Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Microtrancievers
Posted by: FriendoftheDork Aug 8 2007, 04:27 AM
Hey, back in previous editions Mictrotransievers and similar tactical communication gear was almost mandatory on runs.
My players brought this to my attention: With commlinks being cheap and so versatile, what's the point of using any other means of communication devices? Initially I thought communicating with mictrotrancievers would be more secure, but it seems it has the same kind of encryption that commlinks have, so it should be just as easy to intercept, sabotage or jam.
Sure, commlinks can be hacked, while I'm not sure that MTs can, but then again most runners use commlinks as well. Sure, you can turn them off but that means you lose out on another advantage comlinks have: Using tactical maps in conjunction with verbal communication.
So can you tell me what's the point of MTs? Are they just mementos of a past time, communication dinosaurs, or do they provide a benefit compared to comlinks?
Posted by: Fortune Aug 8 2007, 04:32 AM
They are always useful as a backup comm system. 
Posted by: Cursedsoul Aug 8 2007, 04:43 AM
I forget who mentioned it in another topic but they brought up the point of if your commlink is compromised, EVERYTHING on that commlink is now compromised (or very well could be) so unless all you use it for is MT style purposes, you're taking a bigger risk.
With a MT if they hack/jam/sabotage it all you've lost are communications and not stuff like contact phone numbers, addresses, places you think are really whiz and hang out at all the time (thus making it easier to find you), etc, etc.
Also, MTs are pretty damn cheap. 1200 
for a rating 6, signal 6 device used for communications is awesome compared to 8000 for a fairlight caliban with a signal of 5. You also need an operating system to go along with it, pushing the cost up further and frankly, if you're going to be bringing your commlink on a run you better be DAMN sure you've got a superduper firewall because otherwise well, you might as well use a MT for all the good it'll do you to bring it along just to get hacked without the offender batting an eyelash. 
Now if all you want is a rating 1 deal, you can get one for 200 whereas the absolute cheapest commlink/os you'll buy out of the box is 300 and well, that commlink is pretty useless for anything other than a decoy link to display your (fake)SIN and make the authorities happy while your super whiz amaze-o-deluxe with a side of fries commlink loaded with all sorts of goodies can operate in hidden mode or be turned off and not catch the stink eye.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 8 2007, 06:46 AM
...if they brought back the Transducer (Cyber Implant) in Augmented the Micro Transceiver makes an excellent stealth comm unit totally independent from your commlink. 
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 8 2007, 06:51 AM
Can you operate a commlink in "pure radio, voice only" mode? Not accepting anything but an (probably analog) voice signal, making it impossible to hack?
Posted by: kzt Aug 8 2007, 06:55 AM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...if they brought back the Transducer (Cyber Implant) in Augmented the Micro Transceiver makes an excellent stealth comm unit totally independent from your commlink. |
Maybe it's just me, but I've always seen having stuff built into you as having the distinct drawback that it's still built into you when the cops wander around to ask pointed questions. It's unlikely that they will find the commlink and encrypted microtranscever I threw off that bridge last night, but it seems a lot more likely they will find the encrypted microtranscever embedded in your head. Which is likely to raise just a few more questions and provide some interesting leads for them to follow.
Posted by: kzt Aug 8 2007, 06:57 AM
| QUOTE (Fuchs) |
| Can you operate a commlink in "pure radio, voice only" mode? Not accepting anything but an (probably analog) voice signal, making it impossible to hack? |
I'd expect not. It sounds like trying to operate a VoIP phone without using IP.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 8 2007, 07:36 AM
As others have said, it's essential a security choice. Microtranscievers are cheaper, are more secure, and have greater range. But, in all honesty, if someone can hack into your teams commlinks they probably won't have any trouble jamming or intercepting your microtranscievers, either. So it really just comes down to a choice.
It's also just as vulnerable as the rest of your PAN is if it's connected directly or indirectly to any other wireless device in the network. So you have to go with cabled earbuds and subvocals or... well, you may as well just be using your commlink if not for the greater range on the microtransciever.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 8 2007, 09:16 AM
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
I'd expect not. It sounds like trying to operate a VoIP phone without using IP. |
I'd expect to. It sound's like using a soft-radio.
Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 8 2007, 01:57 PM
I think the Idea is the Microtranceiver could operate this way, making it more secure than over-matrix communications.
My personal opinion is that the micro-tranceivers don't broadcast on matrix frequencies or with matrix encoding, and so if someone wanted to intercept the signal, they'd need their own micro-tranceiver to do so.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 8 2007, 02:13 PM
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| My personal opinion is that the micro-tranceivers don't broadcast on matrix frequencies or with matrix encoding, and so if someone wanted to intercept the signal, they'd need their own micro-tranceiver to do so. |
My personal opinion is that as long as a comlink has no written frequency limitations, it tunes onto whatever frequency the software says.
If it has frequency limitations, anyone serious would custom-order a pure soft-radio.
Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 8 2007, 02:21 PM
I interpret hooking a micro-tranceiver up to your commlink as getting that custom soft-radio. But your right, that's not anywhere in the rules.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 8 2007, 02:29 PM
A micro-transceiver is less suitable to take full advantage of a softradio, as he lacks any real interface.
Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 8 2007, 02:35 PM
But a microtranceiver hooked up to your commlink...
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 8 2007, 02:37 PM
..does nothing more than your commlink itself.
Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 8 2007, 02:43 PM
I'm saying IF the commlink had a limited range of frequencies, the micro-tranceiver would act as a soft radio.
Real world comparison: my laptop has a wireless card, it can interface with other wireless devices, but can't communicate with my walky-talkies. My friend has a peice of equipment he hooks his laptop up to that allows him to send and receive data over HAM radio frequencies. My normal laptop cannot do this, but if I attached a similar device it could.
Back to SR: The commlink has wireless, as does almost everything else, but a special adapter would be needed for it to access microtranceiver signals. Incidentally, this device is a micro-tranceiver.
Posted by: DireRadiant Aug 8 2007, 02:44 PM
Theoretically, a microtransciever could also be a node....
and since p 320
"The transceiver’s Signal rating is
equal to its Device rating."
and the table on P 214 also uses "Device Rating"
You can claim that a rating 6 microtransciever also acts as a rating 6 node.
Not that I would let anyone get away with that.
Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 8 2007, 02:46 PM
Oh, it's a node, and could run all kinds of IC to protect that node. It's just not a commlink, and would not give you a persona, nor would agents running on it be able to do anything outside of it's node.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 8 2007, 02:47 PM
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| I'm saying IF the commlink had a limited range of frequencies, the micro-tranceiver would act as a soft radio. |
Why should it?
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| my laptop has a wireless card, it can interface with other wireless devices, but can't communicate with my walky-talkies. |
Actually, that is because the driver/'firm'ware of it limits it to WiFi frequencies... otherwise, the FCC would be non-happy. The radio itself is a soft-radio and could do much more...
