Fours Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Name: Fours | Fixer Suggestion: Remove the whole "use secure comms or your enemies can see what you type" bullshit. Implementation: Honestly, I never really got why we had to use *secure* when comms-ing something in for your allies ie a location of a VIP or "yo shit we got a cloaked enemy send E V E R Y T H I N G". Yea sure, it adds tension for your dumb-ass to use it or somebody important could die or something could explode. I mean really, wouldn't the two sides be on different frequencies anyways? It's not like they magically appear and have access to everything we say to eachother over comms. What I'm suggesting is we drop the whole "secure" shabang as the only way an enemy could see or hear our interactions with eachother unless they are on a republic base or command bridge, vice versa. With this, it would add to some RC TECH's/Advanced Technician at most's hacking skills to tap into the enemy comms and relay the enemies messages to their allies to get their plan, location, etc. Reason?: Cause *sc* /*secure* looks stupid in any way you put it. Lore: Watch an episode of clone wars, then another one, and another, then the whole six seasons. There's your lore. Workshop content if applicable: (If no workshop content, suggest a developer or put "Require Development") Requires development common sense.. 1
Posted March 5, 2018 Name: Fours | Fixer Suggestion: Remove the whole "use secure comms or your enemies can see what you type" bullshit. Implementation: Honestly, I never really got why we had to use *secure* when comms-ing something in for your allies ie a location of a VIP or "yo shit we got a cloaked enemy send E V E R Y T H I N G". Yea sure, it adds tension for your dumb-ass to use it or somebody important could die or something could explode. I mean really, wouldn't the two sides be on different frequencies anyways? It's not like they magically appear and have access to everything we say to eachother over comms. What I'm suggesting is we drop the whole "secure" shabang as the only way an enemy could see or hear our interactions with eachother unless they are on a republic base or command bridge, vice versa. With this, it would add to some RC TECH's/Advanced Technician at most's hacking skills to tap into the enemy comms and relay the enemies messages to their allies to get their plan, location, etc. Reason?: Cause *sc* /*secure* looks stupid in any way you put it. Lore: Watch an episode of clone wars, then another one, and another, then the whole six seasons. There's your lore. Workshop content if applicable: (If no workshop content, suggest a developer or put "Require Development") Requires development common sense.. 1
Weevil Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 I really like having the "Secure comms" idea but im going to honestly +1 this. With the points you make it kinda made me resize Why the f*ck would 2 sides be on the same frequency. But i kinda like having Secure comms as a way of communicating with other people (enforcing roleplay) But with this Atm i'm going to give this a +1 Lets see what the rest of the community have to say Good luck `Weevil
Posted March 5, 2018 I really like having the "Secure comms" idea but im going to honestly +1 this. With the points you make it kinda made me resize Why the f*ck would 2 sides be on the same frequency. But i kinda like having Secure comms as a way of communicating with other people (enforcing roleplay) But with this Atm i'm going to give this a +1 Lets see what the rest of the community have to say Good luck `Weevil
Nyon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 We use secure comms atleast from why I am aware, in case an enemy gets into our frequency though god knows how. Also if they pick up some troopers comms, you don't want then hearing everything like where the Senate commandos are moving the senators. I don't think it is mandatory which Is why I don't see a need for the suggestion, but I like it so I will continue using it. -1
Posted March 5, 2018 We use secure comms atleast from why I am aware, in case an enemy gets into our frequency though god knows how. Also if they pick up some troopers comms, you don't want then hearing everything like where the Senate commandos are moving the senators. I don't think it is mandatory which Is why I don't see a need for the suggestion, but I like it so I will continue using it. -1
Fours Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, Nyon said: We use secure comms atleast from why I am aware, in case an enemy gets into our frequency though god knows how. Also if they pick up some troopers comms, you don't want then hearing everything like where the Senate commandos are moving the senators. I don't think it is mandatory which Is why I don't see a need for the suggestion, but I like it so I will continue using it. -1 That's the point of the hacking, they have to as well. High risk for high reward.
