Content Suggestion Threat Based SCP Breaching

[Reposted_]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
- This would rework the current slot based breach system. This would not rework the timers just how SCPs are chosen for each individual breach. Instead of having specific player slot limits per breach slots I propose that you instead base it off of the threat level of the individual SCPs. Allow me to explain:

SCP	Threat Rating
SCP-035	10
SCP-049	20
SCP-076	15
SCP-079	15
SCP-082	15
SCP-096	25
SCP-106	25
SCP-173	20
SCP-457	10
SCP-682	30
SCP-7722	15
SCP-860-2	5
SCP-8837	10-20?
SCP-9000-A-2/3	15
SCP-912	5
SCP-939-19/53	20
SCP-966	10

(never seen type greens so :/)
This is a list of (IN MY OPINION) the threat each SCP poses when breached. The queue system work as such - each queue timer would have a MAX THREAT LEVEL tied to it like 40-50. These would be filled by SCPs in order that they have been a SCP/longest time since last breach (basically what we have now). However, if there is extra space within a threat level that the more dangerous SCPs cannot fully occupy, the less dangerous ones will be used to fill the remaining space.

example:

threat goal = 45

SCP-682 30
SCP-049 20
-------------
Total 50

SCP-682 30
SCP-049 20
SCP-966 10
SCP-912 5
-------------
Total 45

This system should allow for more total breaches while also making the less played SCP see more action while not clogging up the queue with near insignificant breaches.


Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
- unlike the current or individual breach systems others have suggested, this breach system allows for more individual breaches overall while ensuring that the breaches don't become unmanageable.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
-Allows for more total breaches
-less played SCPs played more
-Easily* adjustable threat goal and levels based on admin/server opinion on SCP threat
-Easy to add new SCPs to system in the future

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
-SCPs with smaller ratings may breach TOO often and may need to have individual breach cooldowns to solve this, or add other small SCPs to solve this.
-SCPs breaching SCPs are not accounted for in this and could potentially lead to issues
-More SCP breaches means non-combative RP might get disrupted more

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
- This system will increase total SCP activity on the server while also making sure that it isn't just the strongest SCPs being played, as well as ensuring that they remain manageable. This system would*(I'm not a coder so I have no idea how hard it would be to keep it modular) also be able to quickly be edited for new SCPs or to increase/ decrease total SCP breaches of current SCPs.

 

[GameRush_cz]

+support
Honestly sounds super nice. This stops those breaches that breach like 1 weak SCP that gets stopped in 5 minutes, followed by a triple breach of very powerful SCPs, that stops RP for like 90 minutes. Changing the current 1-3 SCP breach to like: 25, 40, 55 points (these numbers are for visual, I have no clue if that would be balanced or not) would prevent those scenarios. Testing would however 100% be needed to ensure that there isnt some bs going on, like a powerful SCP being to cheap or the opposite etc.
One other change I would like added on top is that if you breach with excess points, all the breached SCPs get like an HP bonus or something, to make up for that potentially missing SCP.

 

[Michael Dzhetnikov]

682 should be a 15 dude its so mf ass to play as, pmo fr ong deadahh

 

[Emilia Foddg]

+Support
Interesting, but I would run the actual numbers by experienced players, especially anyone with current and relevant experience in breach gameplay - So that breaches would end up more balanced as a result.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
- unlike the current or individual breach systems others have suggested, this breach system allows for more individual breaches overall while ensuring that the breaches don't become unmanageable.

There are also ongoing reworks and considerations regarding the breach system, but I believe this is all compatible with that.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
[...]
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
[...]

You have good coverage of some points, however you miss a big one which IMO may elevate this suggestion to the NL level (Although probably not, I think I'm being overanalytical with it, but I think it should still be raised for sanity's sake at the very least) - Which would be how this would affect the paywalled SCPs. As you are doubtlessly already aware, a sizeable majority of the SCPs are locked behind VIP packages and some such as the Type Greens and 8837 even have separate paid packages explicitly for them.

Of course, literally any change to SCPs wholesale falls under this consideration - Where this differs compared to other petty concerns is that, where you would be directly establishing a breach priority of SCPs (Breach gameplay being their primary gameplay draw and generally why people are attracted to SCP gameplay in the first place) in a way that favours the individual SCP's power (o ratherr, how little i mayt have) over time, you may inadvertently devalue some roles over others, which may be considered an issue when most of them have a literal and quantifiable monetary value.

With that being said, it should be more emphasised that when you buy access to SCPs, you're buying access to more breach power and not necessarily more breach frequency. This should really just stress how important balancing something like this would be and getting it right - From that perspective, this may also be leveraged positively, providing increased value to something that is considered weak: For example, something like 682 should be strong when it breaches, but not breach that often. Conversely, something like 966 should be weak when it breaches, but breach... Often?

Not sure. I lost my train of thought. You can see where I was trying to go. I generally agree with the premise of focusing on how threatening each SCP is, at least in a major way, for the final structure of how SCPs should breach.