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| The commlink has wireless, as does almost everything else, but a special adapter would be needed for it to access microtranceiver signals. |
Thus, it's not really a problem for a hacker to make his commlink tune into those 'special' frequencies.
Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 8 2007, 03:03 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) | ||
Why should it? |
I don't know, mostly to give micro-tranceivers something to do.
I did not know that about (RL) wireless devices. How very interesting.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 8 2007, 03:06 PM
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
Maybe it's just me, but I've always seen having stuff built into you as having the distinct drawback that it's still built into you when the cops wander around to ask pointed questions. It's unlikely that they will find the commlink and encrypted microtranscever I threw off that bridge last night, but it seems a lot more likely they will find the encrypted microtranscever embedded in your head. Which is likely to raise just a few more questions and provide some interesting leads for them to follow. |
...the Transducer is legal Cyber (at least in SRIII it was, don't have Augmented yet.) In previous editions I had characters patch an external MT through their induction datajack to their Transducer router.
Even so, a radio or vid implant is still not illegal or even restricted cyber. As a matter of fact a lot of media people would have a whole AV studio crammed in their heads (I once ran a reporter who was a walking remote unit and editing studio).
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 8 2007, 03:08 PM
You can switch cyberware to wireless mode. Can you switch Comlinks to microtransceiver mode too?
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 8 2007, 04:22 PM
You can turn wireless connectivity off on anything.
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 8 2007, 04:40 PM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...if they brought back the Transducer (Cyber Implant) in Augmented the Micro Transceiver makes an excellent stealth comm unit totally independent from your commlink. |
iirc those are now part of the cyberjack.
there is some fluff about two people with jacks having a conversation across a fiberoptic cable...
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 8 2007, 05:32 PM
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) | ||
iirc those are now part of the cyberjack. there is some fluff about two people with jacks having a conversation across a fiberoptic cable... |
...do you have a page citing?
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 8 2007, 05:49 PM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) | ||||
...do you have a page citing? |
P 331, SR4, the text talking about the datajack.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 8 2007, 05:52 PM
That applies to stringing a cable between two people's heads, both of whom have a Datajack. It has nothing to do with Microtranscievers which are in no way secure.
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 8 2007, 05:55 PM
true. but kyoto kid asked about the transducer. a device that could convert thought to words and back again.
to me, two people with datajacks and fibre suggests that the datajack have absorbed the functionality of the transducer.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 8 2007, 05:56 PM
Ah, true, I see what you mean now. Though if the transmissions are "text messages," it makes a bit more sense.
Posted by: DireRadiant Aug 8 2007, 08:10 PM
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| true. but kyoto kid asked about the transducer. a device that could convert thought to words and back again. to me, two people with datajacks and fibre suggests that the datajack have absorbed the functionality of the transducer. |
Datajacks are cyberware so they have DNI
p 330
"In addition to wireless functionality, most cyberware devices
are equipped with a direct neural interface (DNI) that
allows the user to mentally activate and control their functions."
Because a datajack has DNI, it could be used to skinlink to a micro transceiver to mimic the effects of a transducer, or if nothing else, wirelessly talk to the transciever which uses it's own signal rating to retransmit or relay.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 8 2007, 08:32 PM
...thanks. Looks like Datajacks and Micro Transceivers for everyone (except Da Brat and KK).
...hmmm, I wonder if a trode net would work for them?
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 8 2007, 09:51 PM
Sure, trodes are just another form of DNI. But again, Datajacks are not the same as Transducers. DNI lets you control and activate devices, but you can't "talk through your brain" beyond the possibility of sending text messages and whatnot. That's exactly why there's a Transducer.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 8 2007, 10:10 PM
There is no Transducer in SR4.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 8 2007, 10:45 PM
Okay, ammendment: Why there needs to still be a Transducer.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 8 2007, 10:50 PM
Most people seem to disagree and happily use their implanted commlink, datajack or trodes to communicate mentally.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 8 2007, 11:22 PM
...yeah , but Implanted commlinks are not the same since they are always tied into to the Matrix and have a data trail associated with them. A micro transceiver functions on radio frequencies that have nothing to do the wireless matrix which is what makes them very ueseful in the field when you want to keep communications private.. You can also load (at least you could in previous editions) an MT with various electronic countermeasures to counteract jamming and eavesdropping. As has been discussed in various threads, Matrix based encryption in SR4 is something of a joke.
I guess would actually tend to agree with Dr Funk on this one and say that we then still need the Transducer, and the fact they didn't include it in Augmented is a shame.
It really isn't a big Essence/ sink anyway. (.1 Ess & I believe 1500 in SRIII).
Wonderful little piece of 'ware.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 8 2007, 11:29 PM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...yeah , but Implanted commlinks are not the same since they are always tied into to the Matrix and have a data trail associated with them. |
No. They are devices that exactly do what you (or your hacker...) tells them to do. Like not automatically going online.
And if you tell them to tune into the AM band and transmit and receive in it, they will.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| A micro transceiver functions on radio frequencies that have nothing to do the wireless matrix which is what makes them very ueseful in the field when you want to keep communications private. |
That is not even stated, and completely trivial concerning radio usage.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| I guess would actually tend to agree with Dr Funk on this one and say that we then still need the Transducer, and the fact they didn't include it in Augmented is a shame. |
It's completely obsoleted as it is now a part of every neural interface. Or can't you talk to people in full VR with your trodes?
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 9 2007, 12:49 AM
...What I'm looking at is bypassing the matrix altogether. No where does it say that you need the same countermeasures for a Transceiver as you do for a Commlink to keep communications secure. This would imply that the two units operate independently of one another. A Commlink uses an array wireless matrix nodes. A Transceiver uses the standard radio bands. A Commlink can be used to contact someone a great distance away by hopping from one node to the next. A Transceiver has a set range limit based on its power (formerly flux) rating.
The thing is you really don't "Talk" to people in VR. You message them. VR displays text and graphics, and you need an active Display Link to read it, and then, you have to read it thus requiring more attention than simply listening and responding verbally. I would find that rather distracting while on a run.
OK, the Transceiver may be as old hat in 2070 as the transistor radio is in the current day. But it is simple, still works, and is not dependent on the matrix to function. I see it as this: Commlinks use one set of dedicated frequencies to link with a node and Transceivers use a different set, with each being exclusive of the other. Otherwise there would be no reason for MTs to exist in the Gear section since the Commlink does everything (except maybe make the coffee and wash the car - waitaminute, I guess they got drones for that...ohhh never mind 
).
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 01:23 AM
I'm not really familiar with any rules for having multiple PANs. You either have one or you don't. A single wireless device hooked up to it renders the entire network vulnerable to attack through that device.
If I'm mistaking, please let me know. I'd love it if you could have multiple networks going and be able to shut one down that's under attack while maintaining your others.
Regarding transducers and their lack of an appearance in SR4: Please point to a text blurb that says audio communication is possible through pure DNI. And if it were that simple, why would anyone want a subvocal microphone that costs exactly the same as a set of trodes for their commlink.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 9 2007, 01:31 AM
...excellent point, & the reason why I believe the two devices are mutually exclusive of each other.