Author Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, Nyon said: We use secure comms atleast from why I am aware, in case an enemy gets into our frequency though god knows how. Also if they pick up some troopers comms, you don't want then hearing everything like where the Senate commandos are moving the senators. I don't think it is mandatory which Is why I don't see a need for the suggestion, but I like it so I will continue using it. -1 That's the point of the hacking, they have to as well. High risk for high reward.
Nyon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Fours said: That's the point of the hacking, they have to as well. High risk for high reward. So they can hack our secure comms? I see no problem with that. I don't think it is necessary to get rid of it.
Posted March 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Fours said: That's the point of the hacking, they have to as well. High risk for high reward. So they can hack our secure comms? I see no problem with that. I don't think it is necessary to get rid of it.
Fours Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, Nyon said: So they can hack our secure comms? I see no problem with that. I don't think it is necessary to get rid of it. It looks ugly and takes up more characters, so you'll have to use two adverts to give more information most times.
Author Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, Nyon said: So they can hack our secure comms? I see no problem with that. I don't think it is necessary to get rid of it. It looks ugly and takes up more characters, so you'll have to use two adverts to give more information most times.
Nyon Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 *sc* isn't that hard and if you have to make two adverts because of it chances are you were going to anyways.
Posted March 5, 2018 *sc* isn't that hard and if you have to make two adverts because of it chances are you were going to anyways.
Zyner Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) What also need to be addressed is that troopers wouldn't hear enemy comms unless naval routed it. Troopers have comms to each other/within the ship while naval has that and incoming/outgoing ship comms. If someone outside the shipp comms something troopers shouldnt hear it nor reply, only naval has access to hear it. Edited March 5, 2018 by Zyner Active from 2016-2019 | PAST ACOLYTES CLONE: 104th Mechanized Assault Battalion "Wolfpack" Clone Commander CC-3636 "Wolffe" JEDI: High Jedi Sage Lead Master Roy | 104th General Plo Koon | Shaak Ti | Mace Windu STAFF: Overseer | Head Admin | Game Master Director | Trainer Manager
Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) What also need to be addressed is that troopers wouldn't hear enemy comms unless naval routed it. Troopers have comms to each other/within the ship while naval has that and incoming/outgoing ship comms. If someone outside the shipp comms something troopers shouldnt hear it nor reply, only naval has access to hear it. Edited March 5, 2018 by Zyner Active from 2016-2019 | PAST ACOLYTES CLONE: 104th Mechanized Assault Battalion "Wolfpack" Clone Commander CC-3636 "Wolffe" JEDI: High Jedi Sage Lead Master Roy | 104th General Plo Koon | Shaak Ti | Mace Windu STAFF: Overseer | Head Admin | Game Master Director | Trainer Manager
Esitt Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 +1 purely because this will get the point across that we are doing serious rp.
