very similar to this from last month:
Whilst we appreciate the though that has gone into this suggestion, Content Team believe that an additional 966 instance would lead to prolonged breaches and do not see the addition of said 966 instance as an improvement to roleplay.
I don't think the opinion here will have changed.

Compared to what I say in that thread though, mine kind of has? I'm actually okay with HP reduction to that HP range, if there are multiple instances. 966 as is goes down really easily if you:
  1. Know it's out

  2. Know where it is

  3. Put guns on it
Thing's made of papier-mâché.

I don't particularly agree with Content's previously stated position on this - The big gripe everyone has about breaches lasting long is primarily a factor of breaches requiring numerous engagements with the same SCP in order to progress towards recontainment. It just becomes a game of "throw bodies at the problem." 966 in particular is unpopular because it's one of the weakest SCPs on the server. While these changes do buff 966 to an extent, it keeps 966 in a position where the proper play disincentivises direct confrontation and promotes both sides playing more intelligently; F as a group could feasibly repel a 966 breach with just one encounter, which could even just be something like a firing line at the top of primary. Then any straggler 966s are gonna be dealt with fairly quickly.

And from 966s perspective, you get to sneak around in a group and cause problems that way, amogus style.

That would make 966 markedly different to other breaches where it's just mostly spawn, respond to location, fight, die, rinse & repeat until the SCP's contained or nuke, etc. Then if you encourage more weaker breaches, the breaches end up not lasting as long - Which in turn is more roleplay.

I can forsee some combos being a problem? Maybe something like
Other SCP In Double Breach​
Predicted severity when breached alongside 966 following these changes​
008​
I mean, this requires 008 to be breached prior or at the same time 966s breach... Like, I can see 966s frustrating 008 recontainment efforts, but I don't see them causing that much of a delay, honestly​
035​
Coinflip between really big problem and laughably easy to deal with​
049​
Could be pretty bad, but it'd require the 049 to be at least decent​
073​
Instant code black :eek:
076​
...Meh?​
079​
Could be extremely disruptive if the 079 is good, but that's generally par for the course with 079 breaches of any nature. I don't see 966s contributing significantly here.​
082​
Lol, lmao​
096​
Lol, lmao​
106​
Could be annoying? But not particularly bad, all things considered.​
173​
...Ehhh? Annoying, but ultimately not that much of a problem​
457​
Lmao, XD (Although I'm thinking pre-457 buff, I can maybe see it causing problems post-457 buff)​
682​
You know, 966 by themselves might be stronger than 682 by itself. Would be funny to see 966 doing the heavy lifting here​
912​
...You know, I can see this causing problems. But since it always starts separate, there's a good chance the 966s don't leave HCZ. The way I see it, this could reasonably be dealt with on two fronts​
939s​
I mean, they'd be annoying for a bit? But I see it going down fairly easy​
7722​
I'd be open to there being a case for this combo causing problems - I don't immediately see it, but gut instinct says there's something here​
8837 / TGs​
Gonna be real with you, 8837/TGs with anything's gonna be a headache. I don't see 966s contributing too much to this on top of the standard 8837/TG experience​
9000s​
Could be annoying for a little bit? But I don't see these leaving HCZ that often​
EDIT: Thanks BBCode/Xenforo, very cool

Like, maybe I'm missing something, but no matter which way I think about this, I don't see these 966 changes being that much of an issue?
+Major Support
 
Last edited:
Very similar to this from last month:

I don't think the opinion here will have changed.
fuck