Posted by: Fortune Aug 9 2007, 01:34 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| I'd love it if you could have multiple networks going and be able to shut one down that's under attack while maintaining your others. |
I don't see why you can't do this (characters set up a phony PAN all the time and keep their real one Hidden), but they couldn't share any devices whatsoever (Image Link, Ear buds, etc) and still be secure.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 02:07 AM
Oh, it'd be great if you could separate them completely. I just don't see how you can and still have interoperability (ie, with you being the "device" that connects everything together).
Now having a cheap commlink on you that's turned on but with which you're not personally networked to (ie, it's doing what it needs to do and you're checking up on it the old fashioned way; through the standard non-DNI interface), that's fine and that's what most people seem to be doing when they have one. Well, while simultaneously having their PAN completely skinlinked with wireless connectivity turned off, that is.
Posted by: Fortune Aug 9 2007, 02:14 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| Oh, it'd be great if you could separate them completely. I just don't see how you can and still have interoperability (ie, with you being the "device" that connects everything together). |
Well, I'm assuming that you could run one PAN either totally internally though cyber or through a datajack/skinlink combo with an external commlink, and another wirelessly through separate accessories utilizing a separate 'trode net.
You might not be able to access them both at the exact same instant, but I don't see any reason why they couldn't both be operational.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 02:32 AM
Well yeah, that's the thing. The moment you do connect to them at the same time, game over; it's all one network. You can have wireless devices that aren't connected to your PAN, but that means you can't operate them through that PAN either. You have to either rely on old fashioned controls and interfaces or hook it up to your PAN and use your standard DNI controls. You still only ever have one PAN; you're just connecting and disconnecting devices as you see fit.
Posted by: Fortune Aug 9 2007, 03:27 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| Well yeah, that's the thing. The moment you do connect to them at the same time, game over; it's all one network. |
Maybe I'm not explaining what I am picturing quite right.
I see it as two seperate networks. The only thing they would have in common is your brain, one connected via datajack (or internal commlink) and another connected via either a 'trode net or datajack (if an Internal commlink was used in the first option).
Come to think of it, I see no reason why you couldn't set up two distinct networks utilizing two separate datajacks. As above, the only thing they have in common as far as networking is your actual gray matter, which in my opinion can't be hacked to 'make a connection'.
I could foresee concentration or cognition problems if you try to actually access and process data from both networks at the same time (good time for the Attention Coprocessor?), but otherwise the networks should run simultaneously and distinctly separate from each other.
Am I wrong? If so, where?
Posted by: FriendoftheDork Aug 9 2007, 04:46 AM
Boy, did this topic blow up quickly
Ah it seems we're not the only one confused by the gear section's limited description on items, particularily how they work.
As far as I see, there is little in the rules themselves that show a benefit to using MTs contra commlinks. I see many of you have good points on how you see the use for MTs, but these are pretty liberal interpretations or even house rules.
After a while I got lost in the technical details, thinking of wireless signals and optical computers makes my head spin. Ah well. In my game I'm still going to allow EW against MTs, but I'll make them somewhat harder to intercept at least.
As for the datajack communication thing, seriously people, make your own thread
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 09:06 AM
Well, if we use the computer network analogy:
Here is my desktop computer. Connected to it by cable are the screen, the printer, my keyboard, speakers, a microphone, a mouse, a laptop, a UBS-external harddrive and a radio which is used for accessing the internet through a wireless connection.
Can I keep the network going, sharing data between the desktop, laptop and external harddrive, cut the wireless connection, and use the radio with speakers and microphone as a CB radio to talk with a trucker, if the radio can access those frequencies?
Could I keep a commlink on as the network hub for my PAN (through skinlink), yet drop the wireless connectivity, and opening a simple radio link (voice only)?
From what I read so far, it should be rather easily be done, and allow voice communication without being vulnerable to hacking.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 09:12 AM
The thing you're missing, I think, is that for all intents and purposes, the character himself is the "hub" of the network. Anything connected to him is connected to everything else in his PAN. Doesn't matter if the wireless connection is using radio or any other type of wireless methods -- the rules never differentiate between them as far as I'm aware. Wireless is wireless.
Even if you have all the wireless connectivity on all your other devices turned off and are accessing them through skinlinks, plugging into a microtransciever or cheap commlink that has its wireless turned on renders them all vulnerable to attack. This is, in particular, where a microtransciever does shine over a cheap commlink as the microtransciever can easily have a Rating 6 across the board for the same price as a cheap commlink.
Posted by: Fortune Aug 9 2007, 09:17 AM
Funk: I assume that response was not directed towards my post. I wouldn't mind continuing our side topic in a new thread, if you'd like.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 09:19 AM
Sure. I'd love to see more discussion about multiple PANs. I'd honestly love it if you could do that as I get a little frustrated designing a security-conscious non-hacker character.
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 09:43 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| The thing you're missing, I think, is that for all intents and purposes, the character himself is the "hub" of the network. Anything connected to him is connected to everything else in his PAN. Doesn't matter if the wireless connection is using radio or any other type of wireless methods -- the rules never differentiate between them as far as I'm aware. Wireless is wireless. Even if you have all the wireless connectivity on all your other devices turned off and are accessing them through skinlinks, plugging into a microtransciever or cheap commlink that has its wireless turned on renders them all vulnerable to attack. This is, in particular, where a microtransciever does shine over a cheap commlink as the microtransciever can easily have a Rating 6 across the board for the same price as a cheap commlink. |
My question is exactly if it is possible to pick a "no wireless matrix, only analogue radio" mode for a commlink, which would mean that as far as anything in the PAN is concerned, there is no wireless connection.
If I tune my commlink to the local FM station, to listen to the latest music hitlist, but shut the wireless matrix connection off, how could anyone hack into it? It's not in wireless matrix mode, it's simply being used as a radio, and not set to receive wireless data.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 09:52 AM
Sure, you can have your commlink on and working just fine. You just can't be controlling it through DNI or have it plugged in or anything; you have to rely on the "analog" old school controls, such as its video display and roll-out keyboard. It's only a liability if it's part of your PAN, which it becomes the moment you jack into it.
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 09:59 AM
Why not? If I have a microtransciever implanted, I can access it by DNI/skinlink/datajack/etc., and it's not wirelessly connected to the matrix, but listening to radio waves.
Why would a commlink be unable to do the same, switch from wireless connection to skinlink, and open a radio channel?
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 10:15 AM
Once again: There's no distinction in the game. Wireless is wireless. Radio is not a separate and distinctive thing; in fact, your run of the mill commlink works as a microtransciever just fine. For all intents and purposes, a microtransciever is simply a dumbed down and specialized commlink lacking all the other bells and whistles except radio communications.
Which is exactly why it's meaningless to make a distinction. Know that commlink the enemy is using to hack into your PAN? Guess what, it has radio capabilities, too. He rides in on that, breaks through microtransciever's defenses, and voila -- he has full access to your PAN since you're jacked into it.
