Rule Suggestion SCP breaches should have the option of being passive

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
Status
Not open for further replies.

CherryBones

Civil Gamers Expert
Jan 15, 2025
61
27
61
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

I think the rule should be changed to allow SCPs to be passive to foundation personnel. It would provide more interesting scenarios if breached SCPs could choose to be passive without direct GM intervention. Examples such as 912 (who might still want to listen to GSD) or 049 (the old man just wants to go for a walk) could lead to fun RP.

This change would effect the following rules:
1778117845314.png
1778117940112.png

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

I didn't see a similar suggestion but I could be blind.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

1. Natural RP. It kind of just happens. With the choice of being passive to foundation personnel it allows players to make split second decisions on who to trust or interact with. It would waive the specification of instantaneous deals and instead include long lasting deals that could evolve into RP.

2. The ability to pretend to be passive could make it so that smart SCPs can just lie. It still falls under the idea of 'natural RP' but allows a different avenue of trying to break out. Manipulation is possible for certain SCPs but isn't often used on the server. Granted, that may be because most people wouldn't trust an SCP, but SCPs also lack any way of doing this other than going back on their instantaneous deals.


3. Someone who's more focused on RP doesn't have to suddenly start killing people if they'd rather not. 912 is a decent example where they're on 912 for a few hours and having fun with interactions. Then suddenly they're breached. What are they supposed to do? Turn on the foundation and ruin the interaction? The ability to be passive gives them the option to do their own thing, possibly trying to hide/lie about the facts they have guns.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

1. Elongates the breach queue.

2. Getting a GM and E11 auth isn't "that hard".

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

The first negative is the only thing I worry about. I know changes are being made to SCP game loops and breach queue itself has gone through some changes. I'll be fully transparent that I don't think SCPs should be peaceful to GOC or CI. One wants to kill them, the other wants to use them to kill. I feel like E11 would enjoy the interactions of trying to persuade an SCP into being re-contained rather than having to run at them and die. RsD would benefit from more passive SCPs outside their cell as it makes certain tests easier. Dimensional testing comes to mind because dimensions can't be opened in most SCP's cells.

I personally think the second negative is just to get around the first one. Doing it via GM is the only way not to elongate the queue, but I still think it would be so much better if it just kinda happened. What if 7722 decided not to rampage the foundation today because a test concluded ten minutes before breach and said test ensured him that the entire foundation is holy or something? Possible peak.
 
Rule Suggestion Denied



Hi @CherryBones ,

Thanks for taking the time to make a rule suggestion.

The SSL team has reviewed this and decided to deny it for the following reasons:

As was already explained by Yeke in this thread, We decided to disallow passive breaches for SCPs that are hacked out or breached via the breach system due to the impact it makes on the server as a whole, Mainly having to do with halting all breach times of other players on other SCP jobs, This is a big impact on the SCPs gameplay loop, and as such, not something we will be allowing.

This does not mean however that no SCPs can passive breach at all, Our GMs and Staff are always on and are more than happy to assist in TPing SCPs out for passive RP, This is better than the alternative as it does not cause any impact on the SCPs gameplay loop, As such the system will stay the same.

Your rules suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.