Jump to content

SCP Escape - Denied


[GL] Bazooka

Recommended Posts

What you want to see? -  I want to see SCPs able to break gate a or b

Why should we add it? - We should add it so E11 if there on surface they can capture it and bring it back into the foundation then just waiting at E11 base on defcon 4. Also certain SCPs should be able to break gate B for example SCP-076-2 and bigger SCPs breaking Gate A example SCP-682

What are the advantages of having this? - E11 will have more things to do on surface and SCPs can get out of the foundation without having MTF open it or be taken out.

Who is it mainly for? - SCPs and E11

Links to any content - No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+ Support

I like this idea simply because of the reason that it makes more RP sense. If 682 were to break out it would easily be able to bust down a door, and gates like gate a or b. There should be some rules set into place though.

Heres what I think.
- Make it like a self breaching thing, so for (insert time) it gets busted to (insert percent). I would make it faster just because they are breached and if they made it to a gate they are probably found out.
- It would be fun for RP purposes.
- There would be a lot more nukes and a lot more urgency to re-contain specific SCPs.
- It would give SCP's a reason to make it to gate a.
- SCP's wouldn't be sitting at Gate A for 15 minutes just hoping it would open, and then have to wait even longer for the second gate if it was E11.

Downsides
- Nukes would happen a lot more often if there was a small amount of MTF to take care of the problem.
- There would be a lot more things staff would have to take care of. If an SCP is breaking gate a, more SCP's will flag up and start breaching, creating more chaos in chat and making it harder for staff to take care of everyting.

There are my thoughts on it.
Thanks. :3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Support, currently, if there are insufficient numbers  of MTF/RCF Avaible, all they have going for them to halt SCP's is the Checkpoints and Gates (And i know, you said Gates here, but if this gets traction the suggestions for checkpoints will soon pop up).

Getting rid of these "Roadblocks" If you will, would make life significantly harder for MTF as they would no longer be able to confine SCP's to specific zones.

"Without morals, are we truly any better than the things we've set ourselves to contain?"

EX-Site Director   EX-Super Admin | EX-Event Team Lead | Otter Lover Regardless of what SMT Says, not a furry. R&D Senior Inspector

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-support

Not entirely necessary, I like the idea of them breaking CP doors but not Gates, they don't get XP from escaping and besides being locked in a cell by CI for a test there's really no point of getting on surface.

insert cliched signature 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Support

SCPs being on the surface frequently disrupts the flow of the server, and causes all branches in LCZ to suffer.
-This is because SCPs on the surface usually hide or get captured, which causes absurdly long stalemates, and disrupts RP due to the static Defcon state.

This change only benefits the SCPs, not E11.
-The two SCPs expected for this change, would set the site into Defcon 3 or below, if they ever were to breach. Therefore, E11 would not be sitting in base at Defcon 4, they would be in site, being the calvary that gives the on-site MTF the extra firepower they need.

It's called a gate, not a door. It's meant to both be an entrance and a defense.
-They would basically be completely worthless if they can be broken open.
-Chaos can raid the Foundation to get the door open, which is what does happen most of the time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kumandant said:

-Support

SCPs being on the surface frequently disrupts the flow of the server

 

28 minutes ago, Kumandant said:

-This is because SCPs on the surface usually hide or get captured, which causes absurdly long stalemates, and disrupts RP due to the static Defcon state.

Pretty much consider it this way: Doing this would allow a single player to have fun and feel cool, while the rest of the server has to suffer until they are dealt with.

Edited by BadAim

Retired Imperial RP Super Admin and Grand General

nlr.gif.c10c8915894d33d93a43f1f20d667ae4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, starr said:

-support

Not entirely necessary, I like the idea of them breaking CP doors but not Gates, they don't get XP from escaping and besides being locked in a cell by CI for a test there's really no point of getting on surface.

 

 Retired CI LTCMDR | Proud Enuzer | Roblox Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2020 at 11:33 AM, Kumandant said:

-Support

SCPs being on the surface frequently disrupts the flow of the server, and causes all branches in LCZ to suffer.
-This is because SCPs on the surface usually hide or get captured, which causes absurdly long stalemates, and disrupts RP due to the static Defcon state.

This change only benefits the SCPs, not E11.
-The two SCPs expected for this change, would set the site into Defcon 3 or below, if they ever were to breach. Therefore, E11 would not be sitting in base at Defcon 4, they would be in site, being the calvary that gives the on-site MTF the extra firepower they need.

It's called a gate, not a door. It's meant to both be an entrance and a defense.
-They would basically be completely worthless if they can be broken open.
-Chaos can raid the Foundation to get the door open, which is what does happen most of the time.

 

In addition SCPs breaking out of the Foundation all the time would further disrupt the Research branch's ability to conduct tests, further reducing their activity and ability to be productive.

Retired SCP-RP Head of Staff

March 3rd, 2019 - December 16th, 2021

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2020 at 4:23 PM, Falxen said:

-Support, currently, if there are insufficient numbers  of MTF/RCF Avaible, all they have going for them to halt SCP's is the Checkpoints and Gates (And i know, you said Gates here, but if this gets traction the suggestions for checkpoints will soon pop up).

Getting rid of these "Roadblocks" If you will, would make life significantly harder for MTF as they would no longer be able to confine SCP's to specific zones.

 

On 3/27/2020 at 10:03 PM, Kumandant said:

-Support

SCPs being on the surface frequently disrupts the flow of the server, and causes all branches in LCZ to suffer.
-This is because SCPs on the surface usually hide or get captured, which causes absurdly long stalemates, and disrupts RP due to the static Defcon state.

This change only benefits the SCPs, not E11.
-The two SCPs expected for this change, would set the site into Defcon 3 or below, if they ever were to breach. Therefore, E11 would not be sitting in base at Defcon 4, they would be in site, being the calvary that gives the on-site MTF the extra firepower they need.

It's called a gate, not a door. It's meant to both be an entrance and a defense.
-They would basically be completely worthless if they can be broken open.
-Chaos can raid the Foundation to get the door open, which is what does happen most of the time.

 

Just no 

Former
|| 
SCP-RP: Commander of Epsilon-11 || Chaos Insurgency Captain || Senior Admin ||  Forums Diplomat || Rho-36 Arcane Autonomous Scout ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't allow them to break LCz doors because it's bad enough when two scps get down there. 

But I'm ok with them going to surface, 

would give E11 and CI something to do other than fight over Mountain and compare reverse Uno cards.

   spacer.png

You don't have to be the best, you just got to be better than dip shit over there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rabbit said:

I wouldn't allow them to break LCz doors because it's bad enough when two scps get down there. 

But I'm ok with them going to surface, 

would give E11 and CI something to do other than fight over Mountain and compare reverse Uno cards.

+/- support

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...