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 10:40 AM
That makes not much sense, really. In order to hack a radio through the radio transmissions, the actual interface has to be switched to a mode that accepts such data signals. You cannot hack a radio that is not set to accept data, but only analog radio signals, same as you can't hack a camera by printing your code out and putting it in front of its lense.
If in my tank I switch our digital radio to analog mode, then no digital transmission has the slightest chance to be received in any other form than some noise. You won't be able to access our fire control computer, even though the thing is hooked up to the radio. However, we can still talk just fine on the radio, and use the computer just fine.
If I switch the digital mode on, then wham - our computer is networked, able to send and receive data from the spotter and the howitzers. And could probably be hacked into. But it's the same radio, just another mode.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 10:42 AM
Once again: No such thing as distinct wireless bands. Analog or otherwise. Wireless. Is. Wireless. I don't know how to make that any more clear.
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 10:44 AM
But wireless is not wireless. I made an actual, real life example how analog signals and digital signals can mean the difference between data links and pure voice only link. If I set my digital radio to analog mode, then all your fancy data hacking won't find a receptor, since the mode simply won't recognise those signals.
It's not different bands, it is different modes of transmitting. A digital signal can't be used to hack into a radio receiver that is set to analog.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 11:14 AM
Shadowrun is not real life. There have been two major crashes in the Shadowrun timeline, both reinventing how technology works. Crash 2.0 did an even bigger overhaul than the original did. And in Shadowrun, wireless is wireless.
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 11:19 AM
I beg to differ. In Shadowrun, the 20th century did see anolog radio. They did not lose that tech in the crash, nor did they lose the knowledge of it.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 11:35 AM
Yep. And no one's stolen the secrets of stringing a tin can together with a piece of twine, either, and using that as a communication device. Or building bonfires and waving a blanket over it to send smoke signals. Or blowing a horn made out of an elephant's tusk. Or any other outdated forms of communication.
The problem is, no one else is using it.
"Wireless" is a distinct term in the game. There is no "wireless: radio" or "wireless: Matrix" distinctions. In fact, the only radio device in the game -- a microtransciever -- has commlink stats on it.
If you want to come up with your own rules and your own devices using outdated forms of communication, nothing's stopping you aside from "you have to make house rules for it."
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 9 2007, 12:03 PM
Well, Matrix had 'rules' on old-school radio communication.
Let's hope Unwired at least touches the issue.
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 12:06 PM
I would not call a communication form that prevents the enemy from hacking into your network "outdated". I'd also assume that at least the military would have such systems set up, even if only as an emergency means of communication.
Posted by: Wasabi Aug 9 2007, 12:51 PM
Since it takes many rounds to hack a high-rating encryption placed on a transmission and only the right impossibly-long passcode allows someone to read that signal is there any reason a hacker wouldn't have hundreds or thousands of pre-setup encryptions and passcodes put in place and then frustrate sniffing attempts by having a set of agents rotate which encryption is active every few rounds?
It could certainly be defeated by spoofing the agents to disrupt communications or spoofing the agents to have them relay the passcodes to a rogue commlink. The set of all hundreds or thousands of encryption passcodes could get stolen by a hacker exploiting in.
I'm not saying its foolproof, just really great at forcing an intruding hacker to exploit into a possibly well-protected chokepoint of a node.
Posted by: Buster Aug 9 2007, 01:00 PM
| QUOTE (Fuchs @ Aug 9 2007, 07:06 AM) |
| I would not call a communication form that prevents the enemy from hacking into your network "outdated". I'd also assume that at least the military would have such systems set up, even if only as an emergency means of communication. |
How can "analog radio" prevent a commlink from running Scan or Sniffer on your communication? Funk is right, there isn't any distinction between digital and analog wireless communication in the game, it's just "wireless". You're still broadcasting wirelessly and any commlink will hear you.
The only advantage to using a transceiver-only communication system is that if it's hacked, intruders won't get your messages, contact lists, SIN, etc. that's stored in your commlink.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 9 2007, 01:05 PM
You don't 'hack' it. You intercept it.
If it's a data connection, you could start hacking then.
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 01:07 PM
| QUOTE (Buster) | ||
How can "analog radio" prevent a commlink from running Scan or Sniffer on your communication? Funk is right, there isn't any distinction between digital and analog wireless communication in the game, it's just "wireless". You're still broadcasting wirelessly and any commlink will hear you. The only advantage to using a transceiver-only communication system is that if it's hacked, intruders won't get your messages, contact lists, SIN, etc. that's stored in your commlink. |
Exactly. And won't be able to hack the smartlink, cybereyes, cyberears and skillwires hooked up to it.
And, taking a small page from RL again - a few simple codes (codenames for locations, tactics, and callsigns) could make it much harder for the opposition to gain that much from listening in. "Blue-1 in Foxtrott-6" has no meaning for anyone who listens in, but anyone in the team knows this means that in 30 seconds, the Hacker will trigger the halon system.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 9 2007, 01:26 PM
And, honestly - if someone is using commlinks in broadcast-and-listen-only modes, they can't be hacked anyway... no matter if they transmit analog or digital.
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 01:41 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| And, honestly - if someone is using commlinks in broadcast-and-listen-only modes, they can't be hacked anyway... no matter if they transmit analog or digital. |
Some people keep saying that this mode does not exist and in Shadowrun, no one thought (maybe even no one would think) of adding such a mode.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 9 2007, 01:46 PM
Perhaps because they burned all books on signal theory. Together with those on cryptography.
Posted by: Buster Aug 9 2007, 02:00 PM
I forgot to mention one distinction: subscribing to each other's commlinks would be useful if you wanted to Encrypt (and embed IC in the encryption) the communication channels between your nodes and allow your IC/agents to roam your team's network looking for intruders. Technically you shouldn't need to subscribe to Encrypt your non-subscription wireless communication, but I'm guessing you would need to subscribe if you wanted to embed IC in the encryption.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 9 2007, 03:05 PM
...whoa, lots of new posts Since i started this response.
The thing is, if the MT is hardwired to the character (via a datajack and the "obsolete" Transducer) and isn't subscribed to by a commlink, then if should be secure from hacking. However, more conventional methods of EW such as using a jammer or ECCMs would work if the MT isn't protected against them.
I am not going on "house rules" as much as the rules fro Comm systems from previous editions. I think the lack of rules covering this is an oversight in the current edition because of the now ubiquitous all purpose commlink.
