Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#46
I have been thinking about generalized deception (and its detection) for a while, and ways of integrating it into LT. I had in fact written a 7,000 word treatise on it that no one would want to read; it still exists in its partially completed second draft form, but I realized I was only suggesting a few calculated metrics. and a few concepts. Sparing y'all that painful read, I figured I would just present the concepts in their stripped down form here. Still long, but much denser.

Deception happens for 5 reasons: Avoiding Harm/Danger, Gaining a Reward, Protecting Others, Inflicting harm, and improving/maintaining relationships. In every case of deception, a player should be trying to accomplish one of these tasks in as economically feasible and as safe a way as possible.

Not all false information is deception, and players can be given a trust metric, describing how likely they are to trust a piece of information. This metric grows with “clean interactions and declines with detection of contradicting information
[Trust: 0-1 ; grows by 0.001 per clean interaction; declines by 0.001 per contradiction encountered]
Contradictions must be encountered to cause the decline, a lie never detected has no effect, this allows many small lies without bringing down everyone's trust level.

Deception requires knowledge of when and how to employ a given tactic, in reality this requires a theory of mind, but since in LT all minds are ultimately known, rather than having to guess what the other player is thinking, they can just read the other’s mind with more or less accuracy dependent primarily on their intelligence (how much brain they have) and how closely their personalities line up; the further away their personalities, the less likely they will understand each other well enough to reliably pull off a successful deception. In the case of reading the human player's mind, they can read your personality, and expect similar decision making results to other players with your personality, capabilities, and known assets. I also think that rather than Each player doing this for themselves, they have varying levels of access to the disembodied superbrain of LT itself.

Deception can be through word or action; this assumes there will be ship to ship communications as well as more active ways of fooling others. These boil down to omissions (dissimulations), commissions (simulations), and mixed messages. Omissions are when a player hides some information in their communications, Dissimulation is when a player hides some detectable property or value (Via value and property suppressors) or lures a target into complacency by working in an intentionally suboptimal way only to strike when the target is exposed. Commissions are when a player creates a false piece of information in their communications, Simulations are when a player creates or amplifies a detectable property (via value and property spoofers) or pretends to do one thing when their real intention is something else.

Examples of Active Simulation and Dissimulation
Spoiler:      SHOW
Active Simulation
  • Mimicry; the spoofing of signals, behavior, and appearances to look like something else. This can be done by making yourself seem larger and stronger than you are, or smaller and weaker than you are. Mimicry also opens up the possibility of false flags, such as that of a neutral party(which may or may not seriously anger said third party, and be more hassle than it’s worth) or as the enemy themselves
  • Either to hide among them, or to attack yourself, and gain the justification for going to war from outside observers; not casus belli in the CK2, EU sense, but in the sense that other parties will care less when you make a counter strike. Attacking yourself may also lower the opinions of those third parties toward the faction whose banner you fly
  • Spoofing properties of goods to artificially inflate their value. This can either be to sell watered down stock (sell low grade Xium as mid grade or high grade Xium) or to produce counterfeits. Much like a signal spoofer, a property spoofer would give an object a temporary property based on the quality of the spoofer to appear as having a similar (presumably but not necessarily better) property to sensors for a period of time or until it is used.
    _
  • Of course doing so not only angers the purchaser, but selling counterfeit goods also angers the manufacturer (if there is one) of the real thing. These would be counteracted by point of purchase scanners; getting caught selling counterfeits may incline the purchaser to offer you even less than it is really worth, and since they now know you are a scammer, they may blackmail you or possibly ruin your reputation.
    _
  • Fabrication, the use of dummies. These are essentially signal transmitters that can re-broadcast any signal you have stored. My idea is that you could place these transmitters in any object that Josh determines can accept them (containers, drones, ships, wrecks, asteroids, etc); At a received signal, these transmitters will activate and broadcast until turned off or the battery dies. With these dummies, you can appear in greater numbers and/or in more locations. Which can trick an enemy into thinking they are surrounded or can serve as a trap to lure unsuspecting victims.
  • Feints, to make an initial move which is different than what you are really going to do, or perhaps even just broadcasting that you are going to do something, when you are actually going to do something else. It is a simple misdirection to anyone looking and listening at your actions.
Active Dissimulation
  • Hide information signals by turning off your ID tag, and become a generic “object of x size, moving at y speed, distance:z”
  • Appear Harmless by disguising yourself as something weak or hiding some/all of your weapons or allies. If weapons rating are a simple numbers, a simple detection suppressor could be used to hide the real strength of the weapon. (laser with strength 500; attach a suppressor strength 300, appear to sensors as having a strength of 200) Of course, a more advanced sensor can see through a suppressor by a given number as well.
  • Appear less capable by performing suboptimally, waiting for opponent to take greater risks*, when their guard is down, strike with full force. This is primarily an AI dogfighting tactic, the ability to perform more or less optimally is dependant on dogfighting mechanics. However, this could also apply to industry or higher level AI’s as well, so long as initial performance is intentionally poor with the express purpose of moving with full force later, it would apply… but may not always be a wise tactic.
  • Feign a Retreat; before things turn really bad, run away, straight towards your waiting allies or larger force that can overpower (or try to) the detachment sent to kill a much smaller force. Primarily a military tactic, but could also be used in industry to let the opposition build the infrastructure, while you prepare a hostile takeover.
Deceptions can be detected by validation, either by checking it out yourself, or listening to a trusted source. Validation is the comparison of two calculated metrics I call “Credibility”; Written as
C=X(S+D)(TI(1+N-F)
Spoiler:      SHOW
X: Number of sources
S: Quantifiable sum of sensor data’s reliability (Better sensors are more trusted)
Reliability is a rate per second of observation value
D: Quantifiable metric for detecting false information (spoof detector/counter suppressor)
Spoofing, Suppression, and detection of such are objects with positive and negative values (eg. +500 spoofer meets -300 detector = net 200 spoofing. When detection greater than spoofing, net=0
T: Trust Value; 0-1
I: Integrity value; 0-1 (described below)
N: Number of clean interactions with individual (no contradictory information found)
F: Contradictory information flags, can be multiple per statement or broadcast
Example: known sleazy merchant that you haven’t had problems with before
C=1(500+100)(0.72*0.35(1+16-9); C= 1209.6, a fairly low number when compared to a trusted friend or a known honest man.
Validation of information can be expensive, but real lies open up the possibility of real detectives.

