Denied Planned Regimental Keycards to also Support Job/group-based Access

[Zen]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Adding onto this accepted suggestion, changes be made to that system to also support this access based on your current job. For example, a keycard scanner might be CL3 IA/CL4 override, rather than being limited to only allowing this based on regiments.

This would likely need to be implemented in one of two ways:

• Grouping jobs more strictly into categories that would be what this access is based on (e.g. DEA and IA would no longer be "Site Affairs" but would be separate groups to allow them to have separate job-based keycard access). This could make the job selection list longer, and maybe cause issues depending on certain roles (though I can't think of any), but would be easier than my second, more robust alternative:
• Have a separate grouping system for the access system that admins can configure to:
  
  • Create a new access group and specify a name for it that appears on keypads, etc.
  • Add/remove jobs and regiment ranks to/from an access group
  • Set a keypad to allow "CL<x> <Access Group>" access, e.g. "CL3 IA" or "CL2 Maintenance" - can pick any clearance level and any access group in combination and add it to the keypad to allow access

The former would be a much easier way of implementing this, but the latter would be much more flexible. It would also allow keypads to be e.g. "CL4 ECM", so that keypads can present the IC idea that ECMs can be CL4, while still allowing a door within EC to only allow ECM+ access - currently, they are all simply CL5, which means that simply entering into the main area of the Ethics Committee offices is an infobreach. It would also allow things like differentiating O-1 access and ISD access - and having "ISD" be an access group would allow them to be able to access generally CL4 areas without advertising that they have CL4 access.

Given the question of "What clearance level is this keypad?" not being as simple anymore, hacking level would also likely need to be a configurable option on keypads separate to any individual clearance level access, to allow balanced hacking difficulty while still allowing this access system to work as intended.

Some ideas on how this could be applied (varying in possibility depending on how this is implemented), though the final say on any specifics would be up to SC and server staff:

• Interro entrance doors are CL3 IA/CL3 DEA/CL4
• Interro cells are CL3 IA/CL4
• Electrical centres are CL3 Maintenance/CL4
• Security sector is CL1 Combative/CL3, allowing it to have the main armoury be accessible to all GSD without allowing all CL1s in
• SCP-079 is CL3 E-11/CL3 ISD/CL4
• Compound vehicle gate is CL3 Nu-7/CL4 MTF
• Compound pedestrian gate is CL3 Nu-7/CL3 DEA/CL4

If this is accepted, and its addition would significantly delay the introduction of the initial suggestion, I'd rather the initial suggestion be added earlier than this addition be included from the get-go.

As is implied above, I would also like for keypads to support access groups having different clearance levels to access, rather than just the (to my understanding) existing system of [CL<X> <List of Access Groups>/CL<Y> Override]. However, this is a separate suggestion to the this one, so please only judge it based on the actual suggestion which is keycard access being job/group-based rather than just regiment-based. Please only judge it based on that aspect, as I will make a separate suggestion for the other part implied here for people to +/-Support, debate on, and for Content Team to decide on.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
This is building upon a previous, accepted suggestion, as an addition/change to what is already planned. I do not believe this specific new part has been suggested in any way.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

• Much more useful and more flexible access clearance divisions, as it can apply to e.g. IA, not just regiments which are purely restricted to A-1/O-1/Nu-7/E-11/SA.
• Many areas it just makes sense to be restricted to certain jobs/groups other than regiments, such as Interrogation. With purely the original suggestion implemented, this would not be possible.
• With more nuanced access, it prevents people from being in areas that they shouldn't be, which is often failRP or just people being nuisances in-character. E.g. non-combatants (e.g. chefs, engineers, SCP-999) should not be able to open doors into inner D-block, but GSD cadets still need to be able to access them to carry out their duties.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

• Dev time
• Makes access more complicated - can be mitigated mostly by simply:
  • Having broad access groups as needed to prevent things like a keypad listing "CL1 GSD/A-1/O-1/Nu-7/E-11/DEA" when it can simply be "CL1 Combatants"
  • Not being overly restrictive on areas that don't need to be
    • E.g. every locked door in HCZ could be restricted to combatants only below CL4, as technically any non-combatant should be escorted when in there, but that would just be annoying to everyone involved just for the sake of being needlessly restrictive over what is essentially just an IA issue.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
It would make the planned keycard access changes much more flexible and useful, allowing even more sensible access restrictions for both IC and OOC reasons. It also would then be only as complicated as admins make it, as they would be the ones configuring access groups and keypads like they already do - so if staff/players feel like something is too complicated, unfair, or otherwise needs changing, it would be as simple as an admin changing the keypad/group config to make the changes players want - the initial dev time would pay off in allowing very useful changes in the future to be made very quickly by an admin.