Posted by: Scope_47 Aug 9 2007, 03:09 PM
| QUOTE (Buster) |
| The only advantage to using a transceiver-only communication system is that if it's hacked, intruders won't get your messages, contact lists, SIN, etc. that's stored in your commlink. |
As I pointed out in another thread, a micro-transeiver also isn't chattery - a commlink with wireless is always 'online' and sending packets between the matrix and itself. A micro-transiever only sends communications out when you are actually talking on it. That doesn't keep it from being spoofed - nor does it keep a hacker from breaking the encryption on the signals you do send out. What it DOES do however, is it means that a simple radio-scanner in a building's security system won't pick it up and be able to use it to track your movements constantly - it can only pick it up while you are transmitting. Its the classic idea of 'radio silence.' The primary benefit of a micro-transeiver is the fact that it is a stealth item. If you are going full frontal assault all the time or are only where you are supposed to be, then no, there isn't a reason for the micro-transiever. But if you are, say, sneaking into the Mitsuama Muffin Factory to steal the plans for the McGuffin '71, then you really don't want your commlink automatically connecting to the matrix for software updates / checking e-mail / refresh connection/ etc as it constantly does - because that creates a lot of radio noise that can be tracked and triangulated by sensors... bad news bears. Micro-transeiver gives you the option of communicating without constantly sending out signals - you send when you need to... and this benefit comes specifically from it not having all those bells and whistles that a commlink has.
Also, a microtranseiver is a subvocal mike connected to an ear-bud secret-service style... so it also can't be used as a way to hack into your other gear since it isn't connected to your other gear.
summary:
Commlink: easier to detect, if it gets hacked then you lose both communications and anything else that relied on the commlink. Hackers also get more than enough personal data that they can make your life a living hell - since not only do they know you did a run against them but they also know all your contact numbers, messages, fake SIN, etc (this can be protected against by diligent use of fresh re-installs and making the hardware check to modify it to send a phony ID code).
Micro-Transeiver: Only detectable when its actually being used, nothing other than communications is compromised if it gets hacked/spoofed/jammed/whatever you want to call it. (No, walkie talkies can't be hacked... BUT - you can override the signal with one of your own, cancel out the signal, etc with the proper equipment- basically anything that a hacker could do to a micro-transeiver being as a micro-transeiver is limited by what its hardware allows it to do... this is actually called IRL Communications Countermeasures, but for the abstract rules of the game it falls under hacking as far as I can tell). Also, the micro-transeiver still works in matrix dead zones unlike a commlink - so for those runs in the Barrens or out in the wilderness, its essential unless you all want to carry satellite uplinks on your backs.
In short, if you want a stealthy operation (which the BBB states plainly is what micro-transeivers are for), use a skinlinked commlink with wireless turned off to be the hub of your equipment such as smartlinks etc, and have a non-skinlinked micro-transeiver for communications. That way, the only think hackers can do to you is make it so that you can't talk to each other... and in order to do that they have to take actions to decrypt and spoof every single transmission you make... so realistically you are trading your free action away to use up a complex action of the hacker's... that is a good fragging deal if you ask me - cause that's an action he's not using to rig drones, lock doors, scramble maglocks, or generally be onerous in a much more immediate way. And, chummers, there are always military hand signals... and also, sometimes the communications get through anyway if you transmit more often than the hacker has actions. Oh yeah, and one other thing... unlike a commlink, a micro-transeiver doesn't leave a traceable matrix trail - so you don't have to worry about spoofing it later (or doing the hardware equivalent), or having them backtrack matrix logs to figure out exactly where you came from before you arrived on their property.
Like I said:
Commlink = more versatility, less stealth, less security
Micro-Transeiver (provided you turn the fragging commlink wireless off): more stealth, more security, less versatility (no video, no shared map, no gps... nothing but plain Old School voice communications).
Besides, micro-transeivers are thematically cooler... spies and commandos always use radios in the movies (with the exception of transformers, but that was a special case)... not cell phones... its just cooler that way
- Scope_47
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 9 2007, 03:13 PM
| QUOTE (Scope_47) |
| a commlink with wireless is always 'online' and sending packets between the matrix and itself. |
Where did you pull that one from?
Posted by: Scope_47 Aug 9 2007, 03:19 PM
Check the wireless section of the BBB, page 224 - the sidebar.
| QUOTE |
| Everywhere you or your PAN go, you leave a datatrail |
Using common sense, you can see how this works given that the Commlink is the hub of any PAN, and it is referenced multiple times in fluff as constantly downloading software updates etc - see the arguments made about that in the thread on software piracy.
- Scope_47
Posted by: Fuchs Aug 9 2007, 03:30 PM
And you could not use a commlink in "MT" mode (radio) exactly why?
People who can build and repair cyberware and program agents are somehow unable to give a commlink such a function?
Posted by: Scope_47 Aug 9 2007, 03:45 PM
Sure you can, but that isn't a basic commlink anymore - you've altered it and entered the realm of houserules since the BBB doesn't have rules in it for that, but it specifically says under micro-transeiver: "This classic short-range communications device is perfect for discreet operations. The micro-transceiver consists of an earbud and adhesive subvocal microphone" - obviously expecting people to intuitively understand what that entails. Under commlinks, it specifically goes into the modes that they can function in: Active, Passive, and Hidden - and gives matrix rules for detecting the hidden node. Now, I'd personally have no problem housruling a modified commlink to work as a micro-transceiver, but that isn't RAW, and not everybody has the hardware skill or contacts with it to alter a commlink in that way.
Besides, if you alter your commlink in that way, the the hacker can still get into it and get all that juicy paydata out of your link - he just has to do it on a different frequency now - and if I houseruled it for you then you can be gosh-darned sure that your character didn't have an original idea. The point of the micro-transeiver is that if it gets compromised, only communications are compromised - there are no worries about tracking, the enemy getting your fake SIN info (costly since you now have to buy a new one), your contacts info (more costly, since that'll make them mad when nasty people burst down their door), etc.
Now, the original question was 'what is the purpose of the micro-transceiver as per the BBB.' Unless we make houserules, I believe that that is fairly clear.
Posted by: otakusensei Aug 9 2007, 04:18 PM
| QUOTE |
| "This classic short-range communications device is perfect for discreet operations. The micro-transceiver consists of an earbud and adhesive subvocal microphone" |
Sounds like the classic, but limited, party band analog wireless communication system from every spy movie you've ever seen. No reason to believe that you could transmit, or for that reason hack, a matrix signal over it. You could connect it to your commlink if you didn't want to use a seperate interface (i.e. the earbud and mic) but other than that it's completely limited. It's just a signal rating and an interface for voal transmission.
Makes sense rules and fluff wise if you think of it like that.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 9 2007, 05:07 PM
| QUOTE (Scope_47) |
| Using common sense, you can see how this works given that the Commlink is the hub of any PAN, and it is referenced multiple times in fluff as constantly downloading software updates etc - see the arguments made about that in the thread on software piracy. |
And common sense did you that it is impossible to stop it doing that? I'm impressed.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 9 2007, 05:40 PM
...Scope_47, thank you.
You put into a more eloquent form (your post 7 replies back) what I have been trying to say all along.
Now all I need to do is clear up the DataJack/Transducer issue. I still seem to be seeing two different opinions about how much datajacks are really capable of in SR4 with regards to the old Transducer Cyber implant.
Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 9 2007, 09:40 PM
The transducer was such a useful peice of equipment that these days, ALL datajacks/trodes/DNI of any sort come with it, standard. Thus is SOTA.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 9 2007, 09:51 PM
...is there an actual page reference for this?
Posted by: DireRadiant Aug 9 2007, 10:15 PM
p. 215
"Direct Neural Interface (DNI)—A connection between
the brain’s neural impulses and a computer
system, allowing a user to mentally interact with
and control that system."
P. 330
"In addition to wireless functionality, most cyberware devices
are equipped with a direct neural interface (DNI) that
allows the user to mentally activate and control their functions.
Th ey can also be linked to other cyberware implants."
And consider that the Voice Modulator is one such cyberware device controlled with DNI, it might not be a stretch to consider a datajack run by DNI can function as a transducer.
Posted by: Buster Aug 9 2007, 11:23 PM
This is a perfect opportunity to plug my "AR, VR, & sim FAQ" which answers some questions regarding commlinks/datajacks/sim-modules/etc.
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=18512
Let me know if you want me to add anything.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 9 2007, 11:25 PM
DNI -- as stated in no uncertain or unclear way -- allows you to control a device. That means things like pushing the button on your walkie talkie when you need to talk, changing channels, or turn it on and off completely.
If DNI let you speak through things, there needs to be rules for disguising and recognizing that voice without needing any special software or hardware. Afterall, it's not your voice any more than http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLxP3V4veJk is. But, alas, there isn't.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 9 2007, 11:35 PM
There are no rules for speaking through your Persona in full VR, either.
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 10 2007, 12:16 AM
i would say that in a world where software can translate spoken words on the fly, a chip in the brain should be able to figure out how you sound when you speak out loud and pass that info on to the sound generator at the other end.
but then i would not bother about being that, imo insanely, anal about it...
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 10 2007, 12:19 AM
...OK, seeing as there still is not a clear cut consensus (the references cited still do not "say" DNI actually does translate thoughts into spoken words), I do not see this matter resolved (Synner? Adam?). Therefore, until "official" word is given one way or the other, the Transducer implant still exists in my campaigns. It costs 500 takes .1 essence, and functions the same way it did in previous editions.
...there I thought - er - said it. 
Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 10 2007, 12:20 AM
I'd imagine that you configure your voice. When you first install the software, it has you read off an specially designed paragraph that gets all the neccessary sounds. Maybe it also generates a profile on the fly by simply listening to you talk. If your real voice isn't something you want to keep, you could easily get one of the thousands of commercially available voice profiles, recorded by famous celebreties and professional voice actors.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 10 2007, 12:24 AM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...OK, seeing as there still is not a clear cut consensus |
As I said - tell me then how people 'speak' in VR. They suddenly all need the nonexistant Transudcer in SR4?
How did they speak in VR before it existed in previous versions of SR?
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 10 2007, 12:26 AM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...OK, seeing as there still is not a clear cut consensus (the references cited still do not "say" DNI actually does translate thoughts into spoken words), I do not see this matter resolved (Synner? Adam?). Therefore, until "official" word is given one way or the other, the Transducer implant still exists in my campaigns. It costs 500 takes .1 essence, and functions the same way it did in previous editions. ...there I thought - er - said it. |
look at it this way, it have yet to show up in any book. and in SR3 it showed up in M&M iirc. so if it has not shown up by now, i dont think it will. and that fluff in SR4 about the datajack seems to be the replacement.
as for expecting anyone to come to a concensus on dumpshock, the day that ucas has a immortal elf as president i say
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 10 2007, 12:31 AM
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| as for expecting anyone to come to a concensus on dumpshock, the day that ucas has a immortal elf as president i say |
..so you think that Aina is Colloton - and she took away both the UCAS and the DF from Daviar?
Interesting twist. Makes one really wonder what happened to Daviar's favorite Drake...
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 10 2007, 12:39 AM
oh dear god...
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 10 2007, 01:07 AM
...[the screeching of steel on steel as the wheels are ready to jump the track...]
Posted by: otakusensei Aug 10 2007, 01:11 AM
Don't they mention being able to buy a persona of a goblin rockstar with it's full vocal range? You'd think if this is common in the 2070's they would also solve the issue of transducers by installing them in every interface. Sort of like how everything nowadays has a GUI. They didn't 20 years ago, but that was then and this is now. Again, common sense, but now with 25% more reference!
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 10 2007, 01:36 AM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) | ||
As I said - tell me then how people 'speak' in VR. They suddenly all need the nonexistant Transudcer in SR4? How did they speak in VR before it existed in previous versions of SR? |
...Micro Transceivers are basically nothing more than miniature two way radios. They only send/receive audio signals, not vid, not text, not graphics as a commlink does. Therefore discussion relating to VR and MTs is moot.
If a character uses an implanted commlink, no, they don't need Transducer to converse in VR (OK, I got things backwards between AR & VR in my previous comments, my bad).
If a team wishes to use their MTs instead of commlinks to stay in communication with each other while on missions, then a Transducer (or whatever form of direct thought-to-voice conversion interface exists) provides the best stealth since no subvocalising is required and no telltale earbuds need be worn.
Again I defer to Scope_47's commentary on Commlinks vs. Transceivers as it makes the most sense of all this.
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 10 2007, 01:34 PM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) | ||||
...Micro Transceivers are basically nothing more than miniature two way radios. They only send/receive audio signals, not vid, not text, not graphics as a commlink does. Therefore discussion relating to VR and MTs is moot. |
i would not be so sure.
said transceiver has a microphone port, no?
i would expect that one could plug a cable from the datajack into said port. then it becomes a question of, does the datajack have a digital/analog converter. if it does, how hard would it be for it to generate the needed sounds?
or for that matter, more and more stuff have internal computers. hell, they can make them so small in SR that they can fit a sensor system onto a RFID. and one can see how small those get by looking at a modern day anti-theft system at most malls or similar.
so i would expect the transceiver to have a dataport somewhere. plug the jack into that and be happy.
all in all, why this insistence on a official word of any kind? its not like one is playing D&D in a competitive form now is it?
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 10 2007, 01:48 PM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| Therefore discussion relating to VR and MTs is moot. |
On the contrary.
If there is no interface/software capable of turning thoughts into digital speech, you can't talk in VR.
But you can, so the question is - what interface is there?
First, DNI/datajack/trodes. Then, a sim module. Then, a comlink.
That's all you need for full VR, including talking.
So somewhere there, a 'Transducer' is integrated. The only question is where.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 10 2007, 03:22 PM
...the thing is, I am not talking about commlinks. I am talking about a simple two way radio system which is a distinctly different piece of hardware from a commlink. As Scope_47 points out, an MT works in Matrix dead zones when a commlink doesn't because it is not matrix dependent.
This is why I don't see the concepts of VR & AR having any meaning with regards to an MT.
If the Transducer is part of a DNI interface, that would be good. That means one less piece of 'ware to implant.
As to wanting some kind of a definitive clarification, I don't think it is out of line considering the many times I have seen this requested regarding other issues.
