As it currently stands there's a somewhat vaguely worded rule that is interpreted by the Staff as stating that Official factions cannot use more than one IFF on their tag. Personally I had always interpreted this rule as a guideline specifically relating to Official faction creation requests, that during the period of review a budding Official faction would have to use a single IFF, and would be free to change thereafter. Stupidly (and why I think my interpretation is right) as per the rule unofficial factions are free to play with multiple IFFs - so it seems both needless and bizzare to restricted Officials in this way. Attached is the rule in question.
I also feel like this is a recent declaration. BHG| and BHG|Core not only used muktiple IFFs on the same tag but IDs too. BAF|QCP also did a similar thing. Those examples both worked fine without issues.
From what I've heard, this ruling may have been partly responsible for a recent spout of drama with =LSF= targeting =CR= transports that weren't running the split civilian IFF. CR unfortunately couldn't change their IFF because of the ruling. The IFF split wasn't requested in the first place (same with Coalition civ) and so ultimately it was causing a bunch of problems and couldn't be used anyway so it was undone. I think however this isn't the fault of the concept of multiple IFFs, as LSF continued to shoot CR anyway. Player problem. Anyway that drama isn't the point of this thread.
I strongly believe multiple/split IFFs can be a great addition to the mod. They're a brilliant way to show diversity, flesh out, and add fluff in factions. It's a less detrimental way of creating new factions without adding new IDs that would spread activity. I am a believer that Disco right now cannot sustain new open IDs being added into to the mod, and allowing a single ID the potential to represent the diversity in their NPC faction through a different IFF would greatly enhance roleplay. The fact of the matter is that these days a single ID+IFF combo can't properly represent the full range of an NPC faction's roleplay in the current environment.
For example (and it's something I put in a request for that was denied for reasons above), The Core IFF can't really fully represent the range of roleplay on the Core ID and in the Core NPC faction. You have Core itself, APM, IO civilians, Arcani... Its a mixture. Requesting IDs for each of these would bloat the list of factions further and spread the playerbase. Not to mention the headaches of having to establish official factions for each. There was a short lived experiment where Alabama Shipyard was given an IC IFF, however this lead to a lot of problems and was ultimately canned. Alabama Shipyard has canonically been the HQ of APM for about a decade, and technically isn't a Core base (although they provide protection) and an APM IFF would be the perfect signature of the relationship between Core-APM-IC. Nauru also isn't a military installation; it's a civilian planet; and having a military IFF for it is a bit odd. Furthermore, in lore The Core has never touched mining or logistics operations, that has been APM's area, so seeing military vessels mine is extremely weird. Etc etc.
The above can apply to all the 'mini-state' factions that exist in Disco (replace Core with CR, Coalition, HF, GMG etc). Whereas Houses encompass multiple IDs and factions to flesh them out, these such factions only have themselves and the roleplay done by the players. In a lot of cases, some more than others, their single ID/IFF combination is awkward. Creating new IDs is messy, and could prove detrimental, but creating and allowing multiple IFFs is absolutely harmless. The activity tracker doesn't track IDs, and it doesn't track IFFs. So why would it be problematic? Factions can, and have, even changed their entire name, concept and tag halfway through their existence to varying degrees of success. Such complex switch ups are allowed, but not multiple IFFs? I mean come on, essentially all this does is give Official faction's sub-factions validity.
I implore the staff to reconsider the interpretation as well as existence of the rule. It's not constructive, creative nor helps the roleplay environment. I would like to hear what their exact concerns are about multiple IFFs, as I personally do not see a reason to be afraid of the concept.
(10-10-2018, 01:45 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: So why would it be problematic?
That depends on the execution. If changes in staff practice and ruling goes along the IFF split, allowing factions to continue what they've been doing until that point, I'd be fine with that. If IFFs would split without appropriate rule changes, and I were suddenly told what my faction has been doing for almost a decade is overstretching our RP, I would find that terribly problematic.
(10-10-2018, 02:05 PM)Altejago Wrote: I personally don’t think multiple IFF/ID is the way to go as it opens a whole can of loopholes.
I think the players need to consider how their personal vendettas affect the game as a whole.
Can you outline your point with an example? I can agree on new IDs being problematic, for reasons I've outlined as well as potentially making current official factions lose control over portions of their writeup as other players race to dominate a freshly opened officialdom spot. I don't see what kind of loopholes could arise with [HF] being alloeed to use the Commonwealth IFF on some of their (civilian) ships.
I'd like to see it clearly stated that all official factions (with exception Khara on this) should be able to at least use the Freelancer IFF. As an intel gathering ship, you may not want to use a tag or IFF that gives away what you are, but your ID being official will always indicate you are flying a serious RP ship and that at least will be what can 'reveal' a tie back to its official faction.
In the cases as well for BHG and Core, the use of either IFF and/or Freelancer IFF's should be fine for the same reason. But trying to fly an IFF that is very contrary or unrealistically deceiving should still be prevented.
Sure, let’s say USI OF owns LPI. USI then puts a USI IFF ona LPI ID ship. Cool, no worries they own it, but then this USI LPI ship then baits pirates into thinking it’s a USI. Before he can demand a cargo or even identify himself, he’s being shot up but this USI IFF police ship trying to arrest him. In the heat of the moment he isn’t able to check USI police’s ID and files a report for oorp attacks. Not a loophole as per sé but an annoyance for admins.
Or let’s say Congress puts their IFF on an Indy pirate ID ship, sneaks up on people then pirates them out of Junker ZOI. This expands the Congress’ pirating ZOI.
Or let’s say IC is banned from Rheinland again, but they have a sub faction using a DSE ID to be able to go and profit in Rheinland. Expands factions ZOI and profit options.
Be-all-do-all factions are stupid. In the case of faction representing mini-house, GMG was doing fine for years but CR and Core has troubles. Few factors go into this but all in all, I don't see the need to add more confusion to the fold. One faction = one IFF and ID. Simple and is not inhibiting gameplay.
As an example: You want APM IFF/ID? Make APM faction official, instead of adapting it under Core/IC IFF or/and ID. Easy to understand? Sure. Harder to achieve? Yes, as you would be making separate faction instead of doing umbrella thing like some factions are doing with their be-all-do-all attitude.