Transmitidentity

Level 1 skill: transmitidentity
Function: to be used at the helm of a cockpit in order to transfer a set ‘identity’ to the helm of the target vessel.

Level 149? smuggling+??? skill/feat: setidentity history/custom
Function: Allows one to set their ‘identity’ to show either their character’s history or an alternate history presumably to be used with a disguise. Allows one to theoretically pass orbital checkpoints undetected when identity is requested for transmission, or when being subjected to a ground ID check.

The above would allow for an extra layer of certainty in cases of orbital checkpoints for the pilot who might otherwise accidentally fire on the newbie/unrelated bystander and also allow the criminal/whatever the opportunity to pass through checkpoints with a forged ID.

It doesn’t feel right just leaving the feat as a smuggling-only option, but I’ll leave that to be debated and decided upon by wiser parties. Could be considered an extra upgrade off of advanced disguise.

How about for the forged identity part, make it a feat based off of encrypt_file. With the feat, “encrypt_file <person> forge” would open up a buffer for the target, letting them make whatever false history they choose. This history would show up whenever they’re scanned.

This would be indistinguishable from a regular history unless decrypted by someone with the proper slice/secure ability.

Using decrypt_file with sufficient skill would remove the forged history. “File Forgery Removed.”

Using decrypt_file without sufficient skill would show nothing. “Hmm, their file isn’t encrypted.”

Using encrypt_file by itself would function as it would on a regular file, hiding the forged file until decrypted.

Err, nevermind this post, I read the OP wrong.

I think I get where this is going and I like the idea(if in understand it properly). We add a way for a pilot to send their ‘identity’ from one ship to another (and do away with this say something over a comlink nonsense). We would add a high level smuggling skill at the same time which enables you to send a fake identity that appears real to the pilot on the other side. Right? Want to make sure I get it.

Re histories, different topic, but how would people feel about the idea of making them append only?

Not really a fan of the idea Miros, you’ve got character sheets to use for append only. Some people are very particular about character progression (child characters being an issue also) and keeping their history upto date like people should, but for those who choose to omit information they will just not utilise the fearture at all. You’d end up just having pages of past entries much like we already have with character sheets.

In relation to the skill I’d have to agree with just adding it onto advanced_disguise, being that that it’d become accessible to those who can already do half a job with identity swapping.

Okay, now that I’ve read the OP properly, I have a thought.

Why not allow the ability to set a custom identity as a slicer skill? It seems odd to me that of the two more extralegal classes (Slicer and Smuggling), only Smuggling has the ability to disguise themselves. This would be a form of electronic disguise, and something I feel best fits for slicers.

Ultimately, though, this could be easily bypassed by any powerful ship simply tractoring and boarding the ship in question, and scanning someone’s identity in person. And that would make this skill useless once more.

I agree with Cap and Miros. I think it would be sweet to be able to transmit identities, with fakes at a high enough smuggling level. With regards to the histories if it were to be implemented I would like to see it as a slicer skill/feat that would allow them to encrypt your file with a fake over top.

I don’t know, Logan.
Things like employment, extra education and criminal record (at least, if you’re caught) would still be added by government, so it’d be added to your ID history.

But yeah, could also be a slicer skills, or an espi skill, but smuggling sounds pretty good, too.

I dig this whole thread. Great ideas!

Honestly, I don’t like this idea. We already have people hiding by sitting in uncharted space and the such. It would be horrible for people to be able to hide, with their super shields against lookup, right in the open. When clans do checkpoints they are actively searching for enemy players, rebels, criminals, what have you. Those players have to actively try to evade those looking for them. If this gets implemented they’d just be able to stand in the square all day with their fake shields and not have to actively do anything against being caught. It’s just a matter of balancing the cat and mouse game and this would break it.

It feels like a suggestion that even further minimizes the actual amount of work a pilot has to to in space. (There isn’t much, don’t let people fool you.) And I would say that it’s literally been years since a pilot has been bold enough to tractor someone aboard for an ID check without a forcer sitting shotgun.

How about instead of giving pilots more reasons to do absolutely nothing, why don’t we instead encourage them to be more intelligent with regards to their checkpoints instead of being gung-ho dbags with split-second “Didn’t respond to me fast enough” trigger fingers. Don’t need to give them more things to encourage more laziness.

It might work well as a slicer and smuggling ability. (A high-level dual-class skill would be nice to finally see around, too!) This ability would literally change nothing that a pilot currently does except codify the checkpoint process a bit, not to mention at least make it legitimate. (could have to have a certain component installed on a capital ship to receive and make sense of transmitted identities?)

Pilots being lazy/chicken-shit/overeager/incapable of following their gut happens now anyway, not really sure what all of you naysayers are getting at here. If there is doubt on someone’s identity, there are still options that can be taken by the identifying clan from that point, just the same as if they do not currently like the way a person responds.

Miros, you have the gist. As for your question, I did not quite understand what you were getting at. It seemed like you were saying that histories should have to be approved through an app process and that does not seem like a good idea.