Posted by: otakusensei Aug 10 2007, 03:25 PM
| QUOTE |
| So somewhere there, a 'Transducer' is integrated. The only question is where. |
I'd guess the datajack\trodes. According to the SR4 rules both have come a long way since the 2060s. Back then you could barely get a VR connection using trodes. Things have moved forward and I believe they have just rolled the whole "Talk in your head" transducer into the trodes and datajack to simplify and clearify things. Maybe it's in the SIM module, but my guess would be you'd need it to have a direct brain connection, or as close as possible.
Back on MTs, does anyone remember trying to get a decent Matrix connection using a cell link in VR 2.0? I imagine that a MT is basically the equivalent of an old commlink or radio and thus not able to support the kind of bandwidth a VR connection requires. Modern commlinks are some kind of "Cell phone on steroids" and thus we no longer have to worry about bandwidth.
Can commlinks pick up signals from an MT? It's between your GM and the FCC. From a game perspective though I can see a limited and direct use for MTs. Anything outside of playing last century's super spy should be done by commlink.
Posted by: Ophis Aug 10 2007, 03:29 PM
Commlinks work fine in deadzones... There is just not much else to talk to. Technos have a problem but that's because the normal reassuring chatter is gone.
Static zones cause comms problems, but I see no reason why an area that is bad for pick up/transmission of wireless would not be affecting radio waves. What to modern mobile phones use for transmission? Radio I presume, that will be what commlinks are using (if not please explain) ergo static zones affect both comms and trancievers.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 10 2007, 03:40 PM
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| ...the thing is, I am not talking about commlinks. |
Neither am I. Im talking about the necessity of the interface having such ability.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| As Scope_47 points out, an MT works in Matrix dead zones when a commlink doesn't because it is not matrix dependent. |
Which is plain wrong.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| This is why I don't see the concepts of VR & AR having any meaning with regards to an MT. |
You are missing the point, then.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| If the Transducer is part of a DNI interface, that would be good. That means one less piece of 'ware to implant. |
Indeed.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| As to wanting some kind of a definitive clarification, I don't think it is out of line considering the many times I have seen this requested regarding other issues. |
If DNI got no 'Transducer' capability, you couldn't 'talk' in VR.
As you obviously can, it has.
Posted by: otakusensei Aug 10 2007, 03:52 PM
Rotbart, please explain how an MT has any bearing on AR and VR outside of all three being a possible and exclusive type of communication?
Also, MTs can work in Matrix dead zones, but you need two to talk ot each other. They are Matrix independent. Think about it, it makes sense. They are a glorified walkie talkie.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 10 2007, 03:55 PM
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| Rotbart, please explain how an MT has any bearing on AR and VR outside of all three being a possible and exclusive type of communication? |
It's the other way round... if the DNI isn't able to translate thoughts into digital vioce, you couldn't talk in VR.
| QUOTE (otakusensei) |
| Also, MTs can work in Matrix dead zones, but you need two to talk ot each other. |
Indeed. But the whole stuff about comlinks not working is just wrong.
Posted by: otakusensei Aug 10 2007, 04:07 PM
I think there's a misunderstanding (Shocking, I know).
The commlink works, but can't connect to anything if there is nothing there to connect to or if it's being jammed, natch. Dead zone, no friends, you're stuck playing solitaire till the plane arrives. Read Snow Crash if you want a better description.
You can talk in VR. You need a Datajack/trodenet, commlink and SIM to use VR so the transducer is in there somewhere. An MT doesn't allow VR, it is an old style analog radio. No transducer needed to talk, it gets vocal communication from your vocal cords, not directly from your brain. QED, MTs have nothing to do with AR or VR.
Posted by: Tarantula Aug 10 2007, 04:12 PM
MTs work just fine in dead zones, the exact same way commlinks do. You can talk on your MT, broadcasting, and hope someone else is in range and hears you. You can send requests to connect from your commlink and hope someone is in range and accepts. If theres someone in range of your MT, they can hear you, and you can hear them when they talk back (provided you're in range of them). If theres someone in range of your commlink, they can connect to you (provided you're in their signal range as well) and you two can communicate just fine also.
Just a note, I'd argue MTs are just as succeptible to jamming as a commlink is.
Posted by: otakusensei Aug 10 2007, 04:15 PM
| QUOTE |
| Just a note, I'd argue MTs are just as succeptible to jamming as a commlink is. |
Seconded
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 10 2007, 04:29 PM
...I never disagreed about this. That was why in older editions they had a base ECM rating of 1 which could be improved by spending more .
Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 10 2007, 04:30 PM
Thirded.
Posted by: Wasabi Aug 10 2007, 06:20 PM
| QUOTE (Ophis) |
| Commlinks work fine in deadzones... There is just not much else to talk to. Technos have a problem but that's because the normal reassuring chatter is gone. |
Technos without a satellite uplink, that is. ;-)
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 10 2007, 08:39 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| It's the other way round... if the DNI isn't able to translate thoughts into digital voice, you couldn't talk in VR. |
..OK I get it now, sometimes a big enough hammer finally gets the point across *ouch*
...sorry, I'm from the days when you had this black plastic thing that sat on an end table in your living room with a wire running into the wall, a handset you could both speak into and listen from, and a rotary encoding device that you used to input a series of numbers for contacting a similar one of these devices somewhere else to talk to a person. Occasionally a bell would ring in it signaling that someone wanted to talk to you.
No camera, no internet downloads, no games, no stock market quotes, no funky sound effects. Just a simple instrument for talking to another person across town with.
(they need an :old geezer/grandama: emoticon)
Posted by: DTFarstar Aug 11 2007, 12:43 AM
So, KK, you are from the late 1800's? I would imagine the invention of the automotivacar and the magic box with all the wolrds knowledge inside(aka computer) were both very frightening.
Chris
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 11 2007, 12:47 AM
For DNI to translate thoughts into voice would require a specialized piece of software on the caliber of a limited Persona program, one custom tailored to a single voice. I don't see any rules for anything like that, especially rules that let you customize a "single sense-only" Persona program.
Your brain doesn't transmit your voice telepathically to people, nor does it control how that voice sounds. Your throat and mouth do. You need a device or program that does the same thing. Pretty "duh" statement, but the heart of this part of the discussion.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 11 2007, 01:06 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| For DNI to translate thoughts into voice would require a specialized piece of software on the caliber of a limited Persona program, one custom tailored to a single voice. |
More like the equivalent of a Linguasoft...
Posted by: Adarael Aug 11 2007, 01:09 AM
On the subject of DNI transducers, I believe the datajack does that job by itself. The evidence is that the text for the good ol' DJ is that if someone strings a cable between two 'jacked people, they can have a totally secure conversation. As Funk pointed out, he figures it'd be better/more sensible for them to be sending text messages.