Integrity is twin to Trust, Whereas Trust is how willing you are to accept information from others Integrity is how trustworthy you are. Calculated simply: Whenever you have a good opportunity to deceive someone and you don’t you gain integrity, when you take the opportunity, you lose it; whenever you expose someone else’s deception, you gain even more integrity, as it is multiplied by 1+the jeopardy you put yourself in for the exposure as determined by the risk modelling above.
Integrity: 0-1 deception lowers I by 0.001, Honesty raises I by 0.001, Exposure raises by 0.001*Jeopardy

Deceptions can more easily avoid detection when they contain truth. Bold faced lies are inadvisable unless you are quite sure the other won’t find out. Mixing in truth to create half-truths, exaggerations or economic use of the truth will make detection harder. If a statement contains 10 pieces of information, and all are lies, that’s ten potential conflicts of information. It may be worth it, but future business could be much more profitable if you only gave 2 or 3 lies, and built up a higher credibility.

Consequences for being caught can vary, they can come in the form of reputation hits, bounty on your head, or fine. They should be scalable to how trusted you were and how grievous the betrayal of that trust. Written as Q=Value of Lie(1+(0.X*Credibility)). X being the balancer number, can vary from place to place, which simply increases or decreases the risk of lying. I am unsure how reputation and Bounties are calculated, but this should work for monetary

The value of a lie can vary for different situations. if trying to pass off counterfeit goods, it can be the difference between the real value of the good and the stated value of the good. If it is an omission of collateral damage, it can be the value of that damage, etc.

Thoughts?
Image
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#47
Second in a series that no one wanted for Ego-Based Thread Necromancy Day!

There's been some good discussion lately on Intelligence and espionage, so I thought it might be fun to revive this thread to see if any of the concepts and suggestions in it still hold up. After all, espionage (as distinct from sabotage) has become very much about "information warfare."

In particular, take a look at Hyperion's list of properties (a few posts up) that might have value as information. What a great starting point for thinking about practical features in an espionage component for Limit Theory!

