It takes some major cognitive dissonance to think that's fine. Despite the fact the station identifies you over voice-comms even when approaching the station with anonimity protocols active (when wanted). but you can imagine the forum-salt that would ensue? And it just 'locks out' any potential content you could implement around antagonistic behaviours requiring you to sneak onto the target station. I'd be 'OK' with a station denying access if you were wanted or hostile. I would prefer FD allow docking using Anon Protocols, as it leaves open the possibility to implement new antagonistic capabilities, which the near-complete absence of states like Famine and Lockdown (compared to their positive counterparts) demonstrates are sorely lacking from the game. To allow one, but not the other, in either combination, is completely contradictory and makes no sense. A station allows docking when you're either wanted or hostile, through use of Anonymity Protocols in both cases, which deny the station the ability to identify you.A station denies docking when you're either wanted or hostile or.So there's only two scenarios which make sense: therefore denying the station the ability to identify you, but equally denying most services on board because you won't identify yourself. However, they aren't, because they access the station via Anonymity Protocols. It only makes sense if wanted ships are also refused docking permission. Power Security NPCs attack ships of opposing powers (different major faction) if they are locally wanted, they have powerplay vouchers issued by the controlling power of the system, or are carrying any powerplay commodity relevant to the controlling power of the system.