The problem with that is that text messages would require an image link or image-link capable device. These aren't mentioned in the text, so we have to assume that a datajack is ALL that's required for that. What's more, any device connected to the datajack for such text messaging is by default going to be connected wirelessly, rather than otherwise. As such, that conversation cannot be, as the text says, secure from any eavesdropping attempt.
Ergo, the datajack must have a thought-to-something ('something' being defined as whatever travels across the cable) capablity internal to itself. Otherwise the entire statement in the BBB is nonsensical or in error.
Note: trodes do not, and never have had, this ability.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 11 2007, 01:10 AM
| QUOTE |
| More like the equivalent of a Linguasoft... |
Bzzt. Sorry, wrong again.
Linguasofts effectively teach you a new language while active. They, too, don't telepathically communicate with other minds in the vacinity nor do they replace your throat and mouth. You still have to talk to use one.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 11 2007, 01:12 AM
| QUOTE (Adarael) |
| On the subject of DNI transducers, I believe the datajack does that job by itself. The evidence is that the text for the good ol' DJ is that if someone strings a cable between two 'jacked people, they can have a totally secure conversation. As Funk pointed out, he figures it'd be better/more sensible for them to be sending text messages. The problem with that is that text messages would require an image link or image-link capable device. These aren't mentioned in the text, so we have to assume that a datajack is ALL that's required for that. What's more, any device connected to the datajack for such text messaging is by default going to be connected wirelessly, rather than otherwise. As such, that conversation cannot be, as the text says, secure from any eavesdropping attempt. Ergo, the datajack must have a thought-to-something ('something' being defined as whatever travels across the cable) capablity internal to itself. Otherwise the entire statement in the BBB is nonsensical or in error. Note: trodes do not, and never have had, this ability. |
If true, which is just an assumption (and a fair one to make), it would only apply to the datajack itself not DNI in general. Trodes are just another form of DNI, so if you assume it doesn't apply to them, it doesn't apply to DNI.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 11 2007, 01:14 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| Linguasofts effectively teach you a new language while active. They, too, don't telepathically communicate with other minds in the vacinity nor do they replace your throat and mouth. You still have to talk to use one. |
Wrong. You may want to read the Linguasoft description in SR4:
They are doubling as on-the-fly translation programs, too.
Posted by: Adarael Aug 11 2007, 01:18 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| If true, which is just an assumption (and a fair one to make), it would only apply to the datajack itself not DNI in general. Trodes are just another form of DNI, so if you assume it doesn't apply to them, it doesn't apply to DNI. |
Absolutely. I wouldn't argue that DNI in general had the abilities of a datajack, purely because I like 'jacks to have SOME measure of advantage over trodes. I was speaking strictly of datajacks and datajacks alone.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 11 2007, 01:18 AM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| Wrong. You may want to read the Linguasoft description in SR4: They are doubling as on-the-fly translation programs, too. |
Yes, your point? It translates for you as part of teaching you how to speak a language. If someone decrees "¡Que tengas suerte!" to you in a booming voice or sends you a text message with it, tada, you know what it says. How does that equate to magical telepathic communication to you?
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 11 2007, 01:27 AM
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| It translates for you as part of teaching you how to speak a language. |
Linguasoft don't teach you a language - they make you know it.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| How does that equate to magical telepathic communication to you? |
The translation program function of it, however, is able to translate a language into another (with no limitations, thus, no only text, but audio, too), thus, say creating an artificial voice after analyzing a certain input text or audio. If you now analyze thought patterns instead of speech patterns, it can translate thoughts into speech and vice versa.
And as a Linguasoft makes you understand a language, it includes said thought patterns.
Which in turn allows it to turn thoughts into audio and back.
Point, but no magic, though.
Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 11 2007, 04:21 AM
| QUOTE (DTFarstar) |
| So, KK, you are from the late 1800's? I would imagine the invention of the automotivacar and the magic box with all the wolrds knowledge inside(aka computer) were both very frightening. Chris |
...not quite that far back, but yes there are times these two contraptions do make me scratch my head in wonder.
The Automobile is a source of particular trepidation especially when the person at the controls of one of these infernal machines has either partook in too much refreshment at the saloon or prattling away on one of those newfangled miniature telephony devices rather than paying attention to what's on the street front of them. At least a horse has sense to know where to go when it's rider is otherwise occupied or had too much likker .
One thing I learned about thinking machines though, they are actually rather dumb. You have to tell them to do everything, sometimes several times over or they just sit there looking back at you. Not much different from a dull witted ranch hand or a stubborn mule.
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 11 2007, 04:29 AM
Hell, voice is related to properties of your body. How hard can it be for either the doc to scan these and feed it to the jack at time of implant and have it calculate the correct sounding voice, or have the jack read said info of your neural system as you do some talking as part of the day to day activity. In other words, where is the importance of knowing the smallest details of a imagined piece of tech? This is starting to sound like star trek...
Posted by: Adarael Aug 11 2007, 05:39 AM
Because it's dumpshock, and we bore easily, I would wager.
Posted by: Macavity Aug 11 2007, 11:58 AM
I'm going to refer all of you to Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and to Juanita's prescient quote: "Condensing fact from the vapor of nuance." There will be a market for converting not just your voice, but your facial mannerisms to your VR icon. Otherwise the matrix is meaningless for business meets.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 11 2007, 12:12 PM
That, again, would be related to a Persona program. A program with its own unique voice, look, and everything else. Even if you buy your Persona so that it mimics your natural voice, it's still a completely separate and individual program.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 11 2007, 12:21 PM
The Persona is the synthesis of many programs... what you mean is the Icon - and many devices come with default Icons.
Posted by: otakusensei Aug 11 2007, 03:01 PM
Your persona Icon can talk in VR. You can go VR with trodes. Wizkids and Catalyst made a new game system that is simpler and more intuitive than the last one. As such they rolled a bunch of stuff into more simplified 'ware so we don't have to buy router ports anymore.
For that, thank you.
MTs are radios, headsets with analog (or digital voice only) radios.
Any other questions? I have plenty of free time to kill too, but this thread is getting out of hand. If we're going to bitch about transducers we should at least start a new tread.
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 11 2007, 04:39 PM
well i just want to say that when kyoto kid brought up the transducer i guessed that (iirc) she wanted it to hook it into the microtranceiver so that one could talk without making any sound at all. a throat mike still needs to pick up sound to be effective...
Posted by: Tarantula Aug 11 2007, 04:41 PM
Then turn wireless on on your microtranceiver (or jack in in directly) to your datajack/trodenet/commlink and relay the information mentally to it that way.
Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 11 2007, 05:11 PM
have i argued anything else?
Posted by: otakusensei Aug 11 2007, 05:23 PM
Sounds reasonable, there's nothing stopping someone from pluggin the MT into their commlink or directly into their datajack/trodenet to talk without making a sound. It's a clever idea and doesn't draw the attention that an implanted mic does.
In fact my hacker might have to keep an MT on hand and plugged into his commlink just to facilitate such communication. If the team starts communicating over MT it's less of a hacking risk, but no more cool BattleTac type features.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)