Rolenth Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 Personal Opnion: I AM TIRED OF REACHING ACROSS MY DAMN KEYBOARD TWICE FOR THE **. Tester Opinion: Pros: We can give orders/commander out faster. Cons: I feel metagaming coming from the server will skyrocket. 1 WAS MEDIC
Posted March 6, 2018 Personal Opnion: I AM TIRED OF REACHING ACROSS MY DAMN KEYBOARD TWICE FOR THE **. Tester Opinion: Pros: We can give orders/commander out faster. Cons: I feel metagaming coming from the server will skyrocket. 1 WAS MEDIC
Dadd Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 +1 to no 'secure' type shit, but metagaming occurs no matter they type secure or not. We know that veryone waits in the most convenient spot then jumps into action the instant there is the slightest hint of the enemies location or something like that being leaked. The only thing that removing 'secure' would do is make it more convenient to type, but metagame will be slightly more, so the dilemma is: more metagame, or more inconvenient. The only way to truly solve this is by adding some code to where you can literally not see your enemies comms
Posted March 6, 2018 +1 to no 'secure' type shit, but metagaming occurs no matter they type secure or not. We know that veryone waits in the most convenient spot then jumps into action the instant there is the slightest hint of the enemies location or something like that being leaked. The only thing that removing 'secure' would do is make it more convenient to type, but metagame will be slightly more, so the dilemma is: more metagame, or more inconvenient. The only way to truly solve this is by adding some code to where you can literally not see your enemies comms
Hood Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 The only way I see this working is introducing something like /pm, where events would have their own separate chat that we ourselves wouldn't be able to see, and only event jobs / overseer+ would be able to monitor. Think of it like two frequencies, Event jobs go on /e and continue their roleplay there, where as we would continue our roleplay in /comms or /advert. Obviously this doesn't fix metagaming for the event jobs, they'd still be able to see what we do and we'd have to monitor that, but it's the same problem we have now. Only difference would be event jobs would not be heard by the entire ship and metagamed to hell, and we wouldn't have to type *secure* unless the roleplay needed it. Thoughts?
Posted March 6, 2018 The only way I see this working is introducing something like /pm, where events would have their own separate chat that we ourselves wouldn't be able to see, and only event jobs / overseer+ would be able to monitor. Think of it like two frequencies, Event jobs go on /e and continue their roleplay there, where as we would continue our roleplay in /comms or /advert. Obviously this doesn't fix metagaming for the event jobs, they'd still be able to see what we do and we'd have to monitor that, but it's the same problem we have now. Only difference would be event jobs would not be heard by the entire ship and metagamed to hell, and we wouldn't have to type *secure* unless the roleplay needed it. Thoughts?
Rush Cat Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 Eh I don't know. The only reason we have it is since events jobs might think that the comms they are reading are not secure so they listen in to the enemy comms even though they do that anyways. I am fine with it either way tbh. It can cause problems very rarely without it but usually it's just some goob that doesn't understand how comms work. Former: Director for a bit, Omega Squad Niner for a bit, uhh other shit for a bit it's been a while I forgot I was around a long time ago. Now I lurk Purple Pride Worldwide
Posted March 6, 2018 Eh I don't know. The only reason we have it is since events jobs might think that the comms they are reading are not secure so they listen in to the enemy comms even though they do that anyways. I am fine with it either way tbh. It can cause problems very rarely without it but usually it's just some goob that doesn't understand how comms work. Former: Director for a bit, Omega Squad Niner for a bit, uhh other shit for a bit it's been a while I forgot I was around a long time ago. Now I lurk Purple Pride Worldwide
Firat/Abi Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 On 3/5/2018 at 7:39 PM, Fours said: something could explode. Yep tried that... +1
Posted March 7, 2018 On 3/5/2018 at 7:39 PM, Fours said: something could explode. Yep tried that... +1
Mr.Acorn Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 +1, I really don't like having to find the * on my keyboard and holding down SHIFT to hit S as well - Acorn/Rex
Posted March 9, 2018 +1, I really don't like having to find the * on my keyboard and holding down SHIFT to hit S as well - Acorn/Rex
Snadvich Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 +1 holy shit yes. I'm so damn tired of checking to see If I put secure in my comms don't judge me but I had a fear of not putting SC in my comms
Posted March 9, 2018 +1 holy shit yes. I'm so damn tired of checking to see If I put secure in my comms don't judge me but I had a fear of not putting SC in my comms
Washington Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 +1 when I first began Synergy I was told “All commas are secure” so all comma should be secure, now I understand perhaps doing it on a more direct frequency such as [SECURE TO FOXTROT] or something like that, like a direct messages to a specific thing, but we don’t need to always type [SECURE] on our ALREADY SECURE comms
Posted March 9, 2018 +1 when I first began Synergy I was told “All commas are secure” so all comma should be secure, now I understand perhaps doing it on a more direct frequency such as [SECURE TO FOXTROT] or something like that, like a direct messages to a specific thing, but we don’t need to always type [SECURE] on our ALREADY SECURE comms
Andrews Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 +1 I fully support this. It's kinda annoying in each message I do in an event as NAVAL. I have to put it securely. Its really gets me tried. As a tester, I find no reason why not to -1 this.
