ID-locking IFFs and undercover systems

[Kauket]

Honestly, just make it so that BHG ID can see IDs inRP.

lmao, lol even

Consider it access to a criminal database.

the BHG are not omnipresent and do not know every identity of every living human being

and that's more relevant for shit like Rogues trying to be disguised. Not literal agents.

---

[Semir Gerkhan]

Ah yes, this is also why the change was reverted. Honestly, just make it so that BHG ID can see IDs inRP.

Idk if it may be complicated to execute, but from my pov it's a good idea also for bounty hunters to be able to attack ships that have the IFF they are looking for. Bounties should be done either by ship name (or faction tag), or if they are general, by IFF. The ID should be always outside of the inRP.

I speak from ignorance. I have never hunted a bounty.

[Barrier]

I like the discussion centered around the IFF being the publically-available piece of inrp information, aka the transponder signal or similar piece of gear. And yes, to me that does mean you cannot uncover someone's private identity without their oorp cooperation, them saying something inrp that gives you a clue, or them docking on a base that should otherwise be off limits (assuming you know about its location).

I would just add that we shouldn't throw out the no-iff. By logical extension, no-iff means a very special thing: the person is flying without a visible transponder signal. In a way, doing this is worse than rocking a pirate iff, since you're deliberately trying to avoid recognition. You could be trying to murder anyone across your path and pin it on another group that flies the same ships, etc. No one sane would let you dock without an iff, barring a few pirate bases and freeports. All House lawfuls would arrest or kick you out for flying no iff, because you could be in league with any one of their enemies.

But certainly my hope is that all future rules about inrp interaction focus on the iff, while the id becomes a set of oorp guidelines about how to play your character, along with interacting with mostly oorp mechanics like event scores.

[Proselyte]

The idea that having no publicly visible IFF should be something of a warning sign regarding someone's intentions and possibly illegal is an intriguing one. My mind goes to Starsector and toggling your transponder on and off to avoid reputational repercussions when you're about to do the nasty, or to hide that you are an enemy until you're right on top of your target (real life pirate tactics). Those are reasons why it's illegal in civilized space in that game, too, and gets whatever passes for the local authorities beelining right towards you if they spot it. It's a safe bet for a patrolman that you're a pirate or worse if you're not being up front about your affiliation.

If that was an eventual thing that became reality on the server - putting aside whether it's a good idea and all that'd go into it - I wonder if it is possible someday to effect limited IFF changes like a toggle between no IFF / undercover / overt without necessarily even having to go dock and restart?

[The_Godslayer]

Speaking personally, one option would be to default rephack the FL ID to Freelancer (so running no IFF isn't possible by default), and specify that you treat players according to their IFF. Freelancers would still be able to get other IFFs by droprepping.

please please please please I beg you please

I would just add that we shouldn't throw out the no-iff. By logical extension, no-iff means a very special thing: the person is flying without a visible transponder signal. In a way, doing this is worse than rocking a pirate iff, since you're deliberately trying to avoid recognition. You could be trying to murder anyone across your path and pin it on another group that flies the same ships, etc. No one sane would let you dock without an iff, barring a few pirate bases and freeports. All House lawfuls would arrest or kick you out for flying no iff, because you could be in league with any one of their enemies.

Just read this: Making it outlawed in House Laws is also acceptable. If seeing a NoFF meant House Lawfuls could treat it as hostile and enemy at their own discretion, that would also be reasonable.

---

I'll do something about my superiority complex when I cease to be superior.

"Whatever happened to catchin' a good old-fashioned passionate ass-whoopin and gettin' your shoes, coat, and your hat tooken?"

[Oggdo Bogdo]

I'd prefer no-IFF to be implemented as a variant of some type of hostile-Unknown IFF for the reasons given above.

I don't think the idea of unaffiliated ships should be removed, but they should certainly accept that there will be consequences, and it's strange that scanners currently give these ships the benefit of doubt by displaying them as neutral.

---