Actually, here, let me repost Hyperion's fantastic list:
Spoiler:      SHOW
General Properties
Health (Health is just current state as compared to maximum capable state)
Position
Age (Where in lifetime)
Velocity
ΔVelocity
Rotation
ΔRotation
Size
Capacity (Mass, Energy, ammo size, etc)
Surface Area
Visible Surface Area
Local Origin (Where did it just leave from)
Ultimate Origin (Where did it spawn)
Destination (Where is it going; if ballistic than infinitely in front of local origin)
Emission Intensity (How visible is this by a scanner)
Emission Frequency (Where does this show up on the Scanner)
Destroyed @ X (Position and Time of object turned into "destroyed" state)
Destroyed by X (Whom)
Destroyed by X (What)

Material Properties
Mass
Value @ X (How many credits for this material at a given location) (Composit of Material Properties, Generative Properties, Social Properties)
Density
Durability (How much energy can be absorbed at once)
Δ Durability (How quickly material will recover from Damage, maximum self-recovery limit) (There can be some self-healing materials)
Reflectivity
Opacity
Light Diffusion/Scattering
Energy Content (Explosives, Energy Supply, Weapons Charge, warheads, ballistic projectiles, etc.)
Composition
Appears in X (Ice, Asteroids, Planets)
Used in X (Manufacturing)
Luminence (How much light it emits)
Temperature
Appeals to X (Player/Faction) (Does anyone particularly like this just because?)
Color
# Owners, Serial (How many times has this product changed hands)
# Owners Consecutively


ΔMass
ΔDensity
ΔReflectivity (Here, I am imagining materials that can take on a mirror cloak)
ΔLuminence (Has an object gone dark or grown brighter)
ΔTemperature (If an object is rapidly heating or cooling, that might trigger AI or UI actions)
ΔAppeal (For fashion trends)

Social Properties
AEGIS (The basic personality variables)
Aspiration (What do they ultimately want)
Goal (What are they presently seeking to do)
Success Rate (How often do they achieve their goals)
Attitude (How well does one player like another player/system/faction)
ΔAttitude (How has an attitude changed over time, is it getting worse, better)
Affinity (Predisposition for the familiar, allows cultures to appear; negative values have a propensity for rebellion or change)
ΔAEGIS (Personality change over time, low Δ is a stable personality, high Δ is an erratic individual)
ΔAffinity (Cultural Changes)
Connectivity (the social networks of various individuals, the larger the network the more influential they are)
Loyalty/Integrity (Are they likely to deceive you or keep to their word?)
Hostility (Likelihood to Initiate Immediate Combat)
ΔHostility (did you piss them off or calm them down?)
Protectivity (at what point will they defend another. Can have thresholds for Protecting client, Protecting Ally, Protecting Acquaintence, Protecting Stranger, Protecting Enemy)
Altruism (Likelihood of giving assets away for no credits, should have high chance for happiness, small chance for anger and hostility towards player they gave asset to)
Confidence (If engaged in combat, will they call for help?)
ΔConfidence (Are they losing morale or gaining it?)
Permissiveness (Is this player/faction a stickler for rules, or are they merely suggestions?)
Acceptability of X (Activity/State of being) to Y (Player/Faction) (simply being from the wrong planet may be a death sentence in some places)



Generation Properties
Rate of X* (production, firing, repairing, thrust, etc)
Frequency (How often it occurs, rarity)
ΔFrequency (May be useful in the case of gold rushes)
Persistence (How long will an object last)
Level (For things that come in discreet levels)

ΔRate of X (Is it speeding up or wearing down, may be great for indicating an engine is wearing out and needs repair)


*My idea here is that all production is a single variable, a gun creates its projectile at its tip with a given velocity and destination in the same way a production module or assembler creates a part.

Calculated Properties (other than change)
Visibility (A function of size, distance, reflectivity, opacity, emissions
Distance to X
Distance to X vs. Distance to Y,Z,A,B (Which is closer, which is closest)
Avg Value of X
Value of X to Avg Value of X
Value of X to Value of Y
Expected Value of X @ time Y (Snapshot of expectations)
Actual Value of X to Expected Value of X (useful for mangerial decisions)
Rate of X: Rate of Y
Δ Rate of X: ΔRate of Y
Avg Rate of X
Rate of X: Avg Rate of X
And because it's Ego-Based Thread Necromancy Day, here's a reposting of my own notions for some high-level object categories (many of which would have sub-categories):
Spoiler:      SHOW
  • Physical Objects
    • Natural Objects
      • Star
      • Planet
      • Asteroid
      • Nebula dust
      • Wormhole entry/exit point
      • City
    • Constructed Objects
      • Jumpgate
      • Station
      • Ship
      • Drone
      • Torpedo
      • Mine (?)
      • Engine module
      • Shield module
      • Armor module
      • Sensor module
      • Weapon module
      • Research module
      • Blueprint (top-level research output that defines objects)
      • Assembler (next-level research output that builds actual objects)
      • Ore packet
      • Information packet
  • Abstract Objects
    • Person
    • Faction
    • Fleet
    • Task
    • Project
    • Metaproject
    • Data log (attached to persons/ships, factions, stations, cities, planets)
Surely something in here will spark more ideas about how NPCs and the player's character (and, eventually, the player's factions) can digitally annoy each other. :)
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#48
Flatfingers wrote:Second in a series that no one wanted for Ego-Based Thread Necromancy Day!

