What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
. Remove the requirement to play as an SCP in order to hold a place in the breach queue
. Move all breachable SCPs into a hidden breach queue with the same opt-in function as SCP-8854 and SCP-323
. When the breach triggers, allow players not currently on SCP jobs to select which SCP they want to breach as; based on which SCPs are not occupied
. Players who are currently on an SCP that has been flagged for a breach will still breach
. Create the function for players in the opt-in breach queue to accept to play as an SCP when it's breach triggers, the same as SCP-8854 and SCP-323
. Provide relevant jobs (researcher, O5 etc) with the ability to credit SCPs to incentivise players to flag-on for research RP
.Keep the breach queues for Site-65 and the Surface seperate.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I believe reworks to the breach queue have been suggested in the past but they did not provide effective solutions to the problems created by the rework such as this suggestion does
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
. This will remove the boring experience of sitting in the breach queue for hours on end in order to play as a breached SCP (a fundamental attraction to playing SCP-RP) and get queued players out into the game and into RP while their breach timer ticks down
. This will make better use of the available slots, as players wont be 'AFK' inside the containment chambers when they could be elsewhere engaging in RP
. This will increase the footfall around Site-65, making it feel more populated.
. This will incentivise people to flag-on for research RP, making research RP more consistently available.
. Giving relevant jobs the ability to credit an SCP player will incentivise the SCP player to engage in research RP properly
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
. There are limited circumstances in which accepting a breach queue flag could be abused, such as escaping from the IA jail cells or a hostage situation. However I think this may fall under the job abuse/LTARP rule and staff are available to make corrections/give RP refunds
. Researchers would need to become accustomed to requesting a player flags onto the SCP that they want to test on BEFORE arriving at the CC to avoid a possible wait
. There is a risk that a credit reward might not be enough to incentivise more experienced players to flag onto the SCP jobs, which could create a hurdle as some SCPs are locked behind SCP experience levels
. It can be argued that crediting a non-sentient SCP is not friendly to the lore
. It may be possible for players to meta-game which SCPs are breached based on the flag-on announcement, however it is common for players to flag-on to other SCPs when a breach occurs for the chance for the breached SCP to also breach them - which will confuse meta-gamers.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
. I think that this change will remove the biggest downside of playing an SCP, which is sitting in a containment chamber without player interaction for long periods of time
. I believe this suggestion will move more players into passive RP (usually around 8 players at peak hours)
. Players will have more control over SCP's behaviour through the crediting mechanic, which improves the quality of test RP
. Remove the requirement to play as an SCP in order to hold a place in the breach queue
. Move all breachable SCPs into a hidden breach queue with the same opt-in function as SCP-8854 and SCP-323
. When the breach triggers, allow players not currently on SCP jobs to select which SCP they want to breach as; based on which SCPs are not occupied
. Players who are currently on an SCP that has been flagged for a breach will still breach
. Create the function for players in the opt-in breach queue to accept to play as an SCP when it's breach triggers, the same as SCP-8854 and SCP-323
. Provide relevant jobs (researcher, O5 etc) with the ability to credit SCPs to incentivise players to flag-on for research RP
.Keep the breach queues for Site-65 and the Surface seperate.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I believe reworks to the breach queue have been suggested in the past but they did not provide effective solutions to the problems created by the rework such as this suggestion does
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
. This will remove the boring experience of sitting in the breach queue for hours on end in order to play as a breached SCP (a fundamental attraction to playing SCP-RP) and get queued players out into the game and into RP while their breach timer ticks down
. This will make better use of the available slots, as players wont be 'AFK' inside the containment chambers when they could be elsewhere engaging in RP
. This will increase the footfall around Site-65, making it feel more populated.
. This will incentivise people to flag-on for research RP, making research RP more consistently available.
. Giving relevant jobs the ability to credit an SCP player will incentivise the SCP player to engage in research RP properly
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
. There are limited circumstances in which accepting a breach queue flag could be abused, such as escaping from the IA jail cells or a hostage situation. However I think this may fall under the job abuse/LTARP rule and staff are available to make corrections/give RP refunds
. Researchers would need to become accustomed to requesting a player flags onto the SCP that they want to test on BEFORE arriving at the CC to avoid a possible wait
. There is a risk that a credit reward might not be enough to incentivise more experienced players to flag onto the SCP jobs, which could create a hurdle as some SCPs are locked behind SCP experience levels
. It can be argued that crediting a non-sentient SCP is not friendly to the lore
. It may be possible for players to meta-game which SCPs are breached based on the flag-on announcement, however it is common for players to flag-on to other SCPs when a breach occurs for the chance for the breached SCP to also breach them - which will confuse meta-gamers.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
. I think that this change will remove the biggest downside of playing an SCP, which is sitting in a containment chamber without player interaction for long periods of time
. I believe this suggestion will move more players into passive RP (usually around 8 players at peak hours)
. Players will have more control over SCP's behaviour through the crediting mechanic, which improves the quality of test RP
Last edited:
Donator
Senior Administrator
SCP-RP Staff
Content Team
Group Moderator