+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Role-Playing (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Official Player Factions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+---- Forum: Rheinland (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=73)
+----- Forum: BDM| (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=703)
+----- Thread: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback (/showthread.php?tid=60674)
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - Harcourt Fenton Mudd - 07-06-2025
I mean can a pirate ID still pirate with a spoofed IFF ?
That's the point of an IFF spoof, it buys you the bit of confusion to get in and do what your going to do under your ID.
At least that's my interpretation of it
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - R.P.Curator - 07-06-2025
This is a topic for Staff to debate on IFF + ID or just IFF or still IFF + ID RP (where applicable).
At the current moment, the Intel Factions run on IFF + ID RP where applicable.
What I would like is for some clarification on this "who knows what faction is what and why". Cause atm there are grey areas where factions and their players murk about without anyone interfering, but them interfering with impunity.
Your case is just the latest and the most eloquent.
A streamline of ships was done in 5.0.
Maybe a streamline of IDs should follow, with IFFs and rules update as well, especially for Intel Factions - both default and player owned.
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - R.P.Curator - 07-06-2025
(07-06-2025, 11:02 PM)Harcourt Fenton Mudd Wrote: I mean can a pirate ID still pirate with a spoofed IFF ?
That's the point of an IFF spoof, it buys you the bit of confusion to get in and do what your going to do under your ID.
At least that's my interpretation of it
Up until this week I was under the same Impression. But things are murky now. Imma gonna pirate In Unlawfuls only.
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - Jayenbee - 07-07-2025
I don't see the issue here.
For all you know that was actually a spoopy Wild who wanted your artifacts. Play to the encounter instead of complaining it didn't go the way you wanted. 90% of these encounters would fare better for the interceptee if they played ball.
And in my experience of dealing with undercover officers in real life, they often move to detain before identifying themselves. I've had to explicitly demand they do so, citing regulation. Why was that not an option here? Be more character brained.
The potential for RP developments around this encounter have been squandered because of the option to complain instead. #ProblemsWithDisco
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - Wesker - 07-07-2025
Personally I think this whole encounter was ridiculous, and @EisenSeele should be banned outright. (:
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - IahimD - 07-07-2025
(07-07-2025, 01:17 PM)Jayenbee Wrote: I don't see the issue here.
For all you know that was actually a spoopy Wild who wanted your artifacts. Play to the encounter instead of complaining it didn't go the way you wanted. 90% of these encounters would fare better for the interceptee if they played ball.
And in my experience of dealing with undercover officers in real life, they often move to detain before identifying themselves. I've had to explicitly demand they do so, citing regulation. Why was that not an option here? Be more character brained.
The potential for RP developments around this encounter have been squandered because of the option to complain instead. #ProblemsWithDisco
I don't know who you're responding to. My whole complaint was that the BDM was not interested in any RP. He dropped lines, waited to see my reaction and as soon as I did not drop the Relics right away, he opened fire. Your example with the officers inRL does not apply. The BDM could have had a BHG IFF for your example to track. In my (apparently flawed) opinion, the BDM simply did not RP according to the IFF he was flying (" You are ordered to stop and prepare for inspection"). A Freelancer simply does not have the authority to order anyone. As such, my conclusion: IFF simply does not matter. I should have avoided the interaction all togheter.
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - Goliath - 07-07-2025
It sure looks like BDM was a whole lot more interested in that encounter than you were at the time.
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - Lord Caedus - 07-07-2025
(07-07-2025, 05:23 PM)Wesker Wrote: Personally I think this whole encounter was ridiculous, and @EisenSeele should be banned outright. (:
You must've missed the memo, we're calling things egregious now, not ridiculous.
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - The_Godslayer - 07-07-2025
(07-07-2025, 05:23 PM)Wesker Wrote: Personally I think this whole encounter was ridiculous, and @EisenSeele should be banned outright. (:
You're a bit behind the times. The word is "egregious" now.
RE: Büro des Marinenachrichtendiensts - Feedback - Synts - 07-07-2025
(07-07-2025, 05:54 PM)Goliath Wrote: It sure looks like BDM was a whole lot more interested in that encounter than you were at the time.
Personally, I think you might be referring to some other meeting. There is absolutely no interest here from the BDM to play any kind of roleplay — the goal is simply to get that cargo quickly.
And as for this clowning around with using a second fake IFF that doesn't match the ID ,that needs to stop. You chose to play as BDM, so you use the proper BDM IFF as well. Wilde uses their unknown IFF, etc. If I go strictly by IFF, then a Freelancer has absolutely no right to demand anything. The simple answer is: Go take a break, Freelancer, or find yourself a job.
All this 'undercover' talk is nonsense. If you want to roleplay as an undercover agent, then find a way to do it with the correct ID and IFF.
Every ID and IFF must match , there's no need for Corsairs or Red Hessians flying around with BDM or BAF IFF.