There's been some good discussion lately on Intelligence and espionage, so I thought it might be fun to revive this thread to see if any of the concepts and suggestions in it still hold up. After all, espionage (as distinct from sabotage) has become very much about "information warfare."

In particular, take a look at Hyperion's list of properties (a few posts up) that might have value as information. What a great starting point for thinking about practical features in an espionage component for Limit Theory!

Actually, here, let me repost Hyperion's fantastic list:
Spoiler:      SHOW
General Properties
Health (Health is just current state as compared to maximum capable state)
Position
Age (Where in lifetime)
Velocity
ΔVelocity
Rotation
ΔRotation
Size
Capacity (Mass, Energy, ammo size, etc)
Surface Area
Visible Surface Area
Local Origin (Where did it just leave from)
Ultimate Origin (Where did it spawn)
Destination (Where is it going; if ballistic than infinitely in front of local origin)
Emission Intensity (How visible is this by a scanner)
Emission Frequency (Where does this show up on the Scanner)
Destroyed @ X (Position and Time of object turned into "destroyed" state)
Destroyed by X (Whom)
Destroyed by X (What)

Material Properties
Mass
Value @ X (How many credits for this material at a given location) (Composit of Material Properties, Generative Properties, Social Properties)
Density
Durability (How much energy can be absorbed at once)
Δ Durability (How quickly material will recover from Damage, maximum self-recovery limit) (There can be some self-healing materials)
Reflectivity
Opacity
Light Diffusion/Scattering
Energy Content (Explosives, Energy Supply, Weapons Charge, warheads, ballistic projectiles, etc.)
Composition
Appears in X (Ice, Asteroids, Planets)
Used in X (Manufacturing)
Luminence (How much light it emits)
Temperature
Appeals to X (Player/Faction) (Does anyone particularly like this just because?)
Color
# Owners, Serial (How many times has this product changed hands)
# Owners Consecutively


ΔMass
ΔDensity
ΔReflectivity (Here, I am imagining materials that can take on a mirror cloak)
ΔLuminence (Has an object gone dark or grown brighter)
ΔTemperature (If an object is rapidly heating or cooling, that might trigger AI or UI actions)
ΔAppeal (For fashion trends)

Social Properties
AEGIS (The basic personality variables)
Aspiration (What do they ultimately want)
Goal (What are they presently seeking to do)
Success Rate (How often do they achieve their goals)
Attitude (How well does one player like another player/system/faction)
ΔAttitude (How has an attitude changed over time, is it getting worse, better)
Affinity (Predisposition for the familiar, allows cultures to appear; negative values have a propensity for rebellion or change)
ΔAEGIS (Personality change over time, low Δ is a stable personality, high Δ is an erratic individual)
ΔAffinity (Cultural Changes)
Connectivity (the social networks of various individuals, the larger the network the more influential they are)
Loyalty/Integrity (Are they likely to deceive you or keep to their word?)
Hostility (Likelihood to Initiate Immediate Combat)
ΔHostility (did you piss them off or calm them down?)
Protectivity (at what point will they defend another. Can have thresholds for Protecting client, Protecting Ally, Protecting Acquaintence, Protecting Stranger, Protecting Enemy)
Altruism (Likelihood of giving assets away for no credits, should have high chance for happiness, small chance for anger and hostility towards player they gave asset to)
Confidence (If engaged in combat, will they call for help?)
ΔConfidence (Are they losing morale or gaining it?)
Permissiveness (Is this player/faction a stickler for rules, or are they merely suggestions?)
Acceptability of X (Activity/State of being) to Y (Player/Faction) (simply being from the wrong planet may be a death sentence in some places)



Generation Properties
Rate of X* (production, firing, repairing, thrust, etc)
Frequency (How often it occurs, rarity)
ΔFrequency (May be useful in the case of gold rushes)
Persistence (How long will an object last)
Level (For things that come in discreet levels)

ΔRate of X (Is it speeding up or wearing down, may be great for indicating an engine is wearing out and needs repair)


*My idea here is that all production is a single variable, a gun creates its projectile at its tip with a given velocity and destination in the same way a production module or assembler creates a part.