Posted March 9, 2018 +1 I fully support this. It's kinda annoying in each message I do in an event as NAVAL. I have to put it securely. Its really gets me tried. As a tester, I find no reason why not to -1 this.
Chambers Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) All transmissions are secured but if you need event jobs to talk to the whole server or vice versa maybe add a /broadcast or add a [Broadcast] to the advert? makes more sense to me tbh Edited March 12, 2018 by Carter 1
Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) All transmissions are secured but if you need event jobs to talk to the whole server or vice versa maybe add a /broadcast or add a [Broadcast] to the advert? makes more sense to me tbh Edited March 12, 2018 by Carter 1
iskaffe Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 solid +1 from me, the comms should be secure by default.
Oxen Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 -1 and here is why. Standard communications used throughout any military faction today and presumably in the future all utilize frequencies and channels in much the same way. Limited security measures for each branch of operations, units, battalions, squads and the such. We here are spoiled in thinking that there is just ONE communications we all share. On that sense, if we as a collective utilize one UNIVERSAL communications channel and safety protocols that means the enemy would just have to focus on cracking just that one coding. The way I see it is that for us to utilize a SECURE communications device in game that we KNOW is up to date and NOT compromised we initiate a new set of crypto and security checks and blocks to ensure they would have to be broken at that point to get the new secure communications that is now being utilized. To make it fair, everyone would have to do a /me adds the new crypto for the new secure comms for the day.
Posted March 25, 2018 -1 and here is why. Standard communications used throughout any military faction today and presumably in the future all utilize frequencies and channels in much the same way. Limited security measures for each branch of operations, units, battalions, squads and the such. We here are spoiled in thinking that there is just ONE communications we all share. On that sense, if we as a collective utilize one UNIVERSAL communications channel and safety protocols that means the enemy would just have to focus on cracking just that one coding. The way I see it is that for us to utilize a SECURE communications device in game that we KNOW is up to date and NOT compromised we initiate a new set of crypto and security checks and blocks to ensure they would have to be broken at that point to get the new secure communications that is now being utilized. To make it fair, everyone would have to do a /me adds the new crypto for the new secure comms for the day.
Korm Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 I kind of agree to a point... There are some things that should automatically be secured., then again, Oxen has a point. It's very confusing tbh.
Posted March 25, 2018 I kind of agree to a point... There are some things that should automatically be secured., then again, Oxen has a point. It's very confusing tbh.
CBlake Posted March 26, 2018 Posted March 26, 2018 +++++++1111111111 Current: 2ndACS REGA CPT CC-3426 "CBlake" Former: 212th Battalion Commander Cody | Synergy Roleplay Model Developer
Posted March 26, 2018 +++++++1111111111 Current: 2ndACS REGA CPT CC-3426 "CBlake" Former: 212th Battalion Commander Cody | Synergy Roleplay Model Developer
Retired Founder Jackson Posted April 6, 2018 Retired Founder Posted April 6, 2018 My opinion on this is that if we take away the use of secure in chat there will a lot of instances of metagaming as this would have to apply to the CIS and other non-republic entities. The current way that secure comms works is if you are using /comms it is automatically secure to your own faction only unless you specify otherwise. If you use /advert however the message is automatically in open comms unless you specify otherwise.
Retired Founder Posted April 6, 2018 My opinion on this is that if we take away the use of secure in chat there will a lot of instances of metagaming as this would have to apply to the CIS and other non-republic entities. The current way that secure comms works is if you are using /comms it is automatically secure to your own faction only unless you specify otherwise. If you use /advert however the message is automatically in open comms unless you specify otherwise.
Recommended Posts