I fully expect that players and staff will have the concern that this would make things way too complicated, but as it would be fully configurable by admins in seconds, it would only be as complicated as staff choose and players demand. Access to a certain area is too restrictive and it's annoying players? An admin can just quickly change it in about a minute to fix whatever issue people are having. Access to a certain area is too complicated and its confusing people? An admin can fix that too and easily make the access broader or clearer in nature - e.g. the aformentioned "Combatants" access group rather than specific MTFs/departments.

I am welcome to criticism/adaptations/clarifications on this suggestion, and will edit this original post to reflect any concerns raised or changes suggested. This also applies to Content Team - I'd much rather talk it out on how exactly things can/can't be and tweak my suggestion as needed to conform to that than simply receive a "Suggestion Denied" and a vague statement as to why, as I feel many rejected suggestions could have been turned into accepted ones if Content Team would simply communicate more than binary Yes/No on an entire multi-page suggestion thread.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

see, this is entirely dependant on how the mechanism for regimental keycard scanners works as it is basically a system being ported over from MRP.

i think there may be like, actual limitations regarding the system or it might be too much of a complex change to make? i'm not entirely sure how the system works as it exists currently since i don't play MRP, but i do know that it's based on regiments, not whitelisted roles or job groups

and i think vague descriptors like maintenance or combative might just be downright impossible depending. again, entirely unsure, i've never seen anything behind the curtain. my biggest field of expertise with anything behind the curtain is 096 mechanics and those are mostly assumptions based on my knowledge base and what i've personally experienced & seen.

let's assume for a moment that what needs to happen fundamentally, are alterations in both function and form, to the keycards and keycard scanner system (new keycard sweps that have the relevant keycard and regiment information, i.e. 'CL3 E-11' - new keycard scanner settings that basically allow that keycard type at set value and higher, AND another keycard of a different base type, at a set value and higher)

i've lost my train of thought here, so basically what i'm going to say is that this is an already worked out system for dealing with regiments, but i'm not confident that it is feasible for what you're asking, based on my basically non-existent understanding of the system. it's literally just a concern from someone speculating but is basically saying absolutely nothing whatsoever.

so if the idea as presented, is reasonably possible:
+Major Support

i also get the grievance with Content Team and it would make sense for suggestions overall to be a two-way communication street; i feel like that's another suggestion though, to change the suggestion response workflow.

maybe instead of a flat out yes/no decision, first the relevant parties deliberate on and have delivered, an initial response based on the whole contents of the thread, then leave it for a while, let a response to that get in - if the response since then is meaningful and alters/contributes to the discourse in any meaningful way, especially with any alterations to the OP, then it gets looked at again (if not (or response is just basically agreeing with content team response), then just final decision and lock), before ANOTHER round of this... and then after that, the final response. that might be more constructive, albeit a little more time-consuming. but to be honest, suggestions is basically just an infinite well anyway. this way of doing things would ultimately just make individual suggestions threads last longer... the only real downside i see.

anyway, that's another suggestion for a different time. i see the idea, as presented, good and worthwhile - providing that it is feasible to do from a development standpoint.

 

[CourageousNico]

+Major Support
-A lot of the suggestions I would submit require something like this and if this was accepted then it would be great. An example of this would be SCP-008 is accessible by biohazard-specialists and biometric CL4s so they can get into SCP-008 easier to be more hidden while guarding or checking SCP-008 for syringes.

 

[Auburn]

Suggestion Denied​

---

Hi Zen,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.
The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reasons.

One thing you have failed to take into consideration is CI balance. Their gameplay loop revolves around hacking through doors or stealing a keycard to open it. Changing keycards to only access certain doors or certain areas would needlessly complicate the system already in place. A CI kills a Gensec and gets his CL3, but he can't enter 076 because he "Doesn't have the right keycard", it would not be an enjoyable experience to have.
The system as it is currently works well. It would take a considerable amount of time and effort from the Senior Admin+ Team to reconfigure every single keycard scanner on both servers, and the final result would not change the status quo very much

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​