Calculated Properties (other than change)
Visibility (A function of size, distance, reflectivity, opacity, emissions
Distance to X
Distance to X vs. Distance to Y,Z,A,B (Which is closer, which is closest)
Avg Value of X
Value of X to Avg Value of X
Value of X to Value of Y
Expected Value of X @ time Y (Snapshot of expectations)
Actual Value of X to Expected Value of X (useful for mangerial decisions)
Rate of X: Rate of Y
Δ Rate of X: ΔRate of Y
Avg Rate of X
Rate of X: Avg Rate of X
And because it's Ego-Based Thread Necromancy Day, here's a reposting of my own notions for some high-level object categories (many of which would have sub-categories):
Spoiler:      SHOW
  • Physical Objects
    • Natural Objects
      • Star
      • Planet
      • Asteroid
      • Nebula dust
      • Wormhole entry/exit point
      • City
    • Constructed Objects
      • Jumpgate
      • Station
      • Ship
      • Drone
      • Torpedo
      • Mine (?)
      • Engine module
      • Shield module
      • Armor module
      • Sensor module
      • Weapon module
      • Research module
      • Blueprint (top-level research output that defines objects)
      • Assembler (next-level research output that builds actual objects)
      • Ore packet
      • Information packet
  • Abstract Objects
    • Person
    • Faction
    • Fleet
    • Task
    • Project
    • Metaproject
    • Data log (attached to persons/ships, factions, stations, cities, planets)
Surely something in here will spark more ideas about how NPCs and the player's character (and, eventually, the player's factions) can digitally annoy each other. :)
Why not just have a video recording of it? :think:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#49
So I'm still of the opinion that this is has the potential to differentiate LT from other open-world games. It seems like it's an ideal possibility for opening up new avenues in the late game. Basically, I just want to play Batman - after I've gone through the usual route of building up loads of cash and advanced technology. Of course, becoming a criminal is also possible using these gameplay elements.

I re-read Flat's original proposal, and in the end I believe that it's probably the best - and simplest - way to make it happen. I've got some long posts in this thread, but in the end I think anything that involves fake ID just makes everything way too complicated. I'm also going to steer clear of the stuff about corporations - this is about individuals only. So my proposal, in simple terms and very much building on Flat's ideas, would be:
  • Players can turn off their IDs to become anonymous
  • Ships retain logs of actions - or a "papertrail"
  • Logs are susceptible to hacking
  • Factions retain logs of actions and post bounties for anyone that can identify who committed infractions against them whilst anonymous
The key bit, which I don't recall having been discussed before, is the last part - which would make hacking anonymous ships well worth the time and effort. Going anonymous would have the usual issue - attraction from law enforcement, so there's a reason why you wouldn't want to do it all the time. Hacking, and how it's implemented, remains an open question I believe. I've seen several proposals for how to make it interesting, so I await to see what, if anything, Josh does with it.
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#50
mcsven wrote:So I'm still of the opinion that this is has the potential to differentiate LT from other open-world games. It seems like it's an ideal possibility for opening up new avenues in the late game. Basically, I just want to play Batman - after I've gone through the usual route of building up loads of cash and advanced technology. Of course, becoming a criminal is also possible using these gameplay elements.

I re-read Flat's original proposal, and in the end I believe that it's probably the best - and simplest - way to make it happen. I've got some long posts in this thread, but in the end I think anything that involves fake ID just makes everything way too complicated. I'm also going to steer clear of the stuff about corporations - this is about individuals only. So my proposal, in simple terms and very much building on Flat's ideas, would be:
  • Players can turn off their IDs to become anonymous
  • Ships retain logs of actions - or a "papertrail"
  • Logs are susceptible to hacking
  • Factions retain logs of actions and post bounties for anyone that can identify who committed infractions against them whilst anonymous
The key bit, which I don't recall having been discussed before, is the last part - which would make hacking anonymous ships well worth the time and effort. Going anonymous would have the usual issue - attraction from law enforcement, so there's a reason why you wouldn't want to do it all the time. Hacking, and how it's implemented, remains an open question I believe. I've seen several proposals for how to make it interesting, so I await to see what, if anything, Josh does with it.
Any ship running anonymously is going to look suspicious. It's better to have a fake ID than no ID at all because at least a fake ID can be looked over at a glance. Also, I agree with you about hackers hacking log files. This is something that I meant to outline in my idea but I never got around to doing so.
Image
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#51
BFett wrote:Any ship running anonymously is going to look suspicious. It's better to have a fake ID than no ID at all because at least a fake ID can be looked over at a glance.
My view is that suspicion is what you want. Going anonymous shouldn't be something people do all the time because of the attention it attracts. And honestly, the fake ID thing is just too much hassle. The rabbit hole is too deep when you start thinking about ship ID vs. captain ID and all that jazz.
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#52
Why would someone want their ship to be anonymous? What is the benefit that it has over using a fake ID?

I believe that Fake IDs would be possible and fairly easy to implement because it is just adding a fake name over the top of ship with a bad reputation. A hacker or a throw scan by law enforcement could determine that the ID was faked.

ID in general just has to do a few things. First, it has to match the ship it is assigned to. Second, it has to project a convincing IFF signal to other ships. If either of these are imperfect (which should be likely) then the person using the ID can be caught or the ID flagged as a fake.

For example let's pretend I have a X-wing with an ID of Red5 and project the X-wing IFF for other factions. If this ID is stolen and used for a Y-Wing fighter it is going to look suspicious even though the IFF might still match up. Not having any IFF what so ever looks very suspicious and is likely to get you fired upon once you are within visual range of the ship. The Y-wing on the other hand could get away with it until it is inspected and someone notes that it is not an X-Wing.
Image
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#53
BFett wrote:Why would someone want their ship to be anonymous? What is the benefit that it has over using a fake ID?
In situations where its just important not to be identified, what would i need a fake ID for?

Say i want to raid a transport, the only thing of importance is that it doesnt say "cornflakes" when in range, but just "unidentified ship".

Or when spying on someone? I dont want him to know that it was me, not make him think that its someone else.


Depending on how IDs end up implemented, turning it off would also reduce the range at which you are detected at all.
When your IFF doesnt respond on the "radar blip, are you a ship?" Request.


Fake ID and no ID have different effects, of which the "anonymity" part is the only overlap.

Fake ID:
Anonymity, smuggling, framing someone.

No ID:
Anonymity, hiding, raiding.
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#54
This could be used by the (local) good guys as well as the equivalent of "going undercover."

Suppose that ships normally broadcast an ID that includes, in addition to Vessel Name, the Vessel Size Class and Vessel Function, and possibly the Vessel Flag as well (the name of the faction under which the vessel is registered or who created it).

So I'm a filthy pirate preying on weak mining ships near a dusty asteroid field. Visuals are obscured, but my sensors detect a transponder ID: it's the Naglfar, a medium ore hauler for the Coulveriden Consortium. It's off by itself -- a perfect target.

I coast in behind the biggest nearby asteroid to minimize my ship's energy signature. Then I swoop out from behind it, rainguns trained on the Naglfar's engines to deliver a quick disabling blast...

...when I realize that the mining ship obscured visually by the dust wasn't a medium ore hauler after all, but a fast, well-shielded, and heavily armed cruiser broadcasting a faked transponder signal. Oops.

Scenarios like this one seem like they might add a good bit of fun. The question is whether that's likely to be enough fun versus the cost to design and code this feature, as well as the potential danger (which playtesting should reveal) of making it so cheap to do that too many NPCs use it.

Also, how well does this enhance the general concept of "information warfare?"
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#56
Flatfingers wrote:This could be used by the (local) good guys as well as the equivalent of "going undercover."

Suppose that ships normally broadcast an ID that includes, in addition to Vessel Name, the Vessel Size Class and Vessel Function, and possibly the Vessel Flag as well (the name of the faction under which the vessel is registered or who created it).

So I'm a filthy pirate preying on weak mining ships near a dusty asteroid field. Visuals are obscured, but my sensors detect a transponder ID: it's the Naglfar, a medium ore hauler for the Coulveriden Consortium. It's off by itself -- a perfect target.

I coast in behind the biggest nearby asteroid to minimize my ship's energy signature. Then I swoop out from behind it, rainguns trained on the Naglfar's engines to deliver a quick disabling blast...

...when I realize that the mining ship obscured visually by the dust wasn't a medium ore hauler after all, but a fast, well-shielded, and heavily armed cruiser broadcasting a faked transponder signal. Oops.

Scenarios like this one seem like they might add a good bit of fun. The question is whether that's likely to be enough fun versus the cost to design and code this feature, as well as the potential danger (which playtesting should reveal) of making it so cheap to do that too many NPCs use it.

Also, how well does this enhance the general concept of "information warfare?"
If I may contribute my 2 cents, maybe it would be easier for the ship information to only be wrong at a glance. So essentially, if all you do is stare at your HUD, you may be tricked. However, if you run a scan, you will always find out the true ship (different ships are different sizes and shapes with different power outputs, I'm sure the computer could detect this)
<Detritus> I went up to my mom and said "hey... do you feel like giving five dollars to black lives matter?" and she laughed and said no :v <Black--Snow> my life does matter though ~~ added by Hema on Jun 11 2020 (2770)
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#57
Black--Snow wrote: If I may contribute my 2 cents, maybe it would be easier for the ship information to only be wrong at a glance. So essentially, if all you do is stare at your HUD, you may be tricked. However, if you run a scan, you will always find out the true ship (different ships are different sizes and shapes with different power outputs, I'm sure the computer could detect this)
wheres the difference between "staring at your HUD" and "running a scan"?
what else are my sensors doing all the time if not running scans?
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#58
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Black--Snow wrote: If I may contribute my 2 cents, maybe it would be easier for the ship information to only be wrong at a glance. So essentially, if all you do is stare at your HUD, you may be tricked. However, if you run a scan, you will always find out the true ship (different ships are different sizes and shapes with different power outputs, I'm sure the computer could detect this)
wheres the difference between "staring at your HUD" and "running a scan"?
what else are my sensors doing all the time if not running scans?
Well, the way it was described in this thread was that ships have ID tags which broadcast, I assume along comm frequencies. This your ship doesn't run constant scans but rather Comms for identifying ships.
<Detritus> I went up to my mom and said "hey... do you feel like giving five dollars to black lives matter?" and she laughed and said no :v <Black--Snow> my life does matter though ~~ added by Hema on Jun 11 2020 (2770)
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#59
Black--Snow wrote: Well, the way it was described in this thread was that ships have ID tags which broadcast, I assume along comm frequencies. This your ship doesn't run constant scans but rather Comms for identifying ships.
Sooo.... you are flying blind?
Because there are no things in space without radio beacons?

Beacons should only extend the effective range of sensors, not replace them.
When your sensors detect something which it cant clearly resolve as ship and then your ID system pings it with an identification request. And the other System responds (or not, if turned off) with identification data.

If you turn off your ID you dont ping objects and dont respond to pings.

with that in place way more people could have something from turning off their ID systems.

A miner would want to turn his ID off, to delay eventual pirates trying to find him, but would want it online in case of police and to identify ships his sensor detects.

The pirate would have the same choice, stay "off" to minimise emissions and not to reveal himself when he gets passing attention by some ping or could keep his id on and detect ships at longer range but reveal his own position by doing so.

Similar for a surveillance station, be sneaky and have reduced effective sensor range, or go open and have increased range.

This would also serve some psychological value, you know when the police station can see you.

Also would it generate a logical "sneak meter". If your ship gets pinged, you know you are close to be detected
Post

Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare

#60
Cornflakes_91 wrote:wheres the difference between "staring at your HUD" and "running a scan"?
what else are my sensors doing all the time if not running scans?
What if "sensors" are generally passive and always-running detectors of long-range energy sources, while "scans" are an active interrogation of relatively nearby objects and energy sources through a deliberately-activated ping?

Suppose that "running a scan" has the following effects:
  • Depending on distance to target, research level of the scanner, and the power used, a scan can reveal:
    • target ship's true size
    • target ship's general maximum possible power generation
    • average research level of target ship's major components
    • identification of a random number of items in the target ship's cargo hold (poss. incl. contraband)
  • target ship is notified that they're being scanned
  • scanning ship is clearly highlighted in the target ship's sensors
  • running a scan disables the scanning ship's shields for several seconds
There might be more features, but a design similar to this would seem to me to offer some interesting gameplay choices between sticking with sensors (mostly passive) and firing off a deep scan (very definitely active).

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

cron